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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
24782
|
How can I use these new findings on tomatoes to my advantage?
A new study appears to suggest that the characteristics that make a tomato most appealing when choosing one at the store also make it the least appealing when biting into it. Apparently, it is the very same gene that can either make a tomato uniform or tasty, depending on whether it is "switched on" or not.
It sounds promising, if the industry picks up the study's suggestions. But not that I, the consumer, have this information, is there anything I can do to get a better product? Do I just look for uglier tomatoes?
To be fair, I read a few reports of the same study, and it was based on the whole that I came to understand the study to be saying that the same gene that is responsible for uniformity also causes the flavor to be dulled. I'll change my link to another article that makes this clearer.
Picking a tomato which is individually ugly isn't going to help you. It's still the same variety and grown, stored and shipped under the same conditions as the other tomatoes in the pile.
Try looking for a store (farmers' and ethnic markets are good for this) which has a whole bin of ugly tomatoes; those are a different variety and/or handled differently. Heck, here in California, there's even a hybrid brand which is marketed under the name "Uglyripe", which is quite tasty.
Also, just "ugly" isn't a sufficient description. What you're looking for is irregularities in color, shape and size. Bruising, blemishes, wormholes and brown streaks don't indicate a better-tasting tomato, just one which has been abused.
Tasty doesn't sell. Pretty does.
This is particularly true with tomatoes. Even if you can find ripe tomatoes in a store they will usually have inferior flavor. They weren't bred for flavor- they were bred to ship well.
As consumers we don't have a lot of choice when it comes to grocery store produce. You can try buying organic but that doesn't guarantee quality. You can look for local farmers who grow heirloom varieties. Around here there are produce co-ops where you basically subscribe for seasonal produce. Even these though are hit and miss and don't usually include heirloom varieties.
In my opinion, tomatoes are one of the vegetables with the best bang for your buck to grow at home. They are easy to grow, grow prolifically, and you can select varieties with more going for them than just being sturdy. My preferred heirloom seed source is Baker Creek Heirloom Seeds.
Growing your own also opens up a whole new world of vegetables that have not been homogenized by a century of industrial agriculture.
Wow. I've become a food snob! When did that happen? I blame all of you.
Interesting essay, but I'm not sure how it relates to the question ...
I'll summarize. "Grocery store tomatoes are flavorless. Either find a local farmer or grow them yourself."
Hey, a couple of your images here were dead. I added in a couple random ones from the site you linked to, but by all means replace them with your favorites!
Don't believe in studies you read about in the newspaper.
Here's how science/medical reporting goes:
Some researcher did some genetic research on tomatoes, that researcher wrote an academic paper in dense scientific language.
Some journalist who knows nothing about science found the paper and after reading the abstract decided there's something newsworthy there.
That journalist wrote an entire article based on a flawed understanding of what is essentially the first paragraph in a paper in a language he does not understand.
Usually the journalists doesn't even call the researcher before publishing, even if he does he only picks one or two sentences that support the article's claim from the interview (the journalists is on a deadline and has to produce an exact number of words, if the topic is complicated and requires explanation it isn't good, if it turns out to be not newsworthy it's even worse).
Once the findings are mis-published in one newspaper every other newspaper in the world quotes it like it's proven fact.
It's true that tomatoes from your local grocery store have a dull taste - but it's just as likely to happen because it has been picked prematurely days before they got to you and not due to genetic conditions.
You can run your own experiment - grow some kind of fruit or vegetable, pick one good looking fruit and eat it immediately and you get a very strong flavor, leave it in the refrigerator for 3 days and it tastes more like industrial food - pick it prematurely, store it for a week and drive it all across the country and you get the industrial taste.
Now, I'm not saying the newspaper article is wrong, what I'm saying is that science (and medical) coverage in newspaper is so bad and often wrong you should just ignore it.
if you want to see how bad it is this blog by a journalists who is actually a doctor covers bad medical news reports in UK - if you follow this blog for a while you will never believe any science related newspaper article again
This all somewhat true, but at best, it demonstrates that newspaper reporting gives a random view of the science, not that you should assume it's wrong. The New York Times is on the whole substantially better than average, though, and the OP read a few other reports too. Additionally, the last sentence of the abstract of the actual paper: "SlGLK2 influences photosynthesis in developing fruit, contributing to mature fruit characteristics and suggesting that selection of u inadvertently compromised ripe fruit quality in exchange for desirable production traits."
(That is, I think you're answering a specific question with a generalization that likely doesn't apply in this case.) Also forgot to note: the "u" selected for above is "uniform ripening".
@Jefromi - the study shows that if you modify tomatoes in a specific way you get ugly tomatoes with higher sugar content - this does not automatically imply that heirloom tomatoes taste better and it sure doesn't imply ugly tomatoes taste better.
@Jefromi - or, if we look at it from a different direction, science reports in the press are more likely to be wrong then right so the safest bet is to ignore them - and the number of reports doesn't matter since it takes one journalists to get it wrong and then everyone else quotes the same bad source.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.656708
| 2012-07-01T23:40:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24782",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"FuzzyChef",
"Nir",
"Ray",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7577"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25851
|
Why does some cake make your tongue thick, and how to prevent it?
I'll be baking a cheese-ham cake shortly and I remember that sometimes it makes your tongue 'thick' (for lack of a better word).
The symptoms are the feeling that the tongue/mouth is covered with the cake, like it's sticking to the skin. I'm not sure how to describe it accurately. I've just eaten a commercial grade muffin like cake with the same effect. It makes the mouth dry, maybe.
So, is there information about which flours are more prone to produce this effect? Is this somehow related to the flour? Can it be the butter/grease? The oven temp or the undercooking or overcooking? Maybe a reaction of the leavening agent?
Is there a way to prevent this from happening?
Edit:
Ham-Cheese Cake
150g Cheese (Gouda or Emmental)
200g Ham
2 Chives
100g Butter or Margarine
3 Eggs
100g Flour
1 Tablespoon baking powder
Salt & Pepper
Cut the cheese, ham and chives.
Cream the butter and add the eggs one at a time. Sieve the flour together with the baking powder and the salt, and mix into the butter.
Add the ingredients to the batter and put in the oven at 180ºC for 30'
Could you describe a cheese-ham cake more fully? I don't know what you're referring to. Is it like a quiche? A list of ingredients and brief description of the recipe would help clarify.
To make sure I understand- is this the phenomenon that my family refers to as a food "sucking the spit right out of your mouth?", most noted in the cookies we feed to very young children and use to aid digestion?
@AdeleC, that must be it.
@CareyGregory, I've added the recipe. As you can see, it's not like a quiche at all.
When you say 'thick', you don't mean swollen, do you? Because that'd be a sign of an allergic reaction.
@Joe, no, it's more like AdeleC's comment.
To me it also sounds like the description provided by AdeleC, for what it's worth. Maybe we should focus on the two examples given, digestive cookies and baby/toddler cookies?
Adele's description sounds like astringency, but I wouldn't expect that recipe to be very astringent.
Meat fat/suet does cause similar effect on tongue and some “acidics”(e.g.lemon, vinegar, wine) helps to balance it.
If that’s the situation this Q/A may give some ideas for the solution.
Why do fatty foods go with sour ones?
Some fats 'coat' the tongue because their melting point is higher than the temperature in the mouth. I don't think this is the case, as butter or margarine is used.
@BaffledCook - butter and margarine have very high melting points, only a few degrees below body temperature. What other fats are you comparing to? Most saturated fats have roughly the same melting points, and unsaturated fats are much lower (liquid at room temperature).
It might be the baking powder that's in it. I don't recognize the 'thick' feeling you're describing, but I find stuff with baking powder in it tastes different. It's described as a metallic taste by some, becasue apparantly there's aluminum in some brands.
I usually use Royal Baking Powder, I've looked at the ingredient list, and it doesn't state aluminum.
@BaffledCook If by "Royal Baking Powder" you mean this brand, aluminum is an ingredient: it includes "Sodium Aluminum Sulfate".
@TheodoreMurdock, I don't see Sodium Aluminum Sulfate in the ingredient list, even though it's the same brand.
I've just made some gluten free rock cakes and used a table spoon of baker powder. And as usual it gives me a rough tongue. It last for over an hour before its normal again. It is definitely something to do with baking powder. Will need to find an alternative.
I've been diagnosed with Coeliac disease for over 20 years
I think I know what you are talking about. I worked in a grocery store bakery for a stint and I believe you are talking about what I would describe as "fur on your tongue". Makes you want to scrape it off. I get it from the shortening based frosting and oily muffins from low cost commercial shortening fluff. Have you had that experience from something home cooked?
Thanks for your answer. Do you have some reference material to check that?
Is this really an answer? Given that the recipe in question doesn't include shortening, I don't think you've really found the cause or a way of preventing it, as requested in the question.
@Jefromi, isn't shortening some sort of fat replacing butter?
@BaffledCook Yeah, it is, but since EDabM only noticed the effect in things that were mostly shortening, and didn't mention butter, I'm not entirely sure it's the same thing. In any case, there's nothing about what you might do about it, so...
This has baffled me too, for a long time. I just had a delicious muffin for lunch and now have the furry tongue. I get a similar effect from wine with a high level of tannin in it. A good cook told me it has something to do with the ratio of baking powder to flour. Since baking powder is a combo of creme of tartar and bicarbonate, it might be one or the other that is the culprit.
Again, not a good answer, but maybe it adds to the thinking.
"Adds to the thinking" is what comments are for. Answers should be (to the best of your knowledge) actual answers.
I baked a banana cake last week and it had a bitter taste towards the end (when swallowing) and it was like sticking at the back of my mouth (giving me a feeling like I was about to choke). I read about cakes having a bitter taste and the reason was said to be too much baking soda than the required amount. I have not got the explanation of the sticky feeling but I suspect it could be the baking soda too.
This does not seem to be what the OP is describing.
I will give the answerer the benefit of the doubt and say that it could be the same problem - she describes "sticking at the back of my mouth", not just bitterness.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.657205
| 2012-08-25T16:31:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25851",
"authors": [
"A.B.",
"Aaronut",
"Adele- Nexus of Potlucks",
"BaffledCook",
"Carey Gregory",
"Cascabel",
"David",
"David Liu",
"Jacob",
"Jeremy",
"Joe",
"Nan Brinsko",
"Nathan ",
"Patrick",
"Theodore Murdock",
"Zanna",
"bilalasd",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9210",
"rumtscho",
"zeel"
],
"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
}
|
6727
|
What is the purpose of making Iskiate from Chia seeds?
I'm reading "Born to Run" and learned that the Tarahumara peoples of Mexico eat Chia seeds to give them energy. In the book they mix the seeds with water, some lime juice and a bit of sugar... to make Iskiate.
What would be the purpose of this particular preparation? Is it simply for taste, or does the addition of these ingredients (water, lime juice, and sugar) have some impact on either the short-term physical or long-term health effects?
@milesmeow - there isn't really an objective cooking question here, so it is likely to get closed (take a look at the FAQ for some guidance: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/faq ). Perhaps you can rephrase this in a way we can help you with - it certainly sounds like an interesting item.
@Michael - will do. Hope the rewording helps to keep it open
Even asking "What is the purpose of adding lime juice and sugar to chia seeds in the Iskiate runners' drink?" could be an option.
The FAQ, Michael references above also points out that "General health & diet issues" are off topic. This question still isn't about cooking, but health. It's also subjective: "what effects did it have on you?".
I've edited this into what I think would be an appropriately on-topic question for this site. I hope that it is still within the confines of what you really wanted to know. (In any event, we do appreciate your willingness to try to rework the question; it's an interesting, more esoteric topic and I'd prefer for it not to be closed.)
I personally have not read the book, though I know someone who did and remember hearing of the drink. Strike 2, I am also not a nutritionist. Here's my best guess by looking at each piece:
Certainly the ingredients do bring taste to the combination, but I don't think it is just that.
Mixing the chia seeds into a drink may make it more agreeable for people. Easier to stomach, so to say. The chia seeds will absorb the liquid. With this, you will feel fuller. It will also make the drink thicker.
Lime juice is high in vitamin C. This can help with muscle soreness. Lemon can be used instead of lime - also high in vitamin C.
I've heard the sugar is optional, though it will sweeten the drink and add calories.
If you add water to chia seeds they swell up and exude a thick runny gel. This is far safer for you than eating them raw and having them swell up somewhere inside you eg your duodenum and burst it, or give you constipation if you do not have enough water in your stomach to do it. The lime juice may help with this process or make it taste nicer as the gel is quite bland and tasteless.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.657700
| 2010-09-04T01:23:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6727",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Charles Lira",
"JustRightMenus",
"Michael Natkin",
"Zeb",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"milesmeow"
],
"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
}
|
54189
|
Preserving Nerds / Pop Rocks so they activate in the mouth and not in the food
I want to be able to use Nerds and/or Pop rocks in cooking. However, unless the food is ultra dry, the food itself activates / dissolves it; I want it activated in the mouth.
a) Is there a way to do this that does not involve coating them with something that must be bitten through, i.e. so that it is saliva activated but not activated by the other liquids (water, milk, oil, egg …) in the food?
E.g. to use them in ice cream, it'd be preferable not to require biting.
b) What can I coat them with that will not activated them but will preserve them for bitten activation? They're extremely reactive. (Water, oil…)
One plausible suggestion I've gotten so far and not yet tried is vegetable wax. Anything else?
c) How can I make a pop rock type sensation myself?
[ETA: instructables has a recipe for making poprocks per se, but it has the same issue. I'm wondering if there's something that'd work for mouthfeel but be less volatile during the cooking process for embedding in other things.]
related question http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/715/304 claims that milk chocolate works as a coating.
Coat them in bee's wax or cocoa butter. You can actually buy them from MSK with the coating on.
You likely won't be able to make them yourself without a huge amount of equipment. As far as I'm aware, they require carbon-dioxide to be pumped in, as the sugar mixture cools. This is what makes them crackle, as the gas is released when the small pockets of air dissolve.
@jbarker2160 thank you, was on a quick break at work didn't have time to go looking :-).
when Pop Rocks first came out they were made at a plant near my home. A number of workers were injured in the first few months as everyone got used to the process or technology or whatever. I would strongly recommend against trying to make them at home, especially since it has the same issue.
That sounds perfect. I'll have to try it. Thanks!
I have planned something that I think will solve the problem.
My sons 5th birthday is coming up and he wants a "dragon electricity cake", so I had the idea to add a pop rocks layer in the middle for him. Because its going into a cake, it's less precarious than your icecream example, but what I'm going to try is cutting one layer of the cake in half so I'm not icing it, and I will coat the poprocks with icing sugar, or maybe an icing sugar corn starch combination. I'll also sprinkle both layers of cake that will be touching them with icing sugar. This should be enough to keep then dry, but I'll experiment with the cake and I'll try to respond with my results! If you've done any experiments since then I would love a few more ideas!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.657966
| 2015-01-30T13:50:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54189",
"authors": [
"Carrie Evans Photography",
"Doug",
"Kate Gregory",
"Louise Castro",
"Megan Dickson",
"Sai",
"Spammer",
"Steven Agnew",
"Sunil Hiwarkar",
"Talbiyah Snyman",
"Teena Powell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33173"
],
"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
}
|
54734
|
How do you make Hull Hotcakes?
I am fast going barmy trying to find someone who remembers the Hull Hotcake recipe. This hot cake was very very popular over generations through to the 1960's then seems to have disappeared.
It was a fairly flat, doughy bread with a thin, crusty surface. Beautiful with crispy bacon or sausage inside.
Anybody out there remember the recipe? This is unique to the Hull (UK) area. Surely I am not the last person left standing who remembers the Hull Hotcake!
Welcome to Seasoned Advice, Dr. Edwards! I've proposed some edits to your post just to help with formatting and clarity. Recipe requests are typically considered off topic here as we've found they aren't usually a good fit for our Q&A format. The specificity of your question and the fact that you can't easily answer it by googling might put it into a gray area though. Either way, I hope you find your hotcakes!
Unfortunately recipe requests are off-topic here.
Elendil is correct. Even with the change in title, this is still a recipe request, and we don't take those.
This should never have been closed -- restaurant mimicry questions are explicitly allowed. And do we have proof that 'hull hotcakes' are pannenkoeken? Pannenkoeken are similar enough to British pancakes that I suspect Raymond would have described the subtle differences, and not have said 'fairly flat'.
@Joe, I found the references to Pannenkoeken with the types of added ingredients the OP described in menus from restaurants in the Hull area. From what I could find out, they were very popular in that area and match his description very well. I also noted in my edit that they use a pretty standard batter, so I suspected that the cooking method is what made them a little different than other similar pancakes. I agree that this should not have been closed.
@Cindy Since these were around only until the 1960's I suspect he is talking about havercakes.
@Cindy : I'm seeing mentioned of pannekoeken in Hull, but the place opened in 2014 and suggested the concept is novel. There's also a place in Hull that sells American pancakes, including "[b]uttermilk pancakes filled with real bits of bacon". The 'many other ingredients that can be added' and 'can be made sweet or savory' doesn't exclude pannekoeken, but also sound like the oatcakes in Chris' link. The reference to a standard batter threw me, because I had assumed that was in the original question.
@Joe, based on your comment I did a rollback on the question. That will open the question to more answers, rather than just those about Pannenkoeken, assuming it is reopened. I still think, based on the OP's description and the information I found, that Pannenkoeken is on target. However, if reopened, I can put that information along with links to the sources in an answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.658245
| 2015-02-14T16:45:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54734",
"authors": [
"Alyssa Marquez",
"Butch",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Cindy",
"Destanie Flennory",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Geri Parsons",
"James Peat",
"Joe",
"Karl Hitchcock",
"Lola Lozano",
"Mirtes Bastos",
"Noella Plambeck",
"Preston",
"Roger Lawson",
"Roxanne Kirk",
"T Vanstone",
"cindy hall",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho",
"rxspro"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15783
|
If I'm reheating things in tins and I don't have enough oven space, can I stack them on top of each other?
I'm reheating a bunch of leftovers, all stored in aluminum tins. I don't have enough oven rack space to lay it all out flat. Can I stack the tins?
(Additionally, is it safe to leave on the paper/aluminum covers - the ones that are cardboard on one side and silver on the other?)
As long as the containers can support eachother, it is likely safe to stack them. You biggest issue will be uneven reheating. Containers at the center are likely to remain cold. If you do stack them, insure that you occasionally rotate them. If possible, try to stack them in a way that allows for air flow around them. Stack layers at 90 degree angles.
The flash point of paper is about 450F so you should be fine with the covers.
I use those all the time and it is safe to use the covers on the tin. If you want the top to brown or anything you will want to take it off near the end of the cook time.
As for stacking them... I haven't tried that as of yet but I would be hesitant to do this for two main reasons. The first is that they might get squished under the weight of the one on top. I know mine keeps it's shape when the food inside is frozen yet when it has been first filled with food or when I am taking it out of the oven it is 'bendable'. The second reason I would be hesitant is whether then tins in the centre would get enough heat. To combat this you would have to keep rotating it and the overall cook time would probably increase.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.658635
| 2011-06-26T16:25:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15783",
"authors": [
"Adam Hughes",
"Aleksandro M Granda",
"Curious Girl",
"Knostradamus",
"V.faulkner",
"deb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33633"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12556
|
How deeply should I peel sweet potatoes?
When peeling sweet potatoes, should I just peel the outermost layer, or should I be peeling off the white part as well till I hit the orange inside? Should I keep going until it's all a darkish orange?
What variety of sweet potatoe is this? It is sort of a generic term for a multitude of non-potatoes. All the varieties I know of you shouldn't peel. Cook and eat as is
It doesn't really matter.
A lot of people cook them with peel still on and peel it with their hands when cooked (Careful, hot!).
You can peel them before you cook them, and then it's just a question of taste I'd say.
Personally, I would peel off the white as well, though I'm not sure about this.
When roasting the sweet potatoes, you can also leave the skin on (after a good scrub of course). Just like eating baked potatoes. But better!
I leave the peels on for my mother--she loves them. How much to peal, as the answerer has said, is a matter of personal preference.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.658810
| 2011-02-24T20:00:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12556",
"authors": [
"Kathy Gunn",
"KimbaF",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"thetanman"
],
"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
}
|
12627
|
Is there an official standard vegan packaging symbol designating that a product is vegan?
I'm trying to eat vegan and having a hard time determining (by the packaging) which products are appropriate for me.
Are there symbols or certifications I can look for, preferably something backed by a federal or state government?
If there isn't such a thing in widespread use, then what is the reason for its non-existence or lack of general adoption?
+1 This is a good and valid question that can be answered.
I voted down because it appears you are venting rather than asking a question. You demonstrate that you already know the answer to the question served in your title, and little can be added to the discussion by the community. You would be better-served to take your feedback to the appropriate government agency.
As for the 'why', I'd suggest that creating a logo, standards, and then enforcing said standards is probably time- and money-consuming. Who should pay for this? Most manufacturers catering for a vegan market will likely try to advertise themselves by incorporating something in their packaging. Alternatively, you could perhaps just read the ingredients list?
@KimbaF : you can't just read the labels when they list something like 'natural flavors' ... beef tallow is a 'natural flavor'; and there have in the past been companies that have lied about the contents of their products (I want to say there was an incident a few years back where someone discovered that someone claiming to be making diet donuts really wasn't)
I removed the ranty language. It's definitely a valid question, just wasn't phrased in a particularly constructive fashion.
if you're asking about "official" and "certification" it would be good if your question said which country you are in. what's official where you are may not apply elsewhere.
There are two common symbols; the European Vegetarian Union (EVU) and Vegan Action.
In my experience, you will see the EVU on packaging and on restaurant menus. I've only ever seen the Vegan Action symbol on packaged products.
The EVU is not exclusively vegan so you'll still need to read the packaging or ask about ingredients if in a restaurant. The Vegan Action symbol is exclusively vegan and is becoming very popular in the United States.
As citadelgrad mentioned, there are currently agencies that certify vegan standards. Vegan Action's certification (the V in the heart) is no longer accepting new applications for certification. According to this article from Vegetarian Journal, other certification groups include the European Vegetarian Union (not vegan), Natural Food Certifiers, The Vegan Society, and a symbol from Edward & Sons Trading Company.
To discuss the broader question, as I understand it, the issue with food certifications is twofold.
First, companies need to feel it is worthwhile to pay to get this certification. There needs to be enough of an advantage to sales in getting the certification that it outweighs the cost in both money and time to get it. (Certification agencies get paid for their symbols.) Which means that there has to be a large audience who will be significantly more likely to buy a product if it has the certification than if it doesn't.
Secondly, there needs to be an agency to provide the certification. This requires knowing your audience well enough to establish standards that are widely acceptable. Then you need to train inspectors to monitor the food production to ensure that products are living up to the standards you set. And they need to publicize the value of the certification among the desired audiences. (Often different groups. For example, kosher certifications are often promoted as providing more healthful food -- which may or may not be the case.)
The process is complex. For example, there's currently a movement in the kosher community to found a certification of ethical production. (Wikipedia discusses it here.) This process has wide support among many kosher food consumers, and yet it's still in development and has been since 2006.
It appears to me that there has not yet been a symbol that meets both criteria well enough to become common for vegan foods.
Vegan's Action has resumed taking application as of April 1st, 2011.
There's also the logo from the Vegan Society; while UK-based it's beginning to find its way through mainland Europe as well.
the orthodox union o-u is close: it means that the food is parve.
It may have eggs or fish (with fins and scales, no shellfish) in it, but no other animal ingredients.
and as a previous poster said, watch out for the "natural flavors" ingredient.
http://www.oukosher.org/
I find a quick way to glance at new products is the usually-bolded allergen statements on the back, under the ingredients listing. This will often rule-out products. Once a product passes this "test", though, you still want to check the ingredients for things that aren't necessarily listed as an allergen (like honey).
You have to be very careful with any type of symbols you look for as the symbol is only as good as what the organization behind it accepts as valid process. I generally look for Kosher symbols because one organization which has the Kosher symbol does not accept any type of meat but another organization which has similar Kosher symbol accepts meat which are in accordance of proper slaughtering (all meats except pigs).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.658947
| 2011-02-27T13:34:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12627",
"authors": [
"Aaron Levenstein",
"Aaronut",
"Capt Pandit",
"Catto",
"Joe",
"Joubarc",
"KimbaF",
"Sean Hart",
"Tea Drinker",
"citadelgrad",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7226"
],
"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
}
|
12601
|
If Nutrition Facts states 0% Cholesterol does that imply the food is vegan?
On the side of a package if it states "Cholesterol 0%" in the Nutrition Facts does that mean the food is vegan?
No. The per-serving nutrition numbers are rounded and only reflect the value for a single serving. A value of 0 simply means "less than 0.5 mg" in a single serving.
Due to labeling laws in the US, the rounding rules change depending on what's being measured. Although grams are rounded to the 'nearest' 0.5, you're required to put 0 if it's less than 0.5 (which by definition, isn't rounding); calories are rounded to the nearest 5; I can't find any rules on rounding of percentages, but I'd be confused if I saw '0g, 2%' for something. The term "No cholesterol" does mean that they're mailing a claim tht there isn't any.
This answer is incorrect.
Your question implies that cholesterol only comes from animal products. This is not correct. Cholesterol is present in many plants.
Other answers and comments claim that only amounts "less than 0.5" (units omitted) of cholesterol is permitted to be listed as 0, and that "no cholesterol" is an added claim that a product is truly cholesterol free. This too is incorrect. The FDA permits amounts less than 2mg/serving to be listed as both 0 and "cholesterol free". There are additional caveats which can be read at the link.
The bottom line is, not only does 0 mg of cholesterol not indicate anything regarding the presence of animal products, but neither does the presence of cholesterol.
The question doesn't imply that cholesterol only comes from animal products. It implies that all animal products contain cholesterol.
Another point to mention is that there are many animal products that have no cholesterol. A great example would be honey, or egg whites. (Or gelatin, I believe) So even if you could actively figure out whether there is any cholesterol, that would not mean that there are no animal products in the food.
As mentioned by Joe and gordoco, US labels aren't of much help for this level of detail due to the ridiculous rounding rules. But there are other sources of info. Check out Calorie Count for example. That site's info is accurate down to .1 probably due to its origins as a european-based web resource. (Europe's governments seems to trust its public with decimal notation.)
Still, even though it's a much more accurate source of info you shouldn't count on it alone to decide whether the product is vegan. And depending on how strict you want to get even a food that is labeled as entirely animal product free may have been processed in a very un-vegan manner. The discussion of whether your basic Heinz Ketchup is vegan is a prime example. (Bone char is used in the processing of the sugar which is used in the final mixture.)
On the ketchup point, depends on what country you are in. Bone char in sugar is very rare in the UK.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.659378
| 2011-02-26T11:13:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12601",
"authors": [
"Carl",
"Da vid",
"Jen Luk",
"Joe",
"Orbling",
"Rich Smith",
"bdsl",
"bearbear cute",
"fr0zensphere",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99125",
"skolima",
"yknivag"
],
"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
}
|
12705
|
Reducing the saltiness of commercially prepared seasoning
I've been cooking a certain brand of noodles, and noticed that the seasoning provided is quite salty than you'd expect. Is there a way to reduced the saltiness without a noticeable change in flavor? And if it does change the flavor, please describe in what way it changes.
My simple method is just to use less of the packet. If it's still a little bland, you can always add spices back in (eg, if you want a touch of heat, shake in a little crushed red pepper).
If you're preparing ramen, my uncle's simple method was to stretch it out by adding other vegetables, such as some form of cabbage (eg, bok choy, a couple of shreaded brussel sprouts), some sliced onion, bean sprounts, etc. It's basically a form of diluting, but you're adding things that need to be seasoned, so it won't seem as overly salted.
It's not ramen, but adding veggies that needs seasoning is an interesting idea - I'll try it out, thanks.
If this is dry seasoning, you may be able to physically separate the salt out. Options might include sifting (if the salt is a different size), settling (if the salt is a different density).
You may also be able to perform chemical separation, for example if the salt dissolves in cold water where's the rest of the seasoning does not.
Finally, you could mix your own seasoning!
That's quite the trouble to enjoy some simple noodles...
@Oxwivi: Seasoning it yourself is hardly a lot of trouble when you consider what's in commercial Ramen noodle seasonings (some garlic, onion, powdered stock, salt, pepper, and maybe food colouring and MSG - all very readily and cheaply available at any supermarket). If you don't want the salt, best not to eat processed foods.
I am fully in the "make your own" camp here. Get low sodium bullion cubes. Chicken, beef, etc. to use as the base. Then add in the other spices like the onion, garlic, etc. You can mix up a batch and keep it in an old spice jar ready for use.
I did that a lot during hard times.
But the seasoning that came with the noodles will go to waste!
Ok, so why not take those packets and add them to your own mix? That would thin out the sodium and the supplied packets would not go to waste. It might also help to retain the original flavor some.
the thing is that each of this packet of noodles comes with just enough seasoning for a packet - so adding more seasoning into the mix might be too much. In any case, thanks for the input, it will come in handy in the future.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.659638
| 2011-03-02T04:52:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12705",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Doc Walker",
"Guru",
"Jenn",
"Oxwivi",
"SarbearGracebear",
"Sarumanatee",
"Supriyo SB Chatterjee",
"flieger85",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5086"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12403
|
creme fraiche 1 month out of date!
I was just cooking some soup and added some creme fraiche (I smelt it before and it smelt fine, force of habit)
Once I had mixed it in - I noticed that the sell by date was the 15th of January!
I mean it smelt fine before I put it in, but will I give myself food poisoning or will I be alright?
Related: How do you know when a cultured item is no longer safe to consume?
Crème fraiche is a cultured product, meaning it has lots of helpful bacteria that cause the initial sourness.
These products will tend to become progressively more sour over time - in the case of crème fraiche, more like sour cream - but the pre-existing bacteria tend to compete with (and win against) other parasites, such that the food will start to smell "off" long before it is unsafe, and may actually never spoil as far as bacteria are concerned. It may, however, develop mold.
If it's not moldy, and it smells fine to you, then feel free to eat it and don't fret about it. Sell-by dates are indicators of quality only, not food safety.
brilliant! I just finished off a bowl and its good to know i won't die!
Like sell by dates on 2year old matured cheddar!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.659881
| 2011-02-20T16:49:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12403",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Lee",
"Martin Beckett",
"Sidney",
"Zenka-Marie",
"alice",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4953",
"user25540",
"user25547"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13590
|
Can I store extra pizza dough in fridge?
I kneaded some pizza dough and it turned out that I have done this double the amount I wanted to. This is my first time. Can I store this dough in fridge? And for how many days?
A related post https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/86179/78955 says up to two weeks. Mine is at 10 days.... I'll try and report.
Per Adam Ragusea, longe the dough is in freezer, the better it is. I have used 8 days old dough, worked well for me. I have gone to next level after posting this question 10 years ago :-)
I used my frozen pizza dough after about 3 weeks in the freezer. I let it come up to almost room temperature and it came out fine. A little different experience rolling it out, etc. but nothing urgent.
Yes, you can store it for about a day in the fridge. Let it warm up again before you cook it though.
it turns out that my first take on baking a pizza was 80% good, I kneaded dough for one pizza but it seems I can bake at least 3 pizzas :-) thanks for your help
Yes, the colder the fridge, the longer you can keep the dough in the fridge. It will overrise after a day or two. Take it out of the fridge for an hour or two until it happily rises.
Pizza dough can also be frozen. I freeze mine immediately after finishing, and thaw it in the fridge for a day. Supposedly you can thaw it in the microwave.
only at the lowest power in the microwave.... if you raise the temp of the dough too high you will kill the yeast.
Put it into the fridge in a zip loc bag or in tub and leave in the fridge until you would like to use it.
To freeze, coat in a light layer of oil and keep in a zip loc bag (freezer safe), remove the air from the bag and freeze for up to 3 months :)
Hope this helps :D
Happy cooking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.660015
| 2011-03-30T14:15:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13590",
"authors": [
"Kumar",
"Mark Stewart",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78955",
"sarge_smith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14068
|
Can I roast peanuts in convection microwave?
I found a small bag of raw un-roasted peanuts, around 200 grams, in my cupboard. Any idea how can I roast these peanuts in my convection microwave oven? Would appreciate if some one can add suggestions :-)
In case you lack a microwave a standard pan or a casserole works also very well: no oil needed, just put the peanuts/almonds/pinenuts/etc. on the fire and mix often to prevent burning.
In the book "Madhur Jaffrey's World Vegetarian", Madhur says one of the few uses she's found for a plain microwave oven is to roast cashews. She dresses them in a little bit of oil, then spreads them out on a plate in a single layer and cooks them in the microwave oven until they turn brown. I assume dressing them in a little bit of oil helps browning. I found a web page which has similar instructions for cashews and other nuts, but which implies the oil contained in the nuts themselves is enough to get them to brown. And finally, about.com has a page which is specifically about microwave roasting peanuts.
Thanks for the tip, this also tells me to read more of cookery books than "Dive into Python" :P
Time to share my experience, make sure the peanuts are dried, don't have moisture. Sprinkling some salt may enhance the taste.
Take 200 grams of peanuts. Wash them in water, remove peanuts and add little(small tea spoon) salt. Mix with hand. Spread the salted pea nuts in metal tray of microwave oven. Set Convection to 4 minutes. Switch on, on completion stir the pea nuts anf spread again then repeat the heating procedure for another 4 minutes. Leave the nuts inside the microwave for 10 minutes. Take it out keep outside till it cools.(Say 30 minutes). See the Taste and give your feed back. Please note roasting time can be increased as per your choice.
I have been roasting nuts in microwave for last 2 months, thanks for your tip though :)
I have roasted almonds in a convection microwave before - and they were perfect. Just spread them out on a metal tray - and lay them out so that they are not sitting on top of each other.
Check them regularly, once they start turning brown - they're perfect.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.660185
| 2011-04-15T13:51:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14068",
"authors": [
"Angela Lee",
"Kumar",
"Shane Di Dona",
"barej",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5272",
"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
}
|
62663
|
How to decorate extremely fine details
I have seen some pretty well done decorations, but these ones by a chick named "Christine McConnell" really take the cake.
So I was wondering firstly how one does such fine details and secondly how does one even name them? All my attempts to scour the web for "master decorations" or similar were met with complete failure.
There are lots of different techniques on display in the pictures you've posted. Which one(s) are you interested in?
Start here and you'll have enough keywords to google to your heart's content.
@Marti, all of them, actually. :)
They = cake decorators
They have an artistic hand (I don't have one and cannot decorate anything).
They have lot and lot and lot of practice.
They have wasted a lot and lot of cakes and icing and fondant to achieve that level of perfection.
They have a lot of experience with making their own icing (and fondant) that will work well when decorating bags in their own controlled environment (temperature/humidity)
They usually use small pipettes (or syringes) and small pastry/decorating bags with fine points couplers.
As for "naming them", I assume you are talking about "cake decorators" and google will return gazillions entries.
Max.
Uhhhh... that's like if I asked "how do dudes do research" and you saying "dudes = scientists. They have lot and lot and lot of practice. They have lot and lot and lot of experience. They have wasted numerous samples to achieve that level of research. They usually use tools to do research." Notice how that does not answer my question in the slightest. No offense - I am grateful for your input, but I asked "how", not "do they have experience, lol". For instance - it is quite frikkin obvious pipettes and stuff are used, but how do you fashion tiny spider legs, like in the last picture?
I'm quite a blabber-mouth and had no more space in my last comment. :D I know they use fine tools, that is a given, but given that the spider legs in the last picture are extremely fine, two issues pop in my mind - do they use a magnifying glass or similar to craft such fine details and from what is it fashioned, so that it would be easily workable and would stay firm like that?
@mathgenius - magnifying glass if they have poor eyesight, materials: stiff royal icing if piped, fondant or gum paste if sculpted. And speaking about not answering: Lots and lots of practise is part of the "how". As unclear as your question is, this answer is pretty precise. You said yourself that you don't knowthe terms, so "cake decorator" is a good clue, too.
@Stephie, ah, thanks! But I have to disagree on the "lots and lots of practice", while technically it is part of the how, it's a stupid answer, you might as well say "with their hands", "using their eyes" or "as a consequence of being able to decorate cakes". While all those are correct, it's either a stupid answer or a smart-ass one. No offense, though. And how can this question be unclear? "How do they do such fine details" is unclear? What next - "How does water evaporate" is a super unclear question, too? Yeah, no idea what is being asked, no sir-ee. Seriously.
@mathgenius Because just by looking at the photos I see piping, sculpting, painting, icing, crumbling. Just to name a few. Assuming that you are familiar with our [help], you should realize that this is way to broad if you expect us to explain the detailed "how to"s for all these techniques. There are books, webinars etc. on single techniques... But you are very welcome to discuss this in chat instead of here in comments.
@Stephie, actually you just answered my question. By naming the exact methods used I can google each one to gain more in-depth information on it. That was just what I was asking - "how" and the names of the methods are the answer. For example, I was not sure if they were indeed sculpted or cast in some manner or poured, etc. If you repeat that in an answer - I will happily accept it. :)
Maybe a better question would be for a website or book for someone who wants to get started or advance their cake decorating skills?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.660391
| 2015-10-19T18:15:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62663",
"authors": [
"Eric",
"Hayley Cooper",
"John L.",
"Marti",
"Robert Schwab",
"Stephie",
"Tammy English",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37488",
"mathgenius"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54284
|
When you try to "catch" yeast from the air: is it normal for the flour and water to split
I'm trying to "catch" wild yeast for the first time. 36 hours ago I mixed a cup of flour and a cup of water and left it out on a shelf with a paper towel over the top. It's been between 45 and 70 degrees here over that time.
Since then, the water and the flour has separated so that the water is sitting on top of the flour.
Is that supposed to happen? Should I just keep waiting? Should I give up and try pineapple juice?
What is the best way to catch wild yeast for sourdough?
A few thoughts: (1) most yeast that establishes a starter likely comes from the flour, not the air, (2) separation can occur, but I find recipes where that tends to happen do not have a high success rate, (3) I'd recommend using a starter recipe that recommends feeding every 12 to 24 hours and probably stirring every 8-12 hours, (4) recipes that recommend just waiting 36 hours or longer without doing anything tend to fail more frequently, (5) you can't tell whether anything good is happening until you feed it, (6) if using pineapple juice, follow a recipe designed for it.
Yes. It seems like you should be stirring occasionally (when you feed your starter).
This site seems like a reasonable reference and, in the section called "Making your starter" it says:
In between stirrings it's normal for the mixture to separate and for a small layer of water to be on the top.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.660728
| 2015-02-02T01:00:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54284",
"authors": [
"Arthur MacNew Art",
"Athanasius",
"Eric Watson",
"Lungilerh Njabulo",
"Michael Farr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53612
|
What are "fondi di carciofo" called in English?
I would like to know what the English name is for the Italian word fondo di carciofo as I was not able to find it on the Internet. Basically, carciofo means artichoke and fondo means the bottom part (not the heart which in Italian is cuore, and not the stalk which in Italian is manico, although sometimes the stalk is included with the bottom part and sold together and such combination is very delicious indeed).
So, here is a picture of a bunch of fondi di carciofo from the Internet:
Here is the closest picture I could find on the Internet for the artichoke bottoms with stem, although the stem has been cut away from the artichoke bottoms. Too bad I could not find a picture with both in one piece as in Italy they can often be purchased in such way; next time I go to the market I will take a picture and post it.
Because of the comments that were posted below, I have included a picture of what a cuore di carciofo is in Italy (word-by-word translation: artichoke heart). Basically, it's the inner part of the artichoke with the outer leaves removed. Once cooked, unlike the outer leaves, which cannot be fully eaten as they would not be digested properly, the inner part of the artichoke can be eaten in its entirety once boiled. Here is a picture of cuori di carciofo:
On the other hand, here is the outer part of the artichoke looks like. Italian refer to this as carciofo, but often this is used as a synonym for the artichoke leaves (more commonly known as foglie di carciofo). Italians buy these in the supermarket or at the market and eat the bottom part of all of the outer leaves of the artichoke by scraping them against the bottom teeth once cooked, often dipping them in a little bit of mustard to give them some taste:
And here is a picture of what carciofini (literal translation: little artichokes) are. There are essentially the same as the cuori di carciofo (artichoke hearts), except that this version is sold in a glass jar with olive oil used to preserve them over a long period of time, and can be found in the supermarket in Italy:
That pretty much sums up the whole story about artichokes in Italy.
Anyways, back to my original question:
What's the best/proper way to translate fondi di carciofi into English?
Thanks!
You say that "heart" isn't right, but that's what that looks like to me, hearts that have been cleaned of the choke. What is sold as artichoke heart here in the US looks like this but real artichoke hearts look like this which is the heart of a full sized artichoke, cooked and cleaned.
@Jolenealaska I suspect that may be the answer, i.e. that "artichoke heart" is unfortunately a bit ambiguous in English.
We sell things as artichoke hearts, but they are are really just babies with the outer leaves removed, and the tips chopped off, like this. I hate say it, but I don't think you can find full sized artichoke hearts in the US except by cleaning full size artichokes.
Thank you all for your comments. I've updated my post to sort out some of the issues that have been discussed here. Yes, I think using the words artichoke heart to mean anything but the inner part of the artichoke would be wrong. If such word exists, I was looking for the best English word that can be used to describe the leafless bottom of an artichoke, which can be found above the stem/stalk, and below both the artichoke leaves and the artichoke heart contained therein. Thanks!
@JohnSonderson It seems to be a case of false friends, as they are known in translation: the English term for the base turns out to be indeed artichoke heart even though it's not the same part as cuore in Italian. See Jolene's answer, and the McGee reference diagram I added to it.
Yeah, I've seen it, and reported the same thing in a diagram with labels in my answer below. It could indeed be a case for false friends, but then, how can one be sure that the word is not used differently in other parts of the world such as the UK for instance. The reason I'm a bit dubious is that when I do a search for artichoke hearts on Google Images, most of the matches still return the inner part of the globe artichoke with very few instances of the part shown in the McGee book mentioned by Jolene.
So, I'm still not completely sure. I wonder whether there's an online encyclopedia of culinary terms I could consult anywhere online. Maybe such a book could serve as a cross-regional authoritative answer. Thanks!
John Peterson (James Beard winning cookbook author) has a post on 'artichoke bottoms' in which he mentions "To prepare artichoke bottoms (the hearts are virtually the same) ..." but never makes the distinction between the two.
And as for the encyclopedia of culinary terms ... I can't help there, but see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/16076/67 for 'false friends' and http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/784/67 for differences in terms just between different English dialets. Also http://www.foodsubs.com/ , but they only cover whole vegetables, not the sub-parts (unless recommending it for a replacement for something else)
(American English speaker here) To me, the picture of "fondo di carciofo" is a picture of artichoke hearts.
What you seem to call a heart, I call a baby with the outer leaves removed. Like this:
I don't think of that as a heart, I've always considered that a kind if a cheater thing since that's what you can buy frozen or marinated as "hearts". There is no, or very little, inedible choke:
That's because the choke develops as the artichoke matures.
So if I asked for "baby artichokes", I would expect to get what is pictured above.
If I want what I think of as "heart", I would eschew packages labeled "artichoke heart", because I know that what they would actually contain (in the US) is trimmed baby artichokes.
I LOVE artichoke hearts, I try to get plenty of stem too. I'm talking about the bottom portion of the mature artichoke, after you pick off the leaves and scrape off the choke.
This:
Which just has a small part of the choke removed.
On Food and Cooking supports this usage of "heart":
So, I guess "the bottom part of a mature globe artichoke, the base, what some people consider the heart and others call the bottom or even the crown, where the stem attaches" would be a way to say it in English and not be misunderstood. If, in fact, I am understanding the question.
+1. I doubted that due to language issues, but I looked up in McGee's On Food And Cooking and he clearly says that the base is the heart. So, together with the current labeling, it seems that only this construct won't be misunderstood :( Is it OK if I upload his diagram as an edit to your answer? And sorry that I doubted your word but believe McGee, but he literally wrote the book on food.
For what it's worth, my family always called the base, after you pick off the choke, the heart. And it was confusing to me as a kid that they had the baby things with leaves on them in cans and called them hearts too. Maybe "artichoke bottom" would be shorter but still enough to be universally understood? I see some usage around on the internet, and it's roughly the translation of the OP's term.
I mentally translated "fondi" as "base", and artichoke base seems like a fair term since "heart" is surprisingly ambiguous.
Indeed, that also seems to do, as the results on this site demonstrate. I've updated my question accordingly. Thanks!
Thank you all for your responses. What I was able to conclude is that although the Italian word cuore translates into the English word heart, and while in Italian cuore di carciofo always refers to the inner leaves of an artichoke, the word artichoke heart seems to be used synonymously with artichoke bottom, artichoke crown, and artichoke base in some places, while being the equivalent of the artichoke heart translation from Italian in some other places where it still refers to the inner leaves.
The following images from the Internet make the aforementioned differences in word usage obvious:
Needless to say, despite having used these images for illustrative purposes to show how these words are being used around the net, I couldn't resist making the statement that compared to fresh ones, packaged and canned artichokes are really gross, both as far as taste is concerned as well as when we consider health issues (all those added preservatives), and this is especially true of the canned ones which I would never ever buy and taste like tin!
The word baby artichoke can be somewhat misleading, because while this seems to refer to the inner portion of the globe artichoke in some contexts, it can also be used to refer to some varieties of artichokes where the globe artichoke itself is small when compared to the globe artichoke of artichokes of other varieties which have bigger globes.
Most Italians would purchase and consume artichokes fresh, although due to their popularity these are also available marinated and sometimes even grilled and then preserved in glass containers alongside olive oil and possibly other ingredients (the following picture was taken in an Italian supermarket and shows how several brands are normally available for consumption, each having a slightly different taste and preparation):
Although reasonably good tasting, this is however considered a somewhat lazy option when compared to fresh artichokes, which despite being a much healthier option are also cheaper to purchase. Here are the artichoke pictures from an Italian market as promised: as you can see, in Italy it is possible to purchase the various part of an artichoke separately (sorry that my camera battery was low while taking these pictures, which is the reason for the lines appearing therein):
This picture illustrates how at a market stand you can purchase both (1) the inner part of the artichoke / artichoke baby / artichoke heart, which for the variety of artichokes in the pictures can be quite large (see top), the artichoke bottom / artichoke heart with the stem attached (see bottom right), as well as the individual artichoke bottoms (see bottom left):
This picture, on the other hand, shows how the top part of the artichoke could also be purchaed as a whole from the same place. I like this purplish, blackish, large variety of artichokes (which is the same variety the parts in the picture above are taken from), above the white asparagus. Notice the sheer size of these artichokes (and of these asparagus)!!!
Due to their size, the artichokes as in the picture above are known in Italy as mamme di carciofo (literal translation: artichoke mothers). The artichokes below are of a similar kind and were found at an Italian supermarket (sold in bunches of 4):
Regards.
You're just trying to make us jealous at this point. Holy cow. Beautiful produce.
I've seen the convex bottoms sold as "artichoke crowns" (separated from any tiny leaves or stem) on occasion but Alibaba sometimes lists them as "artichoke bottoms".
I've seen them canned in stores in the US with the name "artichoke bottom"
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.661001
| 2015-01-14T18:24:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53612",
"authors": [
"Briar Finora",
"Carolyn Wakefield",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Reall",
"Donna Wilkinson",
"Emy Ibr",
"Helene Santola",
"JOSEPH DIAS",
"Joe",
"John Sonderson",
"Jolenealaska",
"Karsu Sana",
"Liz Hahn",
"Luke Robins",
"O.G. MISFIT",
"Peter Yau",
"Preston",
"Rajesh Sharma",
"Random832",
"William Macdonald",
"Zurin Azraii Abdul Rahman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7495",
"kamala subash",
"logophobe",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
60070
|
I added more water to my ciabatta dough by accident
I just realized that I added about 4 cups of water to 4 cups of flour for my ciabatta dough. It only calls for 2 cups, but I added 4 for some reason. It’s been rising for a bit over 4 hours and there are a lot of bubbles, which I’m happy about, but it’s very runny. It was a bit sticky when I mixed it but it can pour like a thick soup. How do I fix it? Will it ruin the air bubbles if I add more flour?
If i were in your situation I would treat the dough as a preferment of sorts and use it to make double the amount of the ciabatta.
Pre measure the ingredients as seen on TV food shows. That speeds the processing time and reduces chances of error due to interruptions.
Now you have a possible batter for crumpets.
Your recipe should call for the dough to be folded a few times during proving. Do this on a thick bed of flour, and sprinkle more flour on top as you fold, and you'll find it will come together more and more with each fold. Remember, when it comes to bread, the wetter the better!
"Remember, when it comes to bread, the wetter the better!" -ElendilTheTall. An instant classic.
It's an old adage, I can't lay claim to it. I have found it applies to many things in life :)
Perhaps some baker's math is in order to understand what's happening here and what direction your fix should be aiming at:
Original recipe:
4c flour -> 500g
2c water -> 480g
This means your recipe has a hydration1 of 96%, which is really high, even for ciabatta. It's doable, though, as for example this post cofirms. (Typical values for ciabatta are somewhere in the 75% range.)
Your current dough has:
4c flour -> 500g
4c water -> 960g
Resulting in a hydration of 192%. Or, as you noticed, yeasty soup.
Having checked this math, you have to get the flour level up to at least the original value, that means somehow incorporating another two cups of flour. But then your other ingredients will be off, too, especially salt, so add again the amount of the original recipe, basically doubling it (as demanded by the flour as base for the calculation). Same goes for all other ingredients except yeast.
Yeast on the other hand is a totally different subject. In the last four hours, the yeast has been active and growing. Adding again the original amount would likely be an overkill.
Depending on your general bread baking philosophy and recipe, add either a fraction of the original amount or simply wait until the existing yeast has done it's job. (That's what I'd do...)
With the relatively large amount of flour plus the salt I'm not sure whether incorporating it during the stretch and fold would be possible. (For smaller amounts, heed ElendilTheTall's advice). I'd consider sacrifying some bubbles and stir or mix gently.
1 also called Baker's percentage, i.e. the ratio of water or other ingredients in relation to flour weight.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.662186
| 2015-08-20T08:25:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60070",
"authors": [
"Captain Giraffe",
"Claire Helmick",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Henry Coate",
"JasonTrue",
"Marg Wood",
"Michel Guay",
"NRaf",
"Optionparty",
"Pauline Skilton",
"Piglet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56418
|
How can I tell the difference between a rabbit and a cat?
I received a shipment of prefabricated skinned rabbit last week and the shipment seemed unusual. Rabbits have a very close resemblance to cats once their “hair” and skin have been removed. Is there a telltale sign that I’m working with Bugs Bunny, not Sylvester?
I have a suspicion that Elmer Fudd is running out of legitimate product.
All jokes aside, how do you tell the difference?
I never would have thought that these would be so difficult to distinguish. Nice question!
Thank you for all the feed back, there are some great answers here. The jury is still out on which one I want to select as the answer; that helped me. All the answers are really informative.
@Chef_Code So which do you have? Rabbit, or cat?
If there is no way to tell, does it matter?
Take it to a veterinarian to have a look.
@starsplusplus they were rabbits, just a tad smaller than usual
I know this question is stated using humor, but fact of the matter is that this is very much so a plausible situation. The moral of the story or question here is that you should only deal with reputable purveyors.
Why would cat meat be cheaper / more available than rabbit meat?
@AndrewGrimm It is easier to come by is my guess. But there are a lot of illegal factors that come into play as to why it would be cheaper.
Now I understand the saying "buy a cat as a rabbit" (or something like that, literal translations doesn't help)
in Russia they sell rabbit with the foot left on (with fur) so you can tell it's not a cat. I suppose it was a problem once there.
In Germany we have an old (joking) saying that roughly translates to "head off, tail off - bunny", so your question is legitimate. But first thing's first: There is no health risk1 involved if you ate the latest shipment of "meowling rabbit". (To cat lovers everywhere: This is no endorsement, I have a much loved and pampered cat, too!)
The most obvious differences are
head (look at the teeth!),
tail (short vs. long), and
feet (cat claws are quite distinctive).
But I suspect these would be removed prior to sale, so we'd have to dig a bit deeper into anatomy:
Shoulder blades:
Cats' shoulder blades are rounded on top, especially in the front, making the shoulder blade almost semicircular with the ridge making for two differently shaped parts, rabbits' shoulder blades are triangular with the ridge somewhat parallel to the front side.
Femur (thigh bone):
A cat's femora are straight, whereas a rabbit's is more or less bent, especially pronounced in older animals. Same applies to a lesser extent to radius and ulna (forearm), but they might have been removed.
Ribs:
Cats' ribs are "rounder" than rabbits' ribs according to this source. I can't say by how much, but @aitchnyu's comment below suggests the difference is obvious enough to play a significant role in the novel/movie Papillon.
Pelvis:
The same source as above states that the foramen obturatum (= the loop-like opening near/below the hip joint) is oval in rabbits and round in cats. I couldn't find a good picture to show this, though.
Here's a rabbit:
Source: www.onlineveterinaryanatomy.net
And a cat:
1 other than the general risk every meat from questionable sources brings
And as a side note: It is highly unlikely that the shipment of "rabbits" was actually hare - due to economic reasons. You can breed rabbits and cats are relatively easy to come by, at least in some regions of the world. Hares, on the other hand would be hunted.
Ctrl+F Pappillon, was disappointed, joined to make this comment. Joe*'s friend killed his beloved cat and gave it to Joe, passing it off as rabbit. Joe served it to a doctor who complimented him on the "fine cat". According to the doctor rabbits have flat ribs, cats have round ones. So Joe murdered his friend, and thus met the protagonist.
@aitchnyu: Why not make this into an answer?
because my source is a fuzzy memory of a fictional doctor? :D
@Stephie, I did nothing of the sort!
Note the some of the medication that cats may be given is far from food grade. There is every reason to believe that eating cats, from sources unknown, is dangerous for your health.
@JonathonWisnoski: And so may be any meat from dubious sources... There is a reason most countries have strict rules about raising, slaughtering and processing meat for human consumption.
@Stephie Yes and no. The problem specifically with pets is that people will pay loads of money to inject them with highly toxic medication that make then inedible for years and years afterwards. Other animals you just have the concern of cheap toxic feed. And really if you are getting the bottom of the barrel stuff from the US, China, or some other location with questionable business practices you really cannot get much worse than the stuff they regularly feed them above board without the animals themselves dying or growing poorly anyways. So it is a sub-concern in my mind.
@JonathonWisnoski: But there are risks beyond bad food or illleagal medication - think of parasites that should be caught by inspecting the meat. Trichinella or beef tapeworm come to mind...
Indeed, if meat A is sold as meat B, then the chain of custody is completely screwed regardless of what A and B are, and regardless of whether A is normally safe. If it's not the kind of meat it claims to be, then any safeguards have failed, they should have caught that. If you're buying your meat direct from the poacher, then you don't expect any safeguards, so a confusion over species doesn't create this concern. If you're buying it from a retail butcher you expect some rules to have been followed, and if it's the wrong species you know for sure some of them haven't.
... which is why even people happy in principle to eat horse meat were concerned about the "horse meat as beef" scandal in the UK a couple of years ago. It's not just that it's horse, it's that meat of unknown origin was in the supply chain at all. Since it wasn't off a cow as claimed, it quite possibly also wasn't off a horse fit for eating. The same concern would arise if country of origin was misreported, even if both countries' meat is safe when the supply chain is properly established per those countries' rules.
@Stephie: Regarding hare vs. rabbit, apart from the economical reasons, you would've noticed instantly if it was a rabbit or hare, just by the difference of the meat color and taste. Hare is much more "venisony" (for lack of a better word, muscular? metallic?). Whether the same goes for cat and rabbit, I do not, nor desire to know (or do I?) ;)
I was wondering about this, and now I know - great answer.
@WillemvanRumpt The term is "gam(e)y", if I understand you correctly.
in Russia they sell rabbit with the foot left on it, so you can distinguish it is authentic rabbit and not a cat...
In the textbook Text-book of meat hygiene: with special consideration to ante-mortem and post-mortem inspection of food-producing animals (Edelmann & Eichorn, 1908), pages 64-65 concern determining the difference between a cat and rabbit:
The following differences in the skeleton are especially to be mentioned: The lateral processes of the lumbar vertebrae which are directed forward terminate in the rabbit (Fig. 34) in two extensions, of which one is directed forward the other backward; in the cat they terminate in a point. The body of the first three lumbar vertebrae in the rabbit contains thorn-shaped ventral processes (Fig. 34 a). The ribs of the rabbit are flat and broad; those of the cat are rounded. On the scapula of the rabbit the acromion turns around posteriorly and terminates in a long point, which is directed backward (Fig. 37)). Radius and ulna are completely separated in the cat (Fig. 35); in the Leporides they are united (Fig. 36). On the humerus of the cat is an elongated fissure over the median condyle of the distal end (Fig. 39). The femur of the rabbit (Fig. 41) contains below the trochanter major, a specially strong smaller trochanter, which is absent in the cat. Tibia and fibula are complete in the cat (Fig. 43); in the rabbit (Fig. 44) they are only separated in the upper half.
The whoe carcass of the cat can be immediately recognized by its head, penis bone, and the tail, and for these reasons, if offered for sale, these parts are always removed on the slaughtered animal. Rabbits generally have the shot wounds, but these are naturally absent in the slaughtered domesticated rabbits. The meat of the cat is paler than rabbit meat; the fat of the cat appears whitish in contrast to rabbit fat, which is honey-yellow.
As it says, it has some explicit figures which you can go and see, showing the different bones of the one next to the corresponding bone in the other, so that you can easily see the differences.
If you don't speak anatomy, let me translate. See also the image below.
This is a 1908 book that tells food inspectors how to tell when someone is selling cats as hares/rabbits. They say that, for a true rabbit:
the fat will be faintly yellowish rather than white;
the forward-spikes of the vertebrae in the spine should sometimes have a subtle Y shape near their ends, ending in a little "prong";
the ribs will be noticeably flat-and-broad rather than rounded;
there will be a little spike on the shoulder-blade near the forelimb;
when you look at either cat or rabbit, both the fore- and hind-limbs, like our arms and legs, have an upper-arm/thigh with one big bone (humerus/femur) and a lower-arm/calf with two smaller bones (radius+ulna/fibia+tibia): in the rabbit both of these lower-two-bones are fused close together on both fore- and hind-limbs, whereas in the cat they're noticeably separate bones;
there should be a little hole in the upper-arm bone (humerus) right above the elbow; and
on the side of the "thigh" bone where there's a "ball" connecting to the hips, you should also see beneath the biggest "lump" across from the "ball" a lesser "lump" coming after it.
How will you see these? To look at the bones you can probably just stew one of the animals pretty hard until the meat is "just falling off the bone," then carefully pick the meat off.
Make sure before you use any of these criteria to conclude catness that you have seen the difference on between two images of skeletons. Sometimes the difference is rather subtle! For example in the images that Stephie has posted, you can very easily see the "shoulder-blade spike" (labeled #33) on the rabbit, but not on the cat, so this is a clear diagnostic criterion: if I didn't see it then I'd strongly suspect "cat". Similarly the fused/unfused bones are pretty decisive, as long as you don't accidentally remove the incredibly-thin tibia of the cat and then think "oh, I just see one bone, it must be fused." Be cautious until you compare to both.
I've taken an image from Flickr and updated it with some highlights of what this 1908 manual is suggesting you look for:
Excellent find of picture! You might want to mention that your source also has a cat and both together nicely showcase the differences.
Just out of curiosity: did your sources say something about the fusing of tibia/fibia? In humans, some bones fuse over years, serving as a sign of age. Are rabbits' bones fused at birth or do they fuse over time? And fat color changes/darkens with maturity in some animals - do you know whether young rabbits would have "whiter" fat?
Great pic, and hate to be picky, but it's not licensed for modification. StackExchange usually prefers to keep on the right side of licenses, I find. There is an alternative which might also work for this purpose. Note, too, the 1939 edition of the book you cite is on Archive.org, the relevant section on pages 73-74. Hope that helps.
The simplest way to tell the difference is to look at the ribs.
Cats have one pair of floating ribs, but rabbits have three pairs. The floating ribs are the ones at the bottom (i.e. towards the tail), that are not attached to anything at their outer end. All the other ribs are either attached directly to the breastbone, or to the cartilage that extends from the base of the breastbone.
Cats have nine "true" ribs (attached directly to the breastbone), three "false" ribs (attached to the cartilage), and one pair of floating ribs. Rabbits have seven "true", two "false", and three floating. So cats have a total of thirteen ribs, but rabbits typically only have twelve (although it can vary).
This gives us a simple test:
if it only has twelve ribs, it's a rabbit
if it has thirteen ribs, but only one pair of floating ribs, it's a cat
I like this answer because of it's simplicity, but there still seems to be some uncertainty due to the variance of the rabbit's rib count. Does the rabbits rib count EVER amount to 13???
@Chef_Code. Most authorities on rabbit anatomy say that they usually have twelve pairs of ribs, but the occasional individual can have thirteen. That is why it is necessary to also look at the floating ribs to be absolutely certain. It would be so nice if you could just count the number of ribs! But Mother Nature is fickle, and loves to tease us with these awkward little exceptions. Then again, that's what's at the heart of why Life is so endlessly fascinating - so perhaps we should not complain too much.
BTW, I believe the rabbit in the picture from @Stephie’s answer has 13 ribs.
The easy way is to look at skull, paws, and tail - but these are normally removed!
Cat have short paws, long tails, and a sleeker skull
Hares have very long rear legs, easy to spot
Rabbit have curved lower leg bones (tibia and radius?), shaped like this ()
Cats generally have quite straight lower leg bones, shaped like this V. The are nearly touching each other
"Forearm" bones = radius and ulna, "shank" bones = tibia and fibula.
@Chef_Code No, always accept the best answer that solved your problem. You don't have to accept any. PS I love the "over answering" happening on this question. You got to wonder if any of these people have every actually killed, prepared, and eaten a rabbit or cat? They all sound like vets :-)
The main differences I see in the skeletons of the two animals is that the cat's humerus (large single bone in the front legs) and its radius/ulna (smaller dual bones in the front legs) seem to be very close in length, or the single bone is slightly longer. The same goes for the hind legs, where the femur (single bone) and the tibia/fibula (dual bones) are of similar length or the single bone is slightly longer.
In the rabbit, the dual bones (radius/ulna in front leg and tibia/fibula in hind leg) are significantly and very noticeably longer than the single bones (humerus and femur, respectively). This is more evident in the hind legs, where the tibia/fibula combo seems to be about 20-30% longer than the femur.
As a child in the 1940's we were told that you could tell the difference between a skinned cat and a rabbit because one of them had kidneys side by side and the other's kidneys were staggered. I think the rabbits were side by side because they tasted delicious.
just take a look at the tail..!
if(tail is long)
then CAT
else
confirm RABBIT
The problem with this method is that many (probably most?) butchered rabbits have the tail removed, so anyone trying to pass off a cat as rabbit would either remove it entirely or just chop most off.
Yea if they go through the trouble of skinning the cat, they aren't going to leave the tail attached.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.662510
| 2015-04-06T07:34:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56418",
"authors": [
"Alan Bowes",
"Amanda Crosby",
"Chef_Code",
"Chris Kilmer",
"Curt Soderstrom",
"D3vtr0n",
"Deborah cushing",
"Donna Fisher",
"Dɑvïd",
"Golden Cuy",
"JAB",
"Jesvin Jose",
"Jodrell",
"Joe",
"Jonathon",
"Kathryn Fifer",
"KellyRS",
"Margaret",
"Marie Duncan",
"Marie Westphal",
"Matthew Finnan",
"NIGEL PERRY",
"Nicole Thornton",
"PeterJ",
"Sarah da tiger",
"Scott Broad",
"Shurutie Rutie",
"Simon Hinks",
"Stephie",
"Steve Jessop",
"TFD",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"cathy bush",
"dotancohen",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"ekhumoro",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7509",
"kirelagin",
"logophobe",
"starsplusplus",
"woliveirajr"
],
"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
}
|
59807
|
Is "sealing in the flavor" an actual thing?
Someone mentioned searing food to "seal in the flavor". My response was that searing was a way to add a delicious crust, and nothing more or less. However, I recently noticed a frozen food mentioning their ground beef product is "flash frozen to seal in flavor".
These are really just buzz words, right? Even if you're talking about juices as opposed to "flavor", you can't seal them in, can you? When the product rests the juice will be redistributed, won't it?
Being flash frozen can "seal in flavor" by rupturing fewer cells during the freezing process due to smaller ice crystals, but that only holds until your first autodefrost cycle.
I've only ever heard this from people who couldn't cook. The reality is that you don't want to seal in the flavour. You want it to escape into the sauce.
As EJP pretty much said, the whole point of cooking is to release the flavor. Explained here: http://modernistcuisine.com/2013/03/the-maillard-reaction/
Searing on a grill to "seal in juices" has largely been disproven. Meat loses juice at roughly the same speed regardless of searing the meat first. Searing does produce the Maillard reaction and caramelization which enhances flavor; however, searing first doesn't produce better results. A test performed by Alton Brown in 2008 demonstrated that searing at the end of the cooking process loses less water than searing at the beginning. For more information see this link.
For the Alton Brown results see this link (video).
Not sure I would describe one TV chef's single unscientific test as 'largely disproven'.
JamesRyan, that's an excellent point. I stand by the wording, however, as it's a subject I have researched. I chose the Craig Goldwyn article as I thought it most succinctly conveyed the concept and references a few others' work (including the Brown video I mentioned, Kenji Lopez and others). I highlighted the Alton Brown article because of his name recognition, but his results are not unique. Many well respected individuals in both the cooking and BBQ world agree that searing does not "lock in" juices.
Harold McGee, arguably the preeminent food scientist, has been battling this myth for years - http://www.chow.com/food-news/94795/harold-mcgee-debunks-the-sealing-in-the-juices-meat-myth/
Serious Eats' Food Lab is also quite good: http://www.seriouseats.com/2009/12/the-food-lab-how-to-cook-roast-a-perfect-prime-rib.html
The Serious Eats' stuff is good. That would be the Kenji Lopez mentioned previously.
@JamesRyan It would be interesting if you could provide a counter example -- a contemporary cooking authority who does seriously insist searing seals in juices, flavour, etc.
There is a grain of truth in the claim that flash-freezing beef "seals in flavour". If meat (or anything else) is frozen slowly, large ice crystals form. These puncture the cells, resulting in a mushy texture when the food is thawed. But, because a lot of the cells have burst, all their contents can drain out, too, so you're going to lose flavour. However, it's not really "sealing in" the flavour; rather, it's avoiding doing something bad that would let the flavour out.
However, because of this, essentially all frozen food is flash-frozen. Drawing attention to the flash-freezing is a little misleading, since it suggests it's unusual when, in fact, it's completely normal. It's a bit like explicitly pointing out that the cows were given air to breathe: that's not animal welfare, it's just how cows work.
The term "flash frozen to seal in flavor" isn't mentioned because it's rare, it's mentioned to make it compete with non-frozen items which are thought to be "fresher" than frozen ones. It's like saying "don't worry, this is fresh too".
I've certainly seen some low-quality frozen stuff that didn't seem like it'd been properly flash-frozen, but it seems to be getting rarer, and in any case, definitely true that the label doesn't really help much. Sometimes you'll still see "flash frozen" as part of a meaningful phrase though, like "flash frozen at sea" to indicate that it was fresh/good quality when frozen.
"air-breathing cows"! Along the same lines as "permeate-free", "containing (some) A2 protein" that's all over our milk in Australia.
+1 for "that's not animal welfare, it's just how cows work."
As popularized by Lucky Strike: "It's toasted!"
From the Wikipedia "Frozen food" article: "Cryogenic or (flash freezing) of food is a more recent development". It's possible that some foods are still not 'flash' frozen tho I haven't been able to find any explicit evidence easily. And 'flash freezing' seems to be both a marketing term used by one of the original pioneers of frozen foods (Birdeye) as well as a term that covers more recent freezing technologies.
@WillRobertson I remember "Cholesterol free!" being a very common slogan on vegetable oils (including olive, corn, canola, sunflower...) in the 90's here (Canada). Eventually they stopped.
There is one sense in which searing meat really does seal it.
For a long time it was genuinely believed that searing meat in some way "sealed" it. As other answers have already shown, this is nonsense.
Indeed it's quite easy to prove:
Sear a piece of meat.
Roast the piece of meat.
Observe whether the meat inflates or perhaps bursts.
If you put a sealed object that contains a lot of water, fat or air in it into a hot oven, then it's going to get larger as the water (and/or fat and/or air) expands and perhaps burst. We prick sausages precisely so that they aren't sealed.
By the same token, if there's more liquid in the pan after cooking than could come just from the surface then clearly that liquid wasn't "sealed in", was it?
However, if you refer to searing meat before roasting it as "sealing the meat" you aren't being incorrect. And if someone says they consider it incorrect we could ask them if that means they are studying astrology; consider literally means "examine the stars" but we use it to mean "think about" whether or not we believe in astrology and certainly not restricted to cases where we actually draw up a horoscope. By the same token, "sealing the meat" means "searing the meat so the maillard reaction improves the flavour and gives a more pleasant colour" even as used by people who know its etymological origin in a disproven belief that it was actually sealing something "in".
I personally know nothing about cooking but my dear departed mother did. She used a tip that had been passed on by her mother. Before cooking, she would treat meat by pouring on boiling water and then drying. I remember once asking why and she said that she did it to seal the meat. I didn't probe further but I always assumed that it somehow kept the flavour in.
Whether it really had any effect I have no idea but often these traditional methods are rooted in truth.
Knowing how to do something that makes food taste better makes you a good cook. Knowing how that thing works makes you a good scientist. In this case your mother was being a better cook that scientist. It didn't seal the meat, but it did make it taste better.
Well I certainly know the flavor can get out.
I have been experimenting with fried chicken - butter milk and flour - and want to make a kfc style hot and spicy. Easier said than done. I have tried adding bottles of hot chilli sauce, chopping up piles of chilli and adding tablespoons of cayenne pepper. In every case the "Hot" gets out. I think the process of deep frying is either destroying the "Hot" or it is leaching into the oil.
KFC use a pressure fryer and I am using a wok filled with oil. I presume speed of cooking may be critical.
I know when making beer that time at temperature is critical - different chemical reactions occur at different temperatures creating different flavors.
So perhaps you have a situation where the process of applying heat over time destroys the little flavorons and fast cooking and/or bringing the temperature down quickly after cooking avoids it stewing and damaging flavor.
With beer making you certainly want to bring the wort temperature down fast to stop certain chemical reactions that occur at certain temperatures that create cloudiness.
True story: I love beef jerky. The other day when I had a whole topside to play with, I made a batch of biltong on top of the three batches of jerky I had made. Just for fun (and to see what would happen) I seared two of the fillets and treated the other three with vinegar as usual for biltong. I then put all 5 into my dehydrater at 35C and waited for three days. Much to my surprise, while the three vinegared fillets dried out and went firm (as usual), the two I had seared remained as soft and squishy as when I pulled them off the hot-plate.
So, while it seems I didn't discover a tasty new "Charred Steak Biltong" flavour as I hoped, my little experiment may cast some doubt on the allegedly scientific "debunkings" of the "myth".
Interesting anecdote, but I fail to see how it answers the original question?
@RichardtenBrink It suggests that under certain circumstances, one can "seal in" liquids. Since liquids in foods tend to be flavourful, I guess that's an example of sealing in flavour. I'd say this is close enough to answering the question.
I'll leave this, but I do agree that jerky probably wasn't quite what the OP had in mind.
Assuming the seared fillets were not treated with vinegar, the lingering moisture likely had more to do with the lack of vinegar than the searing.
@RichardtenBrink It was in answer to the last part of the question, as the redistribution of juices was clearly very different between the seared and vinegar treated fillets.
@DanBryant Good point - I could have left one just plain, but that would leave the surface "growing". Maybe next time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.663934
| 2015-08-11T17:31:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59807",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Dan Bryant",
"Dave Adkins",
"David Richerby",
"Dawn Murphy",
"Eric",
"Gorchestopher H",
"Greg",
"Imre Kerr",
"Iris Acheson",
"Jacob Stanfort",
"JamesRyan",
"Jan Barba",
"Joe M",
"Jon Hanna",
"Kenny Evitt",
"Kyla Law",
"Laura Borland",
"Martin Childs",
"Mason Wheeler",
"Mick Fletcher",
"Misty Green",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Natalie Pooley",
"Raydot",
"Richard ten Brink",
"Rochelle Cook",
"Tracy Morrison",
"Will Robertson",
"Yan Lav",
"goldilocks",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37520",
"user207421",
"user37505"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28966
|
What are the different types of flours used in cooking Idly, Dosa, Halwa, Ladoo and Upma?
What are the different types of flours used in making Rava Idly, Dosa, Halwa, Ladoo and Upma in Indian Cuisine?
What are the differences between Wheat flour, Semolina flour and Rice flour in cooking these dishes?
Why is down-vote in this question? :O
@Mistu4u guess this question seems vague to answer buddy
basically in indian dishes whatever you mentioned above were using these flours as common interigents
wheat flour
rice flour
aata
corn flour
semolina flour
basically the diffrence is their tendency to absorb water and the time which they take for cook ,for e.g cooking parathas with wheat flour will take more time than aata,
Hope it clarifies the basic things,for better clarification use brednan's video
This may help you make some decisions about what flours to use/keep on hand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXGjKr25_Gk
But in general, the difference between flours relates mostly to whether your looking for elasticity (gluten content) vs crispness (rice flour). For semolina, there is obviously very different ways to cook it such as in puddings or creamy dishes but it can also be dusted on things as a breading to make it crunchy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.664799
| 2012-12-06T08:23:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28966",
"authors": [
"Anne",
"BlueBerry - Vignesh4303",
"Doc Dough",
"Frederik",
"Jacob Hessel",
"Khara",
"Mistu4u",
"Richard ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84004",
"user67096",
"user67102"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35187
|
What kind of homemade sandwich bread or wrap lasts longest?
I want to prepare a homemade bread, wrap, pita, or tortilla-like food, something to make in advance on weekends, to later fill with typical sandwich fillings, such mayonnaise, cheese, sliced meat, and vegetables on the day that I want to eat it. A loaf of bread seems to last only a day, then it is too dry to eat and if stored in the freezer, it loses flavor. Is there any special kind of break, wrap, pita, or tortilla-like food that lasts for almost a whole week?
Do you want to know how to store commercial bread/wrap for longer keeping? Or do you want to bake your own?
In fact, most quick breads and yeast raised breads freeze exceptionally well. Why do you think freezing them causes flavor loss?
See this thread at King Arthur flour. you will note that the consensus remains freezing. I don't know why you are not happy with that option. http://community.kingarthurflour.com/content/shelf-life-homemade-bread
I'm not making this an answer since it's not really a "kind" of bread, but you could try making a batch of rolls or flatbread, cook it just until it's "done" but not browned, then freeze it. From that point, you can throw it straight from the freezer into the oven to brown as needed. Parbaking like this can help mitigate the (negligible) quality loss from freezing.
You can always make hardtack; it lasts for months. Of course, it won't make a great sandwich. :-)
Mmmmmm...hardtack and salt pork, or maybe a slice of hard cheese
Firstly - shop-bought "packet" bread will keep for several days because it contains a lot of preservatives.
In his excellent book Bread Matters, Andrew Whitley claims that home-made sourdough breads with very long rises have better keeping properties than home-made bread made with baker's yeast and short rises. This, he claims, is because the sourdough yeast cultivates a culture of friendly bacteria and an acid environment, all of which become natural preservatives. My experience seems to confirm this.
Bread recipes containing egg, oil or milk tend to keep for longer than those without.
As @SAJ14SAJ says, bread freezes very well. Loss of flavour in the freezer is not a commonly recognised phenomenon.
One option is to slice a loaf of bread, bag it and freeze it. Take as many slices as you need at a time. It will defrost very quickly at room temperature, due to its low mass and high surface area.
Another option is to make rolls, part-bake, and freeze. When you need them, take as many rolls as you need from the freezer, and place in the oven, to both defrost and complete the baking. You will get fresh baking smells and flavours from this.
I suspect that home-made unleavened breads (pita, chapati, tortilla), without added preservatives, will not last long out of the freezer. Their advantage is that with no rise, they are so quick to make that they can be made fresh on-demand.
What preservatives are these? Looking at local commercial bread the only candidate is salt, and AFAIK the extra salt is there to help with the fast proof process that commercial bakers use
I checked two UK supermarket loaves. A big brand white sliced contained "Antioxidant: Vitamin C". A multigrain sliced bread contained "Preservative: Calcium Propionate", which is a mould inhibitor. Both will contain a lot of salt, which will act as a preservative. For the OP's purposes, I'm thinking less about the healthiness of the additives, than of their availability for home cooking.
I am sure you can find some, but do most have them in your country? I checked some main brands here, and other than salt and acidity regulator (part of yeast process) there was nothing
Pita is usually leavened. Sourdough pita is particularly flavorful and should last longer.
I admit, this doesn't exactly answer your question, but to expand on slim's suggestion for flatbreads -- if you're willing to give up fridge space for this, and have a little bit of time & fuel each day for cooking, I'd recommend the recipes in the various Artisan Bread in 5 Minutes a Day series of books.
You make up the dough, let it proof, then refridgerate it for up to two weeks. During that time, you can pull it from the fridge, throw a little flour on top, grab a ball of dough out, and bake. Or, in my case, I preheat a skillet, stretch the dough out into a disk, and cook it as a flat bread. It only takes a minute or two per side if you keep it thin & the pan's hot.
You can refrigerate it after it's baked, but you might want to warm it back up if you're going for a wrap-type sandwich, so it's flexible enough.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.664968
| 2013-07-09T07:05:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35187",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Dmg",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sherri",
"Sofia Paixão",
"SourDoh",
"TFD",
"dfeuer",
"grance",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83519",
"slim"
],
"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
}
|
5273
|
What is the purpose of sifting dry ingredients?
What is the purpose of sifting dry ingredients (esp. with flour)?
I heard in one place that it was because this is the best way to mix them well. I heard somewhere else that this is a carry-over from when flour used to still contain some chaff. What's the real reason? When does one still need to do this?
Fix Compacted Flour. Flour will compact over time (and during shipment). You could sift the flour to fluff it back up. Or, you could just stir it before measuring and be sure to spoon the flour into your measuring cup in order to get a correct volume measurement.
Remove Unwanted Material. Yes, sifting would also remove larger pieces or bits of chaff. It would also remove insects. However, neither of these are problems with modern store-bought flour. If you grind your own flour (my sister-in-law does this), then you may still want to sift it, though.
Mix Ingredients Together. Sifting can also be used to mix other dry ingredients into flour. I bake quite a bit, though, and I've never had a problem with just using a spoon or whisk to mix dry ingredients together.
In summary: don't bother. Just use good measuring techniques and stir your ingredients together well. No one likes a lump of baking powder lurking in a muffin!
I was baking once at my mom's housel, and the pantry was in her garage and subject to humidity and temperature swings. Unfortunately, bugs had gotten into the flour, and it was the last bag, so we sifted ... So occasionally it's still necessary, if you don't store things correctly. She didn't have a dedicated sifter, we just used a mesh strainer.
Sifting aerates the flour. This alters the texture of the finished good, resulting in a lighter, airier texture. This still has relevance today, and should be done when the recipe calls for it, but you can experiment freely on your own. Generally there is no need to sift when making bread, biscuits or scones. Delicate sponge or chiffon cakes using pastry or cake flour must be sifted given the proclivity for clumping these flours have.
You should be aware that pulsing your dry ingredients in a food processor is a bit more effective at aerating, as well as mixing the ingredients. It also requires much less effort.
Do you know of any examples of blind taste tests or other lab tests that demonstrate this change in consistency?
I use a whisk in a bowl to mix dry ingredients before adding them to wet ingredients when there's a huge difference in the volume between some of them. For example, adding a few teaspoons total of soda, salt, spices, etc., to two cups of flour. I think this does a good job of distributing the ingredients and I don't care much for using an actual sifter.
Also, for recipes that call for sifting flour, etc., before measuring by volume, you will get a vastly different amount of that ingredient compared to measuring without sifting it. You can cheat this by using weight instead of volume.
+1 for measuring by weight, and mentioning the difference in flour volume before and after sifting.
According to Cooks Illustrated:
Sifting flour or cocoa powder is a chore, but sometimes it is
important. When making a delicate cake like a sponge cake or genoise
that requires flour to be folded into beaten eggs and sugar, sifted
flour can be added quickly and distributed evenly (because sifting
aerates the flour), thereby reducing the risk of deflating the batter.
Recipes with cocoa powder, such as chocolate cake, also often call for
sifting the cocoa powder. In this case, sifting breaks up small clumps
of cocoa that form as the powder sits in the package. Sifted cocoa can
be evenly distributed throughout a cake batter; with unsifted cocoa
this isn’t always the case.
The main purpose of sifting of dry materials through a sieve is to remove all foreign particles or to break up lumps.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! As you can see from the answers, this isn't the only purpose.
To remove all dirt particles such as microbes from the dry ingredients
That would have to be a very fine sive indeed - microbes typically are not visible to the naked eye.
The flour is what falls through the sifter, so anything you want to remove has to be large enough to stay in. So... pretty big dirt/microbes!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.665385
| 2010-08-16T03:01:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5273",
"authors": [
"Abhi Jaki",
"Cascabel",
"Cathy",
"Chuck",
"David Perry",
"Dwayne Williams",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Joe",
"Joris",
"KatieK",
"Kelly Cape",
"Lori Foote",
"Mick Sear",
"Sara Gent",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"pb2q",
"wnight"
],
"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
}
|
22371
|
What are double-cut chops?
I was in a restaurant recently and the menu included "double-cut pork chop". The person I was with ordered this, but it looked like an ordinary pork chop to me. (I don't eat pork so I don't have a lot of experience with this -- just what I've seen others eat.) Google led me to speculation, but nothing authoritative, that they're thicker; one site said up to 20oz, but the menu in this restaurant said 10oz. (I also searched Seasoned Advice but didn't find anything.)
Are double-cut chops cut from a different part of the animal (more toward the center, maybe?), or is it just a wider cut from wherever the butcher was cutting anyway, or is the Google speculation wrong and it means something different? And is this term specific to pork, or are there other kinds of double-cut chops (e.g. lamb)?
The term "double" is not specific to pork - it's also used with lamb - but it means something different in each case.
A lamb double chop or loin double chop differs from a regular loin chop by including both the top loin and tenderloin, but not the flank. It hasn't actually been cut twice.
A pork butterfly chop is sometimes called a "double chop" because, as the name implies, it's been butterflied. A very thick cut is taken from the loin eye and then cut again to make the butterfly.
Of course, if you cut a butterflied pork chop in half, and served just one half, it would basically be a regular pork chop. So if you that's what you actually got, I'd call it a marketing gimmick.
I've never actually heard the term "double-cut chop" - there are some vague references to it on Google, but as far as I know, it's not a proper butchering term. Perhaps the term got relayed through several people and mutated somewhere along the way.
I don't know that I would accept calling it a 'marketing gimmick'. When I have seen a 'butterfly cut' demonstrated it was about maintaining consistent size and thickness. When I purchase a whole pork tenderloin I will start cutting them an inch thick, when the loin tapers I will begin to butterfly them so that when I pack two together they are very near the same size". Like you, I have never heard of 'double cut' but given what a butterfly cut is, it would make sense that they are the same thing.
@CosCallis: I didn't say that butterflying was a marketing gimmick, I said that it would be a marketing gimmick to advertise a "double" cut if they're only giving you half of it (which makes it a... single).
Double cut means it has TWO ribs attached, not that it's been cut twice!
What country are you from? This may be a cultural difference for the answer?
Actually, this is how I have heard "double chop" used as well. http://cdn.amazingribs.com/images/recipes/double_wide_lamb_chops2.jpg
I just ordered the double cut pork chop at a place called Houston's. It was about the size of a baseball and it had 3 ribs attached.
We try to focus on answering the question at hand here - I don't think the OP is likely to be too interested in details about the restaurant chain, just what a double cut pork chop actually is.
I've sometimes heard double-cut used to mean that one bone is included in the center, while all the meat up to the two adjacent bones is also included. That is, you cut against the right of bone 1 and the left of bone 3, leaving you with a chop with bone 2 in the middle, plus all the intercostal meat on both sides.
I thought it was the thickness of the chop. If you order pork chops they usually have 1 bone attached and about 1 inch thick. I recently ordered a double cut pork chop which had a normal size chop cut in two parts not butterflied. Just saying and from a chain restaurant.
Welcome to SA! You've answered an old question that already has an accepted answer, so you're unlikely to get much response to your answer. Try answering questions that are recent and/or unanswered.
I just found a recipe for “ 1 bone-in double-cut pork chop about 2” thick. It’s a recipe for two. I assume it’s a bone in chop, two bones 2” thick cut into two chops that will be 1” thick. Not sure why it doesn’t just call for two bone in chops. ♀️♀️
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! If you have a NEW question, please ask it by clicking the Ask Question button. If you have sufficient reputation, you may upvote the question. Alternatively, "star" it as a favorite and you will be notified of any new answers.
I'm going to leave this here because it does seem like you're speculating about a possible meaning of the term, rather than asking a question, but for what it's worth you might want to have a look at the other answers, which seem to go a little past speculation.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.665786
| 2012-03-18T17:47:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22371",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"AddicksAddict",
"Azra Yilmaz",
"Brenda",
"Cascabel",
"Cos Callis",
"FuzzyChef",
"Glorfindel",
"Katy",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"VIVIDKREATIONS",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92011"
],
"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
}
|
15940
|
How long can I keep thawed vacuum-packed fish in the fridge?
I know that for fresh fish, or fish that was previously frozen without special storage, you should use it the same day. If I thawed too much, does the fact that it was vacuum-packed add to the time I can safely keep it? Does it depend on the type of fish?
There's always the delight of botulism, which thrives in the anaerobic environment provided by vacuum packing. Listeria and vibrio bacteria can grow in an anaerobic environment, and are potential food safety risks present in fish.
With this in mind, I would not expect vacuum packing to extend the life of a fish much. It will reduce freezer burn though!
One day shouldn't provide enough time for botulism to be a concern when its refrigerated.
Does this also apply to vacuum-packed chicken breast?
It should also apply to vacuum-packed chicken breasts, although the primary culprits are different: salmonella and listeria, not vibrio (campylobacter is also associated with chicken food-borne illness, but requires small amounts of oxygen).
Apart from what Bob already mentioned, the enzymes of the fish will keep on working so the quality (independent of food safety) of the fish will go down rapidly over time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.666275
| 2011-07-04T16:36:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15940",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Bryson",
"Charles Duffy",
"Crystal Lee",
"Joy",
"Marcin Sakowicz",
"dbza",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"james S"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15971
|
What is the name for a chef's hat?
I would like to know what the long hat that chef's wear is called.
Toque is what Google/Wikipedia proffer but is it really that?
Yes, it is called a toque. I don't have a copy of CIA Pro Chef handy at the moment, but it was in the first chapter IIRC. Wikipedia and a casual googling will confirm this.
Toque is from French after the Spanish word toca; which is a word for various kinds of hat.
I think it's derived from "tocus" after the kind of people who wear chef hats.
"tocus" also refers to a very different body region.....
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.666416
| 2011-07-06T04:26:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15971",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Lisa Buck",
"Nathan",
"Peter",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17726
|
Are 'sweet' and 'mild' - Italian Sausage - the same thing?
Do they refer to the same kind? Or is there a subtle difference?
And what essentially encapsulates the concept of a sausage being sweet? Is it typical sucrose driven sweetness inherent to the product...or the resultant chemical aftertaste on consuming it?
Cooking geeks unite! We have a problem.
Both sweet and mild refers to the sausages without hot red pepper flakes. The fact they are called sweet Italian sausages doesn't mean they contain sugar.
But there is still a difference between sweet and mild, because some companies sell both a mild version and a sweet version of Italian sausage.
Sweet refers to the sweet basil that is not in the mild
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.666504
| 2011-09-14T02:50:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17726",
"authors": [
"Branko Tadic",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26117",
"pacoverflow"
],
"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
}
|
16016
|
Does caramelizing an onion increase its non-dietary fiber carbohydrates?
I'm on a low-carb diet and would like to know if caramelizing an onion increases its carbohydrate content. I'm primarily interested in "net carbs," so dietary fiber that's converted to sugar would qualify as increasing the carbohydrate content as far as I'm concerned.
Since dietary fiber is made mostly of cellulose that isn't broken down during cooking I don't think it should be an issue. The browning that occurs is from the proteins and sugars already in the onion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrition#Fiber
That makes sense, but why does the onion become sweeter then? Is it just that the sharpness of the onion is removed, leaving the underlying sweetness? Or is something converted into sugar (maybe starch? meaning no change is total carbs I suppose)?
Going off the cuff here, but IIRC sulfur compounds are what give onions their "heat" when raw and are contained within the cell walls. By breaking down the cell walls via heat these compounds are released thereby letting the underlying sweet sugars to be more pronounced. A good demonstration is if you taste some onion that has been steamed in the microwave versus some of the same onion raw. Even though there isn't caramelization, some of the sulfur compounds have been allowed to escape via the steaming process resulting in a sweeter taste.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.666596
| 2011-07-07T21:32:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16016",
"authors": [
"AaronN",
"Anthony DiSanti",
"Fasermaler",
"Jonas Stein",
"Nova",
"gasam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6706"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71744
|
Is there a basic ratio for dill pickle brine which will be safe for any vegetable?
I'm looking for a bare-bones dill pickle brine recipe (for safe canning, and long-term storage—not for refrigerator pickles). When I look online, I see all these really fancy recipes that try to jazz things up, but I don't see any basic recipes. How do you make basic dill pickle brine? I know I need to use water, vinegar, salt and dill, but I don't know the proportions. I would prefer not to use alum, if at all possible.
The brine will be for use with cucumbers, peppers, squash, okra and other things.
This is a recipe request, and therefore off-topic I'm afraid.
Recipe requests are indeed off topic, but questions about a basic ratio for something standard are OK. I edited the question to ask for that. I don't know if such a thing exists at all, because I doubt anybody will guarantee you that an existing brine which was laboratory tested with one vegetable will work with another one, but I've made wrong assumptions before, so let's see if somebody knows of such a thing.
You could worse than to start here http://nchfp.uga.edu/how/can_06/prep_foods.html but they are of the "tested recipe for each" mindset. Usually not all that jazzed up, and you could (I won't for you) review all the recipes for all the things you want to pickle and find the ones with the highest acid proportion to make your one-size-fits-all brine. Note that aside from canned and refrigerator pickles, there are also fermented pickles, where salt is important to retard bad bacteria until the lactic bacteria make enough acid to keep things safe.
Essentially, food pathogens cannot grow below 4.0 pH and vinegar is significantly more acidic that that. If you go here and scroll down a bit, there is a good, succinct explanation. They use brines of 38 and 44 percent vinegar "for taste and safety". With this basic information, it would be easy to create brines that are safe and suite your taste. You really don't need salt, sugar, spices or herbs for safety for vinegar pickles (though you do need salt for lacto-fermented pickles). The acidity alone will do it. Of course, you probably want your pickles to taste good, so those other ingredients will be necessary. I should also add, that the site I linked to adds a cook step. This makes the pickles safe immediately after cooking. Without a cook step, the pickles will become safe over time, as the vinegar permeates the product, but may not be safe immediately. It seems that the addition of a low temperature cook step is an interesting innovation that improves safety and the ability to maintain a crunchy product.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.666737
| 2016-07-29T07:15:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71744",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"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
}
|
45933
|
Why is it advised to freeze meat before eating as opposed to eating it fresh?
I am not sure, is it right to wrong "It is not good to eat meat just after killing, it should be stored and deep freezed for at least 24 hours". But I had heard same like this through national media. What could be the logic behind this ?
Could you give us an example of where you heard this? A link to a story perhaps? Safe handling of meat can vary widely between different cultures and types.
I belive, it was on the National Radio "Radio Nepal"
What kind of meat is it, maybe pork?
There are many kinds of pathogens in meat. One type are bacteria. They don't die from cold temperatures (not even freezing), but die from high heat. Unfortunately, heating the meat throughout so it's hot enough to kill all bacteria will turn it into a shoesole. So, meat is cooked to slightly lower temperatures which are capable of killing most, but not all bacteria. And the surface of the meat comes into contact with the pan, so it gets much hotter than the inside. Because the surface is where the bacteria are (they came onto the meat after it was butchered), they die in the hot pan.
But there are other pathogens beside bacteria. One class are parasites. They also die from high heat. But they don't sit on the surface of the meat, they were living inside the tissue of the animal before it was slaughtered. So, if you bring a contaminated steak to 55 Celsius internal temperature, but accidentally stick your thermometer in a too thin part of the meat - or don't use a thermometer and hope that you can judge meat doneness by feel - it can happen that a parasite snuggled in the thickest part survives. And some domestic animal parasites can also use the human as a host, causing all kinds of ugly health problems. A prime examples would be trichinosis, a disease caused by a pig parasite.
Parasites are rather rare in industrial food production, because there are ways to heal them in the living animal. You almost never get into contact with them, while each piece of meat you buy is teeming with disease-causing bacteria. So parasites are not in the spotlight of food safety, the typical rules are created to protect against bacteria. Given the lack of trichinosis epidemics lately, it seems to work.
But if there is a high chance that you get contaminated meat, you can consider freezing the meat. Unlike bacteria, parasites die when frozen solid, and stop being a danger to you.
I haven't heard of such a wave of advice in the media, it could be that there was a single high-profile case of parasite illness in your country, or that there has been a slowly growing epidemic. Or also that there always has been some danger due to the way animals are typically held (your description of eating right away reminds me of a family slaughtering pigs they raised themselves, in which case there is no vet inspecting the meat), but that consumer rights groups have started a media campaign to bring the situation into public attention.
Beside pork, there is high parasite risk in wild hunted game, as well as many kinds of sea food. Sheep can also carry some, but they are more likely to be in the organ meat, not the muscle (e.g. liver flukes). AFAIK, beef and chicken are not typical hosts to dangerous parasites. Update: As Mischa Arefiev points out, there is a type of tapeworm which lives in beef. Freezing is effective against it too.
About beef not being host. Beef tapeworm?
@MischaArefiev very good point, I have heard of it before, but didn't have it present in my internal list of food dangers.
Yeah,that could be a point. Many people are suffering from parasitic diseases in our country.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.666957
| 2014-07-28T11:02:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45933",
"authors": [
"DunceDancer",
"Hnouss",
"Jeanne Maire ",
"Leo",
"Mischa Arefiev",
"Spammer",
"Sujit Maharjan",
"Susan Laubach",
"Wanie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8486",
"john3103",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47482
|
What are different methods of preserving chillies?
I've been given three chilli plants:
Bulgarian Carrot
Jalapeño
Scotch Bonnet
I'm not going to be able to use them fresh before winter arrives.
What methods of preserving would be appropriate for chilli?
What would be the effect on them in terms of taste, texture etc.
Questions of the form "What can I do with [ingredient]" are off-topic because they are subjective and lead to a long list of suggestions without a way to select the one that "works". This is not compatible with Stack Exchange principles. Exceptions are made for ingredients not normally considered food. For more information, see http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/740
Hello BanksySan, I'm afraid you chose a topic which is not discussed here. We are a Stack Exchange site, and as such, we have rules against "list of X" questions, which is what this type of question is. You will have to choose by yourself what to do with your chillis. When you are preparing them, you are welcome to come and ask about any difficulties you might have with the preparation techniques - we give you advice on how to do something, but not lists of ideas what to choose to do.
I dunno, just asking what methods there are for long term preservation isn't so bad - there are just a few main options. But definitely if you're looking for specific recipes, not so good.
I'll reword the question, that might make it a wee bit less specific.
@BanksySan thank you for working on improving the question. But I still don't see what exactly you want to know. What do you mean by "affect the use"? Pickled chillies can be used in any recipe which calls for pickled chillies, and listing suggestions for dishes which call for pickled chillies is off topic under the original closing reason. Maybe you can better clarify what you want to know, what information you are missing, or what you are worried about? I'd be glad to reopen an improved version of the question, but it needs to be more clear.
OK, let me try again...
@BanksySan Yes, this edit removes the invitation for lists of what can be cooked with your chillies. Reopening.
Freezing
You can freeze hot peppers. Scotch Bonnet and other thin-walled varieties freeze particularly well, although thick-walled ones can be frozen as well. I think the recommended storage time is 6 months, but I know I've had ones that were fine after a year or so.
So long as you're going to be using them in slow cooked applications, you can just drop them in frozen. For other applications, they might be a little bit mushy.
If you want to cut them up, it's easiest to use a really sharp knife or scissors, and cut them up while they're still frozen.
Pickling
Pickling works better for thick-walled peppers, like the jalapeños. It will also affect the temperature, but as a function of time (the longer, the more mushy they get ... slower for the thicker walled varieties)
The vinegar gives a nice brightness to the peppers which may not be desired in all recipes.
You'll want to cut up the peppers before pickling, to ensure that the liquid gets to the flesh from both sides, but you can leave it in slabs to give more options for later.
Drying
I've had mixed luck with drying peppers, but it might be an issue with the local climate. It generally works better with thin-walled peppers.
Once you think they're dried, you'll want to put them in a tightly sealed glass jar and check for signs of condensation on the inside after a day ... if there's any, they're not dry enough to put away for long-term storage.
To use, you'll either have to pulverize them (to make your own version of 'crushed red pepper), or soak them to soften them up enough to use. You can cut up dried peppers into stripes fairly easily with scissors before soaking, but dicing is a bit of a pain.
Just to add that when cutting up Scotch bonnets, whether with knife or with scissors, it's a good idea to hold the pepper with either a fork or a gloved hand. You don't want to get much juice on your fingers.
@PeterTaylor : the advantage of scissors in this case is that you can hold it by the stem, avoiding much of the problems. (but still wash your hands afterwards ... my stepfather once gave me some, and I didn't know they were as strong as habaneros)
I really like Joe's answer. My preferred method for long term storage of any kind of pepper is to freeze it. But, in every case I can think of (that's a lot), the peppers benefit from being roasted and peeled before freezing.
Thick walled peppers do well roasting in the oven or charred on the gas stove; then steaming loose the skins by putting the whole, hot (temperature-wise) pepper into something air-tight. Like this: The Kitchn
Smaller, thin walled peppers also are better frozen after they have been roasted and peeled. Check this out! I'm pretty happy with the results of this experiment: Roasting smaller, thinly skinned peppers - removing peel
Don't lose sight of fermentation as a preservation process. It is the method used to make Tabasco sauce, for example.
How do I do that?
try this: http://www.thejoykitchen.com/recipe/fermented-louisiana-style-hot-sauce
I personally think that pickling chillies is the best method as this retains the chilli "taste" and not just the heat as when dried or flaked. I tend do use green chilli's as I feel they have more flavour. A simple pickling recipe is best, so as to not destroy the flavour with too many other spices or ingredients.
Here is a site showing different methods of preserving chillies
I grew a lot of scotch bonnet pepoers and my neighbor suggested freezing them whole. When I am ready to use then in a sause, beans, rice etc., I take out what I need, put them in a plastic bag take a hammer and hammer them until they are crushed. Then you can shake the amount you want into the food you are preparing. I made spaghetti sause the other day using the peppers and it gave the sause a great flavor. The next day it was even better.
interesting ... and likely easier than my way of using scissors or taking a knife to 'em.
I think freezing is the option . I have tried it and it doesn't affect the texture and taste when added to food.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.667296
| 2014-09-27T15:42:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47482",
"authors": [
"BanksySan",
"Cascabel",
"Diane Hickman",
"Eric Suter",
"George Williams",
"Jessie Ortiz",
"Joe",
"London Pate",
"Nestor Magnata",
"Peter Taylor",
"Rafael Dean",
"Rebel Flower Photography",
"Teresa Buelin",
"Therbia P.",
"Tina Fellner",
"Whitney Liem",
"Wilderness Living",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"judson coester",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57518
|
How to increase the perceived sweetness of homemade lemonade without sweeteners?
I have been making homemade lemonade for a few years in the summer and slowly, starting from an online recipe, I have been perfecting it (on a mainly trial and error basis) to reduce the amount of caster sugar I put into it, the recipe thus far is:
4 M-S lemons or 3 L
1 orange
90g caster sugar
1l water
I clean and zest the orange and lemons and set the zests to simmer for 2 mins (in as much water as needed to just cover them) while i squeeze the juice of all the citrus fruits. I boil 600ml of the water while keeping the other 400 cold. Into the boiling water I place the caster sugar and then the juices followed by the simmered water (straining the zest peels) and finally the cold water on top and let it to rest.
This adds enough sugar to curb the lemony sourness (which personally I don't mind) and adds some sweetness to it all. I like the addition of the sweeter orange to the mix too.
I was wondering if any of you have advice on how to maybe reduce the sugar further and find an alternative way to curb the sourness just enough to have the pleasant lemony flavour and yet achieve a nice level of sweetness.
I don't want to use any traditional sweetener: neither a different form of sugar, nor an artificial sweetener. Are there ingredients or methods which will nevertheless increase the perceived sweetness of the drink and allow me to further reduce the sugar content?
Hello Fiztban, I have to close the question in its current form. "Natural" or "healthy" is not something we can use as a criterion, so I could throw out this part of the question, which leaves "how to make lemonade sweet" and the answer will be "Add any sweetener". If you need some more information, and have some other constraint than "I want to add a healthy sweetener", you can edit the question and we can reopen. As it is, I don't see much point of having it open after we remove the health constraint.
Ok I see its a sort of fair point... what I meant to say was any other sweetening ingredients like vanilla or elderflower maybe. I don't know if that is enough of a criterion either then?
@fizban OK, this opens a different can of worms (in the sense that the perception of nonsweet ingredients as "sweetening" is individual) but I think we can experiment with that. I'll edit and reopen the question, let's see what kind of answers appear.
I got rid of the references to "natural" and "healthy" while stating your objective constraint (as far as I understood it; I assume "natural" means you don't want standard artificial sweeteners such as saccharine). Is this OK so? You can edit it further if I got it wrong, the point is to formulate it in a way such that we don't get lists of "use honey, that's good for you" style answers.
Miracle berry? (although I don't know if you can mix it into things, or just have to eat it first).
Much appreciated for your help in better framing the question @rumtscho
@Joe I hadn't heard of this ingredient so far I will investigate
@Joe ah yes I had heard of this berry, it is hard to come across and if put into the lemonade it might not actually act as expected as the miraculin would have to coat the tongue for it to take effect, its an interesting idea and I don't see many references of anyone trying it in combo with the lemonade, also they are hard to come by unfortunately but I will keep it in mind for a day I do find them
It might be possible to get the 'lemony flavor' simply from the zest (and make sure to beat it up some to get as much oil as possible released), and thus reduce the amount of lemon juice which has the sourness ... but it's possible that the refreshingness of the lemonade comes from the acid / sourness and thus may defeat the benefit of a low-sugar lemonade.
Well I guess I have only known the one way to obtain the zest and that is as written above, I will read up on this. The good bit of the lemonade is all the alkali minerals present within its juice that also help refresh your body as far as I know. So yeah it seems once cant get away from adding sugar to it right?
It's very hard to get away from using sugar entirely - in addition to flavor it also contributes to the texture or mouthfeel of the lemonade - but I added some suggestions below to try.
The answer is "magic," because there is no other real way to add sweetness without adding sweeteners. Using salt to reduce sourness is basically the only non-insane answer possible to this question.
Lemonade is of course all about balancing the sweet and the sour. It stands to reason that if you're trying to amp up the sweetness, you can either add more sugar (the opposite of the goal here) or reduce its opposite, the sour.
Reducing both sugar and the acid is equivalent to diluting your lemonade, so one of the first things you could try is simply adding more water. However, that will give you a more diluted and less flavorful end product overall, so let's assume that you're trying to avoid that as well.
With that as the goal, here are two things I would try:
Your method as written involves simmering the citrus peels in water. It's a good notion to extract as much flavor as you can from the peels, but water isn't the best means to extract that flavor; it's actually the sugar. The reason is that many of the flavorful essential oils aren't water-soluble, at least not on their own. Instead, try placing the peels in a non-reactive bowl and pouring the sugar over them. Muddle (i.e. gently crush) the peels to break their cells and release some of the oils. Then let the sugar stand and absorb some of those oils for 30-45 minutes. This is known in geeky cocktail circles as creating an "oleo-saccharum" and is an essential step in making really good, authentic punch, the goal being to get as much citrus flavor as possible. After the resting period, add the sugar and peels into your boiling water, stir until the sugar dissolves, and then strain out the peels from the finished syrup. With this method, you will get more citrus flavor overall, so you could dial back the juice slightly to taste in order to get a sweeter end result with the same citrusy profile.
This sounds counter-intuitive, but try adding a very small amount of salt to the lemonade. I would say about a small pinch to 1/8 tsp in a full 1-liter batch, but you'll have to tweak for your preference. With such a small amount, you won't actually taste the salt, but you will notice its effect. Salt has a suppressive perceptual effect on both sourness and bitterness, and adding a small amount to a solution that is both sweet and sour (like lemonade) will dial down the perception of sourness. Here's a previous answer that I wrote on this same effect related to suppressing bitterness, but the effect is similar. Here's a chart that provides a great summary; the second line from the left shows the perception of sweet vs. sour, and the fourth shows what happens when you add salt. Notice that the perception of sweetness stays nearly the same, while the perception of sourness lowers significantly. It's a neat trick!
There are probably more exotic and interesting methods, but these are where I'd start.
First of all thank you for your comprehensive reply, it is much appreciated. I will be applying these very neat tricks and get back on my results in the coming weeks. The knowledge you have shared has made see the process much more clearly from a chemical point of view.
Hello again, after experimenting and thinking about it I have a new question that maybe your expertise may answer and I would highly value your input given how helpful your answer here was. Thanks in advance, the link is http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57885/what-is-the-difference-in-flavour-between-the-zest-of-an-orange-vs-lemon-vs-lime
I don't know when this will be practical for home cooking, but there's a recent report out that sweetness is greatly affected by volatiles in the fruit, and that the 'perceived sweetness' isn't always directly related to the amount of sugar in an item:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150610-the-smells-that-make-sweet-sweeter
You're already using oranges, but adding the zest (not pith), and maybe some strawberry juice (which is ranks high in perceived sweetness for the grams of sugar in it) might help you to reduce the overall sugar required.
Due to the way neurology works, you don't need to consume sweet stuff to feel a sweet taste. Eating something which has a strong aroma associated with sweetness will also be perceived as sweet.
This is why you can use strong aromatics which are almost always (in Western cultures) consumed in an overly sweet setting. This will be vanilla, and also flower petals. Elderflower, rose (the oil type) and acacia have a strong smell which already feels sweet when you are around the plant without having anything touch your tongue. They make great syrups and jams, and go well with sour tastes. I'd say try to add them. It will not be pure "lemon"ade any more, but it will certainly have a nice flavor profile and can feel satisfactory sweet with reduced sugar.
Some of these aromas will be very dissonant (bitter, harsh, musty, medicinal, adstringent...) with an unsweetened, sour liquid.... OK, you got me to do a simple experiment. Result: A teaspoon of pure rose water is like drinking aftershave.
Maybe this is unrelated to the experience of lemonade's sweetness, but I know some people who really enjoy nutmeg in their lemonade. I'm not sure if something like that would seem worth trying, but I figured maybe it was worth sharing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.668083
| 2015-05-15T13:54:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57518",
"authors": [
"Alva Muhammad",
"Fergal O' Connor",
"Fiztban",
"Frank",
"Gary Ordo",
"Gloria Yard",
"Joe",
"Mary Johnson",
"Natalia Sjardin",
"Sandy Olson",
"Steven Patske",
"Sue Mill",
"Tony Sellon",
"goblinbox",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"logophobe",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37973
|
Would it be advisable to partially pre-grill hamburgers and freeze so that they can be pan fried when a customer orders?
I have a small restaurant and we serve hamburgers. But we are trying to speed up service and thinking of ways to do that. We don't have a commercial grill, so heating up a grill takes too much time. I thought that it might give our hamburgers the benefits of a grill (marks, smokey flavor) if we grilled both sides of the patty for a minute each and then freeze them. Then, when a customer orders a burger, just grab one patty from the freezer and pan fry it the rest of the way. Could that possibly turn out well? If so, any tips or tricks?
My intuition says no, but I cannot think of a reason based on the food science that this shouldn't be.... erm... feasible. Why not try it with one or two burgers for family meal and find out?
I understand the challenges of running a small restaurant, I've experienced the extremes of the problems. During tourist season I always hired help, but during winter it was just me - Bartender, waitress, cook, dishwasher, bookkeeper, janitor - you name it. Occasionally buses would pull up and unload 30 people on me at once, of course I was never prepped for that. I had some tricks up my sleeve just for that occurrence.
As far as par-cooking your burgers in advance, don't do it. You will lose juiciness, I know this from experience. Besides, if you fully cook par-cooked burgers from frozen, you're really not saving any time after they're ordered. Grill marks don't matter, you don't see them anyway. You're much better off being sure that the patties are of excellent quality to begin with.
The scope of your question is such that all I can really say is, "Don't do it." I do have about about a gazillion things I could share with you that might help speed up your service, minimize waste and put out a great product. Meet me in chat, I'm here quite a bit. You could also write questions that are a bit more broad. I'd love to help in a meaningful way.
How 'bout asking, "How can I speed up service?" and lay out your particular issues? This much I can say: rotation is everything and caramelized onions are your very best friend.
+1 for the comment on grill marks -- unless you're serving them open face, most people are never going to see them.
This is where low temperature cooking (most people call is sous vide, but it is usually a misnomer) can be your friend. You could cook the burgers until done. Chill. Then flash off on grill or even in fryer before service.
We do large BBQ events for construction companies and need 350 burgers done and served in 15 min. We cook to an internal temperature of 155 and then store in beef stock in the fridge. We then toss on the bbq to bring up to temperature.
So basically, refrigerated, not frozen? (and kept in beef stock so they don't dry out). And fully cooked, not partially cooked
If the main issue is speed, consider cooking two thinner patties vs. one thick burger. It's easier to overshoot medium rare, but for the more well done burger it'll dramatically speed up your cooking time.
You can also heat a second smaller pan or a cast-iron press, and drop that on top to help speed up the cooking.
(personally, for home, I'll make patties and freeze them raw, but cook them on a sandwich press ... so it cooks from both sides at once. For a restaurant, you might not have the space to deal with extra appliances, and you'd still have to wait for it to pre-head)
We par cook lots of things, often up to about 90% done: chicken drumsticks, sausages, meatballs, and meat patties (hamburgers?)
They are not exactly the same as freshly cooked, but in their normal serving style (covered in sauce, and between other things) they are not noticeable. The freezing/reheating process tends to render out more fat is the main observation
Test some out, and see if you would stand by them in your establishment
I think a better sauce and a better bun are worth more investment to get customer satisfaction
Ohh, and a really tasty slice of beetroot too :-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.668936
| 2013-10-29T03:42:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37973",
"authors": [
"Blake",
"Charlene Black",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Julie",
"Megan Popple",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SHUBHAM MISHRA",
"Siewe Ess",
"SimplyTech",
"Tracey Solberg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89424",
"nona"
],
"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
}
|
30757
|
Lining a frying pan with aluminum foil to reduce post-cooking cleanup?
I make a lot of stir fry in my frying pan, and I hate cleaning it up. Often, if I do not clean the pan immediately, the stir fry residue (little pieces I have failed to scooped out when moving the food from pan to plate) sticks to the bottom, and I need to soak the pan for a while before I can wash it.
Is there any danger/argument against lining the inside of the pan with aluminum foil, and cooking the stir fry on top of that foil? That way I would not have to clean the pan after removing my food -- I could just take off the foil and throw it out.
If your having to clean up a significant sticky mess I think you are probably not stir frying at a high enough temperature or using the correct pan for the job.
Can I ask why this question was downvoted? I believed it to be a legitimate question with very few answers on the internet. I have no dish washer and was wondering if this could be a quick way to clean up after cooking.
@JSW189 I think sometimes people just downvote questions they think have really obvious answers, especially when the answer is "no, that's a bad idea."
Cast iron? I pour in an inch of hot water and bring to boil; soaking bit if necessary. Scrape or 2, pour off and wipe with paper towel.
@PatSommer I do deglaze in the cast iron once in a blue moon to get precious fond off the skillet, but cleanup I heat up a small amount of oil and dump in salt and agitate crusty, burnt bits loose then wipe them out.
Lining with foil works well with cooking methods like baking or broiling, where the food is not stirred or manipulated much, and so the foil can sit undisturbed.
With stir frying, you are quite likely to break through the foil while doing the stirring, and have to clean up fully in any case. Also, you probably would not get as good a stir fry due the thin layer of insulating air between the pan surface and the food.
This is not something I would try.
I agree. You are more likely to end up with bits of aluminum foil that you'll have to dig out of your dish
It's even worse than this - when you break a hole in it, a bit of stuff will get through and burn onto the pan, since it'll just be a small amount and the pan will be hotter than normal. This should be familiar if you've ever roasted things on foil and had a bit leak through.
I'd also be worried about the temperature; while aluminum foil can withstand even the highest conventional oven temperatures, the contact temperature of a fry pan or wok on high heat, depending on the type of stove (e.g. gas), could quite possibly melt the foil and/or cause some nasty reactions with the food. Foil is pretty resilient but that doesn't mean it's a good idea to leave it in direct conductive contact with the primary heat source...
Aluminum melts at 1220 F / 660 C. I would love to have a home burner that even had a chance :-)
worse, the gunk that accumulates between the foil and the surface of the pan will make the foil very hard to remove, making the cleanup job much harder than had the foil not been there at all.
@SAJ14SAJ did research on that now almost 20 years ago. A burner in a home gas stove can heat the steel surface of the stove directly around it to over 1000C. The inside of your pan won't reach that high, but don't underestimate the power of those burners.
Can I suggest that may not have a properly seasoned wok? If you have a proper carbon steel wok, this video will show you the method. You need an oil with a really high burning point or else it can discolor your steel, you also need extremely high heat, and to keep your meat and vegetables in constant motion. Lastly, give your wok an oil coating after you have cleaned it and are ready to store it. I find that the cleanup is always really easy.
While this may be good advise, does it actually answer the original question?
@SAJ14SAJ When someone asks "How do I do B in order to avoid A?" it's fair to tell them other ways to avoid A - though of course, both your answer and this one assume the OP is using a wok when it sounds like it's probably just a frying pan.
@Jefromi But in that case, one should say why B is not a good idea... and you are right, I should change the word wok. Not sure if the question was edited later or I just missed that since the question now explicitly says that they are using a frying pan.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.669300
| 2013-02-07T17:36:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30757",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"AdamO",
"Brendan",
"Cascabel",
"David Dickey",
"E Birdy",
"Elsie Collins",
"Hendri Ariansah",
"JSW189",
"Jay Moore",
"Pat Sommer",
"ProBaker",
"Rich",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75762",
"jpobst",
"jwenting",
"kennysong"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37360
|
What is the definition of a cup of coffee
My wife and I had a discussion in regards of my consumption of coffee during office hours. Health gurus always talk about a maximum amount of coffee during a day - measured in cups!
But what is the definition of 1 cup of coffee, and how much coffee is one cup?
We have several types of cups etc. at the office and at home, so its hard to know how many "cups" I drank over the day!
Perhaps the solution is to ignore health advice from someone who can't express it in proper units? I'm sure you can find recommendations in terms of mg of caffeine if you look hard enough...
Is your question not answered by this previous one? http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25041/is-a-cup-on-a-coffee-maker-always-6-oz-is-this-a-standard-in-the-us?lq=1
@Jefromi: I'm not sure if the question is really even specific to coffee. A cup of coffee is the same as a cup of tea or a cup of water. It's a standard measurement.
@Aaronut No, see the other question - a cup of coffee is apparently 6oz, i.e. not a cup. (Of course, I'm not sure which one these unnamed gurus meant.)
@PeterTaylor health advice in terms of mg of caffeine sounds more precise, but in reality, there is a huge variation in the amount of caffeine per volume unit of coffee depending on the bean caffeine content and the preparation technique, so still not very helpful.
@Aaronut : tea "cups" are frequently 5oz (a little smaller than a coffee cup). Look up sizes of water kettles, and compare the size in liters, oz or quarts vs. the number of 'cups' they claim it'll make. Here's one that mentions '8 cups' and '40 oz'
A search for "one cup of coffee contains" is informative: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22one+cup+of+coffee+contains%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 The caffeine content of the mythical standard cup of coffee varies from 65 to 150 mg caffeine; and that's just on the first page of results. The 'standard' is not very much of a standard at all.
Setting aside the matter of "standard" strength, the posted answers only address serving sizes as defined by coffee producers, coffee maker manufacturers and restaurant chains, and of course they are all different, but none answer the question of concern: what is the "cup" size used when numbers are quoted in health studies? Such numbers and the studies reporting them are meaningless unless I can relate them into the actual amount I am consuming.
The most common global standard for recipe and marketing purposes** is 150 ml (5 oz), with a caffeine content around 100 mg. This commonly refers to instant, filter, or drip coffee, or a mixed espresso coffee like a latte
Coffee is traditionally served in a smaller cup than other hot beverages, mainly due to strength and expense. For example, an Italian espresso cup is around 30 to 60 ml (1 to 2 oz) in size, with a caffeine content a little more then 100 mg
Some references
http://www.ico.org/caffeine.asp
http://www.scaa.org/?page=resources&d=cupping-standards
** e.g. marketing description of a "6 cup coffee maker" refers to 6 x 150 ml cups
I wouldn't call this standard "global", for example in countries with Ottoman kitchen traditions, this is a terribly large cup. And I think that in Italy, it is also considered a "large" or "American" size. I can imagine that it is common in the English-speaking countries.
I disagree that it's smaller than other hot beverages ... standard tea "cup" is 5oz, standard coffee "cup" is 6oz.
@rumtscho smaller than 150 ml cups often have different names, like "espresso cup", the standard cup used for reference purposes usually comes out at 150 ml, yes some USA makes use large cups, buts that's hardly surprising. Check the marketing material of modern coffee makers
@TFD Again, this seems to be a language- or region-specific custom. My grandma's coffee cups are all under 100 ml (I believe 80). And no, they are not for espresso, they are for Turkish coffee, which is called simply "coffee" throughout the Balkan. There, it would be the larger portions/cups which get a different name. It is all up to the most common type/size in a given region: whatever it is, it is called "coffee", and the other types get different names.
@rumtscho The was a bad edit, original entry had just 'coffee'
In the US, generally a "cup" of coffee is six ounces. Unfortunately, that still doesn't answer your concerns as the strength of coffee varies widely. Is a "cup" on a coffee maker always 6 oz? Is this a standard in the US?
A standard cup according to the Specialty Coffee Association of America is defined as 8.25 grams of roasted coffee beans in 150 ml of water.
I think this is your source. It's not totally clear they actually mean that 150mL is a standard cup; they just describe that as a ratio, and then provide a standard for adjusting for vessel size, and say that "cupping vessels" shall be 7-9 fluid ounces (207 to 266 mL).
Hello Pedram, I just approved an edit that removed the caffeine suggestions. The reason is that nutrition is off-topic on the site. You can learn more about our scope in the help center, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic.
I think this is a valid answer. They say "when adjusting for vessel size" which, to me, implies that a standard "cupping" is 150 ml and 8.25 grams.
It's not the size of the cup, it's the amount of coffee in it. But if you want a more objective answer, things start to get murky because different coffee experts define a cup different things depending on their agenda.
Most of the big-name percolator companies including KitchenAid, Bunn, Mr. Coffee, etc. advertise a "cup of coffee" as being 5-oz. because it makes their coffee pots seem larger.
Folgers says a "cup of coffee" is 6 oz. because they work with these percolators, but they want people to use more coffee grounds.
Starbucks sells cups of coffee at 8 oz. at the lowest because what do they care? They want to make customers happy.
It gets even more muddled when you start getting into commercial urns and percolators who consider a cup anywhere between the demitasse size of 2 ounces to the imperial size of 8 ounces.
It's actually a very controversial topic. There are some camps who believe that a cup is 5 ounces always and there are other camps who think we should only go by the 8-ounce cup for simplicity.
If you're interested, there's more information about the debate here: http://www.jesrestaurantequipment.com/jesrestaurantequipmentblog/coffee-carafe-sizing/
Hello. This is an interesting viewpoint you are bringing into the discussion. I must note that we are a purely culinary site, and we don't discuss nutrition or make health claims. This is why I removed a sentence from your post. The rest is a good first post - welcome to Seasoned advice!
It's amazing how often the answer boils down to "it depends." Thanks for giving the complete picture!
Drip percolators (the kind on many/most kitchen counters in the US) usually count a cup as between 4.5 - 6 oz. So, a 10-cup coffee machine brews 60 ounces (depending on the brand). If you pour those 60 ounces into the also very common 12-oz 'to-go cup' (or cofee mug, for that matter), you have 5 servings.
As you see in the other answers, there are different kinds of coffee and different kinds of cups (the ones I just mentioned are not the standard-measure 8 ounce cups).
I'm not sure what a health guru is, but I have seen claims of the reverse - that more coffee is healthier. I'm inclined to agree.
Short version:
Effective July 16, 2016 in the US, the official serving size of a cup of coffee is 12 ounces.
Long version:
For purposes of nutritional labeling, the US Food and Drug Administration has set "Reference amounts customarily consumed (RACC) per eating occasion" for common foods.
The official reference amount for a sweetened cup of coffee was 8 ounces (240 mL).
Interesting, that black coffee has no reference amount. I believe that black coffee is exempt from nutrition labeling (and reference amounts) because black coffee has scant nutritional value.
You notice I stated "was 8 ounces." Effective July 16, 2016, the official description of a cup of coffee will be 12 ounces (21 CFR 101.12 it's about a quarter way down the page).
The Federal Register entry announcing the change said:
Since that time, consumption patterns have changed so that the RACC for some beverages has increased from 8 oz to 12 oz. Because the consumption amount has increased for certain beverages, such products for which the RACC has increased may appropriately no longer be able to make ‘‘free’’ claims. As noted previously, we intend to consider in a future rulemaking issues such as whether any changes in eligibility for claims would assist consumers in constructing healthy diets and whether the criteria for claims remain appropriate.
I did a small measurement on my Mr. Coffee pot and got between 5.2 - 5.5 U.S. fluid ounces per "cup", definitely not the six. I then looked at the instruction manual for a Mr. Coffee coffee maker, and it says one "cup" is equal to 5 ounces.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.669734
| 2013-10-06T12:44:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37360",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Anthony X",
"Caleb",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Bergin",
"Christine Schoenwald",
"Darshan",
"Héctor van den Boorn",
"Iii",
"Joe",
"Kevin Richard",
"Pauline Gebbie",
"Peter Taylor",
"Sheri Stinnett",
"TFD",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87986",
"rumtscho",
"steveha",
"user87845"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108477
|
How can I get cuts of beef I recognize when in Italy
Almost five years ago, my husband and I retired to the Abruzzo region of Italy from the U.S. I've made a lot of cooking adjustments, but beef cuts have me beaten. I want steaks and roasts. Research has helped very little. Dialect gets in the way in villages and I'm a long way from the closest large city, Roma. Photos are met with quizzical looks. The closest we have gotten is "girello", from the shoulder. I want top round, sirloin tip roasts, and NY strip, T-bone, and rib-eye steaks. The only time I sort of got what I wanted was when I recognized a piece of meat that resembled a filet, but it was huge and there was no "mignon" about it. It was good, but pretty expensive. I have seen few cuts with marbling, but a lot of stringy tendons. They don't seem to cut meat in the same direction I'm used to seeing. We have a good butcher who is willing but doesn't seem to be able to help. I welcome any suggestions as to how I can shop without being so frustrated. Thank you for any assistance.
This is going to come down to comparing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cut_of_beef#Italian_cuts with whichever other country you are most familiar with. A bit much to try squeeze into an answer.
Indeed US butchery is quite different from UK/European.
Seems you will be there a while, why not learn the names of the Italian cuts and their uses?
Your willing but unhelpful butcher is not just being awkward. If Italian butchery produces different cuts from US butchery, he could only help you by breaking down a whole or half carcass to your specification, he can't just create your preferred cuts (which he might not even be familiar with) without knock on effects for the rest of the process for that carcass. He's only going to create what he has a market for. Offer to buy a whole or half beast butchered to US cuts, if he is game to try, and freeze it all.
You might trying bringing a picture of a cow, and point to the areas that you're looking for. You won't get the exact same cut but you might get the right muscles that you can then cut down to steaks or whatever you're looking for.
@Spagirl you wouldn't necessarily have to go as far as a half/quarter carcass; but would probably end up having to take whatever odd bits and pieces were found between the US and Italian cuts as ground or stew chunks.
As an Italian following both Italian and American cooking channels on YouTube, I can feel you, I wouldn't mind some changes in the cuts to have a better variety of steaks.
Can you order vacuum-packed meat from the USA?
As someone who has moved from the US to another country I can relate and have some general advice. Rather than spending time trying to find the US equivalent of something try to take advantage of what's good and plentiful locally. If there's something you desperately miss there's always an online store to help, the trick is not to miss those things as much.
I wrote a meat app years ago and did a lot of research as I wanted to make an equivalents table for meat cuts across the world. I gave up because it was impossible: cuts are very different from country to country, there may be no exact equivalent for what you are looking for. Instead I would suggest you try a different approach by describing what you want out of the meat and how you plan to cook it and relying on the butcher to give it to you. Rather than saying 'New York Strip' tell the butcher you want a tender cut for charcoal gilling, for example.
This. When in Rome...
Yes @J... , when in Rome try not to get ripped off ;)
Would it help to compare these two graphics from Wikipedia side by side to find the correct butcher term?
As we can see, the Italian graphic has 19 distinct areas, while the American graphic only has 12 (I don't know how many "special cuts" are omitted though). As others have said, there are cultural differences here, so you might never get a New York strip or short ribs in Italy whatsoever, as they just cut up their cattle differently.
On a personal note, I have noticed that compared to Austria and Germany (I'm from Austria), meat in general in Italy seems to be more tendon-y and less cleaned up when you buy it.
Finally, if you do want a nice T-bone/porterhouse, might I suggest to order some "bistecca fiorentina" (just "Fiorentina" would be enough to be understood). Those are massive steaks that easily weigh in at 800-1500g (1.8 to 3.3 pounds) a piece. A good butcher should be able to get that for you no problem.
I think your goal can't be reached. This is not a mere language problem - it is just that there is no market in Italy for the products you want.
There are people to whom the difference won't matter, but from your question, it seems that you have very strict expectations of your meat, and care about small differences in taste and texture. This is not a good or bad thing on its own, but can become a hindrance for you when you set standards which cannot be met.
First, if the difference was only in how the meat is cut, you would still be extremely hard pressed to find what you wanted. I don't think that supermarkets cut their own meat, even when displayed in a vitrine as opposed to being sold prepackaged. Specialized butchers are not that widespread, and when you can find one, that butcher has no incentive to make the cuts you like - it would involve learning new skills, disrupting his business process, and having leftover pieces which the other customers don't recognize and don't ask for. That's much more trouble than one customer is worth.
Second, the assumption that it is only the way the cow is cut up is an oversimplification that doesn't hold in reality. Animals taste differently depending on many factors, including their breed, food, physical and social environment, age at slaughter, and there are even theories about their emotional state during the slaughter. These factors differ between cattle raised in different countries - partly because of convenience and available resources, partly because of laws, partly because of tradition, and partly because of customer preferences. So, a cow coming out of the American meat industry won't taste the same as a cow coming out of the Italian meat industry, even if you had a butcher cut it up into the same pieces.
So, instead of concentrating on your wish to have a product for which is no supply and no demand where you live, my suggestion is that you find strategies where you work with the product available. Else you are headed up for endless frustration.
You can also add ageing of the meats, which have very different traditions in different places. In France, beef is really red. In the UK, you'll see beef that has been aged a lot more and is brown on the outside (which would seem inedible and far past its use by date by most people in France). Don't know what the traditions are in Italy or the US in that respect.
@jcaron Very much agree- aging is a huge deal there. In the US, most meat is probably slightly more aged than France but not much; but we have "dry aged" meat also that is more like the UK meat. ("Wet aged" is what we call the first kind, which is where a cut is vacuum packed at a central location and then given a week or so to age during transit.)
I'd also add that the way the cattle are raised and finished has a huge impact on the meat. Your beef may seem dry because Italian cattle spend less time being fattened on grain.
They taste different. Not differently. It's an adjective here. "Animals taste differently" means there is a difference between the way animals taste things.
@user91988 This is why fish and dog taste so very differently. A dog tastes with its nose, but fish don't have noses. :)
Have you considered looking up/learning how to butcher a carcass in the American style and then requesting a half carcass from your butcher?
You could then butcher it as you desire and freeze the results.
Not only will you then get the results you desire, but it may also make it easier to subsequently explain what you want from butchers in the future.
And a link on how to break down half a cow the US way : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrOzwoMKzH4
I like this idea from a technical and educational perspective, but I'm also trying to picture my kitchen workspace, wrangling a half carcass, and what the kitchen would look like afterwards... O.o (Really just means I need a better kitchen, though.)
This article has some translations of cuts from US terminology to Italian. Some of these I've never seen in Italy though. Rib-eye (entrecôte) and T-bone (fiorentina) are common though, at least in Tuscany.
I have a suggestion. I am assuming your Italian is good.
Take a trip to English-speaking countries with large Italian expat communities. Like the US; go to New York, Boston, etc.
Go to Italian neighborhoods and find the local butchers. Walk in and speak Italian. Ask for advice. If you find butchers who were butchers in the Italy before moving the US, you could ask their advice. Undoubtedly they would be familiar with your "question."
Having been in similar situations in the past, I can tell you either the US expatriate community already has this available in Italy or you have just discovered a hole in the market that could be very lucrative.
I don't know the Italian scene but where I live in central Europe there are websites dedicated to English speaking expatriates, who either don't wish to integrate or purchase products out of nostalgia. Try looking for the Italian expat suppliers and city US style restaurant suppliers. Is there a tgi Fridays?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.670469
| 2020-05-19T12:50:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108477",
"authors": [
"Andrew Morton",
"Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight",
"Erica",
"GdD",
"J...",
"Joe",
"Joe M",
"Paulie_D",
"Spagirl",
"Tetsujin",
"arp",
"bracco23",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9036",
"jcaron",
"moscafj",
"tchrist",
"user91988"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25041
|
Is a "cup" on a coffee maker always 6 oz? Is this a standard in the US?
Our coffee maker instructions often refer to a "cup" of coffee. These cups are whats marked on the side of the coffee maker showing how much water is in the reservoir. The instructions never define what a "cup" actually equates to. It appears to about 6 oz. An old coffee maker seems to also have had this definition of "cup". The coffee beans we got from the local coffee shop also have instructions indicating one scoop of beans per 6 oz cup.
To be clear -- Is a "cup" to a coffee maker always 6oz? and therefore it has nothing to do with the Imperial unit "cup" which is 8oz? Its more a notion of a typical serving size of coffee?
Given the cultural variation in coffee preparation, it would be useful to make your context explicit. (I presume it's the USA, since you're talking about ounces, but one can never be sure).
My Keurig coffee make has markings for small, medium, and large cup. They are equivalent to 6oz, 8oz, and 10oz respectively.
And remember US and UK fluid ounces are slightly different.
If you buy a boxed set of place settings, they come with these teeny little coffee/tea cups that collect dust at the back of your cupboard. For some reason, these useless things have become the standard size for coffee, even though no one uses them.
Coffee Pots in the USA are pretty universally 5oz. This is true for the 1970s Mr Coffee brand maker I have in my closet as well as the Cuisinart we have at work. Fill the carafe to 12 "cups", then pour into a proper measuring container. You'll get 60oz, not 72oz. You're expected to serve in a 6oz mug with 1oz of head space so you don't spill.
Here's some more info: http://www.jesrestaurantequipment.com/howcoffeecarafesizingworks
Can confirm @bobpaul's 5oz claim. I filled up my Black & Decker carafe once to the 8 line and once to the 10 line, emptied them out into my liquid measuring glassware and got 40oz and 50oz respectively.
Assuming you're talking about USA usage, you're correct, a "cup" is usually 6oz. In the USA, the standard size for a "cup" of coffee is 6oz, even though nobody drinks cups of coffee that small (12oz to 20oz is more common). For that matter, the size of a "cup" of tea can be 5oz or 6oz when the number of "cups" a teapot holds is listed; a "6 cup" teapot is only 32oz.
However, be careful how the word is used in American recipes. If a recipe calls for a "cup" of coffee, they are more likely to be calling for an 8oz cup, rather than a 6oz cup.
I can't find a clear reference as to where the unrealistic 6oz measurement for a cup of coffee started. Possibly the result of Mr. Coffee, but we're stuck with it as customary now.
However, even though a 6oz cup of coffee may be customary, specific coffee maker manufacturers may use different measurements on different models, including cups as small as 4.2oz. So don't assume unless you've checked.
Oh, and also note that the 8oz cup is American, rather than Imperial measurement. An Imperial cup is around 10oz, although you're unlikely to encounter this measurement in any recipe published after World War I.
Confused yet?
Maybe the 6oz measurement started at the time when Americans still drunk coffee in that measurement, AFAIK the trend to ridiculously large drink sizes is a few decades old
The meaning of "cup of coffee" varies by country. I have a Technivorm coffee maker that is manufactured in the Netherlands. The markings to fill the water correspond to 4 oz per "cup of coffee".
rumtscho, yes -- actually I'm guessing it dates to a time when there was a difference between "cups" and "mugs" and coffee "cups" were the round-bottomed ones which look like oversized teacups.
Also note that "oz" varies. An imperial fluid oz is 28.413 ml, whereas a US fluid oz is 29.573 ml. What's for sure is that if I want to make one cup of coffee, I put more water in the machine than the "1 cup" level.
And this is why you generally want to find where it lists the volume in liters, as both cups and ounces may not be what you think they are. (although I seem to remember there being one review of an electric kettle where someone complained that the number of liters didn't correspond to the 'max fill line' of the kettle, so even that can be not what you expect)
I just bought a 3 cup French press. I brewed it according to 3 cups of coffee grounds for a 6 oz cup, and it turned out that the press considers a coffee cup to be 4 ounces! Today's coffee was particularly strong. So, the press makes 3 cups at 4 oz, 2 cups at 6 oz, and 1.5 cups by Imperial standards. Yuck!
Wikipedia mentions the "cup" is 150 mL (5.07 fl oz) and "4 oz coffee brewed with 5 oz water" without any citation. My "5 cup" carafe filled up to the 5 cup water line with cold water is about 800 g heavier, so ~160 mL/cup
Here's a more extensive answer to the origin of the 5-6oz cup, from Coffee SE: https://coffee.stackexchange.com/questions/2317/why-is-a-cup-of-coffee-not-6-oz
From The Professional Chef (by The Culinary Institute of America), p. 1165:
1 measuring cup holds 8 fluid ounce (a coffee cup generally holds 6 fluid ounces)
So indeed, the unit 'cup' is different from the standard coffee 'cup'. I wouldn't assume a coffee cup always to be exactly 6 oz, there might be variation from brand to brand. There shouldn't be any variation in the cup unit though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.671320
| 2012-07-14T16:13:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25041",
"authors": [
"Abe Voelker",
"Chris Cudmore",
"FuzzyChef",
"Jason Ellingsworth",
"Joe",
"Joe Plante",
"Nick T",
"Peter Taylor",
"Rick G",
"Rémi Nazin",
"Sonia Gupta",
"bobpaul",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79302",
"kjetil b halvorsen",
"remy-actual",
"rumtscho",
"slim",
"smcg",
"staticsan",
"user3639782",
"user914945"
],
"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
}
|
16573
|
Is boiling water poured over frozen berries enough vs. bacteria?
I often like to make smoothies where I among other things add frozen berries. I boil some water in my tea-boiler and pour it over the berries before I add them to the smoothie mix. Is this enough to get rid of the dangerous bacteria, especially found in raspberries?
Ps. Recipe is:
Vanilla soy-milk . Banana . Berries . Orange (to keep the banana from turning brown)
Blend until smooth.
What dangerous bacteria?
I do not know. But I remembered a news program where they warned that raspberries contained some kind of germs/bacteria that could be dangerous. Also I've been raised with the "need to pour boiling water over" frozen berries. The question is an aim to clarify the risk of not fully boiling the berries before blending, if any.
What country are you in. Berry bacteria is not a common problem? Freezing stops bacteria multiplication, and since you normally consume smoothies immediately after making them there should be no problem even IF dangerous bacteria was present?
I live in Denmark, though the berries can often be from other countries as we import a lot. But say the berries DO have bacteria, would the washing in boiling water be enough?
Hard to say without knowing what kind of bacteria, and how much. Cooking almost never kills every single individual bacterium, it's a question of safety thresholds. If you have reason to believe that the fruit is contaminated, but don't know any more details, then nothing short of boiling it into purée is truly safe. On the other hand, if it's safe to eat right out of the bag (which is normally guaranteed and enforced by government food agencies) then boiling water is just a waste of time, water, and perfectly good fruit.
What do you do when you get fresh berries? Presumably you wash them and eat them, right? Are you assuming that these frozen berries are somehow more contaminated?
I'd also suggest that, in general, NO, pouring boiling water over them wouldn't kill the bacteria (if present) for the following reasons: 1) would be surface-only, 2) would rapidly chill below the kill zone due to the temperature of the berries, and 3) would not be in contact long enough at a high enough temperature. Look at pasteurization (which doesn't actually sterilize, it only kills off enough pathogens to make the food "safe") - it requires a temperature of 275 degrees F (135C) for at least one second. That's well above the boiling point. At 160F (71C) you need at least 15-20 sec.
Thank you Galactic Cowboy, that was pretty much what I wanted to know. This is my first post here and I realize that I should have formulated the question like this: IF berries have a health issue through bacteria or the like, is pouring boiling water over them enough, or do I need to boil them through. :)
Recently in Sweden there has been a lot of talk about the parasite "Dvärgbandmask" (sorry, don't know the English name). It is a small worm carried by foxes and such. Berries picked in the woods can be contaminated, even though it is highly unusual. The disease that this parasite can cause in humans is extremely dangerous, and there is no cure. In the past these worms did not exist in Sweden, only further south in Europe (Denmark?) but last year they started appearing in Sweden too. Anyway, if you want to be 100% safe from these guys you have to cook the berries properly.
I've always been quite happy picking raspberries in the hills and eating on the spot (Scotland). If I had some bough from a shop, I'd wash in cold water to clean of any pesticides and insects. Frozen and packeted fruit should have been washed and be sterilised so I wouldn't bother washing them at all. I doubt hot water rinse would kill any bacteria. In fact I'd suspect it would be just the thing to encourage them to grow. Bacteria often love warm water. You have to use high temperatures for several minutes to kill most bacteria.
@Henrik Söderlund: Easy way to find the English name: Look it up on your local Wikipedia, then use the English interwiki link. It seems that gives http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echinokockinfektion with an English name of echinococcosis. I'm not completely sure of this since I can't read Swedish.
@Rama Washing your veggies is prudent, but I highly doubt that a soak in such a diluted vinegar solution kills bacteria in noticeable amounts.
From the comments, Henrik noted that there is a parasite in Sweden (called "Dvärgbandmask" in Swedish) that contaminates wild fruit. This is a type of tapeworm called "Echinococcus" in English. Its eggs can cause a parasitic disease called Echinococcosis or hydatid disease. According to this article, freezing the eggs to very low temperatures and/or freezing the eggs very rapidly is fatal to them. Given that modern "IQF" freezing methods for berries bring the fruit very quickly to below -20°C, I'd say that the danger from echinococcosis is very low (much lower than eating unwashed fresh fruit).
As for risks from bacteria, these are also very low because the process of preparing the fruit for freezing and then subsequently freezing them kills the majority of any present bacteria.
It should be noted that most parasites are killed by freezing for more than 7 days - hence the only real requirement for "sushi-grade fish."
Could it be what is normally called a fox tapeworm? Known risk with wild berries...
@rackandboneman Yes, it looks like it might be the same, or at least related.
Raspberries seem fairly acidic, and many bacteria don't stand up well to acid. Here's one article that says raspberry juice kills bacteria. If you're worried, then, you might consider pureeing the raspberries in your blender and letting them sit for a minute before adding the yogurt, banana, or whatever else you put in your smoothies.
No, you should boil for at least 1 Minute.
Food Safety Authority of Ireland states the following in May 2017, especially for imported berries:
As a result of outbreaks of norovirus and hepatitis A virus in
imported frozen berries across Europe in recent years, the FSAI
recommends boiling imported frozen berries for one minute before
consumption.
See FSAI : Berries - Advice to boil imported frozen berries (May 2017)
McGee has an article for conserving fresh berries for some days longer. He talks about molds, not bacteria...
Frozen berries should be alright as your country's health regulations will not allow dangerous foods to be imported or produced or sold.
The goal of health regulations is to not allow them ... but many countries have had problems with pathogens that were believed to be in the items (eg, tainted water used to grow spinich in the U.S, the bean sprout incident in Germany where they think it might've been in the seeds). The only advantage to frozen over fresh in this case is that if it's sold frozen, it's packaged with tracking numbers, so it's easier to identify the source if there's a recall.
The number of cases is so small you should ignore the risk. Tons of food, frozen, fresh, dehydrated, you name it, is sold around the world and less then 100 people have died of one localized incident. Not that that's not serious, but you really should consider food bought in shops as safe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.671791
| 2011-08-01T21:47:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16573",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BaffledCook",
"Cascabel",
"Chesty Puller",
"David Xia",
"ESultanik",
"GalacticCowboy",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"Joe",
"Matthew",
"Rincewind42",
"Silky",
"Stella",
"TFD",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"user35341",
"zsm"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18638
|
How to keep opened coconut safely?
Once the coconut is opened , it is attracting fruit flies and other flies. Also, the white color changes to brownish, rendering it unusable.
Is there any way we can "save" an opened coconut. I do not have a refrigerator yet, so techniques that don't involve a fridge are appreciated.
I saw a double pot fridge a couple of days ago. You put a smaller clay pot inside a bigger clay pot. Fill the area between the two clay walls with sand. Fill the sand with water. Cover the pots with a wet towel. Evaporation of water will chill the container.
Why are you opening a coconut before you're ready to eat it?
I would suggest just put some plastic foil around it, so the bugs aren't on it. And don't put it in direct sunlight. Since you have no fridge, maybe search for a 'cooler' place (cellar, cabinet, a place where the sun never comes etc.) to put it.
I myself take out all the meat of the coconut, put plastic foil around it and put it in the fridge. That way, it's good for a couple of days.
Do you have a freezer? You can also put some in there. It will be good for longer than a couple of days (up to a couple of months if you preserved it well). I have no idea how it turns out afterwards. I'm guessing it will be a bit less 'juicy'.
Another way to preserve it, is to dry the coconut. But this will of course damage the flavour.
Whole Foods sometimes sells opened coconut. What they do is they break a hole on the top of the shell but leave the thin layer of meat unbroken. They also wrap the semi-opened coconut with plastic foil completely and place it in shallow ice water. Basically you can break the thin layer of meat with a straw/spoon/you finger and enjoy the water. It says on the package the good-through date is 7 days refrigerated so likely you will only be able to store it for 3-4 days without a fridge.
Sometime I pour the water out of the coconut into a plastic bottle and tighten the cap. It will last for at least a day.
Cutting the coconut pieces and put it in the cup of water and for an hour dispose the water and pour new water into that
And? What will that accomplish, and how do you know it's safe?
Try this...
Fill the opened coconut with salt ...
Salt should preserve it..You can use it max for a week..
Interesting. Is this something that you have done?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.672378
| 2011-10-29T07:38:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18638",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BaffledCook",
"Bauer",
"Beto Frega",
"FuzzyChef",
"Jolenealaska",
"Prashant Chikhalkar",
"Scivic",
"Spammer",
"Unknown Coder",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96359",
"prnvbn",
"taisu"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15664
|
Looking for a Blue Ingredient
Blue food is notoriously hard to find, but I'm working on a dish that basically resembles a lighthouse, and I need something blue to act as the water. Mustn't be wet. The dish is sort of breakfasty (egg, bacon, mushroom & so on). Any ideas? I've heard you can make cabbage turn blue, but I don't know how. If I can't get blue I might have to go with green (in the form of some micro-herbs.)
Any suggestions for something that would fit?
Perhaps look into some edible flowers?
You may find Are there no naturally blue foods? from Skeptic.SE helpful.
If you choose a blue food colored by anthocyanines (practically all the "blue" plants named until now), it will have a purplish hue, rather than a greenish one. Many anthocyanines will get bluer in a high pH environment, so you can try if that helps - just be careful not to make your dish taste soapy. I'd personally go with food coloring, just because I've never seen a blueberry-colored sea.
@Bruce: what did you do? :)
You may find Why are so few foods blue? from Biology.SE helpful.
Blue potatoes dry enough? Those could certainly fit with breakfast. (hash browns, home fries, etc) Blue corn may also work in a corn pancake.
Blue Corn Chips would work too. A Mexican Breakfast sort of a thing.
Maybe blue corn bread?
I would take 3 parts elderberry, 1 part water and heat it to boiling with a small amount of agar. Once cold you have blue to darkblue, slightly purple jelly. If you take a bit more agar it gets solid enough to be cut. It would still look like a liquid. It is not really sweet, so it would go well with your breakfast dish.
All the blue(ish) food I can recall:
A lot of candies
Grapes
The outside of passion fruit (you can replicate waves)
Blueberries
Elderberries
Ice cream
Blue potatoes
Red cabbage (I've read that it would turn blue if you don't add apples/acid)
Violets
Blue yoghurt
Eggplant (maybe)
However, I'm not sure what of these would fit with breakfast. I think the best one is the yogurt. You can also try to make blueberry bavarois, but I'm afraid that would be a bit too purply.
You can always buy some blue food colouring and you can mix it with whatever you want.
I don't think Blue Curaçao would be appropriate, so I left that out.
When if comes to alcohol with breakfast, it must be noon SOMEWHERE.
Mien - Blue Curacao is always appropriate!
By "mustn't be wet", do you mean anything but an actual liquid? Would Blue Jello work? It's solid enough to stay in one place (unless you turn it upside down).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.672627
| 2011-06-21T13:07:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15664",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Brendan Long",
"Charlie",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Mien",
"Paul Cline",
"Sarah Inês RR",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"monroec",
"rumtscho",
"theforestecologist",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32724
|
How can I make mocktails that actually taste like non-fruity cocktails?
My partner is a teetotaler and I have oral allergy syndrome, which means I am allergic to almost all raw fruit juices.
We want to try making some mocktails that we can both drink that actually resemble cocktails along the lines of an Old Fashioned, rather than glorified fruit punch. However most resources I've been able to find only discuss making very sweet, simple drinks, often using fruit juice as the major ingredient.
What ingredients and techniques that fit our restrictions (non-alcoholic, no raw fruit) will produce mocktails that are on the complex/sharp end of the flavor spectrum?
Could I get some constructive criticism from the downvoter? Question-improvement would be great.
AS asked this question is very broad, that is to say "not constructive" per the [faq]. There would be no way to determine a right answer; it is a poll or opinion question.
@SAJ14SAJ You (and the OP) might want to have a look at Good Subjective, Bad Subjective. It's a good resource to look at when you're writing a question like this, and a good one to think about and point people at when you're thinking of voting to close. In this case, the core of the question is somewhat subjective (very briefly, "how do I approach making a mocktail") and while asking for resources isn't a great way to ask it (see Divi's answer) asking about techniques is a better direction (see endowdly's answer).
@Jefromi You give more credit than I do for underlying intent; I tend to respond to the question as written. I point out this question is a good example of one that I would change the rules to include, but right now, I see it outside the rules because all answers are equal in a list of resources question.
@SAJ14SAJ It's more about helping guide questions to a point where they're good questions that generate useful content (for the OP and others), regardless of the original intent - often this is essentially helping people find what they really should have asked. It's of course not required when downvoting or voting to close, but I try to be friendly when I have the time!
@Jefromi I'm all about fixing questions rather than closing them, if possible, so comments help. Quick q - lots of SE sites allow questions that are intended to produce a list of useful resources, like this one (because I figured asking how to approach making mocktails was too subjective). I assumed from the 'resources' tag that those were in here. Not so much?
@RSid The general summary is that anything that produces an essentially unlimited list of answers is off-topic. This should be true anywhere - for example, we've closed list of cookbooks questions here just like StackOverflow long ago closed many list of programming books questions. All this discussion aside, you probably do want to edit your question before a few more people come along and close it, and then I'll clean up all these comments!
@Jefromi Sure, how's that?
@RSid I changed the title too; I think it's good now. I will also add that you don't always want to accept an answer right away - I imagine there's a lot more to be said than what's been said so far.
@Jefromi D'oh, thanks. Forgot about that. And duly noted - didn't seem to be a terribly happening question, but I'll shift my accept/upvote answers if people have interesting things to say.
Please read the ingredient-selection tag wiki before adding that tag. In addition, is "incorporation-techniques" somehow different from "mixing"?
You're going to want to look for classic cocktail recipes and mixers. Get a base of cocktail knowledge, then fill in the alcohol with a nuetral filler. Teas and smokey coffees can replace the flavor profile of some bourbon or scotches. Club sodas or flat tonics can replace some grain spirits. Angostura, orange bitters, vermouth, tinctures, demerara syrups are all classic mixers you'll want to use... usually Imbibe Magazine has some pretty good resources and make-your-own bitters and mixers. Sometimes Bon Appetit has a good classic drink. I know a couple months ago they explained how to make your own vermouth.
Another good resource is to find a local cocktail bar that simple specializes in high end cocktails and just talk to a bartender. They'll have lots of knowledge and resources to share!
A website I like to use sometimes is Cocktail Codex.
Last I checked, vermouth is alcoholic. :)
Touche! However, you can make a mild vinegar that has a similar flavor to sweet vermouth. ;)
Thanks! These are some good ideas, and I think I have a jumping off point here.
No problem, best of luck!
These links have some nice recipes with and without juices, so they cater for both your allergies and to anyone else at your party:
http://www.thekitchn.com/15-non-alcoholic-mocktails-170813
http://www.cocktailrevolution.com.au/recipes/
http://www.beststart.org/resources/alc_reduction/LCBO_mocktail_Eng_LR.pdf
http://www.marthastewart.com/336439/cherry-bombs?center=276959&gallery=274247&slide=282906
http://cocktails.about.com/od/mocktailmocktail/Mocktail_Recipes.htm
Thanks for the answer; I'm going to wait a bit and see what other suggestions I get, since most of these still have the fruity-sweet flavor profile that we've been trying to avoid. (Also the overwhelming majority of these still require fruit, though #5 is more varied)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.672979
| 2013-03-15T23:41:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32724",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Bumblevee",
"Cascabel",
"CookingChemist",
"CubicInfinity",
"Harry Ewaschuk",
"James",
"Marti",
"Minnie Moore",
"Omortis",
"RSid",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SIDRA RANA",
"Seamusthedog",
"christopher slusher",
"endowdly",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7843",
"user76146"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35476
|
Is it true that putting spices in something then baking it destroys the spices?
I heard that putting spices in something and putting it in the oven will eliminate the taste of the spices. Is this true? For example if I were to put spice in lasagna before putting it in the oven you will not be able to taste the spice afterwards.
Could you tell us which spices you'd like to add to lasagna? Some spices are indeed very sensitive to heat.
@MandoMando it would have been pepper and oregano, but I'm just guessing, what spices normally go on lasagna?
Traditionally? none! Oregano is technically an Herb (see @SAJ14SAJ's answer on herbs) and fairly ok with oven heat. Peppers differ, for example, black pepper is pretty resilient, but paprika flavour is gone very easily by heat.
None? Nutmeg if you’re making a bechamel. And often crushed red pepper in my family if there’s a red sauce
It is not true that baking destroys spices (for most spices I know; unless you put them to bake dry on top of something, which might burn them).
I made this answer a bit broader as we add flavor to food not only with spices but with herbs or flavorful vegetables, mushrooms, and fruits as well.
Baking/heat will likely change the texture and flavor of spices, vegetables, and especially fresh herbs, but it will not destroy them. Sometimes it will take away the fresh sharpness (like in garlic or onion).
Sometimes frying or roasting spices before cooking is even desired to give them a slight toasty flavor (like whole cumin and other spices in Indian cuisine). Some say that "only with roasting all flavors can be unlocked".
So it depends on what effect you want to achieve with a spice/seasoning.
And in your case putting spices into lasagna before baking will help blend the flavors together. However, putting some fresh herbs on top of the lasagna before serving will give the dish some color and freshness.
The flavors of most spices are quite stable, and will not be destroyed by cooking from any method, including baking. You will see that traditional recipes often add spices at the beginning of a recipe, especially for robust hard spices like cinnamon, anise, caraway, cumin, allspice, dried chili powder, and so on.
In fact, in many cuisines, the spices are bloomed by frying or toasting as part of assembling the dish in order to bring out their aromas and flavors.
This idea may have originated with herbs (especially the more delicate ones like basil, tarragon, or cilantro) whose flavors are more volatile or heat sensitive, and so are traditionally added in the last few minutes of cooking, or even after the cooking.
Even so, with herbs, this is not universal as some of the more hardy ones do stand up to cooking, such as oregano, sage, and similar.
+1 for clarifying on herbs. OP may be referring to herbs and spices as the same.
I make beef jerky and I have to make the marinade hotter than mortal sin in order for it to be a really hot flavor
When it's finished...I use concentrated capsaicin and ground up dried ghost pepper in my hottest variety...but it's still much hotter before it's cooked. By a measure of half. I've been making jerky since 1991.
Depends on how long its cooked and at what heat if you were to put basil or parsley in and then cook it for a long time it will crisp up and blacken and in a sense destroy them. In contrast a roast cooked moderately high and long tied with rosemary all around turns out wonderfully and allows the roast to draw in many of the flavours. In the end it just depends on what spices you are using and how they will be cooked.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.673425
| 2013-07-22T05:44:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35476",
"authors": [
"Ashutosh",
"Brad",
"Celeritas",
"Dorkmania",
"Hitek",
"Joe",
"MandoMando",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83068",
"user83068"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44619
|
What's the difference between black currants and red currants?
I've noticed different stores carrying "currants" where some are red and others are black. What's the difference? Do they go by any other names?
For putting in cereal and making museli does anyone recommend one over the other?
There are also white currants, though they seem to be a bit harder to find.
Blackcurrants and redcurrants are simply subspecies of the same berry-producing shrub. Besides their color, they differ only slightly in flavor; red are somewhat more tart than black. For most purposes, such as in jams or baking, they're basically interchangeable. When dried they're also easily substituted for raisins or sultanas.
There's really no basis for recommending one over the other beyond personal preference. For your cereal, museli, granola, whatever, try both and see what you like.
I just want to add one thing. Most "currants" sold in the US are actually raisins.
Strange, I find that there is a large taste difference between red and black currants. It is hard to quantify, but I'd say it is large like the difference between peach and apricot, not small like the difference between roma tomato and cherry tomato. Biologically, I think you are right, and it is certainly up to taste to choose one or the other.
@rumtscho Maybe the flavor difference has to do with freshness? Here in the US, blackcurrant production is restricted, so I've personally only had them dried or in jams, where I'd imagine you lose a lot of the distinction. From what I can tell, they're also very close in flavor to local cousins like gooseberry (which as I understand is actually a separate variety from the European gooseberry).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.673739
| 2014-06-03T00:22:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44619",
"authors": [
"Alicia Kasic",
"Cathy Leitner",
"Hammerite",
"Jolenealaska",
"Perth Mobile 1 Mechanic",
"QuantumWiz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"logophobe",
"newenglander",
"otcm acupuncture clinic",
"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
}
|
30463
|
What is the difference between Clam Chowder and New England style?
What makes clam chowder a New England style vs. some other style?
There are several major varieties of clam chowder, which you can find enumerated on the Wikipedia page. New England clam chowder is characterized by a dairy base, usually with some sort of salt pork or bacon, and potatoes.
Note: the term chowder basically just means soup or stew, usually with seafood of some sort--very different dishes may go by the name.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.674202
| 2013-01-27T22:30:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30463",
"authors": [
"Angela Johnson Appy",
"KJ6BWB",
"LN6595",
"Laymer",
"M. Elle",
"Scott D",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71209",
"unclejr"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29986
|
Woodfire oven how to get crust soft and tasty
Hi I've just built a wood fire oven at home and I want to know how to get he pizza crust soft? Any tips for success with traditional Italian-style bread? Some people say to put sugar in and other people say not to.
Do you want crunchy crust (like in Neopolitan style pizza) or soft?
If you want it traditional, there should be no sugar in your dough. The few continental breads which contain sugar are very rich celebratory breads (panettone, brioche, etc.) but normal bread never has any sugar, this is an American specialty.
@rumtscho And we are all the sweeter for it! Our yeast party like it is their last meal... erm...
You went to all the trouble to build a wood fired oven and you didn't once read that the major benefit of such an oven is how crusty and crunchy things are when baked in it? And now you want the dough to end up soft anyway? Perhaps do pizzas in your old oven and only cook things in the wood-fired that are ok to get crispy
@KateGregory Do you really know what the OP means by soft and tasty? This can be interpreted in different ways and given the OP doesn't sound like a native English speaker, I'd suggest your interpretation of what he means probably isn't the same as what he means!
This question has almost nothing to do with wood ovens, so I'm removing that tag. I also removed the reference to "tasty" for all the obvious reasons.
I added the tag [tag:wood-fired-oven] because I understand the OP want to make the pizza there (it's in the title), and the specific characteristics of those ovens allows them to make very different pizza to ovens where there's no flame when the pizza is being made. I still think the tag is appropriate for this specific question.
Italian pizza crumb must be soft (morbida, as Italians say) in its inner part (the one below the tomato sauce), and its outer rim can be more or less crispy.
You can check the requisite for being soft at this link from the Vera Pizza Napolitana association (check the "Description of the product"):
The consistency of the " Verace Pizza Napoletana " - (Vera Pizza Napoletana) should be
soft, elastic, easy to manipulate and fold. The centre should be particularly soft to the
touch and taste,
...
The crust should deliver the flavour of well-prepared, baked bread.
The outer part can be crunchier or softer, depending on your taste. It will depend on the strength (W value) of the flour. You can check it in this Italian pizza flour manufacturer.
Using a longer fermentation time will extract more taste from the flour. That's why a crunchier outer rim is usually associated with tastier pizzas.
That long fermentation also helps the dough been extensible and not stretching back, which is desirable when you are shaping the pizza. I wrote more details on it in this answer on pizza flours.
In order to achieve a soft center, the pizza is done in a very little time (from 60 to 90 seconds). To get this, you need a very hot oven (over 450ºC / 900ºF).
It is difficult to get a thermometer that measures that temperature (most infrared ones usually can't measure over 350ºC). You can check if the oven is too hot throwing flour in it. If it catches fire (in less than 5 seconds) then it's too hot. If it just gets dark, then it's ok. After using this method, remember to remove the burnt flour, or it will give a bitter taste to the pizzas you'll later put on it.
To get the outer rim of the pizza rise like bread, you should have some flames in the oven. They will radiate a lot of heat, so you have to rotate the pizza 180º during its baking, so it will get done equally in all the border.
The flames should be in one side of the oven, never at the back. This way the air that enters to feed the flame will induce a rotating whirpool that helps the air in the oven to be hotter.
As the floor surface of the oven is very hot (>400ºC), the pizza you put in it won't actually be touching it: it will be floating on its own steam. That's why the bottom of the pizzas are not burnt.
You are asking about adding sugar or not.
Sugar is the food yeasts eat.
Flour has no sugar. But it has starches, which are molecules made of many sugar molecules together. Flour also has enzymes that can break the starches in sugar molecules. That happens when you add water to the flour, and the enzymes can move easily to do their work. But they need time to do so.
When you add flour, water and yeasts, the late ones have to wait a bit for their food. If you add sugar, they'll have food since the beginning (the sugar you added) to the end (the sugar from broken starches): sugar is added to make the dough fermentation in less time.
So, if you want a quick risen dough, add (a small quantity of) sugar. If you want a tasty one, don't.
Perhaps you should describe in more detail exactly what kind of pizza crust you desire--there are a lot of types or styles of pizza crust.
In most breads, soft crust is achieved by 1) not adding steam to the oven which enhances crust formation; and 2) brushing the crust with butter or milk after it comes out of the oven. The second would be very non-traditional for pizza, though.
The thing is, to the best of my personal knowledge, mostly people who build wood and coal fire ovens are after Neopolitan style pizza, which Serious Eats (linked) describes as:
Small (about 10-inch diameter), thin-crust pizzas made in a
wood-burning oven. Usually have a puffy "cornicione" (lip or end
crust) and marked by use of the freshest ingredients applied sparingly
for a careful balance.
The crust for this style of pizza is usually crunchy, not soft.
See the Serious eats article on preparing this kind of dough:
Their key points are:
Quality ingredients, including 00 or similar flour
Long slow ferment
Blazingly hot oven
Here are their recommended ratios (for US flour products, obviously):
All-purpose or bread flour: 100%
Salt: 2%
Instant yeast: 1.5
% Water: 65%
00 in Italian flours only means how fine they've been milled.
and I do not think a real Neopolitan pizza can be considered soft, it should be hard and crunchy, and to do them you need LOTS of heat, like from a wood oven. 500C/930F!!!
@J.A.I.L. Sure that is true :-) I was just summarizing the information in the reference link.
@Stefan I agree, which is why I found this question confusing.
@SAJ14SAJ I know, I just wanted to highlight that point which is (to me) the main point of Neopolitan pizza (I wish I had a wood fired oven)
By soft and tasty pizza crust I'm going to assume you mean crisp on the outside but soft and chewy on the inside which is the characteristic of pizza dough cooked at high temperature in a wood fired oven. You need this high temperature to produce that crisp on the outside but soft and chewy on the inside.
There's no magic or sorcery to good pizza dough. The ingredients really are very simple, good quality flour, water, salt, sugar and yeast. Please note the sugar is there to activate the yeast and allow it to grow it's not there for any other purpose other than that. Salt is there for flavour, but too much will kill the yeast.
The rest is up to you. Good quality pizza crust is all down to the kneading, resting period, kneading again and spreading to the required size and cooking at high temperature – it's this that determines whether your crust will be good or bad.
I don't think salt in pizza dough is for flavour. It already gets a lot of it from the sauce and cheese (which already has a lot of salt). I think this kind of dough has salt (usually more than other doughs) in order to slow down the fermentation, and make the dough stiffer.
@J.A.I.L. You don't think or know? ‘Too much salt will kill the yeast, but leave it out and the dough will be flavourless’. From The PizzaExpress CookBook, Peter Boizot, Page 22. And as far as I'm concerned Peter Boizot who started the Pizza Express restaurants in London in the 60's is a leading authority on italian style pizza's.
I know pizza doughs have more salt than common bread doughs. I know tomato sauce or mozzarella cheese has a lot of salt. I know salt slows down fermentation, and makes doughs stiffer (and more maleable). I know the crumb of pizza below the sauce (in Italian pizzas) is very thin, so I think you won't get much of that flavor below the sauce (I've never found support to that idea). The only part of the pizza you can taste the dough is the outer rim. And you shouldn't need more salt in it than in a normal bread.
@J.A.I.L. I never said anything about more salt than normal bread. I said...salt is there for flavour. Do you put salt in bread? Yes, then why not put it in pizza dough for the same reason? To suggest the other ingredients have sufficient salt is entirely irrelevant.
Sometimes in wood fired ovens with thicker crust pizzas by the time the inside cooks the outside is way to crunchy. You can put a pot of water in your oven or spritz water in to sort of steam cook just to keep things from getting to dry. You will still end up with soft inside and not over done outside.
I havnt tried in wood fired but for moist soft crumb powered milk is added to dough. Might be something to experiment with.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.674310
| 2013-01-11T13:52:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29986",
"authors": [
"Aaron F",
"Aaronut",
"Alan",
"Carmen",
"Dominik Mokriš",
"Frank van Wensveen",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Justin",
"Kate Gregory",
"Majid",
"Patti",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Stefan",
"Susan",
"Vance Palacio",
"Warlord 099",
"balu",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70243",
"rain",
"rtaft",
"rumtscho",
"spiceyokooko",
"user69916",
"web dever"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37118
|
Cooking temperature chart
After getting a new stove with a much better heat control I am trying to learn more about using the right temperature for the right task.
I assume that things like rice, bacon, chicken breast, stirfry, fish... each have an ideal cooking temperature, not to mention even more than one setting while being prepared.
Does anyone knows any good website with broad advice or just a temperature table for common cooking tasks / food?
UPDATE:
Looking at the comments I would like to make clear that I am more interested in cooking temperatures in a pan, not an oven. Also got an external thermometer and my stove has 17 heat positions. Having such a wide range and also being able to immediately change the temperature (induction), I realized that now I can play better with temperatures changes during cooking, something that was not possible before with stoves retaining heat.
If there's something you think isn't coming out well, I'd ask about it specifically. There are a ton of different ways just to cook rice! SAJ14SAJ has listed most of the things that are ever cooked to temperatures (just omitting a list for specific meats), and really, for most things besides meat, actually using a thermometer is overkill, especially because your stove doesn't actually have direct temperature control, just power levels.
Different types of dishes do indeed have a different ideal environment temperature (as opposed to the internal temperature which SAJ listed), or at least temperature ranges. I haven't answered this because I don't have a chart for them. But I wouldn't trust a stove to really get your pan to the temperature it promises, my newly minted induction stove promises that and its guesses are so wildly off as to be worse than useless.
@rumtscho I have to respectfully disagree with the assertion that dishes have an ideal temperature. There are many techniques, and a wide range of tolerance in each, so I don't think you can select an ideal temperature for any given food.
@SAJ14SAJ there are not that many basic cooking techniques in the world, and all of them have an ideal range. For the more forgiving of them, the range is very wide (e.g. stewing vegetables) as long as you are prepared to take a considerable variation in cooking time. For others, there is a very narrow range, e.g. deep frying produces the best results at ~185 celsius oil temperature.
@rumtscho I invite you enumerate the ideal temperatures just for cooking bone in skin on chicken thighs, and you will begin to see what I mean. The question cannot be reasonably answered in the abstract without both a specific food and method in mind.
@Francisco important note after your update: The answer you accepted provides internal temperatures, which you can measure by sticking a candy thermometer into the middle of the food item, which is a good practice, but is only very loosely related to the stove setting. If you are planning to use an infrared thermometer to measure the temperature of the pan surface, then this is not the chart you wanted.
@rumtscho the accepted answer already provides numbers I am interested in. Within its comments I explained why my question was vague, but I will temporally remove the approved mark in case I discourage someone from posting pan surface temperatures. I am planning to approve it again if I get no more answers.
@FranciscoGarcia if this is what you were looking for, by all means leave the accepted mark in. I just wanted to make sure you understood what the answer provides. If somebody else wants pan temperatures, they should write a separate question.
I really think it's worth emphasizing that none of the given temperatures are pan temperatures and no one ever bothers measuring pan temperatures.
If you are asking about the ideal oven setting for a given food, well, there isn't one, and so there will be no chart of such settings. Then you have to consider that there are a myriad of techniques and recipes, which may indicate different oven temperatures for the same food.
Almost every food can be cooked in a variety of ways, at a variety of temperatures. Often, even a single food can be cooked at a fairly wide variety of temperatures for similar results, if you adjust the time to match.
Even something as simple a chicken thigh can be braised in the oven at low temperatures (250 F), or high temperature roasted at 500 F, depending on what the cook is doing.
If you are asking about the internal temperature to target:
The fundamental assumption that items have an ideal temperature is not really true when you start to look at different foods in detail:
Even a simple food like a particular cut of beef cooked as a roast has a range of temperatures based on the taste of the diners
Some foods need to not only be cooked at least to a particular temperature, but also need to hold that temperature for long enough for the desired changes in the food to take place
Some foods are delicious at a wide range of donenesses in different dishes or contexts, or even in the same dish or even the same piece of food (for example, a stir fried pepper may be nearly charred on the outside, and only lightly cooked on the inside). There is no single temperature.
For these reasons, a single master reference of target cooking temperatures is not going to be terribly useful, even if one exists.
There are some temperatures that are good to know (or at least have available as a reference) as a cook, since they apply to a large number of situations frequently encountered in cooking:
Butter is pliable for laminated pastry, or creaming method in baking. 68 F / 20 C.
Most starches will thicken at 180 F / 82 C.
Most custards will similarly thicken around 180 F / 82 C.
For meats (with credit for this data to Meathead):
120 F / 49 C. Myosin starts to denature; red meats start to turn from "purple" to red
130 - 134 F / 54 - 57 C. Most red meats are now medium rare
140 F / 60 C. Collagen starts to contract and toughen
150 F / 65 C. Actin starts to coagulate and toughen the meat
155 F / 68 C. Meats are essentially well done
160 F / 61 C. Collagen starts converting into gelatin at reasonable rates, more rapidly at higher temperatures
Simmering or braising temperatures. 180- 2 99 F / 82 - 93 C.
Water boils (at sea level). 212 F / 100 C.
Temperature achieved in a 15 lb pressure cooker at sea level. 250 F / 121 C.
Sugar work (data from Baking 911):
215 - 234 F / 101 - 112 C. Thread stage.
234 - 240 F /112 - 115 C. Soft ball stage.
242 - 248 F / 116 - 120 C. Firm ball stage.
250 - 268 F / 121 - 131 C. Hard ball stage.
270 - 290 F / 132 - 143 C. Soft crack stage.
300 - 310 F / 148 - 154 C. Hard crack stage.
320 F / 160 C. Caramelization begins.
I find it great that you took the time to put this information together, but I feel that it does not address the question. What you have listed are internal temperatures of the food. From the question text, the OP is concerned about stove setting, which, if correct, will provide the temperature of the pan, and not the internal temperature of the food, and this is a different matter entirely. Maybe you could make a self-answered question for this answer.
@rumtscho If that was the intention of the question, then it is even more difficult to answer, as there are a myriad cooking techniques, and most foods can be cooked acceptably at a wider range of temperatures than many cooks realize, given the trade off of time and temperature.
actually, it is not such a difficult question to answer. It is like saying that in the oven, a simple cake is best baked between 160 and 180 celsius, and a custard usually at around 120 celsius. But actually controlling this temperature in a pan is another matter. The sentence "stove with a much better heat control" makes me think that the OP is intending to use the temperature indicator of the hobs to control temperature, not a thermometer, and is not aware that such an indicator is a useless marketing gimmick.
I am reversing the downvote, as it is indeed not as clear-cut what he meant as I thought, and if he comes back and says that your answer was what he was looking for, you'll get an upvote from me.
I have never seen a "hob" or burner element with a temperature indicator. That would be almost impossible to reasonably engineer as two of the critical variables (diameter of the pan, content of the pan) are not in control of the cook top maker. Even if they had some sort of contact or infrared thermometer for the bottom of the pan, it would only measure one spot or region. That simply doesn't pass the gut test. Any cooktop offering such a feature would be deceiving its users.
I purchased a modern cooktop three years ago and, after it broke in an accident, a new one this summer. Both have this feature, and it is indeed useless, I can prove that with my infrared thermometer (although it is already obvious for an experienced cook without the use of a thermometer). This did not stop the producer from creating and advertising it, or the hordes of Amazon users from giving it profound praise in reviews.
@rumtscho Wow, it is sad that companies would engineer in a patently useless feature, and that people are insufficiently science-savvy to understand how useless it would be.
@SAJ14SAJ just updated my question and although you already gave a good answer, I realized that my real problem is not knowing how to improve my cooking skills now that I am able to quickly change a pan temperature and not being affected by residual heat. Your answer is good enough to start. Later I found a post reflecting what I want to improve, but I am little bit lost: http://yeschefnochef.blogspot.de/2008/03/controlling-heat-and-goal-oriented.html
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.675144
| 2013-09-26T18:44:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37118",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Glen Yates",
"JA IN",
"Joy Perkins",
"RDRR",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sue",
"SystematicFrank",
"Tug",
"Wille Wanka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87505",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37201
|
What's the most cost effective way to make chicken bone broth?
I would like to start consuming chicken bone broth for health reasons, but there are some difficulties with this plan I'd like to resolve.
Where is the best place to get bulk chicken bones (I live in Washington state)? Is it better to just buy whole chickens or buy the bones? I've looked all over the internet for ideas and places to shop, and I just keep getting more confused on what to do. I would be so grateful for any advice on this subject. I'm looking to make enough bone broth to consume about 16 ounces daily.
So are you trying to make broth with only the bones? Or I you trying to learn to make Chicken Broth, which generally is made with bones and meat?
@Jolenealaska There seems to be a trend in the non-scientific health blogs of "bone broth", which is really stock, made from bones with minimal meat adhering, cooking for a very long time for maximum mineral extraction.
Dear Anna, welcome to Seasoned Advice! We see ourselves as a cooking site, and generally do not do health or nutrition advice. Your question is fine, because you are asking us how to implement an idea you have already embarked on (as opposed to asking us whether it is right for you to do it) but I edited it to remove the health-related details, which are not really relevant to the culinary part of the question and only trigger the warning bells in the heads of us regulars.
Formulas for stock are somewhat variable, but a common case is to use 3 kg of bones (and half a kg of mirepoix, which is a vegetable mix used for taste) with 4-5 l water, which after cooking down yields 3 l of stock, or just a little bit more than that. I couldn't find an especially good figure for the bone:meat ratio of chickens, but many Internet sites seem to agree on a 30:70 figure (I hope they didn't copy it from each other without fact checking). So, you are looking at either buying 1 pound of bones, or one 3-pound chicken per day.
In your place, I would prefer to use bones, not whole chickens, because of the logistics involved. With chickens, you'd need lots of freezer space, and then will end up with 2 lb of chicken meat daily. The work of removing the bones, especially if your recipe requires you to do so before boiling, will also cost a lot of time. But I don't know in what circumstances you live, maybe these points are not a problem for you.
If you decide to use bones, the first place to look for them would be a local meat seller. I have heard that in the US and Canada, bones are seen as a waste product and sold cheaply. If you cannot find a convenient place which sells them, you might have to ask a butchering company. They will have many bones, but are unlikely to bother to trade in small amounts, so while you are likely to get a good price, you might have to deal with a bulk delivery (and the uncooked bones will need freezing if they are to last for more than a few days).
A catering business or a restaurant might be another place to ask, as showbiz suggested, but you should be aware that fast food chains get their halfway prepared ingredients delivered from a central factory, and high-end restaurants use the bones for cooking stock for their own needs.
Also in the US, regulation and fear of litigation will prevent most retail outlets (like a catering company) from selling raw bones, or even the cooked ones as they are "waste".
You can often get chicken (and turkey) backs and necks from many butchers, which are good for stock. They tend to be leftover from breaking down chicken for people who buy parts. I also like to use chicken feet in my stocks for extra gelatin.
If I were you I'd contact some food/catering companies nearby. I'm sure some of them just use the meat and throw the bones away. So it's possible that they may give the bones to you for free or for a real small amount.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.676068
| 2013-09-29T04:51:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37201",
"authors": [
"Ale Mijares",
"Collin Dauphinee",
"Galadriel",
"Glenn 'devalias' Grant",
"Jolenealaska",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sherannmarie",
"Steve",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87445",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5561
|
"Keeping warm" tips
How to keep food hot when cooking?
Example scenario:
I'm preparing a meat dish with some sort of creamy sauce. I cook the meat, then I remove the meat and I use the same pan to prepare the sauce. After about 2 minutes of sauce preparation I'm ready to serve but the meat is already cold. How to keep it warm?
Cover your meat with aluminum foil. This will help it keep up to temperature. Put the meat back in to the pan with the sauce to bring it back up to temperature (but not cook further) just before serving.
You could also set the oven at a very low temperature (mine will do 170F) and place the item in there. This usually seems to be more trouble than it's worth though. Foil and a quick reheat works for most cases.
Wow, I guess I'm doing it right, since our answers were essentially the same, with the paragraphs reversed! +1 from me for bringing it back up to temperature in the pan with the sauce, great advice.
@stephen, Clearly you just copied me and flipped the paragraphs around to make it less obvious. You won't fool me! ;op (kidding, obviously...)
crap, busted! and here i thought i was being sneaky upvoting yours to make it less obvious :)
These are both good answers. You obviously copied each other, using an edible time machine -- if it were the plain old boring DeLorean sort, this would be off-topic. :)
The best way I've found is to turn the oven to a very, very low setting (175 or under) and put the meat on a ceramic dish or in a pan in there, if it's going to be more than a few minutes.
If it's going to be a short amount of time, just cover the meat with aluminum foil and let it rest on the counter, this especially works well with steaks and the like where you want to let the food rest anyway.
It may be overkill, but I'll cover something with foil and keep it in the oven (without turning it on) for shorter wait times. You could also use a microwave in the same way. It may not make a difference, but I've always thought it would help keep the heat better than sitting on the counter. Added bonus: more counter space!
If you need to hold something for a more than just a few minutes and your oven is in use I have had pretty good luck with a heating pad (like the kind for a sore back) with a ceramic/glass dish on it and cover the whole thing with a clean dish towel or foil.
Our oven has a "warm" setting which is probably in the 200-250 F range. It's great for this. It won't last forever, but it will last long enough to finish dishes which are taking longer than expected or long enough to quiet the baby, answer the phone, etc.
If it's a steak-like meat, you're actually doing your dining experience good by covering it in foil and letting it sit for a bit. It being too cold in 2 minutes is a bit fast, though, so perhaps it's something else?
The low-heat oven is a fine approach - don't really see why it would be considered a hassle. There's also keeping it warm in a sous vide cooker / warm water bath: this will allow you to keep it at a desired temperature for a long long time. Careful you keep the temp low enough that the meat doesn't cook any further.
What I do, and what works fine, is to pop the plate on which the meat will sit/wait in the oven in advance, and let the meat rest (in foil) on this pre-heated plate (or other container, if you have other meat.
Heating the oven, using oven gloves, something that'll go in the oven, heat up the kitchen, remember to pre-heat. meh.
Different strokes for different folks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.676453
| 2010-08-19T17:40:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5561",
"authors": [
"Cynthia",
"Dan Wolfgang",
"Dave",
"Fabian",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"Rusurano",
"Tobias Op Den Brouw",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8457",
"mcint",
"roylaurie",
"stephennmcdonald",
"yossarian",
"zambesianus"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4803
|
Preparation Techniques for Tilapia Filets
In my freezer, I have two thin tilapia filets that need to be eaten. I realize that I can:
wrap them in foil with seasoning and cook
bake or broil them with butter, wine, lemon juice, and/or other seasonings
bread and fry them
grill them
What I'd love to know is what I'm missing: what's are techniques to use with this mild-flavored fish in it's preparation?
Should probably be wiki, since there isn't a right answer.
@roux - I wasn't looking for recipes. I was looking for techniques. I also didn't ask for a "best" type of preparation, but rather was hoping to create a list of interesting preparations.
@Adam - done as suggested.
I've found two good things to do with this fish (I dislike it broiled/baked): fish curry or soup, and fish tacos. I find the fish too bland to really do much on its own, but it serves as a decent base to the different pepper sauces that i put on tacos.
For curries, the Indian state of Goa has some good ideas on what to do with fish, as do the Thais. You can find many recipes in different books and the internet. Talapia will generally sub in for whatever whitefish they call for, although it has a bit less flavor than most.
My personal favorite fish soup is the Hungarian halászlé. I don't have a good recipe--I usually make it up as I go along--but google should find you some.
+1 for the reference to Goan cuisine, its the most nomalicious when it comes to fish
I tend to treat tilapia similar to chicken in that it's kind of a blank canvas onto which you project other flavors. It doesn't work everywhere chicken does, but one of my favorite uses is to chop it into little bits, and "stir fry" it. I season those browned bits and use them as the base of actual stir fry or with Mexican seasonings in tacos, etc.
FISH TACOS! [drool]
Yes, fish tacos are an idea I hadn't thought of.
I do this with Salmon, never tried it with Tilapia but I imagine it would still taste great!
I basically take the salmon fillets and sprinkle garlic powder, ground black pepper, and cayenne pepper. Then I brush each of the fillets with 1 tbsp of olive oil. If you don't like the fishy smell, squeeze a few lemons over it and/or cut up a few slices of lemon and lay it over each of the fillets. Then I pop it in the oven @ 375 degrees and bake until the fish is cooked or until flakey (depends on the size of your fillets).
I know fish and cheese is supposed to be a sin. Luckily, I'm not one to play by the rules most of the time, I go by what I enjoy :)
My wife is very picky, especially about fish, so if I want her to eat it, I have to mask it sometimes...at least at first to warm her up to the idea of something new.
When I first wanted her to try tilapia I made this: Parmesan-Herb Baked Flounder but subbed in tilapia. She loved it, and since then, I've been able to convince her to try (and enjoy!) tilapia with simple marinades, broiled or on the grill. But this recipe was a stepping stone.
Even now, I still make this on occasion, and I make 10 filets at a time - and they last about 2 days max in our house.
I happen to have some leftover parmesan in my freezer, making this a great possibility.
Tilapia is, at best, a bland fish, so I agree with hitting it with some strong flavors. Pesto, perhaps? That's got parmesan! And garlic! Perfect to mask any muddiness!
It's quite delicious simply sautéed/seared with salt and pepper. The real fun is serving it with perfectly glazed carrots and using that glaze as sauce for the fish, as well! You must try this. The sweet and buttery glaze make the slightly salty fish divine!
I eat this about once a week and can't get enough!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.676796
| 2010-08-10T17:20:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4803",
"authors": [
"Adam",
"Adam Shiemke",
"AncientSwordRage",
"CarbonCrank",
"DoomerDGR8",
"GlassGhost",
"Harlan",
"Illiad",
"Ivan Angelov",
"Jeb",
"Kyleinincubator",
"Programmer1234",
"Reno",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9331",
"justkt",
"musters",
"nina",
"rec",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5969
|
Using ostrich and emu eggs
Every time I venture to whole foods I notice the ostrich and emu eggs for sale. The one obvious difference is size. Do the eggs taste the same as chicken eggs? Are they any different nutritionally? Can they be hard-boiled?
Probably going to struggle to have a vessel large enough to completely submerge them in water
i have a friend who has 8 ostriches, and he eats their eggs all the time. the taste is (apparently) different from a chicken's... richer somehow, but not different in a bad way. he has hard-boiled them, but as roux says, it takes a LONG time to do it. i think he boils them for an hour, but don't quote me on that one. his most regular method is to drill a hole in it, drain it into a big bowl, blend it, and then makes scrambled eggs a cup or so at a time. he has found that he can freeze the leftover egg for eating later. as roux also said, one ostrich egg is about 2 dozen or so chicken eggs, so be prepared!
Just wanted to share this link to a Discover article about eggs: http://discovermagazine.com/2006/feb/cooking-for-eggheads/article_view?b_start:int=1&-C= - the key to hard-boiled eggs is temperature, not time - but for such a large egg, it takes time for the temperature to distribute through the egg, obviously. The interesting bit was how a precise temperature affects the outcome of the egg...
I have cooked and eaten an ostrich egg once before and it was a mildly unpleasant experience.
It definitely doesn't taste like a chicken egg - it has a denser texture (almost rubbery) and a stronger taste. Scrambling it and using it as part of a frittata in two very large 14 inch pans, I was still scratching my head as to what I should with the leftovers.
Also, unless you have ostriches I know they can be quite expensive. The emu eggs seem like they would be a bit easier to handle, but still I'm not sure I would have any reason to buy one except for curiosity.
I've never had Ostrich eggs but I've eaten many duck and goose eggs that my family raised when I was a child. Duck and Goose eggs are richer (large yolks) and slighly gamey in flavor - you may enjoy this or find it unpleasant depending on your tasts. I quite enjoyed them.
Our birds were "free range" (they wandered in our back yard) and ate a lot of grass and bugs in addition to hand shelled corn which gave a deep savory flavor to the egg that you do not get with "feed fed" chickens.
There is nothing quite like Goose Eggs scrambled with a bit of butter sauteed morels for a country gourmet breakfast though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.677147
| 2010-08-25T18:30:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5969",
"authors": [
"Neil Meyer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2628",
"weiji"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11336
|
How to make scalded (clotted) cream?
I can't buy clotted cream in New Zealand, so I'd love to learn how to make it. I have a friend who can provide raw milk.
What's the technique?
You need fresh, creamy raw milk to start with. Pour it into a wide, shallow pan and leave overnight for the cream to separate out.
When ready, heat the milk, very, very gently for about an hour. It should never come anywhere near boiling. Leave overnight again, then you can just scoop the cream off the top.
Gotta try this, I haven't had clotted cream in eons! :(
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.677383
| 2011-01-21T21:56:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11336",
"authors": [
"Benjol",
"Big Crank",
"Nathanial",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3680",
"user709568"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46085
|
Utensil to thaw meat
A very long time ago, I was at a friend's house where her father took out this piece of ribbed metal from the cupboard.
It was a dark piece of metal about the size of an adult hand. It had grooves on one side, and was smooth/flat on the other.
He asked me to touch it and it felt cold to my touch.
Next, he placed an ice cube on it and it began melting immediately. It did not require plugging in, it was just a slab of metal.
At that time, I was just amazed at how it worked and forgot to ask him what it is called. He tried to explain to me the physics behind it but I was just gobsmacked at the thing.
Now many years later I realized that its a thawing utensil and I am trying to search for it but as you can guess from the question, I don't know what to look for.
The first time I reached into a 350F oven and pulled out food that was sitting on tin foil, my wife shrieked. But as long as the tin foil was dry and not folded over, it doesn't contain enough heat to burn. Heat and temperature are two different things. This is similar to your question, the metal pulling away the heat. In your case it's actually warming the meat sitting on it.
See How does a Miracle Thaw work?
How nice to have a question I can just answer. I remember the ads for that thing. You can still buy it, it is called The Miracle Thaw. Now there are knock offs.
I am so pleased that you didn't ask how. It's too close to my bedtime for that.
It works because the metal is superconductive for heat. It takes the ambient heat from the room and uses it to warm whatever's on it. If you were to put something really hot on it (like a seared steak fresh from the pan), it would cool that down really fast as well. If you were to put a digital thermometer near it, I think you could see the ambient temperature of the nearby air drop.
It is not superconductive, just conductive. That word has a meaning which does not apply.
@NateKerkhofs, superconductive is a term used in electrical conductivity, not heat conductivity.
@JamesRyan Just repeating what's on the product description on Amazon: It's made of a super-conductive metal alloy that absorbs heat from the air and transfers it directly to the frozen food. I also thought that term was kinda misused in this context, but it was the best description I could use.
the hyphen makes all the difference
Curious, if you have one, how does it compare to a good aluminum baking sheet?
reference: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/conductive-heat-transfer-d_428.html
Let's take a moment to look at the heat transfer equation. Looking at it, we can see the ways to get more efficient heat transfer
q / A = k dT / s
q / A = heat transfer per unit area (W/m2)
k = thermal conductivity (W/mK)
dT = temperature difference (oC)
s = wall thickness (m)
use a material with a high thermal conductivity constant (like copper)
thinner (!) material
maintain a higher difference in temperature
The way these thawers work should now be easy to understand. (1) They are made of a material that has a very high thermal conductivity constant, like copper. The higher a material's thermal conductivity, the faster it can equalize it's temperature with that of the surrounding material.
Things that touch each other want to be the same temperature. When you put an ice cube on a sheet of room temperature copper, they are very different temperatures. But as soon as they touch, they want to be the same temperature, so heat transfer begins. Heat "flows" from the copper to the ice, increasing the temperature of the ice, and melting it. Heat also flows all throughout the copper itself, meaning that even the parts of the copper that are far away from the ice are losing heat.
With the copper losing heat, it quickly falls out of temperature equilibrium with the surrounding air. But the air and copper also want to be the same temperature, and so heat from the air "flows" into the copper, bringing it back closer to room temperature, which in turn allows the copper to heat up the ice some more....
The top of the copper plate is probably flat, to increase the amount of surface area in contact with the ice. The bottom of the copper plate, however, is probably ribbed or finned, to increase the surface area with the surrounding air, but without (2) creating more thickness!
We could also address (3) and heat the copper electrically, above room temperature, but then we run the risk of heating part of the food to that temperature as well. The benefit of using a passive copper heatsink is that the temperature will never rise above room temperature!
HOW was not a part of the question. Write a question asking how, answer that question (a very encouraged practice), then this answer will get the credit it deserves.
Thanks for the tip. Check it out here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46088/how-does-a-miracle-thaw-work. I hope I did it correctly!
NICE! I need to take a closer look, but I think you did great.
As @Jolenealaska said it's a defrosting tray like a miracle thaw or the like. There's nothing magic about it, it's simply a piece of metal that has high thermal conductivity. Materials that have a high thermal conductivity transfer heat more efficiently than those with a low conductivity. Aluminum is cheap and has a high thermal conductivity relative to other materials, so it's almost certainly just a chunk of aluminum.
However, defrosting trays don't really work as well as the commercials would have you believe. The same reason that your food thaws slowly without a defrosting tray limits how quickly it will thaw with one, and that is because air is a poor conductor of heat. When you thaw something what is happening is that heat is being transferred from the environment (air, the counter surface, etc) to the object until the environment and the object are in equilibrium, that is the temperatures of both are the same. A thawing tray still has to get heat from the environment to transfer, and how quickly it can do this is limited by the fact it still has to get heat from the air. When you put a cold object on a thawing tray the tray will quickly transfer it's heat to the object, but once the tray gets as cold as the object the rapid thawing stops and it's all down to how quickly the environment can transfer heat, which isn't that fast.
So thawing trays are great at making ice cubes melt quickly, and they will speed up thawing a bit, just not that much.
A cast iron pan will do the trick. You probably have one (thus don't need to purchase and store another piece of metal). I will frequently forget to take something out of the freezer. So, when I do, I just place it in the pan (or turn the pan over to place on the flat bottom). Items in contact with the pan thaw significantly faster than items simply placed on the counter. No need to make a purchase.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.677477
| 2014-08-04T08:20:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46085",
"authors": [
"Amy northrop",
"Atlanta Balloon Designer",
"Betty Starr-Davis",
"GdD",
"JTP - Apologise to Monica",
"JamesRyan",
"Jolenealaska",
"Laurita Olmstead",
"Manawyrm",
"Martin Paul",
"Martin Schröder",
"Nzall",
"Online Casino India",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6142",
"mbomb007",
"pabo",
"thunkii"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32809
|
Brining...at high temp?
I read that brining makes meat moister by causing protein cells to absorb water from the brine via osmosis (Wikipedia) So I thought, hmm, why not kill 2 birds with 1 stone: brine + slow-cook (sous-vide) at the same time for 12 hours or so (temp at 158º-160º). Boy, was I wrong, the pork came out tough and dry! :(
Is the effect of brining the opposite at higher temp?
UPDATE: I should also mention that later on, I slow-cook another one but this time in its own juice instead of brine and it turns out better.
Wikipedia is wrong. Osmosis always brings water from the salt-free to the salty place. If any osmosis is happening in brining, it works to make your meat drier, not juicier. (Of course brining as a whole makes the meat juicy - but it is by other processes, not osmosis).
what % was your brine solution? If you wanted to use this type of method I suggest keeping the overall salt content in your cooking medium to around 1-1.5% since that is the overall salt level we typically perceive to be tasty in food. Also, the salt concentration cannot get above this amount since it will eventually reach equilibrium at some point.
@rumtscho My intuition tells me so too, because if you just marinate something for a really long time, you are essentially curing the meat, therefore making it tougher. So then, what is this "other processes" you are talking about that makes the meat juicier?
Somebody else already asked that, look around for the question, must still be on the main page.
I recommend giving this page a read: Equilibrium Brining
The idea is that when typically brining a piece of meat you may put it in a brine that is lets say 7% salt. Now it's up to you to time it correctly so that the meat and the salt solution will begin to equilibriate. Pull it out too soon and it's no big deal, put it in too long and you get a salty mess with a very tough texture.
A better way of doing this, and somewhat analogous to the stew comment, is to pick a salt concentration for the dish. Something delicate will need less salt compared to something more robust. Let's say you decide on 1.5% salt, meaning weigh your ingredients as a whole and then add 1.5% of that weight in salt. Using this method, you dont have to rely on timing, rather you can go about your business and cook it as you normally would because the salt concentration, no matter how long your cook it for, will never rise above that 1.5%. If you did this with the traditional brine, depending on the thickness of your meat, could get to 7% which would be very over-salted and probably a textural mess.
Now should we be cooking in brines? My advice, no, brine first and then cook normally because of the greater possibility of texture change with the prolonged time in the salt solution. But if you use the equilibrium method you can at least control the max salinity of the food.
Thanks, Brendan. I've seen that video actually, but for some reason it eluded me when I posted this question. Anyway, would this only work for brine? What about soy sauce marinade? I assume it'll be similar because soy sauce is salty?
yeah but you don't really know how salty it is. Most times ppl use soy in a marinade with doesn't usually penetrate to the core so your safe but if you cook in it your probably going to have to dilute it and balance it with other flavors.
The page and video (and site) at that link are fantastic. Great info and apparently a perfect answer as to how to do this right.
Brining works at a cellular level; if the solution does not have the time to act and reach inter-cellular gaps then you won't get the benefits.
How does brining work (from same wiki article):
the meat cells have water and solutes (sodium, chloride, potassium, amino acids, ...etc)
the brine has salt (sodium, chloride)
the salt ions of the brine diffuse into the cells
the osmosis cause the cell to absorb water
some other stuff happens to the proteins (denaturalization) causing the water to be trapped
This is a slow process, in particular for the salt ions to diffuse into theat, for the osmosis to happen, for the protein to coagulate ...etc.
How is brining different from curing:
the concentration of solutes (e.g. sodium and chloride) is different
curing is usually mostly done with salt (sugar/molasses/...etc optional)
the concentration being higher, the osmotic pressure draws water out.
Slow cooking in the brine just didn't give a chance for the meat to absorb and trap water. Since you describe the meat as tough and dry, I would say this is mostly because of salt concentration seems too high (wet-curing).
Thanks, curious though, isn't this how stew work? You slow-cook meat in a marinade (which is usually salty and sweet) for a long period of time and the meat comes out tender and juicy
No, stewing is cooking in water, and the act of stewing the meat in the water creates broth. You can slow cook in a marinade, but you probably would end up with too concentrated a flavor for a stew.
@pixelfreak the meat in stew gets juicy from the melting of collagen already present in stew cuts. Has nothing to do with the liquid in which you cook the meat.
@pixelfreak, a marinade is mostly acidic or enzymatic and is targeted to break down tissue, to tenderize it - whereas salt water is neutral (sodium -strong base, chloride -strong acid).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.678176
| 2013-03-19T06:47:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32809",
"authors": [
"Amila Perera",
"Brendan",
"Deaden Soul",
"Denise Nankivell",
"DrM",
"GdD",
"Glenn Iverson",
"Juan Lanus",
"Judy Parker",
"Polish Housewife",
"Windupbird",
"dnozay",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76028",
"pixelfreak",
"potato",
"rumtscho",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32081
|
Conservation of ground beef
We planned to eat hamburgers tonight, so I bought 1.5 Kg of fresh ground beef at my store, at 3 PM.
But then, we decided to postpone that to tomorrow night.
Ground beef can be kept for at most 24 hours in a fridge right ?
It is not vacuum sealed, the butcher packed it in front of me.
So what should I do ? (it is 5:30 PM now)
Leave in the fridge and cook the meat before 3 PM tomorrow (and reheat at dinner time)
Freeze the meat as-is (in the store-sealed package)
Prepare the patties and freeze them now
Other ?
I don't have a microwave, I would defrost it in the fridge (I heard room temperature isn't appropriate, especially for ground meat in which micro-organisms develop quickly).
If I choose to freeze the meat as-is, I guess I would have to defrost it at least a bit to form patties. But if I freeze the patties, can I pan-fry them right away ?
Freezing should be safe, even though a friend of mine once tried to cook ground meat he had put in the freezer a few days before (right after buying it, he said) ; and it seemed not to be good anymore (rotten or something) ; so I'm not sure.
Thanks in advance, I'd rather not poison everyone tomorrow :)
EDIT : The hamburgers were fine — I lowered a bit my fridge temperature overnight, just to be sure, and cooked it well before serving.
Just a quick comment: you should never freeze something if it's loosely packaged. You could freeze your ground beef, but do it in something as airtight as possible.
Thanks for the advice. It was kind of airtight actually, I said it was not "vacuum sealed" because there was still some air in ; but now that I think about it, there's no way he could have really removed all the air inside.
Per the FDA, you can hold the ground beef, refrigerated, for one to two days.
Assuming you have:
Bought the meat from a reputable source (you seem to have if you watched them wrap it)
Have kept it well refrigerated since buying it, and will do so until cooking it
I would just cook and eat it as normal at dinner time tomorrow, since it has been refrigerated the entire time. 24 hours is not a magic number. 26 or 28 hours is not that different.
Now, several days extra time before cooking would be a big difference compared to several hours.
I realize from your use of kg you probably don't live in the US, but the US FDA is still a reputable source for food safety information :-)
Thank you, I will keep it in the fridge then.
I know the meat doesn't have an internal 24h-counter that makes it suddenly unhealthy, but microbes develop fast and I tend to eat late...
And even though if I live in Canada (I am from France actually, that's why I use Kg), I would trust FDA's advice :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.678624
| 2013-02-20T22:35:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32081",
"authors": [
"Amy gordon",
"Cara Musciano",
"Deanna Davis",
"KL Owen",
"Mary ODriscoll",
"Mien",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73806",
"hugo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19133
|
What can I substitute for puff pastry?
I have a recipe that calls for me to roll up turkey in puff pastry. What can I use as a substitute for the puff pastry, preferably that is lower in saturated fat?
Phyllo, but you'll need to use some butter on it.
Yeah, phyllo would work, but once you use the butter on it, why not use the puff?
If you're worried about saturated fat, you could alternatively use phyllo with olive oil instead of butter.
The term "healthier" has no meaning here. I'll assume that you're trying to reduce saturated fat intake and have edited the question accordingly. In the future, please try to be more specific about your nutritional goals when asking a nutrition-related question.
Joe,
Whole wheat puff pastry. It's expensive, and hard to find, though.
Or try another recipe. If the recipe you're using calls for puff pastry, then the flavor and texture of the puff pastry is going to be a big part of the dish. It never works very well to substitute a primary ingredient in a recipe.
My upvote isn't necessarily for the suggestion of whole wheat puff, but for the suggestion that you should never substitute a primary ingredient in a recipe.
+1 for the same reason. This is like asking what to substitute for the onion in onion soup.
I don't understand why whole wheat puff pastry would be lower in saturated fat--the actual goal of the question--than standard. It is the fat in the recipe, not the flour, which is at issue. Still, whole wheat will certainly be more fragile and difficult to work with.
Croissant rolls or crescent rolls, found by the biscuits in the supermarket.
If I am not mistaken, that is puff pastry...
@Mien No, they are different. You can buy frozen puff pastry dough, but it is a different item.
This might be a wild bet, but I would try something out with tampura.
This would be extremely difficult to do, as tempura is a wet batter that is suitable for deep frying, while puff pastry is a rollable dough that is wrapped around the food item and baked. Conversion of the recipe from one to the other would be essentially creating an entirely new recipe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.678870
| 2011-11-24T21:27:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19133",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Daniel",
"ESultanik",
"Lynne Gerulski",
"Mien",
"Pranab",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Steve",
"Steve Hicks",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91234",
"mrwienerdog",
"slim",
"user2262867"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35488
|
Vegetarian Fish
My wife and I are trying to go vegetarian for a month. We enjoy fish quite a bit. Is there any way to replicate the taste of say salmon, tuna, or cod with vegetarian, or better yet vegan, ingredients?
Fish has a very unique texture and flavor; I don't think this can be done with vegetables. You would be better served by exploring great vegetable dishes that you like and which highlight those ingredients.
You may be able to get somewhere with various seaweeds and plants and tofu/miso-paste. Checkout your local Japanese grocery store. Otherwise as @SAJ14SAJ says, just focus on enjoying and discovering new yummy stuffs available on the list.
What are you trying to use the substitute in? Imitating tuna salad is very different from imitating a grilled tuna steak.
This question would be on-topic here: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/94068/veganism-vegetarianism please commit!
I have been around vegan meat/fish substitutes for a while being vegan myself, and often you can find (in specialized vegetarian stores - especially asian vegetarian stores or online) stuff labeled as "vegan fish" which most of the time refers to soy, seitan or some other protein pieces with a seaweed "skin". Sometimes recipes call for linseed oil ... presumably adding a fishy flavor. None of this really tastes like any fish I ever ate ... but I guess it comes quite close in texture and some components of the flavor, for people who really don't want to give those up.
I like japanese cuisine where a lot of seaweed is used ... which gives a "sea" taste to food, but again I wouldn't really call it fish flavor (whereas a longtime vegan friend of mine wouldn't eat seaweed cause it reminds her of fish too much, so I guess it depends on your taste).
I agree with what @SAJ14SAJ says in the comment above. And I believe it would be really hard to perfectly imitate the fish texture and flavor. And for me, being vegetarian means giving up eating animals, and to accept that this means not eating a couple of foods that might taste very delicious. However, if giving up fish is hard for you, I hope some of the "mock fish" products are close enough to make it easier for you to keep up the vegetarian path/cause!
Just as a fun side note: recently I watched a (otherwise horrifically annoying) TV show where a young chef using some fancy high-tech machinery pressed dashi (which is a kind of japanese seaweed or fish broth) into cubes of watermelon and the people who ate it (none of which seemed to be vegetarian) all thought the texture and flavor were like tuna (hard to test if you don't get catered to by someone owning the machine).
If you freeze a block of regular (non-silken) tofu, it will take on a flaky texture kind-of-sort-of like cooked white fish. If you combined this with the fishy flavor of kelp powder, you might be able approximate something cod-ish.
It might be easier to identify what aspects of fish you want to replicate and aim specifically for those. For instance, if you want something that's a little bit fatty and mildly fish tasting, you can make a "tuna salad" with mashed garbanzo beans or flaked frozen tofu and dulse flakes or kelp powder. If you want to approximate the whole texture, flavor, and mouthfeel of grilled salmon, you're going to have a much harder time.
Does the tofu retain the texture on thawing? If it has to be eaten frozen, it's going to be quite a different experience!
@PeterTaylor Sorry, yes. You freeze the tofu, thaw it, and then it has a drier & flakier texture.
I found this great recipe for mock fish http://spiceislandvegan.blogspot.com.au/2008/08/how-to-make-vegan-fish-or-mock-fish.html
They use it in a most vegetarian Asian restaurants. For me taste just like fish or the closest you will get to it. Have fun and all the best :)
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! Whilst this may theoretically answer the question, it would be preferable to include the essential parts of the answer here, and provide the link for reference.
you can make chickpea sandwiches:
http://www.theppk.com/2013/07/chickpea-salad-sammiches/
there's lots of great recipes on the ppk site.
(here's a great dessert recipe; that my friends (who are omnivores) love: http://www.theppk.com/2011/02/berry-creme-tart-with-cocoa-olive-oil-crust/)
Are you suggesting that chick-peas taste of fish?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.679084
| 2013-07-22T15:25:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35488",
"authors": [
"Attilio",
"Badoora Almarzooqi",
"Bev Ward",
"Cascabel",
"Călin",
"DeepMaterial ShenZhen co lt",
"MandoMando",
"Marilyn",
"Mary",
"OccaPrioBing",
"Peter Taylor",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"Veronica Farris",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99686",
"lifework ",
"mousetail 'he-him'",
"rumtscho",
"slim"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21595
|
Annatto Oil Substitute
We have a recipe that calls for us to make annatto (achiote) oil and fry some chilli peppers in it. We are unable to find annatto seeds. Is there a good substitute?
can you even find the whole annatto seed? that's what makes the oil that color. i don't think it really imparts a much of a flavor. a thread at chowhound.com suggests maybe using turmeric instead to color the oil -- i can see a bit of a resemblance.
"Can you even find...": I assume by "you" you mean "one", since the OP already said he can't find it. There wouldn't be so many recipes for annatto oil online if you couldn't buy it. I've seen it in some more specialty stores, though to be fair I'm originally from Texas. And it does have some flavor, though it's mainly used for the color.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.679452
| 2012-02-21T22:16:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21595",
"authors": [
"Aaron",
"Cascabel",
"Kathleen",
"Monica Joseph",
"consoni",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47915"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19587
|
How do I remove bitterness from zucchini?
I have thin-sliced zucchini and steamed it for use in my soup. One of the zucchini turns out to be bitter. I have saved half of it for use on the next day. Is there a cooking method that will remove the bitterness from that same zucchini, preferably with a presentation that is similar to steaming?
When I cook zucchuni I slightly scrape the skin with help of a knife to reduce the bitterness.
Also for some meals prepared by mashing, I peel the skin off.
After experimenting, removing the skin is found to be most effective in removing the bitter taste. (This is also mentioned in one of the links in @mfg's answer. Cooking in water removes some, but is not as effective as removing the skin. Salt only masks the taste, but is ineffective for zucchinis that are particularly bitter.
@rwong Salt does not simply "mask the taste". It also reduces perceived bitterness. You can confirm this yourself with any number of simple experiments. Try adding a small pinch of salt to your coffee. Bitterness is reduced without any noticeable saltiness.
Mild bitterness in zucchini, like that found in cucumber, may be
result from environmental factors such as high temperature, low
moisture, low soil nutrients, etc. The bitterness is caused by
compounds called cucurbitacins. There is also a rare condition which
can cause extreme bitterness in zucchini. A compound called
Cucurbitacin E is found in wild species of squash, but is extremely
rare in cultivated species. (Univ. of Arizona)
Having bounced around to the various other sites I basically had what I've heard anecdotally before confirmed; salt and lay out to drain liquid. I suppose the implication is that by dessicating the zuke a little bit, it can remove the Cucurbitacin (which is a steroid developed to ward off herbivores). Putting the zukes in salt water is also recommended by some.
It appears that people can become ill from incredibly bitter zukes, so be wary of eating extremely bitter ones. In this case, you may want to follow the wisdom of your taste buds and drop the zucchini in the trash.
Yep. There are known cases where people ate bitter squashes from plants that accidentally got cross pollinated by other cucurbitae species, and poisoned themselves.
I learned a nice tip from a Sri Lankan friend which seems to make them taste less bitter:
1) Chop off the stem end of the courgette with a sharp knife (not serrated)
2) Press the stub / courgette surfaces back together and rotate the stub end against the courgette continually for a couple of minutes.
3) As you do so you will find a thick, white substance leeches out of the courgette through the cut end (it might continue for half a minute or for a few minutes)
4) Once it's stopped leeching out (or you're bored!) wipe off the white stuff and discard the stub.
5) Continue to prepare / cook / eat as planned. It should taste better!
Your Sri Lankan friend was right. Here in India we do the exact same thing for cucumbers, which is from the same family as zuchinni. Taking out the white stuff makes it less bitter. In addition, before rubbing the two surfaces together, you should lightly poke the two surfaces three to four times with your knife. This helps in taking out the white stuff better.
I don't understand step 2. What exactly is the stub, and what are the "courgette surfaces"? Do I rub the stem-end all over the courgette, or just in one spot?
Best explained by a video.
Also, salt masks bitter flavors; it's one of the reasons that, for example, bacon goes so well with cooked greens.
Cutting off the tip of the zucchini with the stem part and rubbing the two cut ends together, is also what a Californian friend of mine recommended to me years ago. But after rubbing and letting the white liquid come out, I cut another slice of the zucchini off, to be sure none of the white liquid is still on there. This method works most of the times for the bitterness to be gone. From personal experience though, I have noticed that whenever the peel is very thick and dark it is best to peel the zucchini, because then its the only way to get rid of the bitterness, which goes as well for cucumbers.
It's called milking the vegetables. It's not milk, but looks like it. I milk my zucchini and squash. Then salt it, wait a few minutes, then rinse. Now I'm free to do what I want with it. Milking helps, also salting.
Did you intend to post this as a comment on anja’s answer, rather than as a separate answer?
My mom always taught me to rub the two cut surfaces of the zucchini together to get the bitterness out. I also do this for cucumbers. (https://i.sstatic.net/KOq5E.jpg)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.679571
| 2011-12-12T02:50:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19587",
"authors": [
"Chris Steinbach",
"Grnlite",
"Jack M",
"Photon001",
"Sneftel",
"Stefan",
"Tanvi",
"chrylis -cautiouslyoptimistic-",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81110",
"lucirebecca",
"qed",
"rackandboneman",
"rwong",
"volker"
],
"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
}
|
16687
|
How do I skip the planning and shopping?
I really enjoy cooking. I enjoy the creativity, the experimentation and trying new foods. I HATE the planning, list making & shopping.
Is there any service or "technique" for avoiding everything leading up to the work in the kitchen?
You could go to work as a line cook in a restaurant. Then you'd have minimal responsibility for ordering and lots for prepping and cooking. Depending on the place, there may or may not be room for the creativity aspect.
Depending on where you live, there is a pretty simple approach you can try. In the next few days, head out to places that specialize in particular kinds of foods and in making them appeal to you. A farmer's market, a butcher's, a cheese shop, a bakery, etc. Chat with the staff and buy whatever speaks to you in the store. When you come home, make whatever meals you feel inspired to make according to what you've bought. Be creative and impulsive and seasonal. Keep doing that until one day you notice there isn't any food, and either go out and shop or eat something canned and go to shop the next day.
In probably a week's time, one of two things will happen. Either you will be feeling free, creative, inspired etc and so happy you are doing things this new way, or you will have thrown out a lot of expensive food that spoiled before you could use it, and be feeling very stressed and unhappy at 4 or 5 pm each day because you have to figure out what to make. If it's the former, mission accomplished. If it's the latter, you now have your motivation for the planning and the list making, and should find it more pleasant since you know its purpose and what it is saving you from. Either way, the "I hate having to plan my meals" feeling should diminish drastically.
Like Kate said, just go out and buy stuff. Just be careful of your budget and buy less then you feel tempted to.
@BaffledCook: Of course, if you use store prices to help decide what to buy, you'll often spend less than you do when buying everything that's needed for pre-chosen recipes.
In addition to shopping for stuff that's appealing, come up with a standard "order" that you shop for without thinking about. Restaurants do this with a standing order, for the staples that always make a kitchen better: canned tomatoes, pastas, rice, bases, spices, etc.
This might not be an option for you, but if it is then it could be brilliant for you: Join a local farmer's co-op... We have one close to us: http://www.localharvest.org/black-hog-farm-M41490
The genius of Black Hog is that they drop the freshest ingredients of the season on your door and then you get to just be creative with them!
I usually only "plan" for big parties, and even that planning is driven mostly by knowing what will be in season when I go shopping. For the average weeknight meal, I don't make shopping lists except to the extent that I know I'm missing something I want to have that evening. If you're an urban dweller, and a passable cook, you don't need to plan so much as you need to make frequent, smaller shopping trips and have enough of a foundation in technique to be able to adapt to what's good.
Here are things that can reduce the burden of planning and list-making:
Have a well stocked pantry of staple foods and seasonings. Your staples may be different from mine, but I consider rice, flour, pasta, beans and lentils (dried and, for those times when I didn't have the foresight to soak, canned), canned tomatoes, oils, a few dried Japanese ingredients for making soup stocks, soy sauce, mirin, sugar, and various spices essential. I'm not incapacitated without them, but I'll be able to improvise a lot more if my "usuals" are at the ready.
Make use of what's already in your refrigerator. I usually have at least a few kinds of cheese, plenty of butter, and various pickled and marinated vegetables.
Remember what you have when you do incremental shopping, and recognize opportunities for pairing anything you're buying today with things you still have a supply of.
Stop taking every line of a cookbook recipe as gospel. Learn to recognize the purpose an ingredient in your recipe serves (adds acid/fat/protein/bitterness/aroma) and think of other alternatives that are compatible, even if the result isn't the exact same dish. You won't need to make as many lists if you're making your food instead of the cookbook's food.
I don't personally hate the "shopping" part, unless I end up shopping at peak hours with frantic customers and crazy lines, but if you just can't stomach the idea of frequent 15 minute shopping trips instead of a weekly binge buying session, consider joining a CSA. You'll certainly need to figure out how to deal with unexpected and unfamiliar ingredients, but you'll be able to reduce your shopping to just the pantry and refrigerator essentials. In my area, online shopping for groceries is available through Amazon, but as far as I'm concerned, it's far less tedious to just go on targeted missions to the supermarket than it is to search and click for everything I want.
I skip the planning, that usually turns the shopping into a quest for some ingredient that is not stocked in whatever shop you go to. Instead I start with the shopping and just go look see what's fresh or what's appetising. Buy that then the cooking becomes an adventure of how do I cook what I bought; Much more fun than how do I buy what I want to cook.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.679988
| 2011-08-07T04:13:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16687",
"authors": [
"Andy",
"BaffledCook",
"Brendan",
"Bruce Alderson",
"Cascabel",
"Dave Halopoff",
"Kenyon",
"Michael Natkin",
"Sam",
"d8aninja",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"zuke"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20513
|
Can I increase my iron intake by eating food cooked with cast iron?
Can I eat food cooked in cast iron to leach iron into the food? Is it a significant amount?
I doubt whether iron obtained in this manner would be biologically active. As someone who has suffered several times from anaemia, it's not just a question of 'eating more iron': the iron has to be in the correct form, it has to be absorbed into the body (milk and tea prevent absorbtion), etc.
Can you get leached iron from cast iron? Yes
Is it consistent in the amount that you get? No
Is it dependent on the food in the pan? Yes
How much? It varies hugely dependent on the food. More liquid, acidic foods leach more. How long its in the pan also plays a role. 3 oz of spaghetti sauce could leach as much as 5mg - that's almost 1/3 of the daily recommended 18mg.
So you can cook with cast iron to get more iron, but it will vary wildly on what you cook in it. It will also likely increase/decrease based on how well the pan is or isn't seasoned.
...and we all know the taste of iron-enriched spaghetti sauce from a fry pan...
@Pat - too true.
Given rfusca's answer above and Newman's comment, I thought it might be worthwhile to see what medical autorities -- or what passes for such on the internet -- have to say.
NIH Medline:
"There is real evidence that cooking in cast iron pots increases the amount of iron in the diet. This is usually a very small source of dietary iron."
UCSF Health:
"Cooking with cast iron pots can add up to 80 percent more iron to your food."
McKinley Health Center says dietary iron can be obtained from:
"A NON-HEME food cooked in an iron pot, such as a cast iron skillet"
Columbia Health gives the most solid information about dietary iron from cast iron cookware, also containing the only reference to an actual study on the topic. It also reinforces rfusca's answer that it depends strongly on the type of food and how it's cooked.
So, the answer appears to be yes, you can get dietary iron from cast iron pots, and it's a significant amount. Not that that gets you out of needing to eat a nutritionally balanced diet.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.680548
| 2012-01-17T02:35:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20513",
"authors": [
"Brian Moths",
"No'am Newman",
"Pat Sommer",
"PowerKiKi",
"Richard",
"fyuy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"poffuomo",
"rfusca",
"user1877600"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20812
|
How many times can I use a salt block?
I've been reading up on Himalayan pink salt blocks. I am mainly interested in cooking with them, like cast iron. But, I noticed that they are a bit pricey, about $40 to $70. It also seems that they die after some usage.
My question is, how many times one can cook with a salt block before they are unusable?
I think the cost effective-ness and worth it portion of the question is quite subjective since there isn't a way to directly compare salt with cookware grade salt block. These salt blocks are considered unusable when it becomes cracked and fall apart, not when all the salt has been used up. Thus the price is for the novelty of using these blocks to cook food rather than the actual salt content. And whether the flavor is worth it is complete up to you to decide.
Due the obscurity of Himalayan salt blocks, I will provide a little background information for those who aren't familiar. Due to the Himalayan salt blocks' unique lattice formation, it has very low moisture and porosity. Due to this property it can be heated up to extremely high temperatures (up to 900 degree Fahrenheit). Also because of the lack of porosity the saltiness that comes off of it when cooking on top of it is minimal and will impart only a moderate amount of sodium. On top of that, it has many trace amount of other minerals including but not limited to sulfur, calcium, potassium, and magnesium. These additional trace minerals are what given the Himalayan pink salt its unique flavor.
Now if you want to cook using the block merely to try out its taste, i would recommend you use this instead. It is a bag of Himalayan pink salt that is meant to go into your food as seasoning.
How long a salt block last purely depends on how well you take care of it and luck. This article explains proper heating and washing techniques. Because these blocks are naturally carved out of the earth, fault lines(sometimes not visible from the outside or even with the human eyes) can exist on it. These fault lines will naturally grow bigger as the block is continuously heated to high temperatures. Because of this unpredictability, there isn't a "real" answer. However some can crack after just several uses(on one testimonial, one woman claimed it broke after two uses. But she was able to get it replaces for free) while other can last much much longer(others have report using it for over a year). Usually you can get a replacement if the block cracks in a short period of time. Find out about this warranty period from the supplier before buying.
Especially since the question has been edited to ask specifically about durability of salt blocks, can you quantify "several uses" and "much much longer"?
@Jefromi, due to the natural and unpredictable state of the blocks, there isn't really an answer. The only way I can think of is taking a poll from everyone who owns one, or collecting testimonials and plotting the results. I tried my best to find the opposite end of the spectrum from testimonials I've found on the web.
Sure, I know it's unpredictable, and that there probably aren't good statistics - just wanted some order of magnitude estimates of the range (with good care), like a guy who's used his 50000 times.
@serrano: I know it's a big range, and I know there aren't statistics. He edited in the "two uses" and the "over a year" after my first comment; my second one was just explaining that yes, that sort of general range was what I was looking for, not statistics. And here I am explaining that again.
I bought one for Father's Day & we used it ONE time and ended up with a SEVERE crack. We used it indoors on the gas burner and made chicken. It was yummy, a bit salty for my liking but I could see how I would adjust what I made.
I let it cool completely, overnight...and the crack was there in the morning. I bought it out of the area on a road trip so I can't return it. But I will follow up with the manufacturer!
So bummed!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.681008
| 2012-01-26T20:12:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20812",
"authors": [
"Ashly Glahn",
"Beginner-Q",
"Cascabel",
"Jay",
"Marcel Neau",
"Marianne013",
"Michelle Palmer",
"Shellycooks",
"Tracy",
"emed",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"peterw"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4945
|
Why do we peel carrots?
So I was sitting there, looking down at my counter, realizing that I probably had a good carrot or two of shavings just going to waste. (well, I'll compost it, but it's non-food at that point).
Is there any reason we peel carrots and don't just give them a good scrubbing? I mean, the scrubbing works for potatoes (so long as they're not green under the skin), and carrots grow in dirt, too. I don't think it's a pesticide issue, as we did it growing up, and I don't think we cared about pesticides back then.
I admit that sometimes there's odd crooks that might be harder to scrub dirt out of, but is there something fundamental that I'm missing here?
I'm adding the [food-safety] tag, because even though this isn't specifically about food safety, questions along the lines of "must I peel this food before eating it?" are common food safety questions and I think this should be loosely linked to those.
Try comparing the taste of the carrot peels to the taste of the carrot interiors; the difference will be obvious.
"we"? - I generally do scrub mine instead of peeling. :D
I find when cooked, the skin retains a bit of bitterness and toughness, so in desserts, juices or when shaved/julienned , I'm inclined to peel them. In fast salads, quick application, I usually don't bother.
It it only when cooked? Michael's response seems to suggest it's in raw carrots, too.
@joe - indeed when raw as well however, I think it's more noticeable when the fruit is soft rather than crunchy. I find the bitterness acceptable in the raw state
+1 The latest issue of Cook's Illustrated (June 2011, I think) did a taste test where they found it's much better tasting after being peeled.
This depends on the carrot. A young carrot freshly pulled from the ground has no bitterness at all, it is even sweet. Old, woody carrots from the supermarket could be bitter, especially if the surface is treated.
I peel my old woody carrots from the supermarket just to get the little stringy rootlets that have grown out of them off. This would not be a problem if I could remember to check whether I need to buy fresh when I plan to cook with the things.
And you don't have to let your carrot peelings go to waste -- use them in making vegetable stock, along with bits from other vegetables. Mushroom stems, corn cobs, potato peels, etc. can all be used in stock as long as you strain it after cooking. (I keep large plastic bags in my freezer that hold vegetable trimmings and leftovers, and when the bag gets full, I'll make stock.)
I do the same, and definitely include carrot shavings in my stock bag!
What a great idea! I'm going to start doing this.
This. A thousand times this. I also include chicken bones in my freezer stock...well, stock-pile.
Why do you have to strain them out?
Even raw, in some carrots the peel will have slightly bitter or soapy taste. Less so with very fresh, young farmer's market or homegrown varieties. Taste a little bit and see if it needs peeling.
I'm surprised most people didn't vote this one up ... it was actually a toss-up as to which one to mark as accepted ... I know exactly what you're talking about with the 'soapy' taste, but I suspect it's only objectionable to those of us who hate cilantro in large amounts, as it's pretty similar to me.
I scrub carrots with warm water and a brush, I usually don't peel them unless appearance is going to play a factor.
It's all a matter of aesthetics; peeled carrots are pretty carrots. I never peel mine unless the application calls for it (which is usually only when guests might mind the peel).
To get the dirt off? I'm not sure if this answer is a joke or not. All of our carrots now are local. They're nobbly and dirty. Peeling seems the easiest way to clean them.
You really aren't cleaning vegetables by peeling them as your blade is going to carry any pathogens on the surface with it as it peels. The only way to clean is under running water.
@sarge, I disagree. My local carrots clearly have dirt / earth on them. Peeling clearly removes it.
@sarge_smith Peeling gets the vast majority of the dirt off, and removes the little nooks and crannies it gets stuck in. A quick rinse is all that's required where a serious scrubbing would've been needed previously.
Too clarify, you are probably right to some degree about the pathogens. Although, I would assume only if the pathogen was present at the start of peeling rather than in the middle
I am not however advocating peeling in place of washing.
if you rinse after peeling, you would remove any pathogens transferred to the surface. In addition to pathogens, there is also grit, which is really unpleasant to chew. When being lazy, I clean mine with a metal scrubby pad under running water: removes some peel and most of the dirt.
I just didn't want somebody who didn't know any better to think that peeling was a substitute for washing. I agree that it makes it much easier and shorter.
If you have a lot of (nobby little) carrots to clean, throw 'em in a washing machine on the gentle cycle. Cleans 'em right up...
@Shog9: Thanks for the tip. Related tip: Don't use Calgon when washing the carrots (they turn out even more bitter).
It is done to make cleaning easier, remove the bitterness and improve the look of the carrot. Same type of reasons why people peel potatoes.
does not exactly relate to the question at hand. But for parsnips you are supposed to peel them because there is a compound that is a carcinogen in the peel. Similar to why you are not supposed to eat apple seeds.
Some of my friends and I have allergic reactions to carrots if they are unpeeled or uncooked. I don't know why though. I usually peel them with thick washing gloves on, and then boil them for a bit.
Interesting - a co-worker of mine gets an "itchy tongue" (he doesn't know any other way to describe it) from unpeeled carrots. Before him I had never heard of that, I wonder if it's the same thing you experience.
I learned in botany class that most of the vitamins are in the skin, so I've been scrubbing them, but peeling seems easier. Does anyone have a good suggestion for a veggie scrubber - better than blue scotch-brite sponges?
Q&A Peels and Vitamins
By C. CLAIBORNE RAY, NY Times
Published: March 11, 2003
Q. I have read serious assertions that all the nutrition of carrots is
in the peel, and so you shouldn't peel them. Is this true? What about
other vegetables?
A. Plenty of nutritional value is left in a peeled carrot, said Dr.
Stephen Reiners, associate professor of horticulture at Cornell's New
York State Agriculture Experiment Station in Geneva, N.Y., who works
with root vegetables.
The deep orange color of a carrot indicates the presence of beta
carotene, a precursor of vitamin A, he said, ''and when you peel the
carrot, it is just as orange when you take off the outer layer.''
As for other similar vegetables, he said, ''if it is the same color
throughout, you are getting the same nutrition with a peeled
vegetable.''
The big exception is the potato, where there is a striking difference
between peel and flesh. ''There is a lot of nutrition in the skin,''
Dr. Reiners said, ''but this is not to say the rest of the potato is
without nutritional value.''
I dedicate a fingernail brush for scrubbing vegetables and throw it in the dishwasher between uses.
I think it's just for appearance. There's no need to peel them. I often just rinse one well and have it as a snack. The outside of a carrot can look pretty gnarly, peeling it exposes that bright orange moist inner part.
Harold McGee, who knows a thing or two, advises us on p. 171 of Keys to good cooking: a guide to making the best of foods and recipes to
Peel carrots, even if they look clean. The outer layers can be bitter and carry off flavors
(his italics). But this advice may be overly general. If the carrots you get locally aren't objectionably bitter, then trust your own senses and leave them unpeeled.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.681377
| 2010-08-12T02:42:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4945",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adam Shiemke",
"B T",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Geore Shg",
"Hahu Gavra",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Joe",
"Kerim Atasoy",
"Lispper",
"Matthias Bauch",
"P K",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Rebecca C.",
"Shog9",
"Sobachatina",
"Spammer",
"Tad",
"Tu Le",
"User1000547",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Yanick Girouard",
"azhdanov",
"ceejayoz",
"dassouki",
"dave",
"dotancohen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9750",
"keithjgrant",
"kevin",
"rumtscho",
"sarge_smith",
"stephennmcdonald",
"user85358",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5615
|
Is sushi so difficult?
I've read somewere in the net that sushi is an extremely difficult food to prepare. It will take at least one year just to learn to cook the rice, and ten year to complete the experience.
It's so difficult? To do a comparison, one could prepare a decent home sushi like one can prepare a decent home dish after some years of home cooking?
It's more like a western chef that needs anyway to study and practice for a long time?
Like many crafts which originated in Japan, their sushi training more or less creates sushi artisans. If you just want to make a snack, you'll have plenty of ability given a basic review of techniques. You should focus your learning on understanding food-safety, getting the rice right, and making the roll not fall apart. The rest is just levels of mastery which you need not approach in your kitchen in order to experiment and enjoy a good dish.
Agreed. A lot of the training is learning to appraise, purchase and dismember fish and other sea life. If you buy your sea creatures at a store, most of this is taken care of.
I make sushi with friends about once a month, and it's not too difficult. The thing that took us the longest to get right was the rice, and we got that down after a few tries. It'll probably take a while to figure out the amount of vinegar you like in it, and how long to leave the seaweed in it while it's cooking.
For nigiri, I've got a little plexiglass box for molding the rice, which makes it somewhat easier to get it a regular shape. It probably wouldn't be too hard to find one, if you're really into making nigiri and don't want to just do it by hand.
We also tried making tamago (sweetened omelet) from scratch last time, and it came out really well. We weren't able to make it the proper thickness and have it cook properly, so we ended up making a bunch of very thin layers, stacking them, then rolling them up and slicing them.
We've started making sunomono as well, which makes a good opening to the meal. Thinly-sliced cucumber, mackerel, and a little bit of miso dressing cut with some mirin (sweetened rice wine). Sometimes we throw a little seaweed salad on top, as well.
To be a professional, yes there are schools in Japan that take several years to complete including lengthy apprenticeship requirements.
That said, I've taken a 3 hour sushi class and I can make sushi rice, maki, nigiri, and hand rolls just fine. They sometimes lack a little in the appearance department though.
Although Maki is my favorite type of sushi; with Nigiri, making it i find requires finess! the way you curl the rice between your palm and fingers, and then how it matches perfectly the cut fish. I usually like to roll a chive around it for looks and cause i don't have finess
Taking the myth out of making sushi makes it available to everyone. It is not difficult. My own sushi passed a 'Japanese' test! So, if it's good enough for the locals, it's good enough for me!
Personally- I use the sushi rice recipe from "The Joy of Cooking" and it worked on the first try.
You should definitely not be afraid to try it.
It took a couple tries getting the technique right for making the rolls but it's a fun family activity as the children get to pick their fillings, etc.
If you haven't seen it already, check out the sushi documentary Jiro Dreams of Sushi. He is 86 years old and a national treasure of Japan. Even he, himself, says he has not mastered sushi. He dreams all the time of how to improve his techniques. Hence the name of the movie "Jiro Dreams of Sushi".
I was able to successfully make my own sushi after two attempts. The hardest thing to grasp is the amount of labor and techniques needed for the rice. I first had sushi while living in Australia and watched a food tv show about Outback Bush cooking, with a Bushman cook. I watched him make maki rolls by hand with fish he caught. After I saw that, I decided I wanted to learn. It's worthwhile to research how to prepare the rice correctly because 50% of sushi is pure rice. Good luck!
"The hardest thing to grasp is the amount of labor...", So true. When we make sushi the effort to clean up the mess is almost not worth making it. That rice sticks to everything! ;-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.682059
| 2010-08-20T08:50:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5615",
"authors": [
"2manyprojects",
"Adam Shiemke",
"B540Glenn",
"Brooke",
"Doug Milano",
"Michel",
"Suhail Merchant",
"dassouki",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"howard",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87",
"jfpOne23",
"justin w"
],
"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
}
|
49027
|
Pavlova Roll failure
Why did the meringue in my pavlova roll turn out rubbery in consistency.
Was it baked for too long. It was baked at 170 deg for 10 min then at 150 deg for an hour. then switched off the oven and let cool in the oven
Update
The temp was Celsius I had the fan on also. it was baked as a flat rectangle on a tray and then rolled. Today I made another one and it was a lot better,not rubbery and I only baked it for 30 mins.
Do you mean Fahrenheit or Celsius? A more complete recipe would be helpful too. Are you baking in a sheet pan and then rolling? Or are you baking a log shape?
170°C, 150°C? That is just too hot.
Snow-white crisp merignue process is more of drying, not actually baking. Which is why the temperature must be in 100-120°C. Also, forced air circulation must be turned off.
I'm sure the OP meant Fahrenheit.
@Jolenealaska You think? My oven doesn't go that low.
Well actually, now I don't know. I looked at several recipes, and some do call for a very low oven (180F) for an hour, but now I see recipes that do call for 350F for 10 minutes. At any rate, if it is Celsius, I'm not finding any recipes that are for that hot, for that long. It's 10 minutes, and then done at 350F or one hour at 180F.
@Jefromi The closest I can find is Ina Garten's. Hers is 180F for 1.5 hours, turn off oven, cool completely in oven. I also see several for 10 minutes at 350F, remove from oven immediately.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.682449
| 2014-10-19T10:31:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49027",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Emyr Williams",
"Jolenealaska",
"Linda Bankston",
"Profile Spam Account",
"Theresa Maguire",
"francesco rossini",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47564
|
Spices storage conditions
I have seen in a lot of places that spices and dried herbs need to be kept in an airtight container.
I have several container that are virtually airtight, but they have couple small holes that if filled with liquid and put upside down it would drip slowly.
Is there any harm in storing spices in this condition?
Is it safe to store spices like that?
Can this very small amount of air be detrimental?
The flavor and aroma of spices deteriorates over time, particularly when exposed to air and light. How much time? ...hard to say...but buying whole spices and grinding them yourself when needed lengthens shelf life...as does storing them in airtight containers and in a dark, cool place. Health and safety is not a concern here. Flavor and aroma is. We are talking shelf life in terms of months, not years. So, your containers (clearly not airtight) will be fine, but the quicker you cycle through your spice inventory, the better.
quicker you cycle through your spice inventory, the better : nice one.
Moscafj's answer is technically true, but I don't think that you will have any problems with your containers.
Exposing your spices to drafts, convection and change in humidity is a bad idea, it will make them lose their aroma quicker. This is why they say "airtight container" - so you don't keep them in an open jar.
But if you have pinhole-sized holes in your spice containers, the rules of physics say that there will be very little to no air exchanged through them. They are just too small to allow for any noticeable convection, all you get is a tiny bit of diffusion. In other words, a screwed-on cap is OK, you don't need to put an o-ring beneath it :)
If you keep the container perfectly airtight, the volatiles which escape the herbs and spices will stay captured in the air around the spice. This will certainly smell better when you open the container. Also, they will lose less volatiles according to Nernst's law, because they are not surrounded by pure air, but by air in which their aromas are already dissolved. But, as I said, the air loss through not-hermetically-tight containers is so small, the difference is so small that you won't notice it. Maybe you'll need half a pinch more dried oregano to achieve the same taste intensity in a batch of sauce after some months of storage in closed vs. hermetically closed container. And the more frequently you use the spice, the less pronounced the effect, because you lose the satiated air whenever you open the container.
As far as safety is concerned: spices are shelf-stable, it doesn't matter if the container is closed or open, they are always safe to be held at room temperature.
So, as a practical matter: standard spice "shakers" are good enough, no need to caulk them shut or buy new ones.
Every edible ingredient we use in cooking has an expiry date! It is an inevitable nature which is good and important for healthy, safety and taste. So we will encourage ourselves to store for a short period of time and eat fresh food.
As @moscafj pointed out,
"quicker cycling through spice inventory"
is a better choice. Following are what you need to be concerned when storing dry spices.
Air
Light
Heat
Humidity (moisture causes them to deteriorate and often mold, now that's a health concern)
If you are buying spices in bottles, off the shelf, those do have an expiry date. Usually those bottles are airtight. However there's a difference between commercialized, labeled spices compared to those you may make on your own or buy from a farm/a country side plantation. Due to the preservatives added into those commercialized ones (during drying process) make them last long.
We do our own spices for our own use within and outside of the country. e.g. Black Pepper, Dry Chilli, Coriander, Parsley, Fennel etc. You could do the same. You may buy dry whole seeds (if you don't grow them) and grind. As a matter of health and safety, we always use glass containers and make sure to prepare spices moderately for 6 months periods. Personally I like to use fresh spices as first choice, however certain other recipes are better cooked with dry spices (depends on the cuisine). Further, for those who do not have the access for raw ingredients, storing dry can be the only avenue.
if u think , your spices are getting moist and losing aroma or getting spoilt, u can slightly roast them for a minute on low flame and put them back into dry containers.
This way spices will last long.
and regarding Herbs I am clueless.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.682622
| 2014-09-30T20:33:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47564",
"authors": [
"Colin Thompson",
"Joseph Awantang",
"Nataliy Corbin",
"Penny Smith",
"Peter Ruggiero",
"bonCodigo",
"emery rice III",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14207",
"mark Murdock",
"molly barber"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32325
|
How to recognize that a hard cheese is mouldy?
I have a piece of comte (French hard cheese) open for some time (1 week or so). How do I recognize that it's moldy and therefore not good to eat? There're a thin non-connected layer flour on the piece of the cheese which makes it quite difficult to visually detect mold.
You see the mold? Perhaps there is something about this question that I am not understanding.
@SAJ14SAJ I see something, but there is something (probably flour) on these packed cheeses from the very beginning.
Perhaps you can post a picture, then...
@SAJ14SAJ I would like to, but the only camera I have is my webcam, and I doubt anything can be seen there.
When you say non-connected... is the floury stuff on the rind of the cheese? Or the actual surface of the cheese?
@Jefromi on both, actually :-/
Cheese does not have flour on it... are you talking about a rind, or white spots i.e. mold?
A picture would be really helpful here; I don't think any of us have any idea what this layer you're talking about is, especially if it's already there when you buy the cheese, including on the actual cheese, not just the rind.
This is what the cheese should look like.
Edges on a cheese like this are referred to as the rind. Any white on there is fine unless it starts looking fluffy, even then you could probably just cut it off. The rind here and on many hard cheeses is a quite hard layer of dried cheese and protects the cheese inside.
If the yellow section of the cheese had mold on it that would indicate the cheese had become moldy after being cut or if there was a blue or green mold growing anywhere on this type of cheese. This would normally indicate the cheese had been kept badly. If your fridge is clean and dry wrapped hard cheese should keep a couple of months.
you are absolutely right.i followed the same method to keep cheese.
to see if a hard cheese like comte is rotting, you can usually smell it but i assume you may not be used to the original taste. If it is really not good for eating, some moss will start to developp on, this will happen when it is kept in a humid place; if you are keeping the cheese in a dry place it will just become hard as hell and if it start to get cracks on the surface, the taste can be not so good.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.683093
| 2013-03-01T23:05:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32325",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sunishtha Singh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"yo'"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110464
|
Why add a sunny-side up egg?
On Food Network, a lot of the shows add a sunny-side up egg to their dish, perhaps to make it more "elegant".
Some examples: burgers, veal cutlets, corned beef hash
Is this about elegance, or is does adding an egg improve or otherwise enhance the dish?
(let's say versus no egg or an omelet type egg?)
This seems to be the epitome of "primarily opinion-based". What is "elegance" but a subjective assessment of one's own opinion of what makes something "elegant". If you want to know why a broadcast personality chooses to enhance "elegance" with a particular garnish or ingredient, you need to ask that person. The rest of us don't have any particular insight into their thinking that would be useful.
Since I can't contact expert chefs on Food Network, I thought I would ask here.
Plating or how the food appears on the dish, is of major importance on these shows. I still don't know why Bobby Flay would add a sunny side egg on top of his dishes to make them elegant. Is this a technique taught in culinary schools?
Be careful of descriptions from entertainment shows on television including the so-called "news". Television is always self-promoting and will describe things in an over-the-top manner in all things. Source: me. 10 years in television and radio.
Allow me to make an edit to your question will that will increase the likelihood of it remaining open. If you disagree it can be rolled back.
I appreciate the edit but honestly this question is pretty much always going to be ultimately opinionated: people do it because they like it.
@Cascabel I have to disagree. People do lots of things in the kitchen because "they like it." It doesn't mean there is not an objective answer to the question. Adding a fried egg, or an egg yolk to a dish might certainly be popular in restos and on food tv...but, as I point out in my answer, the saucing issue is an objective and practical reason to do it. I realize you are only one the the close votes, but I think this is a valid question, and I think the concept of saucing is a valid answer. I would appeal to you and the other close votes to re-open this question.
@moscafj Okay, but why is adding a sauce a good thing? Would "it adds a sauce?" be an answer to "why put gravy on things?" Saying it adds a sauce is just a description of what adding an egg means, not really a "why". And even if we do decide that's an answer, how do we allow that answer, without also allowing purely opinion-based answers like "because it makes it richer"? I'd suggest taking this to meta; there were other close votes too.
@Cascabel yeah...my experience on meta doesn't give me much optimism for change. The question is why add an egg. One answer is it provides a sauce. It's not complicated. It's not an opinion. It's not the same question as why put a sauce on (or in your words, "why put gravy on things"). The question is why add an egg. BTW, the other close votes were present before the editing of the question, which changed it from an opinion based question "why does the egg make the dish more elegant." I think it is a good question. I think I answer it. I suspect there are other objective answers.
@moscafj I don't think this is something I'm going to change my mind about based on a couple comments. If you ask on meta, I promise I will engage with an open mind (and speak mine as well); I'm not sure what else I can offer.
I don't know about "elegance", as that is a matter of opinion, but an egg with a runny yolk provides an instant sauce for the dish. It can be delicious.
"I don't know about "elegance"" -- uh, okay...so, this isn't an answer after all? It seems this should have been posted as a comment, if at all.
Thanks for your comment, @PeterDuniho, but the answer that I provided suggests that the yolk acts as a sauce, which is often why it is included. Since, as you point out, "elegance" is a matter of opinion, I offer an objective reason why an egg might be added to a dish. Therefore, it is indeed an answer...and one that actually might be helpful to the OP.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.683315
| 2020-08-28T20:56:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110464",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Peter Duniho",
"Rob",
"Thomas Matthews",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87390",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125139
|
How to make airy dough with a crispy crust?
I want to make sweet bread. I found the most suitable recipe. But I want to make it so that after I put the dough in the oven, it will not change in shape and size, and that in the end the bread will have a crispy crust and will be soft and airy inside.
Is it possible to get this result?
I have a square glass mold 18x12 centimeters.
I'm not a professional cook, but it seems that to get a crispy crust and airy dough inside, you need to cook everything in the oven on low heat first, and then increase the heat in the last 10-15 minutes. Is this the case?
But how do you make sure the dough doesn't change its shape during baking (usually the dough sprouts)? Would a container of water under the mold help?
I also have an idea to cover the top of the mold with a lid. That way the dough would have nowhere to rise. But I don't know what exactly to cover it with yet, since the mold didn't come with a lid.
So in the end, I think I need something like Pullman loaf, but with a crispy crust and a more airy dough inside.
I suspect that you’re gonna to have difficulty. The ‘airy’ inside is because the dough rises as it cooks, which means it’s going to change shape. My understanding is that you don’t fill a Pullman pan to the top when baking, as it expands to fill the container. (And maybe you could unfold it part way through to get a crisper crust?)
Your requirements are mutually exclusive. I don't know of any way to get the combination you are describing.
If you are really looking for "airy inside", then you need to get as much rising out of the bread as possible. The air isn't present in bread dough before baking, the airiness of bread happens by the yeast creating and inflating myriads of tiny "balloons" whose walls get set by the oven heat. Just the way you can't inflate a balloon without it getting bigger, you can't get airy bread without it getting bigger. There are breads which rise relatively little, but they also don't have an airy interior, e.g. pumpernickel.
If you would drop your "has to not rise" requirement, then the airiness is easy, it basically happens automatically with any proper recipe. The crisper crust is a bit more involved, but in a sweet bread, it's not that difficult, just look for recipes with enough milk and sugar in them. Also, you can look at older questions about crust around here. Beware that a mold and a crispy crust also don't go well together, a crispy crust needs free exposure to air.
The ultimate combination of very airy sweet bread dough on the inside and a very crispy crust on the outside is a donut - which means that you have to leave all molds and even your oven behind and start deep-frying perfectly expanded spheres.
If you instead insist on having the bread fit a mold perfectly - e.g. if you have a certain complicated shape and want to bake it in a silicone mold, - then such pastries are usually not made with bread dough. If you need something that's relatively close to two-dimensional (some relief is OK), then there are different doughs close to cookie dough which can make such stuff. Gingerbread is one option, but you can also look at other classic shaped pastries, maybe also look into recipes for easter lambs.
If it has to be thicker than 3-4 cm, then you'll probably need to make it a cake instead. There are cake doughs which perform relatively well when baked in a mold, I think that classic quark-oil dough is good for this kind of application. But also some well-structured batters take well to this kind of shaping, and are relatively airy after baking. You'll have to look around for such cakes, many will be labelled simply "cake" or "sponge" but in the end, some types of sponge hold up to such treatment and some don't, so try finding recipes which are meant for mold shaping.
Bake in a larger pan (and a larger amount) than the result you want. Accept rising and changing shape, it doesn't matter because it's not the final shape.
Cut the shape you want from it.
Deep-fry that to crisp the exterior. Experiment with just deep frying and with battering and immediately frying to see which ges closer to your desired result, perhaps, but the batter will once again change shape; just not as much since its only a thin layer of batter.
The oil will need to be adequately hot so as to fry the crust on, not just soak in. Exact temperature will depend on the point at which the product browns excessively or burns, which will depend on the sugar levels.
The standard "cake approach" to "exact size" is to let it rise out of the top, and cut the risen part off level with the top of the pan after baking, then invert the cake so the cut side is down.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.683640
| 2023-09-02T12:57:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125139",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119209
|
Hot Sauce bottling
We make a famous hot sauce, but we are having a problem properly sealing the bottles for shipping. We tried to shipped the sauce to friends and family, but after a 3 to 4 day trip, the sauce gets to them and explodes, with half the sauce bursting out as soon as bottle is open. Any advice on how to keep my hot sauce from expanding during travel and exploding out of the bottle?
It sounds like it might be fermenting and building pressure. Is it pasteurized before shipping?
Welcome to SA! Are you sure "famous" is the word you want to use here?
Welcome! Would you be willing to share the ingredients and especially your processing methods with us? Even if you don’t want to post the full recipe, there is a good chance that the problem originates somewhere in the context of processing & packaging.
Sealing actually looks OK as the bottles only "explode" when people try to open them. Preparation, on the other hand, seems a bit off.
What elevation are you at, and how is it being shipped? I remember hearing about problems with bags of chips being packaged at low elevation, then being driven through the mountains and blowing up. Bottles should take more pressure before having issues, but only if well sealed.
The sauce is fermenting.
Fermenting things give off CO2. That might not be bad for a hot sauce. But as long as it is going on the flavor is going to be changing. Also as regards exploding, Co2 in a sealed space will build up pressure.
You can kill your hot sauce before you seal the bottle. I would can them in a hot water bath - traditional canning. Then they will stop fermenting. They will be safe to seal up and ship.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canning
I have seen this before in a friends bottled tomato juice. When opened it geysered up and hit the ceiling ..and us…he neglected the hot water bath.
I bottle 50 x250 ml jars every fall .50/50 water and apple cider vinegar to start the sauce. I hot water bath for 12 minutes after it comes back on the boil and I have no issues with storage . I ( and my friends) are having recently problems with newly redesigned Bernardin lids sealing properly .
Add vinegar and if you do, maybe put your bottles in the refrigerator until time to mail them. Maybe that will help.
From a food safety perspective, the asker would have to add quite a lot to bring the ph levels to a level where (presumable unpasteurized?) sauce would become shelf stable.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.684008
| 2021-12-16T20:16:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119209",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"moscafj",
"mustaccio"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121210
|
What is the best way to store potatoes?
We have a bumper potato crop.
Considering that we want to keep them as long as possible because we can’t use them all in a short time, what’s best for storage?
It might be worth asking on the gardening site… how long to keep them in the ground would be more appropriate over there: https://gardening.stackexchange.com/
Dave, while storage is very much on topic here, harvesting falls into Gardening SE territory. In therefore removed the bit about harvesting.
Perhaps the rare case where asking the question (or at least that part of the question) both places would be good. Since it has been edited out here, it would not be crossposting as such, and might get other useful answers.
@Ecnerwal and I would be happy to cross-link these posts if we had them.
Leave them in the ground !
I left some in the ground last year until planting time this year, and then dug them up, and they were perfectly edible.
This was in the North of England, where we had cold, wet and snow over winter.
This isn't a good idea. You got away with it but they could have rotted.
That's one of the issues with leaving them in the ground, they can sprout @Clockwork
@GdD My bad, I deleted my comment (original was if they grow into plants in the ground).
They will only start sprouting if you leave them in after normal planting time. They are dormant until April/May around here. Also, my ground has good drainage, so they don't rot easily.
Potatoes last best when stored in a cool, dry place between 45°F/7°C and 55°F/13°C, so a basement is often your best shot if you have one. Keeping them dry and giving them airflow is important so they don't grow mold, a wooden crate with gaps, a box with air holes or a cloth sack are good options.
Also, you need to keep them dark, exposure to sunlight can lead to them turning green, which produces Solanine that is toxic.
Also, don't clean them excessively before storage. The residual dirt keeps it longer.
It might be helpful to give a source for the specific temperatures (since they indeed are so specific), even if it's actually just from experience :-)
And keep them dark to prevent sprouting and turning green. Supermarket potatoes are often treated to prevent that, my organic market follows the same rule my grandparents did: cover them with a burlap sack (a piece of cardboard will do in a pinch).
I heard the term "root cellar" a lot when growing up in Utah, but it didn't dawn on me until decades later, the root cellar was possibly the basement, or the crawl space, for storing root vegetables!
The traditional place to store a bumper crop of potatoes is a root cellar. Read up on how to build one (like here: https://americanpatriotsurvivalist.com/build-a-root-cellar/) and figure out how to do something similar without a lot of investment. There's a reason that the potatoes that you buy in a store in the spring don't look fresh at all - they've been stored in cool, dark place since the fall
Do be very careful about airflow if you keep them in a basement, though - in 2013, four people were tragically killed one by one as they entered a basement with rotten potatoes in where toxic gas from the potatoes had built up. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zK5oBvZBDs https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2409920/Russian-girl-8--orphaned-ENTIRE-family-wiped-deadly-gas-caused-rotting-potatoes-cellar.html
You can store root vegetables, such as potatoes in damp sand in a cool, dry area. I have stored them this way in a broken freezer and they have kept fresh for over 3 months.
It is important to use clean sand. Sand for children's sandpits works well.
Harvest your potatoes on a sunny day and leave them in the sun to let their skins harden.
In a box put a layer of damp sand about 8-10cm / 3-4 inches deep
Place your potatoes on the sand, leave plenty of space in-between
Cover your potatoes with more sand, making sure there is at least 8cm/3inches of sand on top.
Store in a well insulated area (an old freezer works well)
Check the potatoes every 2 weeks for signs of rot or sprouting (indicating your sand is too wet) or signs of shrivelling or rubbery-ness (indicating your sand is too dry)
References:
https://www.gardeningknowhow.com/edible/vegetables/vgen/storing-root-crops-in-sand.htm
https://www.farmersalmanac.com/root-vegetables-sand-storage-35710
How should too-dry sand be handled? Talcum powder or rice perhaps? How should too-dry sand be handled? Spray water with an aerosol spray?
@AhmedWas: there are many knowledgeable and helpful women on this site, too.
@dotancohen too-dry sand can be handled by spraying with water, like you mention. Too-wet sand takes a little more effort, I tend to redo the tray with new sand, especially if rot has set in as I worry about bacteria and mold.
Traditionally, a root cellar. Deep underground with cool, but non-freezing temperatures and ventilation. Dark (very important with potato storage that they be kept in the dark, so they don't turn green and poisonous.)
In an old house, that might be a corner of the basement. In most modern houses, the basement (if there is one at all) is far too warm to be effective/useful storage. If you happen to live in a place where you have a storm cellar, that's more likely to be the sort of cellar that can also serve as a root cellar - but that's also mostly older houses.
Some people do build a dedicated root cellar. That may be more of a project than you want to tackle. A smaller "storage pit" (or barrel) is easier to build, but more of a pain to use, and often not deep enough for truly effective temperature control.
The point about a root cellar is that it has an earth floor. This influences humidity as well as temperature.
We would dig a trench about 8 inches deep, line with barley straw, pile the potatoes in, eventually forming a ridge above the trench (the trench was only to contain the width of the ridge). The ridge was covered in straw and then with clay.
I don't recall plastic featuring.
You probably wouldn’t want plastic, as it would hold moisture in. You don’t want the potatoes to dry out, but you also don’t want large amounts of water to collect and promote rotting. Maybe you could use plastic over top of the clay, but definately not underneath
There might have been a strip along the apex where the pressure of rain would have been most significant. But it would not have been much. We would have dug them in at the end of October, and they would have stayed in reasonable shape through to April. By May / June trying to find a usable pot full was a sensory challenge to say the least.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.684261
| 2022-08-01T16:27:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121210",
"authors": [
"Captain Giraffe",
"Clockwork",
"D S",
"Ecnerwal",
"Eric Duminil",
"Flydog57",
"GdD",
"Ger",
"JeopardyTempest",
"Joe",
"Mark Stewart",
"Neil",
"RedSonja",
"Showsni",
"Stephie",
"dotancohen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94959"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
126680
|
Corn tortillas from Hominy(nixtamalizing corn) vs store bought masa harina?
Does anyone know the difference between corn tortillas made from masa harina from brands like Maseca and corn tortillas vs made from homemade hominy or store-bought hominy (canned or dried)?
Masa is made by nixtamalizing dried corn. Hominy is also the result of nixtamalization, but to make hominy one cooks the corn in alkali water further than one would cook it in order to make masa for tortillas; that is; until the kernel is fully hydrated. Hominy is not used to make tortillas.
Nixtamal for tortillas is partially cooked, then left to soak, then ground. Generally speaking, nixtamalizing dried corn, soaking, grinding, then making tortillas is an over-night process.
Masa Harina begins with the same process, but the masa is dehydrated. This is for convenience. So that one simply needs to add water, then proceed to tortilla making. So, rather than hours, one can have tortillas in minutes.
Other than the convenience/process differences, tortillas made from freshly nixtamalized corn simply taste better.
I’ve actually made tamales from ground hominy, with quite good results compared to masa meal. But I guess the hydration would be too high for tortillas.
I saw some recipes that use ground hominy then add masa harina to bring the hydration to right level.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.684796
| 2024-02-15T23:09:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126680",
"authors": [
"Sneftel",
"Victor Feagins",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
126089
|
Can I substitute water instead of oil in a box cake mix
Can I substitute water for oil in a box cake mix?
No. You can use applesauce to replace some of the oil, but using just water will likely not yield something you want to eat.
Nope, chemistry don’t work that way.
You can, but you won't get anything resembling cake, so you shouldn't. If you want cake, anyway.
Perhaps edit your question to include details of what you are trying to achieve by substituting the oil with water. Maybe there is something that can help you achieve the desired outcome. But right now, everyone is guessing.
A cake needs a binding agent to hold the moisture. Mimi had a great suggestion using applesauce. If that isn’t what you’re looking for, there are other oils. You can use olive oil (use a lighter tasting one) or use coconut oil. I’ve used coconut oil myself, and it worked out great.
Yes. Water can be substituted for oil in a box cake mix. However, the texture of the final result will be impacted. Oil adds to the moisture and richness of the cake. So you can expect a drier result. Suggestions like using applesauce, yogurt, or something like mashed banana can add moisture back. But, you can still bake it and achieve a cake, albeit a drier one, with water rather than oil.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.684939
| 2023-12-13T23:00:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126089",
"authors": [
"A rural reader",
"Ecnerwal",
"Kingsley",
"dandavis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94357"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
126423
|
GF Pierogi - binding agent
I have the GF flour to make GF Pierogi however I was told to add xanthan gum? For the binding agent. How much xanthan should I use per batch of dough?
I don't use any (nor does my flour include any), but it depends on what kind of flours you're using and what your recipe/process is.
If your GF flour does not already have xanthan included (check the label), or you are making your own GF flour, the suggestions I see online suggest that you add 1/4 tsp. xanthan per cup (120g) of "flour".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.685074
| 2024-01-20T17:05:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126423",
"authors": [
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25883
|
What can I do to " fresh cream" to substitute "double cream"?
Here in NZ you can buy "cream". It does not even say "single" or "double" or "whipping". I do know however it can be whipped in to a nice thick cream. Lots of recipes/sauces call for "double cream" what is the difference and how can I make cream into "double" cream or is their anything else I can add that will result in the same taste ?
See also http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/784/translating-cooking-terms-between-us-uk-au-ca-nz
@ Jefromi, did not know that page existed till now, thanks for that its very useful,good page for users to keep updating too.
In NZ normal pure cream is close enough to "double cream" in performance, it's around 35% to 40% fat. By general global definition it should be called "heavy cream"
NZ cream is pure skimmed cream from fresh milk, and does not need thickening or other processing to produce excellent results as a whipped product, or for a thick cream additive in sauces or fillings
Cream can get a little seasonal just after calving time (Aug), but in general it's just perfect
The export variety is often labelled "Culinary Cream" and is 38% fat or higher. This is what many people around the world would consider NZ cream (other than NZ butter or AMF)
If you want closer to 50% fat cream, ask your local farmers for some raw milk and skim out the lumps of fat from that. Let the milk settle overnight and skim the cream from that. Then gently heat the fat lumps to melt and carefully mix into the skimmed cream. Not for the faint of heart!
NZ "Thickened cream" or "Mascarpone cream" is standard pure cream with a thickener like E1442 added, you can make your own too
Thanks TFD, just the info I was looking for, good to have another NZ person around for these types of questions but I do think I'll keep buying and using as is, the farmer idea is interesting but think I just not tough enough !
@TFDvalid point,will bear in mind for future reference.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.685245
| 2012-08-27T21:58:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25883",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"scottishpink"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24119
|
Can I cook with fire?
In Japanese restaurants, I always see the chefs doing crazy things with fire, and seeming to make very good grilled vegetables by lighting things on fire. I know most of that is for show, and that the volcano probably doesn't really cook the onions, but Can I light my frying pan on fire next time I'm making a stir fry and get well cooked vegetables?
Of course on the safety side, besides not being stupid with fire, are there other safety concerns I might not expect?
You can cook with fire, but making a fire inside your pan is about the stupidest way to do it. Or do you mean flambeing? This is a different thing and doesn't really cook the (bulk of the) food.
Too be honest I didnt know what that was. What's the "smartest" way to do it?
This is why it is stupid: http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/photo/gallery/091218/GAL-09Dec18-3382/media/PHO-09Dec18-194236.jpg If you see somebody "setting" food on fire, this is flambe. Else you can grill food using a fire made in a proper container, using a safe fuel. See the answers for more, sobachatina already wrote a good one.
Also, as you say you're a beginner, you may want to start with something easier. A fry pan over a burner is much easier to control...
Are you thinking of wok hei?
Fire is typically a poor heat source for direct cooking. It fluctuates with every breeze so the heating is very erratic. It also produces a lot of soot which tastes terrible and is bad for you.
When cooking on a campfire much better results are had by cooking next to the coals than above the flame. Cooking with a gas flame is more reliable of course.
A couple direct cooking applications of fire in the kitchen, that I can think of are:
Flambe: Lighting a sauce which contains a lot of alcohol to burn off some of the raw alcohol taste.
Roasting: Putting a steaming basket over a gas flame and charring the skin of peppers or eggplant.
Caramelizing: Using a blowtorch to put a crust on creme brulee or to sear the exterior of a sous vide steak.
I would recommend starting with the blowtorch for several reasons:
It is harder to burn your house down with a torch than with a pan of flame.
Blow torches are useful for things outside of the kitchen like stripping paint or starting the grill.
There is something deeply satisfying about wielding a hissing, blue, knife of fire that appeals to the caveman within.
As for safety. Keep a fire extinguisher on hand. Don't let kids or pets in the kitchen when you are playing with fire. Keep your home owner's insurance current.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.685425
| 2012-05-30T18:07:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24119",
"authors": [
" a.rogers",
"Balázs Édes",
"M. Covington",
"Neha Kumari",
"Risici",
"Roman",
"SetSlapShot",
"Shinatoo",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54824",
"moonshadow",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24146
|
Can vegetables be roasted at lower temperatures?
I tried to bake some new potatoes, small tomatoes and hot peppers, in extra-virgin olive oil, using a recipe calling for 1 hour at 100° C.
I was skeptical of the 100° C temperature, so I set the temperature to 120° C instead. However, even after 3 full hours of roasting, the vegetables still had a raw tang, and the texture of the potatoes was a bit rubbery.
What could have been the problem here? Is 120-140° C too low for these vegetables?
(Note: At one point I turned on the ventilation mode, and it seemed to start cooking much faster - maybe even a little too fast. Could the recipe have been intended for a convection oven?)
I don't understand what your problem is. Yes, you can cook them at that temperature. Did they turn out wrong?
Yes, mostly they didn't cook as much as described in the recipe, and not in the way described. They still had a raw tang to them. And I kept them in the oven for more than three hours, rather than the hour specified in the recipe.
And the texture of the potatoes was a bit rubbery.
Cooking time depends on size and shape of whatever you try to cook in a non-linear way. Nobody can predict how long something will take to cook. If you don't want to risk raw food, you should use an oven thermometer. I think that for potatoes, the core temperature you need is about 70°C.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice. Please try to be more direct with your questions, not to mention concise. In other words, explain in detail what the problem is, and what steps you actually took, and let the people answering handle the explanations and solutions. Also, when referring to a recipe that didn't work out for you, it helps to post either a link to the recipe (if available online) or a summary of it in your question.
Slow roasted vegetables are delicicous. But the accent is upon slow - at 100 degrees you could be talking 6-8 hours. It's very similar ti slow cooked lamb, use lots of olive oil and wait.
I like to put in slices of potatoes for the first three hours and then add pepper courgettes, and other vegetables needing less cooking time for the kast 3 hours.
Great to serve with a half peanut butter, half feta cheese thick dip and some crispy toasted pitta bread.
Potatoes need to reach at least 90C at their center to be cooked. Ovens are notoriously inaccurate. Could it be that, while your oven is set to 100C (or even 120C), the internal temperature of the oven is well below that? I know that my oven is off by 25 to 50 degrees. I have to set it about 50 degrees higher on the dial. I use an oven thermometer to ensure that the temperature is where I want it. My suggestion would be to use an oven thermometer to be certain that you are cooking at the temperature that you think you are.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.685685
| 2012-06-01T11:31:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24146",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Andy",
"HobbyCookFoodie",
"Meera McGlover",
"Rebecca Weaver",
"c24w",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54936",
"kenneth archie",
"rumtscho",
"user54936"
],
"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
}
|
27185
|
How long can olives be left out of the refrigerator?
I left a bottle of garlic stuffed olives out overnight. Are these still safe to eat?
Traditional pickles made with brine and vinegar are very hardy, and where used in the days before refrigeration to store food over many months
The secret is to only use a very clean utensil to remove a single daily portion from the main storage vessel, and otherwise keep the main storage vessel tightly closed and in a cool and dark location
With modern pickles, who knows? Read the side of the jar, if it seems to have a decent amount of salt and/or vinegar it should be just fine
If you haven't put dirty utensils or your hands in it, it will last a long time (weeks or months, depending on the ambient temperature level)
Otherwise, just keep them in the fridge :-)
Since these olives are garlic-stuffed, a cited source might be more helpful.
@Kristina Lopez Why? What's special about garlic stuffed?
Garlic can grow botulism but upon my own further reading, is more succeptable in a low-oxygen, low acidic environment such as olive oil.
@Kristina Lopez Pickled olives have a pH around 4, (though some taste close to zero :-( ). Botulism is not common in all of the world, and can be in any food that has been near the ground
@TFD-because I'm curious by nature, I dug a little more and found this very informative article on botulism. Though I'd bet the OP's olives are OK, I feel better informed now! :-) http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FACTSheets/Clostridium_botulinum/index.asp
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.685979
| 2012-09-15T19:11:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27185",
"authors": [
"Jacquelyn",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Roy Evans",
"Sonia Pan",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61223",
"nikkyj",
"rjk27",
"stevie"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33704
|
What accounts for the softer texture and sharper flavor of Italian ice creams?
I know that Italian ice cream (home made, most of all) doesn't use any stabilizers or gum ingredients.
How can they be made soft, and agreeable to taste?
There are several major factors that affect the texture of ice cream or gelato in the absence of stabilizers or gums:
Air mixed in during the churning essentially creates a foam, which is softer than a solid product would be. While this air may be only 10% by volume, it makes a huge difference in texture.
The churning and rapid freezing also minimizes the size of ice crystals, so the non-air phase is essentially a syrup of sugary water with emulsified milk fat, with very small ice crystals suspended in it. Since it is not solid, it is easier to cut.
The serving temperature for gelato I believe is traditionally warmer than the serving temperature of ice cream, which provides a softer texture (more syrup, less ice) allows the flavors to be perceived more easily as they are more aromatic at warmer temperatures.
The gelato may contain ingredients with alcohol, such as Franglico in a hazelnut gelato; this contributes a small anti-freeze effect. Similarly, the pectins from some fruit ingredients will also naturally interfere with ice crystal formation--but these influences are specific to a given recipe.
The lower milkfat percentage makes the flavors in the gelato more apparent, since they are not drowned out by the richness of the diary.
@SAJ14SAY = 4. Gelato home-made can contain alchool or not, depending on the recipe. I talked about basic gelato. 2. Water is not necessary (viceversa, forbidden) to have a perfect gelato. 1. I agree about foam, we need a cream, not a stone. 2, I agree about rapid churning and rapid freezing, to not alow that water, which is always also contained in the cream in certain percentage, be divided from fat. But remember, you have to put at -20^ deg C for saving it. That is very very solid-
Recall that 100% dairy is still mostly water. Yes freezing temperature and serving temperature are different.
Let's say I use half milk and half cream (normally use less milk, but admit it). The problem doesn't change, since that is the metod and not ingredients that makes the difference. You always has to put at -20^deg C. for a good conservation.
@violadaprile: You're commenting as if you already know the answer, so why ask the question? And where are you getting -20° C from? Home freezers don't get anywhere near that low.
@Aaronut She posted stuff about gelato as a not-an-answer to another ice cream question, and I mentioned that she could potentially ask and answer her own question... I guess we only got half of that.
Technically, Gelato is not ice-cream since there is no (well, ~1%) cream fat to speak of.
The commonality with ice-cream is that they are both emulsions. In the case of the gelato, the protein in the egg yolks act as the emulsifier and through the churning process traps and keeps air. The sugar also impedes the formation of ice crystals to allow for the smooth and stretchy/creamy consistency. In a weird way, ice-cream and gelato have a lot in common with budino-cremoso/creme-caramel/flan/creme-brulee (taste your gelato batter next time). Of course, the difference being the three-way emulsion of sugar solution/ ice crystals / air for gelato and throw in fat for ice-cream.
The stabilizers and gums you see in other ice-creams are usually there as the substitute to lower the cost and achieve a similar kind of emulsion, not as much to improve texture. Xanthan and guar gum are less expensive than egg yolk and anything you can do to reduce the bunker-buster cost of cream. A carrageenan mixture has non-newtonian qualities (different viscosity at different speeds, like why ketchup gets runnier the harder you shake the bottle) this allows the ice-cream manufacturers to pump the ice-cream faster into containers, and again doesn't provide a big advantage for homemade ice-cream/gelato making.
the issue of temperature: ice crystals tend to grow in the freezer, that's why ice-creams and gelato lose quality over time. In making the ice-cream, besides the temperature, the time matters as well (as SAJ14SAJ noted) which is why the liquid nitrogen ice-cream ends up so smooth (requires serious safety precautions). From what I've been told (well, by a salesman) Italian Gelato machines run colder (and think faster) than regular ice-cream machines.
sharper taste: with the fat from the cream out of the way, the main flavor of the batter lifted by the sugar can come through easier. Our taste buds can't taste the sugar as well in lower temperatures so essentially the only thing left is the fragola or whatever flavoring is in the gelato.
egg is not necessary into gelato - maybe my english is very poor =(
@violadaprile corretto. But if you take the eggs out, you use more sugar to do its job. I have an old recipe for hand-making gelato using essentially sugar and coffee without a machine. I know the 'Il Gelaterie' near us so I'll ask him about it. What baffles me, is how they make the 'sugar free' gelato. I guess if they're using Aspartame or some other nastiness, they might as well make a gum and gel soup.
My "Manuale del Gelataio", a rare edition given with an old SIMAC, gives "Gelati e sorbetti con il dolcificante sintetico". It is not sugar, but a chemical product. My book doesn't say anything but generically "dolcificante sintentico". But today we have many types of it, including a liquid one for cakes: I think it is Aspartame, since dosis are in grams. But they give also gelati without gluten and so on. They are not true gelato, but an acceptable substitute for those who have health problems.
@violadaprile: Sounds like that might be Sorbitol. It's not only an artificial sweetener but also a cryoprotectant - it's added to other foods to prevent damage from freezing. Mostly solid foods, but I've seen it as an ingredient in several store-bought ice creams and gelatos.
yes it is possible. But usually when you avoid sugar (saccarosio, lattosio, glucosio, maltosio and "so-on-osio"), ie natural sugars, it's why you are affected by diabetes or other metabolic disease. Probably my book is too old for such medical distinctions. I think you should ask your doctor individually Metabolist. I personally use liquid saccharin for cakes (it doesn't burn) and aspartame for the egg and gelato mount.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.686137
| 2013-04-24T00:45:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33704",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"MandoMando",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"violadaprile"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33771
|
Pickle handling
Pickles - My brother in law has a fit if you touch the pickles with your hands to replace them in the jar. He claims if they come in contact with you it will cause the whole jar to spoil.
That tale has been going around for centuries. It also has other forms regarding making pickles and menstrual cycle. Or even tomatoes. Feel free to invite him to 21st century. All that being said, it's proper etiquette to use a utensil to portion shared food.
Yes, I've heard this and always suspected it was a needless extrapolation of keeping the process of handling canning jars somewhat sterile.
This isn't a question. Are you looking for help or did you just feel like sharing this? Are you asking whether or not the claim is true? Or how to serve them without using your hands? Or something else?
Closing this since there's been no revision; there is a good answer information-wise, but since it's not clear what the question is actually asking, the answer may or may not be relevant. Feel free to edit this with a direct question if you'd like it reopened.
No, this is nonsense.
Bacteria are everywhere, crawling over all of your food. This is why food spoils - quickly outside of the fridge, within a few days in the fridge. Touching food with your fingers should not introduce any new bacteria species, except in some extreme cases (e.g. if you have been handling soil and not washed them well, or if you have a cold and have been keeping your hand in front of your mouth when coughing).
The reason pickles can hold for such a long time is that the brine is highly salty and acidic. Bacteria cannot survive in these conditions. If your fingers introduce new bacteria, they will die within a few hours. Neither the touched pickle nor the rest of the jar will spoil.
This being said, the skin on your fingers can have lots of stuff on it which is not especially appetizing. There is no specific food-safety concern in eating touched pickles, but many will find it gross. So while touching isn't dangerous, most of your co-eaters will probably still insist on the pickles being handled with normal utensils.
Vinegar is a disinfectant. And in fact it is used as a preservative.
Put the pickles in a bowl, with several toothpicks, so that each one touches only their own. Only for not doing discussions. There are also commercially metal toothpick, decorated and imaginative, for the table.
But then kindly point out to him that no one knows what happens in the kitchen. Almost everything is cooked with hands, which of course are washed. But if he sits down at your table and think that you've cooked everything with pliers, explain to him that he's wrong. The real cooks use their hands for almost everything.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.686643
| 2013-04-26T14:49:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33771",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"MandoMando",
"Robert Cartaino",
"Stuart F",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8",
"user78560"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35579
|
How accurate are kitchen scales?
I read about weighing coffee to the 0.5 gram, but what's the margin of error for a typical 5kg/11lb kitchen scale?
What recipe calls for 0.5 gram of coffee ?
Maybe they aren't weighing coffee but caffeine? But then, being 0.5 gram off would make the difference between defeating mild fatigue and defeating the borg....
@Max -- the question is about "weighing ... to the 0.5 gram"; that refers to the accuracy of the measurement, not the value. So, for example, 10 versus 10.5.
Every scale should indicate its accuracy in its manual.
A good guess if you have no manual is that the accuracy is approximately half of the size of the smallest unit it reports (for example, my digital scale reports down to grams, so its accuracy is probably within about 1/2 gram). If the scale is analog, you can get an idea by the smallest interval on the dial or indicator.
Still, only the manual will tell you for sure.
Scales that go up to 5 kg are unlikely to be good for measuring 0.5 gram quantities like coffee. You will want a scale specialized for that level of quantity.
The exception is laboratory quality scales, which have higher accuracies and greater accurate ranges, but they are not pretty and are expensive.
If you need accuracy without spending a lot of money, search for "American Weigh Scales" on Amazon. You'll find a 0.1 g scale that goes to 1kg and a 0.01g scale that goes to 100g. Both for under $10 at the moment. This is good for measuring things like xanthan gum. For coffee, I'd guess an extra half gram wouldn't hurt anything.
Mine gets it right to the nearest gram.
It's easy enough to test the accuracy of your scale using water. For tiny increments, you can use coins. A US quarter weighs 5.67 grams, a nickel weighs 5.0 grams, a dime weighs 2.268 grams. I'm pleased with mine. It doesn't do fractions of a gram, but when I weigh 2 quarters it comes up 11 grams occasionally bouncing up to 12 grams. I can't imagine any kitchen application (outside of molecular gastronomy) that needs more accuracy than that. My scale is "typical" as it has a capacity of 5 kilos.
EDIT: I've been meaning to do this anyway, the following will demonstrate just how accurate kitchen scales can (and should) be. This will also soon be a rave review on Amazon, especially since I only paid $16 for the scale.
Big pan of cans
OK, 4.585 Kilograms, pushing max capacity
Tare (weight - 0 grams)
OK, I said before that a US nickel weighs exactly 5 grams, right?
One nickel: (weight - 5 grams)
Two nickels: (weight - 10 grams)
Three nickels, four nickels, five nickels, six nickels: (15g, 20g, 25g, 30g)
My scale can beat up your measuring cup!
So, I appreciate the detail here, but do remember that the question was "how accurate are they typically", so there's some value in giving a straight answer. (Also, keep in mind that your tests demonstrate only that it can weigh differences to the nearest gram; as unlikely as it may be, the 4.585kg could be off by much more.)
It correctly weighs to the nearest gram a tiny weight (two quarters). It correctly weighs differences to the nearest gram of 6 consecutive 5 gram nickles when weighed on top of 'ballast' pushing the maximum capacity of the scale. I'd call that pretty compelling evidence of remarkable accuracy to the nearest gram.
Like I said, it's unlikely, but you could get the results you're seeing with a systematic error of say 1%. It'd weigh 30g as 30.3g and display 30. It'd weigh the difference between 4000g and 4030g as 30.3g and display 30 (since you zeroed it). But it'd weigh 4000g as 4040g.
Well, we agree on one thing - it's unlikely. For what it's worth I have double checked it with different amounts of water dozens of times. I just looked on Amazon, I bought it in July 2011. I've used it almost daily since.
I love the idea of using coins as reference weights. The U.S. Mint was established at a time when the value of coins were entirely determined by the amount of precious metal they contained, so accuracy of weight was paramount. The importance of that accuracy has declined over the years but their standards have not. Coins are the most accurate references that most people can easily obtain.
You'll need a sub-gram scale for that such as this one by Jennings:
The bigger scales' are at best accurate to a gram or two (the expensive german one in our kitchen is good to 2 grams). That defeats the point of weighing coffee given that amounts effect on the result.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.686912
| 2013-07-25T17:33:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35579",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Courtnie Nielsen",
"John",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kasey",
"Ken Kovar",
"Mark Ransom",
"Mary",
"Max",
"Pete Becker",
"Steve",
"YAOMTC",
"Yanan Liu",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87446",
"rackandboneman",
"user3217757"
],
"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
}
|
19271
|
Is it wise to use vinegar to handle rust for cooking utensils?
Sometime, the cooking utensils can be damaged by minerals in the food and cause some rust. Would it be wise to use vinegar to remove rust for cooking utensils or are there are better methods?
Vinegar wouldn't be harmful. The resulting reaction would create a ferrous salt which would be easily washed away. However, it was probably the vinegar and other acids in your food that cause the rust in the first place. Steel items stored in a acidic environment rust faster than those in plain water. Washing and storing dry is the best way to prevent rust.
From my understanding, vinegar, which is a acid can also erode metals. So, I am worry that if everyday I clean my cooking utensils with vinegar, will the utensils become smaller and smaller due to erode by vinegar?
Also, from my understanding, coke is much lesser acidic than vinegar but the reason why I don't wish to clean the cooking utensils with coke is because coke contain sugar and sugar attract ants. Also, coke is more expensive than vinegar too.
@AndersonKaru yeah, it'll erode them, in the same sense that sharpening erodes a knife. The effect won't be noticeable in your lifetime. Of course most people also do not clean their cooking equipment with acid every day, they use soap and water and only resort to harsher solutions when the item gets rusty or tarnished.
@Aaronut, thanks for informing me that it will not be noticeable in my lifetime.
If you want to clean rust from steel utensils, I recommend Barkeeper's Friend. I find it works well on stainless steel … not so well on carbon steel.
And always rinse with water and dry by hand to ensure no rust in the future.
Barkeep's Friend seems like a better idea than vinegar; it's not corrosive, produces a nice shine, and will help remove deep rust more than vinegar.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.687602
| 2011-12-01T03:31:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19271",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Anderson Karu",
"BobMcGee",
"ChellGraham",
"Karla Peterson",
"Missin the TexMex",
"Richard",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8129",
"mirabilos",
"user41904"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32832
|
Why do Duck eggs have longer expiry than Chicken Eggs?
Duck eggs seem to get about a 6-week extension on their expiry date over chicken eggs. The latest pack I bought yesterday (Mar 19) expire May 25th, whereas the chicken eggs, at best, expire mid-April).
Why is this? Is the structure of the shell or does it have to do with the protein structure of the egg whites? I have seen the same thing with quail eggs as well they also get a long away expiry date.
Interesting question, tried to search and it is very hard to find any real answer, I did find
this link which speculates that since duck eggs have thicker shells they have longer shelf life.
That linked article leads with bogus health claims, so I'm a bit skeptical about any speculation in it.
First of all, eggs are generally much more robust than commonly thought. Food safety advices for eggs vary a lot, but healthy (chicken) eggs can stay good for many months. If the eggs are contaminated with bacteria when laid or during processing, they can of course spoil or rot before their "best before" date as well. I didn't find any publications, but in this interview, a researcher from Nofima (a Norwegian food research institute) tells that they were not able to find any harmful bacteria in 7 months old eggs and even after 12 months, eggs are usually edible.
Back to the difference between chicken and duck eggs ... Chicken eggs are good for at least three weeks even without refrigeration. The reason for this is that the eggs contain natural preservatives, which are required for the egg to stay good during the nesting period. The natural purpose of the egg is of course to provide nutrition to the contained chicken, and it would probably not do the chicken any good, if it has to stay with a rotten egg yolk for several weeks. It varies between different duck species, but ducks generally breed their eggs much longer than hens. I am now just assuming, but I suppose that duck eggs have a similar natural protection as well, to keep them good throughout the longer breeding period and that may explain the longer recommended shelf life for duck eggs.
nice. +1 for nature argument.
Interesting, from internet , chicken eggs hatch in 21 days, duck eggs in 28 (Muscovy 35), quail eggs 23 days, goose 25-27, Ostrich 40-43, but remember eggs are often washed which reduces the shelf life.
An issue mentioned by several others is washing. Generally in Europe eggs are not washed before being sold and in North America they are. Washing removes most of the cuticle, making the shelf life shorter. This is why eggs are generally found in the fridge in North America and not in (all countries in) Europe. This article has a lot of information - among others, that up until recently, US eggs were often stored up to a year before being sold.
I suspect it's an issue of volume. Chicken eggs are a huge commodity and a lot of time and effort goes into USDA grading, etc... Duck eggs have a smaller market and not usually graded which means they can get from the farm to the store much faster.
In many countries, eggs aren't power washed and bleached like they are in the US so eggs can be sold and stored unrefrigerated for long periods without any ill effects.
Volume issues might not necessarily be grading related -- there's a relatively fixed demand for chicken eggs, and I'm guessing there are various stockpiles somewhere to absorb short-term changes in demand. Those eggs you buy in the store might've already spent a couple of weeks in a warehouse. Duck eggs, being a niche item in many markets, is less likely to have that extra infrastructure.
Duck eggs have a heavier, more waxy coating on them than chicken eggs do. Duck eggs must be more resistant to bacteria in moist environments since they are much more likely to be exposed to it than a chicken egg is since, in nature, the duck spends much more time in the water. A heavier, more waxy coating means less evaporation and less chance for bacteria to enter the egg and multiply in storage.
There shouldn't be any difference in shelf life if the duck eggs and chicken eggs are handled and stored in the same manner. However, it has been shown by investigative reporters that chicken eggs are often stored unrefrigerated by supermarkets, allowing them to stand at room temperature for hours before being put in the display case, so the apparently shorter shelf life of chicken eggs may be due to the producers erring on the side of caution when they label the cartons.
I keep my refrigerator colder than recommended, two to four degrees above freezing, and I've successfully stored chicken eggs for three months without spoilage. Even if the eggs don't spoil, however, they lose moisture, and the yolk and white may become quite thick over time. I've also encountered rotten chicken eggs that were well within the use-by date, presumably because the egg got infected even as it was developing inside the chicken.
Thanks Andrew. Chickens are usually dated for 8-weeks. Each day out of the fridge counts as 1-week. With Duck eggs, I regularly see expiration dates way past 8-weeks from seeing them in the store, let alone the lay time.
I keep both ducks and chickens, and I find quite the opposite. My ducks' eggs begin to dry out in the space of a couple of weeks after collection (with or without washing), and once drying has begun, they can go off quite quickly, ie. inedible within 4 weeks of being laid. I came here hoping for tips to get them to last longer.
Jonathan, maybe a function of feed or calcium intake? The duck eggs we get have quite the hard shell and they are good till the expiry without going off.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.687907
| 2013-03-19T20:58:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32832",
"authors": [
"A. Getty",
"Carlos Jimenez Bermudez",
"Cascabel",
"Erik P.",
"Joe",
"Kaylp",
"Kiran Gowda",
"MadMaxx63",
"MandoMando",
"Mick",
"NANCI",
"Rachel",
"Stefan",
"ashton dinkel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75968",
"user75915"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43897
|
Does storing meat in plastic alter how long it takes to go off?
I was recently told quite emphatically that "Storing meat in plastic makes it spoil faster"
I suspect that this is an old wives tale, but haven't been able to find anything that either proves or disproves the statement.
I was told that it's true whether it's plastic from packaging(say, plastic bags for sliced ham, a chicken in cling-film...anything.) or if the meat is being stored in Tupperware.
Assume that the meat is stored in a fridge.
It wasn't suggested that it was caused by anything leaching from the plastic, like BPA.
If this is either true or false, I would really like to know why?
Many thanks!
Bonus Question:
If it's not true, are there some reasons why someone might think that it is?
Built up smell? Different moisture level?
The question is 'plastic vs. what else?'
I admit I've never done side-by side tests to prove it, but from my observations, when the deli I went to switched from butcher paper to zip-top plastic bags, sliced lunchmeats wouldn't last in the fridge as long. They'd start getting slimy around two weeks.**
I've noticed the same thing (although longer time frames) with firm and hard cheeses, and my solution for those has been to wrap the cheese in a paper towel, then put it back in the plastic bag.
I suspect that the issue is moisture buildup (you open the packet, let in cold air, it condenses in the freezer, etc.), and if this is the case, then other non-porous materials (glass, metal), would be equally bad for storage, especially as you can't then squeeze them to remove the air. The butcher paper always stays at roughtly the size of the item being wrapped.
... but still, even if we did experiments, to say it's always bad, we'd have to also test raw meats, ground and whole (and for moisture, many stores put those little diaper pads in the containers), tightly vs. loosely wrapped, and a few other variables.
** Some health person is going to complain 'but you're not supposed to keep meat in the fridge for 2 weeks ... this was well preserved items like sweet bologna)
Does sliminess equal "going off"?
@Niall : it wasn't yet to the point of smelling funny (at least not to my nose), but it was such that I really didn't want to risk eating it. (and I'm typically willing to eat things way past their 'best by' date and such ... but there was a mucilagenous quality to the slime)
To the point of why people would think that plastic spoils faster, aside from a lot of propaganda and some truth about some plastics: Plastic has a habit of retaining past life experiences lets say. I am talking reusable plastic containers of course, not plastic films or other single use items. Older plastic storage containers and ones with rough or slightly porous surfaces are more prone to this that some others. If you have had one item spoil in a container, that container may have an increased chance of retaining some level of contamination which the thought is would lead to faster spoiling of future items.
To me, and this is opinion only, no research to back it up, if plastic is the correct medium for storage depends on the item. Meat, items like deli meats, I would definitely choose plastic myself, sealed air tight and preferable with as little air exposure as possible. Similarly with any other item which is cut, prone to drying out, or where in general air exposure helps speed deterioration. Ground meat would definitely fit in that category as well. Cheeses for instance, air means drying and mold, bad, I use plastic.
Now, some items, say a good steak or roast, now you are in different territory. Some air circulation can suddenly be a very good thing to allow the meat to dry out a bit and age. Most people get a steak or roast that seems almost tasteless and they think it is poor meat or poor cooking and actually, the meat may simply be too fresh. Aging that same piece of meat though in air-tight plastic would result in the meat deteriorating and going off rather than losing a bit of the extra moisture and concentrating the flavor, which is part or the goal of aging. (Yes, I know that aging a steak is sometimes referred to as controlled spoilage, but controlled is the key word there.) Likewise, some items, I am thinking of some fruits like fresh strawberries especially if they were over watered, will spoil much faster if they do not have any air circulation and none of the moister can escape.
I routinely store my cooked meat in a container uncovered. After a number of days it does tend to dry out but it lasts longer and always tastes better.
Question: Who of us hasn't, at one time or another, gone into our refrigerators and found a forgotten closed plastic container with a furry (or worse a slurry) of leftover food? At what point do you suppose the decomposition process began? I have to believe it pretty much starts at the moment you close the lid. It might not be noticeable for a day or two. But after a few days cooked meat stored in air tight containers just doesn't smell right.
A week ago I BBQ'd a pork butt which I sliced and served. I had left-overs. I put the leftovers in an open (no lid) container. Before putting them into the fridge I sprinkled them with a little sea salt and olive oil and tossed it to mix well. I stored it uncovered. This kept the meat fresh and the oil helps to stop it from drying out. There are still a few pieced left and a week later it's still brilliantly fresh.
Air is the problem. When you butcher. Put up meat. Use plastic but remove all air. It causes freezer burn. When you open a package you expose it to air. This causes spoilage faster. It is illegal in the U.S. now. But they use to put nitrogen in the packs before setting out. This keeps food fresh. Till opened. So plastic or paper. The more times food is exposed to air. The faster it will spoil.
It seems better to keep it in the original hard plastic container than transfer it to a plastic bag. It seems to me the packaging for the product would have been well researched to keep their product fresh.
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. Do you have any sort of reference to back this up, other than your own guess?
There is no reason to believe that meat spoils more quickly in plastic than it does in any other type of container, given proper sanitation.
There is no reasonable way to prove a negative--for example, you cannot prove that there is no such thing as unicorns. Sighting a unicorn would demonstrate that they do exist, but failure to site one may only mean that they hide quite well.
I am not aware of a credible study that shows plastic containers shorten shelf life for meat, but this is not evidence one can point at. Perhaps it is just hiding.
Plastic wrap is usually about 12.5 um thick (0.5 mils). If you stretch it much thinner than that it'll start passing more water. That'll cause your food to dry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic_wrap Apparently testing water permiability of various plastic films is a popular science fair project, so real numbers are hard to find. With decent commercial films, and reasonable fridge times, it's not usually a problem.
@WayfaringStranger It is well known that thin plastic wrap--or even some of the less expensive zip type bags--are permeable. But given the specific example of Tupperware in the question, I didn't take drying to be the meaning intended. :-) There, it still reduces drying compared to no covering at all :-)
@SAJ14SAJ : you seem to like taking the 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' route -- just because you can't prove it's true, it must not be true. This might not be such a problem, but you answer so many questions on this site within an hour of them being posted, if you have a constructive answer or not. Some of your answers seem to be 'I found this through internet research' (you make comments suggesting you're not an expert on the topic, then you write an expert-sounding answer, but this one is an 'I didn't even bother to look because I assume it to not be true'.
@Joe Actually, I did search, just in case, but the fact that there are countless FDA and NSF approved food storage plastics is pretty damn telling. Unfortunately, I couldn't quickly find a reference to cite showing that. I am sorry you feel some of my answers are not constructive.
@SAJ14SAJ : you can't do a comprehensive search in under an hour. What were you using? Web of Science? Google Scholar? Or just Google web search? 2nd hit under Google Scholar for 'meat plastic storage' was Microbial spoilage of luncheon meat prepared in an impermeable plastic casing. Fifth was The Effect of Film Permeability on the Storage Life and Microbiology of Vacuum‐packed meat
Actually, until now I had never heard of Google Scholar, so I thank you for sharing that. When I had a university account, for questions whose merit justified the effort, I could check JSTOR, but that is no longer an option for me.
@SAJ14SAJ : JSTOR now has a program where you can read a few articles free, if you register. Also, it's possible that some of the biological process articles would be in NIH's PubMed Central, which are all free. Due to an OSTP memo last year, research done using money from most US federal agencies will have to be made freely available in the future.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.688359
| 2014-05-05T10:24:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43897",
"authors": [
"Alma",
"Chris Webster",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Dumpster Dudes LLC Spam",
"Fatsyhippokenna",
"Goobs",
"Joe",
"Marcos",
"Niall",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"wanderer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16215
|
Can I sharpen a knife with sandpaper?
So I was thinking, instead of purchasing a dedicated (and expensive) whetstone with limited coarse(ness?) range, why not use patches of sandpaper in increasing grit numbers (getting finer), stretched on some small flat surface? This way I can have as many grit steps as required, to the fineness level required, for relatively cheap and disposable?
Yes, I've heard this suggested, using wet/dry sandpaper and a mousepad. It is a very inexpensive way to match a whetstone, and you can use sandpaper with the same grit to produce an excellent edge.
You duct-tape the sand-paper together so it wraps around the mouse pad, and then pull the knife along the sandpaper with the edge trailing. This is to say, you use sandpaper in the opposite direction as a whetstone. Once you work up to the finest-grit papers, you can use jeweler's polish and a leather strop for a truly razor-sharp edge.
Because the mouse pad's rubber/foam has some give, this method produces a convex edge which remains sharp for longer that an V-cut, because it has more metal behind the edge. It also still presents a very sharp point for cutting, moreso than an equivalent V-cut front bevel.
Using sandpaper will also cost a small fraction of what you spend on a good sharpening stone, which will run you $50 or more PER STONE.
Wondering what grit to use? There are comprehensive tables here and here. However, here is a quick-reference mini-table for you:
Name / US Grit Rating / Use
Coarse / 100-400 / Remove lots of metal. At the low-end of the range, used for reshaping blades, taking out large chips, or restoring snapped points. At the higher end of grit range, used to establish a bevel angle and restore very dull edges.
Medium / 400-700 / Remove moderate amounts of metal. For refining an edge established with coarse grits, and for restoring moderately dull blades. Can be used to establish a bevel angle, but it will take considerably longer. 600 grit is a common point to start at for standard sharpening.
Fine / 800-1200 / For finishing a blade or touching-up a slightly dull blade. At about 1000 grit, you will get something equivalent to a factory edge, assuming you use the same bevel angle. Ceramic steels have grits in this range.
Extra-Fine / 2000+ / For polishing. Higher grits create a shinier and sharper edge, until at 8000+ grit you get mirror finishes and sharpness equivalent to a straight razor. If you're going to bother using grits this high, a leather strop and polishing paste may serve you better than even a ceramic steel; the steel would actually be reducing the edge sharpness with use.
Source: Sandpaper-mousepad sharpening
Source2: Sharpening techniques and explanation
Edit: Another way to use sandpaper in sharpening -- expanding the grit range for a Spyderco Sharpmaker
I'm currently using sandpaper to make a very coarse stone for sharpening extremely dull edges on my Spyderco Sharpmaker. I wrap both of the normal triangular stones with a strip of emery cloth or 220-grit wet/dry sandpaper, and then hold it in place with medium binder clips. Since the lowest stone the Sharpmaker comes with is 800-grit ceramic, this saves HOURS versus using the normal stones. It is also considerably cheaper than the diamond stones they sell; for a big tub of clips and a package of sandpaper, I paid $7, versus about $37 for the diamond rods.
Great answer and link (it actually directly answers my question). Upon reading, my first reaction was "isn't a mouse pad going to render a convex edge?" - I just bumped into this term when doing my short research - and in your link they explain exactly that. However, they mention that it is netter than a straight edge in terms of sharpness, which is counter-intuitive for me. Can you explain why?
Convex edges are stronger, and hold their sharpness longer. Think of it this way: with a shallower-angle back bevel, you have a narrower overall edge, which makes it slice more easily, but the less acute primary bevel gives it has a broader angle, so it wears out more slowly, and isn't as susceptible to chipping and folding over. Take a look at this link for a more extensive discussion, and more info on mousepad sharpening: http://forums.egullet.org/index.php?/topic/26036-knife-maintenance-and-sharpening/
I've sharpened all my knifes and, boy, is there a difference. Next time, I'll try the pad+sandpaper approach!
Good answer. I'd also recommend trying to find the fabric backed sandpaper (rather than actual paper) because it will be far more robust. I find that regular sand paper has a habit of tearing more easily.
Mind that whetstones vs paper use a different grit system!
I bought my (Chinese) whetstone for 7,5€ and I've used it for the last 20 years.
You could spend some money on a honing steel, but even these are not really expensive. I got mine for free at a fair, and it receives regular action.
Make sure you buy cheap vanadium steel knifes for your kitchen (shameless self-promotion).
Plus one, the money spent on a stone that will last your lifetime, and possibly that of you kids, will be a good investment. In the long term cheaper than sandpapers. I can go one better than BaffedCook, my whetstone belonged to my grandfather and may be older than that. I don't use if in my kitchen, mine is for sharpening my chisels and other garden/hobby tools.
@BaffledCook, @Rincewind42, Thanks. I have a honing steel, which, to my best understanding is not intended for sharpening, but rather for maintaining a straight blade. For sharpening, a stone (or other means) is required. From the brief research I did, many of the cheap stones don't stand their promise and users bash them. Than, atypical stone has only one (two max) grit levels. The method proposed in my question will let you have multiple grit numbers to be as fine as you want. Is there a reason to think it is not good enough? Can you recommend a specific, not too expensive stone?
@ysap: If you look at my post and links (for tips), you'll see a perfectly acceptable way to use sandpaper in sharpening. A good set of stones (or sharpening system) is eventually a good investment, but expect to spend $50-150 for that. Plus, for the higher-polish work (2000+ grit) you'll need either polishing compound, or a waterstone, which wears down and has to be lapped to flatten it out again.
If you're looking around your house for stuff you already own to sharpen your knife on, the story goes that the underside of a dinner plate is the way to go. I've never done it - I bought stones from Lee Valley many years ago and I have a steel, and between them I'm taken care of.
Kate, I actually use this method (bottom of a coffee mug) for a long time! It works really great on my chef knife. Just wanted to be more "professional" with the results, as I think it is very coarse and the edge does not get really evenly sharp.
Growing up, my mom always did the dinner plate, but you need stoneware plates that are unglazed at the bottom, or at least just at the edge where you'll be grinding. And it can discolor where you're grinding against (but underneath, so most people won't be looking there) Also, different plates will sharpen differently, depending on the clay used in making them.
This works of course, because ceramic is harder than steel, but the actual grit of the unglazed portion of a plate is pretty unpredictable. More importantly, the surface area is so small, and the shape so awkward, that in my experience a plate (or saucer, bowl, coffee cup, etc.) is really only a good-in-a-pinch substitute for a truing/honing steel, not a sharpening stone.
That is more of a honing than a sharpening technique...
I have for years used sandpaper for sharpening and polishing my plane blades and bench chisels in my woodworking shop. It works wonderfully well provided every stroke on the abrasive is exactly the same angle. Remember that the cutting edge is the union of two planes. The more uniform the planes, the sharper the edge. I finish off with 6000 grit wet paper, it has the texture of a brown paper bag. I can see my reflection and readily shave hairs off my arm. The difference in usability of my woodworking tools is downright sexy. Why wouldn't this technique work with kitchen knives? Consider shopping at a thrift store for economical kitchen knives to practice on before going to work on your real knives. Try this website: http://www.woodbutcher.net/scary.shtml Do yourself a favor and skip to the condensed version; or grab a mug of Earl Grey and be entertained by the ramblings.
Sand paper does work on chisels. I had to have my oak kitchen floor repaired. The flooring expert just sat on the floor with an old cheap chisel and my rubber mallet. He stopped every 15 minutes or so to refine the edge. When he finished the repair, darned if I could find where he had worked. Note: The wood was Bruce pre-finished red oak strip. I used to sharpen my pen knife on 1000 grit garnet paper. However, I am not going to use this method on the very expensive kitchen knives. I will buy some water stones for that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.689088
| 2011-07-17T08:20:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16215",
"authors": [
"Alexander Holsgrove",
"Arthur Leal",
"BaffledCook",
"BobMcGee",
"Bryan",
"Cate",
"David",
"Franklin P Combs",
"J.Povlok",
"Joe",
"Laura Davies",
"Mary Ann",
"Priyanka",
"Rincewind42",
"Steve Sether",
"Timothy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9534",
"jscs",
"rackandboneman",
"ysap"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14311
|
How can I make my lemonade more tart/tangy?
I'm making lemonade, but no matter what ratios of lemon to sugar I use, I can't get that tartness and tang that I can taste in my favourite commercial drinks. I noticed that even with drinks that don't have a citrus flavour, they sometimes have that tartness, so I examined the ingredients of various tangy drinks.
I managed to narrow down that tart drinks tend to have the ingredients citric acid and trisodium citrate. Neither of those ingredients are things I can get at the grocery store. Is there anything I can get at the grocery store that will have the same tartness as those ingredients? It needs to be something cheap please, because the whole reason I'm making my own lemonade is to avoid the expense of the ready made stuff.
Citric acid is available in many supermarkets, look in the baking aisle. If not, try getting it over the Internet, just make sure it says "food grade". Or use cream of tartar, it doesn't have the somewhat lemony taste of citric acid, but is similarly sour. Make sure to measure the pH, if you drink big portions of drink with too low a pH, you can get health problems.
@rumtscho- this is what I was going to say. Make this an answer not a comment.
Some years ago I tried a lemonade in southern Peru. It was very tangy and creamy. I asked the waiter how they made it and he replied that they blended a whole lemon with its peel. The juice was then strained. It was g
Wow, this worked great. Who'da thunk?
@tangytangynomnom Anyone who has ever used lemon zest. https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/979/is-zesting-lemons-effective-when-making-lemonade?rq=1
I didn't post a full answer before, because I didn't have the time to expand on one. Aaronut spared me time by writing 2/3 of what I would have (citric acid, citrate) and presenting it very well. I won't repeat that part. But there is another point which I find important:
When you say "tangy", do you really mean "sour"? Because for me, "tangy" means a combination of "sour" + "astringent", with sometimes a hint of "bitter" thrown in.
This means that even if you drink pure lemon juice, your drink will still not appear tangy enough to you. You need to add astringency.
The way commercial drinks add it is by carbonation. There are systems you can use to carbonate your own drinks at home, but you'll have to make the investment first.
You could try making your lemonade with store-bought carbonated water, but given the price difference between carbonated water and store-bought lemonade on the one hand and tap water and carbonated water on the other hand, it will probably not let you save much money. It will, however, help you drink better quality lemonade (as in, made from real fresh fruit instead of synthetic flavors).
Another way you can achieve it is fermentation. Don't let it go on too long, you don't want an alcoholic drink. The trouble is, with wild cultures you never know when a batch will turn out good and when it will have off-flavors.
You can also add ingredients which are by themselves astringent. Chokeberries resp. their juice would be a perfect choice for a lemonade, if you don't mind the red color. Quinces shouldn't add much color. There are no other easy astringent ingredients I can think of right now, except for a tea of oak bark, but the taste will need lots of getting used to if used in a lemonade.
If you find out that it's the astringency you've been missing, you probably need no additional citric acid.
It's not too costly to carbonate at home; the iSi soda siphon is inexpensive (around $50 I think) and some of the higher-up models can accept CO2 cartridges. It'll take a while to pay for itself, but it will eventually (and has many other uses). Mind you, I don't think I've ever had carbonated lemonade, but to each his own...
I don't carbonate homemade lemonade either, but I can see how someone accustomed to fanta & co might miss it. I'd still recommend to the OP to make a try with bottled carbonated water first and only buy a siphon if the carbonated version works for him. Of course, the problem could theoretically be in the sourness, but with lemon, he should be able to achieve a very sour drink by just adding more lemon juice. Citric acid will make for a cheaper drink, but some preliminary tries with more lemon will show if the problem is missing sourness or astringency.
Citric acid is available at many supermarkets worldwide, and if you can't find it in any of your supermarkets, you should almost certainly be able to find it in a bulk food, health food, or baking supplies store.
As rumtscho helpfully points out in the comments, you can also find it online, i.e. on Amazon, but do make sure that it is actually food grade (the linked product is).
Trisodium citrate (more colloquially referred to simply as sodium citrate or just citrate) is a buffer intended to reduce the acidity of the final product. It's normally used in molecular recipes where a particular gelling agent needs a certain pH range. It's possible that some lemonade makers are using it to control the flavour as well, i.e. by adding more citric acid than expected and then buffering it out, in order to reduce the "lemony" flavour.
That is probably not what you want for homemade lemonade, so don't bother trying to locate trisodium citrate. Just experiment with small amounts of citric acid.
Isn't vitamin C pills citric acid? I guess the vitamin pills might have binders, etc., but if a person has some vitamin C pills around, easy to try before buying pure?
Are the lemons by themselves tart enough for you? If not then perhaps you need a better source of lemons (or you could try the citric acid route some people have suggested). If they are then you probably need to add less water. I would imagine that the water would have as big if not more of an impact on the sour/tartness level as the sugar.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.689810
| 2011-04-25T07:18:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14311",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"JAB",
"Mark Stewart",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78955",
"rumtscho",
"tangy tangy nom nom"
],
"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
}
|
33286
|
What is each side of a 4-sided grater for?
We own a standard 4-sided grater, but only ever use the side with large holes.
What do the other sides do, and what kind of recipes are they for?
We have:
Medium holes with a cutting edge on bottom (look like large raindrops)
Small holes with cutting edge on bottom
Outward protruding holes with spiky edges on all sides
Wide holes that look like a smiley.
Are you adventurous enough to use the other sides?
To answer in the language of the question asked:
Medium holes with a cutting edge on bottom (look like large raindrops) : used for shredding.
Small holes with cutting edge on bottom : used for shredding when you want it finer than the larger size.
Outward protruding holes with spiky edges on all sides : used for grating.
Wide holes that look like a smiley : used to slice things to an even thickness.
As for recipes ... I generally don't use the slicing portion too often, as I can get fairly consistent slices with a knife, but if you're not so skilled, it could be used to slice potatoes for an au gratin (might need to slice them in half first, is the slots aren't wide enough to fit the whole potato), or to slice firmer cheeses. It can also be used for slicing cabbage for coleslaw (again, once cut down to fit), cucumbers or carrots for salads, etc. As the blades aren't razor sharp, there are some softer items (eg, tomatoes) that it just won't work for, that you'd have to do by hand or get a much more expensive mandoline.
The grating side I only generally use for hard cheeses, when I need a more powdery texture than I can get with the shredding sides. I've also used it for zesting citrus (although it only works in large quantities, as you end up losing about 1/2 a lemon to the groves and it doesn't release without a brush**), and I've used it for pulping carrots (was mixing them into a sauce, and I didn't want identifiable bits)
The shredding sides are the ones I use the most, with the choice of side dependent upon what size I want the resultant shreds. I use it for firmer vegetables and fruits that I'm baking into breads (zucchini, carrots, apples), potatoes for hash browns, medium cheeses for firmer cheeses (when I want this texture), etc.
Although a food processor can be used for this task, you have to consider a couple things (besides initial cost & space it takes up) : it's really easy to go and shred lots of cheddar cheese in a food processor, but it cramming all in there and fusing back together from the force and heat, defeating the purpose. Chilling the cheese helps, but you also need to keep dumping the work bowl out. If you have a strong arm and a small food processor, a hand shredder might actually be faster and give better results.
When using a shredding disk for firmer things, you do more damage than by hand, resulting in lots of liquid being given off. Sometimes, this is better ... I have a potato kugel recipe that comes out very light as I can get more of the liquid out after having gone through the food processor ... so you may want to try both tools (if you already own them both) to see which one gives you better results.
** ... I've heard you can wrap it in plastic wrap, use the grater, and then pull the wrap off to get it to release; I've never tried it, in part because I now have a microplane grater, but also because I'd be afraid of getting bits of plastic in the food. I also want to say that I saw the trick the context of pulping ginger or garlic, but it's been long enough ago that I don't know that I can trust my memory
I don't know that there is any universal standard for box graters.
Mine, at least has:
Large holes—suitable for shredding medium density cheeses as for pizza and similar tasks
Typical box grater showing large hole side (on right):
Medium holes—suitable for smaller shreds, such as making potato hash browns. Might also be used in some cuisines for grating onions.
Small holes—probably intended for hard cheeses like Parmesan; or garlic and ginger, or similar.
Slicing slots—intended for making sliced potatoes for gratins and similar tasks.
Typical box grater showing slicing slots (left) small holes (right):
In my opinion, today, there are better tools for all of these tasks. Food processors, of course excel at many of them. Manual micro-plane type graters do far better for ginger, garlic, and Parmesan. Mandolins are better at slicing, as are food processors with the proper blade. I haven't used a box grater in many years because it is almost never the best tool in my kitchen for a given job.
The "large" and "medium" here are the "medium" and "small" in the question, the "small" is the protruding ones, and the slicing slots are the wide ones. I'd say these are more common descriptions, though.
I have updated, with some typical pictures to make things more clear, now that there is a description of the grater sides in the question.
I use the side for slicing as much as the large grating side for shredding. A raw sweet potatoe sliced using the side with the single slicing blade, toss with oil, salt and pepper and spread onto cookie sheet. Bake for about 10 minutes at 400. Great side dish
Just last night I used the small grating side for zesting a lemon; it worked out great just like I see on the Food Network. I don't yet own a microplane so the cheese grater was my only option. I'll definitely use it again until I purchase a microplane.
Were you using the 'small holes with cutting edge' or the 'outward protruding holes' ? I've used both for zest ... you lose less in the 'small holes' than the 'outward protruding' ones, but if it's new and still sharp, you sometimes end up with little shreds which might not be a fine enough texture for some recipes.
I use the smiley faces for thinly slicing onions I want to include in a sauce or stew. They come out really thin and a little mushy, so I don't use them for salads
One extremely important application of a grater is for horseradish, the big grates way to coarsely, the side grates makes a mush. The small grates makes your horseradish perfect for mixing with dill, putting it on your potato salad, putting it on your salmon, your tuna, your BLT, your BBQ, your breakfast cereal.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.690381
| 2013-04-07T01:03:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33286",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Dianne",
"Dustin Venegas",
"Jody McKinley",
"Joe",
"John",
"Kevin O'Dwyer",
"MAQ",
"Marc Shivers",
"Martha",
"Neilinnz",
"PAUL SCHERER",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sandra Iseman",
"TRiG",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77216",
"rbrt",
"user471851"
],
"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
}
|
17021
|
hints for low-carb wraps
Lately two different bags from two different makers of low net carbohydrate wraps have arrived home with the entire mass stuck together. In both cases the expiration date had not passed. The first bag went right into the fridge when I got home and I opened it a week later. The second bag/brand I opened as soon as I got home.
They're not stored in the fridge at the grocery store. Could the recent hot weather be an issue? Or did I manage to pick from two bad lots lately? Any hints on getting the things apart?
I've emailed one manufacturer a few weeks ago, they have not bothered to respond yet.
I finally did get a weasel answer in a letter from the manufacture. Bottom line is I got two free coupons (which I promptly lost). I also tried a third brand, and that one tastes extra awful, though none stuck together.
I've had this happen with tortillas. Generally it's moisture or humidity that will cause them to stick. Try putting the entire stack in a low-temp oven (unwrapped and uncovered) for a few minutes to dry them out. You should be able to separate them easily. At that point you could either put them in separate bags, or stick a sheet of waxed paper/plastic wrap between each one and put them back in a single bag. If you're going to store them in the fridge, make sure that they're in an airtight container, as condensation can form in the bag and cause them to get gummy.
Thanks, I will give the oven a try if I buy them again. You would think at the price they are sold for they could afford a few wax sheets between layers already. I've carefully peeled the layers apart - lost a few - and then done the wax paper. That part at least I know works.
I'm not disagreeing, and I have seen some that come with paper in between, but can't remember the brand right now. My answer is just a way to salvage the ones you already have.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.690877
| 2011-08-22T00:16:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17021",
"authors": [
"Abbi smith",
"Dino",
"EmmyS",
"MajorlyTom",
"OpenID-test2",
"Terry Shi",
"cheyenne",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7185"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15139
|
How can I make the most effective use of high-quality olive oil?
I was recently in an organic market and sampled some of the finest olive oil I've ever tasted. I bought a bottle, and I'm now looking for ways to maximize my enjoyment of it. I'm familiar with dipping bread into the oil, and this seems to bring out the taste with few distractions. On the other hand, mixing the oil in a salad dressing hides some of the qualities among all the other tastes (herbs, vinegar, etc.). My question is, what are some simple ways to maximize the enjoyment of olive oil?
Thank you everyone for the great answers! I'm really enjoying this olive oil!
In this part of the world, around the rim of the mediterranean, olive oils is very definitely used to dress a salad. This is not usually done by emulsifying everything in a shaker though. Generally, the salad is seasoned with salt and pepper, then drizzled generously with olive oil and a little lemon juice or good wine/balsamic vinegar. This allows the flavour of the oil to stand, and it is nicely complemented by the other secondary flavours.
Olive oil is also used to complement the flavour of fish, baked in foil in the oven after being brushed with olive oil and seasonings. This imparts a special aroma and flavour to the fish.
The best, and simplest in my opinion, is when for supper or breakfast we just slice some vegetables (cucumbers, tomatoes, peppers, carrots) and drizzle them with olive oil, to be eaten as part of the meal.
I agree that if you want to dress a salad with good olive oil, the way to go is drizzling with oil, vinegar and salt, each separately, then toss. This also lets the flavors of the vegetables shine through. We learned it that way in Italy at a cooking school, and it's what we do 90% of the time we have salad.
A good oil is enjoyable in any dish, but if you want the taste of the oil to dominate, there is no better vehicle than starch. First, starchy foods don't have strong aromas on their own, so they don't overpower the oil. Seond. Pure oil is unpleasantly heavy. Starches do a good job of soaking themselves up with the oil, allowing you to use more oil without the food becoming greasy.
My favorit way to showcase oils is a veloute. This is a sauce made from a very light roux and light stock. I prefer chicken or vegetable stock for that (but no ushrooms, their umami makes it too strong for my taste). I combine this sauce with blandish meat (chicken breasts, or boiled pork). It also goes well with vegetables which have a weaker taste and don't hve much freshness, grassy notes or acidity. White asparagus and zucchini work great, tomatoes are definitelly out. I/e had people eat my sauce of this type with another starch (rice, spelt noodles), but I don't like this combination much.
Other starchy combinations than a roux are definitelly possible. You can make mashed potatoes and use the oil instead of butter, you can use it in a pilaf... Just let your phantasy run free.
No matter how you use it, there are two things to consider. First, the taste is enhanced when the oil is served warm. But don't take it to frying temperatures, that ruins the taste (there is a reason for "cold pressed"). Second, make only very delicate flavor combinations. Combine with a single herb/spice, or not at all. Don't use herbs and spices which are too strong (e.g. Spearmint). If you use herbs, this is one of the rare situations where dried herbs are preferrable.
If you want a protein-based pairing, there are still ideas to work with. For example a simple bean soup (ripe beans) with lots of oil in it (lentil should work too). Or pieces of cheese (feta is best) drizzed with the oil, served as antipasti. Again, avoid strong aromas from other ingredients.
I agree that warm oil is most fragrant and therefore most flavorful. I find it's really great to just splash in a little on each serving of something hot right before you take it to the table. The oil warms and gets fragrant, but doesn't denature and become flavorless.
one way i've found to enjoy quality olive oils is to simply drizzle it over steamed or pan-seared vegetables, with just a little salt and pepper sprinkled on top.
I second @Carmi's last idea, because after all simplicity is beautiful! I got this once in a restaurant in Emiglia Romagna as antipasti, and continue to redo it every now and then. Be sure to blow your friends minds to serve raw vegetables with incredible taste while waiting for the next course ;-)
Fill a bowl with fine sea salt (be surprised to taste different salts, some of them are delicious!) and add your olive oil. Chop raw vegetables of the season like carrots, cucumber, peppers or whatever is available on your fresh, local market. Dip the vegetables and make sure to also take up some salt from the bottom of the bowl.
Remaining olive oil can be reused.
Turkish cuisine has an entire 'branch' dedicated to olive oil dishes. Vegetables such as green beans, eggplants, leeks or artichokes are simmered in a great deal of olive oil along with tomatoes, onions and red pepper paste.
The simmer is as light as possible and is done for a while - about 45 minutes for a pound of green beans. Served cold, the dish is entirely imparted with the taste and slickness of the olive oil and is delicious with yogurt and crusty bread.
Although it may not be considered a 'pure' taste since it is diluted with the water of the tomato and other ingredients, the olive oil is the dominant flavor in the dish and a higher quality olive oil always shines through. The low temperature of cooking also probably better preserves the flavor of it.
Here are some good places to get started:
http://almostturkishrecipes.blogspot.com/2008/05/turkish-olive-oil-dishes.html
http://www.turkishcookbook.com/2005/03/turkish-olive-oil-dish-recipes.php
I'd start with dishes containing the vegetables above, as they are generally the most popular. The 'standard' olive oil dish is green beans in olive oil - both links above have their own versions, but I would recommend my family's version. This omits ingredients such as garlic and sugar that, while delicious, aren't really necessary and are probably better off ignored when looking to maximize the flavor of the olive oil. This is my mom's:
http://anneninyemekleri.blogspot.com/2008/07/zeytinyagli-fasulye.html
Using olive oil in a meal/sauce that has a frying period;
For the frying period I use another vegetable oil like sunflower oil (just sufficent enough to fry, not too much) and when I finish with the frying period and after adding all other ingredients, then on top of all I add 1 or 2 tablespoons of olive oil and leave it to cook. The reason of adding olive oil later is to get the best taste of olive oil without burning it.
*When two different oils are combined, the total amount of oil should be taken care of in order not to use too much oil.
Olive oil; as ready as to be a "starter" with a piece of bread, so there is a plenty of varieties to try, such as:
after flavouring it with some thyme (hand grated), I use it for cooking baked meat + vegetable dishes .
after flavouring it with desired herb(s ) and/or spices, I simply split it over cheese/olives to enrich the taste of them.
I also use olive oil in baking fish; especially big ones (with parsley, onion, bay leaf & lemon slice).
salad; I use sour tastes(lemon, vinegar etc.) balanced not to dominate the salad and as a last step, I add olive oil and leave it to rest just for 5 minutes at room teprature before serving. (just 5 minutes, not over in order not to ruin my fresh salad!)
one Italian lazy classic is to use the oil to dress pasta. Of course, the quality of the pasta becomes fundamental: you should get at least Barilla.
Cook the pasta in plenty of salted water, drain very thoroughly, plate, drizzle olive oil with a generous but wise hand. I like mine with grated Parmesan cheese. A pinch of black pepper may help. No oregano, no basil, nothing else, NOOOOOTHIN' (you should imagine me speaking with a thick Italian accent here).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.691073
| 2011-05-30T17:40:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15139",
"authors": [
"Emil Laine",
"Jeze",
"bikeboy389",
"chris",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6324",
"suziellama"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16533
|
Why don't my muffins rise and develop tops properly?
I would like to make muffins that have that "spilled over" look that shop bought muffins have, but no matter what I do, the ones I make always look flat or only just reach the top of the paper cases.
What can I do to make the muffins rise more and have wide tops?
What's the problem with putting more batter in each cup?
There are many reasons why muffins might not rise as expected; I'll list the ones I know of in order of probability:
Over-mixing the batter. You'll know that you've done this if the muffins also turn out tough and chewy. This prevents rising because the gluten network is too tight to expand around the gas bubbles.
Under-mixing the batter. You have to develop some gluten, otherwise there's nothing to trap the gas bubbles and the muffins will just deflate before they get any rise. It's a lot easier to over-mix than under-mix, but if you drastically under-mix and don't even bother to get all the dry ingredients wet, then you won't get any leavening action at all.
Not enough leavening agent. This can happen with unsifted flour (sifting also helps incorporate air), using the wrong type of flour (especially if the recipe calls for self-raising), or using old or improperly-stored flour or baking soda/powder. You should be able to see some bubbling action before you pop the muffins in the oven; if you don't, you might have this problem.
Improper substitution of baking soda for baking powder. A lot of people think these are the same, but they aren't. Both use sodium bicarbonate, which is what produces the CO2 bubbles but needs an acid in order to do it. Baking soda is intended to be used with mixtures that are already acidic; baking powder has an built-in acidifier, usually cream of tartar, which reacts with the water as soon as you incorporate it. If you ever substitute baking soda for baking powder, you need to add cream of tartar or some other acid/acidifier.
Not resting the batter, or resting too long. If you use double-action baking powder (the norm, e.g. Magic brand) then you are supposed to rest for 5-10 minutes to allow for the first action. If you use single-action baking powder, you must get those muffins into the oven right away or they'll start to collapse.
Finally, and this might be stating the obvious - not filling the tins enough. It's possible that the muffins are rising just fine, but they're not supposed to double in size like bread or triple like pastries; you should be filling the tins at least 3/4 of the way up if you want tops.
I have to say, my muffins always turn out fabulously. I don't think there is anything wrong with using baking powder. My recipe states I use self raising flour and baking powder(not soda) and I have perfect muffins.
Can you list what ingredients you use please?
Try placing your baking tray at the lowest point in your oven rather than middle as the muffins will brown before fully cooked thus resulting in non rising.
Hope this helps a little.
Higher baking temperature. I never got nice tops until I raised the temp to 425-450 for the first few minutes until they set (~7-10 for jumbo cups), then turn it down to 375-350.
I have always found that when mixing the batter, the mix needs to stand for at least 15-20 minutes so that it can expand. Only then do you put the mix into the muffin pan and into the oven. This insures that the muffins will rise, stay moist inside, and taste real good.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.691713
| 2011-07-31T10:45:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16533",
"authors": [
"Ben Klingston",
"Daniele D.",
"Drew",
"James Wong",
"Spammer",
"Toni Daleo-Sims",
"Wahab",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98696",
"rumtscho",
"tom"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16641
|
What is the authentic way to cook pierogi?
I've been buying pre-packaged pierogi from Trader Joe's and local Polish delis. But I can't seem to get a straight or consistent answer on how you are supposed to cook them. Should you steam pierogi, boil them, or saute them with butter?
"Pierogi" is already plural; no need to add an s.
Actually, in Polish singular is "pieróg" and plural is "pierogi", but in USA "pierogi" is the singular and "pierogis" is plural. Confusing, I know.
That's because us Americans don't care about anyone else's plurals. I wince every time I hear "biscottis'.
My Polish mother-in-law boils them. The sweet ones are usually served with a bit of yogurt or sour cream, and the savory ones are often fried (after boiling) until golden, and served with onions and bacon.
We have a Polish & Greek place by us (don't ask), and theirs are always boiled. They are delicious that way (usually topped with bacon and sour cream)...
Personally I always grew up w/ them boiled then sauteed, which is my favorite.
Polish Greek? Yes! I'll have a plate of spanakopirogi.
That was exactly our thought :) apparently there were some military marriages involved :)
OMG, sign me up. Where is this place? Now I want spanakopirogi.
The most common way here in Poland to prepare them is to boil them. Put them into boiling and salted water, wait until they start floating on the surface and then boil for 2-3 minutes (longer if they are frozen).
This is exactly what I do. And I've been making them since I was 8. Though, in some regions of Poland pierogis are usually baked.
My babcia (grandmother, she came to the states in '49) boils them after assembly. If she's serving them right away, she browns them in some butter. Otherwise, she packages them up in ziplock bags and freezes them.
Packaged pierogi are probably already boiled. I would thaw them and saute in a little butter until golden brown and warm through.
the Trader Joes ones are not pre-boiled.
First boil them. Remove from water and brown some butter and pour the butter over the pierogi and toss in a large bowl. Later you can either fry them or warm them in the microwave.
My grandmother, who is from Poland, simmered them in boiling salted water and then drained them. She smothered them in butter that had been browned, this was how my mother taught me. Not sure if this is the authentic way but it is what was passed down three generations. This process is used for the potato cheese mix as well as the fruit pierogi, both being covered with browned butter
I Am 75 and learned how to make pierogi from my mother who learned from her mother. Pierogi should be boiled and drained. When boiling never put more than 5-6 in the pot at one time. In a frying pan, melt butter and fry finely chopped onions and finely chopped salt pork. Fry the boiled pierogi in the mixture on both sides to favor, do not brown. Serve with sour cream.
This is how I make them! This YouTube video is great, and easy to follow. They taste amazing this way!
[Paraphrased Video] Saute first in butter, margarine or butter flavored spread as many as you can reasonably fit in the skillet on one layer. Add mushrooms, onions and seasonings as desired. Cover and steam for a few minutes at a time flipping as you check and stir. Brown gently and heat through, flipping every few minutes.
Tasting good does not make them "authentic" many delicious things are not anything like how they would have been made originally.
I always saute them with butter & onions, they taste better this way in my opinion. Sometimes top them with Sour Cream but usually just eat them plain w/ onions
Thanks for your input, but the OP asked for the authentic way to cook them, not asking how other people enjoy cooking them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.692039
| 2011-08-04T20:46:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16641",
"authors": [
"Adam Jaskiewicz",
"Ari",
"Catija",
"ChefAndy",
"Chris Cudmore",
"FuzzyChef",
"Jirya",
"Rashi Dewan",
"Rikon",
"Thomas G Henry LLC",
"funct7",
"gnB",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"jkadlubowska",
"mitry",
"paola",
"stephanie"
],
"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
}
|
24994
|
How do I recognize whether a Gorgonzola has gone bad?
Is there any way to know when moldy cheese (in my case, Gorgonzola) is no longer good to eat, without trying it? Mine is about three weeks old and I really can't tell any difference.
you can eat your cheese without problem, ripe cheese lasts in the fridge much longer than three weeks
If it grows a grey or pink mold around the edges, or a black mold, throw it out. That's an undesirable mold. Those molds aren't usually dangerous, but they can make the cheese taste bad. With gorgonzola cheese specifically, the mold is injected in to the cheese via needle-like things, and then it grows veins from there. If a mold is a different color and it's coming from somewhere other than the veins, that is probably not a good mold. See also this question.
.
is this the same for most blue cheeses? also, does grey or pink mold also grow when it goes bad from not being refrigerated for a while?
If the cheese smells strongly of ammonia it's time to chuck it. You will also notice a pink tinge of colour. The cheese from the rind in will be turning peachy pink. Best rule if it smells like cheap perm lotion it's time to throw it away.
Does it still smell tasty? I noted a distinct ammonia smell in a package of crumbled gorgonzola that had been sitting in our fridge a while - it still looked good, but upon trying a small sample, it was inedible, tasting more of industrial cleaner than cheese.
The only time I had Gorgonzola go off it went slimy and wet looking so if it does that or develops a new mould that looks a new colour I'd throw it out.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.692502
| 2012-07-11T18:11:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24994",
"authors": [
"Donna Werner",
"Goran",
"Joanne",
"Liz",
"Marcin Bogusz",
"Mohan",
"NicVerAZ",
"Rob Khalil",
"Sharon Kellogg",
"arturomp",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57145",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107704
|
Making Dough: Preferment + Cold Rise - Necessary?
I'm making a brioche. Currently, I do a sponge & dough process + an overnight cold rise. I'm wondering if the sponge and dough is necessary if already doing a cold rise?
From my understanding, the sponge & dough gives the gluten a chance to develop without having to knead the dough as much. Wouldn't a cold rise with occasional folding do the same? If so, is it overkill to do both steps?
My current process for sponge is: I take part of my flour (33%), liquid (33% milk), 1% sugar, and 1% of 33% yeast - and give it 2 hours.
What do you mean by "a sponge & dough process"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sponge_and_dough
The Wikipedia article just explains the term's usage, so it is also completely nonspecific. What process are you using?
I take part of my flour (33%), liquid (33% milk), 1% sugar, and 1% of 33% yeast - and give it 2 hours.
Thank you for answering. Sorry that I had not come around to writing an answer back then, now that the question came up again I wrote something up.
I have not tried it but I suspect it is just as you say, the sponge phase allows gluten to develop and improves the texture of the resulting bread. Brioche should not be fluffy like a cake but should have a little bit of stretch and chew to it, but should paradoxically not be tough either. It also needs a sour element in the flavor to offset all of the fat and sweetness. The best way to achieve this is with the long slow process, which internally creates long, supple strands of gluten rather than smaller, firmer ones.
Another trick with brioche is keeping all of the fat (usually butter) in suspension in the dough throughout the process so that it does not leak or sweat out during baking. The sponge, fermentation and long overnight rest develops long strands of gluten which form an internal mesh that keeps the relatively heavy dough in suspension. If the dough is prepared too quickly it will "sweat" or the fat will liquify and leak out and you'll lose all of that lovely butter.
From my understanding, the sponge & dough gives the gluten a chance to develop without having to knead the dough as much. Wouldn't a cold rise with occasional folding do the same? If so, is it overkill to do both steps?
my response: I have come to the same conclusion. I want a lengthy fermentation so I use half the amount of yeast called for, make the dough, and refrigerate it until it's doubled.I skip the preferments [I am using instant yeast]. I then work with the dough to shape it. After reading an article at King Arthur flour, for a recent rye bread I let the boule proof in a dutch oven lined with parchment, at room temperature. When the dough was almost ready to bake, I put the dutch oven in the oven and turned the heat on. The result was a beautiful boule. I saved hydro, and was able to bake when it was convenient.
Sponges and preferments can be used for different purposes, but the process you describe is not good at achieving any of them. So I would say it serves no discernible goal and you can abandon it. I would likely stop using the whole recipe - if it was designed with so little understanding of breadmaking in that important point, it is probably suboptimal in other points too.
You can find many good recipes which provide different end results and require differing amounts of effort. In that sense, if you pick a recipe that has a sponge, the sponge is only "necessary" in the sense that it creates the specific end product that the recipe intends - but if you omit that part, you will still end up with a brioche, just with a brioche with a different taste and texture. So, it is never necessary - but it might be preferable, if your personal taste includes a prefernce for the end product that comes out of a given recipe that involves a (well-designed) sponge process.
So, the way ahead here is to search for recipes, try them out and when you find one you like, stick with it. It is up to you to decide whether to consider recipes with a sponge or without a sponge when choosing the ones to try - if you are unsure, maybe a variety is best, so you can make an informed choice.
Making a sponge gives the flour, water and yeast a chance to react in the absence of salt (which slows down the yeast action). If you omit this 'autolyse' phase then I would not expect the outcome to be the same.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.692684
| 2020-04-19T01:43:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107704",
"authors": [
"CookingNewbie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
69374
|
Flour Blend for Seoul Chicken?
The chef in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD97u0OUbBo uses a blend of tapioca starch, potato starch, and rice flour for his dredge. Any ideas what ratio would be optimal for getting a crispy wing?
Honestly, all three of those will crisp up very quickly, and just about any ratio will produce a crispy end product. The blend may be for textural reasons; potato starch is typically very fine and produces a tempura-like shell, while rice flour can have little bits of individual rice grains which produces a "chunkier" texture.
I probably wouldn't try to use pure starch as it will brown and burn very easily, but you probably don't even need all three ingredients. Personally, I'd start with a 50/50 blend of potato starch and rice flour and adjust from there. You could use tapioca starch instead of potato if it's easier for you to find locally, but definitely keep rice flour in the mix.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.693033
| 2016-05-31T14:03:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69374",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28448
|
How to create thick, hearty garlic marinara sauce?
I've been searching online for a recipe for a robust garlic marinara sauce to no avail. Does anyone have any tips on how to make this kind of thick, hearty sauce from scratch?
This is what I've tried so far:
Tomato Paste (I don't have a blender)
1/2 teaspoon butter
1 cup diced onions
1/4 cup diced red chilies
1/4 cup whole milk cream
3 cloves of garlic
Fresh Basil
I fry the garlic and onions in olive oil and then add the tomato paste, chilies, basil and cream. It has not turned into the hearty kind of sauce one imagins on an Italian dinner table. Does anyone have any tips?
Ditch the cream and onions, and don't use tomato paste. Take a whole bulb of garlic, peel the cloves and leave them whole.
Heat a cup of good olive oil over medium heat and add the garlic, stirring occasionally until very lightly brown and blistered: be careful not to burn it!
Then add 4 28oz cans of chopped/crushed Italian tomatoes and some chilli, being careful of bubbling oil, and simmer very gently for 4 hours. Season well.
This method produces a thick, intense sauce that you can use for pretty much anything. Keep in the fridge for a week or the freezer for months.
also found this recipe online. looks similar, and might help at the "Season well" part : http://thepioneerwoman.com/cooking/2012/09/spaghetti-sauce/
I have always used crushed tomatoes (from a can) in addition to tomato paste. It comes out fairly chunky, but I can still ladle it and pasta will hold it.
Crushed or chopped tomatoes will be much better than cream, just simmer for ages and put through a sieve if you want it to be smooth.
The key to my garlic sauce is to mince/or run through a garlic press, A LOT of garlic. I use anywhere from 8-10 cloves. Heat 1/4 to 1/3 cups of olive oil over LOW heat in a small saucepan. Add the garlic and slowly poach the garlic in the warm oil for 30 minutes. Watch to make sure the garlic isn't browning too much. Season with a bit salt and add the roasted garlic and oil to whatever pot you use for sauce. Add one 28 oz can of good whole or crushed tomatoes (depending on what consistency you want) and a can of diced tomatoes. Season with salt and pepper and italian seasoning. Simmer slowly for 30-45 minutes, longer is you want a thicker sauce, taste and adjust seasoning. Depending on the quality of the tomatoes a few pinches of sugar may be needed at the end to round out an acidity. There is never any leftovers and it is my go-to for any tomato based pasta sauce, I don't even buy jarred sauce anymore.
I always use the whole tomatoes in the can, crushing each just a bit by hand as I dump them into the pot. It always cooks up very thick and hearty, and the occasional small chunks of tomato that remain are soft enough to be almost sauce consistency, yet add wonderful, tangy flavor bombs throughout the meal.
Use those and the whole garlic cloves that @ElendilTheTall recommends in his/her excellent answer, and you won't find out how delicious it is after having been frozen and reheated, because you won't have any leftovers!
I've always had great results with Hunts canned tomato products, and America's Test Kitchen confirmed this when its experts and novices all picked Hunts when they blind-tested six brands at various price points.
I won't recommend for or against on the cream, as I can't stand the taste of dairy products once they've been heated up, so go with your preferences and/or the experts in here as to whether you keep using it as you fine-tune your recipe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.693129
| 2012-11-16T05:13:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28448",
"authors": [
"Bezeball",
"Dillan Neal",
"Fabio A. Correa",
"Fyodor",
"Joseph Rogers",
"codeninja",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79905",
"k lowrey",
"molnarm",
"mskw",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33729
|
Pickling green peaches: is the fuzz a must?
Last year, I had to thin the fruit on our peach tree to keep the branches from breaking once the fruit matured. Rather than throw away all the quarter- to half-dollar-sized green peaches, I pickled them -- whole -- using a bread & butter recipe. My thought was that they would turn out a bit like pickled olives. The result was not far off, save for the fuzzy skins-- very fuzzy. Like, felt fuzzy. I was hoping that the vinegar in the pickling would change the fuzzy texture; no such luck.
Is there any technique or treatment (saving peeling every last one of them) to tone the fuzzy down?
I've never eaten a green peach, but I imagine that the stone inside is probably as soft as the stone of a green cherry. How do you avoid breaking it when eating the peach?
@rumtscho: Prior to pickling, the woody stone is hard enough to provide some resistance to guide your teeth away (though you can still bite off a bit of a stone if that's your intent). After pickling, it is indeed more of a challenge to avoid biting into/through the pit (the vinegar and cooking both serving to soften the pit, I'm assuming). I've resorted to cutting the flesh away from the pit, sort of like pitting an olive when preparing them for a salad or sauce. It might also be that less mature peaches would have a less woody pit-- I'll try to time things better this year to find out.
Wow. +1 for what seems to me to be a very original and efficient idea. Never in a thousand years would I have considered pickling under-developed peaches (not that I like olives, either, but still!).
I wash mine vigorously with a 3M scrubby pad. There's still some fuzz, but not as much. Those scrubby shower gloves would probably be easier, but maybe less effective.
Nice idea -- and just in time for this year's batch of green peaches!
Blanching should make it very easy to peel the peaches.
Descrip
Video
When I blanch tomatoes, the critical thing is to leave them in the boiling water long enough so that the skin splits and will simply pop off with a little pressure from your hand.
Things should work the same way w peaches, and it's not really all that bad of a chore.
This works great for ripe peaches, but I imagine that it will not work well for green peaches where the fruit tissues are not yet well differentiated.
I'll give this a try in a month or so (when I expect -- barring a late frost -- another batch of green peaches to play with); however, I suspect @rumtscho is right: this would be like trying to blanch a green olive.
Green tomatoes (beyond a certain point) are blanchable. It just takes a little more boiling than for the ripe ones. I think your result will likely depend on exactly how green your green peaches are.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.693432
| 2013-04-25T01:36:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33729",
"authors": [
"Eric schaller",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90071",
"jhfrontz",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64982
|
Can I make roux with a fat different than butter, and if yes, what considerations should I take into account?
I have experience making a roux with butter and flour. If I want to substitute a non-dairy fat (e.g. olive or sunflower oil), will there be any cooking or consistency differences that I need to watch out for? Does the fat/flour ratio stay consistent?
We had a new question whose meaning overlaps this one very well, and the answers cover both the old and the new one. There was a difference in the title formulation though (especially this one mentioning oil as the substitute fat, the other one covering margarine). So I reformulated the title, just to be clearer that this question and its answers already cover the information one needs to make a non-butter roux.
A roux is just cooking flour in an equal amount (or thereabouts) of fat. If you've already done it in butter, you already know what you are doing. Butter is tricky because there is some water left in the butter and the fat itself has a low smoke point. After making a roux with butter, another fat is easy.
Butter contains water, but it's not so picky that the small amount of water matters as far as measuring the butter; it's more about compensating for the butter's behavior and not allowing it to burn.
Do the same thing with any oil as you have with butter, and you will be fine.
If anything, you will find it easier with another fat. Just go roughly 50/50 and take your time.
Lots of different brands of roux are available in Louisiana at any grocery store. The bulk of them are made with some type of vegetable oil instead of butter. Its common for that vegetable oil to be made cotton seed, corn or soybeans. Lately soybean oil has been popular from most manufacturers because it has become so cheap.
So the long answer is yes, you certainly can make roux with oil. But I'd recommend a neutral flavored oil so the flavor won't be spoiled. And the ratio is exactly the same.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.693946
| 2016-01-01T19:50:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64982",
"authors": [
"Guy Ayland",
"M.I.X_Fresh Yt",
"Penny Armstrong",
"Rosann Leo",
"Victor Santiago",
"Vinnie Healey",
"cherbear7msncom",
"connor 11276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15502
|
Can I replace sugar with honey in tea?
If I want to replace sugar with honey in black or green tea, can I add the honey at any point or should I wait until the tea cools down a bit?
Honey? If all else fails, I add a splash of Scotch. I think it rather improves the taste of the...er...Johnnie Walker Red Label, what?
There is apparently evidence that some of the flavour compounds in honey deteriorate during heating:
http://www.ibrabee.org.uk/component/k2/item/1837-effect-of-heat-on-honey
The text suggests that honey should not be heated to more than 50 degrees Celsius (122 degrees Fahrenheit). So it might be wise to let the tea cool down a bit before adding the honey. Having said that, I usually put the honey in immediately after removing the tea leaves and it tastes fine to me. The flavour of the honey is clear and pronounced and I have never felt that anything was missing.
Seems doubltful. What about all the honey bbq sauces and recipes out there?
They're mostly a gimmick as far as flavour goes - my 'honey glazed' pork ribs and chicken never actually smells like honey.
I think the flavour deterioration happens mostly at higher temperatures than that of hot tea. So yes, glazes, bbq sauces etc. will not taste much of honey if you apply it to the meat before grilling it. You will of course still get the caramelization effect and the sweetness, so it is not useless. But I think you can use sugar just as well. If you really want to preserve the honey flavour you should glaze the meat after grilling.
Can you update the URL? It shows 404 - Category not found.
It is preferable to add the honey into the tea when it is hot to let it melt a bit. Otherwise, it'll be harder to mix it in. And yes, you can replace sugar with honey in tea. It is healthier and I do it all the time.
Some people are "iffy" as to this because it generally requires a lot more to sweeten than sugar, and can leave a residue if too much is present, but I actually generally prefer to sweeten my tea (and coffee) with honey and/or brown sugar.
If you want to try something other than honey, agave nectar is another sweet alternative. I use it in baking instead of honey sometimes.
Hmn... It's not the flavor that you should be worrying about when adding honey to hot tea, but rather, the honey's natural antibiotic properties. At high temperatures, the enzymes are destroyed.
Well, the thing asks that I avoid making statements based on my opinion... So I'd like to claim right here that this is not my opinion. I study food technology and honey was a topic that was discussed. And also, I was holding a conversation with the guy selling Manuka honey. So although I can't back up my words, I'll provide a link with information on honey.
"But, in some cases, the peroxide activity in honey can be destroyed easily by heat or the presence of catalase." - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3609166/
Does anything mentioned here effect whether the tea tastes good?
If the person was originally using sugar, I think we can assume that the OP is primarily concerned with sweetness not peroxide activity.
Yes, honey is great in tea. Honey from different flowers can taste quite different so it could be fun to experiment with different types of honey and see which tastes good to you as that's such a personal preference. One honey which markets itself as 'drinking honey' is Belixir Drinking Honey which is targeting people who like honey in tea or in other drinks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.694181
| 2011-06-15T21:55:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15502",
"authors": [
"Electrox Qui Mortem",
"Ernie",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"Judy",
"Peter Point",
"ROMANIA_engineer",
"Richard Testani",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69029",
"immutabl",
"randy andrews",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15220
|
How to choose a premium dual fuel range (Viking, Wolf, Aga, and the like...)
All,
We're considering buying a high quality range. We have arrested our choice on 36" dual fuel ranges (gas top, electric oven, preferably convection).
Some of those have fairly typical and unique characteristics (e.g., Aga multiple small ovens). Others are more easily compared (e.g., Viking and Wolf have similar product offerings).
What are the key things to consider before buying a range? Are there good online resources to understand the quality of those premium brands, especially some frank assessment of Wolf and Viking? Also interested in personal experiences - customer or repairpeople reviews and assessments.
Many thanks,
JDelage
EDIT: We eventually got a Wolf set, because I read and heard slightly better things over the Viking, and I couldn't find true comparisons with some of the lesser known premium brands. Overall, I am happy. I find that the gas burners don't heat things as hot as an electric top, and ideally I would have liked to have 3 gas burners and one electric element. We selected to have a grid in the center rather than 6 burners, and it's great but not used very often (but then we wouldn't need 6 burners very often either). I love to grill veggies on it.
The 36" oven takes a while to heat up. You get used to it, but for the first few weeks, it was obnoxious. Also some recipes call for changing the temperature of the oven from very high to much lower (e.g., for some roasts), and an oven that size takes a long while to cool off. The size is convenient to make large batches of cookies, but we haven't needed the width for anything else really. If I had infinite means or were building a kitchen from scratch, I would get two smaller ovens.
Do you mean convection oven, or do you really mean induction oven?
When you've come to a decision, could you post your findings back in this post in an Edit? It would be helpful to re-share anything new that you learn. Thanks.
@derobert - meant convection. Thanks for pointing this out...
Perhaps, I've had crappier electric elements than you have, but I find my wolf burner gets more than hot enough to burn anything I let it. We ended up with the 36" cooktop, so I have one large burner, one medium and 3 smaller ones. So if I need it to get really hot, I use the large burner. My understanding of the range is that all burners are full sized?
@JDelage What you wrote is no longer part of the question, I suggest that you write it as an answer instead. (It is not only allowed to answer your own question, it is even encouraged to do so, especially when you have found better information than what the others wrote).
My wife and I are currently doing our kitchen, and have done some shopping specifically in this area. We think we are currently leaning towards a gas cooktop, and then a separate wall oven, for cost and design reasons.
But as we originally planned to do a 36" dual-fuel, and did most of our shopping to date around this, here's a few thoughts/things we learned. Our most important feature was the stove top, so most of these thoughts are about that. We're still not finalized, so I'm also curious what answers others post.
We talked to multiple sales people from multiple local and nationwide stores. There were sales people that told us that Viking & Wolf were comparable. There were sales people that told us that Viking is overrated, not comparable in quality, and even that Viking was the preferred brand. Essentially, we got conflicting reports to where Viking sits. There was no discrepancy however on the quality of Wolf. They all seemed to agree that at that price point Wolf is top (or very near to) in quality, durability and performance.
For the stove top Wolf and a few others have a double stacked burner. This means that you can do a extremely low simmer (melt chocolate on a paper plate), on the same burner you do max it out to stir-fry. There was one brand (dacor I believe) where the smaller burner was hidden behind a cast plate. This seems to me to negate the fast response of a gas stove, but that might be just my perception.
In addition to the double-stacked burners, different brands varied greatly on the versatility of the 5 available burners. 1 15K BTU+ burner, 1 simmer burner, etc... vs. 5 that are generally more versatile. That might not be a problem, you can move pots around as you are cooking, but I'd prefer to minimize the amount of moving I have to do by getting more versatile burners (like the Wolf burners mentioned previously) if I'm at that price point.
I don't know what the state of affairs is today, but many years ago I bought a stove with a gas hob and an electric oven in the belief that it was a "very good idea". It was a lemon.
I found out later that there were no official standards for the stove combo, although there were standards for separate hobs and ovens.
Whatever you buy, make sure it is built to some recognized standard. And while I can understand that it is hard to get this in showrooms, try to get a look at the equipment WORKING someplace. User info is worth a lot more than web reviews or sales peoples' statements - whatever they say, they are trying to SELL something.
I would also advice you to not get a combo. Get a separate range and oven, then place the oven at on-counter-height, not at below-range-height. When you are balancing creme caramel ramekins in a pan full of hot water, or pouring liquid over a hot roast, it is much easier when the oven door is not at the height of your knees. There is no advantage to having a combination.
I appreciate the advice, but that's not an option. We would need to entirely redo the kitchen, which is not in the cards.
@rumtscho: incidentially that's one of the reason's for our change. :-) But then again, we ARE redoing the kitchen
@JDelage: Another option (perhaps, still not a possibility), is to get a cooktop, and putting an oven below it. Perhaps, still not a possibility, but just to toss another option out there. (It adds a few more choices).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.694485
| 2011-06-03T18:01:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15220",
"authors": [
"JDelage",
"Man Of Grace",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57724",
"rumtscho",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112182
|
How to achieve fall-off-the-bone lamb with browned bits in oven?
I am trying to replicate a method to cook lamb I experienced in a North African restaurant in Paris. The dish was called "mechoui" (which is a whole-hog ... hmm... lamb outdoor roasting tradition), but when I asked the chef he said all he did was cook the lamb pieces at 300F (180C) for 1hr in the oven with no fat, just some coarse salt.
The lamb (typically a sub section of lamb shoulder with some bone) was served just about fall of the bone tender, with plenty of delicious browned bits. It was clearly roasted and not braised.
Each time I have tried to replicate this I end up with a messy & disappointing situation: plenty of liquid released in the pan, no browning, and tough meat.
What would people recommend?
Did you ask him if that was from raw, or after he opened the bag? ;)
SE will only let me add 5 duplicate targets, but see also https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45405/ and https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36854. We should probably make a single canonical question and close all the others.
That temperature is fine, but is never, ever going to produce “fall off the bone” in one hour. That requires hydrolysis of collagen into gelatin, which takes significantly longer. It’s possible the chef was describing how he finished the lamb, after a longer (and possibly wetter) cook at a lower temperature.
Don’t worry too much about losing liquid. That is absolutely going to happen with long, slow cooking, even if you’re boiling the meat. The “moistness” of long-roasted meat comes from rendered gelatin, not from hoarding the juices. With very long dry cooking you do run some risk of drying out (this will manifest as a thick dry 'bark' on the meat, not as dryness throughout), but just tenting the meat with foil should avoid that.
Try three hours at 180, covering with foil until the last half hour. This will probably produce more fall-off-the-bone than you'd like, but it's a good starting point.
You'd struggle to 'dry out' a lamb shoulder, they've usually got lots of striated fat & connective tissue that's going to go super gooey & fall apart tender when cooked as Sneftel is suggesting here
I bet my grandmother could have done it @RadioRaheem, she had the superpower of being able to dry out anything!
One issue with my tries is that I used lamb leg instead of lamb shoulder, and it's very possible the cut was dryer to start with.
No, that cut should behave the same way. It’s the cooking time at fault.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.695053
| 2020-10-18T18:26:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112182",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"JDelage",
"RadioRaheem",
"Sneftel",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84367",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46403
|
What are speed ovens (combo microwave / oven) good or not good at?
We're considering a speed oven as a 2nd oven, probably 27". Our main range is an all gas 30" range. What are those microwave / traditional ovens combo good at? What are the best uses? Conversely, what should they not be used for?
Now with your edit I'm a bit confused, because I haven't heard of ovens of that size which combine a microwave and oven function. Maybe you could post a link to an example product? Or even better, to some place which describes the product category, if you can find such.
We have had quite a few questions in the past in which combo microwaves showed symptoms of not turning off the microwave part when being put in what is supposed to be a pure toasting mode. If this is true, the only thing such an oven is good for is the same thing as a microwave:
liquids (warming or cooking them),
vegetables, steamed-like,
heating food which will be eaten immediately.
Personally, I wouldn't take the risk, and would rather purchase a standard toaster oven. A good quality toaster oven can do everything a large oven can do. I have been using a toaster oven exclusively since 2006, with a short break (1 year living in a place which had both a large oven and my toaster oven). I even got decent macarons out of it with a few hacks; things like bread and cake have never been a problem.
It needs a bit of getting used to (it bakes with more radiation and less convection at the same temperature, so the outer parts get crispy quicker). And it is not as even as a large oven can be. But if you pay attention to what you buy, it makes a great energy-saving second oven. For buying advice, see this question and read reviews. This is also a product category where reading test results by independent organisations can be very helpful!
Microwaves are fine for veggies and for reheating most leftovers.
They are notoriously bad at anything having to do with bread, or anything crunchy. Nothing will make a nice crispy coating go soggy faster than a microwave.
Some people like them for rice, I do not. I think they ruin rice.
You can quickly achieve an edible potato, but it won't have that fluffy interior or crispy skin of baked. By cooking a potato until almost done in the microwave, and then finishing it in the oven, you can get (most of) the best of both worlds. It won't be quite as good as a fully baked potato, but it'll be pretty close. I would think a combo oven would be a good choice there.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.695284
| 2014-08-14T19:38:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46403",
"authors": [
"Cindy Arrico",
"Jamie Speakman",
"Rich",
"Trovia Goodwin",
"celine macdona",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"user3500176"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25242
|
How to choose an upright, self-defrosting freezer?
All,
we're in the market for a freezer. It will be in our (converted) garage, and due to our space constraints we want a self-defrosting upright freezer.
I found some useful-ish articles such as:
- http://housewares.about.com/od/refrigeratorsfreezers/a/chestvsupfreezr.htm
- http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/freezers/buying-guide.htm
Intended use is to store leftovers (mostly from stewy dishes), broth, ice-cream and cuts of meat (we might want to buy a 1/4 or 1/2 steer or hog, butchered and packaged). Currently we do not use our sub-fridge freezer for much in terms of veggies or fruits. We might want to get and ice-cream maker and store the bowl too. An automated ice cube maker would be nice, but not a must have.
Convenience, ease of mind, and build quality are key. Price & cost of use are important but secondary.
I am interested in opinions from current freezer owners on key features & characteristics. What are the details that you have found useful, what are those you found were gimmicky? How to assess build quality? Should we look for a longer warranty than 1 yr?
Many thanks,
JDelage
Asking about specific brands and models is pretty iffy on stackexchange sites. It tends to be more useful to ask about specific features. (See "Q&A is Hard, Let's Go Shopping") Do you have questions about what features to look for or how to evaluate convenience and build quality?
I agree with Jefromi. I have a vertical freezer and find two inconveniences. 1. Less storage space than a horizontal freezer (although I may be mistaken about that). 2. The cold pours out of the freezer when you open the door. A horizontal freezer will maintain most of the cold air as it's denser than the warmer outside air.
Automatic ice cube makers in freezers are a huge waste of power: http://eetweb.com/news/NIST-ice-makers-Yashar-051911/; you're better off buying a bunch of ice cube trays
I've edited my post to remove mention of brands. Upright is a must, though I recognize that the 2 drawbacks you mention are real.
@baffled cook I prefer vertical, with drawers: you only take out the drawer you need, and the cold air stays trapped in the other ones. Also, it takes up less space: you can't put anything atop a horizontal freezer, unless you are prepared to move it each time you open it.
@rumtscho, you're right and horizontal ones become disorganized very fast (from what I've seen), but as I've only got one freezer...
Another inconvenience of my freezer is that the plastic 'door' fall out and shatter :-( Buy one with drawers only.
If you've got things to say, why not write an answer instead of commenting? If you're not sure you can make it complete, you can always make it community wiki.
@Jefromi, done :-)
Not sure I understand the down vote on the question...
From my own experience, watch out for the following pitfalls.
Size. Very wide or very long items don't fit, so shop for the most interior space available.
Plastic doors. Check that these are secured and don't fall out easily. Check if spare parts are available and affordable. If you can, buy one with
Only drawers.
Auto-defrost is nice. Check how and where the drain-water goes. Plan for it.
Buy the most energy-efficient you can afford.
Keep in mind, also, in regards to warranty, that some credit card companies (the big network company, like Visa or MasterCard, not the issuing bank) have automatic warranty extension if you purchase using their card. It will extend the manufacturers' warranties by a year. It's helpful to register the purchase right after you make it, instead of having to backtrack for documentation three days after the warranty expired. ex. - http://blog.credit.com/2011/12/how-extended-warranties-work-on-credit-cards-49431
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.695513
| 2012-07-24T17:34:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25242",
"authors": [
"Alice",
"BaffledCook",
"Buddy Lo",
"Cascabel",
"JDelage",
"Joe",
"PoloHoleSet",
"RonJohn",
"Srikanth Yalavarthi",
"Thanatos",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho",
"srobin41"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.