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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
11573
|
How to store homemade fresh Mozzarella Cheese
What is the key to keeping fresh Mozzarella soft.
It often turns "sticky" in refrigerator storage
Is this about storing or making the cheese? If the former, recommend you update the title; if the latter, this might be a recipe request (or it could come under "basics", like the question on tomato paste.)
fresh mozz always comes stored in water when you buy it in a punnet. have you tried that?
I believe that fresh mozzarella should be stored in the whey to keep it moist.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.729625
| 2011-01-28T21:04:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11573",
"authors": [
"Chicken Pie",
"Danek",
"Ger",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"Nikli6",
"Zack Wolske",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4323",
"user23768"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22543
|
How should Dashi made with kelp and bonito flakes smell?
I attempted to make homemade Dashi with kelp stands and bonito flakes. It looks as suggested on multiple Japanese cooking sites but it smells like low tide. Is that how it's suppose to smell?
This is a little difficult to answer - do you think low tide smells like seaweed and salt and fish? Have you had dashi, or anything containing it?
Since dashi is, after all, made with seaweed and dried fish, it will smell and taste a bit of the sea. If you don't eat or prepare much seafood, this smell might seem quite strong to you; for people, like most Japanese people, who eat fresh seafood five times a week, the smell and taste are subtle.
The other possibility is that you made an error in preparation which caused the stock to become far too fishy. Any of the following can cause this:
using very low quality kelp or "instant" bonito
using expired/rancid bonito
allowing the pot to come to a roiling boil with the kelp and bonito in it
forgetting to rinse the kelp first
adding too much bonito, especially instant bonito
letting the dashi steep much too long
I would suggest that you back off on the quantities of ingredients you are using, let them steep for a shorter time, and make sure the pot doesn't come to a boil. Clearly, whether or not your dashi tastes like it should by Japanese tastes, it's fishy to you.
EDITED TO ADD: also, if you don't eat seafood regularly and are finding even good dashi much too fishy, consider making dashi with konbu and dried shitake mushrooms instead. This is commonly done in Japanese Buddhist vegetarian cuisine and is quite good.
Also, you might go to a good Japanese restaurant and get some kind of clear soup so that you can taste what you're shooting for.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.729722
| 2012-03-24T18:13:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22543",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Periata Breatta",
"Sam Chico",
"Thought",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50776",
"xxmightyonexx"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23598
|
What are the correct simmering times for chicken/vegetable stock?
I recently read that cooking stock for more than about 2 hours negatively affects the flavor, and eventually vitiates the vitamins due to heat degradation.
This seems to conflict with advice I've read previously, which states that you need to do a "shimmering only" simmer (no bubbles) for 24-36 hours in order to extract/denature all of the collagen.
My questions are:
Is it true that extended simmering destroys flavor and nutrients, and if so, is it due to the time, temperature, or some combination of the two?
Which advice is better to follow? What are the optimal simmering times for the meat and vegetables?
If the simmering time for vegetables is shorter - at what stages should I add (and remove) them?
Welcome to Seasoned Advice, evoldog. Please note that we expect questions to be specific - we don't review recipes in detail for the same reason we don't accept recipe requests. I've edited this to what I think is your specific question; if this isn't what you were looking for, feel free to edit, but please be specific and keep unnecessary details to a minimum. (Tip: If you're having trouble wording the title as a single-sentence question, it's probably not specific enough.)
I wonder what vitamins you are trying to get from a stock. As far as I know, there aren't any interesting vitamins in bones. Calcium isn't destroyed by heat. The vegetables are added at the end, they only simmer for 45 min. The vitamins in them are probably destroyed, but if you think you need them, you should eat the vegetables fresh.
It is true that flavour is affected by cooking time. Most likely nutrients as well, but its about the vegetables. If you cook beef stock you should indeed cook it for several hours to release the collagen and proteins. My experience with chicken takes less time so 30 minutes in the pressure cooker or 1,5 hours in a normal pot. Then you can eat the meat as well.
Vegetables should only cook for 30 minuts so add the vegetables 30 minutes before the end of cooking regardless of the kind of soup. The fresh flavor of the vegetables will disapear if you cook it for longer then that.
Someone doing research on the flavour development and time for making stock
Pressure Cooker advice:
For chicken stock, it depends on if you are cooking a brown chicken stock or a white chicken stock. Traditional recipes may differ, but in a pressure cooker I usually go for an hour for a white chicken stock, then add the vegetables for the last 30 minutes to maintain their freshness of flavour. For a brown chicken stock, two hours with caramelised vegetables being put in at the beginning for the full length of time.
Vegetable stock, no longer than 20 minutes in a pressure cooker. Possibly adding aromats such as herbs into re-warmed stock to infuse.
It is important to allow the pressure cooker to cool completely before removing the lid and not manually venting the pressure. By letting it cool down in the pot you are maintaining all the delicate aromas and complex flavours within the stock, not losing them into the atmosphere. Every time something smells good that is cooking, that's flavour thats being lost from the finished dish.
Stove-top cooker advice:
(Been a while so this is slightly sparse)
2-3 hours simmering for a white chicken stock, again vegetables for maybe only the lat 45 minutes to an hour.
4-5 hours brown chicken stock, caramelised vegetables in at the beginning for the full length of time.
30 minutes tops for vegetable stock.
Again, infuse aromats into re-warmed stock for added depth
The trick to keep vegetable nutrient, is by maintaining the right size of your vegetable.
Big Size vegetable for long simmer, Medium size cut for medium simmer, and small cut for short simmer.
The word "nutrient" covers quite a lot: carbohydrates, fats, proteins, vitamins and minerals. Are you able to say what nutritional substances are lost in a long simmer? And if so, what exactly happens to them that would make it preferable to avoid cutting your vegetables small?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.729893
| 2012-05-05T18:38:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23598",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Amir",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Connie Andres",
"Glitter",
"Greg Stevens",
"Laura Lee Bezaire",
"Marie",
"Ryologic",
"Simon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54850",
"rumtscho",
"user53480"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12729
|
Leek ashes - why?
I have seen restaurants with dishes containing "Leek ashes".
What do the ashes add to the dish?
I've seen references to leek ashes providing a smoky note to sauces and that this is a Spanish origin technique. Using it as a coating for steak also appears to be trendy, so I'd guess it's again for a subtle smoky flavour.
I'm most familiar with ashes being part of cheese. For example, Morbier has a layer of vegetable ash in the middle, and some goat cheeses are rolled in ash. I assume that originally this would have been for a preservative effect, but is now part of the character of the cheeses.
In your reference someone gives instructions to make it. It sounds like it would be interesting to try.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.730331
| 2011-03-02T19:31:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12729",
"authors": [
"Adam Gibbins",
"James Bacus",
"Sam Brightman",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26284",
"nosf",
"paula miller",
"wdkrnls"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1979
|
Does fresh garlic have any specialized uses?
I have some fresh garlic that I have just harvested from the allotment, and am drying out. I notice that the fresh garlic has a different texture from the shop bought stuff, and I was wondering if there are things that are more suitable for fresh garlic? Does it slow roast better? Is it better to use raw?
I love fresh (also called green) garlic. Some uses:
For a quick, simple and delicious pasta sauce, chop a whole bulb of garlic (with peel and all) and sautee in some olive oil, rosmary and chili peppers. Add some white wine and reduce.
Make a soup
Clean whole bulbs from dirt, remove the external peel, wrap in tinfoil, sprinkle some salt, olive oil and thyme and bake for an hour. The garlic will turn into a paste which you can then squeeze and spread on fresh loaves of bread.
Upvoted for baked-garlic-paste on fresh bread.
I find wet garlic (as freshly harvested garlic is sometimes known) makes a nicer garlic butter than its stored counter-part, which you can then keep for "quite a while" without spoiling -- depending on the size of the bulb, I'd normally use about two bulbs and some of the stalks for each pound of butter (or half kilo). I've kept prepared garlic butter in the fridge, and have used it all long before it has spoiled in the past, too.
chop the tops off a few bulbs and put salt pepper olive oil and balslamic vinigar. Bake at 450 F for 30 mins, peel and eat!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.730443
| 2010-07-19T12:32:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1979",
"authors": [
"Peer Allan",
"Radu Barbu",
"Ross",
"boxed dinner",
"ghoppe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/835",
"rkg",
"sdg",
"user3613"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
725
|
What are alternative gelling agents to gelatine? And what are their properties?
I recently was making some orange jelly which was going to be dipped in chocolate. I couldn't use gelatine to set the jelly as it returned to a liquid below the temperature of the melted chocolate. What other gelling agents could I have used, and what are their properties?
I'd like to expand my knowledge of what does what so I can choose the best agent for setting a jelly in a particular situation.
Maybe you should narrow your question, so it doesn't address every possible solution, but just gelling things that need to be heated.
I was hoping to get a list of possible gelling agents and their properties. Getting one for things that needed to be heated was only my need at the time, but I'd like to know what sort of difference it would make if I used gellen or agar-agar to set something instead of gelatine, and what other setting agents can be used. I'd like to know how to get various textures, like jelly beans, soft gums, hard gums etc.
For your application you may want to use agar. It is easy to find, gels at room temperature, and will remain so to about 90C. The acidity of the orange juice will slowly (a few days) break down the agar, but it should give you enough time for a dish. Other agents include:
sodium alginate
carrageenan
xantham gum
A good description of the gelling agents from a cooking perspective can be found in the sites on molecular gastronomy such as tech blog of the French Culinary Institute or Martin Lersch's hydrocolloid recipe collection.
It seems that the FCI primer has been moved. I found something that seems to be it at http://www.cookingissues.com/index.html%3Fp=1247.html
You might try modified tapioca starch, if you can heat the base of the jelly enough to set the starch; I've only used the regular form, but the processing of "modified" tapioca is supposed to remain stable at temperature (somewhere near 50C)
I'm also not sure how well tapioca handles acids (which 'orange jelly' might be); I know agar has issues with acid.
For a list and description of alternative gelling agents, see Cook's Thesaurus: Gelatins (and possibly, Starch Thickeners)
Tapioca is largely underepresented in gel-type candy recipes. I've been having good luck w modification the the tapioca pearl recipe lately: http://snapguide.com/guides/make-your-own-tapioca-pearls-from-scratch/undefined
Including 10% glycerin appears to result in a stable jellybeanish gel. However at this stage it's all experimental, rather than recipe based. Still, tapioca/glycerol candies aren't nearly as brittle as those I've tried that rely on agar.
The only ones I'm familiar with are"
Leaf gelatine - made from animal protein
Powdered gelatine - made from animal protein
Agar Agar - made from seaweed
Arrowroot - made from plant material
Pectin - made from plant material
Any of the above are, suitable for making a variety of items. such as jam, jellies, marmalades etc. The degree of 'firmness' of the product is related to the quantity of gelling agent to the amount of water.
I haven't used it, but I've heard that Agar-agar can be used to solidify hot things.
Sorta. Agar requires no more than room temperature to solidify, but unlike gelatin, it allows the product to be heated back up to a serving temperature without melting. You can also do fun things like put a jelly on top of something hot (steak, say) without worrying about it turning into a puddle on the plate.
@Harlan, that is the sort of information I was angling for, as knowing that a certain gelling agent means the result can be served hot a still solid is useful when deciding on what to use.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.730604
| 2010-07-12T09:37:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/725",
"authors": [
"Andrija",
"Bob Rivers",
"DJClayworth",
"Harlan",
"Jibba",
"Joe",
"Mark Hatton",
"Sam Holder",
"Unsliced",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jumoel",
"lynnroth"
],
"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
}
|
2392
|
Can I freeze caramelised onions?
Caramelised onions seem easier to make in large batches, so could I make a big batch then freeze them in say, ice cube trays, for later use? Or would this have a detrimental effect on them?
Yes, you can freeze them. Just put them in the freezer. As to if you should freeze them...
I would say it depends. I find once you freeze an item the flavor/texture/propeties of the item is changed (for better or for worse) the next time you goto use it.
If your using caramelized onions in a soup, or stew, something where flavors blend together for a longer period of time, then yes go ahead.
however if your using the caramelized onions on top of a steak or something similar. Then my answer would be no.
I think that's a perfect well thought out answer to the question.
They will keep reasonably well if you put them in a clean jar and cover in oil.
I've never done this myself, but my guess is that the primary negative effect is that they may become mushy; being as they're mushy already, I'm pretty sure you can go right ahead.
I agree with Tree77. Depends on what you plan on using them for. I've successfully frozen them and used them in risotto, but risotto simmers for quite some time so the onions are almost liquefied by the end anyway. I would say if you plan to try this as a garnish on something like meat, you should get a better then usual vacuum seal on them before freezing and even then it might not work out.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.730909
| 2010-07-20T17:21:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2392",
"authors": [
"Benjamin",
"Bryant",
"Chris Cudmore",
"LRE",
"PLL",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61",
"jibay"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
846
|
How can I make bacon powder?
I want to make bacon powder, I assume the means cooking all of the fat out without burning the meat. Is this right? if so how should I do this? If not what should I do? How should I turn the bacon into powder? just in a blender?
Bacon powder doesn't contain the actual bacon, it's a mixture of bacon fat and starch. How you turn that into powder? I have no idea :)
@Binary Worrier, I can answer that. render out the fat, and mix it with tapioca maltodextrin which stabilises the fat into a solid. Then pass through a sieve to get a powder. But this (whilst delicious in the right context) has no substance (as as soon as you put it in your mouth the liquid destabilises the tapioca maltodextrin and releases the bacon fat), whereas crispy bacon, powdered, is a little crunchy. and this is what I'm looking for.
To make bacon powder, just get me to pan cook it. It seems like every time I try, it gets beyond crispy and brittle. One bite and you'll swear it's powder.
Pleae read the following regarding bacon and cooking temp regarding nitrosamines: http://www.extension.umn.edu/distribution/nutrition/DJ0974.html
Mark, as I mentioned in the other post where you pasted that link: that article (which cites a study from 1973, which is far from recent) says that nitrosamines aren't necessarily bad. From the article: "It is unknown at what levels, if any, nitrosamines are formed in humans after they eat cured meat products, or what constitutes a dangerous level in meat or in humans." and "Although nitrite is a controversial food additive, recent studies indicate that nitrite can inhibit the production of malonaldehyde, which may be toxic to living cells."
Do you mean Bakin' Powder ;)
My wife loves bacon that's cooked to the cusp of burning, so I've got a good knowledge of the properties of bacon on that fine line. It's so brittle, you can powder it very easily.
I myself would probably just stick it in a plastic bag, and whack it a few times with a pan, but I don't see any reason why you couldn't put it in the blender. I have a nice mortar and pestle I use for powdering things, but that's probably overkill in this case.
and how do you recommend best getting to the cusp? low heat, long time? high heat regular turning? Under the grill (broiler)? In the oven? frying pan?
@sam holder: Low heat, long time all the way. If you cook it on high heat, it'll burn before all the fat cooks off.
I think the degree of 'pulverisation' of the bacon will depend on it's intended use. if you're going to use it like cracked pepper, then a fine powder is unnecessary. However, with a fine powder like preparation, it's idea to use on sweet and savoury dishes where 'crunch' is undesired.
It's a lot easier if you use a George Foreman grill. I swear that thing was invented to cook bacon. Slanted surface drains the grease automatically, so you can get crispy bacon very fast.
OMG bacon pepper! Yes!
You can make bacon powder simply by frying some bacon until it becomes crispy (don't let it burn) when done place on paper towel for until cool then wizz it in a food processor with a little fine powdered sugar. Keep wizzing until it stops sticking and you have a fine powder.
Interesting. why the sugar?
Powdered sugar has corn starch in it. I'll bet you can get by with just adding corn starch (or any other starch) to crispy bacon... Cool technique!
My mother used to bake bacon in brown sugar. Result: candied bacon, possibly the most deadly food product on the planet.
@sam That's just the recipe I'm familiar with. I guess one could use any fine starch powder and which you choose will largely depend on the purpose of the bacon powder, i.e. will it be used in a sweet or savoury dish.
@Harlan probably correct, see my comment to Sam. The starch is only being used as a binding and a carrier.
I suggest cooking the bacon in a fry pan with some water. This allows the fat to render and produces crispy bacon.
Add enough water to cover the bacon in a fry pan
Cook until fat is rendered and water evaporated
Cool bacon
Pulverize in a food processor
Alternate Modernist Method
1. Render bacon as in step 1 and 2 above
2. Separate the liquid fat and cool
3. Combine bacon fat with tapioca maltodextrin in 60:40 ratio by weight
4. Pulverize in a food processor
You could try to freeze the cooked bacon. Then quickly put it in a cold blender or coffee grinder. I don't like bacon that's well done I think it tastes burnt. Using this method will allow you to get it in a powder before the fat starts to melt. The ultimate would be to put the bacon in liquid nitrogen then blend it.
To make the bacon to make power out of I have a trick.
Place the bacon on a wire pan grate and let them cook in a oven on medium heat. The fat will then drip off leaving a bacon-chip.
(Remember to have something below collecting the dripping fat.)
/L
(Wire pan grate: An non-English, I am not sure I use the right term. Normally in for the oven there is a wire-grid which you can place pot and pans on. Am I using the right term?
So please edit here!)
In American English, that's generally referred to as a "rack" in that context.
I think Leif is describing a cooling rack on a sheet pan. And this method does produce nice low-grease bacon, with the option to cook it really slow if desired.
If you literally want a powder, you can use a standard blade coffee grinder. Not the ones where the coffee goes in one end and then comes out another, but the ones where you take off the lid, fill it up, put lid back on and grind, then dump it back out (just a blade at the bottom of a bowl). I have used this device to powder many different things. Just get some nice crispy bacon and use a paper towel to get the grease off, then crumble it up and stuff it in there. It will powder it very quickly, like 8 seconds. Again, this is if you really want a powder rather than just bacon bits that you would get from pounding it with a hammer.
I am mixing up a batch right now. I use store bought bacon bits, and a dehydrator. Dehydrate bits for 3 hours at 155 degrees, then grind in a coffee grinder and back in the dehydrator for another 3 to 6 hours. Then grind again to a powder.
Cook bacon in oven or frying pan to medium well, drain, pat dry and place in dehydrator afew hours, checking often till desired doneness is reached. Then either powder in grinder or pulverize for bits. Dehydrating will make for a long lasting product
Render out the bacon fat by cooking the bacon in the oven on a broiler pan. The fat will drain off the slotted top into the bottom
Rough chop the bacon with a chef's knife or meat cleaver
Place chopped bacon in food processor or blender and process to desired texture.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.731091
| 2010-07-13T15:24:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/846",
"authors": [
"Alex",
"Binary Worrier",
"Boomers Mom",
"Dennis Williamson",
"Dinah",
"Duncan McDougall",
"Harlan",
"Horia Coman",
"JD Isaacks",
"Jin",
"Kimball Robinson",
"Mark Schultheiss",
"Michael Haren",
"MrRaymondLee",
"Pulse",
"RBerteig",
"Sam Holder",
"Satanicpuppy",
"The Best You've Ever Had",
"Vikas",
"baharampuri",
"devstuff",
"djangofan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92",
"luapyad",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
926
|
How should I cook pigs cheeks?
I like the idea of eating pigs cheeks, I've heard they are delicious, but difficult to cook so they are not chewy. How should I cook them so they are succulent and delicious?
Restaurants quite often cook pigs cheeks 'sous vide', but unless you have, or fancy investing in a water bath, you can do things the old fashioned way.
How you prepare the cheeks for cooking will, to some extent, depend on which part you're cooking. If you're going to cook the whole cheek, you really should think about soaking in a brine of sugar, salt, vinegar and spices for 24 to 48 hours. If you're just cooking the 'pad' that part can be skipped.
The thing to remember with cheeks, is they are quite a fatty meat and the muscle fibres are very dense, so whichever method you choose, it's going to take time.
One classic method is braising the cheeks with a variety of vegetables and something slightly sweet and sharp as a counter for the fat and cook in the oven for 2 to 3 hours at around 180c (350f)
Basically dust the cheeks in a little flour and season, then brown in some olive oil. remove form the pan and lightly sauté your vegetables, use leeks, baby onions, carrots, apples, garlic etc. add the cheeks pack to the pan, add some stock or stock/cider mix and cook. You could also do this on the hob (cooker top) in a heavy bottomed pan, but cook for 4 hours on a low heat.
Long and slow is the key - I cook mine in the slow cooker on low, with stock, vegetables, apples, cider, depending on what I've got and what kind of flavour I'm ultimately looking for. I find they're great with a sticky sauce heavy with soy and sweetness and cut with vinegar.
I dry cured some cheeks in salt and brown sugar, then sliced thin and fried like bacon. Pretty good.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.731666
| 2010-07-14T09:54:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/926",
"authors": [
"AndyN",
"Dfowj",
"Paul Michaels",
"hee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25499"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19519
|
What are Good Resources for Baker's Percentage Ranges?
I would like to try to apply the baker percentage concept to create my own baked good recipes (cakes, cookies, muffins, etc.). However, I can't seem to find any resources that indicate appropriate ranges for each type of recipe. I have found many resources that explain the baker percentage concept, but none that provide appropriate ranges. What are some good resources that explain baker percentages for various baked goods?
You are confusing terms here. Baker's percentages are used for bread and bread only. In pastry baking, ratio is even more important as in bread, but traditionally, nobody calles it "baker's percentages".
The book you want is Ruhlman's Ratio. It gives exactly the information you want for pastry and some other things (noodles, mayonnaise). About the only common ratio he doesn't explain is ice cream. It also has some recipes, but the main focus is on the exact proportions of flour, sugar, fat and liquid you need for each type of baked good.
Perfect! This is exactly what I was looking for and you explained why I couldn't find it. Thank you.
Might be a worthwhile review to look at about Ratio: http://www.amazon.com/review/R1XD6BACB02CVE/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=1416566112
Peter Reinhart's The Bread Baker's Apprentice gives baker's percentages for all its recipes.
In addition, if you have a source that gives weights, you can calculate the percentages yourself: flour is always 100%. Each other ingredient is divided by flour weight (then multiply by 100). So, if you have 500g flour, 325g water, that's 325÷500×100=65%. Alternatively, Artisan Bread Baking has a baker's ratio calcultor that'll do the math for you.
King Arthur Flour, Cooks Illustrated, give bread recipes by weight, so you can do the conversion.
I learned about the concept in BBA. Reinhart throughly explains the ranges for bread. I am trying to find ranges for items like cakes, cookies, muffins, etc. I was hoping to find a reference that provides ranges of percentages of each ingredient for the items listed above.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.731836
| 2011-12-09T02:10:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19519",
"authors": [
"CookingNewbie",
"Graeme",
"Laura Kane-Punyon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42492",
"jesses.co.tt",
"jps",
"talex"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13927
|
secret of making maple candy (texture)?
I make small quantities (<10L) of my own maple syrup, and have always wanted to make maple candy, but the two times I tried, it did not work out very well. The ideal consistency of the end product is much like brown sugar, with a grain & squishiness to it, and what I came up with was more like a maple popsicle that seized up quickly.
Is there a secret to doing it right?
I just looked it up. Maple syrup is almost pure sucrose-water syrup. (I know that the colour and flavour are very distinctive, but the molecules responsible for them are a very small percentage by weight). Which means that it behaves just like regular candy crystalization.
The bad news is that candy crystalization isn't easy. There are just too many factors which have an influence on the texture. The good news is that people have already created such recipes. Find such a recipe and follow it exactly to the letter! If it says "wooden spoon", don't use a metal spoon, etc. And don't even start without a thermometer, unless you have had years of experience to perfect your water test technique.
As I haven't ever made or seen this specific candy, I can't tell you which parameter values will give you the needed texture. But I can list the usual parameters which influence the final texture.
As for general understanding, what you have is a saturated sugar solution. When you heat it, water evaporates, making the solution more concentrated, but on the other hand, sugar is more solvable at higher temperatures, meaning that it doesn't get supersaturated when heated gently. When the concentrated syrup cools, it becomes supersaturated, because the concentration doesn't change, but the solvability does. If you give the sugar the smallest chance to form separate largish crystals during cooling, it will do it. For a consistent texture, you must watch following parameters extremely carefully.
the density of your sugar syrup. It is measured indirectly by measuring the boiling temperature of the syrup. The exact temperature at which you must stop boiling will be given in the recipe (don't forget to adjust for altitude, subtract 1°C for every 300 meters). If the recipe only tells you a syrup stage (something like "hardball"), use a chart. Allow leeway for carryover - when you remove a pan from the stove, it continues to heat its contents for a while, so remove two-three degrees early (or more, depending on the pot). You can immerse the pot immeidately in cold water if it has gotten too hot, but this isn't so good for the pot itself.
The speed of hardening. I have a vague memory that you can't use rapid cooling for a non-sandy candy texture, but don't remember it 100% correctly. Rely on your recipe, if it tells you to pour it on a marble slate, do it, or at least use a refrigerated thick metal pan or something similar which cools quickly.
Nucleation points. These are very hard to avoid, but if you need a sandy texture (what you seem to want), it is much easier. If you want to have no nucleation (for a smooth hard candy), you must do everything possible to have no sugar crystals and no impurities in your syrup and to not disturb the pot. This is the reason for most weird requirements in candy recipes, like washing and drying the termometer before each dip, or the abovementioned wooden spoon.
Stove temperature. It must be hotter than your goal temperature, but if too hot, the sugar will scorch on the bottom. Also, the evaporation rate is changed by temperature, which may contribute to supersaturation.
Chemical help. You may need to invert your sugar (use acid, cream of tartar is common - just follow the recipe) or add glucose and/or fructose. This prevents the creation of crystalization nuclei in your supersaturated syrup. You probably don't need that, because it is more important for the popsicle-style candies.
Breaking up crystals. For candies where multiple soft crystals are expected, you may need to manipulate the mass mechanically after the crystalization has started. Kneading and beating are common. They result in the breaking up and mixing the crystals, resulting in a soft mass (fondant, fudge) as opposed to big hard crystals (the ones daniel's method will create). The more you do that, the creamier your texture will get.
As you see, there are way too many variables to experiment with. You could do it, but you'll need lots of luck and patience to hit on the right combination. Pick a recipe, and follow it. If needed, adjust the result according to the guidelines I gave (e. g. kneading more for creaminess).
I just noticed, the site I linked for the chart has a page describing some maple syrup candy types, and lists the correct temperature and basic handling stages for them. Could be a good starting point. (Maple candy page)
thanks. the good news is you make an important point: I can practice w/ a sugar solution before trying it on syrup.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.732272
| 2011-04-10T22:04:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13927",
"authors": [
"Beanie Bean",
"Damaskox",
"Mary",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5668",
"sibbaldiopsis",
"user29189"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47698
|
Potato and onion used in cheese & onion pasties
In online recipes of cheese & onion pasties, they call for raw potato and onion mixed with grated cheddar cheese. I am wondering if the chopped potatoes and onions cook properly in the oven, don't we need to use sauteed onions and boiled potatoes?
Link to a sample recipe
Great. Now I want a pasty.
The raw potato will definitely cook through. If you cooked the potatoes first, they would be almost devoid of texture by the time they cooked a second time in the oven - you'd have something more akin to mashed-potato pastries on your hands.
You might want to think about sweating the onions first, though. Sweating them would drive-off some of their moisture and would mellow the taste of your pastry filling. Definitely not a requirement, but I think you'd prevent soggy pastry bottoms and serve-up a better tasting treat.
Also, your recipe throws-out the notion of brushing the pastry tops with milk or egg like they are interchangeable. Milk is traditionally used to soften the the crusts of breads - an egg wash will give your pastries a rich brown top. I have never seen a puff pastry recipe that called for a milk wash. Stick with the egg wash - beat a large egg with 1 Tbsp. water and brush the tops of your pastries lightly before parking them in the oven.
Very good answer, I agree on both points. Milk-wash on a pasty isn't going to give a good looking result.
For a sweeter more interesting taste I would recommend that instead of raw onions you could add a teaspoon (each for each pasty) of caramelised onion relish. The other thing I use for things like this is red onions
both can cook properly if baked long enough.
For example, when preparing fried potato pancakes, they contain raw potatoes and onions as well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.732769
| 2014-10-06T08:30:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47698",
"authors": [
"Danielle McCartney",
"Deanna Hartner",
"Dr zain Afzaal",
"GdD",
"John Tongas",
"Judy Boyd",
"Julie Baker",
"Martin Jevon",
"Spammer",
"T.J. Crowder",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5836",
"masonfreeparty"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81164
|
When cooled, my browies are very sticky and hard towards the edges. What are the possible reasons that this is happening?
My recipe:
150g butter
90g chocolate
125g flour
15g cocoa powder
300g dark brown sugar
2 eggs
1/2 tsp baking powder
1 tsp vanilla
Melt the butter and chocolate together. In a separate bowl beat the
eggs, sugar, and vanilla. Add the cooled chocolate and butter
mixture. Sieve in the flour, cocoa ,and baking powder. Fold
everything with a spatula, until just combined. Bake in a preheated
oven at 180° C for 25 mins.
Can you elaborate on "sticky and hard towards edges". Are the bottoms falling out?
No, the bottoms aren't falling out. It's just along the border of the tin that the brownie becomes hard.
I think you are trying to make a more chewy brownie, and your got a quite like hard and cookie like at the bottoms.
Dark brown sugar contains more molasses than in light brown sugar then in white sugar. Molasses is hygroscopic which means it holds on to moisture and so using brown sugar will result in baked goods that are softer and moister. But if your brownie bottom is hard, it is not the problem of lacking for moisture in your brownie mix (not brown sugar problem making the brownie hard). And if the centre of the brownie is the type of cake you need, then the reciepe is ok.
I would suggest:
Use a suitable baking pan size(diameter) that could make your brownie batter is of certain thickness (else your brownie maybe overbaked and becomes hard, if the brownie mix are too thin in the pan)
Butter (or spray with a nonstick cooking spray) an your baking pan, and line the bottom of the pan with parchment or wax paper.
After a little research it seems like this happens because the sides cook too much, to fast, while the center is not so much done. You check the center until it is done, but by then, the outside has cooked too much and dries out. Here are two links to experiment. The first one seems much easy to try and we look forward to the result.
Take the brownies out halfway through coooking, wait 15 minutes, put them back in the oven. Oops! The Mistake That Led to A Better Brownie
Use parchment paper, some cool water and allow the brownies to finish cooking themselves outside the oven in a foil wrap, rather than over cooking in the oven. How to Keep Brownies From Getting Hard Around the Edge of the Pan
At the end of the day, both of these ideas cause the temperature to be less hot steadily around the edge of the pan so preventing them from drying and getting crusty on the edges. In other words, they give the brownie edges a chance to cool down before overcooking and let the center catch up by ambient heat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.732960
| 2017-04-23T03:36:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81164",
"authors": [
"Apoorva",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57392",
"wearashirt"
],
"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
}
|
81918
|
How do I maintain the crunchy crust of home baked bread?
When I bake artisan bread, the crust does not retain its hard consistency, and by morning of the next day is already soft. I use a Dutch oven and spray water. The taste is great but the crust loses its crunch.
After your bread has cooled, what are you storin your bread in? If in a plastic bread bag, there's still enough moisture in the bread to soften the crust.
I store in a plastic topless container. Maybe I just have to reheat to get the crust crispy again but its such a waste of electricity. Oh well at least its still tasty.
@DaveM - The material of the container shouldn't matter that much if it's truly "topless" and not really enclosed. But the important thing is generally air circulation, so even a container that's topless but somewhat "snug" around the loaf could cause humidity build-up around the loaf (and soften crust).
The reason the crust is going soft is a combination of factors:
Moisture from inside the bread transfers to the outside during cooling: This is most prevalent in breads with thinner developed crusts. Leave your bread to cool completely either in the cooling down oven (best) or on the side on a rack.
Humidity of bread storage: never put warm bread in a container (not even a bread box) and never ever put it in the fridge (unless saving for croutons or breadcrumbs)
Ambient room humidity: If your kitchen is really humid this will definitely have an effect. I typically store bread in the oven if it's currently really humid (which it typically is in Ireland).
There are a few steps you can take to ensure you get a crispy crust for longer:
Take extra time to develop the crust after the initial bake
Remove the bread from the dutch oven at the end of your bake and place directly on the oven rack with the oven door open as it cools down.
Don't place your bread into a container (even a bread box) until hours after finished.
Store bread properly
Keep open in dry conditions. If cut, place cut side face down on board or countertop. Can cover with a tea towel (after complete dryness) and then just leave alone.
Rejuvenate the crust (best tip I ever received)
This seems counterintuitive, but if you've got some soft crust bread you want crisped up, crank your oven up, then wet the bread where you want it crispy (running a wet hand over it is about enough water), and chuck it in the oven directly on the rack and bake for a few minutes until you're satisfied.
This method works wonders for stale bread as well, and you can keep the soft (cut) side softer by wrapping that bit in some foil. It won't make it like day one fresh bread but it'll certainly make it edible again and good enough for some nice oil & vinegar or a nice slab of soft butter.
Update
+1 for oven cooling! http://blog.kingarthurflour.com/2015/09/15/keep-baking-crispy/
Brilliant - let us know how ya get on!
For reviving old bread -- my grandfather (a French trained chef) would put it in a brown paper bag, wet the outside, then put it in a low oven.
That's what I always did too, Joe. Not sure where I learnt that as my mother didn't do it but I've done it for as long as I remember.
Nice tip @Joe - will definitely have to try that!
"shiny side in" It doesn't really matter what side you use, they reflect heat about the same.
You're absolutely right @JAB - amended!
Depends on time really:
36 hours or less?
Bread box or drawer is probably king; but less common in most households now.
Wax paper bags that most supermarkets use; these hold well for at least 24 hours
Brown paper bag; second use for rejuvenating as mentioned in other post.
Longer? (3 months max)
Tight sealed plastic and throw into freezer. Then just let it sit out for couple hours in room temperature in paper bag and re-bake at 350 for 5-15 mins (pending size). Like having fresh from oven bread all over again.
I usaully have bread marathon weekend and purposely slightly under bake the ones headed directly to freezer.
I never had the problem when I lived in NY. But in WV, not only can I not keep the crust hard, but I seldom find a hard crust in the grocery store. I think climate plays a role.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.733211
| 2017-05-23T06:49:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81918",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Dave M",
"JAB",
"Joe",
"Jude",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"kettultim"
],
"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
}
|
39895
|
Bagels - Baking Soda or Sugar in the Water?
I'm looking at highly rated bagel recipes. I'm surprised that many (if not most) of the recipes call for sugar in the water the bagels are boiled in instead of baking soda. That has me a bit puzzled. I always thought that the water is supposed to be alkaline, like lye in the water in old-fashioned pretzel recipes, that it is the alkalinity of the water that give bagels (and soft pretzels) their distinctive chewy texture. What am I missing? Will sugar really create that texture?
I've used both, and found sugar to give better results at home
@ElendilTheTall That's interesting, and surprising. Have you ever used both?
The main purpose of adding things to the boil are to promote browning and flavor. The texture of the crust is more a product of gelatinizing the starches by boiling, using a high oven temp, and using a good amount of steam during baking.
You can increase browning two main ways, by promoting the Maillard reaction and/or promoting caramelization. Baking soda, lye, or sodium carbonate baths increase the Maillard reaction, and increase surface gelatinization by breaking down some starch, but also give the bagels a "pretzely" taste. You can also promote the Maillard reaction by adding protein to the surface by using an egg or milk wash. Sugar (white or dark), honey, and malt added either to the boil and/or the dough increase surface caramelization and also lend a subtle glaze.
Personally, I always use malt incorporated both into the dough and into the boil. It adds a subtle sweetness and cereal flavor that complements the bagels. I find the pretzel taste from an alkaline bath off-putting. When I don't have malt I use honey, molasses, or brown sugar. I don't use an egg wash either, if you want to add toppings just place the bagel into the topping right out of the boil... they'll stick without anything else.
baking soda (or even better, baked baking soda...see:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/dining/15curious.html?_r=0
is commonly used at home to make soft pretzels. I would use sugar, unless you want that distinctive pretzel flavor for your bagels.
Traditionally bagels also get dipped in a lye solution, just like pretzels, and for the same reason: to foster browning and flavor.
I don't know of any "baked baking soda" - the article makes reference to baked soda (sodium carbonate).
You can make sodium carbonate by baking baking soda: http://chemistry.about.com/od/makechemicalsyourself/a/Sodium-Carbonate-From-Baking-Soda.htm
I think that maybe the sugar is what gives the bagels their delightful glaze once they are baked. I don't know, have never used anything but sugar when dunking my bagel dough! Haven't made them in awhile though.... do you brush on some beaten egg before sprinkling them with your toppings or not? Hmm.... anyway, my bagels always turned out good with sugar in the water.
These will be my first bagels. I'm going to start with plain just to get my feet wet - I'm going to try sugar on some and baking soda on the rest. I'll even try both on a few. We'll see!
no you get the glaze by brushing them with a beaten egg
I did make raisin bagels for the first time too, and i had them boiled in baking soda and sugar water even though recipe called for malt syrup or honey, and I had neither. (I had no clue at that time why I was boiling the slightly risen dough and now I know.) Then i brushed them with a canola oil (or avocado or any other mild oil will do) with a pastry brush. Figured that egg or oil would give the same effect. I do think that the chewy taste came from the sugared and baking soda water boiling, and the glaze by the brushed on oil and helped by the surface created by boiling.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.733568
| 2013-11-30T15:06:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39895",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Chutney",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jolenealaska",
"Michael",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"heretoinfinity",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93308",
"w88lives50 spam"
],
"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
}
|
14942
|
Salmon with green back
I've just found some deep frozen salmon in my freezer but I'm unsure if it's still eatable though the package says it still should. The case is that the salmon is still pink as it should be but it's back where the back bone should be, it's green/grayish. Is the fish still alright?
If you bought your salmon frozen, and kept it frozen this entire time then it is safe to eat.
Foods actually remain safe indefinitely when stored below freezing. You should be aware that safe does not necessarily mean palatable. As food ages, even when frozen, it degrades in quality via oxidation and other chemical processes. This degradation in quality will definitely affect the taste, and even the nutritional value to a degree.
For salmon, it will taste best within 7 to 9 months.
Source: http://stilltasty.com/fooditems/index/18246
Thanks very helpful, that site will also be good for later use! I'm preparing my salmon ^^ let's see how it tastes =P
While foods may be safe for a very long time, they cease to be good eats after 4-6 months (depending on packaging). Once the moisture is coerced out of the food by the hygroscopic, colder air surrounding it, the texture changes (and eventually starts to taste like shoe leather).
Now if you're a cheap bastard like I am, you can cheat a bit with shoe-leathered-freezer-burnt-foods: they can be ground into other things. Not exactly good eats, but safe and frugal (and you won't often notice a flavour change). They can sometimes be added to soup stocks too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.733890
| 2011-05-20T18:57:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14942",
"authors": [
"Bruce Alderson",
"Maarten",
"Richard ten Brink",
"Stephen White",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6218",
"olitreadwell"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18525
|
Are coffee mugs oven safe?
Is a coffee mug oven safe? I'd like to make French Onion soup au gratin in a mug. My concern is the mug shattering while the food is being served.
I currently bake the french onion soup at 450°F, but I'm curious about broiling as well.
Hello Justin,
First of all, a question like this should be answered by an expert in materials science, and I’m not. Bear that in mind when you read the following.
Generally, you should not take it for granted that coffee mugs are oven safe. Quite simply, some are and some are not.
However, high quality coffee mugs produced for the catering industry; especially the white ones with no decor, are normally oven safe. Nevertheless, I will not give you any guarantee.
Basically, coffee mugs cannot be regarded as oven safe, unless the manufacturer have stated so with a stamp underneath or otherwise have published some kind of guarantee, and the manufacturer is a respected and well-known entity within the industry.
Why coffee mugs aren’t always oven safe
A coffee mug isn’t always what it seems. Coffee mugs come in many varieties, are made from different materials, differ in decoration, and so on.
Moreover, coffee, tea, hot chocolate, and other hot drinks commonly served in mugs, are seldom; read never, served at temperatures above 100 ºC / 212 ºF. However, due to competition, special on sale items, and so on, coffee mugs of low quality might not be able to withstand temperatures much higher than this. The reason is simply that manufacturers, or the manufacturers’ customers, want to save a few pennies to gain a market advantage. There might also be a consumer demand for cheap low quality coffee mugs.
Materials
Most coffee mugs are made from some kind of ceramic. Others are made from wood, plastic, clay, pewter, steel, and a long list of other materials. Obviously, some of these materials will never be reckoned as oven safe. To keep it simple, I’ll stick to ceramic for the reminding part of this answer, although other materials might be oven safe.
Ceramics commonly found in a kitchen environment include Earthenware, Stoneware, Porcelain, and Bone china. Of these Earthenware and Bone china are seldom, read never, reckoned as oven safe, although this isn’t completely true as far as Bone china is concerned. Nevertheless, only a complete idiot would use a Bone china mug to make French Onion soup au gratin, cup cakes or any other kind of food.
That leaves us with Stoneware and Porcelain. Both Stoneware and porcelain are normally oven safe, unless decor elements have been added after the finale glaze is applied and the coffee mug is baked in a furnace.
One final remark needs to be added about coffee mugs made out of thin porcelain. Although these mugs might very well withstand the heat, it’s advisable to ensure that they are not exposed to any other kind of force while hot, e.g. handled without care.
Further information about Coffee Mugs, and links to other resources, can be found at Wikipedia: Coffee Mug.
Wow, I vote this most thorough answer of the week.
Heh? Earthenware is oven safe. There are lots of earthenware dishes intended specifically for the oven, I've used them often, and I own one (pic in http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17779/how-to-take-care-of-glazed-earthenware). Maybe there are some glazes used on mugs and not baking dishes which have a chance of leaking or similar, but in itself, earthenware doesn't mind high temperatures.
@rumtscho, you are perfectly right. There is a lot of cookware made of Earthenware; glazed and unglazed. However, Earthenware needs to be handled with care. See FuzzyChef’s advice for more info. Although Earthenware is used for cooking, it’s not oven safe, quite simply because its oven safeness is defined by the way it’s used, or rather the experience of the user, and not by the material.
I saw this done in a video by working class foodies, and I did this myself last night. So from experimentation it seems ok.
You might want to mention the temperature; "oven safe" can refer to quite a range.
You could serve the soup in a mug. Toast bread and grill cheese on top before floating the bread on the soup.
If you want the cheese to melt into the soup sprinkle a little grated cheese on top of the liquid before floating the hot cheesy bread on.
Serving the soup in a mug that has been in the oven is risky, people will automatically reach for the very hot handle to steady the vessel, gently warm the mugs to prevent chilling of the soup on serving before filling as I described.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.734057
| 2011-10-23T13:26:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18525",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ferrin Brooks",
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe Nilsen",
"Josiah",
"LarsB",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7767",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27215
|
What is the proportion of edible meat in whole live mussels?
The price of one kilo of mussels (blue mussels) here in my town is around 60–70 SEK (9–11 USD). I think that makes a large enough portion for two people, but when checking if all of them are alive and when cleaning them, the price runs higher. I'm interested in what the price per kilo of the edible part (the muscle) of the mussels are. In one mussel, how much by weight is shell and how much is muscle?
That's really expensive. In Toronto, Ontario,( where they have to be flown in), I regularly see them for 1.99/lb or 4.40/kg.
Please don't mark correct answer until a few days have passed or you may discourage others whom have other answers
It depends on where you live, and what type of mussel you are eating
The blue mussel popular in Europe and North Pacific typically has an uncooked meat ratio of 25% to total weight, and 20% when cooked
The New Zealand Greenshell mussel (available flash frozen in Europe) typically has an uncooked meat ratio 55%, and 50% when cooked
Around US$2 per Kg. These will vary by season and supplier of course
Good answer, but a great one and the accepted one if you would also provide the source of your information.
Common knowledge in Greenshell NZ :-) http://www.seafoodito.co.nz/file/13354 , http://isite.mydns.net.nz/kbwarehouse.co.nz/pacifica/musselfacts.htm etc etc.
The Tourism PEI site says that one pound of mussels is 20-25 mussels, about one cup of meat, and that you can serve one person that for a main meal or two people for an appetizer.
The Food and Agriculure Organization of the United Nations says:
One bushel of whole mussels should yield from 6 to 9 pounds of cooked
meats. Percentage yield by weight may range from about 8 per cent to
as high as 20 per cent of the whole mussels.
Finally, this is 500g of mussels (my lunch in Brussels on a hot day - my companion has the same):
And this is how I can remember it was 500g:
+.5 for the answer and +.5 for the photo of Belgian fries
Why if FAO using bushels and pounds when only one member country uses that unit?
@TFD, good question - the document is very UK-centric so perhaps the research group that produced it used the measuring system they felt like using?
I can't tell you about price since I was given a kilogram of blue Scottish mussels but I can tell you about the meat % of total.
I had guessed it would be about 20% but I was wrong.
I weighed the shells next day using the local supermarket's digital scales & the result was only 428g so the meat was a massive 572g ~ 57% meat.
I recommend them.
I've just done the same dish again. This time the meat ratio was 52.8%.
... & a 3rd time. 55% meat.
...& a 4th time with a sample size of 1486grams. 54.8% meat !
Toronto, Canada: 2#/908g PEI rope-grown blue mussels (per tag, packed 25 Sept, best by 9 Oct), Ca$4.49 which has been the local "on sale" price for about the last year. Cooked today.
Shells = 428g, approx 47%, incl uncooked discard of 2 dodgy ones & one 1/2 shell.
Flesh & broth approx 53%. Sipped off most of the broth,
moistened flesh approx 180g, so about 20%.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.734423
| 2012-09-17T12:43:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27215",
"authors": [
"Chris Cudmore",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Kate Gregory",
"Kelly-Anne Aipa-Tausaga",
"Loretta D. Pirozzi",
"Mary",
"TFD",
"Trent Three",
"citizen",
"cyrillicsam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61296",
"ixy",
"j4l3kl24jkl2"
],
"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
}
|
817
|
Which thickener should I use for fake spaghetti out of fruit juice?
I would like to experiment with flavoured 'spaghetti' by taking a juice and gelling it in spaghetti shape, so I could have beetroot strands that I could use in a pasta dish.
Anyone done this? Got any tips on gelling agents to use and what I could make the strands with ie moulds etc?
A lot of great answers, thanks. In the end roux gets the bounty as it looks like that will serve my needs best.
I've seen it done with agar-agar on the Danish show "Spise med Price". They made spaghetti with lemon balm. They sucked the warm liquid with agar-agar in it up with a syringe, pushed the liquid into a thin plastic tube, which they lowered into ice water. Before they served it, they pushed the spaghetti out of the tube with the syringe.
As for a flavor idea, they served it with carrot cake made in mere minutes (from start to finish) in a microwave oven.
sounds interesting
like the idea of using a straw to hold the liquid whilst cooling to get the spaghetti effect, then using a syringe to get it out.
Check out this PDF called 'Texture: A Hydrocolloid Recipe Collection'. It has some recipes for various types of spaghetti using agar and other hydrocolloids. Since agar tends to dissolve under heat, it also has a recipe to make noodles with methyl cellulose which gels when heated.
They suggest using a syringe to make your strands of spaghetti. It may be time consuming, but I could see it working.
I like your ideas for flavors! Perhaps mushroom bisque/broth flavored noodles with a beef stroganoff sauce.
Second that pdf. Great resource. Particularly, check out gellan as a gelling agent as it's stable up to 150F. I've made the saffron tagliatelle from that collection and they held together well when warmed (with some garlic shrimp). But I think the suggestion of Sodium Alginate with Calcium Chloride is probably your best bet as the gel starts to form on contact rather than as it cools.
yeah, I agree that the Sodium Alginate with Calcium Chloride seems best, as it seems the easiest to make the 'noodles' out of. you might be able to with some gellen, but you probably need to mold it in something, which then makes making a lot an issue
I can't help with the gelling, but to make the strands, consider using (making?) a chitarra : it's a frame with parallel wires -- you lay a sheet of pasta on top, then use a rolling pin to force it onto the wires, cutting the pasta into strands. This would allow you to make sheets of gel, rather than trying to form each strand individually.
Some quick searching suggests they can be bought from a gourmet cooking store in the US for $40. I don't know how hard it would be to find one in the UK. I've also seen things that look like multiple pizza cutters mounted so they can be adjusted in how far apart they are. (it looks like they're called an "adjustable dough divider" or "adjustable dough cutter", and they run between $22 and $200). There are also fixed blades mounted on a single handle, and looks like the term to use is "rolling pasta cutter", which are much more reasonably priced, but not as flexible in their use)
+1 not a bad idea, and I can get a 'spaghetti guitar' from my brother so would be doable, especially if this was going to be for a few people. filling straws or setting the gel in a bath for 30 people could be a real ball ache :)
Starch gelatinization. Not sure if it'll work, but it won't melt at high temperatures. Might be worth experimenting with.
Regarding flavors, try the Matcha tea ...also for the color of course,
Sheet gelatin. Commercial bakeries use sheet gelatin to make large quantities of gelled foods such as jello. It's perfectly edible and neutrally flavored.
the one problem with gelatin is that it doesn't remain as a gel at high temperature, it melts. So for hot foods gelatin won't work, you need to use some other gelling agent.
You would cook the mixture and extrude it hot before serving, unless you were planning on serving it above the gelling temperature.
What about starch? Cooking starch to its bursting point will produce gels, although they'd be weak.
I'd want to make the gel, then heat it up (say in a warm water bath) so it is a 'hot' dish temperature, ie well above room/body temperature (I think gelatine is only a gel up to about 37C), then serve with whatever else, which would also be hot.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.734741
| 2010-07-13T10:06:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/817",
"authors": [
"Arlen",
"Chris",
"DustyD",
"Malachi",
"Mike Yockey",
"Nathan Koop",
"Sam Holder",
"Soldarnal",
"ccyn",
"granth",
"hlovdal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/990",
"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/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25001
|
How can I make a vanilla ganache which does not taste of white chocolate?
I've been baking for quite a while, but now have started venturing myself onto the chocolate world. I'm very very intrigued by Laduree's vanilla ganache on their vanilla macaron as it doesn't taste like white chocolate! In fact, it tastes like a super concentrated vanilla ganache, which is so light and delicious at the same time!
I already tried all sorts of vanilla ganache (from Pierre Herme to Doris G - by the way, Herme's vanilla ganache took more than 30 hours to set up because of the cream-chocolate proportion).
Does anyone have any clues on how to achieve a vanilla ganache without the taste of white chocolate being too intrusive? I asked the lady at Laduree and she said it's a ganache and not a buttercream or creme de beurre.
I'm a bit confused. Isn't vanilla ganache supposed to taste quite a bit like white chocolate?
I would have thought the ideal taste for vanilla ganache would be vanilla, jay. :P Rafaella, is there any particular reason you don't want to use a buttercream other than the fact that Laduree don't?
Thank you so much for your replies! I know ganache is supposed to be made with chocolate, however vanilla is one of my passions and it's so hard to find products that taste 100% like vanilla! I would love to find a chocolate with no taste that could be added to my vanilla ganache just for texture purposes! The scent of vanilla is amazing... you should try Laduree's in case you haven't because that's truly amazing! Also, buttercream is not my first choice because it tends to be too buttery and not creamy at all. Any ideas ?! Thank you!
I think what you really are asking is what fats can be substituted for some of the cocoabutter that would give a lighter flavour or a flavour more suited to vanilla.
Perhaps a blend of:
coconut (high quality raw)
palm (highly processed and bland)
hydrogenated oils such as sunflower, rapeseed, soy (produced for confectionery manufacture)
Liquid oils such as my favorite for confectionery, macadamia, can be added in smaller amounts.
Use a soy and vegetable-fat based white chocolate like Oppenheimer Kosher white chocolate chips. They are quite sweet, but lag behind on the chocolate-y taste. They temper well and behave in most ways I've used them like regular chocolate chips, except that for white chocolate taste they are a bit bland. These would make a good vehicle for a lighter but still sugary vehicle for vanilla.
Do you know any other brands that may have that chocolate ? I don't live in the US (I've been living in South America lately) and the only chocolates (good ones) they have available here is Callebaut (that I don't consider top notch) and Valrhona...
@Rafaella I order them through Amazon, I would imagine that if you search online for vegan white chocolate chips, or kosher ones you will be likely to find some with vegetable fats that limit the strength of the white chocolate flavor. You may also consider just cutting the chocolate with an alternative vegetable fat
For a white chocolate ganache but with a vanilla taste, I would suggest tempering with chocolate itself. You must lower the chocolate taste but raise the vanilla taste,. I suggest melting white chocolate and mixing it with some shortening, then I suggest folding it in with marshmallow fluff and using vanilla emulsion. I would rather use emulsion than than extracts any time. Or if not, simply add more powdered sugar but keep in the vanilla emulsion, even using a vanilla bean and scraping it out.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.735240
| 2012-07-12T04:21:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25001",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Fnan Gide",
"Gea-Suan Lin",
"Jay",
"Learning2Cook",
"Rafaella",
"SilverHornet",
"Zoran Basic",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"mfg",
"orrd",
"user2023370",
"xiaomy"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3302
|
Ways to learn to season food correctly?
What is a good way of learning how to season food correctly? Are there some foods which are particularly bland until seasoned correctly that can be used to 'educate' your palate as to what is correctly seasoned?
A very excellent question. As a corrolary question, how do you taste your seasoning on a hot dish/sauce without burning your tongue?
My best recommendation is to taste as you go. Taste the initial product...raw vegetable, ingredient from the can, bottle, etc. and then continue to taste and sample a dish throughout the cooking process to see how flavors develop/diminish and enhance one another through the cooking process.
Learning to season food is a process of educating your palate and developing a "flavor memory"
One of the most important factors is to use enough salt. Food that is properly seasoned with salt shouldn't taste salty but will have a brighter more vibrant flavor of the ingredients that are in the dish. Food must be cooked with salt for this to occur. Food that is seasoned at the table will merely taste salty as the salt doesn't have a chance to dissolve and pull the juices out and help them mingle with one another as happens during cooking.
The more of the basic flavor profiles that you can incorporate the more lively and flavorful anything will be. Even before cooking you can take a look at a recipe and "disect" its flavor profile by determining which ingredients will add sweetness, sourness, etc. If you notice that it's heavy in one direction or another, the flavor profile of the item(s) missing will likely improve the dish. Then it's a matter of deciding what ingredient with that flavor profile would be best to add to that particular dish.
Shameless (but applicable to the question) plug:
If you're ever in Savannah, GA I offer a class called "Flavor Dynamics". It is focused entirely around understanding how flavor develops, what affects our perception of flavor, and how to create well rounded flavor in your food.
Emily and I still regret not signing up for the Flavor Dynamics class when we were in Savannah!
@cinque: I'm actually in Savannah, about 3 1/2 hours southeast of Atlanta. Look me up if you're coming this way.
@cinque: If you have time, be sure to check out Dekalb Farmers Market. It's in Decatur, a suburb southeast of downtown Atlanta. It's an indoor market with everything from grocery items to live seafood, wine, etc.
Definitely taste as you go and season gradually and regularly. Good chefs might taste their dish thirty times before it gets to the plate. Proper seasoning is not a formula, it's heat-seeking missile that constantly adjusts to hit its target. Or an impressionist painter who builds a base of color and then dabs on highlights and shadow to bring out the bigger picture.
Details: Salt is not a flavor, just a flavor enhancer. Add dried spices early, fresh herbs late. The more seasoning cooks, the deeper it's flavor, the less seasoning cooks the sharper its flavor. If you season early and late, you get both effects.
Anatomy is the base of flavor. We taste sweet, salty, acid, bitter, and umami. Also heat. If your food tastes bland, one of these is missing. If your food tastes off, one of these is out of balance with another.
Sweetness is sugar, honey, carmelized onions. Acid is lemons, lime, vinegar. Bitter is dark greens, brussel sprouts, rind. Umami is sauteed mushrooms, soy sauce, melted cheese. Other foods float between categories depending on the variety and how they are prepared.
Generally, the more you cook something, the more sweet, less acidic, and more umami it becomes. Up to a point. Overcook and food becomes bitter, bland, compost.
The rest is smell. Your nose carries subtleties of taste your mouth can't detect. Warm food often tastes better because the aroma is unleashed (also the sugars). To master flavor, smell your food. Smell your spices. Smell your ingredients. Flavor is the interface between food and human. The only tool you have is your senses.
+1 for the sense of smell aspect! Training your nose is just as important as training your tongue.
There are almost two separate schools of thought on this. One is using seasonings and sauces to enhance and balance the flavor of the original ingredients, but that the original ingredients are still the primary flavor of the dish. The other is using seasonings and sauces, to create an end result where the original ingredients are no more than a few notes in the symphony.
In my opinion, correctly seasoned simply means that it tastes good to the people eating the dish. The hard part is that it seems to vary a bit by person. What tastes properly spicy to one person is too hot for another. Same thing with sweet, sour, and bitter. This matters most when you are creating dishes that push the envelope in any direction (hot salsas, sweet sodas, strong lemonade, dark chocolate).
@Ben: After you scoop up some of the food with a spoon, have a clean place on the counter to set it down for a minute before tasting. Don't stir with the spoon before tasting, because the longer the spoon is in there, the hotter it will be.
It's not just too much of one flavor. Things can taste completely different to two different people. My girlfriend and I often find we stand on opposite ends of the flavor spectrum. I think a certain yogurt tastes warm, umame and salty. I don't taste a bit of sour, but she thinks its incredibly sour. With spice its the opposite story. Where she detects no spice my mouth explodes.
@ Tim & Daniel: Great points..that is the challenge and why it's important for each person to not only understand what their palate prefers, but also consider those for which you are cooking. People develop tolerances to the flavors they like, such as spiciness. Someone that likes spicy flavors will need to keep amping up the level of chilies/pepper because the nerve endings in the tastebuds eventually don't react the same...they become tolerant of capsaicin/piperine. That same person cooking for others will likely make the food too spicy if they don't take those things into consideration.
It's also important to know how to gauge your heat content appropriately when cooking for others. I am a freak of nature when it comes to heat tolerance, and have to adjust my dishes so that they are tolerable to others. It helps to have a helper taste your food in these cases to help you learn what is acceptable. If a dish I make tastes like it has a hint of heat, most people think "ooh this has a nice little kick to it". If it tastes like it has a fair amount of heat, others will comment that it's spicy. If I cook it so that I think it's spicy, others cry.
I think the two answers above are very good, but this is my technique. Start with salt and pepper (sea salt, course and freshly ground black or mixed pepper). Use these sparingly, until you get the hang of it. Once you find yourself saying, "geez, I wish the food had "_" flavor," look for the spice/ingredient/seasoning you need. Learn it and stick with that one flavor until you have the hang of it. Then repeat this process until your repertoire is built and a nice size.
The biggest mistake I have seen with flavors is people try to use too much and they end up ruining food because they don't know how to use the spices/seasoning. I still use way less than most skilled cooks I know and my food tastes great and is full of flavor. I think I have adopted the idea of mastering fewer rather than knowing more less... Trying to use a whole bunch of seasonings all at once, I have found, is much more difficult than taking one flavor at a time and learning it well.
+1 for focusing on the salt and pepper first. Is taking a dish, say soup, and splitting it into several bowls, then seasoning each bowl a different amount to see the difference a good approach? I'd be worried about keep adding salt to a single bowl to see what happens as to find out how much is enough you surely need to go too far to know that it is now over seasoned, otherwise you would never know if you could add a little more salt.
Good question. Yes, I'd say that approach is a good one (I've done it many times myself). The thing with salt is that you will learn quickly how much is too much ;--)
If you want a less subjective answer (and you're an anal, scientific, overly careful cook like I am), you can do a pretty good job seasoning your food simply by measuring its weight. From the book Ideas in Food:
Interestingly, as we have become more diligent about recording our recipes, we have noticed that our personal salt concentrations are very stable. Across the board, regardless of the recipe, we tend to season our food at a level of 0.5 percent of the weight of what we are cooking. There are a few exceptions where the level creeps up to 0.75 percent or down to 0.4 percent, but generally speaking, our palates are amazingly consistent.[Emphasis is mine.]
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.735543
| 2010-07-26T14:08:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3302",
"authors": [
"Amiel Martin",
"Atomic",
"Ben McCormack",
"Daniel Bingham",
"Darin Sehnert",
"DeVil",
"Guamaniac",
"Kate",
"Matt",
"Mike Thompson",
"Sam Holder",
"StackExchange saddens dancek",
"ajk",
"awshepard",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6038",
"mplungjan",
"nicorellius"
],
"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
}
|
4402
|
What are the fundamental sauces that every cook should know how to make?
I'd like to learn to make some sauces and I'm looking for the most common, "standard" sauces that professional cooks all learn how to make in culinary school.
What sauces form the basic "building blocks" of cooking and how are they prepared?
Voting to close because there is no objective answer possible. (Though it is an interesting question, just not within the guidelines of this forum.)
I actually see this having some benefit as a community wiki question. There are a somewhat discrete number of "common" sauces to answer with. The mother sauces are prime candidates.
I've converted this question to Community Wiki. Questions that are asking for polls or multiple correct answers are best added as community wiki.
Better to rephrase it for specificity, i.e. "What are the five mother sauces in French cooking, and briefly how do you make them. Or, how to you make a basic pan sauce? As of now it's in that gray area between a completable list and an open call for favorite sauces, either of which would yield some good answers.
I think it's worth keeping this one open. But I also agree that the question itself needs a little work to prevent this from devolving into a giant list of sauce recipes. It's more than just the "mother sauces" but perhaps something like, "what are the standard sauces that every professional cook must be trained in making?" Any thoughts?
Ah, community wiki makes sense (to the degree I understand it, which I don't - I've asked a question over on meta). I'd remove my vote to close but apparently that isn't possible.
@Everyone: Nice edits. I like this question better than the one I asked :)
I assume you mean western european cooking school? I don't see anything asian, african, etc here. It's purely French and Italian.
I'd like to see a generic BBQ sauce recipe :) Life isn't complete without burnt meat.
As there's no 'right answer' to this, and this is likely to be lists, I'm going to be make this 'community wiki'
@Joe - what about http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/913/what-is-community-wiki?
Doesn't matter anyway, since it's a dupe. The old question is kind of grandfathered, I guess. And we reworked that one to be a little more specific.
The next answer is a simple pan sauce.
After sauteing a protein in a pan, there are caramelized bits of fat, spice, and flesh that make for a great sauce base.
Getting those bits into a sauce takes a little work, but it's easily accomplished by adding an acidic liquid to the pan and allowing it to deglaze, or breakdown the fatty bits into the sauce.
You can deglaze with red or white wine, stock and lemon juice, or alcohol (be careful if it's high proof, since it will flame). After adding the acid, stir to break up the bits and let simmer for long enough to reduce the liquid about 30 to 50 %, longer for thicker sauces.
Then add fat, either butter, oil, or cream, and whatever seasonings (tomato paste, mustard, Worcestershire sauce, etc. you want in the sauce). Simmer for just long enough to incorporate the ingredient (1-2 minutes max).
This is a good technique because it can work with any pan-cooked dish and whatever ingredients you have around.
The basic steps are the same, but the results are varied and quite tasty.
Start with a few versions suggested by a cookbook or someone who already knows what they are doing, but once you get the hang of this it is easy to ad lib: hmmm...I have galleano and cloves, that might work.
The five best candidates would have to be five mother sauces of French cuisine.
These are:
Béchamel
Espagnole
Velouté
Tomate (similar, but not to be confused with Italian tomato-based sauces)
Hollandaise
Any chef should know these. These form the basis of many other French sauces. Some of the more well known include Béarnaise, Mayonnaise, Mornay, and Tartar.
From there you can really expand almost endlessly. Some of the most well known Italian sauces such as Puttanesca, Bolognese, Pesto, Marinara, and Vodka sauce should be required knowledge as well.
I suggest reading up on sauces on Wikipedia, there are lots of examples there.
Dammit. I only had my answer half typed out, and I was still working out how to make the e with the diacritical mark. The grandes sauces, the mother sauces, are critical. They're the root of every sauce you'll ever want to make (in western cooking).
@Satanicpuppy: :( It's a pain, I cut and pasted it from a word on wikipedia.
All cooking is not French cooking. Not that these are bad things to know, but...
@satanicpuppy : If you're a Mac user, hit opt-e, then the letter you want. The other marks are attached to other vowels for the most part, but there's a few exceptions. (and some aren't modifiers; e:é; u:ü; i:î; `:è; o:ø; a:å; n:ñ)
@Joe: wtf. I'm a mac user and I didn't know that. Where did you find that out?
You just learn these things when your name has non-ascii characters in it. There used to be a thing called 'Key Caps' in the days before MacOS X (since at least System 6). It's now harder to find : http://support.apple.com/kb/TA22403?viewlocale=en_US (I'm still on 10.4, so can't verify if it's still there on 10.5 / 10.6). But it's useful when you're teaching a computing class, and you want the class to see what you're typing). Or when you're trying to use a wingdings/dingbats type font.
I've been to Italy quite a few times, and eaten everywhere from very excepensive restaurants down to piaza cafes and never seen vodka sauce.
Living in New York, it's hard to miss it.
Also, bolognese is normally ragu on a true italian menu.
@Alex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vodka_sauce
@hobo - the last time I checked that article it was still saying it was invented in NYC. Times change.
And I've still never seen it outside of NYC/NorthEast US.
@Alex: Interesting. I've read that it didn't really catch on in Italy, but took off here. I have seen it on both coasts as well as the midwest. I've never eaten Italian outside of the US though, because I've never been to Italy.
I think even more important than learning the mother sauces (though they certainly have plenty to teach), is learning the underlying fundamentals on both a culinary and scientific level. You need to be able to envision how you want a sauce to taste, feel, look and smell (not so worried about hearing) and then translate that into ingredients and execution.
Needless to say this is a lifelong study.
Here's an example of what I mean. I can think of three major ways of thickening a sauce. I'm probably forgetting some. (1) emulsification, such as happens in a vinaigrette, hollandaise, or mayonnaise, in which droplets of one liquid get surrounded by another that can't dissolve it. (2) starches/colloids which interfere with the flow of liquid, such as cornstarch, flour, arrowroot, or all sorts of fun engineered starches (3) reduction - simmering out some of the water so the solids are a higher percentage of the volume.
Each of these methods has pluses and minuses. For example, reduction avoids adding any undesirable starchiness or diluting flavors to the sauce, but requires prolonged cooking or high heat which may change the flavors for better or worse.
I could go on an on! But the point I'm driving at is, instead of trying to memorize a few sauces, you'll do yourself more good in the long run by learning the principles that they rely on so you are free to create and adapt (and fix when things go wrong).
There are 5 French "mother sauces":
Bechamel - milk, thickened with a roux
Veloute - light stock, thickened with a light roux
Tomato
Espagnole - brown stock, thickened with a brown roux
Hollandaise - an emulsification of eggs and butter
They're called "mother sauces" because most (all?) other sauces in French cooking are derived from these basic sauces. Learning the technique for a roux is a critical first step in making most sauces.
After the ones that Bob mentioned, other 'worth knowing how to make by memory' are basic proportions and techniques for for :
pan sauces (ie, deglaze the pan, reduce, maybe add some butter)
mayonaise
pesto
(and for the most part, 'brown gravy' is a veloute, 'white gravy' is a bechamel, although the fat used for the roux would change)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.736290
| 2010-08-05T23:28:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4402",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alex",
"Damien D.",
"Dmitry",
"Gabriel Fair",
"Jay",
"Jeff Hammond",
"Joe",
"Matt",
"Michael Natkin",
"Mike Sherov",
"Ocaasi",
"Paul",
"Restore The Data Dumps Again",
"Ron",
"Satanicpuppy",
"ann",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99",
"justkt",
"robo",
"row"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96518
|
What part of meat is mince meat made from?
It seems to me mince meat contains connective tissue(i.e white bits) and a lot of fat also comes from it. Therefore I imagine it is not a lean cut of meat.
What part of meat does mince meat usually come from?
Every single of your questions amazes and confuses me at the same time.
Do you mean homemade mince, from a high end butcher, cheapest supermarket options? There is not necessarily a "to be ground up" cut of an animal.
Are you asking about mincemeat or minced meat?
If you are referring to ground beef (as we call it in america) then it can be from anything really. Usually trimmings. Ground beef for hamburgers is usually from the chuck, but sirloin is also used (among every other cut of beef in theory)
Traditionaly, Mincemeat is made with Suet, maybe this is what you are feeling in your Mincemeat.
It has a different kind of texture than other kind of fat (in my experience)
A quick look at different recipes shows that most of them do not add meat to the Mincemeat and when the meat is added, it only says beef, no specific parts are listed.
Note that mincemeat ≠ mince / minced meat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.736954
| 2019-02-23T14:02:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96518",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"Johannes_B",
"Stephie",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27333
|
What can I do to fix store-bought mayonnaise that split?
My dad brought 2 bottles of mayonnaise from Kuwait. When we opened the box, it looked like water/oil had come up above the other contents.
How can I fix this?
Mayonnaise shouldn't split if it's properly made, so I would be rather suspicious of that product.
Here's how I'd fix it: when in doubt, throw it out.
Your mayonnaise probably got a little too hot in transit.
Mayonnaise is an emulsion of oil and water. That is, an emulsifier is added to a water-based ingredient that effectively coats droplets of oil and allows those droplets to dissolve into the water instead of coalescing and floating to the surface.
Lecithin is the most common emulsifier used. It is found abundantly in egg yolks.
The emulsion can be damaged if the mayonnaise is heated. When this happens the oil coalesces and you are left with a vinegary base with oil floating on top. Yum.
To fix it you have to reform the emulsion. There are many answers here about how to make or fix homemade mayonnaise.
Briefly: You beat an egg yolk well with the water-based portion and then slowly drizzle the oil in while beating like mad until the mayonnaise is thick and white again.
The whole point of making homemade mayo is to use better quality oil and vinegar or incorporate different flavors. It really isn't worth your time trying to save commercial mayo.
By incorporating fresh yolk, you are adding a risk to your mayo, so it shouldn't sit in your fridge for more than two days.
My first inclination would be to throw it out, but if you try the homemade fix, use pasteurized eggs for safety's sake.
@Kristina- Commercial mayo is very acidic and has preservatives as well. It is shelf stable if unopened. There really is no safety risk here- it's just a broken emulsion.
Actually I was addressing BaffledCook's suggestion of fixing the broken emulsion by adding egg yolks. By doing so there is a chance of adding salmonella bacteria to the product which is why I suggested if taking that route, use pasteurized eggs.
@Kristina- My mistake. Sorry for the confusion.
Use a stick/immersion blender to give the mix a good mix without adding any other substance to the mayo. It should stabilize this way and I would suggest to keep the mayo in the refrigerator.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.737099
| 2012-09-22T15:40:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27333",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Epiousios",
"Joyce ",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Matt",
"Sobachatina",
"chaiboy",
"citizen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6512",
"krispy",
"thursdaysgeek",
"user61560"
],
"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
}
|
4880
|
What additions can I make to my basic white bread recipe to increase its fiber content?
These are my ingredients for a one-loaf white bread recipe:
3 cups all-purpose flour
1 cup milk
4 Tbsp butter
2 Tbsp sugar
1 1/4 tsp salt
1 packet active dry yeast
I'd like to add an ingredient that will increase the loaf's fiber content without having to adjust or alter the other ingredients, but I don't know a) what to add, and b) how much of it to add.
Also note that substituting some wholemeal flour for white flour is "healthier" than just adding some fibre.
You can add a handful of pumpkin seeds or sunflower seeds. You don't need to adjust any of the other ingredients.
Sunflower seeds contain a ton of good stuff, including fibre, according to Wikipedia:
"In addition to linoleic acid (an essential fatty acid), sunflower seeds are also an excellent source of dietary fiber, some amino acids (especially tryptophan), Vitamin E, B Vitamins (especially vitamin B1 or thiamine, vitamin B5 or pantothenic acid and folate), and minerals such as copper, manganese, potassium, magnesium, iron, phosphorus, selenium, calcium and zinc.[5] Additionally, they are rich in cholesterol-lowering phytosterols."
You can buy wheat bran at health stores. Before adding to bread, soak for a while to rehydrate. It will change the character of the bread somewhat, but the recipe should still work with something like 1/3 cup. The bag I bought was fairly coarse, so I put it in the blender and pulsed to powder it.
You can also buy soluble fiber (i.e. benefiber in the USA), although some of what is sold might be a scam. I imagine something around 1/4 cup added wouldn't mess up the recipe.
King Arthur (and perhaps others) make a white wheat flour, made from an albino wheat with husk that is ground very finely, and can generally be subbed in for white flour yielding higher fiber product. You might want to start half and half white wheat and white.
With a $200 grain grinder, you can grind white whole wheat flour into a dead ringer for what King Arthur makes. Add a bit of vital wheat gluten and you have an amazing whole wheat bread flour.
And of course you can simply substitute a percentage of good old whole wheat flour. Start with one of the three cups and see how you like it. The bread will be slightly brown, but Im assuming that isn't a drastic problem for you. You might also like to give it a slightly longer final rise to ensure it isn't dense.
Other tips for adding whole wheat flour: add vital wheat gluten (to up the gluten content for a better rise) and use more water or milk since whole wheat flour is thirstier than AP.
This is a super easy recipe I have used successfully in my breadmaker.
3 cups plain flour or bakers flour
2 tsp bread improver
2 tsp yeast
1.5 cups steel cut oats (or fast cooking oats)
pinch of salt
3-4 tsp brown sugar
1/2 cup linseed, or oat bran, or chia bran (optional)
1/4 cup olive oil
Warm water to combine (about 1.5 to 2 cups)
Dissolve the sugar in 1 cup of the water.
Add to all the other ingredients in the bread maker.
Turn on. Watch the kneading process for a few minutes, adding enough water slowly (literally in small drips) to allow the dough to form a ball. The ball should be slightly sticky and wet as the oat and bran will soak up some water over time.
Let the cycle finish.
Enjoy!
The oat actually ends up "dissolving" into the bread from the kneading process, which I like. If you prefer a more grainy texture, you can add the oat just before the proofing cycle after the kneading is complete.
substitute X grams / ounces of white flower with one or a combination of the following:
Wheat germ
Puinoa
multi-grain flower
Almond / nut powder
Or Sprinkle the top with some form of a grain mix
As a suggestion do not substitute more than 1/2 a cup.
Note that your first modified batch will be crap at best
Oatmeal is a high fiber ingredient. It is considered one of the best carbohydrate heavy foods out there because of this. Unfortunately, making oatmeal bread does require changing your recipe a bit. Sub out one cup of AP flour for old-fashioned oats, the highest fiber oats. While preparing your dry ingredients, soak the oatmeal in your milk. At least, this is how the America's Test Kitchen Family Cookbook converts their basic white bread into oatmeal white bread.
For really upping your fiber content, also consider using 1/3 whole wheat flour to make a light wheat bread. This may require slightly more liquid, which you can always add while kneading until you get a good sense of the proportion for next time.
7-grain flakes are a good alternative to oatmeal if you don't like the flavor oatmeal adds. They're sold in bulk food sections of many stores, next to the oatmeal (they look a lot like oatmeal). I've never seen them not in a bulk food section, but that doesn't mean they're not out there.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.737433
| 2010-08-11T14:52:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4880",
"authors": [
"Dylan Spencer James",
"Gabriel Baker",
"Gwen Rupert",
"Kim Phillips",
"Ladadadada",
"MGOwen",
"Max",
"Rebekah",
"Tom Shuee",
"Yankanuk",
"abeger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9424",
"justkt",
"迷路的猫少年"
],
"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
}
|
4812
|
How do you develop the knife skills to properly use a Chinese cleaver?
So I have recently been moving into the world of Asian cuisine, and I recently learned that the Chinese use a cleaver as though it is a chef's knife. Apparently, it is a great multitasker but requires a completely different technique set to use properly. Where do I go to find out about this?
Update I should mention that I am already highly proffiecent with a chef's knife. I was mainly looking for what I need to learn from scratch and what will carry over.
Compared to a less tall knife, the leverage between your pinch grip spot and the edge is very different and more capricious. The fulcrum of that lever can effectively be your claw hand, the edge, or your pinch spot - and that can shift in interesting ways. I sometimes find it hard to really keep the blade straight if whatever is on the board tries to steer/deflect it. To put that in perspective, I am quite comfortable using single bevel knives which need some force and control to keep them cutting straight.
I found an informative .pdf, image below. Also, youtube has videos.
Click on the image for a slightly easier to read version, but the PDF version is much clearer.
That PDF link is invalid or damaged. Do you have another source?
The downfall of link-only answers. This may have been amazing, but now that the link is broken, it is worthless.
I've replaced the original link with an archive.org link. It'd still be best to actually provide content here, but I'm not going to edit in a whole answer.
One important thing to keep in mind is that the blade always stays against the knuckles of your opposite hand to control it. That is true with all knives but I find it is especially important with a cleaver. (Well probably except when you are doing giant hacking moves, in which case your other hand should be nowhere in the vicinity).
One difference in chopping is that you are doing less rocking on the tip than you would with a chef's knife. The edge stays more parallel with the cutting board. You still want to maintain the forward sliding motion while the blade moves down.
I like using a light cleaver for veggies, and find that it works better than a chef's knife with a small cutting board.
I applaud you for going over the "dark side" of knives. I find many people are afraid of using the Chinese cleaver due to it's size, weight and shape. But if you just look at most Chinese trained cooks/chefs, they basically use this one knife to do most of their cutting/slicing/dicing/mincing/smashing and food transferring. It is really something to watch a very well trained Chinese chef use one of those cleavers. In short check out Youtube.com, and just type "chinese knife skills". First hit should be "discovering Chinese cuisine part 2-Culinary knife skills". Or type in "eat drink man woman opening scene". Either one of these are going to be an eye opening and very educational clips.
I would say that the difference and how it's used is dependent on knife shape. Most Chinese cleavers are going to be a basic rectangle with very little belly (knife's business/cutting edge). But some cleavers have quite a rounded belly, these are more suited to a western trained chef. One can still utilize the rocking motion. The more straight edged cleavers are more suited to the simultaneous chop-push method.
Chop-push is raising the cleaver up and slightly back towards yourself. Then the opposite when cutting, which is down and slightly away from you. This gives you that melodic thudding sound when cutting. This method is used for most cutting, as it is a quick and efficient stroke. If you have a very sharp and heavy cleaver, you might be able to get away with just straight up and down cutting motion.
Another method is the pull back or as I call it the dragging method of cutting. This is used for cutting very tall/high/long things (large daikon radish or long pieces of meat). Have the tip of the cleaver on the cutting board and raise the cleaver's handle so that back or the middle portion of the blade is higher than what you are cutting. Then simply drag the cleaver backwards through the food until it cuts it. The weight of the cleaver is usually enough to cut the food, if it's sharp. This method also keeps the food shape with minimal deformation.
But good luck with your chinese cleaver. Have fun and don't cut yourself too much.
Practice! In addition to watching videos, reading textbooks, etc... I would just recommend to use it often. Make sure you have a nice, heavy cutting board, too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.737849
| 2010-08-10T18:35:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4812",
"authors": [
"Alyssa Gamez",
"BobMcGee",
"Cascabel",
"GoingTharn",
"Julian Bilcke",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Tiago César Oliveira",
"Valter Silva",
"YetAnotherUser",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9293",
"lynne betteley",
"pamatt",
"phil chadwick",
"rackandboneman",
"serenskye"
],
"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
}
|
7687
|
How to rice potatoes
I was wondering if anybody know a method to rice potatoes without them turning into mashed potatoes. When I do it to raw potatoes, they mush or just stay too crunchy and with cooked potatoes, just forget about it. What I am looking for is discrete, small bits of potato that will still have a pillowy mouth feel.
One avenue that I haven't tried yet is starting from mashed, but I can't figure out a way to segregate the bits so that they won't reform into mashed potatoes once a fork hits them.
A technique I discovered to keep my potato salad from turning to mush is to add vinegar to the cooking water (I also add some sugar and quite a bit of salt to balance it out). The amount of vinegar really depends on how firm one wants the potatoes to remain. One to two tablespoons of cider vinegar per quart of cooking water is the range I use. You might have to experiment because too much and the potatoes will actually be too hard to push through the ricer.
I recently read a Cooks Illustrated article that suggested the same trick and they gave a scientific explanation why it works.
Now, there are a couple of problems for your application. One is the vinegar really flavors the potatoes, which works well for potato salad, but may not work for your application. Two is that I cut the potatoes up into the size I want for the salad before I cook. This wouldn't work for ricing. It remains to be seen if you can get enough surface area on the potatoes for the vinegar to reach and still be big enough to rice well.
I riced the potatoes into the boiling vinegar water and it did help them hold their shape but the vinegar flavor totally overpowered the dish. I plan on trying it the other way... meaning cook the potatoes with vinegar first, then rice next time.
You need a potato ricer to do this. This is one
https://www.amazon.com/OXO-Grips-Stainless-Steel-Potato/dp/B00004OCJQ
How about grating the potatoes as one would do for a rosti? This recipe suggests 'cutting into matchsticks', but I think life is way to short for such ventures. Just use a grater!
Rosti is pancake-like as its allowed to flatten into a mass. If you blanch and then stir-fry your gratings in clarified butter (ghee) and keep them moving they'll stay separate. Like little crunchy, soft-in-the-middle nano-chips. ;-)
Perhaps tiny potato gnocchi would suit your purposes? Of course, this would be a time consuming process. If you have a pasta extruder you could shape via the extruder rather than by hand, or make spaghetti via a roller and cut it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.738256
| 2010-09-29T19:57:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7687",
"authors": [
"Fahim Hasan",
"Timsgil",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"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
}
|
4552
|
Do you have to use water to sous vide?
I've been using the beer cooler hack instead of a sous vide machine and I was wondering if water is the only medium I can use to cook in it. I was thinking that I could fill it with oil for a high thermal mass that would use less energy since I'm using a plastic bag to prevent any contact with the food anyway. Also, how important is that plastic bag? Could I use a broth to sous vide in with something pourous holding my meat and seasoning together?
You could use oil, but I don't think it's worth it; realize that you're going to be using additional energy for obtaining, cleaning, and disposal of it.
Regarding using a broth with a porous bag, well, that isn't sous vide. That's more akin to a slow-cooker. The whole point of sous vide is the airtight barrier between food and heat.
Update
Oil does not have a higher thermal mass than water. Ammonia does, but I'd suggest avoiding that. ;)
Source: http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/specific-heat-fluids-d_151.html
according to that it does, doesn't the lower number mean that it takes less heat per unit to raise in temp? or do i just have the whole thing backwards?
@sarge: Both. Yes that's what it means, but that's precisely why water is better. Think of thermal mass as an inertia against changes in temperature. The more resistant something is to being heated, the more resistant it is to giving that heat up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_mass
Right. It is natural to think of oil as somehow transferring heat faster, but that is only because it can get much hotter than water at a given pressure. But that doesn't help in sous vide since the whole point is to use temperatues below 100 C anyhow. So it would only be a disadvantage.
As another answer mentions, "sous vide" just means "under vacuum" and can apply to techniques like "compressed fruit" which don't even require liquid or cooking. I have used sous vide compression with fresh pineapple spears and Malibu Rum to make Pina Colada Bites.
Not all sous vide appliances use a liquid water bath (with or without an immersion circulator). Indeed there are several steam ovens that are suitable to use for sous vide including at least one that is specifically designed for sous vide cooking - The Chef Touch System.
Also, the Polyscience Immersion Circulator that I own can be used with oil to go as high as 300F/150C (water boils at 212F/100C).
Finally, you can use fluids that will chill below 0F (such as as glycerol-water mixture) for a sous vide superchiller. Superchiller baths are used at The Aviary to craft its ice for "in the rocks" (see video).
Sous Vide technically means under pressure / with vacuum. There are a number of compression techniques that don't use heat at all, but these require a chamber sealer and are therefore mostly just seen in proffesional kitchens. Watermelon works really well for this.
As far as putting your meat directly into the cooking solution, this has a serious disadvantage. One of the great aspects of sous vide is that you don't lose the flavor of your meat since it's in the bag. If you put it directly in to the cooking solution, then the flavor will leach in to the water. This probably won't be nearly as good. That said, Thomas Keller uses an immersion circulator to butter poach lobster. So if he's doing it, you'd have a hard time arguing that it is "wrong". Now is that still Sous Vide? That's a semantic argument, the far more interesting question is "how does it taste?" So keep in mind that the broth will leach flavor from whatever you put in there, but give it a try and let us know how it works out.
I don't think Thomas Keller calls that Sous Vide though. Thats poaching
FYI in case you're interested in updating it, your link in this answer is now dead.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.738794
| 2010-08-08T01:07:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4552",
"authors": [
"Bob Gregorish",
"Chris B",
"Chris Hayes",
"Dawson Toth",
"Michael Natkin",
"Pete",
"Restuta",
"Stuart Leyland-Cole",
"WiSaGaN",
"Zuzia",
"bird",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8699",
"questie760",
"sarge_smith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4722
|
How deep do you need to insert the probe in a piece of meat to guarantee accuracy?
I have a wired thermometer that I mainly use for roasts, which can support the entire probe inside the meat. However, I used it last night to cook some country style ribs (pork) and was only able to insert the probe about half-way into the rib. It wasn't touching any bone and when I calibrated it, it still read true. Anyway, when the alarm went off on the pork (I set the alarm for 160 expecting the temp to coast up to 165), it was still massively underdone. The probe lacks the dimples that I am familar with on my instant read thermometers and I would like to know if anyone has run into a problem like this before. All I can think is that the heat from the oven was being read off the back side of the probe. The tool is so useful that I would hate to regulate it to roast only duty but I have no idea how to fix this so it will work accurately.
I'm going to assume that "country style ribs" are the ones where you cut them apart first before cooking ... I'd wager a guess that everything is near bone, and a thermometer might have problems with this particular dish. If nothing else, as you can't insert it deeply enough into the thing you're taking a measurement of, there might be enough conduction along the probe for the oven temperature to throw off the reading.
Could you tell us how far the probe was in the meat? I'd assume anything less than about 1/3 the probe might be problematic, with 1/2 or more being better.
...
All of that being said, are you sure it's an issue with the placement of the probe, and not a problem with the probe itself?
I've had a number of them go out over the years. I've actually given up on them, and gone back to an instant read thermometer, as I'm up to 4 of the bases (can still use 'em as a timer), and no working probes. (if anyone knows any brands that sell the replacement probes individually, or even better in multi-packs, I'd be willing to go back to using them)
To calibrate -- mix some ice water, and put the probe in there. It should read 32F or 0C. (if it even goes that low, not all do). Boil water, and read the temperature of it, and it should read near 100C or 212F (possibly lower, if you're above sea level). Compare it to another room thermometer after it's been sitting for a bit ... they should read the same.
Don't try to put it into the oven directly ... you could melt the probe ... that's how I lost the first one, so you can't try to compare it to your oven thermometer.
The probe was about half way in, and I think that it's designed to go in the oven as it has a steel wraped cord leading from the base to the probe and the manual says that's how you use it. I know that there was about 3/4 in. between the probe and the nearest bone. So I guess the bottom line here is just calibrate every time and expect the probe to start being inaccurate?
@sarge_smith : I wouldn't calibrate it every time ... I noticed mine was off when I'd plug it in and it was telling me 110F in a room that couldn't have been over 90F. In one case, I had noticed that the cord had gotten mangled, and if I had managed to change the resistance along the cord (as I believe they're just a thermistor), it could've thrown off the reading. As a guideline, I got in the habit of plugging the probe in and checking room temp before inserting it into the meat, then looking at the temp of the straight-out-of-the-fridge meat.
@sarge_smith : and I've used the probes with less than 1/2 of the probe in the meat. (measuring from the bend to the pointy tip), so I don't think that's the problem ... maybe if it were only 1" (2.5cm) in, I'd be concerned for the accuracy.
gotcha. that makes a lot of sense.
My theory is that the probe should be inserted into the part of the meat that will be the last to heat up. For a roast without bones, that will be pretty much be the center of mass.
For something with bone it, I would aim for a point somewhere between halfway and 2/3 the distance from the skin to the bone in the place where that distance is the largest.
Are you checking the temperature while the meat is still in the oven/on the grill? For a large meat where the entire probe is in, there will be no effect. But for a thin piece of meat with just the tip inside the meat, the air temp and radiated energy will throw off the results. Either insert it length-wise in between the ribs, or set the ribs on the counter to check the temp.
If you are still getting inaccurate results after this, then I would suspect the accuracy of the thermometer.
I given up finding the right spot and just aim for the point furthest from the surface as you suggest. The temperature I stop cooking is often below the 165F.
I agree with every thing you said, this particular thermometer is one of those probes on a string meant to be stuck in and left in while the meat cooks. But this answer is almost word for word what i tell the guys in the kitchen on how to temp things.
I think @Joe is right that a thermometer is not going to work well for pork ribs - But this is not because the bones will interfere with the thermometer.
Rather, it is because ribs really need significant time to cook; the flesh, heavy in fat and connective tissue, does not simply come up to a temperature like an egg or a tenderloin does; it needs to be held at temperature for quite a few hours to soften. Note, it doesn't have to be a terribly high temperature however.
I developed a standard for baby back ribs with a dry rub, of 2 hours 45 minutes at 95˚C. This was based on a Youtube video of some people cooking pork ribs in a smoker (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fb9roj9CaxY). The connective tissue works out for me the same as in the video even though, of course, I don't get the flavour imparted by a smoker.
If I cook the pork ribs covered in fluid, then I cook them for two hours at 200˚C, then cool and cut them, and reheat dry at 150˚C until the oil is bubbling on the surface.
With electric thermometers, the temperature sensor is usually in the tip, so you shouldn't need to insert more than about half an inch, depending on model. Analog meat thermometers need several inches.
If you're lucky, your thermometer's instructions say. For example, a Thermapen needs 1/8 in according too its instructions.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.739154
| 2010-08-10T01:50:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4722",
"authors": [
"Aki",
"Alexsandra",
"Flo",
"Geoff Hogg",
"Henrik Hansen",
"Joe",
"John Hoover",
"Loren Pechtel",
"fr00ty_l00ps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9062",
"ldd",
"papin",
"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/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22690
|
Does nutritional yeast expire or go bad?
I have a tub of nutritional yeast with a "best by" date of February 2012 (at the time of this posting, it's about a month past that). Is it still good to use? It still looks and smells the same as it always has.
In general, what is the shelf life of nutritional yeast?
Does nutritional yeast ever expire or otherwise go bad? Or just lose nutritional value?
Several sites say 18-24 months, but I haven't seen any reliable sources. Red Star seems to get the nooch they sell from Lesaffre - maybe you can ask them? http://www.lesaffrehumancare.com/others/contact.html
@paul, thanks! Yeah, I did a decent amount of internet searching before posting this and found the same thing -- a lot of people said 12 to 24 months, but a few sources said several years. In any case, none of the sources seemed reputable enough or scientific enough to trust, which is why I posted here ;). I also tried contacting one supplier and they sent back a canned marketing email that didn't answer my question at all. I'll try Lesaffre, thanks!
While I was also searching for the same thing, I have a feeling manufacturers specify an expiry so you buy more. Most people dont get that nutritional yeast = inactive yeast. So you might want to mention that in case this gets hidden.
Your question: is it good to use. My answer: yes.
You say it smells and looks normal. That's an important clue.
We are talking about a dry product. No moist means no growth, no toxins...
Best before date. Wikipedia:
Most shelf life dates are used as guidelines based on normal and expected handling and exposure to temperature. Use prior to the expiration date does not necessarily guarantee the safety of a food or drug, while a product is not always dangerous nor ineffective after the expiration date
I'm not sure about an expiry date, but I have been told by an employee at a health food store to keep it in the dark as it is negatively affected by prolonged exposure to light.
Also, growing up, my mom always kept it in the freezer and I do likewise now. I use it straight out of the freezer, and some that I currently have had in there for at least a year in a tightly closed plastic bag stil tastes great when I use it.
As mentioned by others, it is not active like bread yeast, so that will prolong its life. Also, it seems quite salty to me, so whatever is adding the salty aspect to it may also be helping preserve it.
My personal experience. Moisture is your enemy! If you buy in bulk or have extra you won't be using for awhile, vacuum seal it and add a moisture absorber. Store in dark place. If storing over 6 months use Mylar bags. Depending on your climate, it should last 5 to 10 years. What is lost over time is that the nutrient value slowly decreases. Know what it smells like to YOU before storing (everyone smells things differently). It should smell the same or milder when opening and the same thing with the color. Hope that helps.
Nutritional yeast is different from bread making yeast. It s deactivated thus it does not expire like regular yeast.
Nutritional yeast can turn quite bitter tasting if stored at room temperature for more than a a week or two. So I keep it in the fridge and it will last a few weeks, sometimes a few months (depends how long the seller has stored it before I came along, I guess?). I let my tastebuds be my guide.
Also, the fresher it is, the lighter in color it seems to be - but not always. Also, it seems more flaky and has a "lighter" tang when fresh, compared to a little more matted, and sharper taste when it's been stored awhile (effect of moisture in the air?).
Hope that helps.
The shelf life of yeast is approximately two years. The yeast will become inactive after that time.
Reference: http://www.redstaryeast.com/lessons-yeast-baking/yeast-shelf-life-storage
Do you have a reference?
First, your link is about dry yeast, and the question is about nutritional yeast. Second, it only tells us how far the "best by" date will be from the date of production. The OP asked what happens to yeast after the date passes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.739708
| 2012-04-01T01:21:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22690",
"authors": [
"Amogelang Pilane",
"Ben Lee",
"Dexter Paul Lirio",
"Ger Cas",
"Jim",
"Joseph Young",
"Magan Blair",
"Meana Mya",
"Sharon Pinkney",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9733",
"killjoy",
"nimcap",
"oreoero",
"paul",
"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
}
|
22889
|
Is it possible to bake a cake without an oven?
I don't have an oven; is there any way to simulate what an oven does with any other tools available at my home? In particular I would like to be able to bake cakes.
There are plenty of non baked cakes/desserts :)
That's not I want to achieve, I want a equipment to bake :)
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4626/cakes-that-can-be-cooked-whilst-camping
What tools are available at your home?! Sure you can simulate an oven... if you have a fireplace and a römertopf, for example.
just think of a low-tech/non-electrical kitchen (except of mixer, grinder and blender), think of a gas burner which is run by LPG, a classic pressure cooker, tava a kind of griddle, and whatever you can see in this image
When in doubt, there's always thermite. Bake a cake in 5 seconds flat*! *Edibility not guaranteed.
This is a very interesting discussion but... why can't you just buy a $30 dollar electric oven? Small, cheap and works pretty much like its big brothers.
@nico - is that what an EZ-Bake goes for these days? http://www.thecookinginn.com/tciimages/hasbro_oven2.jpg
Don't yall forget that some tools suggested in this thread, if they aren't already in that household, will be as expensive and storage intensive as a small electric oven...
@PoloHoleSet I was more thinking of these: http://www.argos.co.uk/product/2417880 I definitely baked cakes in one of these.
Microwave + Coffee Cup = Awesome
A few years ago I was looking for a project for some cub scouts when I came across this recipe to make chocolate cake in a microwave. It's delicious and easy. Best of all you can make it in the office.
Check out this link: http://howto.wired.com/wiki/Make_Cake_in_a_Mug
Rice cookers can be used to bake cakes. I've cooked them using a store-bought mix and my Panasonic DE 102 fuzzy logic unit. It actually has a 'cake' setting. The cake came out fine; tasted like a regular oven prepped cake. Similar cookers will likely work as well, but the way to really find out if a particular cooker will do the job is to give it a try.
what are key concepts of working of oven? what does it actually does?
Wow! Wayfaring that is a great answer. You inspired me to look up a cake recipe using a pressure cooker. I lose power all the time and will keep that in the back of my mind.
Anyway, if a burner is what you have, then make your own oven. I learned from camping that all you need is heat and a plain cast iron Dutch oven (without feet for the stove) and a heavy lid. Ok, I wasn’t me, it was my friend who is a chef, but I was really impressed. You could try garage sales, antique stores, and camping stores. Make sure you put a rack on the bottom, preheat and put your pan in. Could be a little tricky getting out, but they have tools for that too. The reason for plain cast iron, I feel it is the only material you can use without water that is safe, will not damage the pot, or any coatings and will not throw off toxic fumes. As a matter of fact, I just now talked myself into getting one for the powerless days. Last time it was 4 days due to the October storm.
You can cook it in a pressure cooker! My mum used to make it that way i remember. Just put some sand into the cooker first and place your cake tin above it. Close the lid and cook on a medium flame. The texture might be slightly different but it's one way to make a cake.
Even my mom used to make cakes in a pressure cooker.. it would take hours though!!!
Also the whistle on the lid should be removed.
@Zeba:- No it doesn't take hours. For a 600 grams cake it only takes about 25 minutes. And then you can turn that 600 grams cake into 1 kg cake or even more after creaming it and all the decorations.
An example recipe Boston Brown Bread in a Pressure Cooker
Cake is a broad term and "a cake" is going to mean different things to different people.
The fluffy, chemically or egg risen, low protein-flour, dessert that "cake" means in the US is going to require even, dry heat that an oven provides.
If you can only cook on a burner then you will be restricted to fried
or boiled desserts. Delicious but they wouldn't be called "cake"
here.
Some cake varieties can be cooked in electric appliances such as slow
cookers.
If you have access to a fire, a dutch oven can be used to make
delicious cakes.
If you have sunlight you can fashion a solar oven that you can bake
anything in. http://solarcooking.org/plans/
There are also many slow-cooker recipes for cakes -- an online search should pull up dozens, and I've done so several times. I've also used a rice cooker, as a previous poster suggested.
It's definitely possible to bake cakes using a BBQ, although it may require some changes in technique from cooking meat. This recipe for Chocolate Souffles for example, uses a kettle BBQ (which uses briquettes (as compared to a gas burner BBQ which I'm sure could also be used with some modifications to the technique)) using indirect heat.
How to modify your use of the kettle BBQ to get indirect heat is linked in the recipe.
look up solar cooking, there should be recipies and instructions
altrenatively if you can use a fire pit of some sort (or charcol barbique) look up cast-iron pot recipies
This post describes how my grandmother would make cakes in an electric frypan.
Many breadmakers also have a "cake" program.
When I was in scouting cardboard ovens heated with charcoal were a thing. (Outside only!)
Cardboard box.
Lined with alluminum foil
Heated with charcoal briquettes. The ones I remember used two alluminum pie pans to hold the briquettes with one upside down as a base, the other on top to hold briguettes.
Temperature was controlled by how many briquettes are used.
I've eaten food out of a cardboard oven, but never operated one myself. If I remember correctly it was a fruit cobbler, so I do not know for certain if it has the temperature stability for cake.
More detailed instructions by one who has operated cardboard ovens: http://www.usscouts.org/scoutcraft/oven.asp
If you have space for a microwave, you can bake full-sized cakes (rather than an individual serving of cake in a coffee mug) in a convection microwave. The "convection" part provides more even heating so you can do things like make cakes or roast meat or vegetables. Just make sure you read the instruction manual for the microwave thoroughly so you know what kind of equipment is safe to use in it.
I made cake with oven cake mixture without oven.
I took a big container with dry sand and heated for a while and after that kept the cake mixed bowl in sand container on top of sand. As per oven cooking specification, cake will be done in 35 minutes in oven @170degrees Celsius, in sand heating method, it took 55 mins for me @200 degree Celsius.![A delicious chocolate cake].
I used Induction stove for preparation. Key here is, sand keeps heat very well. (https://i.sstatic.net/EeGtI.jpg)
In the 1960s/early 70s, there used to be something called a Wonder Pot in Israel which baked cakes. This was a circular contraption made of metal with a heating element; one poured the cake mix into the pot, closed it and turned it on (ie started heating). That's how I remember it although the linked Wikipedia article suggests that the pot was heated on a stove and did not have an integral heating element.
Remoska...,....
Here in the Philippines, not a lot of people have an oven. We bake cake with an improvised pan oven with stones or use a steamer. Not the same as the baked one but is good enough to cover with butter cream or fondant.
I wrote a pretty good list of how to make a cake without an oven in my blog!
Using a:
Wide pan with a loose lid
Rice cooker
Steamer
Oven Toaster
Pizza Oven
Turbo Broiler
I bake them in my gas grill. Top rack. In a sheet cake pan. 350f I think. Or hold hand over vent at top for 3 seconds & need to remove hand. 2 inch's above vent. Philippines way. Close lid. doubled tin foil over the top of grill. For even heat. Bakes like a oven with a little practice. Yes few have a oven there to bake in. Live there also.
You can bake in a pizza oven or brick oven or double boiler without water, but when you use pots with closed bottoms you'll end up with smoke and blacken the inside of your large pot.
If you can find a large pot and make a hole at the bottom so that flames can pass through, that will be better. Use a rack at least 5 inches above the open fire. That's where you'll place your baking tray. Better to place few stones or bricks inside so that you can retain the heat to be able to reach at least 400 degrees. You can use any enclosure, just make sure to have bricks or stones to retain the heat and reach a high enough temperature. If you just use the flame, the metal around it will still reach the temperature but it will go down quickly when you open it; all the heat trapped inside will just dissipate. This DIY oven can help you.
Throw it on the BBQ! (Experimentation required).
Here is one blogger's successful (and some not-so-successful) attempts at baking stuff on a bbq: http://pattycake.ca/node/188
Here is another:
http://sharon-russell.suite101.com/cooking-cake-on-the-grill-a136001
Looks like fun :).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.740221
| 2012-04-09T11:58:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22889",
"authors": [
"Ashley Valinskas",
"BobMcGee",
"Charlotte SL",
"Dan Z",
"Debra Cummings",
"Diane Reed",
"Gordon cockle",
"Harikarthick K",
"J Bergen",
"J. Starnes",
"Joe",
"Jprest",
"MBender",
"Maria Rehrig",
"Maribel V. Majarrez",
"Miss Joost",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Rolen Koh",
"Rose Eskridge",
"Santosh Kumar",
"Sentinel",
"Sherene",
"Spammer",
"Theo",
"William Gérald Blondel",
"Zeba",
"averageradical",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9833",
"nbvalkyrie",
"nico",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"user51677",
"username",
"김종현"
],
"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
}
|
23378
|
Do flax seeds lose their fiber if cooked?
I found a recipe on the internet in which half a cup of ground flax seeds are added to the mixture to make muffins.
Since there is flour and sugar in it I was wondering if that defeats the purpose of using flax seeds to increase your fiber intake.
"Fiber" is basically "stuff you can't digest". Soluble fiber is just fiber that can absorb water vs. insoluble, which does nothing. Adding new ingredients (short of triggering a chemical reaction to completely change the fiber) will rarely make the fiber digestible, so you're still getting fiber.
A survey paper concluded, "Heating generally changes the ratio soluble to insoluble fibre." Both forms are good additions to your diet. The way the ratio change varies from source to source, and the paper does not specify what happens to flax seeds in particular. But flax seeds are well supplied with both kinds of fiber, and unless you have some extreme requirement for one form or the other you'll get sufficient health benefits from consuming them either raw or cooked. (And if you do have extreme requirements you need a doctor's and dietician's advice on your diet.)
This site is not for nutritional advice, so I can't really address the rest of the question, except to note that the form in which you consume the different ingredients doesn't radically alter the nutritional properties. So eating X sugar and Y flour and Z flaxseeds doesn't undo anything; it just adds those amounts of nutritional components to your diet.
I'm guessing the flax seeds are used as a substitute for eggs. Does the recipe ask for eggs?
You'll be still eating flax seeds, hence ingesting fiber. But I don't think it's the primal goal in this recipe.
Basically the ingredients are: 1 egg, 3/4 cups sugar, 1 1/2 cup flour, 1 cup ground flax seeds, baking powder, and 3 bananas. So it is not a substitute for eggs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.740996
| 2012-04-26T20:01:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23378",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Kim",
"Margaret Ellis",
"Pedram Shokouh",
"Sergio Romero",
"Tap",
"devster",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user52915"
],
"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
}
|
35360
|
Are there any reasons not to include the zest when citrus juice is an ingredient?
When following a recipe containing "juice of a lime [or lemon]", I can't help but find it wasteful to just squeeze the fruit. Usually, I'll include the meat of the fruit as long as it doesn't mess with the end result. Are there any reasons why I shouldn't just always include the zest as well as the juice to minimize waste?
If you really do always add the zest, I don't think I want to drink your lemonade.
@Marti Well I never said I wanted to share my zesty lemonade with you anyways!
I like a little zest in my lemonade too actually... and Ancho chilli, but that is another issue! :-)
Do you mean the zest or the meat? The zest might be OK but the meat, certainly the white bits, is typically bitter and I don't know any recipe using it.
Can't comment on the nutritional side of things, but the main reason I can think of for not always including it is that it has a slightly different flavour. A much more intense lemon flavour is provided by the zest while the juice has the more tart elements (and of course water).
If you're just interested in avoiding waste, you can freeze the zest.
Sometimes you're using the juice for its flavour, and in those cases assuming you're fine with the solid material in there, it can make sense to add the zest. In other cases, like in making paneer, the critical component is the acid content of the juice to carry out a chemical process, rather than its flavour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.741189
| 2013-07-18T02:19:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35360",
"authors": [
"MarkE",
"Marti",
"Mystic Shade",
"Relaxed",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35453
|
Which knife is best for somone just learning to cook?
I'm just self-learning to cook and I'm looking for a chef's knife. I've read the many differences between a chef's knife and a santoku knife, but it's still not clear to me which one I should choose. The only difference I'm aware of between santoku and a chef's knife is that santoku has exactly the same functionality as a chef's knife if one does not carve meat.
I definitely want to obtain proper/efficient knife skills (referring to the rock and chop that's often discussed), but at the same time, I want something that will be easy for me to use (I tend to cut using an up and down motion). I'm pretty sure I know what length and weight I want the knife to be, but to keep the question from being too localized, I won't discuss those features.
I don't know if it's worth mentioning, but I almost never carve meat or cut bones.
So do I go with a gyuto, santoku, or chef's knife?
Why not a chef's knife?
The difference between a santuko and European chef's knife is mostly a matter of personal taste and style.
However, if you live in North America, Europe, or anywhere else with a European cooking tradition, most of the resources and videos that you see to help you develop knife skills will assume you have a chef's knife. For this reason, I suggest you start with a good basic chef's knife. Secondly, you will want a paring knife.
With these two knives, you can do 95% of kitchen tasks very well.
As you develop your skills, you can try santukos and other style blades and determine if the work for you.
Does this mean santoku blades are for more advanced chefs? Most of my cooking is East Asian foods.
No, what I am saying is use whatever your role models use.
The ultimate answer here is to try them both (cook dinner for a friend who has them both?) and go with the one that is more comfortable for you. For example, my fiancee prefers a large chef knife, I prefer the santoku. Both of us can cut just as fast, it really just comes down to personal preference and that special "how it feels in your hand" feeling. Ultimately the more comfortable (both experience and physical comfort) you are with a tool, the better you will function with it.
To be honest, the "meat" thing with a chef's knife doesn't bother me that much. Usually when I am working with raw meat I prefer an incredibly sharp paring knife and a good filet knife. Cutting cooked meat, I use a slicing knife. Large meat with a bone? Either the butcher takes care of it or I use a cleaver.
The problem is that until some skills are developed, its hard to decide which one is more to one's taste and style.
The Victorinox Fibrox 8-inch Chef's knife has been getting good reviews for years. It is sturdy, holds an edge well, and is inexpensive. It's a hybrid of a thin Japanese blade with a 15-degree edge (western knives have a 20-degree edge), but with the longer, broader blade of European knives. And at $30 it's a great choice for a first knife to start honing your skills.
So is this a gyuto knife?
No, unlike a gyuto, which has a chisel ground edge, the Fibrox has a symmetrical grind typical of European style knives. It does have a less bellied profile similar to that of a gyuto.
For new chefs, Tim Ferriss suggests a 6" meat cleaver in the book: 4-hour chef.
It sounds odd at first. However, chopping, cutting, and developing knife skills with a sharp clever makes good sense. The blade is taller and slightly heavier to make it more forgiving to crude muscle movements. This would be different than a butcher's cleaver and you're not meant to hack at the food. Rather develop the same knife skills by cutting through the food and not at the food. E.g, this one made by Rada:
Obviously, the other bonus is that you'd chop food very efficiently. Not having a pointy tip also makes it safer. Particularly handy for asian foods.
As far as choosing specifically between chef and santoku, I find I reach for the chef knife more often than the santoku (except for cutting potatoes where santoku's divits prevent skicking). But you can't really go wrong eitherway.
The most important point here is to have and keep sharp knives. They require less force to work resulting in less chance of running away and doing business with live flesh.
I cannot agree with Feriss' suggestion. Meat cleavers are not generally very sharp, and they are very, very heavy and thick-bladed, the better to cleave through bone. They will be very crude tools for chopping vegetables, crushing as much as cutting, and will develop bad habits. The idea is not just odd; it borders on absurd. Are you sure this was not recommending a Chinese cleaver, which is the equivalent of a chef's knife, very sharp, thin bladed, and generally useful for most tasks a chef's knife is useful for?
Household cleavers are not the same ones used by old butchers. He's not refering to a 1/4" steel cleaver. I wouldn't call a chineses cleaver equivalent to a chef's knife as indicated in the anwser, the blade is taller allowing more clearance.
I think that the rocking/sliding motion most often used to cut vegetables would be very difficult with a cleaver.
@sourd'oh Yeah, its a slightly different technique, not better or worse maybe, just different. Its more a lift and slide-push.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.741359
| 2013-07-21T17:42:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35453",
"authors": [
"Didgeridrew",
"Keith",
"MandoMando",
"MarkE",
"Matt Ball",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sensedemy",
"SourDoh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82994"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18476
|
Which type of oil/fat should I use for deep frying?
I just got my first ever deep fryer yesterday. Looking round in the shops, I found that I can get bottled frying oil, or a white solid block type of fat which I've never used before, I guess it may be lard (but I'm not sure this is the right word, as I'm not a native speaker).
In terms of handling, is there any benefit of using the solid stuff over frying oil or sunflower oil? (For example, I'm not sure if the white stuff would get solid again when cooled ...)
The solid block type might be hydrogenated vegetable oil (shortening, Crisco is a well-known brand). Cheaper than lard (pig fat).
It might also be beef tallow, if it's in Germany.
For the very best tasting fries, onion rings and battered fish are fried in fat made from rendered beef fat. When I was a cook we rendered down a thousand pounds of beef fat a week, it took days to do. But it made the very best tasting savory deep fried foods. The burning temperature is lowish, so food needs to be cooked at 325 and changed more often. It's not good for things like doughnuts.
I'm not a fan of Canola, I find it often has a taste which I don't like. I don't use peanut mostly due to habit, too many people I've run into with allergies. I can't find rendered beef fat and I'm not going to render it at home.
At home I use a mixture of Sunflower and lard, about 1 part to 3 parts. The sunflower oil makes it easier to handle when filtering through a very fine mesh sieve (more liquid at a lower temperature) after use, then I put it in an old olive oil can which I refrigerate between uses. I leave out overnight before I use it then warm in hot water to pour it out. I don't usually use more then once a month. The more crumbs and batter bits you filter out the longer the fat will remain good. So filter, and don't pour the last bit into the can.
Refrigerated the oil mix doesn't go bad before it becomes no good to use. I get well over a years use. I love sunflower oil, it has almost no taste at all and a high smoke temp. It is pricey.
Great answer. Do you use that for fried chicken? What do you use for doughnuts?
The best thing to fry, or deep fry with is actually old-fashioned lard. Yes, it is full of saturated fats, but it withstands very high temperatures. Olive oil does not have a very high heating point, and once again, the polyunsaturated fats are transformed. I'm not saying to eat something fried or deep fried in lard every day, but once in a while, and if you want it to be good, use lard.
First and foremost choose a frying medium with a high enough smoke point. You don't want to risk your oil deteriorating before it reaches the temperature you want it to be at. Now, if you'd like to use an oil, I say go for a something neutral in flavor: canola or peanut. If you are looking at using an animal fat, lard from Pigs is the most common. If rendered properly it shouldn't affect the flavor of your foods in an overly negative way.
If it's solid at room temperature, then it's either saturated fat or largely trans-unsaturated fat.
The former is what humans have used for cooking for centuries and is biologically safe. It is also what I would personally recommend.
The latter is from a manufactured process and was originally created so as to be solid at room temperature. (There is considerable dispute about whether we should be even using this kind of fat to cook with.)
Both will return to solid after cooking.
In the interests of safety, most modern deep fat fryers say NO lard, butter, etc. (hard fats). The manufacturers don't say why but I've heard many people conjecture that lard heats up, smokes, maybe burns when exposed to fairly high temperatures (over 370F. or 185C.). My theory is that the heating coils on the deep fat fryer overheat the lard if it is used in its hard form.
We have real lard (from a real pig raised on a real farm -- not a huge farm where pigs lead a short and brutal life). Then we rendered it ourselves which is not hard at all.
We are just about to try cooking french fries (British, chips) in our new deep fat fryer. We have melted the lard, strained it and poured it in, as one would with canola oil, etc.
Wish us luck, please. I'll try to report back on this scary adventure in cooking!
UPDATE: Okay, that didn't work too well. The fries never did brown even after 15 minutes at 320F. and then 12 minutes at 370F. (ordinarily 5 to 7 minutes at the lower, cooled, then 2 minutes at the higher). Cooked but not browned. So I threw a few in a fry pan and burned them a bit. Oh dear. Did I mention we are at 3000 feet above sea level? This makes a bit of a difference in cooking. My friend (bless her heart) said she loves blond french fries and ate them up. I was not quite so pleased!
I have found that mixing corn oil with equal parts Crisco make an oil that can be
heated relatively high, with little to very little taste.
I recently learned of an oil called " rice bran oil ". This oil has a smokepoint of 490 degrees. Since most commercial places I've contacted say foods are best fried at 350-375, this makes very good sense. I was told this frying temp keeps the food from being soggy. It cost about the same as peanut oil but has a higher smokepoint. You can buy it in bulk and it's cheaper. I got mine from Riceland Foods in Arkansas.
Since I find myself unable to source certifiably natural lard, when I do fry, I use coconut oil. Coconuts are in fact, mostly saturated fat and hence more stable, having a fairly high heat tolerance. Again, if I could get my hands on quality lard, I'd use it when needed. I use butter for pan frying.
This is a food and cooking site, not a health and nutrition site (see the [faq]); I've edited out the off-topic part of your answer.
Hard fats such as lard or dripping I find give things much more flavour.
I normally go for a relatively neutral oil such as groundnut or sunflower.
What you are cooking will also effect what you want to use, as different fats have different smoke points and it may be that what you are trying to fry requires more heat than the fat can handle safely.
Discussing such studies is beside the point. This is a food and cooking site, not a health and nutrition site (see the [faq]); I've edited out the off-topic part of your answer.
My mother used to make delicious chips. She bought raw beef suet from the butcher very cheaply. She heated it gently in a heavy pan (with lid) until the the fat had come out. This is called rendering. The liquid fat (called dripping) was then poured into a pyrex bowl and cooled. This is a very hard fat when cold. It can be used for some pastry recipes. She used a chip pan - a large heavy pot with a wire basket and a lid. The solid dripping was added to the chip pan, food was cooked and afterwards everything was allowed to cool and the dripping sat in the pan until next time. Now people think dripping is unhealthy and chip pans are dangerous but the flavour was wonderful.
Lard is pig fat. We didn't use it much.
Lard does not contain any trans fats at all.It is also 45% Saturated fat and the rest is Monosaturated and polyunsaturated fats.
Lard is best brought to heating point for the first time and a couple of slices of bread "fried" for a few minutes without frying anything else . Then let it cool down and go hard again. The next time you use it the smell will have gone and the chips will brown nicely.
Please don't use health arguments here, they are hard to prove in any way. See the [faq] for detail.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.741801
| 2011-10-20T09:07:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18476",
"authors": [
"Brett Win",
"Cascabel",
"David Etler",
"Debbie Filiramo",
"Dejsving",
"Emily",
"First time poster",
"Juliet Agloro",
"Kristine Viti",
"MSalters",
"Marge Niespodzinski Szmania",
"Nikki Stevens",
"RASHEL AHMED",
"Rob",
"Robert ",
"Sheila",
"Vincent Desjardins",
"actinidia",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98690",
"mef",
"rumtscho",
"user39985",
"user98690",
"ywoolf"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29262
|
Suggestions for a substitute for almond paste in a cookie recipe?
I’m trying to find a substitute for almond paste in a cookie recipe. Does anyone have any suggestion for what I could use?
This is a cookie recipe that calls for 8 ounces of almond paste. The recipe divides the batter into 3 equal parts and you add different food coloring to each. after baking in a 13/9 you layer the cookies putting raspberry and apricot jam between the layers, and then top with Chocolate. I like the almond flavoring, so I suppose my question is how do I make my own almond paste? Thanks for any help.
What quantity of almond paste is in your recipe?
Can you tell us a little more about the cookie recipe? Might help folks come up with a suitable substitute.
Can you define what you mean by substitute? Are you looking for something other than almonds, or something still containing almonds? Almond paste in its basic form is ground almonds and the same quantity of sugar with a binding agent such as egg white, cream, water etc. From there you can create whatever paste you wanted to use.
To clarify the other questions -- (a) how is the almond paste used in the recipe (eg, if it were chocolate, melting & mixing in is completely different than stirring in chunks); (b) what are you reasons for the substitution (are you trying to avoid all nuts, don't like the flavor, or is it just something you're having trouble finding (or at a reasonable cost)?)
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! We like to keep questions and answers separated here. If you forgot to mention something in your question, you can just edit it so everybody sees all the info in one place. This time I copied your additional information into your question for you.
The most common substitute is persipan - a paste made from apricot kernels. It has less taste than almond paste itself, but you can add artificial almond flavoring. I don't know where you live, but in some countries, this combination is easier to find in the supermarket than real almond paste.
How to make almond paste?
Start with good quality raw almonds. Blanch, grind, cook with up to equal weight sugar in a pot with a bit of water to get started. Stir frequently. When it pulls away from sides and sugar is melted in, done. Add bitter almond flavor to taste.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marzipan#Production
Some folks find mixing ground almond and powdered sugar with liquid an acceptable paste.
Almond paste has no known substitute, that would not radically alter the taste of the dish. You could try cashew nut or peanut butter (paste), but the flavor profile is nothing like almond.
What about adding almond extract to one of those?
How about almond butter made with melted butter, raw Agave, almond extract to make something GF and sugar=free? I'm going to try it in King Arthur Flour's recipe called Almond Clouds.
I think we can keep this as an answer, as Laura suggests a mixture to be used instead of almond butter. She might not yet be sure that it will work, but this is not a requirement for a post to be considered "an answer". The others can express their expectation that it will or will not work through up- and downvotes as usual.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.742504
| 2012-12-18T19:09:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29262",
"authors": [
"Aaron Rawson",
"Cascabel",
"Davy M",
"James Fuller",
"Joe",
"JoeFish",
"KatieK",
"Leo Holman",
"Phillip Brantley",
"Rok",
"Sara Weddel",
"Swagner",
"Tiggy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8522",
"peter de schrijver",
"rumtscho",
"spiceyokooko"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42330
|
Metal dust/shavings in food from knife wear?
I've been wondering about this for a while, since getting interested in knife sharpening.
When using a knife, it will get duller. One (the primary) reason being that you "bend" the edge. You fix this using a honing steel.
After a while though, you need to sharpen the knife again.
Another setting: If you have a brittle knife and/or mistreat your knife you will chip it.
As far as I can tell, this should mean that small pieces of metal (dust, shavings, etc.) come lose, and then likely get in the food.
Is this correct?
Are there no health considerations when digesting small pieces of very sharp metal?
At a microscopic level metal is malleable, and so the edge tends to bend rather than spall or break off. Still, it is probably technically true to a certain extent, and based on many many years of metal knife usage by millions or billions of people through history, completely irrelevant. Whatever effect it may have is vanishingly small.
I had an Uncle Bob once. He passed away from metal shavings from sharpening his knife. One of those statements may be false...
@Chuu: We ask that people only post such claims if they are well-substantiated and reflect a legitimate scientific consensus. I know that you're trying to be helpful, but the vast amount of pseudoscience and outright nonsense floating around is the reason why we have such specific guidelines for food safety questions (and answers). You might consider posting that as a question on [skeptics.se], that is if you can find a source to justify it as a "notable" claim.
That's basically what I thought - we should have seen some bad effects if it was dangerous at all. What got me thinking was connections to, say, asbestos, and that perhaps I should be even more meticulous with cleaning after honing or sharpening.
@NiklasJ we don't discuss health effects on that scale, as these are very hard to prove or disprove and raise much disagreement even among specialists. All we handle is food safety in the sense "if you eat X, is there a non-neglible chance that you end up in hospital tomorrow". If you want to know if there are long-term health effects, you are in the wrong place.
Microscopic metal particles won't hurt you. The iron in fortified breakfast cereal is just food-grade iron particles. You can collect them with a magnet.
I just tried this and with a reasonably large rare earth magnet I was able to move a whole Nutri-Grain a small amount.
Great, let's hope they used a low remanence form of iron, otherwise the person eating the cereal might collect an undue amount of iron dust from their environment :)
Sure, microscopic bits of metal go into your food when you use knives. It's just a bit more iron in your diet. When you consider that the average person eats 100mg of dirt per day the nanograms of metal you eat per year is pretty insignificant.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.742785
| 2014-02-26T10:22:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42330",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cathy",
"Ipe",
"Ms Dale",
"NiklasJ",
"PeterJ",
"Spammer",
"accuwau",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98879",
"rackandboneman",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35781
|
Electric Stove burner wattage matter?
Is it ok to put a higher wattage burner element on your stove than what stove calls for? I bought the wrong burner wattage but it does fit etc.
There is a chance it'll work out. But It's a bad idea all around. You can blow the fuse in the stove among other things. If the stove isn't designed to dissipate the wattage, you'll blow the element, too and end up back where you started.
This question appears to be off-topic because it is about repair of a cooking appliance, not design features, selection, or other culinary aspects of the appliance.
I agree that this is off-topic. I suggest going to [diy.se] and browsing their questions to see if this will fit there.
The tag wiki says "Questions on selecting, maintaining, and using cooking tools and equipment." Are we going back on that? (Or do we need to clarify the difference between "maintain" and "repair"?)
@Jefromi This is well past maintain. Maintain would be cleaning the oven, or removing the burners to clean under them, then reseating. Its the same as the difference between sanitizing a cutting board (definitely culinary), sanding one down (borderline), and building one (definitely not culinary). Repair is not a culinary skill unless the item breaks so often in my mind that the repairs are routine.
Apart from blowing a fuse your problems may be worse than that. Most electrical appliances are designed with the assumption that all the components used are within specification. One example failure mode I can think of is that your new heating element may heat the attached wiring to unacceptable levels and increase its electrical resistance due to both the extra current flowing and the increase in ambient temperature.
Increased power loss though the wires will won't cause a fuse to trip but may cause a fire. I'd recommend replacing the element with one that has a rating similar to the original. In addition to safety aspects your temperature controller (often called a simmerstat) may not be rated for the additional current required and may fail prematurely.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.743049
| 2013-08-03T20:43:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35781",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Abhishek Nandgaonkar",
"Cascabel",
"Chengsong Tan",
"Guy Sundar",
"MandoMando",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sheryl",
"abnv",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83874",
"scohe001"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36920
|
How do I prevent smoke problems indoors?
I live in a small apartment, and the kitchen is tucked away in a corner without any outside ventilation (windows or stovetop exhaust). Every once in a while I'll be cooking and something will start to smoke (a different problem, I know!) and the smoke detector will go off. How do I eliminate or reduce the amount of ambient smoke? I don't have access to external ventilation.
At least in the US, if you have no ventilation or exhaust in the kitchen, your home would not meet building codes.
Very closely related to How do I stop my fire alarm from going off when I cook? I'm leaving it alone because the current answer is dealing specifically with the smoke issue and not the alarm, but if too many answers focus on the alarm issue, it might have to be closed. You might want to remove the bit about the smoke detector so that it's not construed as a duplicate.
Unfortunately, sanitation codes for where I live (Boston) don't have a section on kitchen ventilation, and the building itself has been grandfathered in.
As SAJ14SAJ said, the best solution is to simply not live in a place like that - it can be a bit dangerous.
But since you're there, about the only thing you can do is get a decent fan and use it to direct air out of the kitchen toward rooms with open windows. Depending on the layout (and the fans) you may need multiple fans, and might want one of them to be a box fan in the window helping push air out.
For things you think may be smoky, you might also consider cooking outside if possible, on a hot plate, a camping stove, or a small grill. (Or you could just not do them at all.)
And avoid stir frying, searing, and similar techniques.
It seems this is the only thing to do for an apartment like mine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.743255
| 2013-09-19T00:37:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36920",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"srlm"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37699
|
How to remoisten sweetened coconut after opening?
My Baker's sweetened coconut is not moist after being stored in the refrigerator. How can it be remoistened?
try soaking it in coconut water or coconut milk.
Here's a link from eHow that walks through how to moisten coconut flakes:
http://www.ehow.com/how_8278347_moisten-dry-coconut-flakes.html
Although you are working with sweetened coconut that was once moist, this approach may still work. They recommend you do the following:
Put a pan of water on the stove and bring it to a boil
Place a colander over the pan and put the coconut in the colander
Let the coconut absorb the steam for a few minutes and then pull the coconut off and pat dry it with a towel
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.743420
| 2013-10-18T00:48:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37699",
"authors": [
"Chef S Giridhar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93862",
"smcg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37974
|
Canned cubed tomatoes vs crushed
I have a recipe (for pumpkin turkey chili) which calls for 14 oz can of cubed tomatoes. All I have is either 10 oz cube canned tomatoes or 14 oz crushed tomatoes. Which should I use? Does it make a difference using the correct quantity but the incorrect type of tomatoes?
In a chili application, the recipe is going to be forgiving.
You will get a little more texture from the cubed (diced) tomatoes assuming that your recipe doesn't then cook them down a considerable time; more absolute quantity of tomato flavor from the crushed simply because you have more of it. Both should give you good outcomes.
Choose the one that you think you will prefer, and don't worry.
It isn't going to matter that much, except the crushed tomatoes will break apart a bit more in to smaller pieces.
Just make sure that the can of tomatoes is not preseasoned, as that might throw off your flavor balance.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.743520
| 2013-10-29T04:07:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37974",
"authors": [
"Ann Johnson Jordan",
"Igor Konoplyanko",
"Paul",
"Roger",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89433",
"r2e2"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40585
|
When to carve a goose - hot or cold
I have roasted a goose ready for tomorrow. Would the flavour and/or texture be better if I carved it tonight when it is warm, or wait until tomorrow when it is cold from the fridge.
Since you are going to serve it as left overs either way, for flavor whether you carve it hot or cold does not matter very much at all.
On the other hand, when the meat is cold it sets much firmer, so it is actually much easier to carve when it is still warm.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.743632
| 2013-12-25T19:34:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40585",
"authors": [
"Charles Flynn",
"Karol",
"RWD",
"Richard Robertson",
"Stanley Ipkiss",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94445",
"janman27929",
"user19642323"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41056
|
Can pasta salad be preserved long-term?
Can I preserve pasta salad in bottles that can last for months?
The ingredients are cooked pasta shells, diced onion, diced green and red pepper. The dressing is: boiled together: vinegar, sugar, tomato sauce, curry powder, salt.
Can this recipe be done and bottled to last for months, keeping in mind it will be kept in the fridge?
No, you can't. To explain exactly why is better left for...well...someone other than me. What you probably can do is make your dressing in advance, and use it on freshly cooked pasta.
You might be able to bottle the dressing and preserve it (depending on sugar and acidity levels, of course), but the pasta just isn't going to happen. Even if you could keep it safe, the pasta would get really disgusting.
Except for the bell peppers (which would probably turn to mush) you could freeze this. You'd probably want to freeze the dressing separately.
With industrial testing and equipment, it might be possible.
As a practical matter, for a home cook, no this is not possible.
The reason is safety: long term canning requires ensuring that the product is shelf stable and safe for longer term storage, which means killing or preventing the growth of all pathogens that might be in the food. Possibly the most difficult and dangerous to manage is botulism, whose spores are fairly ubiquitous, and which can grow in low-acid, low oxygen conditions—the exact conditions that prevail inside a canned product like this.
Even though your dressing may be acidic, the entire volume inside the jar including the pasta and other ingredients will almost certainly be insufficiently acidic to inhibit botulism growth.
The only way to know for sure that a recipe (and the associated canning methodology) is safe is with expensive industrial testing (the kind food companies use when bringing new products to market), or to exactly follow a recipe designed by a reputable source such as a University Extension program.
Unless you can find such a recipe (I failed to do so in a quick check, but it is hard to search for), you should not proceed; but even if you do, you would have to follow that recipe, and not use your own.
No, not really. In order to prevent food borne illnesses you would have to either have to make your sauce so salty and/or acidic as to be unpalatable. The only other option is to use a pressure canner to raise the temperature of the pasta and sauce high enough to kill off any nasties, and that would destroy your pasta.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.743724
| 2014-01-11T10:31:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41056",
"authors": [
"ApolloRa",
"Dennis",
"Hybrid Human Performance spam",
"Jolenealaska",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"derobert",
"fidelity",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95642",
"nickalh",
"qazmlpok",
"sbobet 88 spam"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41433
|
I want to know how to express the result of reduced liquid.
I want to know the best way to express the result of reduced liquid.
Example; 5 quarts reduced to 3 Cups. Should it be expressed as ratio or percentage? How do I do the calculation?
Time to bust out the graduated cylinder and hydrometer... :)
This was my question and I appreciate the feedback. I am going to express the result as "An 85% Reduction"
There is no single answer to this; it depends on the context and the intent of the recipe in which the reduction is being performed.
Most reductions are expressed as a very approximate percentage, such as "reduce by about half" or "reduce by about two thirds."
Sometimes, you may specify a target amount if that is what is important. "Reduce to about 1 cup."
Lastly, sometimes you specify the outcome desired, as in "reduce until thick and syrupy" or "reduce until the sauce coats the back of a spoon."
Your specific example of five quarts to three cups is very extreme. Probably you want an outcome based description, not a percentage. When specifying by percentage, it is usually for more basic sauce reductions such as a pan gravy after deglazing. Still, the way you have written it is perfectly clear; there is no reason to calculate a percentage if that is your actual intent.
You can express it in ratio form. In your case, it'd be 'three twentieth'. Though usually the expressions are more round such as half, fifth, or tenth and then diluted back if needed.
For example, the famous demi-glace sauce refers to reduced to half (demi) sauce (glace). Some cultures refer to tomato paste based on the reduction ratio (third, or quarter).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.743971
| 2014-01-24T23:24:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41433",
"authors": [
"Cato Minor",
"Didgeridrew",
"Donat Khabibullaev",
"Ed Foley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96660",
"techolic",
"user22759"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41830
|
Is it safe to store unopened metal cans in the refrigerator?
A co-worker and I are having a disagreement on whether or not it's okay to put unopened cans of pizza sauce in a refrigerator. I say it's not, because the acidity in the tomatoes in the can will make someone extremely ill. He thinks as long as it is not opened, it will be fine. Who is correct?
The tomatoes have the same acidity whether they are in the refrigerator or not. You seem to essentially be asking whether canned tomatoes are safe.
Just curious: Why would you put unopened cans in the fridge?
Cans tend to work there way to the front, where they'll fall out, and hit you on the toe. Other than that, and the remote possibilty the fridge is set too low and will freeze the cans, distortiong their shape, there should be no danger.
@mien The same reason you put anything else in a fridge - to reduce their temperature. Some dishes are better served chilled, and chilling cans in advance is more efficient.
@JBentley Certainly true in general, but the OP did ask about pizza sauce.
Storing cans in the fridge should reduce energy usage, if the alternative is to leave that part of the fridge empty. Once the cans have cooled down to fridge temperature they will stay cool when the door is opened. Cold air would have to be replaced.
They should also make the fridge temperature more stable.
Cans can damage the inside lining of the fridge, decreasing its overall efficiency.
There's nothing wrong with storing unopened metal cans in the refrigerator. But it's pointless in terms of food safety - the whole point of canning is to make the food safe to store at room temperature. Don't waste the fridge space unless you're actually trying to chill the contents of the cans.
Now, if the cans are open, sure, that's a problem. You should transfer the food to a sealed container for storage, whether it came from a can or a pot or anywhere else.
But none of this has anything to do with acidity. Acidity doesn't make you sick, and in fact, it can help keep bacteria from growing and keep food safer. That's why a lot of canned goods have a bit of acid added, and why we pickle foods.
I wouldn't always say it's pointless to store unopened cans in the fridge because it extends the shelf life considerably. But the shelf life is already long enough at room temperature for most people. So it's only pointless most of the time. Even when it's not pointless, it's probably not worth wasting valuable fridge space on it. So, yeah, it's pretty much the same thing as pointless. :-)
You provided a good reason for refridgerating a can right after saying it's pointless! Good answer otherwise.
@JBentley It's possibly a good reason to put them in the fridge a bit before use, but it's not really a good reason to store them there (i.e. long term) and doesn't have much to do with the question of safety.
@DougGann Please read the whole answer (which I've edited to make even clearer). I'm not saying that cold food is pointless. I'm saying that chilling an unopened can doesn't have any safety effect. Note that the OP was asking about pizza sauce, which I'm pretty sure they weren't trying to eat cold.
I see no reason why closed cans should have a higher risk of causing the tomatoes to become acidic. When closed the only difference is, that there is no (to very little) oxygen. This is actually what causes your products to last longer. And the United States Department of Agriculture states that canned food can be stored in the fridge once opened, so it should be safe to store it in the fridge when closed.
The only difference I am aware of with closed cans is the botulism bacteria, which likes to live in anaerobic environments, where it can produce a deadly toxin. Refrigerating products usually slows down the spread of bacteria, so if anything putting the cans in the freezer helps to reduce the risk of a botulism poisoning.
Of course there's no risk. Cans are commonly stored in warehouses with no heating (and probably no control of the upper temperature limit as well) for long periods
The moisture in the fridge allows rust to start forming
Yes, but only on the outside. The inside is continuously moist, but la) acks the oxygen fo oxidization (=rusting) and b) should have a protective coating.
Unless it rusts all the way through, but... yeah, I don't think that's happening quickly.
It is bad health and safety to put tin in a fridge. It promotes the growth of bacteria.
How does this apply to unopened cans?
Cans or metal of any variety should not be stored in fridges health and safety 101 if you have ever worked in kitchens
Do you have a source for this?
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/homehygiene/Pages/how-to-store-food-safely.aspx
Your link refers only to opened cans. The issue is that food shouldn't be stored in open cans, not that cans can't be put in a refrigerator. The link also states that the risk is from metal leeching into the food, not bacterial growth.
Yeah, this pretty much has to be bogus. Lower temperatures universally slow bacteria growth and slow all chemical reactions, including those that would cause metal to leach. I don't know why you'd want to store unopened cans in the fridge, it seems like a waste of energy, but I don't think it is dangerous.
NHS bogus?? You do realise thats the national health service of the U.K
The question was about unopened cans of tomatoes, and your answer is about opened cans. It's completely true for opened cans, but that wasn't the question. If you have an NHS (or other authoritative reference) for why one shouldn't store unopened cans in the refrigerator, please feel free to edit your answer (or post a new one). If you don't, you're not answering the question, and we'll probably have to delete this.
@Jefromi I am actually against deleting it. If both the OP and this answer suffer from the misconception that the advice refers to closed cans, it is best for other readers to see that the opinion exists and the community thinks it is false (through the downvotes) than to pretend it doesn't exist.
@rumtscho If user23064 thinks this applies to unopened cans, sure, it should remain. If they just didn't read the question and wrote about opened cans, then it wouldn't really be an answer. I guess we can give it the benefit of the doubt (kind of) and assume it's completely wrong and was meant as an answer.
This claim is the unfortunate result of once-good advice that's been twisted beyond recognition and repeated throughout the media and online. Opened cans aren't safe to store in the fridge, but opened cans aren't safe to store anywhere, because of oxidation and a few other issues that refrigeration doesn't prevent. The refrigerator isn't the problem, and makes no difference whatsoever; the problem is the open-ness of the can and some people making the naïve assumption that refrigeration makes it safe. Once you open a can, you should transfer leftovers to another container - period.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.744159
| 2014-02-07T15:27:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41830",
"authors": [
"3 B s Auto Glass spam",
"Aaronut",
"Affordable Computer Spam",
"Cascabel",
"Certified Builders spam",
"Criggie",
"JBentley",
"Majiy",
"Michael Giazzoni",
"Michael Natkin",
"Michael Stowell",
"Mien",
"Peter Leggz",
"Ponder Stibbons",
"Qunst Media spam",
"Ryan Lochowicz",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Stephie",
"Vivendi Modus",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"bdsl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97697",
"mrog",
"rumtscho",
"user23064",
"user3205178",
"Йоана Димова"
],
"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
}
|
19315
|
Why does food cooked with peanut oil stick less than food cooked with sunflower oil?
I tried both peanut oil and sunflower oil on the same food cooked in the same pan and noticed that when cooked with sunflower oil, the food tends to stick to the pan. If I use peanut oil, I have less of a problem.
Can anyone enlighten me as to why both oils react differently even though they are used for cooking food? Both of them have the same smoke point.
Are you sure you had all the other variables unchanged? I have never heard of or observed such a difference.
I assume you're doing this with refined sunflower oil? Also, you may want to try Canola (rapeseed) oil for a different healthy oil
Please avoid making health claims in your questions in the future, especially when the information does not directly pertain to the question.
Comments are not the place to debate health issues. Feel free to take it to [chat] or ask/answer questions about nutrition on [fitness.se]. This is a site for culinary topics.
I feel the same as you Anderson. I found that too and you just made me to do some research, which I found they have different smoke points.
Unrefined sunflower oil 225°F 107°C
Unrefined peanut oil 320°F 160°C
see the link: http://www.cookingforengineers.com/article/50/Smoke-Points-of-Various-Fats
Also, one of the reasons food stick to the pan is the evenness of the temperature of the pan. If you use a thicker pan or copper pan, the heat will be distributed on the pan more evenly and food will stick less. The higher smoke point of oil makes me to believe the oil helps to distribute heat more evenly.
Same link as the OP included, and given that he said the two had the same smoke point, I'm guessing he's not using unrefined oils. Peanut and sunflower oil are both listed as 440°F/227°C, and refined varieties at 450°F/232°C.
Thanks Jefromi. I jumped to the conclusion too quickly. Need an expert to answer this.
I've never heard of anybody frying with unrefined oils - but certainly if one were using unrefined sunflower oil it would smoke and stick like crazy. Refined peanut oil and sunflower have approximately the same smoke point (450° F).
@Aaronut, I fry with unrefined oils - mainly canola and olive, sometimes with a bit of additional sesame. However it's all low heat frying. Almost broiling.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.744846
| 2011-12-02T05:48:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19315",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Calum",
"Cascabel",
"Foodrules ",
"Greywire",
"JNL",
"Konchog",
"Matt Menzenski",
"derobert",
"ebpa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97345",
"mkennedy",
"pdace",
"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
}
|
15218
|
Are there any 27" residential ovens that can accomodate a 3/4 sheet pan?
I am moving into a house that needs a new oven. We aren't going to renovate the entire kitchen; we just want to swap out the oven. The current cabinet space for the oven can hold at most a 27 inch oven. I know that most modern 30"+ ovens are big enough to hold a 3/4 sheet pan (which measures 21" x 15"), however, most 27" ovens I've seen are not big enough. We are currently in the process of scouring the stores, pan-in-hand, to see if any are large enough, but I figured I'd ask here first. Are we out of luck? Are there any 27" ovens that are wide enough to accomodate a 3/4 sheet pan?
Edit: Should I mark this community wiki?
Update: The KitchenAid True Convection Architect 27" has interior dimensions of 22" width, 16" height, and 18.75" depth, which appears to be just big enough for a 3/4 sheet pan.
Update #2: It turns out my cabinet was just wide enough to actually fit a 30" oven, so this question is now pretty much moot for me. I'm going to leave it open for a while in case anyone else was interested in the answers.
Don't go solely by the measurements -- Bring a pan to the store.
I'm still going to try them out with a pan; I just want to know if there are other brands to look at (so I can find stores that carry them).
No reason to make this community wiki; this question won't have an unlimited number of valid answers.
Update: The KitchenAid True Convection Architect 27" has interior dimensions of 22" width, 16" height, and 18.75" depth, which appears to be just big enough for a 3/4 sheet pan. (per OP)
I've worked with an earlier model of the GE Profile Advantium. It's actually a super awesome oven.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.745312
| 2011-06-03T14:20:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15218",
"authors": [
"Chris Cudmore",
"ESultanik",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"makhdumi",
"mrk m"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62303
|
Why do dumplings float when they are ready?
Most dumpling recipes—including those discussed on this site—claim that the dumplings will be ready when they float to the surface. I have two interrelated questions:
Does this rule ever fail? For example, might there be certain recipes or conditions (e.g., altitude) where one should allow the dumplings to cook further after they have floated? Conversely, are there certain recipes/conditions where one should remove the dumplings before they float?
If this is a relatively universal rule, what is the science behind it?
I will quote here the bible of cooking science, Harold McGees "On Food and Cooking":
"Dumpling doughs are minimally kneaded to maximize tenderness, and benefit from the inclusion of tiny air pockets, which provide lightness. [...] This tendency to rise with cooking is due to the expansion of the
dough's air pockets, which fill with vaporized water as the dumpling
interior approaches the boiling point and make the dough less dense
than the surrounding water."
Following this, your dumpling must be a proper dumpling - dough that was only minimally kneaded, while altitude does not matter.
Why does this coincidence with being ready?
[...] the starch granules absorb water molecules, and swell and soften as
the water molecules intrude and separate the starch molecules from
each other. This granule softening [...] takes place in a temperature
range that depends on the seed and the starch, but is in the region of
140-160°F/60-70°C. The tightly ordered clusters of amylose molecules
require higher temperatures, more water, and more cooking time to be
pulled and kept apart than do the looser clusters of amylopectin
molecules.
So, altogether, the starch molecules do not absorb much more water as they are done, so the remaining water can vaporize and fill the air pockets, which makes the dumpling float then. Or, in other words, a floating dumpling is actually overcooked and so guaranteed to be ready (if the preconditions are met).
Does this rule ever fail?
Yes. Your dough needs to have sufficient air pockets for floating. Your dough needs to be made out of starch that is willing to absorb water. A dough made out of waxy potatoes has a fair chance to not float in time. This does match with German recipes for potato dumplings using waxy potatoes, that warn about the dumplings falling apart due to overcooking, if there is too much water in the pot (as it takes too much time for the dumpling to rise).
That explains why they float, but it doesn't explain why doneness exactly coincides with them floating. Is it because most dumplings are cooked once they reach an internal temperature of 100°C?
@ESultanik I edited my answer to add more details.
I just want to add an important instance in which dumplings that float may not yet be cooked: frozen dumplings. There are plenty of instances I’ve actually encountered in which the dumpling floats because the shell is cooked but the filling isn’t because they’d come from right out the freezer. Ostensibly if you had even a room temp dumpling but that had a really large volume to surface area ratio, it might be undercooked on the inside by the time the dough is cooked through.
It's not universal, it is simply a function of how much water is lost during cooking. Even when boiling, meat looses internal water as it cooks.
Not everything is ready when it floats, some things will never float, some will pop to the surface way too early to be considered done.
It is just coincidence your recipe is done when it floats, but for those recipes that reliably do something when it's done is a great visual indicator that it is likely done.
I don't think it's an issue with meat water loss ... because it's the standard timer for gnocchi and cheese tortellini. Both of those absorb water, not loose it. Their density change is caused by swelling, not decreased weight.
I was just using that as an example of all food in general. In the case of gnocchi yes it's lowering the density along with bubbling pushing the gnocchi up.
I'm not convinced... the "ready when floating" rule also applies to e.g., potato dumplings which simmer at low heat, without any bubbling, especially not enough bubbling that would push an almost tennis ball sized dumpling.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.745476
| 2015-10-05T17:04:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62303",
"authors": [
"Allison Woodworth",
"Becky Harper",
"Chuck C Hall",
"Darrick Er",
"ESultanik",
"Escoce",
"Joe",
"John Hammond",
"Lynette Leedom",
"Mary Ann Miller",
"Patricia Viera",
"Robert",
"Susan Lambert",
"Thelma McLucas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47065
|
What is the rate of loss of vitamin C in fresh vegetables?
If I keep fresh vegetables in the fridge, how quickly is vitamin C lost? What is the rate of loss in percent per day, or any other relevant measure?
Hello Joshua. The question hasn't been asked, because nutrition is mostly off topic here. We do deal with a very limited range of nutrition questions, but you'd have to be very specific. We never do "nutrients" in general, because different people care about different substances. I edited your question to be specifically about vitamin C only, else it would have been closed. But I'm not sure you'll get an answer even now.
I was reading this prior and during the edit, and witnessed both versions. I'm not sure the edited version holds true to the original intent. @Joshua - please clarify.
Here is my question:
I know that Vitamin C is lost through contact with air and heat. (but since we are dealing with fresh vegetables here, heat is out of question here)
But what is the RATE of this loss? Like, 20% every day, etc.
Thanks again
Vitamin C is not lost, there is no magic happening, it is just consumed by cells trying to protect themselves from dying. You typically see a 50% reduction within 7 days, and then the loss rate reduces as the cellular processes stop. For many vegetables the loss rate is much less if kept chilled. Most food books that publish vitamin C levels do so at X days after harvest, to simulate the normal farmer to consumer process (check the fine print). Either way a normal balanced diet will provide way more vitamin C than required with 7 day old vegetables
That was the answer I was looking for :)
Thanks a lot,
Also, any sources/articles related to Vitamin C loss is highly appreciated
Heat isn't out of the question - how the vegetables are stored will affect their metabolic processes and how much of their nutritional content breaks down. @TFD's guideline is a good rough estimate, but it's tough to be at all accurate without considering the specific produce, how it's stored, and so on.
I have another concern:
I store my parsley in glass jars (after I make sure leaves are dry) filled with several inches of water at room temperature.
Does this mean Vitamin C is lost in contact with air?
To put it simply, it's lost exceedingly rapidly. Can we scientifically measure the exact amount of the reduced form of vitamin C in produce over time? Yes, we can. Have there been studies and papers published that have done this? Yes, there have been. Are these results relevant? Yes and no.
These results allow us to draw certain conclusions about the loss* of vitamin C after produce has been harvested. We know that plant cells are constantly biosynthesising vitamin C (through a chain of biochemical reactions involving glucose) and at the same time using it in oxidative processes. By harvesting crops we're taking away a part of this natural oxidative loop and plant cells begin oxidative changes leading up to oxidative stress. The results of these studies confirm the theoretical knowledge we posses about oxidative cell cycles but there is no deterministic way we can deduce or even estimate with high precision the exact percentage of vitamin C that gets used up in the processes we observed. The loss rate is too specific to individual crops and the conditions in which it was harvested and since preserved. You could try to extrapolate the results of such studies (as the one linked below) to the produce you keep in your fridge but you would most assuredly get highly varying results.
*Please note that vitamin C is not lost, it is just transformed into a different form (oxidative form) during the oxidative processes that take place inside plant cells.
What we know for sure is that by reducing the temperature we slow down the oxidative processes that change the plant cell's biostructure, molecules and function. We can take cold inhibition to an extreme by deep freezing produce which virtually stops these deteriorating processes.
This answer has already run a bit longer than I originally planned but I thought giving you some background to the biochemical processes that take place might be useful. Lastly I'd like to give you a practical example of exactly how vitamin C oxidation (even visually) deteriorates produce.
Half an apple, where the left side has been artificially treated with vitamin C:
Relevant links: (1)
Thanks for the informative comment, Looking at the picture can we say that if a color is retained, vitamin c is mostly there? For example i can keep herbs like parsley and dill in cool airtight bags wrapped for a week after which they have their full color, can we imply that vitamin c losses have been minor?
@Joshua No, unfortunately, we can't make such an implication as the discolouration is not solely attributed to vitamin C oxidation - the produce could look great and have a low reduced form vitamin C content, but it can also look poorly and have a high reduced form vitamin C content. It's virtually impossible to tell without doing a full scientific study per harvest (produce from the same harvest will most likely 'lose' vitamin C at approximately the same rate).
Vitamin C is not lost, there is no magic happening, it is just consumed by cells trying to protect themselves from dying
You typically see a 50% reduction within 7 days, and then the loss rate reduces as the cellular processes stop
For many vegetables the loss rate is much less if kept chilled. Most food books that publish vitamin C levels do so at X days after harvest, to simulate the normal farmer to consumer process (check the fine print)
Either way a normal balanced diet will provide way more vitamin C than required with 7 day old vegetables
It is lost quickly! As soon as it is picked, it begins to lose C, but I don't know at what rate. Heat and light affect the loss. Long ago I read a study about how fast oranges lost their C and why frozen O.J. may actually have more C - it is often processed faster and flash-frozen whereas an orange may sit around a week or two before being eaten. The study showed that the orange lost about 10% of C within the first few hours of being picked.
I've removed a little of your answer which discussed health issues; health is off topic here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.745866
| 2014-09-11T23:41:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47065",
"authors": [
"360 Excavator Training LTD",
"Brianna Bouse",
"Cascabel",
"Cynthia ",
"David Thomas",
"Frank Sanchez",
"Joshua",
"Libby Cole",
"Michael E.",
"S H",
"TFD",
"Victoria Zbiegniewski",
"dijkstra",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"logophobe",
"olanrewaju fadilah",
"rob fender",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49012
|
yeast substitutes and proper measurements
I was wondering if I could get some advice as I have intolerances to yeast and have heard of a few substitutions from: baking soda, baking powder, lemon juice, milk and yogurt.
The question comes to how do I measure these into bread or baking to make whatever I am making rise? I have heard that in the middle east they rarely use yeast for bread baking and their bread still rises. I just don't know the proper measurements I would use, if a bread recipe calls for 1 or 2 packets of yeast and mixing them in water do you mix one tsp of baking soda and 1 tsp of lemon juice in together?
If you can give me any advice on this that would be greatly appreciated, thanks.
There are no substitutes for yeast. What you list are not substitutes, but alternative leaveners: either actual baking powder, or a combination of baking soda and lemon juice or yogurt. The milk does not contribute to leavening at all.
There is nothing you can do to mimic ordinary yeast or sourdough (which consists mostly of wild yeasts). If you were to use a chemical leavener in a bread recipe, everything would be wrong - the ingredients, the proportions, but most of all, the process. It will fail miserably.
There are two classes of baked goods which are used as bread and don't contain yeast, quickbreads and unleavened breads. Quickbreads are made with chemical leaveners. Nowadays, practically nobody bakes them for use as a bread, but rather as a kind of less elegant cake. So the recipes common today are for the sweet and fruity varieties like banana bread. But if you can find a source of WWII era recipes, you'll probably find plain quickbreads without sugar, intended to be used instead of yeast breads.
Unleavened breads don't rise, they are a class which contains things like flour tortillas and naan. They are indeed popular in the Middle East, but it is not true that "their bread still rises" - it doesn't, and it isn't intended to. You can get some amount of puffiness if you have a very hot oven, but this is impossible with electric appliances on 360 volts or below, it is done in wood ovens. And the pita still stays mostly flat, it is just somewhat airier, but it cannot be shaped as a loaf and still bake.
I am sorry to hear about your condition, but all you can do is to search for recipes for quickbreads and flatbreads. Yeast cannot be substituted.
There is a bit of explanation on leavening mechanisms in this question: Why are there no recipes combining both yeast and baking powder?.
A quick Google search for "savory quickbread" shows lots of possibilities (which I want to try!) -- mostly for interesting variations with cheese or herbs, but also a few plain loaves. The texture might still be more like cake; cornbread (stiffer) could work nicely for sandwiches and bread substitution.
Unsweetened bread leavened with chemicals may not be made much in America, but it's still popular in Europe, especially in Ireland. Try searching for "soda bread" recipes.
Sour milk is sometimes used for the acid part of leavening.
Damper can be made without yeast. It was and still is the food source of travelling stockman and drovers in Australia, and it rises as much as normal bread. Try searching for a damper recipe as an alternative.
Damper is a kind of quickbread, leavened with chemical leaveners, which is mentioned in rumtscho's answer. As both that and you say, it's an alternative kind of bread, not really the same as yeast-leavened bread, not really a substitute.
As others have said, there is no true replacement for yeast. There are other alternatives and the one I have found works best it baking soda,water,and milk. Good luck!
Please do not repeat others' posts. To express that you agree with an answer, upvote it by clicking the grey arrow above the number (vote counter) to its left.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.746323
| 2014-10-18T18:52:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49012",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Ecnerwal",
"Erica",
"Jeff Nigro",
"Joseph proud",
"Mike Scott",
"Shawn Sprague",
"Stephie",
"Todd Brazer",
"Willow Forest",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9607"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121124
|
Some duck egg yolks orange while others are yellow: does that reflect the egg quality?
I have noticed that some duck egg yolks orange while others are yellow. Does that reflect the egg quality? E.g. will dishes made with a dark yolk taste better than the ones with light yolk, or vice versa?
Example of a duck egg with yellow yolk bought in Seattle:
Hi, nutrition and health is off-topic here. I removed that part completely from the question and answer, but if health was the only thing you were interested in, we could also close the question, if you prefer.
Also, highly related, or maybe it should be considered a duplicate? https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18759/yellowness-of-egg-yolk?rq=1.
Does this answer your question? Yellowness of egg yolk
Some duck egg yolks are orange while others are yellow.
Does that reflect the egg quality?
Summary
No
The following applies to poultry eggs in general, not specifically duck eggs.
Where does the colour come from?
Egg yolks get their colour from carotenoids. Carotenoids are plant
pigments, responsible for red, orange and yellow hues in certain
vegetables and fruits. You might guess then that carrots, pumpkins,
peppers, Vietnamese gac fruit, and sweet potatoes are all particularly
rich in carotenoids.
But carotenoids are also found in green plant material, because
carotenoids absorb light for photosynthesis and protect the plant from
sun damage.
What affects the colour?
It depends on what the poultry eats.
There are two classes of carotenoids:
Carotenes, which tend to produce reddish colours, and
Xanthophylls, which produce yellow shades.
Farmers can adjust yolk colour through the chickens’ diet. Small scale
farmers can directly feed plant material naturally high in carotenoids
(e.g. algae, alfalfa, citrus peel, fortified corn), while larger-scale
farmers rely on processed feed that contains such ground-up plant
material or synthetic supplements.
Processed poultry feed is a blend of grain, protein, vitamins and
minerals. In Europe, the EU Register of Feed Additives lists which
xanthophylls and carotenes can be added. So, a large-scale farmer has
to strike the right balance of yellow and red carotenoids to keep the
shade consistent. The types and ratios of carotenoids in feed and eggs
will depend on what yolk colour consumers want, and farmers provide.
Source: Orange Egg Yolks: Why Are Some Egg Yolks So Orange?
In my youth I ived on a chicken farm. We milled and mixed our own feed. The rep talked my dad into trying an additive to make the yolks yellower. They did come out yellower, but we could actually taste it so we didn't do it again.
A neighbour here feeds her chickens with home-grown maize, and the yolks come out very yellow. In fact when she makes a cake people comment on the yellowness.
My relatives fed chickens and duck orange peel before Easter, to get better colour of the cakes. Worked like a charm, but no change in taste at all.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.746640
| 2022-07-24T07:32:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121124",
"authors": [
"Mołot",
"RedSonja",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47039
|
How to add more toppings to frozen pizza?
I generally buy frozen Pizza Margherita in store for making a quick lunch if I am running out of time. However, I don't really like the taste of the baked Pizza because it is just Tomato and Cheese. I am a vegetarian and I would like to add toppings but when? Should I directly add veggies on frozen pizza and put it in the oven or let the frozen pizza bake for a few minutes and then add the toppings ? Suggestions are most welcome.
The method I've used to add toppings to frozen pizza is- use frozen toppings. For example, green peppers are in my opinion a great addition to pizza. I usually keep frozen green peppers and other pizza-worthy vegetables for use with many things, and frozen pizza is one of them. This way, I simply add the toppings to the pizza before baking and viola! Easy, simple, and much more tasty frozen pizzas.
I do this quite frequently, as well as making my own pizzas. Most pizzas will cook in approximately 20 minutes, so it is absolutely fine to put any of your favourite toppings on right from the start of cooking. It may be beneficial for some foods which are more likely to char (such as broccoli or thinly sliced ham) to be either dipped in water first or covered with a little cheese to insulate them against the heat and stop them from drying out.
Ditto this exactly. I add toppings (sliced raw onion / mushroom / bell pepper / broccoli / asparagus..., shredded or sliced meats) and then some extra cheese. Bake for the normal amount of time and it's fine. The only thing you have to be careful of is not adding too many "wet" vegetables as these can make the middle of the pizza end up a bit soggy.
You might find the onion nicer if you fry it first, then add it to the pizza near the end of the cooking time. It also has the added benefit of driving the water out - raw onions are one of the main offenders for soggy pizza.
I love caramelised onions on a pizza! Especially if a tiny bit of sugar and a healthy glug of balsamic vinegar are added shortly before the end of frying!
One of the best toppings for a pizza is egg, just don't put it on at the start. Let the pizza cook for about 12 minutes then crack the egg on top and place back in for another 6-8 minutes. This should leave the egg runny, but if you don't want it like this then just leave for a little longer.
Onions and peppers are good toppings as well and they can go on right from the start.
I have spent a lot of time with my friend the pizza and I have somehow never considered eggs as a potential topping. Thanks for that!
For vegetarian options, it depends on what you want to add. Pickled jalapeño slices go right on top before you bake it, and they add just the right amount of zing to a bland pizza (cut them in half or even quarters if you're timid). Spinach or kale can be washed, chopped, and added right on top, too, before the bake. Unless you slice green peppers or onions quite thin, microwave them for 45 sec. before you put them on. (Red peppers cook faster.) Fresh mushrooms sound fantastic, but raw ones will make a frozen pizza soggy, so do stir-fry them first for 1-2 min. in oil or butter and then add them before the bake. Fresh tomatoes should go on after the bake, unless they are anemic winter or strip-mined tomatoes, in which case, you should dice them, press the extra juice out, and scatter them before the bake in a wide circe, avoiding the middle. Olives can go on either before or after. As my dad says, dress up frozen pizza? I dress it up in a tuxedo!
Roasted veggies yesterday. I'll reheat them before topping the frozen pizza, then use the regular cooking time.
My granddaughter will only eat
cheese pizza with mushrooms and black olives so I thinly slice the mushrooms and olives and spread them out over the frozen pizza. Then on the other half, I thinly slice red onion and separate into rings and scatter on that half, along with pepperoni. I think sprinkle a little garlic powder and black pepper over the entire pizza, then scatter a thin layer of mozzarella all over. I bake at 425 for 20-22 minutes, rotating the pan at 10 minutes and it’s never soggy and the crust is crisp and the cheese bubbly and slightly brown. I cool for a couple of minutes, then slice and serve
Chop up lunch meats , leftover fully cooked chicken or hamburger, Kroger has a frozen bag of peppers and onions diced and your very simple plain pizza just became something from the heyday of pizza when flavors were in incredible.add it all at the beginning cook at 400 for roughly twenty minutes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.746974
| 2014-09-10T21:16:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47039",
"authors": [
"Amy Wolff",
"Binny Mathews",
"Catherine Riches",
"Darlene Jandrin",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jerry Baker",
"Kimberly Neff",
"Marshall Wade",
"MikeyB",
"Paula Martin",
"Peggy Wright",
"Preston",
"Sheri Braden",
"Vicky",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"pat wuerth"
],
"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
}
|
46418
|
How to choose a pan for making caramel?
Is there any noticeable difference in taste and texture when making caramel on a non-stick pan versus a normal pan? I have seen a few cooks making caramel on a stainless steel saucepan and others on black frying pans most probably non-stick. But, is there a difference?
Surely, the most annoying thing is cleaning up the mess of caramel afterwards, any fast tips?
You ask about coating, but it is actually not very important. There are other criteria with much higher priority when you are making caramel or other types of candy. The important thing about pan when making caramel is even heating. Especially when making your caramel dry, you cannot afford hot spots, because you cannot stir. But if you are taking the candy into the later caramel stages, even heating becomes important for syrup-started candy too.
You need a responsive pan if you are making caramel. Sadly, the most evenly heating pans are also the least responsive and vice versa. I would never make caramel on a resistive stove in iron, but I use a small enamelled Dutch oven for caramel on my induction plate. A good sandwiched steel with an aluminum core should offer a decent tradeoff between evenness and responsiveness on most stove types.
You also need the correct size pan. If your caramel is less than 1 cm deep, it is very hard to handle without burning it. If it is deeper than 5 cm, there is too much of a heat gradient in the depth. Choose the pan diameter such that your caramel depth will be between 1 and 5 cm roughly.
If you are going to add any kind of liquid to the caramel (or butter), you'll experience lots of foam. You need a deep walled vessel to catch this foam. Use a deep sauce pan or a small pot instead of a frying pan. You want 10 cm wall above the caramel level.
Aside from a seasoned cast iron pan, I haven't experienced a coating adsorbing flavors. PTFE, ceramic, enamel, anodized alu or no coating - none of them matters. Use whatever you have handy. For cleaning, follow Elendil's advice for dissolving the smears in hot water.
Great answer, though I don't agree about the distinction between "even heating" and "responsiveness." A pan that responds faster will even out its hot spots faster, so the two tend to go hand-in-hand. The least hot spots will be found in a copper or aluminum (or aluminum core) pan, which are my preferences for sugar work. I imagine your cast iron pans heat quite evenly on an induction stove, but with an uneven heat source like a gas burner, cast iron will be both unresponsive and display considerable hot spots.
@Athanasius a thin alu pan will respond almost immediately, but if you have the slightest unevenness in the heat source, it will be very noticeable on the pan inner surface. A thick, slow-warming pan's inner surface will be much more even heated than the outer surface, because it evens out while the heat diffuses through the pan, but the same mechanism slows the reaction to quick temperature changes in the source. If you have a heat source which heats very evenly, thin highly conductive pans will do a very good job indeed.
"A thick, slow-warming pan's inner surface will be much more even heated than the outer surface, because it evens out while the heat diffuses through the pan" - That's absolutely true, and it's why chefs use 2.5-3mm copper pans rather than the 1.5mm display pieces you often see at cooking shops. But to achieve the same heat diffusion and evenness as in 2.5mm copper, you'd need about 7mm of aluminum, but a couple inches of cast iron (which would make the pan weigh hundreds of pounds). Thickness can make pans more even, but it can't change the conductivity numbers for the material.
@Athanasius agreed. What I wanted to warn against are the very thin noname alu pans sold in discounter supermarkets, they are thin, responsive and uneven. I have never had the money to play with copper pans.
Ah, I understand now. I absolutely agree that trying to cook sugar in a very thin pan is probably a bad idea. I'm not advocating copper specifically, by the way; I was just using it as an example for a highly conductive metal. Your idea of a stainless pan with a thick aluminum disk or core is a good one; the price and design are not as important as the thickness of the aluminum.
The only difference I can think of this that some non-stick pans can absorb flavours from whatever you've previously cooked, so you'd need to be careful those didn't affect the flavour of the caramel.
The best way to clean a pot used for making caramel is to fill it with water and put it on the stove to simmer - this will melt and dissolve the sugar allowing easy cleaning.
I wouldn't make caramel in a non-stick pan because the high temperatures ruin the non-stick coating and can release toxins into the food. For the same reason, I never sear anything in a non-stick pan or cook anything above medium-high heat.
I do all my candy-making in stainless steel pots and have never had any issues. Cleaning up caramel is easy. You just run hot water into the pan and it dissolves.
I just tried to make a carmel sauce for my cheese cake and it did not colour, it just went back to lumps of sugar.This is a recipe I have made lots of times and only had problems when using a non stick pan. So I would say that you should not use nonstick pans for caramel.
Hello Ruth, I hope your cheesecake was nice in the end. Our site is not a forum, and all new posts are expected to answer the question. It seems you meant to tell people that a nonstick pan never works for you, and advise them to not use it, so I will try to edit the post in that direction instead of deleting. You can also re-edit to make clear what your suggestion is, if I misrepresent what you meant.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.747384
| 2014-08-15T11:22:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46418",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Ernest Keller",
"James E. Tramel",
"Laife",
"Marek Brylewski",
"Richard Winfield",
"Ruchi Siddharth",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"prem sharma",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129436
|
Attaching non edible item to a cake?
Hoping this makes sense… I am making a cake for my daughter and she wants printed images of theater playbills. I formatted what I need into 2x3” images, printed on a heavy cardstock and then mounted on a glitter construction paper (the kind that doesn’t spew glitter everywhere). My dilemma is how to place that paper on the cake - I mean, they won’t be eating it but I’m hesitant to just place a piece of construction paper on the cake. I was thinking mounting it to a piece of rice paper or those icing sheets but then how to attach to those? Just a dab of frosting as “glue”?
If you're trying to have them stick up, you could just attach it to popsicle sticks or wood skewers and use those to stab them into the cake... just make sure they come out before kids try eating them
If you have time you can get images printed onto edible paper and sent to you.
I did as @GdD suggests, with 2 full pages of my thesis. Turnaround was only a few days. That looked pretty good, and the paper was fairly stiff
@ChrisH \documentclass{cake}?
Maybe glue it to a wax paper backing?
You are totally right, if you want to put the playbill flat against the cake then a barrier of some sort between the cardstock and the icing makes sense. Although you could put the paper right on the icing there could possibly be some sort of flavor transfer which you'd want to avoid. Plus, glitter construction paper will still drop a bit of glitter, so you want to keep that off the cake as well.
I would do exactly as you say: use baking paper, rice paper or some other food friendly material as a barrier, and couple blobs of frosting to attach it.
If you want to stand it up instead you could glue long coffee stirs or skewers to the back of the card as @Joe suggests in comments. I wouldn't use toothpicks as they aren't long enough, and are likely to fall over. You could print another copy of the playbill and glue it to the back of the other one with the skewers hidden in between so it would look good from either side.
In many places there are edible printing services which will color print your images onto edible paper (essentially a very thick starch/sugar paste) and mail them to you. It takes some time but it's actually pretty cool looking.
My big custom print was on rice paper, and I've had smaller ones as well
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.747818
| 2024-10-24T23:07:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129436",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98043",
"user3486184"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78909
|
How long before a dead chicken becomes inedible?
Given that the chicken is not contaminated by poison, and it simply dies of heart failure or heat stroke and not anything that makes it immediately inedible, how long does it take before a dead chicken becomes inedible?
This is absolutely non-answerable. Under different circumstances the same chicken could become very poisonous to one person and just be food to another. I don't see any thing to do with this question but close it, but I will ask you to take a look at this: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21068/how-long-can-i-store-a-food-in-the-pantry-refrigerator-or-freezer
I will post as an answer as too long for comment, but would support closing as opinion based with no definitive answer.
When I raise meat chickens, my answer was zero. Even if the cause was harmless, the meat would be low quality at best due to lack of ability to remove blood. Even simple heart failure, besides the lack of ability to purge blood, could result in contamination from systemic issues related to poor circulation. Note that consumption of down birds was blamed for spreading Avian Influenza in Asia. The use of down animals was responsible for a widespread Mad Cow recall in US and Canada a few years ago.
At times, and in many cultures, using down animals, either dead or dying, has ranged from acceptable to taboo. I personally side with the taboo argument. I hate to waste an animal, but the risks are too high for me.
The stated assumption is the animal is not diseased.
@Paparazzi Understood, but from my own experience with broiler chickens, one could often know that it was heart failure, but until internal organs were examined one could not see evidence of water on the heart and other signs that flesh may have been affected. I personally always erred to caution and any signs of what might be unexpected I would discard. But, I was also selling, so needed to be more cautious. For me, apparent cause was not always true cause. I did evaluate on a case by case basis though.
+1. My grandfather is a retired veterinarian (for some part of his career even a meat safety inspector) who raised his own chickens, working under regulations which were much laxer than the FDA's - and for him, this was an unquestioned rule. If the chicken dies of its own, it's inedible, period.
If you just go with raw guidelines then 2 hours.
By not dressing (gutting) I don't think there is basis to extend that. But I know a lot of hunters including myself that go 4+ hours before dressing a bird and getting it on ice.
Not my intent to imply two hours is good with "If you go with guidelines then 2 hours". I just don't know. If you find guidelines they are not going to assume the bird died of natural causes. See answer from dlb.
If you just search on road kill a common guideline is clear eyes but that is something I cannot find any actual testing data on.
Clear eyes is also a very common guide with farm animals, birds especially. +1 for that. Note that if poultry is not well bled, that can cause it to have a more game like taste and spoil more quickly even after cooling.
There could be reasons to reduce it, though. Guidelines for handling raw meat assume it's been properly handled and prepared for consumers; seems quite possible that an unhandled dead chicken has higher risk of more significant contamination, or potential for faster growth.
Well, by not mentioning that possibility, you're implying that the two hours is safe, which is also speculation. I wasn't suggesting making specific claims, just mentioning that the safe time could be less.
I was also searching since I am concern if my rooster dying one day because I am tying him and I have a tree near him with a wood where he can rest which is where he likes to always be at and I am concern if he gets tangled on it.
I saw a link that may help its entitled : If an animal died this way, don’t eat the meat
The article mentioned that the animal may have died of the following causes and eating should be avoided: Poisoning, Disease, Lead ammunition, Bacteria, Parasites
I've fixed up your post to improve formatting and content a bit. Note that "Disease" generally includes things like bacteria and parasites. Lead ammunition also isn't usually a problem unless you are eating a lot of shot animals - and it would generally be pretty obvious if an animal has been shot.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.748069
| 2017-03-05T13:16:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78909",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jolenealaska",
"bob1",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"paparazzo",
"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
}
|
32634
|
Which ingredient in Italian bread gives it that great taste?
I have looked in many different recipes and tried different things, e.g., brown sugar, diastatic malt, etc, and have gotten pretty good at breadmaking but I can't duplicate that taste of a bakery-made Italian bread.
Response to questions in comments:
I have tried a biga with AP, bread flour, bromated flour. I've used dough enhancer, ascorbic acid, 70% hydration and everything I can read up on.
The bread comes out fine but it basically all tastes the same regardless of the changes I've made. It just doesn't have that flavor of the locally made Italian or the French baguette.
I realize that my question is broad but was hoping that commercial bakers use something that us home bakers just don't have.
It is quite possible that it is not so much ingredients, as technique. It is quite possible that your bakery uses no more than flour, water, yeast, and salt. But Italian bread is kind of a broad term--you would need to describe the loaf in more detail, maybe with a picture. But if it is a commercial bakery, they may provide an ingredient list on request.
Do you mean bread baked in Italy or what we call "Italian bread" in America? I'm not sure if that's a universal term, but I assume it isn't.
@PrestonFitzgerald Perhaps a nice foccaccia or chiabatta :-) Even I can make those :-)
Sounds delicious @SAJ14SAJ. Italian bread, in my (US) grocery store experience, is more like a French baguette for some reason.
Yeah, I am in Maryland, and we get generic "Italian bread" that is like a softer crusted big baguette. Based on the recipe googling I have done, this dough is very similar to a baguette enhanced with a little sugar and oil. But that doesn't explain any special flavor the OP is asking about.
@Dennis are you using a biga or pre-ferment in your recipe?
What bakery? I wonder if they're doing it right or just adding sugar.
Flour, Water, Salt, Yeast, and slow rise techniques, extracts maximum flavor from the flour. Different Brands of flour have different tastes, try several, one at a time.
I suggest a country tag as for in Italy there are several breads (all of them getting worse over the years at least where I am). It seems you refer to something well known as Italian bread in the USA or your state.
I'm assuming this is not a speciality Italian bread such as Panettone or Pan d'oro. It's a regular bread loaf.
Hard to know for sure, but in all likelihood, the missing taste is due to short rise times and yeast type. Most of the taste in bread is developed, not put in.
As suggested in the comments, the ingredients are bread flour (usually tipo 00 or 0), water, yeast, and salt. Tuscan bread has no salt. and sometimes, there is olive oil to prevent the dough from developing a skin. The notes below might be useful:
A French baker I work with, always keeps some of yesterday's dough and mixes it with today's dough. This means an exponentially small amount of the dough can be years old. He also performs three rises (two punch-downs).
Let your biga rest in colder temperatures for a couple of days so the enzymes can do their work and develop taste.
Get yeast from a baker. The instant yeast at the grocery store is ok but the commercial yeast can work better with the longer ferments. A famous natural bread baker in our area uses 2500 year old yeast from Egypt. (the head baker has a heck of story on how he got his hands on this yeast). Strict Neapolitan Pizza makers use Ischia starter for their dough.
Peter Reinhart explains Italian breads really well in The Bread Baker's Apprentice
"This means an exponentially small amount of the dough can be years old". Let's say that each day the baker reuses 15% of yesterday's dough and we want to compute the weight of years-old (1 year) part in a loaf of bread (800g). (15%^365)*800g ~= 1.5e-298. Since this is less than weight of any single elementary particle of an atom, the new loaf of bread doesn't contain any amount of what can be classified as years old dough. Just for fun, the oldest dough will weigh 1 gram in a new loaf only after log(1/800)/log(0.15) ~= 3.5 days of dough reuse.
But of course we know that the "old" dough just brings the established strain of sourdough/yeast of said baker to the new batch, where it will multiply again. Nice math, though.
I would guess the big thing that separates supermarket Italian bread from homemade bread is that frequently, the dough isn't made on the premises; it's usually shipped in frozen and baked at the bakery counter. While I wouldn't recommend freezing the shaped dough, an overnight rest in the fridge (like you'd do for NY-style bagels or artisanal baguettes) will probably get you a lot closer to what you're looking for.
One thing you might want to look at is the recipe for Cuban bread from La Segunda bakery in Tampa. (Note that the amount of yeast in the recipe seems way too high for dry yeast.) One interesting aspect about Cuban bread that it seems to have in common with supermarket bread is that the crust and texture are fairly smooth. With Cuban bread, that means a long, mechanized kneading cycle; I've even heard of people using pasta machines for the kneading process. (Seems like overkill to me...) I'd also stick with bread flour, as industrial bakers seem to prefer high protein content. The Italian 00 flour makes excellent bread, but I don't think it's what you want.
The last part is the giant rack ovens they use in supermarkets. For that, I have no substitute to offer. You could buy your own convection oven, although you might have to dig around to find one that's actually worth buying.
if the bread you are talking about is crispy, extra virgin olive oil could be the clue ;)
He explicitly stated that his issue is with the flavor and taste so I don't think this is correct.
This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post - you can always comment on your own posts, and once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post.
sorry, I am new with this and guess instead of a comment I wrongly posted and answer. hope it won't happen again. thanks for pointing it out.
and by the way, olive oil does make a different in taste when doing bread ;)
There are a few things that haven't been mentioned that may make a difference:
Salt: many commercial breads have loads of salt in them, that difference in flavor may just be more salt. The type of salt can make a difference too, you could try sea salt or kosher salt. Adding more salt isn't that healthy, but it may make the difference. Don't go overboard though, try adding a 25% more to a recipe and see what you think.
Flour: the grains used in the making of flour are different in Europe from the US, that may make a flavor difference
Water: believe it or not, water can make a big difference to the flavor of bread (or other foods). NYC has soft water from the catskills, and it is one of the reasons bread and pizza there is so good. Most municipal water in the US is hard water which I've found to make a definite difference. Try filtering your water with a brita or similar product, or using bottled mountain spring water
Yeast strains: the yeast you get in the store is only one strain, artisan bakers may be using their own strains, or strains you can't get in a store. You can get other yeasts online, or make your own natural yeast starter to get a different flavor
Probably time. Good bread takes at the very least 6 hours between mixing together the ingredients and retrieving the final product from the oven.
Use sourdough starter. It will improve the flavor of your bread. See how to make your own sourdough starter here.
Also make a slow fermentation on the refrigerator. The slower the better is the flavor.
Accidentally made what I would call Italian bread, attempting a variation on a familiar recipe. This was my 37th loaf in two years, mostly various NO-KNEAD breads (using Steve Gamelin's no-knead books and video-- I cannot knead, and have no mixers.) My favorite bread is a Rustic loaf (made 17 times), the origin for which is lost in antiquity--the recipe calls for regular active dry yeast and is ready in 3 1/2 hours--I mean from mixing the dough to baked to cooled and on the table. I wondered what would happen if I were to use rapid/instant/quick granulated yeast instead,with an all-night rise (18 to 24 hours--I waited only 18.) Only the yeast was changed, but again, I couldn't knead it, so the next day I floured the dough by rolling it around in the bowl and dumped it right into an oiled Lodge cast iron skillet for the second-day rise of 2 hours (I don't enjoy baking with the "hot pot" method). Upped the oven temp from 425 to 450, wish I hadn't--the lower temp might have given more "oven spring." But as it was, it turned out to be a beautiful loaf, crispy crust, lovely grain, and with a scent just like you get when opening a bag of bakery Italian bread--at least to me. The recipe I used: 2 c cool water in big bowl, stirred in 1 1/2 tsps. non-iodized salt (I think 2 tsps. would have been better) and 1/2 tsp of the instant granulated yeast, and last, 4 c bread flour. Covered with wet-and-wrung-out double-layer flour sack and plastic, to keep crust from forming (and sprayed the sack lightly with water next morning too). I was having a lot of trouble with crust forming--hence the flour sack trick has solved that problem. Hope somebody finds this of interest. Nothing like baking bread to soothe the soul... Carol
P.S. Baked for 40 minutes uncovered. Cooled completely before slicing.
P.S. Baked for 40 minutes, and yes, that improvised loaf tastes like Italian bread too. Next experiment: Add 1 T. good olive oil to same recipe, using overnight method of course.
You can add a bit of rye flour for a more "rustic" Italian Bread taste. I think that's probably the missing ingredient.
i use barley malt and malted milk powder and the smallest amount of tumeric for color
also use SAF-instant yeast its the best stuff ever
Use a starter! It adds flavor. You can let it sit out overnight, and for better flavor, make a starter and keep it in the fridge for whenever you need it. Just remember to subtract the starter ingredients from your total ingredients.
For crust, use steam for the first half of your baking time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.748472
| 2013-03-13T01:41:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32634",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"Bas Swinckels",
"Carmen",
"Carol",
"E.T.",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Ivan",
"Jay",
"Jimmy Hurford",
"Michael",
"Optionparty",
"Peasantmama",
"Preston",
"Rob",
"Rochelle Fitzpatrick",
"Roland Murray",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Stephie",
"Steve Van de Voorde",
"Sue",
"Troy Joshua",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"jay",
"mrestko",
"phillyfelipe"
],
"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
}
|
116358
|
Why is 160F the recommended internal temperature for seitan?
Bread recipes cite 190F-200F as internal temperatures, presumably for the gluten but what about Seitan?
Recipes are all over the place on methods and cooking times and I can find few internal temperature guidelines and no reference as to why that temp.
from https://thelowfodmapvegan.wordpress.com/2017/02/11/low-fodmap-seitan/
For a roast: Preheat the oven to 350 degrees. Shape the seitan into an 8-inch log and wrap in aluminum foil. Bake for 1 hour and 15 minutes, or until the internal temperature is 160f.
I will be attempting a mortadella style, simmering in a bag bound with twine. Tearing off a piece to test texture/doneness, not ideal.
Authentic mortadella is cooked to 158f. Shall I go with that?
You cannot derive the internal temperature from bread (that comes from the starch) or from authentic mortadella (that comes from the animal protein). It will have its unique temperature.
Yes, that's why I asked. If I don't find a food-science answer within a week, I shall make 2 shorter mortadella-style; one at 158f and other 160 to test. Needs to rest overnight so no quick at the pot answer though I suppose could re-simmer if higher temp is better...
"information on heat-induced changes in gluten is scarce and the mechanisms that ultimately result in the functionality of the final product are not completely understood." From HEAT-INDUCED GLUTEN POLYMERISATION AND ITS IMPORTANCE IN BREAD MAKING
BERT LAGRAIN
November 2007. So, I won't hold my breath.
I also am not sure that the 190-200 degrees for bread recipes is "primarily for gluten"
160F/71C are the general food safety internal cooking temperatures given for most foods. The rationale is achieving an instant 7-log reduction in pathogens - 1 surviving bacteria per 10,000,000 viable bacteria per mass unit of food for the most heat-resistant organism, typically Listeria monocytogenes.
The concern in seitan products is more for ready-made refrigerated commercial varieties, as these may carry pathogens from handling prior to packaging and the seitan itself has a nutrient profile hospitable to their growth.
The difference in time to achieve lethality at 158F vs 160F is negligible without even considering dwell time, and is fine for safety.
Regarding texture - two article abstracts on temperature effects on gluten structure:
[...]Chromatographic examination showed that free sulphydryl groups were
found predominantly in glutenin aggregates of lowest molecular weight
and in gliadins; sulphydryl groups in these glutenin species were
particularly involved in the changes occurring at 55–75°C. These data
indicate that there are heat-induced alterations in gluten proteins at
temperatures above 55°C, which appear to be involved in the loss of
functionality (baking performance) on heating. It is postulated that
the glutenin proteins are unfolded on heating up to 75°C and that this
facilitates sulphydryl/disulphide interchange between exposed groups.
The protein is then ‘locked’ into the denatured state on cooling due
to this disulphide bond rearrangement. At temperatures above 75°C the
gliadin proteins are also affected, involving similar mechanisms.[...]
J.D.Schofield, R.C.Bottomley, M.F.Timms, M.R.Booth, The effect of heat
on wheat gluten and the involvement of sulphydryl-disulphide
interchange reactions, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0733-5210(83)80012-5
[...]Oscillatory measurements of optimally hydrated vital gluten describing
network properties of the material show two structural changes along a
temperature ramp from 25 to 90 °C: at 56–64 °C, the temperature
necessary to trigger structural changes increases with the ratio of
gliadin to total protein mass, determined by reversed-phase high
performance liquid chromatography (RP-HPLC). At a temperature of 79–81
°C, complete protein denaturation occurs.[...]
Monika C.Wehrlia, Tim Kratky, Marina Schopf, Katharina A. Scherf, Thomas Becker, Mario Jekle, Thermally induced gluten modification
observed with rheology and spectroscopies,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.01.008
The recipe you provided gave 160F for an internal temperature when baking, which also falls in the ranges stated above. The 190-200F+ temperature for breads is for the rapid dehydration of starches via escaping steam, otherwise the crumb would remain damp and doughy.
The gluten structure in the linked recipe also appeared to have already been well-developed prior to heating. Gluten structure can be formed at room temperature as seen there and in high-hydration no-knead bread recipes.
My experience with canned seitan and fried seitan, both commercially produced, is that it can easily withstand boiling temperatures and higher with little to no effect on texture. The starch component in the chickpeas, however, may go past gelling point and weep moisture when chilled if over hydrated and boiled.
The recipe calls for an internal temperature of 160F when baked. I would use the same internal temperature if you are going to simmer. There is no reason to change it. The best thing to do is use a probe thermometer or thermocouple to check the temperature at the center of the cylinder. You could remove the bag from the bath, check the temp, and return it to the bag and bath if more time is needed...all without too much difficulty.
Not using that recipe at all. Just cited as one one few examples of internal temp. Looking for an answer as why that temp -or any temp- for seitan.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.749438
| 2021-07-09T03:43:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116358",
"authors": [
"Esther",
"Pat Sommer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19232
|
Used warm setting by accident
I put some uncooked stew meat and veggies on this morning and left for 5 hours. When I came home I realized it was only set on warm. Is my meat safe to eat? I have now put it on the stove to cook.
Where did you "put ... on" this meat? What does "warm" mean?
@Marti: I'm sure she's referring to a crock pot - that's the only cooking appliance people will generally leave on for an entire day and leave the house, and has an explicit "warm" setting. If I'm wrong, then the OP can retag.
@Aaronut: While my new crock pot will get food over 140F/60C at its "low" setting (vs "high"), my friend's crock pot does not have the oomph to get past lukewarm. Without a thermometer, you simply can't tell.
This is not a duplicate of the linked question! Another case of an overzealous librarian.
jdev is right about the USDA's cooking temps, but I would be very surprised if a warmer setting got your food above 140 degrees F (60 C). When food is under that temperature, bacteria reproduce almost geometrically. Later cooking will reduce your risk but not eliminate it. In your case, if you didn't spend quality time in your bathroom last night, you dodged a bullet.
Most of the bugs that make us sick don't grow well below 40 degrees F and are killed when heated above 140 degrees F. In particular, E coli, Salmonella (various types), Vibrio (various types), and Listeria monocytogenes, which are the most common of the bacteria that give us food poisoning, are all killed by heat. We tend to get sick from them mainly because we ate raw/undercooked food or the bugs got into the food after the cooking is done.
There are a few nasties, however, that can leave behind heat-stable toxins even after they have been killed -- most notably, Staphylococcus aureus. Staph a is a very common bacteria, the source of many illnesses. If your food was contaminated with Staph a before you cooked it, and they had time to multiply, then even though the bugs themselves would have been killed by the cooking, their toxins would still be in the food -- and you would have gotten to know your toilet very, very well (symptoms at both ends of the GI tract begin within about 1-6 hours after eating and are severe, but they resolve in 48 hours).
As a general rule, don't eat or use meat, dairy products, or cut fruits/vegetables that have been in the "danger zone" (40-140F) for over 4 hours, even if you planned to cook it later. (Obviously, there are a lot of exceptions to this rule, but that's another long post.)
It all depends on the temperature of your warmer.
The USDA recommends the following minimum internal temperatures:
Cook all raw beef, pork, lamb and veal steaks, chops, and roasts to a
minimum internal temperature of 145 °F as measured with a food
thermometer before removing meat from the heat source. For safety and
quality, allow meat to rest for at least three minutes before carving
or consuming. For reasons of personal preference, consumers may
choose to cook meat to higher temperatures.
Cook all raw ground beef, pork, lamb, and veal to an internal
temperature of 160 °F as measured with a food thermometer.
Cook all poultry to a safe minimum internal temperature of 165 °F as
measured with a food thermometer.
You should be able to verify all is well with a cooking thermometer.
And holding temperature is 140 degrees F. If it was warming at a temperature less than that, it may not be safe.
Even if you raise the internal temperature to a sufficient temperature after the fact, that may not mean it is safe to eat if the meat sat too long at too low a temperature beforehand. The reason is: Heating to above 140°F will get rid of most of the harmful bacteria, however, the problem is that during the time that it sat below 140°F those bacteria could have produced deadly toxins that do not degrade until much, much higher temperatures.
It's even worse than what @ESultanik says because dangerous bacteria grow much faster at body temperature (37° C / 100° F) than at room temperature (20-25° C). If the "warm" temperature is something like 100-120° F then you've basically created a giant incubator.
plus heat doesn't break down toxins. Once they are in there, they are there forever... well at least till you put em in your body and get sick.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.749863
| 2011-11-29T23:28:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19232",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Bruce Goldstein",
"Daisybuttercup",
"ESultanik",
"Jason Kleban",
"Marti",
"Ruban Savvy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8158",
"mj12albert",
"sarge_smith",
"thursdaysgeek"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19444
|
How should I adjust oven temperature/time to have two dishes ready at the same time?
I want to cook two vegetable dishes at one time for a dinner party.
The first, a vegetable loaf, has to be cooked at 325° F for 1 hour
The other, a casserole, requires 350° F for 30 min.
How can I adjust temperatures or time to have these two ready at one time?
Does the casserole possibly need to be cooled for longer before being served, too?
25ºF isn't such a big difference, so I'd just split the temperature in the middle: 335-340F.
Instead of 60', aim at 50' and check for doneness by sticking a pin in the loaf. If it comes out clean, it's done.
I'd leave the casserole at 30' and then check. If it's done, it's done. If not, you can keep the oven going some time more.
Place the Vegetable Loaf into the oven set to 325 F
After 20 minutes increase the heat up to 340 F
After 7 minutes place also the Casserole into the oven, and
After 31 minutes both of them will be ready
So mathematically both of them will be ready in 58 minutes BUT practically it is wiser to follow the recommendation of BaffledCook. :)))
Is there a formula you followed for that?
Place the vegetable loaf in 325° oven for 20 minutes. Then add the casserole beside your vegetable loaf in the 325° oven for 20 minutes. Then raise the oven temperature to 340° for another 20 minutes. You might want to check both dishes 5 to 10 minutes after raising the oven temperature to see if either one or both are done. If only one is finished cooking, remove it from oven and place it on top of stove to keep hot while your other dish finishes cooking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.750227
| 2011-12-06T13:31:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19444",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"E. Harrington",
"James",
"Kieron",
"Konstantin Zaytsev",
"Rian",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42347",
"jedierikb"
],
"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
}
|
19897
|
Do I need to sift flour for quick breads?
I am making mini quick breads for Christmas. The recipe calls for 3 cups of flour.
Do I need to sift the flour? If so, should I sift it before or after measuring?
quick breads are typically dense and do not require sifting, they also do not require kneeding. They are supposed to be quick and easy :)
If the recipe calls for "3 cups of flour, sifted" then you would measure 3 cups of flour, and sift that. I have never seen a recipe call for "3 cups of sifted flour" but if it did you would have to sift, and then measure. Hope this helps.
Sifting flour is to introduce air into a cake mixture.
Any air you introduce in this manner to bread, is going to get knocked out when you knead anyway. Bread gets its lightness from rising with yeast (or soda). So, there's not need to sift flour when making bread.
Reliable bread recipes give flour quantities by weight, precisely because the amount of flour in a cup can vary hugely depending on how compacted it is.
If your recipe gives a weight alternative, use it.
If not, just pour or scoop and hope for the best - make a note of the weight you end up with, then you can fine-tune if you make the recipe again.
Or find a better recipe!
Well, you don't knead quickbreads.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.750400
| 2011-12-22T15:50:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19897",
"authors": [
"Jay",
"Nhân Lê",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43419",
"quepas"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32016
|
How do I make a Turkish Delight Syrup
I made turkish delight ice cream but the bits of commercial sugar coated turkish delight I folded through were rock hard when frozen and a possible problem for unsuspecting guests. So, I was wanting a solution and thought maybe making a thick sauce or a much softer turkish delight may be the answer and folding that through after churning. Any advice on how to fix this please.
I would make a stock syrup including some liquid glucose to discourage crystallisation, then flavour it with rose water and give it some colour with red/pink gel food colouring. You should then be able to fold it through to make a Turkish Delight Ripple ice cream.
I generally don't approve of the "modernist cuisine" methods, but I wonder if in this specific case, some agar agar or xantham gum might be indicated, to help prevent the syrup from freezing to a rock hard texture, as it won't be churned and thus aerated if used as a ripple. Perhaps some of the experts on that topic could could add their thoughts....
A good idea. I'm unaware of the properties of those substances when frozen.
@SAJ14SAJ an actual syrup (with high enough sugar content) does not freeze. No need for additives.
Not quite true; it will just freeze into ice crystals and more sugary syrup. The ice cream base itself has as its main phase a sugar/water solution, and it freezes. Either part of the ice cream will freeze until it is in equilibrium between ice crystals and concentrated syrup where it is thermodynamically unfavorable to separate out any more ice. However, unlike the base ice cream, the syrup phase does not get churned or mechanically agitated to facilitate growth of many small crystals, so it will have larger ice crystals, leading to a crunchy or gritty texture.
Who asked you, man? ;)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.750530
| 2013-02-18T04:53:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32016",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jessica Warner",
"Kerri-Ann Price",
"Linda Jane Rosas",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Stacey Lewis",
"dectra dectra",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73654",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32601
|
How to get puff pastry to cook right through
I often use bought puff pastry to make a topping for a chicken pie. However, I tend to find that the pastry is fully cooked on the top but the underside of the pastry remains almost raw. How can I avoid this?
When you were placing the puff pastry over the stew filling, was the filling cold or hot?
Would a convection oven help?
Hello and welcome to Seasoned Advice, user17214! You may find our [tour], [meta], and [help] useful. Please check them out if you have time. Have fun and good cooking!
A few points to consider...
Try docking the pastry.
Docking means to pierce lightly with a fork, or a docker (looks like a spiked paint roller), to make small holes in dough that will let steam escape during baking. This helps the dough to remain flat and even.
ref: http://powerhungry.com/2009/02/puff-pastry-docking/
In general, to cook food more evenly, one should cook longer at a lower temperature. The problem is that the dough on the bottom of your crust is not reaching a high enough temperature by the time the top of your crust is done cooking.
Puff Pastry is notoriously finicky. Be sure to handle the dough according to puff pastry best practices to ensure the layers do not collapse and stick together.
Pepperidge Farm has a tutorial website (http://www.puffpastry.com/videos-and-tips#howto-demos) to help people with puff pastry issues, but it doesn't appear to cover much detail.
You must be very gentle when rolling out the pastry because it is
multiple layers of dough with fat between each.
Do not mangle the dough, cut clean lines and try not to apply pressure except where the knife is cutting
Do not let the dough get warm before you are ready to cook. The fat melts and the layers will stick and not puff properly.
I am going to try baking the pie crust on it's own on a baking tray. It's what most restaurants seem to do. Wish me luck.
Hi Mary, and welcome to Seasoned Advice! — Perhaps you mean to post this as a comment, instead of as an answer to the OP's original question. — Good Luck with your baking!
I think this is actually an independent answer - it was the first to suggest baking the pastry/crust separately yet, so it's not purely a reply. (This is from before Joe's answer.)
So long as the filling is moist (and that's most of the point of a pot pie), the filling is going to steam the underside of the pastry, resulting in the dough cooking more slowly.
Starting with a hot filling will help, as will cutting vents to allow the steam to escape, but you also need to try to ensure that the pastry doesn't actually touch the filling. (as you then also have to deal with the filling being a thermal sink).
Smaller ramekins, not filled to the top, with the pastry stretched over the rim should sag less, and hopefully set up some before it sags down to touch the filling.
Or you can cheat, and cut disks that are a little smaller than the size of the vessel the pot pie is to be served in, bake them on a sheet tray, and then drop them on top just before serving. (You might also be able to bake them part way, and then drop them in to finish baking, so it's not quite so obvious what you did)
I assume you are add pastry to the top of an oven proof dish filled with your chicken pie!
Simple:
Have your rolled pastry ready in the fridge.
If you're using the pre-rolled pastry - about 3mm thick - leave it as is.
If you're buying a block roll it out to 3mm thick - see tips.
Make sure your pie filling is hot.
Pour the filling directly from your sauce pan into the oven proof dish.
Lay your pastry over the top, trim it if you want.
Brush the top of the pie with egg wash (30% milk 70% egg beaten)
Put it into the oven - which should be preheated - and bake @ 200C/390F for 20-25mins
If you oven is fan assisted set it to 180C/350F.
You should not have a fabulous chicken pie! Assuming you've made a cracking filling of course!
Tips:
When you're working with puff pastry keep it as cool as possible (which is why pastry work is normally done on a marble surface)
Handle it as little as possible. (keeps it cooler)
When you're done rolling it put it into the fridge until you need it.
If it gets warm the fat will seep between layers and the pastry wont puff!
Did I mention you should keep it cold! ;)
If you have a read of this it'll give you an idea of how puff pastry is made! I wrote it a long time ago but nothing's changed since then!! ;)
The only time I have had thoroughly cooked puff pastry was in France from an artisan bakery. To get a proper puff out of the pastry for a pie is to cook the filling seperately and the pastry separately and pastry cut slightly wider than the pie, not only that but to turn the cooked top of the pastry over to the under side and continue cooking it and it will really raise itself high, the layers will separate and show and it will be thoroughly cooked and then to placed on the pie.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.750713
| 2013-03-11T18:33:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32601",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cynthia",
"Dancrumb",
"Daniel",
"ElmerCat",
"FoxElemental",
"Hilltopteacher",
"James m Gilbert Michael",
"JasonTrue",
"Jody Schaz",
"Kiwi Soup",
"Victor Brink",
"buthaina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75288",
"jilkat25",
"tr05t",
"user75273"
],
"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
}
|
32692
|
How do you make Paillets Feuilletine?
Paillets Feuilletine, dried caramelised crepes. I have looked and cannot find any method for the making of this product. As it is in many of my books and recipes but not readily available in australia, im looking for some information on the making of it.
If they do lose some crispness you can bake them again to dry them out right before you use them, for maybe 5 mins at 150c. And in the case of vac packing, make sure you stop the machine before the cycle ends so as to leave some air inside of the bag, this way they wont compress and be completely destroyed. Alternatively you can find silica beads and put them inside of the container (in their own little bag, so as not to contaminate the feuilletine.) As well.
After considerable searching, I found this tidbit buried in an an old Callebaut product catalog: Pailleté feuilletine is broken up pieces of crepes dentelles.
This video from Bryan Talbot shows how to prepare crepes dentelles in considerable detail. He indicates that he had to reverse engineer the recipe because none were available. His ingredients are:
1/4 lb Butter
1/2 Cup Sugar
1/2 All Purpose Flour
1 Egg White
Pinch Of Salt
Mix the ingredients, spread very thinly on a parchment or silicone mat lined baking sheet, and bake at 400 F until golden brown, about 5 minutes. If you are going to roll or mold them, do so when they are still very hot.
You could then crush it for pailleté feuilletine. If you are going to do crush them, there probably is little point in rolling or molding them.
Voici une autre vidéo, mais elle est en français. It does not show the ingredients in the batter, but the outcome is very similar, which lends credence to the Talbot video.
Here is another video from Jennifer Field showing her process of reverse engineering the crepres dentelles (one of her commentors points out this means "lacey crepes"). The video is long and shows the development process. The final recipe and technique is somewhat different, as she paints the batter onto a hot griddle with a pastry brush, and gets a much more delicate product. Her blog entry has her recipe.
Update: Another recipe, from Brave Tart, where the author simply calls it feuilletine, rather than crepes dentelles.
love it, thanks. When it says "caramelized" crepe, do you think they are referring to caramel, or just really browned?
In this case, with a high sugar batter, those two things are overlapping. Some of the browning will be due to the maillard reaction of the starches and proteins, but a lot will be true caramalization of the sugars in the dough. So: both.
What about storage? If i make a larger batch will it keep? Even vac packing, they will stale.
My best guess based on the recipes is that their biggest enemy would be humidity: they would be very hydrophyilic and get soft or even soggy if not stored in an airtight container. The second biggest factor would be rancidity of the butter. They should keep quite well (weeks easily) if kept air tight. They should probably freeze up to a year. I would store them in small batches, in zip lock bags or jars, so that you are not opening them a lot. Vacuum packing in a bag may crush them further, although that may not be undesirable.
Uh... what would be the unit for flour? (Admittedly, I’m too lazy to follow the links to find out.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.751400
| 2013-03-15T03:17:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32692",
"authors": [
"Andrea Boyan",
"Denise Jones",
"Heather",
"Rubygarnet",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Stephie",
"Teun Zijp",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78626",
"mbjb",
"mtj",
"sous2817",
"user17275"
],
"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
}
|
32745
|
Do raisins have a maximum shelf life?
I have a box of raisins in my cabinet that have been there for many years. Should I discard them or can they still be salvaged for use in baking or cooking?
According to this Sun Maid specification sheet, the shelf life is up to one year, and they contain about 15% water.
This is probably not sufficiently dehydrated for truly long term storage, and mold would be a risk. Also, if they did dry further in storage they would be rock hard, and probably quite nasty.
Some raisins have also been coated with vegetable oil (usually sunflower oil) which can go rancid quicker than raisins will dry out.
Almost all dates on packages are 'best by', but they have no idea what conditions you're storing it at. Also, it's when you can tell a difference, but the question asked if they could still be used for other purposes.
I just found a pack of Sun-maid that were dated 05 04 00.
Opened them up & tried a couple , not too bad . And not hard at all.
I don't know if I've ever let them go quite that far ... but I've had ones that were in the 2-3 year range. If they're in a well-sealed container (mine had been transfered to a pastic container), and didn't get extra humidity in there, dried fruit can last a very long time.
Wow. You ate 16 year old raisins for Seasoned Advice? I'm not surprised at your immediate positive response. But a day or two forward.. did you get the sh--s?
They usually spray the raisins with Sulphites to preserve them. The ones with sulphites look a little shiny whereas the ones without look a little chalky (but taste better to me).
If your cabinet is not very humid, chances are they have not gone bad. Otherwise you might see 'signs of life'.
However, the good shelf life of raisins is about a year. They are likely to carry an off taste and mess with your cooking/baking flavours.
Maybe after we have inspected the raisins, and they still look good, (have no mold whatsoever, using a magnifying glass), we can use them in baking of cookies, cakes, etc. In fact, just to make sure, we can probably boil them first (to soften them), and then add the drained raisins to our cookie, cake, etc. batter. Just a thought. I have a package of boxed raisins that I've had for a couple of years. (Now that I've thought about and posted this, I'm going to inspect them and boil them first before adding to my pancake batter.)
In the refridgerator they last for years. A lot longer than you might think.
How many years? Do you have any references?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.751811
| 2013-03-16T16:51:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32745",
"authors": [
"Cerulean",
"Flash_Steel",
"Inigo",
"Joe",
"JohnnyO",
"OkBeat9",
"Paulb",
"Scott",
"William George",
"citizen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75734",
"lemontwist",
"sowjanya"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32934
|
Can I set a creme brulee with agar agar?
I am trying to make a new dish, I really want to make a creme brulee but I don't want to be shackled to the idea of using a ramekin. Is there any way I can set it with agar in a rubber mold and be able to remove it for placing?
Removing a custard (which is what creme brulee) is from its form or mold does not definitely require agar agar. Flan, which is famous from a number of cuisines, is an unmolded custard.
While experimentation would be required, it is highly likely that if you use a silicone based flexible form, and make a fairly stiff custard, you will be able to gently and carefully unmold it. You may wish to lightly grease the form before baking the custard to help facilitate release. This Chest of Books article recommends two eggs per cup if milk for a custard that requires unmolding.
Many molded custard recipes exist, although a good number of them have gelatin as an additional stabilizing ingredient. You may wish to google "molded custard recipe" or "Charlotte recipe" for inspiration (Charlottes tend to have a lady finger garnish around the edges).
If you are interested in using agar agar or other modernist hydro-colloids in your recipe development, you may wish to read the excellent primer at Cooking Issues.
Note that they characterize the texture of agar agar gels as somewhat brittle, which may not be ideal for your application.
See also Can I substitute agar agar for gelatin in pudding which is a very similar application. Michael at Herbivoracious indicates that agar agar may not be suitable due to the texture. There are some alternate ideas there that may help you get started.
SAJ14SAJ has a great answer. Creme Brulee is very similar to Creme Caramel which is a molded custard.
You could try Brulee-ing the unmolded creme caramel, either the top or making a complete shell. Agar shouldn't be necessary. Sprinkle the outside with super fine sugar (not icing sugar) and use a plumber's torch. It could turn out to be an awesome creation!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.752061
| 2013-03-23T08:50:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32934",
"authors": [
"Elaine",
"Ivan Koshelev",
"Jackie",
"Jonathan Ariel",
"asdfas",
"girya411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76188",
"onestitchatatime",
"user87360"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45815
|
What is the easiest way to remove chicken leg/drumstick tendons?
I would like to make chicken drumsticks / legs (with skin on) easier to eat by removing the tendons and the fibula bone. Cook's Illustrated mentions this technique:
Holding a paring knife just above the ankle and perpendicular to the bone, slice around the circumference all the way to the bone. This will expose the ends of about six thin white tendons.
Using a clean pair of pliers, grip the end of each tendon and pull firmly to remove it. Repeat until there are no more visible tendons.
However when I use pliers and try to grip the tendon, they just slip. Is there something I am doing wrong?
I tried cutting the bottom tendon attachment and pushing the meat up and down and it is still very difficult/messy.
Is that the whole technique? It seems something is missing.
What type of pliers? Some are smooth-faced (bad for this), while others have ridges or bumps to improve grip.
@GdD That is the entire description aside from a short introduction.
@Joe The types of pliers are not mentioned and I only tried with one I had from a swiss army knife.
I often cook drumsticks a long time to let the collagen "melt away"
Do you have access to Robogrips? Those things are magical.
Based on your comments, the likely issue is with the pliers you're using. I doubt that the relatively small set included in a multi-function knife is going to have enough grip to hang on to a slippery tendon.
I'd try a pair of (very, very clean) needle-nose pliers, like so:
They're readily available and inexpensive, so it's probably worth getting a dedicated set for the kitchen; these are also good for other fine, messy tasks like removing fish bones. You should be able to get a much more secure grip on the tendons this way. If they still won't pull out easily, try wriggling them back and forth a little perpendicular to the long axis of the bone.
If you're going to go out and buy a set, I'd actually recommend medical forceps -- they're stainless steel, so you can clean them without worry, and the loops on the handles give you better grip if your primary hand gets slimy. (although my friends saw mine and assumed it was drug paraphanalia)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.752252
| 2014-07-23T01:35:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45815",
"authors": [
"Daemon",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Preston",
"Ray",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41687
|
How to make mozzarella with rennet?
I used to make soft cheese by vinegar, which quickly results in the formation of curd. I tried to make hard cheese (mozzarella) by rennet (commercial tablet) by the process took more than 30min and the result was something like yogurt.
I simply followed the manual (mixing the tablet solved in warm water with the milk at temperature 35 - 40 C). Was something wrong with my procedure, milk, or rennet?
Mozzarella is not generally considered a hard cheese.
Mozzarella is a cooked cheese, you have to pull the curd in boiling water or similar (I forgot the details). Are you sure that this rennet was intended for mozzarella?
@SAJ14SAJ you're right, I just want to mention the difference between the so-called penyr and fat cheeses like mozzarella.
@rumtscho the rennet table says generally cheese. As I read, it is not possible to make mozzarella by vinegar, and rennet is needed.
I don't know if it is possible to make mozzarella with generic rennet or a special one is needed. But I can tell you that the procedure for making mozzarella is a very specific one, different from all other cheeses. So, if you are following instructions which didn't say "mozzarella", you won't end up with mozzarella. Cheese making is a large topic, you might want to get some books on it instead of relying on the instructions on the package of a random rennet.
oh, and there is no process which will make hard cheese in 30 minutes. You can get fresh mozzarella quite quickly, maybe in under an hour, but if you want dry mozzarella, you have to age it. (It isn't hard cheese even then, as SAJ suggested, for hard cheeses you need months under controlled conditions).
The one time I made mozzarella, I used this recipe. As I understand it, the key is (a) citric acid, and (b) kneading (that's what gives it the stringy texture). It turned out pretty well, but it didn't keep long at all.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.752472
| 2014-02-02T14:39:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41687",
"authors": [
"DVK",
"Evan Zamir",
"Googlebot",
"Joseph Hirsch",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SERVPRO of Spam City",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98070",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34561
|
How to safely handle raw milk?
I have a couple of questions how to use fresh milk (not pasteurized) coming directly from cow in village (in traditional way, of course).
How long it should be boiled before usage?
Is it better to immediately boil it and store in fridge or store it in fridge and boil before usage?
How long it is can be safely stored in fridge?
hi, welcome to Seasoned advice. I edited your title because it could have been misunderstood in the direction of recipes with milk.
@rumtscho very meaningful edit. Thanks for your attention.
Why do you think you need to boil it? What are you trying to achieve?
@TFD I think boiling can kill some harmful bacteria, similar to the pasteurization process, and reduce the risk of Malta fever. Of course, I am not expert, and I do this based on common beliefs. Maybe they are just myth out of tradition.
Take a look at this answer I posted in the past. Although it details how to pasteurize milk in the microwave, it should still apply in terms of temperature and length of heating time. http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/24954/8305
Handling raw milk is risky, and please note this information is not professional advice and is not to be taken as an authoritative response. I will, however, attempt to provide some thoughts on handling raw milk below.
Selling unpasteurized milk is illegal in some countries, and official sources usually discourage the consumption of raw milk instead of offering handling instructions (for good reason).
The FDA has this article on dangers of raw milk.
There are other real dangers such as Brucellosis or Maltese's Fever with which I bouted as an 8-year old. Think of 107F fever.
Also, keep in mind when you boil the raw milk you are going through a similar process as pasteurization in regards to the theory on breaking down the complex proteins and milk protein allergy. Probably even more than pasteurization since that occurs at lower temperatures. Those theories, however, aren't proven (yet) as far as I know, but you do burn some of the sugars in milk if you go above 70C.
The actual answers:
2: It is better to boil first for sure. Don't store raw milk for lengths of time.
3: Theoretically, if you do everything right and vacuum pack the milk, it might last a couple of weeks, but the longer it stays, the more dangerous it can get. Freezing might be a better option (we keep our pasteurized milk a couple of months in the freezer).
1: I can't tell you how long to boil it for, though the last time I had fresh milk, it was kept simmering on the burner for about 5 minutes by the folks at the farm. It was also minutes after it was collected (fresher is better).
one of the safest things you can do if you're going to have raw milk, is to know the source and get it from a farm that takes care of the conditions. If you know the farm, the farmer, and the cows conditions are safe, you're more likely to be able to enjoy raw milk in peace.
As nobody seems to have a good source to official information beyond Mando's FDA link, I will tell you of my experience.
In Balkan villages where cows are held in traditional ways and not inspected by veterinarians, the accepted wisdom is that the milk has to be boiled on the day it is bought, and drunk within the next 2 or 3 days. The boiling itself is short, as boiling milk forms a large foamy head climbing up the pot. As soon as the head is formed and starts going up, the milk is taken from the fire. The milk is held outside until cooled to room temperature, then returned to the fridge (note that with newer fridges, this may not be necessary, there is a question about that somewhere on the site). The housewife also inspects the milk for signs of curdling or acidic smell before using it. If milk is just startling to turn sour, but not yet there, she may re-use it in a product where it gets heated again, for example the local equivalent of pancakes. I should also mention that in these villages, the people know each other, and they do not buy milk from farmers they suspect of having low hygiene standards.
The above practice would not be considered safe by the safety standards of the FDA, but then, the FDA is opposed to the consumption of raw milk in general. It is certainly more dangerous than buying supermarket milk, the danger of the terrible diseases like listeriosis being low but present, and it may give you an upset stomach once every few hundred glasses of milk consumed. It is a matter of personal risk preference if you want to try it or not, but among the people who consider such consumption normal, this method seems to limit food poisoning to acceptable levels.
A second, more radical stance is not to boil the milk at all. The flavor is different as opposed to boiled, and some people prefer it. This is more prevalent in Germany and some areas in France, where 1) there is stricter veterinarian control on animals, and 2) the cows are milked with a machine, which reduces the contamination of milk as compared to manual milking. In this case, the milk is refrigerated immediately upon milking, and the consumer keeps it refrigerated all the time. It is typically bought in small amounts and consumed within 36 hours of milking, preferably even less. Again, the people who do this on regular basis are the ones who buy the milk from their neighbours and have personally observed the hygienic conditions in which the cows are held. People are aware that they are handling a somewhat high-risk product, and populations at risk (e.g. pregnant women, toddlers) do not use it.
I don't have any sources about these practices beyond personal observation. Again, they seem to work out for large communities by their own safety standards, but they are unsafe by many official food safety standards around the world, especially US ones. If you want to do it, it is on your own risk.
First you want to make sure that your raw milk comes from grass-fed cows. Satisfying this requirement, and also making sure that the cows do not live abusive lives, in poor conditions, such as in minimal amounts of space and so on (as the ones of the dairy industry), there will be nothing to worry about it. There is some superstition about raw milk but, in fact, according to different specialists, industrial pasteurized milk is more likely to make you ill than raw milk. I used to drink raw milk without boiling at all. This way you keep several healthy proprieties of it. But it goes bad very quickly. The most traditional way is to boil since you have the opportunity thus increasing its life in your fridge.
Here are two links which help demystify raw milk:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/01/14/mark-mcafee-raw-milk-update.aspx
http://chriskresser.com/raw-milk-reality-benefits-of-raw-milk
I have found a credible guide to home pasteurization from the South Dakota State University Cooperative Extension.
They recommend purchasing a home pasteurization machine (link is just an example) as the best method; but, failing that, provide methods for stove top pasteurization.
See the PDF linked above for complete details. For example, using a double boiler, you raise the temperature of the milk to 140 F for 30 minutes, then rapidly cool it and store it in a sanitized container.
I milk one hundred cows every morning and night with my husband. We only consume raw, unboiled milk. As long as the cows are NOT milked by hand there is no need to boil. The use of stainless steel equipment and milk cooling equipment ensures the milk quality and everyone's safety.
Also, I keep our raw milk in a glass pitcher on the bottom shelf of the refrigerator for three days before replacing.
"As long as the cows are NOT milked by hand there is no need to boil." This is simply not true. Pathogens like Listeria are known to survive on milking equipment, and normal sanitation routines do not guarantee safety. That's the reason pasteurization is used around the world; if one could guarantee safety just by cleaning milking equipment better, we'd do that instead. Now, how much of a safety concern depends on various environmental factors (for example, Listeria is often conveyed in contaminated feed), but simply saying "if you don't milk by hand, you'll be safe" isn't accurate.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.752666
| 2013-06-07T17:45:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34561",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Dee",
"Don Steiger",
"Googlebot",
"Jay",
"Linda Taylor",
"MONBRENNER",
"Mehdi Faraji",
"Sonja Corterier",
"TFD",
"Tim Hutchison",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9300",
"luke",
"rumtscho",
"sackofpotatoes",
"ta.speot.is",
"vortek"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122837
|
Wrong ingredient order for dried cranberries?
I am looking at the nutritional label for Mariani Dried Cranberries. If I'm reading the label correctly, the serving size is 40g, 26g of which are added sugar (yep, 2/3 of this product is sugar!).
According to FDA regulations, since sugar is the ingredient of the largest amount, shouldn't it be listed first in the ingredients list?
It may be that the ingredients are listed in order of mass before processing, and then the cranberries reduce in mass subsequently. The dried snack sausage brand Pepperami infamously list something like "104% pork" for similar reasons.
The US labelling regs do seem designed for the companies to just lie through their teeth. Picking a brand & retailer literally at random using google in the UK, the sweetener is listed first - https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/271074203
The ingredients reference the, well, ingredients. They are listed in the order of what goes into the product. So, they start out with more cranberries than sugar.
The nutrition information references the finished product. The now-dried cranberry matter contained in the product may well be less (by weight) than the added sugar. This doesn't contradict the statement that the weight of the fresh cranberries which went in as an ingredient was larger than the weight of the sugar as an ingredient, before starting the processing of the food (in this case, drying). This is a general statement about reading these labels - the ratio of ingredients doesn't have to be the same as the ratio of "components" of the finished product.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.753312
| 2022-12-29T15:02:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122837",
"authors": [
"Tetsujin",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
26126
|
How can I get homemade yoghurt to thicken properly?
Pretty much always when I make yoghurt myself, the homemade version comes out much thinner, much more liquid, than the store-bought yoghurt that is used to produce my yoghurt. How can I make it thicker? Should I increase/decrease the temperature? Add other ingredients (I just heat milk, add yoghurt, stir it, and then put it away in a closed container for 10 hours or so)?
Any general ideas on how to make yoghurt thicker?
Edit
Current Procedure:
I take the milk from the fridge and I start heating this directly.
Right from the start, I also add the yoghurt, straight from the fridge as well.
I'll continuously (slowly) stir the milk
Once it reaches about 40 degrees Centigrade I'll take it off (but perhaps my rustic measure with the temperature is off)
I then put the lid on the pan I used to heat the milk, wrap this in blankets, and put it away overnight.
Next morning, yoghurt is ready - but quite liquid.
How hot do you heat the milk, and at what temperature do you put the yogurt in?
@BaffledCook Added this information
What kind of milk you user? Do you know it's fat content? Using farm milk should lead to thicker yogurt than using UHT milk.
As I see it, your method was bad and your yogurt didn't get to proper thickness. Almost all answers suggest tricks vor getting properly thickened yogurt to be thicker than normal. That's why I changed the title. If you don't agree with the new meaning, you can roll it back in the edit history.
I really hope anyone reading this reads all the way down the answers. The top one(s) aren't actually very good and are actually totally mistaken on some points.
There are many myths surrounding yogurt making:
UHT milk is bad. This is simply not true. I have made yogurt with whole fat UHT milk for years and it comes out nice and thick. In fact for the past several months I have been using a high quality whole milk powder that makes a lovely, thick yogurt.
Store bought yogurt will always be thicker because of additives. Also not true. My yogurt is as thick as a high fat sour cream and contains no added milk powder, gelatine, etc.
You need many hours of 'fermentation' to make yogurt. Again I don't agree. My yogurt sets in 3-4 hours, after which it goes in the fridge to cool and finish the culturing process.
The milk must be exactly x temperature when you add the starter. This is only somewhat true. As long as the milk is at or below 45°C it is fine. If you can stand the temperature, so can the bacteria—ie, if you can hold a finger in it for ~10 sec, it's ok. That said, too low and you're losing some effects of the protein denature explained below.
Everything must be sterilized. This is only somewhat true. Clean everything carefully, of course, but you are adding a starter with billions of cultivated bacteria into an ideal environment for it to grow. It will easily dominate other bacteria that happen to get in—and they will, since there are bacteria in the air all around us, so even post-sterilization there will be plenty of foreign stuff entering the yogurt. That said, an over-long incubation will give other bacteria a chance to express themselves, so best to avoid that.
Don't move, touch, or cause the yogurt to shake in any way during incubation or it will fail. I used to believe this myself but it's really not that sensitive. Obviously less agitation is better, but it will not fail even with fairly substantial movement during the incubation. Drinking yogurt is shaken quite violently during incubation in order to keep it liquid and even then it's still quite viscous.
The keys to making good thick yogurt are:
Protein. The milk becomes solid because of a protein in the milk, and for that to happen, the protein must first be heated to above 70°C. I heat it to 75-80°C for just a few minutes and it still turns out very thick. A milk with high quality protein will make a great yogurt.
Incubation temperature. If you want to make good yogurt in 3-4 hours (beyond which it will not get thicker, only more sour), it must be incubated at a steady 40-45°C. A lower temperature will also produce yogurt, but you are in a race with other bacteria, so the quicker it's done the better. Buy a 75-cent indoor thermometer and start looking for ways to create the right temperature environment.
Time between generations. Try to bake a new batch every 4-5 days. After a week in the fridge the bacteria are starting to suffer and will not be as strong and active when introduced into the next batch. A short generation cycle will let you go on making yogurt with the same culture for dozens of generations.
Sugar quantity. This is my own personal guess based on bread making, etc. A little sugar will boost the bacteria, but too much will slow it down. I use 2 tbsp per litre of milk and it works very well. Tart with a hint of sweet. Up to double this amount should be fine but more could affect it. Like I say I'm guessing here but it seems to make sense.
Two final notes.
The "water" that separates out of the yogurt is whey protein—generally seen as a very healthy thing to eat. A firm yogurt will let you pour it or spoon it off if you don't like it, but there's no reason not to just scoop it out with the rest or stir it back in.
Fat content is important, but the milk protein is what will make or break the yogurt. I have made a very thick yogurt with skim milk powder or skim milk with added skim milk powder. Soy milk, which has quite a bit less fat than whole milk, makes a very solid yogurt. It's all about solids. Of course a >3.x% whole fat milk will produce a tastier yogurt, because milk fat is oh so tasty!
Further reading from an industry source:
http://www.dairyconsultant.co.uk/si-yoghurt.php
Additional tips:
http://www.facebook.com/diyhelpers
Very interesting, thanks. One doubt though: are you heating the milk to 75-80°C? Isn't that contradictory to the 45°C-max rule?
There are two stages. First is heat up the milk to alter the protein. Second is cool down and add the culture at the temperature it likes—40+°C. Should I update my answer to make it clearer? Sorry... :D
No problem, thanks for clarifying; updating the answer would be great to ensure everybody understands this right away.
Actually I just realized I do state quite clearly that the milk must be below a certain temp when you add the starter. :D
OK my bad, I did not capture it correctly. Thanks for checking on this!
Excellent answer. I found somewhat more detailed answer to why heating increases proteins in yogurt here -> https://brodandtaylor.com/the-science-of-great-yogurt/ <- I am still wondering. Can some sort of protein powder be mixed with milk to increase thick yogurt from UHT milk without heating?
Also this site has interesting advice, https://www.luvele.com/blogs/recipe-blog/how-to-thicken-homemade-yogurt
Your method is wrong. Look at this site.
Avoid UHT (Ultra Hight Temperature) pasteurized milk.
Heat the milk without the yogurt. You want the milk to reach about 90ºC for pasteurization.
Keep it at 90ºC for 20 minutes.
Let the milk cool down to around 40ºC before adding the yogurt.
The site has more info.
The reason your method isn't working is that you heat the milk together with the yogurt. Heating will create hot spots where the temperature can become really hot (killing the yogurt ferments). By letting the milk cool down to the desired temperature, there will be no hot spots, and all the yogurt ferments will be happily alive.
Also, note that home-made yogurt will never be as thick as the store-bought. They cheat and add gelatin, pectin, and/or gum.
Even though this is the top answer I highly recommend readers to keep looking down the list here. Some of this is completely untrue. UHT milk makes a fine yogurt, for example, and homemade yogurt can easily be as thick or thicker than the average store bought. Just keep working at it!
You have milk based yougurt. Try this:
INGREDIENTS:
Whole milk, double-cream both in measure 50/50 1L/1L (use non UHT the best you can get)
EDIT: I was wrong, see comments below my answer – they are correct about ingredients fat ratio
your yogurt starter (buy best pure yogurt you can get, one 150-200ml is sufficient)
METHOD:
Bring mixture of milk to boil and leave to cool down to 53-54 degrees celsius
Add your yogurt and mix well (whisk is here great tool)
You can transfer it from the pot into termo-botles or just leave it in room temperature. It's bacteria and will work in lower temperatures, will just take longer (room temperature) Keep it away from drafts and dramatic temperature changes. (Kitchen next to central heating is good, or pre-heat oven over night to 50 or less degrees celsius, just for an hour and switch off and leave your yogurt pot in the oven).
So if you start morning, the next day morning your yogurt should be done. Yo can just use same pot and help them to stay warmer by wrapping it in cloths or blankets.
Than put your yogurt into a sterile glass jars and for at least 2 days leave it to carry on in fermenting slowly in the fridge.
EDIT: The most important point for yogurt to thicken properly is proper time lenhgt and proper temperature.
time 3h
temperature 42-45C
This would favor the bacterium which doesnt produce slimy runny texture but sat and silky.
This makes sour cream, not yogurt.
nope, this makes yogurt my friend
The difference between yogurt and sour cream is in the fat content. Yogurt is normally between 0 and 5%, although I have seen products up to 10% to be called "cream yogurt". Sour cream proper starts at 10% and ends up at about 40%. When you mix whole milk (3.6%) and double cream (35%), you get a light cream around 20%, and when you culture it, you get sour cream, not yogurt.
rumtscho is correct!
Besides fixing the process by not heating the yogurt, i suggest a cheat: add 2 tablespoons of powdered milk for each liter of milk.
The OP has an extremely flawed process. So, poor results.
The milk (and not the starter, hopefully obviously) should be scalded - held at a fairly high temperature (180-185F 83-85C) for a good long time. It does not matter if it's UHT or Raw before you start - you are going go well beyond pasteurizing on the time front with the intention of changing the milk (so it sets better) rather than with the intention of killing things quickly and changing the milk as little as possible. If you pulled a sample of the milk at this point (I don't suggest doing so, as it provides a needless opportunity for contamination) it will taste distinctly cooked - like UHT, but more-so.
A minimum of 30 minutes is good, more does no harm. Jars or PP (#5) plastic containers over simmering water in a closed pot work fine. You can then let the milk cool to 115F 46C or so naturally, or force-cool it if you like that sort of fuss and bother. In covered jars or containers it is not at risk until you open it to add cultures. You should steam a spoon while you are at it, for mixing the culture in. Everything that touches the milk after the scalding process needs to be as clean as possible.
Once sufficiently cool, mix in 1 Tablespoon per quart / 15 ml per liter of starter - more is not better; as I recall, the culture likes to feel that it has some room too work, and excess starter inhibits it to an extent. If too hot, you'll kill the bacteria in the starter, so don't be impatient about cooling.
Then you need to keep it warm for a while. Approaches vary from packing it in insulation to hold itself (works better for a large quantity, or you can supply water in separate containers as additional warm thermal mass) to thermostatically controlled heated chambers. Temperatures can be from 115-95F (46-35C) and the specific temperature profile affects the balance of cultures you get, and thus the flavor and speed-of-setting of the yogurt. I happen to have arrived at 35-37 for 24 hours as suiting my tastes better, commercial production is focused on getting it done quicker to start the next batch and uses higher temperatures. Insulated-box methods obviously use a range of temperatures as the yogurt cools slowly.
Not disturbing the yogurt while the protein mesh is forming is fairly important in getting a good set. Commercial processes often use some sort of thickener such as corn starch or gelatin rather than depending on the yogurt itself to hold shape, but a good set is possible without those products, especially for a home product that does not need to be shipped.
While you certainly can add dry milk powder as an easy way to get extra solids, it's also not needed (and since it costs more than liquid milk where I am, I don't use it.)
I should be able to dredge up some references, eventually, but all my research was some years ago, and I built a process based on that research which is what I have related here.
This is an interesting post, and very exact in its recommendations. Some of them are completely new to me - for example the "heat it for a long time", "do not disturb" or "commercial producers add thickeners". All my grandmothers and greataunts have made great yogurt for years without following this exact process - can you highlight which parts are absolutely necessary and which ones are simply parts of your favorite process but do not have to be strictly followed?
Very simple, wrap it in a few layers of muslin cloth (aka cheese cloth) and hang it suspended over a bowl in the fridge for a day or two.
That's the way to make Greek yogurt - but if the OP follows a correct fermentation procedure, he wouldn't need that at all.
Greek yogurt IS strained, but it also starts with a much higher butterfat percentage (6-10+%) than normal yogurt which lends to its creamy, thicker texture and lovely mouthfeel. Normal yogurt may sometimes need to be strained based on the performance of probiotics present, or the environment. They're living things and don't always perform consistently. The culture could be old or weak. In those cases, straining is the only way to achieve a better texture without using adjuncts. We use fresh bugs about every 10th batch of yogurt, and still always have to strain additional whey off at the end.
Keep it simple:
Good whole milk (sure, other varieties also turn to yoghurt, but it isn't the same)
Milk should be lukewarm when you add the 'starter' (It is not necessary for the milk to be boiled before that)
Keep it warm throughout the setting period. Don't let it cool to less than 25degC. Less than that the yoghurt formed is usually thin and runny. (Fired) Clay pots work best - one can almost cut the yogurt like custard. Ceramic is next best, especially if uncoated / unglazed. Metal vessels usually take away heat too fast, and the result is runny stuff!
Raw milk: must reach 85 ° (185 F) to change the protein.
Store pasteurized milk: must be warmed to about 60 ° (140 F)
Cool down: To 40-45 ° (105-110 F)
Culture: More means more sour yoghurt.
Per liter (1.056 quart US, 0.833 UK)
Mild/Sweet: One metric tablespoon (1.014 US, 0.845 UK)
Really sour: For Lasi (Dooq), dips (thickened) 4.25 tbsp (4.25 US, 3.5 UK)
Anywhere in between shall work.
Container: glass, ceramic, glazed pot, plastic, clay JUST NOT THE CONTAINER THAT THE MILK WAS HEATED IN.
No bare metal.
Note: Transferring milk at the proper temp to a glass bowl shall cool it more than a plastic one. In large quantities not significant but in small quantities makes a difference.
Wrap a towel or small blanket around the container.
Setting temperature for environment: 40-45 ° (105-110 F)
Lower range temp: loose or running
High range temp: firm or set
Time: Longer means more sour
3.5-4.5 hours
Refrigeration: 3+ hours to set finally.
If you want thick yogurt, get the right yogurt pot. The secret is in the container. All the yogurt making cultures only make yogurt in a 100% natural clay pot. not glazed ceramic ones. The water in the yogurt gets slowly evaporated through the micro pores in the pot and voila you get the thickest and silkiest yogurt that you can ever get... without the use of any artificial thickeners...
This cannot be "the secret", all my childhood long I have had thick homemade yogurt (thick enough to stick a spoon in it so it doesn't fall) from lots of different containers, mostly glass, never clay or something other porous.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.753519
| 2012-09-12T10:03:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26126",
"authors": [
"9Rune5",
"BaffledCook",
"Coral Doe",
"DvdG",
"Edward Warren",
"Irma Harris",
"Ivakin",
"Jeremy Stein",
"Lee K-B",
"Marilyn Current",
"Matthew",
"Ontime Constructions",
"Parth Anjaria",
"Thomas",
"aris",
"beijaflor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9954",
"please delete me",
"rumtscho",
"skriatok",
"user93353",
"yurtesen"
],
"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
}
|
15160
|
How warm is "warm water?"
I'm following a recipe for making dough for a challah bread, and the recipe calls for warm water. How warm should the water be (in degrees)? Do I need to heat it, or is room-temperature good enough?
And, whatever the correct answer is, does it apply to all recipes that call for warm water?
As a rule of thumb- you can comfortably hold your finger in warm water.
100°F (38°C). Yeast wake up well at this temperature.
http://www.exploratorium.edu/cooking/bread/yeast_temp.html
This time of year my house is 80°F (27°C). but I heat my water a little past that (~120°F or 50°C) to compensate for cooler ingredients- you really want the dough to be around 80F.
This will apply to all yeast recipes that call for warm water.
If directly mixing the water with the yeast, you want to avoid going over 42°C because above that, you will start damaging the yeast.
All recipes that are using warm water to activate yeast are looking for water in the 104-112F range. Much hotter than that and you run a chance of killing them, cooler and it won't bloom as sucessfully, especially 'instant' yeasts which do not react well to dissolving in cool water.
Be sure you take into account the temperature of the bowl or other vessel the water will be going into.
GOOD WATER is crucial to GOOD BREAD. Use filtered water if you possibly can, I just use water from the filtration system on my fridge, some people will go further. One benefit to using the water out of my fridge is that it is always the same temp, winter or summer, and so I know exactly how much time it will need in the microwave to hit the temps I need for cooking.
I've read many places that water is crucial and it makes sense... but I've always just used tap water and never done anything special and never had any problems with flavor or yeast development. I wonder if I've just had good tap water in the places I've lived or if it really doesn't matter so much after all. Have you had bread not turn out due to bad water? If so how bad did the water have to be?
Filtered water is by no means necessary. Maybe if you have really nasty well water, both otherwise... just no.
There are plenty of cities with terrible water, and it does make a difference. Kind of have to experience it I guess.
The problem with some water supplies is that they are heavily chlorinated/flourinated, which messes with the yeast - and it is questionable whether any random water filter will do much about that...
@rackandboneman - generally allowing the water to sit out in an open container will allow the chlorine to dissipate/evaporate. Carbon filters and filter cartridges are often certified for chlorine removal. Do you have any links that call into question the claims of effectiveness for the filters? Even so, since you can let it sit out, and the chlorine will evaporate into the air, it's not a huge deal, either way, I guess.
https://sciencing.com/remove-chlorine-from-water-4516999.html
I have used tap, distilled and filtered water and have not seen a significant difference in my sourdough bread. I stick to filtered water as “best compromise.”
As far as temperature, I go for a range:100-110
110°F is the standard in baking for warm water.
110 F is warm enough to kill yeast if you're unlucky. If the recipe calls for directly dissolving yeast in hot water, this temp is a bad idea. 100-105 is a better range.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.754848
| 2011-05-31T19:28:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15160",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Drew Thompson",
"Joyce Crespin",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"rackandboneman",
"renegade",
"user141592"
],
"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
}
|
99889
|
What is the shelf life of dehydrated, precooked meals?
I'm planning to dry precooked meals with a food dehydrator to make them non-perishable for hiking trips.
Some of the recipes I want to cook do have ground beef, chicken, or salmon in them. I want an estimated for how long they are safe if they were dried for about 24 hours at 70°C (158F).
I plan to dehydrate the meals, freeze them until I go on the trekking trip, and then have the precooked meals in my backpack for the whole duration of the two week trip.
The food during the trip will not be refrigerated, but the temperatures are likely to be between 15°C and -5°C (59F-23F).
Out of interest: where did you get the idea of dehydrating cooked meals?
The trekking meals you can buy seem to always be dehydrated version of normal recipes and than after finding this youtube video I thought I could do it myself to save some money and be able to choose my own ingredients.
If they'll keep for two weeks at 15C, they'll keep for much longer and the freezing step is probably unnecessary. If they won't, they won't be safe anyway. I looked at doing something similar and one option is to use jerky, adding it when you reheat. I would use dried soya mince
Can someone explain the "too long;didn't read" (TL;DR) reference here? We don't seem to have a question with this title, and it isn't an active link. I'm not sure what it refers to, so I would edit it out.
@moscafj I guess this is supposed to put the question in a nutshell, without the why and how the user wants to do it.
I don't think it is the proper use of "TL;DR". I am going to edit it out. If someone feels strongly, let me know. I've seen it pop up in a number of questions. It is either used incorrectly, or people don't want to read to gain the information that is provided. In either case, it's probably not useful.
@moscafj TL;DR is, on SE, generally used as the question in a nutshell from which you can answer without reading any further information.
You can delete it if you think it doesn't fit the format of this SE but tl;dr does not need a reference to an existing question to be used.
@GittingGud I am not making the point that it has to reference an existing question. It should be used when referencing something that the user of the abbreviation finds "too long" so they "didn't read" it. At that point, we can quibble about whether or not it makes sense. Further, a common internet abbreviation should not has some special meaning on this site. That would lead to even more confusion.
You might also want to take a look at the items tagged 'food' on outdoors.SE for other alternatives : https://outdoors.stackexchange.com/tags/food
Dehydrating food is a common practice for trekking and backpacking. Dehydrating vastly reduces the water activity in foods, making them a less hospitable environment for bacterial activity. You'll want to use a reliable dehydrator with a variable temperature setting, as different ingredients require different temperatures and times to properly dehydrate. I think it would be better to dehydrate your ingredients individually, then combine them into meals. For example, Backpacker Magazine has a handy guide with some good suggestions. Dehydrated vegetables have a very long shelf life. From my internet research, it seems that many folks recommend consuming dehydrated meat within two weeks. I'm not sure you want to freeze your products. They might become moist when thawing, thus beginning the re-hydration process before you want. This could theoretically impact safety.
Agreed on dealing with ingredients separately ... although I'd also be inclined to buy freeze-fried meats (or things like pork fu), rather than try to dehydrate them myself.
@Joe Buying freeze dried meat would be an option but wouldn't achieve the point of having proper self cooked meals on a trekking trip rather than having some jerky.
I am afraid food safety does not work the way you imagine it, or the way that would be easy to deal with. I cannot write up a whole course on food safety here, but here are two facts pertinent to your question.
Shelf stability is a truly binary outcome. Your food either supports bacterial life - which means it is only good for a total of 2 unrefrigerated hours after preparation - or it does not, which means it is good indefinitely and any "expiry" dates are a matter of degrading taste. There is no "slow bacterial growth" state in which the food is safe for several days or weeks or months, but stops being safe afterwards.
There is a bit of an extra twist with all methods that use reduction of water activity to make a food shelf stable (these include dehydration, or jam cooking): since molds need less wetness than bacteria, your food can become unsafe through mold. This is usually not included in safety calculations, you just consider your shelf-stable food safe until you visually see the mold, at which point it is unsafe.
You cannot predict whether a given recipe will produce a shelf stable food. The only way to know is through testing.
It doesn't matter how many parameters you use for the prediction, the process is too complicated to be described mathematically. So any recipe which purports to produce shelf stable food has either been tested "naturally" (by having been used under unchanged conditions for centuries) or in a lab. Note that you cannot make tests for safety yourself - just because something did not make you sick once, or twice, or 100 times, it doesn't meet the criteria for safety.
So, you cannot just pick any food you like, dehydrate it at some temperature, and declare it safe. Nor can you calculate a combination of dehydration time and temperature which is certain to make it safe. You have to find recipes which are either very specific (e.g. someone created a recipe for dehydrated stew that was tested to be safe, and it will have to cover everything including the exact ingredients, stew cooking method, and dehydration method) or apply to a class of foods with known wide safety margin for dehydration (it is pretty easy to make fruit safe by dehydration).
To answer your question directly:
I want an estimated for how long they are safe
The literal answer here is: 2 hours. For any longer duration, you have to use a known recipe that has been designed and tested for safety, and it is impossible to make up that recipe by yourself.
You put a lot of effort into writing a detailed answer for which I am thankful for.
But your answer did not help a single bit because I ask this question because I know that shelf life/foot safety isn't an easy linear equation.
Additionally both your points aren't solid. Food stability is a matter of how fast certain chemical process inside/on the food take place and can be influenced by different environmental conditions. Which makes it predictable and not truly binary as certain exposure to mold/bacteria is safe.
The problem is that food safety is not a matter of a chemical process. It is a regulatory matter based on knowledge derived from microbiology. Putting up a mathematical model that would predict the growth of bacteria in your food has roughly the same complexity as putting up a weather model that will predict the chance of rain in your city for a certain day - and if you are aware how difficult this is, you will understand why no one does it for food. The answer you are looking for does not exist, that's why I gave you the answer dictated by safety experts.
Your interpretation of food safety is the legal aspect of it.
My interpretation, or my question which is the topic here, is about how long dehydrated food will be good for before I get health problems which can be answered and if you do not know the answer to it than don't answer.
I do not want to commercially sell the food I want to eat it while sitting in the dirt on a trekking trip.
@GittingGud I watched the youtube video you linked earlier. I wouldn't eat the stuff that came straight out of the dehydrator. Certainly not a few days later. Nobody here can tell you if you will get health problems or when. This really is the most sane answer one can give on the internet, which will be read by many people.
@GittingGud Again, your interpretation is not answerable. Writing an authorative answer to it will require a long-term research project costing many millions (and still won't apply to a similar problem with slightly different parameters) and any speculation on it is not allowed on the site.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.755152
| 2019-07-01T07:34:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99889",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"GittingGud",
"Joe",
"Johannes_B",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76301",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95731
|
Tips for cooking a classic French omelette in a carbon steel pan
Are there any specific tricks or tips for cooking a classic French omelette in a carbon steel pan?
How is it different from using a nonstick pan?
What are the problems you are having @whiz? What is the method you have tried? This question is a bit vague.
The main issue in cooking a french omelet in carbon steel it'll stick too much. As I was taught you should just try to use a different pan but if you must use that kind then be sure to properly lubricate the pan with fat before adding egg. Then again if and when the eggs absorb it. Then to change it on to a lower heat than typically then making a french omlete so that it will not burn or get stuck as easily. Be sure to cook it long enough so that the bottom is firm enough not to break before moving it. With the excess fat it should release from the pan much like meat does. Once it has released from the pan be sure to keep it moving so that it will not stick again.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.755790
| 2019-01-17T04:15:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95731",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96259
|
Plastic Bowl for Bread
Is it ok to let bread rise in a plastic bowl? I got rid of my glass and metal bowls because they were too heavy for me to lift.
It's not just OK, it's preferable.
If you walk into the back in a commercial small bakery, you'll see that pretty much all of their doughs rise in plastic rising buckets. The first advantage of this is that such buckets have snap-on lids that eliminate the need to waste a lot of plastic wrap sealing in the dough. The second advantage for bakeries (but probably not for you) is that they can be stacked.
The third advantage I can only give you from experience (I can't find a reference): the dough rises faster. I believe this is because unlike metal, ceramic, or glass, the bowl does not conduct away the heat of the fermenting yeast. Presumably a dough basket (another option for you in the "easy to lift" department) would work just as well.
Such great information, I appreciate your information. I was aware that bakeries use plastic buckets with lids but it just didn't occur to me to apply that to myself!
Thanks! If that satisfies you, can you select my answer?
I would be happy to select your answer but I don't know how to do that, a little instruction please?
Looks like you just figured it out!
It really shouldn't be a problem. A thick-walled bowl is usually preferred to help maintain an even rising temperature. As long as it is food-safe, you keep it in a draft-free area, and it remains at a consistent temperature, you should be fine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.755908
| 2019-02-10T12:37:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96259",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Pam Dillard",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72768"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103735
|
Why do chocolate bars (expensive ones like Lindt), cost less than the sum of thier ingredients?
I am a bit of a mad scientist, experimenting with recipes and generally trying to make my own versions of things at home (ice cream, cold drinks, etc.).
I have long been interested in chocolate. I absolutely love the stuff, and want to try and make some. I realize that (at home) you won't ever make silky smooth "shop bought" chocolate, but the basic idea should still resemble chocolate.
Taking basic ingredients into account, cocoa butter, cocoa powder and usgar, the math just does not work for me. The cost for the amounts that would be yielded, works out to be drastically more per gram than even some of the expensive store bought options. I am not attempting to make chocolate at home to "save money". I am curious and would like to choose my own ingredients.
The math: (in my Currency: ZAR - South African Rand)
100g Cocoa Butter : R100
Cocoa Powder : R50
Sugar: R10
Lets say the above would yield about 150-200grams of chocolate. Let's call it R160 for 200g home made chocolate.(R80/100grams)
Lindt sells for R40/100grams?
I understand that big industry can buy ingredients cheaper, but by this big a margin. They still have to produce, package and re-sell it through various middlemen to get to R40. What do they actually sell it for before retail and handling... R20? R25?
Other milk chocolate producers obviously add milk, to up the volume with cheaper ingredients, but the math still does not compute for me, as those bars are a fraction of the cost.
What am I missing?
They don't buy the ingredients. They own them. They have their own plantations for raw resources, their own printing houses for packaging. Plus you don't include the energy bill that will be needed to mix, cool, and create fina product. Big companies can use their own byproducts to lower that cost.
So, in essence. I am not missing some crucial ingredient somewhere to "fill" the recipe? It's purely expensive buying the single ingredients.?
There are some thing you're missing (like fat and milk) There is also order of ingredients. In Lindt the cocoa is said to be 31% of the content (so cocoa powder and butter) but they are third and fourth on the ingredients list. Sugar is first. So by the amount of fat and carbs in Butter and powder you can calculate how much sugar you should add an fat. and then you notice that those 100g of cocabutter could be enough for 400 grams of final product.
Never underestimate cost benefit/saving of large scale industrial food processes.
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is about economics, not about cooking technique
Consider building your own car by buying individual parts. I've seen various estimates that the parts would cost between 5 and 20 times what a new car would cost, and that's not counting your labour.
The cost of food, even ingredients, is often dominated not by the cost of production, but by the costs of transport, storage, waste, and sales.
Sugar is a cheap commodity - you pay a typical bulk foodstuff markup compared to what they pay, because essentially everyone buys it, and there are economies of scale at all stages.
Cocoa powder is still common but less so: there's less price pressure (and less competition), so retail profit margins can be higher. There are still economies of scale but less so (e.g. a supermarket will get a box of packs of cocoa powder, but a pallet of sugar, cheaper and easier to handle. Lindt will get it by the truckload, as with sugar. It's also sold by chocolate manufacturers in many cases.
Cocoa butter is a niche product. You can't just go to any supermarket for it, but need a specialist. Margins are high for you - but chocolate manufacturers still benefit from economies of scale.
Chocolate, even decent mass-market chocolate, is on a par with cocoa - popular, but not as major a food as sugar. And it even happens to be close in price to cocoa - partially coincidence of course.
I'm pretty sure Lindt buys raw cooca beans which contain both the butter and what later on becomes the cocoa powder, and that by the container (or maybe even shipload). To give some numbers for the economy of scale involved: the price for raw cocoa beans is currrently quite high (+30 % compared to mid of August), at ≈ 2650 US$/ton, or ≈0.45 - 0.50 US$ (≈7R) for the 150 g of cocoa butter + cocoa powder (including loss for shells drying). Transport will probably not be negligible, but I'd also not expect it to be above the cocoa price for shipping whole containers.
This (German language) post https://orange.handelsblatt.com/artikel/53847 estimates that about 30 % of the Lindt chocolate price is raw materials and production costs (in the narrower sense), that would be 12R if that proportion also holds for South Africa.
@cbeleites that would indeed slightly reduce their costs with respect to the OP's supermarket. Those figures sound reasonable, and I think you've got another answer there, a more specific one while mine is more general
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.756065
| 2019-11-27T09:26:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103735",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Louis van Tonder",
"Max",
"Ray Butterworth",
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"cbeleites",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79727",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84853
|
Why wait for some hours before filling any food into a new freezer?
User manuals of some freezers indicate that for the first few hours after switching on the new freezer, one should not put any food into it. For instance, I am looking at a specimen that requires me to wait for 6 hours before starting to fill it.
Note that this is unrelated to letting the freezer stand upright for a while before switching it on.
This rule is alluded to on various non-product-specific websites, as well. Two examples:
"When you've set it to what you want, give it a few hours before you start filling it up with food – some fridges have a light that'll let you know when it's ready."
"It is only in the case of new freezers that you must wait a number of hours before storing frozen foods (You should consult your manufacturer’s handbook for more information)."
What is this restriction based upon?
If I put some frozen food (bought in a frozen state) into a new freezer right after switching it on for the first time, what could happen?
Is it bad for the food?
Is it bad for the freezer?
Is it bad for either of these no matter what, or only in specific circumstances?
Or is it one of those restrictions that are reiterated by many who do not actually remember what the rule was for and under what circumstances it was applicable?
UPDATE: Here are some clarifications, as the scope of this question appears to be unclear.
First, I am not asking for
what the restriction says
what might be a valid guideline if I ignore the restriction
how I might preserve frozen food during the initial period
I am truly looking for the technical rationale behind the restriction as stated.
Sorry, as pointed out in comments under the answer, two of your new subquestions are not compatible with interpreting food safety rules as objective criteria, so I had to remove them.
Maybe "subquestions" was a badly chosen term. The removed part seemed to me as if you invited answers to discuss what is a "lesser evil" and "cases in which the restriction does not apply", both of which would make your question subjective and thus closable. If you meant something else, you can try expressing it in a different way so that we can be certain that such discussion will not happen.
@rumtscho: "as if you invited answers to discuss what is a 'lesser evil'" - absolutely not. I want to decide that for myself, but for that, I need an accurate basis of information, which I was hoping to get by asking for the underlying rationale to the restriction. On the other hand, I still fail to see how asking for "cases in which the restriction does not apply" is subjective. As I already stated in one of the comments on the answer that were moved into the chat, the manufacturer's word is not automatically as accurate or true as you can get.
What I've been trying to say in the long comment thread is: if you do not want to accept the manufacturer's word as true, your question is automatically off topic.
@rumtscho: Oh. Sorry then, I did not expect that restriction (I had typical somewhat "food safety"-related rules of thumb in mind such as "printed expiry date does not automatically mean throw-out-date"). As I did not consider this a food-safety question as such, I also did not come across the respective FAQ page that I now found. Will remember this when asking another question here.
@O.R.Mapper To be clear, it's fine to ask why certain restrictions exist, which is roughly equivalent to what the consequences of ignoring them might be. And if you actually managed to find something totally unreasonable recommended by a manufacturer ("you must clean your freezer once a week with bleach!!"), asking for real safety guidelines would be a fair question. It's when you get into the business of replacing real guidelines with "homemade" ones that we veer into off-topic territory.
@O.R.Mapper I understand your confusion. Our handling of this kind of topic is really counterintuitive, and through no fault of the new users who never expect it. Sadly, changing it to accommodate the widespread interpretation of "safe" does not improve the situation. And yes, not being aware at the beginning that it is safety-related makes it even more problematic. I sometimes wonder if we are helping people at all with the current policy, and wish we could find another way of addressing these questions that would solve the problem. I hope it got a bit clearer now.
Immediately at freezer start up, place a bottle of water on the middle shelf and when frozen it is safe to add your frozen foods and foods to be frozen into the freezer compartments.
Most of the "cold" in a freezer isn't stored in the air. It's stored in the contents of the freezer, and in the walls (air has a very low volumetric specific heat). However, the thermostat controlling the compressor works off the air temperature.
If you start filling a freezer before it's had a chance to properly cool the walls down, the food is exposed to an effective temperature that is far higher than the freezer's setpoint: heat gets transferred from the walls to the food, warming it up to unsafe levels. Only once the walls reach thermal equilibrium with the air is it safe to start filling the freezer.
Same reason why you should not put too much at once into the freezer (unless it is at temp already) and can put more at once into it the more is already in there (at temp). Some people that use a lot freezers sometimes have a small one with a powerful compressor to cool things down and only then put it into the energy efficient ones
@PlasmaHH Or people put some water bottles in when a large delivery is expected, and remove the bottles couple hours after they put the new stuff in.
The mechanisms that cool the freezer work not by cooling the food directly, but by holding the temperature inside the freezer at a constant 0°F (-18°C). A freezer at any temperature above 0°F will not perform as expected, and will not keep food at the expected temperature.
A manufacturer's instruction booklet is intended specifically to ensure the product operates as expected. While undoubtedly safety and legal concerns are a factor in their instructions, the primary concern is simply instructing the user how to operate the device under expected operating conditions.
As such, a freezer includes instructions to bring it down to 0°F prior to placing any food in it, as that ensures the freezer operates under correct conditions.
The manufacturer does not include instructions for suboptimal operation, unless said suboptimal operation is an expected condition (such as instructing a driver how to operate their car in very hot or very cold weather). A user who wishes to operate the device under suboptimal conditions does so at their own discrection. This is in part due to legal/safety concerns, but the primary reason is that the manufacturer does not want to support said usage; if they included instructions in their manual for operating their device in a suboptimal fashion, they likely would field calls from users either wanting to know how to operate it, or frustrated buyers who have spoiled food because they operated it per the manual's instructions (even with warnings that it is suboptimal).
A freezer that is not at 0°F likely will still keep food "safe" to some extent, as the food "danger zone" is only above 40°F; likely less than 30 degrees below the beginning temperature of the room. Between that and the original temperature of the frozen food, it's unlikely that the frozen food would pass above 40°F unless it was very low in mass, and certainly not for several hours (as the freezer likely is below that temperature within an hour).
Food placed in the freezer immediately after the freezer was plugged in would very likely partially thaw, unless it had very high mass (for example, if you entirely filled the freezer with frozen goods), or a relatively high freezing point. Even then, some of the food would partially thaw on the outside (though this happens anyway in a automatic defrost freezer).
If the question is, however, "if I have frozen food, and nowhere else to store it, is it better to put it in the freezer than leave it outside," I would say that the freezer is undoubtedly your best choice. The food may or may not stay frozen - again, odds are it won't - but if it's food that can stand to thaw and refreeze without too much quality damage, it's probably going to be okay, and if there's no actual freezer option, that may be your best shot. It's not going to hurt the freezer, just the food. Just be aware that the food will probably thaw, might warm even into the danger zone for a bit, and take that into consideration. I would place a thermometer in the freezer to see the temperature of the freezer, and using a laser thermometer to temp the outside of the food, to ensure that it stays cold enough; and depending on how warm it gets, adjust the expiration date of the food down.
I think think the real question isn't "is better to put it in the freezer or not", but "please provide me with a rationalization that would justify my decision to not follow the manufacture's instructions".
@RossRidge: Basically, it was. I did not realize this site had a restriction against questioning manufacturer's instructions, like you'd normally do for products. Sorry for the confusion that rumtscho cleared up meanwhile in their comment.
It is a safety rule. Different freezers take different times to cool down the food placed in them, and the time depends among other things on the starting temperature within the freezer.
The manufacturer has determined that, if you start filling food before 6 hours have passed (and the freezer has cooled enough), the food has a chance of warming enough to enter the danger zone before the freezer can cool it. It is unclear if the assumption is that you are going to start filling frozen or room temperature food, so that if you want to follow the rule, you have to assume it applies to any food.
Comments moved to https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/66738/discussion-on-answer-by-rumtscho-why-wait-for-some-hours-before-filling-any-food
Most likely, there's a a specific test of cooling X food from above danger zone➞danger zone➞below it, which the freezer must pass.The design would be to meet the required test with the unit starting at cold-equilibrium. When starting at room temperature, the cooling mechanism must also cool all portions of the freezer (walls; interior cooling components; attached refrigerator, if any; etc.). Any freezer is rated at being able to move only X amount of energy/unit time. The extra time is what's calculated to be able to achieve that the cold-equilibrium state, prior to also cooling food.
Thus, while warming enough to be in the danger zone is one scenario, it's likely the manufacturer has a many tests which must be met. What's clear is that the manufacturer is not guaranteeing the unit will operate as specified, unless there's been the initial cool-down period. As you've indicated, the main issue, from a user's point of view, is: is the food safe, which is largely: how long it's in the danger zone. The manufacturer will have a specific set of circumstances which will result in it being too long (e.g. putting too much hot food in the freezer). This is just one such circumstance.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.756596
| 2017-10-06T17:32:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84853",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chuckles",
"Makyen",
"O. R. Mapper",
"PlasmaHH",
"Ross Ridge",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79184",
"rumtscho",
"yo'"
],
"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
}
|
34220
|
Would brining help the texture/flavor of ribs?
I'm trying to get more flavor into my Memphis dry rub ribs. I'm cooking them slowly in an Applewood smoke oven, but I was also considering soaking the ribs in brine before cooking, to add flavor and moisture.
Would this have the same effect as (for example) brining poultry before roasting? If not, what effect would it have on the ribs?
Are you smoking beef or pork? I am guessing since you say Memphis, that it is pork... even thinking about brining beef would be a little strange. In general, brining is not required for low-and-slow techniques like barbecuing.
I'm smoking pork. The rub is great but I don't feel it permeates right thru the rib and I'm trying to maximize the flavors.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice, Mark. In general we expect questions to follow a Q&A format ("what should happen when I do X") as opposed to a getting-to-know-you format ("does anyone here do X?") I've edited the question to follow that guideline and possibly taken some liberties with the interpretation - feel free to edit any incorrect inferences.
Please come by our chat when you have sufficient reputation. Its a good place for open discussion.
Brining pork—especially a thin cut like ribs—before barbecuing (in the low and slow sense) is not traditional. To see why, you have to understand the functions (and myths) about brining:
It helps retain moisture. This is true. Water enters the meat cells during the brining process. Not all of this water will come out during the cooking process. Additionally, due to the third effect below (delaying the final coagulation of the proteins), less water will be squeezed out at early phases of cooking.
It seasons the meat. Absolutely true. Salt will penetrate into the meat, providing a depth of seasoning throughout the cut.
It helps keep the meat tender. This is sort of true for some cooking methods. The salt which enters the muscle fibers helps by (per Kenji Alt's Food Lab):
... dissolving some of the muscle proteins (mainly myosin). The muscle
fibers loosen up, allowing them to absorb more moisture, and more
importantly, they don't contract as much when they cook, making sure
that more of that moisture stays in-place as the turkey cooks.
This makes it more difficult to overcook the meat to the point the proteins seize up into tight little balls (well done meat, with its characteristic tough or rubbery texture). This also helps retain moisture since less is squeezed out.
Salt helps mitigate this shrinkage
It flavors the meat (other than the seasoning from the salt). This is a myth although many on this site will vehemently disagree with me. Okay, it is sort of kind of a little true, but only in the weakest possible sense.
Any flavors that penetrate the meat due so at a pace of about 2-3 millimeters per day, which is trivial. Flavors are big molecules, and don't cross cell walls. At the small scale, muscle tissue is essentially a big bunch of straws (the cells) with essentially no inter-cellular room for brine to penetrate. Any flavors in the brine are left at the surface for all practical purposes.
And there are some downsides of brining:
Added water weight reduces flavor. Its simple, more weight of water means less flavor, simply through dilution.
Brining changes the texture of the meat, moving it on that spectrum towards "hammy" at the extreme end, if overdone.
So how does all of this apply to low and slow barbecue?
Moisture retention. By the very nature of barbecuing, you are going to cook the food until it is meltingly tender. All of the proteins will be fully coagulated, and at their toughest anyway! The reason barbecue is not tough is the cuts of meat chosen: they are high in connective tissue and fat. The connective tissue, a protein called collagen, converts to gelatin over the long cooking period starting when the meat hits about 170 - 180 F. This, together with the generous melted fat creates the unctuous texture of barbecue.
So brining will not help here.
Seasoning the meat. It does. However, you can apply highly flavored sauces, dry rubs, or so-called dry brines which do just as good a job, without adding to the water weight of the cut. And that water weight does what water does: reduce flavor intensity by diluting it. Literally.
Brining might help season, but not better than other methods.
Keeping the meat tender. As described above, preventing the protein from being well done is not a goal in barbecue. It is the low and slow conversion of gelatin to collagen which is the hallmark of the tender barbecue.
Brining does not help.
Adding flavor.
Its just a myth. No help to barbecue or any other cooking method.
Overall, then, I would say you are better off looking at your dry rub, your sauce, and your smoke to create flavor and enhance your ribs.
A good dry rub, with salt, applied 24 hours, will serve as a dry brine, and give you all of the benefits of brining without the drawbacks, at least insofar as they apply to this method of cooking. And it is less messy and less fussy!
One thing some advanced barbecue artisans do is inject brine or seasoning into the heart of a cut of meat using what is essentially a giant syringe. Once inside the meat, the bring will begin to act normally, but from the inside: spreading seasoning over time, and flavoring at snails pace. Since ribs are thin, this technique normally does not apply to ribs. It does however, literally, get the flavor inside the meat.
Agree to most of the above but "Any flavors that penetrate the meat due so at a pace of about 2-3 millimeters per day," is not true, see here which I think is a reasonably trustworthy source, it says 17mm penetration per 24h, so if you have time brine does penetrate, I use this with liquid smoke brine (I have no access to a smoker) and it does work, but needs time. Maybe the size of the flavor molecules does matter, not sure.
@Stefan That article was talking about salt which does penetrate further and faster than other flavors which are larger molecules. It supports the point I was making.
@SAJ14SAJ ok, not 100% convinced, but very interesting and will research more, the second part of the link I gave Brines penetrate during low temp cooking might explain why my brining work and does give taste difference inside the meat, since I do low temp cooking (sous vide) after the brining, thanks!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.757701
| 2013-05-20T22:37:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34220",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Luke",
"MansurPatel",
"Mark Carroll",
"Paul Richter",
"Paulie_D",
"Roger",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sabrina77079",
"Stefan",
"Thom Foote",
"gbanks",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79670"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18237
|
How can I keep ingredients cold while camping?
I am going camping tomorrow and I was looking for campfire recipes. People use hot dogs, bacon, cheese and other stuff regularly for campfire cooking. But these ingredients must be kept cold.
How do you carry these kinds of items with you? I thought about one of those coolers where you put a block of ice and it keeps cool, but those things are only for a few hours. How do you keep stuff cool on a multi day trip?
EDIT: Just got back from the trip. I used a cooler. It was wonderful. Tilapia, chicken breasts and eggs stayed nicely in the cooler for 2 days.
Where are/were you camping? Depending on relative temperature answers will vary I guess
While not keeping ingredients cold, dry ice can get ingredients cold on demand.
Here is my camping strategy. If I'm going for more than a few days, here's what I do.
Start with a good air tight cooler. (Big enough to hold everything perishable). Forget those "gel packs". Definitely don't get a bag of ice from the convenience store. They melt and mess stuff up. Get a 2 litre bottle, rinse it out, fill it with water and freeze it. (Do this a couple days in advance, if possible). The less air in the better. This won't leak and will stay cold a good time as long as you don't open it.
Take any raw meat that you're NOT planning on eating on the first day and freeze that too. Put the meat and all the frozen stuff at the bottom and to one side. My bottle of ice goes either directly on top of the meat or right beside it. This way, my meat has at least an extra day or two of grace and I don't need to waste extra space with an ice pack.
Then layer stuff that isn't frozen, but can handle a little freezing on the next layer. Then work your way up, to any produce being on the top layer. Plan for the coldest stuff to be at the bottom and/or near the ice packs. Depending on what's in there, sometimes I put a towel between the frozen stuff and the non frozen stuff to insulate it a bit better. And prevent produce that shouldn't be frozen from freezing.
Then on each day, I move the frozen meat for the next day meat away from the ice packs and upward to allow it to defrost (making sure, it's sealed, so I don't get any raw meat juice leaking out).
On the last day, the water in the bottle can be drank, but once you start emptying it, it'll start melting.
Obviously, minimize the time you keep it open if possible. I realize you said you're going camping tomorrow, so freezing a 2 litre bottle might not happen in time. In this case, I'd switch to multiple smaller bottles and failing that those gel packs. I hate bags of ice, as they melt and make a mess. Finding cheese in a pool of water is never fun. The rest of the stuff would still apply. This usually lasts me quite a few days.
That the technique we use, work great. You can freeze milk too (in plastic bottles). Defrosts slowly, and you can pour off the defrosted part for use, and it add to you frozen thermal mass
+1: Nice and comprehensive! You might also get a bit of benefit from making your freezer colder a day before packing up.
And here is a good place for spam and other canned meats: they don't need to be refrigerated until they are opened, and if you eat it all, that solves that problem. I guess we're all assuming car-camping, not hauling this cooler by hand.
Depending on where I camp I will try and buy a bag of ice every day or 2, just to top up. Otherwise nice answer!
frozen shredded hashbrowns make a nice pliable pack to squeeze into gaps and bend around perishables. Fully thawed unopened, makes it to last breakfast fry-up with all other leftovers.
Ice chests last way longer than just a few hours. Unless the weather is insanely hot, if you put a reasonable amount of ice in a good ice chest, and don't open it all the time, there'll still be ice in it a couple days later.
We camp at the beach on a regular basis during the warmer months (which is most of the year down here in South Texas!!), and we've found that along with freezing water bottles and proper layering, we can get an extra day or 2 out of our cooler by digging a well in the sand to put the cooler in. The sand acts as a great insulator against the heat, plus the deeper you dig, the cooler the sand gets! Throw some reflectix on the lid of the cooler, and your all set!!
eat the perishable food first. Keep perishable in the shade. Store your food under running water.
WHat do you mean by running water? Water will cause stuff to warm up faster as it's a better conductor than air.
By running water, are we talking something like a cold stream in the mountains? That would make some sense (natural refrigeration). However, many rivers and streams are going to be way too warm to help keep food cold...
I like to cook up soups, stews, chili, spaghetti sauce, etc. ahead of time, portion into one-meal amounts in freezer bags, and freeze. I use these as the ice in my cooler. I do the same with meats. They don't keep stuff cold as long, but you can get insulated shopping bags now that do keep stuff somewhat cold, especially if you're filling them with frozen food. These are a lot easier to pack into a backpack between campsites. Wrap some blankets and towels around it to add extra insulation.
I also like to bring along as much non- and semi-perishable food as possible. Hard cheeses, dried sausages, dry beans, jerky, pilot bread, dried fruits, nuts, oatmeal, etc.
For fall/winter camping, I like to carry a small, wide-mouth thermos for soup. I heat it up in the morning before breaking camp, pre-heat the thermos with hot water before filling it with soup, and have hot soup for lunch. It's great after a cold morning of hiking.
I get two coolers one smaller than the other. The smaller one is for cans of soda or a gallon of milk and two liter bottles. Using two litre bottles as ice containers is a good idea as whe the ice melts it will not get all over your food. If you have any bubble wrap stuff it in the top of the cooler to take up dead air space. Bubble wrap or sealed air packages which are common today.
bubble wrap for dead space sounds like an excellent light weight solution esp good to prevent chaos after cooler gets nearly inverted coming off the roof rack.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.758262
| 2011-10-06T20:42:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18237",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Cascabel",
"Jody",
"León Rehgallàg",
"Michael Burr",
"NBenatar",
"PJ O'Neal",
"Pat Sommer",
"Shawn",
"TFD",
"TizzyD",
"ant9985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7418",
"josh",
"talon8",
"thursdaysgeek",
"user39405",
"user39408"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37266
|
How to make dutch pannekoek?
How can I make those Dutch pannekoek, specially those salty ones that have cheese and mushrooms? Every time I try, I end up burning those "toppings".
You pour in the batter, wait for the underside to be cooked (some brown patches), flip it, then put cheese on the (browned) top. With spek (bacon), you don't need to do this, you can just put the spek into the pan, fry it until done, then pour batter over it, and proceed as normal. Dutch pancakes are fairly thin, so they don't take very long to cook. Spek won't get properly crisp if you pour the batter on it immediately, also because the watery batter cools it down. Apple pieces won't burn either, so you can put those in first (I hate those, they will make your pancake break!).
After pouring in the batter, you often need to tilt the pan to get good coverage of the pan. (if you just poured it in and let it flow on its own, you'll end up with too thick of a pannekoek, unless you make the batter really thin, which gives you other problems later)
@Joe: Absolutely! I assumed the OP would get that...
It sounds like the original poster had some experience ... but just in case someone else stumbled upon this question, I thought it'd be good to mention.
@Joe: Sure, it can't hurt!
And just an addition - the OP asked specifically about mushrooms. Like all other things that you could put in a stir fry, it can go in at the same time you would put the bacon in.
@ErikP.: I didn't mention mushrooms because...I don't like mushrooms! I couldn't in good conscience recommend eating those monsters...
@JanDoggen: I do that too with cheese. But it seemed the OP didn't want the cheese to brown? As to apple slices, even thin slices weaken the pancake, and pancakes as so very thin and weak already. And thin slices add very little to the taste of the pancake. I prefer to fry my apple slices separately (in a little bit of wine, sugar, lemon juice, and cinnamon) and just put them on the pancake when it's done, before I roll it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.758809
| 2013-10-01T19:11:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37266",
"authors": [
"Cerberus",
"Erik P.",
"Henrik Pettersson",
"Joe",
"Mark Morgan Lloyd",
"Pat Haberfield",
"Rene Saarsoo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87595"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30877
|
Is horse meat safe to eat?
It's been in the news lately about horse meat being disguised as beef.
Is this really that serious?
Is horse meat unsafe? Or is it just taboo because horses are "cute"?
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4387/uses-of-horse-meat
Many people in the UK do consider horses as pets however on the continent horses are simply another source of meat. You can actually buy horsemeat in the UK, but they tend not to advertise it for the above reason. The main issue isn't so much that it's horsemeat but the fact that it has been packaged and sold as beef products.
It is perfectly safe to eat (when produced, transported, and so on under sanitary conditions, just like any other edible meat).
In some cultures it is considered a delicacy; in others, it is not considered appropriate to eat, but those issues of cultural norms, not of safety.
The news is because it is a violation of trust (truth in labeling) in a cultural background where horses are not normally eaten. Personally, I might wonder what other shortcuts the purveyor had taken if they are lying about content...
With it being snuck into the food chain like this, there's some concern the meat may be contaminated with phenylbutazone 'horse aspirin': http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/11/horsemeat-bute-very-low-risk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenylbutazone
@WayfaringStranger I didn't know about this specific concern.... but that is the kind of thing my last sentence was hinting at. I agree, trust in the food supply chain is very important, which is why it is such news. The general edibility of horsemeat itself is not the core issue of the scandal, I don't think.
I want to add that in Belgium horse meat is eaten normally, but there was the violation of trust too. You don't want to eat pork if you buy 'beef'.
It's not just specifically horse aspirin, either. Aside from it not being customary to eat horse, there was concern that if the standards being applied to the meat were not even sufficient to ensure it's the species it says it was, then absolutely anything else could be wrong with it, be that drugs, disease, unsanitary storage. It's like finding a child in a facility that requires security clearance to enter: even if you had nothing against children in general, it still proves there's a route for un-cleared people to get in.
Adding to @SAJ14SAJ's answer, horse meat is perfectly fine for eating, but not if the horse has been treated with medicines that make it un-fit for human consumption.
From wikipedia
Horses in the United States are not bred, raised or treated as meat. Almost all equine medications and treatments are labeled 'not for horses intended for human consumption.' In the European Union, horses intended for slaughter cannot be treated with many medications commonly used for U.S. horses.
It is produced and eaten in various countries. A bit of trivia - Icelandic people were reluctant to convert to Christianity for a long long time after Pope Gregory III banned horse meat consumption in 732 AD, because it was considered a Pagan thing to eat horse meat.
In the European Union, all horses must have a so called passport, which is a document that ensures that no forbidden medicinal products end up in the meat. When treating a horse, you can in some situations choose to use a drug that is approved for use in the food supply chain, but in some cases this is not possible. Keep in mind that horses will live 15–25 years.
If a horse has been treated with a forbidden drug, it is illegal to introduce it in the food supply chain (must not come into the slaughterhouse) and must be sent to destruction or be buried. The scandal in this case is that no one in the supply chain, except where it was wrongly marked beef, knew that it was horse meat and if it was approved for human consumption or not.
the "passport" system would not have worked in this case anyway as the meat was imported from south america, it was not obtained from EU bred horses. What I don't know is whether the importer was aware it was horse meat, iow on which side of the supply chain the fraud was perpetrated.
There is no mammal meat which is dangerous, with the exception of certain organ meats such as polar bear liver (which has toxic levels of vitamin A). The issue was with veterinary drugs which are not permitted for food use ending up in the food supply.
While this is technically true, practically speaking the vast majority of animals are wild, not farmed, and there is a very high incidence rate of serious diseases and parasites like trichinosis that come from eating them (e.g. bears). Horses are a weird in-between case because they're bred, but typically not for consumption, much like dogs and cats - so if you find one on the menu there's a good chance it was actually a stray and therefore unsafe. I'd be wary of eating any meat of unknown origin.
Actually, there is a handful of venomous mammals with poisonous meat.
I would argue that the incidence of serious diseases is much higher in farmed animals, rather than those which are wild. Certainly meat should always be cooked appropriately, and one should know about the toxicity of specific organs, such as venom glands and liver. However, I will not accept that the idea that animals bred for food are safer with regard to disease than wild animals. Food animals are kept in diseased conditions, and given antibiotics to cover the symptoms (which has ultimately created dangerous antibiotic resistant strains). Sick animals regularly go to slaughter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.759144
| 2013-02-13T02:24:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30877",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"JLH",
"Joshua Kast",
"Kareen",
"Kathy McMullen Speaker",
"Linda Locklear Curtis",
"Maureen",
"Michele",
"Mien",
"Paul Brownsea",
"R4D4",
"Rosemary",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sofie",
"Souradeep",
"Steve Jessop",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77286",
"jaybrook",
"jwenting"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36750
|
How can I thicken margaritas?
I've been making margaritas and I've found that, unlike fancy bar/restaraunt bought margaritas, my margaritas come out more like a liquid drink with shaved ice sitting in it than a mixture. I have a Margarittaville mixer for proper shaved ice, but the final drink lacks the same thickness I'm used to in a margarita; the exception being strawberry margaritas. With (lots of) real strawberries the drink comes out much thicker and smoother to drink.
Is there some ingredient that can thicken the mix for a smoother drink? Generally I use tequila, triple sec, agave nectar and then either a mix, strawberries, limeade or whatever for flavor.
If you wish to make frozen margaritas, this link can help you : http://www.dressyourhorse.com/page/how-to-make-great-frozen-margaritas
https://alcohol.stackexchange.com/ might be a better fit for this
Thick restaurant frozen margaritas are not made by mixing in shaved ice. The machines freeze while stirring.
@Paparazzi, the question is from 2013. We won’t migrate an old question, especially with existing good answers. Some overlap in scope is ok, and it’s the user’s choice, where to put it.
@Stephie I did not request a migration.
If the restaurant or bar is using a margarita mix, they frequently contain additional syrups and stabilizing gums or starches which add body to the drinks. It could also be that the high powered blenders frequently used in bars will be better at creating a smoother and thicker texture, or a more 'emulsified' slush.
If you want to try making it thicker at home, the agave nectar is a good start. You could also try adding very small amounts of food gums, like guar gum or gum arabic. It may also help to chill all of your ingredients thoroughly before blending to keep it as frozen as possible.
Just ordered some Guar gum, about how much will I use per oz of liquid?
It looks like the usage levels are usually .1-1% of the finished product, so very, very little. For a cup of liquid, you'd need from .2 - 2.25 grams. I'd start at the low end and work up. Gums can sometimes add an... unpleasant texture at high levels.
Not sure I can even accurately measure that, I guess I'll start with a teeny pinch
Most restaurants/bars use a special machine for frozen margaritas; blenders are too noisy and too small-scale if they're selling enough of them (unless their entire business is frozen drinks, in which case they'll structure their bar around the blenders like an alcoholic Jamba Juice). These machines are virtually identical to frozen slush drink (icee/slurpee) machines, the only difference is what goes in them. The slush is made by chilling the mix below freezing while keeping it moving; that way it can't freeze solid like ice cubes.
Short of buying your own (the real foodservice-grade machines start around $1200) or even renting (they can cost $100 a half-day, and often the minimum capacity is a few gallons' worth of mix), here are some tips:
Make your ice from your base drink mix ahead of time (i.e. your 7-4-3 mix of tequila, triple sec/syrup and lime juice for a margarita; you can add your strawberries, mangos etc in the blender). This helps in two ways; first, the ice slush won't weaken the drink as it melts, even if your guests really hit them hard up front leaving that snowball in their glass, and second, a little alcohol and sugar in the ice will keep it from forming that tough crystal structure, so the ice will be weaker and blend more easily.
Chill the frozen drink glasses. Pouring frozen margarita into a room-temp glass will create that "ice chunk in water" effect just as you say. Understand that unless you're serving these outside on your patio in February, there's not much you can do to avoid this effect happening to some degree as the drink warms, but you can minimize it.
Don't be afraid to play with the proportions of ice and mix in the blender. You're probably using too little, a common mistake as you don't want to weaken the drink. If it's blending up too sloshy, add a few more ice cubes and keep blending. If it's coming out like a snow cone, add more mix.
Just add more ice. I was a bartender for years.
Don't use guar gum.
If it's too soupy then add more ice a few cubes at a time. I use blenders and have never used a margaritaVille mixer so that might be the issue.
If you take a pint glass and fill it heaping with ice put it in the blender.
Then add 2 ounces of tequila and 1 Oz of triple sec, or cointreau,or razzmatazz or any other flavored you want.
Then you can add no more than 2.5 ounces of liquid (margarita mix) to that.
If you are working with purees than you can use 2 ounces of like strawberry puree with a half an ounce of margarita mix.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.759649
| 2013-09-12T19:08:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36750",
"authors": [
"Jane Campbell",
"Sandra Hoffman",
"SourDoh",
"Stephie",
"Sweet72",
"Zelda",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7778",
"k zm",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21794
|
Why is the texture of my chocolate chip cookies foamy?
The last couple of batches of my chocolate chip cookies went from delicous to foamy tasting although I was using the same recipe and ingredients and sam measuring methods. I'm confused as to why the texture changed so drastically.
Do you mean 'cakey'?
"foamy tasting" - do you mean their structure was too light, like a foam, or do you mean their taste reminded you of soap?
Your dough warmed up and the fat started to melt. In between batches, keep the dough cold in the fridge.
Over-mixing the dough will also contribute to cake like cookies if a whole batch comes out like that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.760051
| 2012-02-27T20:31:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21794",
"authors": [
"Cate",
"TonyK",
"emyrking",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48462",
"michaelrbock",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho",
"tzxAzrael"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34472
|
Why do you add sugar last when boiling soups?
When I read recipes involving boiling a soup/dessert and adding sugar, they often say to add the sugar towards the end of the boiling. Why is that? Are there consequences of adding sugar early?
Thanks for editing! In case you didn't save it: you can click on the "edited ago" link to see the old versions of your question and copy out the other questions to post them separately!
Very few soups have sugar added... and there are many, many types of desserts. Can you give an example or the recipe of one you are interested in to make it easier to answer?
'Soups' probably isn't the best word choice, but the recipes I was talking about were Chinese pear soups used in traditional Chinese medicine. But really, the question pertains to whenever I need to add sugar to a boiled liquid base.
in many recipes at the end you get the suggestion to "adjust" the taste with salt and sugar. It makes sense to do it at the very end because salt and sugar do not need to "cook" and it is hard to anticipate how much exactly you need to add. At least, this is what I do with tomato sauce (if it tastes too acidic a pinch of sugar helps) and minestrone. I would be very nervous about adding just the right amount of sugar (or salt) right at the beginning - particularly because once it is in there, you are not going to get it out.
+1 for Walter. I think you should post this as an Answer, it deserves more than just a comment against the question.
There might be a chemical reason for the delay in adding sugar. The properties of sugar change dramatically with exposure to heat, which is how caramel and other candies are made. While caramel usually requires high heat (well above boiling - 300 degrees F and up) over a short period of time, the same chemical reaction can occur at lower tempuratures when the sugar is cooked for a long period of time. This could dramatically affect the flavor of the soup/dessert you are cooking.
An interesting article on sugar/caramel cooking experiments that explains what's going on: http://www.curiouscook.com/site/sugar/
To add onto Walter's answer, adding sugar towards the end for taste when boiling ensures that the sugar dissolves faster so that the results of your addition are more accurate and immediate.
If you added the sugar before boiling, you run the risk of adding too much sugar because you tasted it before all the sugar dissolved and you added more as a result.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.760158
| 2013-06-03T02:19:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34472",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sydney",
"Vince Bowdren",
"Walter A. Aprile",
"andrew rasmussen",
"caisbalderas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80422",
"kitty kumaramangalam",
"rockit",
"user108903",
"user22979",
"user2800837",
"user80399",
"user80421",
"wandersick"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34584
|
What weights to use for fermenting sauerkraut?
I am new to making sauerkraut. I do know the right ingredients for making sauerkraut, based on searching on Google.
My question is what equipment should I use to weight the sauerkraut below the brine?
I am using a Fidos jar as a container. If I were rich, I would buy a fermenting crock that comes with stone weights, see for example this crock. However, since I am not rich, are there stone weights that I can buy?
My current idea is to use ceramic pie weights, but I have never owned any of these before. Would they be sufficiently heavy to weight the sauerkraut down?
Penn State Extension recommends:
Cover with a plate weighted down with jars filled with water or cover
with a large food grade plastic bag filled with salt water (6
tablespoons salt per gallon of water.)
This works if I have a large jar, but my jars are pretty small, with a diameter of 3.5 inches.
Zip bags come in many sizes...
Get a set of ceramic weights that fit a 1 liter Fido jar.
https://www.etsy.com/listing/182083359/fermentation-weights-for-1-liter-fido-or
(disclaimer: this is my own product)
This seems like a good solution. Why did someone give a downvote to this answer?
Solicitation is generally not allowed unless disclosed and relevant to the question. This is relevant but I think slightly disingenuous.
I'm going to assume good intentions here, and just add a disclaimer. It was already pretty obvious that this is Leslie's product, and this is also directly relevant to the question. This is exactly the kind of rare case when we do allow linking to your own products. (The disclaimer does need to be there, but I'm not really worried about a rash of jar-weight spam developing here.)
I agree with Jefromi. The Internet has trained many people to have a negative reaction to any form of self-promotion. Here, we are trying to be better than that and not throw out the baby with the bathwater. So, no matter how it "feels" to see a self-promoting link, if objective evaluation shows that it is relevant to the post, I prefer to let it stay, as our rules prescribe.
aww, "this item and shop are currently unavailable"
A quick tip: whichever way you weight your kraut, add a piece of outer cabbage leaf (make sure all your veg is organic, not sprayed) under the weights to hold all the bits of kraut under the brine level. It gives you a good wallop of the right bacteria too!
I can't see why not, pie weights should be fine. The ceramic weights used in large kraut crocks are unglazed ceramic as are the pie weights. I would place the weights in a plastic zip bag though, to make sure they don't drift downward, maybe even filling the bag with the brine as well. Afterward, you could always bake the pie weights to sterilize them between uses too.
The bag of brine is all you actually need.
I use these glass weights, there are quite a few varieties available but the basic idea behind them is the same: they almost completely fill the opening of a Mason jar or other jar which has the same diameter opening (many do). The stone weights in a dedicated fermentation crock do the same job, minimizing the kraut's contact with the air, but the glass weight is one piece instead of two so it's a little harder to get them in and out of the jar than it is with a stone weight like the one Leslie linked to. There are versions for either standard-mouth or wide-mouth jars.
I use the book Making Sauerkraut and pickled vegetables at home. In the book it states to use a water and acid-proof stone such as granite. Limestone or marble will dissolve in carbonic acid. It also states that a board that is either birch or beech are traditionally used for this purpose. Do not use pine or fir, because their strong odors can be transferred to the vegetables. If you use a mason jar or a big gallon jar you will need to cut the weight in half to get it inside the jar. Only fill the jar to about 75% capacity with the vegetables or cabbage, add your stones or boards and if using boards a bag with the salt water solution on top. Making sure that the brine solution is at least an inch above all. Finally after sealing the top I use a rubber grommet in the lid and attach a fermentation lock (the same one I use for fermenting wine) this in turns allows no air to make contact with the fermenting goods, and thus prevents the mold or kahm yeast from forming.
Although weights are highly recommended, I have successfully made cabbage saurkraut without weights. When not using weights you have to make sure you pack down the cabbage nicely, the juices drawn from the cabbage should almost fill the jar. leaving very little air in the jar. Everyday you will have to pack down the cabbage as some of the cabbage bit would be floating and may cause mold formation. This works for me for cabbage and beets.
"Packing down daily" means opening the jar daily which means you are much more prone to mold because you are not maintaing an anaerobic environment. ...so, not a good plan/method.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.760420
| 2013-06-08T19:04:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34584",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Dalectia",
"Ecnerwal",
"Heather R. McLaughlin",
"Herzuull",
"I Like to Code",
"Koto",
"Learningthehardway",
"Mastardo",
"Michael",
"Product Photo spam",
"Randy Kulcheski",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sarah Rosinsky",
"Stevie Hollern",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80683",
"logophobe",
"rumtscho",
"stuart10"
],
"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
}
|
34931
|
Can I leave my cinnamon bars unbaked in the fridge for a few hours?
I'm making a cinnamon bars recipe in a 9x13 pan. (Recipe something similar to this.) I'd like to assemble it a few hours in advance and then leave it in the fridge a few hours before baking. Will this affect the taste at all? Should I let it return to room temperature before baking?
It will probably not affect taste, however, it will affect texture. The reason is that the flour will react to the moisture in the batter and start to convert to gluten. This will produce at best a chewier bar (which may actually be desirable) or, at worst, a rock hard bar.
If you are willing to take this textural risk, then I would recommend putting the pan directly into the oven from the refrigerator. This is because the bars will be so thin (and thereby have relatively large surface area) that they will come up to temperature in the oven quite quickly. You may have to cook them slightly longer; just make sure to test them with a toothpick or, better yet, a thermometer before removing. The internal temperature should be a little over 200°F or a little under 100°C.
If you want to minimize the risk of chewiness/hardness, do as little initial mixing of the flour with the batter as possible. It is okay to have some small lumps of flour since they will absorb the batter during the resting time in the refrigerator. This suggestion is due to the fact that gluten is formed both by moisture and mechanical agitation (mixing).
Another option, for which there is no potential harm, would be to mix the wet ingredients in advance and refrigerate them, also mix the dry ingredients in advance and leave them at room temperature, and then mix the wet with the dry just before putting everything into the oven.
That recipe employees the creaming method, not the muffin method, so pre-staging the wet and dry for mixing right before baking is not really practical.
@SAJ14SAJ why isn't it practical? All of the dry ingredients go in as the last step anyway and get mixed on low speed. Why not just mix them in by hand à la minute before baking? You have a point about the creaming method, though; I hadn't considered the softened butter aspect which would require warming the wet mixture before mixing in the dry ingredients. Not warming the wet mixture before mixing in the dry will likely be okay, though; it will just likely result in flakier bars.
Ah, this is evidently an atypical creaming method, where there are no additional liquid ingredients to mix with the dry during the last phase of batter formation. I hadn't noticed that on first read.
The issues you will have holding a dough like this for several hours are:
Gluten development. This recipe is based on the creaming method, so the butter/egg/sugar emulsion will coat the flour particles, tending to inhibit gluten formation and toughness which happens over time, in the presence of moisture, even without mechanical agitation. For holding periods of just an hour or two, this should not be a terribly significant factor.
Leavening. This recipe is leavened by baking powder. Most baking powder will expend some of its power during the resting time, but will have a second (the double acting part) burst when the heat hits. This looks to be a fairly thick batter, so should not lose too much leavening. You may get a product which is a tiny bit denser due to this.
Hydration of the flour. Allowing the batter to rest will allow the flour to hydrate more thoroughly and the flavors to blend and mature. This may actually enhance the texture of the batter.
Crust texture. The extended rest time will allow sugars to more thoroughly dissolve which may give a more crispy, frangible surface crust development (somewhat like a brownie gets). This may be a positive, but if covered later with the glaze should not be noticeable.
Filling or swirl texture. During the hold period, the cinnamon and sugar swirl or filling will be in contact with the moisture from the main batter. This will tend to dissolve the sugar, and you may loose some texture and appearance from the swirl, but the cinnamon taste should remain.
Food safety. This is a batter with raw eggs. Make sure you put it in the refrigerator to prevent spoilage, and I would recommend baking it directly from the refrigerator to prevent having to rewarm it.
Baking time. If you bake the batter cold from the oven, you may have to adjust the baking time slightly.
All in all, this recipe looks like it should work if you hold it for a couple of hours, maybe 3-4 at the outside. I would not try to hold it overnight.
See also:
What does an overnight chill do to cookie dough, that a 4 hour chill doesn't?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.760851
| 2013-06-25T12:50:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34931",
"authors": [
"ESultanik",
"EagleV_Attnam",
"Graham Stauffer",
"Kathy",
"Lisa",
"Matthias Braun",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Zeuski",
"arnex",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81492"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37661
|
Is there pattern to stack lasagna?
I've been cooking lasagna at least twice a week, but I still haven't been able to come up with a flavor that makes me "happy".
Is there a particular way to stack lasagna for full flavor? Say:
first veggies, then sauce, then cheese, then protein, etc?
I'm asking this because when I'm cooking lasagna, its taste is pretty "plain" at best, I can taste the pasta and the sauce, but that's about it, I can never get to taste the other ingredients.
There are many, many ways to make lasagna, so there cannot be one single answer. You have to ask yourself, what is the goal of a good lasagna?
It is not to feature the individual components that make up the layers, but rather to have a cohesive, unified experience.
The order layering is more for visual effect than to control how the ingredients taste.
However, if the contribution of your other ingredients is not coming through, they may not be bold enough to stand up to the cheeses, pasta, and sauces (none of which are usually very bold) and still hold their own. Some of the common accent ingredients in lasgana commonly include:
Bolognese sauce, or another ragu type sauce, with a strong, meaty flavor from long cooking.
A spicy sausage or salumi
Also, make sure each component is properly and individually seasoned, to taste its best. Each component should also be treated properly to bring out its best flavor (long slow braising for ragu, good browning for sausage, and so on).
These ingredients are aggressively flavored, and while they shouldn't dominate the casserole, they should come through as part of the overall flavor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.761311
| 2013-10-16T17:24:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37661",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35797
|
What can I substitute fennel pollen with?
In this simple spaghetti recipe, fennel pollen is used. From googling it, it sounds like MSG :). I'd rather not buy it since it's so expensive, so is there any way to substitute this stuff in the recipe?
You might try ground fennel seed, or even anise, but they will not have quite the same quality. You would certainly have to increase the quantity.
In situations like this, I have to point out: it does not make sense to make a dish where you are forced to substitute for the ingredient which gives the dish its identity. Instead, make something where you can employ the star ingredient.
Amen to the second paragraph... if I'm looking at recipes for veal parmigiana, and then realize I don't have/can't get any cheese, then I look for other recipes, not substitutions.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.761473
| 2013-08-04T08:49:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35797",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BobTheElectrician",
"Hmun",
"Kristopher Hackney",
"M.D.",
"Margarito",
"Thomas Partridge",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83871"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35812
|
Lavender subsitute for Grilled Eggplant Nicoise
Is it okay to tear open some lavender tulsi herbal tea bags?
It would certainly be safe, but it might not taste very good.
@SAJ14SAJ Why not?
Because it is old, dry, and flavor balanced to be tea.
@SAJ14SAJ Are there any substitutes then?
See Jefromi's answer... but you have to ask yourself, what does kind of ingredient is something? If it is a signature ingredient, then you cannot substitute for it without losing the identity of the dish; if it is not, then omitting it or substituting for it just doesn't matter.
@MarkE Just in case you didn't already know, tulsi is basil, so you'll be adding both basil and lavender if you use the tea.
Quite often teas go through a fermentation process that changes and intensifies the flavors. Herbal teas often mix a dried but non-fermented main aromatic like lavender with some sort of green or black tea which is fermented. A good example of this is mint tea, which is generally dried mint mixed with green tea. I wouldn't use mint tea as a substitute for fresh mint, it's never going to work the same.
Ripping open a tea bag and sprinkling it on a tuna salad isn't likely to win you any awards when people start crunching into bitter dried leaves. To be honest it would be hard to think of a more effective way to ruin it. Just add some fresh basil leaves instead, or ask around where you can gather some fresh lavender, it grows all over the place.
You can certainly try it. I don't know if the tulsi flavor will be what you want or not, though.
I also don't think I've ever heard of eggplant niçoise with lavender (and couldn't find a recipe with it) so it's probably also fine without it if you don't think the flavor's going to be what you want.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.761595
| 2013-08-05T01:59:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35812",
"authors": [
"Brooklyn_95",
"Margaret FitzGibbon",
"MarkE",
"PoppyCorn144",
"Punjabi Guy's",
"Ray",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sheila L. Manning",
"SourDoh",
"Waqas",
"Woodstock",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83933",
"mreff555"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35796
|
Non-alcoholic mint julep?
Can I substitute Bourbon in this recipe? Lemonade would make it too sour. Water would make it too watery.
I know this isn't exactly cooking per se, but the reason behind this is that I have a BUNCH of left over mint that's probably a day from going bad and I'm scrambling to
As far as the second paragraph goes, we already have that question: What can I do with extra mint?
In the world of cocktails, the term for creating a drink with no alcohol is "virgin".
If you google "virgin mint julep", you will find recipes to try to simulate the beverage without bourbon. They employ a variety of strategies, but ginger ale, lemon juice, or lemonade seem to come up fairly frequently, alone or in combination.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.761773
| 2013-08-04T08:40:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35796",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"HunnyBear",
"James Espie",
"Jonno_FTW",
"cmcromance",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83872",
"karan patel",
"user83853"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24846
|
How to make chapattis round and of same thickness?
I have tried making Chapatis many times. I can make dough for Chapati very well, but I am failing when it comes to structure of the roti/chapati.
I make two mistakes:
When I try to flatten it, one side (when you look at it horizontally) is thicker than the other which makes it hard to be cooked evenly and results in a chapati that no one wants to eat.
Chapati should be round, sometimes I am lucky, most of the times it is similar to map of Australia. Is there a trick to keeping the chapati all uniformly round?
Is your dough properly kneaded? Underkneaded dough just sits there in lumps, well-kneaded dough springs into a nice symmetrical form almost by itself.
@rumtscho notable point!
I have the Australia-shaped chapati problem too. It gets better with practice, though...
If you are having trouble rolling dough to a uniform thickness then you might consider putting training wheels on your rolling pin until you get more practiced.
http://www.amazon.com/Rolling-Hills-Pin-Rings/dp/B000I1ZXBC
(I don't know anything about this particular brand.)
These rubber bands fit on your rolling pin and act as spacers so you can enforce a strict thickness upon your dough. They are, of course, useful for rolling out many things besides chapati.
To reiterate what @rumtscho and @bob said. Your dough should be of a uniform consistency if you want to roll it out in a uniform manner.
As far as a perfect circle goes, turn it often and don't roll too much in one direction. It just takes some practice.
If you can't find these, you can sometimes find something else that you can use as a guide for the thickness you're attempting to roll to. (eg, skewers for really thin items (I like long metal ones ... the handle keeps them from rolling away), chopsticks for thicker but relatively small items, etc.) Just set them on either side of the item to be rolled out, a bit inside of the working width of your rolling pin. I've even rolled stuff out within a sheet pan, so the rim was the guide.
Chapatis are a pain to shape perfectly; however, I have found a few tricks that helped me conquer the Australia-Shaped Chapati Problem:
Roll the dough into rough balls, and allow it 10 minutes to rest so the gluten can relax.
Flour both the work surface and the dough THOROUGHLY. Flour is your lubricant here, and you can never have too much lubricant. I like to plop it into a bowl of flour regularly during the shaping.
Start by flattening the ball with your palms to get it started. This helps get the initial shape right.
Use a rolling pin from here, don't try to flatten with just your palms
Rotate the dough frequently to get it round
Keep flouring & flipping the chapati as you flatten it, so it doesn't stick to the work surface or rolling pin. You can NEVER have too much flour!
Traditionally a raised, round platform is used in shaping.
You may find this YouTube Video useful for how to shape chapatis.
Won't using too much flour dry the roti? Another thing to think about when cooking: flip the roti between your hands a few times to just before putting it in the pan, the idea is to knock of extraneous flour which might taste bad when burnt.
Knead you dough nice and soft and even.
Make smalls rolls of the dough for each chapati and leave them for over 5 minutes.
Flatten the chapati rolls between your palms.
Place a circular cut cloth of equal size on your rolling plate.
Now place chapati dough at the center of the circular on the rolling plate.
Start rolling the chapati and keep turning the cloth below. (You need not turn the chapati.)
The cloth ensures that your chapati does not stick to the rolling plate and you can keep turning the chapati easily and frequently so that it is rolled out evenly.
The circular cloth will help you in making exact round chapatis.
A quick hack is to place a medium-sharp-edged round shaped container top on the rolled Australian-shaped chapati to trim the rough edges :-)
The problem is the rolling pin...
Indian rolling pins are thicker at the centre, and taper towards the end. This helps to spread the dough into a more circular circle.
This is actually a common feature of a French (or tapered) rolling pin. Not unique to Indian rolling pins.
@Catija : but the size is much, much different. A french pin is made for rolling out things like 12" pie crusts. A rolling pin for chapatis is made for rolling out things only a few inches across (most are under a foot long), so the change in thickness across 4" is much more significant.
Take a chunk of the chapatti dough, roll it lightly to form a ball, and flatten it slightly between your palms. Dip in flour, place on a floured surface, and roll it flat with a rolling pin, rotating it a couple of times to ensure even thickness.
You sometimes see people flapping the chapatti from hand to hand, but they've had years of practice; life's too short, use a rolling pin!
I use rolling pin, still get uneven thickness.
Then you need to work on your rolling technique. Roll once from top to bottom, then rotate the chapatti 90º and repeat, until you have the desired thickness. Try to use the same amount of pressure each time.
What about the roundness? It sometimes goes triangular, sometimes like square and sometimes as I mentioned in the question.
I mean when I do it 90 degrees 4 times, it'll go quadrilateral.
The roundness will depend on how uniform the ball is before you start to roll it. You shouldn't need 4 rotations, you should only need 2 really - the first will make an oval, the second will make it round.
I cheat and use a tortilla press.
It makes them a bit smaller than I would like, but it takes the guesswork & 'Australia factor' out of it.
You can always use a rolling pin or the flapping between your hands to stretch them out a little more if size is an issue
@Joe - tbh, it usually isn't - they're just going to be torn up to pick up the food. I just make a couple more than I would if they were larger :) I'm not bad with a rolling pin, but this keep the production line up, so I can always be one ahead in a single pan, without losing concentration on the one that's cooking.
The trick to rolling round chapattis of uniform thickness is to first start rolling the edges.
Start with say the right most edge. The pin should roll back and front and at the same time should turn a bit so the chapatti turns without you having to turn it. That way eventually all the edges will come near the right side of your pin and be rolled and rotate out.
In effect you are trying to rotate the chapatti together with rolling it back and front
Imagine driving a car, you dont turn the handle at 90 degrees to turn, you slowly turn.
While learning, you dont know how much turn to apply but with practice you apply just enough turn to the steering without the car jerking too much. The turn is smooth.
If you put enough dry flour at the bottom of the chapatti, the entire chapatti will turn and you'll end up rolling all the edges. Keep it smooth without jerking too much
Once the edges are rolled, you roll the centre using same amount of pressure
It takes around 7-8 days of rolling to get it right
If you are learning to drive someone taking 2 hours a day over 4 days will be better than someone who has taken 8 hours today just because muscles take time to develop a memory.
Give it a weeks practice and you should get it right by 7th or 8th day.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.761898
| 2012-07-04T09:52:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24846",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Catija",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Joe",
"KiwiGeorgia",
"Regina Bayón",
"Santosh Kumar",
"Tetsujin",
"arvidj",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9833",
"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
}
|
22890
|
Is there a plastic bowl/dish that can withstand high temperature in the oven?
I am looking for a plastic bowl or dish that can withstand high temperature in the oven? A bowl or dish that won't melt nor emit odour. Is there such a thing?
Never saw one. Googling for heat-resistant plastic bowls, pans etc did not provide me with any kitchenware that is both heat-resistant and plastic. Why won't metal, oven-capable glass or silicone bowls do?
possible duplicate of flexible food grade plastics that won't melt at 105 C
Can you explain why you're looking for such an item? I'd be tempted to point you towards silicone bowls, but I don't know why you're specifically asking about plastic. I suspect resin bowls could take the temperature (especially those that are cured w/ heat), but I don't know if they're food safe when heated (I've only seen them for pet dishes, not for humans)
@Mien: The questions do seem similar, but the other one is looking for gasketting, not bakeware, and they're talking about temperatures a little above boiling, not full oven temp.
i'm not sure about the shape your looking for but take a look at the high heat cambro boxes, they are rated to 500F I think.
Silicone bakeware is available which is oven safe up to 500°F/260°C. Just like other materials it has some advantages and disadvantages.
Advantages:
Easy to clean rubbery surface (will need a little cooking spray, but not much)
Flexible, so easier to remove baked goods
Often fridge/microwave safe
Disadvantages:
Not very durable, due to softer material
Can be cut by metal utensils
Floppy
May warp or melt in some cases.
Generally, I've heard very mixed reviews from bakers using silicone (except for Silpats). Although you can obtain it in the American market, most people prefer metal or Pyrex.
Yes. As already mentioned, silicone is rated to about 500°F
Aside from PTFE (teflon), the other commonly available plastic rated for oven temps is CPET, usuually used for disposable bakeware. Examples of CPET plastic oven-safe bakeware:
Gladware 9x12
Ovenready Bakery Tray
Ovenready Food Tray
Overready Plastic Bakeware at Web Restaurant Store
Certainly there are high temperature plastic cooking utensils, very many in fact. I'm not clear on what your intended use is, but here is a rundown.
There are two general types, hard high temp plastic and silicone. The hard plastic is typically rated to withstand oven heat up to 410F (210C), and they are not for stove top or broiler use due to much higher heat. Silicone plastic utensils withstand up to 500F, but again, no stove top or broiler use. Both can be used in microwave ovens, their primary use. I use both kinds for baking, and the hard for roasting.
The hard plastic utensils are fine for baking standard cakes, typically at $350F, and as roasting racks for non-broiler use. There are simple cake pans, cupcake pans, bundt pans as well as the roasting racks for meats. The work well, may darken with age. Nordic Ware, Anchor Hocking and many others make high quality hard high-temp plastic utensils.
Silicone utensils are not rigid but can be stiff enough with ribbing. One advantage is that they can be easily molded into a vast number of shapes. They tend to release food easily, another plus. They are very inexpensive compared to metal utensils. It is best to buy a known brand, like Wilton, since a vast number of them are cheap imports that are too flimsy or won't stand much heat.
A few hard plastics are oven safe. Le Creuset says that the covers of their enamelled Dutch ovens are safe up to 190°C. Their knobs are made from some kind of phenolic compound. Bakelite can also be heated a lot and does not melt, although I am not sure if it is food safe.
Still, I have never heard of bowls made from these plastics, nor other plastic bowls made for the oven. And I don't think there will be any. The advantages of plastic are that it is lightweight, cheap, can be colored beautifully, and doesn't break easily. Phenolic plastics don't have any of these - they are difficult to produce, cost a lot, they are dense (so they are heavy for their size), they tend to be hard to color (bakelite is always darkish, and gets darker with time), and they are brittle in comparison to other plastics. Still, these things have all the disadvantages of plastic. They can never go to temperatures as high as other materials, and some of them can contain nasty chemicals you don't want anywhere near your food.
No matter what you need this bowl for, there is a better solution than plastic. Depending on what you want, steel can give you the lightness and unbreakability, and glass or ceramics can give you the thermal insulation properties you could get with plastic.
Nordic Ware has plates which are durable and safe in the oven to a temperature of 400F. You can purchase them on Walmart's Website or Amazon.
Yes it exists!
Clean Baking Products is a company, specialized in baking moulds made off the best, innovative composite material.
This material can resist temperatures from - 40°C till 250°C.
Advantages:
40°C - 250°C
for the oven
no oxidation
no deformation
light-weight
less use of butter
Check out for more information: www.cleanbakingproducts.com
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.762496
| 2012-04-09T12:00:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22890",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Brendan",
"Eliza Januar",
"EvgeniySharapov",
"Joan Luetkemeyer Irwin",
"Joe",
"Lisa Vasquez",
"Louise",
"Mien",
"Mischa Arefiev",
"Mohamed GadAllah",
"Ryan Foley",
"Snigdha Roy",
"The fresh marshmellow",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8486",
"marilyn raff",
"pcera1212"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1747
|
How to remove bits of egg shell from a cracked egg?
Sometimes when I crack eggs, I end up with a bit of shell in the egg. How can I easily get the shell out, as it always seems to evade my fingers?
A similar question had an answer that points to videos on how do crack and separate eggs. The videos demonstrate how to use one of the half shells to scoop up any pieces that fall inside.
Use part of the shell you just cracked to scoop it up; it will attract the broken bit.
Also, if you frequently end up with bits of shell in your eggs, you should revise your cracking technique. Eggs should be cracked on a flat surface (countertop or plate) not a sharper surface like the edge of a bowl.
the "cracking on a flat surface" tip is interesting -- I'll try that next time
Tried the "cracking on a flat surface" tip, it definetly works better than cracking on a bowl's edge.
If the egg is going to get mixed up anyway, go ahead and mix it with the shell in there. Then, pour it through a colander (with a bowl underneath, of course).
It doesn't work well to use a fine wire mesh colander; the egg won't go through it.
Even with a plastic colander, you'll still lose a bit of egg.
Also, sometimes just pouring the egg from one bowl to another leaves the bit of shell behind.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.762915
| 2010-07-18T14:27:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1747",
"authors": [
"HedgeMage",
"Itai Ferber",
"Robert Kusznier",
"alexanderpas",
"balpha",
"drewk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6143",
"papin",
"takrl"
],
"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
}
|
6601
|
What can I do with apple peel?
I made an apple pie the other day and peeled 6 or so apples. I ended up composting the peelings, and it got me wondering, what else could I have done with them?
hopefully not too recipe requesty...
Eat it, it’s very good ;)
@Martin, it is good, but the peel from six apples is a bit much for me.
One caveat with all this: Commercial apples are often lacquered with wax or other things that, while supposedly edible, might yield surprises when processing the peels.
You could use them, together with the core, to make apple-glaze (for your pie). Cover everything with water, simmer about 30 min, strain, simmer until you reach the desired density.
How would you make apple-glaze?
Cover everything with water, simmer about 30min, filter, simmer until you got the desired density.
You can do something similar to how low-end vodka is made from potato peelings:
Take all the peels, stuff in a blender, and liquefy with as little water as needed to make a fairly liquid slurry. Dump into a large pot, bring to a boil, cover, cool. Dump into a fermenter, add yeast, wait a week, strain, add a clarifying agent, return to fermenter, let rest a week, distill, recombine with water/sugar/apple juice to flavor: bam, free applejack :)
This takes some know-how with respect to fermentation, and some effort to set up the fermentation, but if you have loads of apple bits (like from pressing cider from 6 or so bushels), it is kinda worth it for free booze from nature.
Home distilling is illegal in almost every major country. Also, it's dangerous because of intoxicating and potentially explosive fumes. And to top all that off, because apple peels are high in pectin, which distills to methanol, which is highly toxic, you'd have to be very careful to capture and discard the relatively high amount of methanol that would be produced relative to using whole apples or other fruits as your base.
Fermentation is legal lots of places, of course, just not distilling.
The other day I stumbled across this recipe for apple butter that uses the peels. It's made from apples as well, it's not just the peels, but the author specifically mentions that she dumps any extra peels (i.e. from apple sauce or apple pie) in the crock pot in order to increase the yield.
I haven't tried to make it, but the photo makes it look pretty delicious.
nice stumbling!
This isn't exactly a culinary use, but apple peel is apparently a very popular exfoliant.
There are some "creative" suggestions towards the bottom of this page. (dietary supplement, jelly, string, ...).
(But personally I'd just compost 'em).
Apple peels combined with any citrus slices and/or peels, a cinnamon stick, some whole cloves, and some allspice makes a great potpourri. Cover with water and maintain at a very low simmer on the back of the stove. It makes the house smell homey and comforting from the minute you walk in the door!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.763080
| 2010-09-02T18:13:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6601",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Kyra",
"Martin Marconcini",
"Michael Natkin",
"Sam Holder",
"Stephanie",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"rackandboneman"
],
"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
}
|
107141
|
Low fat muffins won't rise
I'm really trying to make a great low fat muffin. No matter how hard I have tried with this one (I am not over stirring), I can't get these to rise past a mini muffin height, and this batter is so sticky, it's all I can do to get it off the spoon. Any insight/suggestions?
https://www.averiecooks.com/skinny-blueberry-muffins/
Is your baking powder relatively fresh?
Muffin mix should be a pourable batter, not a thick dough, your mix is too dry. If it's too dry and claggy it won't be free to expand, and you don't get a rise from water vapor. Try adding more cashew milk until you get a pourable batter, and try it again. You want it to be ribbony, not so loose it evens out right away.
I'm not sure about pourability being needed for rise. I don't make many muffins, but I have a cake recipe which has to be dug out of the mixer bowl with a spoon, and it rises very high, more than a typical pound cake, for example.
upvote for "claggy".
Try a different sour milk product.
I am suspicious of the pectin and guar gum and other stuff that turns up in Greek yogurt. Suspicious for baking and cooking purposes; I think that stuff is fine to eat as yogurt. Different "greek yogurts" vary a lot as regards what thickeners are in them besides milk. Maybe the author used something different than what you have.
I never bake or cook with nonfat yogurt but if that is an important part of this, you could try a brand with minimal additives. Or if your goal is to make good muffins you could use plain full fat yogurt. Or substitute sour cream thinned to the correct consistency with some extra cashew milk. Sour cream makes good muffins.
A proper Greek yogurt shouldn't have any thickeners added to it. Yes, many brands do use them, but your answer asserts that they all do, which is false.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.763348
| 2020-03-29T17:56:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107141",
"authors": [
"Allison C",
"James McLeod",
"Willk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62114",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108107
|
What is the difference between cooking at low temperature and sous vide in a plastic bag?
Why do you sous vide in a vacuumed bag, which is more complicated than just cooking your meat or vegetable at a low temperature while being in contact with the water? Does it loose taste?
While sous vide does mean "under vacuum," much of the cooking is done in plastic zip lock bags with no vacuum, but with the air squeezed out. The critical element is precise temperature control that you achieve with an immersion circulator. You could certainly cook this way by dumping your vegetables or meat right into the water itself. The problem is that most of the immersion circulators on the market today, would not handle the contamination of the water. They would get greasy or accumulate food particles and their performance would degrade or they would stop working. There is also the issue of losing flavor to the cooking water, which you point out. You can also achieve this level of precise temperature control with many combi-ovens, thus eliminating the need for water and bags, but most are cost prohibitive for the home cook. Another pricey, but excellent option is a temperature controlled induction burner, such as the Breville Control Freak. This would allow the same temperature accuracy without the plastic bags, and also provide the ability to use any liquid for cooking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.763611
| 2020-05-04T19:19:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108107",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
118130
|
Do gas cooktops result in more greasy residue than induction?
I have a problem with greasy residue (the bane of my existence) in my kitchen. It builds up pretty quickly on most surfaces close to the cooktop, makes dust stick, and is a horrible tedium to clean up.
Is this common?
My suspicion is that it's either my ventilation, my cooking habits, or the type of cooktop that causes this.
Ventilation is hard to change, but what I do have is not the filter-only type but one that leads the air to the outside. Likewise, my cooking habits are hard to change - I want to keep on cooking close to the smokepoint etc.
Can this problem be mitigated by switching to induction or am I stuck with having to clean greasy surfaces for the rest of my life?
Very, very closely related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117700
Do you use a splatter screen? (Which would not be in that other question that people are linking to, as it’s not talking about mitigation)
I agree this is a duplicate, the type of heat source is immaterial.
@rumtscho et. al definitely a duplicate, I guess I should have searched for aerosol and genesis instead of mundane words like greasy residue! Thanks for the help, I'll need to increase ventilation then.
@Max this is the main reason our sites don't delete duplicates, but just close them - it is pretty common that people use different terms for the same thing. Now there are two separate posts about the same thing, both of which can be found, and from both of them, a single coherent list of answers is reachable - quite useful for all the other people with the same problem who will find it later.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.763744
| 2021-12-07T15:50:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/118130",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84482",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
101134
|
Why is a pressure canner needed when canning?
I keep reading the same tip, when it comes to preserves, which essentially is:
Botulism spores can survive 100°C and require hotter than boiling water temperature.
Source: https://www.thespruceeats.com/boiling-water-bath-versus-pressure-canning-1327438
What I don't understand is, why a waterbath in my oven set to 150°C is insufficient to achieve this effect? Or simply a water bath on the stove?
What stops me from heating the content of the jar to above 100°C without a pressure cooker?
As your source points out, the type of preserve will dictate the process to use when canning. What is it that you want to preserve?
In my case it is peppers, which are not acidic.
Physics stops you from heating up liquids that consist of mostly water to temperatures above (roughly) 100 C.
The temperature of your heating element can be set higher, but neither the temperature of the water bath nor the liquid in your jars can go higher than the boiling point where water changes from liquid to vapor - which is 100 C at normal pressure 1. To raise the temperature, you have to increase the pressure, so that the new boiling point is at or above the temperature required for safe canning. A pressure cooker may be suitable for the purpose, provided the model is designed for the specific pressure and allows setting/reading the specific pressure or alternatively, temperature. Pressure canners on the other hand are specifically designed for that purpose and marketed as such.
——
1 Note that 100 C is correct only at sea level and given a few more constraints. At higher altitudes the boiling point may be significantly lower. For the answer here, 100 C is close enough. (Or far enough from safe canning temperatures for non-acidic items.)
Also note that pressure canners and pressure cookers are different. Some pressure cookers have no way to read or regulate pressure, which is important for canning.
@moscafj, Really? My pressure cooker doesn't let me adjust the pressure. It's fixed (regulated) by the weight of the jiggler on top vent and the diameter of the vent opening. I don't need to read the pressure, because as long as there's steam escaping the weight, I know the pressure is pretty close to the designed pressure of my cooker.
@ThePhoton right...that's why you shouldn't use it for canning.
This sounds so counter intuitive. So if I am cooking soup on full flame I am just wasting my energy, as the soup is 100° and not one degree above? So what is the difference between simmer and roaring boiling, just a couple of degrees?
@user1721135 the difference is the amount of energy per time you are transferring to your pot. If you want to keep the pot at a certain temperature, a simmer will usually suffice. A rolling boil is better for reducing liquids, as more liquid evaporates in a given time frame. You may have had to add more water to your soup after boiling it hard for a time. Simmer and the reduced movement will also protect delicate items from falling apart, e.g. some dumplings.
@user1721135 You're increasing the rate at which the water evaporates, which may be a waste of energy, detriminal to the end product, or desired. But you're not increasing the temperature of the soup above 100 °C. The water is essentially a cheap thermostat. If you could, you would be constantly burning your food. Think about what happens if you just leave a carrot on a pan on full flame for half an hour, and compare what happens with the same carrot if you keep it submerged in water under otherwise the same conditions. Oil works the same way, but has a higher boiling temperature.
@user1721135 You may want to watch for example this YouTube video. How high you crank up your stove will influence the lenght of the phase change, but not the principle that the temperature plateaus during a phase change.
@ThePhoton If you have a multi-piece rocker weight, you pressure cooker may still be adjustable. But, the controls on the cooker are not rated as being as accurate at holding pressure as the designs on canners, so even if it will adjust to the higher pressure, it is not rated as safe or likely would have been sold as a canner for premium prices.
@user1721135: the same effect is true for the solid-liquid transition too: if you have an ice water bath out in the hot sun, the temperature of the water will stay fixed at 0c until the ice melts, only then will it start to rise.
Now I understand why my sous vide circulator only goes to 100°C. OK I am now convinced and will get a pressure canner.
@whatsisname Or simpler, ice cubes in a gin tonic. Count me in...
@Luaan That raises a question. Could you can something in oil then without using pressurized equipment?
@tylisirn You would have to replace all the water in the food with oil. There are some preservation techniques that do exactly that (or don't add the oil either, as with dried meat), but that gives you a very different end product. Some oils also have a boiling temperature much higher than 150 °C, which might also be undesirable. But in the end, canning has always been mainly a way to preserve food for essentially unlimited time at a very low cost. Pressure cookers work fine :)
I like to explain the physics this way: heat is a thing, temperature is a place. If you put a hot thing next to a cold thing, heat stuff will flow out of the hot thing into the cold thing. This will cause the cold thing's temperature to rise, and the hot things's temperature to fall, unless other factors interfere. How far and how fast these temperatures move depends on the material: dense things like iron can absorb a lot of heat but temperature rises slowly. Light things like air gain or lose temperature quickly as heat moves.
For a stove burner, you have continuous input of more heat, so the burner's temperature will not fall. The liquid in the pot is mostly water, which can absorb a lot of heat and its temperature will rise--to a point. What interferes is called a phase transition (what you and I call boiling). At this point, further heat energy going into the water is used to turn it into steam, while the remaining water stays in place (this place is about 100C at normal pressure).
Putting the water under pressure changes the place at which this transition happens, and so the water can absorb more heat, going to a higher temperature, before turning into steam.
Saying that heat is a thing and temperature is a place is neither correct from a technical point of view, nor is it particularly helpful from a lay person's point of view (in my opinion). In what way is temperature like a location?
I have found the analogy quite useful in speaking to non-technical people. Temperature is a point along a line, like a mile marker along a road. It helps people understand that "100C" doesn't mean there's 100 units of something anywhere, it's just a label we've given to that point along the line. Calories, on the other hand, are actual things you can count and add up and move around. I find the analogy useful to explain things like why adding two temperatures is meaningless. If you don't find the analogy useful, don't use it.
The physics behind why you can't heat liquid water past its boiling point is defined as when vaporization pressure equals atmospheric pressure. So, putting your canning water in an oven, which is at atmospheric pressure, will result in the water getting no hotter than if it were on the stove, which is also at atmospheric pressure, because the energy required for water to change from liquid to gas is the same for both situations.
Why you need to use a pressure cookers is shown in The Ideal Gas Law: PV = nRT. Rearranging the equation for your situation gives: P = (nR/V)T and noting that (nR/V) is a constant, we can rewrite it as P = kT, which indicates that increasing the temperature will increase the internal pressure of the pressure cooker, thus increasing the energy required for a water molecule to become vapor. Therefore, liquid water can become hotter in a pressure cooker, which is what you need to ensure sterilization!
This is not correct. The fact that water boils is what stops you from heating a water bath hotter than 100C. Its latent heat of vaporization is how much energy it takes to boil a mass of water, but is not important here. The boiling point of water is not linear in temperature: see this figure. The statement that water can become hotter before boiling at higher pressure is correct, which is why pressure canning works.
You're correct, I was wrong in attributing it to latent heat of vaporization, I was thinking of the definition of boiling point and used the entirely wrong term. I edited my post accordingly. Thanks for pointing that out!
Minor quibble. Because the LHV of water is much higher than the amount of energy needed to raise the temperature 1 degree, you actually tend to raise the temp of the water over 100C before it boils off without needing to raise the pressure. This tends to only be a fraction of a degree though unless done very carefully and is not significant to cooking temps. It is normally less than home equipment can even measure, but in a lab I did see someone force it to about 102 with just the minor pressure increase of putting a lid on a pot. More trivia than anything practical though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.763919
| 2019-09-03T20:24:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/101134",
"authors": [
"Jeff",
"Kevin",
"Lee Daniel Crocker",
"Luaan",
"Ross Millikan",
"Stephie",
"The Photon",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77366",
"moscafj",
"tylisirn",
"user1721135",
"whatsisname"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90489
|
New green leaf vegetable in the family. What is it called?
Every week I get a box with regional vegetables, and this time this one came. I tried looking for cabbage, but I could not find anything similar. Do you know what is it? How is it cooked?
What does it look like when you remove the outer leaves?
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spitzkohl
This looks a lot like a sweetheart cabbage... it does not look very new though.
Or a smallish Napa cabbage. - Make some Kimchi !
Is there more than one thing called 'Napa cabbage'? The thing Wiki shows under that name is what I know as 'chinese leaves' and has little resemblance to the OP's item, which I would also identify as Sweetheart cabbage.
Napa cabbage has more of a bullet than a teardrop shape to it...
This is a pointed cabbage, there are many varieties and it's hard to say which one. Cooking-wise they are in general not as tough as round cabbages, and a bit sweeter. You still prepare them as any other cabbage, just reduce the cooking time a bit. I personally think that boiling this type is a waste, I usually saute them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.764938
| 2018-06-21T20:38:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90489",
"authors": [
"Johannes_B",
"Spagirl",
"Summer",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65929",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92150
|
What are traditional sushi rolls originating from Japan?
I'm curious if there are an established traditional sushi rolls from Japan. I came across an article that says there are 86 different types of sushi rolls: https://www.bleepingworld.com/different-types-of-sushi-rolls/
I assume "Texas Roll" and "California Roll" did not originate in Japan, for example.
What are the traditional Japanese sushi rolls?
Sorry, but to my knowledge there is no sushi legislation which determines which kinds are considered "real". "Authentic" is also a very difficult term, since there is no set point in history after which new kinds become "unauthentic", it differes with an author's interpretation. And even if there were a way to define the category you are looking for, it would end up being a laundry list stile question, which is not something this site can deal with very well.
I'd assume that "authentic" sushi rolls would come from Japan. Names like Boston Roll, California Roll, and Las Vegas Roll hardly sound Japanese. Food is constantly evolving. Trying to list all the kinds of sushi rolls is as futile as trying to list the all kinds of sandwiches.
Makizushi, which includes norimaki : hosomaki, chumaki, futomaki, uramaki, and temaki. Then we have the question if gunkan maki is a 'roll'. I assume there'd be a name for the makizushi that isn't norimaki (ie, uses something other than nori seaweed for wrapping). Once you get past that level, it's more like asking 'how many different recipes are there for meatloaf'?
Doh. I forgot to mention that uramaki isn't Japanese ... it's Californian. It's the 'inside out' rolls, where it's not nori on the outside.
The whole "roll" concept--rice on the outside, goopy sauce--is entirely American. Japanese nori maki leave the nori on the outside, and don't sauce them up. Sashimi and nigiri are of Japanese origin.
Having been to Japan, I can tell you that while they may not have a Texas Roll commonly available, they still do some pretty out there stuff with their sushi which even most Japanese wouldn't consider "authentic". There simply is no answer to this question, unless you will accept "only rolls which contain rice, seaweed, optional soy sauce and wasabi, and a combination of not more than two of: at most one kind of fish/seafood; egg (tamagoyaki, raw quail egg, etc); finely sliced raw green onions". That seems to be the definition of edomae-style sushi, which is as authentic as I think you can get
About 25 years ago I was in Japan for a couple weeks, guests of steel mills. We had nearly all traditional foods ; Probably had some rolls but they were not common.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.765079
| 2018-09-08T07:46:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92150",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Lee Daniel Crocker",
"MaxW",
"blacksmith37",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho",
"senschen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93535
|
How do you test a cake or brownie with a toothpick?
When it comes to the toothpick test for checking cake and brownie doneness, where do I poke the toothpick?
The center of the pan is usually the last part to cook. So, test the center.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.765309
| 2018-11-03T09:22:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93535",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.