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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
42359
|
Are there low-fat substitutes for shortening in baking?
My husband has just had stints put into his heart and is now on a fat/salt/sugar diet. I do all the cooking and enjoy making things from scratch. I am trying to adjust my recipes for his new diet. Shortening is used in rolls, biscuits, cakes, etc. (you get the idea) what can I use in place of shortening? I need something that will not be greasey or tasteless. I do not mind if I have to use a different ingredient for different applications (sweets, breads, etc.) I just need a way to make the food compliant with the prescribed diet without losing flavor.
possible duplicate of Are there any substitutes for Shortening?
"Healthier" is off topic here, as there is much pseudo-science and it is almost impossible to find real facts. If you give specific constraints as to what is permitted or not permitted, we may be able to give recommendations based on criteria.
Hello Kim, SAJ14SAJ's comment is correct, we don't allow question on what is "healthier". It is however allowed to ask how to make food which conforms to dietary restrictions, as long as the asker explains these restrictions. After reading your first sentence, I assume that you mean that in this case, you are trying to make the food lower in fat, salt and sugar, so edited this accordingly into the quesiton body. You can edit more detail into your question too.
@razumny I think the title was misleading. The other question is generally asking for substitutes; here, the question body explains that the food has to be low in fat, so the answers from the other question (which are other types of fat) won't fit here.
what you are looking for does not exist.
a way to make the food [low fat] for him without losing flavor
This is impossible. Fat is very important in baking for both taste and texture. Assuming that your husband's fat/salt/sugar diet means that the substitute has to contain less fat per unit of weight than shortening, you will be losing lots of flavor and texture. There is no way around it.
The next best thing is to continue baking, but use recipes designed with low fat and sugar content in mind. Altering recipes is a very hard thing to do in general, especially when you are removing a major ingredient.
If you are determined to try altering, here some general advice:
Some baked goods depend a lot on (solid) fat. You will not be able to make any of them in a fat-reduced version. These include pie crust, Danish, millefeuille, and other pastry doughs. They can be made with butter or coconut fat or lard in the same amounts, but the result will have just as much fat.
Batter-based baked goods can be made with reduced fat. The taste and texture will suffer, and also the shelf life (they will dry out earlier). It is especially tricky if you are reducing the sugar at the same time. You will never have the same quality as with a normal recipe, but most people find fat- and sugar-reduced recipes good enough for their taste. You need something to make up for the bulk lost, but also hold moisture and provide taste. Typical substitutes are fruit purees (especially from high-pectin fruits), dairy products (e.g. sour cream) and, if you feel adventurous, emulsions with a little fat, a lot of flavorful liquid and an emulsifier such as xanthan.
This type of substitution works for cakes and quick breads leavened with baking powder. You can use baking soda, but will have to adjust for the new acidity levels if you are using fruit purees or fermented dairy. Other leavening methods will be much harder to get to work. Especially the bisquits (in the Southern US meaning of the word) will probably be impossible to make without a solid fat.
Yeast doughs don't need a substitute. Just leave as much fat out as you want to. The texture will change drastically towards plain bread, but there is no way around it.
Cookies are a problematic topic. Many of them need both fat and sugar. Some types can work with less, but getting these to work and finding a proper substitute will be very hard. It is easier to search around for new recipes; the chance that you can alter the ones you already have to get satisfying results is very, very low. See also: What are some low fat butter substitutes for cookies?
Although you often can't remove all of the solid fat in pastry doughs, there are tricks that you can use to improve flakiness (eg, replacing water with vodka) that may allow you to then reduce the fat ... I've never tried it, though.
If you can find a copy, Graham Kerr's "Minimax Cookbook" has guidance and several recipes for low-fat baking. He used to be the galloping gourmet, and produced recipes with outrageous amounts of fat, sugar, and so on. Then his wife had a stroke and he re-examined how he cooks in order to be able to meet her dietary requirements while not losing flavor, texture, and mouth-feel. It covers much more than baking, and is a good guide to low-fat cooking in general. Unfortunately it's out of print (published in 1992), but there seem to be lots of copies available from second-tier distributors.
In a word: Oil.
It is important to note that the conversion of a recipe from shortening/margarine/butter to oil is not a 1 to 1 conversion.
I understand why you felt the need to write this; I had the urge to rant too, when I saw the question :) But still, this kind of thing is off topic on the site and always has been. I have to delete that part even though I agree with it.
I use I can't believe it's not butter for everything. If it's different, I don't notice. Neither does my family.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.872321
| 2014-02-27T09:49:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42359",
"authors": [
"Aprille CHA",
"Brad Sande",
"Donald Bush",
"Eric",
"Joe",
"Knucklehead",
"Kogy",
"Lucas Doughton",
"Mark Beadles",
"Orhan Er",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"bigjosh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99181",
"i486",
"lwswl",
"mrjackw",
"razumny",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37516
|
Separate cutting boards: Cooked vs Uncooked meat
I know it is common knowledge that one should using different cutting boards for meat and vegetables (cross contamination), but should you also use a different cutting board for raw/cooked meat? Or at least clean the raw meat cutting board first? My roommate thinks the different meat/vegetable cutting board is absolute, so as long as you cut meat on one board you are safe. But I'm pretty sure a surface where raw meat was on can't be safe can it? Thanks.
If all ingredients will be cooked, I don't care, I will use the same board; and clean it when I'm done.
You can use the same board (I often do), but you must wash it in hot, soapy water in-between. Usually there is plenty of time to do this while the meat is cooking. Because bacteria grows exponentially, I'd recommend washing the board soon, even if you aren't going to reuse it, to prevent accidental cross-contamination.
If you're using one meat board, you should also wash it between different kinds of meat. For example, pork and chicken typically have different bacteria risks and different cooking temperatures because of those bacteria. If you cross contaminate, then safely cooked pork may still have a risk of salmonella.
And, of course, you should wash your knives, spatulas, tongs, etc between handling uncooked and cooked meats.
You do not need separate cutting boards, technically you only need one board
After using a board you must mechanically scrub it for hygiene and flavour cross contamination reasons
If the board is not properly washed between raw and cooked foods, it does not matter that it is a "separate" board, you will be causing a hygiene situation
Wash boards by using running water (hot or cold) and a stiff scrubbing brush. Hot water and a little dish soap helps with fats and oils on the board
Lightly dry the board with a clean towel and store upright in a sunlight place. Light helps fully dry the board, and the UV light will promote bacterial breakdown
Obviously having multiple boards makes life easier, but while using them you must track which one is which, and after some time (< hour) you should be cleaning and recycling them. Always clean a board back to the point it can be used for anything again
In a large commercial kitchen the rules will be different, mainly for time expediency reasons
Of course "technically" you can only use one cutting board. Generally people using multiple boards are using the same board for all of one type of ingredient so they don't have to wash them as frequently. In this case, you definitely want a different board for cooked vs uncooked meat.
Technically, TDF is absolutely right, but in household situations, separate boards are a must. We're not always as hygienic as we should be, and separate boards for raw meat and cooked meat are essential. Remembering which is which is important, obviously - I use glass for raw meat and nothing else so I don't get them mixed up. If your roommate thinks about it, cutting raw and cooked meats on the same board is equivalent to storing raw meat on top of cooked meat in the refrigerator, which I hope isn't something he/she thinks is okay.
Glass? I hope you hate your knives and wish to get rid of them, often.
Ha ha, not really, I have had the same knife for cutting raw meat for 25 years. But I do have a sharpening steel, though have rarely used it. I did have a marble board for some years though, does that make a difference, I wonder.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.872779
| 2013-10-12T01:20:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37516",
"authors": [
"Marti",
"Max",
"SourDoh",
"bamboo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37729
|
What should I set my refrigerator's temperature control's to keep it coldest?
I have a refrigerator with 1 3 7 9 for temperature control. Where should I keep the indicator to keep it coldest? The milk is getting sour.
You can probably get the manual on line. Do you know the brand and model number of your fridge? Be careful with "as cold as possible" certain things (like some herbs and leafy greens) are ruined if they freeze.
The bigger number is probably (but not necessarily) colder; as others have said the manual is the easiest way to find out.
Of course, if your only problem is the milk going off too fast, and it's a good temperature for the rest of the stuff, you might want to just put the milk in a colder part of the fridge. Near the vents is much colder than the door, and the back is usually pretty cold too.
Read the manual.
If you don't have a manual, buy an inexpensive refrigerator thermometer. Measure the temperature, then adjust by about, say, two settings, and 24 hours later, read the thermometer again. Whichever direction it changed, you will know which way the settings go. You will then know which way to adjust, and be able to target your ideal temperature.
You probably don't even need a thermometer. Just put something next to the vent and see if it freezes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.873047
| 2013-10-19T02:07:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37729",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19077
|
Where can I buy a goose?
I'd like to roast a goose, but none of my local supermarkets stocks them. Where should I look?I would prefer fresh and local but frozen would suffice.
What country do you live in?
i am in the US: Atlanta Ga. I didn't include this so as not to be too localized; a specific vendor would be great but general directions would be more widely useful.
In Toronto, I find that the supermarket occasionally has 1 or 2, frozen. You can usually find it by digging to the bottom of the turkey pile. It's not a high demand item though.
You may find them seasonally in very ordinary stores. Saw them at Walmart a few weeks ago, but got a duck instead. This was a seasonal selection---not part of their usual stock.
I've protected this to avoid any more "this specific store in my town has geese" answers - it's only really reasonable to leave this question open if we're aiming for generic answers.
Can't speak for Atlanta, but up here (Canada) when I am looking for a meat that a supermarket doesn't carry (like goose), I go to the local butcher. My butcher brings in a very good selection, and otherwise usually knows of more sources. Also good places to check are local farmer's markets.
Edit: Adding to an old answer as I've come across another additional thought. Another place that might be worth checking is the farms themselves. It's becoming more common to have farms that sell directly to consumers. Around here there's quite a few. A quick Google for "goose farm yourlocation" might be a place to start.
+1: Good general advice. Since it could conceivably be hard to find a good butcher or meat market, in addition to searching online, you could try asking at restaurants that serve less common meats, or at farmer's markets (if there isn't anyone selling them there). Since you're in a big city, odds are pretty good, and like-minded people should be able to help!
There is an international food company call ajc that sells frozen birds and one of the offices is located in Atlanta. A friend of my actually bought a goose from them two years ago. This company usually sells frozen foods. If you go to their website I linked above there may be a way to get a bird before its frozen, but I'm not sure. They have goose for sure though, everyone who ate it said it was great. Hope this helps.
D'Artagnan is a very reputable gourmet meat purveyor here in the US, and they sell over the Internet. They sell very high quality geese, however, they're a bit expensive.
You might try the Dekalb Farmer's Market (in Atlanta, GA) or Super H Mart, depending on where you are at. I don't specifically recall if they sell geese either place, but it seems likely. At the Dekalb FM, they would be in with the "other" meats near the poultry.
I'd also second finding a butcher, if there is one nearby, but most of the ones I am aware of are pretty basic low end places.
Edit: I just called, and the Dekalb Farmer's Market does sell geese! I still don't know about Super H Mart, though.
You mentioned "Dekalb Farmers Market" as a source for Goose... which State is the Dekalb you mentioned located? Thanks!
this should be a comment; but Dekalb is in Georgia, USA
I buy things like that at a local farmer's market - that where I got the duck for today's dinner. They almost always have a butcher or two that can get anything you want.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.873188
| 2011-11-23T05:26:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19077",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Christina Smith",
"D Ann Moore",
"Daniel Stančík",
"David LeBauer",
"Joanne Liew",
"Netzdoktor",
"Scout721",
"TFD",
"Terry",
"William K.",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43583"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9531
|
Is Greenpan safe?
We've been using this environmentally friendly non stick pan called the Green pan from Costco and I've done some research on it, but I cant seem to find anything or anyone debunking the safeness of the pan. I've heard a lot about those so-called "environmentally friendly" products being just another money grab.
Are they safe to use? Is it another Teflon? Would cast iron be better solution for pans?
I've seen these pans at one of the local cookware/houseware stores as well and wondered the same thing. The best I've been able to dig up so far is the following:
GreenPan's official statement about their material is:
GreenPan™ does not use PTFE, but brings with Thermolon™ non-stick technology a healthy alternative to the market. Thermolon™ is heat resistant up to high temperatures. This means that GreenPan™ has an extra safety feature; if you overheat your pan, even up to 450°C/850°F, no toxic fumes will be released and the coating will not blister or peel.
Obviously I can't verify the claims about overheating and the absence of fumes or blistering/peeling, but one thing is for certain: The pans are not Teflon. Instead they use a Thermolon compound, which really and truly does not use PTFE, the "harmful" compound in Teflon products.
Of course, as we all know, that doesn't mean it's safe. This "Thermolon" stuff is brand-new to the market so there's been very little real-world testing done. And nobody seems to know exactly what it's made of. If you look at early sources you'll see them blathering on about it being made with "nanotechnology", but I found an interesting little tidbit on Mother Nature Network:
UPDATE: Thermolon’s non-stick formulation is actually not the product of nanotechnology. It turns out that one of the company’s “over-enthusiastic” copy writers slipped that description in because it “sounded high-tech,” not because it was true.
This information seems to be confirmed at SuperEco. None of them cite a source, but apparently this came straight from the horse's mouth (Thermolon) - they refuted the nanotech claim themselves.
So one thing we do know about this company is that they've made at least one bald-faced lie. That's not enough to indict them on safety terms but it certainly does cast a suspicious light on them. The company is also in South Korea - again, not that this necessarily means anything but SK has a pretty dismal track record when it comes to safety.
It's also interesting to read some of the reviews. I've seen several go like this on one the MNN page:
Obviously all these great comments about the pans were from people who most likely had only these pans for a few months. They worked great for about 6 months and then every single think I cooked started to stick and burn to the pans.
Other people say they lasted for a year, two years, etc., but all seem to confirm the same basic fact: the non-stick coating wears off over time. If it wears off, it has to go somewhere, and that somewhere is probably in your food. Whether or not these incredibly tiny amounts of unspecified ceramic material are actually dangerous remains to be studied.
So to summarize, here's what the reality seems to be:
Is it Teflon? No, and it doesn't use any PFOA/PTFE.
Is it safe? Inconclusive. So far there's no evidence of safety issues.
Is it eco-friendly? Given that the company is so defensive about its manufacturing process, I'm inclined to believe that their "green" claims are exaggerated at best.
Is it actually any good? Only with very light use, according to the reviews.
ANOTHER UPDATE: GreenPan™ appears to have added more relevant information to their new site greenpan.us since this original Q&A occurred. They now describe their coating as "ceramic" and claim that it is a formulation that is a patented solution of sand and water:
Thermolon is the ceramic non-stick coating used on all GreenPan non-stick cookware. It is a coating that is manufactured without PFAS, or PFOA, and does not contain any lead or cadmium. It is made from Silicon (not to be confused with silicone), basically sand, that has been transformed into a spray-able solution and then cured onto the pan in the oven.
However, this once again appears to be a bit inaccurate. This appears to be the Thermolon Patent (from Google's Patent database). The patent describes the coating as containing "silane or an oligomer derived therefrom", silicone dioxide, one or more of "tourmaline, yellow ocher, sericite, amethyst, bamboo charcoal, obsidian, elvan and lava", one or more of "strontium, vanadium, zirconium, cerium, neodymium, lanthanum, barium, rubidium, cesium and gallium", and pigment. While silicon dioxide (basically sand) is one of the main components, the additional components include a lot more than just silicon.
Whoa! thank you for your time and effort you put it into this question! I have read about thermolon too, but again, people doesnt seem to know what they are. I guess we'll just have to wait until and see...In the mean while, I will have to do more research about other alternatives. Thank you!
It's worth noting that "normal" nonstick coating will also wear off over time, especially with heavy use. It's best to not get too attached to your nonstick pans.
That is correct, @Bob, although I think the point was that GreenPan seems to be implying that their pans are safer than Teflon, a claim which should be met with suspicion given the fact that the coating leaches off. Also, YMMV, but my Teflon has lasted upwards of 3 years with moderate use, which seems to be better than what people are saying about the GreenPan.
For what it's worth, we were given a few of these as a gift, but after the nonstick wore off. We've switched to cast iron and a cheap teflon (expecting to need to replace it).
If you are looking for alternatives, I ditched all my nonstick for DeBuyer's mineral steel line. They aren't super pricey, they are much better than my all clad pans at not sticking, and they last. Downsides, they are heavy and must be cleaned and dried immediately, or they rust. I'm not affiliated with DeBuyer in any way, just happy with their product.
I wouldn't consider it to be 'eco friendly' if I had to replace it every year for it to be useful. I've gotten 5+ years out of a teflon pan when it was my main pan. (calphalon ... made sure not to use metal tools, use high heat nor heat it dry). I know people with cast iron that is decades old.
Thermolon actually is trademarked. Look it up here:http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/gate.exe?f=tess&state=4801:3knp4v.1.1 " PAINTS, VARNISHES, LACQUERS; RUST PRESERVATIVES IN THE NATURE OF A COATING; RAW NATURAL RESINS FOR USE IN THE MANUFACTURE OF RESINS AND FOR GENERAL INDUSTRIAL USE; NONSTICK COATINGS FOR COOKWARE AND PORTABLE ELECTRIC APPLIANCES" That description is at odds with the "Inorganic Ceramic Coating" description at their website: http://www.thermolon.com/html/
@D.Woods Thanks for finding additional information. I revised your summary, though, because per the patent, there's definitely more than just sand in there.
Loose silane is a rather aggressive chemical, so one can assume it is an oligomer :) Also, rubidium would have me worried just a tiny bit - intentionally using a (though very slightly) radioactive material in a coating of which some could be ingested in case of damage just doesnt sound like a responsible idea.
Silicon is a metallic looking semiconductor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon However, if you cook it in a furnace with Oxygen, you end up getting silicates, quartz, which is what normal beach sand is made of. Perhaps they mean something like that? That'd be shiney and safe. b=But now They're talking about diamond coatings?: https://tinyurl.com/yc9pnnyq This is too much change to make me happy.
My spidey senses were tingling when they used a trademark to describe the coating which is never a good sign. They tingled even harder when I couldn't find the actual composition of the coating--big no-no if you're selling yourself as a "healthy" alternative. Then the evolving description of the coating is the final nail in their coffin. I thank you for actually doing the leg work and finding their patent which further confirms my suspicions. I'll stick to ss, may not be non stick but it's hardly a problem for me really, I just leave the pan soaking overnight and they're never hard to clean.
I can verify that the green pan can handle high heat. My wife accidentally left the green pan on the element on high for more than 8 hours (she left the pan on the element in the morning and then went to work and totally forgot about it). When i returned later that afternoon around 5pm, the pan was on the stove with the element on high and the pan did not melt of lose its structure. I think with a non-ceramic pan, there is good chance it would have started a fire and burned the house down. So i was grateful that the green pan could handle the heat!
While it's great that this pan didn't lose its structure, that doesn't mean that it's necessarily still safe to use. I'm not saying that it isn't safe, either, but your anecdote doesn't really answer the question.
visually which is the only check you can do with your own eyes. You don't know how structurally sound it actually was or whether it leaked any chemicals invisible to the eyes or nose.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.873738
| 2010-11-28T01:36:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9531",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Aspiring Dev",
"Bob",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Evan",
"Joe",
"Michelle Morrison",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"claudine",
"e-sushi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7629",
"kaya",
"konamiwa",
"rackandboneman",
"user19507",
"wbyoung"
],
"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
}
|
11929
|
What's the best way to tell that pasta is done (when boiling)?
I've tried a number of different ways to tell when spaghetti, capellini and other pasta types are done, but I'm curious if there are more specific rules of thumb. With regular spaghetti, I've tried biting-in-half to see if it's still white in the middle, throwing it against the fridge (which seems more amusing than useful), etc., but are there better and more reliable ways?
Also, how much does pasta 'cook' once you take it out of the water? So if you want an al dente pasta, do you take it off slightly before done? If so, how much?
I just taste it. Eat a noodle (or piece of noodle) and see if you like the taste/texture.
Same as Kyra, but for me it's: eat a noodle and see if it's almost done. By the time you drain the water and the pasta stops cooking another minute is gone ... and a minute makes a difference
A friend of me told me they tested if it stuck to the roof, then it was done :)
See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26123/what-does-al-dente-really-mean/26124
Al dente cooking is a transitional state that lasts for a very short amount of time (one minute longer in boiling water makes pasta too soft, one minute shorter and it's still crunchy). For this reason, authentic Italian pasta packages state a precise cooking time, which is very reliable to make a good al dente pasta.
A cooking time interval (e.g. "7 to 10 minutes") is usually given to accommodate to other countries taste, who may prefer a softer pasta, and therefore its presence could be a good indicator of an Italian look-alike pasta brand. In this case the lower figure indicates the al dente cooking.
Lacking this information, a good cooking time can be figured by cross section size, length and shape of pasta: obviously, thicker and squat formats require more time. Complex shapes, such as farfalle, can be trickier because a thick core could reach the al dente cooking while the thinner edges are already too soft.
As a rule of thumb, cooking times for common pasta formats are:
Long and very thin (spaghettini, bavette): 6 min
Long and thin (spaghetti, linguine, bucatini): 8 min
Short and thick (maccheroni, rigatoni, fusilli): 12 min
Small and thick (farfalle) : 8 min
Small and thin (pasta usually boiled straight into broth): 6 min
These cooking times apply only for dry durum-wheat pasta; other types (such as fresh egg pasta) usually have a shorter cooking time.
After straining the boiling water, pasta continues to cook by its own heat; for this reason it has to be eaten as soon as possible. Only for some Italian regional recipes (typically pasta boiled straight into a thick vegetable juice, e.g. pasta with beans, pasta with potatoes) you may want to let it rest for up to 5 minutes after straining to let the juices coagulate.
Also, for recipes where pasta has to undergo a second cooking after boiling (e.g. stir frying in a pan with vegetables, shrimps, mushrooms, etc.) a better result is obtained by boiling pasta just one minute less than the cooking time given on the package.
Wonderful guide! Also I would add in America I often take 2-3 minutes from the box.
Just looking at cooking times and not trying pasta before draining is not a good advice.
Since al dente means "to the tooth", I always taste it and see :)
To my way of thinking, texture and cooked-ness are two different things. The heat cooks the flour which makes up the pasta, but the time in the water allows the water to be absorbed and soften it. A dry noodle soaked overnight in a cup of water might attain an edible texture, but wouldn't actually be cooked.
Taking pasta out of the water stops the texture from changing, except that too long sitting out and it can get dry again on the outside. Too long in the heat and it would overcook. Lucky that water boils at a pretty constant temperature (for your location/altitude), so once you get the timing right for a particular type of noodle, results are very repeatable.
I only remove pasta before it's done (par boil) when you're adding it to a casserole.
<3 your answer. You can just soak dry stuff in cold water and it doesn't mean it's cooked even if the texture is good. Also about the altitude (the fact that pressure modifies boiling point is not common enough knowledge).
other tips from an other Italian:
"With any type of pasta, if when you bite you can still see a white "core", that means it is not done. The white core is pasta that has not been hydrated yet." that's generally right.
First, you have to distinguish what type of pasta you have. And mainly which kind of flour has been used. The main used are
a. durum wheat flour (used for dry pasta, orecchiette, semolino, couscous, some type of bread)
b. soft wheat flour (and also chopped finer, called 00 flour from the extent of the tool for chopping, used for sweets, cakes, fresh pasta, like taglierini, tagliatelle, ravioli, agnolotti, lasagne, trenette [with pesto])
c. a dough prepared with two-thirds of buckwheat flour (grano saraceno), which denotes their gray color, and a third of wheat flour (pizzoccheri)
d. many other different types of flour, regional specific, or specific for some special preparations,most of all sweeties and cakes specials (pasta di mandorle).
The cooking depends on the type of flour used, on the texture, on the purpose and the results you want.
a. The dry pasta, made with durum wheat flour, have to be cooked "al dente".
(!) You need a tall, narrow pot, plenty of water up to 2/3 of the pot. Boil over high heat and strong. Once you put the pasta should be turned quickly because otherwise the pieces are glued to one another. The fire must remain high, but when the water resumes boil the fire goes a little lowered, so that the foam that forms no bait from the pot, but remains strong boiling up to the edge. This is one of the secrets.
"Al dente" means that you have to see in your plate spaghetti move like little snakes, as if they were alive. In the mouth must feel separately. This is achieved by controlling "the clock" time. Just before the exact moment, you take off a piece of spaghetti with a fork, cut in two with his nails, and you look at the center. If you see a white dot, it is uncooked flour. You'll try again almost immediately and the white point will be smaller. As soon as the white point disappears, you must act quickly.
Drain the pasta very quickly, put into a bowl (pre-hot) with a little sauce. Add the rest of the sauce and stir quickly. Serve immediately while hot in hot plates.
It is a race with time. The residual heat should remain in the plate but should not increase the cooking.
b. Soft pasta is a northern product, very typic and traditional, often hand made, almost always made with one or two fresh eggs.
soft pasta done with tendre wheat flour need a different cooking method. Past should NEVER be cooked "al dente", need to be soft, tendre and delicate.
Taglierini, tagliolini and tagliatelle are usually made for soupe. The pasta cooked in broth should always be tender and it would be impossible to keep al dente (tender that with the pasta would not even be good).
Similarly, the filled pasta (ravioli, agnolotti, ravioli, and also lasagne) must obtain the softness required to blend better with the other ingredients. The cooking should be longer and the cooking time is less rigid.
The boil does not have to be strong, the ravioli are to be turned over very gently with a slotted spoon. They must be drained gently, trying not to break them.
The lasagne, in the traditional recipe are cooked separately, al dente, one by one, and place on a clean towel to dry. Then they put in the baking dish, alternating the filling already cooked. We adds a little milk or white sauce (besciamelle, but little) because it does not dry out too much in the oven and sprinkle with parmesan au gratin.
"Throwing pasta on walls is for clowns. Don't do it. We don't." I agree. What film have you seen lately?
tips from an Italian:
With any type of pasta, if when you bite you can still see a white "core", that means it is not done. The white core is pasta that has not been hydrated yet.
Throwing pasta on walls is for clowns. Don't do it. We don't. It is messy and not necessary.
Pasta continues cooking (hydrating) as long as it is hot AND there is water available. So if it is in a watery sauce, it will take in water from the sauce. But if, for example, you just tossed it with butter it will not continue cooking.
This should be the accepted answer. It is the only reliable and simple method.
Though I always just taste it myself, one way to tell that's pretty foolproof is to take a piece of the pasta out and cut through it with a knife. Then look at the cut ends--if the inside looks whiter or more opaque than the outside, it's not done yet. You don't necessarily want it to be the same all the way through, but when it's still partly dry inside it will look different.
This is harder to do with really thin pastas (angel hair, for example) because it's hard to see the center clearly. But for thicker ones it works pretty well. Like all these things, practice is the way--start checking and cutting the pasta early and you'll see how the inside changes as you go along. Over time you'll start to know what you want it to look like inside for the doneness you prefer.
Not that throwing pasta around the room isn't fun.....but I take the strand of noodle and taste it, you want it to still have a slight bite to it and not have that mushy noodle taste in your mouth.
A trick I use is:
Read the time on the package
If that time is less than 8 minutes: boil the pasta for 2 minutes, otherwise boil for 3 minutes
Turn off the heat
Leave standing (still in the hot water) for the time on the package (do not subtract the 2 or 3 minutes!)
Drain
The nice thing is that it saves a spot of on the stove (you can remove the pan on step 3).
You also never over-cook.
Heat has to be always vert hot, if you don't want glue instead of pasta. The limit is when boiling water go out from the pot. Now turn down, but just a bit, the foam of the boiling water must always touch the upper edge of the pot.
After enough experience you'll probably develop the ability to look at it to see if it's done (much the same way people develop a nack for pouring near exact measurements into their hands). Until then there's nothing wrong with picking out a piece of pasta and tasting it (Careful, it's Hot!).
Have you simply tried following the recommended cooking time on the packet?
I use Barilla pasta. I find that their recommended cooking time on the packet is actually quite accurate. So I just set a timer.
I used to taste it and have tried that fridge thing. Until it occurred to me that the one thing I did not try was following the instructions.
except when the directions say something obnoxious like "7 to 11 minutes"
@zanlok: People vary in their awareness as to the amount of water to pasta in the pot, and the rate of boiling. You get some people who have the pasta very crowded on barely a simmer, and others with a huge vat of water on a fierce boil. Makes a difference, which I guess is why they state vacuous timings.
@zanlock That's possible. The other brand I used to used was San Remo (?). That had solid times too. It just said "7 min" or "9 min". I think the next best way is to taste.
When it comes to spaghetti and sauce, I am finicky. Three things must be true.
The pasta noodles must be 'al-dente'.
The meat sauce must be thick enough to stand a metal ladle up in.
The two must never be mixed together until serving.
My first priority: Pasta must be al-dente. The taste method is the only thing that determines proper cooking time. The slight bit of stickiness that would cause a 'newbie' to try to make it 'stick to the wall' can be much more accurately determined by the ultimate, perfect testing tool... the mouth.
Using a 12-quart stockpot and WAY more water than the recipe for a 32oz. package of pasta would have recommended... put your dry noodles in the boiling water and reducing to simmer, until determining the doneness.
See Jason P Sallinger Mar 3 '16 at 17:50 (preparation instructions)
Now it's time to slow down the cooking process...
Just remove the noodles from the hot water with a colander and immerse the, still internally cooking, pasta in the cooler water, long enough to stir once or twice. When satisfied with the feel and doneness and temperature, remove with a colander and place on top of one or two, clean dish towels on a cookie sheet. Until it is time to serve the noodles, keep them in the oven at a low warming temperature.
Put the meat sauce and ladle in a large serving bowl on the table with the other dishes. Serve the noodles, piping hot and dry from the oven, on each person's plate.
Place on the table.
Perfect.
Scoop a few shell of pasta and drop it on a pan. As the pasta gets done, the sound of the shell hitting the pan changes from hard/sharp to soft. When the sharp sound of pasta shell dropping is just replaced with a soft thud, it's done!
Perfect pasta (some steps were omitted because the OP only wanted to know about when it is done)
Ignore the time on the box
Be sure to reduce your boil as soon as it returns after putting your pasta in your pot. Do it in steps, over a minute, to be sure you don't lose the boil/simmer. Ultimately, you want the simmer to barely bubble
You need to tend to the pot in the first 1-2 minutes, to adjust the simmer, and also to stir. Once the simmer is set, and you've stirred a few times (to prevent sticking), you can tend to other kitchen tasks
Return to stir every minute or so. Thicker pasta needs less attention (more time between stirs). What you are doing when you stir is sensing the tension of the pasta. Also pull it up and look at it. If it feels or looks stiff still, you don't need to taste it
Once it starts looking and feeling like pasta you'd want to serve, now taste, and often. The good thing about getting the water to a low simmer is that it will cook more slowly, and uniformly. Once it tastes like you want your pasta, put it through a colander and rinse with cool water. This is assuming you're not making stuffed pasta, like tortellini or ravioli. I would not use a colander. Instead use a large basket utensil to pull them out of the water.
I'm sorry... but rinsing pasta is the number one "no-no" for pasta... particularly cold water. It's one thing if the end recipe is a cold dish (like pasta salad) but it's generally not recommended for hot dishes. I understand your explanation for using a lower boil but I find that high boils keep the pasta stirred for me, so I don't see that as a benefit as it means I have to tend the pasta more often.
According to every / professional / chef on the planet... and most pasta manufacturers.
Stir the pasta. You can 'feel'the tenderness through the fork. This takes time and practice.
In addition to being palpably false, this seems incomplete as an answer. What about the fork-feel indicates that the pasta is done? What specific features should one look for?
What? Nobody mentions the tried-and-true "Throw it at the wall" test? In a nutshell, take a noodle out of the pot, and sling it at the wall. If it sticks, it's cooked.
Absolutely works. Probably a bit more sanitary to just taste it though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.874650
| 2011-02-08T19:11:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11929",
"authors": [
"Alex",
"BiscuitBaker",
"Camilo Martin",
"Catija",
"Kyra",
"Megasaur",
"Orbling",
"Phil",
"Shay Elkayam",
"Sneftel",
"Stan Jones",
"TFD",
"Tarienn",
"bdd",
"fschoenm",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8658",
"hyubs",
"johnny",
"m ashmore",
"nikolay",
"pinpon",
"spakendralo man",
"user2215",
"violadaprile",
"zanlok"
],
"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
}
|
10924
|
What are the fundamental differences between citrus fruits that necessitate different cooking techniques?
I used to cook pastries and tarts quite a bit, and one thing that always intrigued me was how recipes vary in their treatment of citrus. For instance, if you make a lemon tart, you can generally do the whole thing in one day and it'll set up just fine. An orange tart like tart a l'orange seems to require the filling to set for several hours longer.
Aside from obvious flavor differences between citrus fruits (lemons, limes, oranges, grapefruit, etc.) are there acidity or other variances that require different techniques to get basically the same results? If I used limes in lemon tart recipe, would I get a lime tart?
This link on Wikipedia wasn't all that helpful...
There are three (to the best of my knowledge) main factors at work here:
Pectin. This is a gelling agent, a bit like gelatin. Fruits such as apples and plums are very high in pectin; citrus fruits are not that high in pectin but citrus peels are incredibly high, so if you're using any of the peel, you're getting tons of great pectin.
Obviously, the more pectin, the faster and firmer it's going to gel. If the fruit doesn't contain much pectin then you're going to have to cook it down a lot or just add actual pectin (you can buy it in stores).
Acidity, as you suspect, makes a big difference. It's not just acidity, it's the relationship of acidity to pectin as above. For more details read The Role of Acid in Jelly Formation. Basically, pectin gels best at a pH of 2.5 (almost exactly the pH of lemon juice) to 4.5 (about the pH of sweet grapes).
It's best to hit the sweet spot in the middle rather than the extreme ends, so you won't generally be using pure lemon juice, you'll be adding some sugar and other ingredients. Which leads me to the final factor:
Sugar. As described in The Role of Sugar in Jelly Formation, sugar precipitates the pectin, basically making the pectin molecules less soluble which mimics the effect of a higher concentration. Therefore, more sugar makes the jelly set faster.
So: Pectin-rich fruits + high acidity + high sugar content = fast setting.
There are actually various other factors that affect the pectin (which is pretty much the only gelling agent at work when working with natural fruit jellies) like salts and even alcohol, but in the vast majority of recipes, it's acidity and sugar that are your primary concerns as well as the actual pectin content of the fruit itself.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.875893
| 2011-01-10T23:33:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10924",
"authors": [
"campy17",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22414",
"ryskajakub",
"suky1",
"user22408"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12217
|
How do you make 'Rabri'?
It's an Indian, or to be more specific, Bengali pudding. Its milky with sheets/pieces of something akin to 'hard milk'. I've never seen a recipe for it and the Wikipedia article is vague indeed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYTT-ZgJQok&feature=related
Many thanks, I know what I'm doing at the weekend now!
PS. You should post your response as an answer rather than a comment so I can give you points ;-)
@Orbling - sadly its not quite what I would call Rabri - in Bengal (where the finest Indian sweets are made ;-) ) its made without nuts and loads of spices etc. and makes for a simple and very elegant dessert. This version is not quite it, but if nothing its given me more of an idea of what is involved. Thanks again for posting.
I'll keep looking ...
Rabri/Rabdi is a huge class of dish, individual variations on the theme must number in the millions. The main benefit of watching the video I figured, was that you would get the idea of the reduction process involved, the additions are up to you. :-)
As for making it an answer, well - it did not seem sufficient for an answer, just a shove in the right direction.
There's a recipe at Indian Food Forever, although I've never made it, tried it, or even heard of it before, so I cannot attest to the validity of the recipe. A quick Google search for "rabri" will turn up a few more links to recipes in the first page of results.
Google search! Of course! (Puts palm to forehead) Now why didn't I think of that ...?
@5arx: You did say in your question, "I've never seen a recipe for it." This actually demonstrates handily why we've never permitted recipe requests here; the more your question looks like one, the more probable this type of answer becomes. Perhaps the question would have been better worded as "What do I need to do to make Rabri more like [copy-and-paste description from your second comment] and less like [results from recipe that didn't work out so well]?"
Interesting... never read the FAQ for this site. (Never posted on this site before today, either). Glad I haven't asked for any recipes! Fortunately, I know how to use Google for that (i.e. see answer above :P )
http://www.indianfoodforever.com/desserts/rabri.html is a link to a recipe for Rabri I hope this is a help
This is the exact same recipe link that was posted the first time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.876141
| 2011-02-16T01:13:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12217",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Carlos",
"Dan C",
"Danedo",
"Nathan Wheeler",
"Orbling",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4249",
"immutabl",
"sam",
"user29585"
],
"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
}
|
10457
|
How to make big, fluffy "Mexican-style" flour tortillas (without using any special machinery)?
Flour tortillas are so bloody expensive (and rare!) outside of the U.S. so I'd like to make my own. A friend taught me how to make some ages ago, but I stopped because they were always weird and I could never get them to taste, feel or smell like the ones I got in the store (never-mind from Mexican restaurants in California!), not to mention they were always little tiny baby tortillas only intended for children with very small fingers.
The recipe was basically this (disclaimer: haven't tried in about a year):
Add flour, oil, salt and warm water into a bowl and make a dough.
Knead until you can't anymore.
Break off small pieces and squish/roll out into thin tortillas.
Throw into a frying pan with some butter.
Occasionally flip and wait until dark spots appear on both sides.
It worked out but the results weren't spectacular, often too crispy, too thin, etc. maybe I just need to practice at it more?
How do you make big, fluffy "Mexican-style" flour tortillas (without using any special machinery) ?
Authentic flour tortillas use lard. For an authentic taste, use that, or consider using shortening or butter since they are solid at room temperature like lard. You also might want to consider increasing the fat in your recipe. Fat will coat the proteins of your flour and keep the gluten network from forming so easily.
I was also taught when making tortillas to let the dough rest for an hour after kneading and before rolling/pressing. This helps everything relax.
After cooking each tortilla, put them in a pile with a clean towel over them. The tortillas will sweat liquid, helping them to soften up. You can also put them all in a heat-safe bag (paper or microwave safe plastic) for sweating. When storing your tortillas, make sure to store them in a bag and not in the open air.
If your tortillas are too small, you should be able to roll out a larger piece of dough.
Part of the texture issues might actually be from you rolling them too thin. If you are used to working with dough your ideas of thin might be different from the overstated ones found in recipes. Try rolling to various thicknesses.
the 1 hour "rest" can help a lot
A tortilla press can help with the thickness issue, as it'll give a more uniform thickness. (you can then add sheets of wax paper or parchment if you want them even thinner)
Mexican-style tortilla in US perhaps use lard. In Mexico they don't.
I was always taught to cook tortillas in a dry skillet (cast iron for the best flavor) on med high-high heat until blisters form, then flip cook only until the blisters brown, then remove to a napkin lined plate and cover with another napkin (this allows their own steam to keep them moist.
It sounds like you're frying your tortillas which may account for the crispiness. Try resting your recipe, rolling out and cooking in a dry pan and see if they're not a bit fluffier.
Also, a tortilla press (which can be found on amazon) is a shockingly useful tool.
3 1/2 cups flour sifted
1/2 cup vegtable shortening ( I use the butter flavored)
1/4 tsp baking soda
1 tsp of salt
About 1 cup of hot water( I place it on the stove and as soon as the first couple of ripples form I turn it off)
Add flour, salt and baking soda first. Mix well then with your fingertips incorporate the shortening thru the flour ( do not melt the shortening) once shortening is well incorporated add water little by little until the dough does not stick to your hands. You want to make sure you knead the dough well for about 3 min-4 minutes. If dough is not elastic and very sticky add a little bit of flour and knead some more but if not place log of flour in a ziplock bag or cover with something and let it rest for 20 min. While the dough is resting heat your griddle - I use a cast iron works really well- heat on medi heat.
Take small golf ball size dough roll it out with a rolling pin or you can use a well floured tortilla press and finish rolling out to your desired siZe I usually do 8 in diameter. Place tortilla on a dry griddle as soon as you see blisters flip once then again and finish a third time and ready to serve.
If tortillas are not soft make sure you are not over kneading and make sure not applying to much baking powder.
Last thing the more you practice the better you will get at it the ball of dough should be smooth and soft
I beg to differ ... Mexicans in Mexico absolutely do use lard and they don't make thick and fluffy tortillas.
The majority of flour tortillas in Mexico are going to be closed due to a normal thickness with the exception of Sonoran-style cooking in Mexico, which uses a much thinner tortilla that you could read a newspaper through.
In the US you are more likely to see someone using vegetable oil or shortening for normal tortillas and adding milk and baking powder for excessively thick fluffy tortillas. These thick tortillas will generally only be found in Tex-Mex cooking.
I live in Texas and I make flour tortillas every single day. Here's my recipe:
2c ap flour
1 tsp salt
1 1/2 tsp baking powder
3/4 cup warm milk
2 tsp veg oil
1/4 tsp bacon grease or butter
I simply mix the dry ingredients, add the oil to that in my stand mixer, and let it spin around for a little bit to incorporate the oil into the flour. I then drizzle the milk over until it forms a ball.
As soon as the ball is formed I remove my mixer paddle cover the bowl with a damp towel for approximately 10 minutes, and then go at it with my dough hook for about a minute.
Once it becomes fairly cohesive I form it into one large ball and set it on a plate covered with a damp towel for about 15 minutes to maybe two hours, depending on what else I have going on. This works fine as long as you make sure your towel stays damp.
When they have rested I go back and form them into large balls of dough about the size of a billiards ball. Normally I get six or seven tortillas from the batch.
I allow them another 10 to 15 minutes to rest and then roll them out with a very small amount of flour and cook them on medium for no more than 30 seconds on each side.
You should see some golden brown spots but they don't need to be dark and you don't need an excessive amount of browning, two or three teeny tiny light golden tan spots is plenty.
When they're done I put them in a stack with a towel in an airtight container so the warmth of the tortillas can continue to soften them and they should be about perfect to eat in 20 minutes or so.
I use 3 cups of all purpose flour, 3t baking powder, a pinch of baking soda, 1 teaspoon salt. Mix together in a food processer. Stop the food processor, add 1/2 cup light mayonnaise, replace cover and mix again. Use 1 cup hot water and with processor running add hot water through the feed tube until you have used about 1/2 cup of the water. At this point watch the dough and add water a little at a time until it pulls away from the sides of the container.
Stop adding water and turn off the processor. At this point pulse it several times until dough is "kneaded", about 8 times. Empty out on a floured board and form into a ball. Place in a bowl sprayed with Pam and cover. Let rest at least 1/2 hour to allow the dough to relax. After this, heat a cast iron griddle or cast iron skillet on medium heat while you form the dough into golf ball size rounds then form into flat rounds about 3" in size and set aside. Cover with a towel.
This will make about a 7" round tortilla. Use a bit larger ball for a larger tortilla. By this time your griddle should be hot. Test with a drop of water. If it dances, it is ready (I like to spray with Pam and wipe with a paper towel before cooking tortillas).
Roll out your rounds of dough on a floured board turning about 1/4 turn until desired size. Add flour to the board as necessary if it is sticking, including a bit on the tortilla top and rolling pin. Put on the griddle and start to roll out another round while watching the griddle. Once you see blisters on the surface lift an edge to check for browning. It should be lightly browned, then flip. Then check bottom periodically for light browning. It is done. Place on a towel tiling them as they are done and cover with another towel. Store in a plastic zip lock bag when completely cool to keep moist and tender, pressing air out before sealing.
They can be successfully frozen this way. I like to freeze only the amount we can use in 2-3 days. That way they always taste fresh. Reheat in the microwave only what you will eat for only 15 seconds or you will have crackers.
NOTE: You will soon know just by looking at the surface when it is time to flip the first time. When processing the dough, the less water you add the stiffer the dough.
I had to Google what a food processor was, still haven't figured out what they're called in my country. Same with "Pam". Also my question explicitly states in the title: "without using any special machinery", although I suppose I could just mix all that with my hands. Also when I'm laying them out, are you suggesting to put a towel in-between each tortilla? That's a LOT of towels - I usually make about 20-40 tortillas!
My apologies. Yes, of course, you can make this dough with just your hands. It simply involves adding water a little at a time to the dry ingredient and mayonnaise mixture until you get a dough that is stiff enough to form into golf ball size balls -- about 11-12 from this 3 cup mixture. (Just before you roll them out, flatten them with the palm of your hand.) Knead the dough until it is smooth and elastic. Form into a ball and let it rest in a bowl in the same manner and time to allow the dough to relax.
PAM is a vegetable oil spray; you can use a bit of oil spread in the bowl to keep the dough from sticking. Use just 1 towel folded in half or two towels one on top of the other and place each tortilla on top of the other between the towel halves as it is cooked. This keeps the tortillas soft and pliable and keeps them from drying out. I hope this helps.
I've never put anything on my tortilla pan (the heavy black pans, one is flat with handle); no butter, spray etc. Do not over knead as this will make tortillas less pliable and soft. Do you have a "Mexican food" section in your grocery stores, if so you can buy a bag of tortilla flour already prepared, you just add water.
Check out this video and recipe :https://www.allrecipes.com/recipe/157642/homemade-flour-tortillas/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.876389
| 2010-12-23T17:05:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10457",
"authors": [
"Annette Mitchell",
"Attilio",
"Dina Bushrod",
"Joe",
"Niall",
"Ryan Dickey",
"Tina",
"Tracey Martin",
"glenneroo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71925",
"robert",
"tgadd",
"user35595",
"zanlok"
],
"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
}
|
19012
|
How long do you let a turkey rest after cooking?
I have heard mixed advice on how long you should let a turkey rest after cooking.
Last year my wife and I watched a Thanksgiving cooking show with Gordon Ramsey and he said you should let the turkey rest for as long as you cooked it. If you cook it 3 hours, it should rest for 3 hours. That seems like an awful long time to me.
Everything else I've read looks like 30 minutes to an hour is fine. Any suggestions?
Maybe Gordon Ramsey just likes cold turkey?
I think you may be mis-remembering. All the Gordon Ramsey recipes I can find suggest ~45 minutes resting.
I thought so too, but I re-watched it again to make sure. Just seemed odd to me.
The Gordon Ramsey Christmas show does say to let the turkey rest, as long as it cooks and it is not stuffed (just an onion in the cavity).
Make sure the turkey rests without any sort of covering or "tent". Most people want the browned skin to be crispy, but leaving the turkey out with a covering allows steam to collect. I'm in the camp that says 3 hours is way too long to cool; I've never had a problem carving a turkey after 30 minutes.
For what it's worth, he does call out that the long resting time is offset by serving it with hot gravy.
The purpose- as with any cooked meat- is to let the meat firm up so it doesn't release juices when you cut into it.
In the case of a turkey it also helps to let it cool enough to not burn you when you are carving and eating it.
Both of these goals will be met in 30 minutes to an hour.
I don't know why that chef would recommend 3 hours. At that length of time the turkey would start to approach room temperature and would be less appealing to eat as well as start the clock on the danger zone.
Start the clock on the danger zone? The bacteria would be partying and stuffing themselves on turkey by that time.
Not quite. It would take about an hour to get the meat down below 140f. Two hours between 40-140f should not compromise food safety, provided the turkey was properly cooked of course.
@Sean The USDA recommends that food should spend no more than 2 hours in the 40-140ºF 'danger zone'. If you need to cook your turkey for a further hour and then follow Ramsey's advice you may very well compromise food safety.
The USDA also calls 140f the danger zone, when in reality temperatures as low as 130f will still pasteurize. And as I said, sitting for three hours could potentially be OK. I never made the same claim for four.
The USDA--and thus the health codes based on its research--is properly very conservative. Bacteria can be killed with sufficient time at 130, this is true. But its much easier to stick a thermometer in the food item, and say categorically "yes, this is in the safe zone" or "no its in the danger zone" than to monitor the time/temperature curve and document it correctly, although it can be done. Safety in all domains usually involves a... well... safety zone... erring on the side of caution!
I heard GR say 3 hours this year too, so you're not misremembering. I recently started letting it rest for 45 minutes to an hour, and it's worked out great. My reason for choosing that amount of time is: that's how long veggies need to roast in the oven.
Once upon a time I used to rest it for 30 min, meaning I needed to at least start roasting the veg while the turkey was still in the oven, and the whole thing was insanely stressful. Now I prep the veggies but put them dry on baking sheets. An hour before I want to eat, or when the turkey is clearly cooked if that happens sooner than I expected, I pull out the bird and get it out of the roasting pan and onto a tray to rest with foil over it. I put the fat and juices from the roasting pan into a measuring cup to settle, and get the fat spooned over the potatoes and in they go. Get the stuffing out of the bird, squash (cut in 8ths or 16ths and buttered) into the oven and the cranberry sauce on the stove, that typically takes 15 minutes, so it's time for parsnips and onions to go into the oven again with some of the turkey fat. Then make gravy in the roasting pan using the not-the-fat part of the settled juices and cook the Brussels sprouts on the stovetop. More room, less panicking, and as long as you understand you will not have a single pause during the final hour, much easier than it used to be.
We have had no consequences of resting it for up to an hour, and I don't see any purpose in resting it longer.
I've been letting my turkey rest for over 2-3 hours for a couple years now because of this advice from Gordon. It's amazing! I cover with tin foil and then a couple of towels to rest and the bird is still PIPING hot hours later. I'm usually cooking a 25 pounder. The internal temperature actually first goes UP to 180 then settles back to 150 by serving time. There's no safety risk here. You can then have everything done, pots and pans washed and enjoy a beautiful dinner
I have carved within 20 minutes and within 3 hours. I strongly believe that the longer standing time has created the most outstanding and moist, delicious turkey ever.
I have cooked 20-25 lb Turkey's stuffed and unstuffed every Xmas and thanksgiving and have never had a negative result from resting either way. Don't be afraid to try something new. Make sure your turkey is always properly covered with foil when resting and more importantly clean as you go and make sure the raw handling is properly followed by a thorough cleaning with disinfectant wipes or hot soapy wipe ups.
Some folks like well done meats and some like moist juicy meats at the optimum temperature.
Either way, enjoy your turkey and company and make the day fun and not a chore:)
A 20-25 pound turkey having roasted for hours will continue to have rising internal temperatures, and will be too hot to safely handle and carve immediately. While waiting three hours to commence carving is more patience than I can muster, I try to let it rest at least one hour after pulling from the oven, and have outstanding results.
My family has not eaten dried out turkey in many, many years.
I have been cooking my entire life and owned restaurants in the past, and I have never let a turkey rest over one hour.
We went to a cooking school last night, and both chefs recommended letting the turkey rest for 3 hours.
It all depends on how you wrap it for resting. I did exactly what GR suggested. I smoked it for 3.5 hours and got the internal temp to 165. Pulled and placed in an aluminum pan, covered with aluminum foil, wrapped all of that in towels and placed all of that in an ice chest. 3.5 hours later I had the best turkey I have ever eaten and it was still steamy hot. It was even better than fried turkey.
I only researched this to verify that it was ok to leave my sixteen lb bird out for three hrs after cooking for three hrs. I was very paranoid that someone would get sick. Apparently it is ok. I was so concerned that I don't even care about juiciness, flavor or any other etc. I cook two birds and with everything else going on I just had no time to deal with the first bird after it was done. Today almost feel like I dodged a disaster.
I cooked one FRESH turkey at 17 min a lb for 4.5 hours. Took it out and tented it. It rested for 4 hours like Gordon said and it was still way above danger zone temp. It takes a long time for those things to cool down man. BTW Best turkey I ever had. Remember to pull the stuffing out first.
It's to let the juices get absorbed into the meat. The meat doesn't have to be piping hot, as the gravy will be.
It's common knowledge to let the turkey rest for around at least 2 hours. It will completely enhance the taste.
Yes, good answer +1 for this. I'll add a separate answer on why we rest meat.
Resting two hours is NOT common knowledge--I have never heard this.
Also, resting does not allow the juices be 'absorbed by the meat', in the Modernist Cuisine labs they discovered that it allows proteins that have dissolved during cooking to thicken the natural juices as they cool, so liquid escapes more slowly when the meat is sliced. Source: http://www.fauxvictorianrag.com/2011/05/modernist-cuisine.html
Turkey is actually unsafe to eat once left out for at least 2 hours. Once this time has passed, any leftovers should be refrigerated. God knows what the chef is talking about 3 hours for. 30 minutes to an hour will do it.
When it is recommended to let it 'sit', they are not saying to just sit out on the counter. Wrap it heavily in tin foil, then wrap in towels, then put it in a cooler. It'll stay hot for hours. This is a fairly typical approach found in cooking and bbq competitions.
Presumably the person asking the question understands to cover the turkey. In any case, the question is not how to rest it but how long is actually beneficial. Most cooks agree that it's useful to rest for a while before eating to let the temperature stabilize, let juices redistribute, etc. If you have thoughts on how long to do that, you should add them to your answer.
I followed Gordon Ramsay's recipe and let the turkey sit for 3hrs numerous times and I've never been sick. He went to culinary school, I'm positive he knows better than us home cooks.
Just because the dog hasn't bitten you yet doesn't mean it won't, and going to culinary school does not prevent someone from giving bad advice from time to time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.877338
| 2011-11-18T21:57:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19012",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"BeB00",
"Brit",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Finley",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Delores",
"Denver Dang",
"Healthadmin solutions",
"Jean-Paul",
"Jeorje",
"Judy Severtson",
"MAY ARBOIZ",
"Megan Walker",
"Nancy Kalb",
"Paul Sinclair",
"Pointy",
"Ryan ",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Saranya",
"Scot Parker",
"Sean Hart",
"Shawn Steward",
"SomethingSImple",
"Stefano",
"Terry Donovan",
"Tom Heitman",
"arvidj",
"blackbird",
"brett Doering",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95381",
"kuhl",
"plskillme",
"rguenther",
"spiceyokooko",
"thesquaregroot",
"thursdaysgeek"
],
"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
}
|
50074
|
Why put Sprite in a baking recipe?
My Apple Dumpling Recipe calls for Sprite or Ginger Ale to be added around dumplings before baking. What is the effect of the Sprite?
Can you explain what you mean by "added around dumplings"?
Indeed, I only connect "dumpling" with boiling, or sometimes steaming, never baking. Are you supposed to put the prepared dumplings in a pan and bake them in the oven? Before or after you boil them? Are you adding the sprite as the baking liquid in the pan when you bake?
It boils down and makes a syrup, while sort of steaming the dumping, if it's like other recipes I've seen : http://www.macspride.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/2004_WinnerPeach1_Peach_Enchiladas.pdf (make fun of the name or the ingredients if you must, but these are really good)
@Joe Sounds like an answer! (Especially if you mention whether you can substitute sugar water or something; seems like maybe the carbonation isn't important.)
@rumtscho Apple dumplings are a baked dessert; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_dumpling
@coneslayer interesting. I have had similar food, but never heard of it being called a "dumpling".
@rumtscho Sounds like you're talking about Asian dumplings whereas the OP is talking about suet-type dumplings?
The soda does a few things:
adds moisture to steam the dumplings.
cooks down into a syrup to make a sauce.
You can typically change out the soda, but you don't want to use a diet soda, as it won't thicken the same and some artificial sweeteners will break down when heated. You don't just want to replace it with sugar water, as the acid in the soda will help to keep it from seeming overly sweet.
And this is different than the soda used in a coca-cola or 7-up cake.
Hm, do you think sugar+water+lemon (lemonade, I guess) would do? I'm not sure if the OP is just curious or trying to avoid buying soda, but there are definitely a lot of us who don't often have soda around.
@Jefromi : it might work, but I've never tried it. I'd be inclined to make a syrup rather than just try to mix the sugar into the water ... maybe add some strips of citrus zest while cooking it down, then remove it. Sprite has 38g of sugar in a 12oz can, and a pH of ~3.5 (averaging from multiple websites).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.878202
| 2014-11-25T20:30:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50074",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Gregg",
"Helena Addie",
"Jerry",
"Joe",
"Pam Bailey",
"Reynold Bhengu",
"SourDoh",
"coneslayer",
"effie delis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho",
"starsplusplus"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36284
|
Preservative for pickles
What preservative should be used for pickling vegetables like carrot, cauliflower and green chillies which are parboiled and could be used without refrigeration?
Are you asking for ingredients to use in your pickles, or a pickling method that does not require the final product to be refrigerated, or both? I'm not clear exactly what you're asking here.
Salt and perhaps vinegar? Some cherry leaves for crispness?
Pickling is in itself a preservation method, based on the acidity of the pickle.
There are two ways to achieve this:
Packing the vegetables with acid, such as vinegar
Fermenting the vegetables such that the culture produces acid
If you want to keep pickled vegetables without refrigeration, you should use only trusted recipes and methods which are from highly respectable sources, as improperly pickled and preserved foods can be dangerous.
Note that there are many recipes for "refrigerator pickles" which have a shelf life of several weeks, but are not intended for long term preservation. Make sure that the recipe you choose is intended for long term storage. These almost always involve either true fermentation, or boiling water or pressure canning.
See also: Pickling page from National Center for Home Food Preservation
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.878435
| 2013-08-25T04:09:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36284",
"authors": [
"Laura",
"Leponzo",
"Michael Ruth",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"boop",
"feedingthehungry",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85229",
"tizzieme",
"vijrox"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107298
|
Do milk and butter not work in place of cream for whipping, and why?
I’ve seen claims that, while you can replace heavy cream with the proper proportions of milk and butter in recipes that don’t require whipping, the mixture will not form stiff peaks when whipped, even if it contains the same milkfat percentage as heavy whipping cream (>35%). However, offhand I don’t know why this would be so, and I can’t find an explanation of the claim.
I’ve used milk and butter to stand in perfectly well for cream in things like sauces or drinks, but I’ve never tried whipping it. If it’s not possible, why? Does it have something to do with the proportion of protein, fat, and water? Does the process of churning butter break down protein/fat structures that are required for holding peaks? Or is it not impossible, but simply difficult or time-consuming to get the butter to emulsify properly back into the milk and cool to the point that it can hold aeration?
Heavy whipping cream is homogenized as @myklbykl mentions. That means the fat molecules are pretty evenly dispersed throughout the liquid parts, giving you a smooth mixture instead of one that separates.
When you whip cream, you don't just incorporate air. You also agitate those fat molecules and they start sticking together. As long as you keep whipping vigorously, the fat molecules Wil Form a matrix within which the tiny bubbles of air and liquid get trapped, making a foam. If you keep beating, all the fat globs together, and that's where you get butter and traditionally buttermilk.
So if you add butter to the milk, even if you melt it- it's already done. The fat was already beaten and globbed together completely. You won't be able to get that matrix to form again since it's already been completely whipped.
And unfortunately you can't homogenize the fat and liquid back together. It requires special machinery. I actually tried once because I was young and the internet lied to me. End result was me crying over a big bowl of milk with lots of tiny butter chunks in it.
It's not so much molecules as fat globules that get broken apart to form a structure similar to a cell membrane around the air bubbles - these then join together and stay stuck forming the "whipped cream" texture. A smaller scale of what happens when you fill a sink with water and dish-washing detergent. It also needs to be cold enough that these thin fat layers set/crystallize creating the stable structure - hence you can't whip warm cream. Butter has lost the liposphere stage already and these are very hard to form mechanically without specialized equipment.
No. You'd have to be able to fully homogenize the butter and milk back together first, which you're not going to be able to do. You can melt butter and add it to milk to make heavy cream for some cooking needs, but it won't whip. Half and half will whip if you get it cold enough, but it's not going to be nearly as stable as whipping cream.
This still doesn’t explain or source why…are you saying it’s just the fat globule size that’s the issue? If that’s the case, then it certainly makes sense that I wouldn’t be able to do it at home (haven’t got an industrial homogeniser handy!)
You can see this video: https://youtu.be/aVQJYCs3Elc
I experienced it myself. Yes, we can reconstitute cream from milk and butter and it can be whipped to soft peak. Unfortunately, we can't whip it to stiff peak for frosting but I still could use it for topping and making mousse or no bake cheesecake... that's very nice!
I'm paranoid after the internet lied to me as a child, but this seems real? I did not use a blender back then. Since you tried it yourself, did you try to get it to stiff peak? And if so what happened? Also, this would be a stronger answer if you described the procedure from the video in case the link dies. I couldn't upvote at first because I didn't have time to sit through the video.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.878586
| 2020-04-05T02:58:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107298",
"authors": [
"Jon Purdy",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"kitukwfyer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23199
|
leaving oil on a frying pan for use later
I live alone, so I cook for myself. And often times I cook steaks/burgers on a pan, and later in the same day would return to use the same pan/oil without washing/using new oil.
Is this safe, or should one wash and use a new pan before cooking every steak/burger patties? I've actually done this for more than a day once (cooked burgers in the morning, steaks later that afternoon, and then burgers for the next morning).
If you preheat the pan then you should be perfectly safe as the high heat should kill anything 'dangerous' before you add your meat for the second meal.
That said, I would point out that those oils left out are likely to begin to degrade immediately, causing your steak to take on some potentially undesirable FLAVORS.
Also importantly, there won't be any water in the pan, so basically nothing will grow. I'd suggest if you are going to do this, at least wipe the pan out with a paper towel shortly after use—both to eliminate any meat bits which may contain water, and to help with off flavors.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.878916
| 2012-04-19T09:10:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23199",
"authors": [
"5260452",
"Clay Buntline",
"Jessy",
"PizzaLove",
"Tami",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52494"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10460
|
What causes sticking and what can I do to reduce food sticking to my cast-iron skillet?
I enjoy using my cast-iron skillet, but how can I minimize the amount of food that sticks to it while cooking? I apply oil after cleaning, and for the most part, I only clean it with hot water and a rag.
For the most part, breads (pancakes, sandwiches) and meats do fine, but I have particular trouble with potatoes and fried eggs.
What causes sticking and what can I do to minimize the it?
The first rule to keeping food from sticking to cast-iron is to keep it well primed - it sounds like you're doing that already. Beyond that, read these tips for cooking with stainless steel - they'll also apply to cast iron.
To summarize:
Food sticks when chemical bonds form between the food molecules and the metal.
Very hot oil helps to reduce sticking by instantly and continuously heating the food until it's surrounded by a layer of steam from its natural moisture content boiling. Let the oil get nice and hot before adding food.
Very hot oil also binds with the pan, so food can't. This is the principle behind priming the pan in the first place.
I have some theories regarding particular problem foods:
Most of the molecular bonding occurs from proteins. Egg whites are mostly protein.
Frying potatoes creates surfactants in the oil, which cause oil and water to mix. This reduces the effect of the protective layer of steam. (Some people save and re-use cooking oil -- though it can impart a delicious flavor to later meals, it will also build up surfactants if the same oil is used too many times.)
Also, keep in mind that acidic foods like tomatoes will break down the protective patina and may make foods stick more readily.
thanks for this info - making sure that the heat was high enough helped wonders.
The patina is ultimately graphite. I don't think organic acids, which are weak, can attack it.
Placing the pan in a hot oven until the carbon starts to burn up is a good start. In professional kitchens chefs never let the pan touch soap and do not wash it in water. They will pure a few cups of coarse kosher salt in the pan, heat it on a hot stove for several minutes until it starts to smoke and then use a towel to move the salt around the pan to scrub the pan as the salt is very abrasive. After the salt is emptied a small amount of oil is spread around the pan evenly. The pan is then put on the burner until the oil burns off. When this happens the pan is usually very non-stick. Some chefs will go through the oiling of pan a couple times to build layers of the oil.
Soap is the worst since it will leave a residue that negatively flavors the food.
Soap will also take off layers of the carbon that is your season. Only ever wash your cast iron with soap if your intention is to reseason it.
Seasonning the pan properly helps a lot.
Thin coat of oil.
Bake at 550 for 20 minutes.
Cool down.
Repeat 3 to 5 times.
Then when using it, make sure you give it plenty of pre-heat time before putting the ingredients in it.
This answer seems to be the only one that mentions preheating there pan. Putting food into a hot pan dramatically reduces sticking
I also have problems with eggs especially sticking to my cast iron. I have found that making sure there is enough hot oil in the pan before putting the eggs in helps, as does cooking the eggs at a lower heat.
I have had this issue to going to recondition as it never did this before. The best method I find it to oil it warm it let it cool completely then turn it back on and cook the eggs. I just cant stand this method as it takes a lot longer to get breakfast on the table.
Avoid cooking oil spray… the propellant leaves behind a residue. It’s what makes non-stick cookware black.
The propellant in cooking spray is a gas - generally nitrous oxide or propane - and does not really contact the pan, let alone leave a residue. Cooking spray also contains lecithin, which might form a residue but would burn off at normal seasoning temperature. None of those have anything to do with nonstick cookware coatings.
What you might be thinking of is that if one uses cooking spray on a nonstick pan, which is not meant to be heated to very high temperatures - the lecithin could form a sticky residue. That doesn’t apply to cast iron or carbon steel, which you heat much hotter in order to season them (or just to cook stuff).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.879060
| 2010-12-23T20:02:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10460",
"authors": [
"Abe",
"Bryson",
"Curtis",
"Emily Brown",
"Joe",
"Neil G",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"ianbarker",
"user21361"
],
"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
}
|
10636
|
Any time / temperature recommendation for a short braise of a tender piece of meat?
I have a recipe for braised lamb shanks that I'd like to convert to use lamb loin chops instead. The original recipe calls for the shanks to be browned and then braised in a 350° oven for 2 - 2½ hours. Since the loin chops are a lot more tender than the shanks, I'd rather not cook them to death.
So, leaving aside the question of how to get good flavor development and consistency in the braising liquid (which I think I can work around), is there a good braising method for tender cuts of meat? In particular, should I still use the oven or stick to the stove top? And what temperature and duration should I be shooting for? Thanks!
Generically speaking meat that is appropriate for a braise is tougher and has connective tissue that can be turned to gelatin by the long slow cooking process. As you've noted, meat that is tender can be "cooked to death" using that same method, so I would, generally, recommend against using a braise.
However, a stove top braise can go quickly without ruining the meat, if you keep it short and treat the braising liquid as more of a sauce than anything else. I would suggest that you brown each side of your lamb chops, then add all your other ingredients. Depending on the amount of liquid your original recipe calls for, you might want to cut back. I wouldn't want more than 1/2 cup or so of liquid. "Braise" covered on the top of the stove for 1/2 hour, never going past a simmer. Pull out the chops and cover, while you reduce the braising liquid to make it more sauce-like, then spoon onto the chops.
Note that you won't have the long time to meld flavors, and if there are big chunks of garlic or onions, they won't be a sweet as in the longer braise. But you should get a serviceable dish.
Thanks for the advice, that worked very well. I did also sweat the aromatics for about 20 minutes to make up for the shortened braising time and used about half the called for liquid, reducing at the end per your instructions. The chops stayed moist and tender. Thanks again!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.879621
| 2010-12-31T18:41:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10636",
"authors": [
"Ben S",
"Christy",
"Cold Oatmeal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4047",
"rick",
"user21804"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16800
|
Can you make orange juice with a blender?
I have a box full of clementines. Can I make orange juice in a blender?
Of course making orange juice with mandarines is technically impossible...
As says here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpEMLYvG2is, it's probably better to blend them than to use a juicer. Try and see what's better!
Sure, you can juice with a blender, as long as (a) the blender is of reasonably good quality and (b) you're not expecting the same kind of yield or quality you'd get with a juicer (electric or manual). You'll also need a very fine strainer, or cheesecloth if you're like me and hate any amount of pulp.
You'll have to peel them first, and try to remove the pips as well (clementines shouldn't have very many, and might even be totally seedless). The pith is less of an issue - some people remove it, some people don't, it's a matter of personal preference. Once the oranges have been "cleaned", start blending them on the lowest speed and gradually bring it up to high. Oranges should have enough juice to blend on their own, but regardless of what fruit you use, be prepared to add water if the blender doesn't seem to be doing much.
Once you've got a fairly consistent purée, pass it through the strainer and mash the pulp against it with the back of a spoon or the bottom of a glass jar. There's your juice. You can throw some pulp (purée) back in if you like that texture.
Fruit purée from a blender doesn't really have the best flavour - it tends to turn out somewhat bitter - so you'll probably want to add a small amount of sugar and/or citric acid to compensate.
I would avoid that. Orange juice is normally simply squeezed. I would simply halve them and squeeze them. If you were to blend it and if you happened to get seeds in there then when you turn on the blender it will puree it which would add a funny taste to the juice.
Was your intent to get extra pulp or to just speed up the process?
I just made orange juice with a blender.
Remove the orange peel and separate the pieces, patiently remove the pips.
Blend lightly for about 30-45 seconds.
Put sugar and black salt, a hint of lemon.
No need to remove the pulp, it was very good.
I used the Indian Nagpur variety not tangerines.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.879860
| 2011-08-11T02:50:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16800",
"authors": [
"Alexandre C.",
"Douglas Kemp",
"Just a Curious Whimsy",
"Kim Stolarski",
"Meetai.com",
"Richard Trevallee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"nico",
"nikki"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10838
|
How do I infuse fruit flavor in ganache?
I know to infuse the flavor of citrus fruits in ganache, I can simple boil the cream with the zest and strain it out. What about fruits that have juice but don't have zest or aren't commonly powdered, like starfruit, apples, etc?
Thanks!
There are four common ways to make fruit-flavored ganaches:
Use the zest of the fruit
Zest the fruit (works best for cirtus) and place the zest in the cream as it is brought to a simmer. Strain out the zest and use the cream.
Use reduced juice
Fruit juice from almost any fruit may be used as a liquid flavoring in ganache. The fruit juice should be heated until it is about half of its original weight. The reduced fruit juice can often be used as a 1:1 (depending on the type of juice you might want to increase the juice slightly) substitute in recipes that call for a liqueur. Like a liqueur, it is stirred in slowly (a little bit at a time) after the ganache has been mixed together.
Use a fruit-flavored liqueur
A third option is to find a liqueur with the correct flavor. It should be added slowly after the chocolate and cream have combined and formed a smooth ganache, but before the ganache has cooled.
Use an extract or flavoring oil
You can also use an extract or flavoring oil. Extracts should be treated like liqueurs. Flavoring oils (such as these) should be added in VERY small quantities after the ganache has become smooth.
The first option may be combined with the 2nd or 3rd. If you choose to combine the 2nd and 3rd options you would have to use half of each, because doubling the liquid in a ganache will either change the consistency or cause it to break.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.880394
| 2011-01-07T22:29:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10838",
"authors": [
"Allison",
"anon",
"craw",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22227"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17152
|
Why do some mangoes ripen without changing flesh color?
I frequently buy batches of mangoes to sun-ripen. 5% of these mangoes retain yellow flesh (and do not darken to orange) even as the fruit ripens (and becomes tasty). Why does this happen?
Is this simply due to genetic variability in mango offspring?
It depends on the cultivar (genetic traits) and on the amount of exposure to light. You can't reliably judge a mango's ripeness by color.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.880559
| 2011-08-26T08:06:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17152",
"authors": [
"Chef Lefty",
"CodeMoose",
"Ruby",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36950"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23552
|
cooking time for chicken-pesto in the oven
I love to make chicken stuffed with pesto. I cut the chicken breast in half, and then fill them with pesto and make a roll of it.
I first bake the chicken in a frying pan to give them a nice color, and then put them in the oven to cook until it's done.
However here comes my problem, I want the chicken to be totally done, because I am very afraid to eat raw chicken. However, I now cook them too long to be sure it is not raw anymore. I cook them for at least 20 minutes on 175 degrees Celsius.
I was wondering, can anybody tell me how long I should cook them in the oven on which temperature to be sure it is not raw anymore, but not cook them overdone?
There is no definitive time or temperature that would 100% guarantee your chicken was done without it having a 99% chance of being over cooked and dry.
It's quite hard to use a meat thermometer with stuffed chicken breasts but if your meat/filling has got up to 74°C in the center and there is no pink in the meat you'll be fine.
What is hard about using a meat thermometer with stuffed chicken breasts? I have stuck it both in the middle (the filling) and the meat itself without problems.
I've just always worried about it not being in the thickest bit or not being in deep enough with small cuts of meat; so I'm never as confident as I would be with a joint. In an underdone chicken breast maybe the only bit not up to temp would be right in the centre and about 2mm thick the whole breast would be done other than that. I also worry I'm going to squash all my filling out if I push one side too hard... I'm a worrier!
It depends on the thickness of the cut as well. I usually go at least 20 min for white meat, a little less for dark, at 350 degrees F. Usually that is enough time to see if it is done all the way. You can also apply a little pressure on the meat and see if the juices are coming out pink. One way to cook it in the over to help with dryness is to just cover it up in the same pan you seared the chichen in and bake it, or some foil. My chicken always comes out moist that way.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.880640
| 2012-05-03T09:12:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23552",
"authors": [
"Ankita",
"Antony Malesh",
"Cosmos Gu",
"Dirk",
"Marjorie",
"Michelle",
"Valerie Devlin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53380",
"rumtscho",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63317
|
Why did my tiramisù cream become grainy?
Late Friday night, I prepared tiramisù and refrigerated it until serving it the next day, I guess about 20 hours or so later. The texture of the cream layer seemed fine when I prepared it, but when I served it, it was grainy. It still tasted normal The graininess really is quite uniformly distributed and dissolves on the tongue. It's not an overcooked-custard kind of grainy, and the grainy bits seemed like fat, not sugar or ice. The uniformity makes me feel like it is something that precipitated out of the mixture while it was chilling.
Here's a picture, you can see the texture of the cream (although I guess it turned out a bit blurry).
I've made tiramisù successfully quite a few times in the past; this is the first time I've had this happen to me. I was following the Williams-Sonoma recipe which has you make a zabaglione (essentially) with the yolks and sugar, beat the mascarpone, whip the cream, fold the mascarpone into the cream then beat the egg whites to stiff peaks and fold the cream-mascarpone mixture into the egg whites.
I think I followed everything precisely EXCEPT that I currently only have one whisk attachment for my mixer and I was tired and didn't want to thoroughly wash it in-between to be sure every speck of oil from the cream was gone, so I beat the egg whites before whipping the cream (I rinsed the whisk after doing the egg whites, but didn't wash it) so the egg whites were standing for a bit longer than they should have because they stood the whole time while I folded the mascarpone into the whipped cream, and then of course I folded them in.
I was using room-temperature store-bought mascarpone, chilled heavy whipping cream, room-temperature egg whites.
Was the texture doomed by letting the egg whites stand too long, or did I over-whip the cream? Or do I wrack my brains further to see if I did something else?
Luckily, my audience on Saturday was not the picky type and it seems that only my husband and I were bothered by it. But I'd like to avoid it in future... (I'm already planning to get some toys to help with the ordering problem next time.)
Just a thought, did you fold in the egg white thoroughly? I am wondering if while in thee fridge the egg white may have started to fall a little bit but still kept the grains of marscapone separated. Did you make your own marscapone or did you buy store bought? If store bought, maybe the marscapone was firmer than usual? I prefer to make my own marscapone if I have time, this way its as fresh as can be.
That is a possibility. I thought I folded it thoroughly, but it's possible I didn't do as well as I thought. It was purchased mascarpone and it was fairly firm, although it was at room temperature and I beat it well in the food processor before folding it into the whipped cream. I wanted to make my own mascarpone, but I didn't have time to make it the night before, and there didn't seem like there would be enough time for it to strain Friday evening, so we bought it.
I added that info to the question.
Well I always blame the store bought ingredients. It's always easier and makes your cooking skills look better when this time I did it myself :-). On a more serious note, I suspect the being tired you just simply didn't fold everything in completely and you suffered from good enough syndrome. I know you know what you are doing so I can only postulate this is what you did so it separated a little. Another thought, is your fridge colder than usual or maybe you put the tiramisu in a cold spot in the fridge?
There were two trays and the fridge was pretty full, so one got put in the bottom drawer (which is usually one of the colder parts of the fridge but above freezing) and the other got put on a shelf somewhere in the middle-back of the fridge which should have been a more "average" temperature for the fridge (probably around 35F although I will have to check). The texture was the same for both of them.
I think I am going to stick with "good enough" syndrome. Something I am guilty of as well from time to time.
slightly off topic trick: if you have the time, freeze and thaw the finished tiramisu before serving. The formation and melting of ice crystals make for a nice and uniform improved soft texture throughout the dessert, especially with the booze. Mmmm. Tiramisu.
Did you notice if the cream was grainy before folding? It has happened to me to overwhip cream in the past. It basically separates the buttermilk from the fat, leading to a grainy mix with water on the bottom. Apart from separation of phases, another reason for cream to become grainy is coagulation. It happens in the presence of heat (which I think it was not the case here) or acidity.
What is the "honey" thing in the middle of the tiramisu ?
It's funny google directed me to an unanswered question when I went looking for ways to keep my mascarpone from curdling.
That's what I think happened to you by the way. The same thing happened to my tiramisu cream last week. I probably shouldn't jump to conclusions since it was a different recipe, but I noticed when I was beating my mascarpone into my zabarengue (to use Chef John's parlance) it took on a somewhat broken appearance. It happened once before in a different dessert when I got impatient and decided I could fold my mascarpone into my barely warm berry syrup.
After much panicked googling, I discovered that mascarpone can actually be quite temperamental when combining it with ingredients that are different temperatures, but I also think the moisture content can encourage separation and curdling.
The tiramisu recipe I recently tried called for the yolks and whites to be beaten together with the sugar over a double-boiler for several minutes, allowed to cool, and then the mascarpone beaten into it. Either I didn't let my egg mixture cool completely (my guess), or the different fat content of the zabarengue disagreed with the mascarpone. It split at that stage, and after refrigerating, it had the exact same grainy texture you described.
EDIT:
After further googling, it seems like contrary to common law, it's better to use mascarpone cold. It's so high in butterfat, that it's very easy to overmix and essentially churn it. I recently made a bananamisu (tiramisu with bananas) and used the same previously curdled recipe, and by beating the cold tiramisu a little to soften it and then beating the zabarengue into the mascarpone a bit at a time, and folding the whipped cream in by hand, I can happily report no separation issues.
sorry for being a little late. The answer is that much like over-whipped cream, your mascarpone might has seperated. Mascarpone is made mostly out of cream, and even with more fat, so it can easily seperated, easier than cream even. To avoid this, next time just beat your mascarpone at really low speed or gently by hand, and fold it into other ingredient using a spoon or spatula.
Hope this helps!
The same thing happened to me. I think in my case the coffee I used to dip the ladyfingers in was too hot - it should be room temperature or cold. If it's too hot, it can mess with the eggs and mascarpone.
What Brand of Mascarpone did you use? This happened to me 3 times. The first time I used a recipe that I acquired from a cooking class in Chianti Italy. It came out grainy. I then tried it again with a different recipe and I had to throw out 2 batches because of the graininess again. Someone on a thread mentioned the Brand Bel Gioioso can cause this. This is the brand I was using both times. I went to an Italian deli and bought a brand imported from Italy and Presto! It was as smooth as can be when I incorporated it into the yolk mixture. So for me, it was the brand of Mascarpone that I was using. Hope that helps!!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.880887
| 2015-11-09T18:38:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63317",
"authors": [
"Escoce",
"Leonard Odendaal",
"Lisa Marie Fernandez",
"Mike Walker",
"N F Nat",
"NadjaCS",
"Priscila Spell",
"Sheila Hagemann",
"StevenXavier",
"chicken burger",
"greedyscholars",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62537"
],
"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
}
|
73810
|
How much meat is in one wild coconut?
I'm asking in reference to this answer which I’m workin on in Worldbuilding.
I can look up the nutritional information on coconut and that gives vales for 100 gram portions. But how many grams of that stuff is in one (wild!) coconut, on average?
Suppose you needed 1000 g of fresh shreaded coconut for a recipe. How many drupes would you buy?
I don't know how big wild coconuts typically are, but the USDA says that one medium coconut has 397 grams of meat. Good enough for back-of-the-envelope calculations, perhaps?
The wild form of the coconut has a smaller, more elongated seed with less flesh and a larger air cavity than the modern varieties - these adaptations make them more buoyant, while modern coconuts were bred for larger, more spherical seeds with more flesh and water, as we saw these as desirable traits.
Thanks for your input. Can you please answer the question, which is about the yield and not any other aspect, as interesting as they may be. The [tour] and the [help], especially [answer] should be helpful.
It at least suggests that the answer is very likely less than the other answer… how much less may be a function of the species or what region the coconut is coming from
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.881514
| 2016-09-08T14:15:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73810",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22260
|
How does the baking time change if I scale up a cake recipe?
I have recipes for chocolate cake, Maderia cake, lemon drizzle and champagne cake.
I want to increase the ingredients to make a bigger cake. Do I still use the same baking time and temperature?
You want to double it? Or how much bigger do you want it?
I will use the occasion to remind everybody that we have a contest running about pies, cakes and cookies, ending on 3. April 2012. If you have a question about one of these topics, don't forget to include the tag, which makes you eligible for the prize (a cookbook up to $50).
Are you planning on making these cakes twice as tall? With layers? Or twice the area?
See also cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13909/tripling-a-baking-recipe/13911#13911
When baking, try to keep the proportions of the cake's height, width and depth the same with the big cake as with the original recipe. I would start by increasing the oven temp just 25 ° F, and start checking for done-ness at the normal time, knowing that you'll probably need to go longer.
However, if you want a 2x sized cake, I recommend just making two layers of the cake, and sticking them together with whatever frosting or icing you'll use on the outside of the cake. You can remove a lot of the complexity by just baking two "normal" sized cakes.
You actually want to bake larger cakes in a cooler oven -- otherwise, the outside browns too much before the middle has set. You'll also get increased doming. And doubling all dimensions is bad overall ... try to hold the depth constant if you can (although I bake in 3" high cake pans to start with, and split them)
@Joe - you should turn this comment into an answer, which would deserve an upvote.
I think you should use the same temperature.
Use the same baking time, but remember to check it with a skewer if it comes out with mixture on it then put it back in checking it maybe every 5 - 10 minutes until its done.
For baking the temperature always remains the same, while regarding the time, we always have this grand tip: Set the temperature and toothpick check every 5-10 minutes... You will be ready
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.881664
| 2012-03-14T16:03:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22260",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Graffagnino",
"Christopher Harrison",
"D. Smith",
"J.Todd",
"Jessica Kraml",
"Joe",
"Liz Mcnay",
"Mien",
"Shobby",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jiggunjer",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24426
|
Shaken, not stirred...but why?
Most people are probably familiar with the line from James Bond, "Vodka Martini, shaken not stirred." What I have never figured out is "why would it make a difference?"
I have tried making martinis both ways and perhaps I don't appreciate the subtleties of a fine martini to notice the difference, but I don't.
What difference does it make between shaking and stirring a martini and how is that difference (if any) created?
Wikipedia has a whole article dedicated to this question! Various possible reasons for Bond's preference are given; the last paragraph in this quote seems like the most solid explanation:
"Shaken, not stirred" is a catchphrase of Ian Fleming's fictional British Secret Service agent James Bond, and his preference for how he wished his martini prepared.
[...]
Scientists, specifically biochemists, and martini connoisseurs have investigated the difference between a martini shaken and a martini stirred. The Department of Biochemistry at the University of Western Ontario in Canada conducted a study to determine if the preparation of a martini has an influence on their antioxidant capacity; the study found that the shaken gin martinis were able to break down hydrogen peroxide and leave only 0.072% of the peroxide behind, versus the stirred gin martini, which left behind 0.157% of the peroxide. Thus a shaken martini has more antioxidants than a stirred one. The study was done at the time because moderate consumption of alcohol appears to reduce the risk of cataracts, cardiovascular disease, and stroke, none of which afflict Bond.
Andrew Lycett, an Ian Fleming biographer, believed that Fleming liked his martinis shaken, not stirred because Fleming thought that stirring a drink diminished its flavour. Lycett also noted that Fleming preferred gin and vermouth for his martini. It has also been said that Fleming was a fan of martinis shaken by Hans Schröder, a German bartender.
A part of Ian Fleming's James Bond character was based on people in his surroundings. One such influence was his friend Bernhard von Lippe-Biesterfeld, who drank his vodka martini as Bond did, always shaken, not stirred.
Some connoisseurs believe that shaking gin is a faux pas, supposedly because the shaking "bruises" the gin (a term referring to a slight bitter taste that can allegedly occur when gin is shaken). In Fleming's novel Casino Royale, it is stated that Bond "watched as the deep glass became frosted with the pale golden drink, slightly aerated by the bruising of the shaker," suggesting that Bond was requesting it shaken because of the vodka it contained. Prior to the 1960s, vodka was, for the most part, refined from potatoes (usually cheaper brands). This element made the vodka oily. To disperse the oil, Bond ordered his martinis shaken; thus, in the same scene where he orders the martini, he tells the barman about how vodka made from grain rather than potatoes makes his drink even better.
Other reasons for shaking tend to include making the drink colder or as Bond called it, ice-cold. Shaking increases convection thus making the drink far colder than if it were to be stirred. Shaking is also said to dissolve the vermouth better making it less oily tasting.
While properly called a Bradford, shaken martinis also appear cloudier than when stirred. This is caused by the small fragments of ice present in a shaken martini. This also brings into question the movie versions which are never cloudy.
[...]
Through multiple letters in New Scientist's Last Word section (June 5–11, 2010), the mystery has been solved. When Ian Fleming was writing, most vodka was produced from potatoes and potato vodka has an oily aftertaste. Today's grain vodka has no oily aftertaste. Experimenters found that potato vodka shaken with ice tasted less oily than did potato vodka stirred with ice.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaken,_not_stirred#Purpose_of_shaking
On a side note, that Wikipedia carries weighty articles like this should be reason enough to give in to their yearly pleas for a donation. ;)
Great answer, thank you. I was very interested to see that there is a good reason why my experiment (using grain vodka) yielded no noticeable differences.
I think an important addition to this, is that the vodka from the time of Fleming was 50% (100 proof), compared to today's 40% standard (80 proof). More dilution would make it easier to drink.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.881881
| 2012-06-13T21:33:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24426",
"authors": [
"Arlene Wang",
"Claus Jørgensen",
"Cos Callis",
"Douae Ahmadoun",
"Patsy Miller",
"Sheree",
"Stephanie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"n3rdATw0rk",
"user55616"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11170
|
Tips on tossing a frying pan
I see it done by TV chefs, or just people who are more experienced at me with cooking; as they're cooking they rarely use a spatula to turn or mix the contents of their frying pan, but rather toss the contents of the pan instead.
Are there any techniques to tossing food in a frying pan well? I'm talking about food in general – be that vegetables, bits of meat, rice (not necessarily something obvious like pancakes).
I guess the main outcomes you want from tossing a frying pan include:
Turning the food and doing so that it is cooked on both sides.
If there is a lot of contents in the pan, moving it about so different parts of it are in contact with the surface of the pan.
Moving different parts of the food from hotter bits to cooler bits within the pan so they are all fairly evenly cooked.
Is there a technique to it, or am I over-analysing the process?
I don't know how to explain this well in words, but there's at least two different methods for flipping stuff in a pan, because you have either curved or straight sides on the pan. I personally find it easier to do in a curved sided pan:
I extend my arm forward, then quickly flip the back of the pan up while pulling back at the same time. The curved side basically acts as a ramp to propel the food up and over.
For a saute pan (straight sides), follow the technique that ElendilTheTall explained, where you tip it first.
A few things to remember when trying to flip your food : if the food's stuck to the bottom, it's not going to flip. Give the pan a quick shake first, to see if you need to stir to loosen any stuck bits.
And for the practicing -- besides just practicing with dry things first ... I'd suggest you start with just a little bit, get used to it, then add more ... and add more of something else, as with more than one color in the pan, you can see how well you're distributing things when you flip. (eg, lentils, other beans, rice, dry pasta, etc.)
Start with a mid-sized pan, as larger pans are actually more forgiving when catching, but too large makes it heavy and difficult to get a good flip. (ie, don't start with your cast iron).
If you have a grill, or a table outside to practice on, the cleanup's even easier. (although, use a cold grill, just for practice). You can also practice with just water, if you're outside, without as much worry.
As for when to do it -- lots of small things; stirring risks keeping the bottom bits on the bottom, and the top things up top, so things cook unevenly. Even if you use a spatula to flip, like you might for a larger item, the middle stuff stays in the middle.
The other advantage is that it only takes one hand -- I generally keep my right hand clean when cooking, and stirring sometimes takes two hands -- one to keep the pan still, while the other one stirs. It's also quicker to get a more thorough mix than stirring.
As for practicing: I've used dried legumes before and they're great. To get a nice visualization of how well it mixes, add some raw rice to it and toss it a few times.
Perhaps a bit of over-analysis going on yes. Generally I'd toss the pan if I was frying a lot of small items such as croutons, or toasting nuts, in order to turn a lot of them over at once.
To toss the pan, first tilt it up so that some of the contents slide to the opposite end and rest against the lip of the pan. Then tilt it back level while simultaneously drawing your arm back. The food should flick up and land back in the middle of the pan (approximately). Practice with a cold pan and a couple of dry ingredients like nuts or pulses.
Bear in mind that tossing the pan generally means the pan loses heat, as you are raising it off the heat source, so if you're cooking something like steak or chicken breast that needs quick cooking, you're probably better off simply stirring it or using tongs.
I'd echo @bikeboy389's comment :) I find it's easiest to do well by essentially moving your hand, and the pan, in a C-shape when viewed from the side: move forward, flick up, move backward. One final note: be sure to spread the food out over the whole area of the pan after you're done, to make use of all of the heat and avoid "empty" spots where the fat can burn.
Ming Tsai has a great video that demostrates exactly this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noizuQwvL0M
I have found that pan size, shape, and amount of food in the pan makes a big difference in how you can toss and roll the pan.
I find myself most comfortable tossing omelette pans (I use the Calphalon line - like this one). The shape of the edge of the pan makes it very easy for me to toss anything from large to small, thick to thin.
I still find it rewarding when I can make a thin omelette, tossing it once perfectly with no help of a spatula or utensil.
Practice with a couple handfuls of dry beans or rice in a curve-sided pan. If you're going to be doing it a lot, i.e. at a job, learn to press your elbow against your side and use your body as a cushion against the back and forth jerking instead of your extended arm or you may end up with repetitive motion injuries in your shoulder/back.
Source: personal experience in food service industry
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.882406
| 2011-01-18T07:09:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11170",
"authors": [
"Erik P.",
"Israel Lopez",
"Richard",
"agentsvr",
"dmahr",
"greg-449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53927",
"src",
"talon8",
"user22910"
],
"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
}
|
11010
|
How do Thai People Make Peanut Sauce?
I'm interested in making my own Thai Peanut sauce. However, every recipe I see online says to use peanut butter. I like Thai Peanut sauce I have in restaurants, but I HATE peanut butter. So when I see a recipe that uses peanut butter (which also has tons of extra crap in it that is less than good for you), I think that the final result can't be good.
How does one make a peanut sauce without peanut butter? Grind peanuts yourself?
Yup. Grind them your self!
There's a lot of commercial peanut butter that doesn't contain "extra crap." Read the labels.
I'm sure you are right.. I just have to rationalize my liking peanut sauce b/c I have a life long mantra of how i hate peanut butter...
Most of my Thai friends consider peanut sauce a Chinese thing, so I suspect it's an "ethnically Chinese Thai" food, FWIW.
Peanut butter is just ground roasted peanuts essentially. The american style peanut butter tends to be sweetened, as well as having extra oil and salt. But they are only slight flavour/texture enhancers (not that I think sugar enhances it, UK peanut butter is unsweetened usually).
Satay sauces are essentially just peanut butter sauces, roast some peanuts, grind them, then add to some lightly fried shallots and garlic, with chilli, soy sauce, lemon juice, salt, sugar and if you want it authentic probably some nam pla (fish sauce), or blachan (shrimp paste), all of the above to taste. Thin with water and reduce to the consistency you desire.
OK, Yeah. I'm in the US and I have a deep hatred of American Peanut butter so putting it into my food just seems wrong. So I just learn how to roast nuts now.... :)
If you don't have the tools to grind your own, you can look for 'natural' peanut butter ... you might have to go and look in the 'healthy' section, or specifically go to a 'health foods' store to find it in the U.S. I can also get some at one of the candy shops near me, as they grind their own. (and cashew, almond, etc.)
Yeah, I think you must just be using the wrong peanut butter. Any good, fresh, unadulterated brand at a health food store will be essentially equivalent to what you can grind yourself and a whole lot less work. Some food co-ops even have a grinder right on site so that it is ultra-fresh.
@Scott: Definitely go have a look at your store for better peanut butter before you do anything too drastic. Many stores in my area (just plain ol' grocery stores) have a few peanuts-only peanut butters right alongside the Jiffy and whatnot.
@Scott: Assuming you wish to grind your own, you need a good food processor, or some other grinder, a blender might be alright if strong enough. You shell peanuts and remove their skins*, then bung them on a tray, one layer deep only, in an oven about 350F for around 20 minutes then take them out, let them cool (they get very hot), grind them with a little salt. [* Removing the papery skins is a pain, freeze them overnight, or blanch them for a few minutes beforehand to make it easier. I would find a health food store.]
@Scott: I can't abide peanut butter with sweet things, so a lot of American candy and desserts seem a bit mental to me, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches? Bleurgh. I grew up with peanut butter as a deeply savoury thing, I tend to have it on toasted crumpets.
Thanks everyone. I must admit that I also received a food processor for Christmas and have been looking for an excuse to grind stuff up.... So I thought the Peanut grinding might be a good use. I should probably try doing it all from scratch once and then once with some "all natural" non flavored stuff and see if I can taste a difference.
@Orbling: Hmmm.... The thought of shelling and peeling never crossed my mind! I just thought about getting unsalted peanuts from the store.... I guess I would need to make sure they were not junked up with other stuff and "pure peanuts" though.
@Scott: You can just get unsalted nuts from the store, they will be roasted already most likely.
@Orbling: Bingo. I think that's what I will do.
Peanut sauce is one of my very most favorite condiments, I practically consider it a major food group, and I moved from the US to live in another country where peanut butter is not available. Roasted & shelled peanuts are however bountiful and cheap, luckily, so I just learned to make my own peanut sauce. Here's how I make a simple and fast peanut sauce that is really tasty, perfect for satay, pouring on pasta, etc., doesn't require exotic ingredients, and you don't need a huge, expensive food processor, even a small sized one will work:
Process about 125 grams (few handfuls) of roasted/shelled peanuts in the processor until they're "dust" or as chunky as you like, remove from processor and set aside. (Order here is important, because trying to add the liquid later using a wimpy/small processor results in the ingredients never mixing well and is an exercise in frustration).
Peel a few cloves of garlic, process them until finely chopped, leave them in processor.
Add two teaspoons apple cider vinegar, two teaspoons sugar, two teaspoons soy sauce, and a few tablespoons of water. (Alter proportions to taste, I prefer a sweeter sauce).
blend
alternate adding in peanut dust and more water until all the peanuts are added and the consistency is what you like.
Pour on pasta or whatever you like and enjoy!
This answer is a bit redundant given some of the comments on the accepted answer, but still:
Get a brand of peanut butter that's just peanuts. The one I get most of the time is Adam's, but Kraft has one, I've seen Maranatha products, but didn't know they made peanut butter until now. It shouldn't be hard to find something that will work for you.
I boil my shelled peanuts with cloves of garlic and then blend them in the blender. Makes for the beginnings of a nice sauce! Then add whatever other incredients you want! Good luck!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.882912
| 2011-01-13T20:37:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11010",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Instance Hunter",
"JasonTrue",
"Joe",
"Maria",
"Michael Natkin",
"Nischay",
"Orbling",
"Rose",
"Scott",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"phdoerfler",
"scraatz",
"vorboyvo",
"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
}
|
42706
|
How to make agar less brittle
Is there anyway to make agar less brittle, I have tried using locust bean gum and this did make the agar softer, but it was still quite brittle. Is there something I can add to the agar to get it as close to the properties as normal gelatin (soft, elasticity).
Agar is supposed to give you a firm gel. If you want something softer or more elastic, why not use an additive with those properties?
I've gotten a softer agar, but I suspect it was because I did something wrong. (perhaps I didn't use enough? it was also sickeningly sweet, so it might've been the amount of sugar in it)
It doesn't seem like you can get a soft, elastic gel using agar, Modernist Cuisine lists an elastic one but classifies it as firm(4-140):
Texture Firmness Gelling Agents Scaling
----------------------------------------------------
Elastic Firm Locust Bean Gum 0.15%
Agar 0.10%
Xanthan Gum 0.20%
Although, they do have an elastic gel in the coating gels section that is classified as tender (4-151):
Texture Firmness Gelling Agents Scaling
----------------------------------------------------
Elastic Tender Sorbitol 3.00%
Agar 0.60%
Xanthan Gum 0.25%
Thanks for your all of reply's, Stefano are they recipes for making different types agar gels.
Yeah, they're parametric recipes for making different gels; I got them from my copy of Modernist Cuisine: the page numbers are in brackets.
I've tried adding gelatine, tapioca, corn starch to agar to make it less brittle. None of them work very well until they start to become the major component of the gel. Adding glycerin or sugar syrup is also fruitless.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.883431
| 2014-03-12T18:58:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42706",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Christian Long",
"James Carter",
"Joe",
"John Darlington",
"Mary Dehner ",
"Spammer",
"Stefano",
"Super nik bros spam",
"Zini",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99903",
"jimkokko5",
"spam earlier",
"spammer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11496
|
How to make sparkling powder for candy?
When I was young, someone taught me how to make this powder you find on candy. It's acidic and seems to "sparkle" in the mouth, but I don't know the name and so I can't find a recipe.
I suppose I need to use sodium bicarbonate (baking soda), but aside from that, I can't remember what's in it.
What's the name of this powder and how is it made?
I assume you mean sherbet, which is made by mixing 1 cup of powdered sugar (also called icing or confectioner's sugar) with 1 tsp of baking soda (also called bicarbonate of soda) and 1 tsp of powdered citric acid. Altering the proportion of soda (alkali) to citric acid makes it more or less fizzy.
Just to add a small note: this is the UK sense of sherbet; in the US, sherbet more commonly means a frozen dessert similar to sorbet.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.883600
| 2011-01-26T11:27:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11496",
"authors": [
"Calrion",
"De Shan Baptiste",
"PLL",
"Rita",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4257",
"lisa",
"wisew"
],
"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
}
|
66436
|
Pizza dough is too soft to stretch well
When I make Neapolitan pizza dough, the dough is so soft and supple that I can hardly work it into a round shape before it is stretched far too large and overly thin in areas.
After I mix the dough(ingredients below), I let it sit on the counter for 24 hours, then refrigerated for another 48 hours. Finally, I pull the dough out of the refrigerator and let it warm for 45 minutes on the counter before using it.
At this point, the dough is so soft I only have mere seconds to form it over my knuckles before it droops into an oblong football shape. I oftentimes only work it in my hands for 2-3 seconds than transfer it to my work surface for a bit of stretching by pinch/pull. I still am not getting a round shape because it is so soft. What can I do to make the dough more workable but still achieve Neapolitan results?
Dough Recipe:
500g Antimo Caputo 00 Flour
383g Water
16g Sea Salt
1g Active Dry Yeast
900g Total / 76.6% hydration
Curious, have you tried shaping it without letting it sit out for 45 minutes? I don't know if it would make a difference but I figured it was worth asking.
@Catija No I've always removed the dough balls to allow them to warm to 60°F-65°F. I'm following The Pizza Bible which has a commandment Thou Shalt Not Put Cold Dough In A Hot Oven.
Sure... you don't want to put it in the oven... but could you shape it and then let it warm up?
@Catija I could try that, although the instructions definitely do not suggest that method. I am also concerned about the dough sticking to the peel if it's sitting out that long formed. I typically form it, place on peel, and top within seconds to ensure it doesn't have time to stick to the peel.
It actually sounds like your dough is good, your description is just what I'd look for in a dough. It may be your technique which is the trouble. It's takes practice to hand stretch dough right, you could try using a rolling pin instead.
You should be able to stretch your dough very thin and still have it hold together. If your dough is breaking easily then you may not have enough gluten development. If you still want stiffer dough then you could go for a higher gluten content, or go for a lower hydration level, say 70%.
EDIT: One thing I've found with pizza dough is that if you try to stretch it too far too quickly it will be uneven and prone to breaking. I've found that if you stretch it part of the way then leave it a few minutes it will relax a bit and be easier to work with.
Agreed on the technique ... you don't start off by stretching the dough by pulling ... you kinda push it out into a disk first. See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEVCrqbfRJ4 ... starting at 0:54
Using a rolling pin will not be a good idea, as you will flatten the dough edge to edge...not what you want in a Neapolitan pizza. You want the edge to be thicker. Better to shape with your hands. It is a technique that takes some practice.
I absolutely agree hand shaping is the way to go, if you have the time and patience for it. If not then flattening it out with a rolling pin and then finishing by hand gets you most of the way.
76% hydration is really high. When I shoot for 70 % sometimes this happens. I drop back to 60-65% and forms easily. May simply need to knead in a lil more flower before first rest.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.883718
| 2016-02-12T03:15:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66436",
"authors": [
"Becky Mee",
"Catija",
"Deborah Reed",
"GdD",
"Jimmy Hightower",
"Joe",
"Katrina Koroluk",
"Michael Gray",
"dpollitt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7243",
"moscafj"
],
"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
}
|
103669
|
Are there advantages of soaking rice overnight as opposed to only for 30 minutes?
All these years I've just washed rice, put it into a pressure cooker (a regular pressure cooker; not a rice cooker), added the right amount of water and cooked it until the first whistle. Both for brown rice and white rice.
But when looking up this page on Basmati rice, the author does two things differently.
1. She pre-soaks the rice for 30 minutes.
2. She brings the water to a boil before adding the rice to it.
On searching for more info, this site and this site recommend soaking rice overnight! This completely perplexed me.
Assuming that I want to cook my rice with soaking, how do I choose between soaking for 30 minutes and overnight? Is soaking overnight a safety concern? Is it better to soak it overnight in the fridge? Wont an overnight soaking make it absorb a lot of water and make it less suitable for cooking in a pressure cooker?
Hi Nav, we usually ask people to split multiple questions into different posts. In your case, two of the three questions you had were duplicates of this one: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15317/, so I removed those from your post. Also, asking for "the correct procedure" doesn't make sense, there are several correct procedures, each with its variations. So I changed your title too.
Hi Nav, I'm sorry. At first I thought your source boils the water, cools it down and then uses it for rice cooking, which would indeed be an unusual thing deserving its own question. It turns out it was a language issue, and the blog you cite recommends adding the rice to boiling water - this makes your question a full duplicate, and the answers are accordingly full of random rice cooking advice. So I|m closing as a duplicate now.
Thank you rumtscho. The reason I asked the question was because I saw two websites recommending different soaking times. I hope you would agree that asking about soaking overnight vs soaking for 30 min is unique enough to not be a duplicate? I've removed the extra parts of the question that veered off the main question.
Hi Nav, thank you for editing the question! You're right, the 30 min vs. overnight soaking is not a duplicate. I pared down a bit further so people won't go into answering the parts which are already covered elsewhere, and reopened.
In my experiments with steamed rice and broken steamed rice so far, I haven't found any disadvantage to soaking rice overnight. The rice can be kept on the kitchen counter-top (no need for refrigeration). The rice absorbs a bit of water, but that didn't seem to make any difference in the cooking. It absorbed the usual amount of water (4 cups water for 1 cup rice) when cooked in a pressure cooker.
Given what Jean says about arsenic, it's probably better to soak rice overnight, especially if it is being steamed, rather than boiled.
How long to soak rice, that's a good question! The reason it is good to soak your rice overnight, is to leach the arsenic out of it. Arsenic is found in the ground water where rice is grown, naturally collected by the plant, and deposited in the grains as it matures.
I read that you can soak the rice or just cook it in 4 times as much water, or whatever your pot holds. As I understand it, the arsenic boils out, and doesn't leave residue in the food.
This is a thumb nail sketch of arsenic in rice, done from memory. If you are curious, there are many articles that explore it more fully. Ex: How To Cook Rice To Remove Arsenic
Arsenic is a metal. It's not going to "boil out". The point of long soaking to remove arsenic is that you rinse the rice after it's soaked.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.884009
| 2019-11-24T08:38:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103669",
"authors": [
"Nav",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7812",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95191
|
Is it useful to retain the myoglobin of meat which has collected as a fluid at the bottom of the container?
This is in India. I purchase fresh meat (chicken/beef) from the shop and sometimes keep it in the freezer until I'm ready to pressure-cook it on some other day.
I noticed that after thawing it in the fridge for a day, there was a red liquid that collects at the bottom of the container. I assumed the freezing process squeezes the meat and that causes the blood in it to flow out (silly me). This answer says it's myoglobin. Wikipedia says...
The released myoglobin is filtered by the kidneys but is toxic to the
renal tubular epithelium and so may cause acute kidney injury
...but I'm hoping that's myoglobin in the bloodstream, and not a part of digestion.
I searched for research papers to check for safety of consuming myoglobin, and came across this paper that says...
As internal cooking temperature increased soluble myoglobin content
decreased with a corresponding increase in percent myoglobin
denatured. Percent myoglobin denaturation values ranged from 0 (raw
chops) to 77.30% in mutton chops cooked to 79 °C internal temperature.
Couldn't find much else on the safety aspect, but since it gets denatured, I'm assuming it'd be safe.
However, all this literature appears to refer to the myoglobin within the meat that gives it a flavour and juiciness. What about the liquid at the bottom of the container that contains myoglobin? Is it useful to retain it or is it better to just drain it away since it is separated from the meat already?
The “impossible burger” adds Heme to their burgers to make them “meaty” not sure if it’s the same thing.
The quote in the Wikipedia article you link to:
The released myoglobin is filtered by the kidneys but is toxic to the
renal tubular epithelium and so may cause acute kidney injury
is myoglobin released due to Rhabdomyolysis, so your own muscles affected by this disease can cause kidney injury, not the meat (also muscle tissue) you're eating.
Having said that, I haven't found any useful purpose for the liquid that gets separated from frozen meat. I've tried:
pouring it op top of the meat when cooking
adding it to gravy
using it as stock
...
and it coagulates, doesn't give any good taste so I consider it not very useful, so nowadays, I throw it down the sink when someone gives me a piece of frozen meat to cook.
Note: Freezing changes the texture and taste of the meat, and it's easy to get fresh meat where I live
May I know why you say it is not useful?
My apologies for not being clear: answer edited. 0:-)
My experience, so just opinion, myoblobin will turn to the gelled like, gooey substance under heat. Not a pleasant texture, and not for me a pleasing flavor either. That is one its own so I tend to discard any which pools around the meat. Also, if attempting to sear meat in a pan which is not hot enough, the liquid from excess myoblobin can add to the steaming effect and lead to lower quality pale grey protein.
The other side though, small amounts I have found help in creating a more flavorful crusty sear, provided your heat is high enough. Therefor, I myself tend to not wash or pat dry, or if I do I will then salt and allow the meat to sit and dry out a little more to help with the sear.
Thanks for the answer as I don't wash the meat neither but throw the liquid itself down the sink. (My answer updated)
Continue to cook the liquid and strain the then-gray solids. Brown those solids in a pan and throw into whatever: Ramen, salads, etc. It usually has salt from the food and the Maillard-effect flavor from the browning so, once dried, it can be a terrific "secret spice." Umami, salt, iron and protein.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.884413
| 2018-12-28T11:28:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95191",
"authors": [
"Fabby",
"Nav",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7812",
"mroll"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73111
|
Trying to re-create Chinese deep-fryed brown sugar-flour flowers
My wife is making these, and they break after frying. She looked around online but nobody makes something like this using oil in the batter; only her (late) father.
Here’s what she did:
First, make syrup:
400 g dark brown sugar
200 ml water
50 g lemon juice
This was cooked for about an hour, low enough so just one little bubble came up at a time. Cool overnight to room temperature.
main dough:
1000 g all-purpose flour
400 g cooking oil. (She used common canola oil today)
Heat oil to 250°F. Combine with flour and syrup. Let rest for a few hours on the counter, so it’s room temperature. (About 78–80° in the kitchen area)
At this stage she noticed it was too flakey.
This is rolled out and folded and cut to make a flower shape of dough ribbons that I measure to be just over ¼ inch in cross section.
This flower shape is cooked in hot cooking oil (seems about 375°F, same as we used for other things).
Here’s the problem: they crack when touched while still in the oil, trying to lift out. If they survive that, they crack later or in the following steps when handled. They are too fragile.
final step
After cooling a few minutes on a paper towel, transfer to warm honey syrup (90 to 110°F) and let soak for 3 minutes. Remove to wax paper or metal mesh.
The honey syrup is
400 g Brown sugar
200 ml boiling water
50 ml lemon juice
3 TBL honey
Make syrup as above; add honey after it cools to target temperature.
question
What factors influence the dough’s final properties? How can it be not too brittle to cook and handle?
p.s.
Using a lower frying temperature seems to help. (But too low and I know it leaves a greasy unfried cookie, so that’s a work-around not the right solution.)
One possibility is that the too brittle end result might be related to the fact that the dough was too flaky when originally mixed. Making the dough bind together better seems like it would help with the problem of brittleness. I think the problem might be when you're mixing the oil - it may be that other recipes don't use oil for this very reason... which doesn't mean it isn't possible to make the recipe with oil, just that it might be trickier.
In your recipe, it looks like you're adding the sugar syrup, flour, and oil at the same time, and mixing. The oil will coat the flour, and prevent gluten from forming (giving a consistency that is tender, not chewy). Given that this seems to be working too well in your dough, you might double check your proportions - a little less oil and a little more water might fix the problem.
If you are very sure of the ratios of ingredients, perhaps you might mix the sugar syrup in first, work the dough a bit, and slowly add the oil in second. This might give your dough a chance to develop some binding, and give the dough a little binding, before the oil coats the dough and prevents more. Or, depending on how wet the dough is, mix part of the flour with the syrup, and part with the oil, then mix the two parts of the dough very well. Again, this should let some gluten form to bond your dough together, but avoid any trouble working with a dough that has only half the liquid it needs.
The only other idea I had that might help would be that your flowers are loosing a little too much moisture during frying. Frying longer at a lower temperature might work (a bit) to not evaporate quite as much out of the dough, but obviously you've hit a limit. You might instead fry at a higher temperature, but for less time (so there's less time for moisture to escape), or possibly cut your flowers a little thicker so they will not dry out too much and become brittle while frying.
She says she did in fact mix the flour and syrup fist. But it’s too dry and not suitable for more kneading before adding the oil.
@JDługosz - then, perhaps we're on the right track for how it should work. I would suggest mixing the syrup with half the flour, to make a knead-able dough, then add the second half with the oil so it isn't too dry to work with, and see if that gets the dough to a more workable consistency.
So the half that is kneeded without oil will "cover" the rest?
@JDługosz - Hopefully. The dough should have some gluten bonds from the kneading, and adding the oil and the other half of the flour should keep the gluten from overdeveloping. I suspect if you make two doughs and mix, you'll end up with something like a pie crust, some flaky layers. Although, if you were mixing seperately all along, I suppose I should mention that oil pastry dough (oil pie crust) mixes both together at once, and you might want to look at those recipes and see if their techniques are helpful.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.884724
| 2016-08-13T18:25:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73111",
"authors": [
"JDługosz",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63501
|
Ciabatta Dough Too Wet. What went wrong?
I made a ciabatta using this recipe:
500g bread flour
475g water
2 tsp. yeast
15g salt
In the end my dough was like a pancake mix the entire time until I added some more flour. I don't know where I went wrong.
I measured all of the ingredients with a scale converting my grams to ounces, because the metric unit is bugged on it.
I used a hand mixer machine to beat the dough for a staggering 45 minutes. Then I covered it and let it rest for 20 min.
The instructions said the dough will be pancake like, but will eventually set up and start climbing off the edges of the bowl, onto the hook of the machine. Mine stayed like pancake batter.
Like I said above, I added more flour to it because I was supposed to cut and shape them, but it was utterly impossible due to the dough glooping back together and sticking to my fingers and hands. It is proofing now.
I threw it in the oven anyways to see what would happen. I baked it for 30 minutes. Crumb was dense due to poor handling, but it was really surprising how nice the bread tasted.
So how do I fix this recipe? Is there some way I can handle the dough better, and actually manage to shape it without adding all that extra flour?
it is hard to know. Check your math on your grams to ounces.
95% would be to high to handle/shape.
True but I do 100% on occasions.
Could be math or type of flour (some bread flours will absorb a lot more water). Did you do the initial 10-minute rest before beating? Personally, I don't see the point in a long mix. (Wastes energy and you'll likely over-oxygenate the dough, which lessens flavor.) You'd be better off mixing it loosely, wait 15-20 minutes, mix for a couple minutes, wait 10 minutes, then mix again, repeat until structure develops. Also, you don't really "shape" ciabatta with this level of hydration: you usually dump it out on a bed of flour, throw more flour on top to handle it, and then fold it loosely.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.885088
| 2015-11-15T22:29:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63501",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Becky Buchanan",
"David Barrow",
"Gavin Hutchings",
"King-Ink",
"Optionparty",
"RJ Souchak",
"Roland Hancock",
"Susan Wittrup",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40799"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18492
|
How long can a stacked carrot cake be stored
I'm baking a cake for someone's wedding and need advice on whether a carrot cake can be stacked and how long can it be stored.
I think you can stack any kind of cake - is there something specific about carrot cake you think prevents it? And the storage time depends on the recipe, you can store a jellied cream cake for 2-3 days and a linzertorte can be stored for a month. Maybe you could update the question to include the recipe.
There are two main considerations here -- temperature, and icing.
For most stacked cakes, you typically don't want to store them in the fridge once they're iced, because the chill can cause condensation on the cake once it's removed from the fridge, which can adversely affect the job that you did icing it.
If your room temperature is relatively cool (ie, it's winter and you don't blast the heat, or it's summer and you're running the air conditioning), with most cakes, you're fine leaving them at room temperature for up to three days, with or without icing, although if without, you'll want it covered or wrapped to prevent it drying out. (personally, I always bake my cakes the day before I stack and frost them, so that they've had a chance to thoroughly cool before splitting the layers apart).
My real concern is that carrot cakes often get a cream cheese frosting, and I would want to keep that refrigerated. If you're not using cream cheese, then you likely don't have to worry, but if you are, I would bake the cake two days in advance, let it cool to room temp overnight, stack it (or at least, each tier), then put it in the fridge, and ice it the day of the event.
If that would be too tight of a time frame on the day of the event, I'd ice it a day or two before, but do whatever I could to prevent condensation. If it's the sort of icing that crusts up a little bit, you might be able to let it sit out 'til it's set up well, then wrap it in plastic wrap / cling film, refrigerate it, then pull it out the morning of, let it get to room temp, then unwrap to do the final stack. If it doesn't crust up, I'd look into getting appropriately sized cake boxes or other containers for when you store it in the fridge and let it come back up to temperature.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.885292
| 2011-10-21T09:04:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18492",
"authors": [
"Abhishek Upadhyaya",
"David42",
"FXQuantTrader",
"Marie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67149",
"rumtscho",
"xCare"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19254
|
What is the name of this Israeli street food?
When I was in Israel a few years back I tried this really great street food. I had gotten the recipe, but now have lost it and don't remember what it was called. It is a cross between a pancake and a bread. The one I had had za'atar, thin sliced tomatoes, and red onion fried into one side and was flipped over. Does anyone know what this is called?
Was it a latke, a potato pancake?
No it had no potatoes in it. It was pan fried if that helps anyone.
And it wasn't fresh pitta bread?
It wasn't pita bread. It was about the size of it, but had a more similar consistency to a hard pancake
I was able to track down the dish. It is called Lahuhe. There is a picture of it here. Thank you to everyone for trying to help me out.
From your description, it might have been a Malawach.
If it is, here is a link to a recipie.
This is close, but the recipe is not right. There was nothing to dip it in or to spread on it. It just had the "toppings" embeded in the food.
What you had could have been simply a street-vendor variation on the base recipe (toppings baked into bread are easier to eat than those simply perched on top). Perhaps you should try making this recipe -- with your toppings baked in -- to see if it tastes right to you.
Hmmm... it's possible that it was something invented by that particular street-vendor.
I'm guessing this dish might have derived from manaqeesh (manouche) which are extremely popular all over the Levantine region, although it's spread all over now. In Melbourne, Australia, for example, there are dozens of Lebanese places that sell them.
Za'tar is the most popular flavour but there are many others such as sujuk, za'tar with tomato+onion, za'tar with veggies (capsicum, tomato, onion, olives, etc), cheese, kiskh, labne, minced lamb, spinach, etc.
It's probably just flatbread. If you are in an African (West and South) influenced area, it will be unleavened, just flour and water. In the more Middle East (North and East) areas it will probably have yeast as well (or local beer)
The dough is normally left to stand for some time before being rolled and cooked
They are rolled or teased out to large circles (50cm+), and then traditionally cooked over a convex curved pan (sag?). Imagine a upside down wok, made of thick steel
On the Middle East side it is brushed with olive oil and herbs like Za'atar, or salt and chilli
If mixed and cooked quickly without leavening this is suitable for Passover, and is referred to as Matzo, but without the baked in toppings
The recipe did not call for it to stand to rise.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.885523
| 2011-11-30T19:14:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19254",
"authors": [
"Allen",
"Arbace",
"Bamabee",
"Bruce Goldstein",
"Desiree Kinker",
"Educ",
"ElendilTheTall",
"FrustratedWithFormsDesigner",
"Ginny",
"XTL",
"anton2g",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8158"
],
"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
}
|
53733
|
What types of wine are suitable for Dijon mustard?
I know that verjus (or verjuice- sour juice from unripe grapes) was originally used for Dijon mustard, and was replaced by wine as it became more readily accessible. However, I can't find much information on the types of wine one might use. I'm sure something comparably acidic would be ideal, and I haven't heard of anyone using red wine. Assuming I'm right, this still leaves a fairly large range from the relatively common Sauvignon Blanc to more esoteric varieties like Colombard and Kerner. Is there a standard wine, or some rule of thumb beyond matching personal taste?
I looked at the first 8 recipes that came up on a Google search. All but one just said "Dry White Wine". One said, "dry white wine, such as Sauvignon Blanc".
So, I would say that's your answer. Any dry white wine will do, perhaps Sauvignon Blanc might be ideal.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.885776
| 2015-01-18T04:59:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53733",
"authors": [
"Justine Piekacz",
"Karen Oosthuizen",
"Meta Tsalis",
"belinda leyva",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131228",
"user1456781"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
50485
|
Why are my beets not fermenting?
My first attempt (RAW BEETS) - large mason jars, 2 tbsp sea salt, water up to 1" below lid. After a week I opened the lid to "burp" the gas out, but there was nothing, no fizz, just dead beets in room temperature water. I got sketched out and threw them out.
2nd try (COOKED BEETS)- I tried using 2 tbsp whey which I rendered from yogurt plus a tbsp of sea salt, after 3 days, same thing, no gas or fizz just warm salty dead beets.
My house is always at 70 degrees.
I am very disappointed. I have had great success with carrots in the past.
any insight would be appreciated.
How did you render the whey? With heat? How large are your mason jars? The recipe I use recommends 2 tbsp of salt per 16 oz of water.
Ummm to the poster above me- if you're using heat it isn't fermenting!
To answer the question, I would guess that you didn't have enough good bacteria on the beets to start the fermenting process. Did you use organic veg? Unpeeled? I find that adding some outer cabbage leaf guarantees me the lactobacillus, no matter which raw veg I am using (yes it must be raw). Also, I think you need to leave it alone a bit longer. If you don't see any changes through the glass (bubbles, colour change) then wait a bit to burp it. I actually think an airlock top for your jars would be a good investment so you don't open them at all till the end (weeks later). Your salt ratio doesn't sound problematic to me, but I guess double check the maths (salt to liquid weight).
Good luck with your next try, beets are soooo yummy. I do mine with some coriander seed and a bay leaf (the tannins help keep mushy veggies firm).
You do not give the ratio of salt to liquid or salt to weight of your veggies so with that missing info I may (but do not think so) be wrong. The only way they would not be fermenting is that you used too much salt and they are salt preserved instead of fermented preserved. Still edible but entirely different tast plus they will be soft if this is the case.
Your ratio of salt to vegtables ought to be in the neighborhood of 1 to 3 tablespoons salt per quart of water. Or if you are doing shredded vegtables do not add water, add 1 1/3 tablespoon salt per lb of vegetable.
From personal experience: If I ever want to ferment a fruit or vegetable, I add the vegetable or fruit in with the same ingredients as you would for a pie, i.e. 1tbs lemon juice and 1/2 cup sugar and then I cook it for about an hour at around 200-250 C.
After that I let it go back to room temperature and then set it in the fridge for two days. It helps also if you cut the beets into a smaller size.
Sorry, but that answer has nothing to do with fermenting.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.885885
| 2014-12-10T22:42:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50485",
"authors": [
"Derpy",
"Elizabeth Mullan",
"Jean-Yves Friant",
"Jeff Fellows",
"Kim Shelton",
"Lee Olsom",
"Michael Weaver",
"Nesa Rico",
"Payal Juthani",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33792"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11607
|
What can I do with leftover wine?
We don't really drink wine in our house, so we only ever buy a bottle for cooking. Typically whatever meal we have made requires ~1/2 bottle.
How can I incorporate the rest of this wine into some other simple meals without resorting to any particularly fancy recipes?
Hey there - recipes are off-topic here although we do have some guidelines for culinary uses questions (mainly, how to use esoteric or waste ingredients). Wine isn't exactly a rare ingredient but, fortunately, this does have a very simple and straightforward answer.
Since this doesn't answer the question I'll post it as a comment - if you're having a hard time thinking of what to do with it, until you need it again you can freeze the wine in ice cube trays and store in a zip-top bag once frozen, then portion the cubes into your meals as needed!
I tried this once with white wine and it didn't come out of the tray in cubes very well.
The quickest way to get rid of leftover wine is to think of it as flavoured water. In many if not most recipes that call for water - especially stovetop recipes like sauces and stews - you can simply substitute wine for the water or stock that the recipe normally calls for.
We actually had a similar question recently: In what kind of recipes can I substitute stock for water? and I'd recommend you take a look at that, as many of the points there apply equally well to wine. Probably the best summation was in bikeboy389's answer:
I'd consider stock to be just another flavorful liquid (thanks Alton Brown), to be usable in exchange for others like wine, etc. You need to be conscious of the gelatin aspect and mindful that some substitutions will be more successful than others, flavor-wise, but it's always worth considering if stock might be a good substitute for any other flavorful liquid.
Just swap the terms "stock" and "wine" and you're good to go. Even though wine doesn't contain any gelatin, you actually do need to be mindful of the gelatin aspect when substituting wine for stock, because you might have the opposite problem if the liquid is supposed to thicken.
Similarly to stock, I also wouldn't recommend using wine in anything that you plan to refrigerate or freeze for a long period, for a different reason obviously - because it can go sour over time. So try to only use it in recipes that will be consumed in the near future.
Other than that, just experiment; whenever you're making a savoury recipe that calls for water or stock, try using some wine instead. You'd be surprised at how much character it can add to otherwise simple dishes. Some examples of places where you can replace some other liquid with wine:
Rice or risotto
Soups and sauces
Deglazing a pan (for a pan sauce)
Salad dressings (this is an especially good use for sour/fermented wine)
Marinades
Poaching liquids (for eggs, chicken, etc.)
There really are no rules, and any time you find yourself tossing plain water into a pot or bowl, you should keep in mind that you are potentially missing an opportunity to add flavour (which a good wine will add plenty of).
Wine is excellent for deglazing a pan and making a pan sauce. Basically, if you a have a pan with any fond on its bottom, like a pan where you have sautèed meat or even onions, you can just add the wine (don't turn off the heat yet, just lower it), scrub vigorously the bottom of the pan until all the fond has dissolved in the wine, then let it reduce a bit (this will also let some of the alcohol evaporate), turn off the heat, add some butter, whisk until the sauce thickens, serve. Pan sauces really help potentially dry meat, like chicken breast.
Speed is of the essence, it takes more time to write it down than to do it...
And Orbling's suggestion about the risotto is golden. It really helps.
Hi Walter - just FYI, answers here are normally sorted by score rather than chronologically, so there's no concept of a previous answer. I've edited this post to reference the answer I think you were referring to.
Well if it is white wine, then a risotto is probably a good choice, always benefits from a good glass or two of white to get started.
For red, I find it makes a wonderful base, as a reduction, of any sauce with sausages, just google "red wine sausages" for a multitude of recipes.
Freeze the wine using an ice cube tray. Transfer to a bag when frozen. Then use them the next time you have a recipe that requires wine.
Leftover white wine is good in French toast. And really any kind of wine makes a great addition to soup.
I would recommend a white wine in cream base or chicken broth soup and a red wine in any sort of beef soup.
If it's a sweet wine, you can make a reduction sauce which is phenomenal on just about anything (I use it as a drizzle for stuffed figs, but it's really versatile -- it gives you a lot of room to get creative.)
Wine turns to vinegar. You can use it for that purpose.
This is true, although rather wasteful and a pretty inefficient way to obtain vinegar...
That's a matter of opinion. Allowing wine to turn to vinegar doesn't require any attention and obtaining a high quality vinegar is much more universal than wine (my opinion).
White wine goes excellent with mussels and you don't need a lot, approx. 4 cm in a cooking pot will do.
Or indeed risotto (but I prefer vermouth) or sauces.
Various Italian tomato-based sauces call for a splash of wine.
This would seem like a pretty good way to get rid of it, since the quality/condition of the wine probably won't get noticed too much.
I don't drink wine either. I'm still 'tweaking' an answer to the question regarding red wine, but I am solidly married to the idea of dry vermouth (Gallo) in pretty much anything that needs white wine. It lasts in my cupboard longer than most spices. [It's 'fortified' giving it a long shelf life] Furthermore, it tastes good in recipes. America's Test Kitchen agrees.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.886163
| 2011-01-29T13:18:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11607",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alex Howard",
"Dave",
"Elsie Bouwman",
"Holly",
"Karthik Murugesan",
"Michael Hoffman",
"O.O",
"Sam",
"Susan McKinley",
"Taj G",
"Waddler",
"Walker",
"cecilkorik",
"g7luv1kas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7603",
"stephennmcdonald",
"user23865"
],
"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
}
|
11938
|
small, medium or large eggs
When I buy eggs, I have trouble deciding which size is the best value.
Does any one have any tips?
I tend to buy large eggs -- the reason being that most modern recipes are standardized to use large eggs, so it keeps me from having to convert.
I'll occassionally buy other sizes ... for instance, if I'm making deviled eggs, I tend to go for smaller ones.
I don't use recipes much, though planning to learn a few more, I just add the other ingredients until it look/feels right. Large eggs would require less cracking. For this question I am only thinking about value for money. Just realised you said convert; Is there an, approximate, conversion factor?
@richard : I added a link to the conversion table from a previous question.
It depends on the time of year (and, of course, sales).
One book I read said that since many chicken farmers raise extra birds to be slaughtered around holidays (Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter are the big ones), often they'll have shortages of smaller eggs (which often come from smaller chickens) around those times. Since USDA regulations give a minimum weight for egg types, but not a maximum, the chicken farmers tend to fill out orders with larger eggs. You can always weigh the eggs in a pack of small or medium eggs to see if they are actually that size or larger.
According to the USDA standards (see page 29 of the document), the minimum weights for a dozen eggs are:
Jumbo: 30 oz.
Extra Large: 27 oz.
Large: 24 oz.
Medium: 21 oz.
Small: 18 oz.
Peewee: 15 oz.
(It's a bit more complicated than that, since they actually weigh them by a lot case, which is 30 dozen eggs. But that's close enough for most purposes.)
You can actually figure out per egg cost at home based on circulars, and then weigh at the supermarket to see if the eggs are truly what they're labeled or if they're running big in that lot.
If you really want to get down to the best value and maximize the egg for your buck, try this:
For the U.S. here is the average weight by definition:
Large: 2.125oz each or 25.5oz for a dozen
Medium: 1.875oz each or 22.5oz for a dozen
Small: 1.625oz each or 19.5oz for a dozen
Divide the price by the weight and you can get your cost per oz of egg.
What are the units here? Seems like a dozen large eggs should be well over a pound (which is 454 grams), at maybe 20 ounces for the pack (or 567 grams).
Hmm, you're right. I can't find where I originally found that information but I found some other info that shows it should be oz. I'll edit to reflect that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.887009
| 2011-02-08T22:17:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11938",
"authors": [
"Bunyip",
"Joe",
"Kevin McKenzie",
"Matt",
"Ryan Elkins",
"aaron",
"blackcornail",
"ctrl-alt-delor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user24639",
"user44523",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15472
|
Keep Pakoras Crisp
What's the best way to keep pakoras crisp until being served? I am planning to make pakoras for a party and will not have time to make it as the guests arrive, which is why I would like to make it a few hours ahead and serve upon arrival. Will keeping them in a warm oven help? If so, at what temperature?
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8711/what-technique-should-i-use-to-make-latkes-for-a-party-so-that-i-dont-have-to-st
when latkes are made with urd flour and spinach, that's related. Otherwise, the pakoras have to be made by Jitendra Cohen ...
Adding little rice powder will make it crisp.
Make them and wrap each batch in aluminium foil. Warm them in an oven at 140 deg C for about 20 min to an hour before serving, - same for onion bajhis. They will get too crispy if not wrapped. Don't drain the oil off before wrapping.
If I'm not serving them right away, I like to double-fry them to make the pakoras nice and crispy. I'd then follow James Barrie's suggestion and keep them in the oven, wrapped in aluminum foil - might bump up the heat to around 150 deg C though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.887247
| 2011-06-15T00:10:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15472",
"authors": [
"Amma",
"Francis",
"James Barrie",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"muad-dweeb",
"neubau",
"pramodc84"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12288
|
chef's knife for cutting chicken, or butcher's
Hey guys, I've had a set of Global knives for a few months now and love them.
I cut up a whole chicken the other day, and had a bit of trouble getting through the bone, so use my large chef's knife as an axe/butcher's knife and chipped it in a few places. Global is supposed to be the superior brand, but is this normal?
So how do you guys handle tougher materials? Butcher/cheap/dull knives?
I just use a cheap, large chefs knife for dirty jobs like chopping up chickens or larger fish/shellfish. If you want to be serious about it you could always get a proper cleaver or a japanese-style Deba bocho knife.
If you use a chef's knife, then European style chef's knives are more suitable than Japanese style ones, because Japanese knives have thinner blades and a sharper angle, making them more susceptible to chipping.
@Erik P: I just googled this, because I was pretty sure that the deba bocho was suitable for chopping up chickens, but now I am not so sure anymore. Wikipedia says explicitly that the deba bocho is not suitable for chopping large diameter bones: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deba_bocho The questions is, would a chicken bone classify as "large diameter"?
In some cases I don't use a knife at all - kitchen shears work much better when I need to go through a bone.
As you can see here, you can do it with a chef's knife.
I think you must try to cut between bones or around them, not through them. Gristle shouldn't be a problem for your knife.
Yeah I realized that a few minutes later :)
If you're just separating a chicken into pieces, you don't need to cut through any bone, and a chef's knife or a boning knife will work fine. You need to aim for the joints in between the bones, and cut the softer connective tissue.
If you're actually trying to hack legs and thighs into pieces (some indian curries, stocks, and other preparations do well with splitting bones), then you need a heavy duty meat cleaver (note: a "chinese cleaver" has a thin blade, and is unsuitable to cutting through bones). A chef's knife would work, but can dent or chip the blade of your expensive Global knife.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.887383
| 2011-02-17T10:06:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12288",
"authors": [
"Erik P.",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"Mike",
"Vasili",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4824",
"justkt",
"onitek",
"restlesspear",
"user2534328"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45865
|
Keeping Food Hot & Delicious
I'm having a large amount of guests over tomorrow and I wanted to know how can keep large portions of food hot and ready to serve without it getting cold or damp, while also keeping my deserts cool and refreshing. I'm serving Pasta, Sandwiches, Chicken, Fries & Cold Deserts.
I'm looking for a tech savvy and cheap way to keep my food hot and cold accordingly and any advice would be helpful.
How many is "large amount"?
If you're looking to serve a smaller number of people, and it's the kind of thing you do quite a bit, look into one of these: mini-buffet and something like this: chilled mini-mini-buffet
Standard answer is hotel pans and chaffing dishes with alcohol burners for the hot items.
Double hotel pans with ice between them for the cold items.
Coolers work well for storing items before serve. Things that are fried though would do much better in an oven set to the lowest temp, coolers will trap moisture and they will lose their crispness.
Chafing dish
Hotel pans
Nope go right ahead and add some pictures. I realize not every one knows what a hotel pan is.
I'd like to add that "hotel pans" and "sheet pans" come in very universally understood, specific sizes. These sizes aren't going to change any time soon. So, even if you spend a bit more than you intended for this event, during your lifetime, the pans will always fit other slots you might find for them. That's their beauty.
I don't know if this meets the criteria of "cheap" but it's definitely SOP in the hospitality industry. And such equipment will last basically forever - host enough parties, and your amortized cost will drop to nil.
Depending how many people you have over, and assuming the party is at your house, a lot of that is just fine at lukewarm rather than piping hot; you could stuff the pasta and chicken into an oven set to "Warm" or "200F" or whatever the lowest heat is, which keeps it dry and warm, and keep the desserts in the fridge, covered to prevent moisture. If you're just having a medium-sized dinner party, this is the simplest suggestion.
Unless you are operating a catering service out of your home, this is what you should be doing.
Draksia gave the best answer if you're going to be doing this a lot. If you're not, a few things that the average person is more likely to have, or can get relatively cheaply:
To keep things cool:
Find two vessels that nest inside of each other, with decent sides, fill the larger one with ice, then place the smaller one on top, with the food inside it. Examples include cake pans (not springform), 9x12 and 10x15 glass dishes, casserole dishes, etc.
If you don't already have suitable vessels, pick up a pack of disposable aluminum deep steam table trays. (I like the half size ones ... full size are a pain)
To keep things warm:
Crock pots set on warm : work well for liquid or really wet items; should work for pasta.
A tray set on top of a heating pad : make sure to check the heating pad for damage before use (which you should always do before using a heating pad)
Keep things on your grill, set to a low flame (if propane), or start 1/2 a chimney early, and let it die down before your guests arrive.
Make your own chafing dish : You'll need a sheet pan, 5 bricks, a wire rack, and a bunch of tea candles. Place the bricks in the corner of the sheet pan, plus one in the middle. Set the tea candles in between. (you only need 4 for a 1/2 sheet pan), then place the wire rack on top. (one from a grill or your oven will be more durable than a cooling rack). Light the candles, then place oven-save dishes above them. You might need to replace the tea candles after an hour or so.
Make your own steam table : find containers such as mentioned for keeping things cool (although beware of glass or ceramics). Place something as a heat-proof spacer in the larger pan (I have some metal pinch cups that are about 4cm high, but you can crush up some aluminium foil into tight balls). Pour in boiling water about 1/2 the way up the spacers, then set the other vessel on top. (Don't top off, as a spill would make things really not fun)
Impromptu heat lamps : hallogen worklights get really hot, but I don't know if they'd be focused enough to help you with your fries. (or safe for people to be near; I've used 'em to bend PVC conduit when I didn't have a torch)
... but to make things easier, I'd consider not putting out all of the food at once. Hold half or two-thirds of it in reserve, in the fridge, oven or on the stove, and top-off things as they're depleted. How much to hold depends on how long the event is going to be, and if you're expecting the crowd to show up all at once, or trickle in over time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.887580
| 2014-07-25T10:44:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45865",
"authors": [
"Davin Adams",
"Donna Nocero",
"Jolenealaska",
"Jon Chan",
"Spammer",
"draksia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23190",
"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
}
|
46106
|
Is old brewed coffee too unsafe to drink?
So, yesterday i accidentally left a cup of Dunkin Donuts Coffee (with cream and maybe milk) on my bathroom windowsill while i went to work for at least 8 hours, then refrigerated it when i got home. It's in the fridge at work as we speak. Is it still ok to drink?
Even if it's not unsafe, it's going to taste awful...ler. Are you that desperate to save yourself $1?
I'm not posting this as an answer, because it's based entirely my own gut reaction, but you should dump it. Better safe than sorry, and you will be sorry if you drink that.
With dairy in it I would get rid of it. If there was no dairy, it would ok, but will not taste good at all
According to NRAEF food safety standards, it should be thrown out.
Anything that can potentially grow bacteria should be thrown out if it has been left in what's called the Temperature Danger Zone (40-140F) for more than 6 hours. The dairy added to the coffee in question was an ideal culture for bacterial development at room temperature.
All things considered, I wouldn't drink it, and neither should you. Pour it out- it's only a cup of coffee.
It depends on how long it's been out. I've seen mold form the second day to "plain" unflavored coffee (no milk, no sugar).
I've kept refrigerated brewed flavored coffee in an air-tight container for a week or more without problems. (I add a bit to unflavored hot coffee so the flavor isn't overwhelming).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.887963
| 2014-08-05T02:08:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46106",
"authors": [
"AVN RYS",
"Aaronut",
"Fydor",
"Jack Sinclair",
"Robert W",
"Shadowsmom",
"Spammer",
"StuL",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12736
|
How does one find recipes given an ingredient rather than the recipe name?
How does one find recipes given an ingredient rather than the recipe name?
Please do not re-create the "ingredients" tag. It was removed for a reason; depending on how one would interpret it, it would either only apply to 1-2 questions, or half the questions on the site would need it. In both cases, it's useless as a tag.
How many uses of the tag ingredients were deleted?
I don't remember - this happened half a year ago. Probably a handful.
http://allrecipes.com/Search/Ingredients.aspx
This site has tons of good recipes. You can include up to 4 ingredients, pick a category, and enter additional keywords.
This is my favorite. Menu planning and the user ratings and reviews are very helpful.
Link is broken.
this should be the current link: https://www.allrecipes.com/recipes/17567/ingredients/
Supercook
Supercook's core feature is a "pantry inventory" system.
You basically fill in all the ingredients you have in your kitchen. You are presented with recipe choices based on a subset of your ingredients, as you enter them. You can then "emphasize" certain ingredients which makes them a required ingredient in the recipes you are shown. It will also show recipes where you are only missing 1-3 ingredients; useful if you don't mind running to the grocery store. You can also exclude specific ingredients from recipe results.
Creating an account permits you to save your ingredients as well as your favorite recipes. You can also generate shopping lists based on the missing ingredients from your favorite recipes that you don't currently have in stock.
The quality of recipes varies a lot. Supercook sources its recipes from many other sites, including: Allrecipes, Recipezaar, Epicurious, FoodGeeks and others. Some sites (like Allrecipes) I feel have a lot of "filler" recipes, which are simply present for search results.
Epicurious
Epicurious doesn't provide the "pantry inventory" aspect that Supercook does, but it is very useful in its own way.
With Epicurious you search for your main ingredient, e.g. chicken, and then refine your search using ingredients and other parameters such as: meal, dietary requirements, holiday, cuisine, and preparation method (among others). I find their interface very intuitive.
One of Epicurious' greatest strengths is the quality of its recipes. Many of the recipes are originally from the reputable food magazines Gourmet and Bon Appetit. I find the recipe ratings to be very accurate, and the community feedback on the recipes is also of a reasonably high caliber. I also find their original content recipes to be very high quality. They often come up with quality themed recipes for major holidays, including full menus.
They also have a useful iPhone/iPad app that provides recipe syncing. I often use the iPhone app when grocery shopping to check off ingredients that I need for whatever dish I'm planning to make.
Allrecipes
Allrecipes is another site I have used.
Allrecipes has a general purpose recipe search, similar to Epicurious. It also has an ingredient search that is similar to Supercook. The ingredient search doesn't provide the ability to save your pantry inventory like Supercook does, but is more of an ad hoc way to find recipes based on a list of ingredients and exclusions.
Unfortunately, I find the recipe quality to be rather low here. There are a lot of user submitted recipes which tend to range in quality from mediocre to atrocious. The feedback left by the community is also subpar. I tend to use it when I want a really basic recipe to use as a base for something more. They do have a lot of these "filler recipes", as I call them, which are very simple and often missing a thing or three that make them memorable. This is useful for experimenting or giving yourself ideas.
Food Network
Food Network is another site I use that functions very similarly to Epicurious.
Food Network has a general purpose recipe search that permits filtering of results by cuisine, ingredients, technique, show, tv personality, and others.
I use Food Network primarily to look up recipes that I've seen on a Food Network show before, but didn't record at the time. I also find it very useful for finding new recipes by a chef I like. It's pretty much the canonical source for all Alton Brown recipes for example.
The community feedback and recipe ratings are middle of the road. I find they are less reliable than Epicurious, but far more reliable than Allrecipes.
I personally prefer Recipes By Ingredients:
Its on almost everything from windows, apple, android, amazon, and chrome
It allows for searching by ingredients, allergies, servings, calories, and a lot more
It also allows you to save a recipe and access it from any device
What Could I Cook? is a great and growing resource of member-submitted recipes. One of its big supporters and submitters is the UK Guardian website, which attracts high-profile chefs.
The main suggestions are provided above. But I'll add that you can go to just about any of your favorite cooking blogs. Many have a search feature and you can type in an ingredient name and a list of entries including that ingredient will pop up. I've tried this before.
But I do love allrecipes.com because you can add a list of ingredients.
Quite a few dead tree cookbooks have indexes ordered by main ingredient.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.888124
| 2011-03-03T00:13:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12736",
"authors": [
"CW Holeman II",
"DaveTheMinion",
"Hawthorne",
"JamesRyan",
"Sobachatina",
"corin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98975",
"rumtscho",
"ths",
"user87121"
],
"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
}
|
21315
|
Proper grease for a meat slicer blade
I just found an old hand cranked meat slicer which I can use to slice homemade lunch meats. It was free, but it obviously hasn't been used awhile. Inside there are two gears, and a bearing on which the blade spins. I took off the blade to give the thing a through cleaning, and in the process removed all of the grease. I am now running it through the dish washer to give it yet another washing before we use it.
Can anyone suggest a proper grease to use to lubricate the blade? There is a small chance it could come in contact with food so I was thinking a few shots of silicon grease? Any help would be appreciated.
I'm thinking a generous dollop of capicola grease would work and add seasoning to the internal bits of your machine-werks.
Food grade lubricants
Looks like there's quite a few food grade greases available online. Some of them are silicone based. Still, I'd get something that definitely says food grade, rather than whatever's on sale at Ace hardware.
Awesome, thank you so much! I have a second slicer coming in in just a few days to replace any broken parts, so hopefully I can start using this thing soon.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.888526
| 2012-02-12T23:35:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21315",
"authors": [
"Matthew",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"mfg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21469
|
Why did butternut squash make my fingers dry and yellow?
Last weekend I made butternut squash soup. In an experiment to get more of the squash browned I peeled two medium squash and cut them into 2 inch chunks, rather than just halving it, before roasting in the oven. (Result of the experiment was OK, but the extra exposed area also allows more moisture to escape, so I wouldn't recommend this method.)
Halfway through peeling the 2nd squash I noticed that the fingers on my left hand (I'm right-handed) were getting yellow and that the skin was drying, cracking, and tightening up. The yellow I can understand as transfer since I was using that hand to hold the squash while peeling. But I've peeled butternut plenty of times for various recipes and this hasn't happened before. Washing my hands didn't help. The problem went away after a couple of days.
Does anyone want to venture an explanation? Did my fingers O.D. on carotene or potassium?
It's definitely a very real reaction. I'm not sure exactly what in the squash it is that causes it, but since different people react differently - some people have strong reactions like you, some people have mild ones, and some have no problem at all - it seems to be some sort of mild allergic reaction. It's often called contact dermatitis, but that's a very generic term and doesn't really mean anything you don't already know. I'm not sure exactly what component of the squash it is that causes it, but I don't think it's carotene or potassium. It's likely some more complex molecule that tends to be present in various winter squashes.
Images from http://foodworld-eva.blogspot.com/2010/01/squash-reaction-on-skin.html.
You can avoid it by completely wearing gloves while working with the squash, or if you're lucky, you have someone else with you who can handle the squash without problems. For many purposes, like soup, you can also simply cut the squash in half, roast it, then scoop out the good stuff. But if you do really need to peel it and cut into chunks, your best hope is just to try to avoid touching it too much. You'll also want to wash your hands immediately after, or even a few times while you're cutting if it takes a while.
If you do end up with this despite your best efforts, cortisone cream can help relieve the reaction afterward.
(And as for your soup, there's nothing wrong with letting more moisture escape in exchange for browning. You can always just add more water or stock back into the soup. This can even be a good thing, since it lets you replace water with a more flavorful liquid.)
The link in your comment above is exactly what my hand looked like! Thank you!
As I dislike wearing gloves while cooking I'll probably go bare-handed the next time I handle squash, but if the problem recurs I might have to reconsider. About the soup's consistency, you're correct about liquids. My dissatisfaction lies in that after the squash was pureed with the prescribed amount of stock it was still quite thick and suffered the "exploding geyser" problem. Nothing like shrapnel of hot squash on your hand to keep you alert. Also I don't think I got much additional roasted flavor out of the experiment.
I would guess that the drying and irritation are caused by the pectins in the butternut squash. If you cut a butternut squash and leave it alone for a few minutes you will see beads of liquid forming on the cut surface which will turn into a solid gel due to their high pectin concentration. The orange staining is likely just the carotenoids from the squash they got stuck between the skin and layer of pectin-containing squash juice.
Okay happened to me too. I did notice a clear gel like substance coming from the squash when I chopped and peeled it, I read that's a natural substance to "protect" itself from damage, like sealing up a cut or wound. I cut up 4 of them, only the first one had this. So may be from varying ripeness. I washed my hands after cutting them all up,(since they were so orange) as soon as my hands began drying they started reacting... slick film, tightening, a little numbness. I started washing them again and really scrubbing them, can't tell if it is the film or layer of skin that comes off I think it's the dried film from the squash. It takes some hard scrubbing but it will come off, hands very dried out afterwards.
This answer comes closest to correctly analyzing the situation. See here for further information: http://www.gardeningblog.net/2011/10/12/why-butternut-squash-hurts-your-hands/
I've had this happen before after preparing butternut squash. Once, I also found that my fingers turned shiny. I realized that the wax that was on the butternut squash had gotten on my hands since I had rinsed the squash under hot water before peeling.
It was impossible to wash away this wax coating on my fingers, so I just left it on my hands even though it was annoying. After a day the wax was gone, but my fingers still felt tight and looked yellow for another day, most likely due to dermatitis.
Since then I'm careful to not rinse my butternut squash (or anything else covered in wax) under hot water. Instead I just give it a cold water rinse. I still get the dermatitis, but at least there is no wax!
Interesting information. Do you mean that butternut squash has a natural coating which causes an allergy in you, or that some producers apply a wax to it which causes the allergy?
@rumtscho: The dermatitis is just because of the squash itself (as implied by the last paragraph). The wax is pretty much unrelated.
@rumtscho, as Jefromi said, the wax and dermatitis were unrelated. The wax, as far as I know, is not a natural coating but something some producers apply. I don't think I was allergic to the wax. I only felt like mentioning it because both made my skin feel pretty tight. The wax definitely exaggerated the dermatitis!
@EllieDiMarino, that is very interesting. Thanks for sharing! I'm going to pay close attention to this next time I prepare a butternut squash.
I am a violinist and whenever I cut of butternut squash, my skin peels and is so tight that i cannot play. I didn't know how to get it off, but then my daughter came and told me to use packing tape. Surprisingly, it worked! A few peices of packing tape later, 90% of the it was off my hands.
So this is to get the bits of squash off your fingers, or to get the peeling skin off?
omg this advice saved me. Thank you for posting the solution, the tight, waxy painful feeling and not being able to move my hands was horrible and then packaging tape completely fixed it. You are a life saver.
This happens to me every time I make butternut squash. I am not sure what it is, but it comes off if you scrub it hard enough. I usually just take a sponge or something rough and scrub for like 5 minutes until its all off. Then I usually put lotion on afterwards. I am pretty sure it is not a skin reaction, its some kind of coating. Reading the other answers, I can't believe you guys leave your hands like that for days! I can't stand it!
It's pretty obviously not a coating if you've had what we're talking about - it does actually make your skin tighten up. That network of white lines you can see in the photos above is further evidence of this. Scrubbing may well help, but I don't think it's because you're removing a coating, but rather removing whatever's irritating your skin.
the wax develops naturally from the sun.
make sure the squash is fully ripe before handling and cutting/preparing. unripened squash have a chemical that can, and usually does attack the skin. Thats why unripened squash is usually fed to chickens or discarded.
How do you know if a butternut is ripe ?
I think its the wax. I took a box cutter and scraped most of it off. It felt horrible
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.888670
| 2012-02-18T00:26:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21469",
"authors": [
"BenzieGirl",
"Cascabel",
"Didgeridrew",
"Galapagos Jim",
"Jason",
"Joe",
"Kathy Workman",
"Neil Doherty",
"RatchetCity",
"Scott",
"TheLegendaryCopyCoder",
"carmenism",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9188",
"meskarune",
"pattivacek",
"pegasusquilts",
"rumtscho",
"user1242878",
"user1997744"
],
"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
}
|
61655
|
Hot pink spots on surface of ham steak
I bought a frozen ham steak (natural pork from local farm/meat processor), and noticed when I went to cook it that there is a bit of very bright, hot pink on the surface. Is this safe?
Perfectly safe.
From the Henning's Market FAQ:
The shiny, greenish, rainbow like color on sliced ham is a sign of oxidation that occurs when the meat is exposed to the metal on a knife or slicer. The nitrate-modified iron content of the meat undergoes a chemical change that alters the hams pigmentation. This effect can also be seen in sliced beef, such as roast beef. It is not an indication of spoilage.
And also see this Daily Mail article "Revealed: Why you sometimes see the most spectacular rainbows in a slice of beef":
On the USDA website under the heading ‘Iridescent Color of Roast Beef’, this strange phenomenon is explained to be in fact perfectly natural and caused by iron and fat that exists in meats such as roast beef and processed ham.
According to the USDA, when light hits a slice of meat it splits into colors like a rainbow due to the elements present in the meat and this is called a ‘diffraction grating’.
There are also various pigments in meat compounds which give it an iridescent or greenish cast when exposed to heat and processing.
FWIW the first explanation is utter bunk. For perhaps the first time in history the Daily Mail is the reliable source.
Yes, this is safe. It is part of the natural coloring of meat. It just happens to break light this way sometimes.
See for example this article on "beef rainbows": http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/02/what-causes-beef-rainbows/273534/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.889365
| 2015-09-10T23:41:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61655",
"authors": [
"Kulkanist_SPI Khamsirivatchara",
"L P",
"Lynda Blount",
"Paja Eghdami",
"Sneftel",
"Spammer",
"chido goteka",
"dan davies",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067"
],
"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
}
|
66683
|
Is my pressure cooker good for the trash bin?
Some serious meat burning occurred in my cooker, and now some of the material on the surface of the bottom of the cooker is gone:
Still usable?
Is it an aluminum pressure cooker, or a steel one? Did it have a non-stick coating originally?
The problem I see are the scratches, you should try to smooth these out by doing what @moscafj says in his answer; loads of elbow grease.
Try some scouring powder and/or steel wool and elbow grease. This is not a health issue, just aesthetic. Although, it may scorch more easily if you don't clean it well.
No, you don't need to rash this pressure cooker. This is only discoloration of the top layer of the stainless steel. Just polish with a stainless steel cleaner, scouring powder, or barkeeper's friend and it will come right off.
Next time make sure you have enough liquid to bring your cooker to pressure, and when browning meat, if it sticks simply add cold water to the hot pressure cooker. Attack it with a spatula to lift-up any browned or burned bits - then incorporate them in the sauce. : )
If it is really just discoloration - agreed. If there is actually material gone or if there are deep scratches, I'd be afraid for my life pressurizing that .
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.889558
| 2016-02-20T22:50:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66683",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Beverly Gilliam",
"David Taylor",
"Deborah Adams",
"Doris Kelly",
"John Gabona",
"Paul Choberka",
"Toni Hart",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"mech",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66036
|
How to prevent olive oil container from getting oily outside?
I'm using this kind of container to add just drops of oil on top of my food or whatever:
Problem is it's always oily so after using it I have to clean my hand. Any trick to keep it clean and non oily outside?
A dropper bottle could work as an alternative container without that disadvantage...
I've worked in a couple kitchens, one of the better methods I saw involved snagging a used pour bottle from the bar, cleaning it out and using that for oil. Something like imaged, with the right-sized bottle.
Because it has separate tubes for liquid and gas, you usually pour out only what you need. The trick here is that is sounds like you use as little oil as possible, and this method tends to be best for more generous usage.
I use a similar pourer on my olive oil bottle and it works great. I didn't realize it was because it has an extra tube for air return, but that makes perfect sense!
but does it keep the bottle clean? I've bought oils which had a smaller pourer already mounted on the bottle below the screw cap. They all have a lip to catch the oil overflow.
They were all pretty clean, yeah. At least cleaner than those plastic squeeze bottles. But then again, we wiped down the kitchen every night, including the bottles, so we never really let the oil build up.
Can't say that I've done this, but what about creating an absorbent ring by rolling a piece of paper towel into several layers and securing it to the top of the bottle with a rubber band? That way any drips would be soaked up. Cheap, easy, replaceable.
Yeah I kinda thought about that, now that you say it I'll give a try tomorrow and report back
I don't own such a bottle and thus can't try it myself, but probably the following method works.
While standing upright, squeeze some air out of the bottle.
Keep it squeezed while adding the desired amount of oil to your dish.
Loosen your grip to let the air flow back into the bottle, and simultaneously tilt it back upright.
The thought behind this is that the back-flowing air will push the oil back into the bottle and in this way prevent drops.
If you try it, please let me know via comment if it works.
Not really except to clean the outside after use. Choice of nozzle can help, but due to the Viscosity coupled with the LACK of skin effect, you'll always get a little bit on the edge even if it's a quarter drop and it will slowly drip down the side.
So...really all you can do is keep it clean.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.889711
| 2016-01-30T15:00:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66036",
"authors": [
"ElmerCat",
"Felicity Smith",
"Frances Brockway",
"Kerri Cannova",
"Larry Muldowney",
"Mary Odusanya",
"MechanicalMan",
"Tom Maloney",
"Yvonne Cooper",
"christine spyridakos",
"drake035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68790
|
White bristles on carrots
I've had carrots in a plastic bag in the fridge for a few weeks and when I went to use them today, I noticed there are what I can best describe as white bristles or whiskers coming out of them. I've never seen this before. What are they and have the carrots spoiled ?
Updated with photo
They're just roots.
Don't forget that carrots are a taproot and this one seems to be trying to grow.
The carrots are still fine to eat, though they use the internal sugars to grow the roots, so they may not taste as sweet. They'll also get soft really quickly, so if you're going to eat them, do it soon.
Related question here.
Eating carrots more often prevents root formation.
One of the few cases where bristles or whiskers growing on food isn't a reason to immediately throw it out!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.889966
| 2016-05-04T22:48:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68790",
"authors": [
"AfterWorkGuinness",
"Vikki",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66715"
],
"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
}
|
63627
|
What is the purpose of this footed glassware with a large round bowl and a decorative handle?
I inherited a very large collection of glassware, most of it I recognised, some very esoteric (specific vessels for specific kinds of alcohol etc). I've been able to identify and understand the intended purpose of every piece except for a set of four unusual glass cups/bowls.
For perspective: A tennis ball would fit snugly inside.
The small glass spiral on the side does not feel strong enough to be used as a handle even when the vessel is empty so I was wondering if it was perhaps intended to hold some kind of spoon or something. Maybe entirely decorative?
Any information on what this is or what it's for would be greatly appreciated.
I've seen similar ones used for either punch at parties, or egg nog. (although those had a true handle on the side, not just the swirl)
Brandy perhaps? Though those usually close up at the top, and this one looks like it might be hard to hold from below to warm said brandy?
To me, it looks like either a very large punch or wassail/hot cider glass or a dessert bowl for mousse or syllabub or similar. The foot makes me think dessert bowl, the handle makes me think punch, except that it is apparently too delicate for use as a handle.
Cocktails? The handle seems to thin to hold it when you raise it, but it should be enough to hold it while you stir something inside.
When someone finesses the design of a serving vehicle, the item should be approached as a picture frame: you use to enhance or embellish some recipe that is complimented by the item's design. Something like this would be a great vehicle for a personal serving of some whimsical layered dessert more so than trying to use the fancy handle for grip on a beverage.
German punch glasses. I have some. For serving hot fruity punch, usually at Christmas, with or without alcohol.
You have to be very careful not to crack them by putting hot punch in. You have to warm them first.
They usually come as part of a set. There is a huge bowl and sometimes even a glass ladle. But they are the first to go, so you only have the glasses left. I never use the things anyway.
I think it's an artistically stylized ale glass.
yes, or for cider or punch. how many are there of this size? i wonder if the spiral/handle thing is a lot stronger than would expect.
@franko it would be hard to use as a handle anyway; most adult humans wouldn't even be able to get a pinky finger through the middle of the spiral and it's small size and the fact that there's only one on the side make the whole thing want to slip out of your hand. There are four of them. I'm not 100% sure that they are even glass, tbh. They feel heavier than I'd expect them to be.
They hold somewhere between 400ml and 500ml.
Heavy glass probably means it's leaded crystal.
I was thinking crystal too, @Debbie M. -- maybe you're not supposed to stick a finger through it, but just grasp/pinch on either side of it? I do agree that the design is problematic for using. Since there's only four of them, maybe it's for tea.
The shape of the "mug" points to and ale glass, but I suppose it could be for tea. It's oddly shaped for a tea mug though. They are usually straight sided. Some China has a small lip, but these are rather pronounced. All we can do is guess unless someone finds a match on the web.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.890078
| 2015-11-18T23:24:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63627",
"authors": [
"Allan Butchart",
"B Craddy",
"Cassey Stevens",
"Debbie M.",
"Escoce",
"FluidCode",
"Jane Garvey",
"Joe",
"Laura Forsythe",
"MaryEllen Campbell",
"Maxwell's Demon",
"NadjaCS",
"Sinorik Zombojian",
"franko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98106",
"thrig"
],
"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
}
|
21300
|
What are those cakes that don't have an icing on them called?
I have eaten some home made cakes that never had any icings, they still tasted brilliant.
What are those cakes called? ...maybe "sponge cakes"?
This question is way too vague to allow for a meaningful answer. You need to describe exactly what the cake looked and tasted like, and maybe where you got it.
Any cake that is sufficiently tasty and moist can do without icing - I've seen more good cakes ruined by too much icing than the other way around. I agree with @FuzzyChef, if you're looking a specific kind of cake we need more details. If you want to know what cakes don't have to be iced, the answer is 'any that doesn't need it'.
@FuzzyChef and rfusca, so they aren't called anything specially? Okay. Perhaps sponge cakes are something else? Close vote from me.
If a cake isn't good enough to eat without icing, it's not good enough to eat with icing. Try a different recipe next time.
@Caleb That isn't the question here.
I find the question good enough to answer. While the English speakers here might find it self-explanatory that "a cake without the icing is a cake", other languages have different categorization of cakes, so somebody not familiar with English baking terms can easily assume that there should be such a word in English.
In English, all cakes are called just cake, no matter if iced or not. Sponge cake is a name for a cake made from a specific type of batter - it consists of one part fat, one part egg, one part sugar, and one part flour, made by foaming the fat and sugar (with creaming instead of foaming, a batter from the same proportions is called pound cake, at least if you follow the classification established by M. Ruhlmann). You can make other types of cake - angel food cake, chiffon, genoise, etc - and not add icing, they are differentiated by the type of batter only.
In other languages, there is a difference. In German, the ones without icing are called "Kuchen", and the ones with rich, decorated icing are called "Torte" (and usually seen as a subset of Kuchen"). But in German, a pie is also considered a type of "Kuchen", so this is more of an umbrella term, even though the standard thing someone pictures upon hearing the word "Kuchen" is some kind of iceless cake, usually on the lines of a marbled Gugglehupf. But in English, there is no special term for a cake without the icing.
In some sources, English speaking authors use a category for the opposite of what you are asking. However, it is not centered on the baking attributes of the cake, but rather on its purpose - I have seen authors create bookchapters called "celebration cakes", "wedding cakes", "birthday cakes" etc. It is implicit that they place the richly decorated cakes in these categories, while the plainer ones stay as "everyday cakes", in UK sources sometimes as "tea cakes" or even get no special name at all. In the end, the same cakes which fall on the "celebration" side in this categorization scheme tend to be the ones that are called "torte" in German.
That's a very beautiful answer. I thought that was a stupid question.
+1 for getting at the heart of the issue - terminology seems "obvious" to people who grew up with it, when it may not make any sense to someone who grew up with different terminology or categories for the same items.
As a native speaker of German I can't verify the fact that every cake with icing is a Torte but apart from that: good answer.
Are you sure about the "creaming" bit? I thought pound cake was created by creaming butter and sugar to develop air pockets for leavening - sponge cake is created by whipping eggs to provide the leavening (it tends to produce bigger pockets of air, thus sponge cake is more airy and less dense than pound cake). This is mostly an American distinction I think - in the UK, it's mostly just "cake". Source: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yXwYoXmYTD4C&pg=PT120&lpg=PT120
@DanGravell there is probably no single classification of cake names. The one I use is the one Ruhlmann suggests. I find it good because it makes a difference between a cake made with the muffin method and a cake made with the creaming method - they taste differently even though they have the same proportions (1:1:1:1). Egg leavened cakes usually have different names (e.g. a genoise) but they typically also have a different ratio of ingredients. I have never made a recipe which required the pound ratio, and prescribed separately whipped egg whites (or whole eggs) in addition to creaming.
@rumtscho Forgive me if I misunderstand but... my understanding of Ruhlmann is that pound cake is creamed, sponge cake is foamed. You said above "Sponge cake... made by creaming the fat and sugar (without creaming, a batter from the same proportions is called pound cake)" which sounds the wrong way around to me.
Muffins are something completely different imo - a type of quickbread that differs in terms of ratio. The two cake methods we are talking about differ only in terms of technique.
I'm just labouring the point to ensure the answer is as high quality as possible, btw :-)
@DanGravell oops, you're right! I just checked my copy and it seems I have remembered it wrong all the time. Ruhlmann does consider the "straight" method too, but only for quickbreads and muffins, not for cakes, and prescribes a different ingredient list for those. I should edit. Also, I am a language pedant myself, so don't get offended by others involving me in terminology discussions.
Cool - I can delete the comments now if you like.
It's called Cake
Cake with icing is called "iced cake". Iced cake is mostly a modern aberration, and a "normalisation of party food"*
* a common trend often linked to the expanding waistlines of today
There is no special name for those which aren't supposed to be iced?
Coffee cakes typically are non-iced as well as many bundt cakes which I suppose you could argue are one in the same. Pound cakes, Twinkies (which have the icing in the middle instead and are a form of sponge cake), fruit cakes etc etc etc. all void of icing yet with distinct names of their own. The list really could be quite long if we do enough research.
They are called "naked cakes".
For example, this article states
A naked cake is easily recognized by its absent or minimal outer layer of frosting, which shows off the cake’s natural texture and filling. Some naked cakes have zero frosting on their outer edge, while others have just a wisp of buttercream.
In my house we call it "plain cake"
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.890404
| 2012-02-13T00:56:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21300",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Caleb",
"Chef Flambe",
"Dan Gravell",
"FuzzyChef",
"Sam Ley",
"Umbranus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9091",
"rfusca",
"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
}
|
15825
|
Adding butter to pizza recipe
I like to experiment with my pizza recipe, and I love the taste of butter.
Right now my pizza dough recipe is something like this:
2 cups of flour
3/4 cup of water
1 ts of yeast
2 ts of honey
1 spoon of olive oil
...if I remember correctly.
How and when can I add butter to this?
Or is it better to add it to the sauce?
You won't get a buttery taste from adding butter to the dough. Even in fat-rich batters like pound cake, the difference between butter and a neutral fat is subtle - it is there, but it doesn't taste like biting into a buttered toast. And in a pizza, you can't add such amounts of fat to the dough, because it will interfere with gluten production, resulting in the wrong dough texture.
If you are prebaking the pure base at some point, putting butter on top of it will give you some buttery taste. But most pizza recipes call for immediate baking with the sauce, if not toppings, without prebaking the naked base (the exception is made for baking thick-crusted pizza in a regular, low-temp oven).
Putting butter in the sauce is also an option, but it will tend to be quite overwhelmed by the tomatoes. In general, a sour taste masks fats well, and a tomato sauce is sour.
I think that your best bet is to use some toppings which remain above the cheese, and put pieces of butter on them the moment you get the pizza outside, or, if they are crustable, in the last 5 minutes of baking. This will create small patches of melted butter with a distinctive flavour. If you do it on the cheese, it will mix with the cheese fat, and make it too greasy, so toppings above the cheese should function better.
The last option is to cheat and use butter aroma - this is what many commercial bread producers use. I wouldn't do that, because I am able to distinguish it for the real thing, but many people seem to be happy with it.
I would avoid putting it in the dough as it will change the texture. I'd simply make sure I had plenty of 'bare' crust, then after cooking, brush it with softened salted butter. For extra flavor I'd mix the butter with minced garlic and dried oregano first.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.890911
| 2011-06-28T18:32:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15825",
"authors": [
"Amanda",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33638",
"umbriel"
],
"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
}
|
21065
|
Can I include carrots in Tortilla de Patatas and can I use a casserole dish to make it taller?
I want to make Tortilla de Patatas but I have extra carrots that I would like to use somewhere. Can I include them in the frying phase? And can the dish be cooked in a casserole dish in the oven to make a very tall 'omelet'?
Since you ask about another addition in a comment below, I hope you won't object to me mentioning that the one "standard" addition is onion. That is to say, in Spain tortilla de patatas can be described as "with onion" or "without onion".
If you would like to add carrots, make sure you cut them small enough (since it takes quite a while to get them soft). I'm not 100% sure it would be a good fit, but that's up to you.
You certainly can make a tortilla in the oven, I've done so in a spring form. I think I did it for about 45 min in an oven of 180°C/350°F. But this depends of course on how much food you use and how big your form is. Just keep an eye on it, the egg should be fully cooked and the potatoes soft.
would tomatoes be better than carrots to add?
In my opinion? Yes. I sometimes slice a tomato and put the slices on top. So don't add it to the stir-fry.
Tortilla de patatas can be mixed with some other vegetables in order to make some varieties (for example: tortilla campera). But I've never seen a tortilla with carrots, although I understand you need to cook somewhere those carrots. I'd love to know how it looks and tastes! ;)
If you add carrots, make sure carrots are at least a bit cooked before adding to any phase of the tortilla. If I were you, I would take one of these 2 options:
I would boil carrots and add them to the egg mix right after fried potatoes and onions.
Or, in case you want carrots to have some olive oil + onions + fried potatoes flavour, I would at least blanch them (or boil until they are tender / al dente) before adding to the frying phase (as cooking carrots takes longer than potatoes) at the same time than potatoes.
You can make it in the oven if you find it more convenient, why not? Just so you know that is far from a spanish traditional way of cooking it ;)
In case your concern is about making a taller tortilla, you can do that in a frying pan too (no need for an oven to do that). It only takes some more practice to learn until you do a taller one. Why? Basically because it implies that you have to fill much more your frying pan with more tortilla mixture. Which means when you would flip tortilla upside down you may find it heavier than other times and also you have to move quicker too because mixture tends to spread if it's too tall. Also, you should let tortilla in the heat for sometime longer too in order the inside is properly cooked (bearing in mind that the heat can't be very high as the outside could burn).
Well, I hope this help and good luck with your carrot-tortilla! :)
I'd most likely slice the carrots very thinly and fry them just before I did the potatoes. Boiling to soften and drying before frying would be another possibility if you're not being lazy.
But I would not only boil them. You want them going into the eggs while they're still hot, so the egg kinda congeals around them and binds well. If you were to add cold carrots, or hot-but-wet carrots, it wouldn't adhere correctly.
And if you did it in a casserole dish, I would argue that it's a crustless, dairy-free quiche, as you're just not going to get the same fried exterior that you get with a spanish tortilla. If you pre-heated the casserole dish with some oil in it, you'd get closer, but it's going to be closer to a frittata.
And one other tip for larger tortillas -- I use a pot lid, rather than a plate to flip it. Use one that's curved or has a bit of a lip to catch the oil and is a little bit bigger than the pan you're using. Slide the tortilla onto the lid, place the pan upside down on the lid, then quickly flip them both over. I find that having a handle is easier for me than when using a plate.
You can put almost anything in tortillas. With tortilla de papas, you would typically fry the potatoes before hand, I would add the carrots there since those take a while to cook, like potatoes. I add carrots to them sometimes, also squash or make it with spinach.
You can cook them in the oven in a baking dish or cast iron pan. Cook at 190C, time would depend on the size.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.891103
| 2012-02-04T19:30:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21065",
"authors": [
"Mien",
"Peter Taylor",
"Vass",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8804"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13659
|
Baking bread with spelt flour, without using a bread pan
I ran out of "normal" wheat flour a few days ago, so I had to bake my bread with the closest thing - spelt flour.
I noticed the dough was a lot stickier than when using wheat flour, and when baked, the bread came out flat (like a thick pancake). The taste was fine, but because it was so flattened out, there was a lot more crust than usual (and the children don't like crust).
I usually bake my bread directly on the baking plate, not using any bread pan, and for wheat flour, that works fine. Do I need a bread pan to prevent the bread from running out, or is there something else I can do?
Although similar, spelt has more protein and less starch than wheat flour.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheat#Nutrition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spelt#Nutrition
This means that it will create a great structure but won't absorb as much liquid. This would result in exactly what you saw- it was sticky from water and protein and too loose to hold its shape but baked with a good crust.
The recipes I have seen use a mixture of flours that includes spelt.
Try adding less water.
That explains it. That would also mean that adding some starch to the mix could fix the stickiness and help it hold its shape..?
Perhaps but I haven't seen wheat starch sold separately from wheat flour and other types of starch wouldn't have the same texture when cooked.
Try baking it in a pot with a lid inside the oven ie a Dutch oven, casserole dish or
whatever.
Although this does give you a much better crust - I can only suggest changing the children.
Haha, brilliant.
I've tried baking bread with 100% spelt (no wheat) flour a few times and it was really hard to get something not too flat, which was still pretty dense. Even using a bread pan the result is denser than the typical French white bread, but fine. I haven't tried it yet, but this recipe looks good (in the photo :)
Using quark is definitely a nice idea - please tell me/us how it works out!
I'll see, but I'm supposed to avoid cow milk (and cheese) so I'll have to use my colleges as testers 0:)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.891535
| 2011-04-01T14:44:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13659",
"authors": [
"Cerberus",
"Ronald",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8886",
"miguev",
"user13987"
],
"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
}
|
18657
|
How do I rid my new plastic appliance of its plastic smell?
I've just purchased a new coffee maker, and it has a terrible plastic smell to it. It smells like something between new car and hot glue gun.
I've run two or three pots of water through it, but the smell lingers.
How do I get rid of this smell?
I would expect the stuff that makes plastics smell to be more on the oil/alcohol soluble side then water soluble...
You could also try running white vinegar through the coffeemaker. It's a technique used to clean the coffeemaker. Vinegar in general is good for getting rid of smells, so I'm thinking it will be useful here.
Vinegar isn't good at getting rid of smells at all. It has some limited use in smelly cases: 1. If a smell is caused by a bacteria colony and the bacteria are still alive, it will probably kill them. 2. It can dissolve some grime water can't. 3. It can mask a bad smell with its own stink. So it can work for your dirty laundry, but there is no point to use it on clean plastic.
Perhaps a few runs with coffee to overcome the smell and taste. Since these runs are not for drinking you can use a cheap kind of coffee.
Just my thought.
I tried this, but I'm not convinced that it's having any more effect than water alone -- the smell seems to be coming from the water chamber, which never touches the coffee.
You may consider running a solution of PLAIN Oxilean through it a couple of times, and then multiple clean water rinses. On the off chance you're a home brewer, I'd suggest PBW instead, but PLAIN oxiclean should do the trick. Stay away from any scented versions.
If it is a Keurig, fill the entire water container with straight vinegar. Run though one or two cycles to fill the heat chamber with the vinegar. Leave the unit on with the vinegar for at least four hours. After that, run remaining vinegar and clean water through as many cycles as necessary until the vinegar taste is gone. Plastic taste will be gone from coffee. It will take awhile for the plastic smell to wear off the outside of the unit.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.891737
| 2011-10-30T08:36:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18657",
"authors": [
"12vi6",
"Andreu Ramos",
"ArtOfCode",
"BaffledCook",
"Citricguy",
"Evan Krall",
"Jeremy H",
"Tom Goodfellow",
"dukerasputin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"user14444"
],
"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
}
|
13860
|
Why did my Crème Fraiche split?
I have made a recipe where I take a number of ingredients and cover them with Creme Fraiche and then bake it in the oven for a while. I have been making this recipe for a few years.
Recently the recipe has been failing as when I take the food out of the oven, the Creme Fraiche has split and the "sauce" is very watery.
Any suggestions as to why this might be happening?
What are the other ingredients? My intuition says acidity or dilution of the creme fraiche are the probable culprits, and both acidity and water content are different in every batch of vegetables of the same kind. Also, oven temperature could be important.
Par boiled potatoes, brocolli, salmon, whole grain mustard
Almost all fermented dairy products curdle under heat. When this happens, the milk proteins bind to each other into a rubbery mesh, which can't contain all the moisture from the original product, and it is squeezed out.
Creme fraîche tends to be an exception. It contains a high amount of fat. This fat lubricates the proteins and gets in the way, so they can't bind to each other and form the mesh. However, the fat content of creme fraîche isn't all that high (just enough to allow for the effect I described), so it is finicky when heated.
As you don't seem to have acid in the recipe, the trouble probably comes from water. It dilutes the creme fraîche, making it more probable that proteins will meet and bind without a fat droplet coming in the way. So, if you want to keep the recipe as authentic as possible, try to reduce the amount of water exuded by the other ingredients.
The first thing to check is whether you are actually using creme fraîche. Sometimes people make a substitution with a similar product, but continue calling it the name of the original product. Sour cream, smetana, creme legere, plant substitutes, etc. won't work in your case - 30% fat is the minimum for baking, the higher the fat content, the better is it suited. For the rest of the answer, I am assuming that you are using the creme fraîche.
My suggestion would be to drain the broccoly very well (I assume you mean blanched or nuked broccoli, baking them in the oven would be strange), maybe even try to use a salad dryer. If the salmon comes from a vacuum package, drain it well too, and pat it dry with a paper towel. Take the potatoes out of the boiling pot and leave them alone for a while, the cooling startch will absorb some moisture. Also, use a mealy type of potatoes, the starch in these could absorb some liquid from the other ingredients. Another thing which should help in any case is to reduce the oven temperature, as the gentler heat will affect the creme fraîche less.
If this fails, you should consider adding other ingredients to stabilize the creme fraîche. It will change the taste, but not necessarily for the worse.
A stabilizer should help. For dairy, carrageenan is very effective and its taste is not noticeable, but most people don't have it in the kitchen. Starch will also act as stabilizer, take just a small portion, maybe a teaspoonful per 200 g creme fraîche. Dissolve it in a teaspoonful of cold water before adding it. You could also use flour. Both will affect the taste somewhat, the flour will be more pronounced.
The second solution would be to raise the fat content. Adding pure fat is counterproductive, as the fat droplets in dairy products are much smaller than what your blender would achieve. But you could mix or substitute the creme fraîche using a dairy product with a higher fat content. Mascarpone, kaymak, katuk, clotted cream, or creme double should work. Or maybe cream cheese, even if it doesn't have a higher fat content, because it contains stabilizers. A full substitution will alter the taste substantially, but a partial one will probably be OK.
If all else fails, you could try if you can't change the recipe to accommodate a more traditional gratin liquid (how is the stuff called in English?). While I agree that pure creme fraîche will work best with what you listed, a mixture of eggs (or just yolks to keep it more liquid), milk, the creme fraîche, and a tiny bit of flour would also provide a moist binding. Use less eggs/yolks than in a normal gratin to keep it from setting too much. It will be a big change, but if nothing else works, it will still taste much better than curdled creme fraîche.
Or if you are a risk-embracing nature, you can continue using pure creme fraîche, just with the moisture reducing techniques, hoping that this will be enough. Each time it separates, you should drain the whole dish, catching the liquid. Scum off the curds, or strain them. The whey will have a nice taste, similar to a stock. Take out some new creme fraîche (not heated), and mix it with the liquid. (Reduce it first to avoid making it too liquid). Add it back to the remaining ingredients. This will keep the taste even if the curdling occurs, but will require lots of work.
Do you mean Bechamel sauce here? ("...you could try if you can't change the recipe to accommodate a more traditional [gratin|bechamel] liquid")
While bechamel might be a solution, it will be probably even more distanced from the original than adding yolks (and possibly flour and other dairy) to the creme fraiche. If I decided to go the roux path, I'd use the variant I described in the last paragraph, a veloute mixed into creme fraiche. I'd use either the whey from the separated creme fraiche, or a neutral vegetable stock, or try if a fish stock blends in with the salmon. This is a better taste match, but lots of work.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.891950
| 2011-04-08T08:11:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13860",
"authors": [
"BENBUN Coder",
"Christie",
"Ctay",
"Earthymom",
"SKradel",
"Zviovich",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5619",
"mfg",
"rumtscho",
"sous vide newbie"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
50329
|
How much of "wasabi" is actually wasabi in the United States?
After looking at wasabi's Wikipedia page I was shocked to find out that real wasabi loses the majority of its flavor in 15 minutes if left uncovered and that in the United States "wasabi" is actually horseradish, mustard, starch, and green food coloring.
This made me wonder about much of the wasabi-flavored foods I have had such as wasabi peas, and the ingredients list of Trader Joe's Wasabi Peas confirms that their "wasabi" is nothing more than mustard. However, another brand of wasabi peas simply lists "wasabi" in their ingredients list which makes me wonder if it is legal in the US to label horseradish, mustard, and other things that clearly are not wasabi as wasabi. It also makes me wonder if I have ever had real wasabi in my lifetime living in the United States.
Does anyone have any insight into how much of the wasabi-flavored foods in the United States are authentic and how to know what is the real thing? I am also very interested in knowing more about the regulations that pertain to foods being labelled as "wasabi" when there is no actual wasabi in them.
I've always hated wasabi, it stabbed my nose with a thousand knives. I was surprised to find during my first trip to Japan that no, I don't actually hate wasabi ... I hate whatever that green stuff is you find at Japanese places in Australia. When wasabi was freshly grated in front of me, served immediately, it was infinitely better. All the wasabi peas and nuts I've tried, wasabi this or that, didn't taste anything like fresh wasabi in Japan.
From what I understand, almost none of our "wasabi" is wasabi.
The vast majority of wasabi in the US is mostly horseradish.
Some brands like this one, contain no wasabi at all. That one is the #1 seller on Amazon.
Other brands, including this one, contain a small amount of wasabi, presumably just so they can put wasabi on the list of ingredients. Incidentally, that brand is made in Japan.
Real wasabi can be found without too much trouble. This brand is in the powdered form, you can also get it in a tube. I understand that real wasabi loses its heat very quickly after being grated, which may explain why I actually prefer the fake stuff. I've tried real wasabi in a tube, and I found it disappointingly mild. If I ever see a fresh wasabi stem I will buy it just to satisfy my curiosity. (Originally I called it "wasabi root", the wiki article linked to in the OP tells me it's actually a stem. Hmmm, learn something new every day.)
I have read that most of the wasabi in Japanese sushi bars is the same stuff we get here. Even in Japan, real wasabi is the exception, not the rule.
You bring up an interesting point about the legality of labeling a product "wasabi" when it doesn't contain any real wasabi. Our labeling laws usually wouldn't allow that. My guess is that it's a loophole just for wasabi, maybe written especially for Japanese exporters.
HA! There is even an on-line petition to ban the practice of labeling horseradish "wasabi".
We were quite relieved that the wasabi we could buy in the U.K. (but Made In Japan) looks and tastes just like the tube we had previously bought in Japan. It is just labelled "wasabi" and, as already stated, only contains a little "real" wasabi.
I think what may be going on is that in Japanese you have 本わさび (hon-wasabi, which is the Japanese wasabi plant) and 西洋わさび (seiyou-wasabi, literally Western wasabi, which is the Japanese name for horse radish). So, from that point of view, horse radish is a type of wasabi, and Japanese wasabi is a type of wasabi.
But did they name it Western wasabi before or after people started serving it here and calling it wasabi?
A quick search says it was introduced to Japan in Meiji era (1868-1912) from Eastern Europe; I couldn't find anything about a name change since.
Wasabi is a rather pricey produce even in Japan, and most food is served with substitutes.
It doesn't grow in the US or in Europe. So the rule of thumb is that if it anything cheap/affordable, it is not wasabi.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.892385
| 2014-12-05T00:29:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50329",
"authors": [
"Carrie Anne",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Wiley",
"Commercial Fire Alarm",
"Darren Cook",
"Envi Tech AL",
"Glasgow Brian",
"House Clearance Ealing Ltd",
"Ian Heritage",
"Ming",
"Pat Henderson",
"Preston",
"Sports Court Resurfacing Ltd",
"Visa Ram",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"kevin bust"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14444
|
how do I cook sausages without poking holes through them?
I hear that when cooking sausages, you shouldn't poke holes in them as it will allow the flavour to spill out.
But whenever I don't do that with fat sausages, I end up getting the outside charred but the inside uncooked.
Poking holes in sausages is generally done to allow the steam to escape, to stop them splitting.
@Orbling nevertheless, for at least some types of raw sausage, it's quite important to not pierce the casing until the sausage is finished cooking. I've had the texture on Italian sausage come out more mealy if the casing was pierced, and the flavor was not as good either. If you're piercing that type of sausage to keep it from exploding, then the exploding is likely a sign that you're cooking them too hot. The target temperature is below the boiling point, so it's not necessary to get the sausages so hot that they would explode if not pierced.
@TheodoreMurdock: I was thinking more of British sausages, which are a fairly different affair and my understanding of the word.
If you are charring the outside then you are cooking the sausages too fast. Sausages are best when cooked relatively slowly: on a low pan, or under a medium grill. 20-25 mins in a 200C/400F oven usually does the trick as well.
I just had an experience with that last weekend.. The BBQ was too hot and we had charred sausages which felt cold on the inside.. :(
Yup, you have to be careful with that. BBQ season is food-poisoning season - undercooked food and cross-contamination left, right and center!
That why I always dread hearing the words "We are having a barbecue ..." @ElendilTheTall.
I find that boiling the sausages first (in beer or water) until they are cooked, then lightly searing the outside with a little oil in the pan is the best way to cook sausages without splitting the casing.
This is the trick to sausage. Your want to cook it slowly, evenly, for a longer time. If you blacken the sausage casing while the inside is still raw your cooking to fast.
In a fry pan, turn the heat down to just above the point where the grease "spits" and cook for 30-45 mins.
In an oven, 350 F for 45-60 mins is a better bet then higher temperatures.
On a grill, the trick is to let the coals get to the "glowy" phase then add a pan of water to the grill. The water will help regulate the temperature Cook the sausages around 350-400 F for 40-50 mins. Remember to use the dampers to control the temp on a large scale. The water is an awesome trick to help control the temp spikes, and to keep the temp stable.
When boiling sausage (yuck) a high boil for over 90 mins is what I have done. But I don't like it so I don't have a lot of experience in doing it.
But whenever I don't do that with fat sausages, I end up getting the
outside charred but the inside uncooked.
This sounds like your grill is too hot. You can cook with a hot grill but then you are basically constantly turning them over and still playing culinary Russian roulette with your sausage.
I have developed a way to cook sausage with a hot grill but you need to have your a-game when you grill it that way. You constantly need to turn the sausage so that it does not burn. It is probably easier just to wait a bit to have the fire calm down.
I hear that when cooking sausages, you shouldn't poke holes in them as
it will allow the flavor to spill out.
You should definitely not break the casing when they are still raw. You are going to be chewing car tires if you do that. If you wait until the sausage is cooked to cut it then it should be OK. Some fat will escape but sausage is 30% fat as long as you do it close to the end there should still be enough fat for a juicy sausage.
You can also cook sous vide at (pork at 60C) for about an hour, then finish on grill or in pan. No poking necessary.
Buy Skinless or cook in two way grill, ie., George Foreman type of grill.
I slowly simmer for 8-10 min. per side for fat fresh sausages and 4-5 min. per side for thinner (like hot dogs), then finish them by browning them over medium heat in a little oil till nicely browned. Perfect every time.
I use the simmering liquid with some added seasonings to cook the peppers and onions. Yummy!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.892760
| 2011-05-01T03:38:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14444",
"authors": [
"Arthur Walker",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Greybeard",
"Orbling",
"Theodore Murdock",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9057",
"notthetup"
],
"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
}
|
8527
|
Stuffed pumpkin on a burner
I have been asked to make a main for a potluck this Halloween and I thought I would be "clever" and bake a lamb stew in a pumpkin. I plan to hollow out the pumpkin and add meat, veg, spices, etc. and then replace the top and poke a small hole in it to let air escape.
The main problem is that my oven isn't working properly and don't want to risk it failing halfway through. Would it be possible to wrap the stuffed pumpkin in tinfoil, and put it over a gas burner on low? I have plenty of time and could let it slow cook for hours, but I have my doubts on if the technique would work.
Why not bake the stew in a traditional container and roast the pumpkin separately, then move the stew to the pumpkin? Or don't even roast the pumpkin?
I had thought of this but was really hoping to be able to stew inside the pumpkin. I might experiment beforehand on thurs or fri with a smaller version to see how it turns out.
Have a grill? Indirect heat would give you the same effect as an oven for roasting.
I would suggest combining @justkt's comment with steaming: that works omnidirectionally, which takes care of @daniel's answer as well.
More in particular: make the stew separately but not quite until fork-tender, optionally roast your pumpkin for as long as your oven works, then put your filled pumpkin in a nice big pot with lid on a rack with a bit of water underneath. You'll probably want to cover the pumpkin with foil to prevent the water from dripping into the hole you're making in the top. If you're doing this for a long time, you'll want to keep refilling the water when a lot of it has evaporated.
Steaming seems like an interesting option that I had not considered. I'll have to see if my pumpkin will fit in the pot :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.893453
| 2010-10-25T16:59:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8527",
"authors": [
"Max",
"Nick T",
"PotatoLatte",
"beetles",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67598",
"justkt",
"krowe",
"user1027169"
],
"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
}
|
30797
|
Yeast for pizza doughs
We are interested in a good quality year-round yeast so we don't have to switch brands or adjust too much according to season.
Are you having difficulties finding a reliable supplier throughout the year, or having difficulty keeping your store of yeast?
Any good yeast that you bake bread with will do the job. I have very good success with so-called quick rise or instant yeast, but any of the types will do. Fresh is more difficult to keep on hand, as it doesn't last as long.
What you will need to adjust seasonally is how much yeast you use and/or how long you let the pizza proof before baking it. The temperature at which you proof--which is often room temperature in the kitchen--will effect how long it takes the dough to rise.
I agree, I use SAF instant yeast, which I can freeze.
Agreed. Don't be put off by the 'quick rise' label - fast action dried yeast is stable, easy to store and easier to use as you don't have to hydrate it first before mixing. You simply use less of it to control the rise.
You can hardly go wrong with an instant yeast, especially SAF. Instant isn't quite as cold-shock tolerant as cake yeast, but it keeps better. On the other hand, active dry yeast still has a couple of advantages, the main ones being the number of legacy recipes out there calibrated for active dry and the fact that it was originally formulated for military kitchens with dubious or no environmental control.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.893647
| 2013-02-09T19:23:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30797",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Elly75 ",
"Emily",
"George Shea",
"Hectorina Williams",
"Peter Maloney",
"Trichosuris",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72153",
"lemontwist",
"mfg",
"user3482876"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37853
|
I'm brewing hard cider - what can I do with the yeast afterward?
I currently have a largish bottle of cider fermenting away in my kitchen. I will rack it in the next weeks. I prepared the batch from mashed apples (not juice) and I expect some sediment of yeast and apple leftovers.
Any ideas what I can do with that? Any recipes that make use of this yeast?
I will store part of it for the next cider, but certainly not all. So I'm looking for other uses around the kitchen.
This might be better asking on the brewing site? http://homebrew.stackexchange.com/
I suppose you could make bread with it.
I tried making bread once with leftover beer yeast. It was the densest bread I've ever tasted. Breadmaking not recommended.
You could try making vegemite.
How to make Vegemite.
Brewer's yeast is a good source of vitamin B, but live yeast tastes
boring, it is poorly digested. Inactivated yeast lacks the
disadvantages, but is still bland. The inventor of vegemite solved
this problem using autolysis: a process where the yeast's own enzymes
break it down.
Spent brewer's yeast is sieved to get rid of hop resins, and washed to
remove bitter tastes. Then it is suspended in water at a temperature
greater than 37 C with no nutrients: the yeast cells die, and vitamins
and minerals leach out. Then the proteolytic (protein-splitting)
enzymes take over, breaking the yeast proteins down into smaller
water-soluble fragments, which also leach out. The yeast cell membrane
is unruptured during this time, and can be removed by centrifuging.
The clear light brown liquid is then concentrated under a vacuum to a
thick paste (the vacuum helps preserve flavours and vitamin B1,
thiamine). It is seasoned with salt, and a small proportion of celery
and onion extracts to increase the palatability.
From http://www.convictcreations.com/culture/foodwine.htm (Last section on page)
+1 for an axcuse to get a vaccuum distillation equipment.
also, this is the kind of answer I was hoping for.
Yeast is very nutritious. You could probably figure out a way to give it some flavour and eat it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.893815
| 2013-10-23T14:05:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37853",
"authors": [
"Chris Cudmore",
"Dave Miles",
"Gr3go",
"Joe",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89136",
"mart",
"spam12",
"val"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
74314
|
Rust in salt, is it safe?
I bought a small tin of Jacobsen Sea Salt which is all the rage in Portland, Oregon. I left it in my back pack for a few weeks and when I took it out and opened it up I am noticing some rust from the tin on the top of the salt flakes around the edges.
Is it still safe? It's not that much but its still concerning.
related, possible duplicate: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/16347/1672 (that's rust on a grill, not quite the same, but I imagine you'd eat as much rust off a rusty grill as you possibly could from the little bits on that salt.)
Congratulations, you've made Himalayan pink salt in your own backpack. Pricey stuff: https://authoritynutrition.com/different-types-of-salt/
Rust is iron oxide. The body needs some iron. We all drink some rust from pipes.
To be toxic the only number I found is 200 milligrams per kilogram is lethal. But I have a degree in chemical engineering and I am not sure what they mean by that.
As for iron the lethal dose is about 45 mg / day.
Just saw the picture - not enough to hurt you.
The source claims 100-200 mg/kg is a potentially lethal dose of iron oxide. That's 100-200 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. So a 150 pound person's (68kg) lethal dose would be 10.2 - 13.6 grams. That's a lot of rust.
Something of which 10 grams (assuming it is in an edible form, not a 10 gram nail through your brain) can be fatal isn't exactly harmless either (but then, table salt would be dangerous if you swallowed 10 grams at once :)
Elemental iron would behave very differently in the body to oxide. We're probably not very good at extracting iron form the oxide anyway.
While it would be safe enough for me, I'd avoid the rustiest bits on the basis of flavour. Either pick out the obviously orange bits and discard or spoon the clean salt out of the middle. Either way (and even if you decide to eat it as is) transfer the salt to a clean dry container made of something more sensible. Packing it in a steel tin might look nice but it's not ideal for storing salt.
Funny. I was just searching about this as I have the same tin of Jacobsen Salt with a little rust. It's too good not to enjoy. Should be fine, as the last commenter mentioned, just avoid the most obviously orange ones, the rest should be great.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.894135
| 2016-09-28T00:06:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74314",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Jolenealaska",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66837
|
Carrots turning dark at heads, and on skin after chopping?
Please see attached photos. We are a small food processing plant, and recently it came to my attention some of the carrots we have been purchasing have been having a problem where the heads are turning a dark green/brown coloration. The skin on them also turn dark after processing. There is no slimy or any textural difference to the rest of the carrots, and to the touch they are still completely firm with no give or sign of rot. These are fresh from the distributor, and properly stored in coolers, we source and use fresh vegetables so these do not sit in the coolers for prolonged periods at all.
Just to give more information, our procedure is 1) automatic friction peeler, 2) fresh water rinse, 3) chlorine wash at 200PPM concentration (verified) with contact time of ≈15 seconds, 4) two additional fresh water rinse cycles, 5) carrot chopper.
You can see in the upper photo, after chopping the outer layer of the skin is already starting to turn dark for unidentified reason. Again, our process is rapid and our processing room is air conditioned. There is no slime or decay, but this batch of carrots has been discoloring unusually like this.
My questions are: what is the cause? Is there a food safety impact or is this a quality / aesthetic issue? What are some methods to combat this from happening?
Thank you!
You could try skipping specific steps in the process, to see if something from the friction peeler or chlorine wash or carrot chopper are introducing something (oil? some other chemical?) that is causing the reaction.
@thrig While it is possible, it is very unlikely an unforeseen contaminant is being introduced to the material; all such risks should be addressed through an assessment in the HACCP/HARPC plan. It is still possible an approved material can cause a chemical reaction the food safety team was not sufficiently knowledgeable to be aware of, but specifically in the case of my question the discoloration was present even prior to any processing (raw material storage segregation is enforced for multiple reasons, e.g., allergen management, identity preservation, GMP's, etc).
Further, it is also possible the two instances (before and after) are entirely unrelated, as Nette's answer -- the only answer -- assumes. It does sound like a reasonable explanation (the best I can get without ordering a lab analysis, anyway), despite the processing steps' inclusion of a friction peeler (the intended usage being to remove the outer "skin" layer). At the risk of sounding redundant here, I'm pointing this out because working in food safety makes one less willing to dismiss possibilities for no better reason than just improbability.
I ran a school tuckshop and also a college cafeteria for some years and I have seen this many times with new staff members.
The problem with discolouration is any damage to the skin. If preparing carrots in advance or in larger quantities ( sliced, grated, etc ) the skin needs to be thoroughly removed before storage. If any trace of skin is left they will get a brown discolouration.
The heads are a different matter. Carrots are root vegetables and, like potatoes, if any moisture is around the plant will make signs of growth. It's not harmful, they can be cut off a bit further down and any new fine roots which begin to grow can come off with peeling. When cutting down to tops you might see the green colouring further down in the centre. This isn't harmful, in fact nutritionally adds some chlorophyll and folate among others to the diet, but can taste bitter.
Hope this is helpful, good luck
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.894351
| 2016-02-25T18:44:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66837",
"authors": [
"Andrew Jones",
"Ann Duffield",
"Arctiic",
"JDG",
"Louise Lawrence",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43720",
"thrig"
],
"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
}
|
12309
|
What is the best way to open a tightly fitted lid of a jar?
Help! I need to get a jar of pasta sauce open but can't seem to budge it. I've tried using a dishtowel, and running it under hot water, but the lid is still stuck. What else can I do to open this jar?
If you can find one cheap (we have a couple we've gotten free at trade shows and the like), a rubber gripper like this one is an awesome thing to keep in the kitchen. I used to use the dent method mfg mentioned; now that I have this I find that hot water + rubber gripper = any jar can be opened.
For a regular jar of pasta sauce, a sturdy spoon under the rim always does the trick for me. Where it doesn't work is if the lid (as well as the jar) is threaded.
Ok - finally got it open! While googling, I came across a suggestion to cover the lid with a plastic glove and use that for traction. Not sure if it was the combination of running under hot water + the glove, or if the glove would've worked on it's own, but it's open now :)
I always just put a rubber glove over it and use that for extra power, even without the hot water.
Wouldn't it probably be as effective (more effective?) to just wear the rubber glove on the hand you're opening it with?
@Ryan Elkins - Using the empty glove offers an extra layer of material to act as a cushion, allowing more hand strength to be brought to bear.
I've found soaking in hot water to be better than running it under hot water - just turn it upside down and let sit in shallow hot water (just enough to cover the lid) for a while. It takes less water, and holds the heat longer, and soaking helps loosen the edges of any residue that might be dried between the cap and jar
Go around the edges, tapping the rim with the handle of a butter knife (leaving little dents). That should allow you to twist it off.
Unsure if down voter wanted a citation, but this does work very well.
Works best if you hit kind of diagonally, with some of the force in the direction that would turn the jar lid to open it. I suspect it's breaking the vacuum seal. This is what I do after the rubber gripper and hot water run have failed.
I've used this method when I didn't have any rubber bands or rubber grippers around, and it does work very well. I wish people wouldn't drive-by downvote and instead would explain what they think is wrong with an answer.
I do something similar, which I think I learned from my mother, which is just to hold the jar upside down, and tap the edge of the jar against the counter a few times, rotating the jar as you go. If it still won't open after that, then I break out something rubbery to grip better.
That's how I do it. I usually find that even just one quite firm little dent will do the job.
Or just push a regular table knife into the gap under the lid - you just need to break the vacuum on an unopened jar
The link in the answer is broken, and I'm not sure which eHow page would be the best replacement.
In future, if you're using a jar that you'll be emptying (like pasta sauce), the quickest way to open them is take a sharp, sturdy, pointed knife (or even a screwdriver), brace the jar well in a cloth, then carefully make a hole in the top of the lid (just place the point on it and give it a tap or two on the end of the handle). This breaks the seal of the jar, which is what makes it hard to open.
Thought of this, but wasn't planning on emptying the whole thing... needed the leftovers to be properly sealed afterwards. Thanks for the suggestion though!
@clueless: Having some spare mason jars on hand can be quite useful. Or any spare glass jars for that matter.
One thing that has worked for me is to slide a flat (butter) knife along the glass under the edge of the lid. Turn slightly to break the seal. Warning -- if your knife isn't strong, it will twist the blade. You'll know if you got it, since you'll be able to hear the seal breaking
I was going to provide the same answer as you, but it is a bit ... risky: it could do worse than twist the blade, it could break, and the end could fly off somewhere...
Ooh, that's never happened to me. Wow, now I've got something else to worry about. :-)
Or use a spoon instead of a knife. Or better yet - the back of any piece of cutlery (provided it's thin enough to fit), they are more sturdy than a blade.
@CraigCunningham, screwdriver & hygiene... need I say more?
Marta, I place the jar upside down and gently use a bread knife.
I used kitchen scissors instead and it worked!
My favorite jar opener:
The Brix JarKey
You just need a gentle lift to let a little air in and then you can remove the top bare-handed. The lid is not damaged (unless you use more force than necessary).
In a pinch, you can use channel-lock pliers to do the same thing. Hold the pliers "upside-down" so the longer jaw is under the edge of the jar lid and the other jaw is against the top and gently lift. A little air leaks in just as with the JarKey and then you easily open the jar by hand.
I also use channel lock pliers -- but I open them up as large as they'll go, and use them for leverage in turning the lid. (and only if turning it upside down and banging along the rim against the counter doesn't work. (note that I don't have stone counters)
@Joe: That works like a conventional jar opener and approaches the problem as if friction were the issue. Try it the way I describe and you'll find that vacuum is often the real issue.
You need to depressurize it. It is very easy to do to simply take the pointed edge of a fork and jab the top of the container (the tin lid). Any small puncture made will work, once done the lid will open normally without any strenuous force. This method will work in the case where traction cannot force the lid open.
Either (1) Tap around the lid with a hammer/meat pounder or (2) Grab the lid with a rubber glove and twist.
I use a pipe wrench -- plenty of leverage for opening even the toughest jars.
I've had success with 2 methods ..
1: Tap the lid on the edge of a worktop, working all the way round.
2: Either hold the top of the jar under running hot water or stand jar upside down in a bowl of hot water for a couple of minutes.
(failing that I shout for son or husband!!).
Other suggestions would be:
Turning the jar upside down, and using the palm of your hand to thwak the bottom a few times.
Using a rubber band instead of a rubber glove, if you don't have one available.
The OXO Good Grips Jar Opener works well for me. I have arthritis in my thumbs of all places.
My wife uses the same one when I'm not around to be manly (read: she uses it when I can't open the jar). It works a treat.
Rob, please add summaries and descriptions of items referred to by links so that the answers on this site do not depend upon external content that may move, change or be removed.
Put a rubber band around the lid of the jar, grip firmly, and twist.
use a butter knife and stick it in between the side of the lid and the jar. Pry it away from the jar a bit, and this should let air inside, making it incredibly easy to open (since there's no vacuum anymore)
Sometimes the vacuum in the jar causes a lot of friction between the lid and the jar. Holding the jar upside down and banging a few times on the bottom with your palm can get some air inside and free the lid.
For a few years I have used a Culinare One Touch Jar Opener. I bought one for my grandmother who was too weak to open jars herself and she loved it, and as I have a touch of RSI, thought I would get one for myself, it can open pretty much any straight sided jar - tad noisy, but very effective! (Amazon)
If you want to open a jar keep it in boiling hot water as glass is poor conductor of heat it will contract and the lid will expand and your jar would be opened
It's actually the metal expanding faster than the glass does with changes in temperature. (aka 'differential expansion') It's actually a HUGE problem in machines, but is rather useful for cases like this.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.894720
| 2011-02-17T17:46:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12309",
"authors": [
"0x464e",
"Adnan Arikann",
"BaffledCook",
"Benjol",
"Charlie",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Colen",
"Cosmic Muffet",
"Dennis Williamson",
"Derek Edwards",
"Eric Eskildsen",
"Etheryte",
"Joe",
"JoeFish",
"John",
"Kate Gregory",
"KatieK",
"Martha F.",
"Marti",
"Martin Beckett",
"MattSizzle",
"Megha",
"Michael Natkin",
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"Ryan Elkins",
"Semaphore",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Tania",
"WWK",
"Wesley",
"clueless",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94717",
"jkadlubowska",
"ken bigjohhnson",
"kenorb",
"mfg",
"nancy m miller",
"ninly",
"stephennmcdonald",
"user103805",
"user25399",
"zga"
],
"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
}
|
17530
|
How to keep cooked spaghetti fresh if I serve them an hour or so after cooking?
Let's say I make a spaghetti-and-meatball supper, and I made the spaghetti an hour or so before the meal. What's the best way to keep it fresh and warm until we're ready to eat?
The technique that many restaurants will use is to prepare the pasta ahead of time and store it in or on ice water. The chilled pasta may be then submerged briefly in boiling water and served.
You don't want to keep it warm -- that will lead to it steaming itself and overcooking. You need to get it cold and reasonably dry as quickly as possible so that it will stop absorbing water for the hour that it is sitting around, then reheat it quickly at the last minute.
Undercook the pasta slightly -- by somewhere between two and one minutes -- so that it is not crunchy anymore, but is extremely chewy. Pull it out, saving the hot water, and plunge it into as large a quantity of ice water as you can collect. As soon as the pasta is cold, pull it out of that water, too.
The surface of the pasta will still be covered in wet starch, which will cause all the pieces to start sticking together as they sit. To avoid this, toss the pasta with a little oil (it doesn't matter what kind you use, because you're going to wash it off later), so that all the pieces are coated. You can keep the pasta out on the counter if you're going to use it soon,* and you may want to cover it. When you are ready to eat, bring that cooking water back to a boil, and drop the pasta in. It will take a bit more than the subtracted minute to finish cooking; it depends on how quickly you cooled it down, how thick it is, how much you dried it off, how cold it is when you drop it back into the water, ... as always, tasting it is the only way to tell if it's done.
If you do put it in the fridge, it should be reusable for at least a couple of days.
I'm not sure why you want to cook your pasta ahead of time, but if your idea is to shorten the last-minute step of getting the pasta fully cooked, you should look into pre-soaking the pasta, a totally heretical fascinating proposal that Harold McGee recently made.
*Food-safety-minded people would say you need to refrigerate it if you're going to keep it for more than two hours.
One point of preference I will add to this answer. If you leave the pasta in the ice bath until you are about ready to use it the starch will stay on the pasta and follow it through the reheating and to the sauce. This measure of starch will help to both thicken the sauce and cause the sauce to cling to the pasta. IF this is a desirable feature to you then this is how you should handle your pasta. I personally prefer this method. When pasta is rinsed and/or oiled (or buttered) I get a fork full of clean pasta a plate covered in sauce (or soup).
I'd be very concerned about the pasta over-absorbing water when sitting in water for any large length of time (and I'm skeptical of that not counting as the "rinsing" you mention). If the sauce and pasta are properly combined (i.e., mixed and briefly heated together), then there should be no problem with the oil. Most of it is shed in the pasta pot, anyways.
The cold water does not appreciably 'absorb' into the already saturated pasta, and if you don't provide much action as the pasta rests in the water the rinsing effect is minimal. The oil (or butter) that I am referring to is added after the pasta has been removed from the pot so it is not 'shed in the pasta pot'. Remember that what I am talking of is a matter of personal taste, if you like it done the way you describe there is nothing wrong with that, I am just offering a point of consideration for OP & others.
Adding oil after the pasta is fully cooked is not at all what I said. Certainly, if you're happy with your method, then use that. (I would never parcook pasta at home.)
then I misunderstood when you said "toss the pasta with a little oil", so sorry. Parcooking pasta at home is not normal for me either, but it is what the OP was presenting.
As Kyri says, make the pasta just in time (JIT). But if you can't, you should refresh the pasta either by placing it under running cold water (not ideal) or in a cold Bain Marie with olive oil or butter. Once cold and still loose, you can keep it in the fridge for a day or two.
To reheat, add olive oil or butter to a skillet and when that's hot, add the pasta. Stir until it's warm. Add warm 'salsa' to the pasta in the skillet and mix.
If you’re storing the pasta in the quantity that you’re going to reheat, rinsing is fine, otherwise I highly recommend oiling it. Especially for long strand pasta. (Experience from college… and I’d steam it to soften it back up, then add it to the sauce)
I'd throw some olive oil or butter over it and keep it gently heated over a double boiler. Alton Brown might use an electric blanket instead.
Still, it's always best to make pasta just in time. Just keep the water hot and throw in at the end.
100% Mom approved, ( and she is 100% Sicilian ), I cook my noodles for 10 minutes, and I add a few drops of olive oil and a dash of salt to the water; and rinse any remaining starch of after.
Then rinse out any remaining starch in the pot, and place it back on the stove on the burner it came from to absorb the remaining heat from the burner that was just turned off, and toss a tsp or two, of real butter and then put the noodles back in the pot to mix with the butter and it helps to remove any excess water from rinsing.
I believe between the olive oil and butter, it somewhat seals the majority of the moisture in the noodle; putting them back in the semi warm pot helps once on the plate, so you do not accumulate a moat of water around the noodles on the plate.
Alternatively, If there are any noodles left over after the initial meal is cooked and served; I put the noodles in a container; as the first layer; then put the remaing spaghetti sauce on top of the noodles, ( do not mix, store in the frige, in two layers ), and seal the top of the container with "press & seal" wrap; then later; just carve out how much of each the noodles and sauce that you want; then put a large container over the plate to eliminate sauce spatter and then re-heat in a microwave to your preferred temp; and it is ready to go for anyone in a couple minutes, and the noodles are just about the same consistency when initially cooked. It works out just fine for us.
Addendum: I make the sauce the night before and let simmer on low over night; once the sauce has turned dark red, ( or slightly brownish red it is good to go, ( Instead of bright red ), or how it looks from the start; it is also the reason why most sauce will taste better on the second day.
I Hope this helps someone a little.
You can slightly undercook the pasta beforehand and before serving finish cooking by adding it to the sauce.
I'd have to agree that olive oil on the pasta after it's cooked keeps it unclumped. A lot of people might say to cook with the olive oil, but if you keep it in the colander and toss the oil it will keep for awhile. The best thing to do is make the sauce and meatballs first, cooking the pasta at the very end. With most sauces, if you let them simmer awhile, you'll get a nice flavor, so you can keep the sauce on low while finishing with the pasta
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.895445
| 2011-09-06T20:58:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17530",
"authors": [
"Cos Callis",
"DuncanKinnear",
"Joe",
"Pod",
"Robin Leola",
"Sunflower Seed Master",
"ToasterFaerie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jscs",
"rdt2",
"user9139"
],
"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
}
|
16081
|
How can I cook the perfect potato for a potato salad?
I have never managed to cook the perfect potato when making a potato salad.
The potato tends to either be too mushy or it is too crunchy depending on if I over cook or under cook. I never seem to be able to find the perfect balance.
How can I cook the perfect potato?
First, potato is not the same as potato. Conventionally, potato salad is always made with waxy potatoes, because mealy potatoes' outer layers disintegrate when tossed with the sauce, much like making risotto. They are also less creamy in texture. But there is also the school of using mealy potatoes, because they absorb more seasoning, and also because some people like the soft texture. If you decide to go with mealy, use an acid in the cooking water (depending on your seasoning, choose vinegar, citric acid, or the neutral tasting cream of tartar). This will firm the potatoes. It isn't necessary for waxy potatoes.
Second, the cooking time depends strongly on size. You must cut them very evenly. Else you will have both undercooked and overcooked potatoes in the pot at any given moment (up to the time when you only have overcooked ones). Smaller pieces are easier to work with.
Third, you want to heat them as gently as possible. Start them in cold water, and cook them at a simmer, not at a boil.
There is no way to predict when the potatoes will be ready. Even if you cut them to the same size every time, the sort and the age of the potatoes will result in varying cooking times. When the time is near, you must look after them and try them constantly. Take out a piece, cut it in half, cool it in cold water, and chomp on the exact center. If it isn't crunchy, stop the cooking immediately and remove the water. The time window in which they are just right is quite short. Season them while they are hot, they will then absorb the sauce instead of just swimming in it the way cold potatoes do.
The Food Lab did some experimenting with potato salad and found that you should..
Season the potatoes while they're hot (or season the water they cook in). The seasonings won't absorb once the potatoes cool.
Add vinegar to the water that the potatoes are cooking in. This will prevent them from breaking apart.
Use Russet potatoes. They absorb seasonings better.
There are many different varieties of potato salad.
I've had an excellent one that was actually made from mashed potatoes. (starchy potatoes cooked, mashed, then the other ingredients mixed in; there was celery and other vegetables to add variety so it wasn't all mush)
America's Test Kitchen has an excellent recipe for an Austrian-style potato salad where they boiled medium-starch potates in chicken stock spiked with vinegar, then mash some of the potates to thicken the liquid which was reduced to use as the dressing. They also had a science segment where they described how the vinegar gives you a longer window for the 'cooked but not mushy' stage, but that it also increases the cooking time.
But rumtscho's correct, in that the typical 'potato salad' potato uses waxy potatoes, which will not turn mushy as quickly when cooked. I typically use two different methods for testing doneness, though -- (1) a knife inserted into the middle of the potato of an undercooked potato will get stuck. The potato will fall off under its own weight when it's cooked. (2) if cut open, an undercooked potato will be a different shade in the middle than on the edges ... there's a pretty distinctive delineation, too, so you can just look to see if it's of one tone, or two tones.
It's also useful to simmer, rather than actually boiling potatoes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.896108
| 2011-07-11T14:29:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16081",
"authors": [
"Chris",
"Elias Tawil",
"ReyKev",
"TeeJayArr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34316"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43817
|
How to prepare summer squash without the peel becoming rubbery
I occasionally prepare summer squash as a side item, and typically fry it as it is both easy and flavorful. Recently I tried various ways of baking squash by hollowing out the soft center, adding a stuffing to the peel, and placing the hollowed portion back on top.
The dish is usually good, but the peel tends to always have a rubbery texture that produces an odd glancing bite. Is there a way to prepare the peel in order to keep the savory crunch which adds to the texture, yet softens the outer layer of the peel so it's not ruined by the rubbery feel?
What kind of squash are you talking about? Summer squash normally don't have tough rinds to start with, and the skin they do have is usually called a peel; winter squash have tough rinds, but they are not normally eaten.
Edited the question with suggestions. This is the store bought yellow summer squash. The peel itself isn't "tough" per say, but when baked can have a rubbery-like texture.
So it sounds like you're saying that you prepare the squash by slicing it in half, removing the flesh, leaving just the peel, then you return the flesh back to the empty peel. You then bake this as a whole. You want to make the peel crisp/crunchy but not rubbery.
Because the peel and the flesh have different compositions, (i.e. water content, density, etc.) and you're trying to achieve two distinct textures (tender flesh and crunchy peel) you could consider using two separate cooking techniques, one for the flesh and one for the peel, rather than cooking both together, once both have been cooked then you can reassemble them. You could bake the flesh just as you've been doing because it sounds like you're satisfied with that texture.
You might need to experiment some with the cooking technique for the peel to achieve your desired texture. One possible solution would be very quickly deep-frying the peel, this should soften it, but allow you to keep it crisp.
You could also investigate pickling/lacto-fermenting the peel, this would allow you to get a crisp texture, while softening the peel.
Another interesting option is the use of slaked lime (aka Thai red lime paste, Thai pickling paste, cal, or more accurately as Calcium Hydroxide, see here for more details). It is commonly used in food applications to cross-link the pectins that "cement" the cell walls of fruits and vegetables together, thus it preserves a crisp texture that will stand up to intense cooking methods. This is used in South-East Asian cooked fruit desserts and in pickles.
If you don't wish to cook the peel and the flesh separately, then you could use a two step cooking method, like first baking them with the cut-side facing up, then once you've achieved the desired flesh texture, flipping them over and quickly broiling them. The broiling will affect the peel significantly more than the flesh in this approach because you will have flipped them so that the peel now faces up and is closer to the broiler (which provides intense, top-only heat).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.896524
| 2014-05-01T17:05:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43817",
"authors": [
"Deanna Koh",
"Gettis",
"JWiley",
"Jesse",
"Patti",
"Paul Gaines",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Stephanie Webb Watts",
"Teddi Erickson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9973"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43776
|
How to prevent meatballs from drying out when I substitute a lean meat?
The meat in question that I use would be ground turkey, though this could apply for any leaner ground meat used to replace beef. This would also be more for recipes such as turkey burgers and meatballs, where the dryness is more of an issue since the meat itself is the focal point of the dish(i.e not a stew/chili).
I've had fairly decent success with adding chopped chillies to ground turkey, but am looking for more alternatives and non-spicy/less overpowering ways of keeping the meat from getting too dry.
I wasn't sure how to tag this one, so feel free to help me out there.
Hi JWiley, I was already considering closing your question as way too broad, when I realized that you asked for only one application. So I changed the question title to reflect this instead of closing.
@rumtscho That's fine, the edit covers the main question I'm asking. Thanks!
You'll have different techniques for different recipes. The most important thing is not to overcook it ... but with ground meat and ground poultry in particulary, you want to make sure you've cooked it long enough to be safe.
For amalgameats, like meatloaf and meatballs, the common technique is a panade, breadcrumbs soaked in milk, and adding vegetables helps too (cooked spinich, onions, bell peppers, carrots, etc.)
For sausages, apples are a fairly common item in chicken sausages to add moisture. I don't know that the flavor combination would go as well with beef or pork sausages, but you generally want fattier cuts for sausage anyway.
For burgers, it's even trickier, as if you add a ton of stuff into the burger it becomes something that's more a meatloaf patty than a burger. You can make two thin patties, and put butter or cheese between them, and cook it as a 'stuffed burger', but if you're selecting leaner meats, I'm guessing you won't want to add more back in. Your better option is to cook the burgers in a low oven until they reach your desired internal temperature, then give them a quick sear to develop a crust; this will help minimize the amount of overcooked exterior.
The panade is a great idea, I will have to try that. I've tried onions/bell peppers, they didn't do much in terms of moisture, but I'll try spinach next. With your paragraph on burgers, that method looks good in terms of not cooking the meat too long, but I'm more trying to get around the fact that turkey as a substitution doesn't have the fat beef has, and trying to mask it with additives. Thanks for the great ideas!
Joe's answer is excellent, the only thing I would add is that it may make more sense to make dishes that complement the ingredients rather than search for ways to fit a square peg into a round hole. That being said I've successfully adapted many recipes for ground turkey and I've never used a panade - the trick is simply to not overcook it.
@GdD : I regularly make a ground turkey chili ... I find the important thing is to find ground thigh meat, which is about 15% fat, rather than ground breast meat. And you're right ... overcooking is the real problem.
Good point @Joe. I live in the UK, and over here the ground turkey tends to be mostly thigh, they charge lots extra for ground breast. It's pretty much the same product I used back in NYC before I moved, but I don't know what's typically sold in other places.
@GdD : it seems to vary by store ... around me, Giant and Safeway carry ground thighs ... the more upscale chain, Wegmans, only has ground breasts.
In the UK it's pretty similar, there's a big focus on breast meat, it can be difficult to find thighs. I don't understand the obsession with breast meat - it's easy to overcook and it lacks flavor. My opinion of course.
Here's a great tip especially for turkey or chicken meatballs or burgers. For every pound of ground poultry, add 1 tablespoon of unflavored gelatin bloomed in 3 tablespoons chicken broth. Since the gelatin holds on to water, the meat will seem more juicy. Gelatin is made of collagen, that's what gives a good pot roast its unctuous feel.
To bloom gelatin, just sprinkle it over the liquid (lukewarm is fine). The gelatin will soak up the liquid in 5-10 minutes, then it is ready to add to the meat.
Of course you can do the same thing with leaner ground beef. Just use beef broth instead of chicken broth. A little Worcestershire would be great to replace some of either the chicken or beef broth.
I have a vegetable/fruit juicer and add the pulp to ground chicken meatballs and meatloaf because they tend to be dry without it. I use the pulp from juicing a mix of kale, beets and beet greens, apple, carrot, and ginger and it really works to moisten the chicken. The ginger adds a hint of Asian flavor, so omit if you don't want that. I am sure this would work for all types of meatballs, not just chicken. Another bonus is you get more vegetables and fiber in your meal! I use an egg to help bind and use no bread crumbs, so very low carb! (Just FYI, Tiger sauce makes a great dipping sauce for my Asian chicken meatballs)
For every pound of ground meat (even lean ground beef) I use 1 Tablespoon of ground flax seed-(flax seed meal available now in most grocery stores.
I assume this would work similar to the gelatin idea ... flax meal swells up a lot when soaked in soy milk (my typical egg replacement when baking cookies for vegans)
For very lean meats. I find 100/20 works. Or 100/20/10. 100% lean. So if 95% lean add 15lb ground pork suit. Make your patties & fry. 100/20/10 is good. 100% lean 20% fat suit added, 10% spice, bread crumbs or other added. fine ground. In a mix.Turkey is not native were I live. This does work on peacock a native bird. Also ground lean meat can be spiced. fat added if need. Stuffed in large pasta shells. Steamed in a closed pot or steamer on a rack. In oven or steamer. Till cooked. Refrigerated in a pan on rack with a little water in bottom or froze. Do not over steam. Then latter microwaved. Or added to sauce. for use. Steam will add moisture to the meat. Such is good set out with rice, &, steamed vegetables. A spicy soysause mix goes well here for a dip. % can be varied for your taste. The trick seems to be add fat or oil to the meat. Before cooking.
The OP says "substitute lean meat", so we can assume that they had the possibility of using fat meat and decided on purpose to reduce the fat. Adding the fat back doesn't sound like a useful solution.
I'm not concerned about calories but I watch my husband's cholesterol. I select lean cuts & add some 'good' oil such as olive oil or flax. I find that grinding my own in a food processor makes it juicier & it is easier to incorporate additives. A courser grind is juicier
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.896840
| 2014-04-29T12:30:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43776",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Giulia Correia",
"Golam Mohiuddin",
"JWiley",
"Joe",
"John Hatley",
"Linda",
"Liz Plummer",
"Malcolm Wright",
"MrPete",
"RyHy",
"Terry Boldt",
"filbert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9973",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59026
|
How long should chicken wait in eggs before applying bread crumbs?
To get the bread crumbs to stick to the chicken, I coat the chicken with eggs. I then put the bowl in the refrigerator. How long should I wait before taking the chicken out of the eggs and rubbing the bread crumbs on them?
Why do you think you need to wait?
@TFD there is also spices in the mix.
And...you need to wait because? The recipe says so, or you are trying to pre-prepare for a big event, or ...?
@TFD for the spices and egg to get absorbed by the chicken was my thinking.
Chickens wait in eggs 21 days.
@Sobachatina You'll have a devil of a time applying bread crumbs to them after that long though..
Spices or egg do not get absorbed into chicken, or any other protein in any significant manner given any safe amount of time
Some amount of sodium from a brine will get absorbed, but this is generally for different reasons, and is not a requirement for crumbed chicken
The easiest and safest method is to dredge in flour, dip in egg, dredge in crumbs, and cook (deep fry, pan fry, oven etc) all in one sequence of steps
The flour sticks to chicken well, and become a glue to hold the egg when it gets wet and hot during cooking. Egg alone will not stick well to chicken, see this post. The egg will stick to the flour well, and bread crumbs or Panko will stick to egg well see this post
For food safety reasons prepared foods should not be sitting around for too many hours. The normal process is to prepare and then cook. Also you should not save flour of crumbs for another day see this post
In my experience; it is best to allow the chicken to warm up a bit after being removed from the fridge, e.g. rest on bench 30 minutes before you plan to cook. Make sure the chicken is not wet, damp is OK. Line up your flour, egg, and crumb mixtures a short distance away from your cooking device of choice (for speed, simplicity, and safety). And in one continuous process; flour dredge, egg dip, crumb dredge, and then cook
Any waiting will generally cause coating failures. You do not need to be fast, but you don't want to have it sitting around. You fingers and kitchen will be messy, so no point stopping, get it all done in one go
The procedure described by TFD is the correct one. If you really want to "marinate" the chicken, you should apply only the spices some hours before.
When ready to cook, apply flour-egg-breadcrumb and fry.
why the flour before the egg?
@Noldor130884 You dredge in flour primarily to remove any surface moisture, so that the egg sticks better.
personally, I found that while egg sticks better after dredging in flour, the crust is more likely to fall off during cooking afterwards, so I usually skip this step. Not as thick crumb crust, but stays on the meat more firmly.
As I always see my mother, she just coat it with egg then apply breadcrumbs and directly place it in the hot frying oil. Waiting is just for spicing or seasoning to allow the meat catching spices flavors.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.897420
| 2015-07-12T23:39:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59026",
"authors": [
"Bryan Michael Nuevo",
"Casey Wilkinson Gale",
"Celeritas",
"Dan C",
"Joe M",
"Noldor130884",
"Rhonda Grant",
"SF.",
"Sach-Mo Adams",
"Sarah Berry",
"Sobachatina",
"TFD",
"Uncle Bishop",
"algiogia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40154
|
Using dark rum instead of white rum
If my recipe calls for white rum and I only have Jamaican rum can I still use the same measurements?
Yes, but you may get a slightly different flavor, and certainly a different color in the final dish.
Many times, white rum is specified so as not to change the color, so you have to decide if this is an acceptable change for whatever you are making.
It really depends on the recipe. Dark rum tends to have a more complex flavor, heavy on molasses. As long as you like that and feel it will go well with the rest of the recipe, it is fine. It isn't going to make any substantial chemical difference in a way that will affect the outcome, so base your decision completely on flavor and color.
It is certainly a valid substitution (that is it won't alter the chemistry of your recipe) but it may slightly alter (for better or worse) the flavor of the finished product.
You might also be wary of a the many varieties of "Spiced Rum" that may significantly change the flavor profile of your dish. For instance, in my rum cake I prefer to use Sailor Jerry's Spiced Rum over the recommended white rum.
(your mileage may vary)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.897715
| 2013-12-11T01:50:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40154",
"authors": [
"AML",
"Apostolos",
"Enes Apaki",
"Jae",
"Kay",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93381",
"user93310"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36576
|
Why is a 4 lb bag of sugar at the grocery store hard as a rock?
When I purchase sugar the bags are often brick hard.
How does this happen?
Is the sugar 'damaged' some how?
Is it safe to use?
This happens when sugar is exposed to moisture. I've noticed this frequently happening when sugar is shipped on a refrigerated truck, then stored at room temperature, allowing some condensation to form. Whether the sugar is "damaged" or not depends on what you want to use it for. If you're going to put it in coffee, or otherwise dissolve it, it should be fine. If you want to sprinkle it over a donut, it probably won't work.
Whether it's safe or not is a much harder question to answer, as it would depend entirely on how it was exposed to moisture. If it's from humidity or condensation, it should be fine. If it's from something being spilled or splashed on the bag, who knows?
Sugar refineries in the US are located in the South-East (Fl, La & Ga) which are all very hot and humid during the summer months. This climate allows for some moisture to condense in and around the bags. Add to that sugar is packaged for transportation in tightly packed bags, stacked on pallets, with pallets on pallets then stuffed into cargo vans and the slightly moist sugar becomes hard packed. It is completely safe to use just break it up a bit.
If it's a single rock-hard block, how do you "break it up a bit" enough to smoothly sprinkle or cream with butter?
As I read OP's original question (and my revision) the sugar inside the bag is not 'brick-hard' but rather the bag of sugar is. I have encountered this situation regularly but have never encounter a 'brick-o-sugar'. However, I would estimate that such a brick could be broken down with a meat tenderizing mallet and then spun in a food processor to restore the original sugar crystals. Larger 'chunks' could be dissolved in a small amount of warm butter then added to the remaining volume of soft butter for creaming...
Dissolved sugar won't cream butter.
If it's just the outer layer that's gotten hard, you can use the same trick as with bags of ice -- hold a couple of feet off the ground, and drop it. Roll it over, and drop it again. The shock from hitting the floor will do a much more even job than a mallet, and is less likely to break open the bag. You can then pour it through a colander to get the worst of the chunks out, which you can take a mallet to, or use them for making a syrup or other use that doesn't need the sugar in granular form.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.897862
| 2013-09-06T16:13:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36576",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cheryl M Willis",
"Cos Callis",
"Frances Williams",
"Hawwa Laufa",
"Joe",
"Piko Monde",
"SourDoh",
"TracyV1",
"Vlad",
"cowlinator",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85864",
"Анастасия Виневская"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68012
|
Preparing/Seasoning/Using a Carbon Steel Pot
I am looking for a large (approx 2' x 4' x 1.5') vessel in which to warm maple syrup for production. My first thought is to use a "pot" of some sort but I am not sure how to prepare it to both be 'non-stick' and so that flavors will not be transferred from the pot to the syrup. Is there a way to treat a large pot to do this?
I have looked at stainless steel pots in this size range, but they are more expensive than I care to invest in this project.
Are there any other alternatives accomplish the same goal?
Possible duplicate of Carbon steel seasoning
Ya, if you read my question it is clear that I am asking about a radically different thing. Frying eggs, vs my question boiling water
why would you use a carbon steel pot for boiling water?
Because stainless steel pots of the size I am looking for are typically hundreds and hundreds of dollars to thousands of dollars.
@JonathonWisnoski It looks like most giant stock pots are aluminum, and they're not insanely expensive, e.g. $150 for a 160qt pot.
What is your concern with creating a 'non-stick' surface in a pot designated to 'boil water'? (...I've heard of 'hard water'...but 'sticky water'?)
What size are you looking for? I don't know that I've ever heard of large carbon steel pots... most of the large pots we have are aluminum and they're pretty inexpensive.
@Catija Around 2' wide by 4' long, and somewhere around 1.5' deep. But this is probably more like a minimum than everything else.
OK, so I think we're all really curious what you're doing with a pot that big... and I'm intrigued by the fact you're looking at something rectangular... which isn't something I'm familiar with... though I suppose it could be oval?
An oblong pot? Almost sounds more like a turkey roaster. ... but larger ... 2' across, 18" deep would be 140qt.
@Joe But I'd like to see the turkey that needs a four foot length ;)
It would be for use in maple syrup production, boiling sugar water until the desired consistency. They all used to use steel pots and pans, but the industry has mostly moved to stainless now. All pots were at one time steel or cast iron, I am not sure what anyone did, if anything, to prevent a iron/rust/metal taste.
well, home cooks also have moved to other materials exactly because the reactive metals are more capricious - leach flavor, rust, etc.
@JonathonWisnoski, Here is an idea from something an uncle of mine [a professional bee-keeper] would do to harvest honey. Put heating elements under a steel treated ... Bathtub. You can even plumb in a drain to let the warm syrup flow out. Here is one porcelain enameled steel
@Jefromi but he's looking for something non reactive. Aluminum is almost as reactive as zinc.
You can't do it. Cooking vessels are divided into reactive and non-reactive. Practically all uncoated metal pots (except for stainless steel) are reactive. This means that they will leach an off taste into the food. There is no way around it, and seasoning won't help either. It is effective for frying, but not boiling.
If you want to have no metal leached into your food, you need to buy a nonreactive pot.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.898133
| 2016-04-04T19:17:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68012",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Cos Callis",
"Escoce",
"Joe",
"Jonathon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12398
|
Bagged or Loose Leaf Tea
What are the practical differences between using bagged vs. loose leaf tea?
Are there differences in quality, caffeine content, etc.? Why?
You're welcome to answer your own question here but please do not do so inside the question.
The differences in quality between teas is usually down to the manufacturer and the product line. As far as I can tell, there is no discernible difference between Twining's English Breakfast tea (for instance) in bags or loose leaf. They are the same leaves, presented differently.
However, and this is the important part, there is a difference in how they infuse. Because of the limitations of the tea bag, and the flow of the water through the leaves, a loose-leaf tea is usually infused more quickly, and possibly better. That is, you get more essence of tea from the leaves into the water.
There are different bag designs (pyramid bags for example) which try to bridge some of this gap.
The advantage of the tea bags is that they are easier to work with, as you don't need to strain the leaves out of the water, you can just pick the bag up with your spoon.
There is a lovely essay by George Orwell about making "proper" tea. Some of it is a matter of taste, but his point about the infusion is spot on, in my opinion.
in my experience with other brands, the tea they sell loose is often less finely cut/ground than that used in bags. The content of many bags is almost powder, loose are often larger chunks.
If you use a brewing basket, you don't need to filter out the loose tea. E.g., http://www.amazon.com/Finum-Brewing-Large-Basket-Black/dp/B000J3JFJU/
If you look at the higher quality Chinese and Japanese teas you will not (rarely) find them in bags.
For those teas it's important to have nice full leaves that have space to infuse properly, if the leaves are too packed the tasting experience will not be the same.
So yes, higher quality leaves will more probably be sold as loose leaves, but that doesn't mean that all loose leaves are of higher quality.
If you are talking about Lipton, Twinnings and other big brands, well then it's probably the same leaves in a different packaging. If you are talking about for example Longjing then it's loose leaves you want. For Puerh teas you would go for a tea cake
On wikipedia tea page there is a good section about tea bags which I quote:
The use of tea bags is easy and convenient, making tea bags popular for many people today. However, the tea used in tea bags has an industry name—it is called fannings or "dust" and is the waste product produced from the sorting of higher quality loose leaf tea, although this certainly is not true for all brands of tea, especially in the case of many specialty, high quality teas now available in bag form.[citation needed]
Tea bags often contains a tea that is the result of the Crush, Tear, Crush manufacturing process. As the name implies, the leaves are not handled very delicately.
Obviously the flavor of loose-leaf tea is usually considered superior, but there are a few other issues to be considered.
(1) As others have noted, most tea bags contain tea that is graded as "fannings" or "dust," which are official terms for smaller bits of tea leaves. (For more information, consult the details on tea grading here.) However, it should also be noted that if you begin with high-quality tea leaves, the fannings and dust will also have better flavor. In many cases, I'd prefer to drink tea made from the fannings of high-quality leaves than tea made with bad-quality whole-leaf tea (grown in a bad location, picked at a bad time, etc.). However, it's rather rare to see fannings of top-quality teas sold with their full identification (estate, flush, grading, etc.) on the retail market, while there are plenty of examples of poor-quality whole-leaf teas on the market.
(2) Because of these smaller pieces, certain elements of the tea will in fact infuse much faster. A number of studies have noted, for example, that tea fannings will release caffeine faster than similar whole-leaf tea. Thus, to answer part of the OP's question which has not yet been addressed, it is possible the tea bags with smaller bits of tea will have a higher caffeine content for the same steep time than whole-leaf tea. Similarly, other chemicals may often be released faster, leading to a different flavor profile. Tea bags may thus require shorter brewing times than loose-leaf to avoid "overbrewed" flavors.
(3) Rare, expensive tea bags sometimes contain whole-leaf or broken grades, rather than fannings or dust. Also, one can buy disposable bags to make your own. In these cases, the tea produced is basically equivalent to brewing tea in an infuser: the tea may infuse differently if it is too crowded or if flow is restricted in and out of the bag/infuser. (However, the vast majority of commercial tea bags do NOT contain whole-leaf tea.)
(4) Relating to the previous point, many commercial producers actually use more broken leaves in their bags than they do in their standard blends. I don't know whether this is because of actual tea graded differently, or if in some cases the producers break the leaves down later in the process before bagging them. Thus, while I agree with another response that a Twinings English Breakfast loose leaf and a Twinings English Breakfast bag will have similar flavors, if you cut open the teabag, you'll often find much smaller bits of tea than you'd find in the can of loose leaf. I assume this is partly to make up for the decreased water circulation in the tea bag: the smaller bits will assure a fuller brewing, even if less water goes through the bag than would circulate around loose tea leaves. Hence, the flavor profile remains similar, even though the tea used looks different.
(5) In addition to the obvious convenience of tea bags (no straining required, portion measured precisely), there may be a couple other advantages. As mentioned above, the smaller pieces of tea in bags may brew more quickly, even if the flavor balance is off. For those people who'd prefer to dunk their tea bag in rapidly for a few seconds before drinking, it's probably more effective than using an infuser of loose leaf. (It's not what I do, but I know many people who do that.) Also, high quality tea bags often are contained in individual sealed packages, which provide a simple way to retain flavorful tea for a long period of time. Loose-leaf teas as well as tea bags will degrade when improperly stored, so a sealed individual packet may also be convenient. (However, on the other hand, whole-leaf tea stored properly tends to remain fresher longer than broken leaves, so expect unsealed tea bags to deteriorate faster.)
With green tea, I find that the green tea in bags tends to develop a very bitter note (which I don't like) much more quickly than loose leaf tea does, and I speculate that this is because the bags contain much smaller pieces of leaf - even down to powder. This leads to a higher surface area to volume ratio, and thus much faster infusing in the bag. Because of this, I find myself unable to infuse bags of green tea properly, and if I really want to enjoy it I should use leaf tea where I can get the flavour without the overwhelming bitterness.
Tea bags are a useful convenience, but if you want really really good tea, use good leaf tea and do it properly.
(Of course some good tea is supposed to be a powder - Japanese matcha springs to mind - but that's not the normal way of things).
Steeping your green tea at a slightly lower temperature may help (e.g., try 160°F).
For low or medium grade tea, do as you like.
For high quality tea, bags are borderline criminal. Since you're paying extra for a fine tea, let the loose leaves diffuse the maximum of their aromatic compounds into the water ! (Thus, tea ball infusers are a shame too.)
But really, try it : brew the same tea in a cellulose bag and at the same time free in a cup, and compare. Since you're making experiments, compare waters (tap, mineral and spring) and temperature. These are the three most important parameters.
I drink a lot of coffee and tea, and while I can drink just about any kind of coffee, I can only truly enjoy full-leaf tea. My wife can't tell the difference, so it is possible that I am imagining the better quality of it (or that I have better taste buds!), but just from my experience it is better, hands-down.
However, it is definately better in that the full leaves do not leave as much "residue" in your tea at the bottom of the cup. Crumbled tea leaves can sometimes sometimes leave noticeable specs that settle in the bottom while brewing (especially lower-quality teas). While this does not affect the taste, it is certainly a disadvantage.
I hope this is helpful!
When I visited the Boh tea plantations in Malaysia, we were shown the various processes. There, they told us that during separation just before packaging, the full leafs are sorted to be sold as 'loose leaf' tea. Those that get broken during the process get made into so called 'lower' quality tea like bags and powders.
Not sure if it was a marketing ploy or if it's really true, but they claimed that loose leaf was of better quality than bags.
And most really good quality tea you get is loose leaf as well.. So I am inclined to say that..
my experience with bags vs. loose tea from other brands hints in the same direction. Baggies tend to have smaller particles than does loose tea.
Tea bags are just for convenience. I am an Indian and we normally add tea leaves in boiling water and sugar. My wife relishes green tea and she purchases Twinings and the tea in tea bags is powdered or in fact dust. I would avoid tea bags as much as I can, reason until and unless I brew the tea properly in boiling water I do not find the taste and aroma to the mark.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.898406
| 2011-02-20T10:28:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12398",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Almo",
"Gail M.",
"Manur",
"Matt",
"Max Irwin",
"Nathan J.B.",
"SamBobb",
"Tapas Bose",
"Tim",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/111929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"jwenting"
],
"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
}
|
13882
|
Stone or iron mortar?
I need to buy a mortar. Should I get a stone (granite, marble, etc) or an iron one?
What pros and cons are there?
Stone is a much worse heat conductor than iron. It warms much slower from vigorous pounding than iron, and actually cools whatever is being ground. This is often desirable, as you don't want to warm whatever you are grinding - some spices contain fats which are viscous or solid at room temperature, but get liquid somewhat above it, so they would be seeping their aroma and converting to a paste if warmed while ground.
Another argument for stone will be the smooth surface. Seasoned iron isn't as smooth as marble or granite can be polished, and if left unseasoned, you will need to remove rust from time to time (another problem of iron which harwig already pointed out), disturbing the surface. The mortar surface should be as smooth as possible.
Also, the stone will require no maintenance apart from washing. Iron will have to be kept from rusting, so you'll have to season it. The grinding action will probably slowly eat away the seasoning layer, so you'll have to reapply it periodically, which is lots of work (well, the complete stripping first is what makes it lots of work, seasoning not so much). But if you use your mortar as seldom as I do, this shouldn't be a problem.
On the other hand, iron's density is about 3 times higher than marble or granite, resulting in a much heavier pestle. While this means some more fatigue for you, it will result in a better grinding result.
Another problem with stone is that it can crack if you happen to drop it on the floor. Luckily, a mortar is not easily dislodged from the counter, and granite breaks nowhere as easily as earthenware, but the chance exists. If you get stone, don't go for the tulip-on-a-stem shapes. While it may be convenient to grip the stem, it is also a weak point.
You must also consider possible chemical reactions. Granite won't be a problem, but marble is acid sensitive. So making a pesto with lots of lemon juice is probably a bad idea in marble. It won't cause a comic-book like Chinese syndrome, but it will attack the surface, making it less smooth. Seasoned iron has some acid resistance, but strong acids are bad for it too.
To me, the "tradition" argument isn't very strong. People have used abacuses for thousands of years, but I prefer a TI-42 simulator when I have to make a calculation too complicated for my brain. Both iron and stone will work. And as harwig says, aesthetics are individual - not that I need much of that in kitchen implements.
Why is a smooth mortar preferable? Wouldn't a more coarse surface aid in grinding?
@ESultanik As I understand it, the point of using a mortar is that you don't want damage to the cells, you want your organic matter to break up along the cell borders (else you should use a system with a blade, like a blender). The best way to achieve that is to apply even force on a group of cells. Sharp edges of irregularities would crush cells instead. Also, coarse is harder to clean, and residues of the usually aromatic things put in a mortar will contaminate the next batch of (different) things to grind. Third, you can get finer particles with smooth, if somebody has the patience.
That is interesting; I hadn't heard the cell damage argument before, but it does make sense. I wonder: Does it mostly apply to delicate, vegetal matter (e.g., when making a pesto), or does the cell damage argument also apply to spice grinding?
@ESultanik, it is important for chilles, because they thicken chillis through starch. If the starch granules get out of the cells, you don't get a thickened liquid, you get goo. For spices, it depends. Crushing releases the aromatic essential oils. You usually want to keep them in the cells as long as possible. But if you are going to use the spice immediately, breaking them up first may be better, because the eater doesn't have to chew through the small particles to release the aroma. But for that purpose, a grinder is better than a coarse mortar.
I have never used an iron mortar before, so I can't speak directly about it. I would imagine that one of the cons would be oxidation / rust. Obviously you don't want to have rust ground up with whatever spices, herbs, etc that you're grinding. Proper maintenance could alleviate this issue though.
For me, stone mortars are more traditional. If people have been using rocks to grind things up for thousands of years, something's obviously working for them. Why fix it if it isn't broken?
Another thing to consider is the aesthetic quality of the mortar. I like the look of marble, but you should find one that fits your style.
Nobody before mentioned this: wood, ceramic, and stone (be it granite, basalt, or marble, at least - I saw once an agate mortar and there I don't know) are porous. That means flavors seeping in and out and the possibility of bacteria and mold growth. That may or may not be an issue on an iron mortar, depending on the finishing of its well. So the seasoning need is not really an argument, for you have to give either kind that sealing coat.
There are other materials that don't have that particular drawback nor the rusting, but they have some of their own: porcelain / glazed ceramic is much more fragile in both that it can break and the glazing chip off or crack, and I have yet to come across a stainless steel mortar that isn't hollow, and they seem to easily dent, bump, or might even crack too.
I've been using a ceramic mortar for years. I tried a marble one that I was given, and it was poor compared to the one I have. I've used an iron one, and it was worse than the marble one.
One big tip with using a mortar - they work best if you only put a little material in at a time. If the mortar is a quarter full, that's too much stuff to grind easily. Work on a couple of teaspoons at a time and you get powder. More than that, and it is just a mess ...
I use a Coors ceramic mortar and pestle in the kitchen myself. Iron seems like a poor choice, what with rust and all. If you go with stone, pay particular attention to the fit between pestle and mortar. There are a lot of poorly made units out there that'll turn a one minute grinding task into a five minute chore.
Resin…
Looks like stone, weighs [at least] as much as stone, keeps cool like stone, totally non-porous surface.
Inner surface can be totally smooth or slightly roughened, just like stone.
No rust, no absorption, can go in the dishwasher [though I don't with mine] or washed with regular dish soap.
Mine must be 20 years old now & still looks like new.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.899261
| 2011-04-08T18:55:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13882",
"authors": [
"ASHISH KUMAR Tiwary",
"ESultanik",
"Gina Alexander",
"Jared",
"Matt",
"Stefani",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"rumtscho",
"user29071",
"user29108"
],
"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
}
|
12717
|
Use of algin and calcium chloride in spherification
I belong to a cooking club in which we have several home cooks who wish they had gone to culinary school. Anyway, I am cooking a dinner in which I am exploring modern cuisine utilizing new molecular gastronomy techniques.
My question is as follows: is there any liquid in which algin and calcium chloride do not work? I tried to do the process utilizing chefs Albert and Ferran measurement requirements for the addition and the wash with balsamic vinegar and it did not work. However, when I tried it with milk, it worked. Additionally, how far in advance can you create your spheres before they completely turn into a compact ball. I understand the process does not stop.
There certainly are solutions that will not work. The reaction will only occur within certain pH ranges. You will sometimes see the addition of sodium citrate in a recipe, this is to correct the pH in to acceptable ranges for the gel to form. For sodium alginate, the acceptable pH range is 2.8 - 10. However, if the pH is < 4, that can inhibit the process (requiring the citrate). I can't find a definitive answer in a quick search for vinegar pH, but it looks like it may be too low. I'd guess that was your issue (since you had success with the milk).
I have also heard of issues with getting alcohol to gel at certain concentrations, but have no direct experience with making alcoholic gels (beyond a little flavoring).
Absolutely the best resource for this stuff at the moment is the Khymos Recipe Collection. Check out the appendix for detailed properties of the different molecular substances. However, Modernist Cuisine may soon become the 'bible' when it's finally released (and some people shell out $500 for it).
In my experience, if you want the caviar "pop" with spherification, you need to do it immediately before service. Leaving the caviar in a water bath can leach color and flavor, and as you say, the spheres continue to gel. My best results have always involved doing it at the last minute. Fortunately, it's not hard to do, and it's a great parlor trick, so you can incorporate the creation in to the service.
I also think that reverse spherification (putting a calcium solution into an alginate bath) holds the liquid center better as the gel forms outward rather than inward. This does leave you with a flavorless membrane thought, as the bath is technically gelling around the solution. So for preparations with a thick membrane, this may not be ideal.
A typical bottle of household white vinegar has a pH of 2.4, which is definitely too low. The pH of balsamic vinegar depends on so many things (source, aging, etc.) that you're better off just getting yourself a pH tester if you want to mess with alginate and balsamic together.
Thanks so much for both answers. I think I will get a PH tester and I love the reverse spherification technique. I will try that.
Will the oil hold those spheres that are larger? For instance, a mango purée ravioli?
In order to gel balsamic vinegar into spheres the method is slightly different to spherification in the way that you boil the vinegar up with agar agar and skim off any impurities. Allow to cool slightly before using a syringe to make drops into a tall glass of ice cold oil (put in freezer for 30 minutes prior to use). The balsamic mixture needs to be around 45-50c before putting in the oil or else it won't cool to its gelling point in time. Not sure why it doesn't work in a calcium solution, but this way works.
Use 100ml of balsamic to 1.5g agar agar.
Note that this will create solid spheres rather than caviar that pop with a liquid center.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.899777
| 2011-03-02T14:37:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12717",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"But I'm Not A Wrapper Class",
"Catherine",
"Mal",
"NoahM",
"Shincke",
"aignas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5090",
"paul kendrick",
"slebetman",
"xochitl",
"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
}
|
14080
|
Lemon Balm Uses
It's growing like a weed, and has a wonderful smell just wondering what I can use it for in the kitchen?
In addition to any specific suggestions, just remember that you have it. You might find yourself cooking something and think "this could use a hint of lemon". Don't be afraid to experiment!
Make a pesto out of it. Goes well with fish and chicken
Use it in a Mediterranean-style stuffing, along with feta cheese, garlic and sundried tomatoes
Rip up and toss through salads
Make a herbal tea
Make ice cream
Make jelly. I can't remember the recipe exactly, but it's something along the lines of:
juice and zest a couple of lemons
steep lemonbalm and lemon zest in hot water to extract the flavour
mix infusion and lemon juice together
sweeten to taste
add gelatine
pour into suitable vessels, chill to set
eat
The lemonbalm gives you a different kind of lemonyness than lemons alone do, so the resulting jelly has a deeper flavour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.900347
| 2011-04-16T01:46:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14080",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Diva",
"Lindy",
"Peter Souter",
"arlene",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29568"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14313
|
How can I get Italian meringue to thicken?
I tried to make italian meringue and it was all going well until the meringue, (with the sugar syrup added), just didn't thicken and turned into 'royal icing'. Next time, how do I make it and what can I do to rectify now?
Sorry didn't notice your post until after I posted in a similar thread http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69448/italian-meringue-deflated-after-adding-sugar/71179#71179
Try this: separate the white from the yolk 3 or 4 days before you want to make meringue. Keep the white in an hermetic box in the fridge and take them out of the fridge one hour before you begin. So the egg white foam will be more stable.
Another trick is to add some drops of lemon juice to the egg white right before you beat them.
I had this exact problem and I fixed it by beating the mixture on a slower speed. At first I was beating on high speed which I think was beating all the air out of it (ironically!). Try beating in a smaller container so the mixture is more condensed and on a low whisk speed for more time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.900471
| 2011-04-25T10:58:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14313",
"authors": [
"Food Lover",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47760"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25450
|
What makes a hot dog a hot dog?
I like hot dogs, but I'm always conscious that they are a means by which unspeakable bits of meat can be made appetising, even when they get a fancy name like bockwurst to cover the fact.
So I bought a packet of Tesco brand vegetarian hot dogs and was surprised to find they look and taste like the ones with meat in them. Then I bought a pack of Tevion vegetarian hot dogs - they taste "right" too and they're kosher! The texture is similar to the real thing with both products as well.
So what makes a hot dog a hot dog? As far as I can see, you don't need meat!
EDIT: The responses so far are focusing the question.
The hot dog is a bland sausage, designed to use up "meat" that would otherwise be regarded as unsaleable. The meat contributes little or nothing to the taste and texture, it is ground so fine - but the sausage has definite taste and texture.
So there are two questions;
1) what IS the flavour of a hot dog? It is not unique, because companies across the world make them, but I can't give it any labels;
2) what agents do they use to make this finely ground mass of disparate ingredients cohere into a skinless sausage shape that stands up to being cooked without falling apart?
Are you referring to North American style sausage on on split bun? Other cultures refer to hot-dog as different things?
I'm talking about the "hot dog sausage", usually served in a split "finger roll" or "bridge roll" as they are called in UK. It's the same sort of thing as the US product, on account of being imported with the GIs during WWII.
As an aside, Oscar Mayer dogs are prepared and shaped in a collagen casing, which is then discarded.
You know that vegetarian hotdogs are a means by which unspeakable bits of veggies can be made appetising, right? :)
@mfg - thanks for that, any fine detail appreciated . nico - I understand that, but my wife is vegetarian, and she is my motivation.
Now you made the edit, it is clearer to me what you ask. Here the answers to your two questions:
2) They don't need any agents. Protein acts as a glue when heated. Protein is almost the only food type which will actually "glue" things together - try making gluten-free pancakes with non-protein flour like almond flour and you will notice what I mean. (You can "cheat" and use hydrocolloids like xanthan which make a mass so viscous that it sticks together, but that's another topic). In other, rougher sausages, you can notice the difference between the lumps of stuff, because the lumps are bigger. Some rough sausages can also be likely to fall apart, but that is because they are not cooked, they are cured raw. Hot dog sausages are made from animal protein, animal fat, flavor agents (not too many), and fillers. The amount of meat is enough to cause the mass to curdle in a tight sausage, just like the proteins in the egg yolk are enough to cause a creme brulee to curdle in a holds-its-own-shape custard. You can cook your own sausages at home, and they will bind without any additives.
The cohesiveness of a hot dog can be achieved with a relatively low amount of meat when compared to the fat and the possible fillers (like bread). If a producer decides to use yet more fillers, he can use transglutaminase to get the tight texture even when there is less meat than normal in the sausage. I don't know whether producers actually do this or don't, I suspect that at least some do it. It is possible that in some jurisdictions, they are not allowed to.
1) As I already mentioned: the hot dog is made from meat, fat and a few fillers. It doesn't contain much seasoning. The meat used for it is low-quality meat, pure uniform protein from young animals, mostly pigs or chickens. And it is boiled, not exposed to direct high heat. Therefore, the aroma component of the flavor is almost completely missing. Other meats you eat have their own aroma, depending on the animal and developing with age (have you tried eating old goat?). They also get that lovely seared aroma from caramelization and Maillard reactions at temperatures which aren't achieved through boiling. Both are missing from a hot dog. (The second is missing from other sausages too, but good sausages such as cured salami or lukanka are made from aged beef or donkey, and they use generous additions of herbs and spices, often also smoke). You just get a faint aroma of uniform, underdeveloped protein.
The taste component of the flavor doesn't contain much either. There is salt from the seasoning, and there is some umami from the meat (but not much, this being young meat). Don't forget that while most people like umami, it is more known for enhancing the aroma of the food than for being a consciously pleasant flavor on itself the way sweetness is. Parmesan, tomatoes, meat - they are tasty because of the aroma they have, not just because of the umami per se. Pure MSG is very umami, but very disappointing if you try to eat it by itself. The fat in the sausage acts similarly as a flavor enhancer. Both the umami taste of pure protein and the fat would be great if they had something to enhance, but there isn't anything in the hot dog to be enhanced, so the flavor stays bland and uniform.
The veggie hot dog producers can use this well. Almost-pure soy protein is not that different from almost-pure chicken or pig protein where taste is concerned. The texture is different, but processing both to a fine paste with the right amount of moisture takes care of that. Neutral fat can be added for mouthfeel without changing the taste. In theory, the protein of the soy should be able to bind the sausage upon curdling. In practice, I suspect that the extraction process which purifies the soy protein from the bean-tasting plant matter curdles the protein and they use some kind of additives to "glue" the sausage afterwards. (At least the pure soy protein I have had as meat substitute was already curdled. Maybe there are other processes which don't require that).
So what is a hot dog sausage? Meat processed to the point where it is almost pure protein, fat processed to the point where it tastes neutral, salt. Some starch to improve texture. Everything cooked together in a sausage shape. Doesn't sound too appetizing, but it is cheap, filling, and the taste attack of mustard and ketchup is so strong, that any better sausage would be wasted in a hot dog sandwich.
With respect to the flavor from cooking part: a lot of people will tell you that the best way to eat hot dogs is to roast them over a fire (or maybe grill them), so you can definitely get some of that flavor. They may be pre-cooked, but it doesn't mean they can't be properly cooked after.
Nice idea to add flavor by cooking, but now I need to source a bottle of "bland smoke and vague tomato" essence.
Hot dogs are a an example indigenous to North America of a class of sausages called emulsified sausages. The meat and fat are ground so finely that they emulsify together into a smooth paste. Other sausages of this type include German Frankfurter Würstchen (of which the hot dog is a descendant) and Italian Mortadella (which is also the pre-cursor of the American Bologna sausage).
Hot dogs are cured, and typically hot smoked and sold fully cooked.
They can be made from a variety of meats, but beef and pork (or a mixture thereof) are the most common.
Hot dogs require a careful balance of lean (for the protein myosin, which provides the binding and structure to the sausage), fat, and water (usually added in the form of ice during the manufacture ring process, to help keep the nascent emulsion from breaking by keeping the mixture cool.)
There is no binding agent as such in hot dogs: the myosin in the meet forms a matrix that provides the structure and chew of the sausage. A hot dog without enough meat (or some other protein source) would not hold together. This is much akin to the way a pâté is made--in some sense, a hot dog is a pâté stuffed into a casing, and hot smoked.
While it is possible to add fillers (and emulsify in additional water), it is not necessary and high quality manufacturers do so in moderation or not at all.
The major flavor elements in a New York style hot dog (where they originated) are typically the cured meat itself, salt, pepper, garlic, and paprika, as well as the smoky flavor. Around the world, emulsified sausages are flavored with a wide variety of spices, especially warm spices, but these would not be typical in a hot dog.
You can find a recipe and slideshow with detailed pictures of the hot dog making process at Serious Eats. It shows all of the key steps: selection of ingredients with a careful balance of lean and fat, initial grinding, emulsification, stuffing, and smoking.
klypos,
From what I recall (!), the filling of a meat hot dog sausage is typically soft, moist, homogeneous and without a particularly strong flavour, at least compared to other sausages. Rather bland-tasting, to some.
The Tesco brand sausages to which you refer is based on soy and wheat proteins http://www.mysupermarket.co.uk/#/tesco-price-comparison/frozen_vegetarian/tesco_vegetarian_hot_dog_sausages_10_per_pack_300g.html
In my opinion, most basic soy-based vegetarian sausages tend to mimic the texture and flavour of the filling in a budget meat hot dog sausage. Despite being a somewhat bland and uninteresting sausage (in my opinion!), they work well as a substitute for a meat sausage in a hot dog. Perhaps this is because the filling in a meat hot dog sausage tends to be highly processed see e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanically_separated_poultry. As such, the rather homogeneous texture from a soy-based vegetarian sausage hits pretty close to the mark.
However, I do not know how the flavour of a vegetarian sausage is made to approximate the meat filling. I have been impressed at how close in taste a vegetarian substitute can be made to the meat it is aiming to replace. This is particularly true when the context of the meal is taken into account. Here is a thing that looks like a sausage inna bun (thanks Terry Pratchett!), slathered with tomato sauce and mustard. I bought it cheaply off a street vendor. I expect the sausage filling to be dubiously bland paste. Is it meat based or soy based? Not sure, can't really tell in context. Compare this with an attempt to replicate a high quality meat sausage with a vegetarian substitute.
Does this bring us close to an answer for you? Do you need meat in your sausage filling to call the bun-wrapped article a "hot dog"? I would argue that the amount of meat in a budget hot dog sausage is minimal and so cut down with fillers that the basic soy-based sausages make a good replacement.
You've helped me to refine my thoughts. I'm editing the question now.
The other day I made a vegetable stock of what was left in the fridge. It was primarily celery, onions and garlic. I simmered it all day. Yesterday I made a lentil soup out of it. My wife is not eating pork or beef for lent so I simmered some bacon on the side of the lentils in a cup of the stock so that I could put the pieces in my own bowl of soup as an addition. My wife came downstairs and asked, "Are you cooking hot dogs". I said no, it must be the bacon and the stock. I tasted the stock in the bacon water and it indeed tasted exactly like a hot dog, an intense "hot dog" flavor.
I therefore suspect that the classic hot dog flavor is primarily celery, onions, garlic and salt pork with some smoke flavor (bacon is smoked).
What is the flavor of hot dogs? The answer is hardwood smoke, salt, paprika, onion, nutmeg and celery powder. You only have to look at the label of all-natural hot dogs in health food stores to find out.
The original, 100+ year-old flavor of hot dogs came from a handful of simple ingredients, and believe it or not, the generic Tesco hot dogs derive from that very same century-old recipe and are not magic, despite being filled with mysterious ingredients. All of these so-called natural flavorings, MSG etc, mimic the original hot dog recipe flavor. All-natural hot dogs achieve the same result using only the original ingredients.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.900593
| 2012-08-03T18:51:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25450",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"P Schmied",
"R. A. Y.",
"Stacey Ferron",
"TFD",
"cjones26",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"klypos",
"mfg",
"mpomaxwin01",
"nico",
"user58258",
"user58259",
"user58415"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28165
|
How to remove individual steaks from a lump I mistakenly froze together?
I got a vacuum sealer and stored about 7 pieces of steak in 1 bag. I put it in the freezer and just now I decided to take out a couple of steaks to thaw out so I cut open the bag but all the steaks are frozen together. I know if I heat them all up I won't be able to refreeze the rest. What can I do? Should I re-vacuum seal the bag and wait until I can cook them all at once?
Also how do you use a vacuum sealer effectively with bulk meat? It doesn't work too well to store them all in one bag because if you are going to eat one at a time you need to re-bag everything each time.
Your best bet for preserving quality (and safety) is to re-seal the bag, then leave them in the fridge for a bit. You want them to thaw a little, so you can pry them apart. Its safe to re-freeze after this (as the meat never entered the danger zone, indeed it probably never got above ~30°F). There will be some quality loss from the partial thaw-freeze cycle. I recommend waiting to do this until you'll be cooking at least one of the steaks.
Now, how to freeze them:
Freezing in vacuum bags isn't special. Just like with freezing in ziplock bags, freezer paper, foil, etc., you need to freeze individual servings individually. If you want to economize on vacuum bags, you can try one of:
Wrap the steaks in plastic wrap or freezer paper to freeze. Once frozen, transfer to vacuum bag and draw vacuum.
Place two steaks in the bag next to each other, separated by ~1in (depending on thickness of steak, you want the bag to be able to conform to the shape of the steak). If you're using an external vacuum machine like a FoodSaver (as opposed to a $600+ chamber machine), the steaks may be pulled together as it sucks out the air; press your finger down on the plastic between them to keep them apart.
Separate steaks with freezer, parchment, or waxed paper (you can try plastic wrap, but they may freeze together anyway...) in one bag. You can stack them on top of each other, or put the immediately next to each other (without the 1in space), or both. Freeze after sucking air out.
There is a disadvantage to stacking things thicker to freeze (as in the last suggestion): generally speaking, the faster you freeze something, the more quality is retained. And of course the thicker it is, the longer it takes to freeze through.
If you're cutting from rolls, remember that each time you open and re-seal the bag, you're going to cut off an inch or so of plastic, depending on your vacuum machine. Cut the bag big enough to accommodate this.
Whoa! You're the vacuum-seal guru, derobert! Very thoroughly and clearly presented!
Ok thanks I've done what you've suggested. A couple things I noticed 1)is wrapping meat in plastic wrap defeating the purpose of using a vacuum sealer since they are already sealed air tight? Or is it not enough just to plastic wrap something and then freeze it? 2)I tried reusing the same bag to vacuum seal but it never worked properly, the sealing always had a small gap in it. Can vacuum sealing bags be reused? If no I guess ones best off using small bags for each individual steak (or whatever) since you'd end up throughing out a bag each time it's opened.
@Celeritas Those questions might be worth posting separately; it's a lot more useful to other people if they can find answers like that, rather than tucked away in comments.
@Celeritas (very quick answers here, I agree with Jefromi that you ought to ask those two as new questions): 1) plastic wrap is actually moisture permeable. The vacuum seal bag is much thicker (and a different plastic). 2) you should be able to re-seal them, provided you cut off the melted area. Make sure you don't have any food particles in the way, try wiping with a damp paper towel.
For prying apart, I usually use a butter-knife - it's easier to wedge into the spaces between foods, and it can work well with hard-frozen foods since that space between acts like a fracture point. Running the knife under hot water can help get that initial toehold, at least enough to wedge the knife in deeper. Since prying works better between hard surfaces, they can stay much more frozen than if you need to soften it enough to pull apart manually. Only the very edges would loose quality from thawing, as most of the inside never warms and the pried edges are still frozen and won't rejoin.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.901638
| 2012-11-02T04:37:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28165",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Celeritas",
"Dee",
"Giovanni Benussi",
"Jaewoo Kim",
"Kay C.",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Margaret Piela",
"Megha",
"NotADog",
"Polyscript",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64833",
"user64797"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6446
|
Are there food safety issues with sous-vide cooking?
As I understand the technique, you put a food item in a plastic bag and dump it into warm water for some amount of time.
What happens to bacteria growth inside the bag?
If you do it properly, no there are no health issues.
A combination of two things are required to kill beasties: heat and time. The higher the heat you expose them to, the faster they die. Generally any temperature above 130 F is enough to kill most beasties, it just requires a significantly larger amount of time compared to a higher temperature.
I go into a lot of detail regarding Salmonella in this answer of mine:
Is it safe to eat a cooked steak that (briefly) touched the plate that was holding the raw meat?
I have several tables there to show exact timings, etc.
If you think I should copy/paste that here, then let me know in a comment
Sous-vide is mostly done at 60ºC / 140ºF, so it's a matter of ensuring the food reaches that temperature soon enough and long enough. Right?
@GUI: Yes, that is correct. AFAIK "soon enough" isn't that critical unless it's spending several hours in the "danger zone". Under normal circumstances it will reach 140 F fast enough to make any bacterial growth negligible.
Even frozen meats will come up to temperature very quickly and are quite often put in directly while frozen.
@yossarian: Didn't know that, I'll remove that from my comment.
Douglas Baldwin actually includes times for both. For a 1 inch piece of meat to reach 141F, it takes 49 minutes unfrozen and 58 minutes frozen.
Look forward to the new information that will be in Modernist Cuisine when it is released (http://modernistcuisine.com/). They are promising extensive new research on safety including several corrections to the federal codes in both positive and negative directions.
@Michael, Do not look forward to spending $500 on the book.
@hobodave, some sous vide dishes have safety risk even if you do them properly (like salmon mi-cuit or lobster), neither of which will reach pasteurization with common sous vide methods. It's important to only use high quality ingredients and not serve to immune compromised diners with these dishes. Generally the risk with these is similar to eating the seafood raw.
There are a couple of things to consider when cooking sous vide in terms of safety:
What is the time and temperature required to kill the nasty stuff present in any given piece of food. There will be a minimum temp and time for anything and it's highly dependent on the thickness of the meat.
Some sous vide preparations don't get to those minimum times and temps. This is generally preparations of fish. In this case, you should use sushi grade fish and not serve to anyone who is immune compromised. Think of it as the same as eating it raw. If you follow the same safety guidelines, you'll be fine.
Since you're cooking in a vacuum, botulism can be an issue. All food should be cooked within the recommended cooking time. Food should either be served immediately or flash cooled in an ice water bath and then kept below 38F in a fridge for 3-4 weeks. Home fridges are generally not good enough to keep the temp below 38F, so this shouldn't be done outside of commercial grade equipment.
Cooking times should either be kept under 4 hours or be sufficient to achieve pasteurization.
Douglas Baldwin has produced an excellent, free resource, A Practical Guide to Sous Vide, that goes in to great length on all the safety concerns. It also lists general minimum time per temp per width for different cuts of meat and discusses when you can ignore those and what the additional risks and considerations are.
does the 38 degree rule apply to uncooked foods as well, or just sous vide results?
@justkt, It applies to the vacuum packed, flash chilled, product of sous vide post cooking. Restaurants and airlines use the technique to cook and then preserve food for a long time, essentially ready for service with a reheat. However home refrigerators are generally not good enough for this purpose, largely due to temperature fluctuations when the door is opened, I believe. Uncooked foods are fine as they have been. I think the specific risk is botulism due to the vacuum packing and cooking prior to refrigeration.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.902035
| 2010-08-31T19:44:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6446",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Bradley Bossard",
"Desmond Zhou",
"Eliza",
"Michael Natkin",
"Noah Spurrier",
"Syzo",
"Trader9fromOuterSpace",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"justkt",
"kd0hdf",
"tiago",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
127767
|
Are pork trotters and pork knuckles the same thing?
Are pork trotters and pork knuckles the same thing? What are the differences?
These are distinct pieces of a pig. A pork foot is the actual foot, including the toes, as can be seen for example on wikipedia.
A pork knuckle on the other hand is the join just above the feet, also called ham hock or Eisbein when used in German cooking. Again wikipedia has a nice picture showing that this is a slightly different piece.
From a culinary perspective, a pork knuckle contains a lot of meat/ muscle as well as skin and bones. A pork foot is almost exclusively bones and skin with very little meat in between.
Thanks. I can't open Wikipedia till someone helps me climb over GFW.
A foot/trotter has limited meat (i.e. enough for a decent sandwich rather than a decent meal), but is very good for stock particularly if one has a pressure cooker.
@MarkMorganLloyd I've eaten both port feet and pork knuckles. I'm not sure how you want to make a sandwich with a pork foot, the dishes I had were more based on the idea of cooking for a long time and then gnaw off the skin from the bones. Both feet and knuckles will produce a huge amount of jelly if you cook them for long enough so yes they are good for stock/ hearty soup bases.
I think this would be a better alternative for your second link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ham_hock
Because this one points to the actual piece of meat, while yours points to a dish with that piece of meat.
@quarague Pressure cook, disassemble, save the limited amount of meat, put the remainder back in the cooker for a few more minutes to render down.
Using this diagram from Wikipedia:
13 (front and back) are the hock or knuckle
14 (front and back) are the foot or trotter
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.902415
| 2024-02-27T12:17:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/127767",
"authors": [
"Mark Morgan Lloyd",
"Opifex",
"Tim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87594",
"quarague"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
51980
|
How much jaggery can replace 1 tablespoon of white sugar?
Assume the jaggery is of finest quality and is ground. Also, the sugar can be powdered or in crystal form.
I just want the same level of sweetness when I replace them with each other.
According to Cook's Info:
Jaggery is not as sweet as white sugar, so when substituting white sugar for Jaggery use about 1/3 less. When swapping Jaggery in for sugar, use anywhere from 1/4 to 1/2 more Jaggery than was called for of sugar (if you want to keep the recipe as sweet as it was.)
That meshes with my limited experience too, so if the jaggery is ground in such a way that it will measure like the sugar you are replacing, and you are replacing 1TBS of sugar, then you would want to use somewhere in the neighborhood of 1TBS plus 1tsp of jaggery. If precision is needed (which of course doesn't really apply here, but bear with me) consider that the way jaggery and sugar measures volumetrically are unlikely to really be identical. It would be better to measure by weight, or if there is liquid in the recipe, by water displacement.
How would you use water displacement to measure a quantity of sugar? Since sugar dissolves in water, it would be hard to tell the volume, right?
@HenryJackson By comparing. If a certain amount of sugar raises the water level a certain amount, the same amount of jaggery will do the same, assuming they both melt or don't melt in a similar manner. So displacement isn't exactly the right word, but the overall volume of liquid is what rises.
well, it may be to taste that jaggery isn't as sweet as while sugar, however jaggery has a very different taste
my experience is that you can use one half cup of jaggery to one cup sugar, jaggery is more rich tasting and of course has some vitamins and minerals left and some other health benefits, just experiment with your recipes,
It purely depends on one's taste. According to me for every 1tbs of white sugar you can replace with 2tbs of crushed jaggery.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.902582
| 2014-12-26T05:28:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51980",
"authors": [
"Cathie Evans",
"Hank",
"Jami Ferreiro",
"Jolenealaska",
"Marsha Ozga",
"Rooster Coxmen",
"Water Tank Cleaning Ltd",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22726"
],
"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
}
|
25326
|
Is there a general algorithm for calculating the amount of time to roast meat?
Often, when you buy meat from the store, it comes with guidance on how long the meat needs to be roasted, presumably calculated as a function of its weight. Is there some well known general algorithm for calculating how long to roast various types of meat (e.g. for display on packaging).
Perhaps something like:
roasting time = c * weight of meat
Assuming the algorithm is this simple, is there some reference of ideal oven temperatures and scaling constant c for each type of meat (chicken, beef, pork etc)?
Relatedly, is there a well known set of algorithms for converting between say, fan oven, AGA, and/or gas mark standards for oven temperature?
I'm assuming these facts must be well known in meat supplier's product development departments, due to the labeling I see on meat that I buy. However, having Googled it a fair bit, I can't find these details summarized anywhere.
any commentary on the reason for the downvote?
I've never noticed cooking time recommendations before. Usually they go by internal temperatures. I would guess they would err on the side of overcooked for safety & liability reasons.
I don't know the whole algorithm, but I found the formula you'd need to derive it.
First, as you said, you would need a reference for the final internal temperature of the meat. McGee On Food And Cooking is a good source, I don't know of any online accessible ones, although they probably exist.
Second, you have to calculate the time needed to reach that temperature. The system of equations you need is (assuming a simple case - I am sure that adding oil to the pan, or breading the meat, or using a microwave will all change it a lot):
No, I don't know what these variables stand for. The book from which I scanned this uses it as an example why asking for such an algorithm is pointless. I guess you could look it up in the paper cited below the equations, if you are so inclined. I will stick with my thermometer.
One word: Science.
I accepted this answer because it accepts that such an algorithm exists, then goes on to show it is too complex for reasonable use.
This is the best "yes, but it's not practical to use" answer I've seen in a long time.
I'd just note that when I took a heat transfer course in college years ago, I actually had to perform a calculation somewhat like this as a homework exercise. Even with all sorts of simplifying assumptions (roast was a perfectly symmetrical cylinder, composition of meat, density, water content, etc. was perfectly even throughout, etc.), it still took a couple pages of rather advanced math to get an answer. For all practical purposes, there is no algorithm, since you'd need perfect knowledge of the shape and external/internal physical characteristics of every cubic millimeter of the meat.
What would "ideal" mean? Most items that you can roast in 2-3 hours can also be thrown in the slow cooker for 10-12 hours. It depends entirely on how the dish is prepared, how much fat/water you're using, whether or not you incorporate steam or convection, and more.
Anyway, if there were such an algorithm, it would be highly inadvisable to try using it at home, due to the huge variation in freezer temperatures, refrigerator temperatures, oven temperatures, rack positioning, how and where and for how long it was thawed, whether or not you open the oven door, etc.
In fact, if you happen to come across any cooking times that are based on weight, ignore them, because the weight is probably being used as a proxy for thickness, which is normally what matters in an oven.
There are many, many areas of the culinary arts where ratios and formulas are useful or even critical (especially baking and mol-gas) but cooking time isn't one of them. Please, just use a thermometer and the USDA temperature chart. That is how you cook meat safely; as long as you do that, it really doesn't matter what the oven temperature is or how long it's in there.
Right, the cooking time to a particular temperature is proportional to the square of the thickness, I believe.
you make several excellent points, and the USDA link is really useful. but, are you really saying that heuristics in this area are totally impossible?
@leonigmig: A food thermometer is an heuristic. You're taking an approximate temperature measurement, in a piece of meat that may or may not have uniform temperature, and the target temperature is itself based on an estimated rate of heat transfer and an exponential, probabilistic microbial heat death function along with some conservative estimates about the baseline (raw meat). Why create yet another proxy when you can just measure the food temperature directly? Any such "algorithm" would have to be conservative enough to overcook your food 99 times out of 100.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.902785
| 2012-07-29T13:15:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25326",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adam Starrh",
"Athanasius",
"BaffledCook",
"BobMcGee",
"Brian Hocking",
"CloudyGloudy",
"Daisy Annderson",
"Gina Tomashefski",
"HighlandRat",
"Michael Natkin",
"Raghav Dinesh",
"The Forest And The Trees",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"leonigmig"
],
"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
}
|
58112
|
Dangers of leaving food in an oven with the gas off
My gas stove manual warns not leave food in the oven while it's off for:
More than an hour before cooking, or
More than an hour after cooking
I can't seem to find the reason why. What exactly happens in this situation?
This sounds like an even-more-conservative-than-usual food safety guideline. I don't think it's related to the gas oven; leaving food out in the hazardous temperature range (41F-140f) for an extended period increases the risk of foodborne illness due to bacteria growth rates.
Food safety was my thought too - though it's a bit odd that the after time is the same as the before time; presumably if the oven was hot when it turned off, it'll keep the food above 140F for quite a while afterwards...
Does your oven have a pilot light?
@briantist I don't know. If a pilot light is something that is always on, then no. I will check the manual.
@JasonTrue if that's the reason, do other manuals (gas or electric) contain similar warnings?
How do they suggest that you make prefect meringues then?
This has to be the result of a lawsuit against the appliance maker from someone who didn't understand the concept of the danger zone.
Does your stove have a feature that allows you to set a timer for either beginning a cook cycle and/or ending one?
Even if it doesn't, the warning is likely related to temperature and food safety, rather than a concern about the oven itself or gas (which would not be present because it would either be burning or off). It may be on the conservative side of that warning, but makes sense from a company standpoint.
Food should not be kept between 40F (4.5C) and 140F (60C) for more than two hours. This is called the danger zone and it is where the conditions are best for pathogen growth. It is also important to recognize that the time is cumulative, meaning, for example, that if your food is at that temperature for 20 minutes, then you place it in the fridge, the 2 hour clock does not start over again. You've used up a portion of that 2 hour time.
Pilot lights leave stoves at a temperature, which may be the reason to not let cooked food rest on it. Grandma always said not to.. so I don't.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.903209
| 2015-06-09T02:45:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58112",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Glynis Cook",
"JasonTrue",
"Linda Burnette",
"Pamela Rutter",
"Sam Holder",
"Tritium21",
"ashes999",
"barbara jordan",
"briantist",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5714"
],
"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
}
|
1350
|
What is a good sugar substitute for baking?
I'm curious about what I can use for a sugar substitute while baking. I'm not interested in artificial sweeteners. For instance, I've found that apple juice works well in some muffins. Are there any substitutes that work particularly well with other baked goods? Any general rules for selecting a substitute?
Does "sugar" mean table sugar or sucrose here? Or do you include all mono- and di-saccharides and generally those that impart sweetness and humans can metabolise such as glucose, fructose, lactose... ?
apple juice like most juices is just a big pile of sugar with some water in it. Your body doesn't have the slightest clue whether the sugar is from juice, coke, or a big spoonful from a bag.
It's going to depend greatly on what you're baking.
Sugar serves several different purposes beyond just providing sweetness. Besides sweetness:
tenderness by interrupting and minimizing gluten formation. Sugar promotes spread in cookies
Retain moisture and extend keeping quality (in baking sugar is actually considered a "liquid" ingredient due to its hygroscopic qualities - the ability to pull moisture from it's surrounding atmosphere).
Promotes browning and caramelizing
Assists in aeration and leavening (as in creaming butter and sugar to aerate the dough)
stabilizes egg whites
Provides food for yeast growth and fermentation
In some instances you might be able to use a syrup (honey, corn syrup, molasses, etc.) but not in all cases. For instance the granular nature of sugar is necessary for aeration of cookies and cakes because the jagged edges create air pockets as they pass through the fat.
Syrups primarily serve the purposes of sweetening, browning, and moistening. Honey could be used in muffins that are being made using the muffin method (aka two-bowl method) because this method would use a liquid fat (melted butter/oil) but not in the creaming method (producing a more cakelike structure from the creaming process). When using syrups you have to account for the addtional moisture that they provide.
From: "How Baking Works" (Paula Figoni)
"The National Honey Board recommneds the substitution for using honey in place of granulated sugar. This accounts for both the amount of water in honey and for its intense sweetness: use 1 pound honey in place of 1 pound granulated sugar; reduce water (or other liquid) in the formula (recipe) by 2.5-3 ounces."
Overall, when making substitutions of ingredients that are critical to the structural and eating qualities you probably will not be able to replicate the same results with the substitution. In the end, it will often be a case of "what is the next best thing" and realizing there will be quality differences in the finished product.
Great, that's something to chew on. I think I see some experimentation in my baking future. Thanks for the info.
Let me know how your experiments turn out!
Stevia is a natural sweetener that doesn't contain sugar.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevia
It's been getting a lot of attention in the low carb camp lately.
yes, Stevia is extremely sweet but it will not work the same as sugar in baking.
I know you are not vegan, but Isa Chandra Moskowitz has terrific baked goods recipes that often use maple syrup, with fantastic results. http://www.theppk.com/
My basic wheat bread recipe calls for either sugar or honey; the differences are subtle. However, the extra moisture of the honey is overwhelmed by the variation in how much flour it needs from batch to batch; more precise recipes may require a bit of tweaking.
If it's glucose that you need to avoid, fructose works really well in most cases, particularly because it can be obtained as the same white granules. It's sweeter than sucrose, so you usually want to cut the amount by about a quarter. That has the side effect of reducing some of the calories from your baked goods, but can affect texture or browning in certain recipes. The differences are more pronounced in candies and ice creams, but baking should be just fine.
Splenda sells bags that work 1:1 as a sugar substitute (though sometimes i seem to need more). Doesn't taste quite the same but I think it's better than eating sugar.
Yes the do but even the Splenda folks indicate that Splenda is best used where it's only needed as a sweetening element such as custards, gelatin, etc. I assisted the foodservice division a couple years ago during some training they were doing for field sales managers and the main message was that it will not assist in browning, rising, or caramelizing. For instance you could use it in custard but if you're wanting to do creme brulee, you couldn't use it for caramelizing.
As substitutions go I'm more comfortable eating the real thing and cutting back on portion size but to each their own.
If you intend to use it primarily fro sweetening, moisturization or browning, you can use date syrup. Around here it's called Silan. It's somewhat similar to honey in texture, but has a darker colour, and lacks the sharp after-taste of honey, and is made of dates.
I'm not sure how it caramelizes, and I suspect it wil do you no good for aeration or stabilizing egg-whites.
I don't really bake (bad at chemistry) but I do use date syrup for sweetening recipes when cooking. It's actually very sweet, and I find it easier to work with than sugar.
Agave Nectar is a great alternative to sugar.
It may be used to replace any wet sweetener such as honey or corn syrup, but consider that it is sweeter than honey so reduce the amount used by about half depending on your tastes.
As a replacement for sugar, reduce the amount of agave by 1/4 to 1/2 depending on your tastes.
(I do not like super sweet goods and often reduce by 1/2) and reduce the amount of liquid in the recipe by a quarter cup.
The taste is wonderful and the product is light and nutritious.
You can use grated jaggery or molasses as sweetener in cakes. Instead of beating powdered sugar with egg, you can try with jaggery, it came out to be beautiful , and sweet. But I think it is best to try them with chocolate cakes. I have a recipe chocolate cake with jaggery on my website.
You can also use dates.
Seasoned Advice has a community consensus that we will not make health claims, for various reasons, including that solid scientific evidence often is unavailable. I have therefore removed the health claims in your post.
You mention dates, it may be helpful to add details how a reader should use them to sweeten cakes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.903452
| 2010-07-17T05:44:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1350",
"authors": [
"CokoBWare",
"Dan",
"Darin Sehnert",
"Eva",
"Jonathon Watney",
"Stephie",
"boxofrats",
"eps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694",
"jgreep",
"nivlam",
"shingara",
"user110084"
],
"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
}
|
14312
|
What does it mean for something to be broiled?
More specifically, what is the difference between broiling and boiling?
Answered on http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/784/translating-cooking-terms-between-us-uk-au-ca-nz
It doesn't compare at all - broiling is the US term for what is called grilling in UK. The heat source is above the food.
In the US, a "grill" is used to mean a "gas powered barbeque", as the Brits would say. The heat source is below the food.
A "broiler" (i.e., a kitchen appliance specifically designed for applying intense heat from above) is often also called a "salamander", especially in professional kitchens.
Of course, a "grill" can also be charcoal powered rather than gas.
I'd suggest a different term than "barbeque" in the US. Of course, we do call grills "barbeques", but there is also another noun, verb, and adjective of the same word, which usually means something quite different here. My talks with people from other countries (most notably Brits and Aussies) tend to have a hard time wrapping their head around the various US uses of the word "barbeque" as it tends to just be a word for general grilling where ever they're from.
@Phoenix what are you talking about? "I'd suggest a different term than "barbeque" in the US. Of course, we do call grills "barbeques", but there is also another noun, verb, and adjective of the same word, which usually means something quite different here" What is that noun verb and adjective?
@barlop: BBQ in the American South means slow-cooked in a smoker. Which is quite different than the grill meaning of BBQ (fast-cooked over a fire)
Well, Barbeque has quite a few uses (and it's not just in the South). It's kind of a unique food, can't really say regional dish but a gradated one (it's all over the US, but a neighboring town's is usually different but similar style than anothers', and the farther you get from one town towards another, the more different it is, like a color gradient). It almost always has one thing in common: Pork being slow cooked over many hours (not necessarily in a smoker) until the meat is tender enough to simply fall off the bone at the slightest touch, and the sauce, which is what really changes.
(also some places use Beef, ugh) Some places use a vinegar based sauce (which is the right way!), some use tomato based sauce, some use a dry rub, etc. etc. etc. and every place has it's own ingredients that go into the sauce. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbecue_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbecue#Styles
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.904063
| 2011-04-25T09:39:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14312",
"authors": [
"ESultanik",
"Phoenix",
"Sobachatina",
"TFD",
"barlop",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5866"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29382
|
My sauerkraut has mold covering the surface, is it ok?
I had a batch of sauerkraut fermenting in the basement. During the fermentation I had to leave for over a week and left my roommates with the basic instructions to check it a couple times and skim off any mold that might form. They forgot about it, and when I returned I found the brine level was down to the weights (but not exposing the cabbage), and that there was a full cover of dark greenish/grayish mold on the brine surface.
I've removed the mold carefully and found the submerged cabbage smelled and appeared ok, with the exception of some being slightly darker where the weights were not directly on top of it. This kraut was removed and thrown out, and only totaled about 1 cup. The mold did not contact the kraut, and the kraut itself seems to have remain submerged.
Overall I'm leaning towards it being ok, and might try small samples in cooked dishes--is this reasonable, or should I just toss it and start a fresh batch to play it safe?
As a general rule, fluid and moist foods that have gone moldy should be discarded. It's probably not very good to give advice as whether your saurkraut is safe or not, especially since we haven't seen it. Eating a little mold is not dangerous for a healthy person though, so one could taste it and/or let it ferment further and see how it develops. I'm recommending against this though, and for starting over.
As always, if in doubt throw it out! It's cabbage and vinegar, it can't have cost much. Is it worth getting food poisoning over?
I doubt Genghis Kahn ( http://kitchenproject.com/history/sauerkraut.htm ) allowed mold to deter him from eating home made sauerkraut, nor did it deter my grandmother or my mother; but times may have changed.
Sauerkraut doesn't tend to have vinegar added. The sourness comes from lactic acid from lactic acid bacteria (which don't require oxygen), while vinegar contains acetic acid from acetic acid bacteria (which require oxygen). Many seem to shun adding vinegar to such ferments, but IMO, it not only makes them less likely to spoil due to increased acidity, but can improve taste and reduce oxygen and air levels further (probably due to acetic acid bacteria in the vinegar using it up). Never tried making sauerkraut, though (just other lacto-ferments). Adding vinegar can make a vacuum, IME.
Per NC State's Extension's article on pickles and sauerkraut (some emphasis added):
Pickles or sauerkraut mold during fermentation.
Answer:
Unsafe—microorganisms are growing improperly.
Possible reasons
Fermentation temperature was above 75°F.
Too much salt was used,
not allowing adequate lactic acid production.
The cloth on top of
the kraut was not kept clean during fermentation (may need to be
replaced after skimming).
Per Penn State Extension's Saurkraut Guide (emphasis added):
Do not taste it if you see mold on the surface, feel a slimy texture, or smell a bad odor.
Their PDF on Saurkraut says:
To avoid surface mold growth, keep the cabbage submerged at all
times by covering it with a plate just small enough to ft inside the
fermentation container or with two or three clean quart jars filled
with water. An acceptable alternative is to fill a large, sealed,
food-grade plastic bag containing 4½ tablespoons of salt and 3
quarts of water.
Again, no indication of acceptable types of mold.
I cannot endorse the existing answers which indicate that mold is an acceptable part of the saurkraut making process, unless credible science based evidence is presented, from reputable sources such as University Extension Centers or, better yet, peer reviewed journal sources.
Interesting, and great to see cited information, but I do consider it normal to get small mold colonies which I skim off as soon as they appear. Typically they are quite small (1/8 to 1/4 inch) and look a bit like popcorn. Once skimmed they don't reappear for several days. Perhaps this is due to the location that I store my kraut, but I've never made a batch without these appearing.
From http://www.uaf.edu/files/ces/publications-db/catalog/hec/FNH-00170.pdf "Some spoilage may occur only on the surface. You
may be able to remove this spoiled kraut and use
the rest. However, molds that grow on the surface
of kraut can change the acidity of the kraut, making
the kraut susceptible to spoilage by microorganisms
that are harmful. Molds grow best when they can
get some air. Try to keep the kraut container airtight.
Check kraut for mold often and quickly remove any
mold that you see."
As long as the kraut was submerged below the brine all the time it's been fermenting it would be fine. The mould forming on top of the brine is a natural by-product of the fermentation process.
It's when the kraut has contact with the air and forms mould you should discard.
I experiment with making chilli hot sauce using a similar fermentation process and the same principle applies to the chilli mash.
How is floating in the brine, eating sugar and producing toxins different from sitting on the cabbage, eating sugar and producing toxins?
@MischaArefiev I think the answerer may be thinking about Kahm yeast floating on the brine, and true mold on the kraut. Kahm yeast isn't dangerous, but you should make sure that's what it is.
As an RN, I say, "if in doubt, throw it out!" It's so easy to just make another batch. Feed the bad stuff to your local wildlife. Letting it get too warm i sprobably the most common mistake I've made. My fermentation crock does an excellent job (as long as it stays cool enough during the process).
Ummm... If you are canning or boiling then it isn't fermentation that you are doing. Why promote all that good lacto-bacterial action then kill it all? The point of kraut is that it is alive, all the way down to your tummy. Killing the bacteria kills the flavour too- you may as well start out with vinegar and just pickle it.
But I agree it is very difficult to poison yourself with fermented veggies. There are very few documented cases of botulism, for example. I am a researcher who loves to ferment!
yes its still good one thing I like to do half way through is take all the brine out above the plate and run it through a micro micro strainer get it nice and clean in case theres still some mold spores left then I do this once more befor I jar it. and fit the strainer with cheese cloth to get everything. so because my cabbage hat holding my kraut down is also covered with cheese cloth and I mean covered, jammed down the sides above the hat I use alot of cheese cloth. no bits of kraut are coming up and making little islands to breed junk and any mold spores are not going down because my plate only leaves about a few millimeters of space around the edge I also make sure theres 3 inches of brine above my plate and weights. so when I finish and im going to jar it I clean that brine on top once more and im good. my friend has a special vacuum to suck the top off and all the yeast and it cleans it and spits it back. blue grey mold and white mold are ok. if u are getting dark mold black mold or multi color mold throw it out especially if its on some kraut and made it to the top toss it and remember when in dought throw it out.
My family has been brewing kraut for centuries and mold is normal. Its called "scum" when you see the scum you scrape it off the top and if your water is too low add more salt water. Dont let the mold scare you. it could be true that pink, or black is bad. ive only seen blue mold.
As far as sources go see "Wild Fermentation" by Sandor Katz
and all krauts get mold unless u are useing a german crock ur gona get something my great great grandparents use to make the stuff in a barrel and they used a weight starter cuz they had to get that first stage of bacteria up and going in like 3 days they couldent wait the 7 to 10 days cuz they had pigs running through the kichen, things where not clean! back then they would put the lid on put a rock on top and leave it there would be mold on top some people in Germany stir the white mold into the kraut cuz they like the taste. there seems to be this new age thing of making the perfect kraut. as long as its under the brine its fine, muliti color mold is bad throw it out blue or white is fine just take it off the kraut under the brine is fine make sure u have a good 3 inches of brine up.
Mold on kraut is normal and a part of the process. White, blue, green are normal. Just scoop it off and add salty distilled water to compensate for the water loss in the mold removal.
If the mold is black or pink, dump it. Those colors are deadly. kraut cannot be made without mold. If you ferment the cabbage for a couple of weeks and do not see mold you have probably killed the bacteria & enzymes in the mix by using iodized salt in the primary mix. Then you need to start over and use just plan sea salt. Remember blue, green or white your alright, pink or black you are dead Jack!
Please present credible University Extension or more scientific sources to back up this assertion that there are safe types of mold in sauerkraut fermentation. My research (see my answer) indicates otherwise. This is the 2nd question where you have presented dubious to dangerous safety information.
While it's plausible that mold is safe at least in some cases if removed promptly, I have no idea where you've gotten this thing about mold colors from.
Imchecked my kraut a few weeks ago, but it was not ready to can. At that time I removed a layer of gray greenish mold from the top, boiled and added more brine, put back downstairs for a few more weeks. I am canning this morning. It's ready. Once again, the mold had formed on the surface, i scraped it off, but the kraut itself was packed down tightly under 5 inches of brine. I did remove some of the kraut floating on the top after I removed the mold. It is in a pot to bring to a boil. I canned last year too, and had the mold issue. It didn't kill me to eat that kraut. I think the mold is just part of the fermentation process. I noticed this year, it is a little more sauer rhan last year, but i made a bigger batch and waited longer to can as when I checked it a few wekks ago, about half way down the crock, the cabbage was not ready. I think the mold is fine. Leave any food sitting around for weeks and yes, you are going to have mold. I don't have time to skim it everyday. I think it's just the build up of scum on the top layer and then yes it grows mold on it.
Good that you survived. Please take a look at the accepted answer before you consider doing this again.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.904311
| 2012-12-22T19:18:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29382",
"authors": [
"Brōtsyorfuzthrāx",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Steinbach",
"CreativiTimothy",
"Dewey C",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jordan Jones",
"Judy Young",
"Kade M",
"Michael N",
"Mischa Arefiev",
"Robin Miyagi",
"Rusty",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"STW",
"Saclt7",
"Tasedda N Djaredjar",
"Tasty Việt Nam",
"Trogg48",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"citizen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/926",
"taurdir"
],
"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
}
|
67129
|
What is real caramel?
This comment suggests something about the true definition of "caramel":
Actually, caramel is not made with "milk and/or cream, butter, and sometimes vanilla". While US recipes are fond of adding these things to caramel, they are not an essential part of the definition.
I am very interested in what a true caramel recipe and production is. What actually is the definition?
Also, I want to toy around with butterscotch, caramel and toffee - I like them all. Is there something along this line that uses molasses, even if it's not caramel per se?
I left your second question about molasses in, since it's perhaps related in that it's asking about definitions and names of candy, but you might need get better answers if you post it separately.
For your second question - Brown sugar has molasses in it, I think you can even buy brown sugar with more molasse content for stronger flavor.
Thank you for that clarification. I appreciate it. I do use dark brown sugar, which is what I think you are saying. It's nice to know these things.
When heated, sugar will caramelize and turn into caramel. No other ingredients are required.
According to Harold McGee in On Food and Cooking published by Scribner, 2004, p. 688:
Caramel is first of all the brown, sweet, aromatic syrup produced in caramelization, which may be used as a coloring and/or flavoring ingredient in many preparations. But cooks use the same word to mean the combination of caramelized sugar and various milk products, ideally cream, which are mixed while the sugar is still hot so that the milk solids are browned and generate color and aroma as well.
Can't go wrong with Harold McGee ;-) -> +1
Thank you very much. That makes perfect sense and I get it now. Stephie, it looks like I'm going to have to look up Harold McGee.
caramel (n.)
1725, "burnt sugar," from French caramel "burnt sugar" (17c.), from Old Spanish caramel (modern caramelo)caramel origin
This suggests that what is commonly called Caramel is the burning (or almost burnt) sugar, either on it's own or in sweetened condensed milk or other milk products with added sugar.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.905162
| 2016-03-06T01:17:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67129",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catherine Birch",
"Debbie",
"Fangwei Cai",
"Laura Carnes",
"Marc Miles",
"Mark Votaw",
"Sarumanatee",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43988"
],
"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
}
|
68538
|
Are these tomatoes San Marzano knockoffs?
I buy these tomatoes at my local grocery and always assumed they were San Marzano brand. I was waiting for my soup to simmer and was reading the label when I noticed the initials on the label actually say "San Merican Tomatoes".
Google turns up nothing for that other than the trademark of Simpson Imports, which is also listed on the back of the can, although as the distributor, not an importer.
They are labeled as "Made in the USA", and I was under the impression that San Marzanos were imported from Italy.
Are these knockoffs? Or perhaps some other distribution? The label is so similar to the traditional SM label.
Are they any good? I've had knock-offs which are better than the products they are trying to mimic, although they are usually junk. How does the flavor and texture of these compare to the real thing?
It's not a knock-off, per se—but this particular brand has never been imported from Italy.
"San Marzano" is a variety of plum tomato, as well as a protected designation of origin for those tomatoes grown in a specific region and in a traditional way. There is no single "San Marzano" brand or trademark owned by a particular company, and the name is not legally protected in the USA; instead, products originating from the traditional region are indicated by trademarked "DOP" certifications.
Your can is produced by Simpson Imports, the same company that made the San Marzano canned tomatoes with the recognizable design that you're familiar with, which has always been grown in the USA—so in that sense, your can is not a knock-off. However, historically, the brand has probably benefitted from confused customers who thought they were buying tomatoes from the traditional region. The "SMT" design appears to be a newer rebranding; without actually knowing the motivation, it's possible that it may perhaps be to try to establish a trademarkable name, or to incorporate non-San Marzano varieties of tomatoes in their products, or to respect the designation protection and reduce consumer confusion, or perhaps some other reason.
Old label:
New label:
(This label is for puree tomatoes instead of whole, so there are additional differences beyond just the rebranding.)
Brand website: http://www.simpsonbrands.com/
San Marzano tomato drawing (but not "San Marzano" name) trademarked by Simpson Imports
Information about the San Marzano protected designation:
http://slice.seriouseats.com/archives/2010/12/what-is-a-dop-italian-san-marzano-canned-tomato.html
https://livethelive.com/2015/08/14/san-marzano-tomatoes-real-or-fake-3/
http://www.pastene.com/san_marzano.html
https://www.gustiamo.com/san-marzano-2/
The fact that the protected designation and the name of the variety are the same is unfortunate, but I think this answer places an inappropriate degree of value judgement on the idea of people being "tricked" or "confused" by what is, at the end of the day, the accurate name of the variety. I don't think it's appropriate for answers to state political opinions like this.
@Random832 Are you commenting on the other answer? This answer doesn't mention being 'tricked' at all. The reference to customer confusion is entirely reasonable, at least in my opinion; given the italian words on the label etc., they clearly are intending to benefit from customers believing these are imported tomatoes (and the reference above is to a potential reason they might have changed the label, to reduce it). Whether that's a bad thing or not is up to your opinion, of course.
This one says confused, the other one says tricked, it's all the same. It's clear that the reason for the change is anticipating the PDO being imposed on them and preventing them from accurately naming what variety of tomatoes they are selling. The former label said in plain english "grown domestically in the USA"
@Random832 The whole quote is, "the brand has probably benefitted from confused customers who thought they were buying tomatoes from the traditional region", which I would say is not a value judgement, and is furthermore a simple fact in the case of at least one formerly-confused customer (that would be me).
@Random832 After denying requests to honor their PDOs every time they've asked since sometime in the 19th century; is there any plausible reason to expect an about face at this time?
+1 for this answer. @Random832 offering a hypothesis for why a complicated situation has arisen is part of explaining things well. The hypothesis need not even be correct. I do think you are exaggerating how politically charged this explanation is.
There are probably also a lot of consumers who just think that San Marzanos are a good variety of tomatoes regardless of where they were grown.
I think "has benefitted from confused customers" is a negative value judgement. I'm also a bit baffled at the idea of someone who would have ever heard of the PDO, but can't read the part of the label that says it was grown in the USA. @DanNeely I assume that the TPP or some other recent trade treaty has, or is expected to have, actual enforcement teeth for PDOs.
I grow San Marzanos in my garden, here, in the US. I should probably stop calling them that. The folks who sell me the little starter plants should probably label them "San Marzano like Tomato" or something to that effect. Regardless, they make awfully good tasting puree.
In a sense, yes, those are knock-offs. They are grown in the US from San Marzano seeds.
Here is the old label from the same company:
From Cooks Illustrated:
Until I wrote this answer, I was under the impression that the San Marzano brand in my picture were actual Denominazione d’Origine Protetta San Marzano tomatoes. I don't like feeling tricked. Cook's Illustrated has done a taste test of whole canned tomatoes including San Marzanos imported from Italy. Miur Glen Organic and Hunts both beat even the Denominazione d’Origine Protetta San Marzano tomatoes. The link above has the whole article.
There's even a typo on the can of American "San Marzanos": it should read pomodori pelati, not "pomidori*.
@jogloran "pomidoro/pomidori" is an old (but not much) italian plural form. My grandma would sometime use it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.905387
| 2016-04-25T02:44:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68538",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight",
"Federico",
"GdD",
"Joe M",
"Random832",
"Todd Wilcox",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"djechlin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9036",
"jogloran"
],
"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
}
|
85099
|
"Sludge" at the bottom of matcha/green tea latte
When I get a green tea latte from Starbucks, the drink is uniformly mixed from top to bottom, no matter how long it takes me to drink it.
I prefer to make my matcha lattes at home, though, because its faster, cheaper, and better (both health and taste, as I prefer my lattes far less sweet than Starbucks makes them and I prefer to sweeten with honey) than running through the drive through every morning. However, every morning, no matter how fast I drink my morning beverage, I wind up with a layer of green sludge at the bottom of my cup.
From what I can tell, the matcha is falling out of solution with the rest of the drink, despite being thoroughly mixed to start out. I do wonder if it has something with the amount of sugar, or the use of water to dissolve the matcha in. But since the whole thing comes together and tastes wonderful (until the last bit), I'm not sure. The only way around it I've found so far is to stir the drink well before every sip, which is unnecessary with coffee house versions (as I've had them other places and do not recall winding up with sludge at the end of the drink) and annoying while I'm at work.
Why do my matcha lattes end in green sludge, and how can I fix it? The green sludge at the end is bitter, thick, and unpleasant to drink, so I want to make my latte more like the ones from a coffee shop.
Recipe and method:
3/4 - 1 cup milk (depending on mug size), heated
1 slightly heaping teaspoon matcha powder
1 - 2 teaspoons honey
~1/8 cup hot water (a minute or two off the boil)
Force matcha through a sieve into mug to remove lumps, add hot water.
Blend (using electric whisk/milk frother) until dissolved. Add honey,
blend again to dissolve. Froth milk, then add to mug. Blend to mix
milk and tea/honey mixture. Drink.
I don't know (thus not an answer) but I'd guess the coffee house has a bucket of sludge somewhere - but is making your drink off the part of the bucket above the sludge. You could do the same - just pour off what does not stay dissolved/mixed.
@Ecnerwal I suppose I could, but that would require waiting for the drink to settle-- as I said, there's sludge when I'm finished, but not when I first make the drink. I don't think a coffee house waits for it to settle to pour off the drink before serving the customer, either.
Are they putting powder in your cup (their blender) at the shop, or pouring off a jug of premixed?
@Ecnerwal I drink them hot, so straight into the cup AFAIK (or possibly into a milk frother pitcher-- if that's the case, it might have something to do with it... a combination of better frothing from the steam wand mixing the milk and powder together and pouring the drink into a cup). Definitely not pouring off from a jug.
Use the milk frother but skip many of your steps (warm water unnecessary for example). First add the milk (oat milk works even better!) and turn on the frother, then, while the frother is on, add matcha powder gradually but make sure to finish a few seconds before the frother stops. If the powder has been exposed to moisture and is a bit clumpy you want to run it through a small sieve as you add it to the frother. I never add sweeteners so do not know when to add (perhaps try making one without sweetener to see if that helps), but I would do that after I have added the matcha to ensure the matcha is as well integrated as possible. I never have sludge except when I have clumpy matcha and no sieve. Most frothers have a cold whisk function you can use in case you did not finish all steps before the frother shuts off.
If you are making your drink with real matcha, that matcha is very finely ground green tea leaves. There are parts of the tea leaves that will always be insoluble in water, and therefore eventually fall to the bottom and create this sludge to which you are referring. The only solutions to that issue would be either 1) filtering the solution to remove the insoluble solids or 2) allowing the insoluble solids to settle to the bottom and the decanting the beverage above that sludge into another container. Straining is not enough when you are dealing with very fine particles, as the openings in strainers would just allow those particles to pass right through.
If, however, you are not using real matcha and it is completely water soluble (maybe a freeze-dried preparation from brewed tea) there will be no sludge. I would suspect that Starbucks is not brewing green tea with real matcha for every serving.
I am definitely using real matcha, and so is Starbucks ("Milk, Matcha Tea Blend [Sugar, Ground Japanese Green Tea]" according to the ingredients list in the link above). Matcha isn't really brewed, in that it is dissolved and then immediately ready for consumption instead of being steeped for a period of time first, but I would still say Starbucks is definitely "brewing green tea with real matcha for every serving."
I make iced oat milk honey matcha lattes every day and don’t really have issues with sludge unless I leave my drink for a long period of time. My method is:
microwave around 2 oz of water with 2-3 tsp honey for about 45 seconds (depends on microwave strength... can’t let it get to boiling heat or it will scorch the matcha and make it taste like an evil potion)
while water is heating, I sift a teaspoon of matcha into a matcha chawan/bowl via an inexpensive stainless mesh matcha sifter
pour the heated honey water (should be around 150-175 degrees, but under no circumstance should your milk or water be hotter than this for matcha) over the sifted matcha and whisk it rapidly with a matcha chasen for around a minute or two until light and frothy (there are tons of videos on whisking matcha out there)... proper aeration and separation of the little tea particles is your best defense against sludge
shake up some oatly barista until it’s frothy and pour it over ice, and then pour the matcha over it; I also like to drink my lattes out of a mason jar with a Cuppow lid so I can just cover the top with my fingers and shake it up well before drinking. For hot lattes just pour the matcha over your appropriately heated milk.
rinse off the matcha chasen and chawan with warm water, fill the chawan with warm water and whisk the chasen in it to clean off any residual stuff, dump everything out and lay it out to dry (benefit of using a chasen stand is that it can help ensure your chasen doesn’t get gross or moldy and will last a long time)
I really think your sludge issue is probably due to your whisking method, but if you are using low quality matcha (like culinary grade), I imagine those leaves might be a little heavier and more likely to create sludge at the bottom.
This is the chawan I have: Traditional Japanese Matcha Tea Cup Bowl | Multicolor Black Ceramic Ceremonial Chawan | Handcrafted, Lead Free, Large Macha Drinking Glass | Authentic Mug Shape https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B07Y1Z6SS3/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_fabc_Xy4PFbV5WPNGY
I love that it’s shaped so that I can whisk matcha rapidly and not get matcha splashes anywhere
This is the chasen set I have:
Matcha Tea Whisk Set - Bamboo Chasen and Black Whisk Holder Rest Set https://smile.amazon.com/dp/B07TKCQHHD/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_fabc_SD4PFbJH4D2W6
It whisks really well and the tines hold their curled shape for months and months so it does a beautiful job of aerating it
That’s because Starbucks uses an emulsifier in their drinks. My guess is that it’s included in their cream base. You can request a non-syrup drink, but not a non-cream base one. I usually order my drink non-syrup and with only one pump (as opposed to 4 pumps) of cream base since these two contain too much sugar for my taste (the matcha already includes tons). If by any chance they do agree (technically, the barista are supposed to used the full 4-pump dose), my drink begins separating soon after. The emulsifier is most likely xanthan gum powder.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.906009
| 2017-10-19T14:36:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85099",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"senschen"
],
"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
}
|
1260
|
Is it safe to eat potatoes that have sprouted?
I'm talking about potatoes that have gone somewhat soft and put out shoots about 10cm long.
Other online discussions suggest it's reasonably safe and the majority of us have been peeling and eating soft sprouty spuds for years. Is this correct?
store potatoes with apples to avoid this: http://lifehacker.com/5954159/store-potatoes-with-an-apple-to-keep-them-from-sprouting?utm_campaign=socialflow_lifehacker_twitter&utm_source=lifehacker_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow
FWIW, I prefer the soft potatoes since they don't take as long to fry.
Not safe enough for me to try it. Potatoes actually contain a very dangerous toxin called solanine. This toxin is concentrated enough in the green parts in the plant to cause solanine poisoning. This includes the sprouts/eyes, and the potato itself if it's green.
This article from the New York Times health guide indicates that it is something to be taken seriously. Per this article, if the sprouts have been removed, and the potato is not green then it is safe to eat as far as solanine poisoning is concerned.
However, a potato as far gone as you have described sounds disgusting. A soft potato is on its way to going bad. Where I am from, potatoes are cheap enough that it's just not worth the gross factor for me to eat a potato that has 10 cm sprouts and is squishy. I do eat potatoes that have little nub sprouts on them and that are slightly less than firm, after removing the sprouts of course.
Just to add to this amazing answer, if your potato has a small green layer, it's safe to eat, as long as you make sure you remove all the green parts. Otherwise, just throw it out.
To add to what @Edwin said: leaving a potato in sunlight will make it turn green; that's chlorophyl, and it's okay to eat. That's different from the green from solanine, which isn't okay to eat.
@PeteBecker, my understanding is that the green is caused exclusively by chlorophyll, and chlorophyll content of the potato correlates with solanine content, though they are produced by separate processes. Note however, that solanine is concentrated near the skin of the potato and can be significantly reduced by peeling. More info
Cultivars grown in the US have all been selected for low solanine content since at least the mid 80's. I last poisoned myself on a green potato in 1980. It was quite unpleasant, so I'm still cautious, but farmers have to a large degree remediated the problem.
It is safe to eat a sprouted potato if it is still firm (source: University of Illinois); however, don't expect it to act the way an unsprouted potato would. Part of the starch will have converted to sugar.
Be sure to store potatoes somewhere cool and dry with good air circulation. Also, keep them away from onions.
Why keep them away from onions? Do the onions speed sprouting in a way similar to how apples slow it?
@Daniel Bingham: "Avoid storing potatoes with onions because, when close together, they produce gases that spoil both." from http://www.ehow.com/how_3480_store-potatoes.html but I've seen the same advice from several other sources also
@Dinah Interesting, good to know!
@Dinah ... Thank you for that. Guess I'll be throwing them both out. I was wondering why they were spoiling so fast.
Other online discussions suggest it's reasonably safe and the majority of us have been peeling and eating soft sprouty spuds for years. Is this correct?
Um... Well, I grew up eating them. Towards the end of winter, all the potatoes looked like that. We snapped off the sprouts, ate the firmer ones, and saved the rest for planting.
We didn't die. I don't think. Unless this is all a dream, the last twenty years merely the illusion of my dying, spasming, potato-poisoned brain.
That said, if you have a choice, I would stick with potatoes that haven't sprouted...
FWIW... If you store apples with your potatoes, the potatoes are less likely to sprout.
This page says the opposite: http://www.wikihow.com/Stop-Potatoes-from-Sprouting-in-Storage
@Dinah: I'm speaking from personal experience, so I guess that falls under his "folk wisdom" dismissal. There has been some research into the matter (although it appears to be somewhat inconclusive as to whether ethylene alone - the primary gas released by ripening apples - has a use in long-term potato storage). Regardless, it's easy enough to test yourself: put an apple and a potato in a paper bag, and store separately (in cool, dark place) from a potato by itself; check periodically and note how sprouts develop. As for the essential oils suggestion... I wouldn't waste them on taters!
This article from America’s Test Kitchen have proven by experiment that storing potatoes with apples have positive effect. After 5 weeks the potatoes stored with apples were still fine, and the ones stored without apples where almost all starting to sprout.
Potatoes are simple, but 10cm is obscene, throw them out.
Potato safety 101
Don't eat the sprouts, just cut them off (they taste bad anyway). Unless they're more than a few cm.
Don't eat potatoes that have any green tint to their skin [1].
Don't eat potatoes that are soft [2].
Tips
Keep your potatoes dry
Keep your potatoes in a dark place
If you store potatoes well over winter, they won't sprout and will sweeten as the starches turn to sugar and the flavor will become more complex and earthy. Stored potatoes are delish.
Notes
[1] This is difficult to see on purple/blue potatoes, so just eat them fresh.
[2] You don't want your potatoes to be hard, you want them to be firm to the touch. Don't be afraid to give them a bit of a squeeze. As an exception, "new potatoes", which are just very young and small potatoes with thin skins, are usually a bit softer.
Source: My friend worked on a potato farm.
Disclaimer: I am not a healthcare or food safety professional.
My Dad grew up on a potato farm and he warned us about green potatoes but we were allowed to eat firm ones that had sprouted as long as we trimmed off the eyes. I don't think storing your potatoes with herbs or essential oils would be a good idea unless you wanted your potato dishes to taste of that stuff.
I'm fascinated by the comment about not storing potatoes with onions because I always have.
The solanine is found in the green skin and also highly concentrated in the eyes, which form sprouts.
Solanine is highly toxic, but is usually found in really small quantities. You would have to eat a lot of it to kill you. But it's still probably not a good idea to eat in general.
Toss any crazy sprouting potatos out, learn the proper way to store them. You wont have that problem....
You might add that proper way to store them in your answer. It would probably help a lot of people coming here, given this question's popularity.
From this Smithsonian article:
Not to worry though, fatal cases of solanine poisoning are very rare these days. Most commercial varieties of potatoes are screened for solanine, but any potato will build up the toxin to dangerous levels if exposed to light or stored improperly. Often, the highest concentrations of solanine are in the peel, just below the surface and in the sprouted “eyes”—things that are typically removed in cooking preparation
This wasn't really spam, it was just copy-pasted and the source site automatically appended an ad for themselves onto it. We'd generally prefer that you answer the question in your own words and support it with quotes, though - this quote is not a very direct answer to the question.
If you keep your potatoes in a well-ventilated, low-light place, they'll last longer before turning green and sprouting. That said, I peel green potatoes, discard the sprouts and make mashed potatoes or scalloped potatoes out of them--because after all that, they seem kind of ugly to me. They've never made me sick, nor anyone I've fed them to.
Maybe it IS because modern cultivars have been selected for low solanine content. That seems logical to me. Nevertheless, my mother did the same as I do, and I was born 20 years before the 1980's began. Maybe the poisoning danger is at least mostly negated by peeling and cutting away any green flesh.
The sprouts used to have about 50 fold higher solanine content than the skin, so very much to be avoided. Solanine content also increased as the potato skin greened up.
My family doctor has always advised that pregnant women should avoit eating potatoes. As sprouting potatoes contain toxin which may cause defects in the developing baby. Some stores break the sprouts away, but there might be still toxin left behind. It may not hurt normal people, but for pregnant women, it is too risky.
Try notto buy potatoes that have sprouts, buy enough for what you need to avoid them sprouting while keeping them too long
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.906887
| 2010-07-16T23:28:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1260",
"authors": [
"Annette Hill",
"Bogdan Belcea",
"Cascabel",
"Daniel Bingham",
"Dinah",
"Edwin",
"EyalAr",
"Hbar",
"Klik",
"LabGecko",
"Marv",
"Muhd",
"Pete Becker",
"Sarah Houghton",
"Shog9",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Willie Jay",
"aug",
"awe",
"chrisjlee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94349",
"jhwist",
"jmohr",
"potato grill",
"svrist"
],
"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
}
|
10634
|
Should brussel sprouts ever taste like chemicals?
So I got a bunch of what I thought were locally grown organic brussel sprouts from the local coop the other day. They came in an unlabeled zip lock bag, which usually means small local farm. I cooked them with some butter and oregano. I under cooked them a little bit, but I usually prefer them that way. When I ate them, I began to notice that they had a mild chemical taste. It burned in my nose and the back of my mouth a little bit. It was a sensation very similar to the one caused by ammonia or bleach fumes. I hadn't washed them as thoroughly as I perhaps should have (there were black spots on them I hadn't noticed before, but the cooking brought them out).
Do brussel sprouts naturally have some ammonia, or something similar I might have been tasting (and why don't I remember tasting it when I've eaten them in the past)? Did I just down some lovely pesticides and herbicides? Could those black spots have been a fungus that was producing something unpleasant?
Were the sprouts kinda yellowish? If so, that combined with the spots is a sign that the outer leaves are dying (and possibly the whole thing) ... it could be any number of things. I normally manage to kill my cabbages through over-watering, but I had a bad issue with cutworms last year, too.
I know you may not remember the exact way they tasted, but there is an important difference between actually feeling a "chemical smell" and only getting a pungent feeling which irritates your mucosa. The second one may be simple hotness; by now, it has been bred out of the big commercial varieties of plants not supposed to be hot, but my grandma's garden often produces vegetables with stronger taste than intended, including hot peppers (of non-chilli varieties) and bitter eggplants and cucumbers. Brussel sprouts are brassica, which are known for pungency (e.g. in mustard, turnips).
Only if that chemical taste is sulfur.
"ammonia like" sounds like mold, which can be really bad news food safety wise...
Pedantically, all tastes are chemical tastes... :)
Did you taste Brussel sprout before? Because I never met in person somebody who like them. Perhaps you have just tasted their taste :)
Note that organic farming can use quite a few powerful pesticides. Did you wash them thoroughly ?
Some would say they do at the best of times.
Brussels sprouts are in the brassica family, so you can get that family of strong cabbagey/spicey/sulfurous flavors and aromas. You probably know what that tastes like though, so I'm assuming it wasn't that. I've seen those black spots plenty of times, and I generally trim them, but I don't think they would be likely to give off a strong aroma. Once I had a situation like this where a vegetable tasted of kerosene, which I assumed was a cross-contamination and dumped it. That's what I would recommend if this ever occurs again. If in doubt, throw it out.
+1 for "If in doubt, throw it out". Of course, I'm in the camp that believes Brussels sprouts always taste doubtful, and therefore should always end up in the trash can rather than my plate, but I'm aware that there are people who don't agree... :)
@Marti - I blanch, then pan-fry the half-cut sprouts with bacon. Makes 'em taste pretty good!
@sdg- You could pan-fry-in-bacon an old sock and it would taste pretty good. Bacon is magic.
@Sobachatina - mmm, sock bacon... :-)
I have had a similar experience of strong chemical taste with sprouts. I am a chemical engineer and to me it tasted like kerosene or paint thinner. The sensation came from the back of the mouth not the tongue after I bit into a sprout. It wasn't from packaging as I am used to that taste and how different packaging tastes e.g. I can tell what type of container milk came from, plastic bottles or carton, just by taste. Needless to say if anything tastes strange don't consume it. As another tip, be careful with any "organic" labelled produce. I know from working in government food testing that many organic farmers don't understand or use pesticides correctly. That's right, many organic farmers use pesticides as they want their produce to look good. Strawberries and similar ground plants are notorious for containing extremely high level of chemicals with the highest levels coming from so-called organic farmers.
I have a strong suspicion it's not the product but the chemicals in the bag manufacturing process. I came to this thread looking for similar experiences. I have found people complaining of chemical taste transfer from ziplock bags to self prepared sandwiches. In my experience, It's usually from ziplock-type bagged products in the thicker louder noise-making bags. I have returned products because of the strong chemical taste. Sunflower seeds, shelled pistachioes, raisins...anything in direct contact to the packaging. Maybe I have a bionic tongue!
You should always wash well.
Cut a bit off then end, and You should also peel a few layers away.
This gets rid of the black spots, dry leaves, dirt and any pesticides or chemicals.
The sprouts you cook should be clean, green and squeaky
Cabbages and such peel well, you can get any chemical pesticides off them easy.
This would be easier to answer if you could be more specific about what you mean by "chemically."
The taste would come from the growth process, it all depends on the levels of chemicals within the sprouts; depending on where they're grown and under what conditions, they will taste slightly different. Albeit that doesn't discount any manufacturing process contributing to the taste, but I highly doubt it. My take is just the level of sulphur compounds within the sprouts - there's no need to panic, sulphur compounds are what give the sprouts their distinctive taste and smell in the first place, so they're completely healthy.
I don't think this is from plastic bags, zip-loc or otherwise; those contribute nothing to the taste.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice. I hope you enjoy the site and continue to contribute. As you do, please be aware of our most important guideline - Be Nice. Your answer has merit, but is perhaps a bit less kind than it could be.
Also, I would point out that "chemically" used in this context has a specific meaning that isn't the strictly scientific meaning you're referring to. That is, when people in daily life refer to "chemicals" or call something "chemically" they are referring to artificial food additives, pesticides, and the cleaning chemicals and detergents found in daily life. By referring to the scientific definition of in a case such as this, you are attacking a straw man. You and others who insist on belittling people with valid concerns in this way do yourselves, and science, a serious disservice.
(That was in reference to the pre-edit answer posted by user29318. Sorry, that particular straw man is a bit of a pet-peeve of mine.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.907611
| 2010-12-31T16:52:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10634",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"Daniel Bingham",
"GdD",
"James McLeod",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Marti",
"Mike",
"Preston",
"RonJohn",
"Rose",
"Sobachatina",
"Taylor Hahn Tay",
"Traveler14",
"deanne",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/835",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"sdg",
"user21795"
],
"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
}
|
15822
|
Non-teflon rice cooker reccomendations
I am looking to get rid of the teflon rice cooker I have (it is getting a lot of scratches, and I am worried about where that teflon is going). What should one look for in a good rice cooker that does not have a teflon coating?
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is asking for a brand recommendation
@rumtscho I edited the question to make it more general.
@JamesJenkins I am a bit unsure about the reopen. The edit you made goes indeed in the direction we would like to see when a recommendation question is asked. Neither the old answer nor your new one are actually addressing the new version, though. Would you be willing to rework your answer, or should we delete both and make the question a free slate for new answers, or is there another alternative I'm overlooking?
The old answer does not answer the question, before or after the edit. I feel like my answer does address it partially, but lacks experience about the specific type of rice. IMHO there is no reason to delete answers, they get up or down votes and that takes care of it.
If the teflon is scratching, you need to get softer mixing spoons. Nylon, not Bakelite.
I quickly checked the models that Cook's Illustrated recommended, and all of them either say they're Teflon (aka PTFE) or are a non-specified non-stick (which probably means PTFE).
Also, PTFE isn't toxic, at least not until heated in excess of 200°C (details at Wikipedia).
Good points. I guess my real issue is with cheap teflon that flakes away too quickly.
@Zombies: It could also be that you're damaging the Teflon somehow; are you using metal utensils on it, for example?
Nope! It is just really cheap the whole rice cooker was like $15 at target.
@Zombies: Ok, I've had to cheap bread pans like that (well, they were much cheaper than $15, and Walmart not Target), where the non-stick just wasn't bound to the metal properly. Slightly less cheap ones didn't have the issue. Unfortunately, it looks like good rice cookers are more than slightly less cheap :-( You could always use a small sauce pot…
Don't buy very cheap kitchen ware. I paid more than $100 for my rice cooker. The teflon is good as new after more than 5 years.
There are a number of rice cookers available with stainless steel pans. A quick Google finds several for around $20(US). No worries about Teflon (aka PTFE).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.908195
| 2011-06-28T17:33:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15822",
"authors": [
"BPB",
"Damian Wood",
"James Jenkins",
"Muffinlady",
"Tony_Henrich",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Zombies",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"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
}
|
31923
|
How to prepare squid to avoid spermataphores
I was just reading about how some people, when eating squid, have ended up with squid spermataphores in their mouth. Apparently, it is painful (and not that appetizing for me). I am wondering how to prepare squid so that this part is removed. Can this also happen with octopus?
Evidently a real phenomenon: http://io9.com/5921501/how-exactly-could-a-squid-inseminate-your-mouth 16 total recorded cases, ever. I would not worry about it.
I'm not asking if I should worry or of the statistical evidence.
That is why I made a comment and not an answer.
Based on the article SAJ14SAJ linked to in the comments, in the only known case in which this happened with cooked squid, it was parboiled, and almost certainly not fully cooked: "the whole squid spent just a few seconds in boiling water". If the squid is cooked, then the spermatophore will be inactive, and nothing bad is going to happen. (Living things tend to stop moving once they're cooked and dead.)
If you're trying to completely safely eat raw squid, I expect you need some squid anatomical knowledge which I don't have, so you'll want to wait for another answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.908517
| 2013-02-14T22:17:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/31923",
"authors": [
"AtomHeartFather",
"Charlene Ducharme",
"Debby Mendoza Policarpio",
"Grancalavera",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Susan Soriano",
"clueless",
"dibs",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73395"
],
"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
}
|
27316
|
Why do apples bought at the market feel sticky?
When I buy apples at the market, they always feel sticky. When I buy apples at the supermarket they feel smooth. When I was younger we had an apple tree, and I don't remember the apples being sticky.
The apples taste fine, but no matter how well I wash them, they feel sticky. Is there a reason for this? And should I clean them with a towel after washing? (The only way I can get them less sticky). I assume there is nothing wrong with the apples?
I live in the Netherlands, if that matters.
It's wax. Apples contain wax in their peel naturally and the amount varies between different varieties. Some don't feel waxy at all. It is there to prevent the fruit of drying out and the industry sometimes adds wax as well (especially to fruits that will be exported long distances), to keep them fresh longer.
As for removing the wax, you could try this.
I couldn't find any information on apples' skin containing wax naturally. Can you share any source for this statement?
@KristinaLopez: My main source is in Swedish, but I also found this, which seems to be a reliable source: http://postharvest.tfrec.wsu.edu/pages/N2I2A ("The natural wax on apple fruit contains about fifty individual components belonging to at least half a dozen chemical groups. Two major classes of chemicals are often found. The major cyclic component of apple fruit wax is called ursolic acid and is highly water repellent.")
Thanks citizen, I enjoy learning something new. Thanks for the link!
In addition, the wax coating on in supermarket apples is a uniformly applied coating of (usually) carnuba - an edible food-grade wax that you can remove with a quick dunk in simmering water, like you would before making candy apples.
industry sometimes adds wax is an understatement. Mass harvested apples have wax added to them. Example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJXP4da1XVw
I bought apples a week or so ago, and when i got home, washed them throroughly with soap, what with the COVID-19 pandemic. After washing, they were not waxy. Having been sat in a bowl on my table since then, they are incredibly waxy, even greasy - the skin glistens, and my fingers come away with lubrication i can feel. I believe these are Jonagold, which i have read elsewhere is one of the waxiest varieties.
I have 2 apple trees. The softer, squat, mild tasting one seems oily as it ripens in storage. The other, a hard "apple" shaped one doesn't wax at all, but eventually shrivels. I'm told the ethylene from ripening loosens the wax off the apple, feeling oily.The other variety maybe has no wax. Neither tree is sprayed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.908662
| 2012-09-21T06:15:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27316",
"authors": [
"Georgio",
"Kogitsune",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Kruximity",
"Paulb",
"Rachel Ratcliffe",
"Tom Anderson",
"ZaxLofful",
"citizen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7364"
],
"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
}
|
86925
|
Does adding vinegar to soup make it spoil faster?
I have heard that if vinegar is added to the pot of soup, it will spoil after 2-3 days even in a fridge. Is there any truth to that?
define "spoil".
@moscafj smell and taste rancid; the meat inside the soup become dangerous to eat.
What's your source for this idea?
@FuzzyChef old wives' tale. But I know nothing about cooking and wanted to ask and be sure.
@MiroslavVitkov the reason you were asked to define it is that there are three possible interpretations. One is what you perceive ("smells bad"), the second is that it actually harbors a large colony of pathogenic bacteria, the third is that it becomes unsafe under food safety standards. Each of the three can happen independently of the other two. The answers will be different for the three definitions in this case. Ah, and then there is "OK to eat", which is a synthesis of gut feeling and social norms, also related.
I think it makes no difference as the vinegar does not contain bacterial spores. If so much vinegar that makes the soup significantly more sour then it can eventually go wrong even later as bacteria don't prefer the acidic environment.
To add a concrete quantitative example: while cooking 3 pieces of beetroots I added 5 tsp 6% acetic acid balsamic vinegar. 7 days later kept in fridge (~4C) is still good. I am quite sure it's because the acidity as meals used to go wrong much sooner than 7 days.
Seems likely, given there are a lot of vinegar-heavy condiments that typically last months or years in a fridge.
Yes; increasing acidity specifically retards bacteria growth. With sufficient acidity (below pH 3.7), almost all bacterial growth is prevented. http://www.foodsafetysite.com/educators/competencies/general/bacteria/bac3.html
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.908914
| 2018-01-06T19:20:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86925",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Vorac",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"moscafj",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115354
|
Is it ok to eat kimchi that is causing its package to expand?
For non-fermented foods, I feel like it's obvious that they shouldn't be consumed if they're causing the package they're stored in to expand, even if they're still within the "best by" date. Does this apply to fermented foods like kimchi?
I had some yesterday and, while it's still in date (just), the sealed package was notably "inflated". It popped when opening and the kimchi made a "fizzing" sound for a little while. It didn't smell off and it tasted OK, albeit a little more acidic than usual. So far I haven't suffered any adverse effects.
I have one tub left. Is this Korean Roulette, or should it be fine?
Fresh kimchi will continuously release gas as it continues to ferment; unlike some other fermented foods, it contains active cultures. Commercial kimchi is often packaged with a "gas absorber", but that can only do so much. So yes, it should be fine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.909078
| 2021-04-21T11:59:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115354",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17788
|
Why would chicken have significant regional differences in flavor?
Is it possible that (for example) chicken raised in the United States has a different flavor from chicken raised in Europe? If so, why?
Are there genetic differences in the "breeds" of chicken used in various countries?
Great responses, everyone. Quite informative!
Antibiotics might be a reason, but it's not the only cause. Other significant reasons are:
exercise
feed
post-processing
Most of the chicken available in grocery stores in the U.S. is factory raised ... they're bulked up as quickly as possible without threat of predators. They're fed corn, rather than their acting as pest control on farms, where they'd be eating insects, moving about (in their search for insects and other things to eat), and possibly running away from predators (getting more exercise). That's not to say that free roaming chickens wouldn't be fed corn or other processed feed (or even antiobiotics), but that they'd still have an opportunity for other food. The lack of predators means that chickens never have to fly, so they don't need fast-twitch breast muscle, and they can grow to a size where they'd never be able to fly, even for short flight to excape predators.
Also not common in the U.S. are old chickens for stewing ... we have large chickens, but not necessarily the old ones, such as formerly egg-laying chickens that are no longer producing eggs. I have no idea what's done with those ... they're not in grocery stores, so I assume that they're used in some other way (dog food?).
One other possibility is the gender of the chicken. I don't believe that males are raised for meat (or anything else, really, other than in token amounts to sustain the species) in the U.S.. I assume that a higher percentage of roosters would be produced in other countries, but I have no idea if they might be culled early (if there are agression issues, etc, that would make them difficult to raise), like male cows are.
And as for the post-processing comment ... much of the U.S. chicken is sold cut up, possibly with a brine solution injected, rather than being sold whole. This doesn't seem like a big deal, other than the possibility of the brining, but it also means that chickens have been selectively bred for breast meat, rather than whole carcass weight. It also means that most of what we're eating is white meat, rather than a mix of white & dark meat.
US poultry farms tend to use a TON of antibiotics... The antibiotics are supposed to stop diseases that would otherwise be rampant in chickens that are housed in close living quarters. (I might add that the USDA swears that it won't approve chickens treated with hormones, but I've seen enough conflicting complaints that I think it's still worth mentioning)
To your question, it's not (IMO) that all US chickens are less full-flavored, it's that your typical normal chicken in the meat case is quite likely been raised on the aforementioned hormones and antibiotics... I've had plenty of free-range (raised in the US) and they are noticably more flavorful than the average...
If you are up for some fun watching, Food Inc repeats a lot of what I've commonly heard about several various US food industries (including chicken): http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1286537/
If you're looking for a true compare and contrast, I'd suggest you buy an "average" chicken and then buy a free-range chicken... You should recognize the free-range version as the same as his international bretheren.
EDIT
As a fair shot for the opposing side, here's a good article from NC State saying why hormones are illegal and pointless to use... That being said, Food Inc showed some pretty mutated birds that were bred for nothing but breast meat: http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/depts/poulsci/newsletter/newsletter_nov04.pdf
This strikes me as more of a rant than an informative answer. It's true that many U.S. farms use antibiotics. I'd prefer to see an answer showing some statistics about this (e.g. U.S. statistics vs. "other countries", if we are to take the question at face value) and more importantly an explanation of how this would affect flavour, or at least some evidence to back up the notion that it does have an effect. Otherwise this is a claim that anybody could make, whether or not they have any culinary knowledge.
@Aaronut: To be fair, the clarification about different the differences in the taste between breeds was made after I had posted an answer. My post ended as a request Tim to try a free range vs "regular" store bought chicken... While I'll admit that it came off a bit "ranty", I was hoping more to point out that commercially grown/harvested food in the US is often quite different than heirloom/co-op/organic food, so again, my intent was to verify that he was asking about the commercially grown chicken.
All of that is fine, but the post kind of went off the rails once it started linking to Food Inc and the idea of an "opposing side". It would have been sufficient to just say that factory-farmed meat has usually been given hormones and antibiotics which can change the taste, and that in your experience, free-range chicken in the U.S. tastes more like the chicken in other countries. The legality and morality issues are way out of scope.
Every chicken has differences; breed, food, lifestyle. This also applies to all food (animals and vegetables). These differences make for major changes in taste, texture, food value, and best cooking practises
There are often huge genetic difference in animals and vegetables around the world with the same name. In some case they are entirely different species e.g. pacific island Rail is "chicken" in some outposts (should be Phasianidae family, not Rallidae family)
Hm ... didn't know other places called other species 'chicken', but as much of language is translation anyway, I could see how people would just apply the name to something close enough. Breed's probably a significant factor, as I know there's major differences in Muscovy vs. other ducks in the U.S.
On the issue of breed: both France and Indonesia have a breed of ‘black chicken’ which are in high demand (and high price) where the meat itself is almost black, not just the feathers: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7DGcLaOMZPU
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.909189
| 2011-09-16T12:25:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17788",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Joe",
"Rikon",
"Timothy S. Van Haren",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6791"
],
"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
}
|
11813
|
How can I tell whether beetroot is still edible?
I have some raw beetroot I bought about a week ago, having stored them at room temperature since. It's the first time I bought it raw, and I'm unsure whether it's still edible.
It is already soft, and when I cut it, it smells... Well, different than I expected. It's not a rotten smell as such, but it's nothing like the sweet beet-rooty smell I know from the pre-packaged, pre-boiled supermarket variety.
How can I tell whether it's still safe to eat?
Once removed from the ground beetroot instantly becomes inedible - I don't know how anybody can eat the stuff!!
@mgb ahahahahahah!
Generally, raw beetroot shouldn't become soft. The thing is that there are differing definitions of soft. If it is soft like a tomato is, then it has probably spoiled. If, on the other hand, it is still firm but has little "give" to it, then it's probably alright to eat.
It is the cooking that softens it up, though it can be eaten raw. I grate some raw beetroot into salads and stuff occasionaly, just for fun.
I'm not sure what to say about the smell thing. I think that raw beetroot generally smells a little earthy, especially if you haven't peeled it yet. The very distinct beetroot smell is usually released by cooking.
Obviously this is all a bit vague, as we can't send smells over the net yet.
This gives me something to go by - I'll have to use my judgement now to make the call. It is still firm, feels a bit like a tennis ball with a soft surface, so I tend to think it's okay. Also good to know it can be eaten raw (as opposed to beans etc.) Thanks!
You could compare the texture to a root vegetable you're more familiar with, like a carrot. If you'd think the carrot was alright to eat, the beetroot probably is too.
Carrots can loose moisture and get softer, but you can revive them by wrapping them in a damp paper towel and leaving them in your crisper for a day or two ... I don't know if something similar might've happened to the beets.
Root vegetables are known for staying edible many months when stored in the right conditions: cool and humid. Traditionally this was a root cellar under the house that stayed above freezing in winter, yet cool in summer. Your refrigerator veggie drawer is made to do the same thing. The veggies you see in supermarket have been kept that way for transport and storage (sometimes even covered with waxy coating to preserve moisture). When they're brought out for display in the produce section, they are still kept cool and misted periodically to stay fresh-looking. If you don't keep them in those conditions they will become limp or soft, which can sometimes be reversed by returning to a high humidity environment.
All that to say, it's normal and probably reversible, but don't worry, people have been eating and storing beets since long before refrigeration.
I can say that a cut to stripes beet that was in the fridge for a few days became very dry and very bitter, I ate some and got bad feeling in my throat that still lasts after few hours.
I recommend that if it's bitter trash it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.909671
| 2011-02-04T12:45:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11813",
"authors": [
"Alex KeySmith",
"Allison",
"Joe",
"Leon B Sisco",
"Martin Beckett",
"Pekka",
"Pål Tønder",
"Troy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"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
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.