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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
92863
|
Why does my cake get hard after baking?
I am trying to make marble cake. I guess I used the ingredients in the correct proportion, but when I take cake out, I found the cake hard.
This is the recipe I followed:
2 cups all-purpose flour,2 teaspoons baking powder,1/2 teaspoon salt,1 cup
white sugar,1/2 cup butter,2 eggs,1 teaspoon vanilla extract,1 cup milk,2 tablespoons unsweetened cocoa powder
Preheat oven to 350 degrees F (175 degrees C)
Place flour, baking powder, salt, sugar, butter, eggs, vanilla, and milk into mixing bowl. Beat slowly to moisten, then beat with an electric mixer at medium speed for about 2 minutes until smooth
Stir cocoa into the 3/4 cup reserved batter.
Bake in preheated oven for 30 to 35 minutes.
-
Am I missing some ingredient?
Is there any issue with oven temperature?
How do I fix hard cake?
The first thing to check is if you are using the correct measurements. When a volumetric recipe says "cup", it usually doesn't mean "any cup in your cupboard", it means "a unit of measurement that is exactly 236 ml". This is so commonsense in the USA that nobody tells you about it, and for people from other countries, it comes as a great surprise. While using the wrong cup might scale the recipe proportionally, you still have the eggs to worry about here.
The second thihng is that measuring by volume has a lot of leeway. Try weighing your solid ingredients instead. The conversion to try would be: 250 g flour, 100 g sugar, 115 g butter, 240 ml milk. Sift the flour before use.
The third thing is to bake until done. Hard cakes often result from overbaking, and the time given is just a guideline. Test the cake every now and then, and take it out as soon as the tester shows no stickiness. Don't wait for the full 35 minutes (if they haven't happened yet) and don't let the cake stay in the oven for longer, even if you already turned it off.
If you still dislike the results, turn to a cake recipe with less liquid, something that is closer to a traditional pound cake, with only a little extra liquid, or none at all.
Also worth mentioning that even with the correct sized cup, how you use it to measure affects things, too. (scooping into the flour vs spooning the flour in the cup, shaking vs. scraping across the top to level, etc.)
@Joe yes, thank you for mentioning that. It was the reasoning behind me suggesting first converting to weight, but I never wrote it into the answer itself.
My guess would be a problem with the method. Most recipes have you cream the butter and sugar first, before adding the remaining ingredients. Others will have you beat the eggs with sugar and melt the butter.
I don't see anything immediately off about the proportions or temperature and baking time. My recommendation would be to cream the butter and sugar first, the add the eggs one at a time, beating the mixture well and and then add the remaining ingredients. This should give a fluffier texture.
Here are a few more variables not yet mentioned:
oven temperature: Consumer ovens are notoriously inaccurate -- even if you set yours for 350°F, you might actually get 400°F or even higher. Baking at too high a temperature will of course lead to over-baking.
baking powder: Baking powder has a limited shelf life; once you open the can, it starts to absorb moisture from the air, and eventually it becomes less effective. It's not a fast process, but if your baking powder has been sitting in your pantry for a few years it might not be giving your cake as much lift as you want, and that can result in a dense cake.
mixing: The way you mix the ingredients can have a big effect, and the method in your recipe seems unusual: normally, you'd cream the butter and sugar together, and then add the eggs, milk, and finally the dry ingredients. For example, here's a Martha Stewart marble cake recipe that has nearly the same ingredients, but where the ingredients are mixed as I've just described. Putting everything in the bowl at once and mixing until smooth wouldn't develop the batter the same way and might be contributing to the problem. Also, know that stand mixers are a lot more powerful than handheld electric mixers, so judge how long to mix by what the batter looks like rather than relying on the 2-minute time estimate.
Most recipes want you to put all the ingredients in a bowl and mix, but in my experience, this sets you up for failure. First you want to mix all of the dry ingredients completely Especially when dealing with baking powder.
Baking powder and egg gives you the rise you need in your cake, but if a clump of baking soda doesn't get spread througoht your cake, the cake will react as if there is less baking soda and most likely turn out as hard as a rock. Or close given the ratio that was there.
I use a sifter to evenly mix all the dry ingredients together first. If you are going for a chewier consistency though, sugar and butter can be mixed together and then the dry ingrediants sifted next, followed by the eggs and the rest of the liquid ingredients.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.765373
| 2018-10-13T05:19:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92863",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92855
|
Help with raw shrimp color
I bought raw, red Argentina shrimp. In the fridge, I noticed the legs looked like they turned blackish-blue. Does this mean they went bad?
No, blue legs in and of itself is not an indicator of bad shrimp. Many, if not most (or all), shrimp, lobster, and crayfish are coloured various blues, aquas, and greens before cooking at which point they get their traditional red look.
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/92341/67
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.765781
| 2018-10-12T23:37:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92855",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92934
|
Sugar substitute for cake recipe
I ran out of granulated sugar for a cake recipe. Will XXX sugar, or another sugar/sweetener be a good sub? I also have brown, turbinado, and splenda.
The only functional replacement of what you've mentioned would be the turbinado, which is typically a slightly coarser, unbleached version of regular granulated.
Confectioners/XXX sugar is fine ground into powder and will not provide the aeration or structure/bulk to perform in a cake. Brown sugar could possibly work, but will alter your flavor profile. Splenda just isn't that functional.
Best of luck.
In the future, it'll help if you give more info on the type of cake/product you're making.
Yeah I wouldn't use confectioners/powdered sugar as it is actually very finely ground sugar and corn starch. You don't want to add more corn starch to your recipe!Totally agree with @StevenXavier - turbinado is really the only true substitute unless the Splenda is specifically a baking version/mix.
you've literally added nothing to what I already said FYI
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.765845
| 2018-10-15T18:21:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92934",
"authors": [
"StevenXavier",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61074"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93531
|
How to balance the spiciness in any kind of dishes
My question is about the spiciness of any kind of dish. I am having trouble balancing the spiciness in food. Sometime salt becomes sharp, and sometimes peppers are too sharp.
First, where you can, use a recipe. This doesn't have to be from a book. If you like a particular dish that you often ate as a child, ask the person who made that dish how much salt, how much peppers, and so on, they used when making the usual amount. (But if you're only making 1/4 as much, make sure you reduce everything in the same factor.)
Second, again where you can, start by adding a little, then later tasting and adding more. There are a few dishes where this is not possible, but not many. For example salt is often added at the end of cooking: taste, add a little salt, taste again, add more if you need to. For some spices that must be cooked first, you can cook up the spicy sauce, but then decide towards the end how much of that sauce to add to the actual dish.
Third, learn how to counteract too much salt, too spicy a dish and so on. There are many questions and answers here about this - the specifics vary dish to dish so I won't try to summarize them here, but they generally involve adding something else to balance things out a bit.
Fourth, keep track of what you try. If you put 8 peppers into a stew and it's far too hot, make a note. Next time try 4 peppers. Over time you'll just remember these things instead of needing written notes, but when you're starting there's nothing wrong with writing things down.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.765946
| 2018-11-03T04:15:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93531",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87972
|
Help with making pavlova bases
I constantly am having problems with the removal of baking paper used to line baking tray when making Pavlova bases. I have tried oiling the tray and then dusting the baking paper with cornflour to make it easier to remove the baking paper from the cooked Pavlova base, but it always sticks and tends to destroy the base. Any suggestions?
Could you post your recipe and technique.
Pan release spray (such as PAM in the US) can help hold the paper in place (to aid your piping) and prevent the finished meringue from sticking to the paper once cooled. I've used this technique in both professional kitchens and in my own kitchen at home.
Spray a light coating on the pan, then lay down the paper.
If necessary, spread the coating evenly with your fingers or a towel (for some reasons, the consumer/home versions of these products often emit more of a "blast" compared to the finer "mist" of the professional ones).
Then repeat the process on the top side of the paper.
We've always used teflon sheet for pavlova. It peels off the cool pavlova very well. It's reusable and useful for many other things too, and goes through the dishwasher (though it's slightly awkward in there). Just cut it to the size of your baking tray with scissors.
Are you sure you use waxed side of paper and dry base long enough? I know it may be stupid but my girlfriend always mix the sides and her dough always stick to paper.
When making base from 4 large whites I preheat oven to 120C. The I bake the base for 30 minutes AND dry for at least 3 hours in 90-100C.
My mother used to draw circle with her nail in the paper where base should end. She said it help to separate base from paper but I think it was need because of the poor paper quality (she was using white sheets when I use much thicker brown paper from roll).
Maybe you could use edible paper. That would probably be the easiest and quickest way to solve this issue. You can even make it yourself:
https://makezine.com/projects/make-edible-paper-3-easy-steps/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.766195
| 2018-02-25T02:07:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87972",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61534",
"mroll"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88261
|
What are these white and thick things in my egg?
I bought a carton of eggs 6 days ago, and all the eggs have these white and thick spots in them. Not sure how to describe it. Does it mean the eggs went bad?
Did they go bad? The eggs are suppose to be good till April 12th.
Are you describing the chalaza? See this: http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/birds/info/chicken/egg.shtml They look normal to me.
@moscafj Right, it seems I am seeing the chalazae. It is incredible I had never seen it before in other eggs. This is the first time I buy this brand of eggs. Thanks!
Beto, welcome to Seasoned Advice! Let me encourage you to take the [tour] and browse our [help] to learn more about how the site works.
If the whites are holding up as well, (not runny) these are both indications that the eggs are fresher than the ones you're used to.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.766382
| 2018-03-10T18:11:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88261",
"authors": [
"Beto",
"Robin Betts",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65684",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88651
|
Spaghetti noodle issues
I need to cook spaghetti for about 70 people. How do I cook up the noodles that morning and avoid soggy or stuck together noodles? I am assuming my heating option at this event will be the portable tray pans with the little heating candle underneath. So, should I cook the noodles, cool with cold water, and add a little olive oil to keep from sticking? Then to heat back up slowly mix some of the hot noodle water back in? My plan was to make both spaghetti and alfredo also.
Possible duplicate of How do I cook and hold pasta for 200 people?
@moscafj : possibly, but I suspect that we're also dealing with a lack of kitchen, based on the assumption that their only heat source would be chafing dishes.
Also related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/7067/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/66998/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/43353/67; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/403/67 ... and maybe https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/86312/67
Liberal amounts of olive oil is a must. I'm not so sure about the idea of adding hot water to the precooked pasta. It is usually the other way around.
Some italian restaurants will pre-cook pasta al dente before the meal time rush, drain it, mix it with olive oil and then will dip it back into boiling water for a minute before draining and serving.
https://www.bonappetit.com/test-kitchen/cooking-tips/article/make-ahead-pasta
It sounds like you don't know what heating methods will be available at the event. I'd first recommend contacting the event organizer or whoever's in charge of where the event is, and double check if there's a warming kitchen.
If there is, I'd recommend following my advice in How do I cook and hold pasta for 200 people?
If you're really dealing with no heating other than chafing dishes, I would recommend switching from a strand pasta to something like ziti or penne, and making something more like a casserole. They can be served at a lower temperature than you can with strand pasta, as you don't have to worry about the pasta being able to be twirled on a fork.
You do still need to be concerned about the time in the 'food danger zone' of 40°F to 140°F (5°C to 60°C), so if you're really far from the place that you'll be serving at, and can't coordinate to be there within 30 minutes of the food being served, I'd plan for something closer to my previous answer:
Make the red sauce a day or two ahead of time, to avoid stressing out too much on the day of the event. You should also make sure that you have everything that you're going to need for transporting the food (see below)
Cook and shock the pasta. If it starts to clump together as it cools and dries, stir in a little bit of (preferably cold) sauce ... but barely enough to coat, and get it in the fridge. If you can, after about 15-20 minutes, get it out and give it a stir to try to break up any clumps that might have formed as it cooled. (this could also be done the day before, if you have sufficient fridge space) I would still recommend not using a strand pasta if at all possible)
The day of the event, make the alfredo and reheat the red sauce. Heat the sauces as hot as you can get them, in as few vessels as you can. (fewer vessels for a lower surface area, so it'll stay hot longer). Cap them well (avoid evaporative cooling), and get them into coolers** that you've prepared a heat of time (possibly with hot bricks in the bottom ... wrapped in a towel so they don't melt your cooler).
Get all of the chafing dishes lit with hot water in the bottom. (even better if you can call when you're leaving, and have someone else do it before you get there).
Stir the unsauced / barely sauced pasta to break up any clumps. (much easier if you do it before you're also slopping sauce all over the place)
About 15 minutes before you'll be serving, mix the hot sauce with the chilled pasta, and set it in the chafing dishes. Keep a lid on them until it's time to serve.
** If you don't have a large enough cooler, line a cardboard box with large towels, put the pot in it, then wrap the towels over ... and possibly throw a few more on top after putting it in your car)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.766497
| 2018-03-26T15:10:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88651",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34817
|
White foam when boiling presoaked beans
The way I cook beans (always dry, never canned) is A) I soak them the night before, B) boil just the beans for 45 min, and C) then add other ingredients and cook another 1 hr.
Most of the time, and depending on the kind of bean used, the beans in the step B while boiling release lots of white foam. I usually skim the foam and throw it away as it takes too much space in the pot.
Should I discard the foam, or keep it, and why?
"Does it have nutritional value" - this is the kind of health/nutrition question we don't want, because for just about any substance X found in food, there are people who will tell you that X is "good for you".
@rumtscho i don't think that means we should give up trying to know anything
@c agreed, we shouldn't give it up.
The foam happens because legumes are rich in saponines (see my longer answer here). It contains nothing more and nothing less than the water in which you boil the beans, it just happens to trap air bubbles because of its physical properties.
There are no specific culinary reasons for or against keeping the foam. If it is in the way, you can remove it, but nothing bad is going to happen if you keep it. It is not much of a waste anyway, as a large volume of foam contains a very small amount of boiling-water-solution per weight.
Thanks cause I panicked when I checked on my cooking crockpot of beans with smoked turkey legs and sliced sausage. I'd left it to cook overnite & was checking on if needed more cook time for smoked turkey. That foam was a shocker!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.766828
| 2013-06-20T18:27:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34817",
"authors": [
"Carmen Roy",
"David K",
"Douglas Rapp",
"Ethan Fairhurst",
"Fedor Karpelevitch",
"Linda Johnson",
"c..",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81203",
"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
}
|
32605
|
What is "Fish Sauce" typically used for?
A while ago I bought "Fish Sauce" for a recipe (that I've long forgotten) and ended up not using it. Now we don't know what to use it for because none of the Asian cuisine recipes we come across seems to use this stuff. It says the contents are anchovies, salt, and sugar, and it comes in a little bottle with a cap. The smell is pretty strong and fishy. What is this used for (soups, stir-fry, bbq, everything)?
I am answering this because you seem to be asking what the role of this ingredient is in the cuisine, rather than for a list of applications.
Protected because the question is easily misunderstood as "what can I use it for?"
I grew up with a Vietnamese mother that used to put fish sauce in nearly everything. While I can't exactly recommend all of her uses (she once used it in a texas beef chili -- was not good), there are a few techniques that are good to know.
A common method to create a savory sauce is to use fish sauce with sugar at a 2:1 ratio. For example, you can make Dau phu sot ca chua by sauteeing fried tofu with diced tomatoes and adding 2tbsp of fish sauce to 1tbsp of sugar. This ratio can also be used in stir-fries. I would make sure to turn on your air vents when doing this -- the smell of fish sauce hitting a hot pan is... different than what most people are used to.
It works as a savory salt alternative in a lot of dishes. I use it to season fried rice instead of using salt or soy sauce. It generally is a good idea to add this during the cooking process, so the liquid can reduce and meld with the food.
It can also be used to quick brine ground pork for savory asian dishes. I'd add somewhere in the vicinity of a tbsp per pound of ground pork. I use this technique when making Thai Krapao. There are probably other marinating/brining applications, but I don't have much personal experience with that.
You can also use fish sauce to create a wide variety of dipping sauces -- in general it is paired with something sweet (sugar or rice vinegar) to help balance out the saltiness. It is also commonly watered down (Nuoc cham) in vietnamese dipping sauces to keep it from being too overpowering.
On a personal note, my favorite use is straight up on crispy fried eggs (slightly runny yolk) over white rice. It isn't for everyone, but it's something I've been making and enjoying for years.
I believe that most Pad Thai uses a similar ratio; I think it's 1:2:3 sugar:fish-sauce:oyster-sauce. Although, given how sugar is used in Thailand, I might have that backwards ...
Fish sauce is used as a general flavor enhancer, as it is very high in glutimates, the so called umami flavor. As the Wikipedia article says:
In addition to being added to dishes during the cooking process, fish
sauce is also used as a base for a dipping condiment that is prepared
in many different ways by cooks in each country mentioned for fish,
shrimp, pork, and chicken. In parts of southern China, it is used as
an ingredient for soups and casseroles. Fish sauce, and its
derivatives, impart an umami flavor to food due to their glutamate
content.
Edit: I should add that it is also quite salty, so it serves to contribute to the general seasoning of dishes via its salt content as well as through the glutimate content.
And as Jefromi has kindly mentioned: fish sauce is mostly commonly used in Southeast Asia and the coastal regions of East Asia, and featured heavily in Cambodian, Philippine, Thai, and Vietnamese cuisine. BlessedGeek points out that it is also prominent in the cuisines of Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia and Singapore.
Another relevant note from the Wikipedia article: it's common in "Southeast Asia and the coastal regions of East Asia, and featured heavily in Cambodian, Philippine, Thai, and Vietnamese cuisine." - recipes from those cultures will be more likely to include it, while I'm guessing the OP is finding mostly (possibly Americanized) Chinese recipes that are less likely to include it.
That may be the case; Americanized recipes from that region are more likely to call for soy sauce, which performs much the same role.
"featured heavily in Cambodian, Philippine, Thai, and Vietnamese" - what about Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia and Singapore?
@BlessedGeek Saying X is R does not exclude Y from also being R :-)
Also, there's no need to restrict its use to only Asian cuisine, I often replace some of the salt in European recipes with fish sauce, just enough give that lovely umami flavour you mention but not enough to impart any fishy flavour. The longer cooked the dish the more you can add, I find. Of course, this was common practice in Europe centuries ago with the Roman condiment garum.
@Stefano I don't think any of us are saying it restricted to Asian cuisines, but it is not common or traditional by any means in other cuisines.... Agreed on the garum, of which Worcestershire sauce is the spiritual descendant. One could in fact argue that it is Western fish sauce.
I didn't mean to imply that people were saying it was restricted to Asia just that my use case hadn't been mentioned yet; it's actually more common than you would think, especially in professional kitchens (it was a chef who worked in a French restaurant who told me about the trick).
You mentioned the soy connection ... IIRC, I heard that soy suace originated as a fish-sauce imitation / scarcity-caused-replacement.
Fish sauce is liquid drained from fermented anchovies!! When I was in Vietnam we were staying near fish sauce factories, very very smelly!!
It's used to season soups (Pho for example) and sauces and dressings (as with this Lemon Grass Beef) all over Asia. It's really very strong so best only add a little at a time!
Dipping sauce for summer rolls also nice with spring rolls
6 cloves garlic (crushed)
6 birdseye chillies (finely chopped)
50ml groundnut oil for frying
25ml cider vinegar
15ml fish sauce
100g honey
100ml water
200g salted peanuts (coarse blended)
makes A LOT of dipping sauce :)
You can use it as a salt alternative in most savoury dishes. It also a imparts a distinctive "fishy" flavour pastas and most tomato based sauces. You can also use it as a budget alternative to anchovies which is getting a bit expensive.
I just used fish sauce myself for the first time, in a stirfry. The stir fry included veggies I had in the frig (green onions, summer squash, mushrooms, snow peas) along with chicken breasts (and of course garlic and peanut oil). As soon as everything was cooked, I added fish sauce (about 1 tablespoon or two) and a couple of teaspoons of Sesame oil. It was DELICIOUS! So much better than soy sauce - I was surprised. So you CAN cook Americanized Chinese food with it. I highly recommend you try it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.767015
| 2013-03-11T21:36:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32605",
"authors": [
"Adramelech Necessary",
"Benjamin Gruenbaum",
"Canberra Whip",
"Cascabel",
"Cynthia",
"Dashabiga",
"Gisela Herrera",
"Janice Longhi",
"Marc Ilunga",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Stefano",
"Suesz",
"Susan Nordstrom",
"The Owl",
"Vinnie Draper",
"Walter Banks Jr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81566",
"hunter2",
"tallharish"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33081
|
How can I make fat-free whipped "cream" with a whipped cream dispenser?
Does anyone have ideas to make fat-free or low-fat whipped "cream" in a whipped cream dispenser (I have an iSi one)?
What is an ISI?
It is a brand of whipper.
Should the manufacturer's instructions not tell you this, then?
What're you trying to do with it? You can't in general make whipped cream even with half-and-half, so while there might be some wacky ways you can make some kind of low-fat milk foam, it's not going to taste or feel like whipped cream.
add gelatin and keep it cold
There are any number of combinations of hydrocolloid agents that can be used to simulate the viscosity and other properties of dairy cream without the fat or even the dairy. "Modernist Cuisine" by Myhrvold includes a recipe for low fat "cream" which combines skim milk with l-carrageenan, cellulose gum, and whey powder; as well as a recipe for non-dairy whipping cream made from water, cellulose gum, proplene glycol alginate, agar, vegetable oil, and glycerin flake. Other recipes are less complicated with only a single agent such as agar or xanthan gum
Hah, was just watching Nathan's lecture looking for this. Nice.
You can also buy fat free "half and half" that's made with those kinds of ingredients (I remember it at least has carageenan anyway) - I'm sure someone out there is making "cream" too, though as long as they're thickening artificially, the "half and half" may be thick enough already.
Thank you so much Didgeridrew - I can't wait to try the Low Fat Whip Cream with xanthan for my Easter dessert!
@Jefromi i've tried the half and half with those ingredients and they aren't present in high enough concentrations to make a difference for whipping. They are primarily added to make up for the mouthfeel of the product since there is less fat.
You can't. You can make something that will look and taste like whipped cream but it wont be whipped cream.
It's the same question as how does one make alcohol free vodka. You can. You can make a really nice drink which will produce a better alcohol like high if you mix water and good ghb but it wont be vodka.
You'll note that the original questioner quoted "cream"; if it isn't real whipped cream, but is indistinguishable from real whipped cream, then presumably that would be good enough.
It's not indistinguishable. It's similar and you may even like it more. But you can tell them apart. Like Nutella made in different countries.
Sounds like that's good enough for the original questioner, which means saying "you can't" isn't a useful answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.767518
| 2013-03-28T21:08:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33081",
"authors": [
"Brendan",
"Bryan Krause",
"Cascabel",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Jay",
"MandoMando",
"Mr. C",
"Norman",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Santi Tinjacá Rivera",
"Shmagel's Bagels",
"Uin4keW",
"allad",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"julianmartin",
"vmingp"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58713
|
Is it possible to make a jam-setting gelling agent at home?
Many jam and marmalade recipes call for a gelling agent in order to solidify the fruit-sugar mixture. While some fruits (like apples) may contain enough of a gelling agent (pectin) to solidify themselves while cooked for a long time I wonder what I can do with other fruits if I don't have a gelling agent at hand (they are quite hard to get a hold of where I live).
I read about adding orange, lemon or apple peel or cores as well as boiling down apples in order to extract the pectin but I'm curious if there are other, maybe more foolproof and accurate ways, to imitate a gelling agent (pectin or anything else which works for a jam).
When you boil apple, you are not imitating anything--you're getting pectin! You can do the same for gelatin by boiling bones. There are plenty of other gelling agents for you to try as well--consider psyllium husk, chia seed, or mung bean starch.
Marmalade is usually made with only the pectin from the orange or citrus peel itself. If you're having to add pectin, something is wrong with the recipe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marmalade
So the question is about making something that can be stored as a shelf stable powder and dosaged accurately?
Seeing the tag and the body text, it seems that you are interested in jam making only. So I edited your question, because most gelling agents are not suitable for preserves (gelatine certainly isn't!)
Also, is it really a matter of "don't have it at hand?", or do you mean it in a more general sense? If there is a method, it will certainly take more time than just going out to the supermarket for packaged pectin. It is also possible that you have to get to the supermarket nevertheless, to buy sufficient quantities of fruit as input.
The book Putting Food By (Hertzberg) has a recipe:10 lbs. apples yields 1 pint pectin. Seems jam & jelly specific.
It would be a much better answer if you could give a rough description of the method. Also, is this a pint of pectin of the same concentration as the powdered pectin available in the store?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.767776
| 2015-07-01T21:58:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58713",
"authors": [
"Brenda Martin",
"David Bruce Borenstein",
"James Connelly",
"Jo Paul",
"Kevin Collison",
"Marilyn Cooke",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"evan Taylor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37655
|
How to remove unwanted aftertaste from food
So I've just finished making about a liter of hot chocolate (lets ignore why for a minute here), and I've stored it in my refrigerator, inside a plastic bottle that was once used to store orange juice. Although I cleaned and rinsed the bottle as well as I could before using it, the hot chocolate has taken on an orange-y aftertaste. It's by no means inedible, but unwelcome nonetheless.
Is there any way to remove/mask the flavor? I'd hate to have to throw all this out.
There is probably no universal means. Don't store strongly flavored liquids in plastic bottles you would like to reuse.
In the specific case of hot chocolate, it is ammenable to a number of strong flavors which may mask the odd orangey aftertaste. I would recommend re-heating it with a pinch of cayenne pepper (really; hot pepper and chocolate go nicely), and perhaps a couple of cardamom pods if you enjoy their unique flavor.
Would cinnamon work? I just happen to have a lot of that on hand.
Its pretty strongly flavored; you could try it. If you like orange and chocolate you could also try orange zest.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.767979
| 2013-10-16T15:36:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37655",
"authors": [
"Enrico Tuvera Jr",
"Ismat Sami",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19416"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37642
|
The importance of timing to adding spices
From beer making, we learn that the earlier in the brewing process we add an ingredient, the more it contributes to taste, while the later we add the ingredient, the more it contributes to aroma.
Does this translate to other cooking, too?
I wrote an answer once which would fit here, but the question was specifically about Bolognese, so not really a duplicate. http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14547/when-should-i-flavor-my-bolognese/14549#14549
Not directly.
Many spices gain, change or lose taste when heat-treated. You must know given spice and when to add it.
Fresh dill or parsley leaves, after a hour of simmering are worthless, losing all aroma. Add at the very end of cooking.
Black pepper changes its taste and loses spiciness under heat. You can add it twice, the pepper added early contributing completely differently than added late.
Paprika doesn't change much over first few hours, so it really doesn't matter - unless you leave it in slow cooker for 8+ hours. It will turn acrid and unpleasant.
Fresh garlic is entirely different than garlic that underwent even several minutes of heat treatment - and garlic that was heat-processed, in order, doesn't change much in time, but infuses other products, so your choices are between fresh (sharp, spicy taste), thickly chopped cooked shortly (strong nodes of garlic taste, as ingredient, not spice) or boiled long (the taste infusing the food.)
Salt doesn't change taste over time (although it may infuse foods deeper) but affects many processes. Water boils at higher temperature, resulting in pasta or potatoes cooked better; some meats get much harder so it should be added late; vegetables go soft very fast and "drop" resulting in more evenly distributed frying heat (so salt fried veggies early)...
Cumin fried on clean, dry pan (no oil) in high temperature gets a significantly different, very strong, pleasant aroma. You won't obtain it by normal boiling or frying with other foodstuffs, no matter how long, as this requires higher temperatures than others. Fry it first, and only add other ingredients when it's ready.
Each spice has its caveats concerning adding time. Sometimes you need to add them at the very end - especially fresh herbs. In other cases (like salt) the time depends on the foodstuffs - early for vegetables, late for meats.
Thanks for these details, I've noticed some of these but its great to have a run down of different spices.
Cumin is also terribly easy to overroast :(
Horseradish flavor simply disappears if you boil it.
Usually curry is added in two different moments, so you can get the flavour of raw and cooked curry.
It is also true that prolonged heat to woody herbs such as rosemary and thyme can remove most of the flavour you are trying to impart.
For example if you wish to infuse a sauce with one of these herbs it is best to introduce them after the majority of the cooking is done, but while the sauce is still warm.
This is because these are aromatic herbs meaning that their flavour compounds are extremely volatile and will be lost if exposed to excessive heat.
Similarly they can escape a sauce if infused at too high a temperature.
Quite often in professional kitchens herbs and spices are included in a vacuum pouch when cooking using the sous vide method in order to impart the flavour of those compounds to whatever is in the bag. We used to use thyme, garlic and a little olive oil for example with our Sunday beef when I worked in a hotel.
The lower temperatures and slower cooking allowed the meat to take on the flavour of the ingredients and added a depth to the taste. Incidentally sous vide makes for some very nice tender meat cuts (and if you can find a bag big enough, and don't mind not having a whole bird on your table at Christmas, can make a very tasty turkey breast).
I,ve found bolognese sauce tastes very different depending whether i fry a strand of rosemary and then add the beef. Or add the rosemary after the beef is browned. My preference and recommendation is add rosemary to heated oil, fry a minute or 2, then continue with the beef and recipe as normal. It adds another layer of pleasant flavour to the bolognese.
Um ... this question was about spices in making beer ... herbs in bolognese was https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/14547/67
@Joe The question was also about timing and cooking, so I think the answer's fine.
@Joe: Your assertion is incorrect (Source: Me, who asked the question originally). Brewing of beer was used as an example of a well-known effect, and the question was whether the effect could be found in other applications, too.
If it is about sauces, it matters in how they are composed at the time the spices are added - in indian and chinese cuisines, some spices/aromatics are added while the dominant liquid at that stage of cooking is oil, to infuse aromatic compounds into the oil. pH at that time could also be relevant. Temperature and salt/sugar levels (osmosis!) at that time can also influence how certain compounds are extracted.
Also in indian cooking, adding aromatics/spices twice (fried in oil both when setting the sauce up, and added from a ladle/pan with hot oil at the end) is not uncommon...
Some spices/aromatics will react with others - Star anise is believed to interact with onions if fried together with them.
If using whole spices, there are practical considerations when to add and remove them - if a sauce is to be pureed and strained at a later stage, you have to decide whether to remove them or blend them in...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.768106
| 2013-10-16T08:55:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37642",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Robert",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"haakon.io",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman",
"razumny",
"roetnig",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19086
|
Cooking red kidney beans
I want to cook red kidney beans in a shortest cooking time.
How can I cook them?
Should I put them into water before going to office and then cook them in the evening?
What are the required ingredients?
The traditional way to make beans is to wash them, soak them overnight, change the water and boil them for a few hours the next day. This obviously takes a long time and you have to plan ahead.
With the miracles of modern science there is a better way.
Using a pressure cooker raises the boiling point of the water and decreases the cooking time dramatically. Some recipes call for as little as 12 minutes of cooking time.
You can get electric pressure cookers that make this process very simple.
Your question "What are the ingredients required" suggest that you may be asking about some particular dish and not just beans? The ingredients in my beans are: beans, onion, and salt.
@Sobachatina's answer is correct, but I just would like to add this (since you asked the shortest cooking time):
in my country cans of red kidney beans are available. These are in some kind of liquid, so you do have to rinse them. Other than that, no work with the beans anymore. They are already soft and ready to eat.
To be honest, I'm not even sure the rinse part is necessary, but I just do.
That liquid is the starch from the beans absorbed into the water. It's not harmful, but it is sort of slimy. When I'm doing beans and rice, I like to gravity drain the slime in a colander, but not rinse. When I'm doing a bean salad, I rinse them completely.
@Chris- just starch? I would assume that there would be a lot of protein in there as well.
A quick perusal of the Googlenet indicates it's mostly starch, and apparently some indigestible sugars which may cause gas.
I use 1 cup of kidney beans to about 3 1/2 cups boiled water, put in a pressure cooker & cook for about 8 whistles to soften. To make Rajma: in a separate pot sweat off onion, cumin seeds garlic & ginger - add spices: coriander powder, tumeric, chilli powder, & garam masala. Add 1 400g tin of chopped tomatoes ( I add 1 cube of dried veg stock or 1 tsp), let simmer. Once the beans are cooked ( let the pressure out & test the beans to make sure they are soft) add to the pot of tomatoes and spices including the dark red water that the beans have cooked in, reduce & stir 5-10 mins so it doesn't stick to the bottom & burn. Reducing the sauce will make it thicker so stop reducing when you have reached the consistency you are happy with. Taste, season & enjoy! Make fresh rotis with chapati flour & water for an authentic meal.
*Spices & Cumin seeds about 1 level tsp each depending on how spicy you like it.
Hi Welcome to the community. +1 for detailed answer though the question is very old.
If you have, ahhh - digestive troubles - with beans, this is the preferred way to prepare dried beans for use in most recipes that call for them. [Science here.] Some claim that it impacts flavor or texture as opposed to the slow soak, but I haven't found this to be the case.
To rehydrate:
Figure out how much of the dried beans you need. Here's a good conversion guide.
Sort the beans on a dry paper towel. Dried beans will often have stones, clumps of dirt, broken or withered beans, twigs and other detritus from harvesting.
Put the beans in a good sized pot, and cover with about three inches of water.
Bring to a roiling boil. As soon as it's roiling, take the pot off the heat, and leave it to sit for an hour.
Dump in a colander and rinse well.
To cook:
Dump the beans back into the rinsed pot.
Cover with 3 inches of water
Add a pinch of salt and a bay leaf to the water to season.
IMPORTANT: If you have hard water (it leaves a white residue on your stainless steel cookware after washing), you will need to add a quarter to a full teaspoon of baking soda, otherwise the beans will be too firm, and no amount of simmering will ever get them tender enough to eat.
Bring the beans to a roiling boil.
Back off the heat to medium-low as soon as it's roiling, and simmer for an hour. Test the beans - if too firm, simmer further to your preference. I find I like the skins just about split, very tender - around 90 minutes.
The beans are now ready to use in your recipe. I find the taste, tenderness and texture of beans prepared this way to be superior to canned beans, which seem mealy and bland to me.
will try these steps too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.768636
| 2011-11-23T12:03:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19086",
"authors": [
"BBQ4Dummies",
"Chris Cudmore",
"CookieQueen",
"Kamal Deep Singh",
"Paul van der Maden",
"Raghib",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8071",
"raul cruz-garcia",
"rummage",
"user2058352"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19481
|
Is it bad if a sponge cake sits out for a couple hours before cooking?
I am making cupcakes and was wondering if it is okay if you leave the batter out for a couple hours before cooking.
Yes, it is bad. Most baking powder will begin to produce co2 as soon it gets wet. If you let the batter rest before putting it in the oven, your cake will thus lose some of airiness.
Interesting point. I wonder how much it would effect a sponge cake as baking powder is usually double acting so you will still get a rise when baking and a lot of the fluffiness will come from whipped eggs which shouldn't lose air that quickly.
Good point. I have changed "a lot" to "some".
I will never double a batch of American pancakes again, because the last time I tried it, the last batter went completely flat by the time the first two thirds were fried. OK, it was a mix of soda bicarbonate and paking powder, but I still had no leavening left in a much shorter time than 2 hours. So, I agree with this answer - the effect is strong enough to make it impractical to leave batter out.
@rumtscho- two notes. 1- I always make quadruple batches of pancakes. There must be other variables involved. 2- Many sponge cake recipes don't include any leavener at all besides the egg whites.
@Sobachatina : the difference is likely double-acting baking power. It'll produce CO2 both when it gets wet, and then again when it gets heated, so there's still rise even if the batter has been sitting for a while.
Eggs being left out is, of course, bad but the risk of egg contamination is very low, sugar is a preservative, the batter is being baked and 2 hours isn't long anyway.
Unless your room temperature is 85F or the batter sat out for 6 hours I wouldn't worry about it at all.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.769029
| 2011-12-07T16:17:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19481",
"authors": [
"Geen naam",
"Joe",
"Sobachatina",
"TagineBoy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho",
"soegaard",
"user36802"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42188
|
Why isn't my espresso coffee nice and strong?
I have just purchased an expensive espresso coffee machine (American) but the taste isn't nice and strong as I expected. Does it depend on the coffee beans? What characteristics should I look for (in the coffee or in the preparation)?
Most coffee shops will sell you espresso beans by the pound (and grind them too, if you like).
Sorry, but recommendations for "What brand of X should I buy" are off topic on our site.
It would help if you explained exactly how you are currently using the machine. What kind of beans do you currently use? How old are they? How do you store them? Are they pre-ground? How finely are they ground? What type of machine is it: steam-, pump-, or piston-driven? Is the machine a super-automatic (i.e., it tamps the grounds for you)? Are you getting a proper crema?
The edits are useful but those questions have already been asked. I can't really even point to a specific question, because various aspects are covered by the entire [espresso] tag.
@tsturzl comments are not intended for skirting around the fact that you can't post answers to closed questions.
The edited version is indeed OK to stay open. And while there are lots of answers to other espresso questions which will probably produce strong espresso when the OP uses it, I also couldn't find a question which would make this one an exact duplicate. And generally, we do keep questions open even if they have a solution in common with an older question. If somebody does find another question about creating strong espresso with a machine, we can still close as a dupe.
You do not tell us too much about your equipment, so I guess that you are in the same situation me.
I was in the same situation when I bought my machine. I purchased a Rancillio Silvia, without a grinder. I blamed it on the coffee at first, but it turned out that all the pre ground espresso coffee I was buying in shops was simply not made for such a machine. I was so lucky that I got to grind the my beans at a local coffee shop, using the same find grind as they did in their machines. Only then I got the crema and punch that I wanted from my espresso.
Symptoms to look for:
Do your espresso come out too thin?
Extraction time less than approx. 25 seconds for a double espresso?
It didn't take me a long time to understand that I needed a own grinder to get exactly the espresso I wanted.
If your grind is just a little too coarse it is possible to counter this by increasing the tamper pressure. But from what you explain you need more than this.
I don't know what kind of coffee you use, but I think that any coffee powder specifically made for espresso should be fine, at least to start with.
But, bear in mind that the coffee quality is not the only factor that makes the good espresso, it counts a lot, but there are many other aspects to take into account.
Blending. Don't buy coffee beans and blend them by yourself, unless you have a good coffee beans blender, because you risk to not blend to the correct size, not uniform, and also to burn the cofee.
Freshness matters. Always buy coffee roasted not more than three weeks before.
Water. Use purified water, without minerals or poisoning elements. The ideal temperature is 90°C
Quantity. Use about 7 grams of blended coffee beans. Put some pressure to guarantee proper water flow.
Turn on the espresso machine. first drop should fall in 5-10 seconds, and the flow should go on for 20-25 seconds to reach a total of 25 ml (cream included) coffee.
Serve immediately.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.769200
| 2014-02-20T15:07:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42188",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Anthony Gedeon",
"Crystal",
"ESultanik",
"Extr3mis",
"MKH Accident Attorneys spam",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Victoria P",
"Xiao Feng",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98728",
"rumtscho",
"tim-phillips"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62727
|
Commercial Bakery to Provide Dough
We want to approach a commercial bakery to provide me with dough for a restaurant's use (so the restaurant can bake the buns in house). The restaurant will handle the shaping and adding the filling to the bun.
The idea here is for a commercial bakery to provide the dough so the restaurant can bake it in house and serve fresh buns. We need to develop some sort of process to support this.
Questions:
In what stage should the dough be delivered?
I'm guessing it should be after the first rise. The commercial bakery can chill the dough after the first rise,then deliver it. The restaurant can then shape it from a chilled state, then put it in a proofer for second rise, then bake it.
How to store the dough? Temperature & duration.
Assuming the commercial bakery delivers the dough after the first rise, at what temperature should should the dough be kept in (presumably to prevent the second rise?)? And how long will dough generally last in storage?
What's a better process?
Maybe getting the dough after first rise is not the optimal process. Should the dough be delivered prior to the first rise? Would the restaurant be better off shaping it, then chilling it to prevent second rise, then put in proofer for about an hour prior to baking?
Did you talk to the comercial bakery? They should a) know their recipe and processes and b) know what fits in their workflow.
Not yet. Want to go there with some basic idea first. This is preliminary research. Also, the bakery doesn't have experience supplying dough.
Quantity unknown, but the restaurant will have a fridge, proofer, steam oven.
We don't have any control over the yeast. It's a type of bread that they make that's really good -- and we're going to source the dough. Whatever amount of yeast is in it will not change.
Then the answer is simple : their recipe, their process, their timing. They will (should) know their dough.
I'd like to know -- generally -- what the process would be.
I think Stephie's point is that it might vary significantly between different types of dough. Without knowing more about their recipe, rise/proof times, and so on, I don't believe you will get a better answer here than you would from the commercial bakery.
The best solution would probably be to get the buns par-baked, or to get frozen dough.
The problem with buns is that they're small and they rise very quickly. At a commercial bakery where I worked, most of our buns would be ready to bake within 2 hours tops, even if they spent their entire second rise refrigerated.
Frozen dough can be easier to work with, if it's frozen correctly. If it's mixed cold and frozen as soon as possible after mixing, it can work pretty well. If it's frozen too late, the yeast will be too active and cause a boozy flavor when they're baked, and the extra yeast die-off can make the dough go extremely slack when it thaws. Getting frozen dough leaves you with the problem of keeping enough dough thawed (and then being sure you can get the thawed dough molded, proofed, and baked in time, which you'd have anyway, frozen or not).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.769516
| 2015-10-22T08:20:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62727",
"authors": [
"Cindy Wood",
"CookingNewbie",
"Erica",
"Gary Campbell",
"Kahyana Brooks",
"Mark Alsop",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"jo halliwell"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25610
|
Does whiskey go bad by freezing?
This question does not have to do with home brewing but I figured someone here would be able to answer.
Does scotch whiskey go bad if kept in standard home freezers for a few days?
Does it also matter that the air-tight seal has been broken? In other words for opened bottles.
It does seem to bubble very slightly when poured out but tastes fine. Just wondering if there is a big 'don't do that' attached to this.
I would be surprised if your whiskey freezes. I have stored vodka in the freezer for months, that's normal practice if you want ice-cold vodka always available, and it stays liquid, even standard 37.5° vodka. Of course, the vodka doesn't have any subtle flavors likely to change, so I can't say that your whiskey's quality won't suffer (although it is unlikely).
It does not freeze. But as soon as the cap is removed it starts getting murky in color similar to how water crystallizes when very cold and exposed to air.
I'm just curious. Why would you want to freeze it?
To avoid using ice which doesn't agree with me.
Raheel, what kind of whisky is it? Most whiskys naturally will get cloudy when cold, and of those most are chill-filtered to remove the murkiness (due to consumer preferences). Generally those that are not chill-filtered are more expensive because people that choose such are the more knowledgeable/demanding market who are willing to pay for the best.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the flavor profile changed when at -20 C, though how it would change as it warms up in the mouth/glass I have no idea. Would you be adding room temp water to your whisky?
Putting strong spirits in the freezer should not harm them. The solubility of air gases increases at low temperature, which is why you see bubbles as it warms up.
Drinks with a lower alcohol content will be affected in the freezer. There is potential to freeze water out of anything with an alcohol content of 28% or lower. Many people use the freezer to increase the alcohol content of their home brew in UK, by freezing water out of it - the alcohol stays in the liquid portion.
I thought as much. Since the color does turn a little opaque when exposed to air, I just wanted to make sure it doesn't become harmful.
Yes, It goes bad. I stored my entire stock of liquor outside during an Ohio winter for about a week, just took the cap off my previously unopended bottle of Jack Daniels and soon as I took a shot it had a terrible spoiled taste, and i mean I have old no. 7 tatooed on my arm but I just cant drink anymore of it(and sadly its the big 1.75 ltr)
This goes against everything I know about both liquor and about storage. Can you perhaps support your answer beyond: "it happened once to me"
It's possible that he accidentally concentrated the alcohol in the non-frozen portion and that changed the taste?
Sometimes the transition from warm to cold for whisky, rum and other spirits can cause the water to evaporate a bit making the level of alcohol more potent and the bottle less although you do not loose alcohol content. Just taste and density. Never cool off warm spirits.
@JanDoggen worse: the transition _ from warm to cold_ will cause the water to evaporate??
I think he means 'freeze'.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.769788
| 2012-08-11T20:21:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25610",
"authors": [
"Dima Pasechnik",
"Hannah Warmbier",
"Luciano",
"Melanie Kramar",
"Mien",
"PDuarte",
"Popup",
"Raheel Khan",
"Ray",
"Summer",
"Vivian Sassymsvee Leggett",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"nick012000",
"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
}
|
67498
|
Veg Burger Advice, Am i missing something?
I used to eat burger at home rather than buying from MCDonalds. But i feels the taste can be improved. I am mentioning my method now. Please help me improve it as the Burgers are not crunchy.
I used to buy Empty Burgers Buns from Market (Have seeds on top)
Buy Ready made Patty from Reliance Fresh store
Buy Amul Cheese Slice from Store.
Chop onions in slices
Chop Cucumbers in slices
Chop Tomoato in slices
Now Cut the burger in half. Add a tomato ketchup sauce layer, Mayonaise, Salt, Sometimes (Pudina/Mint Ready Made sauce) and patty and slice, onions, tomato, etc
Then put in on Frying PAN, add some oil, put the burger and try to press it. The change the burger side and done.
I tried putting in Microwave also (But the burgers become so soft and start to break while eating)
Question:
Is my cooking method wrong, or i am setting microwave setting wrong (what will be the temp, microwave/grill) etc
I prefer to avoid long tasks.
Your question is very confusing as it looks like you are using the term "burger" for both the burger patty and the burger bun.
@Jay Sorry for the mis understanding. I have ready made burger patty and burger bun both, but asking for cooking method and some spices we can add to make it more better
Hello Kamal, asking which spices to add is off topic. You can add any spices, and it is up to your personal preference to decide if you like the combination or not. The rest of the question is OK though, so I didn't close, just removed the off topic part.
is the "Ready made patty" cooked or raw? Do you put the whole hamburger including the bun and the vegetables into the frying pan, or just the patty?
@KateGregory Hi! the ready made patty is raw, we put it in heated oil and it is ready as yummy to eat
To get crunchy buns, you can toast them in an oven beforehand. Here is how I do it:
Take the bun out of the package, slice it open and put it in a preheated oven (180C / 350F) for about 5-8 minutes. Keep an eye on them!
Depending on the brand and model, you could also put the bun halves in a toaster.
Then assemble your burger however you like. I would not fry it afterwards.
Sounds great. I will try this. +1 for the advice
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.770087
| 2016-03-17T13:23:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67498",
"authors": [
"Camilla Logan",
"Christopher Hardy",
"Esther Keyes",
"Jay",
"June Brunelle",
"Kamal Deep Singh",
"Kate Gregory",
"MacLean Colwill",
"Markus Kailavuo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"rumtscho",
"user134726"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47733
|
My beef roast is dry on top and soggy on the bottom, how to correct it?
When I put a lamb roast on, I rub it in salt, put a few dabs of garlic and pour two glasses of red wine in, and leave it in the slow cooker for 8 hours. Everyone who has never tried this before says it is the most amazing lamb roast they've ever tasted. People who have tasted this before, say this is the 'standard' way to do a lamb roast. (assume 2kg leg of lamb).
When I try the equivalent with a beef roast (2kg leg, rub in salt, 2 glasses of red wine, leave to roast for eight hours) the result is ok, but leaves something to be desired. The result is a little dry on top, and soggy at the bottom. I feel like there is a 'standard' way to cook a beef roast that I'm missing. (My mother suggested perhaps it needed some beef stock).
Recipe requests are unfortunately off-topic here. If you alter your question to be more specific - 'How can I improve the flavour and texture of slow-cooked beef' for example - it will be more likely to remain open and get decent answers.
Thanks, that's helpful. I've taken your advice and updated the question.
I think Elendil gave you the correct direction, but his suggestion wasn't meant to be taken literally. The wording "how to improve roast" is way too broad and would be closed. I changed the title to reflect the only concrete problem you mention in the text. If you are experiencing more problems, you can edit them in there. But a general invitation for "it's OK, what can I change nevertheless to make it better" is not accepted on the site.
Why add so much liquid??!!! your are roasting, not braising; if for the sauce, then add the wine to the pan when the roast is resting.
Thanks Max - could you help me understand why it is different to a lamb roast?
Lamb meat is tougher and more fatty than your typical beef roast. 2 cups of red wine is a lot of acidic liquid and that can eat away at the meat as to tenderize it.
Your mother may be right, some beef stock to thin out the alcohol may in fact do the trick. Also, rotating the roast would be a good idea as well since a beef roast will dry out at the top because it's not as fatty as lamb. I would typically rotate my roast every now and again if I'm not using an electric rotisserie. I definitely recommend an electric rotisserie for beef roasts.
Sorry - one more question - should I wrap the Beef in foil in the slow roaster - or can it live without it?
I wouldn't bother with foil, but if you don't want to rotate it you could do that or put a perforated tray or rack under the roast to prevent the sogginess. And the foil would kind of take away from the effect of having the 2 cups of wine in there.
I should've added, lamb and beef are not very interchangeable, so what works for one may not work for the other.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.770314
| 2014-10-07T11:34:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47733",
"authors": [
"Alex Manley",
"Chef Pharaoh",
"Christopher Snyder",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Julius Chan",
"Max",
"Michael Minahan",
"Swpan Das",
"Undeswar Rao Bheri",
"Vixen",
"hawkeye",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9523",
"rumtscho",
"sibusiso mkhonza"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7040
|
How do you correctly use a meat thermometer?
I have two meat thermometers. I bought a second one because I thought the first one was resulting in overcooked meat, however the new one is doing the same! They are both standard metal prong 'analog style' with a needle.
An example - cooking chicken breast. The thermometer says the temperature must reach 77 degrees Celsius. I cooked it for a short time in a griddle pan first and then put the pan in the oven. The temperature hung around 71 degrees and when it didn't seem to be getting any higher and I felt it was overcooking I pulled it out. Sure enough, overcooked!
How can I use a meat thermometer to cook meat correctly?
You aren't leaving the thermometer in while cooking right? Because that will definitely mess up your reading.
Heat does not have inertia. There are hotter parts and cooler parts. All of these various locations of your food will equalize their temperatures between themselves and anything else exposed to the food (pan, air, etc).
With thin cuts of meat (like chicken breast or a steak), you want to make sure you put the thermometer in to the thin side of the meat so that the whole thermometer goes in to the meat, rather than putting it in through the "top" so that only a little of the thermometer is in the meat. If you're putting it in the top, you can get wildly inaccurate temperatures. Also make sure that the thermometer isn't touching a pan, exposed to air, or touching a bone. Any of those can have a negative effect.
Also, you only need to cook chicken to 74C / 165F. That may be part of the problem in your case.
You may also want to check that your thermometer is accurate. You can stick it in boiling water to check that it reads 100C / 212F (assuming of course it goes up that high).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.770934
| 2010-09-09T23:33:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7040",
"authors": [
"Dale Riley",
"Douglas Held",
"Jeeva Subburaj",
"Rafael Piccolo",
"arlene",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"rheone",
"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
}
|
15021
|
How long should I bake a whole sweet potato for?
How long should I bake a whole sweet potato in the oven for versus an 'ordinary' potato of the same size?
There are many varieties of sweet potato that have quite different cooking times
Many cultures have diverse ideas of what "done" is, some have it quite firm, some have it mushy
In general for your average sized sweet potato you should only need 50% to 75% of potato cooking time using the same method and weight
There is no real difference in the timing - a good hour, hour and a quarter in a hot oven does the trick.
They will go very mushy if cooked as long as potatoes, fine if you like them like that?
It depends on what your preference is or what you are cooking. If I want a firmer texture, roasted or sliced I shoot for 30 minutes give or take. If I want a soft texture, mashed potatoes or soup then I will cook them around 45 minutes. Of course it will always depend on the width of the sweet potato. If I am cooking both potatoes and sweet potatoes, I will fist put the regular potatoes in the oven first, then 20 min later add the sweet potato. To test, pierce with a fork not a knife.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.771132
| 2011-05-25T08:47:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15021",
"authors": [
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35606
|
Cooked corn kernels, but not from corn cob
In making a Mexican Polenta casserole, I need cooked corn kernels. Is is it possible to make this from the same stuff I would use to make popcorn? (Not the ones that come in microwaveable bags, just the raw corn kernels).
If not, could I possibly substitute it with something else?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.771244
| 2013-07-26T21:34:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35606",
"authors": [
"300D7309EF17",
"Alfie Bee",
"CarterWyatt",
"Jyeafia",
"Pat Wilson Caesar",
"Unnamed_newbie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84153",
"user83294"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41734
|
How to make modeling chocolate shiny?
I have modeling chocolate panels I am using for a cake. They have a very soft shine from being smooth, but I was hoping to bring them to a higher shine. I had wanted to make them out of tempered chocolate but the shape made it problematic. I've tried lightly buffing with my hand, but that is not doing enough. Can I use perhaps a warm, damp cloth or glaze with a mix of 1:1 corn syrup:alcohol? Would that make them tacky?
Can you form the structural body of whatever you are making from the modelling chocolate, then paint on true tempered chocolate for the appearance?
That was my current plan, although I may have to scrap the idea entirely as it's still not holding up. But thank you.
Is the problem that the tempered chocolate in the panels un-tempers in the molds?
How does this question differ from this thread? Is there a way to add shine to a chocolate coating after it has hardened?
I'd like to say that sanding with a very fine material and then buffing the chocolate by hand with something edible that could serve as a replacement for wax would work. (Such as the turtle wax used in automotive work) I'd also suggest working with the chocolate very cold to reduce or eliminate melting, as that would severely marr the finish. The method for this would be something someone with a greater knowledge of modeling chocolate's properties would have to work out.
You could try adding just a small amount (1/4-1/2 teaspoon per bag of chocolate) of Paraffin or gulf wax ( canning wax) to your chocolate as your tempering it. The result is a super shiny chocolate that re hardens like normal. It’s an old trick my grandmother taught me when making homemade candy and filigree cake pieces. It does not change the taste of the chocolate either. I have not attempted it with modeling chocolate but do not see why it would not work the same when it is the fat content in your chocolate that makes the chocolate hold up and shine. The wax also adds strength to chocolate yet a very smooth shiney texture. Hope this helps someone.
I think adding a few drips of vegetable oil or honey could help! Always heard other people say that.
You could brush the modeling chocolate with pearl luster dust or white sparkle dust to make them shinier.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! Promotional links are fine in your profile, and acceptable in answers if and only if they directly answer the question. Posting "related" links is not allowed. I've removed the link from your answer; it's good information, but does not provide any additional information on the specific question being asked.
Additionally, this answer should probably expanded upon, especially considering that the author wanted a shine from his or her chocolate, rather than a sparkle.
Tempered chocolate spends a bit of time as firm but pliable before it turns completely hard. You could try cutting and shaping the chocolate into panels during this time, then apply them to the cake after they finish hardening.
I recall my mother adding a tablespoon of butter per pound of chocolate at the end of the tempering process but the shine would only last for one day
An hairdryer could help.
The idea is to make the outermost layer of chocolate just melt. The way I use mine is I turn the dryer on low speed and medium heat, and move the air flow over the chocolates. Keep the dryer moving or it may melt too much! With my dryer it only takes a few passes to do the trick.
Let the chocolates re-cool and you will be all set.
This answer would be much better if you provide some information on how to employ these techniques, although I suspect they simply won't work.
I also doubt that this would work. Tempering is actually what gives chocolate its shine; melting it with a hair dryer would most likely remove the temper, making it less shiny and also less stable.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.771335
| 2014-02-03T18:06:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41734",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ann Marie",
"Chef_Code",
"GreenLivingSHK spam",
"Hellreaver",
"Jan Scoggins",
"KatieK",
"Nabeeha Mubashir",
"Peter",
"Rosie",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spam Repair And Installation",
"Spammer",
"didi1150",
"ganache",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97378",
"user103432"
],
"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
}
|
35900
|
Uncovered Raw Meat or Milk in Fridge
I believe the harm in leaving raw meat uncovered in the fridge is that more bacteria will enter, more oxygen will enter (causing faster bacteria multiplication), and more water will escape (causing dryness which probably slows bacteria multiplication, but toughens the meat, so let's consider dryness to be bad; I'm not making beef jerky). Please ignore the stinky odors that escape; just consider the quality of that one uncovered piece of meat after we eventually cook it.
How much faster will the food spoil (percentage, compared to the same meat wrapped in plastic wrap)? I imagine that meat with skin, like a whole chicken, is not effected as much as meat without skin, like a bare chicken breast, and that ground meat would be effected the most. I wish I had some data to convince my roommate to cover his meat; is there any research on this? Feel free to answer this for milk instead if there is more research for it.
Isn't raw meat covered when you buy it in the first place? What's your roommate doing, opening/unwrapping it and then refrigerating it?
This time he prepared a turkey but didn't have the stuffing, so its been sitting out in the fridge for 2 days while he procrastinates. Or, last time he bought a pack of two steaks, opened the package to cook one, and then cooked the final one a day later (so the final one was exposed without wrapping for one day in the fridge). Even for me, it could happen that I run out of plastic wrap, so I want to leave something exposed for a few hours, so I think it's a fair question to get an estimate on how much time is ok (I'm surprised that someone down-voted it).
There is no practical difference in spoilage time for wrapped versus unwrapped. Spoilage is a factor pretty much of temperature, since in practice, all foods have pathogens present which can breed.
Assuming your refrigerator is free of insects, dogs and similar macro-fauna, wrapping is to prevent odors from going from one food to another, drying, or cross-contamination of one food by another through drips or splashing. Now, outside of a refrigerator, where ants, flies, and so on are abundant, wrapping also provides a physical barrier to prevent infestation, but the body of the refrigerator already does that.
In fact, in some rare occasions, you may wish to specifically refrigerate your meat unwrapped: for example, after brining a turkey, refrigerating it for 24 hours unwrapped will permit the skin to dry out, and permit a more crispy result.
Surprising, but all sounds reasonable. Then, I guess my best argument to my roommate is that it will dry out his meat (still ignoring the sanitary reasons everyone mentions). Dryness seems significant after just half a day...but maybe he likes the chewiness.
If its a room mate issue, there are other issues of politeness and cooperation that are beyond the scope of a culinary discussion.... :-)
Spoilage certainly depends on factors such as exposure to oxygen. Oxygen exchange is limited by tight wrapping, so one expects that the conditions for chemical change and bacterial activity are different for a tightly wrapped piece of meat than they are for an unwrapped piece of meat. An extreme case is that vaccuum sealed meats tend to last longer than thoe that are wrapped by hand. Wrapping will also effect moisture exchange. Certainly wrapped cheese generally grows mold less rapidly than unwrapped cheese.
@DanFox Interesting point, and certainly true at the limiting cases, but I don't think they apply in the spirit of the question. Vacuum sealing aside, most containers have sufficient oxygen inside for spoilage, and there are anaerobic pathogens as well, some of which are very dangerous.
Only a half answer, but particularly with meat, you're really risking contaminating other things in your fridge. It's dangerous for that reason alone, so I wouldn't even bother worrying about whether the meat itself spoils faster, since I'd be worried about everything else in the fridge.
I see your point, but it seems that if you are careful to place the uncovered meat on the bottom of the fridge and don't have any drips from it, other food shouldn't get spoiled. I'd rather give my roommate a reason that works even if he's totally careful.
@bobuhito Must be a pretty empty fridge if you can have total confidence it will never touch anything, and drips do sometimes happen despite your best effort, and will probably happen more if the meat's not covered, making it even easier to accidentally contaminate the fridge...
Your initial assessment sounds pretty dead on.
OFCOURSE sealing foods will slow spoiling.
Your concern about bacteria and such needing oxygen to breed is certainly correct - for for all micro-organisms, but most.
As far as the argunent made that the bacteria is always present internally in meat is only part true.
first, it makes a world of difference whether we're talking about cooked or raw meats.
in the case of cooked meat, assume that after you properly cooked it there is no living bacteria and it. That means that for it to spoil, it needs to be exposed to bacteria from the external environment. A lot of sources exist to do this such as, handling it, breathing on it, siliva exposure to contaminants in the air in general, exposure to other food products, etc.
so it's pretty clear that proper storage that's not open and exposed will slow spoiling, especially when you add in the oxygenation effect.
that said,if you wash food before sealing it you certainly want to try it off since moisture is quite the catalyst for breading micro-organisims.
in the case of raw meat that potentially contains live bacteria and parasites in it, the type of meat makes a pretty big difference.
that's why we thoroughly cook poultry and pork but not necessarily beef.
rather than believe me, since others seem to disagree with what I just said, here's a pretty good link with professional advice on the matter.
http://www.foodsafetysite.com/educators/competencies/general/spoilage/spg1.html
I just realized you also mentioned milk and not just meets. milk is the same principle. Pasteurized milk contains very little living bacteria, hence if it's sealed properly it will last a long time compare to if it was not pasteurized, since pasteurization kills of the internal bacteria. That said some bacteria survive pasteurization, therefore the milk will still eventually spoil. However, ultra pasteurized milk which is heated much hotter than regular pasteurization will last quite a bit longer since the additional he kills remaining bacteria internal in the milk.
I totally agree but am still looking for data/numbers showing how much time things can really be left uncovered...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.771710
| 2013-08-10T03:24:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35900",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Andrew Coven",
"Cascabel",
"Chan",
"Dan Fox",
"Lee Birnbaum",
"Michael Alexander",
"NumLock",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Tarusri Raja",
"bobuhito",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84201",
"jeaneen gauthier"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
38026
|
Refrigerator pickles in plastic?
This year I'm going to try my hand at pickling. I've found recipes for asparagus refrigerator pickles that sound good, but they all say to use mason jars. I have a number of plastic containers that are of a perfect size and shape. Is there a good reason to use glass rather than plastic for refrigerator pickles?
Advantages of glass: you can see the product....the container does not pick up any flavor or color from the product...other than that, in this case (refrigerator pickle) there is no reason not to use your plastic. In fact, the only reason to use glass, that I can think of, is if you we going to can your pickles for extended shelf life. Then, of course, would would need Mason jars or equivalent. Fermenting, doesn't have much to do with this question either. I often store homemade sauerkraut and kimchee in plastic quart containers without issue.
Per the Clemson University Extension:
Can I ferment pickles in a new plastic garbage can?
The plastic needs to be food-grade. Pickles and sauerkraut can be
fermented in large stoneware crocks, large glass jars or food-grade
plastic containers.
Since fermenting is usually longer term and very acidic, and since many food products are sold in plastic containers, one can reasonably infer that you are fine as long as the containers are food safe plastic.
Are refrigerator pickles usually fermented? The recipes I've seen are just pickled and eaten after as little as a few hours.
No, they aren't but since they have less stringent requirements than the true fermented...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.772236
| 2013-10-31T01:21:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/38026",
"authors": [
"Brenlla",
"Brig40",
"Gumeo",
"QueenBee",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Yamikuronue",
"blome",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89642",
"lunarfyre",
"twilight travel"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37519
|
Rehydrating Dried Rosemary for Bread?
I love the flavor of rosemary but I don't like its prickliness. It's worse dried, but I don't even like that particular quality in fresh rosemary. I'm experimenting with a yeast bread that will include both water and fat (in this case, bacon fat). I want distinct pieces of rosemary (although they can be small), so I don't want to grind the rosemary. I also want to avoid a green tinge in the bread itself. I'm thinking of manually crushing the rosemary into a couple of tablespoons of water and bringing the mixture to a boil in the microwave, letting it cool, straining and adding the rosemary to the bacon fat and giving it a quick saute. I guess I'd add the rosemary water to the water in the recipe if it isn't too green. Does that sound like it would work? I want the flavor, but no sharp edges.
Edit...Hmmm, I've reached the point in the experiment that the crushed rosemary and water have been in the microwave and cooled. At first I was optimistic, the texture seems like what I am going for. However, the flavor is strong - even bitter.
I would suggest heating some fresh rosemary in the bacon fat. Then discard the rosemary. You will get the flavor without the part you don't want.
Would that work as well with dried?
sure, though I suspect you would get a slightly different flavor profile. Try both see which you prefer. To me, fresh is much more aromatic.
My solution would be a bit more long-term, which would be to put some rosemary sprigs in olive oil and let it infuse for a few weeks. I have a bottle of rosemary, sage, and garlic oil which I use in breads and it works extremely well.
Just FYI, your answer was downvoted for a while. I suspect it might have had something to do with your "garlic oil" which if made by infusion like your rosemary oil has been discussed here at length. Garlic oil by infusion has been shown by a preponderance of evidence to be very unsafe, even under refrigeration. One of Many Examples
Haha. The 'garlic in oil might kill you' strikes again. If there is one thing I have learnt from this site is that botchulinen is found on raw garlic and that it breeds in an anaerobic environment. Ergo garlic in oil is dangerous.
As it turns out, I went forward with the experiment as I laid out in the question. Yes, it seemed a bit too strong as I added the rehydrated rosemary to the bacon fat, but in the final product it turned out exactly as I hoped it would. My bread contains onions sauteed in bacon fat, the rosemary sauteed with the onions, and crispy pieces of bacon. This one will stay in my "forever" file. I can see the bits of rosemary, I can taste them, but I can't feel them. The water I used to rehydrate the rosemary seemed too green, so I discarded that.
I am reminded how much I do like the flavor of rosemary, so next time I shop I will get some fresh to infuse. With an infused olive oil I'll probably use the flavor more often. Also the saute of the rosemary definitely helped to bring out yet mellow the flavor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.772406
| 2013-10-12T05:04:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37519",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"Sam Holder",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
69370
|
Is there such a thing as pork stock?
The other day I made this delicious recipe of Bacon Tea. I thought I could make some more with some Pork Stock.
When I went to the store to buy stock I found:
Beef Stock
Veal Stock
Chicken Stock
Vegetable Stock
(Interestingly enough - no lamb stock either.)
I asked my wife about it, and she said:
No - supermarkets never have Pork Stock.
My question is: Is there such a thing as pork stock?
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is not about cooking
Hello Hawkeye, I am afraid that we cannot answer the question as it is. "Is there such a thing as pork stock" would do, if you want we can shorten it to that and reopen. But there is no way to know what items are sold in "supermarkets" in a random part of the world. Also, the choice of supermarkets to sell a product or not has nothing to do with food preparation.
Feel free to shorten it to that.
OK, done and reopened.
Suggested rephrase: Is there a reason pork stock is uneconomical, difficult or not worth the effort to commercially make and preserve?
Yes there is, it's just not readily available in western countries, although tokos or oriental markets may have it. I remember a similar question being asked on a Dutch radio show, and the answer was yes, but not in the west. The full answer had (amongst other things) something to do with difficulties of getting a clear stock from pork, and a clear stock was what was fashionable/desirable. If I can find a comprehensive answer I'll post it as answer, for now I'll leave it as a comment.
There certainly is such a thing as pork stock, it's made the same way as beef and chicken stock - by cooking down bones to extract the flavors. With beef you use beef bones, with pork you use pork bones.
Supermarkets stock the products that make economic sense, they don't carry items which won't move - especially if they have a very limited shelf life. Beef, chicken and vegetable stocks are the most widely used ones in many parts of the world, so they will carry those as they have a good chance to be sold. Pork, lamb, and fish stocks can be found in supermarkets in areas where enough of the customer base will buy it.
If you can't find it in your local supermarket then there may be specialty stores (online or bricks and mortar) which you could get it from. Butchers may carry it as well. If not then making stock is very simple, all you need is some bones, vegetables, a heat source and some time.
Naming might also be non-obvious.... in some languages, words prefixed with whatever the word for pork is tend to have an rude feel to them if they are not established culinary terms (as a german, I would be momentarily confused if somebody mentioned "Schweinebrühe" ;)
'Schweinebrühe' sounds like the name for a hipster microbrew IPA.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.772655
| 2016-05-31T10:07:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69370",
"authors": [
"Borgh",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"hawkeye",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9523",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22397
|
How to get the flavors to meld when I add fruit and sugar to plain yogurt?
I've recently taken a liking to greek yogurt. So far, I've been buying the Chobani low-fat and non-fat yogurts, which all have flavoring added. I've recently bought a container of plain greek yogurt, and I was surprised at how bitter and flavorless it tasted in comparison.
So, my question is, how can I "manually" flavor and/or sweeten plain greek yogurt? This is for someone who doesn't cook much, so instead of saying "add banana", how would I do that? Puree it? Mash with a fork? I assume simply sticking a banana in the yogurt and calling it a day isn't the right approach. Thanks!
EDIT: To provide some more detail, in my head, there's a difference between "fruit-flavored yogurt" and "yogurt with a piece of fruit in it". This question is an attempt to figure out how to achieve the former and not the latter.
Regarding flavoring, I'm specifically interested in the following fruit: banana, strawberry, pineapple. I'm not sure how different the process would be to incorporate the different fruits in, but that's what I'm looking for.
Asking generally about flavors is not terribly constructive - we don't know what you're trying to achieve. "How do I add passion fruit flavor" is an answerable question, as is how do I sweeten. You might want to edit your question to get better answers.
@Jefromi - thanks, I was trying to keep it general, but if that's too difficult to answer I can edit it to seek out specific flavorings. I'm new to this :)
The one bad question is the implicit "what flavors taste good in yogurt" - poll-style questions inviting people to voice opinions and make lists aren't really a good fit for stackexchange sites. Most of the rest is okay, if vague.
@Jefromi - Ah, I see. I'm definitely not trying to ask that. I hope the update gives some context for what I'm trying to ask (and achieve). Thanks for helping me formulate this question.
Despite the discussion, we are still getting answers which assume that you are asking what to add to yogurt. I edited the title to avoid this. \
To sweeten it, add your favorite sweetener: sugar, honey, agave... whatever you prefer. This is important, because sweetness will help bring out the flavor of the fruit.
General advice:
If you have a fruit you want in your yogurt, pick the form (chunks, pureed, mashed, juice) that you want and mix it in. The Chobani yogurts appear have a variety of these forms, always along with some sugar. If you want banana flavor, sure, mash up a banana and mix it in. Or if you want chunks of fruit, chop it up. Assuming the fruit is soft enough, for this purpose, mashing with a fork is probably a good substitute for pureeing; you'll get some small chunks and some juice.
In response to the updates:
if you want actually fruit-flavored yogurt, then you need juice and/or puree. If you don't have any other tools, mash it as best as you can. If you have a small food processor or blender that will work with small enough quantities (or are making big batches), blend things up and stir them in. Juice and puree will disperse quite well through the yogurt.
Bananas mash easily, especially ripe ones, so just do that with a fork. Strawberries aren't as soft, but you should get enough juice to flavor with if you mash them. Pineapple is tougher. If it's juicy enough, you can probably get some juice out by mashing it; otherwise you might be better off with a food processor or blender. (If it's from a can, you can use the liquid from the can, too - that might also have sugar in it.) Depending on how thorough you are, you may want to use the juice and discard the fibrous parts that are left over.
I guess, in my head, there's a difference between "fruit-flavored yogurt" and "yogurt with a piece of fruit in it", and I was hoping someone would explain how to achieve the first and not the second.
There's a difference if you use banana flavor (from a bottle, whether artificial or real). That obviously can only get you banana-flavored yogurt. But if you use real bananas, it's just a matter of how fine you puree them, and how well you mix the yogurt and the puree.
My experience tells me that honey and yogurt don't mix well. I usually have a lot better experience with a solid sweetener.
@Flimzy: My experience tells me that they can mix just fine, unless the yogurt is very cold.
@Jefromi: Maybe that was my problem...
I eat plain greek yogurt one of two ways:
1- Stir in a teaspoon or two of honey and enjoy.
2- Stir in a couple of tablespoons of sweetened granola and a couple of tablespoons of dried cranberries.
Both are delicious.
My wife prefers to stir in a fruit jam. A tablespoon of strawberry jam would sweeten and flavor.
For other additives, I would simply mash up your preferred fresh fruit with a fork and stir it in. Banana, Strawberry, Peach, Cherry and Plum are all quite good and should be sweet enough to overcome the bitterness.
I've tried jam, but it didn't homogenize very well; it remained as clumps of jelly mixed in with the yogurt. I was using somewhat cold jam (only out of the fridge for a little bit), so that may have been the problem. Should I be able to mix with just a spoon?
You should be able to mix the jam in with a spoon, but you should stir vigorously to disperse it throughout. You're not going to get the same result as a "strawberry yogurt" that you purchase, but I think it gets dispersed throughout enough for it to be tasty.
For flavor, you could also try fruit extracts. You might want to toss in some food coloring, as white yogurt that tastes like raspberries can be less "raspberryish" than pink yogurt that tastes like raspberry.
You can get Torani syrups through Amazon and they are amazing... I like passion fruit, peach, raspberry and so forth.... just mix some in to taste...
i enjoy putting frozen fruits (usually berries) in the food processor or blender and blending them up and then mixing them into my greek yogurt or putting the plain greek yogurt in the blender with a cup of almond or coconut milk, a banana, the frozen berries and enjoy it as a smoothie!
I was facing the same problem. An easy and healthy fix I found was to stir in a container of fruit baby food!
I make homemade jam using Sure-Jell (Pink Box - Less Sugar). This jam has a softer set whick makes it great for stirring into plain yogurt. I usually make strawberry jam, but also do blueberry, raspberry, and mango. I was going through way too much jam doing it this way, so I have since perfected making large batches of homemade yogurt flavored with sugar and vanilla.
One wouldn't have to make it at home, but adding some type of preserves is a great way to get both the fruit flavor and sweetness of a fruit yogurt.
Buy a bag of frozen fruit. Add about a tablespoon of sugar to the fruit and let that sit in a bag in the fridge for a day or so, moving it around every now and then. Then fold it into the yogurt.
Tried something new today & it worked extremely well!!! :) So, I had tried putting straight honey in my yogurt then adding frozen fruit & it would always taste way too much like honey for my taste & I never loved it. So today, I diced a fresh peach & put the peaches in a small pot with a splash of water & approximately 4 tbs of honey & cooked them on low just until they were tender. Then I removed the peaches from the liquid & set them aside & brought the remainder of the delicious peach juices to a boil (I added chia seeds to the liquid as well, but that was just a personal preference to add nutrients). Anyway, then I let the liquid cool & put in the refridgerator for about 10 minutes. After it was cool I added the peaches & liquid to about 1/2 cup of plain greek yogurt. YUM! Tasted way better than store bought peach yogurt! I haven't tried this with frozen fruit, but I'm guessing it would work the same.
I like to mix lemon curd with plain yogurt to get a lemony flavour, which I love. Another thing I do is add a couple of spoonfuls of those juice powders, strawberry or lemon or whatever you like, and then mix it thoroughly with the yogurt.
You could use a squirt of the "Mio" type water flavorings. Adds flavor, sweetness and color without adding any extra calories.
I use Sweet'N Low, 12 packs to 1qt strained greek style yogurt. I also add LorAnn or Flavor Apprentice food flavorings and Wilton cake decorating colors. Then I add well-drained canned or frozen fruit.
Here is a winner: Mandarin blossom yogurt! 1qt well drained yogurt, 12 packs sweet&low, 8 drops LorAnn citrus blossom flavor, 6 drops Flavor Apprentice honeysuckle flavor, 1/8 tsp wilton yellow color and a small amount of Wilton red color. Use a whisk and mix well but try to leave it kind of "tight". Add 1 well drained 15oz can of mandarin orange segments. Fold in and chill for several hours.
so, the gist of this answer is: you suggest adding ready-bought flavoring instead of fruit?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.772918
| 2012-03-19T19:57:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22397",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Curly Mrozinski",
"Flimzy",
"Gordon Batesole",
"Huy Quan Vu",
"Jacob G",
"James",
"MSalters",
"Nathan",
"Peggy Fludd",
"Rafael Piccinelli",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Steve Carter",
"Tanisha Garner",
"TomD",
"angelshimmer",
"eykanal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9559",
"mavavilj",
"rumtscho",
"user3239327",
"user53884"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45709
|
Storage of cheese starter cultures
I have decided to give a go at home cheesemaking.
I got a nice book by Mary Karlin, which seems to explain things relatively well. Now, most recipes would call for something like 1/4 tsp of starter for a gallons milk (=3.7l milk)
So I proceeded to find some starters... and here comes the problem.
Obviously I don't intend to produce tons of cheese, and the smallest packaging I've found is freeze-dried sachets of ~10g, which most vendors say is good for 100 to 300l milk!
Some websites tell you to dilute the whole pack into 1l milk, then aliquot it and freeze it for storage. Is this a viable option (the microbiologist in me says a big yes)? Or would I be better at taking a little bit of freeze-dried product everytime (hmmmm)?
Any suggestion would be appreciated.
Do you have a precision scale? I suspect that the "dilute then freeze" option is a comfortable solution for people who can't divide a 10 g sachet well. But if you can reliably measure hundredths of grams, taking the exact small amount every time should work too.
Unfortunately my scale goes to 1g only... I have got a very precise one in the lab, but no way anything that I will eat is going to touch that! :) Any thoughts about stability of powder vs frozen milk?
I don't know about the viability, never made cheese. As for the scale, there are limted range high precision scales for home use at very reasonable prices, I got mine for maybe 11 Euro. I use it all the time in bread baking, and sometimes for additives like xanthan, it's quite useful in the kitchen.
@rumtscho: thanks, thought they were more expensive. Just got one from Amazon.
I've never heard of the technique to dilute the whole pack in milk and then freeze for storage. But it's interesting. Can you provide a link to those websites?
Simply freeze it.
I was told by a cheese merchant who sold me the culture and rennet, to store the culture in the freezer, and the rennet in the fridge.
I hadn't used it in more than two years and it's still alive and working. (as tested a few weeks ago)
Good to know! So the culture was freeze-dried, or did you freeze it after dissolving it in milk?
I just froze it in the little plastic jar it came in. I guess that means freeze dried. It's a crumbly dry cheese looking substance (perhaps 5 grams of it in the jar)
Mary Karlin addresses this in "Artisan Cheese Making at Home" -- it sounds like you have this book.
Her recommended method is to divide the pack of dry culture into smaller doses, using a precision scale. You can store these in small ziplock bags, in a bigger ziplock bag, in the freezer.
Your starter came freeze-dried. That process made it both cold and dry. The overall idea is to keep the bacteria dormant by keeping them at low temperature and maintaining that low humidity environment. No repacking will be as good as the original package, but it's best to open it once, weigh and repackage into individual doses; instead of opening the original package each time you make cheese.
As @rumtscho mentioned, you can get limited range, high-precision (0.01 gram) scales pretty cheaply. You can also buy tiny ziplock bags that work well for this.
You may want to find this section in Mary Karlin's book -- there are some pictures. I'll look it up when I get home.
Weird, I did not see that... must have slipped through there is lots of info :)
Yeah, there's a lot of information in that book and in some ways it's hard to navigate.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.773683
| 2014-07-19T15:19:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45709",
"authors": [
"120 Things in 20 years",
"Neil Meyer",
"Patricia Edmonds",
"SamBobb",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"nico",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43111
|
Substitute for Calvados, reduced cider?
I am interested in making America's Test Kitchen's French Apple Cake. The recipe calls for a tablespoon of Calvados. Oh for heaven's sake, that's the worst case of 1/4 cup of squab stock syndrome I've seen lately. I've called around to see if I could find applejack or generic apple brandy for a reasonable price, but no, even those products are out of my price range for something I don't think I'd particularly enjoy finishing off. I can't find extract either. It does seem though that the recipe begs for a bit of extra flavor. How about reducing some hard or soft cider? Any other great ideas to boost the apple flavor?
Other ingredients of the cake are:
1 1/2 pounds Granny Smith apples
1 teaspoon lemon juice
1 cup (5 ounces) plus 2 tablespoons all-purpose flour
1 cup (7 ounces) plus 1 tablespoon granulated sugar
2 teaspoons baking powder
1/2 teaspoon salt
1 large egg plus 2 large yolks
1 cup vegetable oil
1 cup whole milk
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
Confectioners' sugar
I don't know that the Calvados would give you any apple flavor that isn't in the cake already. Maybe you could substitute some regular brandy? (I haven't ever tried Calvados, FWIW.)
@user5561 I haven't tried it either, but I have been told that the apple flavor does come across pretty loud and clear in baked goods, even if it's not so apparent just drinking it.
Sounds like I'll have to try it sometime, then. If only it weren't so expensive...
Another thought that kind of sounds good is spiced rum. Hmm, it wouldn't add apple flavor obviously, but it might compliment the apples nicely.
It shouldn't be so hard to finish off: spirits keep well, and you could also use it in apple sorbets (or poured on an apple sorbet - I've had that in Normandy) and sauces.
Interesting: http://qandasys.info/substitute-for-calvados-reduced-cider/#comments Word for word the same.
@ChrisCudmore Hmmm, I don't know whether to feel honored, or used!
You won't be the last person to end up on a s.e. Site scrape.
One tablespoon of apple brandy in a recipe of that volume is an accent; it may be nice to have, but it is not going to dramatically transform the outcome.
The obvious choice is to simply omit it.
Otherwise, some reasonable substitutions include:
Vodka. While it doesn't bring a specific flavor, it will provide alcohol to help dissolve those flavor components that otherwise would not be as apparent, perhaps intensifying the flavor of the cake.
Bourbon. Compliments the vanilla, and provides a counterpoint to the apples.
Brandy, either grape or another fruit like pear. Another, similar flavor accent.
There is little point in reducing soft cider because it will not contain alcohol, and the quantity is not enough to matter, unless (and then only maybe) you make a syrup--in that case, however, you would be more substantially transforming the recipe.
Hard cider has some alcohol, so might work (after all, Calvados or apple brandy is distilled hard cider), but you don't want to reduce it, which would drive a significant percentage of the alcohol and volatile flavor compounds. Freeze-concentrating it (as applejack was once made) would work but is probably excessive in terms of effort and reward.
I would go with the bourbon or even rum with a molasses note would work well.
A common practise in some French islands is to macerate fruits, spices and sugar in rum for some time, and then to filter them, in order to make a flavoured, strong, very tasty drink called "Rhum arrangé".
This process might be too long for you, but you could consider it for making a Calvados substitute to use in a few months (usually 2 or 3 at least for fruit, for spices a few days to a month can be enough). I've had nice results cooking with fruit-infused rums (you can make extraordinary rum babas that way, I also like to use vanilla-infused rum in most recipes asking for rum).
P.S : I must mention this is done in lots of other places, with different kinds of alcohol. I drank similar beverages in Hungary a few years ago, but they were usually not as strong, closer to a 20 or 25% alcohol content (in my own very limited experience). Those were called ágyas (bedded) pálinka (local fruit brandy).
The text of the recipe says you may substitute apple brandy or white rum. I used white rum and the cake was delicious.
There is a caramel apple liqueur by Hiram walker that could work. It has a great apple flavor.
It is however way too sweet for a direct substitution. You'd probably want to drop at least a teaspoon of granulated sugar from the other ingredients to compensate.
I was able to find a 50ml bottle at Bevmo for $6.99. That will give you 6 portions. Very affordable. I have also seen Calvados at one Trader Joes (in northern CA), but not all stores carry it. I think it was around $20 for a tall bottle probably 375 ml. Hope you get this. Good luck!
Hello Gail, and welcome to Seasoned Advice! Your apple cake sounds absolutely delicious, but Jolene's question was what to use as a substitute for Calvados. Otherwise, your experience really should be posted as a comment, rather than an answer. — Best Wishes from Massachusetts!
I agree that most of the post was irrelevant to the substitution. But the info that there are 50 ml bottles can be a good solution for somebody in the same situation as the OP, so I'm leaving it here instead of deleting.
1 tbsp rum extract
Found this substitute in a French Apple Cake recipe on Yummly that specifically stated it was used instead of the Calvados.
How about Cinamon Whiskey for a Cinamon apple taste. I was looking for the same substitute for the same recipe and will use this
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.774011
| 2014-03-28T00:59:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43111",
"authors": [
"Chris Cudmore",
"ElmerCat",
"Heidi",
"Jolenealaska",
"Marissa Petteruti",
"Mattidge",
"Peter Taylor",
"Ringadingding",
"Spammer",
"Zander St Pier",
"brenda rankin",
"draksia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5561",
"logophobe",
"mark fletcher",
"rumtscho",
"user5561"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33082
|
What can replace coconut oil in a chocolate cookie coating?
For cookies I cover in chocolate I usually use add coconut oil to the liquefying chocolate to get a smooth mass. However, here it is really hard to get and even big supermarkets usually don't have it.
I tried with butter and cream instead but usually the outcome are squishy - or at least not really crunchy - cookies. What is another substitute? What are other oils that do not have a taste on their own that may be a proper replacement?
you could look for cocoa butter since your using chocolate already. I'm not sure where your located but AFAIK whole foods carries it but it's pricey.
I agree cocoa butter would be the perfect addition, if you can get it... but then you would want to temper it. I kind of assumed that is not a readily available ingredient.
You can get coconut oil online, for example here.
If really want to substitute for that coconut oil in this particular application, you want a pure, relatively flavorless, saturated fat. This will be one that is solid at room temperature. That means commercial shortening, such as the US brand Crisco.
Update: cocoa butter itself, of course would be ideal, if you can get it. But, then you would want to temper it. In that case, well, see below...
However, in my opinion:
Your best bet, if you are willing to do the necessary work, for a crisp true chocolate coating is to use... pure chocolate. Nothing else.
The trick is to ensure that your chocolate is in temper. (You can read more about it within the Wikipedia article on chocolate). This means that it is melted and then cooled in such as way as to ensure the cocoa butter forms the most desirable crystals, which have a melting point near mouth temperature, and a smooth, crisp bite.
You can google many detailed articles on how to temper chocolate, with many variant methods. For example, here is one from Serious Eats.
For small batches at home, I have found the following method to be very successful, using 100% real chocolate such as Merkens or Ghirardelli (or many other brands). That is, chocolate that is made of nothing but cocoa butter, cocoa solids, sugar, flavoring, and maybe some lecithen. You don't want other fats. In general, you should avoid chocolate chips (which may not be true chocolate) unless you know your manufacturer actually uses 100% true chocolate in their chips (a small number do).
Break the chocolate up into small chunks (maybe 1/2 inch or 1 cm in size)
Place in a glass microwave safe bowl. The purpose of the glass bowl is to absorb the heat from the chocolate, and then keep it relatively stable and warm.
Place the chocolate in the microwave at very low power. I use level 2 on my microwave. It will take a very long time, maybe 8-10 minutes, even to be partially melted. This is okay.
Every so often, stir the chocolate so it is heating fairly evenly. (The glass bowl also helps by adding thermal mass...)
Keep microwaving on low, until the chocolate is almost all melted, checking more and more frequently as you get close.
When the chocolate is about 90% melted, take it out and let the residual heat from the bowl and the chocolate melt the rest.
Do one last stir, so that the various crystal types and seeds are evenly distributed, just in case some small part of the chocolate went out temper in this process.
Again, I emphasize, patience and going slow here is the key. This method trades time for complexity.
The key to this method is: commercial chocolate is already in temper. By barely melting it (and I mean barely), we keep it temper. We don't have to do all the hard stuff with thermometers and carefully regulating the temperature up to melt the bad crystals, then down to seed the good ones and so on.
Once you have your tempered melted chocolate, you can use it to coat candies, cookies, or (one of my favorites) stir in a crunchy breakfast cereal, coconut flakes, or nuts to make little candies.... the applications are endless.
You can of course also use a double boiler for the boiling - does take more preparation, but it also makes it a lot harder to accidentally overshoot.
Also, you say various crystal types, but there's really only one main stable form of crystals in tempered chocolate, the ones that survive up to the higher temperatures and give it good structure - the other types are the ones that were done away with by the tempering process, and shouldn't be present in your already-tempered chocolate.
@SAJ14SAJ I followed your advice, slowly melting the chocolate in the microwave. It turned out the be perfect, the cookies were as crunchy as with the coconut oil or even better.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.774460
| 2013-03-28T21:56:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33082",
"authors": [
"Beatrice Roberts",
"Brendan",
"Cascabel",
"Dan",
"Dave",
"Jeff B",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spam",
"Stockfisch",
"aslı",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76633",
"rlqd"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35201
|
How do I make meringue using a whipped cream charger?
What is the method and ingredients for making small hard meringues using a whipped cream charger? How do I combine the ingredients in the charger prior to whipping? Please help - I can't find this anywhere.
I think the reason you're not finding anything is because the answer is "you don't". Meringue needs much more air incorporated than a whipped cream charger is capable of. Plus there's the whole "whip alone, then add sugar" aspect, which I'm sure is more than mere superstition.
It's not just that it takes more air. It's that the beating process denatures the egg proteins, creating the structure necessary to hold in all that air.
I have never heard of a charger being used for this purpose and suspect, as others, that it is not possible. Typically you need a high fat content to use a whipper successfully; they are tolerant to certain gelling agents and stabilizers like gelatin or dextrose, but only to a point. Egg whites have zero fat, and they need a long time and a gentle start to whip, which isn't really what the cream whippers are good at.
Actually, this can be done but it may not be convenient to do if you aren't in a restaurant setting where this can streamline your process. If you take equal parts egg whites and sugar, beat them together, cook at 74C for 30minutes and then transfer them to the siphon and charge with 4 cartridges, dispense to desired shape, and then bake at 150C until set (this will vary depending on size and shape) you should be good to go.
As I said, this is about the same as doing it the old fashioned way, time wise.
As the comments above have summarized, this probably is not practically possible.
Egg whites form a foam when the proteins are coagulated, trapping the water in a film that holds the air bubbles. This may require extended mechanical emulsification not provided by the pressurized gas.
Aaronut also notes that in regard to the pressurized devices:
Typically you need a high fat content to use a whipper successfully;
they are tolerant to certain gelling agents and stabilizers like
gelatin or dextrose, but only to a point. Egg whites have zero fat,
and they need a long time and a gentle start to whip, which isn't
really what the cream whippers are good at.
Note that I wikid this so I am not farming rep; feel free to edit and clarify.
"This requires extended mechanical agitation not provided by the pressurized gas." maybe an unsubstantiated statement. At the right eggwhite temperature (presumably, near coagulation point ~60C, and given a fine enough mesh to create micro-bubbles, it may be possible to create highspeed egg foam. I have seen Jose Andreas make fat-less protein based foam in whip cream dispensers. But unsure under which conditions you can get meringue. Wouldn't go as far saying it's emphatically impossible.
@MandoMando, its a wiki, edit away if you have better information. I just transferred the comments down so there is an actual answer. But the question is probably about the actual commercially available toys, not hypothetical ones. I added the word "practically" before possible.
made some small suggestion changes to soften the position, feel free to roll back ;) Have a gut feeling it is possible using commercially available dispensers, but it's the stuff Dave Arnold and Jose Andreas are better geared to tackle.
I can add some experimental corroboration. I had a couple of attempts at making iSi meringue last summer, and using just eggs, sugar, and (the second time) lemon juice, it didn't stay stable long enough to cook. I was going to try adding cornstarch, but didn't get round to it.
There's a recipe for meringue on the iSi website. The process:
Pass the egg white through a fine mesh sieve and stir in sugar in a casserole dish. heat to 50 °C (122 °F). Ensure that the sugar fully dissolves. Beat briefly with an egg whisk, remove from the heat, and cool the dish by placing on ice water. Pass the mixture through the iSi funnel & sieve directly into the 0.5 L (~17 fl. oz.) iSi Whipper. Screw on 1 iSi cream charger and shake vigorously. Refrigerate for at least 6 hours. Shake vigorously before serving.
Good luck!
Just beat the egg whites and sugar. Otherwise it might be hard to clean the canister once you succeed. You'd definitely have to spoon it out. Someone has told you incorrectly that restaurants use CO2.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.774857
| 2013-07-09T15:56:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35201",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"MandoMando",
"Marti",
"Nitesh Mackerdhooj",
"Peter Taylor",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"slim"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35653
|
Glass Food Processor
I would like to know if anybody here might know of a glass food processor product name. I'm trying to avoid plastic. Any ideas?
Some commercial food processors are available with metal bowls, although these models may be quite expensive.
You may may also wish to consider that many tasks a food processor is used for can be performed with a blender which typically do come with a glass pitcher, or with an immersion blender.
Robot Coupe and Hobart are some that come to mind (in the US) that I've seen with metal bowls, but of course we're talking commercial food processors that are easily $1k+ for basic starter models like SAJ14SAJ touched on. Not sure I've ever seen a home use one with glass or metal, only blenders. It might be easier to look for specifically BPA-free (or whatever fancies you) plastic.
You can get immersion/stick blender with stainless steel shafts. They cost a lot more though
It can be hard to find good food processors or blenders with glass vessels. Due to the high power of better models, there is an increased shattering risk with glass...
Are you saying that whatever caused the shattering of the glass would not faze a plastic vessel?
@Trancot Plastic is indeed much more shatter-resistant than glass; it tends to crack rather than actually shattering. You can compensate with thick glass, but if it does break, it's much more dangerous than plastic, especially in this case - it would likely shatter while the food processor is on, so the shards could get thrown all over.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.775364
| 2013-07-29T03:46:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35653",
"authors": [
"Andris Birkmanis",
"Cascabel",
"Daehli Nadeau-Otis",
"FailureGod",
"Granny Lin",
"Jake Nix",
"Kealoha",
"Lilyana",
"Madacol",
"Mavis",
"Nathan",
"Rhona",
"Sky Blade",
"SourDoh",
"Sundy O'Connor",
"TFD",
"Trancot",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83820",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83823",
"janeylicious",
"trs"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36592
|
Slow cooked steak
OK, I've got a big dinner coming up, and I want to do something different. What I want to do is a large piece of meat, cooked slowly in a low heat oven until it reaches a core temperature of about 50 degrees Celsius, then to finish off on a piping hot barbecue for about 30 seconds on either side.
I want to do either a sirloin or a rib-eye. I have a personal preference for rib-eye, due to the flavor, but am worried about rendering the fat on the outside to avoid that nasty bit of chewy fat on the outside. That rendering is obviously not going to happen within the minute the steak is on the barbecue.
The question is; will the fats render when the steak is being slow cooked at low temperatures?
Just out of curiosity, why do you want to cook it this way? What benefit do you expect?
The short answer is "to have tried it". The longer answer is that I am playing around with different kinds of techniques, in order to become a better chef. This time around, this is the technique I am wanting to play with.
The benefit I expect is a modicum of control over the core temperature of the steak.
You're a brave chef to try something radically different that you've never done before for a big dinner.
No, the fat will not render at about 50 C (122 F).
However, you said core temperature, which implies the surface temperature will be higher assuming you are not cooking in a 50 C oven (which you should not, for safety reasons). If you are pre-cooking the steak at, for example 120 C (250 F), the surface will be hotter by the time the center reaches your target temperature, so you may get some rendering.
Still, there is a quite simple answer: trim the excess fat. What remains should char and develop a good flavor when you sear it on the grill.
...or, you could sear the surface on a very hot pan. Place in a zip lock bag. Remove air by submerging in a pot of water and sealing (before water enters the bag) and drop in a water bath. 50C will be virtually raw, though. You might want 54-56C. If you don't have an immersion circulator, Google "ghetto sous vide", you might be able to rig something up in your kitchen. Thickness will determine length of cook time (there are a few apps and lots of web resources for this), but generally the longer a rib eye cooks, the more tender. At some point, after several hours, it might get unpleasant and mushy. After the cook time, sear a second time on very hot pan or grill, season, enjoy.
I regularly cook beef the way you describe. I commonly make thick ribeye steaks, about 2-3cm, and put them, salted, directly on an aluminium baking sheet in the oven set to 55˚C. Then I leave them for about 30-60 minutes until it is time for dinner. At 55˚C they are piping hot, red and bloody, and juicy and delicious with the connective issue all gelatinous. The fat becomes soft and translucent but is not rendered. I sear them 30 seconds per side in a heavy and hot pan, before serving. My wife occasionally wants it more well done and will put her piece back in the warm pan.
Now we will get to the problem with the "big piece" - I assume you mean 2-5kg, a 2-4 bone rib roast. At a 55-60˚C oven the inside is not going to heat to 50 until the outside surface has been warm for dangerously too long. All the exterior surfaces of this roast will be coated in bacteria (like everything is) and there is a limited time you can hold these warm temperatures.
As a result, when I do a big thick piece, I start with a hotter oven (120-150C?) and turn the temperature down to about 65-70 when the meat goes in. Allow the outer surface to brown, sterilizing the exterior. I then monitor with an internal probe until the roast is done (for me, 60-63˚C).
So, the barbecue step in this case serves no function anymore. It probably won't be exposed to the smoke for long enough to impart any flavor.
Note: when you cook beef this way it does not need to "rest". If you let it sit out it will simply get cold.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.775580
| 2013-09-07T12:48:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36592",
"authors": [
"Carey Gregory",
"Lucas Scott",
"Tim",
"daveyb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85910",
"razumny",
"zoha sajjad"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34604
|
Why do mushrooms freeze in fridge at temps above freezing?
I noticed mushrooms freeze in my fridge when nothing else does. Can anybody explain the phenomenon?
Have you tried storing them in a different spot and storing something else in that position? Sometimes fridges have cold spots.
it's not so much of a problem, i am still able to cut them, just curious
What type of mushrooms are they, because ash boletes are still slightly flexible if you freeze them?
Your fridge is infact below freezing temperature, perhaps just slightly. Water (the main liquid in mushrooms) never freezes at temperatures above freezing (0C/32F).
Mushrooms have a lot of surface area and are very light so their temperature can match the fridge easier. Try placing dry lettuce there and you'll notice the same thing.
If it's a small and not so full fridge, you can raise the temperature a bit.
Sometimes nature is more complex than that http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1064185883710284
It is, but that study doesn't show how water can freeze at above freezing, it shows how it may not form ice crystals at below.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.775964
| 2013-06-09T19:09:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34604",
"authors": [
"Bonita",
"Darnelle",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Insignificant",
"Lightsout",
"MandoMando",
"Silva Greene",
"Yamikuronue",
"a coder",
"amphibient",
"courteney",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80719",
"user80674"
],
"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
}
|
35099
|
Custard recipe without commercial custard powder
There are plenty of custard recipes but all are based on commercial custard powder. What is actually the custard powder? Is it possible to make custard from scratch at home (without custard powder)?
If I search for "custard recipe" none of what I find uses custard powder, though some do use cornstarch. Are you trying to make some other kind of custard, so all those recipes don't work for you?
@Jefromi http://bakingbites.com/2009/11/what-is-custard-powder/ [writing an answer now]
@derobert I even tried searching on google.co.uk, and still found tons of recipes without it...
Custard is a mix of egg yolk and dairy (often milk, but sometimes including cream as well), which is then heated. The ratio of yolk to dairy depends on the texture desired (with a high enough portion yolk, it will set; with less, it'll just thicken). The temperature its cooked to varies, but is usually between 70°C–80°C.
Custard powder is, as far as I can find, a mix of cornstarch and other thickeners, vanilla, and yellow food coloring. (You could read the ingredient label on yours to determine exactly what's in it.) It intended to imitate the above, but be more convenient (and cheaper). You could use cornstarch and vanilla (and maybe some other flavorings) to imitate it.
Depending on the recipe, I'd suggest looking for the version made with actual milk and eggs, or at least look for something similar to your recipe, to get the milk/yolk ratio and temperature from.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.776121
| 2013-07-05T14:59:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35099",
"authors": [
"Carol V Wyard",
"Cascabel",
"Kevin",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83064"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30066
|
What is the purpose of making a preferment for yeast doughs?
I have found a number of bread recipes that call to prepare first a preferment - a very simple dough with half the flour, water, sometimes sugar, and the yeast to be used. This is left to rise for an hour or two and afterwards it is mixed with a dough made with the rest of the ingredients including fats, additional sugars, and eggs. This second dough is then left to rise again and later split into the loafs and baked.
What is the purpose of the preferment and why is sponge made with such basic ingredients?
Hi LopSae, the term "first rise" has an entirely different meaning in bread baking. It denotes the rise after the complete dough has been mixed and kneaded, but before it has been degassed and divided. What you describe is properly called a "preferment" or a sponge. I edited your question to avoid ambiguity. For the actual first rise, see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9014/why-let-dough-rise-twice?rq=1.
Other terms of interest that you may see that mean the same thing are: biga, poolish, chef, levain, sponge, pâte fermentée (source http://www.breadsecrets.com/prefermentation.html)
It's true that the term first rise wasn't propperly used here. Bue preferments are made for a longer time, with the aim of adding more taste to the dough, and (usually) with a small portion of the yeast: most of it will be added to the final dough. It doesn't seem to be the case of this dough: it has a small fermentation time, all of the yeast, and the final dough has sugar, fats and eggs enrichening it. I don't think this is exactly a preferment.
@J.A.I.L. a sponge falls under the preferment category, even if it is risen for a very short time. Yes, it is a quick fermentation - but it does happen.
In addition to allowing fermentation to begin before the addition of fermentation inhibiting other ingredients, as @J.A.I.L. said in his answer, according to Bread Secrets, after explaining the benefits to flavor of a long, slow fermentation:
A quick, warm fermentation will allow time for the yeast to produce
enough carbon dioxide to raise the dough, but not enough time for the
enzymes to work or for the development of the other flavour compounds.
If we ferment our dough for too long, however, the gluten becomes too
weak to hold the shape of the loaf. So artisan bakers generally use a
preferment (pre-ferment, not prefer-ment!) as part of their dough.
This allows the bread to gain flavour from the longer fermentation,
but still maintain a strong gluten network for a good rise.
Fats and sugars above certain levels inhibit the grown of yeasts. if you add them since the begining to an enriched dough like this, it will start growing very slowly, and take a long time to rise.
By adding just the food for the yeasts (that is: flour and maybe a bit of sugar to feed the yeasts) you allow them to grow in number and when the population is large enough to deal with them, you can add the rest of the ingredients.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.776295
| 2013-01-14T11:54:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30066",
"authors": [
"J.A.I.L.",
"J4sum",
"Lindi Mitchell",
"Lorna Spies",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Tariq Mustafa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70230",
"jacefarm",
"juanvan",
"mava",
"rumtscho",
"user5948"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22111
|
Troubleshooting a soggy baklava with torn sheets
I've attempted to make Baklava just once in my life and the results were pretty disasterous.
Some issues I have questions about when making the Baklava:
How to handle the Phyllos dough sheets? These sheets were so thin and delicate that I inadvertently crumpled or ripped about half of them with my big meaty fingers. Is there a trick to holding them for some of the clumsier people? i just grabbed it by its corners but I usually ended up ripping off these said corners.
How to handle the butter? The recipe didn't specifically mention what state the butter should be. Should the butter be really melted so that it thoroughly soaks into the phyllos or should it be just barely melted so that I can spread them on the sheets. Also when adding the butter, I always seemed to inadvertantly crumple up the sheets below it. How can I apply the butter without messing up the bottom layers?
When I poured the syrup into the baked Baklava, all the syrup seemed to flow to the bottom and made the bottom way too soggy and goopy. This made it hard to cut and separate into individual pieces. (I ended up eating it almost like a pie) Did I do something wrong?
And finally, the whole layering, buttering, and adding the nuts took me over an hour. Are there general tricks to that will allow me to make Baklava faster?
The step-by-step video instructions presented by Alton Brown (on Good Eats) will give a good foundation to work from. Recipe: http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/baklava-recipe/index.html
Video: part 1:http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=alton%20brown%20baklava&source=web&cd=5&ved=0CE4QtwIwBA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D75u6qmsVNEo&ei=IflYT5GOFKjj0QG2xdnbDw&usg=AFQjCNFrT1TMUcusYnICbgPbsyTdeVJX8g&cad=rja (there you will find a link to part 2)
1- To work with phyllo or yufka sheets the key is to keep them from drying out. A damp, but not dripping, towel laid over the sheets is essential. Cover it after each time you take out a sheet. They dry out very fast and then just disintegrate.
2- The butter should be melted but not hot. Many recipes call for it to be clarified as well but I don't personally notice a difference in baklava so I skip that step. Its main purpose, besides flavor, is to keep the layers separate during baking. You don't have to spread it or work it in. Just brush it on gently.
3- The baklava is cut into diamonds, almost all the way through, before baking it. It can't be cut after it is baked and crisped. If it is cut all the way through before baking then it will pull itself apart. Pouring the syrup evenly over the whole thing will help. The top layers will soak up some but will definitely be drier than the bottom. It is supposed to be sticky and syrupy on the bottom- that's pretty much the whole point. The soaked pastry should still be chewy and distinct. Not crisp necessarily but candied. If it is too soggy then you might not have baked it long enough.
4- You can get faster at it with practice but not too much faster. It is a long process but it is fun to do with help. We make it as a family.
When it is too soggy, it can be because of too much syrup as well. Then put the pastries on the sides of a plate, with a lifted edge. That way, the excess of syrup can flow back to the center.
@mien- I suppose. I've never seen too much syrup but I have seen too litte.
I melt the butter and use a pastry brush to put it on each sheet. It's pretty quick and easy.
A tip to speed up the filo buttering: put down 2 sheets at a time, then butter. Each sheet still gets contact with butter, the bottom being placed on a previously buttered sheet is enough to get the job done.
Baklava truly is the dessert of the gods. One of my favorites! And a real treat for many people who are used to desserts that simply compete with one another to be as fatty and as sweet as possible, with as many different "types" of chocolate as can be reasonably crammed in. The rich flavor of nuts and the floral sweetness of honey and rose water can be a really refreshing change.
Phyllo
Phyllo is always tough to deal with. The two enemies, ironically, are getting it wet, and letting it dry out. Most phyllo in modern groceries is purchased frozen, and you have to somehow thaw it and make it usable. The method on the package recommends moving it to the fridge 24 hours before use to allow it to slowly thaw. I do not usually succeed at this, because my fridge seems to be too moist. An alternative method popularized by Alton Brown is to leave the phyllo frozen until you use it, and then right before use, microwave it on high for 60 seconds. This has worked wonders for me, but still seems to fail for others.
Other tips:
Purchase phyllo from stores that sell a lot of it, so it hasn't been in the freezer long. This may be hard to judge, but "fancier" groceries will probably go through more of it.
Keep it frozen in your shopping basket - it doesn't have much thermal mass and will thaw quickly. Put it in your basket last, pack it in the bags with other frozen foods, and get it home and into your freezer fast. If it partially thaws, moisture will build up in it, and cause you problems later.
Keep it from drying out by draping a lightly damp cloth over it while you are working.
Butter
I've had the best success with clarified butter, because the water has been removed. It isn't necessary, but it is helpful if you are trying to get the most out of your baklava. You can buy clarified butter, or the very similar desi ghee at Indian markets. You can also clarify butter yourself.
I use my brush to drizzle hot (but not scalding) clarified butter over the sheet, then gently spread the drizzles out with the brush. Getting a good coat on the bottom of the pan, and on each successive layer will help the next layer stay in place while you brush.
Cutting and Syrup
I prefer to cut the baklava about half-way through the baking process. That has given it a chance to firm up a bit, but not get too crackley. After it has been removed from the oven, allow it to cool for 2 hours, then cut again, along the same lines.
For syrup, I like a mix of honey and sugar syrup (equal parts honey, water and sugar, plus desired spices, heated to fully dissolve and simmered for 10 minutes). Honey-only syrups don't set up as firmly, and can be a little "too honey" for some palates. The syrup should be hot when applied to the baklava, but the baklava must be fully cooled. After applying the syrup, cover, and allow the whole thing to cool fully, preferably overnight, before serving. It takes time for the hot syrup to penetrate the folds, and then even more time for it to set-up fully. Baklava is often best prepared a day or two before serving, not as a fresh pastry.
I agree with preparing in advance. I haven't had a problem with humidity thawing in the fridge because the ones I buy come in sealed plastic.
This is an answer to the "how to make it faster" portion of your question.
Here's how you make it, quick, easy, and 99% as good as if you'd spent an hour painting each phyllo sheet using a brush made with magical unicorn tail hair.
Take half the phyllo and place on baking sheet
Spread nuts/sugar/cinnamon on top
Take other half phyllo and cover the nuts/sugar/cinnamon
Cut into diamonds
Pour melted butter evenly over the dessert (tilt pan to spread any pools)
Bake
Pour syrup on hot baklava
The time savings is not buttering each layer. The melted butter will soak in through all the diamond cuts.
Will anyone notice you didn't spend an hour of your life painstakingly buttering the sheets? No, they'll be too busy eating the delicious dessert you just made them.
The sheets on the bottom of the dessert weren't going to puff up anyway, and ... surprise, the sheets on the top of the dessert still puff up nicely.
Purists will pooh-pooh even the thought of not buttering the dough, but they're also the people spending 2 hours painstakingly stirring their risotto and adding liquid in 1/2 ounce increments.
The problem I see here is not the missing buttering of the sheets. It is that the nut mixture is not layered with the sheets, as it should be.
@rumtscho Most of the recipes I've seen do not use multiple layers of nuts, and that is a difference. That said, I doubt it makes enough of a difference (if any) to warrant the effort.
Mien settled the matter for all of us. The results of her experiment are on our blog, http://cooking.blogoverflow.com/2012/09/baklava-a-matter-of-layers/.
And it was very well written. I may have to try the more time intensive version some day...
I really don't like baklava made this way. The texture just isn't the same.
It depends if you want a nice baklava or a quick one. I am not familiar about the quick baklava, so I will share my tips on delicious baklava:
Phyllo pastry needs to be at room temperature before you handle it. Otherwise it retains some of the moisture that make the individual sheets stick to each other. However, do not take it out of the package till you are about to use it.
You need to put butter on top of each sheet. It is essential as it alters the properties of cooking of the pastry.
I have not experimented between clarified or non clarified butter - I am not sure if it would make a difference. The main benefit of clarified is that I think it boils at a different temperature.
You can experiment with different types of butter (from cow or sheep milk) or a mixture. The goat one will give a different flavour and is a bit stronger.
Cut the phyllo pastry in the shape of your tray and choose a tray with vertical walls
You can either put half of the phyllo sheets on bottom and the other half on the top or you can have a combination of having 2-3 phyllo with mixture of nuts alternating (after using both I opted for the former)
If you have commercially made phyllo then use 20 for top and 20 for bottom. If you have extremelly thin phyllo made by an excellent baker (I have seen it only in turkey) double that
Use extremelly low heat (even gas 1-2) but for 2-3 hours. This way the phyllo will get cooked without getting burned. Even when you pour the syrup over, it remains nice and crisp. This is one of the best ways as I think it is an art to make a baklava that is crispy and wet. Otherwise on higher heats the baklava won't have time to cook enough and will get a bit soft and soggy.
No need to take the baklava out of the oven to cut it. Once you have prepared the mixture and you have put butter on the top, stick it in the freezer for 10-15 min. This would be enough to make it solidify so you cut it easily. I cut mine with a plastic knife as I don't want to scratch my aluminium baklava tray. At the same time you turn the oven on to get it ready.
For the top of the baklava you may want to spray it with water lightly before you put it in the oven. This would prevent it from the top phyllo rising too much.
Cut small pieces of baklava. It is very rich and it is nice not to get an overdose of sweet and nuts.
Hot syrup over hot baklava .
For your syrup you can experiment. I am originally greek and I love the smell of cinamon and cloves. Thus, I add in mine syroup cloves and cinammon sticks (only a stick and 3-4 cloves). My wife who has routes from Lebanon prefers rose water - find what you prefer. You can also add small pieces of skin from orange/lemon.
If you use cinnamon stick do not throw it away once you finish. If you serve the baklava from the tray you can put the cinnamon stick on top for decoration.
I live in the north east of England. I prefer the greek phyllo that I can buy from small corner shops that specialise in food from the Middle East/Turkey, or other phyllo you may find there.
Good luck and remember that you need to experiment to find the baklava you want. I started making it as a student and kept changing different things till I found what I liked. Some of my thinking was influenced by a Greek cook who was originally from Istanbul, and studied then cooking in France. My aluminium tray is from Turkey as I could not find a square one that would fit my purpose in Greece or UK or online.
Ripping Sheets of Filo: The sheets are still cold. The dough will tear near the center wrinkles when it's too cold. Room temp dough allows you to gently pull out all the wrinkles and the dough separates easily. As long as the outer package is sealed, you can leave the dough out for several hours to be sure it warms up.
How to handle Filo: Gently bend a corner of the dough to separate the sheets. Pull one sheet corner up just enough to slip the back of your hand under the corner. Working from the outer edges towards the center, carefully lift the sheet with the back of your hand. If your sheets start to stick in the same place, the dough is too cold. Always keep a damp (not wet) towel to cover the dough. The dough should be covered by the plastic it lays on and then the towel on top of the plastic to seal out air at the edges. Don't let the damp towel touch the dough or get it wet. Wet dough is worthless.
Rips and Wrinkles: Don't worry too much about the tears or wrinkles. they actually help the dough crisp up by adding air pockets when baking. It will make for a less soggy baklava if you put wrinkle in your sheets as you layer them.
Butter Spreading: I used soft melted butter, 1/2 stick at a time. Hot melted butter makes the dough too wet and adds to a soggy mess. The butter should be melted but not watery. You don't have to saturate the sheets with butter. Just a light brushing and not every part of the dough has to be buttered. The butter helps crisp the dough if used lightly. Use a pastry brush (or back of a large spoon) to evenly spread out butter from the center to the edges. The first layer after the nuts is always a tricky one as it slips and slides everywhere. So, I splatter the dough with butter, but don't spread it. Then I gently pick it up and flip it over so the butter side is down. The butter helps hold it in place against the nuts and I can spread the top and continue on with out any troubles. The last sheet on top should be lightly covered all over to prevent drying out and use a bit more than before to help it from curling up from dryness when baking.
Avoiding Soggy Bottom: Cut your baklava before baking with a pointed knife. Making sure the tip of the knife only pierces the bottom layer not cutting through it. This keeps the syrup from settling only on the bottom and allows it to stay near the nuts to soak in the middle. After baking, add room temp syrup immediately to hot baklava (it should sizzle). Then allow it to cool and settle for at least 6 hours before cutting through the bottom layers. The longer it sits, the better it works. I make it 2-3 days in advance before I cut the bottom layers and serve.
Result: Crisp flaky layers with sticky (not soaked and gooey) sweet nectar flavor.
Either your pastry should be hot and your syrup at room temperature or the other way around. This is a good rule of thumb for all syrup soaked pastries. If both the baklava and syrup are hot when you pour the syrup over you will end up with a goopy mess.
The other answers have all explained most of the process really well. So, I'm just going to add a couple of options to make the butter part a lot easier.
Use butter flavored cooking spray instead of butter. It's super fast, easy, and convenient. Just spray it on each layer. The result is good, but not quite as good as real butter. The big downside is that the aerosolized oil gets everywhere.
Put melted butter in a cheap plastic spray bottle. You're going to do a lot of spraying, so get one with a trigger instead of the little button on top. You may want to throw the bottle away when you're done because it's going to be a buttery mess that's hard to clean. Plus, the bottle may collapse a bit as the butter inside cools off.
I've tried both of these techniques. They both work and they both save a lot of time.
You can save a lot of time if you try a simple alternative:
Spread one layer of buttered phyllos, and a layer of nuts mixture on top.
Then curl it up into a cylinder. Then curl the cylinder into a spiral.
Cut it into smaller pieces, then bake. It's 100% the same as usual baklava,
only the shape of the pieces differs.
Here's the recipe in more detail (although you don't realy need a dowel, and you can add a bit more filling to the phyllo):
http://thegreekvegan.com/baklava-saragli/
I would call this a strudel, not a baklava
My secret is that after you have cooked your baklava, turn off the oven and let the baklava sit a bit longer in the oven - it crisps up better
Niki, thanks for your contribution and welcome to Seasoned Advice! What I'm missing here are actual answers to the questions: ripping sheets, buttering correctly, distributing syrup. We strive to answer exactly the question instead of adding peripheral advice like in so many other forums. Please take the [tour] and visit our [help] to get a better idea of how this site works. Again: Welcome! We look forward to many more contributions from you!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.776611
| 2012-03-08T15:47:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22111",
"authors": [
"Boom Lift Rental",
"Cos Callis",
"Debbie M.",
"Dorothy MacDonald",
"Guy Peil",
"Martha Rodeback",
"Mien",
"Pa Leahy",
"Sobachatina",
"Stephie",
"Suzanne Paul",
"Trey Jackson",
"Wanda Clark",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6512",
"mrog",
"rumtscho",
"thursdaysgeek"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29359
|
How to reduce the moisture when making tarte tatin
I've tried making pear and apple tarte tatin a couple of times, using different recipes, and the result is always the same.
When I take the pan out of the oven and flip it over, the pastry is moist, and the thick caramel has turned very runny.
I've tried reducing the amount of butter used, and using different types of sugar, but nothing seems to have an effect...
Is there a way to keep everything "dry" ?
Tarte Tatin? Caramelized apples under puff pastry?
So you want crisp pastry (no soggy bottoms) and thick caramel with well cooked fruit?
Runny caramel in a tarte tatin is already asked and answered: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26153/is-the-caramel-recipe-wrong-or-is-it-my-technique But no mention of soggy pastry there
What variety of apples are you using? Different varieties of apples are used for baking than for eating, turning into sauce, etc. as they have varying water content, firmness, etc.
Do you add a slit in the pastry when you put it in the oven to allow the steam to escape?
The reason, I think, that most recipes don't leave a thick caramel and it all goes 'runny' is that it's designed to go into a sort of caramel-y sauce when turned out.
Since in most conventional recipes you par-cook the fruit in the caramel then top with the pastry and bake, the fruit releases a lot of moisture into the caramel and making it runnier. Therefore, if you cook the apples separately (boiling them, say) then drain, add to the caramel and cover with pastry and bake, much less juice should leak out of them.
I would keep the caramel recipe the same as in the recipe but just follow the steps above. I don't think the type of sugar will make any difference other then flavor (although soft brown sugars do have more moisture in them).
Also, since everything except the pastry is cooked, try baking the pastry conventionally (in the oven) then grill it for a few minutes to increase the heat on the pastry directly to avoid it becoming soggy.
I think sebbidychef has a good point, you should try the draining.
But it's not only the amount of juice that causes your problem. Acid makes caramel runny. So you should also try sweeter fruit - riper pears, sweeter types of apple.
Gordon Ramsey peels the apples and leaves them in the fridge a day before so they dry out. They don't look so good then but the caramel hides it.
According to this website, the reason you get too much liquid is that the apples haven't reached a sufficient temperature for the pectin in the apples to jellify. I just now made a tarte tatin which was more liquid than it usually is, and the only difference compared to my normal procedure was that the apples came directly from the fridge; whence they started out at a lower temperature. So it is plausible that the explanation about temperature is correct. I usually let my apples heat up in the caramel in the pan for up to 5 minutes, so that the apples get warm, before putting the pan in the oven.
https://bakeschool.com/apple-tarte-tatin/
There are recipes that suggest you cook the apples with butter in the pan before adding the sugar. That way the jui
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.778303
| 2012-12-21T02:07:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29359",
"authors": [
"Gamora",
"Hasan",
"Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams",
"John Feltz",
"KEERTHI keetu",
"Kate Gregory",
"Sebiddychef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8920",
"trying",
"user68186",
"user68196",
"user68204",
"zibadawa timmy"
],
"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
}
|
19506
|
How to simulate an oven when what you actually have is a gas stove?
Well, I currently don't have an oven. And also, I don't expect to prepare cakes on gas. :rolleyes:
But, is it possible to bake things like garlic bread (at least) on gas stove somehow? If yes, then how?
EDIT 1
I should have clarified, that I also want to bake biscuits (from scratch).
When you say bake garlic bread, do you mean from raw dough or... what?
@ElendilTheTall I haven't prepared the garlic bread yet, so I don't know which way it gets better or easier. :redface:
You can bake on a gas stove top using 2 deep roast pans. Place a cookie sheet with some water in it as well as a cooking rack inside one pan to keep the baked goods from being directly on the heat. Place the other pan upside-down and on top the other roast pan. Turn your burners on to a medium heat. When you lift the lid to place what you want to bake inside, be careful as it will blow steam and heat out at you. As with dutch ovens it is hard to know the exact temperature. There's a bit more about it here: https://meltingpotohowto.blogspot.com/2017/08/how-to-bake-without-oven.html
Dutch oven
(a proper cast iron one, mind you)
Put your dutch oven on the stove top with the lid on, and turn on the heat until it gets hot
Place the thing(s) to be baked inside (but not directly touching the sides or bottom; a little rack or other standoff will be helpful)
Put the lid back on and turn the heat way down
Wait. And this is a bit of a problem because it is hard to know the exact temperature, so baking is tricky.
This is also how one bakes over a campfire, though there you use coals and can get a reasonably repeatable temperature. Works better with cobbler than cake (I have seen cakes done this way, but more often I've seen them messed up), but it should do garlic bread just fine.
The pure mass of the iron serves to smooth out the uneven heating from the stove. This is also the reason a proper dutch oven has a lip on the lid: so you can put some coals on there to insure the lid stays properly hot too.
Thanks, Would steel pressure cooker do instead of the dutch oven?
I don't know. You need enough mass and heat capacity to render the internal temperature pretty even.
Here is a link to a Coleman Camp Oven available on Amazon which is designed to sit a top a two burner gas stove. While it's principal purpose is to allow one to bake in the great outdoors this may be an easy and inexpensive option that will work for you. (I assume either Amazon will ship to you, or something competitive can be found in India)
A second option would be a counter top oven, like this one from Hamilton Beach. There are similar products from Oster and Rival as well.
Either of these options should serve to get you an oven you can work with for more than just garlic bread, but a full range of baking and roasting activities.
If you just want to prepare garlic bread—assuming you're starting with already-baked bread—that shouldn't be too hard stovetop.
Heat some butter in a saucepan until water finishes evaporating (the bubbling will look different), toss in some chopped garlic, stir for 30s or so until fragrant. Remove from heat. Lightly toast the bread (in a toaster, or by holding it with metal tongs above the burner). Spread a little of the garlic butter on top of each piece. Slice a piece of fresh garlic in half, rub over bread for some extra fresh-garlic flavor.
If using garlic powder just melt butter, then add garlic powder. Then go ahead and spread on toast. Or spread plain melted butter on bread, then sprinkle with garlic powder (and, personally, although its heresy, I add a little onion powder as well).
I make garlic bread, Naan style on the stove top. You can use a basic bread dough like Hugh Fernley Whittingstalls basic bread dough (google it). Just prepare the dough, shape it into flat breads and cook on a skillet or frying pan. I mix garlic and herbs into the dough mix and put garlic butter ontop. Took a few tries to get it right but worth some experiments!
Could you [edit] your post with a few details, please? If you write "took a few tries", I'm sure you have some useful pointers?
If you have a large pot or wok made of heavy material (cast iron or cast aluminum) with a lid (or two woks of similar size, use one as a lid) and a metal trivet or short tin can, you can improvise a stove-top oven. And a baking pan that will fit inside.
Put the pot/wok on the stove, with the trivet/can inside. Cover and heat. Once it has heated up, put the baking pan with whatever you want to bake on top of the trivet/can and cover.
Bake time is a guessing game; let your nose and experience be the guide. I have successfully used this method for muffins, banana cake, PB cookies.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.778628
| 2011-12-08T10:58:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19506",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Chirag Kantharia",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Hida",
"JimmyJames",
"Stephie",
"The Defiant Writer",
"Viktor",
"anilkumar yadav",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84897",
"user42481"
],
"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
}
|
22179
|
How much difference does the placement of the shelf in the oven make to the final outcome of a cake?
Unknowingly, I used to keep the cake on the center shelf in the oven, then I realized that the shelf can also be placed at the bottom of the oven.
Does this make a huge difference in the final outcome?
If I put the shelf on the bottom, and then stack the cakes on the top of each other in a 28lts oven, will that make sense?
Do any special care have to be taken in these situations?
http://www.bajajelectricals.com/Majesty-OTG-2800TMC-pc-391-66.aspx
Do you use a convection or convention oven?
Yes, it makes a difference. In a conventional oven (even one with a convectiono fan), anything placed on the bottom rack is going to absorb less radiation heat from the oven element. That means longer cooking times and possibly the need for a higher temperature setting.
If you're following a recipe then it's best to use whichever rack the recipe says. If the recipe doesn't specify, it's usually designed for the center rack.
Now, using a different rack is completely different from actually baking one thing on top of another thing, on a higher rack. That will have a significant effect on whatever is underneath, and if it is particularly sensitive to the time and temperature (many baked goods are) then it is very likely to fail entirely. I once tried to bake two layers of cream puffs and the ones on the bottom were still practically raw by the time the top was done. I doubt you'd find much better success with cakes.
A convection fan may help in this case, but I still don't think it's enough to compensate for the temperature gradient you'd create by "eclipsing" one dish underneath another in the same oven. You are literally blocking the heat from reaching the bottom dish.
I make cakes in my convection toaster oven all the time...no issue.
@aaronut toaster ovens are good enough for cakes. But in them, the difference between racks is even greater, because they heat mainly per direct radiation from the heating elements, much more so than conventional ovens (where convection plays a bigger role).
OK, I removed the comment about the toaster oven... still think it's kind of goofy, but I can sort of see it working in a convection toaster oven (not a regular one).
Aaronut, and @rumtscho Thanks for the answer. So, this means that there is no way that we can stack the cakes/biscuits on the top of each other?
In every oven I've ever owned, the heat comes from the bottom of the oven when baking, thus the top rack results in less radiant heat to the bottom of the pan, baking on a lower rack results in more. The upper heating element is used when broiling. In gas stoves, the bottom drawer is often the broiler, placed under the flame that heats the oven, instead of having a redundant broiler element at the top of the stove, as electric stoves do. Some ovens may use the broiler element in conjunction with one below to provide more even radiant heat, but it's certainly not universal.
@TheodoreMurdock I have never seen such an oven. If an oven has settings for bottom, top, bottom+top and broiling, then it can also heat from above, and the correct setting for baking cakes would be bottom+top. What you describe is, of course, technically possible, but it doesn't sound like a good oven.
Our current oven has two settings: bake (heat from below only) and broil (heat from above, with five different levels of too hot). Good to hear that many ovens are designed better, but I suspect that cheap bake/broil ovens like this are likely still manufactured and sold. One of the first recommendations in Cooking for Geeks (2010) is clearly for this type of stove, recommending adding a large baking stone permanently placed on the bottom rack as a heat diffuser to prevent the kind of "burned on the bottom but still undercooked" result typical of cheap stoves like ours.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.779064
| 2012-03-11T11:45:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22179",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Cecilia",
"Doug Warren",
"Logrhythmic",
"Mien",
"Theodore Murdock",
"conjectures",
"gwallis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9057",
"maciej-ka",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho",
"user49754"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21367
|
What should be the material of the vessels to be used in an electric oven?
Could you please provide a general guide figure out if a piece of cookware can be used in the oven, based on what material it is made of?
Can you be more specific Anisha, i.e. what do you plan on cooking in the oven? Some combinations of ingredients and pans can cause problems (acid and aluminium for example), but generally anything that won't melt is fine.
@ElendilTheTall Just cake, biscuits, bread, can anything else be cooked in oven?
@AnishaKaul everything can be cooked in an oven - meat, fish, vegetables, egg dishes, breads, stews, all "baking" stuff, grains... If it is prepared using heat, it probably exists in an oven version, with very few exceptions. I have even read advice for preparing roux in an oven.
@rumtscho- Indeed, brick or darker roux is much easier to make in the oven. It's too easy to burn a dark roux on the stove.
The usual materials used in an oven (no matter if electric or gas) are almost all food-safe non-melting materials used for cooking vessels. If you can use it on a stove top, it should be OK for the oven too (unless it has a handle from a different material).
Metal. Oven pans are made from non-reactive metals (like stainless steel) or reactive metals with a protective layer (e.g. seasoned cast iron). Don't use metal vessels which have non-metal parts, like wooden or plastic handles (except for oven-rated handles, like the phenolic handles on Le Creuset enameled cast iron, which are rated for up to 200°C). Else, all metallic pans and pots meant for stove top are good for the oven. Also, pay attention to temperature: PTFE (non-stick) coated vessels shouldn't be heated above 250°C.
Ceramics. If glazed, you should make sure that the glaze does not suffer under high temperature or does not leach dangerous chemicals into the food under high temperatures. There are many glazed ceramic pans meant for the oven, such as lasagna pans, quiche pans, tagines, gyveches, etc, and you can be sure that these are oven-safe. You can also use table porcelain for some limited scenarios, e.g. poaching an egg in an individual serving of soup, but don't risk your finest porcelain, and don't do it if the plates are decorated with adhesive designs. If unglazed, you should make sure it is intended for the oven, some types of earthenware may be damaged by the heat. The ones meant for the oven (like römertopf) should be fine.
Glass. If it is borosilicate glass (sometimes called Jena glass), you can use it in the oven. Don't subject it to temperature shocks, use room-temperature glass pans (don't layer a lasagna the day before in a glass vessel and then bake it straight from the fridge), and don't put them in too hot an oven (up to 200°C should be OK). You can't determine if it is borosilicate glass or soda lime glass from its looks, so here you have to be sure that the manufacturer markets the vessel as oven safe.
Silicone. Food-grade silicone is great for baking and practically indestructible (unless you cut it). If the manufacturer gave a temperature range, go by it, I'm not sure it will hold up at above 250°C, but it is no problem in the normal cake and pastry baking range.
Plastics. Some plastics may be able to withstand heat, but you can't usually recognize that from their looks, and you don't know if there may be other problems (such as melamine, which releases toxic chemicals when heated). In theory, I would trust a big manufacturer who markets a plastic pan explicitly as oven-safe, but in practice, I haven't seen such pans. So don't use plastic vessels in an oven.
Wood. Don't use wood in an oven. It shouldn't be able to catch fire at normal oven temperatures, so it is not a hazard, but the heat will damage your vessel. While it will still be usable (especially if you take care to wet it beforehand), it will lose its smooth surface, and it will probably warp. Glued wood can also split along the glue lines. If you have a cheap bowl you don't mind damaging, you can use it in the oven, but I don't see why, when other materials are much better suited.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.779435
| 2012-02-15T12:59:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21367",
"authors": [
"Anum",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Danley Wolfe",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Gaurav Kumar",
"Iain Collins",
"Jamie Eltringham",
"Kroma",
"Sobachatina",
"Will Thomson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70369",
"rumtscho",
"user1261710"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28291
|
Any other flour which can be used to replace Maida flour for chewy cakes?
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maida_flour
Maida has been linked with diabetes[10] and known to cause blood sugar imbalances, have negative influence on Insulin.[1] Consuming maida makes people become prone to kidney stone and heart disease.[11] Maida contains anti-nutrients which can affect the digestive process.
and
maida is popular in a white color, bleached with benzoyl peroxide,
It is not easy to find special cake flour where I live. Wheat flour contains gluten which will result in hard cakes.
Now, considering the fact that I won't mind a bit chewy cakes, what other flours other than Wheat have lowest gluten which can be used to make a bit chewy cakes?
UPDATE
I just saw a muffin in market whose ingredients contained "corn flour". That muffin was not extremely soft, it was just a bit chewy. So, corn flour can be used instead of maida? What else?
What most scares me from the Wikipedia link is that "Maida is also a bane for people suffering with piles or anorectal abscess since it tends to constipate thus increasing pressure on the anal walls while excretion thereby worsening the condition." :-O
Related question: difference between maida and all purpose flour
why is close vote here?
Flour labeled as Cake flour usually is weak flour: low W value, or less formally "low protein" or "fewer gluten". This is somehow weird, as some cakes will require weak flour, whether others nedd strong flour (for yeasted dough cakes, if they add lots of fat/oil to the dough, if they add lots of sugar, pieces of fruits/nuts, etc).
I specifically don't know whether Maida is strong or weak flour, despite this answer and it's comments.
Wheat plants has been selected for several milleniums to get more productive varieties, and, yes, grains that give stronger flour.
Substitutes as weak flour
Trying to get flour from a more "primitive" variety of wheat, such as spelt, emmer or einkorn. These are expensive where I live, and usually sold as bio, but maybe spelt is easily found in India. As they have not been so "genetically selected", they still have less gluten than today's "normal" flour. They also tend to have more and better taste than "normal" flour.
Another flour with low gluten content is rye. It has a different taste than wheat, but I thing it fits really well with cakes. This grain grows better in colder climates, so I'm not very sure how hard will it be to get it where you live.
Other flours, as rice or corn / maize have no gluten. It means gas bubbles won't be trapped in, and will result in a much too dense crumb. You might search some gluten-free bread tricks to solve this.
Substitutes as strong flour
Any bread flour will probably work. Maybe it won't rise as much and you'll get a crumb with a denser consistency, more similar to a "chewing gum" than a "soft cake". But if you are ok with this, you can go on.
Note(Thank to @Anisha for the suggestion):
Notice that different flours have different absorption, so some readjustment on hydration should probably be made to the original recipe.
You're free to format how you like, of course, but I might suggest using italics or bold instead of code formatting for emphasis; it's a bit less jarring and it's a lot more conventional. (I'm also not exactly sure why you're emphasizing most of these things, but again, your style is your own.)
You said: "Other flours, as rice or corn/maize have no gluten. It means gas bubbles won't be trapped in, and will result in a much too dense crumb." So, having "no gluten" is a plus point? Wheat flour contains gluten that's why we can't use it for cakes?
Secondly, do we have to add or subtract any other thing when using corn/rice flour?
@Jefromi: Thank you for your suggestion and your edition. I was doing it that way simply because I was used to from Stack Overflow.
@Anisha: Gluten helps trapping gas bubbles. Depending on the consistency you want your cake to have you'll want to trap a lot, or not. Italian Panettone or Hispanic Roscón de Reyes are cakes made with very strong flour, and have relatively big holes in their crumb.
@Anisha: Flours from other grains will probably have different absorption (the amount of water a flour can "take"). So you'll probably have to add a different amount of "water based fluids" (I don't know how to name egg's wihte and milk and exclude oil).
@J.A.I.L. To make your answer more complete, can you add there as an example: x oil and y eggs in maida cake, so accordingly x+1 oil and y-1 eggs in corn flour cake. I am not talking of exact measurements, but some hints will be helpful.
let us continue this discussion in chat
Sorry. I was playing with the links and moved the comments to a chat by mistake. Don't know how to move it back here.
if you don't have maida, consider a packet of marie gold or any other hardly sweetened biscuits for your cake, powder the whole pack in a mixer and use it instead of maida. The cake will be better than that made up of maida.
One option is to make cake flour yourself. The recipes I've found use US units, so I've provided translations.
For each cup of all-purpose flour (125 g) remove 2 TB (28.3 g) of the flour. Replace with an equal amount (2 TB/28.3 g) of pure starch, such as corn starch or potato starch. Sift a bunch of times to mix. (Food.com says to sift five to six times.)
Just to necrotize this old thread, in the US maida can be replaced with any APF that is on the softer side like Lily APF w/ 9% protein content. Lily is so close to cake four it even has the conversion instructions on the bag for recipes that strictly require the mid range APFs like Gold Medal (10.5%) & Pillsbury (10-11%) to add 2T/1C. Most brands of soft wheat, lower protein APF are mostly found in the southern states, however.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.779786
| 2012-11-08T04:53:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28291",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Buffalo Rabor",
"Cascabel",
"J Tyson",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Jerome Johnson",
"Mad Martian",
"Marc ",
"TechnologyGeek",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85596",
"madbarber",
"rtw",
"widebandit",
"yetanothercoder"
],
"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
}
|
25684
|
Why is my pastry cream (custard) grainy?
I made a simple pastry cream from a recipe that I've used once before uneventfully, and this time it turned out with a grainy texture.
The procedure was basically to: whisk together 3 egg yolks and an egg together with sugar and cornstarch in one bowl, separately bring milk with butter to a boil, temper the egg mixture with the hot milk, and then add the warm egg mixture to the milk and boiling for three minutes.
What might I have done wrong that would cause a grainy temperature? Did I not get the eggs warm enough before adding to the boiling milk? Did I boil for too long or too short a time? Are there any other potential culprits I'm not considering.
"boiled for 3 minutes" - that's your culprit. Time is completely irrelevant for custards. You should judge doneness by thermometer. If you don't (want to) have one, you will have to learn to judge it by looks. A timer is bad for meat, but completely useless for custard.
I think it all got too hot, but there might be other problems.
Did you mix the cornstarch in completely? Leaving undissolved cornstarch is a sure way to obtain 'blobs'.
Did you pour the hot milk onto the egg-mixture? You should do that very slowly and whisk vigorously (while trying to splash everything). If the eggs get too hot, they will coagulate.
Did you use a double boiler? Putting the pan on an open flame will make the bottom too hot and the eggs will coagulate.
Even if you did use a double boiler, did you whisk regularly while heating? The eggs at the bottom will become far warmer than the eggs in the center...
As rumtscho mentioned, a thermometer will be useful for monitoring the done-ness of the custard.
Generally, a fully cooked custard should not exceed 80 °C; it begins setting at 70 °C.
Source: Wikipedia
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.780254
| 2012-08-16T03:24:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25684",
"authors": [
"Ben Lerner",
"Jon Wilkins",
"SWalters",
"Sharon ",
"filipinocook",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58889",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58935",
"j maichle",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22404
|
Why did I end up with mushy corned beef?
I cooked my first ever corned beef brisket. I think it was a point cut by the shape of it. I won the darn thing and the package did not specify.
Anyway, I brought to a boil then reduced to a simmer for three hours. The taste is good but the texture is mushy. It seems a little fatty. Did I overcook it?
Welcome Chip to Seasoned Advice! Can you provide us with what you boil the beef in, and any other preparation information?
Take everything I say with a grain of salt (pun intended) as I am writing from Texas where we do nobler things with brisket. A true corned-beef-expert would be of Irish or Jewish descent, and from New York.
The meat should have relatively tough individual fibers that separate easily because of the long, wet cooking. It is pretty difficult to overcook brisket as it is so tough. Like Chuck Norris but tastier. Three hours would definitely not be enough time.
It can be fatty and that will be pretty much up to how much of the fat was trimmed off when it was butchered. An untrimmed brisket has a solid layer of fat that can be as much as a half inch thick. Obviously trimmed briskets cost more. The fat can be nice for smoking but the corned beef I have seen is not as fatty.
Fatty and mushy are not the same thing, of course. If the meat is actually mushy then I suspect that it was packed with a meat tenderizer as well as the corning salt and seasonings. If this is the case then there isn't much you could have done differently. Just don't buy that brand next time. Better yet, next time, corn it yourself.
A number of consumer-available corned beefs are chemically tenderized with papayin and other similar compounds.
If you still have it, check the packaging to see a list of ingredients. Check for papayin and other enzymes listed as meat tenderizers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.780544
| 2012-03-19T22:06:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22404",
"authors": [
"Audrey",
"Ghostship",
"Jay",
"RBuntu",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"john ruddle",
"rice cooker",
"user50623"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22728
|
Can I substitute brown or confectioner's sugar for granulated sugar in sugar cookies?
I'm making sugar cookies and I have ran out of granulated sugar. I only have confectioner's sugar and dark brown sugar left.
Can I substitute one of these for white granulated sugar? Which would be the better substitute?
Well, you shouldn't substitute either into your existing recipe without changes; both would likely break the recipe. But recipes for brown sugar cookies are readily available (for example, by searching Google).
I've done this before, and you won't get exactly the same cookie as you got before.
Confectioner's sugar is a total bomb. Don't bother.
Dark brown sugar makes darker cookies, with a chewier texture, which keeps longer.
This isn't always a bad thing. Several of my cookie recipes I thought were a bit dry were saved by DBS. It added a nice depth to the flavor, as well.
Is this advice for cookies in general, or for specifically the sugar cookies being asked about here? I don't think I've ever had a chewy sugar cookie (maybe I'm missing out).
Powdered sugar measured by weight has worked fine for me in the past, as well, though you'll get a slightly less gluten-based structure due the usual modest presence of corn starch, an advantage in some recipes. I don't think you'll get a desirable result if measuring by volume, though.
I've had chewy sugar cookies, and they can be pretty good! Of course, I'm a strange person, who rarely likes crunchy cookies.
All cookies should be chewy. Just sayin'.
The creaming step (beating sugar into fat) of cookie making creates air bubbles in the dough which will expand during baking. Powdered sugar (confectioner's sugar) won't create these bubbles, which is why it doesn't make a very good substitute for white sugar.
Brown sugar is a more moist than white sugar, and will result in chewier cookies. Due to the molasses component, it also has an effect on flavor - not necessarily a bad effect, but definitely noticeable. It will also make a darker-colored cookie, so be extra careful when evaluating your cookies for done-ness in the oven.
For me, a trip to the neighbor's (or the grocery store, if I must) is always worthwhile.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.780728
| 2012-04-02T21:47:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22728",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Dave",
"Felinis",
"JasonTrue",
"Kee",
"Marti",
"Saania",
"Toby Bartels",
"derobert",
"henning no longer feeds AI",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9552",
"kcunning"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22918
|
What are the names of the breakfast spreads used in Indian cuisine?
I visited Bangalore a few years ago and much enjoyed some of the hotel breakfast dishes. As I remember they were a sort of paste that could be spread onto bread or toast, etc. I have no idea what they are called or how to make them.
Could someone suggest what they were and how I could make something similar?
Can you clarify a bit, since there are a lot of spreads? What colour was it? What consistency? How did it taste?
Mildly spicy but not hot, spreadable but not solid, as I recall. It was some time ago now and I don't really remember; just that they were very tasty. Ecuador is, oddly, a bit of a culinary desert from my perspective (unless you like things like steamed pig skin and endless chicken soup).
Are you talking about the different kind of chutneys?
Are they really tasty on bread etc? If so, then maybe that is what they were.
Well chutneys are not really eaten with bread. They are eaten with breakfast dishes such as Dosa, Idli, Vada etc. But they might go really well with bread as well. Refer this link for an idea about how to prepare chutneys
If I may be pardoned, the non-use of bread with chutneys is a bit of mindset matter.
Of course the yeast's CO2 sourish fermentation smell factor, the milkbread's sweetishness are the off-putting elements in the bread-chutney combo development. Add to it the soggyish [vs.idly] noncrisp [compared to dosa,paratha] and the case gets closed.
With the advent of toasted sandwiches and the like this has been mitigated a bit.
Still, the fluffy steaming idly, and the crisp hot dosa, vada -even softy pongal upma with the spicy fumes intoxicating you, attract the chutneys and sambar as a proverbial duck to the water.
Nowadays, with the multigrain breads and with the old sandwich bread thinly sliced and goldentoasted to a crisp crunch, the use of a ginger-tamarind-red/green chilly salted seasoned paste at a stand-on the finger cosistency goes well.
So does the well-soaked-in-ghee-dalpowder (chick pea, moong dal roasted and ground with asafoetida salt chillypowder), the pure fire kaarampodi, with the smouldering roasted ground coriander,cummin, chilly, salt with a touch of tamarind and drenched in ghee does spice up the bland wimpy bread into ferocious fighting cock.
And, of course, the gatti chutney (meaning the chutney without the extra flowing consistency) made of coconut or peanut or onion-ginger-garlic-chilly serves as a good blood thinner wakeup for the deserving wodgs too (western oriented desi gent)
Try and visit a whole new world of westernised breakfast accompaniment.
I have had toast with Kaya in Malaysia - it is a sweet spread that can be used with butter or on its own.
could be a variety of chutneys. Mint and ginger are usually pretty common. other varieties are coriander, peanut and coconut.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.780947
| 2012-04-10T01:34:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22918",
"authors": [
"Bo 7hya",
"BoneyIsland",
"Dharini Chandrasekaran",
"Ferngummy",
"Iron Butterfly",
"Kyle",
"Marcin",
"Mien",
"Otc Stocks",
"Phil Armstrong",
"Valerie",
"William Morris",
"abc",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9850",
"jacoulter"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23790
|
What flavors work well within a splenda-sweetened strawberry-rhubarb cobbler?
Cobbler filling is simple - strawberries, rhubarb, splenda (sucralose) and some orange zest. Are there any other spices or ingredients that would work well with the artificial sweetener and amplify or compliment the flavors?
Sorry if this is a dumb question (I just use sugar) but does splenda actually have a flavor besides sweetness that you'd have to take into account? Surely you're just asking what would work well with strawberries and rhubarb.
@jefromi- yes. It tastes like personified horror. Like the terror of imminent death gripping the back of your tongue as it whispers its bitter lies to your subconscious. I don't like artificial sweeteners.
The classic flavour pairing with rhubarb is vanilla: rhubarb and vanilla custard is a British staple. Fresh custard (Creme Anglaise, as the French call it) is easy to make and delicious.
Almond also pairs well with rhubarb. You could incorporate ground almonds into the cobbler mix, or perhaps fold some amaretto liqueur into lightly whipped cream to serve with the cobbler.
As Splenda has no real flavour, just a sweet taste, both of these will work with it easily.
cardamom and/or clove wouldn't compete with the citrus as, say, nutmeg or cinnamon. Just adds a bit of coolness and perfume.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.781221
| 2012-05-16T18:42:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23790",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Doug Reed",
"Heidi La Bash",
"J Gibbons",
"Mandy",
"Michael Roberts",
"Sobachatina",
"Terry Rice",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54042",
"user41609"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28029
|
What seasonal vegetable side dishes are appropriate for Hungarian Goulash?
We are planning a traditional Hungarian Goulash dinner, and apart from egg noodles, would like a vegetable side-dish to accompany. It's late October, and we'd prefer some seasonal ingredients if possible. What vegetable side dishes compliment a hearty, flavorful stew like goulash?
"Seasonal" obviously depends on your location, and when your question happens to get read. Please be specific. Even then, this reads somewhat like a poll to me as "compliment" could mean just about anything, especially if we don't know what's in the goulash.
@Aaronut, I'm puzzled about how much more specific you want the OP to get. He said "late October". Does he really need to specify "northern hemisphere"?
@Marti, are you serious? Even if the climates were the same everywhere, the species aren't. Canada's seasonal vegetables are not the same as Hungary's.
@Aaronut: actually, for most vegetables, it's close enough, especially with modern grocery stores. I mean, OK, if the OP was somewhere in inland China or something, the veggies might be very different, but then he probably wouldn't be making goulash, because the available meats would be very different, too.
Sweet and sour red cabbage, cuts through the richness of the goulash very nicely - particularly if you cook some thin slices of tart apples with the cabbage. The vinegar also turns the cabbage vivid purple which also adds a nice contrast to earthy goulash. I found this recipe that is almost identical to my mom's (although I probably would opt out of using the clove):
http://m.allrecipes.com/recipe/139977/recipegrandma-jeanettes-amazing-german-red-cabbage
Three great answers, but we went with a sweet-and-sour red cabbage dish, so you get the checkmark.
@RISwampYankee, thanks! Hope your meal was yummy!
[Possibly irrelevant-to-you aside: a true Hungarian goulash (as opposed to a North American or German or what-have-you goulash) is a soup. It includes a few root vegetables and possibly some "pinched noodles" (tiny little egg+flour dumplings) in the soup itself, but it is served with a hearty slice of bread or two, nothing more. So in that sense, the answer to your question is "mu".]
If what you're actually making is a meat stew with paprika (what in Hungarian would be called pörkölt), then the traditional accompaniments are either potatoes (with beef) or spaetzle (with any type of meat), and some sort of vinegary vegetable salad — either a cucumber salad, or some other vegetable dressed the same way as a cucumber salad (tomatoes, peppers), or pickled vegetables (sauerkraut-stuffed peppers, gherkins, that sort of thing). Another possibility is red cabbage, which (unlike cucumbers) is at least starting to be seasonal at the end of October.
Yup, even tho the recipe says goulash, it's probably better described as a beef pörkölt, thanks for that!
What's in season now are root vegetables, squashes, and some greens and cabbages. You'll need something that can stand up to or compliment a rich dish like goulash, how about roasted beets with sour cream, which would tie into the sour cream in the goulash? It's such a simple dish: roast your beets skin-on (or steam them), let them cool enough then peel with your fingers, then cut them up and mix them up with sea salt and a bit of sour cream. Simple, easy, and really tasty.
Alternatively you could make some red or green cabbage, brussel sprouts pan-fried (after partially steaming them) with some slivered almonds, or if you can find them steamed brussel sprout tops (the leaves on the top of the stalk) sliced up with a bit of butter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.781382
| 2012-10-26T11:43:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28029",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Boris D. Teoharov",
"Christos Hayward",
"Katt H.",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Mahmoud Issa",
"Marti",
"Merlyn L. Listanco",
"Olay",
"Olivia Verde",
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64561",
"malhal",
"mrj",
"xyious"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11680
|
Can I deep fry in my Le Creuset dutch oven?
It's an enameled cast iron dutch oven. Just wondering if I could take off enamel by deep frying in it.
I assume that you're referring to their enameled cast iron. If that's incorrect, please edit the question accordingly.
The enamel coating is put on by a high temperature process, much higher temp than the 300-400 F that you would deep fry in, so it will be safe to fry in.
The concern that this raises for me is the difficulty in cleaning if you fry repeatedly. After a few batches, there will be a film of oil that will form just above the level of the oil in the pot you are frying in. If you thoroughly clean it, it will not be a big deal, but left alone it will build up.
Also, deep frying in a heavy pan is unnecessary, as you really want to get hte oil hot, and the extra thermal mass of the pan would just take extra heat. It is not bad to do so, but a thin aluminum pan works just as well for frying.
Thanks. I don't have many other options for pans that have a wide enough bottom. I have an aluminum stock pot, but the sides are too high. I have a 12 inch saute pan, but the sides are too low.
how are the sides too high? I guess you mean difficult to get food in/out with the high sides?
Also, hello from a B-more transplant, hun. Lived in Charles Village for many years - worked in Federal Hill...
It's probably worth buying a super-cheap aluminium or steel pan for the purpose. It will get ugly, but it won't matter. A purpose made pan with a correctly fitted deep fat frying basket will be safer too.
Yes -- difficult to get food in and out. I don't deep fry much, so I'm not looking for any more equipment here. (You know if you say "hon" now, you need to pay Denise Whiting (Cafe Hon) royalties).
I do deep fry in mine, and Eric is correct - it is somewhat detrimental to the appearance of the enamel, though I don't think it actually damages anything. A good scrubbing with Barkeeper's Friend helps.
Actually, one of the advantages of the heavy pot is that it keeps a steadier temperature. That helps to resist things cooling down when you add food to the oil, and generally makes it easier to keep in a steady range rather than overheating and overcooling in cycles.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.781690
| 2011-01-31T12:41:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11680",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alex",
"Ava",
"Baltimark",
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"Matthew Moisen",
"Michael Natkin",
"Wolf",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"skytreader",
"slim"
],
"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
}
|
34405
|
What are the types and pros/cons of electric and manual spice and nut grinders available? What qualities should be looked for while purchasing them?
Example spices/nuts that I'll be grinding:
* Cumin seeds
* Mustard seeds
* Peanuts
* Black pepper corns
* Garlic buds and ginger
* Cloves
Questions:
Which kind of grinders allow water in them for making a paste of the spices?
Is there some maximum and minimum capacity for each of the type of grinders?
What are the types of manual grinders which do not require too much amount of manual power/effort? Example: I think using mortar and pestle consumes huge effort.
Which kind of grinders allow us to have a fine powder of spices rather than bits?
This is meant for home use so what qualities should be looked for while purchasing them?
let us continue this discussion in chat
No one device, manual or electric, is ideal for all of the tasks that you have enumerated. Many cooks will have more than one tool, depending on the job at hand.
Some spices, particularly cinnamon, are very difficult to grind effectively at home without leaving fibrous bits that may give an unpleasant mouth feel. Of course, when infusing flavor from a whole stick of cinnamon, this is not an issue.
Bottom Line
I would recommend having at least a Microplane type grater for ginger, garlic, and so on, and a rotary type electric grinder for most hard spices.
For the specialty task of making peanut butter, a blender is probably your best tool.
Morter and Pestle
Also known as a molcajete, is probably the most versatile, but most labor intensive spice grinding tool.
Can grind, mash, or mix both dry or wet items, so it is suitable for garlic and ginger; still it is most effective on very hard, frangible spices which can be crushed, or soft items like garlic which can be mashed. Fibrous spices like cumin can be very difficult to do.
Lots of work
Only suitable for small quantities
Microplane style grater
A grater with very fine, usually etched, openings is suitable for some tasks including:
Garlic, gingner, galangal and the like
Nutmeg
Nutmeg Grinder
A specialty item, just for nutmeg. Most nutmeg grinders actually make very fine shavings, but it is essentially the same thing. They also have storage for nutmegs.
Blender
Electric blenders are suitable for some grinding tasks:
Making peanut butter
Grinding soft spices or making wet spice mixtures, as with garlic, ginger, capiscum type peppers
Some high quality blenders may also do a decent job with softer seeds like cumin seeds.
Electric rotary grinder
These are often marketed as coffee grinders, but they are extremely effective as spice grinders—however, due to lingering flavors, you want to devote one to either coffee or to spices.
Suitable for dry spices, such as cumin, black pepper, allspice, mustard seeds, and so on.
Not very effective for the hardest spices, such as cinnamon.
Note that clove oil (also found to some extent in nutmeg) can cloud plastic parts over time.
Pepper Grinder
As the name implies, ideal for black pepper, but also effective on other small spices that can fit through the mill such as mustard seeds. Also provides a small quanitity of storage. Most permit the grind size to be adjusted.
Specific Questions
Which kind of grinders allow water in them for making a paste of the spices?
Mortar and pestle, and blenders are suitable for pastes. However, you can also grind your dry spices, and then add them to a wet mixture to create a paste.
Is there some maximum and minimum capacity for each of the type of grinders?
Most home style devices are suitable only for very small quantities. The nutmeg and pepper grinders are good for teaspoon type quantities, and rotary grinders up to a few tablespoons.
Blnders have much higher capacities, but may not be effective except with very soft or frangible items. Peanut butter is one application that they do well with in larger quantities.
What are the types of manual grinders which do not require too much amount of manual power/effort?
They all require significant effort. For spices used in very small quantities, such as black pepper, that may not be noticeable.
Which kind of grinders allow us to have a fine powder of spices rather than bits?
None of the home methods will produce the very fine, even powder that you might expect from a commercial spice house. They have extremely high quality, sometimes specialized equipment, and they also sieve or screen the resulting product to ensure it is uniform, and to exclude larger bits.
Some spices are more suitable for home grinding than others. Ones that you should have little trouble with include black pepper, nutmeg, allspice, mustard seed.
Spices that are very difficult to grind at home include cinnamon.
Cumin, one of the most popular spices, is easy to grind, but difficult to get a perfectly smooth and uniform powder. It tends to have little threads and fibrous bits. In many applications this is not noticeable.
For spices like cumin and cloves and pepper should "pepper grinder" be used or the "rotary grinder"? Assuming we have only one choice and we want the smallest quantity and finest powder.
Its a compromise based on volume. Obviously pepper grinders are ideal for pepper, but they produce very small quantities. I have already noted the special issues with cumin--I have never tried them in a pepper grinder, only a rotary grinder. Cloves may not fit in a pepper grinder. I keep a pepper grinder just for pepper, and use a rotary grinder for all other dry spices myself.
Okay, which of the rotatory grinders would you prefer to suggest assuming I want smallest quantity of output?
The Krups and Braun are consistently rated extrmely highly. Mine is a Krups.
Thanks, though not sure if they will be available where I live.
I've actually done pretty well with cinnamon in my coffee grinder. I just break up the sticks a bit and toss them in with everything else, and it grinds well enough to blend in with the rest of the powder. And overall with spice blends, the powder may not be quite as fine as storebought, but it's fine enough to disappear into my food.
SAJ - Can you please point out your specific grinders on amazon so that I can read the reviews.
@user462608 That is more a chat type thing. http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/9685299#9685299
Yes, sorry, will take care next time.
No worries, drop by the chat linked above, more info there.
That's one hell of a thorough answer. Great work.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.781912
| 2013-05-30T05:37:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34405",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Benjamin Hunter",
"Cannolo",
"Cascabel",
"Donelle Ruthart",
"Hellmar Becker",
"Jean9",
"MTAdmin",
"Matthew",
"Peter Bell",
"Puzzled_brewer",
"Rose Miles",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30151
|
What kind of domestic use machine is needed for preparing Brown Rice from Paddy?
The brown rice is extremely expensive here so I was wondering if it is possible to get some machine for converting Paddy into Brown rice at home?
What prerequisites need to be fulfilled for the achieving the same? Is it practical even?
Given what Wikipedia has to say about milling I can't imagine there's an economical way to do this with any reasonable efficiency without a really expensive machine.
@Jefromi I think I can assume here the I will purchase the dried paddy. Will it be feasible then?
I was talking about the part about milling, not the part about drying.
There are 3 main types of rice huller in use:
The oldest, Mortar and pestle, takes strength, time and patience.
Centrifugal hullers have been around since the late 1800's, but high speed (5Krpm+) centrifuges are not consumer devices. They can be quite dangerous if not used correctly.
Rubber roller based hullers are probably the most common type today. You don't see many consumer friendly units around, but rubber based attachments for Corona mills are sometimes available.
Once you get your rice dehulled, you'll need to separate the chaff. There are lots of ways to do that, starting at a low tech level.
Would be interesting to compare the calories needed for processing rice with a mortar and pestle to the calories in the rice.
$160 list of parts here, looks like a solid little manual machine http://www.brillengineering.com/
If you can spend more, maybe try a solar powered mill from http://www.psspng.com
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.782358
| 2013-01-17T04:18:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30151",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Cascabel",
"David16316",
"John",
"Lisa Smith",
"Muriel Moss",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70398",
"jmk2142",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33128
|
How should I deal with "thawed frozen puff pastry"?
A cookie recipe asks for:
14 ounces good-quality thawed frozen puff pastry, such as Dufour
So, does puff pastry mean this? http://nishamadhulika.com/baking/homemade-puff-pastry-recipe.html
Secondly, how long do I have to freeze that stuff?
Thirdly, Google says that "thawed" means "Become liquid or soft as a result of warming".
So, what is the way to make it soft?
Do I have to add warm water and crush it?
Or do I have to heat it in an oven?
No, you don't have to freeze it at all.
The recipe you linked is indeed for puff pastry. It is rather tedious to create it, so it is available in supermarkets as a pre-fabricated food, just like pizza dough and other doughs. But it doesn't have a long shelf life in the fridge, so it is sold frozen. The recipe assumes that you will buy it frozen, and warns you to let it come to room temperature before you start baking.
If you are making your own, the end product can be used in cookies immediately. Just pay attention to follow proper technique and work with a very cold dough and butter while making the puff pastry. The link you posted probably explains it - if not, search for better instructions.
You said: "and warns you to let it come to room temperature before you start baking." So, thawed here doesn't mean anything special? I don't have to do anything to the puff pastry after I buy it from the store? I just have to wait for it to get to the room temperature?
Yes, if you buy it, you only have to wait. And "room temperature" was not a very well chosen expression. It is better to have it come to fridge temperature or a bit more, somewhere in the 10-15 degrees celsius range. Room temperature and above is actually too much for these fat-depending doughs.
It is better to have it come to fridge temperature or a bit more, somewhere in the 10-15 degrees celsius range. Room temperature and above is actually too much for these fat-depending doughs. Thanks for following up. This is very confusing. I don't have a thermometer. Guessing might be wrong. Thanks anyways.
You want to feel flexible and easy to roll out, as this dough is very sensitive to the temperature of the fat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.782622
| 2013-03-30T10:14:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33128",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Guido",
"HoXa",
"JimminyCricket",
"Philip",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76705",
"igorjrr",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30097
|
What care should be taken to prepare dough and Chapatis with Rice flour?
Yesterday I prepared the Rice flour dough with water (room temperature 17 degree celsius) and salt.
I noticed:
This dough did NOT stick to my hands at all.
This dough did NOT stick to itself even. Its pieces kept on falling as I knuckled it over and over.
The Chapatis made with this dough kept on breaking as I picked them. (I did NOT roll them too thin.)
What care should be taken to prepare dough and Chapatis with Rice flour so that the things don't break?
P.S. Never noticed any of these symptoms with Wheat flour.
UPDATE:
The hot water helped.
Does knuckling the rice dough for somewhat long duration help someway in preventing the dough from breaking further?
Does leaving the rice dough alone for an hour or so before preparing Chapattis help someway in preventing the dough from breaking further?
Your mistake here was using room temperature water. Unlike wheat flour, rice flour contains no gluten to give it structure.
Instead, rice contains a starch called amylopectin (and another called amylose, but that's irrelevant here). Boiling the rice breaks the amylopectin molecules, and makes the rice sticky.
So, in order to keep your chapatis in one piece, you need to use boiling water. Recipes I have looked at seem to suggest adding the rice flour to water boiling in a pan and stirring until it comes together.
Great!! Thank you. Please put the links for the scientific reasons you have given.
http://busycooks.about.com/od/howtocook/a/ricescience.htm This covers it pretty much.
Please see the edit in the question and add a separate answer so that it can be upvoted.
Add a separate answer? Why?
so that you get more upvotes. Writing answers is a time consuming thing and I think you should be rewarded for the effort. Its your call.
The link alone doesn't warrant a separate answer though. I'll struggle on without extra up votes ;)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.782805
| 2013-01-15T04:32:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30097",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Karin",
"KimbofromKS",
"Lia Reau",
"Mara Alexeev",
"Martin Ignacio Rios Cruz",
"fgysin",
"gnat",
"hrishikesh marne",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70360"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30192
|
Do breads always have to be baked in some vessels in an oven? If yes, then what shaped vessels would those be?
Is it even necessary to use a vessel for baking breads (assuming I don't care about the shape of the bread)?
In this link for (example) French bread I saw that the dough is not in liquid form, so it won't spread away if I put it straightaway in the oven wrapped in a tin foil?
http://steamykitchen.com/75-baking-the-perfect-loaf-of-french-bread.html
Can breads be baked without any vessel?
If not, then what shaped vessel should be preferred for baking breads?
If yes, then what is the appropriate method for baking it directly in oven?
Why is the downvote? Maybe instead of asking for vessels in the title it should be edited to ask for tins?
I'll vote it up to balance the unexplained downvote. I think the question is fine as is.
I don't think anyone in Hungary even knows what a loaf pan looks like, let alone owns one. Bread is baked on a baking sheet at the most. If you're lucky enough to have access to a brick bread oven, you put the bread directly on the floor of the oven. The only vessel involved is the kneading trough.
I think the difference between dough and batter was unclear to the asker :)
The general answer is that you use a loaf pan if you want the common rectangular loaf shape (it's good for slicing for toast and sandwiches), and otherwise you don't need one.
For example, the link you gave for french bread completely describes how to shape and bake the loaf. There's no wrapping in foil or anything; you coax it into that shape, and it's flexible and stretchy but won't spread out or anything. I'm not sure why it refers to a "baking vessel", implying that it's something that contains the loaf. All you need is a flat baking sheet.
Once you've made bread dough this should be pretty obvious - it's not a big wet mess, it's something with structure that you can work with and shape. It's pretty much the same with all other shapes of loaves - you get them into the general shape, toss them on a baking sheet, and bake them. You can make small circular rolls, small oblong rolls, big circular loaves, big oblong loaves, whatever suits you. There are certainly traditional shapes for some breads, and you should probably follow recipes, since baking times are of course affected by size, but the general principle remains the same - you shape it how you want it.
Depends on the dough; you can indeed make a big wet mess, and that might be better for very airy bread -- but if it's wet, it needs a tin.
If you made a big wet mess incapable of holding its own shape, you did something wrong. High hydration does not automatically result in better (or even airier) bread. Ahem, don't ask why I know this.
After taking a glimpse at the website, I think I know what she is talking about.
I keep my pizza stone in the oven at all times. I bake my bread directly on top of it. I makes for even baking, and a wonderful crust on the bottom. The same principle applies with a Cast Iron Dutch Oven. I'm assuming that she is talking about the type you would use camping, over a campfire, that are massive. You would put your bread inside of that "vessel."
That being said - You can bake French Bread without one of these things. The crust won't end up the same, but it is worth taking a chance.
However, I really suggest getting a pizza stone. They can be found rather inexpensively, and they really improve many different breads. I put either my loaf pans or baking sheets directly atop the pizza stone. Another plus I've found with the pizza stone, is that it keeps the heat of the oven better distributed. It is well worth the investment.
Sometimes the vessel serves other purposes besides shaping. For example, in the book I'm currently working through, Tartine Bread, they suggest baking the shaped loaves inside a dutch oven to increase the humidity of the air immediately next to the bread -- the dutch oven will capture escaping steam and hold it near the bread, resulting in a better loaf. This appears to be the same theory espoused in your link.
Where I come from (Switzerland) it is indeed very uncommon to use any vessel. Indeed the various shapes of bread even set them apart.
You can image-google for "Butterzopf", "Krustenkranz", or just plain "brot" to get an inspiration if you feel like baking a shaped bread.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.783011
| 2013-01-18T06:24:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30192",
"authors": [
"Carolyn M Osborne",
"Claude",
"David Mills",
"DerSchuhmacher",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Joe Cosner",
"Lisa McCoy",
"Marti",
"Saty Smith",
"Steve Rock",
"Virali Dabhi",
"adadion",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70993",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"slim",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30225
|
How to make Namkeen Mathi/Mathri?
Namkeen Mathi/Mathri translates to salty, chewy, and crisp biscuits in English.
http://www.tarladalal.com/Namkeen-Mathri-10381r
Ingredients
2 cups plain flour (maida)
Method
2. Add just enough water to the flour mixture and knead into a hard dough.
How hard should the dough be so that the resultants biscuits are chewy NOT HARD?
Why can't pure Wheat flour replace Maida since the recipe asks for a hard dough?
http://goodethnicveggiedelights.blogspot.in/2011/05/mathri-traditional-indian-namkeen.html
Recipe Ingredients
* Semolina (suji) - 1/3 cup
Above recipe asks only for Maida, but this one (for the same dish) asks for Semolina as well.
What would addition of Semolina do to the Namkeen Mathri?
Your first link isn't loading for me, but from the copy on archive.org, I see that the first step is "Sieve the flour, salt and crushed peppercorns in a bowl, add 2 tbsp melted ghee and rub between your palms until it resembles breadcrumbs." so it's fairly similar to the second, just the difference in flour and seasoning. The second does also say "not too hard and not too soft" so your question of "how hard?" is a good one.
If your dough has little cracks on it on the sides when you roll out balls from it or doesn't easily sink in when you press it with your finger as bread dough does, its hard dough. Normally, the folds on a hard dough don't easily mix in. This image shows how a hard dough looks like.
Namkeen Mathri usually tastes like the cover for samosa with added salts and spices. Using wheat is also okay. But definitely tastes better with Maida instead of wheat.
Mathris are usually rolled on semolina before they are fried to give them little extra crunch and grainy texture.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.783370
| 2013-01-19T06:03:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30225",
"authors": [
"A. Williams",
"AaronBeers",
"Ajmal PraveeN",
"Cascabel",
"Gaby Flores",
"Mary Yohannan",
"My Experience",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70823"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5205
|
What considerations should be taken into account when adding any fruit to any cake?
I have a pineapple-orange cake recipe that is very good, but is from a relative - I didn't develop it. I am curious how to adjust a typical cake recipe or even a box cake mix so that I can add fruit (pineapple, peaches, cherries, apples, oranges, mango, etc...)? Do I need to adjust the baking soda, oil, flour, sugar, etc...? Thanks.
Adding fruit will change the ratio of dry to liquid, so it may require more flour. It would also add some sweetness, so you may want to reduce the sugar a tad. But citrus fruits in particular are acidic, which might affect the leavening. I suspect it would depend on the type of fruit and how it's prepared.
Is it against site policy for Chad to ask post the recipe so Martha can comment?
Thanks Martha. It's good to know about possibly adjusting the leavening.
@Neil: nope. The policy is against recipe swapping/solicitation in the general form of "what are good recipes for ...?"
@hobodave: Thanks, just looking for clarification.
For something simple answering the box cake mix portion of the question, you might want to consider variations on the "dump cake." Fruit, usually canned but sometimes fresh and sometimes mixed with gelatin, is placed under a box cake mix with melted butter or butter and water on top and baked. This allows you to do a variety of fruit flavors with one cake.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.783539
| 2010-08-14T22:43:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5205",
"authors": [
"Chad",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"Hugh",
"JeanneBeth S",
"Lokeshwaran",
"ManifestStefany",
"evoldog",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69910",
"thomax"
],
"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
}
|
55874
|
Is pasteurized milk safe to drink?
The word pasteurized is written on the milk packets (like the ones shown here). They have a use before date.
Assuming it's been refrigerated the whole time, and it's still before the use before date, is it safe to drink the milk straight away from the packet? Or does it still have to be boiled to kill bacteria and make it safe?
@TFD I certainly haven't noticed a systematic problem, but if you think anything is seriously flawed to the point mods need to be involved, flag it. Find me in chat if you want to discuss it. Give it a rest here, though.
Let us continue this discussion in chat.
(Cleaning up comments now that they're archived and the question is clarified.)
The main point of all the removed comments: this does show some lack of research effort. If you'd searched for "pasteurized" and seen what the internet has to say about it before asking your question, it might've helped clarify your question or avoided the need to ask it.
@Jefromi I agree. Next time before posting the question I'd definitely "show" the research efforts. Thanks for being polite.
@Jefromi this research can be seriously flawed by the type of sources you look at. There are cultures where boiling pasteurized milk is (was?) common, and everybody does it. If the OP grew up in such a culture, and all he has is a certainty that everybody does it and a suspicion that it might not be necessary, he might 1) feel that he has "conducted" research offline, by being aware of the common knowledge, or 2) conduct research in sources from his own culture (e.g. by using his native language for the searches) and have found contradicting sources, or ones repeating the common practice.
@rumtscho call me she. Btw, in my surroundings, I haven't ever seen anyone drinking milk from such packets Without boiling it first. Though I have to say that I am not very sure about why exactly they do it. There are other type of packets from amul for which they explicitly say that you can drink it directly.
@rumtscho Yup, to be clear, I actually upvoted the question. I was just trying to summarize what happened in all the comments, and suggest providing the background to dispel that sort of criticism.
Pasteurized milk is the standard way milk is sold in industrialized countries. How it's packaged can depend on the country but it's perfectly safe to drink provided it's consumed by the "use by" date.
Pasteurization is a heat-treating process:
Pasteurization (American English) or pasteurisation (British English) is a process invented by French scientist Louis Pasteur during the nineteenth century. In 1864 Pasteur discovered that heating beer and wine just enough to kill most of the bacteria that caused spoilage prevented these beverages from turning sour. This was achieved by eliminating pathogenic microbes and lowering microbial numbers to prolong the quality of the beverage. Today the process of pasteurization is used widely in the dairy and food industries for microbial control and preservation of the food we consume.
Pasteurization is the reason for milk's extended shelf life. High-temperature, short-time (HTST) pasteurized milk typically has a refrigerated shelf life of two to three weeks, whereas ultra-pasteurized milk can last much longer, sometimes two to three months. When ultra-heat treatment (UHT) is combined with sterile handling and container technology (such as aseptic packaging), it can even be stored unrefrigerated for up to 9 months.
This means that most of the microbes in the milk are killed and the milk is perfectly safe to drink right out of the carton. In fact, there are many jokes in the US about chastising teenage boys and young men about drinking directly from the carton/jug of milk.
Milk in the US is regularly consumed direct from the gallon jug, see the note under Vitamin D that says "Pasteurized & Homogenized":
Milk in Europe is often in Tetra Pak cartons which don't have to be stored in the fridge until opened and generally have a longer shelf life due to the UHT handling (see definition above):
Good answer above covers most; but a couple points.
In the US you typically only find pasteurize and ultra pasteurized in normal containers; these typically still can leak in both air and light. This results in a 1-2 month shelf life for UHT and 2-3 weeks for pasteurized.
Europe and many other countries you can find Aspectic packaging (milk non-refrigerated in boxes); these have a extended life of 2-3 months on the shelf.
The newest craze is now leaning towards pasteurized or even non-pasteurized milk to preserve the good bacteria. Mostly conjecture on what is the healthiest at this point.
It's a craze but, at least in the US, buying unpasteurized (raw) milk varies in legality based on the state you're in. http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/raw_milk_map.htm
Of course, if you're in a country with food safety issues, unpasteurized milk is dangerous, not trendy!
A note, since it's a bit unclear (to me, at least) in the answer -- the US does sell UHT dairy milk in non-refrigerated boxes. They are typically in 8 fl oz containers (though can sometimes be found in containers as large as 32 fl oz) and are typically shelved with the shelf-stable versions of non-dairy milks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.783961
| 2015-03-19T23:31:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55874",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Carol Besaw",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Debra Laipple",
"Hana Ramat",
"Ivan Brandon",
"Judy Doane",
"Keith Alleyne",
"Li-Yuan H",
"Liana Telfer",
"Liz McGreevy",
"Sandra Souza",
"Shauna",
"William",
"angie bergeron",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6464",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22741
|
Do black metal vessels cook food more quickly than normal steel?
http://www.hawkinscookers.com/1.1.5.hawkinsconturaHA.asp
Those pressure cookers are made of hard andonised Aluminum.
Does it make any difference to cooking speed when cooking in Aluminum as compared to the steel non black cooker?
I wonder if Brian Manowitz is reading cooking.SE, he might have insights on that...
First, what you linked seems to be a pressure cooker. Pressure cookers cook completely differently from normal cookers, and yes, they are quicker, but not due to their color.
Now on to the actual question. The answer is: probably not. There are lots of factors involved, and the color isn't that important.
In baking, you get lots of infrared radiation cooking your food, especially in a small oven with uncovered elements (toaster oven). There, the color can have a significant effect on the rate at which your food is warmed, all other things being equal. Simple example: a steel pan and the same pan colored black. The steel pan will transfer more heat into the food in the same time period (even though the added dye layer already complicates it, because it reduces the effect somewhat).
But let's make the example more realistic. Steel pan vs. alumunium pan colored black. There, the material's thermal coefficient and its mass will be more important than the color. There are several factors acting in different directions here, so I can't tell you which pan will be able to output a specified amount of heat in shorter time (in fact, I suspect that if you wold plot the needed time against the specified amount of heat, the lines will cross somewhere). A really good explanation of everything important for understanding these factors is found here.
But your example wasn't for a cake pan, it was for a stovetop pot. And there, the color is even less important. On stovetop, the pan is in almost direct contact with a heating plate, and conduction plays a greater role in heating than radiation. The color only matters in radiation, not in conduction.
And last, let's say that you have somehow found a pan which outputs the same amount of heat in a shorter time only because of its color (this will probably be the black-dyed steel pot from my simple example). Does it mean that you will spend less time cooking? No, it doesn't. As a general rule, food which has been warmed gradually tastes much better than food which has been exposed to high heat. There are some exceptions (most notably, you don't get caramelization and Maillard below certain temperatures), but normally, you don't want to pump all the heat you have available into your food. You would end up with food which is scorched on the outside and raw on the inside. This is why most foods are prepared on a medium heat setting. And if you find a pan which transfers more heat to your food than usual, it doesn't mean that your food will cook faster. It means that you will have to turn down the heat to avoid burning your food. This can have its advantages - especially for your electricity bill - but it doesn't result in faster cooking.
If this is about the material, aluminuim has a much better thermal conductivity than steel, so it will heat up (and cool down) faster - thus making a difference in speed.
If this is about the color: this should have very little to no influence.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.784392
| 2012-04-03T13:55:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22741",
"authors": [
"Daived",
"K Li",
"Rhino",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51299",
"jmarkel",
"oldhumble",
"rackandboneman",
"shbt_lightyear",
"user201322",
"wooohooo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15998
|
How to ensure that eggs get hard boiled on a gas stove?
I used to determine the state of eggs by their shell i.e. if the shell is cracked, the eggs have been boiled. But sometimes I have found that even though the shell is cracked, the egg whites are somewhat runny!
Is there a special way of boiling eggs on "gas stove"? Is it necessary to cover them while boiling?
EDIT 1:
Today I punctured the egg top with a pin, but still the egg cracked on boiling :(
EDIT 2:
Today I added a spoon vinegar in the water, and the eggs did NOT crack at all. :)
Eggs usually crack because they contain an air pouch that’s expanding with heat. This occurs pretty early and is no indication of the egg’s status at all. To prevent cracking you should puncture the egg’s shell prior to cooking at the blunt end (where the air pouch is located).
@Konrad how to do that and where is the air pouch?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Anatomy_of_an_egg.svg, the air pouch is denoted by “14”. As for how to puncture it without destroying the entire shell, a thumbtack put on the table will do; just push the egg carefully onto it. In European countries it’s common to have a special device for puncturing eggs in the kitchen – http://de.academic.ru/pictures/dewiki/69/Eierpikser.jpg. It’s basically just a spring-loaded needle.
@Konrad and what is thumbtack? I am not a native English speaker.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=thumbtack&tbm=isch
I agree with @jwenting, 5-7 minutes in boiling water is the way to go.
Remember to always put the eggs in cold water, if you put them in hot water you risk cracking the shell, especially if eggs are cold.
Also, to avoid premature cracking of the shell, that may leave some egg white leaking out, add a spoon of vinegar (should work with lemon juice too) to the water.
Also be sure to add a couple of minutes if the eggs are cold (i.e. straight from the fridge).
Thanks, do I have to cover the vessel used for eggs too, while boiling?
@Anisha: I generally don't and it works fine. Probably if you cover the pot it may take a bit less.
I’ve never had an issue with cold eggs, and this doesn’t sound particularly plausible. Puncturing the shell is much more important.
@Konrad: try and put an egg from the fridge in boiling water: you will have a high chance the shell will crack. No puncturing needed when using vinegar in my experience.
@nico I always use already boiling water. That way it’s faster (I boil water in an electric kettle which is way faster than heating water on the stove). No issue when puncturing the egg – and nor should there be since the air can escape when expanding.
@Konrad: I'm obviously speaking of unpunctured eggs.
well, colder eggs obviously will take longer to reach the point where the proteins start to degenerate, so longer cooking time is obvious. But it won't be much longer, variations in water temperature will have a larger impact.
Putting vinegar did prevent the shell cracking. Thanks.
Just watch the clock, it's the most (if not only) reliable way. And make sure the water stays at or just under boil of course. There's no difference between cooking them on gas or electric, it's just a different way of heating the water :) Depending on how firm you want them, 5-7 minutes should usually be enough in boiling water.
I really like using the egg-perfect egg timer. You boil it with the eggs and it tells you when the egg is finished. It actually tells you whether the egg is soft, medium or hard boiled.
I always use Julia’s method. Prick the eggs on the rounded end (a tack works well), cover with water, add a splash of vinegar, bring to a boil uncovered, immediately remove from heat and cover, after 17 minutes immerse in an ice water bath for at least 2 minutes. Also, I’ve found that the fresher the egg, the harder it is to peel, I like to use eggs that I’ve had a couple weeks.
I always pierce eggs at the broad end but I have found that I can make perfect hard boiled eggs when camping and I have no access to a suitable utensil for piercing. If you put your eggs on to cook in cold water, bring them to the boil slowly on a medium heat and then take them off immediately and stand them for 10 minutes in the water you will get hard boiled eggs with lovely fluffy yolks.
Boiling water is boiling water, no matter how achieved.
5-7 minutes as stated above. Adjust time longer if at elevations above 1000 meters or 3000 feet (water boils at a lower temperature due to the lower air pressure). If I'm going to make 'pretty' eggs, i.e. quarter them and use them for a garnish or something, I'll put a bit of acid, usually vinegar in the boil water to reduce discoloration should the egg crack.
Note of interest: You can test an egg to see if it's hard boiled by laying it on a flat smooth surface and spinning it. If it's cooked, it will spin and spin, if liquid, will not.
I like the spin test. Unfortunately, an over-cooked green egg will spin just as much, too.
No pins, no clock, no vinegar - and no cracking.
Cover the eggs with cold water and a lid.
Bring the water to boil(the whole surface of the bottom is producing bubbles).
Turn the stove off.
Wait for say 20 minutes without removing from the stove.
This method can produce slightly under- or over-cooked eggs (usually under-) depending on the stove, utensil, number of eggs, personal preferences. But is easy to tune in the first 2-3 attempts.
I have used Emeril Lagasse's method, and it works really well. I think on his television show, he called it the "rule of thirteen":
Place the eggs in a saucepan and cover with water. Season with a pinch of salt. Place the pan over medium heat and bring to a boil. Cook for 2 minutes. Remove from heat and cover with a lid. Allow the eggs to sit for 11 minutes. Drain and cool the eggs for 2 minutes in ice water. Drain and peel the eggs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.784680
| 2011-07-07T05:30:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15998",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Bianca Tyler",
"CRSouser",
"Don",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"LarsTech",
"Mmmm",
"Patti",
"Theo Briscoe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7000",
"jwenting",
"lauri",
"nico",
"quantum231"
],
"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
}
|
8130
|
Can coconut cream be made from coconut flour?
I have never seen or tried coconut cream (nor milk) personally, so I have no idea what should be it, but since I need it as a ingredient in my cocktails, I decided to give it a shot and try to make it.
I read on a website that coconut cream is basically what separates on top of prepared coconut milk. Being unable to get my hands on a coconut, I have tried alternative technique (that did sound plausible to me): to boil coconut flour in a pot with enough water to cover it all, and then to strain it using cheesecloth.
What I got is a liquid that is mostly water, with slight taste of coconut, and it appears that nothing is going to separate on top of that liquid.
Is there something wrong with my alternative technique, or is that coconut flour can't even remotely replace freshly shredded coconut?
Any other thoughts?
I've edited the title to what I think more accurately describes the question; let me know if I've missed the mark.
Where are you from? Coconut milk is usually sold in non-perishable packs or cans so even if the local grocers don't have it you should be able to order it over mail.
Coconut flour is what remains1 when extracting the milk from coconut. So I doubt you can make anything resembling coconut milk (much less coconut cream) from it, unless the manufacturer has done an exceptionally poor job of doing so already!
That's what I have figured out in the meanwhile, by reading about process of getting coconut flour. Thanks.
Yes you can. I've made both coconut and almond milk using flour. I got the recipe from She Calls Me Hobbit, which says to use coconut flour, water, and xanthan gum to make coconut milk, and to add coconut oil to make coconut cream instead.
Have you tried to mix the coconut flour with coconut oil? Mix thoroughly, then let sit in an enclosed jar for later use in recipes. I hope this was helpful.
I have NOT tried this, but based on first principles, it's worth a try. As noted above, coconut cream is (like dairy cream) the fatty part ... but skimmed or otherwise lightly processed. Coconut flour as little or no fat. Mix the flour with coconut oil (pure fat) and the combination may suffice as a non-dairy option for recipes that call for coconut cream.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.785270
| 2010-10-14T21:31:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8130",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Borgh",
"Scott Lawton",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67984",
"mr.b"
],
"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
}
|
11472
|
How can I make this very low hydration bread more home baker friendly?
The recipe is something like that:
400g of flour
180g of water
2g of yeast
7g of salt
Part of the flour and water can be used to prepare a biga or a poolish, let's ignore that to keep it simple.
Kneading everything for 8-10 minutes, which is not too much for this low hydration (45%) will result in a dough that will not pass any gluten test. To develop the gluten, the only way is to roll it down, bend it and roll it down again. For about 20 minutes. Then it rests only for 1h and it's baked.
Kneading could be done in a bread machine; what I really want to do is to develop the gluten in a more efficient way. With so little water, more time will not help as with the kneadless bread recipe. How can this
By the way, this bread is very common in the center of Spain, where is known as pan blanco or pan candeal and it's famous for it's dense crumb.
Why wouldn't giving the flour more time to autolyze and build gluten passively help? It might not turn it into no-knead bread, but I can't believe it wouldn't have SOME effect in reducing handwork.
It should also affect the flavour, shouldn't it?
An even, dense crumb is going to be partly developed by the kneading process (and partly by the low moisture). If you want that character in the final loaf, the method probably can't change too much. You should be able to develop some gluten by leaving it to sit a few extra hours. However, this type of passive development lends itself more to an uneven, airy crumb. So it's a trade-off between some longer, passive time with possibility of a slightly different texture resulting or shorter, active time. I guess it depends what your priority is -- ease of making or character of the loaf.
There are also compounds that can increase gluten production and are not uncommon in commercial breads. Using a bit of fava bean or soy bean flour can apparently facilitate the gluten production in a more natural way, but I have no idea how much you need to add nor how it will affect flavour.
I recommend reading this nice explanation about gluten development.
Dextrous malt also increases gluten formation without extra yeast.
You're probably right, but it's hard for me to believe that bakers, putting so much effort, haven't found a more efficient way :)
@Julio - well if it's a big factory bakery, they probably add the chemical improvers and most bakeries probably use kneading machines these days. So that's where the "efficiency" comes in, since otherwise you're limited to a certain extent by the chemistry of the reaction.
A trick is to not ignore the biga/poolish stage and use the end of that stage to develop the gluten.
After you've let the biga sit, hold back about a third of the remaining flour and let your machine do the work of kneading the bread for as long as you feel will work for you. The dough should be normal to a little wet at this point. When you have the gluten really developed, then add the rest of the flour and work it in, by hand if you need to.
You won't fully develop the gluten that is available in the final flour, but you also will have forearms that don't ache.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.785475
| 2011-01-25T20:47:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11472",
"authors": [
"Allison",
"Erik M",
"Josh C.",
"Julio",
"Pavel Rudnev",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"jbasko",
"justkt",
"user23609"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32396
|
Do nuts ever go bad?
I have some walnuts I found in the back of my cabinet that are probably 5 years old. The packaging says best if used by 2010. I tasted them and they taste alright, maybe a little tartish but I don't mind. I was wondering if walnuts and other nuts actually ever go bad considering that they are dry.
Yes, nuts are very fatty, and they will eventually go rancid— if this is the case, they will taste very poor. They can also dry out, or in more rare cases (especially if stored improperly) be infested with insects or molds.
Generally, they should be good for six months to a year at their best flavor, depending on the variety (in the shell).
Five years is a little long. I am not sure I would want to eat nuts that old.
Generally, they'll get so bitter you definitely don't want to eat them.
.. and there's nothing like an absolutely fresh walnut.. milkier than milk. I would waste those by cooking with them ...
Beyond obvious downsides like a rancid taste or textural deterioration, both tree nuts and peanuts are in a category of foods particularly prone to molds that produce aflatoxin, which can cause liver failure or liver damage in sufficient quantities.
When I was importing a product from Asia that contained peanuts, it was one of the things that was considered a substantial risk, as it's a fairly common reason to initiate a recall if tests prove aflatoxin present in sufficient quantities to warrant concern. Certainly these molds are more prone to develop after extended long term storage, as mold growth is more likely over time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.785742
| 2013-03-03T18:56:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32396",
"authors": [
"Robin Betts",
"SF.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328"
],
"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
}
|
24594
|
Why do some recipes claim to "never fail"?
I have read it countless times, mostly in baking magazines: "This recipes always works!", "Always turns out great!" etc.
Of course I know that you can fail at all of them if you really want to, but what is the reason behind these recipes - are there really any recipes that always work (without being basic 'one pot' recipes) as long as you don't screw them up badly?
Or do they only print stuff like this to get novices to buy the magazine?
Baking is a complicated process and requires precision; you start out with complex molecules, and transform them into something has to have many qualities precisely right.
The common quality of all baked goods is the foam structure: each baked good is best when its foam is right. Example: for a cake, the "right" foam has lots of tiny, regular bubbles, and the bubble walls support the foam, but are soft, not elastic. The ideal foam for a bread or pie crust is different.
There are other criteria for the cake layer to be good:
Evenly baked
Regular shape and surface, no cracks or doming
Neither overcooked nor undercooked, starch gelatinized but not retrograded
Moisture content correct, shouldn't be dry or melt in the mouth like a brownie
Color
Balanced flavor: not too sweet, eggy, salty, or bland
This list is just for the layer itself, frosting and combining layers makes it even more complicated!
With so many qualities to balance, you need a precise process to get reliable results; however home bakers don't want to monitor precisely. Most lack probe thermometers, and Americans often use volume measures for dry ingredients, rather than the more accurate weights. Finally, most home bakers don't understand the theory of baking.
Great bakers draw on both theory and practice when they bake, and their recipes rarely fail. Theory teaches them the significance of each step, and the hidden assumptions made by the recipe. Practice teaches to judge what is happening before his eyes, and how to recognize when something has gone wrong. Theory and practice together let great bakers identify when something has gone wrong and rescue the project.
A novice will have neither practice nor theory aid them. He is even likely to misunderstand steps. For example, he may stir vigorously when the recipe says "fold". He may also omit key steps when pressed for time, without realizing their significance. For example, using fridge-cold eggs when they should be room temperature.
Of course, everybody has to start somewhere, and not all baking recipes are created equal. Some have more room for error than others. For example, making a genoise for the first time is very hard. The egg yolks start foaming at around 50°C, but can't build a good enough foam at below 65°C. They curdle irreversibly at 85°C. So a genoise has to be created in a water bath at a temperature around 70 to 75°C, and when the yolks are foamed, the flour (which has to be low-gluten) is added and mixed well enough to not fall to the bottom in lumps, but not well enough to remove the air from the foam. After that, the layer is baked, and it glues itself terribly to the pan, unless the baker had the foresight to use parchment combined with proper flouring technique, and then used proper technique to remove the layer when it is still warm enough to separate but not so hot that it gets irreversibly squished. There are so many things to get wrong with a genoise that a novice will run into them without ever realizing what happened.
Recipes that "never fail" are the opposite; they are robust, and don't rely on precision. Simple muffins are one example: The chemical leavening of the baking powder works well in many conditions, unlike the fickle yolk foam leavening in the genoise. Muffins even work if the cook just beats everything together in the bowl. You don't have to worry about overmixing, creaming, or specific temperatures. The fat content keeps muffins moist even when measurements aren't exact, and masks mistakes by enhancing flavor. The cook actually seeks out doming, rather than avoiding it! Finally, the crumb doesn't have to be soft, regular and airy the way cake crumb should be. Muffins can tolerate a lot of mistakes!
To summarize: "never fail" recipes are recipes where:
There are few steps
Each step is simple to perform
Even if the baker makes an error, the end result is still likely to come out tasting good.
Of course, this ignores the catches! Publishers can claim a recipe will "never fail" when they are unreliable for a novice. Sometimes this happens accidentally, when a bad baker repeats a recipe enough that it becomes easy, but others have difficulty with it. Finally, not everyone has the same criteria for success. I once found a recipe for a wedding cake on a popular site; it used box mix, smothered it in pudding from a sachet, and decorated with gummi bears. Virtually all commenters insisted that it has turned out "great" and described how the wedding guests complimented them. I can't imagine that it was really "great", but suspect that people who know what a great cake tastes like didn't bother to make the cake or leave comments. There is no guarantee that a recipe labelled "always works" lives up to its name, or is actually good. But, if you're a new baker, it's a good idea to start with such a recipe until you have gathered some experience.
You've got some excellent points here, and is there any way you could make it a bit more brief or split it into sections so it's easier to follow what you're saying? I'd be happy to suggest an edit if you're willing to take writing advice to improve communication of your comprehensive knowledge.
@BobMcGee I would gladly listen to your advice - I hadn't realized how long this thing became, but I am aware that my writing often can be improved.
I appreciate that you have the maturity and patience to accept constructive criticism. Let me post my answer and then I'll work on an edit for yours.
An often helpful method for quickly making answers easier to read is simply to bold the most important pieces (as Bob's answer does). Even if you stop there, it helps readers, but it often points you to where you have a lot of extra text that's not contributing a major point, and shows you the important parts that you might want to reorganize to place earlier in an answer.
@Jefromi: That's a good point. I'm also a big fan of one of Strunk and White's rules: "Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell."
@rumtscho: I've done an initial edit, straightening out sentence flow, converting one long list into a set of bullet points. I tried to add topic and concluding sentences to paragraphs, and vary word choice a bit. Personal opinion is that the examples with genoise and muffins are interesting, but the level of detail is excessive for most readers. Kind of cool for someone who has done genoise though.
@BobMcGee thank you, I'll look into this version later tonight.
Some dishes are harder or easier to cook, but a good recipe can make them a lot easier. While "never fail" is a cheap line used to sell cookbooks, there is some truth that recipes can be more reliable.
Some dishes are intrinsically challenging; true (un-yeasted) sourdough and genoise require precise timing and handling to get the correct consistency. Even a well-written recipe for these will pose challenges to an inexperienced baker. In our household we don't discuss my first attempt(s) at genoise in polite company!
Other dishes are naturally easier: yellow cake and simple sandwich bread, for example. With these dishes the amounts of ingredients do not have to be precise, nor do bake times or temperatures. There's a wide range of conditions where you still get an acceptable result. To get an unacceptable result requires a major error, generally misreading a recipe or mis-measuring something. Magazines can legitimately publish easy recipes as "never-fail" and be honest, but they're not providing much value by doing so.
A well-written, detailed recipe can definitely help you get more consistent results. Measurements are more specific, using exact weights or volume, and not eyeballing with "small handful" of this and "generous pinch" of that. Baking times are given as a range where appropriate, and better yet, may include what the final internal temperature should be. A particularly helpful recipe will even offer guidance along the way so you know it is being executed correctly; for example, it'll tell you that a batter should have the consistency of heavy cream.
For a truly bulletproof recipe, it'll include pictures and descriptions of the intermediate product, and tell you how to identify and troubleshoot common problems. This is one of the reasons why Mastering the Art of French Cooking is such an excellent work; it tells you how to tell when the dish is coming out correctly, and how to fix it when it isn't. This sort of detailed and in-depth advice is what I would say distinguishes a very reliable recipe from a poor one.
Oddly enough, I've found that in-house restaurant recipes are generally of poor quality; because the cooks are skilled, the recipes rely on their abilities to work with vague measurements, and to gauge amounts of seasonings to use with a glance and taste. Also, they NEVER include troubleshooting advice, assuming the cook is smart enough to grab someone more experienced if they have problems. On the plus side, the recipes are very succinct and generally the amounts that matter are precise.
To sum up, there are harder and easier dishes, and recipes can become more reliable by offering more detailed advice and troubleshooting. There are also recipes that are just plain BAD, because they don't use the right amount of ingredients. Recipes you get from friends often seem to end up being the latter, unfortunately.
Besides what's already been mentioned, fruits are another particularly problematic ingredient -- as they might vary by location, or be over/under ripe, affecting how much sugar and/or liquid they contribute.
Jacques Pépin gave an explanation to PBS News Hour a few years ago:
When writing a recipe, one records a moment in time which can never be
duplicated exactly again. The paradox is that the recipe tells the
reader, this must be done this way, when, in fact, to get the result
you're looking for, the recipe has to be modified each time.
The exact reproduction of a taste, which is what the making of a dish
is, only works when the processes, timing, and ingredients are
adjusted and changed to fit each particular situation
and later when describing a specific recipe
When I first created this recipe, the pears were done in 30 minutes.
That amount of time only reflects the unique set of circumstances I
faced, ripeness of the pear, type of roasting pan I used. This is what
happened on that particular day.
The next time, I used pears that were more ripe, and they were done in
10 minutes. But the liquid around hadn't yet turned into a caramel. So
I removed the pears, reduced the liquid to a caramel, and finished it
with cream.
The third time, I used Bosc pears that were very hard. No juice came
out of the pears. The sugar started burning. So I had to add water to
the pan to create a caramel. The pears needed almost an hour of
cooking, even though my recipe said 30 minutes. Yet, at the end, the
three dishes looked and taste the same.
I highly recommend watching the video (it's only 4 minutes) or reading the whole article.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.785914
| 2012-06-20T20:27:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24594",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Cascabel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"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
}
|
36465
|
How to identify a good espresso?
During the last week I ordered many different espresso shots at coffee shops around the place where I work - some cheap, some expensive, some chains, some independent stores.
As I heard that it is difficult to make a good espresso, I wasn't surprised that there were major differences in the outcome: While some where really watery and thin, others were pretty oily and thick. Of course, I also enjoyed some more than others.
That takes me to the question: How do I identify a good espresso? Are there any general "guidelines" on how an espresso should taste/smell? How should it be consistency wise?
Isn't this fairly subjective? I'm not a coffee drinker but I imagine different people like thicker/thinner consistency, different people like different tastes/smells (beans/roasts), and so on. (Maybe I'm wrong and there's some consensus though.)
One could probably argue that there are certain things a good espresso shouldn't be, but I agree that this is venturing far into opinionland. Espresso is fundamentally "magnified coffee" and still has the whole aroma spectrum - it's a matter of personal preference.
Evaluating espresso is highly subjective. After purchasing an espresso machine and a high quality grinder, it took me more than a year to consistently produce good espresso shots (slow learner). To me, that means something that tastes REALLY GOOD. In order to learn what is good, I drank a lot of unpalatable espresso shots (my own and at coffee shops). After another year of practice, I can recognize good espresso when I taste it.
The standard espresso drink is the double espresso (a double espresso shot). Although you can get single or triple espressos, if you are comparing quality, the double espresso is the standard. Regardless of which type of shot you order, if you are comparing quality across different cafes, you should always order the same thing (ie don't order a single at one cafe and a double at another).
Once again for standardization, I would recommend ordering a double at each one.
My explanation of good espresso will be about straight espresso (no milk, no sugar) in an espresso mug/cup.
Here are some characteristics of a quality double shot:
Temperature:
The espresso should be quite hot when served. If it is only lukewarm or warm right after it is made, then the barista did not heat the cup that it was served in.
It should be to the temperature where it is too hot to drink (for most people). It should only take a minute or so to cool off. Perhaps two minutes.
Crema:
There should be a nice layer of crema on top of the espresso (a few millimeters thick, completely covering the espresso). This comes from the release of carbon dioxide when the espresso is extracted under pressure.
The color should be golden-brown to dark brown for a double shot.
The color will not always be uniform, it will sometimes be slightly lighter where the shot actually poured in the spot on the crema.
The crema should remain for at least three - five minutes if not longer.
Taste:
The espresso should be bitter, but not too bitter (high levels of bitterness are more characteristic of espresso long shots).
It should be rich, but not too rich (again, high levels of richness are more characteristic of espresso ristretto shots).
It should NOT be sour. If it is sour, it has been sitting for too long before being served or was over-extracted.
It should not taste watery, this is usually a characteristic of under-extraction.
Smell:
Hard to describe for espresso and the aroma will vary a lot. One thing to avoid is a 'sour' smell, which usually indicates a sour taste, as described above, or that the coffee being used is inherently too acidic.
Consistency:
Espresso is going to be thicker and more viscous than regular drip coffee, but it won't be syrupy. When you are done your espresso, the drop or two that remain at the bottom of the cup, when dried should leave a distinct brown residue on the bottom of the cup.
Notes, and other things to keep in mind:
You will have to remember that different cafes will use different varieties of beans for making espresso, so this is going to affect the flavor.
Different cafes use different amounts of ground espresso and different amounts of water when preparing their espresso. The industry standard is 2 oz (about 60 milliliters) for a double shot, but in my cafe we do our double shots to 3 oz.
Most importantly, learning to recognize good espresso is an experienced based endeavor, just like with wine, beer, or food.
On a personal note, I love to do this with cafes as well! I always judge the quality of a cafes espresso and ability by ordering my favorite drink: a double espresso long. In fact, I am going to a new cafe to do it today!!
A Lovely Looking Cup of Espresso:
Thanks for your answer! Really interesting to know that the double espresso is the standard serving size, because I always order just 'an espresso' and never have gotten a double one. Maybe it's a regional/italian thing?
"The single shot is the traditional shot size, being the maximum that could easily be pulled on a lever machine, while the double is the standard shot today." That would be the best I can come up with at the moment. It's from the wikipedia page on espresso. It is also the standard for barista competitions, as seen here.
@Sven I now know what you mean. I am currently in Germany and just travelled in France and Italy. In all three countries the standard for an order is a single. Cultural differences. However, my comment about the double still being the standard stands.
Sour is a sign of under-extraction, not over-extraction. Excellent write up though. Thanks!
Although one's tastes are different, Joe Public can check for a good espresso following one golden rule. Hoping that Joe likes sugar, pour sugar in the espresso. Sugar should remain floating for at least 2 seconds on the 'cream' before sinking. Espresso should never be too hot. Warming the cup before will be a good idea.
JG
I evaluate espresso based on the taste, aroma, and body/mouthfeel.
There are no guidelines for espresso taste and aroma. You can find many different notes in cofee, and many people prefer some styles of coffee to others. That being said there is a standard for the mouthfeel: full-bodied, round and smooth; A good espresso should coat your tongue like condensed milk.
Most of the taste is going to come from the beans used. Finding a roaster that you like is the most important thing to drinking consistently good tasting espresso. Ask your barista who roasts their beans next time you find yourself enjoying a cup.
Knowing the best practices for espresso preparation can help you to evaluate if it is being prepared correctly. The preparation will affect the taste of the final espresso and also the mouth feel.
Things you can look for:
Make sure the coffee is being ground fresh just before preparation. You should hear the grinder running every time a coffee is made. Using coffee ground more than a minute before preparation leads to stale tasting coffee, may taste flat, bland, stale.
When tamping the espresso, look for a consistent and clean tamping process. The final puck of coffee should be uniform, flat and smooth. Not tamping properly leads to uneven extraction. Watch the barista and see if he makes it look easy, but delicate.
If you can see the machine, watch the pour. Ideally it should come out slow and thick, if it pours but starts dripping halfway to the cup the consistency is good. If it comes out too fast you will get a thin and under extracted cup. The extraction should last about 30 seconds. Over extraction will cause the body to be watered down and will likely taste bitter or burnt.
Once the espresso has been made, that a server brings it to you as soon as possible.
Other variables you may not be able to look for:
Make sure the coffee roast is not too fresh or too old. Usually 10-20 days after roast is ideal. Otherwise stale coffee.
Temperature and pressure are set properly (around 90-95 C and 9 bar)
Grind is regularly adjusted.
Machine is regularly serviced and cleaned.
I don't see how someone, just consuming a cup of espresso, could evaluate any of the criteria even in your "Things you can look for" section. How would a consumer know? What affect do they have on the product in the cup?
Ive edited my post for clarity, and added some tasting notes to the things you can look for section. Overall I think that watching the preperation of the coffee can give you a much better indication to whether it will be good compared to looking at the shot of espresso.
I have to ask: if you have to see the preparation to know, how much affect could it have in the cup? Shouldn't you be able to tell if the coffee is good or not good simply by tasting and observing the content of the cup?
Notwithstanding the dubious merits of talking about tasting coffee rather than making it on a cooking Q&A, this really does seem like an attempt to shoehorn an answer about making espresso into a question about tasting it. We already have a lot of questions about making espresso, like this one about tamping - despite this answer being informative, I just don't think it's contextually relevant.
I've attempted to answer the question "How do I identify a good espresso?", and I find that watching the preparation of the espresso is an important indicator to identifying one.
@leon Yes I suppose you have answered the question, but you did not address taste and smell very well in your answer. How is a layman going to know all of these things? One cannot watch all of these things even at an actual espresso bar. Even if everything you described is done perfectly, a small variable can mess it up thus leading to bad espresso. Espresso is as much of an art as it is science.
Thanks for the answer. Although you got some downvotes here it was a good read anyway :-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.786898
| 2013-08-31T21:58:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36465",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Amanda Lien",
"BZink",
"Cascabel",
"David Harmston",
"Denis OKeefe",
"Henrique Morano",
"James Freeland",
"Janet Brooks",
"Kathy Gleason",
"Lor",
"Patrick Sebastien",
"Q's P",
"Rick G",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sharon Williamson",
"Spammer",
"Sven",
"alex-e-leon",
"barbara anne cumiskey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85607"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54248
|
substitution of whipping cream for water in jello
This is the first time I have been on the internet for over 5 years so please excuse my slowness with this site. I have been successful using heaving whipping with unflavored gellatin mix with added sugar and vanilla. I have used both a mold and a big crystal bowl, depending on how much I was serving and how much I made. May I substitute heavy whipping cream instead of water to make flavored jello or gellatin mix. I would now like to use lemon or strawberry flavored jello or some other flavor of jello mix that has the sugar in it and the color to make a desert and use the directions as if using water. To enhance it, I use fresh fruit or even cooked preserves such as raspberries or sour cherries. This desert is called "Russian Cream". I am also thinking of using lemon curd to put on the side, which is where one would put the cooked preserves or drizzle on top, slice fruit, lemon curd, whatever sounds good to you. Other additions can be added to the unflavored gellatin to make it lighter like half and half (diet version) or bolder like cream cheese or even slice up fruit very small, dry and mix.
Update in answer to comments---Here I am again with news of what has happened with the substitution. It came out okay. I realized I had to play with the sugar as the gellatin mix or "Jello or Jelly" already had sugar in it. I did heat up the cream and mixed things up accordingly and put in the fridge. I looked up Pannacotta and found that different various versions resembled what I was making, Russian Cream. It is interesting that various cultures have the similar versions of same things and I realized that Flan was also included in this mix. Today I made the original and nothing beats it. Thanks for the adventure of the site.
Why do you want to use whipping cream instead of water? What do you hope will happen?
How about something like this instead: http://sweettreatsmore.com/2012/03/super-easy-creamy-jell-o-dessert/
Here's the "official" kraft version: http://www.kraftrecipes.com/recipes/creamy-layered-squares-62754.aspx
Do you mean that you've done exactly this with unflavored gelatin and it works? I can't imagine the addition of flavoring is going to mess that up.
@Catija Could be it's easier for the OP to find cream than cool whip, if they're not in the US? But yes, user33210, if you're just trying to ask "how do I make a creamy jello thing?" you can just ask that!
That's certainly possible... Like you, I think their question is a bit confusing... and I think only Americans call it "Jello"... They call it Jelly in the UK.
You'll get the most consistent results if you use a real pana cotta recipe instead of trying to figure out ratios and process by yourself.
This was merely a substitution question of unflavored gellatin to flavored gellatin mix, not water for cream. I wanted to make something decadent with what I had on hand. I had heavy whipping cream that I wanted to use not cool whip, and this was not the time or the place for plain, I wanted rich. Another thing added, if wanted, is cream cheese to the mix just to confuse your guests in a good way. It was all good in the end, but no, I will not do it again.
I see no reason why not. Some chef's cheat when making pannacotta and simply set some flavoured milk with geletin.
Simply replace all the water with cream. It may set a little firmer so you might want to tinker with the recipe next time round. The result will be somewhere between panna cotta and blancmange.
I'd suggest warming some of your cream with the geletin mixture in order to dissolve it completely then mix it with the remainder of your cream.
There are a variety of recipes on the web for making creamy jello.
There seem to be a few options including:
Method 1 - Using the quick-set method, add 8 oz of defrosted whipped cream topping (cool whip) after icing the Jell-o.
Method 2 - Using the regular or quick set method, replace some of the cold or cool water with cream
Method 3 - Using the regular or quick set method, replace some of the cold or cool water with melted ice cream
The links take you to examples of recipes with more in-depth discussion of the specifics but there are many others out there.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.787813
| 2015-02-01T04:04:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54248",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"David Schwegler",
"Diana Carlton",
"Flight King Charter Rental LV",
"Ray Ellis",
"Reba Smith",
"The White Plate",
"Third Eye",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"jenni willis",
"rumtscho",
"user141592",
"user33210"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17662
|
Baking cakes in the Microwave ovens as compared to Electric ovens
Is there a difference in the output or in the procedure when baking cakes in the Microwave ovens as compared to Electric ovens?
What are the basic and crucial differences found among cakes baked in the above mentioned different equipments?
Question: If we run the microwave (which has a convection feature) on "grill and convection" mode only, does it become same as rectangular "Electric ovens"? Please explain why and how too.
As each microwave cooks differently, even recipes found online are going to be inexact. Unless the manufacturer of the microwave included a cookbook (which I don't think they've done for years), and it had a cake recipe in it, it'd be a lot of trial and error.
"Grill and convection" isn't a standard microwave mode, can you specify what kind of appliance you're talking about? Is it a "convection microwave"?
@Aaronut My microwave has a convection feature.
Can you tell us your make and model of microwave? We may be able to look up if its just marketing speak (like a microwave with a fan) or a real feature?
@rfusca Check this out: http://www.lg.com/in/home-appliances/microwave-oven/LG-MC2841SPS.jsp
Can you explain what you mean by bakery style structure? Or perhaps find a (close-up) picture of a cake with the kind of texture you're looking for? I'm guessing you're looking for a somewhat denser crumb, but it's hard to be sure.
Yes. A dense crumb with little darker toned surface than the inside, just a little hard to cut with a knife kind. link
Is your microwave a regular microwave, or a convection microwave? I think you'll get better results if you have a convection microwave oven.
Yes, there is a difference. You shouldn't be baking a cake (or anything else) in a microwave oven.
A microwave oven excites the water within your food. When you put in dough or batter, the excited water doesn't bind with the starch the way it does under normal heat, it escapes the starch, leaving you with a stone-hard piece of dough or batter.
There is something called "five-minutes microwave cake". I haven't tried it, but in the recipes floating around the interwebs it gets eaten while still hot (so probably before it has had the chance to get too hard). It also seems that there is a very small heat frame in which it gets OK. Bake it too much, and it will get hard, or burn. Bake it too little, and you end up with a mug of warm batter. It is also supposed to be a cupcake, I suspect that if you try to bake a bigger portion at once, there will be enough temperature difference in different zones of the batter to get underbaked, baked and hard portions all at once.
Bottom line: if you want to try for the fun of it, make a cupcake in the microwave, and watch your energy input (microwave watt setting and time) very closely, then eat immediately. You can find recipes all over the Web, e. g. on Instructables. If you want a real cake, don't bake in a microwave.
This, a million times over. Microwaves are for reheating leftovers, boiling water, and doing fun science experiments. They are not for serious cooking or baking.
Question: If we run the microwave (which has a convection feature) on "grill and convection" mode only, does it become same as rectangular "Electric ovens"? Please explain why and how too.
Soegaard already explained the difference between heating by microwaves and by standard oven. The point is, they are completely different methods, and the same oven needs two types of heaters within the same body to have both settings.
Normally, I would assume (the same as soegaard does) that if you put the oven to the "convection" setting, the microwave heater is turned off. But the truth is that it is up to the manufacturer to decide if this really happens, or if both heaters are turned on in this setting. It surely sounds illogical, but we have evidence that it does happen - and the evidence was for an LG oven. See this question: Why do my pizzas get such hard crusts?. So we can't promise you that it is OK to bake them in your oven, and I suspect that a manufacturer implements a feature in the same way across ovens. So assuming that the oven in the other question works as it should (it could be a defect unit which doesn't turn off the microwave heater when it is supposed to), you have low chances of getting good cakes.
Does it make sense to implement the feature that way? If you aren't baking, probably yes. You see, in a microwave, you don't get a crust. Pure convection cooks slower than microwaves. If you are cooking a veggie casserole in the oven, you'll probably be happy to have convection and microwaves at the same time. This still doesn't explain why the manufacturer labelled the feature in this misleading way, or why it doesn't give you two separate dials, one for the microwave heater and one for the convection heater. Maybe the target customer group are people with minimal cooking skills who only use their oven for reheating prefrozen food.
So we can't tell you if your oven will bake a good cake or not - it depends on how it is built. The best way to know is to just try it. Make a normal bread dough - don't waste time on preferments and the like, go for minimal effort and expenses - and bake a loaf in the oven at the convection setting. Wait 2-3 hours o give it a chance to harden. If it tastes like a nice bread afterwards, then the microwave heater was turned off and the cake will bake well too. If it is unusually hard - microwaved dough is practically impossible to bite off - then the microwave heater stays on at the convection setting and you can't bake a cake either.
You may want to call customer service before you try, and ask if the "convection" setting turns off the microwave heater. If the person on the other end of the line knows for sure how the oven works, they can save you from a useless experiment. But there is always the chance that the call is a waste of time.
Much, much easier way to test. Put a glass of water in there. How fast does it boil? A few minutes? Your microwave is still on.
@rfusca How much should in your opinion it take to get a glass of water boiled in convection oven?
@Anisha - I'll test when I get home..but its going to take awhile.
It won't be easy to achieve a bakery style cake in the microwave (I'm assuming you are looking for an actual cake rather than just a 'cake-in-a-cup').
First of all, how a microwave works:
A microwave works emits waves called microwaves(!) (a short wave length)
These waves pass through most non-food items (ceramic, plastic) and bounce off metals
Once they hit water (and also I'm told fats and sugars) the waves excite (vibrate) the molecules which creates heat
The first obstacle is that with a microwave, you cannot use a metal cake tin (which most are), unless you are interested in likely severely damaging microwave and pan alike. However, you increasingly find 'silicone' tins, which would work.
It is also hard to get a brown crust on the cake as that is formed by the Maillard reaction. This is promoted by moisture in the air and direct heat which is not found in a microwave. Since the cake will cook, unlike in a real oven, roughly evenly and the heat does not have to travel into the center of the cake, there is no chance for it to brown. However, apparently placing a piece of foil (although I would be nervous to try it as I have always been told not to put ANY metal in a microwave) over the cake will mean that microwaves bounce off it and heat the top of the cake and browning it. Again, not recommend without advice from a professional.
Most of the recipes for microwave cakes have a higher liquid content in them than traditional cakes, which could explain their 'spongy' texture. I would try using a cake made with an equal amounts butter, sugar, flour and eggs (much like a pound cake). I can't see why cooking in a microwave should require a different recipe, although I suppose it is easier to have a recipe using a box mix and water/oil if you're making it in a small cup. This would also be slightly denser as it uses creaming to incorporate air, rather than using chemical raising agents.
No one has seen Ferran Adria (Chef of the best restaurant in the world) make cake in a microwave? http://www.britishlarder.co.uk/el-bullis-test-kithcen-with-albert-adria/#axzz1cTaE1baY
Pretty cool flick there!!
If your microwave has a grill function, that might help a bit for getting a crust.
I mostly use microwave with convection feature to bake my cakes and muffins and though i have achieved satisfactory results with the cakes, it is not the perfect method to bake a cake. few of my observations below:
1) When cooking in MW conv the crust of the muffin and cake dont brown. The crust stays crispy when the cake is out of the oven, but after storing the cake for a day or two, the crust goes soggy and sticky.
2) there is an unusual eggy smell in the cakes and muffins which is more often not masked even after the addition of pure vanilla extract. Btw this does not seem to happen in OTGs.
Hey Kirti, Have you tried the Grill + Convection combo? I think that should give a good browning on the outside, although you'll have to start the grill late in the baking process. Maybe in the last 5-10 minutes?
Answering your second question:
Question: If we run the microwave on "grill and convection" mode only,
does it become same as rectangular "Electric ovens"? Please explain
why and how too.
You must have a combination oven. It can heat the food in various ways.
When you are using grill and convection the oven is working just as
normal oven.
Understanding the various terms all boils down to
understanding how energy (heat) is transfered to the food.
In a standard oven the heating element warms up adjacent air.
The fan will eventually blow the air over the food, which will heat up.
Energy transfer through gas (air) or liquid (water) is called
convection. Thus your "convection" setting just means "regular oven".
All warm materials also send out heat radiation (infrared), thus the
heating element will also transfer some of the energy to the food
through radiation.
In a grill the heating element is so warm, that the radiation plays
a much bigger part of the energy transfer. This it what your
"grill" setting does.
The third way your oven can transfer energy is by help of microwaves.
Microwaves penetrate the food item and cause the water molecules inside
the food to vibrate. This vibration will heat up the other parts of the food.
Microwaves thus heat up the food from the inside.
Convection and grill heat up the outside.
Unsurprisingly, you're unlikely to get a decent result. I only managed an edible cake (more of a brownie) using a BodyBuilding recipe (which is supposedly nutritious).
1 ½ scoops chocolate flavored whey protein
¾ scoop chocolate soy protein (GNC’s 95 Protein is good)
1 tablespoon fat free/ sugar free instant chocolate pudding mix (such as Jell-O instant pudding that comes in the box)
½ teaspoon baking soda
2 packs Splenda
Directions
Mix in a microwave safe bowl with enough water to make a batter like consistency
(may take several tries to get it right)
Microwave for a minute or until cake like. It will rise considerably in the bowl. If it falls when you take it out, use less water next time
Topping
2 tablespoons whipped cream cheese
4 packs Splenda
Blend the Splenda and cream cheese
Many conventional Microwave Ovens actually have an OVEN SETTING, guys. I think the OP is asking how much of a difference there is between BAKING in an electric oven that has only one use - baking in an oven, or using the oven setting on a microwave OVEN. Microwaves just heat things up, but microwave OVENS have an oven setting, which you can use, that does not use microwaves but actually uses a high powered heated lamp, the same way a conventional oven would.
In my personal experience, they work exactly the same. Just make sure you preheat the oven, and make absolutely SURE you're using the OVEN setting, not the microwave setting. You can tell because it'll usually display a temperature (i.e. 170 degrees C) and then you can set the time, usually like 10-20 minutes or whatever your recipe calls for. In the oven setting of a microwave, you can use metallic, ceramic, and even glass objects so long as they're OVEN SAFE, because unlike the microwave setting, it only uses heat lamps just like a regular oven.
They tend to be smaller, so you can't bake large cakes and bread you'd have to split up into several small loaves. Also, it tends to take longer to preheat it and is sometimes tricky to know when it's actually heated enough, so your baking time might be longer than it would take in a regular oven.
Basically, just make sure your microwave oven has an oven setting (does it have a tube-like lamp on top that doesn't go off when you normally heat things up? does it have an oven button? and when you select it, does it display the temp?) Use toothpicks and a careful eye to test the readiness of whatever you're baking because sometimes, microwave's oven setting isn't as powerful.
I've had success of sorts with a basic sponge cake, but I soon went back to my fan oven. They're good for steamed puddings though.
I use my microwave in both modes to cook a cake. ( I don't have a normal oven at all). Depending on when the cake is needed. If it is for a specific purpose, eg: taking it somewhere or visitors , I cook in the convection mode and it turns out like normal cake. The other I do when I have unannounced visitors. I use the same recipe and cook the cake for 5 mins or less and it turns out great. Obviously no crust, but a quick yummy cake for all to enjoy and there rarely is left overs. I also do this one as a instant cake when my husband wants cake. The left overs don't go hard and usually is finished within 3 or 4 days.
Ive just purchased a Russell Hobbs combi microwave. Im in the Uk.
I decided to bake a lemon drizzle cake. The recipe called for 175 gms each of sugar, butter and flour and 1 and half lemons. Zest only in the cake. The juice to be used in the drizzle mix with 80 gms of sugar, spooned over after cooking.
Temp 160 degs for 45 minutes. The mix was very stiff and I let it down slightly with a little milk.
Now we are talking about a combi microwave with a convection setting.
We are not talking about a sole purpose microwave oven. You cant use those as a regular oven In this mode the oven is supposed to become just like a standard convection oven. Since I find it difficult to manage a below waist oven on account of back problems I thought this would be an ideal way to cook at eye level. But it isnt.
160 degs in the combi is not the same as my oven and the cake took over an hour to cook. I had to keep resetting the controls and had to up the temp to 170 degrees. I'm not impressed .
I would suggest that in recipes its important not to use the fan setting ( unless you have a super duper combi that does have a fan function and to check with an oven thermometer whether your temps are true. I'm sure it would be fine to use the oven for other baked dishes where temp is not so crucial.
Also very very important while you are learning your combi that you do not press the microwave or combi mode button you have anything metal in the oven! Or versa plastic containers in convection mode. Very few good cook books out there and the manufacturers dont include recipes to get you started.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.788219
| 2011-09-12T08:13:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17662",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Amber",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"BobMcGee",
"CLK",
"Cascabel",
"Eileen",
"Esha",
"Esther S",
"Jeff Mcbride",
"Jerred",
"Joe",
"John Brumbaugh",
"Laura",
"Pat",
"Philipp",
"RICK",
"Rey",
"S. Foster",
"arxakoulini",
"balazer",
"ferdiesfoodlab",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89464",
"jackStinger",
"rfusca",
"rudra",
"serogers02",
"user40434",
"user40489"
],
"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
}
|
17661
|
Frying only one side of eggs on a pan
When you break the egg on the pan directly [the situation when yolk is left intact], what measures can be used to fry the egg from one side only and also kill the bacteria on the non fried side?
Do I need to fry the bottom til it becomes "brown" which will ensure that heat has reached up to the top?
What germs would these be?
@TFD Germs is perfaps a wrong word, it should be bacteria. :)
If you cook your egg until the bottom of the eggwhite is brown, you have hopelessly overcooked it, making it tough and dry, with an unpleasant hint of sulfur.
@rumtscho That's right, so what's the way out?
Everybody I know just eats this kind of eggs undercooked (from a food safety perspective; they taste just fine). People concerned with foodborne illness use a different cooking technique for their eggs. But maybe somebody here can offer you a real solution to the dilemma.
@rumtscho I have heard that eating raw eggs can cause illness due to live bacteria.
@Anisha Kaul: I would be hesitant to eat any undercooked egg in India, given the looser food safety standards vs. Europe and the USA. Get to know a farmer you can trust, or cook both sides.
@BobMcGee Yeah, I have started cooking both sides now, but how can a UNshelled egg be tampered, in India or anywhere?
@Anisha Kaul: Salmonella contaminates the egg while it is forming inside the bird. See this link for more information: How does salmonella get into eggs?
@BobMcGee That was very helpful, thanks. The only option then is to rear ones own hens. :D
There are three ways I know of to cook the egg all the way through without turning it:
Break the egg into a hot pan and turn the heat down, wait until the egg is cooked all the way through - this would probably be considered over-cooked sunny side up.
Break the egg into the fat left in the pan, or the fat that has been put into the pan (there needs to be a lot of it), once the bottom firms up a bit, use the spatula to sweep the hot fat over the top of the egg, cooking it on top with the hot fat while the bottom cooks from the burner/fire whatever.
Break the egg into the hot pan then cover the egg(s) or the entire pan with a lid and turn the heat down a bit; this will steam the eggs, cooking the top and the bottom at the same time - this is called smothered eggs.
All that being said, understand that undercooked and raw eggs are eaten regularly by many people; some examples are Caesar salad dressing, raw egg in milk shake (protein booster), steak tartare, sunny side-up eggs to name a few.
Thanks, but placing a lid on the eggs won't make the eggs watery?
Yes, it will; the eggs turn out a bit like poached eggs on the top. I really don't care for them this way. Always order eggs sunny side up, I like the yoke liquid. This method leaves the top of the egg somewhat uncooked though.
Thanks, I think it is better (for me) to cook it on both sides. :D
+1 for method 2, I'd have mentioned this if you hadn't already. I first saw this being done when a friend in the UK made me a fried egg sandwich while I visited him. I thought it to be an interesting but uncommon method ...
For method #3, you can get a faster steam if you add some water to the pan.
My mum uses method 2. To me, the amount of oil required to do this is repulsive, but i can't really say that to her.
Method #2 is called a "basted egg."
I do not worry much about salmonella myself, but I know it is possible to pasteurize your egg first.
After this, fry your egg as normal and enjoy it just as you like it.
note: this will only reduce the risk. But then again the risk is already quite low, esp. if you take care to heat the eggshell before using the egg. You can never completely eliminate the risk, even if you burn the egg to a crisp.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.789471
| 2011-09-12T07:09:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17661",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"BobMcGee",
"Frankie",
"Joe",
"Joseph Oliveri",
"Mimi",
"TFD",
"Tom Anderson",
"cope360",
"dodgethesteamroller",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7364",
"raddaqii",
"rumtscho",
"takrl"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22183
|
How can I intensify the orange flavour in orange cake?
The ingredients I followed are:
2 cups all purpose flour
2 teaspoons baking powder
1/4 teaspoon baking soda
1 cup white sugar
1 cup orange juice
1/2 cup oil
2 eggs
1/2 teaspoon cinnamon powder
Cooking time 35 minutes at 180 C.
I didn't put zest.
I couldn't feel the strong orange flavor in the cake. The cake was rather dry.
If next time I put 2 cups orange juice, what other thing do I have to increase to maintain the balance?
Can I put half cup brown sugar to maintain the moisture?
Can I put the Orange "pulp" in the cake? Will that make any positive difference? If yes, then what's the way to use it properly?
Citrus zest is where most citrus flavour in a sauce or baked good actually comes from because it remains in solid form, like herbs and spices. The juice adds some flavour but it turns into solution and gets spread out over a very large surface area/volume.
I don't know why you decided not to use the zest - are you using commercial orange juice? If so, that may be part of the problem too - processed juices are not going to be as flavourful as homemade, in part because of the mechanical separation of pulp (even if it is subsequently re-incorporated to make a juice "with pulp").
Orange juice is effectively your water in this recipe so doubling it means you need to double everything else. In other words you'll have exactly the same ratios and therefore exactly the same taste.
If it came out too dry then that means you either (a) baked too long, (b) overworked the batter, (c) didn't use enough oil or (d) didn't use enough sugar. Nothing to do with the OJ content.
If you really want to add more orange flavour beyond what the original recipe would give you, use orange extract, it's a highly concentrated orange flavour and is usually derived from (surprise!) the zest, or made to taste like one. But I would suggest to try following the recipe correctly before doing this.
"I don't know why you decided not to use the zest" The recipe asked just for 1 tablespoon zest. Does 1 table spoon make a huge difference? Anyway, I 'll be editin the question.
I have added the question about pulp, see edit.
@AnishaKaul: Yes, it makes a difference, and pulp is not the same as zest.
What kind of difference? Positive or negative? how to add that? Can you "elaborate"? I threw away the pulp this time.
@AnishaKaul "Pulp" is usually bits of orange flesh that are caught in the juicing process. "Zest" is bits of peel that have been carefully grated off and contain most of the orange flavor and smell in a concentrated form (think essential oils); "Pith" is the white bit just under the peel that you don't want to get in your zest because it tastes bitter.
@Yamikuronue Thanks, I knew the meanings, I asked whether pulp can be used in the cakes or not.
@AnishaKaul, why don't you try following the recipe before worrying about substitutions? I don't mean to offend but it seems like many of the problems you've experienced so far have been a result of assuming that some change would be fine without a clear understanding of the process. Most people learn to cook by first following the recipes and then improvising once they have more experience. Baking, especially, can be quite finicky in terms of measurements/modifications/substitutions and it usually takes a lot of solid practical and theoretical experience to create or modify recipes.
Anyway, the answer is no, pulp is not a substitute for zest and nobody is suggesting that you use it. We're suggesting that you use zest, like the recipe says to use.
Actually peeling off the zest is a energy consuming process. I haven't seen readymade zest here. I threw away the pulp so thought I could have used it somehow.
I didn't say that pulp is a substitute for zest. I didn't want to throw it away therefore asked if I could use it somehow.
@AnishaKaul: I'm not sure what you mean by "energy" but if you mean "effort" then of course it does; most good recipes require some degree of care and prep time. If you really want your cake to taste like orange juice pulp then go ahead and use the pulp, but I've never heard of that being done.
yes, energy meant effort. :)
@AnishaKaul it really shouldn't be THAT much effort if you have something like this: http://www.cookingtoys.com/media/Kitchen-Gadget/microplane-zester-grater-40020.jpg or even just a standard cheese grater.
Yeah, I use a Microplane, it's maybe 2 minutes of scratching to zest a whole orange/lemon/whatever. If you're truly broke, a regular zester is fine, it'll still take less than 5 minutes and only be slightly bitterer from the extra pith.
Microplanes are great. I'm sorry I waited so long to actually get one. They come in many shapes and sizes and varying degrees of courseness in the shavings that they produce.
I've also succesfully removed zest with a very, very sharp knife... but I can't imagine it's lest overall effort than a microplane or grater of some sort...
Actually, it is not about being broke, the problem is that I haven't seen anything like a zester in the malls here. all I have seen is a potato peeler. How should I make the shopkeeper understand that I want a zester.
Zesters may not be everywhere but microplanes are pretty common items microplane. If you can't find one, you can use a vegetable peeler, just keep your pieces small and use a paring knife to cut away any white pith. Don't skip the zest, there is A LOT of flavor in a tablespoon of zest.
Zest can be easily sliced off a citrus fruit with a sharp knife and minced. Don't get any pith with it. Don't use a carbon steel knife on a lime (they are so sour they turn black from even a well patina'd knife).
I often bake cakes for my nieces and nephews when they visit from Japan. They both love oranges but I don’t so I tried baking a cake and just zesting it with orange after it was cooked so that i could have my own slice without any orange flavouring. It came out beautifully and the kids said it was the perfect amount of orange. They loved it!!
So, try the zest baked in and/or sprinkled on the baked cake for more orange flavor.
This answer was flagged for not directly answering the question. I took the liberty of adding a line to nudge it towards a more direct answer. Feel free to edit it again.
Next time check [answer] and please take the [tour] to learn more about the site.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.789979
| 2012-03-11T14:50:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22183",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"DustWolf",
"Fauxcuss",
"Jan Hudec",
"Jason B.",
"Jay",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lori Diane Jutras",
"Luciano",
"Mark Lakata",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"rackandboneman",
"talon8"
],
"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
}
|
20805
|
How to check whether the Olive oil is fit for consumption or not?
How to check whether the Olive oil is fit for consumption or not?
The oil is in a bottle and doesn't have any froth.
EDIT 1:
The oil is about 1 and a half years old. I kept it in a capped bottle. I didn't do anything to the oil. Haven't eaten it for quite a long time now.
Adding references to the answers will be more helpful.
Can you also include some background information? Is the reason you are asking because you've had it for a long long time. If so how long have you had it for? Or did you inadvertantly do something to the olive oil. In which case can you elaborate what happened?
@Jay Please see the edit.
Anisha, Derobert has started a community wiki question/answer in regards to shelf life here: How long can I store a food in the pantry, refrigerator, or freezer?
Another good source is stilltasty: http://stilltasty.com/fooditems/index/17801
The olive oil can be stored for 1.5-2 years. This is dependant on the temperature of where you are at and where you stored the olive oil(how much sunlight it's gotten).
However, it is relatively easy to tell if it's still good by smell. When fats go bad, they go rancid. Take a look at this source if you have trouble detecting rancidity: http://www.oliveoiltimes.com/olive-oil-basics/good-olive-oils-gone-bad/8900
Olive oil doesn't suddenly go rancid (unlike butter in which this process is pretty quick), but its taste deteriorates with time. AFAIK it happens primarily due to oxidation, not bacteria or fungi, and there are no dangerous/poisonous byproducts.
I have a bottle of olive oil which I opened about a year ago and it tastes noticeably different from fresh oil (not too pungent to throw it out though).
Mischa, thanks, but posting some references to your claims would be more helpful.
@AnishaKaul: sure: http://web.archive.org/web/20071011140518/oliveoilsource.com/olive_oil_storage.htm
You can check by smell and taste. If it smells like olive oil and tastes like olive oil, it's bound to be olive oil (and fit for consumption).
Olive oil should be kept airtight and out of the sunlight.
Where I live, (some) people bury barrels for years and enjoy the aged oil. Probably a bit like aging wine.
Where exactly do you live? What would be the benefit of "aging" oil? Nothing come to mind for me.
I live in Spain and there is absolutely no benefit in aging oil that I know of. The people that told me about it said it was a very smooth taste, though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.790833
| 2012-01-26T16:39:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20805",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"BaffledCook",
"Jay",
"John Pena",
"Mischa Arefiev",
"candied_orange",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8486",
"info surfer",
"user75204"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21447
|
How to decide the baking temperature when recipe doesn't mention it?
On what factors does the temperature setting depend?
Of course if I have to bake a stone, I would need to set the temperature at 900C perhaps :rolleyes: ;), but in normal cakes where you have a banana or an orange as an extra ingredient, how do you decide the temperature?
Example: How much temperature difference can there be in a plain cake and a banana cake?
If you bake a banana cake on 200C instead of 180C, is that going to make a difference somewhere? In which way?
@mrwienerdog Why have you edited my question?
Yeah.... Sorry about that, my mistake....I fixed it up and put that edit in its proper place.
In the US, 'pancake' refers to a round pool of batter, usually 3-4" in diameter, cooked on a griddle. Do you mean something like what we'd call a banana bread?
@Caleb Thanks, I thought griddle is a part of oven??? English problems. I meant normal cakes.
@AnishaKaul In the US, at least, a griddle is a heavy, flat metal cooking surface. Some stoves have a griddle built in, but I don't think that's very common these days except at the high end. More often, griddles fit over one or two burners on the stove. Electric griddles are also available.
Cooking temperature and time are determined by a number of factors. The idea is to get the inside of the product properly cooked before the outside dries out, becomes tough, or becomes unpleasantly dark or even burned. At the same time, you usually want the product to get nicely browned (adds flavor and looks nice) before the inside is overcooked. So it's a balance.
Factors which influence appropriate temperature and time include:
ingredients: High protein ingredients (like meat or eggs) easily become tough when overcooked. High sugar or starch recipes will tend to brown or burn more easily.
moisture level: For some products, such as popovers or many kinds of pastry, steam is an important leavening agent, and a high temperature is called for. In other products, like cookies, one of the goals of baking is to drive off excess moisture. And in still others, moisture is absorbed into the other ingredients.
shape: A fat, round loaf will usually need a longer cooking time and lower temperature than a thin, flat pizza or a long, skinny baguette because it takes longer for the center of the loaf to heat up.
pH: Changing the pH of the product will change how it browns.
leavening: Some chemical leavening, like double-acting baking powder, activates at a certain temperature.
personal preference: At the end of the day, the most important factor is whether you like the way the product turned out. If you like a crispier crust, change the temperature and/or cooking time to suit your taste.
Any baking recipe should specify the temperature and cooking time, unless perhaps it's from a book that specifies those things for a number of recipes at once. If not, find a similar recipe and use the temperature specified there, but keep a close eye on the product during the baking process. Learn how to tell when the product is done. For cakes, you usually go by color for the outside, and by temperature or using a toothpick or wooden skewer for the inside. (Briefly: poke a wooden toothpick into the center of a cake; if it comes out with wet batter, keep cooking; if it comes out clean and dry, it's probably overcooked; if it comes out with a few crumbs stuck to it, it's probably perfect.)
When determining the baking temperature, you must always consider sugar content. The crust color of any baked good from cakes to breads to biscuits is a result of the caramelization of sugars on the surface of the product. The higher the sugar content is, the lower the temperature is.
For example, when I make banana bread, I bake at 350 F (177 C); if the bananas I use are very ripe, i.e. high in sugar, I knock the temperature down.
In essence, you want to make sure that the entire product bakes through before you burn the surface.
Back with an edit:
Also, a good rule of thumb is that cakes are lower temp (high in sugar) - around 325-350 depending.
Yeast goods like lean french breads (yeast goods lower in sugar, that is) - you want at least 400, other wise you get a very ugly light crust color. A higher sugar yeast good like a cinnamon roll would bake around 370.
Again, hope this helps.
you have put the answer in my question?
Ooops..... Sorry about that... Didn't realize I had priveliges to even do that... I best be a bit more careful next time and pay more attention... Sorry.
The other answers do a great job of describing all the things that affect the proper baking time and temperature, and that can be quite useful if you're making something unusual that you don't have a recipe for. If that's the case, or if you're just generally curious and not actually dealing with such a recipe, there you are.
But in practice, if you are looking at a recipe, and you're not sure about baking time or temperature, rather than trying to deduce something, the best thing is often to just find a few similar recipes that are complete, and use the numbers from them. And while it could just be an oversight, you might want to be wary in the first place about recipes which leave out such a key thing - maybe one of the other recipes you find will be better.
Stick it at 180 and see how it goes, equations and set recipes don't really work when you're doing the rest of your cooking by eye.
For cakes i found 180 c to be a bit high, when not following any recipe i normally use 170 c due to the high sugar content in the cake mixture.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.791073
| 2012-02-17T09:55:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21447",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Caleb",
"Jan Mares",
"KevinIsNowOnline",
"Mathew Harrington",
"Mega",
"Melodi",
"Santropedro",
"ali mohsseni",
"antony",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"mrwienerdog",
"scalefree",
"schatz",
"vivek",
"zahbaz"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35492
|
What kind of Creme or Mousse is the most robust? How can I strengthen a mousse?
I want to make a multi layer cake where one of the top layers consists of some kind of mousse. I haven't decided on what kind of mousse/creme yet because I have to transport the cake once it's done and I am afraid that the mousse will collapse.
What kind of mousse/creme is the most robust? How can I support a mousse without changing it's texture too much (I don't want it to become a jelly)?
Use your favourite mousse and freeze the cake before transport. That's how the bakeries do it.
Thanks for your comment, together with some info from SAJ14SAJ's answer I was able to produce a mousse cake that got to it's destination without any damage.
There are several major types of mousse, made from different bases, and with different flavor elements.
Depending on which one you are using, they may have varying requirements. As MandoMando mentions in the comments, assuming you are using a mousse based on whipped cream or whipped egg whites or a freezer-stable thickener (neither gelatin, agar agar, nor carageenan are freeze-stable), you can simply freeze the cake for transport. This tends to work very well, although you may have issues with condensation when thawing it, so you want it very well wrapped (usually after freezing, so as not to muss the icing).
Chocolate mousses are often fairly stable due to the cocoa butter, which is solid at room temperature; some can also be gelatin stablized. See the linked recipe in
Chocolate mousse - methods to have firm foamy mousse using white egg and cream
for inspiration, where the confection is built with two layers of mousse, one which is stablized with gelatin.
Many fruit mousses tend to be made with gelatin, so increasing the quantity of gelatin will give you a stronger mousse.
See also:
Hydro-colloid primer for perhaps more information on hydro-colloids than you ever wished to know.
Thank you for your answer, the links really helped me. I also froze the cake over night and was able to transport it without any problems.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.791536
| 2013-07-22T17:51:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35492",
"authors": [
"Alan Giles",
"Bax",
"Clake",
"John Doe",
"Karen Sanders",
"MandoMando",
"Selim",
"Sven",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83379"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25126
|
Are Garlic cloves supposed to be put as whole or as chopped up pieces in a soup?
Once I was making soup with a friend and the recipe called for a few cloves of garlic. She was ready to throw the garlic cloves into the soup whole without chopping them up first. I would've thought that it would make more sense to chop it up first and she had never heard of doing that.
Does anyone ever cook with whole garlic cloves? My friend's parents are from Spain so perhaps in other countries this is a common way to include garlic in a recipe.
How long was the soup cooked for?
Not very long. Maybe 20 minutes.
There are certainly some Spanish recipes in which the garlic is included in whole, unpeeled cloves.
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/367/how-does-the-way-that-i-cut-my-garlic-affect-the-taste-of-my-food
From my experience and what I've seen, garlic cloves are often applied to soup in un-chopped glove.
Overtime, the boiling will release the garlic's sweet to the soup without melting itself into the liquid or dissolving into tidbits that attached to the ingredients.
I have also seen people pan fry the garlic gloves to golden brown before dumping them into the water. I believe the purpose is to harden the outside of the garlic while getting more exotic flavor out of it.
Otherwise, I would chop/dice/smash garlic for dips and frying.
Interesting! I should give her the benefit of the doubt, but I think my friend was not aware of the benefits of dropping it in whole. When I handed her a knife, she seemed confused, as if clearly had never chopped garlic before, so perhaps she was adding it to other dishes in whole form as well. Or the more likely scenario: she doesn't cook much ever!
But anyway, I will try adding whole garlic to soups and see how I like it!
The less you chop a garlic clove, the less intense the flavour is. Whole garlic cloves are often used in Mediterranean cooking to introduce just a subtle hint of garlic flavour. Placing one in some warm oil for a few minutes is a good way of flavouring it, for example. There are French recipes too: Chicken with 40 cloves of garlic for example.
Garlic is best added at the time of frying chopped onions and before ginger paste in indian cooking.
The confidential handed down method is by crushing it with the flat of the knife and immediately putting in the hot oil of the seasoning. Wiping off the knife by cutting an onion (to be used in the recipe) transfers the flavour to the onion and the bouquet is mmmm!
As to the number of cloves, it can be as per the given recipe, modified as per your preferred pungency level.
The release of the flavour and zing by crushing is more subtle and permeating. In chopping and paste it is diminished.
I trust that you will catch the difference in your tastebuds and olfactory system.
Leaving them whole will keep them sweeter.
With garlic, the more you break down the cell walls (cut, grind, etc.) the more the spicy/sharp/hot taste will come out.
So, in general, if you want the sweet garlic taste, cut it as little as possible, if you want the spicy garlic taste, then chop or mince it.
For adding to soup, I generally just mash it a bit with the side of my knife to crack it a bit, and toss it in.
Total aside, but one of my favorite foods is a head of garlic, peeled, and baked in a small dish with olive oil, salt, and pepper - it's really sweet and goes wonderfully with some butter and french bread.
But when you cook it thoroughly, like in a soup, there's not going to be much spicy fresh garlic flavor left.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.791746
| 2012-07-19T03:15:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25126",
"authors": [
"Brazen Spirituality",
"Cascabel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Greenfit Online",
"Joe",
"Josie",
"Mark",
"Maryann",
"Peter Taylor",
"WinEunuuchs2Unix",
"alsn",
"carmenism",
"ellefolk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70041",
"pavan kumar chaitanya",
"user57680"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20470
|
What is a Chutney?
Chutney is foreign to my culture and the food i grew up with. Thus, the lack of sophistication and familiarity with chutney. So please forgive my misunderstanding. I often hear the buzzword on food cooking shows.
I'm curious as to what are the technical requirements of a chutney. What is and what isn't chutney? Also (correct me if i'm wrong), what is chutney and why is it often paired with other foods?
Related : (US official distinction) http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/3027/67 ; although as Jefromi points out, chutney can be more sauce-like than jam-like as well.
Basically, a chutney is a kind of savoury jam. This is a very simplistic definition though.
The main differences between jam and chutney are as follows:
The preservation in jam is only by sugar. In chutney, vinegar and sugar are used together, so chutneys are not necessarily sweet.
Jam is almost always made with fruit as the main ingredient. In chutney,fruit can be used, but so can vegetables. Also, chutneys tend to be a mix of more than one thing. For example, an apple chutney will have plenty of apples, but also swede and onion in it.
Jams usually do not add other flavours to the fruit and sugar (pectin is for texture). Chutneys are usually flavoured with several spices, as well as chili peppers, onions and garlic.
In the Indian subcontinent, chutneys are served along with the meal in small amounts, as a condiment to add to the meal. They are usually eaten with the blander side/starter dishes like pakoras or samosas, rather than with the spicy and flavourful main dishes.
In the rest of the former British Empire, and particularly in England, it is eaten on bread, with butter or cheese, in a similar way to jam or pickle. Note that what the English call pickle is also a sort of savoury jam, not pickled cucumbers like in America.
I've definitely had chutneys that were nothing like a jam, savory or not. Green (hari) chutney for instance is a thin liquid, more like an Argentine chimichurri or Italian salsa verde. It isn't cooked at all. There's also yogurt chutney, which is just spiced yogurt.
@AdamJaskiewicz: I tend to agree: a definition in terms of differences from jam is incomplete, and not the most helpful. (It tends to bias you toward the Westernized ones.)
Chutney is a fairly generic term, so your confusion isn't too surprising - the definition may also vary from region to region, and it's a loanword. It's generally defined as a condiment consisting of some combination of vegetables, fruits, herbs, and/or spices. (So by definition, it's intended to be paired with other foods.) This means they're usually fairly flavorful, so that a smaller quantity can complement something.They could be chunky, finely chopped, or smooth; they often have enough liquids to be wet (no air in them), but are sometimes dry; in English at least they can be either fresh or pickled.
Since the word and food come from South Asian cuisine (particularly in what's now India), the term is most commonly applied to condiments referred to as chutneys there, or ones which are somehow similar to those. Since the word has been adopted into English, I'm sure there's starting to be some drift in the meaning; if you hear it used on a contemporary American cooking show, you probably can't count on much more than it being some sort of flavorful condiment, possibly Indian-inspired but possibly not.
chutney is an indian cuisine where it consists of spices and other condiments such as vegetables or fruits.
Chutneys may be either wet or dry, and they can have a coarse to a fine texture. It is similar to be eaten instead of pickle.
chutneys were ground with a mortar and pestle made of stone . Nowadays, electric blenders or food processors can be used as labor saving alternatives to the traditional stone utensils. Various spices are added and ground, usually in a particular order; the wet paste thus made is sauteed in vegetable oil, usually gingely or peanut (groundnut) oil.
Chutney is a blend of ...things, with quite a sharp taste. It can be sweet(tamarind) or savory(chilly), cooked(mango) or uncooked(chilly). Generally its a mash of spices and herbs (common ingredients being green mint, green/dry coriander, red/green chillies, garlic). Sometimes thin yogurt may be added.
Some chutneys can be cooked, like chutney made of tomatoes(savory), or raw mangoes(sweet).
In my experience, it's pretty broad. They're condiments served with Indian or other South Asian cuisine. Usually served on the side to be added to taste, rather than sauces that are served over food. Most that I have had are sweet, spicy, and/or tart, and can range from thick pastes to fairly thin sauces. There's many many different kinds of chutney from various areas of the Indian subcontinent, as well as Anglicized chutneys such as Major Grey's which tend to be quite sweet.
I grew up in India. There can be some variations invented outside India. But in Indian context,Chutneys are far different than jam.
They are used as a side dish complimenting the main course. And usually had in small amount , served on the (left) side of the dish.
They are almost always spicy. Chilli or chilli powder is one of the main ingredient in chutneys. Adding sugar is optional and amount is very little if added. We usually do not use vinegar too.
Chutneys can come in different flavours, made using cilantro/mint/lentils/tomatoes/sometimes some fruits etc.
Chutneys can be wet or dry.Wet chutneys can be seen as close to Salsa/dip.
There is another dish that can be on sour/sweet side made using fruits but we do not call it chutney.
@AdamJaskiewicz is right.
(I could not add it as a comment due to lack of reputation.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.792098
| 2012-01-16T02:33:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20470",
"authors": [
"Abe",
"Adam Jaskiewicz",
"Ann Addicks",
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"Lenore",
"baker9001",
"druiz",
"floursugareggsandbutter",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70472"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30494
|
What features should I look for when buying an espresso maker?
I got a $30 espresso machine a year and half ago to see if we would actually use it much. It gets used several times a week (and we haven't bought anything from Starbucks in months), and the gasket in it's cap is leaking, so we're looking to buy a replacement.
The price range is truly impressive, and I have no real understanding of what the difference between a $30 machine and a $500 machine. What are the features that I should look for that make one machine better than another?
The differences can be many, especially once you get away from department store machines (Breville, etc.). They generally use inexpensive pumps and heating systems, and a pressurized portafilter to simulate crema. I don't have time for a full answer at the moment, but check out CoffeeGeek's forums for more information than you can shake a coffee bean at.
At $30 I assume you are talking about a stove top espresso maker. $500 probably gets you something like a Gaggia Classic that has a pressurised basket to simulate crema. At that level, I guess the difference is convenience. We used to have a fancy Gaggia at work and frankly I would prefer a stove top.
It is the imusa counter-top plugin. Works real well for what I paid for it.
It's likely the overpressure valve in the cap that's doing the leaking. You can usually take the cap apart to get to it and clean with a brush and some citric acid. That'll extend the life of your unit another year or two. Likely the cap comes with the usual "no user serviceable parts" warning for litigious people.
An espresso machine usually needs to push water at somewhere between 8 and 15 bar pressure, which is quite a lot. And since it is the high-pressure components that are key to how they work, it is the quality and durability of these that tends to set the price point.
The quality of the pump varies from a device intended to be used for two or three cups once a week, all the way to professional machines designed to produce thousand of cups a day, month after month. This is why domestic machines are usually quite clear that they are for domestic use only: they simply cannot cope with the duty cycle of any more than that. Many domestic espresso machines will turn themselves off if they are used to make too many cups in one session - quite simply, they overheat.
It sounds like one you bought is one intended for occasional use. My advice is to visit a couple of retailers that have staff dedicated to selling espresso machines. They will, of course, try to sell you "their" brand, but they will also recognise when someone needs a domestic unit designed for daily use as opposed to one just for special occasions.
As a bonus, you generally get what you pay for with espresso machines. The more expensive domestic ones usually really do last much longer.
You can find some more information on presure in this question.
There is no right answer for this.
the 2 main things I'd look for:
15 PSI or more
a way to adjust and keep temperature as constant as possible
My current machine does well on the first point, terrible on the second.
This is only tiny part of the answer to good espresso though. Beans, freshness, and a good grinder may take you further for your money.
Disagree with the 15 PSI. It's often used more as a technical term to show off the machine's capabilities. The official standard is 9 PSI, too high will change the flavor. Link: http://coffeegeek.com/guides/howtobuyanespressomachine/semiautomachines
The difference is not just about the espresso shot but also the milk-steaming ability. To get sweet, velvety milk is a real challenge on a cheaper machine with a plastic frother (you can usually get better results by just taking it off and using the naked pipe).
If you're prepared to go on a journey of discovery, a Gaggia Classic is a good place to start. You can get them online for about $300. This is about the cheapest machine that offers the flexibility to make great espresso. You can swap out the steam arm for a metal one, switch to a plain, unpressurised basket and adjust the pressure (with a few tools).
Anything cheaper than this is too limiting (if you're interested in honing your skills). Pressurised baskets will never allow you to get the full richness out of your beans, and render the arts of grind and tamp redundant. Plastic milk frothers will never be able to create perfect microfoam (and keeping them free of rancid milk gunk is a pain).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.792634
| 2013-01-28T20:34:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30494",
"authors": [
"BostonJohn",
"Chris H.",
"Clepsyd",
"Connor Theriault",
"Efua Taylor",
"J.A.I.L.",
"JoeFish",
"KC Baltz",
"Megasaur",
"Muz",
"SanSolo",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8522",
"little tiny man",
"user P520"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30034
|
What is sour cream called in Hindi?
I need to know it so that I can purchase it from the market. What is sour cream called in Hindi?
Wasn't this offtopic? Huh!! http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15871/what-is-the-english-name-for-chitra-rajmah
Khatti malai or khatti makkani.
Could you include your source, Spicy? Others including myself would love to have that resource. Thanks! :-)
@KristinaLopez What source? Perhaps I speak Hindi - थोडा़ खट्टा मक्खन ;-)
Well, that's a possibility, of course, but my version of Google does not find the word "makkani". Did you mean "makhani" and if so, does that mean "khatti makhani", or sour butter is the same substance as sour cream?
@KristinaLopez Makkani, Makhani can also mean cream.
@KristinaLopez You need to remember than the English versions of Sanskrit words are phonetic and therefore spellings can and will vary considerably.
Makkhan is butter. Malai is cream. @KristinaLopez
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.793025
| 2013-01-13T11:22:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30034",
"authors": [
"A Johnson",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Lorie Slater",
"Mike A.",
"VMP",
"aquari",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70063",
"spiceyokooko"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24001
|
Is it normal for the Chickpeas to develop white froth after being soaked for 12 hours?
Yesterday at 08:00 I had soaked white Chickpeas in water and left the container in the kitchen. Daytime temperature here is 44C.
At 20:00 the same day I saw the container covered by white froth. Is it normal for the Chickpeas to develop white froth or was it caused by the heat?
Not sure if that's edible.
44 centigrade is about 111 Fahrenheit. (Posting this for reference, so that not every single Fahrenheit user has to look it up (or compute it).)
44 degrees and it is only spring? Bloody hell!
@Doug The month is May and it is NOT spring, it is "summer". The News Weather Forecast says that in June the temperature may get to 50C. That's BTW not the problem, the problem is that average people here do not have AC at home. One Cooler for the whole family - that too if the family is a middle class one.
50C? Sounds like you'll be cooking even when you aren't.
Yes, it is normal for pulses to develop froth when soaked. I've seen it at lower temperatures and shorter soaking times. They can feel slimy too. This isn't a sign of bacteria development in itself. Chickpeas, as well as other legumes, contain lots of saponins. Saponins are a type of detergent, and they form a foam when dissolved in water. An example is found in Saponin content of food plants and some prepared foods by D. Fenwick and D. Oakenfull, published in Journal of the science of food and agriculture, vol. 34-2 (no free version available). Chickpeas, soy, lucerne, and other legumes all had significant amounts of saponin, 56 g/kg in the case of chickpeas.
Note that soaking dissolves also lots of other molecules contained in the beans. Some recommend to soak and throw out the soaking water in order to remove the oligosaccharides contained in most legumes, because bacteria breaking down these indigestible sugars produce gases as a side product, which is felt as bloating. McGee reminds us that this soaking also dissolves many of the micronutrients contained in the beans, and advises against the practice. If the beans are soaked (for shortened cooking times), the soaked water should be used for cooking. If the eaters experience bloating, the beans should be cooked for a longer time, to give oligosaccharides time to break down under temperature.
This is in the general case, but now a note on your current situation.
The conditions of your chickpea soaking were risky. Your chickpeas can have developed bacteria independently of the froth. In temperate regions, soakers aren't a problem, because bacteria growth in them is not especially quick (the 2 hours rule is short enough to cover things like meat, and a soaker doesn't even have enough hydrated bacteria food initially). But I have noticed that food I would have had no problem with at 22°C goes bad in short time at 28°C. The relationship between bacteria growth and temperature is not linear, and with growing heat, bacteria growth can speed up a lot. So I don't know if I would eat the peas - not because of the froth, but because of the conditions you had them in. I would recommend that you soak in the fridge next time - you don't need any fermentation to take place, so the low temperatures aren't a problem.
Thanks for the confirmation, rumtscho. I thought the coldness of fridge may not allow the beans to get tender, that's why kept them out side? Besides, "I think it is caused by the oligosaccharides slowly dissolving in water " Is this good for health or harmful?
@AnishaKaul depends on your definition of "good for health". If you want to remove the oligosaccharides (because you get bloated), it is good that they get washed out of the chickpeas. But they are not harmful. As for tender, it is the length of soaking which helps, not the temperature. You need a minimal temperature while cooking of course, but you always reach it at a simmer. (Soaking is good for letting the water penetrate into the bean, cooking then gelatinizes starches and explodes cellulose cell walls - they work differently).
+1 I knew that chickpeas could froth, but oligosaccharides? @rumtscho you are a cornucopia of food knowledge!
@rumtscho Could you do some digging to see if you can find where you read about the oligosaccharides? My Google searches aren't turning up anything definitive, but I've often wondered what the froth and slime are a result of, too. I'd love to read more about this, but can't find anything more detailed about the content of your first paragraph.
@Laura good that you urged me to check, I was wrong. Oligosaccharides can feel a bit slimy, but they don't foam. Turns out that it was saponins - another class of chemicals which is rare in edible plants, but abundant in legumes. I updated the answer.
Fabulous answer.
I always soak in the fridge; among other things it means no particular stress if they stay in there for a much longer time than the "minimum" needed, so it's easy to have some "ready to go."
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.793158
| 2012-05-25T08:50:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24001",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Doug",
"Ecnerwal",
"Hari Das",
"Laura",
"Neil Meyer",
"RobC",
"Yazan",
"daramarak",
"ellisbben",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808",
"kupgov",
"msh210",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"user3537517"
],
"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
}
|
64782
|
How many black tea leaves are required per 125 ml of milk + 25 ml of water?
I use one table spoon of Tata Tea Gold leaves per 125 ml of milk + 25 ml of water.
I boil the mixture of milk and water first. Turn the gas off, put the tea in and stir it, and then I place a lid on the vessel for 6 minutes.
After 6 minutes I stir again, and drink.
Now if I turn to all full leaves black tea, how many leaves will I require with the method above to achieve the same effect?
It says "loose leaves" not "whole leaves" - are you sure you will get "countable" leaves?
@Stephie I thought they mean same! What does loose leaves mean?
@Stephie have changed the link.
Do you really mean to be asking about how many leaves (as in counting the leaves) rather than just a volume?
Loose leaves will be "coarser" than "broken" teas and usually look "rolled up" or "curled".
I'd start with a bit more (e.g. a heaping teaspoon loose leaf vs. a scant level teaspoon of broken) and see how it turns out. Many sources sugest meassuring tea by weight, thus eliminating the variance due to different "packing" of coarser or finer tea.
The reason why I suggest experimenting is that broken tea vs. whole leaves will have a different flavour profile (even for "the same" tea) due to the loss of aromatic oils and higher extraction of tannins in broken tea.
Wikipedia has an extensive list of tea grades and leaf sizes.
And this website gives volumetric equivalents for the same weight - One heaping tablespoon loose leaf tea as roughly one teaspoon broken tea and a scant teaspoon gunpowder (tightly rolled balls).
what does whole leaf look like then?
Whole leaves will be these little "rolls", I had just assumed you wanted to count them - which is pretty uncommon. Perhaps I misread your question.
You said: It says "loose leaves" not "whole leaves" - are you sure you will get "countable" leaves? and then Loose leaves will be "coarser" than "broken" teas and usually look "rolled up" or "curled". That's why I am asking the difference between loose and whole leaves.
Typical naming mixup - the "standard term is "loose leaves", "whole leaves" is rarely used. They are the same.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.793565
| 2015-12-25T08:11:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64782",
"authors": [
"Andreea Sonia Velicu",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Bear11",
"Cascabel",
"David Goldsack",
"Deva Sinklier",
"Donna Coon",
"NM Wilson",
"Stephie",
"conor walker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88146
|
Is weak coffee more likely to be bitter?
https://somedayilllearn.com/how-to-make-black-coffee/
Go big or go home. I typically use 2 tablespoons per cup. Weak coffee is more likely to be bitter.
Is there some truth here? Why would weak coffee be more bitter?
There's a coffee.stackexchange.com where you might get more thorough answers but I'll give you my take below.
The link for that sister site: https://coffee.stackexchange.com/
It's not so much that weak coffee is bitter, as that over-extracted coffee is bitter. If you want it strong but don't use enough ground coffee, you can get more flavour by leaving the water on the grounds for longer. But then the bitter flavours come out. The opposite is espresso; a decent espresso is of course strong but not at all bitter and extraction is quick.
Another factor may be that some of the bitter compounds come out early but are masked or made acceptable by the other flavours
Water temperature also plays a role in which components of the flavour are extracted, but I assume that's fixed.
Is the same logic applied to instant coffee as well?
With instant coffee the extraction process has already happened in a factory so it's different. You may still find the flavour changes with concentration, but that's not about extraction ratios. There's nothing you can do to stop instant tasting bad, though you may prefer a different brand as some are less bitter than others.
Is weak in the sense that your dosage is weak, too little coffee grounds + lots of water = over extracted bitterness.
There should be a ratio of grounds to water of 1:15-18
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.793759
| 2018-03-05T05:55:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88146",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Basil Bourque",
"Chris H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35956
|
How can I store leftover puff pastry or make it more durable?
I am going to be attempting a recipe for tarts which use shop-bought puff pastry. I am fairly new to baking and this will be the first time I am using puff pastry. I am unsure what I can do with the remainder of the puff pastry once I have cut the circles that I need.
Can I just squash the piece together and stick it in the fridge for another time? Should I just bake them along with the tarts to use them up? Will they need to be thrown away?
My concern is the butter in the pastry and the fact that it will have warmed up by my rolling and handling and what impact that will have on subsequent use.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! The way your question was titled it sounded like you are asking what recipes are available for puff pastry. We generally close this type of question, unless they fulfill some very specific criteria (and yours wouldn't, because puff pastry is a common ingredient). I hope that the new wording still helps you, as it is consistent with the body of the question.
@rumtscho Thanks for the edit. I knew that recipe questions were off topic but hadn't noticed that my title was a little ambiguous. It's much better now.
No, you probably don't want to just squish leftover puff pastry dough together to save it. While it would be perfectly safe, it would ruin the layering that gives the rise and flakiness that is the reason for using puff pastry.
If you have a large enough section still intact, you could put in the refrigerator for a day or two, to use later.
Otherwise, a typical thing to do would be to prepare sweet or savory snacks with the surplus pieces. Cut it into convenient shapes. If you have large enough pieces, sticks would be good, even twisting them to give them an interesting texture.
Then, brush the pieces with butter (or oil), and sprinkle with cinnamon and sugar; or grated Parmesan cheese; or rosemary and salt; or some other complimentary flavor.
Bake the pieces up until they are puffed and golden brown and they are very nice snacks or treats.
Great suggestion. I ended up making a load of randomly shaped sweet and savoury bits. I'm glad it didn't go to waste and I also learned how to make another thing.
Glad it was a good outcome for you...
If you want to try to merge bits of layered dough to make large enough to use for something other than small bits, you should try to maintain the directions of the layers.
It won't be quite the same quality, but you can place bits edges together in two layers (top layer to cover any gaps in the bottom layer, then roll it out.
as long as you stack the layers and don't ball them up, the strata of flour and butter won't be compromised. it will still puff. you can roll out the irregular pieces and cut them into strips for cheese or cinnamon sticks. or make irregular palm leaves, sprinkled liberally with sugar.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.793915
| 2013-08-12T09:30:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35956",
"authors": [
"Ann Aldrich",
"Burhan Ali",
"Carl Jones",
"Caz",
"Ganesh Venkataraman",
"Rob Simmons",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sanmit Haibati",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84323",
"rumtscho",
"snoCook"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35520
|
What can a half-ripe jackfruit be used for?
We got a (fresh) jackfruit that was not so ripe... somewhat bland, not very tender and not enjoyable.
My question is: What should I cook with it?
I cooked it like I would a green jackfruit, but since it is somewhat ripe I figure I should treat it differently? I've cooked with canned green jackfruit before, but never as in this situation. I was planning a curry for the boiled seeds. I have no idea what to do with this boiled, half-ripe fruit!
I rolled back the tag culinary-uses, because it does apply. In fact, there is some discussion on this site about whether to allow questions such as this one, and the culinary uses of uncommon ingredients is one of the exceptions under which they are allowed. See also http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1610/what-is-the-current-practice-on-how-to-use-or-what-do-with-questions.
Ingredients being "uncommon" depends on where you are from. In some areas, jackfruit is common. Also, it is not normally discarded nor used in non-culinary applications.
I am aware that jackfruit is not rare in certain cuisines. This is why I considered closing your question, as being outside of our culinary-uses guidelines. But you specified that it is half-ripe, and not suited to either the usual recipes for ripe ones, nor for the usual recipes for canned green ones. This is why I left it open under culinary uses.
You can make chips and halwa from half-ripe/ripe jack fruit,its famous snack in Indian states
Even though the process of making chips is time consuming,the taste is explainable First step is to open the raw fruit then chop off the middle stem and pull out the the jack fruit ,then deseed it and slice into thin slices
Ingredients for chips.
Jack fruit- 1 medium size
Oil- 1kg
Salt-to taste
Method of preparation
· Remove fleshy part of Jack fruit from the seeds and slice them into long strips.
· Deep fry in oil.
· Sprinkle some salt water in the oil
· Deep fry till it turns yellow and crisp
· When the chips are done keep the fried chips In an air tight container
For jackfruit halwa :
Ingredients for Halwa
Half Ripe jack fruit- 1 medium size
Jaggery-1 kg
Ghee-1 cup
Cardamom powder-1 tbs
Dried ginger powder-1 tsp
Sugar-2 tbs(for sprinkling on the top when Halwa is done.)
Method of preparation.
· Clean and deseed the jack fruit.
· Grind them coarsely using a mixer grinder
· Heat jaggery along with 1/2 cup water to form a syrup.Strain the syrup for impurities and keep aside
· Heat a thick bottomed vessel(usually uruli, but anything would do) add ¼ cup ghee, and the jack fruit paste along with the jaggery syrup and cook on medium heat , stirring continuously. Do not increase the heat,to prevent it from sticking to the vessel. Add 1 tsp of ghee,whenever it starts to stick probably in every 15 minutes. …(Use a long handled ladle with a flat end so that our hands will be safe from the hot splutters, when the pulp boils and bubbles over ). Continue the process,until it turns dark brown colored and starts to come from the edges ,Add cardamom powder and dry ginger powder and stir for some more time to get thick and tight Halwa.
Transfer the Halwa into a plate and mark with a knife to our desired shape. Sprinkle sugar over it and Allow it to cool naturally
After cooling take out the Halwa and keep it in an airtight container.
Cook Time
Prep time: 30 min
Cook time: 1 hour 30 min
Ready in: 2 hours
Yields: 2kg
Hope it helps.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.794187
| 2013-07-24T03:41:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35520",
"authors": [
"5space",
"Dang Luong",
"GracedDaddy",
"John Burke",
"Michael Campbell",
"STELLA",
"Tracie stevenson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84043",
"rizwan khalil",
"rumtscho",
"we.mamat"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35913
|
Is Russian Kale suitable for freezing?
I have a lot of Russian kale and would like to know if there is a way to keep around for a couple of months?
As described at Pick Your Own, you can freeze kale like any green. The technique is fairly similar to many vegetables:
Clean the greens, and remove the toughest parts of the stemps.
Blanche briefly in boiling water, then shock in an ice water bath to halt the cooking
Drain and dry.
Freeze, perhaps in a zip-type freezer bag.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.794602
| 2013-08-10T18:11:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35913",
"authors": [
"Aisha",
"Entryton",
"WOJIN valve",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84313",
"mainelady",
"or1426"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35505
|
What to do with leftover whey from vinegar-based cheese preparation
Whey is a valuable protein-rich by-product of cheese preparation. There are many advises for using whey came out of cheese preparation by culture. However, the whey produced after cheese preparation with vinegar (without culture) should be different.
Ricotta is prepared by boiling the leftover whey, but in my experience, the cheese prepared using vinegar is similar to Ricotta, and the remaining whey has no more cheese. Thus, I think this whey is different from normal whey referred over the internet.
Due to the presence of lots of vinegar, it should be more acidic and stronger sour taste.
For these reasons, I believe that common usage introduced for whey is not directly applicable to the whey remained from vinegar-based cheese process.
What are the suitable usage for this highly acidic (and probably cheese-free) whey?
I have used stuff like this in soups, sauces and dressings, where I would otherwise add some vinegar. It added some additional richness. You could try searching for what to do with paneer whey (I know that it is used a lot in India) - most of the time it's lemony instead of vinegary, but could still give you some good ideas.
@MartinTurjak thanks for good keyword suggestion!
I know a few people who consume whey for health benefits. They just chug it as-is. I like yoghurt whey myself, and I guess that cheese whey can taste well too.
@rumtscho to me the taste of cheese whey is quite different from yogurt whey.
The use of vinegar in the cheese production is irrelevant. Cheese made with the acid from vinegar or cheese made with the acid from a bacterial culture should be similar.
The difference is in how high the milk was heated when the cheese was made. The albumin in milk denatures and precipitates at about boiling temperatures. If the milk was boiled before the acid was added then you are correct that there will be no ricotta.
Many quick cheeses, such as fast mozzarella, call for the milk to be warm but not boiling. You can make ricotta from that whey regardless whether the milk was acidified with bacteria or any other acid.
As for spent whey- it is very high in acid and vitamin B. You can use it in bread in place of water.
I had read of Scandinavian desserts made from condensing whey. I tried that once and found it inedible.
Roses like acidic soil. That's where most of my spent whey goes.
Actually the use of vinegar in cheese making is totally relevant. Vinegar based cheeses are referred to as heat/acid precipitated cheeses. The main difference is that the lactose has not been consumed during the fermentation process that cheeses made from bacteria cultures and rennet goes through, leaving the lactose in the whey available as a food source for fermentation of either bacteria or yeasts.
This doesn't really answer the question, though, which was "what can be done with this whey?"
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.794698
| 2013-07-23T09:46:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35505",
"authors": [
"Alex Griffith",
"Brandon",
"Daniel G.",
"Diego Garcia",
"Googlebot",
"Martin Turjak",
"Milk Man",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9300",
"mygrandmafoods",
"pkamb",
"rumtscho",
"user83023"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37424
|
What ingredient, besides beans, creates a complete protein together with rice?
I want a cheap option for complete proteins, which includes rice. But I do not like beans.
Which other ingredients can I combine with rice in order to get a complete protein? I do eat meat, but I am looking for cheaper solutions.
Meat is a complete protein on its own. The issues with 'complete proteins' tend to be for vegetarians who aren't eating meat.
Dear Steve, your question, as it was, did not fit our site well (as evidenced by a downvote, a flag, and two close votes). Instead of closing it, I decided to rewrite it, creating a version which we can answer. I am aware that it is very different from your original intent. But: we do not do dish or recipe suggestions, so I had to remove this requirement. Also, "tasty" is subjective, which is another close reason. I hope that the information you can get from the new version is better for you than a complete removal of the question.
@rumtscho I tried answering, but it still came out as a nutrition answer... if it isn't that, its just a recipe request with a rather odd criterion. I am not sure this one can be made on topic.
@SAJ14SAJ Your current answer is indeed a consensus-dependent nutritional answer, which is relevant to the OP's problem, but it is not an answer to the question as written. You can say "lentils" and leave it at that, or don't give an answer at all.
How about rice-and-whatever-you-want, and have a glass of milk? Or a fried-rice approach featuring an egg, and then you can include randomly whatever else you want.
Rice tends to be high in the sulfur-containing amino acids, cysteine and methionine, but low in lysine. So want you need to complement the rice are foods high in lysine. Remember that the average adult male only needs about 3g of lysine daily which is easily provided by 3-4oz (90-120g) of meat, eggs, dairy, or soy protein (tofu, tempeh, lufu, miso, etc). Since you do eat meat, all you need to do to save money and still get a complete protein is to eat less. If you need more bulk in your meals, include a variety of vegetables, or a salad topped with nuts or seeds.
People who eat meat and other animal products to meet their recommended protein intake don't need to worry about not getting enough of any individual amino acid. Even vegetarians usually don't have a problem with this as long as they eat a variety of different plant-based protein sources, since beans with grains, beans with nuts or seeds and grains with nuts or seeds are all combinations that provide enough of all of the essential amino acids.
Also, it is not necessary to take in the full complement of essential amino acids in one sitting, as long as you eat at least the minimum required amounts over a 24 hour period.
There's a middle-eastern dish called Mejadra, which at its simplest is basically rice and lentils with some fried onions and seasoning.
You'll find plenty of recipes for it online.
Rice and lentils? Really? That's the one combo I tried to avoid after reading the question.
@Jolenealaska : but we were never told why he didn't like beans. If it's a texture thing, lentils might be okay.
One of my favorites. Caramelize plenty of onions, add to boiled lentils and rice (boil separately), season with salt and cumin, and serve with sour cream.
How about Dirty Rice? Google it for a lot of good recipes. Meat, veggies and starch in a one pot meal. Liver (yuck) is optional, keep looking if you don't like it either.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.794956
| 2013-10-08T08:12:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37424",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kaloyan Pashov",
"Kate Gregory",
"Marlene",
"Ray",
"Robin Pack",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"anita sunderman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/88007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/88008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/88009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/88018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/88019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/88021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/88022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/88057",
"prosody-Gabe Vereable Context",
"rumtscho",
"totalynotanoob",
"tponthieux",
"wizard003"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32171
|
pre-soaking tea in cold water prior to brewing
My friend recently gave me the advice that tea bag should be soaked in a little bit (barely enough to submerge the tea bag) of cold water for a couple of minutes. Then hot water should be added to the cold to brew it.
The idea is that scalding hot water is hot enough to burn flavour compounds and pre-soaking protects against this.
I tried googling to no avail. Does anyone have any references that prove/dis-prove this?
You should do a test.
Hah! Of course I have! I get a more woody tea-y taste, although I'm not sure if it's all in my head.
I've also heard of reducing the caffeine in tea by letting it steep for a few seconds, pouring it out, then brewing your tea (as the caffeine is more soluble than most of the flavor compounds)
Anyway, I just use the microwave. Microwaves should be more effective in jolting the flavours and compounds out of their hiding. Don't worry, they won't turn radioactive, nor would their chenical structure be conspiratorially affected by such microwaves.
@BlessedGeek re: "Scalding" You win at interneting for now. We shall meet again!
@event_jr Do you test "blinded" (or even better, double-blinded). That is the person doing the tasting shouldn't know which of the two cups contains the pre-soaked tea. Double blinded would mean that the person who presents the cups & takes the answers wouldn't know, either. Repeat enough times, and that way you can be sure if the effect is really there.
I don't think the couple minutes of soaking is actually doing anything; it'll pull a bit of stuff out of the leaves, and get them wet, but what really matters is the hot water. It sounds like this is a way of getting lower temperature water, similar to your proposed "protect the tea from hot water" explanation. This is indeed good for green and white tea, and maybe oolong, but essentially unnecessary for most other teas.
You don't actually always want boiling water for tea. Joe provided this table of temperatures in his comment. Some temperatures for common types of tea, in decreasing order of temperature: maté, rooibos or herbal (208F / 98C); black (195-205F / 91-96C); oolong (195F / 91C); blooming (180F / 82C); white or green (175F / 80C). So for some teas (black, maté, rooibos, herbal), it's pretty close to boiling - by the time the water's poured in, and transfers some heat to the cup, it'll be a few degrees below boiling, so you don't need to worry about it much.
But other kinds of tea (green or white tea), you ideally want to add somewhat lower temperature water. If you have a way to get water somewhere around 80C - for example, some electric kettles can automatically turn off at a lower temperature - then just do that. But if it's easiest to make boiling water, then if you fill your cup a bit less than 1/4 of the way with water at room temperature (20C) then fill it the rest of the way with boiling water, the result will be around 80C, just right for green tea!
Brewing tea is pretty simple, just steep the tea in hot water for a few minutes. But you can still learn some important basic information beforehand. What temperature to brew at and whether you should choose loose tea or tea in bags are two very important things to know about. Here is the link http://coffeetea.about.com/od/teabrewing/a/teatemp.htm As it varies with the type of tea.
I suggest you to use loose tea instead tea bags, i have experienced both and realized that loose tea has delightful flavor and fragrance of tea. There are some excellent bagged teas out there, made up of whole tea leaves.Here i refer you a link what is the reason behind it. http://coffeetea.about.com/od/teabrewing/a/looseorbag.htm
Here's how use to brew
Time Required: 15 minutes
Recipe:
Heat water to just boiling. You can use a pot on the stove or a tea kettle.
Place tea bag in your cup, or a tablespoon of loose tea.
Pour hot water over tea, to fill your cup.
Let steep for 3-6 minutes, depending on the kind of tea and your taste preferences.
If you used a tea bag, remove it.
If you used loose tea, you can strain out the leaves, or just let them settle to the bottom of your cup.
Add sugar and/or milk, if you like.
Drink and enjoy.
Tips:
Green teas should steep for 2-3 minutes, and black teas for 4-5.
I got enough better results by my recipe.but surely you can try it out i also tried your brewing trick and didn't found much differences. So, Pre-soaking of tea bags in cold water is not prior to brew.
In case of link rot, a more complete table : black (195-205F / 91-96C); oolong (195F / 91C); maté, rooibos or herbal (208F / 98C); blooming (180F / 82C); white or green (175F / 80C)
How does this answer the OP's question regarding whether pre-soaking in cold water is helpful?
@SAJ14SAJ The part that addresses it is the last sentence: "i also tried your brewing trick and didn't found much differences." Sunishtha, while the other information is generally helpful, you should try to first answer the actual question, before going on to provide related information.
@Jefromi I admit, I didn't even notice that buried in there.
@Jefromi ty for guideline...will keep in mind while answering.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.795262
| 2013-02-24T08:15:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32171",
"authors": [
"Anne E Delozier",
"Aram Hăvărneanu",
"Cascabel",
"Cynthia",
"Jean",
"Joe",
"Michelle Gillick",
"Phil H",
"Renee",
"Rosie F",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sunishtha Singh",
"Tom Balint",
"citizen",
"derobert",
"ee prototype",
"event_jr",
"fjc",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76487",
"mix3d"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27782
|
To chop or to blend?
Many dishes start off by finely chopping and then frying vegetables (usually onions, carrots, celery and maybe garlic) to get a good flavour base.
If you want to get the maximum flavour would it not be better to blend them all into a paste and then fry off the paste? (Assuming of course that they would cook away completely during the cooking anyway)
There's nothing stopping you blitzing a mirepoix in a food processor, but what tends to happen is that the onions especially release a lot of water which can prevent them, and the rest of the mix, browning nicely.
For this reason, a nice small dice is usually the best way to proceed.
Also, by blending you massively increase the surface area of the mirepoix which will increase the rate of flavour extraction compared to just dicing and might possibly unbalance your dish unless you alter the vegetable ratios to compensate.
There's a bit of a difference between a good food processor and a blender.
Semantics - my food processor has a blender attachment that I use to blend things. Suffice it to say, a fine dice in a food processor is likely better than a pasting in a blender.
Blending onions will make it very strong and bitter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.795685
| 2012-10-13T09:24:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27782",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Gus VonHindenberg",
"Stefano",
"Yogita Adhikari",
"citizen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"user62790",
"user62792"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28673
|
PH and sour / acid taste
I had always thought low pH foods had a noticeable sour (acid) taste, and vice-versa.
But when reading The Bread Builders by Daniel Wing & Allan Scott, on page 54, it says:
The sour taste of especially sour naturally leavened bread comes more from the total amount of acid in the bread than from the pH of the bread.
After knowing that, someone I know made the following experiment:
Measured the pH of vinegar with a ph-meter.
Prepared a solution of Spirits of salt with the same pH.
Drink both.
Pure vinegar tastes much more acid than spirits of salt. In fact, the last one has almost no acid taste.
So, it seems my initial thoughts were wrong. Why? Also, what makes we perceive foods as acid tasting?
Update:
After some research (thanks to rumtscho's comment) I have found that taste buds detect the presence of H+ ions (as cited in the Wikipedia article on Gustatory system).
But still don't know why when drinking Acetic Acid (vinegar) sourness is sensed more than when drinking HCl (Spirits of salt), if both of them are diluted to have the same pH.
Update 2:
After @Wayfaring Stranger's answer it is clair that sour taste is given by anions (and not H+ ions), as written in this question's last update.
I've found this link on acids at Your Mother Was a Chemist interesting, but not answering the question.
The whole paragraph (which can be reached following the link to The Bread Builders book) explains it in more detail. I only copied the first part of the 20 lines paragraph in order not to lenghen unnecesarily the question.
See also my answer to another question, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/24740/4638, and Aaronut's answer to yet a different acidity vs sourness question, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/17403/4638
@rumtscho thank you. I hadn't seen those questions when I was searching for answers before writing this question. Those might explain why sourdough doesn't taste so sour (if we suppose saliva's enzymes make sugars fast enough in our mouths), albeit the author states it's the buffer effect of the flour's ashes what makes so.
Does someone know why this question would have been downvoted? Knowing so would help me (and others) improve this (and others) questions.
Given a global audience from all kinds of backgrounds, a warning about pure hydrochloric acid being a potentially extremely unsafe substance to handle would be wise. If not properly diluted to a safe level, it is a corrosive substance that can injure you if merely spilled on skin, let alone ingested.
Isn't it at least partially a matter of whether or not the minerals and acids have bonded together to form chemical salts (and the pH of the salt)? As I understand it, not all minerals easily bind with all acids to create chemical salts (and not all chemical salts have a neutral pH). Plus, you might be using a chemical salt for your base, which would mean the acid in the salt would need to be displaced before binding with the new acid, or else you would need to form a more complex chemical out of the three.
There's a bit of trickery going on in the comparison of vinegar (acetic acid) to spirits of salt (hydrochloric acid). Your 5% (0.83 molar) vinegar has a pH of about 2.5.
You need much less of the stronger acid, HCl, to reach that same pH (2.5); in fact only 0.003 molar, a factor of 277 less.
Since you taste the anion (acetate or chloride), not the proton (H+), it's no wonder that the vinegar is much more flavorful; there's a 277 fold difference in the concentration of the flavor agent. Pick a different acid, and you'll get a different tasting anion, and a different concentration needed to reach pH 2.5.
Response to comment on taste of anions:
Your linked Wikipedia article gives the impression that the taste reception system is fairly simple, and well understood. It is neither.
Here are a couple examples of reasonably current research on the taste of anions:
The Anion Paradox in Sodium Taste Reception
Anion size of sodium salts and simple taste reaction times.
Take a look at Wikipedia's article on taste receptors. you'll see that 'bitter' tastes are subclassified by 30 or more different receptors.
Salty taste receptors (specific anion and cation) are still are poorly characterized
Research on humans is hard, so it'll probably be decades before the mechanisms of tasting are fully sorted out. Until then, consider sources like Wikipedia expositions of the current state of knowledge, rather than the final word.
your answer is what I was looking for. But where can I find references stating the taste is given by the anion, not the proton (H+). As I understand, this says the opposite.
I won't contest your comments, J.A.I.L. They tell us we have only 3 or 4 types of taste buds, but they told us eggs were bad for us, and so were sat fats and Cholesterol. ALL of those statements need to be taken with a large grain of salt. OTOH, going for a semi-complete answer would take pages, and weeks of research.
Weak acids change pH about half as much as strong acids when diluted. Anything we consume gets diluted by the water in our saliva, which will raise the pH of a strong acid solution such as hydrochloric acid more than it raises the pH of a weak acid solution such as vinegar. Also, our saliva is a buffer solution, and the pH of our saliva is significantly greater than the pka of acetic acid, which means that the vast majority of the acetic acid would be ionized at that pH, making it far more effective at changing the pH of the buffer solution than extremely diluted hydrochloric acid. So even if the vinegar and hydrochloric acid solutions had the same pH, the pH of the vinegar solution mixed with saliva would have been far less than the hydrochloric acid solution mixed with saliva.
"The sour taste of especially sour naturally leavened bread comes more
from the total amount of acid in the bread than from the pH of the
bread."
Wang and Scott are referring to the buffered acids which a Ph meter cannot read.
Crudely speaking organic acids in dough can be absorbed and so not all of the quantity is available for testing by the pH meter. So the pH meter can show an inaccurate, higher pH reading which could make you believe that the dough is less acidic than it actually is.
A professional bakery uses titration to measure acidity. Again using simple language they add an alkaline solution to neutralise the acid in a small quantity of dough until the dough is neutral pH. From that they can calculate the amount of acid that was in the dough.
I'm writing this post because it has now become fashionable for Home Bread Bakers to use pH meters in the fallacious belief they are measuring all of the acidity in their doughs.
And - Your post is still coming near the top of the searches.
"not all of the quantity is available for testing by the pH meter and it reads low" perhaps I'm misreading your comment but shouldn't that be "it reads high" as in the pH is higher due to the a smaller percentage of the acids in the dough being detectable by the meter, or do you mean "low" as in a low level of acidity is read?
Hi Thank you. Yes, that should have said it reads high.
I thought so. In that case, I'm going to take the liberty of editing your answer to correct the mistake but feel free to edit my edit, if you want to put the information in your own words... oh, and welcome to Seasoned Advice!
Thank you Hollis - I had already edited it though. Now it has disappeared except for the incorrect stub. So be it. Thank you for the welcome.
We have sensors (buds) on our tongues and noses to detect compounds, these sensors send signals to the brain that are interpreted as taste and smell. I include smell in this answer even though you are asking about taste because smell is a huge component in taste, which is demonstrated every time you get a cold. These sensors detect specific flavors in foods, but not every flavor or odor has a sensor that detects it. Humans have learned what they can taste and what they can't, which is why we cook with vinegar and not spirits of salt. It may be possible that what we detect as sour has nothing to do with acidity at all, but the taste of the compounds that come along with the acids we eat.
I'm not sure exactly what the authors meant by total amount of acid rather than the PH. My guess is that the microbes that make the dough sour produce a wide variety of acids and flavor compounds that stimulate your flavor and odor sensors in a broad way, making the flavor and odor more intense.
Acording to acid vs PH, I think Daniel Wing means a dough with low PH releases acid ions aH+ very easily. But another dough might have lots of acid ions not released, so the PH would be high, and be noticed as acid by our taste.
I'm not very sure of that, that's why I'm asking.
The current dominant theory in taste physiology is that sour taste arises from intracellular H+ ion blockage of K+ channels. Thereby causing receptor depolarisation and thus signal transduction proportional to the H+ ion concentration INTRACELLULARLY.
Weak acids have a higher tendency to remain undissociated in the saliva and thus remain non-polarised allowing it to cross the membrane of the receptor cell. Once inside it can release its H+ ions causing the sour taste.
Strong acids would not be able to enter the cell as they would have dissociated extracellularly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.795840
| 2012-11-26T10:17:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28673",
"authors": [
"Brōtsyorfuzthrāx",
"Cary Wolverton",
"CopOnTheRun",
"Crimson Verdict",
"D Joyce",
"DJP",
"EBrowne",
"Hollis Hurlbut",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Jerry",
"Kevin",
"LammieLou777 ",
"Rufus Dufus",
"Sanjana Shathi",
"Ubiquitous Student",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97095",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4587
|
What are toffee potatoes?
I came across a reference to this in an article about Scandinavia.
They are apparently a regional delicacy.
Huh, I'm Danish and I've never heard of this...
Hi torbengb. It has to be brune kartofler.
I think the toffee potatoes in the article must be Brune kartofler; the literal translation is "brown potatoes". They are simply small potatoes covered in caramelized sugar. The photo Ocaasi links to are potatoes gone terribly wrong. I think the photo caption is ironic.
They are a traditional side dish for any christmas meal with pork roast or duck.
Here is a video that shows how they are made: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYoJ14RIIhs.
The recipe is as follows:
Boil small potatoes.
Peel them.
Distribute sugar evenly in the pan.
Warm until the sugar caramelizes.
Add butter in small pieces (amount of butter and sugar are equal).
When the butter is incorporated add the potatoes.
Distribute the caramel over the potates.
After 10 minutes the potatoes are done.
They should now have a nice layer of caramel around them.
Research:
Great Photo of Toffee Potatoes (TravelBlog.com)
"Her Danish vegetarian equivalent of the Sunday roast is a decadent dish she calls mushroom pate. It's made with rice, mushrooms, onions, garlic, thyme, cream and eggs, all baked in the oven and served with warm pickled red cabbage, carrot batons and the most delicious toffee potatoes." NZherald.com
"When we were in Xian, the breakfast offerings included congee with corn, baked tofu with rice syrup, vegetable flied rice, and a wide assortment of regional teas. One unique tea tasted and looked just like spinach. On the way to see an archeological dig, we joined 10 tour buses of Chinese school children at a 'luncheon lodge' and were served toffee potatoes (sweet potatoes served with caramelized rice sugar), red pepper flied cabbage, rice bundles, braised gluten with straw mushrooms, and quickly-braised greens with garlic." Vegeterian Journal
"The title of the blog indicates that I have found a new favourite food here and I ate about .5 kg of it at supper. In Chinese restaurants in England we have toffee banana or apple- here they have toffee potato. It sounds a strange combination, but is delicious and great energy food..." Tuktotheroad
Recipe links:
Epicurious
Group Recipes
The NZ Herald article is the one I read. It sounds to me that they are similar to toffee apples except that potatoes are used?
Yeah, they look like a dessert/sweet side dish. They reminded me of an American holiday side-dish, sweet-potatoes with marshmallow on top. It's delicious; I can't imagine this is bad either.
Looks like there are plenty of google hits for danish potatoes, caramel potatoes, caramelized potatoes... pretty similar recipes, e.g. http://www.epicurious.com/recipes/food/views/Caramelized-Potatoes-237664 or http://www.grouprecipes.com/82847/danish-caramelized-potatoes.html
A great Asian delicacy
Had these the other night. Notice the fine candy thread off to the right. It is served hot, so as you chopstick up a piece you dip it into a bowl of cold water to cool the candy off before you eat it. Yum!!!
This is actually sweet potato (kumara) but essentially the same dish
Oh... I haven't had kumara in almost 3 years... that's one (of many) thing I miss of NZ :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.796541
| 2010-08-08T20:44:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4587",
"authors": [
"Bala",
"Cascabel",
"Connie",
"Jisang Yoo",
"Lukasz",
"Lynn",
"Mary",
"Ocaasi",
"Torben Gundtofte-Bruun",
"TuK",
"YumYum",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8791",
"km3k",
"ngalstyan",
"nico",
"rbrayb",
"soegaard",
"tsuma534"
],
"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
}
|
19547
|
In what way is kosher chicken different from brined chicken in terms of salt absorbtion?
Ideally I want all parts of my chicken to absorb a good amount of salt. I think brining is best but somebody has suggested kosher chicken. How is kosher salted differently and will all parts of kosher chicken be salted to the point where it is plump and juicy as you get when brining?
Thanks
Very related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19111/brining-a-kosher-bird
I asked a related question (http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/12146/in-what-way-is-kosher-chicken-different-from-brined-chicken) over on Jewish Life and Learning to see what knowledge they can bring to the discussion.
I explained several of the differences in my answer to Brining a kosher bird and also discussed some issues relating to salt consistency in a much earlier answer to Chicken comes out salty... occasionally.
To make a long story short, kashering is a long process with many steps, but the part you're concerned with is similar to the "dry brining" technique some people are fond of using for Thanksgiving turkeys. The meat is salted directly - no water is used - and it is left to rest for a much shorter period, about 1 hour, before finally being rinsed and packed.
Kosher meat isn't "juicy" like brined meat at all; in fact, all other things being equal, it will come out much drier and tougher than unkosher meat, because in the process of drawing out blood (the reason for salting in kashering), a good deal of moisture is drawn out as well. Brining adds moisture to the tune of about 10%; kashering takes moisture away by a similar amount.
Aside from drying out, the only culinary differences you'll find with kosher birds (or other meat) are (a) less blood, uric acid, and other "undesirable" components, and (b) they are naturally saltier than unkosher birds. However, because the kashering process has nothing to do with flavouring, you can't expect any kind of consistency, and it's not uncommon to find that some parts are much saltier than other parts coming from the same bird.
Kosher birds are going to absorb roughly the same amount of salt and water from a brine. The difference is that because they've already been salted, you run the risk of over-brining to the point of being inedibly salty. That's the whole story.
If you want flavourful and moist then get a regular bird and brine it. If you care more about flavour and want to save some time (at a significant cost premium) then go ahead and use a kosher bird, no brine. You can brine a kosher bird (see first link in this answer) but you're going to have to do a little experimenting to get it right - and if you're going to brine anyway, then why bother spending the extra money on kosher meat?
Don't pay any mind to the oft-repeated claims that kosher birds are "pre-brined" or similar nonsense. The inherent saltiness of a kosher bird is significant but also incidental and thus inherently unreliable.
(Please also note: Assuming this is a follow-up to your previous question, none of this is going to make the slightest bit of difference if you're just going to plop the chicken parts into a pot of boiling or poaching water. If you're making broth, then you flavour the broth, not the meat.)
According to the current answers to (http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/12146/in-what-way-is-kosher-chicken-different-from-brined-chicken/12167#12167), the kashering process is fairly simple. The meat is soaked in water for half an hour. Then salt is applied all over and left to sit for an hour. The final step is to rinse three times. This may give some context to your discussion of the dry-brining aspect of the preparation.
I was really thinking of the whole process starting all the way from the slaughterhouse, which is why I qualified my statement with "the part you're concerned with".
of course. :-) I was hoping to promote cross-site traffic.
First, a clarification: "Kosher salt", as a product you can buy in a supermarket, is simply pure crystalline sodium chloride, with no iodine and no anti-clumping agents. Crystals tend to be larger in size than pickling salt or table salt, but usually smaller than evaporated sea salt. Kosher salt gets its name because it is the type used to make a kosher bird (or other kosher meat).
With this definition in mind: the process for making a "kosher chicken" is a complex list of rituals that cover everything from coop to soup, but salt comes into the picture because of the directive against the consumption of blood (Lev. 7:26-27; Lev. 17:10-14). A ritual soaking and salting draws out the blood -- but that means the bird is effectively already partially pre-brined when you buy it in the store. The one problem is that the amount of salt remaining in any given brand of kosher bird may be different from other brands, making a supplemental brining by you difficult to calibrate.
Personally, I don't bother brining kosher birds, even though I do brine non-kosher birds. I suggest you try a brand and see how it comes out.
The term Kosher refers to the Jewish law regarding butchering animals, preparing and handling their meat - not only to the salt. The meat of a Kosher chicken will likely react to a brine in the same way as a non-Kosher chicken of similar size.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.797215
| 2011-12-09T20:33:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19547",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"Martha F.",
"Thedward",
"deborah",
"gralan",
"hm527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42559"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18919
|
are there any appliances that can automate feeding of sourdough starter?
I am a pretty busy person, and the last two times I've started a sourdough starter, I've ended up forgetting to feed it, and it went bad. I never got anything good out of it, but there were times where it seemed pretty alive (bubbling, etc.). Are there any appliances which automate the feeding of a starter? (Including those not intended for it?)
Thanks in advance!
If you're busy, it's likely you have an appointment calendar. I've found it very helpful to add these "silly, one-off" tasks as appointments - especially for simple tasks which don't take long.
I have not heard of any machine of that nature, and I try to keep up with an assortment of home beer brewing sources. If anyone would have come up with something, it would probably be brewers, since we tend to use large amounts of live yeast. About the most advanced thing I have heard of is storing wort in Nalgene bottles after boiling and using that for a starter. I can't think of an analog for sourdough that would be safe and keep the starter maintained with a good flavor. Pro brewers or bakers may have a tool that I'm unaware of, though.
I'm sure you could come up with some sort of Rube Goldberg machine to feed your starter, but really, it's like taking care of any living thing. You have to water and feed plants, animals, and yeast cultures. It's a small amount of work, too, really. Add water, flour, maybe some sugar, and stir. You might want to stick with non-sourdough breads if you can't make that kind of time investment.
I think it's more about consistency than the amount of time spent. But, perhaps just being smarter about refrigerating it after it gets started will be best, like this answer mentions, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10992/how-long-will-a-sourdough-starter-last-between-feedings
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.797637
| 2011-11-13T02:29:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18919",
"authors": [
"Chris",
"Danielle Honanie",
"gatoatigrado",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7963",
"overslacked"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19037
|
How to make a pie with no yolk?
I had a great low fat recipe for a squash pie that had in it four eggs.
I tried to take only the egg-whites with no yolk but the pie didn't come out right.
It just didn't coke completely, it took about 2 hours till it was almost cooked (instead of 1 hour) and the inside wouldn't cook while the top was almost burnt. it didn't rise i.e. it was shallow in its height.
In addition to not putting the yolk in, I also forgot to preheat the stove.
Does anybody know how can I make the pie well without the yolk? Was this only a preheating the stove problem?
I don't want to get into a health debate - but the majority of 'good stuff' in eggs, is in the yolk. And most of the 'bad stuff' in it, is really a bunch of over eager media attention.
What about cholesterol and calories?
Welcome to Seasoned Advice. We welcome questions on substitutions (including low-fat/low-cholesterol/etc.) but please refrain from making general health claims in questions or answers. We are here to answer questions about cooking; if you have concerns about nutrition, consult a dietitian.
A pumpkin pie isn't supposed to rise.
Since my wife is on a low-cholesterol diet, I often substitute egg whites for whole eggs in may recipes. I have never had the rising issue you describe; if anything, egg whites have more rising power than egg yolks. Think of a souffle; it's mostly egg whites.
So if your pie isn't rising, it's for some other reason. Given that you cooked it for 2 hours without it being completely done, I suspect that in addition to not pre-heating the oven your oven never really got up to the right temperature -- or you got the recipe wrong, or it's just a terrible recipe.
When eggs- and especially whites- are beaten in a batter air is incorporated. When the batter is baked at a high temperature the air and moisture puff up the batter with a lot of steam.
If your oven was not preheated then the puffing would not have happened. The batter would stay very dense and without the increased volume it would fail to bake all the way through.
Egg yolks add, besides a lot of flavor, a fair bit of fat. They will whip a little air in but nothing compared to the whites. The fat, in a custard pie which squash pies often are, makes a much smoother texture. Leaving them out would effect the texture and flavor but not the results that you saw.
Blame it on your oven.
Add two teaspoons of corn starch for every egg yolk omitted. This will serve as the thickening agent that the yolks supplied. Be sure to blend the corn starch in thoroughly. You can mix it will a little water before adding to help it incorporate.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.797817
| 2011-11-20T22:31:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19037",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alex",
"Crashworks",
"Karlo",
"Marti",
"Mel",
"Sean_A91",
"Will Thresher",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8045",
"lital maatuk",
"rfusca"
],
"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
}
|
3386
|
In what kinds of dishes is asafoetida traditionally used?
A friend recently gave me a small jar of asafoetida without telling me how to use it (or that it smelled horrible). In my googling, all I've been able to find out so far is that it's the dried sap of a Middle Eastern herb, used as a natural remedy, should be stored in a tightly sealed container due to its strong scent, and should be used "sparingly." I'm interested in knowing more specifically how I might use it in cooking (and if its flavor is better than its scent).
It is used extensively in Indian cooking. I have one book, Lord Krishna's Cuisine that calls for it in virtually every recipe, and each time reminds you to cut the amount down by 3/4's if you can't find Yellow Cobra brand. It does indeed have a flavor someone reminiscent of aged garlic. It is thought to have medicinal value as well (see the wikipedia article for details).
Thank you for the link; this book looks incredibly detailed and helpful.
asafoetida is a digestion aid and helps to prevent 'gas'. It is typically used in lentil/bean/pulse dishes in indian cuisine, with a pinch being added to the boiling pulses.
the Serious Eats blog had an article about asafoetida recently -- it also goes by the name "hing" (not sure if you ran across that in your googling).
the article is interesting (so are the comments), and offers some ways to use it:
http://www.seriouseats.com/2010/06/spice-hunting-asafoetida-hing.html
I am from the southern state of India, Kerala.
In our area (majorly in Southern India), asafoetida is generally used for making Sambar which is nothing but a curry with gravy and mix of different completely cooked vegetables. This is something which we have with Rice during Lunch\Dinner or with Idly\Dosa during Breakfast hours.
In addition to that it is being used in making Rasam, which is basically a soup like curry which is generally used with Rice during the last course during Lunch\Dinner or even drank as such. It helps in better digestion and keeps away different gastric problems.
Here's a whole website with recipes involving hing: http://www.manjulaskitchen.com/
It's very common in Ayurvedic cookery, which discourages/disallows onions and garlic and other alliums.
I've never used it. I tried googling "asafoetida recipe" and found this page. http://health.learninginfo.org/herbs/asafoetida.htm
It suggests sauteing a pinch in oil for an aroma similar to garlic or onion.
Asafoetida is used in Rasam which is indian recipe made from tamarind juice with cumin pepper and garlic slices along with pinch of asafoetida. This is good for digestion when taking it after a heavy meals or during dinner.There are many ways to prepare rasam
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.798078
| 2010-07-27T01:25:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3386",
"authors": [
"Bob G",
"Chris E",
"ChristopherLowe",
"Florian",
"Gilini",
"Graeme",
"Iuls",
"JTP - Apologise to Monica",
"Tom",
"droso",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85629",
"jthetzel",
"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
}
|
9732
|
How long will grease (from bacon or roast) keep in the fridge?
I kept all of the bacon grease from making bacon this weekend, and now I have a jar of solidified grease in the fridge. How long can I use this to impart bacony goodness to my fried vegetables before it goes bad?
What is the shelf life of the fat drippings from bacon, roast and other meats?
Depends on how many solids and how much water you have in it. If you've rendered, filtered, and refined it, it should last a few weeks easy.
Note: my mother maintained it never EVER went bad, refrigerated or not. Lot of old time southern cooks will say the same, but they all go through it fast.
I remember seeing people keep it for a couple months with no problems at all. No special care to filter/refine it, just fried the bacon in a broad enough pan that the water content was very very low.
I grew up in one of those families, @Jefromi. My dad uses wide pans and strains through cheesecloth to remove ugly solids, then leaves a mason jar of the leftover fat in the fridge for easily 6-8 months and has never had a problem. I'm not implying that's safe, I know by the numbers we should probably be sick 5x over, just wanted to confirm what you and Satanicpuppy said with first-hand anecdotal evidence!
Considering the amount of salt and other preservatives that are in even filtered bacon fat, it probably was pretty safe if kept cold.
@sean: I'm sure it can go bad...I've just never seen it. Joy of Cooking states that bacon grease can be kept "indefinitely" which is somewhat surprisingly indefinite for such a widely circulated cookbook.
I'm not willing to go as far as the Joy of Cooking does. I think their expectation must be that bacon grease would not last long enough in anyone's fridge to test that boundary! :)
I've never had bacon grease last long enough to find out when it goes bad, but it should last at least a week, and probably several weeks. Clarified butter can last several months in the fridge.
If you have a whole jar of it, I would recommend scooping it out and freezing it in spoonful-sized portions and keeping it in a bag in the freezer. Then, you will have convenient little portions of bacon grease available for a long time. (I've never done this, I actually just got it out of the latest Cook's Illustrated)
I've been making popcorn with a mix of bacon grease and oil. This technique would be perfect for that.
If you want to freeze small portions try a plastic ice tray. Once frozen they can be re-located to some other container.
My wife and I have been using the same mason jar of bacon grease for probably 4 years now. We strain the bacon grease through cheesecloth in a strainer. Occasionally we'll heat the whole jar in the microwave to melt it, and pour the good stuff off, leaving the sediment. Its pretty clear. Every time I use it, I have a sniff, and it hasn't started smelling bad yet.
Just an FYI, I weighed a pound of bacon before frying, just to make sure of the weight, then fried it, then weighed the final result and it was less than 4 ounces, so, at about $5.00 a pound, the grease is $3.75. I'm not throwing it out LOL.
No worries, it will keep longer than it takes you to use it. I have a bacon grease container that I keep in the fridge...it gets added to and subtracted from on a regular basis, but I expect it's been a couple years since I've completely emptied it and started over with a fresh clean container. Just try to keep the pieces of bacon out of it...if anything is going to go bad it's the bacon meat itself, not the grease.
My Mom had one of those bacon "cans" that sat on the stove. Was metal with a little strainer and a lid. On the front, it said...what else?.....BACON. We used it for fried potatoes, fried eggs and even smeared it on a griddle for pancakes and french toast. I don't remember the bacon grease ever being put in the fridge.
I regularly get weeks out of the stuff I just pour out of the pan (i.e. no care taken to render or filter it).
I keep it in a closed jar to prevent it from picking up refrigerator odors, and check it for a rancid smell or mold before using it.
I don't know about the fridge but we used to keep bacon in a jar of hog lard in the cabinet for months.
I would use the model of Smen, which is a Moroccan seasoning created by clarifying butter with a sachet of oregano in it, then burying the container underground for years to "cure" - 10-20 years not being uncommon. We filter it, put it in a clean canning jar and have left it on the counter or fridge for weeks until it went opaque. It lasts for months.
I keep a jar for bacon drippings in the refrigerator. Whenever I cook bacon, I add the grease to the jar, so the level is constantly fluctuating. I have been using the same jar for years (at least 8-10) and have never had the drippings go bad. Keep it refrigerated and it will last forever!
I have used bacon grease my whole life. I keep it in a pickle jar that has been washed well. I let the grease cool about ten mins then put a funnel lined with a coffee filter in the jar and for it in and top with the lid. I never put it in the frig. Sometimes its weeks before I use it again and I have never had a problem. Neither did my mom or grandma.
A couple years ago I watched a "best burger restaurant" show and one of them has been cooking its burgers in a vat of fat that is 150 years old, same vat, same fat, never drained or changed, just added to by more cooking. I personally have stored and used bacon fat for years and have never seen it go bad.
After cooking my bacon on medium low, I pull the nicely cooked bacon from the pan, set the bacon aside and pour the bacon grease into a cleaned sterilized canning jar using a funnel and coffee filter to remove the meat particles. The filtered bacon grease is a beautiful clear amber. Then I refrigerate the bacon grease. It becomes a lovely light almost white color and from that I use it to cook almost anything I fry. I have added to the grease a time or two, but prefer to use a clean, sterilized jar the next time and spoon the last of the previous jar onto the top of new jar once it has set up so that it gets used first. In all the years I have done this, I have never had any go bad. It’s always fresh smelling when the lid comes off and again when I begin cooking with it and some of the jars have been in the refrigerator for a year or more. I am usually working with two or more jars at a time as I use the pint jars just so it doesn’t sit all that long. I’ve just opened a jar that I’ve had in the refrigerator for a year, and it’s as lovely a color and as fresh smelling as the new one I just put in the refrigerator last week.
I’ve never frozen any as truly I didn’t think about it, but I am going to change that and give it a try since I am at a point right now that I have two jars already and am preparing to cook more bacon this week. I’m anxious to see how this works out.
Filtering your bacon grease is key in my estimation for safe healthy tasty cooking using bacon grease.
I have left it on the counter in a jar for years and use it, adding to it, 4 to 5 times a week to cook with.
I also use it when I cut threads and drilling holes in steel. Have a jar of it in the shed that's sure to be 20 years old and may be 30 plus.
Do you use the old grease for cooking, or just machining metal? Surely you're not suggesting that your 30-year-old grease is edible, are you?
I kept some non-filtered grease having used a large electric griddle - from a big project requiring 6# of bacon. Some went in the freezer. After about 5 months the tub in the in the FRIDGE, in a tight sealing quality tupperware thingie, ...I took it out yesterday and in fact it IS growing a couple green spots about the size of a dime. So it can go rancid for sure.
I'm in the medical field and the "strain the grease thru cheesecloth or paper towel using a sieve" makes a lot of sense! I had not thought about this till now.
The itty bitty chunks of FAT and especially the tiny bits of MEAT are still having some metabolic activity to the very end, and the high prolonged temps cease living cellular activity. Then, as meat does everywhere in nature as it tries to dissolve and liquify in the final stages of cellular breakdown, it releases things that are conducive to bacterial growth. Unless you burn something to carbon, it still has cellular breakdown activity and potential for another cell to use that media for growth. With that, I would recommend warming your oil for higher viscosity so it passes through the paper towels or cheesecloth more easily. Be patient. High quality paper towels might be too restrictive. Let it sit and drip - and the filtered oil should be usable and safe a good bit longer than unfiltered.
Now the oils. These are saturated and unsaturated oil "acids". (Polly Unsaturated Fatty ACIDS or PUFA on the label of cooking oil.) Tis a mild acid, but molecular acid never-the-less. Thus when properly strained with care, and stored in a quality container with an excellent seal to limit fresh O2 exposure which oxidizes, it could very well remain viable for a heck of a long time in a cold fridge. On THAT, my Southern brothers and sisters are probably correct! The South may rise again!!! :)
Rancidity and mold are not the same thing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.798358
| 2010-12-03T04:39:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9732",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Bob Sloan",
"Bruno C.",
"Cascabel",
"Donald Evans",
"ElmerCat",
"J Malonzo",
"JSM",
"Jon",
"Jony Adamit",
"Karen Stephanie Christopherson",
"Luke Weng",
"Lynn Love",
"Raquel Ferriol",
"Roland",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Sean Hart",
"Spammer",
"Stephanie",
"Tyler",
"fts",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98648",
"larry909",
"mightychrysanthemum",
"rakesh",
"stephennmcdonald",
"user2732525"
],
"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
}
|
10630
|
Testicles as food?
When I read that you can buy and eat testicles I wondered whether I should try it once, since I'm basically open to anything that tastes good. I wonder how I should prepare them. If I buy testicles are they empty or do they still contain the, err, fluid?
How to properly make them up so they aren't toxic or something anymore?
I have only eaten bull testicles once; they were simply coated with black pepper and grilled. They're not terribly interesting as meat. They didn't taste of much, and the texture was about like other glands (sweetbreads, for example) -- kind of smooth and not chewy.
I had these too once at a tapas bar in Madrid; they were OK. Not half as exciting or mysterious as people tend to think. I thought they were a lot like ordinary meatballs but I guess it depends on how they're prepared.
Just take the testicles out, Slice it into oval pieces and cook.
Testis makes the cells in semen (sperm), and most of the slimy part of the semen is made in the prostate, seminal vesicle and so on and so forth
I'm not sure if it's an aquired taste, or not. I'd likely try it first at a restaurant rather than cooking it at home, with the assumption that the chef has experience with them, and so would know if there are any issues in how to best prepare them.
That being said, I've had sheep testicles once when I lived in Kentucky. (at Hall's on the River, served as 'lamb fries'). I was expecting something more like out of Funny Farm, but they were breaded and fried. (and thus, the name makes sense). I made the mistake of ordering them with onion rings, and two fried things made the meal too heavy ... it might've been better if I had gotten something to better balance it.
All that being said ... I don't know that I'd cook 'em myself. Maybe if I had a better experience, but from that restaurant, I'd rather re-create a Kentucky Hot Brown
(note) There was likely drinking involved on that night, although I was typically the designated driver for our group. I know that it was part of a dare from Drew Curtis and some of the other people I was with.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.799101
| 2010-12-31T13:55:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10630",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"GalactusX",
"Lori",
"Swair",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"sandra",
"teaclipper",
"zipquincy"
],
"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
}
|
15830
|
What's the best way to store rice long-term?
I have purchased a rather large bag of long-grain white rice (25 lbs.) and need to know the best way for storing it long-term. This rice will be used as both a food-storage food source and as my everyday source of rice for cooking, so the storage solution should (hopefully) be resealable, rather than once-it's-open-it's-open. I eat rice maybe three times a month, so it isn't really "everyday" but it will be my go-to when I have it.
Also relevant are the conditions to store the rice in, if it's going to be around a while. I'm pretty sure cool and dry is best.
IMHO, that's not really a large bag. I usually buy 50 lb sacks, store most in a 5 gallon bucket with resealable lid, plus a coffee can's worth for weekly cooking. A bay leaf in each is cheap anti-bug prevention. (Not foolproof, but worth it, IMHO.)
If you are only using it three times a month then this 25lbs bag may last a very long time indeed.
The problem is that even white rice can eventually develop off flavors when exposed to light and air. Additionally- even if pests don't have access to the rice, it is not unlikely that the rice has some eggs on it that can hatch and spoil the whole bag.
The solutions to these problems all make it difficult to use the rice in the short term. For long-term food storage dry foods are typically sealed in either #10 cans or mylar bags. An oxygen absorbing packet is also included. This will prevent spoilage and pest growth. Mylar bags are less expensive and you can open one bag at a time for short term use.
Alternatively- if you can freeze the rice to ensure there are no pests then the rice can be stored, sealed, in a cool, dry place as others have described.
Given how cheap rice is- it might be acceptable to you to just take your chances and replace it if it spoils after some months.
Wow eggs?? Surely you would wash them first no?
Here in China, I have a special rice box. It's basically a plastic box with a lid. The lid is not completely air tight but is a neat fit. This allows the rice to remain dry without any pests getting inside.
You can also get special electronic dispensers that will store the rice and measure out portions for you. The one pictured below stores 25kg of rice.
If you can't find these at local suppliers, look on sites such as taobao.com (Chinese) or alibaba.com (English) you'll find many suppliers who will export from China to you.
+1, I'll just upvote anybody who's named Rincewind. Note that 25Kg is about twice 25lb.
There are food-grade storage buckets with lids that can be found at restaurant supply stores or online. They work well for storage of many kinds of bulk items. They come in various sizes so you should be able to find one that fits your need.
I buy my rice in large sacks too; when I get home, I portion it into gallon-size heavy duty, double zipper, Ziploc Freezer bags. I add an oxygen absorber (a small iron oxide packet) to the top, and when closing, I leave a gap at the end of both zippers and fold it to expel the air before closing. They go into an airtight storage tote (to keep the rodents and insects out).
Ziploc also makes resealable vacuum bags, if expelling the greatest amount of air without expensive equipment is desireable to you.
I use the last bag, which is often not completely filled, for daily cooking, in the kitchen cabinet. It has the most debris so I rinse the rice from this bag a couple more times than usually. When the bag is done I just bring up the next.
I have stored rice for up to a year and a half this way without any noticeable decline in quality. (Rice is my go-to staple as well as I'm celiac, and I'm quite picky about how it tastes and feels.) This is a mid-term storage method, but it seems to be what you describe; long-term can mean storing the rice untouched for years, as if it were buried awaiting some post-apocalyptic scenario - in which case mylar, heat-sealing, and airtight metal cans like described above might be better favoured.
Soda bottles - you've probably got them already, they stack well, they seal airtight and it reduces the chances of one bad grain spoiling your whole sack.
The neck of a typical soda bottle is way too narrow; getting rice in and out is going to be too difficult.
Ever hear of a .. funnel?
Also, out = just pour it.
I've done this. Pouring 25kg of long grain rice through a funnel that size takes FOREVER.
I stored some rice and beans to have ready incase something was to happen I would be prepared for my family. After a lot of research I found my way to be over kill but its what keeps me at ease. I purchased 5 gallon mylar bags with the proper oxygen absorbers. I also purchased several food grade buckets in bulk for a lower price.
1) I store the rice in my mylar bag which is placed in my food grade bucket.
2) I place in my oxygen absorbers one at the bottom and one at the top of the bag.
3) I iron the bag but leave just enough space to fit a vacuum hose in to remove air.
4) after I use the vacuum I iron the bag completely shut. Use iron at the high setting and make sure you use a flat surface like a chopping board or a book. The absorbers will get any remaing air out of the bag.
5) I have a gamma seal lid that i use instead of an ordinary lid. This also makes an air tight fit.
Note; you do not have to freeze the rice as long as you follow these steps. Also, keep some smaller mylar bags and absorbers handy incase of resealing.
Hope this helps.
Welcome to this site, Justin. How about resealing?
I know this is years too late, but besides freezing, the easiest way is in large mouth quart canning jars. Vacuum seal the jars shut, and you're done. I have an attachment for my vacuum sealer that fits over small and large mouth jars. If you don't have a vacuum sealer, still, no problem. The rice will be just fine in the jars with out putting a vacuum on it.
One other option is to use two containers. One large, sturdy container with a tight fitting lid, kept out of light and away from moisture in deep storage. And one smaller container, kept handy in your kitchen for use as you want it - as rarely as you use rice, maybe you can keep a couple months at a time in that container.
Exposure to light and air doesn't help anything in storage, so the fewer times you open your container generally means the longer it will take to gain off flavors. Since you're only opening the larger container to refill the smaller, it is very rarely exposed to the open air and should last longer.
Also, opening it rarely also means you can use better storage measures (tight fitting lid, or stored all the way in the back) that would be annoying if you ran across it every time you wanted some, but is fine a couple times a year to refill a smaller container.
It seems like an old thread has been resurrected. I cook and eat rice regularly, and store it in large amounts. The typical way I have been storing it is in a large steel container with a lid.
I also add a few cloves in the scattered rice. Conventional wisdom where I come from suggests that it helps keep pests like rice weevils away from the rice.
I go to bakeries and sub shop to get used 5 gal plastic food grade buckets, icing and cooking oil and pickles are usualy what was in them and go to a big box store like Lowes and get a gamma lid food grade(about 8 dollars)this is a lid you press onto the bucket, a block of wood and hammer, ask store clerk if any question of instalation, This will store 25lbs of rice the cost is about 10 dollars depending what the food outlet charges for the bucket and they usely cloean them before they give them to the public. You can use what your comfortable in keeping it air tight but the gamma lid has a gastket and is air tight the screw on lid makes it easy to dispense the product this canalso be use to store other items.
These are links to where you might find the food safe buckests and lids: 1.http://www.solarsurvivors.com/free-5-gallon-buckets-with-lids/
2.http://www.homedepot.com/p/Leaktite-5-gal-Screw-Top-Lid-5GAMMA6/203205720
3.http://www.lowes.com/pd_546960-1152-82136_1z0wqlg__?productId=50094688&pl=1
I take an empty 2l soda bottle and pour into that. I generally buy in 2-5lb quantities, so it is not super long term storage but it does well for a few months.
Ha, what a good idea! I store mine in different kinds of boxes, and every time I want to take some out, I have to grab a spoon and start putting spoonfulls of it in the sieve. Pouring it out of a bottle seems so much more efficient, thanks for sharing that.
This was already suggested in a previous answer.
I plan to use plastic milk jugs in a 1/2 gallon form. Use a funnel to fill them and just poor them when needed.
'plan to use' suggests that you haven't actually done it, and so you don't know if there might be any problems with doing it.
I always divide my large bags of rice in freezer zip lock bags - approx. 1or 2 cups per bag then put them in my freezer.
I also store my flour in my freezer. Usually 3 cups per zip lock bags.
My wife uses a tall heavy glass jar. About 2 foot tall 10 inch's wide. With a glass lid. snap down lid with seal removed. For our rice. Rice should never be stored more than 2 years as the oil in it goes rancid. Kind of same idea as Chines plastic one. But glass. Philippines.
I reuse large popcorn tins, the kind that prepopped popcorn arrives in. A large tin (~3.5 gallons?) is about the same size as a 25 pound bag of rice. The lid reseals nicely, and I have no problems keeping rice at room temperature for ~9 months, the time it takes me to finish a bag.
If it takes you years to finish a bag of rice, you should consider buying a smaller bag.
I suggest wide-mouthed apple or juice plastic bottles, the 2-quart size. You can find them cheap just about anywhere.
Rough Salt works very well. And also put in some wax candles.
What do the candles do? And the salt?
I think that this refers to a practice where salt and candles are placed in the rice container in the belief that they will prolong the effective life span of the rice. But it would be nice if the OP could expand the answer, it's very hard to understand currently.
You can use caster oil . All you need to do is take one big vessel. Put rice grains in it , add some amount of caster oil in it and mix it well. And store it in Air Tight container.
In India people are using Mercury tablets to preserve rice and other grains for long time. So you can try that too. All you need to do is just add few tablets in the rice and store it in its container.
PS: As mercury is used here in its pure form. So its not harmful to people. But still to prevent that you can wash rice grains properly before using it.
Pure elemental mercury most certainly is toxic. Maybe not as much as some compounds, but it's not something you want to expose yourself to.
I agree but this is what we use to preserve the grains. And It tends to be more useful. You can check it here
I'm not sure I see how the fact that some people use mercury tablets to preserve rice demonstrates that it's safe to do so.
Yes It is really safe. You can search for it. It is also mentioned in Ayurveda.
Do you have a source? I did search before commenting, and found plenty of evidence that mercury, even elemental, "pure" mercury. is not something you want to ingest. And I mean something scientific, not an unsupported blog post like the one you linked above, or Ayurveda.
No I can't find any relevant sources but I'll definitely submit it as I read it somewhere but I don't remember where.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.799460
| 2011-06-28T22:08:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15830",
"authors": [
"Alicejohn7",
"Amanda_C",
"Amber Ahang",
"Asanka de Silva",
"BaffledCook",
"Bob",
"Burhan Ali",
"Cascabel",
"Catalyst",
"Connie",
"Deborah",
"Dmitry Kaigorodov",
"Jay Walks",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lucinda Elliott",
"Merritt",
"Nibal Nabil",
"Pacerier",
"Sneftel",
"Sobachatina",
"Spammer",
"The Hungry Dictator",
"Wendell Chastain",
"ben",
"bobobobo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95568",
"kirakesable",
"kurt umbach",
"mete",
"rumtscho",
"slim",
"user64772"
],
"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
}
|
94464
|
How can I relably work out the largest cut size of vegatables X and Y so they roast in the same amount of time?
I'm interested in making an ultra simple seasonal roast vegetable dish. This site tells me that the vegetables:
Beetroot, Brussels Sprouts, Carrots, Leeks, Onions, Parsnips, Potatoes, Pumpkin, Red Cabbage, Swede, Watercress, and Winter Squash.
are totally in right now (but answers should related to any selection of roastable vegetables)
I'd like to be able to throw some of each in a roasting pan and put in the oven. However I am aware that each veg will take a different amount of time to cook (assuming I like them all equally soft/crunchy).
I believe that I can make them all be ready at the same time by cutting them into different sized chunks: leeks should be bigger than potatoes.
How can I find relably work out the largest cut size of vegatables X and Y so they roast in the same amount of time?
Ideal answers show me where I can find a look up table that either gives the values, or gives values that I can put through some maths to get the values I'm looking for.
This is too broad @Joe, you want a list of cooking times for every vegetable.
related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18168/roasting-multiple-vegetables-at-once
@GdD - first reaction was 'the seasoned advice comments appear to be too polite for SE, possibly they are being sarcastic'. second reaction was: yes, you are right, but I want the method rather than the list. Does that make sense?
@Joe, if you want an approach there's already answers about that on the site, some of which are mine. No time to dig them out at the moment, I'll have a look later unless someone beats me to it.
It's tough to overcook most vegetables (short of burning them), so an "ultra simple" dish would generally just roast for the length of time required for the firmest veggies to cook through. I would find calculating the required size for each vegetable to be much more complicated. However, that's just me :) and this is still interesting to me from an intellectual curiosity standpoint.
First, there are two approaches. I like to cut things into the size I want to serve (for roast potatoes each piece about 2 or 3 bites), and cook them differing amount of time. This lets me prep veggie #1, get it into the oven, and start prepping veggie #2. Or you could take your strategy of prepping them all at slightly different sizes and putting them all in at once.
Either way, you'll start with a decent guess [*], and monitor as they cook. Some things will be ready too soon - you can just pull them out and have them wait for the others. Some won't be ready when everything else is and will get some time on their own at the end. Either way, you need to update either on paper or in your head that veggie X needs to be cut smaller (or put in sooner) or cut larger (or put in later.)
* hardest need to be smallest or first: I would try Potatoes, Winter Squash, Pumpkin, Swede, Beetroot, Parsnips, Brussels Sprouts, Carrots, Leeks, Onions, Red Cabbage. Watercress I would barely cook and you can't change the size. Toss in for the last minute or so.
Next time, use your adjusted sizes or times. Repeat until it's perfect every time.
I think the OP is not looking for an empirical method, but for somebody who has already done all the experiments and written down the results.
Cut size is the wrong way to look at it. No matter what, you will want to cut vegetables that you are roasting together to the same size so that they cook evenly. It is more important to sort or categorize your vegetables. Squash, roots and alliums can be cooked at the same temperature for the same amount of time...425 F for about 45 minutes. Brassica (cauliflower, broccoli, brussles sprouts) and mushrooms for about 25 minutes.
You cannot have such a list, there are too many variables to take into account.
Oven temperature (displayed vs. actual), pan size and type ( for example steel roasting pan vs. casserole).
Vegetable are never the same, your potatoes might cook differently than the potatoes I use; they have different water content, different ripeness.
You also have to take into account the cut size of the vegetables.
Unfortunately, only experience will help in those cases, you will learn that potatoes takes around X minutes when cut at that size, and that leeks takes Y minutes.
There's also a personal taste to take into account, I like some of my vegetables to be just cooked (fork tender), and some others to be cooked more so they have a more roasted feel to them, for example, Brussels Sprouts are better, imo, when they are a little bit charred.
Small clarification: "You also have to take into account the cut size of the vegetables." - that's what I'm asking about - I'm trying to work out the maximum cut size. Also for personal taste, I did write "assuming I like them all equally soft/crunchy" to try and take that out of the calculation. Does that make sense? I would be really interested in an explenation of how pan type effects the ratio of sizes between different types of veg - would you mind adding that to your answer?
(I've edited the title of the question so it more closely matches the body)
Whoops - turns out I quoted the title, will have to edit the body as well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.800396
| 2018-12-03T14:14:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94464",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"Ess Kay",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8801",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84459
|
Homemade chicken nuggets: How to keep the breadcrumbs from falling off
I've tried several times to make chicken nuggets. Basically, I've tried coating a small piece of chicken in flour, then egg, then breadcrumbs (and various combinations). However, when I bake them, or the first time I turn them over, the breadcrumbs on the underside usually come off.
Is there a method of preventing this from happening?
What temperature are you baking at? And what is your tray made of? (Is it sticking?)
I've tried different approaches, but around 180 - 200 and usually a ceramic dish
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/63673/67
On top of the link Joe gave, try using a baking sheet with a wire rack in it rather than a ceramic dish.
Try oiling and pre-heating the pan
try soaking the raw chicken in seasoned egg yolks for at least an hour before breading. you might try waiting a few mins after coating before cooking, so that the breading's gluten get sticky and binds the soggy crumbs to the meat; it's a different texture, but it seems to stick better. very dry meat also helps reduce the breading-releasing steam that escapes while cooking.
Here's recipe/tips my husband, a nugget master, uses, may be of help. Good luck!!
First he soaks chicken strips in a shallow dish of milk in the fridge for 30+ minutes.
Lift up the strip, let excess milk drip off (but not too long, you want it still to be wet) then dip the strip in a beaten egg mix and drop in your crumb/breading mix.
He uses a store-bought mix (ie, Shake-N-Bake, both bags), but to that he adds a goodly amount of plain matzoh meal. This stretches the crumb mix, allowing a thicker coating and cuts the extreme saltiness of the packaged crumb mixes. You'll find boxes of matzoh meal in your store's kosher aisle. If you wait till after Passover (Easter time, more or less) it'll often be on clearance! (I picked up 3 boxes of the stuff for $0.50/box, last April, now we're set for the year!) If you can't find matzoh meal, you can use crushed up saltine (plain) crackers, just be sure they're unsalted.
For the baking, take a baking sheet, cover it with aluminum foil (for easy-peasy clean up after baking, as some crumbs and fat/juice will drip down onto the sheet!) Atop this, set a wire rack or grill, ideally the grid kind (we use the same rack normally used for cookie cooling-- it's wire feet set right on top of any kind of baking sheet, rim or no rim!), so that the raw chicken pieces won't slip thru. Lastly, spray the wire rack with a light coating of Pam or other aerosol cooking spray. This helps the chicken pieces stick less & release more easily after baking.
So, after coating, set each piece on the grill/baking sheet and bake in an oven preheated to 350 F (175 C) for 30 minutes. If you like your chicken super-crunchy and on the slightly "drier" side like we do, you can add 5 minutes more at the end with your oven turned to "broil" (high broil). Also, note, the smaller your chicken pieces, the more crunch they'll cook up, but you'll also use more crumb coating to make them (hence the matzoh crumbs!)
After baking, let the chicken cool on the wire rack without disturbing for 5-10 minutes. This is crucial as the meat will be mushy/flimsy until it's proteins have cooled and coagulated (firmed up). Once cooled a bit, they should pop right off the wire rack more or less intact!
I had a similar problem when I first tried breading.
One thing that worked well for me was adding a bit of water to the beaten egg (tbs or so, not more than that). Beaten egg by itself can be thick and slippery, adding water and mixing well thins it down to a point where it sticks to the object of breading better, instead of kinda sliding off - which means more of the egg wash stays on the surface, to better moisten and bind the crumbs.
I don't know if it's relevant, but I usually don't use a flour layer under the egg wash, so I'm not sure how that would change the behavior.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.800825
| 2017-09-17T08:22:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84459",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"NBenatar",
"Paul Michaels",
"dandavis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61679",
"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
}
|
40424
|
What are these sheets I found in the fridge at a Chinese supermarket?
I found this item at a Chinese supermarket.
Hints:
It was in a fridge
It was humid (almost wet) and fresh
The "slices" were 2-3 mmm thick
I googled for "Chopin", "Chopin food", "Chopin Chinese", etc. to no avail. Too many music related hits returned!
Is it a dough? I can imagine it being used as the outer shell for dumplings. But it is hard to tell just from a picture, it could be saitan in sheets too, or something completely different.
@rumtscho No, it wasn't a dough. But I can't say if it was an animal or vegetal byproduct
I asked an Asian colleague at work and he said that the Chinese label on the box says dried cabbage but he hasn't seen anything like this before
@rumtscho do you mean seitan as in wheat protein?
Those appear to be bean curd sheets (ie. tofu sheets).
They're a common find in Asian shops.
Here's what they look like when nice and fresh
But they can also be dried.
The OP picture looks like it's somewhere in between; maybe hasn't been cared for too well. It looks like it should look like the first photo but has been left uncovered and has dried around the edges.
I think the cabbage label is just a simple mistake/misplacement. Dried or cured cabbage would still have a visible cellulose structure while the OP picture has a consistent look (if not tofu, then it's certainly something reformed from something like flour or meal - seitan as mentioned in a comment is a likely runner-up).
Thanks a lot for your answer. Do you have any clue about the "chopin" label?
"I think the cabbage label is just a simple mistake/misplacement." Make sense. The item itself could really be tofu sheets!
@belisarius Mybe a close photo showing the texture detail would be enough :)
@Silvia I doubt I can do better than this https://i.sstatic.net/ZEJa6.png
@belisarius Have you tasted it? Tofu sheets are usually not salty while dried cabbages are very salty. Does it touch like leather?
@Silvia I haven't tasted it but yes, it felt like (wet) leather or skin
@belisarius Then it might be tofu sheet. Other than tasting it, you might try take a small sample and burn it. If it's tofu, there should be significant smell like burning any protein (like hair). If it's cabbage then not.
@Silvia OK. You'll have an answer during next week, when I stop by for my dose of 麻辣臭豆腐
@belisarius Looking forward to that:D 麻辣臭豆腐 sounds yummy! ¡Buen provecho!
"高麗" is the ancient name of Korea. However, "高麗菜" (where "菜" means vegetable) has nothing to do with Korea, but just how people call cabbage in Taiwan and Fujian. (It's unclear why people use this phrase.) The making process involve drying the cabbage leaves in the sun, so it's called "乾" (in simplified Chinese "干"), which is the name of the Sky in the Bagua, so the category name of any dried things.
According to this blog from Taiwan (it was written in traditional Chinese, but you can see the photos to have some rough impression about how the blogger made the 高麗菜乾 for her/his own family using:), people hang up the cabbages on shelves and dry them in the sun untill the cabbages become dry and soft, then salt it and rub it gently, then wait until it become soft (I guess also more pliable), then put a heavy stone on them to push the remaining moisture out of the leaves, then again hang them and dry in the sun, this time, untill completely dried. Now you can seal them in containers and keep them in fridges.
So for conclusion, I believe it's a kind of cured cabbage maybe produced in Taiwan, and if you like cured food it should be delicious! :)
Thanks a lot, Silvia! Very informative answer. I'll buy a few the next time I go there!
@belisarius Always my pleasure :)
@belisarius buy, don't loot. So nice to see this helpful extraMMA interaction between you two :)
@Rojo Best Chinese (price/performance) in BA https://www.facebook.com/pages/Restaurant-Palitos/284659821556010
@belisarius Thanks :). Hopefully I'll check it out soon
@Rojo @ belisarius If you come to China, I will be very glad to show you some authentic local food :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.801185
| 2013-12-19T22:38:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40424",
"authors": [
"Divi",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Erick Lesser",
"NOTjust -- user4304",
"Paul Mcdonald",
"Rojo",
"Silvia",
"Spammer",
"hhhoff hhh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94009",
"joe angel",
"rumtscho",
"weasel"
],
"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
}
|
10519
|
I'm baking an acorn squash. How long should I bake it?
I'm baking an acorn squash. How long should it bake and at what temperature? I also noticed on the spaghetti squash question that those are baked sliced face down. Should acorn squash bake face down too?
To roast acorn squash, set your oven to 350 and roast for about 30-35 minutes. I normally roast cut side up, unless I am using some kind of sauce to go with it. I find that the squash cooks to a more even color than when you place it directly against a metal pan which can develop diffrent temps across the surface.
You can also baste with some butter as long as it is face up, which is pretty good.
Lately I have been microwaving my squash and it has been coming out incredibly well.
Cut the squash in half, scoop out the seeds, put it face down on a bowl or plate with a little water, stab it with a fork a few times and do it for the same amount of time as you would a baked potato (I actually have an auto-sensing baked potato setting, which has worked perfectly).
The squash is done when a fork pierces smoothly from the outside, so you might need to add more minutes.
Or, when it is nearly done, flip it over, add a pat of butter, maybe some brown sugar, and then finish.
But we've just been eating it straight, adding butter at the table and it has been easy and exquisite.
Its good to see that there are others doing this too. I think it depends on the application though. I make this mac and cheese that uses acorn squash as a healthy additive and alternative to so much cream and cheese and microwaving works really well.
I cut the acorn squash In half, Scoop out the seeds and put them in a baking dish or deep casserole. Drop one and a half to 2 tablespoons of brown sugar in the well of the squash, Along with 1 tablespoon of butter. Lay a medium Porkchop on top of the squash covering the brown sugar and butter. Cover the casserole, and bake at 350° for one hour.
I cut the acorn squash In half, Scoop out the seeds and put the squash on a baking try cut side up. Drop one and a half to 2 tablespoons of brown sugar in the well of the squash, Along with 1 tablespoon of butter, some times I add dried cranberries and apples with a sprinkle of walnuts inside for a change. Bake for about an hour at 350. Should be able to stick a fork into it easily when done. We are having it this way tonight for supper.
Oh it also helps when baking it on a tray to cut a little off the bottom so they don't roll around on the tray while putting them into the oven.
One of the things to keep in mind when microwaving squash or any food for that matter is to make sure that you let it sit for about 5 minutes or so after your done cooking it before eating. Because of the way microwaves work to heat up the food they continue to heat for that period of time. Something consumed may not feel too hot, however if it continues to heat after you ingest it your run the risk of causing burns to your esophagus and or stomach.
I think that for oven cooking 350 degrees for about 30-40 minutes would work well. This does depend on your oven slightly. As for cooking them face down it depends on how you are preparing them. If you have them in pieces for serving ( like watermelon slices ) and they are seasoned with sugar and nutmeg or whatnot I would do them face up to get some caramelizing on the sugar. Another way to do them is season them add a little liquid to the pan and cover them. That works as well. Hope it helps.
Microwaves heat by directly exciting polar molecules into vibrating, which is heat. The heating stops instantly when the microwaves are stopped. There may be carry-over heat, as heat from one part of the food conducts into another part of the food, but the increase of heat energy in the food stops immediately with the cessation of microwaves.
My preference is to get smallish acorns, cut them in half across the middle (not end to end), scoop out the seeds & membranes. Cut the ends of the squash slightly so they stay upright, like a bowl Brush insides lightly with melted butter. Bake at 350 degrees for approximately 30 minutes, cut side up. Remove from oven. Then the squash are stuffed with crumbled cooked bacon, small cubes of flavored cheese, pine nuts & topped with a dried fig (soaked in sweet white wine overnight). Return to oven for another 10 minutes. Enjoy!
I cut the squash up into single serving pieces - cut it in half, then take the seeds out and keeping halving all you have until the pieces are the size someone would likely eat. Brush with butter, sprinkle with nutmeg, then microwave for 3 or 4 minutes (poke to see if it's soft.) This has the advantage of not competing for limited oven space.
Kate, do you notice a flavor difference in the squash when microwaved instead of baked?
No I don't - as a result the only time I bake a squash in the oven is when I have almost nothing else in there. Since baked/roasted squash is more of a Thanksgiving thing for us, the oven is always jammed full.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.801665
| 2010-12-27T01:14:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10519",
"authors": [
"Alex",
"Brady Trainor",
"Doug",
"Edd",
"John Wick",
"Katajojo",
"Kate Gregory",
"Laura",
"Ruben Morales",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Will Calderwood",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87025",
"questie760",
"user62013"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.