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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
18681
|
Why do vegetables cooked with freshly ground spices taste better than those cooked with powdered spices available in the market?
I used to use powdered spices (purchased from market) for all my vegetables. Lately I have started grinding the spice seeds myself to use in the vegetables.
I have noticed a remarkable "taste" difference.
I wish to know the reasons.
P.S. I am NOT referring to the smell, but to the taste.
Smell and taste are pretty inextricably linked. That's why everything tastes like cardboard when your nose is stopped up.
Many of the chemicals in food responsible for how a it tastes are also the same ones which, as they escape into the air, give it it's smell.
These oils and aromatic compounds which give many spices their flavour break down or escape over time changeing the taste as they degrade.
Some spices stay fresh for a long time once ground, others are well worth (as you are finding) doing your self.
Many of these compounds react with the oxygen in air to become new ones, these would then potentialy taste stale. Other compounds may break down if light gets to them; especially natural light as ultraviolet breaks many chemicals down. Other chemicals just evaporate away.
All of these reactions depend on surface area... so the smaller the bits of spice the faster they lose the flavor/smell chemicals.
Very fresh powdered spices wouldn't have this issue. Also if you ground the spices yourself and then left them for a few week/months you would find much of the taste has gone from the powder.
So, you mean to say that if the "smell" vanishes from the spice, its "taste" will also vanish? If yes, then I would want to understand the scientific reasons behind this. Thanks.
Many of the chemicals in food responsible for how a food tastes are also the same ones which, as they escape into the air, give it it's smell. Many of these compounds react with the oxygen in air to become new ones, these would then potentialy taste stale. Other compounds may break down if light gets to them especially natural light as ultraviolet breaks many chemicals down. Other chemicals just evaporate away. All of these reactions depend on surface area... so the smaller the bits of spice the faster they lose the flavor/smell chemicals.
vwiggins - now your answer looks "really beautiful".
This is subscription based so I don't think your interest is going to push you to subscribe to something to learn about volatile compounds http://www.vcf-online.nl/VcfHome.cfm
The gist of it is that everything we eat has specific chemicals that give it the characteristics we enjoy. Dried spices and herbs have typically been ground and therefore many more cell walls have been ruptured and much more of the aromatic and volatile compounds have been allowed to escape. This is obviously worsened over time and different storage conditions can have a negative effect on this as well (i.e. why wine bottles and beer bottles are dark colored). So when your using fresh herbs or grinding your own spices your incorporating more of the volatile compounds into your dish.
I recommend, when possible to always buy spices whole and grind/roast/toast yourself per application. Not only will they taste better, but they will also keep fresh longer in air tight containers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.802112
| 2011-10-31T05:11:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18681",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"ArekBulski",
"DuckPuppy",
"Eowyn12",
"MimiKa",
"Pamkatz",
"Ryan Mann",
"Simon Andres Figueroa Norero",
"Teflon Ted",
"baka",
"darlen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66985",
"user66985",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18943
|
Difference between cooking vegetable curries in a pressure cooker and a wok?
Is the difference only w.r.t time consumed?
Is it better (in terms of taste) to cook vegetable curries in a Kadhai rather than a pressure cooker?
EDIT 1:
Q: Do the spices change their taste when cooked in Kadhai versus pressure cooker?
What gives spices their flavors are the oils that they contain, along with any water soluble flavors that they might have. In a pressure cooker, your food will cook hot. What that means to your spices will vary as certain spices could grow more bitter or sweeter depending on the compounds inside them. Conventional wisdom says that pressure cooking concentrates the flavors, although that would seem to fly in the face of physics as you aren't reducing while pressure cooking, you are just heating steam at a higher atmosphere to transfer more heat to the food faster.
As for texture, use the one that you like.
I am not sure if you are asking about pressure cooking vegetables or just using the pressure cooker to cook. If you are talking about pressure cooking the vegetables, I think a kadai is more suitable because it preserves the texture of the vegetable you are cooking. If you cook the same vegetable in the pressure cooker, it is difficult to control the 'doneness' of the vegetable.
For example, I have cooked aloo mattar (potatoes and peas) in a kadai and in a pressure cooker. The peas come out much more mushier when cooked in a pressure cooker versus a kadai. If I want a pressure-cooked texture in a kadai, I cook longer.
If you are talking about cooking in a pressure cooker without the lid on, it makes no difference whether you are using a kadai or a pressure cooker.
Since the OP mentioned a difference in cooking time, I suspect she was indeed asking about pressure cooking.
Avinash and @Jefromi I was talking about pressure cooking vegetables in which we intend to have curries. Vegetables without water cannot be pressure cooked, they will get burnt.
Pressure cookers are good for things that require very long simmering, like tough cuts of meat. There's no good reason to use them for vegetables; the amount of time you save will be insignificant, and you'll probably overcook the vegetables.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.802377
| 2011-11-14T11:02:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18943",
"authors": [
"Aequitas",
"AnthonyDale",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Becky kellison",
"Cascabel",
"Essa at Whip-poor-will Ridge",
"Rick Homuth",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"srkmish"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18990
|
How to take care of the teflon coated cookware to ensure their long life?
I know the following three rules:
Don't use metal spoons.
Don't put hot teflon utensils in cold water.
Cook on low flame.
Is there anything else important, which is often overlooked?
EDIT 1:
Q: I have a teflon Kadhai and a teflon wok (flat bottom and straight walls). Do we have to take some special precautions when dealing with the Kadhai (because of its shape)?
EDIT 2
Q: Does wooden spatula also causes scratches? If yes, then what's teh way out?
This might be a British English thing, but I would use "utensils" to mean spoons, spatulas, knives, graters etc whereas it sounds like you are referring to cooking pots, woks, etc. Maybe the "equipment" tag would be more appropriate?
@Vicky: Well, not just British English. I'm very definitely American, and would use utensils to mean the same thing.
Be careful with the teflon wok - traditional wok'ing requires very high heat and even teflon manufacturers don't recommend their products for high heat. That doesn't mean its not good for steaming or something though.
@rfusca You promised to boil water in the microwave? Didn't you? ;) BTW, I put the gas on sim when using the teflon ones.
Make sure food doesn't stay in the very bottom part for long enough to burn on. The flared sides and narrow bottom of these pans tend to concentrate heat at the bottom, and burn on food more easily than flat-bottom saucepans and frying pans. Once food is burned on, there is no way to scrub it off without also removing the nonstick coating. It only takes one batch of fried rice or browned onions to permanently wreck the pan. Finally, stir-frying involves a lot of vigorous motion with utensils, which rapidly wears out nonstick layers. With nonstick woks, it is simply a matter of time before they are ruined.
My suggestion is to replace your teflon wok and kadhai with (respectively) carbon steel and cast-iron equivalents at the earliest convenience. Woks and kadhais are designed for high-flame cooking, and if you reduce the heat to protect cookware, then the food won't get browned fully. With these materials you can use full heat without ruining pans or releasing toxic chemicals (from overheated Teflon). Cleanup is simple: just rinse out, scrape off burnt bits, wipe them down with a paper towel, and season with oil.
Finally, wooden or silicone rubber utensils are the best for a nonstick wok or kadhai; they won't scrape off the nonstick layer unless used very roughly, andthey can stand the heat without melting. Normal plastics (particularly polyethylene or polypropylene) tend to melt, and metal will scrape up the nonstick coating.
In which cases should the Teflon utensils be used then?
@Anisha Kaul: I don't think Teflon is helpful on most cookware, but it is not a problem for frying pans and saucepans, as long as you don't heat them too much. The flat bottoms distribute heat more evenly and thus aren't as like to have food burn on. The other bad part of Teflon is that it will produce toxic fumes if overheated, and contains the harmful chemical PFOA, which can be released if they overheat or the coating is damaged.
You said The flat bottoms distribute heat more evenly and thus aren't as like to have food burn on. Exactly I was thinking this. :) I have flat bottom saucepans, and they aren't damaged! :D
I'll edit teh question.
Be very careful heating it
Usually with a steel or iron pan I'll crank the heat under it and go do something else for a couple of minutes while it gets up to temperature. If it takes me five minutes to get back to it, maybe it's a little too hot and I have to hold it away from the burner for a few seconds before adding the oil. With teflon, that can damage the pan, so I keep a closer eye on it and hold my hand over the pan more often to see if its ready.
I suggest adding oil (even if just a little) to teflon when its cold. That way, it'll start smoking before overheating.
What do you mean by cranking the heat?
@AnishaKaul: Crank (as a verb) is a hard word to define (except for the basic meaning of "to turn with a crank")... as in, I go look it up in a dictionary, and the definitions they give are completely correct, yet fail entirely to capture how the word is used. I'd read "crank the heat" as turn burner to medium high or high. With a cast iron pan, for example, five minutes on high will probably have the pan north of 600°F/300°C. That won't really do anything to the iron pan, but would destroy Teflon (releasing hazardous fumes in the process). If you're curious about "crank", try English SE site.
Sorry about the colloquialism. It basically means to give the knob a twist to somewhere around medium high, without looking or really caring about the exact setting. I just grab it and twist it, and worry about adjusting it more precisely once the pan is hot and I'm ready to add food.
Totally agree with BobMcGee. I replaced most of cookware with steel and cast-iron ones...
Except the ones that I use for pancakes/cakes or similiar stuff that take short time to cook and don’t need too much heat. Even then;
- I use wooden spatula/spoon.
- I clean pan with paper towel & change oil after each piece/bunch (in case of burnt stuff/oil – which harm pans as well as health).
- To avoid scratching in the cabinet, I never put any other material in/on teflon cookware (either hang up the pans or put a soft metarial in between).
The answer mentions a good point. I stack my pans in the cabinet, and put a sheet of kitchen paper in each of the coated ones, it seems to help.
Don't leave them full of water for a day or two in your sink because you're too lazy/busy to wash them at the right time.
Happened twice, had to convert my pans in flower pots:
they formed some "bubbles" under the teflon coating, and, while cooking and stirring, these bubbles popped and the coating went out and ruined my food...
Wow, I have never washed them the same day yet. Thanks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.802608
| 2011-11-17T08:37:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18990",
"authors": [
"Adam Jaskiewicz",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"BobMcGee",
"Gina",
"JVL",
"Rex",
"Rosie",
"Sherman",
"Steve",
"Vicky",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"pandapoo",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho",
"terrible-coder"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29607
|
How to season iron cookware on gas stove?
Often I hear that after applying oil on the cookware you need to bake it in the oven on a certain temperature.
What precautions need to be taken if I intend to season the cookware on gas stove?
http://www.wikihow.com/Season-Cast-Iron-Cookware
The seventh and eighth point in the above link talk about repeated seasoning on the gas stove after every use. How viable is that?
https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/29647/6168
Wait until it starts smoking, and remove from heat.
How to season iron cookware on gas stove?
You can season a pan fine on a stove top, just watch out for thick unbreathable smoke and potential of flames (which may ruin oil surface).
Do I actually have to wait for the smoke to appear? Or can I test the heat of the pan by sprinkling water drops on it and seeing them hop around?
In answer to your latest update, you need the oil to exceed its smoking point in order for it to polymerise, so yes you have to wait for smoke to appear. This may actually occur before you see Leidenfrost effect (i.e. before the water droplets jump around). The smoking point of flaxseed oil, for example, is just 225ºF (107ºC) and the Leidenfrost effect is seen somewhere around 379ºF (193ºC). The advice you read is simply warning against starting an oil fire.
@ChrisSteinbach thanks, put that as a detailed answer, please, so that I can upvote it.
My comment only answers the last update to your question so I hesitate to post it as an answer.
@ChrisSteinbach yes, but it is informative and on topic, anyways it is your call.
I strongly advise against doing it. I tried stovetop seasoning at home and got terrible results.
A stove gives you hot spots - on gas, this will be the ring where the flame touches the metal. The temperature of the metal in this hot spot is way too high, and the oil burns instead of polymerizing. You get some oil-charcoal in this place, which doesn't have non-stick properties, and flakes off after a few uses.
Outside of the hot spots, the temperature is not high enough. The oil doesn't polymerize thoroughly, and forms a sticky paste instead of a smooth one. Your food will stick to these parts of the pan even worse than to the charcoaled parts.
Conclusion: use an oven. If your oven is too small for a pan (I only have a toaster oven, 30x30 cm, and my pan+handle is way too long even for the diagonal), leave the door cracked and seal the crack with alu foil. This is not very energy efficient, but you only do it once per pan. It worked for me, and I got a real, non-stick seasoning after multiple failures on stovetop.
what if I turn the wok upside down on the gas flame? will that be harmful too? And that oven seasoning has to be done "only once" per wok?
In the best case, you only have to season once. If it doesn't go well the first time, or if you damage the seasoning during use, you have to strip and re-season, but these occurances are rare. It is nothing you are supposed to do too frequently, so the energy loss should be affordable. As for upside-down, I have never tried it, so can't tell anything about that.
Do not turn upside down on gas stove, you will set fire to the oil. You can season a pan fine on a stove top, just watch out for thick unbreathable smoke and potential of flames (which may ruin oil surface). An oven is much more controlled
I agree with previous answers that the primary seasoning should be done in an oven. However, to respond to the updated question:
The seventh and eighth point in the above link talk about repeated
seasoning on the gas stove after every use. How viable is that?
I do that a lot. I don't do it after every use, particularly if I've just used the pan for frying or something else involving oil. But if I've had to really scrape the pan to clean it or have used ingredients (e.g., acids) that don't do well with a cast iron finish, I find the technique mentioned to be very helpful in maintaining a smooth non-stick surface. Just put a tiny amount of shortening (better I think) or oil in the pan or on a paper towel, heat the pan, and wipe it around. Wait until it starts smoking, and remove from heat. Be sure to wipe out excess oil with the paper towel. (If you're careful, you can wad up the towel and do this with your hands; if not, use tongs to hold it.)
By doing this technique repeatedly over a couple months, I even was able to restore a pan that had been deeply scraped and scratched with a metal utensil (by a friend who didn't know better) which disrupted the even, non-stick surface.
I've also found that the stovetop technique gradually helps to smooth out the interior pan surface and improve its quality over time. (This is particularly true of newer cast iron pieces that aren't machined smooth like older ones were and have interior pitted surfaces.) Yes, you could do it through repeated baking and seasoning in the oven, but if you're patient, in a year or so of babying your pan, you'll end up with a surface that seems more durable and smoother than I've obtained through other methods.
All of that said, be careful just to use a small amount of shortening/oil each time and don't use high heat or you'll encounter the problems mentioned in other answers.
btw, do we actually have to wait for smoke to rise or we just have to smell the start of the smoke?
I don't know the ideal temperature. I try to avoid smoking oil in my kitchen when possible, since it can create a greasy build-up on stuff around the area if it settles on something (including exhaust vents). So, I usually wait until it's just on the border of smoking for post-cooking reseasoning. But I also use my cast iron for high-heat searing now and again, and in that case the pan will be thoroughly smoking. Anyhow, I don't know whether those periodic very high temp exposures have had any impact on the durability of my stovetop maintenance seasonings.
I have a number of cast iron pots and pans and have never seasoned any of them in the oven. To do it on the stovetop requires low heat for a longer time. The metal will get hot eventually. If you use a high heat, you'll get hotspots where the oil burns, which is not good.
My best-seasoned pan is the one reserved for eggs, which sees only butter rather than oil, and has a spectacularly good finish. It was a simple matter of frying one or two eggs in butter in that pan every weekday for 5 years :-). Just to say there is more than one way to season a pan.
Good to know that you managed to get it done on gas. I agree that "low heat over long time" is key, I just never was able to get the oil evenly heated outside of an oven.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.803353
| 2012-12-31T13:31:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29607",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Athanasius",
"Chris Steinbach",
"DK92",
"Ernsthaft",
"Jordan Gee",
"Matt",
"Matt Anderson Spam",
"StrangerGirl 3",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69062",
"kathy",
"rumtscho",
"uriDium",
"user1205901 - Слава Україні"
],
"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
}
|
13101
|
Are there any differences that need to be accounted for when changing a hamburger from grilled to griddled?
I have a friend that is about to open a food truck and he has asked me to use my burger recipe. I have spent a long time perfecting it, but I have always made it with thick patties meant for the grill and not for the griddle, which is all he will have inside the truck. Since the best griddled burgers are the smashed patty type, I want to adapt my recipe to work well with this new cooking method. Am I going to need to play with my seasoning/spicing ratio?
I don't know about spicing, but I'd think that the meat you'd want to use would change, as with a grill, the melting fat could drip away, while that won't happen when cooking on a griddle. (I guess the dripping fat might carry away some of the spices?) This seems like a good opportunity for some taste tests ... make a few batches with different levels of (normal/over/under), then split each batch & cook on the griddle & grill, and compare. You might only need to grill the 'regular' spiced batch. You could also try how thickness affects things (other than cooking time).
Oh we will be testing before hand, I was just hoping to get an idea in what direction to head in to save some time. You already have me questioning my mix of meats due to the lack of draining on a griddle.
Does your burger recipe rely on the center of the burger being medium rare? If so, you may have a problem with the spice ratio because your cooking technique will produce different types of doneness on the grill vs. the griddle.
With the grill you get a higher quantity of crispy burny bits (the Maillard reaction) than you will on a griddle (temperature generally in the high 300s F, as opposed to much higher grill heat). With the grill at home you can go for a rare to medium rare center. with a lunch truck, you had best go for medium well for safety's sake (and possible legalities).
The easiest way to know how your recipe will work under griddle conditions is to test it. Make up your burger, pat it thin and cook it all the way through in a medium heat fry pan (not my favorite way to have a burger, but classic griddle approach). If all is well, you're done. If not, well, you've already perfected it once, you'll need to decide what changes need to be made.
But I'm betting that perfection will carry through to the griddle burger just fine.
As it's supposed to be a gourmet kinda deal, I was going to default the burger to medium. I was also planning on smashing the burgers, in the shake shack/in-and-out tradition. My major question is will they be saltier due to the more extensive crusting? and how much should I reduce the fat content to make up for the fact that it's cookin gin the fat intead of the fat driping away?
If you are doing thick burgers on the grill you aren't losing as much fat as you'd think, so thinner burgers on the griddle should work fine with your existing blend. And griddled burgers will be less crusty, not more. If you are cooking to medium, you will still have most of the juiciness, so your salt balance should be fine.
griddled burgers absolutely have more crust on them than an equivent grilled burger, there surface area is like twice of maybe even three times that of a grilled burger, all of it crusty. Mind you i'm talking about a comercial griddle here, lit by six gas flames easily churning out the same or more BTUS as my grill at high heat. At least this is my understanding, I haven't ever worked extensively with a griddle before.
If that's how you'll be doing it, then fine. Most griddle work that I have done required that I do multiple types of dishes on it, so the temperature was definitely not as hot as a grill or broiler. I did hamburgers next to pancakes next to eggs next to bacon next to toasted cheese sandwiches...all in the 375 griddle temperature range. But if you are going to use the grill at very high temperatures then you'll get a better crust. Just not my experience when working on the line. YMMV.
I don't believe that we'll be doing eggs and such. I'm actually just relating research I've done and i'm sadly lacking in pratical expereince with this equipment. What I was envisioning was a super crusty burger, created by placing a rounded puck of seasoned beef on the griddle, smashing it flat with a spactula and then scraping it off the griddle to preserve as much of the crust as possible. Is there another method I should be exploring?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.803868
| 2011-03-14T03:36:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13101",
"authors": [
"Borodin",
"Buch Stabe",
"Doug Johnson-Cookloose",
"Joe",
"John",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"sadiecat",
"sarge_smith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4936
|
How to change the texture of pudding?
I made this recipe today that involves making instant pudding with chocolate ice cream instead of milk. It was supposed to come out as a super chocolaty mouse but it tasted a little grainy, like not all the pudding got incorprated. I rarely use box pudding but I was thinking this could be a quick dessert to yank out if needed. Anyway, I was wondering what the best way to knock out the graininess was. Should I add some milk or just use more ice cream?
The original recipe was from serious eats : http://www.seriouseats.com/recipes/2010/08/cakespy-chocolate-ice-cream-pie-recipe.html
One quick question for an Englishman. What is pudding (in the US-sense you are using it)? We use the word a lot, but it is another (more common) word for dessert, or specifically a hot dessert, particularly one cooked in a basin.
@Orbling, pudding in US parlance is something akin to eggless custard: a milk-based dessert thickened with a starch of some type. In practice, this most often means getting the box of instant pudding & pie filling from the pantry and combining it with cold milk according to the recipe on the box; but you can also buy cook & serve pudding (milk is still the only ingredient you need to add, but you cook it for a short while); or you can make your own using milk, sugar, flavoring, and flour or cornstarch.
@Marti: Cheers for that. Trying to think if we have anything similar, there are various "puddings" of that type, but usually more than just a starch, usually some sort of solid lumps, be it tapioca, semolina, or most commonly short-grain rice.
Part of the problem could be the refreezing of the ice cream. You know when you take out ice cream, eat at it for 5 or 10 minutes and then put it back in the freezer...and then the next time you take it out, some of the ice cream is a little icy and bit grainy?
I'm not sure you can solve this if you use the same recipe. Instead, I would recommend using the highest fat chocolate milk you can find instead of using melted chocolate ice cream.
I really doubt the pudding didn't get dissolved completely. If that really was the case, you could heat the mixture before you put it in the pie crust.
The pie is never refreezing, it's merely going back into the fridge for about two hours.
Ah right. Perhaps heating the mixture in a pot first before putting it in the pie crust.
I found adding a splash of cream and mixing for a little longer fixed the problem.
Glad to hear it worked!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.804359
| 2010-08-11T22:14:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4936",
"authors": [
"A. Horowitz",
"Aashish Bhatnagar",
"Chad",
"Marti",
"Orbling",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9516",
"mattdm",
"sarge_smith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5265
|
How much gluten will set off somebody's celiac disease?
I have a house guest incoming that has celiacs and I know that it means they can't eat gluten. But does that mean that I need to yank everything that has wheat out of my kitchen for the duration? I need to know if this something that gets set off just by looking at wheat or if it's tolerable in small quantities.
As someone with food allergies (not celiac, though I've cooked for people with celiac), I'd suggest asking the guest what they need -- if this is at all possible. They can tell you what you should do to help keep them comfortable.
I see you have tagged this [tag:allergy]. Technically speaking, celiac disease is not an allergy, it's an autoimmune disorder. But for a celiac person, it is often easier to describe it as an allergy to others if you don't have time to go in-depth with all the details...
I am celiac. Ideally you should clean your entire kitchen, clean out your silverware and utensil drawers and wash all utensils in the dishwasher. Wipe all surfaces and sinks with bleach wipes. Scrub all pots and pans, to remove gluten films then wash in dishwasher.
give all dishes to be used a run through the dishwasher.
Off limit items are seasoned pans (cast iron, or porcelain), earthenware, pasta pots, strainers, toasters, cooking stones, wood spoons or utensils, cutting boards, blenders and crockpots.
To avoid contamination use fresh mayonnaise, mustard, peanut butter jars, etc.
Do not use any ingredients such as sugar that may have been contaminated with flour from use while baking.
Because you are not familiar with ingredients that contain gluten, use only pure ingredients if you are cooking for your celiac guest.
Avoid spice blends.
Also see: Unsafe Gluten-Free Food List (Unsafe Ingredients)
in short trace amounts of gluten can harm your celiac friend.
if your to handle gluten products while your guest is in your home, keep these items in a separate area of the kitchen, remove residue or crumbs, and wash hands well and often.
@julie Good answer. You comment looks like an additional point. If you want, you can click 'edit' at the bottom of your answer and update it directly. There's no limit to how many times you can edit your answer.
Thanks julie, I guess I'm just going gluten free for week. At least I'll get to try some those gluten free recipes I have :)
I wouldn't say you need to clean out the entire kitchen. If you already have normallly clean utensils in your cupboards and drawers, they are probably clean enough (unless you tend to keep your bread-knife in the knife holder without washing it between usage and such things). Normal household cleaning is good enough - you don't have to have it sterile.
adding to Julie's comment, it was explained to me that the harm being done even asymptomatically by trace amounts, cause cumulative irreparable damage to the gut. Worth taking every precaution!
For most celiacs, it is any trace of gluten. That means that you don't want something to touch gluten and then touch the food a celiac will eat (example: a butter knife used on toast and then double dipped back into the butter will contaminate the butter). My gluten-free friends have suggested that they are better judges of ingredients, as well, as gluten hides stealthily in things like chicken broth injected into inexpensive chicken brands.
You can probably keep your gluten products in the kitchen, just make sure when making gluten-free food that everything is clean.
Apart from the official recommendations (20 PPM), this is also individual. You should hear with your guest what applies for this person. Some needs a very strict clean environment, while others tolerate some minor contamination.
Clean cooking
Normally, you don't need to remove everything with gluten from your kitchen, as long as you keep products with gluten separate from the gluten-free products you plan to use in your gluten-free cooking. You should also not bake anything with flour when having gluten-free products in the open. After baking/cooking with gluten contained products, you need to be thorough in cleaning up in the kitchen afterwards. It would be best not to bake anything with flour when you friend is in the house, because flour dust will float around in the air. But just having the flour packed away in a cupboard or drawer will normally not be a problem.
Practical tips
Bread meals can be a challenge, but as long as you keep some basic rules, this will go smooth. To be sure nothing you serve to your guest have been contaminated, you should buy new food to be sure butter, spreads, meats, jam etc. are clean. You can put out a mug with some clean knives and spoons that you can use to take from the jar/box, and lay it on the side of your plate before applying with your own knife on the bread.
I beleive the Celiac Foundation's definition for "Gluten-free" is having less than 0.06 parts per BILLION of gluten. Yes, I'm serious. For example, just removing the coutons that have already been added to a salad won't do the trick. You have to never have put the coutons in the salad to begin with. (this comes from experience at a restaurant that supposedly knew what gluten-free meant).
FDA proposals say 20 parts per milliion is safe, according to the Celiac Foundation
Looks like www.celiac.com is down at the moment. Here is another article from www.celiac.org that also say 20PPM.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.804601
| 2010-08-16T00:16:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5265",
"authors": [
"Betty",
"Davuz",
"Denny Conn",
"Ocaasi",
"Pat Sommer",
"Theodore Murdock",
"Troels Thomsen",
"awe",
"bstpierre",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9057",
"julie",
"keparo",
"sarge_smith",
"thejartender"
],
"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
}
|
1366
|
What is a good substitute for Fish Sauce?
Are there any good substitutes for Fish Sauce for cooking Thai food?
This is due to a severe food allergy (anaphylaxis) to all forms of seafood, so I'm unable to substitute for other fish-based products.
Have you tried Vegemite or Bovril?
Try mixing hoisin or miso into low-sodium soy sauce.
From one of my favorite bloggers, Smitten Kitchen, "I often see low-sodium soy sauce suggested as an alternative but I’m not convinced it’s a fair swap. There’s something more caramelized and fermented in the fish sauce that you’d miss. If you feel like playing around, I might whisk some additional hoisin or even miso into that soy sauce for a more complex flavor."
I never thought to do this. That sounds great.
I believe Cook's Illustrated suggested using a combination of soy sauce and mushroom stock to substitute fish sauce. (I usually use soy and kelp, but either way you're getting extra glutimates/nucleotides in there to enhance flavor.)
+1. Hoisin or miso will both provide a good dose of the umami which would have been provided by the fish sauce; mushroom stock would also be a useful contribution in that regard.
Careful about "hoisin" (海鮮). That is the same term that Cantonese speakers use to describe oyster sauce -- condiment for boiled/steamed vegetables. Make sure you are getting vegetarian oyster sauce, which is made by both Chinese and Thai food manufacturers. Check for this character -- 素 -- to know if it is vegetarian.
Hoisin sauce is sometimes flavored with star anise, cloves or other strong spices. While that will perfectly fit in a vietnamese pho, it could make a mess out of the flavor profile of a thai curry.
If you cannot have fish at all, try using grated Parmigiano Reggiano. Fish sauce has two basic flavors: a sweeter one that is similar to Reggiano and a stronger one that is similar to cooked broccoli. If I were to experiment, I would try a mixture of the two, with maybe some of the juice made from the inside pulp of tomatoes (the gel-like thing with the seeds).
+1 for the flavor analysis and creative suggestion. Don't know if it would actually work, but I never would have thought of that.
You should look into vegetarian fish sauce. If you can't find it, but can find a vegetarian (anchovy-free) Worcestershire sauce, that will provide some of the flavour, though we haven't tried it with Thai food. :-) A salty chicken bouillon might also do the trick in a pinch.
http://thegentlechef.com/blog/?p=1563
This briny infusion is rich in “umami” (a loanword from the Japanese which can be described as a “pleasant savory flavor”) and can be used in equal amounts as a replacement for traditional fish sauce in your favorite Southeast Asian recipes. This recipe yields about 1 cup.
Ingredients
2 cups water
¼ cup tamari, soy sauce or Bragg Liquid Aminos™
½ medium onion, chopped
3 cloves garlic, crushed
2 T (4 g) dried shredded wakame (seaweed)
1 oz (28 g) dried shiitake, porcini or portabella mushrooms
1 tsp whole black peppercorns
2 T mellow white miso paste -
Technique
Bring all ingredients except for the miso to a boil in a small saucepan. Cover, reduce the heat to a vigorous simmer and cook for 30 minutes. Remove from the heat and let cool. Mix the miso into the macerated mixture.
Strain the mixture through a fine mesh sieve into a glass jar, pressing the solids with the back of a spoon to extract as much liquid as possible. Seal and refrigerate until ready to use. Due to its salt content, this sauce should stay fresh for several months in the refrigerator.
Ah man. That sounds delicious.
Seaweed and lemon juice, that's what I'm using right now. I was just using the seaweed because I like it, was using lemon juice and soy sauce as the fish sauce replacement, but am pleasantly surprised that seaweed is providing that fish sauce flavor.
I've tried Bragg Liquid Aminos sauce which is saltier, less sweet and also tangier then regular soy sauce. I think its flavor also resembles fish sauce better than soy and it worked well with the dish I made (green papaya salad). According to its label, it's made with NON-GMO soybeans and purified water. And it's also not fermented or heated and Gluten-Free.
Conimex makes a sweet, thick type of soy sauce called Ketchup Manis or Ketchup Bentang which we use a lot for marinades (pork, chicken satays etc) I love it put a little in fried rice, lo meins too. Yum! you can find it in some specialty food stores, Thai/asian sections and Asian food stores and online.
A good idea, but be warned that Ketjap Manis is often flavored with galangal (related to ginger), and is very sweet. Although I love it in fried rice, it might be better to look for 'superior soy' which is a dark soy sauce w/ sugar, but not to the molasses like quality of Ketjap Manis.
You can safely leave out the fish sauce without attempting to replace it with anything. First of all, it's really more fishy than salty, so substituting soy sauce often makes your dish too salty. Secondly, most curries or stews only call for a small amount of fish sauce and there are such wonderful things going on spice-wise in Thai cuisine that you really don't miss it.
You could use a smaller amount of oyster sauce if the person was only allergic to fish... (But keep in mind that some oyster sauces also include fish sauce, so check carefully!).
That said, if the person is also allergic to oyster sauce (as your question states), then I'd probably subtitute it with some stock instead, perhaps a small amount of soy sauce, and add less sugar, because it will also be sweeter.
You will lose a lot of the other flavors, but just using MSG can compensate for the strong umami and salty flavors present in fish sauce. We use this substitute often as we find the fishyness of fish sauce unpleasant.
Your best bet is a light soy sauce, that, at least, will provide the 'saltiness' If you need a fishy flavor you could always add a little fish paste or perhaps a fillet from a tin or bottle of fish, such as anchovies. Just 'wizz' the two in a blender for a few minutes.
Thanks for your response, will try the light soy sauce, but unfortunately can't use fish paste or anchovies due to food allergy. I clarified the initial question.
I cook with a vegetarian pho from my Vietnamese mother-in-law, who is the real deal! It calls for no fish sauce and instead calls for 1/2 c. soy sauce and 1 Tbsp. sugar in the broth. It's delicious! Maybe that's the substitute for fish sauce.
I don't believe there is a substitute for fish sauce. Soy sauce is completely different. If using as a dipping sauce substitute , use soy sauce mixed with vinegar and sugar. Another option is soy sauce mixed with fermented soybean paste, sugar, vinegar, chili pepper and water for dipping things like Vietnamese spring rolls. Another alternative would be lime juice with soy sauce and sugar to dress a salad. If cooking, I would use salt with a little MSG. MSG adds Umami that can't be achieved even with fish sauce. Worcestershire sauce is totally different from fish sauce. Spices in it are too overpowering. Hope that helps.
Soy sauce contains E numbers that are derived from Fish! So any type of Soy sauce is out of the question for those with a fish allergy.
This would be a much better answer if you would say exactly which E numbers you have in mind. As it is, it contains very important information (people with fish allergy have to check if their soy sauce could trigger it), but I doubt that all soy sauces in the world use the same additives, or that the same additive is always extracted from fish.
Most Soy sauce contains no fish at all; I've never seen such a thing. Most soy sauces, like Kikkoman, contain wheat, soybeans, water and salt plus a preservative. In Kikkoman, that preservative is sodium Benzoate (<1%) its number is E211. Benzoic acid occurs naturally at low levels in cranberries, prunes, greengage plums, cinnamon, ripe cloves, and apples. There is no animal source for it at all. From Wiki Sodium benzoate is produced by the neutralization of benzoic acid with sodium hydroxide, AKA lye.
What he likely means are the guanylate and inosinate compounds added to SOME brands of soy sauce. These are SOMETIMES derived from fish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.805081
| 2010-07-17T06:59:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1366",
"authors": [
"Adam C",
"Brandon Wood",
"Carey Gregory",
"Cynthia Gilbert",
"George",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Jon Erickson",
"Maniero",
"Mark Peplow",
"MattBowen",
"Mike Sheffield",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Preston",
"Ripped Off",
"Rob",
"ShreevatsaR",
"Skizz",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Todd Hunter",
"Vince Bowdren",
"Will Robertson",
"Zack Light",
"aptwebapps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90198",
"kevinarpe",
"kmm",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"steve belanger",
"user5525"
],
"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
}
|
1419
|
How do I make a really flavorful turkey burger?
Since turkey burgers don't have a lot of fat, you lose a lot of the flavor that you get with beef. Also, you have to make sure you cook them through (170 degrees), so they tend to dry out.
What are your pro tips for cooking great turkey burgers?
Preparation
Seasoning
Grilling techniques (high heat? tin foil?)
We have been eating turkey burgers for years. The super secret is to not let them dry out while cooling. I take a pound of ground turkey, mixed 2 tablespoons of Worcestershire sauce, 1/2 teaspoon salt, 2 shakes garlic powder and 1/2 teaspoon of water. Then mix thoroughly by hand. After patty-ing them to 1/4 inch thick patties, I grill for about 5-6 minutes per side, turning a quarter turn at 2-3 minutes. After removing from grill, I wrap in foil and let sit for 5-10 minutes. Voila!
Do you use high, direct heat?
On the stove, medium, to medium-high. Grill medium-high.
I found this article really interesting. It covers a chef's attempts to make a turkey burger taste good.
The recommendation is to puree some eggplant with it (to improve the moisture level), and add soy sauce, marmite and anchovies to make it taste good.
my recipe:
Ground turkey
Porccini mushrooms
salt + pepper
cayenne
a dash of Worcestershire sauce
a bit of grated Gouda
juice of two tomatoes
a splash of lime juice
Method:
Mix them up really well ( I usually mix them in a dough mixer for 10 to 20 minutes)
If i'm grilling them I usually put a stalk of rosemary on top of the burger.
If i'm eating them at home, I usually pan fry them in garlic infused oil
We have found adding a little ricotta cheese and oil to the mixture helps to keep is moist and soft. Then add other seasonings per your tastes (garlic powder, salt, pepper, etc.)
It makes it a little harder for grilling since it is even softer than normal, just used a cross hatch grill thing (same for fish) and it will be fine.
I really like adding lime to turkey burgers, usually with salt and pepper. It helps keep them moist and adds a nice, fresh flavor.
One of my favorite turkey burgers is Rachel Ray's Turkey Loco Burgers -- http://www.rachaelray.com/recipe.php?recipe_id=1315
Also, her spanakopita burgers with spinach and feta are great. (I can't post the link, but switch the recipe_id to 155 on the above link).
My Mom makes the most fantastic turkey burgers. Her secret is Lipton Onion Soup Mix.
The only other added ingredient was cayenne pepper.
She wouldn't add salt because the soup mix has plenty.
Once the burger is cooked (she pan fries them), she deglazes the pan with a bit of water and then "bastes" the burgers with the pan drippings. Then she melts a slice of provolone cheese on top and serves the burger on a buttered, toasted Kaiser roll with thinly-sliced onion, lettuce, and honey-dijon mustard.
If you don't like the ingredients in the soup mix (it has MSG and a couple of disodiums), try this: http://www.food.com/recipe/copycat-liptons-onion-soup-mix-24952
I rather suspect it's the MSG and disodiums (all of which are recognized as safe for consumption, but demonized by foodies everywhere) that make them taste so great.
My recipe comes a little from my middle eastern background, but I always get compliments:
(Based on 2 pounds of ground turkey, no measurements, do it to taste)
Fresh minced parsley
Salt
White pepper
Finely minced garlic
Grated onion (usually half or more)
1 egg (start with one at least, add
another if it still feels too 'dry'
with the bread crumbs)
Bread crumbs (I usually use Progresso
Plain, but Italian works fine too)
Worcestershire
A note: I use this same recipe for beef burgers too but I put a lot MORE spices and bread crumbs in the in the turkey burger recipe.
Pesto (basil, garlic, olive oil, parmesan, small nuts) works well in place of plain garlic. Oddly, summer Savory also makes a tasty addition.
Add umami! Soy Sauce, miso, and finely chopped mushrooms add a lot of meaty flavor.
I'm fond of chopping the green of a green onion into 1/2" lengths and adding that in. Gives it a really great flavour that matches well with cumin, if that's your thing!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.805763
| 2010-07-17T13:58:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1419",
"authors": [
"Christian Dalager",
"Davie Jones",
"Farabi Abdelwahed",
"Kirk Strobeck",
"Marti",
"Max",
"Rob Sobers",
"Tedd Hansen",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"badp",
"bluemihai",
"froeschli",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7138",
"mbowles",
"pooky",
"veljkoz"
],
"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
}
|
21254
|
Can I use a tagine on a glass cooktop, and do I need a heat diffuser?
I somehow ended up acquiring not one but two tagines recently. Unfortunately, I have neither a gas nor charcoal stove (the ideal cooking surfaces for tagines, AIUI), only a smooth glass cooktop.
I've already tried using the W-S tagine, with a heavy cast-iron skillet as a makeshift heat diffuser. It worked out okay — the dish turned out great, but it took forever to cook, much longer than previous times I've cooked the dish using a cast iron Dutch oven. In the end, I had to turn the heat to high so that the dish would finish in a reasonable amount of time. This also resulted in stripping the seasoning from the skillet, which I'd rather avoid every time I want to cook a tagine.
Is there a better way to use a tagine on a cooktop?
Should I be using some sort of heat diffuser (which variety?), or can I place the tagine directly on the burner, and just keep the heat low? I'm hesitant to try the latter: both tagines have a small rim around the bottom, so the area of direct burner contact would be very small.
Should I give up and just stick to using the tagines in the oven?
I really hate to see you use up all your reputation on a bounty (and barely have enough left to upvote!), especially given that your question was quite well-formulated. I hope you at least get the information you need! If you end up figuring things out on your own, please do post an answer yourself.
My name is Tom Wirt, with Clay Coyote Pottery. I'll try to shed some light on the intricacies of clay cooking pots, especially tagines.
You can use any flameware tagine directly on the glass stovetop. This includes, Emile Henry, Le Crueset, and Clay Coyote flameware. These are pots with either a metal base (Le Crueset) , or a type of ceramic called flameware (Emile Henry, Clay Coyote which is formulated and made to take direct heat.
Normal stoneware clay pots and earthenware pots will not do this. Stoneware should never go on a direct heating source, gas, electric or glasstop. It will crack with or without a diffuser.
Earthenware ceramic pots, typically identified by a reddish clay color and some absorbency by the bare clay (typically the bottom), do need a diffuser and should be started over a low heat. They can crack if used over sudden or too high a heat. Remember that these pots were originally used over charcoal fires.
Metal, obviously is fine.
The flameware ceramic pots, are designed for direct heat and are actually especially good on glasstops as the top spreads the heat better than electric or gas.
Clay is a insulator, not a conductor. Thus the heat doesn't spread much, but, with a highly liquid food like a tagine, the liquid spreads the heat. Basically a tagine is cooked at a simmer, even though the pot would take the heat.
Induction stoves require a metal plate with ceramic cookware to turn the electromagnetic force into heat.
You can find more info on my blog.
How do I know whether my tagines (Williams-Sonoma and Mason Cash) are flameware, stoneware, or earthenware?
It looks like your standard advice is to use a diffuser.
The need for a diffuser when used in conjunction with any electric cook top seems pretty universal across all tangine material types while browsing other manufacturers sites.
Diffusers come in various materials ranging from tin, to steel, to aluminized steel, and cast iron. The Nordic steel diffusers are recommended by not only the Williams Sonoma link (on the page), but also a vendor that sells the Mason Cash tangine.
Exception: Take note that some tangines have a "footed base for heat diffusion." If the one you used on the cast iron has a footed base it is possible that it took so long because you were double dodging the heat.
For the Williams-Sonoma, under the "Use & Care" tab:
"Safe for use on gas and electric cooktops and outdoor grills; on stovetops use a diffuser."
For the Mason Cash:
"When using the tagine on a hob, always use a heat diffuser."
"Suitable for on the hob (with a heat diffuser), in the oven, microwave and to serve"
In general:
"Heat diffusers are almost always essential if using a Tagine pot of earthenware, clay, ceramic or any material other than metal. Tagines were originally designed as heavy earthenware pots to be used on charcoal braisiers for slow cooking. Even the modern designs with a few noteable exceptions will crack if used on a present day hob and the heat is turned up. Take note of the manufacturers instructions... Also take note of manufacturers instructions regarding electric induction hobs, some Tagines will work if you use an induction hob adapter, others do not reccomend use on induction hobs."
In my researching it seems pretty unanimous despite the merchant, manufacturer, or material that you should be using a diffuser on the stovetop, gas or electric. Whether you "can" get away with not using one because it is "heat resistant", my advice is to not risk exploding ceramic shrapnel in your face.
I do see the heat diffuser recommendations, though the recipe author mentions using a Le Souk Ceramique, not Mason Cash, tagine. There's also no real mention of anything specific to electric cooktops.
Revised, mixed up recipe with a comment below it. There was a vendor that said to only use it on the hob with a diffuser. Every manufacturers site says to use a diffuser with electric
@MДΓΓБДLL I have added 1 manufacturer's recommendation, 2 vendor's, and a third resource that reviews tangines; in my researching it seems pretty unanimous despite the merchant, manufacturer, or material that you should be using a diffuser on the stovetop, gas or electric. Whether you "can" get away with not using one because it is "heat resistant", my advice is to not risk exploding ceramic shrapnel in your face.
It's a little hard to tell from the pictures alone, but it looks like the OP's second tagine, the red one, might have a footed base; if you can confirm that by examining it more carefully (or better yet, if it's mentioned in the packaging) then that one might be okay on the stove. The first one, the hand-painted one, as mfg says, explicitly says you need a diffuser, or just to use the oven (which would probably be faster).
@Jefromi The Mason Cash (the second one) appears to be the 1.5 qt referenced in the first quote directed at it (and linked), but in purple The merchant makes no mention of a foot akin to the Emile Henri exception.
Ah, my bad, never mind.
It sounds like your cooktop might be an induction range. All the tagines I've ever seen were earthenware, so I wouldn't expect them to work at all -- you'd need some sort of metal plate such as a heat diffuser or your skillet to heat up and transfer the heat to the tagine.
There are other kinds of smooth cooktops, but you'd probably know it if you had one that would work with your tagine.
It's not an induction range; sorry if that wasn't obvious. It's just a "regular" glass-ceramic cooktop, like this one.
I'm Barbara Wilde, from the webside www.frenchgardening.com, where I've sold clay cookware for about 12 years. I also do about 75% of my own cooking in clay pots from all over thw world, including many tagines. You definitely need a heat diffuser. However, if your cooktop is a glass INDUCTION top, I wouldn't recommend you try using clay pots on it with the adaption clips sold for regular cookware. The only way to do that might be to put the adapter on a steel flame tamer, and put the claypot on top of that.
The instructions for my Jenn-Aire gkass top recommend or require an abdolutely flat bottomed pan. My tagine and others I have seen have an indented bottom. Just an observation.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.806129
| 2012-02-11T17:15:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21254",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Charlena Robling",
"Diane",
"Matt Ball",
"Patrick",
"Samara Assis",
"Stephanie Roache",
"Tania Sultana",
"geoJshaun",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71001",
"mfg",
"paul"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30631
|
Can salt be inserted in unshelled peanuts? Do natural peanuts taste salty?
The label of the blue coloured bag in this link says:
Peanuts unsalted In-shell
What is the need of mentioning unsalted In-shell?
Is it possible to insert salt in unshelled peanuts? Do natural peanuts taste salty?
The bag of unshelled roasted peanuts I bought was not branded and there is nothing relevant written over it. But, those peanuts do taste a bit salty!
I have eaten unsalted peanuts which we grew in our school farm. We boiled them into chicken soup. Without the chicken, the peanuts were bland, not salty.
Unshelled peanuts are salted simply by soaking in brine. Some of the salt (and water) gets through the shell, which is a bit porous. They're then re-dried and roasted. I suppose the roasting is optional, but if you're adding salt you clearly want flavor, and that's what roasting's for too. There's a Serious Eats post with a bit more detail if you're curious.
You can do something similar at home - boiled peanuts. They won't be the hard crunchy roasted nuts you're used to: they end up soft, kind of like firm beans. You can season the water and impart plenty of flavor. The traditional thing in the American South is just salt, but you can use spices and get some pretty fun results. For example, a bit of soy sauce and five spice (or some of the components of five spice), or something Cajun-style (even just using premade Cajun spice blends).
(And no, unsalted peanuts shouldn't taste salty. You can confirm this by searching for unsalted peanuts nutrition facts, and seeing the 0mg of sodium!)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.806797
| 2013-02-02T06:19:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30631",
"authors": [
"Autolycos",
"Bex",
"Brittany",
"Collette",
"Cynthia",
"Nigel Foster",
"Scifygirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71625",
"kdopen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33581
|
Why did my French bread neither rise nor bake properly?
Failed miserably at the first bread bake.
I have this oven: Bajaj 28 Litres 2800TMC Oven Toaster Grill
I tried this recipe: Baking the Perfect Loaf of French Bread
Instead of using 4 cups bread flour, I used 3 cups whole wheat flour. Replaced 2 teaspoon active quick rising dry yeast and 2 teaspoon salt with 1.5 teaspoon active dry yeast and 1.5 teaspoon salt.
Used 1 1/4 cups warm water
Do not have a machine so kneaded the dough by hand all the time, followed the resting times as mentioned in the recipe.
Place this dough in a large lightly oiled bowl (I use Pam spray). Turn dough over so that all sides have a thin coating of oil. Cover with plastic wrap and set in warm place for 1 1/2 hours to let rest and rise. Dough should almost double in size. While the dough is rising, about 1 hour into the rising stage, preheat your oven to 450F
My oven has only 250 Celsius maximum setting, so I preheated for 15 minutes on that temperature without a stone.
My dough did NOT rise during the resting period of 1.5 hours. At least I didn't notice any visible changes in the dough size. Room temperature was 32 Celsius.
If you are using a long cast-iron pot or covered baker: -> Before closing the lid on your pot/baker, put 1/4 cup of water directly in the pot. Cover immediately.
I did that and didn't notice any visible steam. Then I put the dough inside on the baking sheet.
Check temperature of the bread – internal should be 190-210F. Remove and let cool before cutting into it. Repeat with other loaf.
I had set the temperature to be 200 Celsius since it hadn't mentioned the temperature of the oven while baking. It is here talking about the temperature of the bread. Should I have read it as temperature of the oven? :redface:
Moreover, it didin't rise a bit in the oven even. Was it supposed to?
(For convection ovens- bake 8 min covered, 10-12 min uncovered. Check temperature of bread) To re-crisp the crust, put in 375F oven for 5 minutes.
What should I have covered here with what? I baked for 20 minutes at first. The dough surface was hard and the internal of the bread was NOT cooked. I baked for another 10 minutes and the bread crust got hardest. Internals weren't baked yet.
I suspect that my fault was either improper measurement of yeast (don't have a teaspoon), or wrong temperature, or both.
Please guide in detail.
If anyone has a French brown bread recipe which actually works and is tested, please bother to share.
Anisha, you may wish to see this question http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1513/what-to-do-about-yeast-that-doesnt-work regarding proofing your yeast.
There are some previous questions with good answers like this one, or this that go into much more detail than I'm about to.
You said your bread didn't rise with the first rise, if you don't have a first rise you can't go onto the next step. If your yeast was old, or the temperature was cold in your kitchen or you used cold water in the dough, or the yeast came in contact with salt then its action could have been slowed down drastically and it would take much longer to get a rise. I've had a first rise take up to 4 hours in the past because of these factors. The times given in recipes are just guidelines, you have to be result-driven. Active dry yeast also takes longer than quick yeast to activate. When using active dry instead of quick yeast you would get better results by mixing it with the water before mixing in. I'd recommend using quick yeast as it's milled into smaller grains and you can mix it directly into the flour.
Of course your yeast may have simply been dead, or killed by salt or heat. Get some good fresh yeast and store it in the fridge to keep it fresh long-term.
Also, using all whole wheat flour isn't going to produce anything like a baguette. Whole wheat flour is very heavy compared to white flour and will take longer to rise. A half and half mix would work better. I'd recommend sticking to the recipe first, then gradually modifying it over time until you get your desired result.
or the yeast came in contact with salt then its action could have been slowed down drastically I actually mixed yeast, water and salt together before mixing them in flour. I don't have the machine, and didn't know that it'll matter! :banghead:
or the temperature was cold in your kitchen Can 32 Celsius room temperature be considered cold? what temperature should it be then?
Active dry yeast also takes longer than quick yeast to activate. Okay, will search for quick yeast this time. Didn't know that there is a difference.
also the water I used to mix yeast in was "hot". Should it have been cold?
Whole wheat flour is very heavy compared to white flour and will take longer to rise. A half and half mix would work better. What flour resembles a bread flour then? Chickpea flour? All Purpose flour?
@AnishaKaul, hot, salty water would kill most of the yeast. Use warm water, maybe body temperature to wake up yeast, and don't mix the salt with the yeast until you are actually mixing the water into the dough. Bread flour is a US term, you may find it called "strong" flour, which has extra gluten added. 32c is definitely not cold!
Can I then simply use "room temperature" water?
Question: Does not risen dough result in hard exterior and raw interior when baking? Are they co related?
The recipe called for 450F, which is 230C, you set your oven to 200C instead. If a recipe says pre-heat for a certain temperature, then that is the temperature you should use to bake it, unless the recipe specifically says to turn it down at some point.
The recipe told to "pre heat" at 450. I didn't know that preheating temperature is the one which is to be maintained throughout. Sorry.
You said in your post that your oven has a maximum 250C. Was that a mistake? If 200C is your maximum you can still bake bread, you'll need to cook it longer, or better yet make the pieces smaller to reduce cooking time. Alternatively make flatter shapes.
Well, I am thankful to you that now I got to the root of the problem.
No, sorry, my previous comment was a mistake. The maximum is 250C in my oven. Please re read my previous comment and pardon.
If it didn't rise at all, the yeast was definitely dead. Good practice is to add the flour to the bowl, then add the yeast on one side and the salt on the other (if you're using fast-action yeast, which doesn't need proving in a liquid first).
If your dough did not rise at all during the resting period I suspect there is something wrong with the yeast. Have you checked the expiry date? Also, as you are a beginner at this, I think it would be wise to follow the recipe exactly and not, for example, substitute whole wheat flour like you did. While I have not tried this specific recipe, reading through the comments it seems most people are very happy with it. My suggestion is to buy new yeast, perhaps a different brand if you can find it. Then try the same recipe again, but follow it exactly, using the prescribed amount of white flour. If the same thing happens and the bread does not rise at all during the 1 1/2 hours resting time, don't bother baking it. You will get the same result. Oh, and buy a teaspoon so you can measure the yeast exactly. It is quite important.
Does a properly NOT risen bread have much to do with hard exterior and raw interior during baking?
Bread flour isn't a term heard by many in India. I thought it is the gluten level that's required. Whole wheat flour contains 12% gluten. http://www.tesco.com/groceries/Product/Details/?id=259669825
You are right that the protein level is important, and if that is the only flour you can find you should of course keep using it. As to your other question it is hard to say. But since you said that the dough did not rise at all during the 1 h 30 min of resting time, that is the first problem you have to take care of. If the dough does not rise all the other issues you mention won't matter, you will still end up with inedible bread.
Also, I think that you should try dividing the dough into several smaller loaves since you are using a small toaster oven. The raw interior could very well have to do with the oven not being powerful to transfer enough heat. I have no experience with baking in toaster ovens myself, but I would think that a large loaf requires a conventional, floor-standing oven.
I did divide it into 4 loaves so that less electricity is consumed. The raw interior could very well have to do with the oven not being powerful to transfer enough heat. I have successfully bakes cakes in this same oven before.
In that case your oven should be fine. As I said, if you got no rise at all out of the dough, that is the first problem you need to address. Everything else is secondary.
use french white flour! flour,warm water,salt,yeast,mix the ingrediants making sure you dont let the yeast go in with the salt and water,ie in your mixing bowl/bread machine 1/water2/salt3/flour4/yeast mix for twenty mins/ remove put into bowl cover and refridge for 24 hours/take out and form bagguets ,i use double trays put back in fridge for 24 hours, heat oven to 250cc put atrayin bottom off oven, boil kettle, razor your bagguets and spray with cold water put bagguets in middle off oven and quickly pour boiling water into tray,to create steam! bake for 30mins or so! done perfect! keep a batch goin everyday! you can also use cibatta flour and form by hand on a clay oven tray! CB
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.806983
| 2013-04-18T05:42:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33581",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"ElendilTheTall",
"GdD",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"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
}
|
22102
|
Foil over cookie sheet over broiling pan?
My wife was cooking a recipe and was confused by instructions to put foil over a cookie sheet which should sit on a broiling pan. Foil is pretty standard in recipes, but why have the sheet on top of the broiling pan? She was cooking shrimp.
Was the broiling pan empty, or filled with water? If filled with water, this is a bain-marie.
There were no instructions to put anything in the broiling pan. But thanks for pointing that out.
It's possible that the recipe author was going for insulation from the heat of the oven's element/flames on the bottom. This would give you more cooking by convection - or baking without the browning on the bottom (conduction) where the food touched the thin pan.
Another way around this is insulated baking sheets - two layers with air in the middle. On cookies, they take longer and reduce browning. So this seems to me to be an approach to the insulated baking sheet, creating a workaround on the assumption that people have the other equipment at hand.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.807609
| 2012-03-08T04:02:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22102",
"authors": [
"Ronnie Overby",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9408"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13506
|
Methods for seasoning wooden spoons?
Any tips for seasoning wooden spoons? I found a couple different methods on the web but they vary quite a bit. What I've done so far is to sand the new spoons starting with 280, then 320, and finally 1000 grit sandpaper. Then I put it in water to raise the grain and sanded some more with 1000 grit. I repeated the last step 4 times and the spoon is nice and smooth. Is there a final step to season the spoon?
I have never seasoned a spoon. Nor do I know anyone who has.
To those who notice: yes, it is quite counter-intuitive to change the tag from "seasoning" to "seasoning-pans". But for disambiguation reasons, we use the pure "seasoning" only for adding spices to food (see also the tag wiki). Maybe we should have a discussion about renaming the seasoning-pans tag, seeing that there are other items that can be seasoned for use.
@rumtscho I'd keep the tag as is, as "seasoning" usually refers to a hot process on metal. Treating wooden chopping boards (for example) is normally described by other names, like simply "oiling" (though using linseed oil, which polymerises at room temp, could conceivably be called seasoning.
@ChrisH Interesting. I am accustomed to using "seasoning" for other materials too, such as wood or (unglazed) clay - but always for kitchen utensils; if I were to treat a desk with linseed oil, I would indeed call it "oiled". In that sense, seasoning (the noun) is the patina that utensils gain with use, and the verb is the (slow or forced) process of creating it. I agree that nowadays, the metal case is the most frequently discussed one, but I would see that as merely the prototypical case, not as a reason to exclude the other cases.
@rumtscho I guess a straw poll via meta could sort out the variation in usage if we wanted to improve the tags
I cannot imagine that sanding and buffing a wooden spoon would have any useful culinary applications, although I suppose it might feel smoother to the touch.
Generally when you season something wooden for food preparation, the purpose is to create a protective layer to avoid warping or impregnation.
If I really wanted to season a spoon, I would season it the same way as a wooden cutting board: Use a food-grade mineral oil and rub it in thoroughly with a cloth or paper towel, then repeat as necessary after it is dry.
Like hobodave, however, I have never done this nor heard of it being done. The cost of a wooden spoon is probably less than the cost of the mineral oil you'd need to season one. If your spoon starts to warp or take on strange odours, just buy a new one.
N.B. I can think of one exception, which is if the spoon takes on a fuzzy texture when you get it wet. In that case, sanding it would be done in the context of raising the grain. But once again, it's extremely rare that you'd need to do this with a cooking utensil - this is a far more common requirement for homemade (i.e. DIY) wood products.
Why a mineral oil? Surely a vegetable oil would be more appropriate like flaxseed oil (linseed oil - a traditional wood rubbing oil in Europe etc)
@TFD: You have to be careful with linseed - if it's the boiled type then it's actually toxic. But any food-grade oil that won't go rancid is fine. The key phrase here is food-grade.
Warp? They still work fine for stirring when they're warped ... it's cracked that you have to be careful with, as you can't clean out the crack. If it's a wooden spatula, you can cut it down, but that's about it.
@Joe: You're technically correct. Semantics - cracking is usually preceded by warping. Besides, a warped spoon can still stir but it might not do a very good job of actually holding anything, if that's what you need it for.
@TFD the reason you don't use a vegetable oil is that they will eventually go rancid and get yellow and sticky. For what it's worth, I always season all my wooden utensils with a mineral oil made for cutting boards, and they are gorgeous to look at and a pleasure to use, feeling nice to touch and cleaning up with water and the barest of soap.
I seasoned a set of wooden utensils that I bought rough. Here's what I did:
Sand with progressively finer grits up to about 1000 grit
Wash VERY well to remove sawdust
Melt paraffin wax in a double boiler and repeatedly soak in the wax, allow wax to drip off and utensil to cool, and then soak again
Eventually this built up a nice layer of food-grade paraffin embedded into the utensils, which made them repel water and stains MUCH more effectively. Unfortunately, I much must confess that it would have been cheaper in time and money just to buy a set of properly finished utensils.
As just an old Arkansas hillbilly that likes wooden products I've been making cook spoons and dishes/platters. I have used Walnut, Pecan, Hickory, and Cherry so far. I have found that the fruit woods have alot less "fuzzing" after washing but all need periodic attention. I've used bacon grease, olive oil, cooking oil, peanut oil and they all work about the same. I havn't tried the heating your oil approach (except for the bacon grease-more of a viscosity thing for me) The maintenance of your spoons and dishes is a labor of love for those who actually make the items...kind of the same reward a hunter gets from cleaning his/her guns.
I am in favor myself of using a flaxseed oil to season the wood for a few reasons, 1) it is food safe 2) It is actually food 3) it is the ONLY edible drying oil that I am aware of (i.e. an oil that will dry out on its own when exposed to air.) and when I have used it on cast iron it IS TOUGH! It can take an accidental cycle in the dishwasher after it has a few layers! (Though I dont recommend it. Why start ALL OVER again?)
I am trying heating it to accelerate its drying effects as done on cast iron. 1 problem though. It thins on heating so all of the seasoning done thus far comes dripping out. I unfortunately have neither the right size container to hold at least 1/2 of the spoon or enough flaxseed oil to do it that way nor something heat proof up to 500-550 degrees. (which is the temperature for cast iron). If I did though I would surely do it. Flaxseeds durability has EASILY outperformed anything I have seen thus far.
Bon Appetit,
Tim Danielson
P.S. I just tried this. I found that at about 525-550 the wood I had (cherry wood) started to get burn marks (only in the areas where it contacted the pan). I found something that showed it could have been lowered to 450. I Since flaxseed apparently polymerizes at 450, I would try that. I heated it, pre seasoned on a cookie sheet, to 550. I believe 450-500 would be a better range than what I did and would have similar results.
"re: DougRisk
I think the basic premise is that by that temperature (and more so by the 450-500 deg temps called for in this seasoning process) any flaxseed oil is polymerized to an extent that it cannot go rancid.
When I tried out the method initially under Canter's instructions, I certainly didn't notice any rancid taste or smell. The problem was just that the seasoning was too slow to build and didn't form an especially great non-stick surface even after 7 coatings.
Permalink | Reply
By cowboyardee on Sep 14, 2011 07:49 AM" @ http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/807107
Oh this is an FYI, this oil has been used for centuries by artists. To an oil painter they would refer to it as Linseed Oil! (I dont advise using linseed as it is not processed to the same food standards as the edible version, Flaxseed.)
Skip the mineral oil (petroleum product) and use something more culinary, like olive, coconut, flax seed, or beeswax (you need a heat gun or oven to force beeswax into the wood).
Olive oil go rancid? Sure. But it is safe and it doesn't smell impregnated in the wood. Not significantly, and it won't "off flavor" anything.
Food grade mineral oils are especially sold for that, they are non toxic and they do not go rancid.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.807744
| 2011-03-27T21:16:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13506",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Kent Shikama",
"Perry",
"Rachel HutchinsonI",
"Ravikumar",
"TFD",
"Tim Danielson",
"franko",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98354",
"kerry",
"nico",
"rumtscho"
],
"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
}
|
22332
|
How can I make my no carb sausages more succulent?
I'm trying to find a way to make my home made English sausages more like shop bought English sausages (I'm saying English here as I'm pretty sure sausages around the world are very different - ideally I'm looking to make something like Black Farmer sausages) The only caveat is that I'm trying to make them carb free, so can't use rusk or breadcrumbs. I've been experimenting with kibbled onions, as I read somewhere that you can use anything as a binding component as long as it's very dry.
I've been using mostly pork belly, which seems to have a good meat to fat ratio - I've been careful to get meat with a fair amount of fat, but my sausages are still a bit dry when cooked.
Can anyone give me some tips to making sausages, especially how to make them moist and succulent?
Recipe requests are offtopic pre [faq], so I removed it from the question.
Are you only using pork belly? No added fat? Even though pork belly has a high fat content, my experience is that sausages require even more. Add some ground, or finely diced, pork fatback and see if it makes a difference.
This suggests gelatin as a binding agent. You could try increasing your salt content for binding, but this could hurt the flavor.
For moisture you could experiment with adding a little red wine to keep them moist. Wine has "carbohydrates" but they aren't processed in the same way as regular carbs. This ingredient is used more in Italian sausages, though, so it may not be what you're looking for.
Also, pork butt may have a better fat content to keep your sausages moist.
Gelatin is a pure protein, where did you get the carbohydrates from? As for wine, I don't know why it should be more moistening than pure water, or stock. Do you know if there is a substance specific to wine which makes the sausage mass retain moisture, as opposed to just adding moisture?
Edited the gelatin statement--turned out the site I referenced for its info was a bad one.
I'm actually not certain if wine specifically helps sausage to retain moisture, but the acidity may make a difference. I tried to find a reason it might be advantageous over stock or water, but I'm coming up short.
How about making some low carb bread (mug method can make a batch in less than 5 min) Then make breadcrumbs of it in the food processor. You could dry it in the oven too. I reckon that would be almost indistinguishable from the rusk used by sausage makers then
Use ground Golden Flax seed and add water .The reason the sausage is dry ,is because there is nothing in it that holds the water content.Fat repels water.The ground flax seed will keep it in the sausage.Only 1g carbs and 1g sugar per 100g.
The lowest of any comparable product.
You will only need a few grams per sausage. Negligible.
You can also use it for bread .In the microwave for 2 min, Dry in oven and then crumb it .
@JanDoggen Why "also use bread", that is something completely different?
I think it may have been intended to be "use it for bread crumbs" based on the subsequent instructions.
flax seed can be used to make low carb bread that can then be added to the sausage for the desired texture.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.808380
| 2012-03-16T20:45:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22332",
"authors": [
"Ajeet Shah",
"Diwakar M.S.",
"Doug Petersen",
"Erica",
"Michele Otey",
"Summer",
"Yu Zhang",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9474",
"ramblinjan",
"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
}
|
9901
|
Choux pastry (Chocolate eclairs) doesn't rise
Last time I tried to make Chocolate eclairs (similar to cream puffs), the choux pastry just sat in the oven and basically fried.
It didn't rise/grow and so I couldn't hollow out the shells.
Any suggestions?
Recipe was from The Australian Women's Weekly Original Cookbook (Golden Press Pty Ltd, 1977) p. 204
It is almost identical to the one published on their website http://aww.ninemsn.com.au/food/cookbooks/787237/chocolate-eclairs, with the exception that the cookbook recipe used 1C water and 1C plain flour.
Please post the recipe and process so we have an idea of where it could have gone wrong.
Definitely we need the recipe. Also... hollow out the shells? An authentic éclair is just chantilly cream in a sandwich of choux pastry shells, much like a cream puff, but elongated and usually with one shell dipped in coating chocolate. There's nothing to hollow out.
Hi Mark. It would be very helpful if you could share the recipe you used to make your crueler as well as any deviations you may have made.
We already have a question covering choux pastry not rising, with an excellent answer. I will merge so Stephen's answer doesn't get lost either.
It's actually been a few years since I made éclairs, so I might be forgetting a few things, but here are my immediate reactions to the recipe:
"Plain flour" (by which I assume they mean all-purpose flour) is not appropriate for choux paste. You should be using bread flour (AKA "strong flour"), you need the extra gluten for this. That is probably the most important reason why your choux paste didn't turn out right.
The ratio of fat to water is off. You want a 2:1 water:fat ratio. Use 50 g of butter or shortening for every 100 mL of water. For reference, if you're going to adjust the ratio then you also want to use approximately 2.4 eggs per 100 mL of water. The recipe mentioned in the question is close, but slightly short, so be careful if scaling up.
The ratio of flour to water is blatantly wrong, for both the posted recipe and what you say is the cookbook recipe, and you should never ever use volumetric measurements for flour in such a sensitive baking recipe. You want to measure out 75 g of flour per 100 mL of water. For a cup of water that's about 175 g of bread flour. Don't even try to calculate the volume, weigh it. This is extremely important, if you don't use enough flour then the choux paste won't fully gelatinize!
A "pinch" of salt is probably OK at this small scale, but if you ever decide to scale up then you need to be accurate; use 2% salt (2 g per 100 mL of water).
The recipe is correct in warning you against letting any of the water evaporate, and telling you to cook and stir the roux until it clears the side and forms balls when shaken. You should also see a white film on the bottom of the pan.
One thing that the recipe doesn't mention that is extremely important is that you need to wait for the roux to cool before adding the eggs. Whole egg coagulates at 65° C (149° F) so it is absolutely imperative that the roux is cooler than that, otherwise you will end up with scrambled eggs.
Make sure you completely incorporate the eggs. Scrape the sides of the bowl if necessary. And don't try to cut corners by adding all the eggs at once; you really need to add them one at a time, otherwise you'll end up with lumps. Missing this probably won't cause failure to rise, but you don't want lumps, trust me.
When you're done, you should have a paste that resembles the consistency of a meringue, but heavier. That is, it holds its shape, even against gravity, but is still soft enough to spread. I check with my finger. If it's too stiff, you can add milk to soften it, but if it's not stiff enough, then you didn't get enough of the flour gelatinized and your paste is ruined. (So don't overmilk!)
I don't agree with their "very hot oven, then lower the temperature to 180° C" instruction. 180° C is a very low temperature for baking choux paste, and I don't think that the 10 minutes of "very hot" temperature (whatever that is) are going to compensate for it. I have always baked choux paste shells at a straight 200° C (390° F) for 30 minutes.
That's about it for tearing apart their choux paste recipe. I'm not even going to touch their "custard cream" recipe, which is just not even remotely close to the chantilly cream that éclairs are supposed to have.
@Aaronut my cook books have custard like fillings, a quick google shows custard like filings too. Where did Chantilly cream come from?
@TFD: From the professional pastry chef who I learned it from, and from just about every good bakery I've ever been to (it's easy to recognize). You make éclairs and cream puffs with tempered chantilly cream so that they're light and delicate. Custard fillings remind me of those pudding-filled abominations you find in the donut shops that they also call "eclairs". If you're short on time or don't know how to make a chantilly then it's actually better to just use ordinary whipped cream or whipped topping, it's closer to the texture that an éclair is supposed to have.
@Aaronut I agree that cream is much nicer, it just that all the recipes have custard, even the French ones, weird? One of my favourite childhood deserts was a large tower of cream (with honey & sherry) filled choux stuck together by drizzling melted chocolate over the whole lot....yummm!
@TFD: Certainly not "all" recipes, since the one I have in my possession does not. And if you google "chantilly eclair" you will find a great many results, many of them French. That is the authentic French éclair. If there are recipes with custard floating around it's probably because the authors either didn't trust their audience to properly make and temper the chantilly, thought it was too time-consuming, or couldn't make it properly themselves. The tower does sound quite nice, and I've seen those at buffets, usually labeled as "profiteroles" (meaning "cream puff"... except no cream)
Thanks for the comments @Aaronut. I'll give it another go with your advice and hopefully be more successful. I'm used to cream filling, but as I have a sweet tooth I don't mind a bit of custard either :-)
Let me know how it turns out, @David. The proportions and preparations I've cited have always worked great for me, but sometimes it's hard to communicate all the nuances with the high-end pastries, and I'm not sure if I'd ever have gotten it right if I'd learned it from a book.
@Aaronut Authentic French éclairs (the ones you find in the next door bakery) are chocolate and café eclairs. These are made with "Crème patissière" (simply pastry cream I believe in English). Modern éclairs sometimes use chantlly but that's not the norm.
Crullers are fried pâte à choux dough. When baked, rather than fried, this same dough can be used to make éclairs and cream puffs. A generous poof, in either form of cooking, comes from having the right balance between dough consistency and steam formation.
Pâte à choux creations are somewhat unique in that they are cooked twice - once during the mixing of the dough - once in the frying or the baking.
Recipes for the dough vary a little bit, but basically rely on using equal parts water and eggs with half as much butter and flour (by weight). Some recipes use half water and half milk (my preference). OK, sure there might be other ingredients in minor roles - salt, sugar, spice - but the basic ingredients are liquid, butter, flour, egg.
It's difficult to diagnose a problem without knowing your recipe or technique but I'll try to give a few pointers. After you bring the water and butter to a simmer (easy with the heat), add your flour and stir constantly - the way to tell when this cooking is done is not by time, but by observation - remove your paste from the heat when you can see the paste pulling away from the sides of the pot. There is a point of equilibrium in the process where sufficient water has been absorbed by the flour and a little water has been driven-off as steam - when this equilibrium is reached, the paste in the pot will visibly pull away from the pan as if there were some strange repellent force there.
Next, some recipes call for you to transfer the hot paste to a stand mixer - I have always mixed the eggs in by hand (mixing in by hand give me a better feel for the consistency of the finished dough). Add-in the eggs one-at-a-time and with constant stirring to fully incorporate in stages. My own preference here is to combine all the eggs in a separate bowl and beat them together first then pour the egg slowly into the paste while stirring vigorously.
Now, as far as dense crullers are concerned, my guess would be that one of three things happened - either you were heavy-handed with the flour or your failed to cook the water/butter/flour paste long enough or you didn't add enough egg to get a smooth, easy-to-pipe dough. Your dough should not drip off your spoon, but it should be fluid enough to pipe very easily when you use the piping bag to extrude your crullers. If your dough is not sufficiently fluid, it cannot expand from the steam inside to create the desirable poof.
My recommendations: Use bread flour if you didn't before (AP flour will work, I prefer bread flour), consider replacing half of your liquid with milk (totally optional - just offering another personal prejudice here), and consider weighing-out your flour if you used a volumetric measure before. Keep in mind that you need to shoot for equal parts liquid and egg, with half that amount of butter and flour (by weight) - for example 8 oz. water (1 C), 4 oz. butter (8 Tbsp.), 4 oz. flour (if your recipe calls for a cup, my cups of flour always weigh more than 4 oz.), and 4 or 5 eggs (about 8 oz. worth).
Finally - keep adding egg until the dough consistency is right even if you have to add more egg than the recipe calls for. If you don't have a scale to weigh-out your flour, go ahead with your volumetric measure but be aware that you might need to add some extra egg to your dough to get a smooth and fluid consistency - and if you add extra egg here, remember that a whole extra egg might be too much - beat a whole egg before adding it to your dough so you can incorporate it in stages to get you a consistency that you can easily pipe-out.
Thank you very much for this response I know that the question was a little bit vauge, but this answer helped me solve a lot of problems I was having with my crueler recipe and the techniques that I was using.
I just came across your question regarding the chocolate eclairs and the secret is the water and butter has to be boiling rapidly when you put the flour in. I know this as I have had disasters as well, but now I am a pro.
yes I agree the water and butter must be boiling then add the flour and stir briskly with a wooden spoon then wait for the paste to come away from the side of pot before taking off the heat add eggs 1 by 1 whisking briskly with a wooden spoon for each egg I leave the paste in the pot and use a spoon to put the mixture onto a greased oven tray choux cooks within 20-30 mins should be puffed and light when cool fill with whipped cream and chocolate icing - DEVINE!!!
Janice, welcome to the site! We have a rule here: new answers must give new insights - this has a lot to do with how the site works: Unlike most webforums that repeatedly add "I think so too" comments, we express agreement by upvoting existing answers. Please have a look at our tour and the help pages.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.808778
| 2010-12-09T04:04:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9901",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"David Gardiner",
"FoodTasted",
"Marc CHARLEBOIS",
"Maverick33",
"MegaMark",
"Olga Otani",
"Preston",
"Saad Shahid",
"Sarah",
"Seamus Campbell",
"Seth Paulson",
"Stephie",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87236",
"kenny russell",
"rumtscho",
"srlm",
"xavier carbonel"
],
"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
}
|
20132
|
Can I use my dehydrator to raise bread?
I bought a dehydrator about a year ago and the product manual says that a dehydrator is great for leavening bread. I have tried this a number of times with (seemingly) good results, but I am unsure if the dehydrator is having an adverse affect on the final product.
I have the 9 Tray Excalibur, and I usually place a bowl of warm water at the bottom, then place a large mixing bowl with a dish cloth over the top on the third tray (just above the bowl of water). I'll turn the dehydrator to 95°F (35°C), and let the dough rise according to the recipe.
When dehydrating fruit/vegetables or making trail mixes, etc., the dehydration time is usually measured in days rather than hours. From that perspective, I don't think that my breads should be significantly dehydrated during the rising process, but I don't know for sure.
Also, the Excalibur works by 'fanning' the moist air away from the trays inside. The fan is not forceful, and is not powerful enough to shift a damp dish towel, but it will easily lift a piece of paper towel or similar. As I typically use a damp towel to cover the bowl, I don't think air flow is an issue either.
Are my assumptions correct that this is a safe thing to do, or am I setting myself up for failure and dooming some would-be delicious breads?
Which stage are you using it for? A warm environment is only recommended for the final stage, when you are proofing the completed breads. In the previous stages, you want a slow fermentation, to give taste time to develop.
Can you be more specific about your concern? You say that a) you've tried a number of times with good results, and b) it seems to work. So, are you worried about food safety? Damaging the dehydrator? You'll surely know it if your dough starts to get dehydrated.
Sounds like it's working for you. As long as the dough doesn't form a skin, inhibiting rising, then looks like it ain't drying out.
Very even heating too, I imagine; that's critical: with the hot and cold patches of some big ovens, uneven fermentation and rising could ruin a loaf especially the final proofing. Cracks in the sides of the crust can be blamed on this.
It's common practice to raise yeasted bread in a warm, humid environment -- it's what yeast like best. Professional bakers will often use a proof box that lets them control the temperature and humidity. Home bakers will often use a just-warm oven or a microwave oven (both turned off!) with a container of warm water. Using your dehydrator this way is absolutely fine so long as you keep the temperature low enough to keep the yeast happy. 95°F should be fine.
It's true that a long, slow rise (produced by rising at lower temperature) can produce more/better flavor in your final loaf. On the other hand, the bread you make and eat today is much, much better than the bread that you forgot to start yesterday and can't eat today. Besides, slow rising is only one of many ways to add great flavor.
The faster you do your first rise on bread, the less complex the flavors. Unless you're in a hurry, a slow, long overnight rise in the fridge will result in better flavors. The enzymes in the bread will have more time to do their magic and convert the starch to sugar.
If you need a quick second rise or you're working with a highly enriched dough and you don't want to wait for 'complex flavors', then consider your dehydrator as a good source for a quick rise.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.809947
| 2012-01-03T01:11:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20132",
"authors": [
"Caleb",
"Kodin",
"Travis Bemrose",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5505",
"rumtscho",
"shikarishambu"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20403
|
What is the proper/most common way to serve curry?
I went to a Thai restaurant this afternoon and ordered Massaman curry, which I've never had before. When I make curry at home, I usually mix it with chicken and pour it over rice and eat. But this curry was served in a bowl with a serving of rice beside it. So, doing what I normally do with curry, I flattened out the rice, poured the curry over the rice and ate it.
I realized afterwards that perhaps I was supposed to put the rice in the bowl and eat it like that, but I hadn't heard of doing that before. Is it normal to serve/eat curry that way? Does it depend on the type of curry being served?
What made you think you were suppose to put the rice in the bowl and eat it that way?
@Jay I wasn't sure if it was supposed to be a soupy curry or a curried soup. If it was the latter, it would make sense to me add the rice to the bowl rather than empty the bowl's contents over rice. I guess an analogy would be thin chowder served with crackers. You don't pour the chowder on the crackers, you put the crackers in the chowder.
I added a couple new sentences to my answer to address your concern of thin curry.
Label this indian-cuisine might not be right. Thai != Indian.
Whoops, don't know how I managed that one. Thanks
There are two traditional way to eat curry. Indians typically eat their curry with a type of bread. Usually Naan or Roti and use piece of the bread as a scoop/spoon of sort.
Thai curry will tend to be eaten, as you suggested, over top of rice. Typically it is separated when it is served so the rice does not get soggy while it is waiting to be served. The rice is typically served on a plate big enough to fit both the rice and the curry.
Of course, you can eat the rice and curry however you see fit.
Also there are thin soups that is flavoured with curry but usually those aren't served with rice so there shouldn't be confusion in that category. But do note that if you think the curry is too thin, it will thicken as it mix with the starch from the rice.
This was a Thai curry at a Thai restaurant.
This answer does not really apply to Thai style curries, it is a very valid answer for Indian style curries
With Asian soupy curries, use a spoon and take a small portion of rice, then dip it into the curry and soak up some soup and pick up some solid parts as desired
Often there are things in the curry that are not very edible, just there for flavour and aroma. By dipping you can miss them out with ease, and not make a big mess
I wanted to clarify some things about curry with regard to Indian and Japanese curries, because, while I don't know much about Thai curry, Jay's answer appears to suggest it is comprehensive.
Indian Curry: It is typically served with Naan in some regions and the naan is used as a scoop for the curry. It is also served with rice only on some occasions, at which point the rice is placed into the curry, mixed with rice and placed into the mouth using a hand.
Japanese Curry: It is eaten with a spoon, specifically a western style spoon.
Sources: Lived and ate in Japan; When I came to the United States, I was invited to many private meals with my Indian employer and his family/friends.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.810260
| 2012-01-12T19:45:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20403",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Cascabel",
"EvilAmarant7x",
"Jay",
"Jermaine Hamilton",
"Kumnaa",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8696",
"ssdscott"
],
"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
}
|
20844
|
What is the difference between caramelized onions and "crispy onions"?
I've searched around for information on this, and seen "caramelized onions" in some places (simple enough to make), and then what can only be described as a VIOLENT reaction indicating that rather than caramelized onions, "crispy onions" are the proper accoutrement to Mujaddara.
What is the difference, and what do I need to know in order to make crispy onions for Mujaddara?
Both crispy and caramelized onions are cooked for a long time, and will be very brown. However, they are cooked slightly differently.
Caramelized onions are usually cross-cut on the onion to release its moisture, and then cooked over very low heat in a crowded pan, stirring infrequently, so that they gradually release their sugars and liquid and it turns to caramel. Depending on the onions and desired result, you may even cover them, an add a little liquid and/or sugar. The end result is very soft and very sweet.
Arabic-style crispy onions are cut pole-to-pole in order to avoid rupturing cells in the onions. They are then fried over medium heat in an uncrowded pan, stirring regularly. This lets them dry out and become brown and crispy, even burning on thin ends. These onions should be a mix of crispy and chewy, and more savory than sweet.
Crispy onions are... well... crispy. They've been carmelized, and then cooked further until the moisture evaporates. A wide pan, lots of thickly-sliced onions (figure at least one good-sized onion per serving; they cook down a lot), medium-low heat, plenty of extra-virgin olive oil, a big pinch of salt, and about an hour. They'll go soft, then caramelize, then dry out and get crispy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.810557
| 2012-01-27T21:07:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20844",
"authors": [
"Mushiii",
"Scott K",
"Vamanan Rajadurai",
"bec",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45943",
"ross"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19539
|
What's an inexpensive substitute for Port wine?
Is there a good substitute for port? It's for a slow cooked pork loin recipe. I'm not concerned about the alcohol, but I would like to keep the cost down.
Decent port is not necessarily expensive; you may find yourself spending more on the meat. For example, Sandeman's Founders Reserve 750 ml runs about US$15 before taxes, Dow's Fine Tawny 750 ml is about US$13, and Graham's Six Grapes Ruby 750 ml is about US$8 (and this is just the start of the list). These are, perhaps, not the connoisseur's choices, but they are hardly undrinkable. Depending on the laws where you live, you (or your favorite wine shop) can order any of these online from a variety of sources.
Port has a unique character that is not easy to replicate with any other wine or fortified wine. If you are trying to replicate a result, do not substitute. If you really want something else that will serve the same role even if it will taste different, I would look to a Madeira, a cream sherry, or sweet Marsala (depending on your tastes).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.810715
| 2011-12-09T19:27:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19539",
"authors": [
"Chuck Martin",
"Ehsan88",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42553",
"jeff",
"unknown6656"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19440
|
How can I harden the centre of a partly cooked christmas cake
My christmas cake has been baked for the correct time as per recipe but the centre has remained soft whilst the outside is hard. Would a period in a microwave finish the centre without ruining the remainder?
Not answering so much as probing the problem: have you cooked this cake before? In the same pan, and same oven? Once, using foil to stop the top browning (when I was younger) I covered the hole in the bunt-style pan. That is crucial for air convection...
I have made 3 cakes to the same recipe and in the same oven and tin for the last 2 years with no problems.
I have never tried cooking a partially-done cake in a microwave to finish, but I don't expect it to turn out a desirable result. You may be out of luck for the current batch.
In future, I recommend going by internal temperature, rather than total cooking time. Depending on the recipe, cakes using wheat flour tend to set around 200F (93C), so aim for 205F; you may need to do a batch or two as an experiment before you find out the perfect "done" temperature for your cake. Get yourself an instant-read thermometer or probe thermometer; make sure the tip of the probe is in the very middle of your cake when you take your readings. Also, keep in mind that the cooking process continues even after you pull the cake out of the oven -- as the cake sits "cooling", the residual heat on the surface slowly penetrates to the middle. Be sure to give your cake time to finish this resting process before you cut into it or stick it in the refrigerator/freezer.
As for hard-on-the-outside, there could be several reasons for this, but the one that comes to mind as likely is that the sides of the cake set too quickly for the recipe. This could easily happen if the material of the pan you are using is too conductive. Glass and ceramic bakeware heats slower than metal, and among metal cake pans, dark surfaces heat faster than dull or shiny ones. If you are already using glass/ceramic bakeware, then get an oven thermometer to make sure your oven is heating to the correct temperature. Even top quality oven thermostats rarely stay accurate over time. If that doesn't reveal any problems, try dropping the oven temperature a little and extending the bake time.
If you are making largish cakes, say 8" diameter or above and are deep like Christmas cakes, and you're doing it in (metal) cake tins, you might consider using flower nails.
Flower nails look like big metal drawing pins, The base of the flower goes in the bottom of the cake tin and must be in contact with the tin, so if you are lining the tin with greaseproof paper, use must pierce the paper so that the base of the flower is between the tin and the paper and the point is in the cake mixture. The base of the flower nail absorbs heat from the base of the tin and transfers it into the centre of the cake evening out the temperature within the cake.
I use the Wilton No 7 flower nail but there are others out there that you can use.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.810829
| 2011-12-06T12:24:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19440",
"authors": [
"Swapneel Mehta",
"Valerie Burrows",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/835",
"maryfrances mazzoni",
"sdg",
"user2908232"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19736
|
Why am I getting runny whipped cream from my iSi canister?
Lately when I try to use my iSi the whipped cream just comes out very runny.
Does anyone know why this happens and what I can do about it?
Are you getting "ragged" cream as in this question: Why does whip cream dispenser sometimes produce "ragged" cream? Or is it actually coming out as liquid?
Things to check:
Seal. If the seal is broken/erroded gas will be able to escape and will therefore not whip your cream - giving you a liquid.
Canister (Charge) - Are you using a fresh charge (ie. NOS canister)? While it is unlikely, it is possible that you have either a dud box or it has somehow become damaged.
Position - Are you holding it correctly? I believe it should be completely inverted when using it forcing the gas through the cream as it escapes. Double check your instructions for your specific whipper.
Cold cream will work better than warm - What is the temperature of the cream you are trying to whip? Also I assume you are using 100% dairy cream? I've had mixed results with things like elmlea (a UK low fat "cream" that uses vegetable oil instead of dairy fat).
If you read the manual for the ISI whip, it has a few suggestions.The list goes like this:
-The whip is overfilled, pour some out and repressurize
-The device was not shaken enough (shake it vigorously and try again)
-The contents are too hot (let cool in the fridge)
-Your cream contains too little fat (it needs to be 30% minimum)
-If using a binding agent, you may have added the improper amount or used it incorrectly.
http://www.isinorthamerica.com/fileadmin/files/images/iSi_North_America/Images/Documents/Creative_Whip_ENGLISH.pdf
A cold canister held upside down works best.
I double charge my canister and find it produces a better structured, denser cream. I haven't read about doing this anywhere else so maybe I'm going to blow myself up one day.
I also like to flavour my cream right in the canister. A packet of good vanilla sugar does wonders. I know some chefs heat the cream first to melt in a little white chocolate and then cool it and put it into the canister (haven't tried this yet).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.811211
| 2011-12-18T01:56:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19736",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Christopher Markieta",
"JVas",
"Lee",
"Michael Albers",
"Phillip Gessert",
"Will Lokes",
"chip",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52253"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2647
|
Why is there a watery run-off after cooking my bolognese?
It's a fairly standard recipe with passata and wine, simmering on a low heat for a couple of hours. After stirring and putting the bolognese onto the pasta, after a couple of minutes the sauce separates a watery run off onto the bottom of the plate. The pasta is fully drained, and the bolognese seems good in the pot. How can I reduce the wateryness, simply cook the bolognese for much longer? I haven't wanted to risk drying it out/burning.
Laughed looking at this old post - I no longer have this problem. Longer cooking time encouraging caramelisation around the edge and on top, and just simply cooking it longer and risking what i thought back then was burning. Oven cook a long time lid off no stirring beyond each hour. I also do much larger batches which helps.
A few things that can help, if it's not an issue with fat like @Aaronut suggested:
Tomato paste. Yes, I know it's a sacrelige, but it'll act as a thickener.
Take the pasta out before it's gotten to al dente, and finish cooking it in the sauce; the pasta will absorb any extra liquid, and help to thicken the sauce.
Do not rinse off the pasta after you drain it. Way too many people do, and it washes off the starch that you want for the sauce to bind to the pasta properly, and may introduce extra water.
Indeed, pulling the pasta early will mean it's still slightly hygroscopic, pulling in moisture from the sauce. Not only will the sauce not run but it'll stick to the pasta a lot better.
Thanks everyone. It wasn't fat, that seems to have absorbed fine, so i'll cook up the veg and mince for longer, then it's pasta in the sauce to finish. I'll post back with stories of great success.
In my experience 9.8 times out of 10 when I see water, its from the pasta.
That run-off you're seeing is probably not water, but fat separating. Touch or taste a bit of the liquid; if it seems oily at all, then it's fat.
When making bolognese, if you don't want this to happen, you need to frequently skim off the fat that rises to the top. If you just stir it back in, it will separate again later.
You should also cook it slowly (skimming often) for a good 4 hours or so.
I should note that the fat is not necessarily evil and some cooks insist that you should never skim, because that's where the flavour is. Personally, I've never found much difference in the flavour whether you skim or not - but if you don't skim, the fat content causes the mixture to separate later.
The same thing happens with chili, or any dish where you're using ground chuck that hasn't already had all the fat removed by deep browning. Eventually, during cooking, that fat will leave the meat, and you have to either skim it off, cook it off, or contend with greasiness.
you do have another option, which is emulsify the fat back into the sauce, which you may or may not be able to do without affecting the flavour
I've cook ragu for 20 years and never had a "fat" problem. Maybe you should use leaner mince?
@Sklivvz: Bolognese is just one type of Ragù, so it's not clear that you're actually referring to Bolognese or what you would define as a "problem". Considering the amount of meat, milk, and oil used in Bolognese, it's very unlikely that you wouldn't get a certain amount of rendered fat. It might be less if you used shredded meat instead of ground, but that's hard to find here.
@Aaronut, there is no milk in ragù alla bolognese... and I can assure you that with lean mince, decent sausages and the appropriate amount of butter and oil, you don't have any extra fat. Trust me, I'm Italian ;-)
@Sklivvz: Every recipe I have ever seen for Bolognese involves milk. In fact, it's one of the most important ingredients. It's clearly stated in the traditional recipe. I really don't care where you're from or what your ancestry is; if you're not using milk, you're not making Bolognese.
How is that a traditional recipe? The classic compendium of traditional Italian cooking is the Artusi (XIX century)... And there is no milk in the recipe. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CvNJXPb7wnIC&lpg=PA599&dq=maccheroni%20alla%20bolognese%20artusi&pg=PA94#v=onepage&q=maccheroni%20alla%20bolognese%20artusi&f=false
@Sklivvz: Go to the bottom. That is the actual, "official" recipe according to the Accademia Italiana della Cucina. That's a nice link you posted but just how far back in time are we going to go when we say "traditional?" The preparation has used milk for many years. It's also typically served with spaghetti today and not macaroni, so one has to take your version with a grain of salt.
I have had this problem of water on the plate too.
Fully drained pasta (not rinsed) and added back to the dry pot for extra drying out. Sauce made with passata, wine, fully cooked veggies - and cooked for hours.
After all this, still that small pool of water on the plate. Annoying.
My solution is to pour the sauce into a sieve / strainer and let the small amount of water run out. It is just water, not fat, and not adding any flavor.
To avoid watery spaghetti on the plate, drain spaghetti, do not rinse. Dump the spaghetti into the sauce. Make sure its al dente. Wait about 10 minutes and serve. You will have no watery spaghetti on your plate.
Passata is not the base of any authentic Bolognese sauce. That is your problem. Soffritto is the base of Bolognese, and only a small amount of tomato should be added to it mid-way. Switching from tomato-based to soffritto-based sauce fixed my Bolognese, and I bet it will for you as well. Look up Marcella Hazan's recipe.
Marcella Hazan here advocates for 1 and a half cups of tomatoes (quite a lot of tomato!), and weirdly, no olive oil. https://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/1015181-marcella-hazans-bolognese-sauce
It seems that all spagetti sauce separates, regardless of who makes it, excepting those who use starch to thicken it....ugh.
Simple, make nests of spagetti, ladle the sauce on it, tilt the plate, and lay a few paper towels at the edge of the nest of sauce laden spagetti. In a minute or two the watery stuff separates and goes into the paper towel. Remove the watery laden towel and throw it away and voila! The remaining sauces is no longer watery.
And no...all the sauces that do this--it's not fat separating it's water.
If there is watery run-off after simmering for a couple of hours, I would suggest that too much liquid was used to begin with. In my experience the only run-off after a low, slow cook is rendered fat, the excess water having evaporated to a large extent.
So after years and years of the same problem i finally had full success last night. The key was heat! Heat as in don't let the sauce or noodles be too hot! If your like me you cook your meat sauce for an hour or two and put it on top of your noodles. I've tried everything in this posts without much luck. While adding your noodles to your sauce does work my problem is i usually make a pretty big batch of sauce. Who wants all sauce with a few noodles, or all noodles with little sauce? After you've cooked your sauce to your satisfaction take the lid off and let it sit/ cool with an occasional stir while you cook your noodles. Drain your noodles and let them quit steaming. Put it all together and problem solved. Both the noodles and sauce are still plenty hot enough to enjoy but by doing this neither are hot enough to allow the moisture in the noodles to end up pooling water on the bottom of your plate.
I have made pasta sauce from scratch with mince for decades and never had any water run off until......i bought the most expensive lean beef mince from an artisan farm and each time i put it on the plate a hell of a lot of water seeps out like magic....its like soup. So the answer is but mince that has more fat content.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.811431
| 2010-07-21T17:56:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2647",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Chris Hernandez",
"Chris Steinbach",
"EDabM",
"John Sjölander",
"Mary Sneha",
"Mike Yockey",
"Mohamed Tahri",
"Sam Holder",
"Sklivvz",
"Supercereal",
"YorSubs",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/990",
"paprika"
],
"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
}
|
2503
|
Does it matter what kind of sugar is used in baking?
The baking recipes I use specify many kinds of sugar e.g. caster, raw, white, soft etc.
Generally, I always just use raw sugar, mainly for convenience.
Does it really make a difference?
Yes!
Sugar is often used as a "wet" ingredient in baking. That means it needs to be dissolved in the water in order to prevent too much gluten from being produced (making the result fluffy/flaky, and not chewy). Different sugars hold different amounts of moisture (for example, brown sugar holds more than white) and using sugar with crystals that are too large (or too small) will make the texture come out completely wrong. Too small and your cake will be rubber; too large and your biscuit will fall apart.
Also, if you're using the sugar for creaming (with fat), you generally need to use a coarser sugar. Superfine sugar will dissolve too quickly and won't allow enough air to be incorporated. Confectioner's sugar is good for creaming but has completely different properties from crystal sugar - it's been "processed" and has cornstarch added, so you can't just substitute in equal quantities.
Of course, it goes without saying that the taste is different as well. But even more important than the taste are the solubility characteristics which, as explained above, will have noticeable effects on other parts of the recipe.
It does depend what you're baking; if the sugar is being used purely for flavouring, then you can use whatever sugar you like. Much of the time in baking though, sugar is used for more than just sweetening, and it's important to be aware of that. If the sugar is being creamed or dissolved, don't substitute unless you're sure you know what you're doing.
and sometimes we want fast disolving from superfine sugar (eg, in meringue)
I wanted so badly to post "Of course it does!" but I just couldn't quantify what I knew to be true. This answer is right on the money.
Good point @Joe. I've always associated meringues with confectioner's sugar, which is... er, super-duper-uber-fine. :)
There's also a difference between brown and white sugar even though they have roughly the same texture/consistency. Cookies will be chewier if you use more brown sugar.
Because brown sugar, honey, molasses, and corn syrup are all very hygroscopic (have ability to pull moisture from their surrounding atmosphere), they are often used when a softer chewier outcome is desired. Cookies made with all brown sugar will soften upon sitting a day or two from absorbing atmospheric moisture. White sugar crystallizes upon cooling and will produce a crisp texture. As far as white and brown sugars go, you can substitute one for the other, measure for measure.
I make Biscotti and have had great success in following my own recipe, however when visiting my daughter who uses only raw sugar, when I added it to the beaten eggs and melted butter it changed the whole structure of the cookie. It puffed up like a huge marshmallow, however I continued to add the rest of the ingredients.
Upon baking the loaf, it did not raise as expected, it was somewhat raw in the middle of the cookie and it required a much longer time to be completely baked. It tasted great, but I do not recommend using raw sugar in baking unless you do some research first.
Yes, very much so.
There are many types sugar: icing/confectioners sugar, light brown sugar, dark brown sugar, caster/super fine sugar,Demerara sugar, granulated sugar to name just a few.
Each of these (with the exception of brown sugars and Demerara) can be also found in a 'raw' form (as opposed to 'white') where the molasses (a dark, treacle-like by-product of sugar production) is added back into the sugar resulting in a darker sugar. These raw sugars can be substituted into any baking product specifying for white sugars (as can white sugar visor-versa) resulting in products with a more pronounced 'caramel' flavour. The only thing to note is that raw sugars in a meringue results in a softer meringue.
Icing sugar is generally only used in frostings and icings, particularly in 'quick frostings' and glacé icings. In cake products they give the finished product a drier, almost 'crusty' result. However, they are used in melting moment biscuits.
Caster sugar and granulated sugar can be substituted for each other, although using caster sugar creates better meringues which 'melt in the mouth' better as the finer crystals are more easily dissolved. Saying that, it wouldn't be a disaster at all if granulated sugar was used.
Brown sugars have more moisture in them due to the presence of more molasses but can also be substituted in most uses. Dark brown sugar has more molasses than light brown sugar.
Demerara sugar is often used in crumble toppings and occasionally in some biscuits owing to its coarse texture. However it is not often found in cakes or frostings.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.812082
| 2010-07-21T00:43:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2503",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Christian Lescuyer",
"Darin Sehnert",
"HVAC Repair Replacement",
"Joe",
"Michael Reed",
"Mike Yockey",
"Reinstate Monica - Goodbye SE",
"Robert Balent",
"Scott Bartell",
"abmv",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/990",
"lainie",
"smassey"
],
"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
}
|
3757
|
Is it possible to make fudgy brownies without oil?
What can I substitute for oil in brownies and still get fudgy brownies? I've tried yogurt and sour cream (individually) and only replacing half the oil with one of those, but the brownies always end up cakey. Should I just give up and accept that brownies are not a health food, or are there other ways to use less oil?
lots of chocolate chips :-)
If you have a recipe that already produces a dense fudgy brownie and you're looking to do it without oil, you're just out of luck.
If you're looking to produce a dense fudgy brownie and wondered if, while you were at it, you might cut back on the oil...NO, but here are some suggestions for making a cakey brownie more dense and "fudgey":
Follow Tim's advice above on using butter instead of oil. It's not doing anything as far as calories but it will produce better flavor vs. a neutral oil. However, particularly if you're planning to put nuts in them, you could replace a portion of the vegetable oil with walnut or hazelnut oil for enhanced nutty flavor.
Replace half of the whole eggs with egg yolks. Cakiness in brownies is partly due to the use of whole eggs. Egg whites have a drying effect on baked goods. In converting a brownie recipe I did, I used 2 egg yolks for each whole egg.
Replace part of the granulated sugar with corn syrup. They hygroscopic nature(ability to absorb moisture and retain it) of the corn syrup will create a more dense moist result. I think I replaced about half the sugar with corn syrup. The added moisture of the corn syrup will help to off-set the loss of moisture from removing the egg whites.
Method/Technique:
Heat chocolate, butter, cocoa powder over a hot water bath until chocolate is melted. Stir to blend to a smooth consistency. Set aside to cool slightly.
Beat egg yolks/whole egg with sugar and corn syrup until thick, light in color, and mixture forms a "ribbon".
Combine dry ingredients and make a well in the center.
Temper chocolate into egg/sugar mixture. Mix to blend well. Add to dry ingredients and fold together just until moistened. Pour into greased pan and bake until set.
Overbeating eggs is what makes brownies cakey in my experience. My recipe uses 5 eggs and they've always been fudgy, because I just whisk them until combined. Also, overbaking is a major factor. You want them almost underdone when they come out as they will carry on cooking out of the oven.
BROWNIES ARE NOT HEALTH FOOD!!!! The very idea is sacrilegious.
You can substitute melted butter quite successfully for taste and texture, though make sure to adjust the salt if it's salted butter.
I am well aware they're not a health food...but since they should be topped with ice cream, I'm hoping to make them a bit better.
The easiest way to make them healthier is mooching off someone else's plate. ;-)
Eat A brownie, not the whole pan. OR Have a really good brownie and just forego the ice cream if it's a concern.
I add applesauce in place of oil. The replacement is equal.
I make brownies by melting 250g of butter and 200g of couverture chocolate together in a saucepan over low heat. I think this is what makes them very moist and "fudgey."
I agree with the others who have commented - brownies are not a health food. Even if you could substitute the butter for oil to get the texture you desired, they still contain too much chocolate and sugar to be classified as a health food.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.812474
| 2010-07-30T03:24:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3757",
"authors": [
"Chad",
"ChefLadyBugg",
"Darin Sehnert",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Matt",
"Rebekah",
"Sandra Schlichting",
"Tim Gilbert",
"Tux",
"ceiling cat",
"demongolem",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/839",
"mickburkejnr"
],
"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
}
|
2440
|
How do cooks prepare risotto in a restaurant?
I'm not looking for a Risotto recipe. I make a pretty nice risotto, thank you very much.
But, making a risotto takes about 20 minutes. It seems unreasonable to me that a cook would start from scratch in a restaurant.
So how do they do it? There must be some pre-cooking involved, and then it's finished off when ordered in about 5 minutes.
Great answers so far, particularly Joe's. I'm going to let it ride for a while before accepting. Maybe we'll get a real chef to tell us how it's done.
It's actually hard to hold when it's almost all the way cooked - it'll start getting gluey if you let it cool off, but could start scorching on the bottom if it's not stirred, and get too runny if you keep adding stock.
Mario Batali said that risotto isn't finicky in the middle - so you can cook it part way, cool it down (I think he said he spread it on sheet pans to cool quickly), then you can add hot stock and cook it from that point, so you've already got a 10 minute head start.
I've also been to a restaurant where it was only served on the hour and half-hour.
That is correct Joe...in restaurants the rice and onions are par-cooked about 2/3 of the way and then spread out on sheet pans to cool and go into the walk-in. When needed for service, the par-cooked rice goes into a saute pan with hot stock added and it's finished off. Doing it in this manner also allows you to do a large batch of par-cooked rice but then vary the flavor of the finished item by using tomato juice, vegetable purees, etc. to offer more than one type of risotto.
I am a cook in an Italian restaurant. We cook risotto to order, from scratch in under 20 minutes.
You need a hot pan, hot stock and a hot French top/burner.
It's easy. Add onion, butter, olive oil, salt and pepper, sweat the onion (it in your already hot pan). Add rice, toast and deglaze the pan. add stock, cream, salt. Come back in 10-15 minutes (All that stirring is actually not necessary). Add your veg, stock, salt. Finish with cheese and butter.
You need 18-20 minutes for perfect al dente risotto.
Not certain if this is a true risotto, tho - the creaminess should come from the rice and stock, not butter, olive oil and cream. This requires time and effort. I'm sure it's delicious, but it's not risotto.
What distinguishes risotto from boiled rice is the initial toasting of the rice. It is pretty common to "mantecare" with butter (no translation but it derives from the Spanish word for butter itself) after the heat is turned off, as the starch released from the rice won't make the rice grains stick together.
Risotto can linger for a while and be plenty tasty, and it reheats fine if you add some liquid. Arborio is tough as nails, and can withstand a ton of abuse. If it were me, I'd cook it until it's about 75% finished, and then cool it.
Then you could just slop it out in a skillet and finish it off in a few minutes with a little more broth and some grated parmesan.
I've read a lot of people say, however, that it can't be done without the risotto devolving into a blob of starch. Some people add cream to slow down the arborio's ability to absorb liquid. I think though, that it wholly depends on your crowd. If you're serving at a nice restaurant, held over risotto is probably not going to cut it.
Also, it's the stirring/agitating later in the cooking process that releases the starches (that's why you don't stir for paella), so as long as that initial pre-cook is left untouched during that process, it shouldn't release too much starch vs a normal single-go cooking process.
I've been told by an Italian chef that Carnaroli rice is often used in restaurants due to its ability to stay solid longer than any other strain of rice. I suppose that when using Carnaroli you could indeed cook it almost all the way through, then finish the dish with some more broth.
You could also make all the preparation, e.g. sautee the onions, vegetables, etc, so that when a dish of Risotto is ordered it can be ready in 20 minutes. Some restaurants I've dined in warn you when you order Risotto that it takes a while to prepare...
Both Carnaroli and Vialone Nano are used for Risotto in addition to Arborio rice. I'm not sure about Carnaroli but Vialone Nano is used primarily in the Venice Veneto region of northeast Italy because they prefer their risotto to be cooked to a doneness known as "al onda" or wave-like, a bit soupier than it's usually cooked to here and in some parts of Italy. I presume the Vialone Nano doesn't absorb liquid as quickly/readily as the other two or at least as much as Arborio.
Par cooking, if done properly, will not change the texture of the rice. The key is to cool quickly! Then make sure stock is very hot and rice is at room temp when finishing off. This will basically pick up the cooking process exactly where you originally left off at since you cooled it quickly thus limiting the continuation of the cooking process. Biggest mistake would be assuming that the amount of time to finish is just picking up at the time stopped without realizing that the rice, if not cooled quickly, has continued cooking after you stopped and then you overcook it, hence it becoming mushy. If you don't make this assumption and test your rice you will be fine without loss of quality.
There seems to be some fanfare for par cooked risotto. What happens once cooled, the grain will heat up much faster on the outside than the inside and will absorb the extra liquid far quicker creating a mushy outer layer on each grain which will still needs to be cooked at the inner core.
The single biggest factor with the final flavor and texture is the initial saute or roast of the grains before the liquid is added. Add diced onion and olive oil to a pan and heat a little before adding the rice. During the saute each grain will become translucent on the outside and at the ends while the middle will still be white. The rice will also start give off a strong aroma. This aroma will carry to the final product. If the rice is cooked too hot or too long at this stage it will lose the aroma and will not absorb liquid correctly, creating a soggy outside and hard inside.
I would gladly face any master chef in the world in the Iron Kitchen for Battle Risotto if they had the handicap of having to cool their product and reheat it while I can, without stopping, go from start to finish on the stove top. I would surely win no matter what other ingredients they put in it.
EDIT: I would in Iron Kitchen make a type of Paella which I believe made with a short grain rice is the single most technical dish in all of European cooking for added points in technique. How it's done.
It's not that we're advocating for parcooking -- the questions was in how restaurants do it, and many (not all) par-cook. There's a completely different question on how you should prepare risotto and only one of those answers (out of 10) mentions par-cooking. There are a number of other questions on risotto and paella
Bourdain, who loves gabbing about tricks like this says that you can spread it out in sheet pans and cool it when 'partway' done in his Les Halles cookbook. I think this is a sensible plan of attack, especially because I usually need 45 minutes to make Risotto, not 20.
That said, I haven't tried it, so I can't personally comment. I bet there are some easy sous vide applications here as well; I'd be interested to get a comment from a chef on that.
I've worked with a solution that I did not see mentioned here.
We served risotto every half hour. This was in a shared-plate restaurant, so it worked really well. Even if a table ordered a risotto at the very beginning of a new batch, we could always buy time on the table with appetizers, salads, etc.
Other answers here suggest that you can par-cook risotto or cook it without movement. This is true, but in my experience, a great risotto needs frequent movement, cannot be rushed, and has a very short shelf life.
So I believe that the other answers here are correct, but I would say that (and I apologize for stepping on any toes there) most restaurants don't serve very good risotto.
And when you find a restaurant that makes a good risotto, it might be inconsistent. (or I just had higher expectations after having a passable risotto the first time) And for the movement, part of the issue is that you want to be doing it when there isn't much liquid in the pan, to make sure they're scraping against each other.
I save time on homemade risotto by actually putting the rice in the rice cooker and cooking it until done. It's never disintegrated on me while finishing the risotto because it doesn't cook any longer, it's just reheated from the stock which isn't boiling and is in the pan no longer than a few minutes on low to medium heat. I use this method so I don't have to babysit risotto for 20 to 30 minutes and use the time preparing other menu items.
I made risotto last night, the conventional way which lead me to this question of how restaurants made it so quick. I take it that you partially boil the rice in stock, not water. I don't see where anyone mentions that major detail.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.812790
| 2010-07-20T20:08:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2440",
"authors": [
"Barbara",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Connor A. Gurney",
"Darin Sehnert",
"David",
"Fitzcarraldo",
"Jan Matson Dayton",
"Joe",
"Mathias F",
"Michael Pasqualone",
"OrangeWombat",
"Patrice",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Pvt Pepperjack",
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"Steve S",
"Tom Moseley",
"giorgiosironi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/121929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79607",
"jmlumpkin",
"Ò Ò"
],
"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
}
|
7493
|
Are products labeled Kosher or Halal generally of a better quality than those that aren't?
I'm talking grocery store products here (including packaged meat), not Butcher Counter where I can grill the butcher about origin.
This probably depends a great deal on regional and political circumstances, but where I live (Toronto), there are dozens of Kosher and Halal grocery stores (or stores with Kosher or Halal sections), and in my experience, the meat is actually generally of worse quality.
Halal, as it applies to meat, refers to which animals are allowed and the required method of slaughter (an incision across the neck, cutting the jugular vein and carotid artery in a single motion - Kashrut requires the esophagus and trachea to be cut as well). Kosher meat also has be koshered, which means soaking and salting the meat in order to draw out the blood.
As you might expect, the method of slaughter has no tangible effect on the quality of the meat, but the koshering process does, and the effect is not positive - it dries it out and makes it salty, and most kosher meat sold in supermarkets (and even the majority of butchers) is quite tough compared to its non-kosher counterparts.
That said, some people do prefer Kosher (not Halal) meat for health reasons, because the blood may carry uric acid and other compounds that some people do not wish to eat. I've never seen any specific scientific evidence that these compounds are harmful as far as meat consumption goes, and any reports of this leading to better flavour are anecdotal at best, but I am not an expert on the biological factors, so don't take my word for it.
Various Halal/Kosher laws also govern the facilities in which the meats (or other foods) have to be prepared, but it is important to note that these laws do not actually govern general sanitization! In fact, a number of butchers have been closed down by municipal health inspectors at various times for unsanitary conditions and other improper food handling practices (such as adding food colouring to meat to make it look fresher).
Note that I am not trying to impugn the Kosher or Halal industries. These practices are every bit as common in the mainstream food industry. I am simply saying that being kosher or halal does not have any real preventative value when it comes to shady/sloppy practices.
Another factor to consider is that supermarkets and butchers are a competitive industry, but being subject to Kosher/Halal laws greatly reduces the competition and raises the processing cost by sometimes astonishing amounts. These simple economic factors would lower the quality of any food being produced because parties collude and cut corners. Again, I cannot speak for every single region of the world, but here, you cannot find a kosher ribeye or prime rib steak. They simply do not exist. Whether it's because the butchers all prefer to make cheaper cuts or because they figure that a choice cut would simply end up being too expensive for anyone to consider buying, I'm not sure.
I know that several TV chefs in recent years have recommended buying kosher meat (and possibly halal, although I haven't personally heard that), but assuming that halal/kosher is optional for you (i.e. you are not Muslim or Jewish) then always do your own research before spending a lot of money on what may often turn out to be an inferior product.
Etobicoke here. Check out Medium-Rare at Kipling and Aukland (Kipling station) for some really awesome beef.
I am Jewish, and I remember seeing once that 65% of kosher meat is NOT eaten by jews. And unless my grocery is using a replacement cut and calling it rib-eye, I have seen alot of rib eye steaks. (They substitute the filet mignon with another cut as the filet comes from the hindquarters, which is not eaten by ashkenazic jewry)
Another factor to consider for kosher beef is that you will not be able to get all the cuts of meat. Because of issues with removing the sciatic nerve, kosher beef producers will only sell the front half of the cow -- the back half is generally sold to a non-kosher meat plant. So you cannot find kosher filet mignon in the US or Canada. (I've had it, but only in Israel.)
The reason many chefs recommend kosher meat is because the process of packing the meat in salt to draw off the blood means that it's essentially pre-brined. This saves a step if you're planning on brining the meat anyway.
Kosher products, however, have advantages for people with dairy allergies (or, of course, allergies to non-kosher ingredients such as shellfish or pork). If you buy a product that is labeled pareve (neither dairy nor meat) or meat, then you can be guaranteed that it will have no dairy in it.
Similarly, anything that is not specifically labelled meat will not have chicken or beef in it -- but it may have fish products, which are not considered meat. This means that you'll have to be careful with ingredients for vegetarians or vegans.
Like anything else, it really depends on the producer of the product. There are many kosher certification agencies, which have different rules, but none of them really relate to the quality of the food product -- just to the processing of the meat and to the source of the ingredients.
According to Wikipedia, it's about the sciatic nerve being hard to remove. Where there is a strong non-kosher market, the meat is sold. Whereas in densely populated Jewish areas, they will remove it and sell it as kosher.
Regarding halaal meat, the quality varies. In South Africa, particularly the inland provinces, halal beef sold by Muslim-owned butcheries and supermarkets is of relatively poor quality, but due to limited choices, Muslims didn't know any better. In South Africa at least, well-done beef was almost universally consumed by the Muslim community, until recently, meaning that the inferior quality was not apparent. The quality may improve as the Muslim population broadens its culinary horizons, and franchise restaurants require better quality meat to be served.
However, meat produced by commercial farming operations and feedlots in South Africa, that happens to be halaal (but is sold to the broader public), is very good. As far as I understand a lot of meat from Australia also happens to be halaal.
In summary: if meat is halaal, it won't be worse than regular meat, if it is aimed at the general population. If it is bought from an outlet that specifically targets Muslim consumers, then, due to their lack of knowledge, there is a risk that it could be inferior.
In general, by laws of economics, you can predict that (especially in areas with smaller Kosher or Halal consumers) you would likely get worse meat because the customers are a captive market with very little competition. There are counterforces to that (if the butcher themselves is a member of a small community, they have incentive to not do too bad a job), but as this answer stated, people who have only 1 butcher shop to shop at may not even realize they get subpar quality as they have no basis for comparison.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.813649
| 2010-09-21T15:17:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7493",
"authors": [
"Chris Cudmore",
"DVK",
"Doug Sewell",
"Dylan Patten",
"Mennyg",
"Natalie Smith",
"Toby",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54169",
"jonahlyn",
"user1190992"
],
"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
}
|
3629
|
Tenderness of sous-vide pork chops
I made some sous vide pork chops this week that didn't turn out as tender as I expected. They were about as tender as when I grill them; maybe a little bit worse.
I had marinated them overnight in a Vietnamese soy sauce, fish sauce, sugar, lemon grass, etc., marinate and them cooked them at 132 degrees in the marinade for about eight hours.
What could I try to do differently? Longer cooking? Brining?
Is the issue that they weren't tender or that you thought they should be more tender? It's a little hard to tell as you only compare them to your grilled chops, which I've never had. ;o) Also, how thick were the chops?
The chops were about .5 in/1 cm thick. Given how other things have turned out, e.g., beef short ribs in a similar soy sauce-based sauce, I expected them to be more tender. The short ribs cooked much longer but I didn't marinate them.
chops and short ribs have very different cooking characteristics in Sous Vide, and, unfortunately, your logic doesn't hold up (it would be sweet if it did though). I updated my answer below because the details were too long to put in a comment.
I had similar experiences, and I've found that there is a big difference for long cooking between 132°F and 138°F (55°C vs 57.5°). Try a slightly higher temperature next time, you should be pleasantly surprised!
The actual minimum temperature which kills the roundworm Trichinella spiralis is 137F.
Therefore it is recommended that you sous-vide pork at a temperature of 138F or higher. If you do not have a high quality immersion circulator with precise temperature control and your water bath temperature can vary by a few degrees, it is recommended to use at least 140F.
I use an industrial polyscience immersion circulator and I have found that cooking pork at 141F yields extremely tender meat that is both medium rare and safe. I had whole marinated pork tenderloins that I cooked for 6 hours this way and they came out tender enough to cut with a fork.
I also put a quick sear on the pork with a hot cast iron pan immediately after taking it out of the bath for additional flavor from the Maillard reaction.
FWIW, marinating meat in a salty sauce (fish sauce / soy sauce) will draw water out of the muscle fibers and make the meat tougher -- this is especially true for thin cuts like your 1cm thick chops.
Try marinating in the spices and seasonings with a bit of oil minus the salt or salty sauces (at the very least, reduce the amount of salt in the marinade). If you have a chamber vacuum, you can marinate in the sous vide packaging under vacuum which will lead to more intense flavor using a lot less marinade. After sous vide cooking, apply a small amount of your salt or salty sauces when serving the pork.
I think your mistake was to marinate them overnight in soy sauce. As it is salty it can start to preserve the meat and make it a bit like jerky.
I've had beef pieces that were almost petrified from about 2 days in a soy and ginger marinade.
I've had some similar results with pork chops. I think part of the issue was the quality of the meat I was using. A nicer cut of pork from a local farm was much better than something from the Kroger (grocery store).
You may want to cut your marinade time down. You essentially did 16 hours, as you cooked in it too. I generally just brine for 1-2 hours in a 7% salt 3% sugar brine, and then take that off before cooking.
How did you determine your cooking time? The amount of time you cook Sous Vide for can alter the texture in some rather unpleasant ways (Lobster particularly). Depending on the cut of your meat, you may have been able to take it out much earlier. If you're not using it regularly already, I strongly recommend Douglas Baldwins: A Practical Guide to Sous Vide. I haven't read his book, but the online resource is invaluable.
Based on Baldwin's charts, you would only need to cook a 1cm pork chop for 1:21 minutes to reach a safe zone. So you cooked it for 6 times longer than necessary. If I recall correctly, it's not recommended to leave lean meats cooking for more than 2-4 hours longer than necessary, and you definitely exceeded that.
The advantage of sous vide is fine temperature control. There are two basic ways to use this control. The first is to hit a desired temperature exactly and consistently through a piece of meat. This is ideal for tender meat with low fat content. In these cases, you should cook the meat for the minimum safe time give or take some for convenience as extended cooking will affect the texture of your dish. The second way to use it is for low and slow style cooking that allows you to have all the benefits of long cooking time and tenderizing nature but without having to cook the meat to well done. The second method is perfect for short ribs, roasts, a boston butt. However, if cooking something like pork chops, the extra cooking time won't make the end result any more tender and will eventually have an adverse effect.
The cooking time was between when I left for work and when I got home. :)
I agree with Grace.
I find that very lean cuts of meat (rack of lamb and pork tenderloin, eg) do not do as well in the sous vide over longer periods of time. 2-4 hours at 135 degrees seems to work for me.
I also find that over-salting and/or marinading can sometimes change the texture of some meats (maybe brining is the answer like Grace says). In my earlier experiments, I tried to add as much flavor as possible and cook for as long a time as I could in the sous vide (more=better, right??). I once salted a leg of lamb and cooked for 48 hours -- the taste and texture are difficult to describe, but the best I can do is "lamb baby food." Truly awful...
Very tough meats with lots of connective tissue (short ribs!) do very well for longer time periods. I think it has to do with breaking down the proteins in the connective tissues -- the longer cooking time "melts" the connective tissue out of the meat. You have not lived until you have had 48- or 72-hour sous-vide beef short ribs.
I also find that I like to season with salt (or anything with salt) after the fact. This is a personal preference -- I have seen many arguments online for and against. It just seems to work for me.
A few things I can suggest
To tenderise pork chops is to use onion in your marinate. Onion is a very good tenderiser, which won't affect your recipe a lot. You can have chopped onion in your over-night marinate and leave the onion out in your cooking.
Another trick that I was taught by some Chinese chefs is to let Pork chops to absorb water when you marinate the pork chops. When you prepare your pork chops, you can lightly bash them. After that you can add a bit of water (about 1/4 cups per 4 chops) in a bowl with the bashed pork chops, then you will see the pork chops magically absorb the water and then you can marine the pork chops.
(Please note that if your marine has a lot of liquid, maybe you can consider skipping the pork chops absorbing water. However, bashing the porks would be essential.)
Avoid putting salt in your marinate. Salt can make red meat hard. However, you can apply salt in your cooking process.
Try 140F for 1 hour. 8 hours is too long for a relatively tender cut like pork chops. Give it a quick 20 seconds post sear afterwards to finish.
Try brining instead of marinade that contains such a high concentration of salt. That partly contributed to the dry/tougher texture too.
140F for 1 hour? Have you Sous Vide before because that will definitely result in almost raw meat.
Was the real problem tenderness or dryness? Meat continues to lose moisture as it cooks, so there's a fairly complex curve relating tenderness to time and to juiciness. A very long-cooked piece of meat will be more tender than a short-cooked one, all else being equal ... this is because of thermal breakdown of collagen, and in some cases to enzymatic breakdown of other proteins. But it will be less juicy. You'll be able to measure more juices lost to the bag, so this isn't surprising.
There's no compelling reason to cook any part of the pork loin for several hours. I'm a bit surprised that it wasn't tender, but not at all surprised if it tasted dry, and if the doneness wasn't what you wanted. Most people like this cut on the pink side of medium, usually around 60C / 140F or a few degrees under.
You do NOT have to worry about trichinosis. It's a practically non-existant parasite in the developed world and it's easy to kill. The USDA guidelines are ludicrous. Trichinella worms are killed at 130°F in 112 minutes, and at 140°F in 12 minutes. I can promise you will die of something unrelated.
The time advice you're getting doesn't take the thickness of the chops into account. A doubling of thickness will result in about a 3-fold increase in cooking time. Here are some very general guidelines, if you're going from fridge temperature to 60C / 140F are 1” thick: 40 minutes. 1.5” thick: 1 hour 45 minutes. 2” thick: 2 hours 20 minutes.
Small changes in temperature do not make much difference; small changes in thickness make a substantial difference. Thermodynamics, etc..
Collagen melting doesn't start below certain temperatures, which are not achieved in sous vide. And many cuts just don't have sufficient collagen to get any noticeable tenderness.
According to McGee, collagen to gelatin conversion can start as low as 140 F--by no means unachieveable in a sous vide situation--but is impractically slow at that temperature. It is usual to find cooking that intends to make use of collagen using temperature of at least 160 F, and commonly >180 F.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.814234
| 2010-07-28T20:02:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3629",
"authors": [
"Andy Allison",
"David Norman",
"Dmitry Chornyi",
"DocDude",
"Jay",
"Jennifer Zickerman",
"Marji",
"Mommyofjase",
"Perica Zivkovic",
"Ray",
"Spammer",
"WeaponsGrade",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96255",
"nima",
"prasad",
"rpacoedes",
"rumtscho",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58793
|
How to thin half and half to substitute for milk?
I have a recipe that is for a "Texas-Style Blueberry Cobbler" (site is paywalled) from America's Test Kitchen.
The recipe is as follows:
4 tbsp butter in four pieces + 8 tbsp melted & cooled
1-1/2 c sugar (10-1/2 oz)
1-1/2 tsp grated lemon zest
1-1/2 c all-purpose flour (7-1/2 oz)
2-1/2 tsp baking powder
3/4 tsp salt
1-1/2 c milk
This makes a batter-style base (rather than the more traditional biscuit-style).
All we have on hand is half and half. In this usage, is it acceptable to replace the milk with some fraction of half and half cut with water?
This answer discusses something similar with cream. I've found sites that say it's possible to do this but I'm not sure how trustworthy they are. Plus, they seem to disagree... some say to cut the half and half with water, other say to just replace it and expect a richer outcome.
Take out 4 tbsp butter and add the 1.75 c half and half. That's what I'd do anyway. It's about the same amount of fat and adds a bit more liquid back in. Keep in mind that butter changes consistency depending on when it is put in or how it is applied, so it's possible this won't work so well if you have to do some whipping or something.
Do not add water. You'll lose out on flavor.
My guess is that cutting the milk is the better option, considering the amount of butter in this recipe, it surely does not seem like the purpose of the milk in it is to add fat (which is all half and half would really be doing over cut half and half). 1.5 cups of milk has around 4g of fat while the butter in this recipe has nearly 150g of fat!
I probably should have mentioned it but only the 8 tbsp goes into the batter.
still that is nearly 100g of fat, compared to the 4g in the milk. Half and half would add over 42g. It probably doesn't matter so much either way though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.814955
| 2015-07-04T20:42:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58793",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"David Grocott",
"Gillian King",
"Jim Lewis",
"Michael Maclellan",
"Monica Hamp",
"WetlabStudent",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79496
|
What is the difference in method between French and Italian macarons?
According to this question, there are two different forms of macarons, "French" and "Italian". What is the difference between the French and Italian macaron method - and where does the name originate?
I'm guessing it has something to do with how the meringue is made as I've seen some recipes that use the Italian meringue method (hot sugar syrup) as opposed to a method that uses solid sugar.
Are both methods really still "French" regardless of the name? I ask because a book I'm reading is very obviously written by a French man (apparently the "king of French pastry" but he uses the method with the Italian meringue and doesn't call his macarons "Italian macarons". In fact, I'm pretty sure he refers to them as "French macarons".
As a note, I don't believe this to be a duplicate of the linked question as that is asking for differences in the results. I'm asking about differences in the actual method itself.
As a macaron fanatic, eating that is, and collector of recipes and cookbooks, I referred to Les Petits Macarons by Kathryn Gordon and Anne E. McBride and to Pierre Hermé Macaron and, you are correct, the difference is the meringue, itself: French, Italian, or Swiss.
The French method produces the correct texture and taste,light and delicate, for the French macaron.
Italian meringue is more stable, using hot sugar syrup instead of dry sugar, but the macaron is much sweeter, some feel too sweet, and it's more difficult to get the macaron to bake properly.
Macaron can also be made with Swiss meringue, whipping the sugar and egg white over a double boiler, then off heat, although this method is less commonly used.
My confusion, though, is that the entirety of his book uses the Italian meringue method... which doesn't jive with what you say in your second paragraph. Have I missed something? Does he actually use the French method himself but use the Italian method in the book because he thinks readers will be more likely to succeed?
@Catija I apologize... I pulled out his, and four others (yes, don't ask)... Les Petits Macarons by Kathryn Gordon and Anne E. McBride describes all three. I'll change the reference.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.815140
| 2017-03-29T15:41:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79496",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Giorgio",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39489"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56831
|
How to cook the food such that no acrylamide is formed?
How to cook the food such that Maillard reaction doesn't form acrylamide?
http://sciencefare.org/2011/06/01/maillard-reaction/
When food is cooked quickly at a high temperature, the Maillard reaction takes place within the food.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/10/10/162636059/100-years-ago-maillard-taught-us-why-our-food-tastes-better-cooked
There's a downside to the Maillard reaction in cooking, too. In certain circumstances, the reaction produces cancer-causing substances, like acrylamide and furans.
Which type of cooking can prevent or minimize Maillard reaction's production of acrylamide?
Source www.cancer.org Since acrylamide was first found in certain foods in 2002, dozens of studies have looked at whether people who eat more of these foods might be at higher risk for certain cancers.
Most of the studies done so far have not found an increased risk of cancer in humans. For some types of cancer, such as kidney, endometrial, and ovarian cancer, the results have been mixed, but there are currently no cancer types for which there is clearly an increased risk related to acrylamide intake.(cont.)
(cont.) The studies that have been done so far have had some important limits. For example, many of the studies relied on food questionnaires that people filled out every couple of years. These questionnaires may not have accounted for all dietary sources of acrylamide. In addition, people may not accurately remember what they have eaten when asked in personal interviews or through questionnaires. (cont.)
(cont.) While the evidence from human studies so far is somewhat reassuring, more studies are needed to determine if acrylamide raises cancer risk in people. The American Cancer Society supports the call by federal and international agencies for continued evaluation of how acrylamide is formed, its health risks, and how its presence in food can be reduced or removed.
I hesitate to write it as an answer but with the big Acrylamide Scare in the early 2000s came the following rule for starchy foods (roughly translated from German): "Gild, don't char". So don't exceed temperatures of 175°C / 350°F, keep cooking times short and don't let the food get too dark. Note that Acrylamide is fpound in starchy foods, so searing your steak is considered safe, as far as acrylamide is concerned.
Hello! I considered closing the question because this is actually not about food safety (which answers: is there a risk to get food poisoning?) but about the healthiness of food, which is usually very vague and unanswerable. But I think we can make an exception here, because you asked about the emergence of a known substance, and this is answerable without having to delve into muddy medical questions of cause and effect.
Salt your food well.
See for example this article (paywall, but the abstract is sufficient). You are unlikely to have calcium chloride in your kitchen, so you probably can't use the divalent cations route. But "monovalent cations, such as Na+, almost halved the acrylamide formed in the model system". Now, a model system is not a pan, but they at least found that the calcium example transfers well to frying, so (wet) salt is likely to work too.
Acid also seems to help, as shown in another paper. But note that they had to lower the surface pH of the potatoes to 4.0, which you may not want to do.
Note that the literature seems to concentrate on frying potatoes. We can hope that the methods are applicable to other foods, but I have seen no evidence for it yet.
@user36802 never ever advise people to use technical/industrial/household grade chemicals in food, moreso if they are metal salts of any description - the manufacturer does not have to care (and won't) if there are impurities in it unless they make the intended usage unsafe or unreliable. There have been food scandals about industrial-grade salt, sometimes with poisonous contaminants, being sold or used as table salt.
It's worth noting that although food-grade calcium chloride isn't an everyday ingredient, it's not hard to obtain (e.g. Modernist Pantry sells it on Amazon) because it's part of the standard basic spherification reaction. It is, of course, up to each individual to do their own cost/benefit analysis as to whether it's worth it.
One thing to note -- it's incorrect to assume that 120C (~248F) is the temperature at which acrylamide "begins" forming. Acrylamide does form at lower temperatures, and the rate and amount that is formed depends on the environment in which it is heated (e.g. dry/wet or open/closed vessel), as well the contents of the food itself (the sugars and amino acids in particular).
For example, based on the studies I've looked at, dry conditions form significantly more acrylamide than moist ones. Steam-assisted baking will reduce acrylamide production for instance (compared to non-steam-assisted).
You can read about a particular model study here on the formation of acrylamide below 100C in prunes.
The bottom line is that there is no method so far to guarantee that absolutely 0 acrylamide will be formed -- too many variables are at play. However, you can reduce acrylamide formation greatly by taking down some of the biggest players, like high temperatures and low moisture content.
First off here is my source www.cancer.org
Acrylamide does not appear to be in raw foods themselves. It is formed when certain starchy foods are cooked at temperatures above about 250° F. Cooking methods such as frying, baking, broiling, or roasting are more likely to produce acrylamide, while boiling, steaming, and microwaving appear less likely to do so. Cooking at high temperatures causes the Maillard reaction a chemical reaction between certain sugars and an amino acid (asparagine) in the food, which causes acrylamide to form. Longer cooking times and cooking at higher temperatures can increase the amount of acrylamide in foods further.
So according to my source, you would have to eliminate these factors. I don't see how you would be able to caramelize anything without using the Maillard reaction although, let alone use the Maillard reaction in your cooking, these factors are beneficial in successfully and properly performing the Maillard reaction.
Although read my comment above or visit the cancer.org website
Careful: Maillard reaction and caramelization are two different things, albeit with similar results, taste-wise.
so are the words caramelization and caramelize. No offense I guess I could of used a better word. I'm referencing a color not a process.
@Stephie I like your comment below the question below my long comment as an answer to the question.
"certain starchy foods", "asparagine" - So it needs starch and certain protein components to be present, not just starch. Frying something in a batter made of something having less asparagine might already lower the acrylamide significantly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.815352
| 2015-04-21T05:19:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56831",
"authors": [
"Carol Hinders",
"Chef_Code",
"David Lloyd",
"Emma Grove",
"Karen Aldridge-Morris",
"Karen Treanor",
"Marcella Mells",
"Peter K.",
"Peter Taylor",
"Rachel Wornham",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"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
}
|
42214
|
What is a Bamboo shoot called in Hindi?
I haven't seen these things in the markets here. How do I ask for them in the local market?
This question appears to be off-topic because it is about language issues. I think this can be solved with Google Translate or even Wikipedia.
@Mien For what is the "translation" tag then for?
To be deleted? :P No idea, I didn't see your other questions till now, and I don't know if they are on-topic... I think this tag is meant if you have a very specific term in a language. To me, 'bamboo shoot' is rather universal. But I'll let the mods decide.
@Mien - This is a question of cuisine, and not necessarily language! Culinary terms are fair game here, and this is a question about regional culinary terms, as a simple translation, "baans", may not give the questioner an edible ingredient from a local market in India.
Especially in light of your answer, @RISwampYankee, I certainly would not vote to close.
"Baans" (बांस) is the Hindi word for bamboo - there does not appear to be one for the edible shoot. Instead, there are a number of words used in Indian cuisine for bamboo shoots, depending on region.
In Mizoram, they are called 'Mau Tuai/Raw Tuai'. In Manipur, the fresh
bamboo shoots are called 'Uusoi' and the fermented bamboo shoots are
known as "Soibum". In Nagaland they are called bas-tanga. In Assam,
they are referred to as gaz and in Nepal as tama (Nepali: तामा). In
western orissa region of India, people call it kardi and it is the
most famous dish there. In Jharkhand, they are known as sandhna
Wikipedia article on Bamboo Shoots.
Bamboo shoot tips are called salad or simply sunjian in Chinese and
juk sun in Korean, mang in Vietnamese, take no ko in Japanese, gaz in
Assam, tama in Nepal and kardi in western orissa. Bamboo shoots are
eaten in Goa usually during the monsoon season and are commonly known
as Kill. Bamboo shoots are used in preparing curries and pickle in the
state of Jharkhand, India. In Western Orissa or the Kosal region of
India, it is a common ingredient. Since this region is dominated by
the tribal population, bamboo shoots (or “kardi” as it is known), is
believed to have been in use for hundred of years. In this region,
“kardi achar” (pickled bamboo shoots) and “kardi baja” (fried bamboo
shoot strands) are also popular.
"Bamboo Shoots" - by Sanjay Summa on the Vah Reh Vah site.
Keerl (bamboo shoots) is something you will either love or hate.
"Keerl Ani Moog Sukho" - by Shireen Sequeira on her Ruchik Randhap blog, devoted to Mangalorean cuisine.
Kalale and Kanile are the names given by the Bhakshya Bhojana blog.
thankful to you, but you haven;t told me what does it get called in north india. Moreover if I ask for "baans" in the grocery shop, they might think I am crazy!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.816297
| 2014-02-21T01:17:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42214",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"EMEL QUANTUM ENERGY spam",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mien",
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"Spammer",
"StackUnder",
"VEYgaJMrL5YzuiO0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98586"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28612
|
How do you tell whether a lobster is cooked?
"When boiling lobster, how do you tell when it's done? Is there a rough estimate of cooking time (eg: time/ounce, etc...)?
Read this, it's a great read! When I've got a minute, I'll put the conclusions in an answer.
@BaffledCook Have time to write up an answer? The link you posted, while indeed a great read, is focused on large lobster; most likely the OP doesn't have to embark on such an ambitious project.
@Jefromi, the server is down, I'll come back to it some day soon.
@Jefromi, just wrote down the answer, see below. Any comments to improve it would be welcome. And you can always edit it, if you prefer that.
The thing is, there are many different ways to cook a lobster. Even assuming the traditional boiling or steaming, assuming sufficient energy output that the water stays at a boil, the time is going to vary non-linearly by weight. It will be more proportional to the girth of the lobster than its mass. The details for arthropod cookery, however,I will have to leave the experts. But per ounce or gram cooking times are only good as an estimation starting point--you need a test for doneness or a more sophisticated formula.
Same as "proper cooking time for a steak", a million answers depending on taste. I like my lobster (crayfish) BBQ'ed for just a few minutes, not boiled at all
Maybe reword the question simply as "When boiling lobster, how do you tell when it's done? is there a rough estimate of cooking time?"
In my comment, I referred to the CookingIssues write-up on Giant Lobsters. The site went down, so it was impossible to get the 'conclusions'. The site is back up again, in a way, so here it is:
“Do you normally get 20 pound lobsters?” I asked him. “Yep,” he replied, “we sell ‘em all the time.”
I decided that the lobster shouldn’t be cooked whole.
I convinced the shop owner to cook the lobster for 8 minutes in his steamer and then plunge the lobster into ice water to halt the cooking.
The body meat didn’t seem set enough to remove, so I cut the body in half.
I bagged [ziploc] everything in butter. I cooked the body for 12 minutes, the knuckle meat for nine, the tail and claw meat for eight, and the leg meat for five.
Note that only the whole lobster weight is given and that the body was cooked together with the shell.
This is cool, though I think it's probably only useful if you're cooking an enormous lobster. With smaller ones you can just cook it all at once, instead of having to partially steam it, cut it up, and cook some more.
roughly 9-11 minutes for pound should be ok
For what range of sizes?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.816567
| 2012-11-23T14:08:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28612",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Barbicane",
"Cascabel",
"Ellen",
"JAllen",
"Klepper",
"Mary",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71302",
"talon8",
"user538669",
"user86325",
"Колямбий"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19370
|
Why is my pastry blistering in the microwave?
I am trying to make my own shortcrust pastry, but don't have a blender or food mixer. I also don't have a gas or electric oven and am using the convection bake function of a microwave.
I mix 1 1/4 cups of flour, 1/2 cup of butter (grated with a cheese grater then back in the fridge before finally mixing into the flour), 1/4 tsp sugar & 1/4 tsp salt, and about 5 tbs of ice water. Then I convection-bake it in the microwave.
Somehow I just can't get it right. I tried blind baking and my pastry ended up looking like a very pimply kid with blisters all over. It was also sweating butter or something a fair bit when it was baking. It tastes okay, but a bit crunchy like a cookie, and impossible to cut without breaking apart.
What am I doing wrong? Is it the temperature (190 degree Celsius/375 F)? Is it because I grated my butter? Too much water? The way I roll my pastry? Any advice is really appreciated as I'm a total newbie to baking and don't understand a whole lot about it yet.
This is because you are using a microwave. In theory, if you could turn off the microwaves in the microwave oven, you could use the convection function to bake things. In practice, we have had several questions which indicate that this is not how convection microwaves work. They keep nuking your dough, making it inedible. In your case, they are cooking all the moisture locally, resulting in mini-steam-explosions which create blisters, and a dried out, hard and crispy dough.
I am sorry, but there is no way you can bake with a microwave, not short pastry, and not other things. One exception might be quickly eaten "microwave cupcakes" which don't have much flour to start with and are baked for a very short time. I have seen people claim that they work, but never actually tried them.
For baking, you need a non-microwaving oven. The cheapest solution is a toaster oven with a 30x30 cm inner size, they are somewhat trickier to use than a big oven, but good enough for a small budget.
I would say "unpalatable" more than "inedible" :-)
As a data point, I have made microwave cupcakes and they do work.
I tried to make a mini chorizo pastie in the microwave but the chorizo burnt and the pastry utterly failed. I would not recomened to put shortcrust pastry in a micorwave, the best way of cooking short crust pastry is in an electric oven.
It's the temperature. Try at 170C. It also helps if you put it on the turntable.
Also if you can put you pastry on the out side of the turntable most microwave have a dead spot which happens to be in the centre of the microwave.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.816832
| 2011-12-04T17:52:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19370",
"authors": [
"Al Crake",
"Elaine",
"Iqra Amanat",
"James Freeman",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Yannick Meeus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69796",
"verbose"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23996
|
Can salted butter be used for yellow cake recipe?
I need help D:
I'm making 300 yellow cupcakes for prom in 2 days and I've purchase salted butter instead of unsalted .
- Can I use the salted butter instead of using unsalted and just not add in salt ?
Yes, you should be able to get away with it, but it does depend on how salty the butter is. Might be worth making one batch and seeing how it turns out.
The folks at Cook's Illustrated had this to say to a similar quesiton:
We advise against cooking with salted butter for three reasons. First, the amount of salt in salted butter varies from brand to brand—it can range from 1.25 percent to 1.75 percent of the total weight, making it impossible to offer conversion amounts that will work with all brands. Second, because salt masks some of the flavor nuances found in butter, salted butter tastes different from unsalted butter. Finally, salted butter almost always contains more water than unsalted butter. The water in butter ranges from 10 to 18 percent. In baking, butter with a low water content is preferred, since excess water can interfere with the development of gluten. In fact, when we used the same brand of both salted and unsalted butter to make brownies and drop biscuits, tasters noticed that samples made with salted butter were a little mushy and pasty; they preferred the texture of baked goods made with unsalted butter.
However, if it's all you have, I wouldn't worry too much. Just reduce the salt called for in your recipe by 1.7 grams or 1/3 of a teaspoon (table salt) for each 8 tablespoons (stick) of salted butter you use. This is the average amount of salt in a stick of salted butter.
Normally, I trust CI. But the part with "since excess water can interfere with the development of gluten" is very weird. At the amount of hydration present in cookies, it is more likely to not have enough water for gluten development than to have too much, it only starts to interfere when there is more water than flour. And butter interferes much stronger with gluten development, especially if you have so thin a batter that more water is a problem. It can be that the texture of the unsalted-butter cookies was better, I doubt that the explanation is correct.
@rumtscho: I agree. The first two reasons are the more salient.
I'm very far from being an expert in the kitchen, so take this with a grain of salt (sorry), but:
Unsalted butter has a negligible amount of sodium. Table salt has about 2400 milligrams of sodium per teaspoon. Different salted butters have differing amounts of salt, so check your salted butter's label for the sodium content. If the amount of butter you're using has, say, 600 milligrams of sodium, figure that's about a quarter of a teaspoon of salt, and reduce the salt in your recipe accordingly.
Or see if the supermarket will allow you to exchange the salted butter for unsalted.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.817066
| 2012-05-25T08:08:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23996",
"authors": [
"Blair Nangle",
"Callithumpian",
"Candunc",
"DeVon",
"Gustavo Moreno",
"J.Paul R",
"Leah Woodard",
"Shweta Kannepalli",
"cookingcostume",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54495",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29912
|
Can Grapeseed oil be considered edible after it has passed the expiry date?
We have an un-opened bottle of grapeseed oil that got buried away and never used.
It has 'best by 3/31/2012' on the label.
Should I just throw it out or is it possibly still good? It's from Italy and a 'gold medal winner' so I'd prefer not to throw it out if I don't need to.
Is there any health risk of using it? Is there any use that would be better than others (eg do not use for salad dressing but still OK in skillet)?
@WayfaringStranger Your comment seems good enough to be an answer.
In the UK, if there were a health risk, it would say ‘Use by’ instead of ‘Best before’. (I'm guessing from the date format that the questioner was from the USA; I don't know if similar regulations apply there.)
It has a decent glass bottle, and airtight cap? It wasn't in bright light for two years, and doesn't look like it has polymerized deposits or smell rancid? As a polyunsaturated oil, grape seed is susceptible to oxidation/polymerization/rancidity. If it hasn't done any of these things, by the evidence of your senses, it should still be OK.
-moved from comments
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.817315
| 2013-01-09T03:49:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29912",
"authors": [
"Cakelady1",
"J.A.I.L.",
"gidds",
"helado",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69724",
"sam",
"scrotech",
"user69700",
"zzita"
],
"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
}
|
42094
|
Steeping green tea leaves - how many times can I steep them, and do they lose flavanoids over steeps?
I order my green tea leaves in small vacuum sealed baggies from China. They are crumbled up, but expand out once they become saturated. I typically use maybe half a teaspoon of these dried tea leaves, and I usually steep them around 5-7 times. Each time I steep my leaves (I use a personal french press for this) and I pour the tea into my cup, the tea is colored (obviously). The color of the tea never seems to fade between steeps.
2 questions:
When I pour my tea, if it's colored still, does that mean I am still getting flavanoids from the leaves?
How many times can I steep my tea before it starts to lose the flavanoids?
"Nutritional value" isn't really well-defined or within the scope of our site. Generally when you see claims like that, they're based on pretty sketchy evidence about nutritional benefits, and we don't want to get into those debates. I'll just edit your question to ask about the compounds you're actually worried about, and let you decide for yourself whether they actually have meaningful nutritional value.
Nutrition itself is off-topic. However, keep in mind the following:
There are many compounds in tea leaves and some dissolve early, and some a little later. At some point (around 5-10 minutes of steeping at ~95°C), you will lose majority of the 'good stuff' and continue picking up less desirable compounds.
You will notice that while colour might persist, the taste will be come less and less desirable. In some cultures re-using tea leaves is considered a faux-pas because of this.
If you find your tea to be too strong after steeping, the best thing is to reduce the amount of leaves for the next time; as opposed to steeping them multiple times.
It’s not necessarily about the tea being too strong or anything like that, given that the mixture of compounds extracted into the water will change over time. There are types of green tea where I for one actually prefer the taste of the second or third steeping. As far as I know, I’m not alone, although tastes vary on the types used, obviously.
I'd suggest you to back up your claims with references.
Tea is made from leaves of the Camellia Sinensis plant, which can grow in many parts of the world
25% of the leaf dry mater is the Catechin Polyphenols. This is present in all main tea types (white, green, and black). They also contain other Polyphenols like Theaflavins, Tannins, and some Flavonoids
Catechin is the main Flavanol (not a Flavonols) present when tea is steeped in hot water
The combined Polyphenols in a 200 ml cup of tea would be from 50 to 500 mg
The Flavanols and Flavonoids give tea the astringency, bitterness, and colour we associate with traditional tea, and also the distinctive after-taste
While all these chemicals are highly water soluble chemicals, they dissolve at different rates, and cannot be entirely dissolved out on the leaf cellular structure with heat and damage to the leaf structure
Repeated steeping with continue to work, though the flavour will change with each steeping as different Polyphenols dissolve out at different rates
Some people rinse the tea leaves in warm water for minute of two, and discard this water. While you will loose large amounts of Caffeine, you do also remove some Tannins that can be quite bitter and be part of the metallic after-taste
The finer ground or crushed the tea leaf, the more Polyphenols you can extract from them, and the more steepings you will be able to achieve
Increasing the heat of each steeping will also help in releasing more Polyphenols
Claims need to be backed up with references.
@TheIndependentAquarius Where to start. There are volumes of books on tea and plant leaf biology. Online? Mostly tea associations and manufacturers e.g. http://www.teausa.com/14655/tea-fact-sheet, and commentary typical of Chinese tea drinking http://www.labrangtraders.com/Tea%20101.php. Then onto crazy research http://www.tested.com/science/weird/451668-dispelling-myth-tea-bag-dipping/. In summary it's a very popular topic
If it is a very popular topic then it shouldn't be difficult to quote the ""most reliable sources"" and put them in your answer, IMO. If you don't want to do it, that's okay for me.
Great book on tea brewing history: "Tea – How tradition stood in the way of the perfect cup". This how I learnt about "tea grinders", a great idea! Tea chemistry: "Chemistry and Applications of Green Tea" Takehiko Yamamoto and Lekh Raj Juneja
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.817458
| 2014-02-17T15:40:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42094",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Augusta Curry",
"Cascabel",
"Christopher Creutzig",
"D. Armentrout",
"Elizabeth Schmehl",
"Guy Redshaw",
"Hari Agnihotri",
"Howard Power",
"Shelley Rodriguez",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"TFD",
"TheMinimalCriminal",
"craig hayward",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98287",
"spammy spammer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
69387
|
Difference between tzatziki and Indian mint dip (mint chutney?)
What is the difference between a tzatziki dip and an Indian mint dip? Aren't both just yogurt and mint? Or o is the difference that tzatziki also has some cucumber in it? Also, while tzatziki looks predominantly white Indian mint dips are green throughout, so do the latter have some natural color. What's the difference between how these two dips are prepared?
EDIT: I'm talking about the dip on the left in the picture below (which is served in many Indian restaurants with papadums as a starter dish). From the Wikipedia entry for chutney, a chutney may be a yoghurt, cucumber, and mint dip (is this what this is?).
Just for the reference, here is a tzatziki sauce I've made:
So pardon my ignorance, but why is a tzatziki not a chutney? Anyways, I want to know what this papadum appetizer dip is called and how to make it. That should make my question clear enough. Thanks.
And also, what is the difference between a chutney and a relish?
Part of the definition of "chutney" is that it's from the Indian subcontinent... Tzatziki could broadly be considered a chutney in the more general sense of the term... but it's of Middle Eastern/Greek origin... not Indian. It's like asking why marmalade isn't "chutney"... It's not Indian.
What is a chutney? http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20470/what-is-a-chutney?rq=1 (It's kind of like asking "what is a dip?" or "what is a jam?" - it's a broad category, not a specific dish.)
So, the question remains, if the appetizer dip in the picture which I've had many times at Indian restaurants id's not a mint sauce and is not a chutney then what the heck is it? Hint: it is served with papadums. Thanks.
Let us continue this discussion in chat. (removing all the back and forth trying to refine the question, leaving related links etc)
Difference between chutney and relish: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27730/whats-the-difference-between-chutney-and-relish
British English has adopted chutney for a variety of (usually pickled) foods in the dip/relish/table sauce category. However a yoghurt-based dip would only be known as a chutney when served as in the original picture. A better term for the Indian dip, when searching for recipes, might be raita.
If there is any analogue of tzatziki in Indian cuisine, it would be raita, not mint chutney.
In the UK no-one calls it chutney, it's just 'mint sauce'. It also varies considerably area to area. Where I grew up [Bradford, Northern UK] It's made with plain runny yoghurt [cheap works best], water, the same vinegary mint sauce you'd put on roast lamb, straight out of a supermarket jar [again cheap is best… or at least 'more authentic'] a bit of generic curry powder, & maybe some cayenne to give it a hit. Having moved away from there 30 years ago, I now make it at home every week.. perfect.
London [where I live now] mint sauce eases back on all the ingredients but adds a bit of turmeric to make it yellow & adds less water so it's a bit thicker. Nowhere near as good. Bland :\
As far as I'm aware, the traditional Greek tzatziki doesn't generally include mint at all.
It's a cucumber dip that is made of yogurt and sometimes includes dill or mint as a flavoring:
Tzatziki (Anglicized: /tsɑːtˈsiːki/ }; Greek: τζατζίκι [dzaˈdzici] or [dʒaˈdʒici]) is a Greek sauce served with grilled meats or as a dip. Tzatziki is made of strained yogurt (usually from sheep or goat milk) mixed with cucumbers, garlic, salt, olive oil, red wine vinegar, and sometimes dill. American versions may include lemon juice, mint, or parsley.
The main ingredients in all of the recipes I've looked at in researching this, are yogurt and cucumber and the flavorings are usually dill but occasionally either dill or mint. The Indian mint dip doesn't ever contain cucumber, as far as I know.
So, no I don't think they're similar products at all, mostly because tzatziki isn't "mint sauce" it's "cucumber sauce" that may happen to include mint.
But then Wikipedia states a chutney may contain cucumber. I'm perplexed.
There are dozens of different types of chutney... hundreds, probably. I'm sure there's a cucumber chutney in there somewhere... but that's not the same thing as mint sauce.
Then again, can't a dip be a chutney, rather than a sauce? Maybe a mint sauce is something more watery and may contain vinegar or something similar, not really sure. Thanks
Mint chutney is normally almost all herbs (mint and cilantro), and it's ground/blended so it's completely green:
(from this mint chutney recipe)
I can't really see the chutney/dip in your picture that well. You say it was mint and yogurt, and it looks like it might be pale green, so I'd guess it just had overall more yogurt than usual. But as long as it's got a lot of mint and it's blended, it's going to be green. (And yes, it's a chutney: it was served at an Indian restaurant with papadums.)
If you want to make it, you can find a million recipes by searching for "mint chutney" recipe.
Your tzatziki, on the other hand, is mostly made of yogurt, with a relatively small amount of herbs, and they're just chopped, so the color doesn't spread. As Catija points out, it doesn't necessarily even have mint at all. It's not a chutney because it's not Indian:
Chutney (...) is a side dish in the cuisines of the Indian subcontinent that can vary from a tomato relish to a ground peanut garnish or a yoghurt, cucumber and mint dip.
The two are similar in that they share one or two ingredients, but the relative quantities are completely different, and the additional ingredients are different.
Ok, so the ship in the picture doesn't have a name and all I need to do to reproduce it is mix yoghurt and mint in a blender?
I can't tell anywhere near enough from the picture to tell you what's in it. I'm basing everything on what I can tell of just the color, and the fact that you said it had mint and yogurt. If it's a yogurt-heavy mint chutney, it's still a mint chutney. And you can read recipes and try to find something that matches what it tasted like; I doubt it was just mint and yogurt.
I guess then next time I'll just have to ask the waiter at the restaurant. Thanks.
@JackMaddington ...or you can make mint chutney, with whatever adjustments seem appropriate to make it match what you had at the restaurant, e.g. more yogurt, like I keep saying. Unless you're saying you think there's a difference that we're missing?
Coincidentally I've found the term yogurt mint chutney on the internet but also found the term mint yogurt relish, so what's the difference between a chutney and a relish? Thanks.
@JackMaddington Chutney is Indian. Relish is not necessarily. If you google "mint yogurt chutney" it's all Indian stuff. If you google "mint yogurt relish" it's not all Indian. The individual recipes vary. Chutney and relish are both broad terms, so neither refers to one very specific recipe, and it's kind of meaningless to try to compare.
Ok, thank you. Just different words coming from different places and/or languages, with some other implications. Thanks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.817854
| 2016-05-31T20:22:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69387",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"Jack Maddington",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58809
|
Use the same cast iron skillet or buy a new one for desserts?
Quick backstory
I currently have 2 skillets -- one a 12" flat skillet and the other ribbed. They have both been used for meat and I learned my lesson awhile ago and try to keep them as far away from water as possible. I do not have an open flame as I have a glass cooktop.
Question
I saw a few recipes for desserts and cornbread using a cast iron skillet that I would love to try. The problem is that my cast irons have all been used for meat and I am afraid to attempt any of these recipes if it might come out tasting like last night's ground-beef.
I did have a look at this question: How do you clean a cast iron skillet?
Does the skillet even trap any flavors or will any excess just burn off as I heat it up? If it will have the meat flavor, will using a towel, oil, and kosher salt help get rid of any left-over flavors or is this insane and everyone has a cast iron specifically for desserts/breads?
Tl;dr You can use your cast iron for anything if it is seasoned and cleaned well.
I don't have a ribbed pan and it seems that would be harder to clean so I will speak only to the smooth.
My cast iron pan is reasonably well seasoned. It could be better but I only get a little sticking.
Scraping it well and scrubbing with kosher salt and a paper towel cleans it spotless from almost anything. Occasionally I have to rinse it out which doesn't damage the seasoning at all.
When it is cleaned there are no lingering flavors from previous dishes. I often cook meat, onions, desserts, and cornbread with no problems.
Cornbread has a delightfully different and deliciously rustic texture when cooked in hot cast iron.
Great! Glad to hear that if I decide to make a cobbler tomorrow, it won't have a hint of Worcestershire ;) Now I just have to remember to buy some kosher salt.
Related: it is inadvisable to cook fish in your cast iron skillet if you will use it for anything else as the fish oil can stick around for a while. I cooked salmon in one of mine and I ended up putting it on the camp stove outside and heating the heck out of it to burn off the oil. It wouldn't scrub out, rub out, salt out, or anything else I tried.
So for desserts... just don't use your salmon pan!
Thanks a lot. I would have ended up cooking fish in it sooner than later.
Scrub the pan with salt, rub it with oil, and let it heat on the burner until the oil is "dry". No fishy flavor can survive that treatment. The oils all break down and polymerize.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.818442
| 2015-07-06T03:08:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58809",
"authors": [
"Beth Thomas",
"David Housley",
"Jita Ghosh",
"Marco Luca",
"None Business",
"Sobachatina",
"Theresa Visser",
"TyCobb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36636"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18361
|
Dry Brining Turkey
I have dry brined my Thanksgiving turkey for several years with great success. I usually do this for 3 days (start the process Monday AM then air dry in fridge for 24 hours before meal on Thursday). This year I will not get my turkey until Tuesday night. Is 36 hours enough time for the salt to do its reverse osmosis thing? I want to give it enough time to dry on Thursday. Or should I keep it in the salt until as late as possible and then pat it dry?
If you want crispy skin on your bird, you have to make sure that you leave time for the water to come off the skin entirely, so the full drying time is recommended.
If your skin doesn't make much diffrence to you, use the full brining time to create optimium penetration.
That said, your bird should remain nice and moist after as little as ten hours in the brine for a fourteen pound bird. I rarely brine any poultry longer than 12 hours as I find there isn't a noticable diffrence in the moistness as long as I pull it out at the proper temperature.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.818671
| 2011-10-14T14:05:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18361",
"authors": [
"Lisa",
"Sharpening Sam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41262",
"shweta",
"texas-bronius"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30510
|
Using steam to make a dry version of turkey juicier
How effective is steaming a turkey tenderloin the size of a brisket to make it tender and juicy?
I'm considering this because turkey has a tendency to dry out as it's cooked.
Steaming generally doesn't make meat juicier -- it is just as easy to dry out a piece of meat with wet heat as it is with dry heat, if not easier.
There are two things that you can do to make your turkey juicier. The first is a brine, which Elendil suggests above. The second is to make sure you aren't overcooking. I'd suggest using a probe thermometer and pulling the tenderloin when it is at around 160F and letting it coast to your target temperature of 165F.
I second this. Cooking involves being accurate and precise, meaning you want to be able to get food to a precise temperature but also accurately reach this temp time after time. The only way your going to do that is with proper measurement and that means a thermometer.
The reasoning here is impeccable; I would suggest for white meat, 155 coasting to 160 F is where you want to be as a temperature target.
Thanks, I ended up with a ok tasting turkey tenderloin I used a small piece instead of the larger one. Miss Dash chicken spices worked well to add flavor so it wasnt bland at all not real juicy but no dryness at all. –
Brining is a better solution as it gives you juicy meat and extra flavour. Steaming would result in rather a bland taste.
Brining is essentially marinading the meat in a saltwater solution (usually with some extra flavourings like peppercorns etc) overnight. You then roast the meat as normal. Super juicy, super tasty results. There are lots of guides online.
Thanks, I ended up with a ok tasting turkey tenderloin I used a small piece instead of the larger one. Miss Dash chicken spices worked well to add flavor so it wasnt bland at all not real juicy but no dryness at all.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.818793
| 2013-01-29T18:03:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30510",
"authors": [
"Brendan",
"DanJ",
"Lauri",
"Renee",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SaraB",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71319",
"queen of hearts",
"user24015"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32204
|
What is the problem with overmixing?
Certain recipes (for example, corn bread, buttermilk biscuits) caution against overmixing: you're supposed to add the wet ingredients to the dry with a minimum of agitation.
Why?
And, is this related to why my friend's recipe for cornbread states that "some lumpiness is preferred"?
I think this is a dupe of Over-stirring muffin mixtures Any objections?
Yeah, I missed that one on my search...
@Aaronut : if the merging doesn't add in the tags here, it's probably worth adding these tags to the older one.
@Joe: Thanks, I added the tags to the old question... no wonder it wasn't getting found.
In the type of recipe you reference, all of which are quick breads, the result is supposed to be tender, not chewy.
Wheat flour has proteins in it, which if agitated in the presence of water, will combine to form a new protein, gluten, which is very chewy. Sometimes, this is desirable as in yeast raised bread, where the gluten forms the structure of the bread, and gives it its bite and chewiness. In fact, this is why (most) yeast raised breads are kneaded.
Gluten development is not desirable in tender quick breads, like cornbread or banana bread. Biscuits are a type of quick bread where the lumps of butter will promote flakiness, but you still want a tender crumb.
The flour and the liquids are combined as quickly as possible, with the least reasonably possible agitation, to minimize the development of gluten, and thus maximize tenderness.
The idea of leaving some lumps is to help prevent over mixing, and thus toughening the product. Even if there are some small lumps of unmixed flour, the liquid from the batter will penetrate them in a few minutes during baking, and they will not be a factor in the final product.
Whooo! Where did you learn all this?
Just a lot of years being a good geek... this site is a good place to start :-)
@KelseyRider if you are interested in this subject, I'd recommend reading Bread Baker's Apprentice: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bread-Bakers-Apprentice-Cutting-edge-Techniques/dp/1580082688/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1361812676&sr=1-1
It took my bread baking skills to the next levels.
@olafure: It's a great book, sure, but this question isn't really about bread. IIRC the BBA doesn't talk much about quick breads like muffins, waffles, etc.
I agree with @Aaronut. If you want to get a bit behind food science without delving too deep into any single subject, I would suggest Cookwise, not BBA.
@rumtscho : She also published Bakewise, which has the first 150 pages on cakes & muffins. (then another 100 on soufles and the steam-raised stuff)
@joe I have Bakewise too, but it is much more focussed on special cases and has less theory.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.818970
| 2013-02-25T14:12:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32204",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brian",
"CharG",
"George J Myers Jr",
"Glorydee Llanos",
"Joe",
"Jonathan Moore",
"Kricket",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Tempo Land",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74243",
"mfrackowiak",
"olafure",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30159
|
How would changing the amount of egg affect a pancake recipe?
When I make pancakes, the recipe I use calls for 1 egg and 1c of flour. However, usually I increase the flour (up to 50%) to make a bit more. I've tried both keeping 1 egg, or adding a second one, but it doesn't seem to make any difference...in other words, it seems like there's an awful lot of room to maneuver when it comes to how much egg to add. If so, I could add 3 or 4 eggs to get more protein into the pancakes. How would adding lots of extra eggs affect the end result?
Pancake is one of those words used differently in different parts of the English speaking world. In my answer below, I assumed you meant the typical US type of pancake, a moderately thick (say quarter inch) griddled quick bread. In some places, pancakes are more akin to what we might call crepes. You might want to specify what type of pancake you are thinking of.
Ooh, now I'm going to have to look up "quick bread". Yeah, I meant US-style pancakes, not crepes.
You will find a general definition, which is like banana bread or muffins, and possibly if you dig enough, the more technical one I was referring to, any cooked flour type product which is chemically leavened, as with baking powder or baking soda. The implied "not quick" breads are the yeast raised breads, which require proofing.
I'm joining this "discussion" after the fact but I use a pancake/waffle recipe that calls for whipped egg whites that adds a custardy moistness to the pancake or waffle. It sounds like a pain but the results are memorably delicious!
Care to share the recipe? After reading up on quick breads, I was actually tempted to try that...especially since I recently bought my first electric beaters. :)
This answer assumes the US-type of pancake.
There are some pancake recipes with no egg at all. So the question is, what does the egg do in a pancake recipe?
It contributes soem fat and emulsifiers from the yolk, some water, and a bunch of protein (mostly from the whites).
This will add structure to the pancake, some eggy flavor and richness, and perhaps somewhat mitigate the danger of toughening the pancake through over mixing, by inhibiting gluten formation (mostly due to the fat and lecithin from the yolk).
However, as you have already discovered, the egg is not completely essential to the pancake, which basically a griddled quick bread, and can easily get all of the structure it needs from the gelatinization of the starch from the flour.
Adding lots more eggs would start to move you into custard or quiche-like territory, where the product would have a lot more egg flavor, and start to take on a more scrambled-egg type texture depending on how far you go. You will get less flavor but more textural change from using just whites.
If you love pancakes, I would make them with any pancake recipe you like, and enhance your protein intake from other food items. Personally, I love a scrambled egg, and they go great with pancakes.
Edit:
I see in your profile that you are in France. Since we also call French style crepes the same thing in English, I am thinking you probably do mean US style pancakes, so the above would apply.
If you are thinking of crepes, they tend to be a touch eggier than pancakes to start with, which helps give them the structure to role or fold easily while still being so thin.
I imagine that they could take a bit more egg still, with some change in texture and more egg flavor, but might start to stick to the pan more, as egg really likes to stick. At the extreme end, you would essentially have thin fried scrambled egg, which you can roll up with fillings, as some other cuisines do.
Still, I am not an expert on crepes; I have never made them myself. If that is what you are asking about, hopefully someone else can give you a more knowledgable answer.
If you are using an American US-style pancake recipe (or any American recipe for that matter) in the EU a point to remember is that EU egg sizes are bigger for their number than US sizes. An EU large egg is bigger than an American, an EU Medium egg is the equivalent of a US Large egg. So if you are using an american recipe that uses large eggs use medium eggs in the EU if you are trying to be precise. Conversely, use US XL eggs if using a European recipe.
The upshot for @Kelsey is that using an EU large egg on an american recipe but adding more flour probably gets the recipe right from a proportion standpoint.
Here is the wikipedia egg reference page
Do you have a reference for this? At any rate, I don't pay much attention to the size (I don't think I've seen much variety at most stores for organic, which is what I buy; they're probably all medium).
You can tell by the weight, they may be multiple sizes. I've added a link to the wikipedia page for your reference.
I was curious about modifying the directions of the whole wheat blend pancake mix, Aunt Jemima, I have. It's been stored in the refrigerator, opened after a previous batch made months ago, for a while so the leavening may have gotten a bit weaker and I was a bit concerned however they seemed to rise just fine though when cooking and before turning, I saw much fewer bubbles breaking the surface before I turned them. So I think the leavening was a bit old however they turned out fine.
The directions on the box say 1 cup of mix with 1 egg and 1 cup of milk along with a bit of oil.
What I did was to use 2 eggs and 1 cup of whole milk plain yogurt and a dash of vanilla extract. I also added a dash of nutmeg and a dash of cinnamon with melted unsalted butter for the oil and a tablespoon or two of maple syrup to sweeten.
I put the yogurt into the bowl then the two eggs, added the extract and the two spices, and mixed it all up well. Then I took the cup of pancake mix and shaking the measuring cup to fluff up the flour, sprinkled the mix over the wet ingredients and then stirred it in with a large spoon.
After mixing the ingredients, I let the batter sit for about 10 minutes before starting to cook using unsalted butter in the pan.
The batter turned out a bit less soupy and a bit more stiff than what I remember. I used the large spoon to dip out portions which were stiff enough to have slumping peaks, into the pan and then used the back of the spoon to spread it out a bit.
The pancakes turned out fine and in appearance seemed no different than when I followed the directions. They did seem to brown a bit quicker but I may have had the heat a bit hotter than normal and I was using an aluminum, thick bottomed skillet rather than cast iron on around 4 with my electric ceramic stove top.
The pancakes turned out soft and tender and tore easily with my fingers with a soft bread like texture. I would have preferred them a bit tougher so next time I suppose I should stir them a bit more.
I put 3 eggs in a two egg pancake recipe all the time and notice absolutely no difference at all.
This answer would be more useful if you include your full recipe... There may be other factors to explain why you "notice absolutely no difference".
I actually like this answer. It reminds us foodies that the difference is in the eye of the observer, and frequently people will not notice much difference between changed recipes.
@rumtscho But it doesn't tell us anything... for all we know, the recipe called for one size of egg and they were using a smaller size... Or the recipe could be for a huge 12-person batch of pancakes, so the volume of egg to flour ratio could be very low and thus make very little difference. There's not enough info here to know anything.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.819234
| 2013-01-17T12:59:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30159",
"authors": [
"Bill",
"Catija",
"Dan Kell",
"E Jacobs",
"GdD",
"Huma Qaseem",
"Kevin Reynolds",
"Kricket",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Nadine Grady",
"Rach",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sethraw",
"Tina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70451",
"rumtscho",
"susan russell",
"tuk",
"Никита Наумов"
],
"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
}
|
43342
|
Pasteurized milk that has gone sour
I have 1/2 gallon of milk (not raw) that turned sour in fridge (not curdled). Hate to throw it away. Can I safely use it to make cottage cheese or put into a chocolate cake?
I think you don't understand what the definition of "safe" is. There is no way to turn unsafe food into safe, period. If you eat it and don't get sick, this doesn't mean that what you did was safe, it means that you took a risk and got lucky.
Growing up my mom would use it in baked goods, like pancakes. I don't, but that's because I don't drink milk at all, so don't have it on hand. I would assume that in fully cooked products, the issues would be different than consuming it in some uncooked preparation.
Is half a gallon of milk that you may not need to throw out worth getting food poisoning over? If I had to choose between possible bloody diarrhea, vomiting, severe pain, seizures and possibly even death and spending a few more dollars, I certainly would spend a few more dollars.
Throw the stuff away. If it's gone sour, you have a lively colony of bacteria in there.
They may or may not be harmful, but I cannot stress enough that it's simply too dangerous to try.
Then again, it obviously already had that lively colony of bacteria in it before it went sour. They're not the most dangerous sort. Still, milk is too cheap to bother saving - you'd just waste good ingredients.
@MSalters You really have no way to know whether they're the dangerous sort. It could've been contaminated with basically anything after pasteurization, especially after you open it.
Cottage Cheese, Buttermilk, Yogurt, Cheese...These are all things that are made in specific conditions, controlled in order to get a desired result.
Milk that has been in a container (that has been opened numerous times in uncontrolled environments) goes sour because of undesirable conditions and should not be confused with properly cultured dairy products. EVER.
You can cook with it in place of buttermilk. If it is NOT curdled and went sour in the fridge there is absolutely nothing wrong with making biscuits, panckes, cornbread etc with it. Honestly there's nothing to be afraid of, make sure whatever you make is cooked through completely and don't use it if it's already separated into curds and whey.
While I kiiiind of agree with you and might do this myself at home depending on the circumstance, I protest "absolutely nothing wrong" and "nothing to be afraid of." There are risks and ignoring them doesn't tell the whole story. Those off flavors are waste products generated by bacteria. Killing said bacteria by cooking doesn't necessarily render the waste safe to eat. We tend towards "better safe than sorry" here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.819841
| 2014-04-07T19:04:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43342",
"authors": [
"Ada Kittell",
"AnatolyVorobey",
"Cascabel",
"Ethan Miller",
"Glenn Rynhoud",
"Jilly Vissel",
"Joe",
"MSalters",
"Preston",
"Rene de P",
"Spammer",
"charanquartz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"prediksi togel jitu",
"rumtscho",
"yz_"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44350
|
Can I grill a whole octopus without pre-steaming or poaching?
My local awesome fish market sells whole octopi, and my friend is having a BBQ. I figured nothing would be cooler than showing up with a whole octopus to throw on the grill, but most recipes I'm seeing are either for a "Greek-style" preparation that includes pre-steaming or poaching and tons of spicing, or else for baby octopi, which I'm assuming have a pretty different texture profile (being much tinier if nothing else).
I can of course poach the thing beforehand, but I've recently been in Cambodia and Thailand where I had lots of grilled octopus on the street, and I'm pretty sure they do no such thing. I'd prefer that to the Greek method which to me feels over-spiced and over-done for a BBQ.
Any tips? Can I not just clean, skewer and lightly salt/oil the tentacles and grill them whole? What about an overnight marinade? I had a hell of a time finding non-Greek, non-baby grilled octopus recipes.
I've never grilled it myself, but from what I've been told, you either have to cook it quick, or slow ... anything in between is rubbery. I would suspect that with quick cooking the issue would be properly cooking both the tentacles and the head over high heat, with a rather odd shape.
Oh -- one way to tell if it's been cooked before hand -- how did the arms droop before they tossed 'em on the grill? They should have some firmness to 'em if they were parboiled, but limp if they were completely raw.
Full-size octopus are tough and rubbery when cooked, so the purpose of pre-cooking is to tenderize. According to some research, this can be done by hanging the octopus out to dry and then beating the crap out of it, but that sounds like more trouble than simply poaching.
If your octopus is already cleaned (i.e. ink sac, stomach, and beak removed) then all you need to do is pop it into a covered pot on high heat - after a few minutes, it will give up a lot of its liquid. Turn the heat down to low, keep covered, and let it braise for at least an hour (or more - a restaurant I used to work in that served octopus cooked it sous vide for a good 10 hours). If the pot starts to run dry, add a bit of water. You can also add flavoring agents like garlic, wine, herbs, etc. to the braise if you like or just let the octopus hang out in its own juices.
After braising, you could either break down your octopus right away or bring it whole to the BBQ (somewhat diminished in size, but still impressive!) and cut it up there. You will want to separate the tentacles from the body and cut the head sac into strips either way. If you leave it whole, it will cook unevenly because of the varying thickness of the flesh. Cook over the hottest part of the grill to finish, just to bring the flesh up to temperature and add a little char.
Skewering the tentacles with a little olive oil and salt will work just fine, but the flavor is fairly mild if you didn't add anything to the braise so a sauce or glaze is a fine idea. That same restaurant got rave reviews with a simple sauce of olive oil, garlic, paprika, and a touch of sherry vinegar.
Thanks! I had guessed some of that myself, but your comment was informative and authoritative, really appreciate it :)
Cheers. Have fun breaking down your octopus, by the way - it's one of the most bizarre food prep activities I've ever had to do.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.820102
| 2014-05-23T15:29:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44350",
"authors": [
"Denise carter",
"JJCUBER",
"Joe",
"Patrick S",
"Sally",
"Spammer",
"Wango Tango",
"andrewb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jack_was_taken",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41379
|
Cream Cheese expiration dates
The date on cream cheese does not say sell by or use by or best by. I wanted to make home made pimento & cheese, but I am somewhat reluctant to use it.
If you let it go long enough, the whole package will swell up. (and this is why it's important to clean out your fridge once in a while ... those little blocks hide well when they're shoved behind things)
I find it hard to understand what you're exactly asking. Do you have cream cheese and are you asking if it is still good? Do you want to know how to know whether a cream cheese pimento is still good? Or how long it stays good? Or something else?
What country are you in? Is this Philadelphia Brand Cream Cheese? Is the package unopened? Does it have a Julian date on the package? Has it always been refrigerated?
As a very general rule, you can safely use unopened, always properly refrigerated cream cheese from a reputable source for 1 month past the sell-by date (this from Still Tasty and other reputable sources). In the US, packages that have a date are supposed to also specify whether that date is a "use-by", "sell-by" or "best-by" date. Eggs are an exception.
Personally, I have used unopened cream cheese far beyond 1 month past the date on the package, but as far as that goes, it's your call. Use your common sense, assess your risk, and make a call for which you are ultimately responsible. No responsible person can tell you that unopened cream cheese is really good for 6 months past the date on the package, because that would make that person responsible if your cream cheese is an exception.
The cream cheese I have let spoil always had quite clear indication of being spoiled: green hairs that would make most punk rockers jealous (i.e., mold).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.820502
| 2014-01-23T00:11:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41379",
"authors": [
"Drivegg",
"Joe",
"JudyM",
"Michelle Anderson",
"Mien",
"Risk Nari",
"Spam",
"Spammer",
"andy MACKAY",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96502",
"jeffrey.d.m",
"rschpdr"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32819
|
What is the basic technique for making tea with teabags and a mug?
I am pretty old with no culinary knowledge whatsoever, but last week I learnt to make my first cup of tea! I have been practising it over ever since and been making slight changes to technique with improving results every time.
My specific question pertains to what experts on this forum think the ideal recipe for tea would be. I have some sugar cubes, milk, a tea bag, hot water a microwave oven and I need a glass of tea. What's the ratio of milk:hot water? Should I make the decoction before adding milk? When should I add sugar? How long should I place in the oven for best mixing?
I would greatly appreciate if you could provide me with a scientific reason for the sequence you suggest (in terms of solubility, diffusion, convection, etc).
There is a basic misunderstanding here. You're making a cup of tea for your own consumption. So the best way to make it, is whichever way you find tastiest, at a reasonable amount of effort. But your taste in tea and mine no doubt differ. E.g., I drink my tea without milk, but you like milk in your tea. There is no "best" way in general. So there really isn't an answer to this. I suggest rewording to clarify what you're looking for more objectively—or, if you just want recipes to try, Google will quickly provide you hundreds.
I edited the title because it suggested an overly broad, unanswerable question.
I've never known the science behind it, but water heated in a microwave oven makes horrible tea and coffee. You need a kettle.
The standard British teabag-and-mug technique (as opposed to the loose-tea-and-teapot technique) is:
put cold tap water in kettle
turn kettle on
put teabag in mug
allow kettle to come to full boil
fill mug with freshly boiled water
leave for 30 seconds or so
remove teabag with a teaspoon; give it a little squeeze for extra flavour
stir in sugar (optional)
add milk (optional)
Scientific rationale:
The water needs to be as hot as possible to extract all the flavour: boiling water can't get any hotter
Remove the teabag before adding milk or sugar because otherwise some of the milk/sugar will be removed along with the teabag
Stir in sugar before milk because it will dissolve more efficiently in hotter liquid
Milk last because you can judge the colour more easily
However
I've seen people claim that the water should be cooler than boiling, because the boiling water destroys subtle flavours in the tea. That may be true, but I suspect that teabag-grade tea just isn't that fine; in any case the conventional wisdom is boiling water for tea, below-boiling water for coffee.
A note on strength and timing
The longer you leave the teabag in, obviously, the stronger the resulting tea. Experiment and find your preference. 30 seconds seems to be about right for a typical British tea drinker, and a typical British teabag.
However, it should be noted that a typical British teabag isn't really intended for the one-mug method -- it's a size originally sized for teapots, and you're likely to get at least two mugfuls from one teabag, if you make tea in a pot and top up with boiling water after pouring.
You could, in theory, re-use a teabag to make a second mug of tea, but teabags are so cheap that hardly anyone bothers.
The teabags found in some cafes, smaller and with a string for pulling them out of cups, need a longer steep, since they contain less tea.
30 seconds look like a very short amount of time for the tea to properly dissolve in water, even at boiling temperature.
Water should be cooler than boiling for more delicate teas, but can be boiling for black teas. Tea should be steeped according to personal preference and/or package directions, 30 seconds isn't a magic number. Otherwise, this is a good answer.
@PinoPinto The intention isn't to get every last drop of flavour out of the teabag. The intention is to get a pleasant strength. I've added something about that to the body of the answer.
Personally I put the milk in first, pour on boiling water, then almost immediately remove the teabag, then add sugar. I like my tea weak, milky and sweet. Takes all sorts!
@PinoPinto: 30 seconds is easily long enough steeping to get a full-flavoured mug of tea, with some of the stronger brands of tea commonly available in the UK.
In my experience with tea bags and boiling hot water, only about 2 seconds long dip is required to get a tea as strong as you'd expect to get from a non-bagged tea. Though the taste is still terrible. My personal recommendation is to try and find some time and resources to make good, high-quality tea, because every good thing matters.
The water needs to be as hot as possible to extract all the flavour: boiling water can't get any hotter. For this reason, some people warm the mug by pouring boiling water in (which is then discarded) before brewing the tea.
I would also add that adding milk and sugar to the water before adding the teabag reduces the ability of the water to extract anything from the tea as the water is already saturated with the milk and sugar.
George Orwell wrote A Nice Cup of Tea, a short essay on how to make a proper cup of tea (by British standards).
It is an informative and funny reading, although too tongue-in-cheek in some parts and a bit antiquated in others.
You may find it here.
You should provide relevant quotes in your answer to make it better quality. If the link ever breaks your answer is only just a reference to some text that the user would have to then Google.
@AlexandreP.Levasseur like right now--that link is dead (to me, at least, no pun intended). I found it here: http://www.booksatoz.com/witsend/tea/orwell.htm A nice googlable phrase--put it in quotes for exact match--is "When I look through my own recipe for the perfect cup of tea, I find no fewer than eleven outstanding points".
There are many good answers here, so I'll just address one area: How long to "mix" everything together.
Definitely boil the water before adding your tea bag (although as
mentioned here, loose leaf tea will taste better).
Steep (let the bag sit) in the tea for 1-2 minutes. How long depends on your preferences. Do you like stronger tea? Let it steep longer. After a few tries, you should come to a steep time that tastes good and should remain consistent so long as you use the same brand of tea. Changing to a new brand may mean some additional adjustments to your steep time.
An important factor in your tea taste is tannin. When tannin is released in the tea, it can quickly become astringent, or bitter tasting. Many people who claim they don't like tea do so because they have only ever experienced incorrectly-prepared tea. There are several things which can cause too much tannin in tea:
Letting the tea steep too long
Squeezing or pressing a tea bag to get the water out
Shaking the bag or stirring the water while the tea is steeping. It's best to just let the hot water do the work of infusing (mixing) the tea.
Reusing tea leaves or bags (depending on the type of tea. In general, green and white tea leaves can be used through multiple infusions, black teas should not.)
+1 for mentioning tannin. When I follow packet directions on blended tea I find it tastes overly tanniny and I have to shorten the brewing time.
I've done a little research into this and found that tea is not all we think it is.
Firstly, tea bags do not contain tea leaves but tea dust. This is very important, yes, they are convenient but there is a whole world of problems when dealing with this stuff. Open any tea bag and you will find microscopic motes of brown dust, these are produced by the transportation of tea in crates from all over the world to Britain, as the tea settled and got knocked around, it produced this dust and it was thrown away years ago, as tea strainers wouldn't strain it, most producers would also include dust as it is part of the production process of tea leaf when cut and dried. But someone came up with the brilliant idea of bags so we are now here today drinking tea from dust that would normally be thrown in the river.
Secondly, we should be aware of the technical manifestations of dust as compared to leaf. There is a considerable amount of surface area with tea dust relative with leaf, much more and the effect of steeping tea dust is going to allow it to release its contents much quicker and fuller. The tea bush in its natural state stores fluoride in its leaves and of course has insecticide, herbicide, fungicide and pesticides sprayed all over it in the course of its growth and harvest.
Thirdly, making tea in a mug with a tea bag is a delicate timing procedure, no small margins for error here, if you leave it too long it becomes stewed, to early and its almost flavourless.
Here is what I do and its based on the Chinese way of making tea.
1st, you have to wake the tea up and then wash it, thats before you even brew it. After making it in this way you can have several pots of tea using the same brew. But we are not making Chinese green tea, so to get rid of the quick release of tannins, fluoride, ++icides from tea bags, just put a small amount of boiling water into the mug with the bag, swirl it around for 3-4 secs, and throw the water away, yes, throw it away, its of no use to you and its contains most of the horrible stuff you don't want to drink. Pour over more boiling water and you can now leave it for as long as you wish, you will not end up with stewed tea, what you will end up with though is a mug of tea that tastes more mellow with all the flavours that were present when it was a leaf tea.
Try it, its doesn't take much longer, you will be surprised at how much difference the tea tastes and you will have more time to brew it without the small margins for error normally associated with tea bags.
If you use bags in a pot, do the same thing with however many bags you use, throw the initial water away after 3/4 secs and continue brewing as normal, but if you are like my wife and use just one bag per pot, then you may lose some flavour as it needs more time to brew and is diluted enough already. I'd always use at least two bags minimum using the above recipe.
PS, I have seen over a number of years that tea bags have become "some" dust to "more" dust to now "all" dust. They used to contain quite a lot of small cut leaf and a little dust, but now its just plain dust so we are in fact drinking enormous amounts of tea that contains a lot of undesirable additives.
If you go out and buy large leaf loose tea, you'll notice straight away how much difference there is, its a much more intense and expansive flavour but I'm afraid we've been brought up on this inferior tea so much that some people don't like real tea any more, which is a shame.
Hi and welcome - this is a really nice, detailed answer! If anything I would suggest that you add references to some of the research that you've done; answers that link to objective evidence tend to be most convincing.
I would add milk after the boiling water, then remove the bag after letting it steep, giving more tea a greater volume of liquid to infuse into.
I have found that when milk is added first the cup of tea is weaker and not as hot as the tea leaves would be sat in the the cold milk prior to the boiling water being added, and the milk reduces the maximum temperature the tea leaves would reach, which is key to infusion.
On a personal note I should explain I drink very strong Yorkshire tea steeped for a minimum of 2 minutes (usually longer) which is bitter. I add two 5ml spoons of sugar. Having previously worked as the youngest employee on many building sites, I can tell you without doubt that there isn't such a thing as the perfect (or even standard) cup of tea as it all comes down to personal preference, I've made cups with two bags left in, and cups made with used tea bags dipped for only a few seconds.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice!
For best results, secure a supply of filtered or distilled water. Store-bought bottled drinking water will work. Tap water often contains chlorine and minerals that can adversely affect the taste and appearance of coffee or tea.
Heat water to boiling in a kettle on the stove, in a self-heating electric kettle, or in a stoneware mug in a microwave oven. (When heating in a microwave oven, be sure the container doesn't contain any metal or metallic trim glazing. Remove the hot container with caution, as the water may be superheated and it could erupt violently, causing injury or blindness if it hits you in the face. This is particularly a concern when the container is very clean and smooth and the water is very pure. The hazard of superheated water can be mitigated by carefully inserting a spoon into the container at arm's length before withdrawing it from the microwave oven.)
I recommend avoiding using a glass for preparing the hot water, unless it is oven-rated borosilicate glass, as thermal stress or shock can cause the glass to shatter. Stoneware and china are safer.
Drop a tea bag into the mug of hot water and allow it to steep for about 4 minutes for maximum strength. For weaker tea, use a shorter steeping time. Withdraw the tea bag and discard it. Instead of a tea bag, one can also use loose-leaf tea and a tea infuser.
Add milk, condensed milk, cream, or powdered non-dairy creamer and/or sugar to taste. If the mug is very full, you may need to discard some of the tea before adding milk or cream. You can leave the bag in the mug if you like, as it is already saturated with water and won't appreciably absorb milk or sugar. I remove the bag first, because I fill my mug almost to the brim and removing the tea bag lowers the liquid level enough to make space for milk.
If you choose to brew the tea in a teapot that holds more than a cup of liquid, you may need to use two or more tea bags or a large tea infuser. Some china teapots have integral strainers, allowing one to toss loose-leaf tea directly into the pot before adding boiling water.
It is also possible to brew tea with room temperature water or in a glass jar or bottle set out in the sun, but due to the lower water temperature it will take somewhat longer, upwards of half an hour to several hours. The advantage of using boiling water is that one can use water from questionable sources, as boiling kills pathogens.
Filtered, maybe .... distilled no. There's no salts left in it, which makes the tea just seem ... strange.
@Joe, yes, preparing foods with distilled water will make it taste strange initially, if you've been used to tap water for many years. Try it on frozen concentrated orange juice and compare it to fresh-squeezed. That's how I learned to appreciate it!
for black teas, the water must come to a "rolling boil". In other words, not when it just starts to boil, but once it really builds up a good steam. Electric kettles will shut off at that point, so be ready to pour it over your tea leaves or bag(s) immediately. Do not let it settle down or you lose the peak boil which is what you need to properly steep the tea. If you want to use a stovetop kettle, buy one with a whistle. When the water is properly boiling it will whistle to let you know. Again- use it immediately. As others have stated, how long you steep the tea depends on how strong you like it, & you have to experiment on that for yourself. I love STRONG tea. A trick I use to shorten the steeping time, is to double up on the amount of tea I use. You definitely want to drink the tea immediately. If you make a Pot, you want to finish it within 20 minutes. After that time it becomes bitter. I use an insulated beverage pot- sold as "Coffee Butlers" instead of a china Tea Pot, this keeps the tea hot for a full 20 minutes, so I can make a pot of 4 cups of tea. I was told by my British Granny, that adding sugar & milk after you pour the tea was part of the etiquette of the "Upper Crust"(or Landed Gentry)of British Society in the early days of the British Empire. The reason it was considered "bad form" to add your milk & sugar before you pour the tea, is that only people who could not afford spoons did it that way. The "Gentry" could afford spoons & so of course if you can afford it, you need show it off.
Sorry, just wanted to say that. Anyways, is I get:
Lemon juice 100% lemon
Boiled water
My mug, of course
Tea bag
Milk
Sugar
So you want the water to come to a hot boil. When I say hot, I mean hot!
You get at least a quarter cup of lemon juice and pour it in and add the hot water. Then you put the tea bag in, then add the sugar, milk, and sugar in the mug. The color may change but that does not mean anything. I love my tea just the way I described it. And I may get a biscuit or two to enjoy my tea with. No need to thank me. You're welcome.
First of all decide what tea you are going to drink. If it's something like Jasmine then just drink it as it is; if it's Earl Grey or similar then I would advise you to drink it with a slice of lemon; if it's a traditional breakfast tea (known as "builder's tea" in the UK) then lemon or milk is fine.
Get loose leaf tea if you can rather than tea-bags. You will need a tea-pot with an inbuilt strainer or a separate strainer (like a very small sieve) if you use leaf-tea. Use freshly drawn water: water which has been boiled loses most of its dissolved oxygen. As the water in the kettle is heating use a little of it to warm the pot. Once warmed discard the water with which the pot has been warmed. Add the quantity of tea desired to the pot. This obviously depends on how strong you like your tea. I find that two or three teaspoons of decent leaf-tea will make 0.5 l (just short of a pint) of decent strength tea. If you are using teabags one or two teabags will make 0.5l of tea.
Add the BOILING water to the tea in the pot. If you are using bags then it is usually good advice to give them a stir to help the process of infusion. Put the lid on the pot and leave it to mash for about five minutes.
Religious wars are fought over whether to put the milk in the cup first. I do as pouring the tea on to the milk mixes it evenly and means I don't need to stir it. If you are using a breakfast/builder's tea then you will probably find you require milk or lemon as otherwise the tannins will make it taste astringent.
Once poured tea should be drunk whilst still hot (>45C). Enjoy.
For me, "builder's tea" means very strong, very sweet, made with ordinary teabags.
Good point. I use it to distinguish from the specific blends (usually by Twinings or some such) like Assam, Darjeeling, Kenyan...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.820734
| 2013-03-19T16:00:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32819",
"authors": [
"Andrew P.",
"ApplePie",
"Audrey tosk",
"Broklynite",
"Core of reality",
"DayTimeCoder",
"Doris Gooch",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Gal Špari Leben",
"Joe",
"John Campion",
"Kiran Kumaran",
"Matt",
"Moni Roy",
"Pino Pinto",
"Preston",
"Spammer",
"Susan Turner",
"Tim Miltz",
"TimGJ",
"Vince Bowdren",
"Yamikuronue",
"cynthia",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91638",
"lofaji",
"logophobe",
"msouth",
"rdinardo",
"rumtscho",
"slim",
"starsplusplus",
"user104474",
"user1306322"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35016
|
Difference between scones and biscuit?
What are the basic differences between scones, biscuits, tea-biscuits, muffins ? I know that cookie is the american word for the british biscuit..
Or is there any other difference?
Some of this covered in Translating cooking terms between US / UK / AU / CA / NZ
One basic error in the question: cookie is the American word for the British biscuit, definitely not the other way round. In the UK, I have never seen anything that is the equivalent of the American biscuit.
thanx @PhilMJones.. i haveedited my question...
Scones (UK usage) are a quick bread, usually moderately sweet. They are baked on a sheet pan, sometimes sliced into wedges,sometimes cut into rounds or other shapes. They are similar to, but sweeter than American style biscuits.
Biscuits (UK usage) or cookies (US usage) are very small, flat cake-like confections, usually rich in butter and sugar. They are also baked on sheet pans, in individual portions typically only a couple of inches across (although sizes vary widely). They come in a myriad varieties and flavors.
Typical flavorings are vanilla, chocolate, nuts, citrus. Some of the simpler varieties allow the butter flavor to come through.
Biscuit (US usage) or tea biscuit (UK usage, one variant) are a type of quick bread charactarized by flat, flaky layers. They are typically cut in rounds a couple of inches across, and tend to be about an inch tall. They are usually only very lightly sweetened if sweetened at all.
Tea biscuit (UK usage, another variant) or teacake are biscuits or cookies traditionally served with tea. They tend to be fairly neutral in flavor.
Muffins (UK usage) or English muffins (US usage) are small yeast-raised breads which are griddled in rings, rather than baked in an oven. They tend to be a couple of inches across, and about half an inch tall. They are often split and served toasted.
Muffins (US usage) or American Muffins (UK usage) are a quick bread, usually moderately sweet, baked in single serving portions in muffin tins (the same pans used for cupcakes).
Actually Muffins in US are cakes. They're just shaped that way, but formulaically are cakes (hence no yeast). +1 for great breakdown.
@MandoMando Cupcakes (which were not asked about) are cakes; muffins are quick breads. Neither typically contain yeast. They are not the same thing. Cupcakes tend to be made by the creaming method; muffins are (in a huge coincidence) made via the muffin method.
Harvard Science dept. say they're cakes ;)
Well, by that argument, cookies are also very small cakes, which I can go with, but does not reflect typical usage.
Lol, no. Comes from Joanne Chang, Bakistry. Iirc she went out her way to say muffins were cakes just shaped that way. They (Chang, et al) are very much into the formula part of baking.
Then they are incorrect or addressing a different question. Muffins and cupcakes are distinct. Cupcakes are made by a cake method like the creaming method, tend to be sweeter, and are usually iced. Muffins are made by the muffin method, tend to be less sweet and are almost never iced, but may have crumb or nut topping, or no topping at all. If you use the broader definition, almost everything raised with baking powder/soda rather than yeast and baked or griddled is a quick bread, but people rarely use that definition
Well, perhaps one day they'll come out of the dark then.
@MandoMando, you should come to chat and we can argue at length... and give a reference so we can at least argue about the same presentation.
that's ok, i'm just passing on what I heard. I personally don't have a strong position on this and don't find the above food in my palate. I follow the science of it, and it made sense what she said. It wouldn't be proper to argue with you knowing that baking is a passion of yours. She's a reputable baker to me, but not infallible.
Your scone picture is not a very good representation. They are normally roughly shaped, usually a rectangular slab, sliced into smaller rectangles. They are usually served split, and topped with whipped cream and jam (real fruit preserve)
I have never heard of a tea biscuit. Certainly the biscuit you have shown isn't referred to as such. And it is definitely not a teacake. A teacake is a leavened sweet bread with fruit, not unlike challah. In Scotland they also refer to marshmallow and chocolate confections.
As for cookie vs cake, I believe the difference is down to what happens after cooking. If it dries up when left out, it's a cake. If it absorbs moisture and goes soggy, it's a cookie.
@ElendilTheTall I cannot agree with that; many cookies are dry and crispy.
On the tea biscuit / teacake thing I was going with google definitions. Do you have pictures of these items, we can update the post.
Cookies are dry and crispy, but when they're not stored properly they go soft and soggy. Cakes, in contrast, start soft and go dry and crispy.
This is an English teacake, served as usual with butter: http://www.thegreatbritishdiet.co.uk/Images/TeacakeToasted.JPG . This is a Scottish teacake, almost always made by a company called Tunnock's: http://meandmybigmouth.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341d299153ef01116858bc92970c-800wi
@TFD, I don't think I've ever seen an English scone which wasn't round or roughly hexagonal. A Google image search for "cream tea" largely supports my experience.
To back up Peter Taylor above, I have never seen wedge or rectangular scones in the UK. My wife makes them by the score, and they are always cut round (or crinkly round), prior to cooking.
Also, I believe Elendil was trying to make the point that cookies (UK biscuits) go soft when they go stale, and that cake goes hard when it goes stale. This was established as one of the key criteria for distinguishing between cake and biscuits in a UK tax tribunal, as chocolate-covered cake is not liable for VAT, but chocolate-covered biscuits are. Jaffa Cakes were therefore decreed to be cake, and thus the taxman failed to stick a 20% tax on them - hooray!
@PeterTaylor : it's quite common in the US ... so it's probably a sign that the 'scone' is an American scone, and not a British scone : http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2012/11/07/american_vs_british_scones_why_the_sweet_american_kind_are_a_delicious_pastry.html
@jackie so what are drop scones and pikelets?
thanx for all the help.. I'm an Indian a total newbie to baking.. words common to u guys is jargon to me.. Scones, muffins, tea cakes etc were introduced to me by the great enid blyton when i was young.. i know no more than what she described in her books.. someday i'll make them..
I think you are wrong with the tea biscuit/teacake. In the UK, these are just called biscuits and would be the first thing that comes to mind for most people. True, there is a "rich tea biscuit", but I don't think there is a more general class of "tea biscuit". On your biscuits/cookies, we'd call the ones with Smarties in cookies. The sprinkles would be a borderline case, and the rest would be biscuits.
ElendilTheTall, those Scottish teacakes look like what us Canadians call "mallow cookies".
@Shaima : they're pancakes.
British usage, 'biscuit,' also inclues what Americans call 'crackers.' British people do use the term 'cookie' fairly frequently now. There might be a distinction between cookie and biscuit, where Americans would call both cookies. I couldn't figure it out, so I think it is about what the manufacturer calls it.
Why add to the nightmare by dragging in Muffins.
Scones, Tea biscuits and American biscuits all had the same origin it seems.
Scones are a tad denser than tea biscuits I think, with Scones being the mother of all of them.
Tea biscuits and American biscuits (Southern style), are similar. American biscuits (Southern style), due to influence of commercialization (Fast food places), became more lighter and fluffier (and unhealthier), and are eaten at lunch and dinner, instead of breakfast.
In Canada (Ontario) we have both Scones and Tea biscuits, but no southern type biscuits, you have to go to Popeye's to get that. Sometimes the tea biscuit also looks like scones, a with raisins or baked with cheese in the batter. In Canada, scones are generally triangular, and that's how you tell the difference. New England and Canada still have/ make the original tea biscuit.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.822418
| 2013-06-30T00:43:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35016",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brendon Boshell",
"Darren",
"David Smith",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jmollo137",
"Joe",
"MandoMando",
"Peter Taylor",
"Phil M Jones",
"Pritom Chakraborty ",
"Priyadarshini Thirunavukkarasu",
"Ramtin",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Shaima",
"TFD",
"Tim",
"Tinfoil Hat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81857",
"that-hopeful-idiot"
],
"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
}
|
58521
|
How to simmer bone broth safely with an overnight pause?
I'm making broth using beef bones and vegetables. I started by roasting 3lbs of bones with a bit of meat on them in the oven. Then I added them to a large stockpot, covered with cold water, and added 2T of apple cider vinegar. After 30 minutes rest, I added my veggies (celery, onions, and carrots) and seasonings to the pot, and brought it to a rapid boil. I turned it down to a simmer, where it's been for just the past 30 or so minutes.
I started this process late at night, knowing that it takes 12-24 hours of simmer time for a good stock. But I didn't realize my family is not comfortable with me leaving the stove on all night, so I'll have to turn the stove off in about 2 hours.
How can I save my stock? Can I leave the covered pot on the stove (in the off position) for a couple hours? Should I put the whole pot in the fridge? Or should I take it off the heat now and do something else with it?
You definitely can't just leave it on the stove; that'd mean far longer than 2 hours in the danger zone. (See for example How do I know if food left at room temperature is still safe to eat?)
If cooking until it's done is out of the question, you need to try to chill it. Putting the whole pot in the fridge might not be the best approach, though; it could take quite a while to cool down. Even if that's less than 2 hours, you're going to go through another cycle later, and the time is cumulative.
The best thing you can do is probably to use an ice bath to help chill it faster.
If you have no way of making a water bath large enough, a compromise would be: separate into several smaller pots, and/or stick squares of wet paper towel around the pot, it will help it chill in the fridge faster.
If the stock has evaporated much you could add cold water back in to help bring the heat down also.
@doug - adding ice may also work, if there's some handy.
Woah, super old post, but I still remember this. I believe I strained out the solids and poured most of the stock into ice cube trays, then placed the trays directly into the freezer. Turned out pretty good, if I remember correctly
Danger zone does not always mean danger. If the pot is covered and was boiling beforehand, the food inside is sterile and so it is safe to leave it on the stove for quite a lot longer as long as it is not disturbed (and therefore contaminated).
Personally I side with your family here, I have a gas stove and the idea of leaving something on all night is not one I'm comfortable with. However, leaving the pot out overnight is not a good idea from a food safety perspective or a results perspective. You won't get a tasty result even if it is safe to eat.
A good option would be a low power electrical appliance like a slow cooker, these are designed to be safely left unattended for long periods. If you don't have one then your best option is to cool your stock as quick as you can. For this you will want to maximize the surface area - a shallow tray will cool much faster than a stockpot.
A way I've cooled things down quickly in the past is to take all my stainless steel flatware (sometimes even small pots) and put them into the freezer for 20 minutes, then put the frozen flatware into the pot. The flatware will absorb some of the heat and once they are hot - which takes just a few minutes - I take them out. If the contents are still too hot I will repeat the process. It means you gave to clean all your flatware but it is less cleanup than having to put stock in every small pan you have to cool.
According to this NYT article, it is safe to leave overnight with the stove turned off. In the morning, bring to a rolling boil for 10 minutes and then continue to simmer.
"What about my lazy method of letting stock cool overnight, then reboiling it first thing in the morning? Dr. Snyder gave it a pass because it would spend only a few hours below 135 degrees, not enough time for the bacterial spores to germinate, start growing and reach hazardous numbers."
Use the oven.
When I do this slow simmer thing I use the oven, not the stove top. It seems like even at lowest setting on the top, stuff always burns to the bottom of the pot. It is hard to get the heat low enough and there is no control over what temperature a burner produces in whatever is above it.
Put the pot in the oven at lowest setting. The nice thing about the oven is that it will keep itself at that temperature. It is like a slow cooker in that respect. I put a cookie sheet with a raised edge one shelf down to catch drips in case it boils over. Having the oven on 220 degrees all night might be more acceptable to your family than having the burner on all night.
If you are compelled to turn it off it will stay warmer in there than up on top. Leave the pot sealed; no final stir when you turn the oven off. If it got hot enough to simmer it should be sterile in there until you raise the lid.
This oven method makes great chili too.
If you're worried about food safety and have an oven which is considered safer by your family, you can put the pot in the oven heated to a temperature which is below the boiling point of water, but high enough to prevent bacterial growth. It would also give the broth a couple hours of sous-vide cooking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.823189
| 2015-06-25T01:42:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58521",
"authors": [
"Alan Raza",
"Bob Hicks",
"Charmaine Fraser",
"Doug",
"JohnEye",
"Megha",
"Ming",
"OLORUNDARE JUSTINAH",
"barryh472002yahoocomau",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9475",
"kerri",
"mdegges"
],
"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
}
|
17542
|
How to understand the effect of individual ingredients of recipes?
I like cooking and I try different recipes from web/book. But I am not satisfied by just cooking using recipes, I want to understand what tastes individual ingredients bring to a recipe and what alternatives do I have for different ingredients of recipes that I cook so that I can experiment safely i.e replacing ingredients with there alternatives to produce slightly different taste or removing some ingredients altogether.
Is there any resource on the web that I can consult for this? I know I can learn this by experimenting and tasting individual ingredients but I need something that can give me a starting point upon which I can build my own knowledge.
Smell/taste them before you add them? And for substitutions, google individually, or try http://www.foodsubs.com/
This is an overly broad question which may get closed by some here for that reason. For the future you may want to limit your questions to specifics goals or issues. It is often helpful to include what you have already tried.
As for general resources YouTube and other sites offer a variety of videos where experts will teach and demonstrate a variety of techniques. If you search Google or YouTube for "Alton Brown" and any of a variety of topics you are likely to find a video that will be helpful. Here is an episode from Alton Brown on Shish-Ka-Bob as an example.
Your profile indicates that you are in Pakistan, some of the best resources I can suggest come not directly from the internet but from television, much of which is also available via YouTube, Hulu and other internet sites. Also The Food Network website is a great resource.
Doin't know about the web, but a great book is 'The Flavour Thesaurus' by Niki Segnit. What goes with what, why, what else can you use, etc.
A good book for baking specifically is Baking Illustrated - they break down the results of altering one ingredient at a time in their test kitchen before each recipe so you understand why they chose the ingredients they did.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.823637
| 2011-09-07T09:26:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17542",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Linda",
"Nikaya",
"Skanda",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41121",
"user23614"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23692
|
Barbequeing with a charcoal grill
Today I headed to a nearby camp ground which had some charcoal barbecue stands. I put in around 2 pounds of charcoal and put a thin slice of pork meat on the grill. After 40 mins, it was well...lukewarm. Also after around 10 min of burning, the charcoal had a layer of ash deposited on the surface and after that it hardly gave off any heat. My question is :
To cook 1 or 2 pieces of pork or steak how much charcoal should I put? Also what can I do to make the flames rise a bit like in a campfire so that the flames actually touch the grill.
Aren't chars supposed to cook by radiating heat and not by flames? It sounds like it was more of a problem with the combustion of the coal than lack of coals.
What could have gone wrong? Any idea man?
It sounds like the coals went out.
Second @ChrisCudmore's thought, this can happen if perhaps the stands were wet or damp, or if not enough oxygen gets to the coals.
You should first set fire to your coals.
When they are really hot (red/white), but the flam is out, put the meat on top on the grill. Really, you should avoid flames in a barbecue to prepare the meat.
The amount of coals isn't that important. Just make sure the ground is well covered. The more coals, the longer you'll have heat. Since you only want to grill a few pieces, your two pounds was certainly enough.
I suspect your fuel was being starved of oxygen. Charcoal burns well, but it requires a really strong oxygen supply. That's why, in a charcoal grill, you will see a grate that ensures airflow between the fuel and the bottom of the grill. Most likely, your lit coals were at the bottom of the pile, and were snuffed out by the unlit coals that were on top of them.
Start your coals in a chimney starter - use some shredded newspaper as kindling. Once the coals are going strong, remove the chimney, put the grate back on the grill, and then use the air vents to regulate temperature. The more air flowing thru the grill, the hotter it gets - narrow the vents to cool things down a bit. Remember, there will be vents on both the bottom and the top of your grill. Here is a more thorough article on the art of operating a BBQ grill.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.823845
| 2012-05-10T01:30:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23692",
"authors": [
"Chris Cudmore",
"Daugmented",
"Dennis Mattson",
"Eric D. Brown D.Sc.",
"Henrik Hansen",
"Jeroen",
"Kaushik",
"Rakshith Kariyanna",
"Sygmoral",
"codeforester",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9453",
"romanemul",
"user53683"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42232
|
Fresh cranberries OR frozen cranberries
I have a recipe that calls for 1 1/2 cup of fresh cranberries mixed with 1 cup of sugar (let stand). Then you add egg whites, orange juice and vanilla. Finally, you fold with whipped cream.
Since cranberries are seasonal (and out of season right now) can I use frozen berries in this recipe and have the same results?
Yes, cranberries freeze extremely well.
Since you will be macerating them with sugar, and since the texture of fresh cranberries is not that pleasant anyway, any slight softening from the freezing should not be a detriment--it might even be an improvement.
Freezing the fruit, almost cooks the fruit up to 50% depending to the fruit. So when you mix that frozen fruit with sugar or macerate it, your fruit tends to become softer than its fresh kind. However, cranberries freeze really well, and go through minimal change.To control your mixture concentration, use less orange Juice and add more later, if needed. Also consider cutting from the egg whites just by 10% and that should help too.
Good luck
Freezing in no manner cooks fruit. It may damage cell walls and thus make it softer or more weepy but it does not cook it and coagulate or denature proteins.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.824081
| 2014-02-21T19:52:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42232",
"authors": [
"Bonnie Provance",
"Michael Mraz",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Shirley",
"allegra marketing print",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98629",
"ninjaroo",
"porksnpines",
"spammer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30388
|
Is it wise to use an aluminum foil in the microwave? Is there a substitute for the aluminum foil?
I was recently looking up a recipe for quick Chawanmushi and came across a recipe which used aluminum foil in the microwave.
First of all, I thought that aluminum foil, with it's jagged edges would cause sparks.
Second of all, why can't you just use some plastic wrap?
I did not try it because I didn't want to cause some sort of fire or do something bad to break my microwave.
Is there a good reason to use this method?
See this wikipedia page, it states that if not crumpled aluminum foils is generally safe, so make sure you do not crumple it.
Then it says
The USDA recommends that aluminum foil used as a partial food shield in microwave cooking cover no more than one quarter of a food object, and be carefully smoothed to eliminate sparking hazards.
The reference states
However, small pieces of aluminum foil can be used to “shield” areas of foods,
such as poultry drumsticks and wings, to prevent overcooking.
It also states
General Rules for Safe Use of Aluminum Foil:
Use new, smooth foil only. Wrinkled foil can cause arcing (sparks).
Cover no more than 1/4 of the food with foil.
Shape the foil smoothly to the food so no edges stick out
It makes no difference which side of foil (shiny or dull) is facing out.
Do not place the foil closer than one inch from the oven walls.
If the microwave oven has metal shelves OR a metal turntable, don’t
microwave food in foil containers or metal pans, and don’t let foil used for
shielding touch or be close to the shelves or turntable.
If you see arcing (sparks), immediately remove the foil shielding; transfer
frozen food from foil container to a microwave-safe utensil.
My bolding.
So make sure you only cover the top of the cup and make the foil smooth, do not crumple it and it should be safe.
The reason to use this as stated in the blog is speed, a few minutes compared to much longer.
This is just so weird. I would not want to cook with anything that sparks and explodes and, as a former electronic engineer, doing this makes my head spark and explode cause I'm aware of what's going on technically with the oven.
I'm sorry, but this sounds like horrible advice. It is "unwise." Period. Why would we recommend something that is "generally unsafe in microwaves" for an application it is entirely inappropriate for?! It's a scientific curiosity that you can make it work at all... until it doesn't. The penalty for getting it wrong is breaking the microwave (best case) or a fire in the kitchen. I suspect the voting is going for the "wow" factor, but this is not culinary advice. It's a science experiment.
Because it is not as bad as you think. Why would USDA even say what they say? You could accuse them for being overly cautious, but the opposite?? Really. Think about it, Gas is dangerous, it explodes, the gas is dangerous to breath, why would anyone ever want to cook with it? Deep frying???? Caramel? All very dangerous, I say using foil in a microwave is safer than deep frying!
I hear ya, but it still sounds like describing "safe" ways to wash your clothes with gasoline.
Help me understand why sparks are dangerous. I think they are pretty. Is there really a problem if something sparks?
@JonathanLeaders Well, the "sparks" are actually plasma discharges. As in, miniature lightning. They're a fire hazard, wasted power, extra strain on the magnetron. Avoiding them is a good idea. I'd also guess that they're an eyesight hazard, similar to arc welding, since they work on the same basic principle, though at a lower power.
I think the first implied question is whether the use of foil in the microwave is safe. Per the USDA,
[...] small pieces of aluminum foil can be used to "shield" areas
of foods, such as poultry drumsticks and wings, to prevent
overcooking.
...
General Rules for Safe Use of Aluminum Foil:
Use new, smooth foil only. Wrinkled foil can cause arcing (sparks).
Cover no more than 1/4 of the food with foil.
Shape the foil smoothly
to the food so no edges stick out.
It makes no difference which side
of foil (shiny or dull) is facing out.
Do not place the foil closer
than one inch from the oven walls.
If the microwave oven has metal
shelves OR a metal turntable, don't microwave food in foil containers
or metal pans, and don't let foil used for shielding touch or be close
to the shelves or turntable.
If you see arcing (sparks), immediately
remove the foil shielding; transfer frozen food from foil container to
a microwave-safe utensil.
As to the question of whether there is good reason to use the method in this specific case, in the linked recipe, the foil is on top of the cup with holes poked in it. It is not in contact with the food as far as I can tell. The author gives no reasoning or background on why foil is used instead of, for example, plastic wrap or parchment with holes similarly poked into it. I suspect it is to slow the heating of the custard at the top surface (microwaves will not penetrate the foil), while still permitting steam to escape slowly so as to not water-log the custard. Steam in contact with the surface will also help cook the custard at the surface.
Still, the presentation of the recipe (including egregious punning) and lack of explanation don't leave me with any sense of why it would be needed or effective in this particular recipe.
Are you willing to take this risk with your microwave? If so, go ahead and try it... Truthfully, my best guess is that the foil makes little difference compared to say using plastic wrap to slow the escaping of steam and therefore help cook the top, since the microwaves will still penetrate the custard from the sides and bottom, but I have not experimented.
My own best guess is that plastic wrap, with holes poked in it to allow the slow escape of steam, would be equally effective.
never tried, but would plastic wrap not melt? I guess not
It is possible to melt plastic wrap in the microwave, but very, very unlikely. It would have to be in direct contact with food that gets to its melting point (as the plastic wrap does not absorb microwaves itself), and that food would have to be completely dessicated to rise to the melting temperature. It is a normal practice to use plastic wrap to cover food being microwaved to prevent splatters, and so that the warm steamy air stays on top of the food to help it heat more quickly (much like keeping the lid on a pot).
@SAJ14SAJ There are two types of plastic wrap, PVC and polyethylene. PVC is nice that it sticks much better, polyethylene is nice that it doesn't have the plasticizers & can take heat better. You can use the PE wraps in the microwave, wouldn't try it with a PVC one.
I have managed to melt plastic wrap in a microwave, without it being in contact with the food. The wrap was sealing a container with food inside. Water vapour rose from the food as it cooked; and it was hot enough to eventually start melting the plastic. I would still far rather do this than experiment with aluminium foil.
Personally for an application like the one in this recipe I would likely use a parchment paper.
If I really felt my desired application required aluminum foil in the microwave I might try Martha Stewarts Foil and Parchment wrap, with the foil side down.
I'm not even sure that using foil to protect food would work in the microwave the same as it does in the oven.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.824237
| 2013-01-25T07:59:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30388",
"authors": [
"Captain Lepton",
"Dawood ibn Kareem",
"Flore",
"Geoffery Holland",
"Jonathan",
"Leah",
"LiefdeWen",
"Luaan",
"Orgmo",
"Paolo",
"Rob",
"Robert Cartaino",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Stan Shady",
"Stefan",
"Tony V",
"Wouter",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8",
"tbpeind"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29849
|
What is considered to be an ideal roasting time and temperature for Cauliflower?
If I just want to make the simplest roasted cauliflower, what is the best temperature and roasting time?
I have never roasted it, only boiled and fried it before.
There's a lot of range of acceptable outcomes for this, so let me give you the parameters I work with.
I generally start by mixing the cauliflower with some oil (olive oil typically; others substituted depending on the flavor profile I want) on a baking sheet, then sprinkling with salt. This part is important; if you skip the oil, you'll likely just end up with dried out cauliflower. So every other bit of guidance I give is based on that. Additionally, it's important to try to spread out the cauliflower so that it makes just a single layer.
350F works well when I don't want to pay much attention while roasting. It usually takes 30-60 minutes, depending on how finely I break the florets. Larger pieces take longer. I usually check it every 15 minutes or so and flip pieces around. In most cases, you'll get more gentle browning with this temperature than with higher temperatures. You'll probably get the softest, sweetest cauliflower this way.
If you are more impatient but you are willing to check on the cauliflower more frequently, you can easily go up to 425F. I can shave off a fair amount of time, and I've had good results with even large pieces cooking fairly quickly, often in the 25-40 minute range. The caveat is browning is much more aggressive, and you need to rotate pieces more frequently, possibly every 8-10 minutes. You will often get a more caramelized result than with lower temperatures, and you may find cooking slightly less even. I sometimes prefer this because I like a balance of chewy and soft texture and I like the extra caramelization on the surface.
Generally seasonings other than salt are best added near the end of the cooking process so that you don't burn them; spices, herbs, and garlic in particular can't typically handle much more than about 15 minutes baking.
Hm, extra virgin olive oil doesn't keep its flavor when you cook it at 350F and will be smoking by 425F; olive oil that you can cook that hot generally has pretty neutral flavor.
I beg to differ, in spite of the current fashion of claiming cooked oil completely loses its flavor. There are clear aroma differences between olive oil and, say, canola oil or peanut oil, even after cooking. I've used both, even for roasted cauliflower. I can say I won't go back to canola or peanut oil for roasted cauliflower unless I'm using additional seasonings. Plus, I typically add a small splash of first cold press olive oil to the cauliflower just before serving.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.824776
| 2013-01-07T22:55:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29849",
"authors": [
"ASefcik",
"Arnaud Jeansen",
"Cascabel",
"JasonTrue",
"Rub",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69552",
"user2499602",
"user3.1415927"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58703
|
Can I eat Chia leaves?
Just out of curiousity I planted some Chia seeds in a pot. Turned out they grow like crazy and seem pretty undemanding.
Now I also noticed that they smell quite nicely, a bit like basil and wondered if the leaves can be eaten. Like for a salad or as a herb, because it seems super easy to grow them. I acutally wondered why we can’t eat the leaves of way more plants (I know you can eat nettles when boiled).
People use the leaves to make tea, so they're not going to kill you... but I don't know if they'd make a good salad.
Do they? Can’t find anything about it. Only about Chai Tea.
Yeah, I found a couple of articles that mention it. Here's one.
I would just like to say that you can't decide on edibility based on the plant family. For example, both potatoes, tomatoes and deadly nightshade belong to the same family.
However, chia leaves can be used for herbal tea, which means they could probably also be eaten safely.
Wikipedia says chia is a plant that belongs to the mint family. According to the wiki article the FDA generally recognizes mint as safe
§182.10 Spices and other natural seasonings and flavorings, including
mint, are generally regarded as safe (GRAS) for food uses in the
United States.
but
the wiki article also enumerates two mint species in particular and I don't know why (Peppermint Mentha piperita L. and Spearmint Mentha spicata L.).
I just can't access the original website to check the original terms due to a server error.
Edit: The server works now. Only Peppermint (Mentha piperita L.) and Spearmint (Mentha spicata L.) are generally recognized as safe by the FDA (§182.10). The word "mint" in the cited paragraph from the wiki article doesn't mean the Mentha family but only the plants that are commonly called "mint". I have the impression that in the chia article this mint (Lamiaceae, a family) was mixed up with this mint (Mentha, a genus). As @rackandboneman pointed out, chia (Salvia hispanica) belongs to the family Lamiaceae (common name: mint) and belongs to the genus Salvia (common name: sage).
Edit 2: Sprouts are probably edible. The link directs to an online shop which sells chia seeds with growing instructions.
I leave this answer for the sake of completeness even it doesn't really answers the question.
At least this explains part of the smell. ;)
Pennyroyal belongs to the mint family too, and is not that safe to eat. Neither is any Mentha family member that might or might not have resulted from cross pollination involving pennyroyal. It seems that salvia hispanica is also commonly called chia. Salvia is the sage family - and that family has several seriously poisonous members too!
And yes, all lamiaceae - a lot of edible or medicinal herbs are, but not all lamiaeceae are edible/medicinal herbs.
I snip my chia greens and top them on my salads. They are so easy to grow and I've had zero digestive or health issues and have been eating the leaves all Summer! They are one of the few plants that grow in this SW Florida Summer heat.
Since I wasn't crazy about the chia seeds, even though they were considered very nutritious, I found that they grew very easily in my garden. I sprinkled them on the soil and they sprouted and filled the area with a lot of soft, rather tasteless little plants. I clipped them off at the base by the handful and put them in my green smoothie or sprinkled them in my salad. I couldn't taste any particular flavor and never had any digestive problems.
That’s weird, mine smell and taste a bit like mint and actually work well for a tea.
According to https://www.epicgardening.com/chia-plant/, the entire plant is edible and provides nutrients like omega-3 fatty acids and protein.
I have been eating the whole plants for this summer so far, not gotten any bad effects, trying to find things such as stinging nettles, Chia plants seem to have a ton of protein and antioxidants.
I can't imagine that they are toxic if eaten not in excess.
For example, the flowers from the locusts trees are totally eligible, yet if you have never ate them before and eat a bunch, you will get sick to your stomach, it's not because of a toxin, but just that most of our bodies have not encountered such food,and at 1st will respond to it as a poison.
At any rate I have never gotten ill from raw or cooked greens , even Chia plants, though I eat dandelion, burdock and other wild edibles, so I might not be the average person to speak about this.
Do your own research, eat small amounts at first to see how well you tolerate them, though I don't think anyone is going to be hurt by eating Chia greens
I am open to any other ideas or experiences with this plant, as it's so easy to grow, has half the protein of Stinging Nettles, and is almost impossible to get rid of, much like minting that respect.
"I have never gotten ill" does not mean "the food is safe." Do you have any other sources for whether it's safe? Also, the list of other plants you've consumed is hardly relevant, maybe edit your question to make it clearer what the conclusion is.
Chia Leaves are edible and can be used like spinach, says permaculture advocate Morag Gamble in this blog post on chia.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.825018
| 2015-07-01T18:09:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58703",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Chaw PW",
"Debi Gale",
"Esther",
"Marcus Blättermann",
"Michiel de Vries",
"Nora Wojick",
"Nyarai Fellistus Richards",
"Terry Lomax",
"Tomas Regli",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58592
|
Is wood a good alternative to charcoal for bbq fuel?
Instead of buying lump or briquette charcoal every time, can I just burn some birch and use that as the heat for my charcoal bbq?
Birch is not one of your better fire woods. It burns down awful fast.
You should be able to cook on your grill using various types of wood such as hickory, mesquite, cherry, maple, apple, etc. Per Recipetips.com , birch can be used also.
Birch - A softer wood, Birch is best used when grilling or smoking cuts of pork and poultry, providing a flavor similar to some varieties of maple.
Birch is a softer wood and can also be syrupy. Also hard woods cook longer than soft woods. Be sure to use large chunks rather than chips or small pieces. Just keep these things in mind when cooking with birch.
What difference will chunks make?
@TFD Larger chunks/pieces allow for a longer cooking time and less need for adding wood. As birch is a softer wood, it burns quicker than hard woods, so small pieces and chips would not be as desirable.
@TFD Smaller pieces of wood burn away more quickly, while big pieces leave behind coals more easily. All the fires I've cooked over, the twigs were ash well before the logs burned down.
But that all depends what you want. Sometime you want a short BBQ. So that advice is only good if you want a long BBQ. In which case birch is not a good candidate, since it burns too quickly, and is very smokey to re-stock
You can use any non-poisonous wood you like.
Every wood has a different heat and smoke profile. "Soft woods" like birch will generally burn very hot for a short time, so OK for sausages, small meat cuts, and small vegetables, but not so good for large meat cuts, roasts, or for BBQ'ing covered for the full smoke effect as you will most likely need to re-stock the fire every 20 or 30 minutes.
Most people let the wood burn off the main smoke (which usually doesn't taste too good), and BBQ on the red/white embers. The wood stage is now similar to charcoal, but a lot more smokey, which is great if you like smoke.
For sausages, small cuts and small vegetables, hardwood is basically wasted, as they will cook in ten minutes, and the hardwood has 20 to 30+ minutes of burn time in it.
You can BBQ small stuff using a few handfuls of dry twigs or even driftwood if you want too. Twigs from fruit trees or lavender bushes make great smoke!
We always travel with a small lidded BBQ (metal box 60x40x40 cm with vent holes on sides), we use a handful or two of driftwood, once the smoke dies down, add a few peppered steaks, pre-cooked potatoes, oiled asparagus, soaked corn on the cob. Put the lid on, and come back in 15 to 20 minutes, smokey slow cooked heaven.
That sounds very tasty. I'm going to have to try throwing some lavender on the coals next time! I'm not sure I'd call 15 minutes "slow cooked" though.
@Sobachatina relative to the average BBQ time. With pre-cooked stuff all your are doing is smoking. With items like soft fish, or thin red meat cuts, 15 minutes is plenty too
I use wood all the time (including birch). Size and type will depend on what I am trying to do. For a slow smoke I will use a slow burning hardwood for coals and add small pieces of fruitwood or Hickory on the coals for flavour. If I am needing a quick hot fire birch with no bark works good. The bark normally comes off easily after it’s been seasoned in the wood pile. The bark creates all the dirt smoke and bitterness.
Birch is far too hot and quick-burning for a barbecue. Even hardwood (oak, maple, etc) will have too much flame and not enough heat for good grilling. You need a fuel that burns long and with a lot of radiated heat, which is why charcoal is the classic fuel.
Birch has flame initially, but after that, it will burn to white hot coals and then there will be no flame ,right?
Yeah, I don't get this - I've had an awful lot of barbecue cooked over mostly oak. Yes, you have to let it burn down until there's no flame, but then it stays hot plenty long to cook a meal, eat it, then come back for marshmallows. Charcoal is commonly used because it lets you skip ahead to the coals, not because you can't use wood.
If you're talking specifically birch, then it really does burn too fast. If you're talking a better grade of hardwood, then yes: you can burn it down into coals and use those coals, but not in a standard charcoal barbecue; the size of wood fire you could fit in a charcoal grill wouldn't generate enough coals to last you long.
Other answers and sources say birch does work, just only for faster cooking things. Even if they're wrong about that, you clearly agree that other kinds of wood work, so perhaps you might want to edit your answer to avoid the claim that no wood is a good fuel. (I'm also dubious about your claim that it won't fit in a grill, given my own experience, TFD's answer, and other sources.)
@Jefromi....where do you buy oak? In Toronto, Canada, they only sell birch in campgrounds,parks and stores. I think oak is too precious to be burned down. It is used in furniture.
@Kaushik I'm from central Texas, where live oak is one of the most common trees. The kind of stuff we burned was from trees that were starting to grow too far (over the house or the road) or starting to die, definitely not just cutting down trees for firewood. None of it was really big enough to use as lumber anyway. I don't think it's what people actually sell as firewood, but we weren't buying it.
Wood is fine it is just a lot less practical. Wood takes a fair while longer to make coals and is not entirely as hot as charcoal. That being said it does stay longer so if you want a more gentle longer lasting fire it may be better.
Charcoal is in essence just half burned compressed wood anyway so you are not loosing anything substantial by just using regular wood.
Real charcoal is not compressed. Briquettes are not real charcoal (most of them contain coal dust, which is quite a different animal, and various other ingredients.) Coals from burning wood are charcoal...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.825581
| 2015-06-27T19:12:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58592",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cheryl Weldon",
"Chris Hornby",
"Cindy",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Ecnerwal",
"Gay Boelcke",
"Gaynell Tolbert",
"Golden Box",
"HRIDAYA SPANDAN THAKUR",
"Jessica Wright",
"Kaushik",
"Ron Carter",
"Sobachatina",
"TFD",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Wendy Cooper",
"aqib abbasi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7477"
],
"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
}
|
81824
|
What adhesive should I use to repair a glass and silicone cake mould
I have a silicon and glass cake mould with the round base made of glass with some silicone feet and a detachable rim made of silicone. One of the feet came lose and dropped off.
What glue I can use to re-attach it?
A high heat silicone adhesive will do the trick. Something like this (obviously only need to buy one, not a whole case).
Also, I've had some luck with oven door adhesive (though never tried on cookware) and auto adhesive.
All are oven safe up to 400-500F continuous, so you should be good for baking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.826065
| 2017-05-20T13:23:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81824",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
61688
|
How to tell when water reaches 100 degrees Fahrenheit without a candy thermometer for the purposes of disolving gelatin?
I found a recipe for a gelatin desert I'd like to try. But there was one step I don't feel prepared to tackle:
In the meantime, in a small sauce pan heat ¼ cup of water to about 100
degrees. Add the gelatin to the water and let dissolve.
I don't have a candy thermometer to measure the temperature of my water. Would it be sufficient to use hot tap water? Or should I bring the water to a slow or full boil? Does the precise temperature make a difference when dissolving gelatin or is it ok to be rather approximate?
Would you please clarify: Are we talking about 100 degrees Celsius or Farenheit? I assume it's Farenheit, but as you are talking about boiling...
Assuming this means 100° Fahrenheit -- 100°C is easy -- full boil! But I don't think you'll want boiling water for gelatin. 100°F is hotter than normal tap water, and you might prefer filtered water. What's the application? Comfortably warm is ~110°F / 45°C, which is common for yeast (active dry / instant) breads, if you're a baker. Candy thermometer might not read as low as 100°F anyway.
Hoc said it presicly how it is. Full boil. Easy .
Is this sheet or powdered gelatin? I ask because there's typically a hydration step (aka 'blooming') -- for sheet gelatin you soak it in cold water before adding it to the hot liquid. For powdered, you'll add it to some cold liquid, let it sit and become a blob, then add it to the hot liquid. It's possible that there was a blooming step that came before this.
since Jessica hasn't edited it yet and everybody's guessing wildly, I just put Fahrenheit in. If your recipe tells you to use 100 C for gelatine soaking, find another recipe!
The recipe didn't specify whether the temperature should be Celsius or Fahrenheit. I'm going to presume Fahrenheit since the rest of the units in the recipe were imperial. Powdered gelatin.
Gelatin is quite tolerant, but with a few restrictions:
Never boil gelatine, because it looses it's binding/gelling properties.
Liquifying gelatine requires temperatures that feel "warm" to the touch, but not all recipes handle warm additions well - e.g. whipped cream.
Cooling liquid gelatine for heat sensitive recipes should happen fairly quick, and so should incorporating the coolish gelatine to the other ingredients : Stir well or you end up with "gummy bear"- like lumps.
So without knowing the details of your recipe I suggest using fairly warm water in the range of "warm bath water" or "comfortable for washing hands" but not at all "hot". (Note that I don't give a precise temperature range on purpose.) Hot tap water should suffice, but heating it on the stove is fine, too. Just use gentle heat and don't let the gelatine rest on the bottom of the pot to avoid overheating.
Depending on your next steps, you might want to stir the liquid gelatine until it's barely warm to the touch or add a few spoonfulls of whatever cool mixture you are planning to bind, stir, then add to the rest. For warm other ingredients, extra cooling is not required, just mix and let set.
You are not specifying whether it's 100 degrees Celsius or Farenheit.
If it's Celsius, 100°C is the temperature of boiling water (at sea level). Just full boil it.
If it's Farenheit, 100°F is very close to body temperature (if you're not ill). You can use a normal medical thermometer.
The recipe didn't specify whether it was Celcius or Farehnheit either ;-). Since the rest of the units were imperial, I'm going to presume it's referring to Farenheit.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.826149
| 2015-09-12T18:28:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61688",
"authors": [
"Cindy Haritos",
"Dan Taylor",
"Jessica Brown",
"Joe",
"Linda Nicholson",
"Nicole Schwarzl",
"Pork Chop",
"Rachel Carter",
"Sandra Boyd",
"Stephie",
"Vaughan Fleischer",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6992",
"kirsty louise Watkins",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29856
|
How to bake burger buns so that they expand horizontally instead of expanding vertically?
We are trying to bake burger buns and we usually play the rounded individual dough on the baking tray and use another baking tray to press it down to flatten it.
Now our hands are so sore after months of doing it. The only reason why we did that in the first place is because our the dough (imagine just a circular ball dough) will expand upwards more than going sideways, making it not wide enough to be a burger bun.
How else can we fix this? Temperature? The way we roll our buns?
Scoring (=slicing the bun surface with a very sharp blade) controls the direction of bread expansion pretty well. Not making that an answer since you probably don't want visible slashes on your buns, but it is worth noting for other kinds of bread.
Your buns are likely sticking to the bottom of the tray. If they stick, they will expand vertically because they can't expand horizontally. They're stuck.
Dust the trays with semolina flour, rice flour, and/or fine corn meal. You can even lightly dust them with white or rye flour, but the aforementioned flours are preferable.
If you're retarding the buns, consider placing parchment paper on the tray, lightly dusting the parchment with the aforementioned flours, and then panning the buns.
You could also use non-stick Silpats or silicone mats, but that's expensive if you have to buy a lot of them.
I don't know the composition of your dough, how you are shaping them, how much you are working the dough, etc. These could contribute the problem as well. Buns are usually enriched dough (they have butter, milk, etc.) made with low-protein AP flour. They don't need a lot of gluten development or shaping. If you develop the dough too much, it'll hold something close to the original shape (in this case, of a ball of dough instead of a disc).
Flatten the individual balls of dough for each bun into a disk prior to letting them do their final proof on the baking sheet. Usually you would just do this with your hand, a rolling pin, or with the bottom of a floured flat bottomed glass or something similar.
Joe Pastry has a nice blog entry with photos showing the process for hamburger and hot dog buns, using a rolling pin.
Here is a link to a fairly ubiquitous video that shows the process in detail for hand shaping mini-buns (as for sliders) rather than full sized buns. The idea is the same.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.826465
| 2013-01-08T02:14:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29856",
"authors": [
"Boson Jedi",
"Chris Kennedy",
"Eileen",
"Eric N.",
"Hank Alme",
"Ibrahim Khatib",
"Khadija",
"Matt Bradley",
"Mony Halim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69622",
"lampstand",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30371
|
What quantity of coconut oil should be substituted for butter in a brownie mix?
I want to substitute coconut oil for the butter in a brownie mix but I don't know how much to use. The recipe calls for 3/4 stick of melted butter. How much coconut oil should I use?
How did the final result turn out? I'm looking for a good diary-free brownie recipe. Did this work with the coconut oil finally? Is there a specific preference to using coconut oil vs vegetable/grapeseed oil?
Butter is about 80% milkfat, and 20% water, more or less.
3/4 stick is 6 tablespoons.
You should be able to substitute six tablespoons of coconut oil one to one. It should be well within the tolerance of the recipe.
If you really want to account for the water, you would do about 5 tbl of coconut oil, and 1 tbl of liquid.
Posted despite your answer, because I had already typed half of mine when yours appeared
I am sure we were typing at the same time, no worries. Plus you gave European style answers (and milkfat percentage), and I gave US style.
Butter is 83% fat, 17% water (we can ignore the milk solids in this case). Instead of 90 g butter, you can use 75 g coconut oil and 15 g more liquid (e.g. milk, or whatever the recipe specifies). There will be a slight difference in texture in the finished product, but nothing to worry about.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.826717
| 2013-01-24T19:04:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30371",
"authors": [
"Adore",
"Conor Henry",
"Eric B.",
"FloPinguin",
"Jeff Wiley",
"Molly Blair Richardson",
"Raghav Kukreti",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Scott",
"aquarian47",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71041",
"rumtscho",
"yankeemike"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30392
|
Do canned kidney beans contain Toxins?
I'm attempting my first slow-cook today but, of course right after I started it, I read that there's some nasty chemical in uncooked kidney and cannellini beans that can cause vomiting. And apparently slow-cooking, even for eight hours, is not sufficient to deactivate it.
I'm confused as to whether this applies to just dried kidney beans, or if it is also true for canned beans one gets from a store (i.e. in water). Will these have been pre-cooked to remove this toxin?
What toxin would that be? Canned beans are pre-cooked, but usually as part of the canning process--that is to say, they are cooked in the can. The thing is, if canned beans were toxic, after many years of such beans being sold and consumed, it would have come to light by now.
Disregard comment--did some googling. See answer below.
All beans contain some level of the toxin. Common French green beans are at a low enough level to eat a normal serving raw. At the other end of the scale they must be cooked and the cooking water discarded
@SAJ14SAJ your comment is still valid though, if those beans were poisonous people'd have died or fallen ill in their millions by now as a result of eating them.
If Wikipedia is to be trusted (and in this case, their source is the FDA), there is in fact a toxin in some raw beans, such as kidney beans.
The toxic compound phytohaemagglutinin, a lectin, is present in many
common bean varieties, but is especially concentrated in red kidney
beans. White kidney beans contain about a third as much toxin as the
red variety; broad beans (Vicia faba) contain 5 to 10% as much as red
kidney beans.3
Phytohaemagglutinin can be deactivated by boiling beans for ten
minutes; the ten minutes at boiling point (100 °C (212 °F)) are
sufficient to degrade the toxin, but not to cook the beans. For dry
beans, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also recommends an
initial soak of at least 5 hours in water, which should then be
discarded.3
During the pressure-canning process beans undergo (they are fully cooked in the can), the toxin is certainly deactivated. Canned beans are ready to eat, even cold, although they probably taste better hot, and with some flavor from a sauce or accompanying dish.
The danger would be in slow-cooking dry beans of this variety, which have never been previously cooked.
The FDA in the 2012 edition of the Bad Bug Book says: "Studies done by British scientists suggest that beans should be soaked in water for at least 5 hours, the water poured away, and the beans boiled in fresh water for at least 30 minutes." pg 254 http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodSafety/FoodborneIllness/FoodborneIllnessFoodbornePathogensNaturalToxins/BadBugBook/UCM297627.pdf
Kidney beans have high levels of phytohaemagglutinin, which is a protein that can mess with cell walls and cell metabolism. If you don't cook the beans enough, this protein can make you really sick.
The good news is that boiling kidney beans for 10 minutes takes care of the problem. The protein breaks down and leaves your beans perfectly safe to eat. So canned beans and dried beans that have been simmered on the stove are fine, but slow cookers don't ever hit the boiling temperature. Since the beans never get hot enough to kill the protein, slow-cooked beans can still make you sick.
I just wrote about this on my food science blog. Check it out! http://www.fchem101.com/2014/09/kidney-bean-poisoning/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.826870
| 2013-01-25T12:10:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30392",
"authors": [
"Adil Mustafa",
"Elinore",
"Fisher",
"Matt Absalom",
"Roz",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Shane O'Neill",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71045",
"jake",
"jwenting",
"user7215"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29864
|
What kind of cookware can melt in a microwave? Is it safe to eat food cooked in a melted cookware?
We were trying to prepare a chocolate cake using a Panasonic Microwave. We set the oven to auto mode for cake preparation. There was a time for preheating (180°C) and then asked us to place the cake tin inside which would cook for 35 minutes, but when it was just six minutes after process started, the vessel started to melt.
We first used the vessel provided by Croma which melted and then we tried using the vessel provided by Panasonic for microwave, that also melted.
What was the cause for this and can we eat the cake that was in the melted vessel?
In the future, people may be more receptive to answering your question if you take the care to type it in a more readable manner, using upper and lower case, and proper punctuation. Most folks here realize not everyone is a native speaker of English, and will make allowances accordingly, but the effort "shows willing" as the British say.
What does microwave oven have to do with it? If you heat the oven to 180C and put plastic in it, it will melt! Do not use plastic vessels in a conventional oven, even if it is a microwave oven also. And if you do, and they melt it is probably a quite bad idea to eat the food.
The cause is that the dish was not intended for use in convection mode.
Plastic melts under heat, period. "Convection" as used by oven manufacturers means that the air in the oven gets heated to the temperature specified (actually, ovens are so badly calibrated that it can be considerably more - I have seen an oven overheating by 40°C - so a considerable safety margin is needed). Any solid objects heat to high temperatures in this hot air, with the surface coming close to the air temperature. You cannot put plastic in a 180°C oven.
A microwave oven operates on a different principle. It heats certain types of objects from inside. Water (and some other nutrients, e.g. fats) get hot when irradiated by microwaves. Plastic or air don't get hot. Therefore, a plastic dish does not get hot when used for cooking in a microwave oven, and the air in the oven also stays cool and does not melt the dish.
What you have is actually two ovens in one. They use the same heating container, but with two different heaters. The plastic dishes supplied with the oven, as well as any other specialized microwave cooking dishes, can only be used in microwave mode. The convection has to be turned off when you use them, else they will melt.
If you want to cook with convection, you have to use a pan from a material which doesn't melt. For a traditional oven, this would be borosilicate glass, ceramic, silicone or metal. I would not use a metal pan. I have heard of combo ovens which don't turn off the microwave part when switched to convection mode (even if the user manual claims otherwise!), and even if yours does, it is still a safety risk because you might forget it and turn on the wrong mode. Metal gets much hotter than water in a microwave, up to the point where it can explode.
Summary: use oven-safe glass, or ceramic. If your glass dish has a plastic lid, remove it before baking in convection mode.
I am impressed--how did you figure out from the question that this was a dual-mode oven?
@SAJ14SAJ I suspect the mention of a temperature. Microwaves don't usually preheat or specify temperature.
@SAJ14SAJ your comment made me re-read the question and I realized for the first time that it doesn't actually mention dual-mode. Why was I so sure that it is one? Possibly because all the other facts known about the case fit perfectly with this interpretation and are highly unlikely in any alternative interpretation I can think of. A temperature setting, a "Auto cake" mode, melting a "tupperware-like" microwave dish all speak of convection - but if the product is sold as a microwave, it must be one of those dual-mode microwaves which seem to be popular in Asia.
@rumtscho I didn't know those were popular anywhere :-) Well done, in any case!
Aren't metals (e.g. tins) a NO-NO in microwaves?
In any case, I wouldn't touch food whose container melted. Chemicals are bound to mix, and that doesn't seem safe.
I used the bowl which came with the microwave like tupperware.. but it got melted at 180 degree Celsius. It was in auto matic option given for cake.. I need to know whether the microwave is problematic as it is the first time to prepare a dish with it.
@user15125 Is it plastic or metal?
@geff_chang If it melted in 180C it was very likely not metal :-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.827177
| 2013-01-08T07:40:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29864",
"authors": [
"DJG",
"James Chase",
"Lori B",
"Nrader",
"RLC771 ",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Stefan",
"Tamara Dixon",
"VarmintLP",
"Yamikuronue",
"crichins",
"geff_chang",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69620",
"rumtscho",
"samoguy",
"ti7",
"user15125"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57881
|
how long to leave the sliced onion mixed with salt/pepper for onion Bhaji/onion fritters/onion pakoras?
How long should we leave the sliced onion mixed with salt and red chillies/green chillies, for them to be used for onion fritters/onion bhaji/onion Pakoras with gram flour?
Suggested time is usually 15-20min.
What if it is increased or decreased? How does it affect the taste of the pakora?
Accordingly, what should be the quantity of rice flour to add to the crispiness of pakora?
There are more than one methods and answers to above question. As per the Mumbai Special Ghati Bhajiya, Sliced Onions must be mixed with Salt for at least 15 Minutes & Maximum for 1/2 Hour. The water content must than be drained keeping only dry salted onions. Then Gram flour & other Spices should be added to Onions, just to bind, so Bhajiyas or Pakoras can be made.
Taste of Onion in Bhajiyas or Pakoras turns slightly mild, yet crispy, because due to low water content onion cook fast without turning dark!
Rice Flour, it can also be added or can be a substitute of gram flour for crispy Bhajiyas. Rice flour should be coarse and not fine.
For Crispness Ratio of Rice Flour to Gram Flour should be 1:1 or Rice Flour should totally substitute Gram Flour.
But I was informed to use the same water content which the onions sheds and use it to mix with the flour, and add following
1 table spoon of yogurt
1 table spoon of oil
if these are insufficient to make the batter wet, then add upto a glass of water(this can be varied, depending on how thick the batter forms)...
I have already mentioned that there are more than one method of making Pakoras, from my personal experience I infer that more the water content the less crisp are Pakoras. Also with more water content, the use of Oil & Cooking time also increases. All this affects the fresh taste of Pakoras.
hmmm.. thanks for the suggestions.. Will try to experiment with different % of water/oil/dryness.
I second that @VikramS.Parikh . I too avoid any extra water in onion pakoras. Mostly because they become soggy. If you decide to use the water released by onions than that should do, no need for any extra water to be added after that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.827637
| 2015-05-31T02:32:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57881",
"authors": [
"April Schill-Booth",
"L Arnolds",
"Lucretia Johnston",
"Marian Mustard",
"Matthew Storey",
"User56756",
"Vikram S. Parikh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35871",
"ravi.zombie"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15339
|
Whats the cooking method called where you bury the raw food in hot charcoal ashes?
Whats this cooking method called where you bury the raw food (potato, sugarbeet, guava, corn cobs)in hot charcoal ashes?
Are you sure you mean charcoal? I've found an amount of cooking methods where the food is buried, but it's all with hot stones. The only methods I've found with charcoal are barbecueing and smoking.
@Mien, I have heard of this method, and I think even eaten the result. But I can't provide a good name. A 1:1 translation of what I have heard used would be "roasted with embers", although this term is ambigious because it is also used for stuff barbecued over embers. "Buried in embers" is also used when explaining how a food was made, but usually not listed among common cooking terms. And I guess that @Midhat is looking for a specific term, not a descriptive one.
This is just traditional fire cooking, now called camp-fire cooking, or (US) cowboy cooking
Any Scout should know how to do this :-)
It works best using food with tough outer skins, or wrapped in a sacrificial coverings, or more modernly using aluminium foil, or a cast iron pot (dutch oven)
Some common foods examples:
Potato and other Tubers
You lose about 5 mm (including unpeeled skin) to the fire. If you wrap in Aluminium foil the loss is often nil. Wash and soak tuber well before cooking, but do not cut into the skin, even to remove imperfections or 'eyes'. Takes about 30 to 60 minutes to cook depending on coal heat. If not eating immediately, do not leave potatoes in foil wrapping. Unwrap and let surface dry
Corn
Do not remove husk. Soak corn before cooking. It takes about 10 to 20 minutes to cook depending on coal heat
Cabbage
Wash and soak cabbage. Drain excess water. Do not remove any dead leaves etc. Poke a knife halfway into the core from the top and pour in a little water (and meat fat for extra go). Can take up to 1 hour to fully cook
Meat
Large slabs work best. Reduce flesh loss by wrapping in edible leaves. If you don't like the charred bits, you can use Aluminium foil, or better yet a dutch oven. Time depends on mass and done-ness desired
Small goods like sausage (real meat and fat, not sawdust please) will have up to 5 mm of flesh loss, but are still fun to do.
Fish
Gut fish, but otherwise leave intact. Fish cooks relatively fast, time depends on mass. Pull sides apart and eat flesh directly off the skin and bone. If using a foil pouch you can add aromatics, raw sugar, and spices to make some amazing meals
Fruit
Keep bananas in skin, make a couple of small cuts to let steam escape. Cooks in 10 to 15 minutes
Unpeeled and un-cored apples cook in 15 to 20 minutes (you can eat the core, it's good for you)
I've had "caveman steak" where one blows off the ashes on the coals and lays the steak right on top. You would think you would be tossing out a perfectly good slab of protein but it turned out great.
here's a foo-foo version. No campfire needed, he's got a grill. It still goes right on the coals: youtube.com/watch?v=pjwtJ-hXW0I
(esp in Australia,) Damper should probably be added to the list
I believe the most accurate definition for this is "Pit Barbecue" although (as Ray points out) Kalua describes this technique as well, but I think as a 'general technique' Pit Barbecue is more accurate with Kalua being a "style" of Pit Barbecue.
This reminds me of Kalua a bit. In Kalua pork, a pig is wrapped in burlap and leaves and buried with hot embers and rocks under dirt and sand for hours.
Hangi is apparently somewhat similar as well.
Hangi is NOT similar. Hangi uses fire to heat rocks which are then buried in a earth hole, food parcels added, and lots of water poured in before covering with earth and leaving for longer than you are prepared to wait
Thanks; I hadn't heard of it before, but it seemed similar. Thanks for the explanation.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.827843
| 2011-06-09T15:37:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15339",
"authors": [
"King Orr",
"Mien",
"OpenID-test2",
"Ray",
"TFD",
"William Steele",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6241",
"mcalex",
"rumtscho",
"shamisen",
"刘腾元"
],
"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
}
|
2502
|
What are other uses for a pizza stone?
I recently acquired a pizza stone to use for baking bread. Other than pizza and bread, are there other uses for it in the kitchen?
I use mine as a heat shield in my grill to create indirect heat for slow smoked BBQ. I also use it to cook pizza on my grill, but that's not really a different use.
A pizza stone can help an older or cheaper oven hold temperature as it will retain heat because of its mass, releasing it when the thermostat turns off the coil and reducing the variability in oven temperature. So, keep your pizza stone in the oven.
Baking bread, pita, crusty French, crusty Italian, etc.
Was in a wonderful restaurant in Shanghai where they brought out very hot stones on wooden trays with holders for food on the side which (in my instance) held the largest shrimp I've ever seen and a large assortment of vegetables. We cooked the food on the hot stone and had a great old time, what fun! Ended up with only minor burns:)
There are probably a lot of other uses depending on how porous the stone is; if it is granite or something like that, use it for broiling steak after the stone is hot; wouldn't have to flip the steak.
Let your mind wander...not too far though; soup, I'm pretty sure, wouldn't work.
A good point about cooking meats on stone ... but I'd beware of the broiler; heating from only one side is more likely to crack the stone, and depending on the stone, could do so explosively. If you're going to put it under the broiler, it's likely a good idea to pre-heat it first in a 'regular' oven (heat from top & bottom).
Ours is good for cookies.
Heston Blumenthal took all of the racks out of his oven and placed the stone in vertically against the side of the oven and used it as a makeshift tandoor oven to cook naan bread in it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.828166
| 2010-07-21T00:43:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2502",
"authors": [
"Andrew",
"David Glass",
"J. Win.",
"Joe",
"Josh Regev",
"Slateboard",
"UchuuStranger",
"Vincent",
"guest",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73620"
],
"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
}
|
42801
|
Corned beef on warm for 2 hr before cooking
I had my corned beef in the slow cooker on warm for 2 and a quarter hours before I saw it was not on high. I then turned it to high and continued to cook it. Is it still safe to eat?
Was this raw corned beef, or canned/prepared?
corning is a preserving method (heavy salting, although I don't know how similar today's corned brisket from the store is to the original) and you've only slightly gone over the time that the USDA recommends for leaving food out (2hrs between 40F and 140F) ... so if it were me, where I know I'm not cooking for pregnant or immune compromised people (and the little kids won't touch it), and the temperature was still relatively cool, I'd remove 90% of the liquid, and heat that up on the stove (to get it up to temp faster) and pour it back into the cooker.
The rule of thumb is to never allow food to stay in the danger zone (40F-140F) for more than four hours - but that's total time, including service, unless you cook it long enough to pasteurize it. (Douglas Baldwin has pasteurization times for meats of various thicknesses at various temperatures, mostly for sous vide cooking, but you can still apply it to other cooking methods.)
Actually I believe the FDA advice is 2 hours.
@ElendilTheTall Agreed, referencing http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34670/how-do-i-know-if-food-left-at-room-temperature-is-still-safe-to-eat What's not clear to me from the OP's question is what temperature the beef actually sat at. "Warm" on a slow cooker may be very different depending on make and model.
of course, why not? you were applying heat
Heat only makes food safe when the food is at above 60 Celsius (the temperature at which many bacteria die). Below that, there are zones where it is actually more dangerous than at room temperature.
This is not only a bad answer, it is downright dangerous.
@razumny Yup, as reflected by the score and rumtscho's comment. That's why we don't generally delete things like this: they are answers, they're just wrong answers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.828609
| 2014-03-16T19:04:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42801",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Carl Düvel",
"Cascabel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jeff Goldblum",
"Joe",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Svet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"logophobe",
"razumny",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44884
|
Whipping double cream with amaretto
I was making a chocolate mousse style dessert and wanted to finish it with an amaretto flavoured whipped cream.
I whipped some double cream not too stiff, then added a glug of amaretto and some ground almond for good measure, and whipped again. After tasting I wanted it to have more amaretto flavor so I put a bit more in and re-whipped. The cream curdled into a blobby, watery mess straight away. I tried again with the same results. Did I add too much amaretto?
When you say "whipped again", do you mean that you whipped as forcefully as you did when first making the cream, or just briefly to integrate the amaretto?
Mousse is made with eggs. You mixed cream with... well, water. What you describe is pretty much what I would expect to happen...
Thankyou friend, my kitchen ambitions outweigh my actual abilities quite often but every day is a school day! Simon
Whipped cream - as in, pure cream that's been whipped - isn't stable. Even just left on its own for a long enough time, it will collapse without a stabilizer like gelatin, xanthan gum, and/or dextrose.
You added water and alcohol, which is pretty much the opposite of what it needs. I'm hardly surprised that it collapsed. Most whippable items will fail to whip if you add more than a tiny bit of water. You might have been OK if you'd used a stabilizer, but even then, I wouldn't count on it.
Chantilly cream is a mix of 3 parts whipping cream to 1 part pastry cream (which doesn't whip, but is thickened with eggs). Because it is so much more stable, it can accept much more in terms of flavouring. It takes much longer to make but would probably have handled the amount of amaretto that you added.
But a much better solution would be to use almond extract instead, which imparts far more almond flavour with far less liquid.
A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that flavoured treats can be easily made from liqueurs. Most of the time, liqueurs have far too much liquid. I once, long ago, made the mistake of trying this with truffle ganache, which is far more forgiving than whipped cream - it got way too soft and still had hardly any of the flavour.
If you're able to adjust the water in a recipe then you can use liqueurs, but usually you're better off buying some concentrated oils or extracts, which tend to pack as much punch in a teaspoon than a full cup of the liqueur. Some are easily found in grocery stores (almond extract, mint, etc.) and others you can get from specialty vendors like Lor'Ann.
Theoretically, it should be possible to add water to cream and whip, until you reach the limit of whippability. In practice, I have never seen true pastrymaking dairy cream being supplied to home cooks (it has 48% fat), only standard whipping cream at 33% fat. And the limit of whippability is 30% fat. So, just as you said, even a very small dilution will mess up the foam.
You can create stable foams including alcoholic ingredients with stabilizers and a cream whipper, if you're dead-set on using amaretto or other liqueurs. Methylcellulose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methyl_cellulose) is a stabilizer that I've seen recommended for these applications. Simply using almond extract would be the expedient solution, though.
You don't need a cream whipper for this, just a stabilizer. Methocel may work, but so will any other alcohol-tolerant e-number, many of which are considerably less expensive. Even corn starch will handle alcohol pretty well. But that's getting you farther away from either a mousse or whipped cream... it ends up being more like a gel.
@rumtscho FYI, 48% fat cream (double cream) is readily available in pretty much every supermarket in the UK. We also have clotted cream, which is 55%, but that's too thick to whip. Just something to file away in the databanks :)
@ElendilTheTall: I believe that's very much a UK thing; it's definitely not widely available in either Canada or the USA, and from what I've read from various answers and comments on this site, it's not common in most of Europe either. I guess there's just not a lot of demand for it... what would the typical home cook do with 48% or clotted cream? Maybe there's some popular UK dish that uses it?
Double cream is used in many things: sauces, desserts, and of course for whipping; wherever an American would use heavy cream, I imagine. Clotted cream is more 'specialised': it is normally served with fruit scones and jam, which makes a 'cream tea' (where tea is the name of a meal not a drink).
Once you whip it (and I suggest you add a hardening agent to make sure), add whatever you want in it and mix slowly with a spoon. Never did it with amaretto, but Nutella (and similar chocolate spreads), walnuts, hazelnuts, coconuts, Baileys, coconut rum and mixes of the above all worked.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.828827
| 2014-06-14T18:41:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44884",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"AppleAnne",
"Centaurus801 spam",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jared Hinkle",
"Michelle B",
"SecretCartographer ",
"Simon jones",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"logophobe",
"rumtscho",
"uwu spam bad boy uwu"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45368
|
What is the best way to store uncooked homemade beef patties?
I'm planning to grind my own beef patties, but I don't plan to use them until the next day, or perhaps the day after. What is the best way to store them until the day of? Would sticking them in the fridge do, or do I have to put them in the freezer?
Store them as you would the unground beef. If it will be still be in date after a few days, store it in the fridge, otherwise, freeze them (separating the patties with a sheet of greaseproof paper).
Since forming patties takes very little time, I would minimize issues of sticking together or deforming by storing the ground meat as a lump (in a plastic bag well sealed for a day or two should be no problem) and then shaping it into patties as you use it.
A good answer is said to provide sufficient academic reference. I am not providing much references, but providing what my experiences have been. Experience you would have to take with a pinch of salt (pun intended).
I guess your utmost concerns are
preservation of the meat
conservation of taste/flavour/texture
prevent the raw meat from contaminating other foods.
To me, it seems strange that you would not consider marinating them first and exploit the preservative features of the marinate.
The reasons I would marinate it first are
preserve/conserve the taste of the meat
defrosting after freezing exposes meat to a duration of meat deterioration
perhaps it is better not to freeze it if it is just a day
rainy days - your plan for the meat may be abrogated, and you would have to store/freeze the meat for a few more days, in which case having them marinated with preservation mixture would help a lot.
Frozen meat would take about eight hours to thaw in the refrigerator. Therefore I find it helpful to freeze my meat for two hours to four hours and then remember to place it into the refrigerator non-freezer compartment no later than 10 hours before I actually would use it.
I buy icecream by the gallon, which comes in cuboid plastic boxes, with a sufficiently tight cover. I use those boxes (after the icecream is finished) to store my veggies and thaw my meat in the refrigerator. That prevents contamination of food by uncooked meat.
Preservation
I read that sesame oil is an effective preservative. By my experience it has proven to be true.
Have you tried marinating with a mix of salt, spices and sesame oil?
Oregano is a known bacteria inhibitor.
Here is a web page on using spices to prevent bacterial deterioration of meat:
http://www.hccfl.edu/media/44231/1025_lab_10_spices_and_food_preservation.pdf, which lists
vinegar, salt, garlic, cinnamon, cloves, oregano in the first section.
Sugar is also said to be a preservative. Most people say it is because it dehydrates the food and sucks away water content to prevent bacterial action. What most people do not mention is the oxidating action of sugar. An oxidizing reaction obviously kills bacteria.
But somehow I have not found sugar to be effective, which in fact made it worse. I guess sugar is usable only when you want to soak the food (normally fruits) completely in saturated sugar solution.
Otherwise than that, I found that the sugar provides fermentation material for bacteria, which actually creates the preserving vinegar. Therefore leave out the sugar - just use the vinegar. Because, I found that I did not like the taste of meat on which fermentation of sugar had occurred. That's just me, perhaps other people may like the taste I find strange and yucky.
Effects on taste
These are my experience, but taste is highly subjective effect.
Sesame oil provides a strong pleasant aroma. But I've had people tell me they find its scent too pungent.
Vinegar with Garlic if not overly abundant, provides that luscious Chinese food scent, when food is cooked with them.
Ground nutmeg is meant to enhance/balance the taste of the food being laced with preservative spices. I found that I should not use too much nutmeg. It has a strong biting taste. To me, nutmeg seems to mask and compensate the flavour of spices. I have a suspicion that it has been used in excess to mask the taste of slightly spoiled meat. I don't think it is an effective preservative.
I find the mixture of cinnamon, garlic, cloves, anise, oregano and a little bit of cumin powder provides a pleasant scent and taste to meat.
A little tint of lemongrass oil might also enhance flavour. However, I find the effects of lemongrass similar to nutmeg - a strong biting taste and smell when used too much. I use lemongrass oil as insecticide, but I don't know if it kills bacteria as well as it does insects. Perhaps having lemongrass oil on your raw meat might prevent it from attracting flies and rodents, but then you would have to have sufficient amount, an amount that might affect the taste of the meat too much. If you don't mind Thai curry scent, you wouldn't mind too much lemongrass. If you google "cooking with lemongrass" you would find a lot of people loving its scent I find excessive.
-1 This is all very interesting, but none of those things are typically put into ordinary hamburger patties and would radically affect the flavor. Plus they're overkill for a day or so.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.829197
| 2014-07-06T14:38:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45368",
"authors": [
"Anisha",
"Dixie Brown",
"Edward Bear",
"Lars",
"Mark_79",
"Oscar Mora",
"Rebekah2020",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45901
|
Why is lettuce rarely cooked?
Most, if not all, of the lettuce I've seen has been uncooked, usually as a salad, wrap, or garnish. I don't recall ever seeing it being heated, even though visually similar leafy vegetables, like cabbage or kale, are often cooked. I have a feeling that this has something to do with the lettuce's water content, but that's just idle speculation.
Why isn't lettuce usually heated as part of the cooking process? I'm mainly looking for what happens when it is cooked that discourages people from cooking it, but I'd also like to know the scientific explanation. Instances of successful lettuce-cooking, if such exist, would be welcome, as well as explanations about what makes the cooking work in that particular situation.
The worlds a big place. Lettuce is often cooked. Did you check any recipe books?
I love pan grilling ( or on the BBQ grill) small lettuces or endives or radicchio; hot pan, oil/butter, cut the lettuce in 2, and gril cut side down until colored,
First of all, visual similarity has little to no importance in cooking. The way an item is handled depends on its texture, taste, flavor and interaction with other ingredients, and it is rare that these are connected among similar looking substances. When it happens, it is because they are related chemically, physically or biologically, not because they look alike.
Now on to the lettuce, and why we don't need to cook it. There are a few reasons why we cook vegetables.
Because they are too hard to chew comfortably. That one doesn't apply to lettuce, it has very tender leaves. In fact, once you cook it, it goes not from hard to soft (as does a, say, carrot), but from tender to limp. On the other hand, it can be useful for cabbage. Try to wolf down a salad made from cabbage only, especially if you are a medieval peasant with no access to a mandoline (so your wife didn't cut it up in 2.5 mm stripes, but hacked as good as she could with whatever knife she had). It is possible, but requires much more jaw work than spooning coleslaw.
Because we want to mellow their taste. Joe's answer covers this, there isn't much reason to mellow the taste of lettuce.
Because we want to neutralize toxins or irritants. Plants like beans and potatoes come to mind in this category, but this doesn't apply to lettuce (neither to cabbage).
To kill off germs. Traditionally, this hasn't been a concern with most vegetables.
Because we like a filling, warm meal. This is by no means a universal preference, but the more you get into the North, the more likely it is that the main meal is served warm. Cabbage makes for an excellent main meal for said peasant - easy to grow in abundance, relatively carbohydrate rich, especially before starchy crops like potatoes and maize got widespread. It is also easily preserved for the winter (and after imperfect home fermentation, the taste mellowing part becomes important). So it is frequently cooked to soups or casseroles. Lettuce, on the other hand, is not really a main meal. It has much less calories per volume, and also per unit of cultivated land. So it is eaten in addition to the main, filling meal, not as a main part of it. So there is no need to make it warm too. Note that there are examples for cooked leaf soups without much calories, but these are poor man's food, and made from leaves usually foraged, not cultivated (nettle, sorrel, dock). They are used more as a diversion against hunger than actually stilling it, when there are no resources for better (= more caloric) food. They do deliver micronutrients though. I don't know why lettuce isn't commonly used this way, but I suspect that there is no wild lettuce in the places where nettle and sorrel are eaten. Of these, only spinach seems to have survived the cultural shift to centralized food production.
Because it is a structural part of some cooked dish. Other answers mention wrappers. Its shape lets it be used in this way, but it is a poor wrapper, both tastewise and in terms of durability, leaf size and thermal isolation. Wherever you live, you are likely to have a better wrapper lying around.
As the other answers mention, it does get cooked from time to time. But it is more of a whim, or a wish for diversity I guess. None of the usual reasons for cooking other vegetables applies to it. You can still cook it if you want to, but it is better suited for a fresh salad appilcation.
Cooking lettuce is not as unusual as you think. It's kind of trendy to grill romaine,
and iceberg lettuce is often cooked in Chinese cuisine, both in soups and stir-fries.
There is a recipe for braised lettuce in Julia Child's Mastering the Art of French Cooking,
and Lidia Bastianich, who specializes in Italian cuisine, recently did a stuffed and cooked lettuce (escarole) on her show.
.. and pea and lettuce soup is a great way to use outside leaves / lettuce that isn't quite perky enough for a salad.
Much of the lettuce produced in the U.S. (e.g., iceberg) is effectively just crunchy water; they've bred so much of the taste out of it that it's used for texture and not for flavor. As cooking changes the texture, it then provides no contribution to the finished dish.
For those recipes that do incorporate cooked lettuce, it tends to be:
lettuce with a stronger flavor (tends to be bitter), such as romaine, endive, escarole, chicory or radicchio.
lettuce with a firm texture, such as romaine, endive and radicchio.
cooked a short period of time. (grilled or added to soups or stir fries towards the end; not cooked to the point where it gets completely limp)
... and, as mentioned, lettuce can be cooked to soften, then used as a wrapper. I personally prefer cabbage for this, but it's useful for dishes where the cabbage might overwhelm the flavor of the filling.
There are a bunch of great answers, but I think to me, the most important part is that most lettuces are just gross after you cook them. They go from crisp and refreshing to soft, mushy and sometimes stringy. Obviously, there are exceptions as others have mentioned but simply put, most of your salad lettuces just don't produce a nice cooked product.
Any Hungarian student who was served salátafőzelék in the school cafeteria will heartily agree with you.
In Sicily we cook Roman lettuce, three ways that are my favourites are:
1. Take the whole leafs and boil in water for about 10 min with just a pinch of salt, drain (not completely) and serve as a side seasoned with just olive oil and a squeeze of lemon juice.
2. Same process of boiling though cut in to half and add little pasta towards the end, serve with just olive oil. (I would have this every time I needed a little detox)
3. Cut in to small pieces and sauté with onions (I also like to add nutmeg, black pepper and walnuts though pine nuts are more of a Sicilian touch) this makes for an amazing vegan pasta sauce. Unless you add some Parmesan :) as a topping my mom would always do toasted breadcrumbs.
It loses its crispiness, and its refreshing leafy lively taste. So this product transform into something else other than that one has come to expect of lettuce.
Raw lettuce is not ate much in Asia. As human manure is still used there. Slight health hazard. But I will add besides soups & stir fry's. It is also steamed. Or Used as a cover over meat to hold in moisture.
@JBergen : good point. Lettuce grown in the medieval ages in Britain was cooked to death (eg, pottage) because they used un-composted manure.
@J Bergen and @Joe. Such a sweeping generalization about Asia. Any verifiable stats to back that up? I've lived and eaten in Asia all my life—many times, lettuce.
@Quillmondo : I said nothing about Asia. I made a statement about medieval Britain cooking lettuce (and everything else) due to how they fertilized their fields. Historically, vegetables in Italy were cooked well, also. And even in Ethiopia, where raw meat is eaten, they don't tend to eat raw vegetables.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.829590
| 2014-07-27T03:07:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45901",
"authors": [
"Danish Hakimi",
"J Bergen",
"Joe",
"Kay Rouse",
"Linda Johnson",
"Marti",
"Max",
"Quillmondo",
"Robin Betts",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user109440",
"user23537654 spam"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43127
|
Why are my strawberries keeping so long?
The California strawberries my husband buys are completely white at the stem, but bright red throughout the body, as well as being tasteless and staying fresh in the fridge for 2 weeks or more.
Is it likely that they've been processed in some way to keep them "fresh" for longer? What might have been done to them?
Please try to avoid words like "chemical" here - essentially all of food and cooking is chemistry and the word carries about as much meaning as "food". I assume what you really want to know is why they appear to be staying fresh for so long, so I'm editing the question accordingly.
Most commercial fruit is picked before being completely ripened because once it is ripened it has a very limited shelf life, and strawberries are no exception. Strawberries ripen from the tip to the stem and a good indicator that a strawberry is unripe is a white ring around the stem area.
Some fruits can be artificially ripened by exposing them to ethylene gas, but strawberries are not one of them, so it is not likely they are chemically treated as there's no gain. They may have had their color deepened, which is an artificial process but as I believe that's using Carbon Dioxide gas I'd hesitate to call them chemically treated.
Out of season strawberries often come very long distances, in order for them to last they have to be picked well before they are at their peak. Once they are picked they stop developing and ripening, and nothing can be done to improve their flavor. If you are going to buy them out of season try and pick ones that are completely red as they have a better chance of tasting good, otherwise it's best to spend your money elsewhere.
Also, out of season, canned or frozen tend to be better as there's a much better chance that they were actually picked in season.
Absolutely, much cheaper too generally.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.830317
| 2014-03-28T12:48:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43127",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Aeronautix",
"GdD",
"Kole Davis",
"Muad",
"Patricia R Dearlove",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"lusk"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19453
|
How to balance out sourness of lemon juice, specifically in a mayonnaise?
I've just made some mayonnaise, and it's turned out fine - texture wise. However, I used too much lemon juice when I made it. What are the possible ways to balance this out, mellowing the 'zing'? It's not terribly overmuch, but it could definately stand for a bit less.
Recipe used:
1 egg yolk
1.5 dl oil
Juice from 1/3 lemon
Salt n pepper
Can I go with some honey, or will this simply make it disgusting? I realize this wouldn't neutralize the sourness, but simply mask it. Any ideas? :)
To balance acidity, add sugar. It's how most mayonnaise manages to be acidic enough to prevent bacteria growth (pH 4.6 or lower), while still having a balanced and edible flavor.
You might get an edible result with honey, but sugar is more of a neutral flavor, so I would use that first. Using a jigger of Dijon mustard is not beyond the pale, as well... might help hide the acid, to a lesser extent.
The last time i made lemon chicken it turned out too sour, so i added a bit of baking soda and stirred until the fizz was gone. I tested and added a bit more. It was perfect. Very lemony but not sour. I heard adding too much baking soda can leave a weird taste but i guess i didn't add enough to have that problem.
Just my two cents, good luck!
Use a tiny bit of baking soda or bicarbonate otherwise you will get a horrible dentisty type distaste to the food!!! 1/4 or teaspoon or less!
As a chef of 6 years now working at a high level requirement in hotels around the country I will give you this tip: adding water will cut down the flavor so I suggest to avoid watering down a dish, sugar is a balancing technique we use to balance out most of our sauces, and I will explain why this works.
When a person's palate tastes sugar immediately the brain picks it up, you may not notice it but think about it the next time you have a coffee with 1-2 sugars, or ask a friend to make 3-4 drinks add sugar to one of them. The taste buds react with sugar/water in the mouth which sends a message to the brain "this is sugar". Not everyone likes a super sweet sauce so I suggest adding a small amount at a time and Taste, depending on how much lemon you have used you can cut it down a spoon at a time.
I have used sugar or, on occasion, honey, though I usually mix it in at the start, before I've started adding oil. It works fairly well. Personally, I prefer an acidic mayonnaise, but some applications call for a sweeter one, so I certainly don't think there's anything wrong with adding a bit of sweetener.
Additionally, you might succeed in taking the edge off with some contrasting flavors. I usually have a little mustard in my mayonnaise, partially for the emulsifying effect, but also for flavor. Some spanish paprika blended in may soften the acidity as well.
You can get a less sharp-tasting mayonnaise by using a vinegar instead of lemon juice, or slightly diluted lemon juice. Each vinegar has its own properties, so there's plenty of room for experimentation. I've usually used cider vinegar or rice vinegar, but occasionally I've started with an aromatic fruit vinegar.
I will be adding dijon mustard to atleast some of it, but I was thinking that might instead enhance the 'zing' since dijon mustard has a kind of 'zing' to it as well, but I'll see if a bit of honey and dijon mustard will save it. (it's for a hamburger)
I used sugar. Depending on what your making, a dash of parm cheese works. I used parm cheese for chicken picatta when I added to much lemon.
You can add more oil and/or cut it with water. Mayonnaise is a very flexible emulsion once set -- if it's too tart, you can add more oil and then cut it with water to manage thickness. You can then adjust salt/pepper as necessary.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.830522
| 2011-12-06T18:27:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19453",
"authors": [
"Can",
"CharH",
"Claire Guy",
"DDPAI Technology Co Ltd",
"DJA",
"Hans Christian Isak Mørch Holm",
"John Richard",
"Lynda Perry",
"Max",
"Sam",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65988",
"noorhashem"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
39558
|
Storage of Pickle Brine (Without Cucumbers)
How long can you keep sweet pickle brine without cucumbers in it? Or can you even do this?
I use sweet pickle brine in many of my recipes.
As the brine is the preserving agent (due to the acidity, even in a sweet pickle), not having the cucumber in the jar will not reduce its shelf life.
The brine should easily last six months (and probably much more) in refrigerator.
I've kept it for months in the fridge (mostly bread & butter, but occassionally from dill pickles or sweet gerkins) ... not sure what the max age is.
I'm guessing the most important thing is to not have contaminated the brine (ie, use clean utensils when extracting pickles, and not to use your hands or anything that's been in your mouth)
And for those wondering ... I use it to add moisture to chicken salad or tuna salad, and for vinagetette when you'd have otherwise added honey or another sweetener. (you'll have to taste & adjust, though).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.830830
| 2013-11-19T01:27:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39558",
"authors": [
"Cara Pocock Schnoor",
"K. Lewis",
"KARTER",
"Maureen",
"Wendi Pettersen",
"bobby from gainesville",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91929",
"user91921",
"weik field"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
39828
|
Too much heavy cream in my pumpkin pie?
I followed the recipe below but I'm concerned that it seems like a lot of cream - it's very runny. I've already mixed it up, poured one pie, and have a ton of mixture left - probably enough for 6 more pies. I only have 1 more cup of pumpkin puree - should I add it to the remaining mix? Should I add anything else? I also have another pumpkin that I could roast tomorrow and add if I have to. What should I do to save the rest of the mix?
2 your favorite pie crust
6 cups pumpkin puree, from a real pumpkin (see below)
2 cups sugar
3 teaspoons cinnamon
2 teaspoons clove
2 teaspoons allspice
1 teaspoon ground ginger
1 teaspoon mace or 1 teaspoon nutmeg
1 teaspoon vanilla
1 teaspoon salt (optional)
8 large eggs
4 1/2 cups heavy cream or 4 1/2 cups evaporated milk
Roast the pumpkin and puree its flesh. Whip pumpkin with all other ingredients for about 3 minutes. Pour mixture into pie crust and bake at 425 ° F for 15 minutes. Turn oven 350 & and bake for 40 to 60 minutes until knife or toothpick comes out clean. Store in refrigerator.
Read more: http://www.food.com/recipe/real-pumpkin-pie-from-scratch-easy-490668
I have edited your question to add a little more clarity. Welcome to Seasoned Advice! If an answer below was the best one for you, please click the check mark to mark it as "accepted".
To understand the Food.com recipe you referenced, I compared it to the Libby's recipe which sets the benchmark for pumpkin pies.
Food.com Libby's
Raw measurements
Pumpkin 6 c 2 c
Sugar 2 c 0.75 c
Eggs 8 2
Dairy 4.5 c 1.5 c
Pseudo-bakers percentages (eggs as ratio of cups pumpkin to eggs)
Pumpkin 100% 100%
Sugar 33% 38%
Eggs 1 : 1.33 1 : 1
Dairy 75% 75%
As you can see, other than creating a huge volume of filling per shell, the Food.com recipe you used is quite similar. The main difference is that it adds a lot more egg, so should set up more firmly.
It does seem to produce far, far too much filling for the number of shells specified, even if they are deep-dish.
I would suggest baking the extra filling in ramekins or baking dishes as pumpkin custard for any surplus after you have filled your shells.
Don't add more ingredients to the filling, though; they are approximately balanced already. Remember, pumpkin pie is a custard, and the filling will be quite liquid before it is baked.
Thank you SO much!! I ended up baking just one pie while waiting for a reply and it looks pretty good! I haven't tried it yet and I was tempted to cut into it, but after your answer, I'll just wait and make some more pies (a LOT more pies) and try them tomorrow! Thanks again!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.830957
| 2013-11-28T02:53:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39828",
"authors": [
"KatieK",
"StLMel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21551"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17426
|
How to extract the most flavor out of vanilla beans?
Today I made creme brulee, which I'm not very familiar with but have done once or twice.
The consistancy was fine, aswell as the caramelized sugar, but it had a very low taste of vanilla, even though I used 4x the amount specified in the recipe. (I used 2 whole vanilla beans for 2 cups).
I cut, scraped and put everything in cream/sugar, heated to about 80-90c (almost a boil), mixed with the yellow of the egg(yolk?) and cooked it in a pan half-full of water.
Is there anything I can do to facilitate more vanilla flavor? Is it somehow volatile and doesn't survive.. cooking? Maybe I should have boiled the cream with the vanilla? Make extract using high-strength alcohol first? Buy better vanilla?
Getting the Vanilla from the bean to the taste bud takes time. While many will advocate the use of fresh vanilla beans (as you have tried), I have always preferred the flavor that is granted from a good vanilla extract. In my opinion it is stronger and better distributed throughout the dish. Whether you buy or make your own extract I think you will get a more consistent and rich flavor that way.
(note: thanks to @rfusca for providing the extract link in a previous question)
This is true for many natural flavours. A processed extract will have a more intense flavour without having to add large volumes of the flavouring substance which may effect the recipe. In dishes where the flavourings are part of the food value, this would not be a good idea (e.g. Indian style curries)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.831171
| 2011-09-02T20:21:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17426",
"authors": [
"Amazon Dies In Darkness",
"Jen",
"TFD",
"ereader",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37448",
"machineghost"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20041
|
Why does Béarnaise separate as opposed to crème brûlée or lemon curd?
When making creme brulees in the oven, they are heated to something like 100° C, or over. When making bernaise, heating it like that is a sure way of making it separate.
As far as I've understood, it is the vinegar and the fat that separates, when the protein in the egg coagulates, and of course there is no vinegar in either creme brulee or lemon curd, but the protein still coagulates. Still, the result is silky smooth.
Why is this? All I have are guesses, and some small amount of culinary science to shed some light on this would be greatly appreciated.
What makes you think that a crème brûlée is heated to anywhere near 100° C in the oven?
@Aaronut I remember seeing one of my own brûlées boil slightly in the oven - while that might not be good for the brûlée, it still came out smooth. It might be lower than 100 degrees, but I'm quite sure Béarnaise would have separated at whatever temperature is reached. Gods knows it has separated on a few occasions much below that temperature...
I think that there are a few different concepts being conflated here - let's try to clear those up before getting to the heart of the matter.
First of all, acidity causes just about any dairy product to curdle. That is precisely how cheese is made. Acidity, salt, and heat are all catalysts in the curdling process. This does not, however, affect clarified butter, because curdling is a result of the milk proteins coagulating and binding to each other, and true clarified butter is just the butterfat - there is no milk protein left. Based on that, we can conclude that vinegar is definitely not the important factor, which is further evidenced by the fact that lemon curd will also have a fairly high acidity due to the citric acid in lemon juice.
Crème brûlée is also not heated to 100° C, or even close to it. Dairy products burn very quickly when they approach that temperature. Many recipes for crème brûlée or crème caramel - and IMO virtually all of the good ones - will have you use a bain-marie (water bath) for the express purpose of temperature control. Since egg yolks begin to coagulate at 63° C (145° F), a crème brûlée doesn't need to be heated much higher, although there are many recommendations for the optimal temperature that seem to average around 75° C (around 170° F). If you try boil a crème brûlée, it will almost certainly burn and quite possibly curdle too.
For this reason, I believe that at least part of the difference is simply in your perception of the heat. Ovens heat much more slowly than stoves. Béarnaise (or the very similar Hollandaise) doesn't get heated all the way to 75° C, but it does get heated up to around the 63° C coagulation temperature of egg yolks, which really isn't that far off. You might see the surface of your crème-whatevers sizzle a bit, but that doesn't mean the entire pastries are at the liquid's boiling point; if they were, they'd be ruined.
The rest of the difference is sort of what Bruce's explanation is saying, although I think he's got it backwards, and the reported Julia Child ratio is way off (it should be 2 egg yolks per 3-4 oz of butter, which is only 90-120 mL). The amount of egg yolk (which acts as an emulsifier) relative to fat or dairy is important, but in order for the answer to really make sense, it's also important to understand why.
Egg yolks and butter-fat compose an emulsion of proteins and fat. The fats don't do anything special in response to heat, but the proteins coagulate, and in the process they will try to bind to each other; given a generous enough amount of egg yolk emulsified with butter, if you (a) heat up the yolks past the coagulation temperature and (b) don't keep them extremely well-dispersed, you'll end up with buttery scrambled eggs.
When making crème brûlée - or any custard - you want full coagulation of the egg yolks, because the relatively small amount of protein-packed yolks (typically, anywhere from 10% to 20% of the heavy cream by weight, which is only 4-8% of the fat by weight) is easily dispersed, and the individual molecules can't get close enough to each other to coalesce; instead they form a semi-firm but sparse network around the fat, much like what a meringue does around air.
On the other hand, Béarnaise and Hollandaise are supposed to be sauces. You're trying to thicken but not coagulate the eggs - in other words, allow a very weak protein network to form. To make this partial coagulation have any noticeable effect on the sauce's consistency, you need (relatively speaking) substantially more protein - closer to 30% of the fat. This higher concentration of protein puts the protein molecules in much closer proximity; without constant dispersion (in the form of whisking) and low, slow heat, the proteins will quickly start to coagulate and coalesce, because there's nothing stopping the attraction. This causes flocculation or even outright coalescence of the emulsion, which is the point at which you get that nasty scrambled-egg consistency.
It's got nothing to do with fat:water and everything to do with protein:fat. Fat helps prevent the coagulation of proteins; this principle is applied everywhere including baking, where oil or butter is used to slow down gluten development from flour (not eggs) and keep baked goods from becoming tough and rubbery. The ingredients and cooking method are different in a custard, but the principle is the same.
Protein is the main character in egg-based sauces and in scrambled eggs; the main difference between the two (with custards being somewhere in between) is how much protein, how well dispersed it is, and how much it is allowed to coagulate. Sauces have more protein, less coagulation; custards have less protein with full coagulation.
The difference is not huge, but it's enough to tip the scales if you're not careful.
Note: The numbers here are based on estimates of 1 egg yolk weighing 16.6 g, heavy cream = 40% fat, butter = 90% fat, clarified butter = 100% fat. If the numbers appear or wrong or don't make sense to someone, let me know so I can clarify or fix them.
Great answer, thanks. But why couldn't sauces have even less protein, and full coagulation, to achieve a weaker thickening (as opposed to a custard)? The benefit being no risk of coalescence?
@Max: That is a custard, so I'm not sure I understand the follow-up question. As I understand it, heating will do one of three things to a solution or emulsion of thermoirreversible protein like egg: (a) set it, which increases the viscosity; (b) denature it, which will permanently break any emulsion; or (c) scorch/burn it, and we all know what that means. The presence of water will prevent (b) or (c) due to its low boiling point, until it evaporates. But once (a) happens, once it's fully set, the viscosity will not change.
I suppose you technically could use a minuscule amount of egg yolk and a ton of butter, but that ratio is essentially mayonnaise... except cooked, bleh. It wouldn't taste of egg yolk or have any of its characteristic richness, which is kind of the whole point of a Hollandaise or Béarnaise.
I guess I'm also using the term "coagulation" incorrectly in some places; technically that term really means the process of one mass of particles attracting other particles. It's not so much coagulation in a custard as it is stabilization of the protein network so that it is a (semi) solid at room temperature. Egg sauces aren't really stabilized at all, they're just thickened slightly.
Yes, I was talking about achieving a thickened sauce using less protein than a custard, which is fully 'set/coagulated?'. Instead of setting completely like a brûlée it would simply be thickened. But, disregarding that, the reason béarnaise separates (when it does) is not the absolute temperature, but the rate of coagulation (which is proportionate with temperature) combined with the rate of dispersion (so that protein strands don't attract each other into 'yarn ball')? Or have I misunderstood? :D
@Max: I've never seen or made an egg sauce "separate". What happens is that the egg coagulates and turns into scrambled eggs. That's completely different from a separated emulsion where you have one liquid at the top and another on the bottom. When eggs set, they turn stiff. That happens whether there's a little egg or a lot of egg. When there's a lot of egg, you get scrambled eggs. When there's a little egg, you get a custard. You really can't further reduce the amount of egg and still call it a Béarnaise. If it's raw, it's weird mayonnaise, and if it's cooked... well then it's just nasty.
Try it for yourself if you really want to. You are literally referring to cooking mayonnaise.
Well thank you. I was not actually looking to try it, just trying to further my understanding :)
Short answer -- the difference comes from the amount of emulsifiers, given the fat:water ratio in each recipe.
In Julia Child's classic Béarnaise, 250ml melted butter is whisked into 125ml vinegar-water mix and 2 yolks. This 2:1 volume ratio of fat in water stretches the emulsifying power of each yolk to keep the butter stable in the water phase, making it vulnerable to breaking upon heating.
Crème brûlée, meanwhile, uses a 2 yolks or more for each 250ml of heavy cream. Heavy cream in the US is 40% fat, which conveniently starts out emulsified, but even so, it is not even a 1:1 ratio. Therefore, even when all of the egg proteins cook in the crème brûlée, there is still plenty of emulsifying power left over to keep everything together.
For curd, there are lots of variations out there. Some use extra yolks, some add starch (e.g., cornstarch) to stabilize the emulsion, and some rely on very careful technique to keep the curd from breaking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.831323
| 2011-12-29T14:20:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20041",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Max",
"Sunita Mohan",
"V. Lukosiute",
"Verl Humpherys",
"Xiphias",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43831",
"kander",
"Андрей Гросс"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10837
|
What is hot raspberry puree?
I have a caramel recipe that calls for hot raspberry puree to be added near the end of cooking. I'm assuming that the seeds are supposed to be removed, so how is this different from raspberry juice?
I have a bag of frozen raspberries. Could I just thaw them and put them through a mesh sieve (the way I would make juice)?
Raspberries aren't just seeds and juice, though they're certainly not as fleshy as some fruits. The difference between apple puree (apple sauce) and apple juice is much more obvious. In any case, you should be fine forcing them through a sieve as you suggest.
@daniel: I guess I was thinking of the sieve I have, which I expect (with a bit of rubbing around) would let most of the flesh through too. You're right, of course, though!
Combine 10oz frozen raspberries, 2 tablespoons sugar, 2 tsp cornstarch, and 1/2 cup water. Bring to boil, and continue boiling 5 minutes, or until sauce is thick. Strain sauce through a mesh strainer to remove seeds. Then you have hot raspberry puree (which is sweet) -- otherwise, remove the sugar.
Source: I made it once using this recipe.
Interesting, but I doubt that there is supposed to be either cornstarch or sugar. I'm pretty sure this recipe is looking for just raspberry.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.832106
| 2011-01-07T22:04:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10837",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Computerish",
"Maggie Hall",
"awestover89",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3779",
"masterninja01",
"pd40",
"wawawawa"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10017
|
Cooking an eggless cake
I am about to cook a cake.
I have bought the cake mix. Now, in the instructions, it says that I have to mix it with the vegetable oil and add egg. Unfortunately (or fortunately) I do not eat egg.
So, what else can I add instead of egg which will ensure the consistency?
related : What can I use to replace eggs in the recipe?
There is also http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4192/with-what-can-i-replace-eggs/. This appears to be a duplicate.
I'm not sure if it makes sense to close this as a dupe. The previous question was restricted to vegan substitutes (which would invalidate my answer) and also didn't specify the context (recipe) requiring the substitution, so the answers were all over the map.
Eggs are added to a cake primarily to help it rise, and to a limited extent to improve the moistness. The lecithin in the yolk also has emulsifying properties. For cakes, commercial egg replacers such as Ener-G will usually do the job nicely.
There's also a dairy product called QimiQ that's used in all manner of recipes to substitute for eggs, especially when a recipe needs raw eggs. It will also work well for cakes, although the substitution tends to be a little more involved. Also, it's probably harder to obtain.
I wouldn't substitute anything else in a cake. I've heard of people substituting all manner of things in other baked goods like cookies, but with a cake, you really need it to rise and you need the wet ingredients to bind together with the fats, and the only single "common" ingredient that will do that is either egg or a commercial egg substitute.
If you're literally about to bake this, as in you've got all your other ingredients already sitting in mixing bowls, and need to substitute the eggs with common ingredients you already have in your fridge or pantry, then I'm afraid you may have wasted your time (and your other ingredients). But maybe somebody else will have some suggestions - guess it can't hurt to wait, given the alternative.
Thanks! And, not, I am not literally about to bake this. I have just bought the ingredients and am reading the instructions.
The Ener-G replacer works in some cake recipes but not others I find. I tend to use that particular egg replacer more in egg white replacement, it's good in things like cheesecake mixture, meringue topping, etc. QimiQ is quite a good idea, providing the person eats dairy of course.
@Orbling: No substitution is perfect. I wouldn't use Ener-G if I didn't have to, but aside from QimiQ (which, as you've noted, isn't helpful for vegans) I can't think of anything better. With Ener-G you'll probably end up with a cake that's less rich and more crumbly, which you can partially compensate for by increasing the amount of fat. But at least it'll still be a cake!
Granted. There are some other cake replacers that sit better in certain circumstances, I find soya flour tends to be good, blended through the flour, with extra milk (soya or otherwise) for liquid, about 20ml extra per "egg".
I asked a similar question a few days ago. I learned that depending on the kind of cake you can sometimes sub-in pureed fruit. I recently made the cake with 1/4 cup of pureed pumpkin per egg and triple the original quantity of baking powder. This changed the flavour, of course, and made the cake much moister (it was a fairly hard bundt cake before, not so hard after). But it tasted good. (Better than the original, IMO)
+1 just for the line "Better than the original, IMO". After all, that is what matters finally!
I'd probably skip the boxed mix and take a look at some vegan cake recipes. I've tried a couple of baked goods recipes from Veganomicon that came out amazingly well. A quick search turns up some simple looking recipes ( http://allrecipes.com//Recipe/vegan-chocolate-cake/Detail.aspx ).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.832248
| 2010-12-12T02:23:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10017",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Bob",
"Joe",
"Kanini",
"Lawtonfogle",
"Marilyn Jan Seib",
"Orbling",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user0820",
"user20511",
"user40185"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11606
|
Why does bread soften after heating it up?
Usually when bread or other dough stuff gets harder after few days, I use microwave to heat it up and it softens.
Why is that so?
The taste is not that good anymore, but better then eating it hard.
Try to use a traditional oven instead and you'll have crunchy hot bread.
Bread is mostly flour and water. Flour comprises a small amount of protein (gluten, which is responsible for the bread's elasticity or chewiness) and a large amount of starch (specifically two molecules called amylose and amylopectin).
The process involved in bread baking - in massively oversimplified terms - accomplishes two things:
Development of additional gluten; and
Gelatinization of the starch.
The latter - starch gelatinization - is the important part in the context of this question. In order for the starch to gelatinize, it needs to be completely dissolved in water and then heated, which breaks up its original crystalline structure. This process cannot be reversed... except, it sort of can.
Gelatinized starch undergoes another process called retrogradation. At lower temperatures, these starch molecules will actually start to realign themselves back into their original crystalline structure or something similar, and during the process they will force out water. That is why refrigerated bread often appears to have a soggy exterior, and frozen bread may develop a layer of frost on the top.
This process doesn't happen on a large scale, but it is enough to make the bread go stale.
But remember that bread is mostly water. When you heat it again, as in the microwave, you are significantly improving the solubility of these reformed crystalline molecules, which causes them to dissolve again. Essentially you are re-hydrating the dehydrated (stale) bread with its own water.
As you've noticed, the taste isn't great. You can't change the fact that the bread has lost water, and a non-trivial amount of great protein and other flavour in the process. The reheated bread is kind of limp and soggy and fragile because the protein (gluten) is what was holding it together. But it's softer.
If you've got very stale bread, another trick you can use is to wrap it in a cloth dampened with hot water for a few minutes, or use a paper towel and microwave the whole thing for a short time. That will do a lot more to hydrate the retrograded starches instead of relying on whatever water is left in the super stale bread.
Putting the bread in a steamer for a few minutes also helps to rejuvenate it. I've done this quite a bit with whole-grain baking, as it tends to get dry fast. But steaming brings it back to life.
You can improvise a steamer by wetting the inside of a paper bag, placing the loaf of bread in it, sealing it tightly, then putting it in a hot oven.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.832562
| 2011-01-29T13:15:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11606",
"authors": [
"Gerry",
"Joe",
"Lee",
"angie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"nico"
],
"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
}
|
10107
|
What should I do with a just-baked lasanga?
I'm a complete cooking newbie. I just made a lasanga from a recipe - or something that looks like a lasanga. However, it will probably only be eaten 3-4 hours from now. What should I do with it in the mean while? Leave it in the oven (after turning it off, of course)? Put it in the fridge? Just lay it on a table?
And how should I re-heat it, if it will be required?
You cannot easily cool and reheat a decent sized lasagna in 3 to 4 hours and get down to 4C for any length of time to make it worthwhile
It was mostly sterile from the baking process. If you leave the oven door closed it will stay clean and warm for a few hours. Simply be re-heated 30 minutes before serving. You could under-cook it slightly to allow for this, but for lasagna is usually improves with more cooking
You could also consider leaving the oven on low, and keeping it hot till serving time. This may degrade some foods, it depends on what's in it. Keep it above 70C (160F)
Indeed, by the time it was cool enough to put in the fridge it was almost time to eat it.
If reheated before serving, I would advise baking it without the cheese layer and topping with cheese at the reheating stage. Melted cheese tastes better than melted-cooled-reheated cheese.
The lasanga will be even better 4 hours from now, but you definitely need to get it cold. Bacteria grow between 40°F and 140°F (often called the "danger zone"), so you need to get it cold now. I wouldn't put hot lasagna directly into the fridge, though, as it will raise the temperature of your fridge. Let it cool for a little while, maybe even let it sit on some ice, then refrigerate.
You can re-heat it all at once, in a low temperature (250°F or so) oven, or cut into individual servings and microwave it.
The correct answer is to wrap it with aluminium foil and stick it in the fridge. This way you will be safe from all bacterial growth. If your lasagna is cool already you could also use cling film for the wrapping. Having said that: If it was me I would just leave it on the table. I always do that, and it has never been a problem.
For the re-heating I am not sure. You say your oven is not working. How did you even cook it in the first place? :D
And if I leave it on the table, should I cover it as well?
clarified my question.
Bobs answer is more correct than mine. It is unwise to leave hot food out in room temperature. But for me, personally, I do it all the time and I am alive and well. If you do decide to take the risk of leaving it on the table, definitely cover it. Otherwise it will dry out.
I usually try to give the safest answer, even if it might be fine for a few hours. I don't want anyone to come back and say "my entire family has food poisoning, my house burned down, and my dog is dead. Thanks a lot!"
I was a food service specialist. The danger zone is 40°F to 140°F (4°C to 60°C). Food can be kept in the danger zone no more then 4 hours. That being said it would be fine to leave in the oven until your guest arrive with the oven turned off after backing. Reheat at 350 for 1/2 hour before serving. Your lasagna wouldn't be in the danger zone 4 hours.
4 hrs, if I am not mistaken, would be for immediate consumption? So in the case described, the part to be reheated soon should be treated differently from the part you might want to store for a longer time, and which you would want to chill ASAP, probably portioning before chilling.
For a 4 hour wait time prior to eating, first leave it at room temp for 30 minutes so you can then put in fridge. Cover tight with foil. Then one hour before eat time reheat in oven at 300 degrees Fahrenheit (150 Celsius) for one hour (because now it is cold, not room temperature). Make sure you have a dish that can take going from cold fridge to hot oven.
If it is a dish you can not put in oven while so cold - 1/2 hour at room and 30 minutes at 325°F (160°C).
There's only one way to be completely safe: Eat it now, or give it to someone else so they can eat it now. If your guests aren't due for 3 or 4 hours, make another one that'll just be cooked when they're due to arrive. Your second lasagna will probably taste better than your first anyway.
If cooling the bulk is problematic, there is always the possibility of cutting it up into portions as soon as it is sufficiently cool and firm to handle,
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.832808
| 2010-12-14T14:34:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10107",
"authors": [
"Andrew Hardy",
"Bob",
"DiDi in Marina",
"Granny",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"Katalpa",
"Nancy Heath",
"Oak",
"boat298",
"crashmstr",
"csch0",
"exscape",
"gerry",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68482",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"spacebaby",
"user20678"
],
"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
}
|
16855
|
Types of potato for making gnocchi
I've made gnocchi with different types of potato with mixed result. Can anyone recommend a type that is particularly good for making gnocchi?
I think gnocchi should work best with varieties of potatoes that you think of as mealy, dry, and fluffy when cooked. The most common mealy potato is russet. From On Food and Cooking:
Mealy types (russets, blue and purple varieties, Russian and banana fingerlings) concentrate more dry starch in their cells, so they're denser than waxy types. When cooked, the cells tend to swell and separate from each other, producing a fine, dry, fluffy texture that works well in fried potatoes and in baked and mashed potatoes..."
You want those that dry texture to make gnocchi, so that you can manage to wrangle it into a dough. If you live somewhere without russets, just use whatever you'd normally use for baked or mashed potatoes.
The other category of potato is waxy. They'll tend to be too solid and moist to easily make gnocchi from; they're better suited for things where you want chunks/slices to stay intact. In the US, most red, yellow, and white potatoes are waxy. Stay away from those for gnocchi.
Good answer. Mealy potatoes may be labelled as Idaho, Russet, or "baking" potatoes. In any case, they will have a thicker, tougher skin, making them easy to distinguish from the smoother, thinner-skinned waxy potatoes. Any one of the mealy potatoes makes good gnocchi.
The less moisture the better so use floury potatoes like King Edwards or Golden Wonder and bake them rather than boil them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.833181
| 2011-08-13T15:08:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16855",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Knight of Disorder",
"Lorraine Eubanks",
"Nikolas Skoufis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"landocalrissian",
"user36042"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19407
|
How long will Tiramisú made with raw egg keep?
Tiramisú tastes better the longer is kept. But it is made with raw eggs, so there must be a limit to how long you can keep it for without risking making people ill. What would you say is the min/max time on this?
Thanks!
Good question. I had been wondering the same thing regarding home-made eggnog.
According to the USDA, opened eggs kept under 40 degrees F (5 C) will remain safe up to 3-4 days. Acids and alcohols will slow bacterial growth, giving you another day or two, but bacteria are remarkably sturdy, such that I would not count on the Madeira or other liqueur to "sterilize" the food. Also, bacteria are equally happy growing in most egg substitutes -- protein is protein -- so the same safety rules apply. (If your egg substitute is purely starch-based, such as the one made by Ener-G, you might have an extra safety margin, but I don't know how good the tiramisu will be.)
One way to improve your chances of avoiding food poisoning from bacterial contamination is to cook (Pasteurize) your eggs. Many versions of tiramisu use a cooked zabaglione, made by beating eggs and sugar in a double boiler, whisking in the alcohol, and stirring until the mixture thickens (at about 160-165 F; 71-74 C), then chill very rapidly. Of course, this won't affect bacteria that get into your dessert through other means, like Aunt Marge sneezing on the cookies, but at least it will help ensure the eggs are not the source.
Stilltasty.com gives 2-4 days on raw eggs in the fridge - so I'd expect the same.
Egg substitutes may trade some flavor for longer shelf life.
This, among other depends on your use of alcohol in the Tiramisu. Without any Marsala or other alcohol you could expect the same lifetime as raw eggs (I throw out anything older than 2 days) with the added alcohol its disinfecting properties would prolong the lifetime with a couple of days. But I think the Tiramisu is best within the first two days.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.833350
| 2011-12-05T19:52:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19407",
"authors": [
"Prof. Bear",
"Sudha",
"benathon",
"eisb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8135",
"user42249"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103464
|
For Pressure Canning, can I use any other jar than Ball’s Mason Jar?
So Ball’s Mason Jar is not as common in my country but I want to try my hand at pressure canning sambal (chili, garlic, fermented shrimp paste, no vinegar). Is there any alternative to Ball’s Mason Jar that is gold standard for pressure canning?
The important part of the system are the lids. The ideal lids are the Mason-type (no matter which company produced them), with a flat top and a separate side piece with thread.
Another type that works is the older Weck style jar, which consists of a glass jar with glass lid, plus rubber steal and metal clamps, no threads. This system is as safe as the Mason style lids. It might require frequent rubber replacement when pressure canning, because the gasket gets quite deformed in pressure canning as opposed to water bath canning, and in the extreme cases, some jars don't seal properly because the gasket gets sucked inside. This is not a safety issue, because it is easily recognized when it happens, and you just remove these failed-to-seal jars from your batch.
What you cannot use is single-piece twist-off LIDS as in your picture. They are not suited for pressure canning at home.
You might be able to use these jars, if you can find ones with the proper size mouth and threads to fit Mason-style lids on them. They will either seal properly and be safe, or not withstand the pressure and break apart while being heated in the canner. You will lose some jars that way, and will have a mess on your hands to clean, but you will not get food poisoning from improperly sealed jars. See https://www.healthycanning.com/re-using-bottles-from-store-bought-products/ for some expert opinions on that.
I would further advice caution on jars not marked as one of the canning brands even if it seems they fit. I was gifted jars that are off by just a slight amount and tried to use them to about a 50% seal failure and I was too unsure to even use the half that did seal as at that fail rate I could not feel safe on the others.
For home pressure canning, you should always use a Mason jar (Ball is one brand, but there are others). A "Mason jar" is the kind with the two-piece lid.
When using home equipment, the two-piece lid is important because it will seal properly inside the pressure vessel. If you use a jar with a one-piece lid, such as in your photo, the lid tightness needs to be very precise, or the jars will either (a) not seal properly, or (b) explode. (Ironically, it's actually safer if they explode.) That's not practical to do in a home kitchen.
Mason jars are getting more and more difficult to find these days, in many countries. But they're essential for home pressure canning.
Also, do not reuse the disc part of the lid. The screw ring band and the jar can be reused, but the disc with the sealing compound should not be. This is likely because the sealant will not perform a proper seal a second time.
You can use random jars, but it is not advised simply because you may waste food on failures of the seal and risk illness from contamination. It is not worth the risk of injury versus the cost of the better equipment.
Canning jars come in standard sizes of mouths and lids and have wider lips for better seal. Additionally, the glass is tempered to resist the temperature extremes so they are less prone to cracking. This makes them useful for freezing liquids as well. Mind the liquid expansion if you do this.
Source: https://nchfp.uga.edu/how/general/recomm_jars_lids.html
Using "random jars" for canning is dangerous; please see the end of rumtscho's answer for the multiple reasons why they're dangerous and shouldn't be used.
In the US when I was young it was common to reuse random jars and even reuse undamaged sealing lids. The USDA though actively fought such practices. As part of that fight many commercial use jars are made thinner as industrial equipment does not need the heavier jar, so they save money. They also reduced quality control so often the rims are not even so seal will fail even if they survive the canning. The seal compound on the lids was intentionally made thinner to prevent attempts at reuse. These changes were done to thwart attempts to reuse for safety (and reduced costs to industry.)
There is nothing, anywhere, in my answer that advocates for using random jars. It seems that 'is not advised' is too subtle. There is a difference between could and should.
Phrasing: "You can use random jars, but ..." implies that it's not totally out of the question. In common usage that phrasing implies more than just that it's physically possible. "You could use random jars, but ..." is somewhat better. Or the clearest phrasing is something like: "Don't use random jars. It is not advised ..."
I believe further research would change your answer. The jar the questioner pictured is certainly safe and is proven so by the fact it has already withstood the far more rigorous commercial pressure canning process.
The lids on those jars are reusable many times. But I prefer home canning with new lug lids I purchase from a wholesale company ( I use Fillmore).
The conglomerate that produces the Ball-type two-part lids makes most of the brands sold today. The internet is full of tales of woe from experienced home canners finding delayed fails in the new 18-month lids weeks after storing the jars.,
Home canning jars are annealed with different properties from tempered.
In summary there are 3 choices for pressure canning lids
1) 2-part single use flats with reusable rings (balll-type)
2 2-part flats & reuseable rubber gasket made by Tattler (wire bail or separate reuseable screw ring is needed)
3) a secret known to home canners for many years, commercial quality jars purchased at great expense with one piece ‘lug’ lids. (or reused jars from grocery store purchases, spaghetti sauce for example. These jars have already been used in commercial pressure canning so are proven safe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.833536
| 2019-11-14T08:47:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103464",
"authors": [
"Allison C",
"Draco18s no longer trusts SE",
"Eric",
"Peter Cordes",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79493"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103494
|
Wet Brining Chicken with aromatics, does it work? Will pressure cooking be more effective?
I read up that wet brining is not very effective to infuse aromatics (such as garlic, tumeric, cumin, galanggal, etc) into the chicken as nothing penetrate deep into chicken other than salt. Is there any tips as to best treat the chicken if you want to permeate aromatics deep into a chicken (for pan-frying/deep frying)? In the country I'm at (Indonesia) sometimes the chicken is pressure cooked first to moisten and then finished up by frying.
Related question: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39436/how-deeply-will-the-flavors-in-a-brine-penetrate-chicken I look forward to seeing the answers you get, especially concerning the pressure cooker.
Greg Blonder has the best information that I've found on the effects of brining and marinating. In fact, the "food myths" section of his website, has a lot of objective food science. There are several links that are pertinent to your questions. You can see here, that Blonder uses dye to illustrate the effect of brining. He concludes that brining is almost always a surface treatment (with the exception of shrimp and other arthropods). Blonder concludes that salt "diffuses faster than any other component in a marinade or rub." Further, he concludes that "most flavor molecules will only penetrate a millimeter or two, thus basically only effecting the surface."
[On a side note, given that Thanksgiving is almost upon us in the US, Bloder suggests that those folks who enjoy a brined turkey just use salt and water, as the other ingredients added to the brine are fairly useless.]
So, I am afraid that you will not be able to get aromatics to penetrate deep into the chicken (even with injection...he tests that too).
Since brining and marinating happen before the cook step, I don't think the pressure cooker is relevant to your question. That may make this question a duplicate of the linked, related question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.833998
| 2019-11-15T05:59:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103494",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103348
|
When preparing confit, do you start ingredients in cold fat, or do you add it when it reaches cooking temperature?
I have watched many videos on the subject and I see it going both ways. Also, do you have to wring out all the water from the duck/chicken before adding it to the fat? Is there a splattering risk?
Traditional duck confit is made with duck fat, which would be a solid when cold. That will not work so well. So, the cured duck is placed in a crock, and warm duck fat is added to cover. This is then placed in the oven at a low temperature. After the cooking, the duck is left submerged to cool, and be stored in the fat. There is no splatter risk, because the temperature is not hot enough, but the duck is generally blotted, before submerging in fat, to remove excess moisture and herbs or spices that were used in the cure step.
My rule of thumb is to use room temperature vegetable oil.
I add a lot of vegetables (onion and garlic mainly) and herbs in the bottom of the pot and the meat goes on top of it; this way, when the oil is heated and the water start to leave the food, it will remain in the bottom and the meat will still be in contact with the oil.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.834270
| 2019-11-08T12:54:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103348",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99518
|
What's the name of this Indian dish I had?
I had a dish recently at an Indian restaurant called Andhra(?) chicken.
It was written in marker so I'm not sure about the h in there.
The dish consisted of breaded pieces of chicken that were fried and then seemingly cooked in some spice mixture definitely containing:
green chili
egg
curry leaves
fennel seed
cumin?
I tried looking up Andhra chicken online but all the recipes seem to have some sort of sauce component to it, while this dish was definitely dry.
Does anyone have any idea what that dish could have been, and where I can find a recipe online for it?
Looking for andhra chicken -curry pn Google gives a lot of dry results. Though I've never had it before, it seems to be fried chicken cooked andhra style, a south-eastern state of India.
I guess that you have tasted chicken 65, which is a dish from Andhra Pradesh. Chicken 65 is also known as Andhra chicken. It is fried and coated with spices. You can Google chicken 65 recipe. I hope my guess for that may right.
The colour was a lot less red, and more of a brownish colour. Also, there were noticeable bits of egg on the outside of the chicken. Would this just have been some variation by the restaurant itself?
Since the chicken is breaded I would guess Kodi Vepudu
This looks really close! The only difference is there's no visible egg on this and that dish did not have cilantro. I suppose that could just have been how the restaurant prepared it? Is adding egg a common feature in these types of dishes?
There is so much variety in Indian cuisine that anything is possible. Over the years I've seen egg added to pretty much every chicken dish at one time or another. Some will leave it relatively dry like this, others will serve it much more wet with sauce. Not drowning in a bath of curry, but wet with sauce. This dish, Chicken 65 and Chili Chicken are all very similar with some small differences in the specific spices used but this is the only one of the 3 that I've seen where the chicken is breaded rather than just fried.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.834398
| 2019-06-12T18:59:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99518",
"authors": [
"Daniel Chui",
"Hugo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9960",
"krb"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41235
|
Rice gets burnt and watery
I am following the recipe of the rice I am making which is:
Add 2 cups of water and heat
Add 1 teaspoon of salt and 1 teaspoon of butter
Add 1 cup of rice then wait for 18 to 20 minutes and it should be ready to serve.
But the problems with this are:
The rice is always watery
It is flavorless
Some rice gets burnt and makes it really hard to clean the pan
Have a look at http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/34308/3649 it may help.
I edited your post to fill in the butter measurement, but feel free to change it if I was wrong.
Yeah it said 1 teespoon thanks for the edit and MandoMando thank you that is very helpful
I microwave my rice. Never gets burnt. With the right amount of water, it won't get watery. It would be silly to get on a high horse about not wanting to use a microwave oven.
Not everyone has a microwave oven though. I haven't had one for nearly three years now, and I don't miss it.
There are many methods for cooking rice, including ones where you cook it watery and then put it through a sieve (although 2:1 by volume is unusually dry for them). Have you tried just pouring the water off? And if it is burning, then you are using high heat, reduce the heat. Or follow Jolene's answer, if you prefer.
Assuming plain (American) white rice on a stovetop:
(Generally, American rice does not need rinsing for these applications)
From your description, it sounds like you are going for Steamed Rice; for that, here's what you want to do:
Bring your water, salt and butter to a boil, then add your rice. Stir it until it comes back to a boil. As soon as it boils again, turn your heat way down. Keep stirring until the heat is low enough that you feel safe that you can cover the pot without it hard boiling again. Cover and keep on low to medium-low heat or a moderate simmer (preferably without peeking) for 20 minutes (15 minimum). It is the steam that plumps the rice, so don't lift the lid! It may take some tweaking depending upon your specific equipment, but try to be patient. You may find that you like a little less water and a bit more time. When you do peek (hopefully after at least 15-20 minutes have passed) look for the water to be gone and for little holes or "divots" to be formed on the surface of the rice. If you still have water, cover again and keep cooking without lifting the lid for at least 5 more minutes. When it looks done, turn off the heat but still don't stir, you're better off just letting it sit for another 5 minutes - re-covered and with the heat turned off, then stir/fluff it.
If you find that your rice isn't done after 20-25 minutes with the lid on, bring up the heat a bit, but be careful. If your heat is too high, your rice can burn on the bottom. Within reason, if it's just a bit too low, it'll just take longer.
The lid is really key here. Do you have a tight lid for the pan that you are using? If not, we can help you improvise.
A slightly different method using the same ingredients is the Pilaf Method shown here in a great video from the love of my life, Alton Brown. 20 Minute Pilaf See the rice just before he fluffs it with chopsticks? Those are the holes/divots I referred to above in the explanation of the steaming method. In case the link goes bad, here's a description of the video: Bring 3 cups of water to a rolling boil. Meanwhile, in a saucepan with a tight lid, melt and lightly brown 2 Tbs of butter over high heat. Add 2 cups of rice (regular long grain, basmati or jasmine recommended) and saute for a couple of minutes, add 1 tsp salt (Alton uses kosher). When the rice smells "nutty" add the boiling water all at once (careful, it will boil rather violently). Cover and turn heat to low. No peeking, cook on low for 15 minutes. Fluff with chopsticks or a fork. Cover again for 5 minutes, no heat.
Note that Alton's pilaf also requires a tight fitting lid. If your lid isn't tight, try using aluminum foil to get a tighter seal.
Finally: With very small variations, these two methods of cooking rice will work fine for just about any type of rice. Some rice, particularly some rice harvested outside of the US should be thoroughly rinsed first. Check your label if you can or revisit this question if you're not sure if your rice should be rinsed. If you use rinsed rice you may find that you want to use slightly less water for cooking than instructed here.
You're using a 2 to 1 ratio for steaming rice, that's fairly typical but you might like a bit less water, just don't go lower than 1.5 to 1.
Brown rice works fine for these methods too but will take longer and require slightly more water.
The steaming method, particularly if you wait to "fluff" will produce a stickier rice, better for chopsticks :) and better to accompany food that has a sauce you want the rice to soak up. I prefer steamed rice to go with stir-fries, for example.
The pilaf method, particularly with medium to long grained rice will produce more individual grains. Nice with steak or baked chicken, something that isn't sauced.
Thanks I will try your method when I get back to home and report back, also I keep lifting the lid when I cook it, didn't know it was that important and no it is not a tight lid
@Furious This method definitely works best with a tight lid and no peeking for at least the first 20 minutes (15 minutes minimum if you suspect that your heat level might be a bit high). Do you have aluminum foil? You can use that to make a make a tighter seal. If all else fails, you can cook rice like pasta. Boil a big pot of water and put in your rice and just boil it until it's done (using at least 6X water to rice). Drain just like pasta. One more thing, some rice should be rinsed first. Exactly what variety is your rice?
Just to add something - I have a saucepan with a transparent lid that I use for this. This was a worthwhile investment. It's good to be able to peek without lifting the lid.
@DavidWallace Nice point. I have the same thing and I love it for rice.
Thank you so much, it was still a bit watery but even then much better than it used to be, I will try to play with the water to rice ratio
I find a good heavy bottom to the pan helps too (as well as a tight lid)
@Furious : if it's too wet when it's done (ie, not crunchy), fluff it with a fork, then let it sit with the lid off for a few minutes. If it's really, really wet you can spread it out on a sheet pan so it'll steam & dry out faster. (note that this will cool it off, so generally best when you have something saucy that you'll be serving with it)
Rice cookers are cheap and easy. However, I have used the butter and boiling water method, usually when making tex-mex dishes, or when making red-beans and rice. You have to be detached; add the liquid, walk away, hope nothing bad happens in the next 15 minutes.
I have a bullet proof method which many chefs may not like.
1 cup rice to 2 cups water. In a bowl with no lid and microwave for 12 - 15 min until no liquid is left. Leave to stand and fluff with a fork.
In the name of science, I tried it. I found it adequate for any purpose for which rice is an ingredient (such as stuffed peppers), but I thought the consistency lacked the fluffiness of freshly traditionally cooked rice; it was halfway to kind of seeming like refrigerated leftover rice. That gave me an idea how I might put that quality to good use. Check this out: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20935/instant-leftover-rice/41289#41289 I’ve given you an upvote ‘cause you helped with that :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.834851
| 2014-01-17T19:10:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41235",
"authors": [
"BigDog",
"Cal-linux",
"Cynthia",
"Dawood ibn Kareem",
"Furious",
"Goldberry band",
"HTD",
"Howard Bailey",
"JSM",
"James Burden",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"MandoMando",
"Michael Castellano",
"Pamela Guevara",
"Phil M Jones",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"V3Perform",
"Ya Y",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96204",
"jagonews id spam",
"rumtscho",
"user1588190",
"user2305288",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43228
|
Undercooked eggs that were in the pot plenty long
I'm seeking information because oddly this has recently also happened to several of my friends.
I cooked my hard-boiled eggs like I normally would; they were in the pot until the water boiled and I even left the burner on low while I ate dinner. I tend to over-cook them anyway, so they were in there at least 20 minutes. I pulled one out of the refrigerator this morning and it was very soft-boiled; even the white was gooey. What could be causing this? These eggs are not old, but could they be spoiled?
What temperature were they when you started them? The typical 8 minutes per hard boiled egg are for eggs at room temperature, Americans who hold their eggs in the refrigerator and tend to set their refrigerator very cold frequently start with eggs barely above 0 Celsius, which of course need much longer to come up to cooking temperature on the inside even after the water is boiling.
The water was brought to a full boil and then turned down to "low" for 20 minutes and the eggs still weren't fully cooked? I find that surprising even if the eggs were ice cold right out of a fridge. I suspect we need to ask how you define "low?" Was the water at least simmering? And how many eggs were in the pot? Was it just a few or was it more eggs than water?
If your eggs came out soft boiled then that means they weren't exposed to enough heat - something in your method went wrong. I suspect that when you turned it down low the water temperature dropped below 140-150 degrees F, which is the temperature that egg white will cook. It doesn't matter how long you cook eggs below 140F, they will never get done below that temperature.
To fully cook egg white it must be heated to 150F, egg yolk to 160F. If your eggs were cold when you put them in and the water boiled quickly the inside of the egg would still be fridge temperature, so when you turned the heat down low the eggs cooled the water below 140F, and the amount of heat the burner was producing wasn't enough to heat the water and eggs above 140-150F.
I use a similar method, however I put a lid on the pot which makes a big difference. If you don't want or have the right lid simply keep the heat turned up to where the eggs bounce around a bit.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.835479
| 2014-04-02T18:59:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43228",
"authors": [
"Annnorway",
"Brenda McKenzie",
"Carey Gregory",
"Levi li",
"Nope",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"otto4d",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27644
|
How long can frosting with butter, powdered sugar, salt, vanilla, and milk, that is covered with fondant be left out of the refrigerator?
I'm making a 9x13 chocolate cake, frosted with a vanilla buttercream, (not filled) and covered with black Fondarific fondant.
Here's the ingredients for the frosting:
1/2 cup unsalted butter
1-2 cups confectioners sugar
1/8 teaspoon salt
1/2 tablespoon vanilla
up to 2 tablespoons milk
The cake is going to be finished tonight, and eaten tomorrow afternoon. Is it safe to leave it out of the fridge?
Here are a couple of similar questions: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25168/can-i-leave-a-cake-cupcakes-frosted-with-cream-cheese-frosting-out-on-the-coun and http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4835/what-kind-of-frosting-doesnt-need-to-be-refrigerated.
I've made many a cream cheese quick frosting and have never needed to refrigerate one.
The Joy of Cooking says a quick icing made with powdered sugar, butter and a bit of dairy will keep at room temperature for up to 3 days.
Because of the dairy in your frosting, it really ought to be chilled overnight. It could warm up on to room temperature for a few hours.
Also, do cover the cake, so dust and stuff doesn't get on it.
I've made a few cakes before, but this is my first time using fondant. I've heard that if you refrigerate fondant it will be "ruined"? This is my main concern. Thank you for the input!!
Also depends a lot on the temperature. Although I make vegan buttercream (using margarine and soymilk), it does have a tendency to get rather runny if it's hot and humid.
The sugar in the icing pulls water molecules close to it, so it is less available to any life, and some of it will evaporate too. So it probably wouldn't need much or any refrigeration.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.835693
| 2012-10-06T19:38:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27644",
"authors": [
"Abigail",
"Annie",
"Jon Wood",
"Kathy czachura",
"KatieK",
"Lee Franklin",
"Pablo Oliva",
"RSL",
"StahlRat",
"Xplodotron",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62425",
"lemontwist"
],
"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
}
|
28146
|
Udon Noodles break too easily
I tried making Udon noodles several times and even though I've gotten a rhythm to do them, I still can't figure out why they break so easy when I blanch them. I use
1tsp lye water
8 ounces (1 cup) warm water
2 1/2 cups unbleached bread flour
1 1/4 cups unbleached all-purpose flour
I blanch them for about 7 minutes and roll it until 1/16 of a inch thick.
When eating them with chopsticks they don't even make it that far because they break. It might be the weight on them but they break.
How can I improve my udon noodles so that they don't break?
I don't know if this is related. I remember when we made fish-balls without adding tapioca flour, they crumbled easily.
Shouldn't it be all bread flour? The protein content is higher in bread flour and helps to form the gluten threads that give the noodles their texture. Also, are you sure you are kneading them enough to get the gluten going?
I might be kneading too long perhaps. I form the dough ball let it rest for about 1hour, then need it for about 45 minutes or until I feel like its started to be more elastic, form another ball let it rest until the next day approx 16hr in a 72 degree room covered with a plastic bag, Then I flattened it out/Knead it again for about 10 minutes let it rest for 1 hour and start rolling it. However when I roll it the dough is somewhat elastic but if I try to pull it with my hands it will break easily like if I was breaking apart a piece of plastiline or playdoh.
I figured it out. It wasnt the dough really. It was the way I was cutting the noodles and How long i wastaing. they will dry out if you take too long and brake easily. if they start breaking when you are cutting them they will most likely brake after you blanch them. I also add some tapioca flour to my dough and let it rest for 2 days. this made the dough more elastic and easier to roll.
I've found that kneading pasta too long has the same effect. Try reducing the kneading time.
I knead this batch less and so far looks rell good
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.835875
| 2012-11-01T01:09:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28146",
"authors": [
"Cynthia",
"Dr.V.V.Kumar",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"J.C.",
"Jeff",
"MikeS",
"adamblan",
"aj.toulan",
"ffrulfvfruovbrevuqfehvpifeqhuy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64800",
"soup4life"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30405
|
How to thicken marinara sauce?
Here's what I'm using:
16oz crushed tomatoes
1 head of garlic
1/2 cup red wine
Parmesan cheese
Basil
Oregano
Salt
1/4 cup olive oil
I start by lightly cooking the garlic cloves in olive oil until they brown. Then I add the tomatoes, followed by the wine, oregano, salt, basil, and cheese. I then slow cook everything for about an hour.
The sauce is turning out kind of watery though. How I can thicken it into a proper hearty Italian pasta sauce?
Are you draining the tomatoes? How much cheese do you normally add? At what temperature are you cooking? Is it in a pot or do you mean you "slow cook" in a crock pot? Also, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28448/how-to-create-thick-hearty-garlic-marinara-sauce might be helpful.
Tomato paste...
@lemontwist I think cooking it down longer than an hour would make for a better flavor than adding tomato paste, no? That stuff always taste so...bitter and plasticy to me.
Draining is good advise if starting with whole tomatoes, and I definitely agree that is the best approach. Doesn't really work with crushed tomatoes (probably called tomato puree in Europe)--there, the key would be cooking down.
You add an entire head of garlic to 16 oz of tomatoes, 1/2 cup wine and 1/4 cup olive oil? And here I thought I went heavy on garlic.
@CareyGregory I love garlic. Good for the heart ;-)
The best way to thicken marinara sauce for me, without losing any taste is to cook it a little longer.
Cooking it longer is just keeping the sauce on simmer, uncovered and stirring it occasionally so its cooking consistently and taking it off the heat when you think it has reached desired thickness.
You can also try draining the tomatoes before you crush them.
You could even try adding little breadcrumbs, but it might change the taste.
Cooking down, definitely. Draining the tomatoes before cooking, absolutely. Breadcrumbs, that would be a little strange :-)
Water is the sauce killer. If you can somehow avoid putting it in in the first place, that'd be nice, but otherwise, a good long simmer is the best method.
I wouldn't drain - there is flavour in the liquid. Boil off the water to intensify the flavour and thicken the sauce.
@SAJ14SAJ (plain) breadcrumbs work great for a quick and dirty thickening of pretty much anything. I've even used them for mashed potatoes with too much cream. But I'll deny to the grave that if you ever ask me to my face.
@Mong134 Agree on their efficacy, just... they would bring the wrong taste and texture to a marinara :-)
@SAJ14SAJ you probably couldn't even taste them, they'd blend right in. I use to work for a chef who forced us to thicken gazpacho with breadcrumbs O_o. But he was Canadian, so he had some strange ideas.
bread in gazpacho is pretty traditional actually. A lot of sauces and soups from Spain are thickened with breads.
If your sauce doesn't taste watery and is just simply too thin, I'd suggest undercooking the pasta by a few minutes and letting it finish in the sauce (a handful of parmesan cheese doesn't hurt either).
Here's an example of it being done
This is my favorite way to finish pasta, and I will actually dilute thicker sauces with pasta water to do this.
There are a number of ways to help thicken sauce, but I think your first problem is you're not cooking it down enough. You want to simmer uncovered (sometimes a couple of hours), stirring often, to get it to thicken the way it sounds you want.
I tend to prefer fresh tomatoes to canned and avoid tomato paste (personally) to avoid a somewhat bitter flavor (until you pan fry the bitterness out of it first).
There is absolutely no way I would use a slurry on marinara as recommended in the number 2 suggestion at the linked article. The texture would just be wrong. I endorse cooking down.
@SAJ14SAJ I'm not sure it would make the best marinara, but then I don't think the breadcrumbs mentioned by user1190992 would be much better either. Cooking down is the best way, period, I was just offering time saving solutions if that was part of the issue.
A suggestion I would contribute is to swap the red wine for a smaller portion of red wine vinegar. It gives it a nice acidic flavor (you can balance this with some white sugar which will help it thicken even more, but I prefer my red sauces with more tang). It will also have less fluid overall.
There are two ways.
Just like they are telling you. The water in the crushed tomatoes is killing it. Get whole tomatoes peeled, drain the water and blend them. Sauce should be perfect.
Or cook longer giving flavors a better chance to meld. I prefer cooking down.
If you don't mind a smoother sauce, like for pizza or the like, you can use an immersion or traditional blender to puree the sauce. This will make the sauce thicker and smoother. How thick, exactly, depends on how chunky the tomatoes are to begin with. If they are already fairly finely crushed, this won't help much. If they are more of a diced variety, this will help immensely. That being said, you are moving away from a traditional marinara if you puree too much. Maybe try removing some of the sauce, pureeing it, then stirring it back in. Old kitchen trick for thickening things without using cornstarch or a roux without necessarily compromising the original texture.
I cook my sauce for two days on and off it, always starts out watery and thickens with the simmer over that period. hope that helps
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.836101
| 2013-01-25T17:03:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30405",
"authors": [
"Ali Holt",
"Brendan",
"Bryanna",
"Carey Gregory",
"John Miller",
"Kamisah",
"KbiR",
"Linda",
"Michael Eves",
"NibblyPig",
"P.A M",
"Rebexxxxxx",
"Rick Koj",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Tajy",
"User1000547",
"banneen beno",
"codeninja",
"colejkeene",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79405",
"lemontwist",
"slim"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35937
|
Sponge cake with only three ingredients - will this work at all?
I have a recipe for a sponge cake only consisting of sugar, eggs and flour. To be honest, I am a bit afraid to to try it.
How can this create a fluffy cake - where does the air come from? Won't it be really dry because there is no fat in it?
Also, when doing a cake like this, do I need to pay special attention to something? I am really skeptical that this will work.
How long can I store the undecorated cake? Where and how to store it?
Edit:
Ingredients
6 large organic eggs
180g caster sugar
180g plain organic flour (sieved)
Method
Preheat the oven to 170°C.
Break 6 eggs into a very clean bowl of a stand mixer fitted with a whisk attachment. Whisk the eggs gently to break them up, then add the caster sugar and whisk on medium high speed until the ‘thick ribbon’ stage is reached. This means the mixture will be light, have increased substantially in volume and be of a moussy consistency. When you lift the whisk the mixture should fall slowly in thick ribbons.
While the eggs are whisking, grease three (22cm diameter) cake tins and line the bottom with a disk of parchment paper.
When the thick ribbon stage is reached, add the sieved flour and fold in very gently to fully incorporate without knocking the air out of the mixture. Very carefully apportion the mixture between the three cake tins and pop in the oven for 15-20 minutes, turning two thirds of the way through the cooking time. You will know when they are ready as they should be golden brown and coming away slightly from the edges of the tins.
Remove from the oven and cool in their tins for 10 minutes before carefully turning out and leaving to cool completely on a wire rack.
source
Please post the method as well as the ingredients.
@SAJ14SAJ I've added the method & ingredients.
Beating the eggs will put air in the mix which will give some fluffiness, it is the water in the eggs turning into steam which will make the mixture rise without any leavening agent.
This is the cake receipe of 100's of years ago (organic Honey, instead of sugar, and organic wholemeal flour with chaff in those days). It was the best they could do, can't imagine it was that great. Not sure why you would want to make it now?
I played with the idea because its a flavor combination I love, but as I've already written I was afraid to try it because it seems quite 'minimal' in a way that does nothing good to the cake according to the reactions here.
This is not a sponge cake. I forgot the English name of the type made without fat, but it does exist, and it does work. It is easier to make if you beat the egg whites separately until they have lots of volume (but below soft peaks) and fold them into the rest.
This is the sponge cake recipe I use all the time. Oh, it works. Though my recipe was titled "Three-Ingredient Italian Sponge Cake". [EDIT] Ah, no, actually the instructions are different. Oops. Going by the recipe notes up there, my end results are different (flufflier), too.
The key to this cake is the whisking of the eggs and sugar to the ribbon stage. This incorporates a significant amount of air into the batter. You didn't mention it, but I imagine the flour is then folded in.
The cake will work mechanically.
However, I cannot imagine it will taste very good: there is no salt to enhance flavor, no fat (other than from the eggs), and no flavoring such as vanilla. So the only significant flavor will be from the eggs themselves.
As to how long it will keep, I imagine it would freeze well; it will probably keep at room temperature for 2-3 days.
Update: I see from the link added to the question that these layers are intended to be used in layer cake with other flavors and components, where its neutrality is actually a virtue. I still think it needs about 1/2 tsp of salt, and maybe a touch of vanilla or even pistachio extract if you can get it, but the neutral flavor makes sense in context.
The flour is indeed folded in (says the OP in the recipe).
@Mien Updated after I wrote my answer....
Yes, I know, that is why I commented it. I could edit your answer myself but I didn't feel the need to.
@SAJ14SAJ Thank you for your evaluation & sorry for the confusion, I indeed edited my question again after a few minutes as I noticed I had forgotten to paste half of the recipe.
Basically it's the recipe of a plain Genoise
This is a cake that my mom made all the time. The key is to use a light hand when mixing the flour and to really make sure to beat the eggs well. The result is almost like an angel food cake, but with more depth. it won't be moist like the butter laden cakes, but closer to a sponge cake. The absence of salt and vanilla is not noticeable. It lends itself well to frosting, but works even better when the layers are sliced thin and made into a multi-layered cakes frosted with a wetter filling such as a pudding filling.
The cake is actually very tasty. The recipe is wrong though. You have to separate egg yolks and whites and beat them separately. Combine egg yolk and sugar and beat until it turns a light color and the sugar has melted. Then fold in flour (use a spatula or spoon) and finally the egg whites that have been beaten until white and stiff. The egg whites have to be beaten well; that will give the fluffyness and lightness to the cake.
Yes, that's the usual recipe for sponge cake. But with whole eggs (whisked over a pot with shimmering water) resembles more of a Genoise. I use this a lot as a base for frosted cakes, etc. Not as light as a sponge cake, but airy enough.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.836690
| 2013-08-11T15:13:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35937",
"authors": [
"B B",
"Charmaine ",
"Christine Joyce Dobbins",
"Gary S",
"GdD",
"Iain Duncan",
"Iskandar Lough",
"Jacque",
"Mien",
"Patricia Garbowski",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sven",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87995",
"janneia",
"roetnig",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41931
|
Beef breakfast sausage
I found a beef sausage recipe using ground beef. The flavor is great, but it fries up kind of stiff. I was wondering if I could put oatmeal or something in it to give it a more spongy texture, like traditional pork sausage. My question is: How can I make my ground beef breakfast sausage have a pork texture?
What kind of ground beef did you use? I believe that pork sausage is usually in the 30-35% fat range so if you used a leaner ground beef (like 90/30 or 80/20) that could contribute to the "stiff" result. I would think you would need to buy at least 70/30 to hope to have a good result.
I'll try that, and keep you posted on the result. Thanks, in the mean time if you across another recipe let me know.
Professional charcutier here. We usually only make beef sausage from grass fed beef, which means our ground beef is very lean. Depending on the recipe, we have various tricks for improving the texture:
We add beef fat if available to add richness, or even pork fat if we
don't have enough beef fat.
For a 5lb batch of ground beef for hamburgers, we'll add an egg or two and that
will give it some cohesion.
As thatdude says, cooked rice is a good way to give your sausage some
starchiness, as in boudin.
You could try mixing your sausage with heavy cream in addition to
adding eggs (as is done with traditional bratwurst)
Add about half a cup of milk powder for every 5 pounds of sausage.
Any one of the above should accomplish what you're seeking. You can even combine some methods. In our bratwurst, we add milk powder, eggs, and heavy cream. Experiment and see where your texture is after that!
How does milk powder affect the batter?
Since milk powder is dried milk, adding liquid reconstitutes it. Most sausages require some kind of liquid to mix with (this is what, in part, creates a cohesive sausage.) Adding milk powder to a sausage will make it richer and give it body.
Another alternative would be to possibly try adding rice to the sausage like a boudan (sp?) that you would find in Louisiana and Alabama. This may change the flavor a little bit, but it will make it a softer sausage.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.837172
| 2014-02-11T13:35:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41931",
"authors": [
"Blaine",
"Captain Giraffe",
"Charith Jayasanka",
"JoshieSimmons",
"Macon Concrete Masters",
"Ninjas On Fire",
"Paperclip Bob",
"Spammer",
"Susan J Blight",
"djmadscribbler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9799"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42281
|
Why did my flank steak turn grey when I brined it?
I brined 2 lbs of flank steak for 12 hours, but it turned the exterior gray. Why? How can I prevent the discoloration?
Ingredients:
1 quart water
1/2 cup kosher salt
Garlic Powder
2 Tablespoons Worcestershire sauce
2 Tablespoons black pepper
½ cup apple cider vinegar
Have you cooked it? You'll probably find that you don't need to prevent it - it should still brown when cooked.
It is highly likely that the acid from the cider vinegar denatured the proteins at the surface of the meat, making them opaque instead of translucent, so the red interior does not show through.
This is akin to when ceviche is "cooked" in citrus juice, turning opaque.
This cannot be reversed, but when you cook the steak and browning reactions take place, you should get a better appearance.
In general, you can prevent this while brining by not including acid or enzymatically active ingredients like uncooked pineapple juice. Brines in general should only contain water, salt, and sugar; other flavorings are common, but they have little to no effect as they do not penetrate.
I think it's more just that the OP is actually trying to marinate, not just brine.
@Jefromi Agreed. That sounds more like a pickling brine than a meat brine.
@sourd'oh And yet, the recipe is far too weak to pickle.
@SAJ14SAJ Yeah. It's in sort of an odd, no-man's-land for a brine. Too weak to pickle, too acidic for meat...
Even without the vinegar, it's well-known that beef will turn gray to grayish pink if brined long enough, as the salt has the same "denaturing" (breaking down of the proteins) effect as the vinegar . This is particularly relevant this time of year, as some butchers will sell "gray corned beef" as opposed to "red corned beef". Gray corned beef is a natural result of brining the meat. Red corned beef is created by adding nitrates to the meat.
One way to reduce the graying of the meat is by adding some sugar to the brine (1 cup of sugar per gallon of brine). This will also improve the flavor, aiding in caramelizing the outside of the meat and offsetting the saltiness of the brine a bit.
The myoglobin in the meat is being denatured(broken down) which causes a colour change, as you can read here.
Your recipe doesn't have any nitrites/nitrates in them. These prevent the growth of botulism (a bacterium) and give cured meat, such as bacon and corned beef, its red colour, as you can see here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.837393
| 2014-02-24T00:13:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42281",
"authors": [
"Adam",
"Cascabel",
"FelSeed__",
"Gunnar Herbert",
"Hannah St. Dennis",
"Hillary Langford",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sean Megan",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"bughunter",
"ferro11001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98847",
"john woods",
"peteb"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44401
|
How long does it take for sugar to get to the hard ball stage?
I tried to make nougat but just could not get to the hard ball stage.
If you don't have a thermometer you can try caramelizing the sugar in the oven. Easier to control.
It's not a question of "how long" as much as it's a question of "how hot." Sugar reaches the so-called hard ball stage somewhere between 250 and 265 degrees F. How long it will take your sugar to reach that temperature depends on a number of variables including the power of your cooking range and the type of vessel the sugar is being cooked in.
Use either a candy thermometer or the tried and true water testing method from which the stages get their names. When dropped into cold water, the sugar will literally form a hard ball when rolled between your fingers.
You either did not apply enough heat or you applied too much heat. The most reliable way to troubleshoot this problem is with a thermometer.
There's some great information in this article titled How to Test Stages of Sugar on RecipeTips.com
Pictured below is the example image from that article of what hard ball sugar should look like when dropped into cold water:
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.837632
| 2014-05-25T10:54:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44401",
"authors": [
"Billy",
"Memet",
"Rachey.b",
"Scottsdale Pool Patio Spam",
"Study Medicine in Europe spam",
"Thomas Edmonds",
"cuong lqd",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"papin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45170
|
Can half cooked pork chops be cooled then fully cooked later?
I started baking pork chops at about 2pm. 30 mins into cooking I had to leave. I turned off oven and left. It's now 640pm and I'm just getting home. The pan is still slightly warm. Are the pork chops still good to continue cooking?
When you say 'slightly warm', would you estimate it as being above 120F? If so, it's quite possible that you have a well-insulated oven, and had sufficient thermal mass that the majority of the 4 hrs of unattended cooking was not in the 'danger zone'.
Even though you turned the oven off when you left, there was still likely enough residual heat to continue cooking the chops. Rather than a half-cooked chop that sat out for 4 hours, you've got mostly or fully-cooked chops that sat in a warm environment for 2-3 hours. Whether they hit the recommended internal temperature (which is now actually 145F with a 3-minute rest for fresh pork, rather than the 165F quoted in other answers, at least according to the USDA) is anyone's guess.
From a culinary standpoint, since they've been pretty well cooked, baking them back up to that temperature (or more likely to 165F, which is the recommended temp for leftovers) will probably dry them into leathery little pucks. If you're going to risk re-cooking and eating these, I'd recommend a higher-moisture cooking method like braising; chops stand up pretty well to this treatment.
As mentioned in comments, these have been sitting at near-room temperature for longer than is generally considered safe. And without knowing what temperature the interior of the chops reached, it's unknown how safe they would have been even if you returned before they cooled into the dreaded "danger zone". There are a lot of questions here from a safety standpoint. I'll quote another answer here, as I think this says it best:
The safe limit for raw or cooked food is 2 hours in the danger zone (40-140° F or 4.4-60° C).
If you're a restaurant owner or cook, you must follow this rule [...] If you are not working in a professional capacity then you are not legally required to follow it, but if you are serving guests then it would be irresponsible (and possibly actionable, if someone gets sick) to do otherwise.
If you're an individual serving only yourself, then take whatever liberties and break whatever rules you want; it's your food, and your body.
I personally would probably write these off as a loss, but I tend to be fairly risk-averse.
It's not 145° F with a 3-minute rest, it's 145 with a 3-minute hold.
it's iffy. that pork was sitting in the danger zone(40-140f) for 4 hours, and that's enough time for a LOT of bacteria to grow on it. Still, if you want to chance it, cook the chop to 165F for the best chance of killing any bacteria or microorganisms.
The 165F for pork recommendation is based on the kinds of things that can be in it already, not the kinds of things that might colonize it if you let it sit out.
As Logophobe mentions in his answer, 165F is no longer (as of a few years ago) the pork cooking temp recommendation by the USDA. It's 145F (yay!). But that's neither here nor there, because @jefromi's point is still very valid here. Those cooking temperatures assume proper storage, not "sat around all day in a warm environment uncooked" scenarios.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.837786
| 2014-06-27T23:53:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45170",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Car Shipping Leads",
"Cascabel",
"Janet",
"Joe",
"Kimberley Downer",
"Nancy Gonderzik",
"Odysseas Tsimpikakis",
"Preston",
"Sheila",
"VENALO GmbH and Co KG",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"j4hangir"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45554
|
Rendering fat by sous vide
I've seen that fat will render at 55-60 degrees centigrade using sous vide - but my question is how long that would be expected to take?
There's apparently something about rendering fats in the Thomas Keller Sous Vide cookbook. I don't have access to it right now, but if this doesn't get answered already, I can take a look later. If you have access to it, then check it out and maybe you can answer your own question :)
Some of this is going to depend on how much fat, and the original temperature of said fat when you start the process.
It is do-able, but one of the drawbacks is that the water trapped in the fat doesn't evaporate when you render sous vide, so you have to then separate the fat and water afterwards.
Thomas Keller's cookbook "Under Pressure: Cooking Sous Vide" recommends 1:30 @ 85C for beef or duck fat, 1:00 @ 85C for marrow fat, and 0:45 @ 85C for foie gras fat.
Surely this is far too simplistic? The length of time for a ribeye Vs a rump joint is going to be different.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.838105
| 2014-07-14T14:35:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45554",
"authors": [
"Couvreur 93 - Couverture spam",
"Dan",
"Ian Newson",
"Jennifer S",
"Maryam Joumaa",
"Ming",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7060"
],
"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
}
|
45826
|
Is my microwave still safe to use after accidentally heating metal in it?
My small kid used a metal bowl in a microwave oven and there was a spark. I immediately switched off the oven.
There was a burnt mark on the left side of the oven. Though the microwave oven switches on (Light is one), I am not sure if it actually works.
Will the microwave oven in general work even after such spark and burnt ?
The spark was a voltage jumping over a gap somewhere. This may occur again, but so long as the magnetron survives, you should be okay. The problem with sparks is they can leave a carbon trail deep inside which is conductive and may actually make the next spark occur at a slightly lower voltage. If this happens enough, you will eventually (or shortly) damage the unit and make it unusable.
I actually work as a product safety consultant and I can say, so long as you have an approved product (CSA, UL, ETL, or TUV) this sort of fault was actually tested. You should be a safe enough and not start a fire.
I haven't had this problem thankfully, but I would think that if it seems to function ok, then you can continue using it. After a bit of research I also found this:
I accidentally put something metal in my friend's microwave about 3
years ago. The metal was covered in plastic so I didn't realize what I
was doing. The smell was really bad, but to this day, the microwave
works.
My mom's microwave was having a problem where it would not turn off.
The other day, she was on the phone and forgot about it, and burned
something up in the microwave. Now it won't even heat water. So, she
had to throw her's out.
I guess the microwave is okay if it still works.
AND a similar one here:
The metal isn't going to hurt the food in any way, the food should be
fine. As long as the microwave seems to function properly, it should
be ok, as well. I have accidentally left utensils in the microwave
before and the appliance didn't sustain damage. Damage is just a
possibility, not a definite occurrence.
Some metals are even meant to be placed in the microwave, it depends
on the type and the shape. My microwave, for instance, came with a
metal rack that slides into the center. I think it depends partially
on whether or not there are flat edges on the metal, which can cause
sparks.
Bottom line, you're ok. Just don't make leaving metal in the microwave
a habit. Technically it could short out or catch fire or otherwise
start acting up. But you'll know if that happens.
I think another good idea would be to call the manufacturer and ask them if you want to double check.
Wikipedia's got some good information on that second point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_oven#Metal_objects The damage to the side panel was probably just caused by arcing current. As long as it didn't short out the magnetron, you're probably okay.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.838230
| 2014-07-23T21:05:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45826",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11441
|
How can I recreate the Montgomery Inn "Cincinnati style" barbeque sauce at home?
I love Montgomery Inn barbeque sauce for its tangy/vinegar-y flavor, however it's often not in stock at the stores in my area.
Does anyone know how I could achieve a similar flavor with a homemade sauce?
@user1575 - while we take requests for replicating recipes, we'd need a lot more detail on what this sauce is before we could do that.
I take it it's not related, in flavor, to the cinnamon flavors of Cincy chili?
Montgomery Inn sauce is a kansas city style sweet barbeque sauce. I can't speak to what recipe would best mimic it - it's been a few years since I was there - but it looks like you can mail order it here: http://store.cincyfavorites.com/bbq-sauce-c28.aspx for a pretty reasonable price if you buy a lot.
Technically this isn't "restaurant" mimicry but our convention has been to use that tag for recipe recreations, so I've added it for general interest. I've also edited out the "recipe request" language.
I found a comment on Yelp where one reviewer described the sauce as such: "It's tomato-based, thin, sweet, and must be warm to enjoy it fully. " - http://www.yelp.com/biz/montgomery-inn-boathouse-cincinnati#hrid:ZWqHvHU9nXRGkRDT-TO3IQ Maybe this helps figure out the correct ingredients/ratios a bit more.
Mmm - some pictures to slurp at http://www.roadfood.com/Forums/Montgomery-Inn-Cincinnati-BBQ-pics-m436289.aspx
@chad nope, not even close. It's sweet and (vinegar) tangy, with some complex flavors I can't really put into words.
Found this...
http://www.copykatchat.com/sauces/7118.htm
I've never been there, so I can't judge; but might be a good place to start.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.838463
| 2011-01-25T03:02:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11441",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Chad",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4414",
"imaxxam",
"justkt",
"timmyp",
"user1575",
"user23502",
"user23550"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6993
|
What's the name of this slow cooking technique?
I just discovered the joy of slow cooking meat, separating the juice, then boiling it to a reduction, then simmering the meat in its own concentrated juices (with some other tasty ingredients added).
So is there a name for simmering slow cooked meat in its concentrated juices?
This would be what I would call stewing. From the FreeDictionary:
"A dish cooked by stewing, especially a mixture of meat or fish and vegetables with stock."
I suppose you could also coin your own, new term call "modified-reduction-stewing." Oh, wait, that's mine! Make up your own ;--)
modified-reduction-stewing => mo-re-stew => more stew
Sounds like braising, though while it's traditional to concentrate the juices afterward, it's optionally delicious to throw everything back in to simmer in them.
Braising is a pretty general term though: it also applies to slow cooking in any concentrated juices, or even un-concentrated juices (though this is not recommended for best results).
What do you mean throw everything back in? You mean for leftovers?
I looked up the definition of braising--close! but not it. Braising requires the food to be cooked in dry heat first (ie browning the outside of a roast) then simmered in a liquid.
This process is called confit. It is a french term meaning 'cooked in own juices'.
Confit does not mean "cooked in own juices", on the contrary it is used for food which is preserved by submerging it in fat (for meat) or sugar syrup (for fruit)
are you talking about sous vide?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.838631
| 2010-09-08T19:19:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6993",
"authors": [
"Andrew",
"Hawks",
"Kelly Blackburn",
"SQLSavant",
"Stephenson Office",
"fego",
"garlicpesto",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"user1575"
],
"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
}
|
11424
|
Are ripe meyer lemons supposed to be soft?
At the grocery store they were selling meyer lemons in mesh bags, they all seemed to be much softer than an ordinary lemon. Are meyer lemons supposed to be a very soft fruit? just touching them lightly was like I was squeezing a rubber ball, I can't even think of another fruit that would have that much give.
They should be quite a bit softer than a standard Eureka lemon, because the skin is much thinner. That said, it shouldn't be like a gentle squeeze causes your finger to sink in 1/2 an inch. If that happens, I think you've found a batch that are too old and have started to get mushy or lose moisture. Keep looking for good ones - Meyer lemons are terrifically fragrant, floral and mild.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.838918
| 2011-01-24T16:34:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11424",
"authors": [
"Ramchandra Apte",
"Thomas Atkinson",
"dmcontador",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23461",
"user300183"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"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.