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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
10786
|
What can I do with extra sourdough starter?
I recently made a sourdough starter from wild yeast, but the process I followed for making it resulted in a lot of starter.
Instead of throwing it away I'd like to use it, and then once it gets down small enough I won't have to worry about having so much to use.
What can I do with my excess whole wheat sourdough starter?
(I've already made 4 loaves of bread, and they were yummy)
If the starter is loose enough (ie, not stiff), you might be able to use it for 'amish friendship' type recipes. It's not just bread, my neighbor makes snickerdoodles that are amazing. You can also find cake recipes. Although being whole wheat it might be ... interesting ... in some of those recipes.
make waffles! that's what we do with ours, besides bread. sourdough waffles with syrup have this great sweet/sour balance going on that is really wonderful.
I used this: http://www.kingarthurflour.com/recipes/sourdough-waffles-recipe It's fantastic!
Besides the obvious of actually using it to make bread products, you can store some for a rainy day (ie, something goes wrong with your starter), or to give away:
smear it thinly on a sheet of parchment, wax paper, or aluminum foil. (you may need to add liquid and let it hydrate if yours is too stiff to spread)
let dry
crumble up
store in an airtight container in a cool, dark place (or freezer)
Then, when you want to use it again:
mix 1 tsp of flakes with 1 Tbsp water
let sit for a few minutes 'til they've softened up.
stir in 1 Tbsp of flour
let sit at room temp for 24hrs (maybe stir it a couple of times during)
add another Tbsp each of flour and water.
.. then go back to your normal feeding schedule
Making sourdough pancakes (which can be almost all starter with a little extra flour and fat/egg added) is a good idea if you really like sourdough flavor. Just google sourdough pancake recipes and you'll find a ton. Some use as much as two cups of starter, so it'll go fast. I've also used sourdough starter in biscuits, banana bread. This little pamphlet has bunch of interesting recipes.
There's not that much that you can do with a sourdough starter. Of course, you can feed it and keep it as a kind of esoteric pet that you sometimes take parts of and make bread from. You can also use up the rest for more bread.
There is one more thing that I am reminded of though. In one of my cookbooks (Det naturliga köket by Mathias Dahlgren, the recipe is from one of his Michelin star restaurants serving mostly swedish-inspired food), there is a recipe for deep fried rye sourdough starter. Now, it's not just the starter, and it is for a rye starter, but if you're feeling adventurous it might be possible to substitute it with your whole wheat starter.
It's 1 liter of water, 600 grams of coarse rye flour, and 90 grams of rye sourdough. Mix the ingredients, and leave in room temperature for 6 hours. Put it in a pastry bag, and pipe medium strands into a 185°C deep fryer. Remove when golden brown and crispy. Toss with salt.
I do however doubt that you will find many other uses for a sourdough starter, other than to make bread.
Just use more starter that usual in your loaf. It may rise slightly faster but otherwise it'll be no different to normal baking.
not true, it's sourdough flavor will be weaker as it won't have a long enough time to fully develop because of the quicker rising.
Hmm, maybe. But you're introducing sourdough flavour with the starter too.
SD pancakes/waffles are an acquired taste. I personally find the traditional Yukon style pancakes/waffles to be disgusting. A 1/4 c of starter and some soda as the bubbly component tastes nice though. Very sweet. Like this recipe:
.5 c. starter
1 c. flour
2 T oil
.5-.75 c milk
.5 t salt
.5 t soda
1 egg
2 T sugar
Mix it all up and then put the soda in last.
starter + soda can do a lot of things actually. Muffins...
In Joy of Cooking there's a really interesting recipe for SD chocolate cake. It's actually VERY good. Same thing...SD+soda
Have fun with it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.909954
| 2011-01-05T23:13:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10786",
"authors": [
"A. Leon Miler",
"Jared",
"Joe",
"Malfist",
"Smokey",
"Stan",
"SteveC",
"clarisa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"senshin",
"slim"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8070
|
The science of confit
In recent weeks I have made both duck leg and pork belly confit with rich tasting and great texture results. I want to experiment with this technique further but to do so, and avoid wasting meat and fat, I'd like to understand the science behind the technique.
In particular what makes the result of confit so different to the result of braising for the same period at the same temperature?
Do different fats have different effects on the meat (other than the flavour they impart through the flavour of the oil). For example will a fat that is liquid at room temperature (olive oil etc) result in a different type of confit to cooking it in lard or duck fat?
What are the characteristics of meat that suit it to confiting? Is there a particular fat content or other factor that determines the success of this method?
+1 great question. I don't have much experience with confit, but I've seen a number of places recently tout the benefits of sous vide confit. The primary benefit being the need for a relatively small amount of fat (it's still significant but much lower than normal methods) since everything gets vacuum sealed before cooking.
The slow cooking give confit meat its texture and the storage time allows further reactions and dissolutions to take place. The traditional reason solid fats have been used for a confit is for preservation: once the fat cools it "seals" the meat. Today we can refrigerate, so many restaurants now make their confit with liquid oils.
Myhrvold has demonstrated that he can reproduce the duck confit by using a steam and air mixture to cook the duck leg and then flavor its surface with oil.
There are several processes competing when we heat meat to cook it:
The collagen needs to melt and gelatinize. There are different types of collagen, each denaturing in different temperature ranges. As the meat is heated, collagen starts to shrink at about 40°C/ 104°F and by 80°C/176°F all of it is gelatinized. Different animals have different types of collagens and the right temperature could be anything between 60°C/140°F and 80°.
The elastin, which exists in smaller quantities than collagen, will shrink with temperature and make the meat tougher.
As the many molecules contract, they squeeze water from the meat, making it feel tougher.
So if you are going to develop a recipe, you will have to experiment. As a guide, the more collagen, the higher temperatures you will need. The amount of collagen goes up with the age of the animal and how much weight (stress) the muscle needs to support.
The reason confits are made by immersing the meat in oil may be that the oil makes it harder for the meat to loose its water, but I speculate.
Cooking for Geeks is one of the few places I found discussing the science of confit. Maybe Myhrvold's slim tome will have a section on it.
Your link for Cooking For Geeks is wrong but I googled it and found an interesting article taken from it here http://gizmodo.com/5643281/the-science-of-collagen++and-how-to-make-mean-duck-confit++from-cooking-for-geeks based on this it looks like high collagen content of the meat benefits most from confit. In the article it highlights brisket as a high collagen meat, can anyone recommend any others?
The low temp & long cooking will enable the enzymes in the product to work for a longer amount of time, therefore rendering the meat more tender. Look at McGee for more info about enzymes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.910284
| 2010-10-13T11:38:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8070",
"authors": [
"colethecoder",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2761",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8434
|
Suggestions for caramel from dark brown (muscovado) sugar?
I'm thinking about making caramels for holiday treats, and as some of the flavors I'm considering are quite intense (and for variety's sake), I'm considering trying to use a much darker, richer sugar. Previously when I've tried doing caramel with brown sugar, the molasses seemed to lead to a rather intense foaming and an astonishingly un-appetizing result; I'm wondering if there are any specific tips folks can offer for getting brown sugar to behave reasonably well while I'm caramelizing it?
I can't back this up with any evidence, but I think the reason it doesn't work well is that at the temperature required to caramelize sugar, the other "impurities" in brown sugar will be burned and gross. You might be able to get a similar effect by making regular white-sugar caramel and then mixing in molasses after it has begun to cool.
This makes a lot of sense to me - I'm not sure it explains the foaming, but I'm certainly less concerned with that than with the final flavors. I'll experiment with this; thank you!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.910563
| 2010-10-23T00:06:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8434",
"authors": [
"Eirik",
"Engineer",
"Myka",
"Steven Stadnicki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2859"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
52284
|
Why do my pastries come out flat when I use butter instead of margarine?
I am making Danish puff and also mini cream puffs. When I make them with butter, they are coming out thinner and flatter, spreading out. they should be high and round. It calls for margarine (which I don't like and is hard to find except spreads.) Can anyone help?
The recipe for the puffs is:
1/2 cup butter
1 cup water
1 cup flour
salt
4 eggs
Heat water, butter, salt to boil. Remove from heat and add flour all at once. Stir over low heat 1 min. or until forms ball. Cool slightly, add eggs one at a time, beating after each. Drop by tsps. bake at 400° F for 10 min. Reduce heat to 350° F and bake 20 mins.
It is flattening with butter. Should I add more flour? Ideas?
Is the butter leeching during the baking process?
puff: 1/2 c.butter, 1 c. water, 1 c. flour,salt, 4 eggs
Baking with butter will always be flatter than the same recipe made with margarine or shortening, that's just due to the physical properties of butter (it doesn't melt as suddenly, and starts deforming at lower temperatures). But I agree that there are many recipes for puff pastry which use butter, and they rise enough for presentable results. Are your pastries just less well puffed, or completely flat?
fairly flat. do you think I should use less water or add more flour? I used to use margarine in the old days but would like to continue with butter. flat puffs don't work well1
Any reason not to just use a recipe that calls for butter in the first place (i.e. most of them)?
You should be using unsalted butter, otherwise that will effect the leavening due to lower rate of evaporation. Also, butter won't create as much of a rise, for reasons mentioned above. Maybe consider adding some shortening or lard along with the butter. This should be relatively easy to find. Another options is following a different recipe that uses butter. What I've noticed for other pate a choux(cream puffs) recipes is that the flour:water ratio is 2:1, where as you're recipe would have double the flour it currently has.
Alton Brown has a good recipe for pate a choux
Using the unsalted butter is excellent for your reasons and also it would change the flavor of the pate a choux(cream puff) to salty.
How funny since I learned this same recipe when I first got married 40 years ago. Here are the secrets I've learned. Maybe the extra detail will help you find what went wrong with your attempts.
First, you need to have everything at room temperature, especially the eggs. Once you add the butter (yes, butter, not margarine!) to the boiling water that is boiling and it melts, add the cup of flour quickly to the water and with a big spoon mix it fast. It will form a ball. Get it off the heat.
Now, get a mixer and add each egg, one at a time, and mix it thoroughly after each one - but don't overdo it. Do it quickly.
Now with either a pastry bag or a spoon (I use a spoon), drop rounds of the mix on a cookie sheet with parchment paper. Use approximately a 1 1/2 to 2 inch spoonful, so you will have anywhere from 18 to 22. Do not play with these.
Put in preheated oven of 400 degrees for about 30 minutes. The baking time will depend on size. When you take out of the oven, they look beautifully puffed, but if not baked properly, will start to deflate. So depending on the size, your oven and your patience, you'll have to adjust, but with practice you will master this. It's okay to open the door at the 20 minute mark to turn the cookie sheet, and get a idea if you need to go 10 or even 15 to 20 more minutes depending on the softness of the puff. Even if they deflate, it's okay.
Cool, cut then in half, fill them with a nice custard cream, top them off with the lid, either make a nice chocolate ganache or frosting or if you are lazy or tired, sprinkle with powdered sugar or cocoa powder.
You can also make whipping cream but once you make a good cream custard, no matter how badly deflated the puffs are, people don't usually notice with something on top. It's always been a hit and long ago I used to make only 12 and filled them up with my own special cream and they were the size of baseballs, topped with homemade frosting and I hope you try it.
"Do not play with these." !
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.910786
| 2015-01-05T02:34:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52284",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brain Smith",
"Fiona Harris",
"James Martin",
"Jane Evans",
"Marisa Kahn",
"Pete Becker",
"Sell Rental Property Ltd",
"Sundi Sayre",
"Syracuse Handyman Service",
"Tenant In Situ Ltd",
"Tim Boycott-Brown",
"Vivienne Vernon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"marilee",
"mrwienerdog",
"rumtscho",
"tsturzl",
"user33210"
],
"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
}
|
12995
|
How to make Pancakes with Almond milk?
We've been experimenting with using almond milk as a substitute for actual milk in my household. The biggest failure so far has been with pancakes. The pancakes taste okay, but they are far stickier in the pan than batter made with milk, scorch more easily, and don't brown well. What can I do to get a more satisfactory pancake with almond milk?
Have you also removed/replaced butter in the batter?
are you just trying to leave out the dairy altogether? or do you only want to use almond milk? Soymilk cooks much closer to real milk in this application although it's not a one for one replacement.
@sarge_smith I just happen to have almond milk in the fridge and no dairy milk.
@overslacked - I'm still using butter in the batter, if I switched to oil I can switch to sesame, olive, or canola.
You might find that thinning it down with water helps, worth trying on a couple if the situation comes around again.
@Orbling: I did that (about 4parts am to 1part h20), and I also switched the butter for oil and used about half a tablespoon more oil than called for (3.5 tbs). Very temperature sensitive but I got a nice golden cake. Still a bit flat, though.
@philosodad: Where I come from, the pancakes (crepes) are supposed to be entirely flat, lol.
I recently made these vegan pancakes with almond milk and they cooked up just fine (quite unusual for eggless, milk-less pancakes)- http://theveganzombie.com/?p=584 I'd post this as an answer, but I don't know what about it makes them different. Maybe it was the old cider I used (almost certainly had a lot of yeast in it)
a little orange juice with the thinning water will give some umpph the leavening agents for a fluffy pancake.
I use almond milk as a milk replacement, almost exclusively. I was about to say when I made pancakes with almond milk they turned out fine, when I realized I made Buttermilk pancakes instead of just regular pancakes. I compared recipes for normal and buttermilk and noted that there was far less milk called for in the Buttermilk recipe (makes sense).
In short: you may try finding a recipe that does not call for so much milk, such as a buttermilk pancake recipe.
For reference, the recipes I compared had 1 1/4 cups of milk in the original recipe versus 1/4 cup in the Buttermilk recipe.
I just used this recipe from Silk and they turned out perfectly. (I am not affiliated with Silk, I was just looking for a substitution which is how I stumbled upon this site and your question)
1 cup unbleached all-purpose flour or whole wheat pastry flour
1-2 Tbsp sugar or honey
2 tsp baking powder
1/2 tsp salt
1 cup Silk almondmilk, any flavor but Chocolate
2 Tbsp canola oil or melted butter
1 egg
1. Whisk together flour, sugar, baking powder and salt in a small bowl.
2. In a separate bowl, whisk together Silk, oil and egg.
3. Add flour mixture to egg mixture and stir just to moisten—a few lumps are fine.
4. Cook pancakes on a griddle over medium heat.
5. Serve immediately.
Have you considered using soy milk? I used soy milk for making my pancakes this year for the first time and they worked out great. I followed this recipe from Delia Smith -http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/basicpancakeswithsuga_66226
The just opted to use soy milk and used oil instead of butter. My partner couldn't notice any difference in taste compared to previous years. Although I didn't try one that wasn't flavoured with lemon and brown sugar.
Also, I've found that generally if you leave pancakes in the pan a little longer than you think necessary before flipping they come away from the bottom of the pan far easier, especially if using a non-stick pan.
While I agree that soy milk is probably a better choice, the question did specifically ask how to improve the results with almond milk, not for other substitutions. Generally those types of responses get posted as comments.
Fair point but this answer does offer a pragmatic suggestion for a milk-substitute recipe. As there are, as yet, no other answers then surely this answer is better than nothing for the OP?
Not really. Almond milk is what is in my refrigerator.
Although oil instead of butter did help a lot.
I wrote my suggestion under the impression it might be helpful for future reference if you weren't getting on with almond milk.
I used leftover "unsweetened" almond milk just now, to make griddlecakes using a Fanny Farmer recipe that our family has enjoyed for years. Recipes mentioned above are almost identical. I happened on this website while eating said pancakes, seeking more information about the use of almond milk.
I figured that, like buttermilk, I should add about 1/4 teaspoon of bicarb (baking soda) to the two teaspoons of baking powder required. I forgot to put in the two tablespoons of sugar - we usually only use a pinch or two instead anyway, because the pancakes are otherwise too sweet for us. The batter looked fine and the cooking was a little slow. They did not rise a whole lot but that is normal for us if we alter the ingredients. Upon eating with maple syrup and butter, our usual way, they had a firmish skin, a little soggy inside and had that faint salty metallic taste that comes with the use of baking soda. My conclusion is that almond milk lacks the acid of buttermilk, so no extra baking soda (on top of the two teaspoons of baking powder) should have been used. I also think at least a pinch of sugar is still necessary - possibly to react with the baking powder in some way, but I always thought that unsweetened almond milk of the long-life variety tastes sweetish anyway (can't stand the stuff). I'm not sure about the pinch of salt I added - a lot less than what was asked for in the recipe - the pancakes tasted a tiny bit salty but maybe a bit is necessary to help the rising too.
Anyway, hope this helps. People should also not confuse pancakes with crepes - the latter are the thin flat ones usually served with lemon and sugar. I also would have thought that soy and almond milk would be similar, at least the long-life varieties of same, but the person did specifically ask about almond milk.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.911189
| 2011-03-10T03:53:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12995",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alaska Man",
"BEN",
"Beth",
"David Neale",
"Drahcir",
"MatthewMartin",
"Meph",
"Orbling",
"Stefanus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68014",
"nixy ",
"osikbarbosik",
"overslacked",
"philosodad",
"sarge_smith",
"wcarhart"
],
"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
}
|
20345
|
Why can't these fish sticks be made in a toaster oven instead of real oven?
My toaster oven has a temperature gauge just like my oven 200-450 degrees. I opened a package of fish sticks and the instructions said "Do not cook in microwave or toaster oven." It only had instructions for cooking them in a regular oven. Do you have any idea why a toaster oven that can be put at the same temperature would not be good to use?
I cook fishsticks in the toaster oven all the time....maybe I've never noticed that on the box and I've been daily risking my life!
I do the majority of my cooking in a toaster oven, I always considered notes like that to be part of some kind of conspiracy. I'm not baking though, just reheating or broiling so you need less consistency / control in temperature. For this use, I think a toaster oven would be fine, just keep a close eye on them.
Possible reasons:
Horrible temperature control
This is simply a problem of cheap construction. One could theoretically build an excellent toaster oven with precise temperature control, but why would you?
Low thermal mass
If you get an oven to 400 oF and open it for long enough to put in food, the result is an oven at very slightly less than 400 oF, and which will quickly return to 400 oF. Do that with a toaster oven, and who knows what temperature you'll get, or how quickly it will get to your desired temperature (if ever, see #1).
This is not a slam at toaster ovens, this is just due to them being approximately 2% of the volume of a standard oven.
Closeness to elements
It's easy for toaster ovens interiors to vary by nearly 50 oF from middle to edge, simply based on distance to elements.
Now don't get me wrong, I once made some kicking Oysters Rockefeller in a toaster oven, when I thought that they would be the difference between serving an appetizer and being allowed to serve breakfast the next morning. If you know what you're doing, and watch carefully and continually, a toaster oven can be an excellent source of high(ish) direct heat, but they are extremely difficult to control, and extremely unforgiving of errors. I can't think of a circumstance where a toaster oven would be my first choice of cooking tool (and that includes microwave, campfire, plumber's blowtorch).
Nice call on the thermal mass. That occurred to me, too. Then I forgot while I was typing.
The problem with toaster ovens is usually scorching vs the normal oven use, for items where they say not to use the toaster oven, so I'm guessing proximity to the heating element and the uneven temperature distribution is usually the bigger problem.
Hm. My toaster oven has significantly more stable temperature control than my oven, even with food in it. I measured it to check. So for me your first two points don't apply. Can you expand a little on ways to combat the third? Perhaps, wrapping in foil or something? Also the other difference that I always wonder about is the seal on my toaster oven door is poorer and more water vapor visible escapes. Is that an issue? Can it be solved if so?
"I can't think of a circumstance where a toaster oven would be my first choice of cooking tool" They're awfully good for toasting nuts or breadcrumbs, doubly so when the weather is hot. (Of course, you can use a microwave for nuts too.)
There are two differences that could be involved:
A fair number of toaster ovens have really bad temperature control. It's common knowledge in the polymer clay community that there are relatively few models that can be relied upon to bake your clay without producing clouds of foul black smoke.
The food is much nearer the element. When I cook fishsticks they end up frying slightly in a film a greese. Sometimes they pop a little. Could that be a fire hazard?
I'd lean toward the fire hazard explanation, since you can definitely do things like baking cookies in toaster ovens, and I don't think fish sticks are more temperature-sensitive than cookies!
I've done stuff like fishsticks in my toaster oven, but it takes a couple tries to get the timing and temperature right.
I have a Breville Smart oven and it's actually more accurate than than my reg. oven. There's only the 2 of us and unless we have company, I use the toaster oven. I do reduce the temp. by 25 degrees because of the smaller volume of space an closeness to the elements. I haven't had any problems at all.
re toaster oven cooking :
I called frozen food co and the answer was the fear of the
plastic container melting.
She suggested removing food from plastic and placing in reg cooking dish and maybe lowering temp 25º but keeping same time.
I've been doing that for a year now (but not lowering temp) and it's been really convenient.
and the container was suitable for oven cooking? Maybe this goes back to the issues w/ less precision in a toaster oven's temperatures? (and thus, could be significantly higher than the temp you had set in any given place in the oven ... or just a proximity to the elements)
Some people claim that temperature regulation is worse in a toaster oven. That simply isn't true. It's actually easier to control temperature precisely in the toaster oven because the space is so small so the temperature sensor can get a sense of the entire oven. In a large oven, especially a home gas oven, where would you place the sensor? If you place it too near the flames then it would measure the flames. And it certainly can't be placed in the center of the oven with the food is. Keep in mind that home gas ovens use mechanical thermostats that are hard to put remotely. Some better electric ovens use a wired probe that you can actually place into the food. Otherwise, there is no way to actually measure the temperature of the food. In the small space of a toaster oven, there is much less of a temperature difference between the food and wherever the sensor is located.
Furthermore, many better toaster ovens use electronic controls and multiple temperature sensors. The Breville and Cuisinarts use multiple variable heating elements, multiple sensors, and electronic controls. For example, some have 2 elements on top and 2 below, all of which are regulated individually and precisely. Try that with a gas oven! A convective fan can also help, evening out the heat.
As for the complaint of potters, the problem isn't temperature control, but rather the small space. When you place a 3D object in a small space, where some parts and edges are much nearer the elements than others, you'll get uneven baking and burning. It's why you don't want to bake a large turkey in a toaster oven. But most foods like the above fish sticks are flat and uniform thus will heat evenly.
Someone also mentioned thermal mass above. That's a non-issue since one almost never opens a toaster oven during cooking. The small space and electric light make food easy to see without opening the door. It's still a non-issue in those rare cases where you need to baste, add ingredients or position the food. That's because much of the heat in a toaster oven is radiant, not convective. It's why you don't really need to preheat toaster ovens. The small space and radiant heat mean that foods reach the desired temperatures quickly. There is no need to reheat the internal air every time you open the door, as would be the case in a conventional oven.
For those who forget their physics, radiant heat is how the sunlight gets to us. The heat is nearly instantaneous since there is no need to heat up the air between the source and the target. If heating the air is required, heat from the sun would never reach us since there is no air in the vacuum of space. Toaster ovens use a combination of radiant heat and convective heat, where the air is heated. As such, minimal preheating is needed and the oven quickly returns to the target temperature if you open the door. That's why thermal mass is not a real issue.
The issue with temperature control is not because of physical constraints but rather because of presumed lower-quality components which have much looser tolerances in sensing and control.
"actually easier to control temperature precisely in the toaster oven because the space is so small so the temperature sensor can get a sense of the entire oven" vs. "where some parts and edges are much nearer the elements than others, you'll get uneven baking and burning" You appear to have a contradiction there.
We're talking fishsticks here. Slap 'em on some foil and chuck 'em in the toaster oven. You might have to play with time and temp
The two issues I have had when baking in a toaster oven are precision and temperature curve. (disclaimer: I build and repair commercial ovens so if this gets complicated you can ignore it.) These problems are well documented by hobbyists using toaster ovens as reflow ovens. you can retrofit a more precise temperature controller if you want to over come the precision problem, but if the elements are undersized it takes longer to first get the oven to temperature and then when you introduce a large cold mass into a small warm mass you get a large temperature drop and then a longer time for your food to reach temp. you can overcome some of this by preheating, cooking smaller amounts, and cooking for longer times. A thermometer is often a great way to determine if it has finished cooking.
I use a toaster oven all the time for my cooking with zero problem. I live alone, so using the full size oven just seems wasteful and impractical when I cook 1-2 servings at a time. The toaster oven heats up the apartment less and uses about 1/14 of the electricity(1000 Watts vs 14 kW). I have cooked 4 chicken drumsticks (about 5-10 minutes longer than the recipe recommends) in that thing with ease, and mine is just a cheap Walmart model.
The thing is basically a counter top oven and if you have an electric oven (like myself) it works on the exact same principals, just on a smaller scale. Just be careful that nothing touches the sides of the ovens, don't cook anything that will splatter (fire hazard) and clean it out regularly (again, fire hazard) and you should have zero problems.
Many dishes were ruined because my toaster oven temperature was off. I finally checked it out with a digital & an oven thermometer(s). Now I manually adjust the temperature & dishes turn out better. Invest in a reliable oven thermometer to avoid wasting money on ruined dishes.
See my picture for detailed examples.
Picture source.
The reason is simple. If it uses plastic or paper packaging for cooking, the radiant heat of an electric oven is too hot and will melt the plastic and possibly ignite the paper. In a normal oven, the majority of the heat is not radiant but convective, and the heat source is relatively far away. If you don't use plastic packaging, food cooks just as well in the toaster oven. When I cook fish sticks I simply use aluminum foil or a metal pan, and discard the included paper or plastic tray. There is no pre-heating, and I usually finish by toasting for an extra crispy crust.
I would suggest using the disposable aluminum foil pans when baking foods in the toaster ovens. I heat frozen meals and leftovers in the toaster oven regularly, and what I've noticed is that when you use the hard baking sheet things tend to burn easily. Now my toaster oven has a temperature control, but it won't allow me to use it on the bake setting, because the bake and temp setting is on the same controller. In other words, when I set the temperature, both the upper and lower heat elements come on, which is the toaster oven position.
So when I want to heat a frozen meal I set the knob to bake setting so only the bottom heat element comes on. I also set the dish on a double sheet of foil, or remove the meal from it's container and place it in an aluminum foil pan. Also, if possible, place the food item that you want to bake in the top position of toaster oven so that its not close to the heat element. If you can't get it in the top position, using the disposable aluminum pan will reduce the chances of the meal burning when on the bottom position. As a side note, if you don't won't to keep buying those foil pans, just line them with a sheet of foil to so you can re-use them a few more times. Lastly, I will just emphasize, use an aluminum foil pan.
I use my toaster oven all the time to cook during the summer so, as not to heat up the whole kitchen. I have never had a problem. Actually, I think it is more heat balance than my gas oven.
Just curious what brand/model is your toaster oven. I'd be interested in getting a toaster oven that might be more heat balanced than an gas oven :)
@Jay: Cooks Illustrated likes the Breville Smart Oven, and says the Hamilton Beach Set & Forget Toaster Oven with Convection Cooking is nearly as good (but much cheaper). Pretty much everything else they tested had issues.
I use a cheap yard-sale toaster oven. Works great for me. I've used more expensive toaster ovens, also with great results.
I use a convection toaster oven (an "air fryer;" zero difference). It works fine, though you do need to learn it. A light cooking spray helps to crisp them up better, as well as helping to hold any added seasoning: think frozen fries with rosemary, pepper, etc. You may need to experiment with adjusting the temperature and time.
One other thing I'll do is microwave items to heat them up, then use the toaster oven to crisp/dry it up a bit. (That's a general rule, not a fish sticks only rule.) I also never cook anything in a microwave at full power. Cut it back a bunch and let it "heat-soak" and repeat. It takes as long, but it's less hands on.
It's legal CYOA. You obviously can cook them in a toaster oven, but it's fish- it must reach a safe temperature or you could get sick. The directions they have for an oven can't guarantee that safe temperature in an unknown toaster oven. If they didn't say "don't use these directions for a toaster oven," then someone could screw up, give themselves food poisoning and sue because the directions didn't specify.
Fish sticks are pre-cooked. You could eat them from frozen and they’d be fine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.911698
| 2012-01-11T01:08:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20345",
"authors": [
"Adventurous Pallet",
"Bill Morrow",
"Cascabel",
"Cashew Nut",
"E. James",
"FrustratedWithFormsDesigner",
"Grammar Addict",
"Ilan Toren",
"James McLeod",
"Jason C",
"Jay",
"Joe",
"June Croft",
"Katey HW",
"Les",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Rhubarbcook",
"Sneftel",
"Tracy Evans",
"Tracy Johnson",
"derobert",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93810",
"jscs",
"lisa baker",
"rfusca",
"vnndaily"
],
"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
}
|
2950
|
How should I store raw steaks in the freezer?
What's the best method for storing steaks in the freezer? How should I wrap them? Should they be stored individually?
Yes, store them individually.
First, wrap them tightly in plastic wrap, preferably one that says it's specifically for freezer use. Then wrap this tightly in aluminum foil. They'll keep for months without freezer burn this way.
+1 for plastic wrap AND foil. Don't forget to put labels on them so you can quickly see which steak was bought at what time.
Why the foil? Just to protect the plastic wrap?
@sdg: I think so. Plastic wrap is rather delicate to be tossing around a freezer. Aluminum also provides another layer of protection from freezer burn.
Vacuum-sealed in plastic bags works really well. You can put multiple in each bag as long as the vacuum sealer can get all the air out.
Keep in mind that a frost free (refrigerator) freezer is not a good place to store anything, and in particular, meat.
In general, I keep food that I intend to use soon upstairs in the fridge freezer for convenience, but If I'm storing it for a week or more, It goes down in the basement deep freeze.
A frost free freezer keeps warming up to melt the ice, giving very inconsistent temperatures. and can even lead to partial thawing of the surfaces of meat.
I wrap steaks individually in freezer paper, then put them into ziploc freezer bags. The freezer paper is really nice because it doesn't stick to the meat.
Wrap well in plastic (individually) and then put in a freezer bag. We can get 6 months easy. Possibly more but I haven't tried.
Put them in a ziplock type bag and suck as much air as possible (water bath method or use a vacuum machine)
Freeze the steaks as quickly as possible. Set them in a single layer on a baking sheet and put them in the freezer.
Once frozen, wrap in foil to protect them further (as other wrote).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.913044
| 2010-07-23T03:02:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2950",
"authors": [
"Karol J. Piczak",
"NickAldwin",
"Ronald",
"bot47",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/939",
"samandmoore",
"sdg"
],
"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
}
|
120853
|
What web sites have recipes for a Philips Pasta Maker Avance Collection
Help! I bought a Philips Pasta Maker.
I love pasta and Asian noodles. The first time I used this machine the pasta was wonderful. Ever since, there have been problems. Mostly, the pasta is dry and in some cases, half of it has to be thrown out. I was using the recipes that came with the machine.
Searching online, I found a number of complaints from owners that the recipes that come with the machine are poor.
I always made pasta by hand and never had a problem. And I want to love this machine, but so far I am disappointed.
I am sure that this can be fixed with proper recipes for the pasta mixture. I am using a combination of semolina flour and all purpose flour (4 to 1).
Any suggestions for URLs for sites that promote recipes for this machine, will be greatly appreciated.
Sorry, can't help. From what I can tell, the Philips is an all-plastic pasta maker. Those just don't work. The plastic cannot withstand the pressures required for extruding quality pasta. I suggest returning it and getting one with metal parts.
You may be right that this machine includes plastic, but it is not all plastic. There are many metal elements to it, and it is quite heavy. My issues in not the extrusion, it is the batter consistency, which is the failure point. Once it begins to extrude, some of the batter is fine, and the remainder is not. I think that the ingredients, and their portion sizes, are the issue. I just want to know what ingredients and portion sizes have worked for other home chefs. Otherwise, the machine appears to work as designed.
The extruder plate is plastic, which is a critical failure for this; it's never going to be not frustrating. But, feel free to watch Alex's series on dry pasta: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Fe1NvMohds for hints
Are the recipes by weight or by volume? (Does it call for ‘cups’ of flour?). If it’s by volume, they’re going to be unreliable, as flour compresses
The recipes are by weight.
Even with restaurant and high end home pasta extruders with more power and brass dies, extruded pasta is extremely finicky and at the mercy of local ingredients and environmental conditions. I would begin with 25% water to flour (try all semolina first or your mixture), then adjust until you find something you are happy with. I've seen anywhere from 20% to upper 40% water noted online. This is something you are going to have to play with. I doubt you will find a formula online that works, simply given the nature of this type of pasta and the tools available to produce it. You note that your product changes during the process, this could very well be a result of the machine itself, simply because of the power output and the parts used for extrusion, rather than your dough formula. On top of that, once you get a noodle you are happy with, drying correctly is another issue you will have to deal with.
Thank you. Your response is helpful, and is probably what I expected. Experimenting with the ingredients make sense, especially because the types of flour I am using may be different from that used by others.
I was hoping that there was a web site where cooks shared their experiences, but apparently that is not the case.
The concern about the material used in the dies seems to be a false demon. These are extremely hard dies, and I doubt that is making any difference. From what I have observed, it is the consistency of the batter that is the issue, well before the batter is extruded.
Join the 'Pastafanataholics with Pastidea extruding with Philips, KitchenAid & others' group on Facebook. Tons of recipes and advice.
Hey, can you include a link to the group in your answer? That would make it a good answer for the question. Welcome to SA!
https://www.facebook.com/groups/767285674024266/. I joined it, and I think it is fabulous! If you go there, make sure to download Elise Feiner's guidebook "Pastafanataholics Extruding with Love….pdf". It's a great place to start. Thank you, Elise!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.913354
| 2022-06-18T16:18:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120853",
"authors": [
"Cary Jensen",
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
39560
|
What's the Procedure for This Pie?
What would be the procedure for this pie recipe from a 50 year-old cookbook?
1 1/2 c. mashed, cooked pumpkin
1/2 c. sugar
1/2 t. salt
1 1/4 t. cinnamon
1 t. ginger
1/2 t. nutmeg
1/2 t. cloves
3 slightly beaten eggs
1 1/4 c. milk
1 6oz can evaporated milk
This appears to be a standard custard-type pumpkin pie filling.
I would recommend, as the method:
Blind bake your crust approximately 10 minutes, using rice or pie weights to keep it from bubbling up.
Mix all of the filling ingredients together well.
Pour filling into the shell, and put in a 400 to 425 F for about 15 minutes, then lower the temperature to 350 F oven until done, about approximately 45-50 minutes.
You will know it is done when the filling is barely jiggly in the center, but set at the edges when you shake the pan, or when it registers 180 F on an instant-read thermometer.
If the crust starts to over brown, line the edges with aluminum foil or a pie protector.
There doesn't seem to be anything special about this recipe, so using a more modern recipe which is accompanied by more precise instructions should not sacrifice anything.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.913703
| 2013-11-19T02:34:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39560",
"authors": [
"Hope I don't get Teflon cancer",
"Jamie True",
"K. Lewis",
"Nova_Super",
"Spammer",
"U. Windl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91848",
"super_seabass"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8000
|
What are the basic ratios for making a chutney
I'm looking to make a apple chutney from 6.5 kg of apples. I can't really find a recipe that I'm happy with, so I'm going to just wing it.
What are the basic ratios for a generic chutney? For example, the ratio of fruit to vinegar to sugar?
The average of four different recipes that use apples or pears to make a chutney suggest the ratios
1.3lb of fruit : 1 cups of sugar : 0.9 cup of vinegar
or in units related to the metric system
300g of fruit : 100g of sugar : 100ml of vinegar
The fruit weight is for peeled and cored apples or pears, the 0.9 cups is the same as filling a cup and then taking out 2 tablespoons.
If you add cayenne to the recipe you may want to increase the sugar a bit. If you add raisins, decrease the sugar.
If you end up with 6kg of diced apples, then use 2kg of sugar and 2l of vinegar.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.913832
| 2010-10-10T11:30:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8000",
"authors": [
"Judy Whitford",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65491"
],
"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
}
|
69012
|
Warming refrigerated butter at a table in a restaurant
I love to cook. One of my favorite ways to cook is to go to a restaurant, look at the menu, get ideas, and order creatively. It helps to tip well.
For example, I've been successful creating diet ginger ale by ordering it cut with club soda and adding sugar substitute to taste. Also found breakfast burritos are very tasty if you substitute the tortilla with a crape. These work because the directions and goal are simple and understandable.
My current obsession is room temperature butter for the hot rolls. I want the butter to spread. I don't want the butter cooling the rolls. Can order the butter ahead of the rolls, if I must, but time is still at a premium.
If you're lucky you can order room temperature butter and get room temperature butter. More often I'm told they have to refrigerate the butter. I don't want to argue with them about the wisdom of their health codes. Some have tried to microwave it only to present me with abstract art sitting in a pool of drawn butter. This site could teach them how to microwave butter properly but I'm trying to communicate through a busy waiter.
Typically what I'm given is either small foil wrapped pats of butter or a 1 inch by 1 inch by 1/8 inch slice placed on a saucer.
What are your ideas for warming the butter before the rolls cool down? I'm willing to do some work myself at the table.
I don't know if I'd qualify 'order[ing] creatively' as 'cooking'. (but then again, some people consider assembling a salad to be 'cooking')
@Joe are you giving me a good natured tease or are you telling me this kind of food preparation is off-topic?
CandiedOrange, I'd assume the former. Welcome to Seasoned Advice!
@CandiedOrange : the former. Getting butter to room temperature is a common problem that'd occur in the process of cooking (eg, if you had to cream butter & sugar together for cookies), so there are contexts where it'd be considered on-topic.
Also just think of the same problem from the restaurant's point of view. You're cooking, you want to serve soft butter, it's still in the fridge, what do you do?
@Jefromi I provided links to things the restaurant could do. But, short of buying the restaurant so I can run it as I see fit, I need solutions that can be either communicated to a willing and well tipped server or performed by myself at the table.
@CandiedOrange Sorry I was unclear. I was taking on to Joe's comment about it being okay on the site. It's an actual problem you might run into when cooking. You're not asking it from the cook's point of view, but it's still cooking-related.
@Jefromi Thanks for clearing that up. You're right about the point of view. I believe many people influence the dining experience. Not the least of which is the one dining.
Go to better restaurants, which serve butter at room temp for this very reason.
Sadly, I run into this problem across the spectrum of resturant quality. They complain that it's a health code. I'm not going to demand that they violate it. Just want an elegant way to deal with it.
Ask for a heated glass!
Glasses freshly out of cleaning should be warm anyway, so chances are they have one. Putting the heated glass over your (opened) piece of butter unter the turned-over glass should have the desired effect.
My server actually had this idea once. When he came back he sadly told me that there were no dishes fresh from the dish washer.
You could get the same effect from a glass filled carefully with boiling water and left to "proof". The same trick is often used with hot drinks to keep them warmer for longer.
@logophobe that might work if I set the saucer on top of the glass of hot water and let the heat rise up through it.
I meant more that you could use hot water to heat up the glass without it being fresh from washing, but you could try that with a thin saucer too.
Richard Bertinet softens butter for baking by covering it with the waxed, foil wrapper and pounding it with a rolling pin. Even cold butter becomes pliable with a few dozen wallops.
That's for big 250g blocks of butter and it makes a racket, but I wondered if you could do a small-scale version. Try this:
take a square of greaseproof paper to the restaurant.
wrap your thin pad of butter in the square
squeeze between thumb and forefinger, like blutac or putty.
I reckon it will soften the butter sufficiently without requiring heat.
For one moment I had a vision of OP pulling out a rolling pin and whacking the dab of butter ^_^
Well, that would work. Maybe one of us should suggest it as an alternate answer? :)
Put it on a plate and mash it out with a fork
It will quickly come to the temp of the plate
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.913955
| 2016-05-15T18:36:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69012",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Dan C",
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"Steve Cooper",
"candied_orange",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
74384
|
Accidentally killed my mussels
I bought some live mussels from the fish counter and I had been reading about 'flushing' them so I put them in a bowl of fresh water for a while and carried on perusing the internet.
I then read here and here that leaving them in freshwater will quickly kill them. So I quickly rescued them and right enough a few of them are now dead (slightly opened and won't close no matter how many times I yell 'clear' and tap them on the worktop). Lesson learned.
Before I soaked them I checked they were all alive - they were all either closed or closed themselves after tapping. So any that died were killed by me slightly earlier than planned. The rest are now cleaned, de-bearded and chilling in the fridge mourning their fallen comrades.
Although in the comments for this answer they seem to say to use fresh water to tell if any mussels are dead rather than saying it will kill them. But anyway...
Problem is that now I have a load of Schrödinger's mussels that could be alive or dead as I might have killed them. I've found LOTS of debates online about whether or not you should eat a cooked mussel if it's still closed (consensus and most research - one example - says yes it's fine). What I can't find an answer for is...
Are dead mussels always open? Everywhere says if it closes then it's fine, but is it possible to have a closed dead mussel?
Are any mussels that died in my 'care' still ok to eat as I know they've not been dead and rotting for ages and are still relatively fresh?
Will dead (recently deceased) mussels still open when cooked?
UPDATE:
Thanks @logophobe for the advice :)
As someone who has had food poisoning from bad mussels I suggest you chuck them.
Upvoted for Schrödingers mussels!
In order:
No. It's possible, though not especially common, for a dead mussel to be stuck closed; they'll likely open with very little resistance.
Most likely yes. The main issue with eating dead mussels is that it's an indication they've been poorly cared for; you can't know how long they've been dead or how fresh they are. In your case, you know with reasonable certainty that they were alive until very recently so they're still fairly fresh.
No. Mussels open when cooked in order to "breathe"; the excessive heat overwhelms them and they're trying to vent a little bit (which cruelly just seals their fate, but we as cooks benefit). If they're dead, they won't have this reflex and they won't open on their own. As alluded to above, most of them will be partially open already.
I would still cook them, but do a couple things to be as safe as possible:
Cook them without further delay, within a few hours if possible. Any dead mussels will start to go south faster than live, since they're no longer respirating.
Discard any mussels that don't open after cooking. Chances are these were among the small contingent who stayed closed after death and you don't know exactly how long they've been toast. Better to play it safe and accept the loss; besides which, it's a bit of a chore getting them opened up when you've got plenty of their conveniently open brethren ready to eat.
Thanks :) I'll be cooking them in a few hours Most of them seem to be alive as they're opening up in the fridge (being kept cold and damp) and closing when tapped. Only a small proportion haven't opened yet and only one more has shuffled off this mortal coil so if they don't open during cooking it's not a big problem.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.914366
| 2016-09-29T16:11:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74384",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Lyall",
"eckes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47457"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35652
|
How do you emphasize the yeast flavor in bread?
How do you amplify the yeast flavor in bread?
Due to the range of comments, I think some clarification might help. Are you looking to increase the yeasty flavor that yeast produces in bread, or the actual flavor of the yeast itself?
Use lots of yeast, and short fermentation times. Prefer cake yeast over the dried types.
Fresh yeast has a specific taste and aroma, which disappears during fermentation, giving you a different, bready taste, which is not the same as yeast taste. Pro bakers are normally trying to achieve perfect fermentation, using low yeast amounts and long fermentation types. Household recipes are trying to take a more convenient route, preferring speedy fermentation (so baking times are reduced) and lots of yeast (because 1. this allows for even quicker rising, and 2. some decades ago, yeast quality was not so good, and you had a chance that the culture in a cake you purchased was barely alive, so it wouldn't rise if you used the minimal amount pro bakers with fresh daily supplies went for). This results in lots of unfermented yeast, which gives homemade breads a specific yeasty taste. While pro bakers will try to avoid it, many people associate the taste with pleasant experience of homemade bread made by a beloved family member, and like having it in their own bread.
So, use cake yeast. About the highest amount you can get away with would be 10% (50 g cake yeast per 500 g flour). But if your bread starts getting a whiff of ammonia, reduce it a bit. Ferment at warm temperatures (30°C is good, yeast starts slowing down over 35) and wait for volume doubling at each stage - should take 30-40 minutes per stage. Be careful to not overproof, because with this ammount of yeast, the dough is fickle, and may not rise if proofed for too long.
What is it about cake yeast that is unique or special compared to the more modern, more easily stored, types of yeast? Given that the yeast will grow exponentially throughout the ferment, what is it about the cake yeast that retains a unique enough charactar to significantly alter the flavor of the final bread compared to instant or dried yeast? All sources I have ever reviewed indicate they are freely interchangeable in terms of outcome; the only differences I have seen are whether proofing is recommended, and how you integrate them into a dough.
In my experience, it produces much more yeasty taste. I suspect that this is because it has so much non-yeast dry mass which has taken on the aroma. I agree that when used in the way the sources recommend (small yeast amounts, long fermentation times), the difference in taste is too small to be noticeable, but when going for a yeasty taste, the OP will use the exact opposite process, and then it matters how they started. And besides, exponential growth is not so fast in the first 5-6 generations, and yeast divides on a 20-min cycle.
I guess I just don't like short fermentation except for pizza dough...
You can also get deactivated yeast that is specifically formulated to add a yeasty flavor to dough without doing much else.
There are a couple of methods to increase to yeasty flavor and development in a bread:
Use a long, slow rise or fermentation, usually refrigerated
Use a recipe that starts with a preferment or biga, that is fermented once to develop flavor prior to the main fermentation
Select recipes with fewer additional ingredients or enrichments like eggs, butter, sugar, and so on that would mask the yeasty flavor.
I use the 'old dough' or pate fermentee method, which involves taking a portion of dough - around a fifth works well - from a batch after the first prove, covering it and leaving it in the fridge. Next time you bake bread, take the aged dough and incorporate it into the new dough.
You can keep the cycle going by taking some of this dough and storing it again. Over time this will intensify the flavours in your bread. The old dough will keep fine for 3-4 days in the fridge or a few weeks in the freezer (if freezing then take it out a couple of hours before you need to bake). I've been doing this for the last few months and get a much better taste in my bread.
I'd also recommend using fresh yeast as mentioned above, I find this gives a better flavour than the dried or instant yeasts.
Another pre-ferment approach is what's called a "poolish" in a nod to the polish bakers who supposedly invented the approach. This works great if you bake infrequently, since you only need about 24 hours advance notice and don't need to have remembered to set aside dough from the last time you baked.
I use about a 300:300:1 ratio of water:flour:yeast. So mix 300g each of water and flour together along with about 1g of yeast. Mix it in a large container, since it'll likely double in size. Leave it out, covered, for about 3-4 hours to ferment, then refrigerate it for about 24 hours.
Take it out an hour or so before you plan to use it so it can come to room temperature. You then use it in place of that amount of water and flour in the final recipe.
I picked this approach up from "The Bread Baker's Apprentice" by Peter Reinhardt, which has been a great resource for me.
Try making a sourdough starter, and you can boost it with yeast for a faster rise. I have done this(sans additional yeast), once with a starter I screwed up and did not feed enough- The bread was so yeasty that you could barely eat it!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.914700
| 2013-07-29T02:59:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35652",
"authors": [
"Lynn",
"RuthEve Marciniak",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Shai Ma",
"Shane Hanson",
"SourDoh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85493",
"lilsl0th",
"rumtscho",
"vbridge7"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103509
|
Converting fresh chilli pepper to ground?
If I normally use a fresh chilli pepper but decide to use the ground version, how do I convert for measuring the amount of ground? For example, 1 fresh pepper = 1 heaped teaspoon ground pepper.
It doesn't work that way because different chilis give different heat, you have to work off the result you want, i.e. how hot you want it. One fresh Jalapeno is pretty mild, one fresh habañero will light you on fire! There are different heats of chili powder depending on the type or blend of chilis used, from paprika, which is very mild, to ground cayenne, which is medium to ground hot chilis of different varieties. One teaspoon of each will give you a very different result. One teaspoon of paprika is milder than 1/8 teaspoon of a hot chili powder.
I suggest you get a chili powder which is right for your taste and vary how much you use depending on the dish. 1/2 of a teaspoon is a reasonable amount to start with for an average size pot of food, you can then keep adding 1/4 or 1/2 teaspoon until you get the heat you want. Just remember to let it cook for a few minutes to let the heat come out. Once you do this a couple of times you'll have a good idea of how much to add in the future.
Fresh pepper/chili and ground pepper/chili are not particularly interchangeable.
For example: (sweet) paprika is essentially ground Bell pepper, but it is not a normal substitution to use replace Bell pepper with x teaspoons of paprika.
Additionally, peppers range in size substantially. A Thai Birdseye chili would only yield a fraction of a teaspoon when dried and ground. A bell pepper is probably more likely to yield a tablespoon or more, depending on the drying process.
The question needs to address which variety of pepper. Different peppers will produce significantly different quantities of powder. At that point heat has nothing to do with it. For example, you have a recipe that calls for 1 dried Ancho pepper. Typically, 1 dried Ancho will produce 1 heaping TBS of powder.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.915132
| 2019-11-16T01:04:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103509",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88805
|
what are the small black things that fall from top ceiling of my grill?
I have quite an old cooker, and when I put foil paper in I notice little black things fall onto the foil from the top of the grill (I think broiling in US) compartment. Even when I don't cook if I put something in and hit the ceiling/gas heating element I can see these little black things fall.
I'm concerned it might go onto food and I'll eat them without knowing. Do you know what these are likely to be? Is it a hazard, or maybe time to get a new grill?
Pictures might help. Have you ever cleaned your oven?
@Stephie not really but these things must be coming from the top ceiling of the compartment or gas heating component. i dont see why anything should be falling from there. As regards pics its really as I described, a few very small pieces of charcoal here and there not much at all so dont think pic will show much/may not be good quality to highlight the little dirt.
Wild guess: It is grease that baked onto the grill and comes off from time to time. Solution: Proper cleaning.
This answer is in regard to an outdoor Weber grille. According to the Weber grille people the black peelings are carbonized grease that accumulate when cooking and are not harmful. They might not be tasty though so I recommend a quick wipe to loosen the particles before cooking. Again Weber suggests using aluminum foil to brush the top and I believe that is because aluminum is softer than steel and so won't scratch the surface. Happy grilling!
Even though the OP was asking about an indoor oven, this answer may be correct. I like it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.915296
| 2018-04-01T12:28:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88805",
"authors": [
"Ian",
"James Wilson",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7945",
"mrog"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95571
|
Why is a grilled lamb chop tougher than stir fried beef strips or lamb stew?
Why does a grilled lamb chop feel more tough compared to say stir fried beef strips or lamb stew?
There are many variables that determine the final texture of cooked meat. Some of them include how and what the animal was fed, which muscle and how much fat and collagen are present, treatment before cooking, cooking method, length of cooking time and temperature. The list goes on. Let's just take your chop vs. stew example. A lamb chop is relatively lean and cooks quickly. Stew meat, taken from a different muscle, is relatively fatty and has collagen that is broken down by a slow and lower temperature cook. The latter is usually more tender because of those variables. (Also see your other question about stir fry).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.915462
| 2019-01-12T04:12:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95571",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103859
|
To put aromatics at beginning or end of cooking?
I've read some answers say that you should put things like cloves, black pepper, bay leaves, etc. at the end of cooking a curry, as spices will loose their properties. I notice that Bangladeshi cuisine always uses these items at the very beginning of cooking. Why so? I'm imagining its been done like this for a long time. What do they know that we don't? Perhaps there is some other goal?
https://www.spiceography.com/cooking-with-bay-leaves/
What is a property of bay leaves other than to give taste? The longer it stay in the dish the more time it will have to infuse the fat and mix with other ingredients. So the time would be dictated by strenght of the aromatics and what you would like to underline.
@SZCZERZOKŁY not necessarily true. If you have highly volatile aromatics, the flavor evaporates if you leave it too long.
You need to link to the answers making that specific claim, as I wouldn't save any of your named ingredients until the end, though pepper works at both beginning & end, for different reasons..
@JulianaKarasawaSouza The time to stay was regarding the bay leaves. The last sentence is about any other ingredient.
Just like many other ingredients, when spices are added to a dish is a function of what effect you want them to have on the final dish. If you want deep, well-integrated flavors, or even undertones, you add them early so the flavors meld into the product. If you want a more pronounced flavor or an aroma, they are added at or near the end of cooking. In addition, you can certainly do both, as the flavor and aroma can be enhanced by this double addition (at the beginning and at the end). When these aromatic spices (and often alliums) are used, like in curries, they are heated in oil or ghee. The oil is flavored, and this helps to carry the flavor of the aromatics throughout the product. Spices and herbs also contain many volatile compounds, which will be lost with heat and time. In this case, a last minute addition, just before serving, is the best approach.
"What do they know that we don't?" Well, "they" know the final result that they are trying to achieve, and how ingredients behave at various points in the cooking process. The end goal is a well-integrated dish.
Great answer. I'd only add that the form of the spice also has something to do with usage. If using whole cloves, whole peppercorns, and whole bay leaves, they will gradually release flavor over longer cooking and might be required to be added a bit earlier for flavor. But using a ground version of these will cause the flavors to be absorbed faster (and then perhaps to lose more potency with longer cooking).
@Athanasius excellent point!
It really depends on the specific spice/herb, and on how strong you want it to be in the dish.
Some aromatics are destroyed by prolonged heating, while others can't be tasted unless left to steep in the dish as it cooks.
Cumin, mustard seed, coriander seed and others are at their most powerful when mixed into oil/fat at high temperature, usually in the beginning of the dish with the onions.
On the other hand, turmeric or nutmeg would lose their flavour at high heat, and usually get added near the end, or at least after the water is added.
It can be even more complex. For example, salt added at the beginning will take water out of ingredients and into the sauce. Salt added near the end will just make the dish saltier.
There are also things like bay leaves or tea leaves, where the flavour depends on how long they have been cooking.
I've always been told a very simple way of knowing:
Dry seasonings go in at the start.
Fresh seasonings go in at the end.
This applies mostly to herbs, but works for pretty much anything.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.915657
| 2019-12-02T04:05:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103859",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Johannes_B",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54545
|
Homemade liquid sweetener from Stevia
I am using Stevia Hermesetas. Can I make liquid sweetener from Stevia powder for diabetic dessert - sweet soup with fruits and jelly? Any requirements during cooking?
Can you be more specific about the kind of dessert you're trying to make? Puddings vs cakes vs cookies vs candies will all have different answers. If you are looking for this for a specific recipe, post the recipe.
Post responses here by clicking on "Add a comment" or edit your original question with the additional information. Don't use the Answer section unless you're actually answering your own question. :)
Great! And to clarify, are you British? I'm in the US and Jelly is Jam but from context I think you mean what we Americans call "Jell-o", a gelatin-based dessert.
@Catija Thanks. I am going to change it as I am not familiar with cell phone version and cannot find delete button :)
Glad to help :)
It seems to me that the real intent of this question is something like "will stevia dissolve like sugar to make simple syrup"?
I buy bulk pure Stevioside powder online. It's much cheaper to buy the pure powder that way and make your own stock solution.
I make my stock strong enough so that 1 drop equals 1 teaspoon (4g) sugar in sweetness, 3 drops per tablespoon (12g).
For 100 ml:
23.5 gram Stevia powder
20 ml 95% ethanol
Bring to 100 ml with water.
The alcohol is added both because Stevia isn't that soluble in plain water, but is in 20% ethanol, and as preservative. I've kept a single jar for over three years now, opening periodically; no mold, no growth problems.
I find the powder just too fiddly to work with in the kitchen; tiny scoops, or always weighing out 100 mg. Plus the pure powder likes to puff up into the air. A good strong stock solution is far easier to handle cooking-wise.
Note: bottle lasted through June 2016 at room temp, with no spoilage or degradation. So 2-3 year shelf life, at least.
An alternative would be to simply buy a stevia plant. It's much like mint so hard to kill, easily sourced in England (i have one in my garden which came from a local garden centre) I'm sure they must be available in America too.
The leaves are so sickly sweet its unreal. I can't stand the taste but then again I'm pretty sugar free in my diet anyway so even the slightest amount of sweetness makes me feel slightly ill (too long as a pastry chef).
Rambling aside, as I mentioned the leaves are so sweet I see no reason why infusing the leaves in water. Like you would for mint tea, wouldn't produce a very sweet water liquid.
Stevia is marketed as not containing any calories. As such it will never be a substitute for sugar in baking as apart from being sweet it holds no other reseblense to sugar. It won't for example caramelize nor can it be used as a preservative.
As far as a sugar syrup substitute you could infuse the stevia in water and thicken it with xanthan gum. Though it will never taste like caramel it may work for fruit coulis and jellys (jello).
Yes, you can cook with Stevia, and yes, you can mix it with water to make a liquid sweetener. The Hermesetas website has a few dessert recipes.
For a quicky experiment into making a liquid sweetener with Stevia, I mixed nine 1 gram packets of Stevia in the Raw with 3 TBS of water and brought it to a boil. A tsp of the liquid (into which the Stevia completely dissolved when it boiled) was just the right amount to sweeten a cup if tea.
Just for comparison sake, Stevia in the Raw contains Stevia and dextrose.
It will sweeten like sugar, but it won't "cream" like sugar, nor will it make a syrup like sugar. It should work fine to sweeten jams, jellies and gelatin desserts, but it won't have the preservative action of sugar.
The label on your product should tell you how much of the product you will need to equal the sweetness of an amount of sugar.
I'm not sure that your experiment is valid for the OP's case. Your sweetener contained both stevia and dextrose. How do you know that the sweet taste of your liquid sweetener was due to the stevia and not due to the dextrose?
@rumtscho Because most (including Hermesetas) formulations include dextrose.
But the OP says that this is for a diabetic's dessert, so they will obviously not use a dextrose containing formulation
@rumtscho My Stevia says on the label, "Suitable for people with diabetes". I'm sure that statement is FDA qualified. It's less than a gram of dextrose per "serving".
Then sorry, but the packaging makes no sense. Stopping here now, as the discussion takes us too far from cooking.
You can buy 95% Stevosides bulk powder online for cheap. No dextrose. My stock solution is 235 gram per liter Stevia in 20% ethanol (I use Everclear, but vodka would work as well). The alcohol not only prevents growth, it's required to get the Stevia in solution at that high a concentration. Sweetness-wise, the stock works out to 1 drop per teaspoon, 3 drop per tablespoon, 48 drop per cup (about 2.4 ml per 200 gram sugar equivalent).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.916011
| 2015-02-09T05:39:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54545",
"authors": [
"Carolyn Worthey",
"Catija",
"Denise Hart",
"Jolenealaska",
"Josephine Dare",
"Judy Kunisaki",
"Kim Watters",
"Krista Maness",
"Margaret Boseley",
"Primary Care Physician",
"Rajya Lakshmi Chava",
"Scott MacAuley",
"Siena",
"Tharmila Gunasegaran",
"Tina Corken",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"hari raina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"rumtscho",
"shadowtalker"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54319
|
Adding lime juice to green curry paste and heating
I am trying this recipe which requires preparation of a green curry paste with lime juice as one of the ingredients. Once the paste is prepared, I add it to a pan with hot oil (after which I add coconut milk to the paste)
My doubt is - is it a good idea to add lime juice to a hot mixture because the heat probably destroys the vitamins in it? Or is it better to add lime juice later towards the completion of the preparation of the dish?
You're rather close to asking a nutritional question here, and those are off topic. Fortunately the two answers so far are culinary, but it seems easy to read this as asking about nutrition. Perhaps you'd like to edit to avoid asking about vitamins at all?
Lime juice is one of the components of green curry. The acid from the lime juice macerates some of the other ingredients and wakens up some other flavors. If you don't add it as part of the paste preparation, then you aren't cooking with Green Curry.
If you add the lime juice in the end, you will have a very different result, mostly that of a dish that tastes like it was sprinkled with lime juice before served.
For me, it's not so much about the vitamins as the taste. All the citrus juice I've ever tried to cook with has lost most of it's flavor and become bitter when heated for more than a few minutes. Zest can be added earlier (and will give some good flavor) but I'd save any citrus juice for near the end of the recipe.
When you add lime juice to any dish and heat it, the flavours of the dish are lost... You surely are trying to get a citrus flavour of lemon which will be pretty much suppressed if you heat it. In case you need lemon aroma, crush lemon grass; tie in a cloth and put it in ur curry and boil.. After few minutes remove the cloth. If you need the Tangy flavor.. Add lemon juice after your curry has settled and a bit cooled.. Not when hot.
Hope this helps..
I add a sprinkle of lime at the end when you have it plated it doesn’t taste like lime added it wakes all the flavors
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.916433
| 2015-02-02T22:30:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54319",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Daniel Šedovič",
"Darrel Chaput",
"Heather McIntosh",
"Oliver Gould",
"Yomi Lasisi",
"estateplanning",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"twmen"
],
"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
}
|
15094
|
Which cuisines (besides Hungarian) have a tradition of serving savory desserts?
About 20 years ago my wife and I were poor, and we went on a very cheap coach trip to Hungary for a holiday. The hotel meals always finished with a rather uninteresting savoury dessert.
I researched the matter and found that there is a tradition of savoury desserts in Hungary, a lot of which are much more interesting than the ones which we got in the hotel. But when I look outside of Hungary, all I see are "cheese / pate and crackers" style dishes to follow the main dish, and not much else.
So what I am seeking is other nations with a tradition of savoury desserts - savoury dishes used to end a meal. which are nothing to do with crackers or Hungary.
All offers considered ...
How can you tell it's a dessert if it's savory? Just because it is the dish served last?
Because I have a Hungarian cookbook somewhere that calls it that - the book which has the interesting savoury dessert recipes. Does such a dish have another name in Hungary?
In the big French meals, the sweet dessert is sometimes followed by the cheese course which is naturally savoury.
Also, in China, in big meals, a clear simple soup is served at the end of a meal. This is, I am told, to clear the pallette. My experience is Yunnan and Szechuan, and it may not be the same in all of China.
In France the cheese comes before the sweet, so that the red wine from the main course is used up! Sweet then cheese is an English excuse to open another bottle! Thanks for the China info.
I recently heard on a NOVA show about the ancient Roman fish sauce called "garum", made from fermented (or rotting!) fish, along with other ingredients. It was very popular served over many dishes, including desserts, as it enhanced flavor similarly to MSG, only probably better for you. Here is a link to a pear dessert recipe using Garum.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/lostempires/roman/patina.html
I do love just a little coarse saltiness on things like caramels, or ginger cookies. Our family has a recipe for just such a cookie using cardamon salt - wonderful! ( I am also a great fan of Marmite - could probably find a way to use a smudge of it on an intensely dark chocolate brownie.
I was told at school that garum was made similarly to Worcester Sauce - another way to ferment anchovies - but please remember I'm looking for a tradition. Marmite has been the subject of much controversy in Denmark this week - http://www.euronews.net/2011/05/27/danish-marmite-ban-the-plot-thickens/
I wouldn't think of it as a dessert, just another course in a multi-course meal. You tend to wind up to the main courses, and then wind down again. Finishing a meal in a climatic way does not seem to work with the idea of relaxing and conversing over good food
The wind down is in portion size, extremities of flavour and/or spice. but not necessarily in visuals, aroma, or production complexity
Pate and cheeses fit in well with this, and hence their popularity
Some other items are:
Bilini? - a large crepe, parcelled with fresh sweet(ish) pickles and a little small game compote (or sour cheeses) - Jewish Russian
Spekkoek (Bacon Cake) is not made from bacon, and while sweet, often has savoury spice flavours - Dutch
Bacon and chocolate fingers - nice strips of bacon, grilled crisp, and drizzled with 75%+ cocoa chocolate - Recent American/English based on Mexican smoked meats and mole
Fruit salad - with balsamic vinegar and/or chilli dressing - Indonesia, Asia
Yam cake - cake made with yams, bacon, shrimp, onions, and chilli - China
Pengat Pisang - banana, sweet potato, coconut, and spices - Malaysian, Asian
Yorkshire pudding - effectively deep fried bread or batter - English (pre-dinner in Yorkshire though)
As a genuine Yorkshireman, I can assure you that Yorkshire pudding is traditionally a STARTER - the idea being to "fill up" the guests with something cheap, before passing on to the meat course! And it is not deep fried, or bread - it is made in the oven. I don't think chocolate bacon is very traditional, although it might have been invented by an Englishman ...
We have English Yorkshire pudding as a after the main meal snack to fill up those whom are still hungry. So English origin, but antipodean usage. Why the -1?
-1 Wasn't me! Antipodean practice must be accepted because usage can be inverted down under, but why not go for upside down cake?!
@klypos It gets worse, I have seen people fill the pud's with left over gravy
gravy is obligatory with Yorkshire puds - it should be heavy duty onion gravy! they are boring without a filling. A lot of places around here sell a large Yorkshire pud as a main course, filled with meat/chicken stew, or sausages and lots of onion gravy (Toad In The Hole with the hole as an afterthought).
Beef gravy and lots and lots of tiny Yorkshire puddings. They stay crispy then.
English cuisine has this tradition. In old-fashioned settings like Oxbridge colleges, a meal might consist of soup, then fish course, then meat course, then sweet, then a small savoury, then fruit and cheese and wine, then chocolates and coffee. The savoury is meant to be small and strongly flavoured, to re-stimulate your appetite in case you've become full by that stage of the meal.
Typical ingredients for savouries: mustard sauce, bacon, anchovies, scrambled eggs, capers, pickled walnuts, oysters. For example, scramble eggs, put on a rectangle of toast, garnish with a cross of anchovies and dot with four capers. Or wrap a pickled walnut in thinly sliced bacon, fry briefly, place on a small round of toast spread with mustard.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.916649
| 2011-05-27T02:27:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15094",
"authors": [
"Sobachatina",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5885",
"klypos",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14406
|
Can a rice cooker make amounts much smaller than its rating?
I'm looking at getting one of Zojirushi's induction rice cookers and the 5.5 cup model is currently a little cheaper than the 3 cup model. I'm a single guy and will only be making a cup or two of rice unless I'm entertaining.
Is there any reason not to go with the larger version so I can use it when entertaining as well?
It just another gadget you don't really need! For a cup of rice just use a saucepan on the stove. Rice cookers are only worth having when regularly making bulk rice. A slow cooker (crockpot) can do rice fine if you want hand off rice cooking, and is a much more useful investment. In general a larger appliance will be less power efficient than the correct sized appliance
@TFD You are correct in that a basic rice cooker is basically a glorified crockpot. In my experience, however, the usefulness of a rice cooker depends on the type of rice one is trying to make. For very temperamental applications like sushi, I have found that the fancy, "fuzzy logic" rice cookers are much more consistent than my amateur saucepan-on-the-stove skills.
As I note in my answer here, I use the exact model you are considering. It is one of the best gadgets I've purchased. It has no problem making any batch down to 1 cup in size. Being able to cook the full 5.5 cups when entertaining is invaluable as well.
I will sometimes cook more than I need for lunch the next day, as well as making fried rice for the following night's dinner.
Bottom line: you won't regret the purchase.
I bought the 5.5 cup model and now, a year and a half later, I can confirm that I don't regret my purchase one bit. It's an extremely convenient appliance and I use it almost every day for brown/other rice and steel cut oatmeal. It actually managed to kick my toaster off the counter and into a cabinet to make room.
For anyone looking at the larger 20 cup models, there does seem to be a minimum 4 cup (2 cup dry) limit.
Well, coming from a Chinese family and as our family cook rice everyday...
The short answer is yes - you will be able to cook 1 cup with the 5.5 cup model. the problem is, though you will be able to cook much smaller volume in a large cooker -- you will have rice covering the pan, a thin layer above bare metal[1]. Scooping up rice from it is a OK, but you will tend to 'fold' the rice in order to put it in a bowl which kind of affect the texture of the rice - if you use a smaller one you will get rice in a nice, cylinder shaped from which you can get a nicer scoop which is naturally formed by expansion of rice and steam.
[1] This has become much better with all these rice cooker armed with circuits (as in your case) which slowly, but accurately cook every grain of rice you put in -- albeit at a much longer time. the cooking time with old, traditional kind of rice cooker is ~ 30 min for 2 cup of rice whereas the newer, logic-equipped device will need ~1 hour for cooking - but of course the quality is much better
Not really any reason not to go for the bigger one, you should definetly be able to make 2 cups in it. If there are bad results when you do only 1 cup then you may have to always do 2 and have leftovers but I can't imagine that being a problem.
It probably does use more power, if that is a concern.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.917082
| 2011-04-28T23:57:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14406",
"authors": [
"Bryan Anderson",
"ESultanik",
"SurpriseDog",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79503"
],
"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
}
|
17433
|
Cheaper alternative to parmesan cheese?
The parmesan cheese in pasta recipe is quite expensive.....do we have cheaper alternative??
Are there are cheddar cheese which can replace parmesan cheese?
and I heard that parmesan cannot compare with the real Italian one
Where can I bulk-buy cheap parmesan? covers the same territory as this question. My answer there should suit your needs: use grana padano, or romano or reggianito. There is ABSOLUTELY NO cheddar that will sub for parmagiano reggiano.
I found a cheaper local store which offer "parmesan" cheese with much lower price. It is not Parmigiano Reggiano, but is acceptable because it has brand. In supermarket, it sells for 59.9 HKD for 250g. In this shop, it only require 47HKD for 250g. And it also offers 1kg package which priced at 135HKD.
Note: if you're looking for something that's not actually cheese (possibly vegan), try this question.
Grana padano and pecorino romano are two other very savory, hard grating cheeses that work well on pasta. They taste a bit different than Parmigiano-Reggiano, but are quite good in their own right and often less expensive. You can also look at parmesan type cheeses that are not actually Parmigiano-Reggiano. For example, Whole Foods often has one from Argentina that offers a reasonable price/performance tradeoff. All of that said, in many people's opinion, nothing is really quite as delicious as true Parmigiano-Reggiano.
Parmesan is by definition not Parmigiano Reggiano...
@nico What is the difference with Parmesan Cheese and what you called Parmigiano Reggiano? I've only seen Cheese named Parmesan in my local supermarket. It's the first time I've heard Parmigiano Reggiano.
@gunbuster: Parmigiano Reggiano is a protected designation of origin. That means that only cheese produced in very specific parts of Italy (specifically a handful of cities in Northern Italy: Parma, Reggio Emilia, Modena, Bologna and Mantova) can be called "Parmigiano Reggiano". To have the mark it has to be produced following certain specific methods defined by law. Anything produced outside of these cities cannot (by law) be called Parmigiano Reggiano, so it is often called Parmesan.
And, just to be clear, it is not just a matter of law, the taste (and, alas, the price) is actually different.
Buy in bulk and save
"Expensive but going to be used in cooking anyway" cheeses such as Parmesan or blue varieties freeze extremely well
The do loose their presentation quality, but retain their taste, smell, and texture qualities
I have had good quality blue vein wheels in the freezer for over a year and they are still perfect (though not much left now :-[ )
Processes as required (crumb, grate, shave etc.), and then pack into air tight freezer bags, and boxed for protection
Also, restaurant food wholesalers sell bulk bags of pre-processed Parmesan which you can freeze as is. Typically 1Kg plastic zip-lock style bags. You can usually get a cash account with them for small purchases. They will often sell wheels in 1/4 or 1/2's too
I don't think I've ever seen reggiano available in bulk at a supermarket; where are you buying this?
@Aaronut You should buy cheese direct from a local cheese maker (many have Internet ordering) if you can. Our local cheese maker (Puhoi, no Internet?) makes a excellent Parmesan wheel 3+Kg. The excellent 9Kg Kapiti Parmesan at NZ$220 represents a 25% saving over the low end supermarket rubbish, and this is REALLY good cheese!
@Aaronut, try CostCo.
I think it's worth the money, but buy in bulk like from Costco or Wholesale. You can get a big block for about 20 bucks and it lasts a long time in the fridge.
Parmesan is rich in glutamates, the stuff that gives us the umami or meaty savoury taste. That's why we like it so much. If you want to replace it, try replacing it with another cheese that was mentioned, but beef up the umami with another source. Depending on what you are cooking, a glutamate rich food such as anchovies, mushrooms, marmite, MSG, soy sauce, sea kelp.... in small portions would do the trick and not effect the dish much.
You could also try nutritional yeast - its a vegan alternative for yeast. Its quite 'cheesy'.
All that said, its hard to pass up Parmesan (the real stuff). Its just one of those things its probably worth biting the bullet for. Also, the rind of the cheese going in chicken stock is indispensable!
Another option is to make your own Parmesan Cheese... not an immediate solution but it is interesting to do at least once. It isn't exactly difficult, but it does take a while to mature.
Very interesting - It's amazing what you can do at home that we've forgotten about in the past half century!
Parmigiano Reggiano is aged at least 12 months, although I don't think I've ever seen it aged less then 24. 36-40 months old Parmigiano is just sublime (but I wouldn't use it on pasta, would rather eat it by itself).
I did say it would take "a while". The Parmesan is 'usable' at 6 months, but will continue to improve over time.
You can buy cheese making kits that have everything you need to make your own Parmesan, the main ingredient "time" costs you nothing http://www.curdsandwhey.co.nz/product/cheese-starter-kit-mozzarella-parmesan-romano-yoghurt
I agree it is very interesting....but may not suitable to all people.
oh goodness, never considered parmesan that way - but maybe another sharp Italian cheddar would be more to your liking? Try pecorino romano, or a sharp matured asiago or maybe an aged provolone if you can find a sharp one?
I tend to think if you got a better quality parmesan like Reggiano or Padano you may like it? it can be expensive though.
This doesn't really answer the question. The question is asking for cheaper alternative. The original poster never said they didn't like Parmesan cheese.
Ross : substitution isn't an 'alternative'? It's a perfectly valid answer in my opinion. (better than the sawdust being sold as pre-grated 'parmesean' in the stores)
@Joe No, it fails to address the question because it's not about finding any alternative. The original poster is looking for a cheaper alternative for something he likes. He's not looking for something with a different flavour or a better flavour, especially not if it's expensive.
@RossRidge : everyone's tastes are different. From the article I linked to : "n the most egregious case, a company called Castle Cheese Inc., whose products ... allegedly contained “no parmesan cheese” whatsoever, according to the FDA. Instead, the product was made up of a mix of Swiss, mozzarella, and white cheddar cheese, as well as a heaping dose of cellulose." How many people out there were fooled and/or preferred that to the real stuff? Often with ingredients, you just need to hit certain notes that could come from an alternate source.
@Joe I don't see how your last comment addresses what I wrote before it, the OP's question or this answer. If you want to rant about the quality of cheese this isn't the place.
@RossRidge : I'm saying that other cheeses or even non-cheese items are a viable alternative. If it wasn't, why is there the bit about using cheddar? Just because the bulk of the answers so far were about how to get parmesan more cheaply doesn't mean that's what was asked. I think it's you that's misread or misunderstood the question that was asked. Alma has given a perfectly good answer, and your telling her that she has a bad answer was incorrect.
@Joe No one said other cheeses or non-cheese items aren't valid alternatives.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.917390
| 2011-09-03T04:23:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17433",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BobMcGee",
"Bogdan",
"Brian",
"Cascabel",
"Cos Callis",
"Ian",
"Imre Kerr",
"Joe",
"Rana",
"Ross Ridge",
"TFD",
"curlytoptrader",
"hoss",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6757",
"ioanafery",
"lamwaiman1988",
"mnelson713",
"nico",
"user37470",
"user37505"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17555
|
Would one use holy basil to make pesto sauce? Are there other culinary uses?
I got some holy basil seeds (via mail) from a guy on an internet forum. I planted them and they are growing nicely. They taste similar to thai basil. Would one use holy basil to make pesto sauce? Are there other culinary uses for holy basil?
Ok, everybody is thinking this so I will say it, "Holy Basil and Garlic Pesto keeps the vampires away."
@CosCallis Actually, my first thought was, "Holy Basil, Batman!"
Use it the same as you would thai basil, or even "normal" basil. It's a little more strongly on the licorice flavor side of things than lettuce leaf basil, but it still works nicely in conjunction with tomatoes, garlic, and other "italian" flavors.
There was an article on pesto in the recent Saveur magazine. Here is what they wrote about Thai basil:
There are many varieties of Thai basil, which has a light anise flavor that doesn't dissipate when heated. Often used in stir-fries and curries, it makes for a gorgeously perfumed pesto.
Here is a link to the Thai basil reference: http://www.saveur.com/gallery/Many-Shades-of-Green/4
Here is the article itself: http://www.saveur.com/article/Kitchen/Glorious-Pesto-1000088723
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.918065
| 2011-09-07T04:11:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17555",
"authors": [
"Cos Callis",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kroaton",
"Muhammed Naseem",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19912
|
How long should a 4-5 pound rib roast take in an infrared cooker?
I'm going to attempt to cook a 4-5 pound rib roast in an infrared cooker. Specifically, a Big Easy Infrared Turkey Fryer.
Everything I've read says that it's done when it's done. I understand the sentiment there, but I would like to know an approximate time so that I can have other foods prepared to hit the table at the same time.
How do I estimate how long this will take?
If the manufacturer's information doesn't provide you the information you need you may just have to get a meat thermometer and monitor the internal temp and practice once or twice.. what a terrible thing to have to do. Will you need help eating the 'extra' roast?
I'd use the recipe they have on their site for pork shoulder as a guideline, since it's very similar in terms of size and shape to a beef roast (just not as heavy).
They estimate 10 minutes per pound, which is more or less consistent with the per-side estimate of most broiler recipes (which is very similar to infrared cooking).
So start with an estimate of 40-50 minutes but do what they recommend and monitor the temperature very carefully.
I have to point out that 4-5 pounds is very heavy/large for high-heat cooking methods like broiling or grilling (or infrared); it's not the same as infrared "frying" a turkey or a leg of lamb which has a very high surface area/weight ratio. Steaks would no doubt come out great this way but larger roasts respond better to roasting, so don't be too surprised if your roast starts to get seriously charred on the outside before it's sufficiently cooked on the inside.
You might want to consider starting with smaller, 2-3 lb roasts, and move up the weight next time if those come out perfectly. Based on their claims, it should take roughly the same amount of time for one large item vs. two smaller items anyway.
So, I have one roast. Would you recommend cutting it into two roasts and cook them simultaneously?
@basilard99: I'm not sure what the inside of one of these devices looks like; if it's wide enough to fit them both side-by-side, or if you can cook them simultaneously on two racks or something, or physically separate them so they're actually exposed to the heat separately, then I guess that would be fine. If they're just going to be stacked on top of each other then no, that won't help at all.
For those who come across this thread, I cooked the roast as the recipe stated. It came out fairly nice, but I believe that it was a bit tough due to not cooking low enough. I think a better cut of meat also would have helped.
@basilard99 did you end up cutting it in half or doing it as one roast? how long (approx) did it take.
I have cooked 2 other roasts before and you can learn from my mistakes but believe me when I tell you, it will be the greatest piece of meat you'll ever eat, it turns out better than restaurant bought, for a 6lb chuck of meat get a thermometer and remove it 15 degrees before rare cuz it will continue to cook and it should be cooked at low heat so it will take minimum hour and a half, keep pouring the drippings over the meat every 20 minutes and you'll love the out come
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.918194
| 2011-12-22T23:18:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19912",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cos Callis",
"DJGrandpaJ",
"Denise Bankowski",
"Jerec TheSith",
"basilard99",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"kmehta"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3909
|
Difference between old fashioned and quick oats?
What are the difference between old fashioned and quick oats?
Can they be substituted for one another in recipes?
Old fashioned oats are rolled whole-grain oat kernels. In quick oats, on the other hand, the oat kernel is first cut into smaller pieces before being rolled. This makes it much easier for quick oats to absorb water than an old fashioned oat. You can visibly see the size difference.
For baking quick oats can be used in place of old fashioned oats. However, if a recipe calls for quick oats, you may not get expected results using old fashioned oats. Typically, a recipe that calls explicitly for quick oats generally has too short a cooking time for regular oats to fully cook (e.g. pancakes).
Another thing altogether is instant oats. Do not substitute these in any recipe. Instant oats are parboiled, dried, and often has sugar and salt added.
Nutritionally, quick and old-fashioned oats are identical.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.918466
| 2010-08-01T05:40:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3909",
"authors": [
"Artur Nowak",
"Dan Gravell",
"Katriel",
"OghmaOsiris",
"Ole Bjørsvik",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7275",
"mjs"
],
"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
}
|
3338
|
Jiaozi potstickers sticking to fry pan
I've been having a problem lately with my potstickers sticking to my pan too much. This didn't start happening until recently.
I'm using my stainless fry pan rather than a nonstick. Mostly, because I like this pan the most. But perhaps I'm just using the wrong tool for the job.
I've tried to let them cook longer after the water has evaporated even until some of the bottoms burned as an experiment. even then some still stuck.
Here is my current method.
Get pan hot over medium high heat.
Add a couple tablespoons of olive oil. I've tried more and less with little change.
Let oil heat to ripple.
Add potstickers.
Add .5 to .75 cups of water.
cover and steam for about 10 minutes.
Let dumplings fry for a minute or two.
Are your potstickers cold/frozen?
Yes, they are frozen.
are these 'potstickers'?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiaozi
Yes, that's what they are. We purchased them from Costco one time on a wim and just love them.
btw, these are the actual potstickers I'm talking about. LingLing Potstickers.
We Absolutely love them (except for my ineptness lately).
This trick made cooking in my stainless pan much more non-stick, including potstickers (or "mandu" in Korean^^)
Edit: That's unusual that the cooking instructions have you add water. I usually fry my frozen potstickers straight from the frozen state (perhaps they are pre-boiled?). You will have to use the BOIL/BROWN method to utilize the technique below.
Use the "water test" to know when the pan is hot enough to add oil. Besides being fascinating to watch, passing the water test ensures the pan becomes amazingly non-stick.
When the pan is hot enough, water will ball up like mercury and slide around the pan without evaporating. The temperature required is pretty high, but I've found the non-stick properties remain if I add the oil and let the pan cool to the cooking temperature I want.
Note: preheating the pan like this applies to non-stainless steel pans, but water only balls up like mercury on stainless steel.
Detailed explanation of how/why this works: On properly heating your pan
Your problem is probably between steps 3 and 4. When the oil is rippling, it is developing ridges and troughs of varying thicknesses of oil. The troughs, or thin spots are the most likely culprit for sticking.
After the oil has started to ripple, turn the heat down and tilt the pan so the ridges and troughs in the oil start to even out, then add the potstickers. Wait for a minute or two before turning the heat back up.
I had never heard about the ridges and troughs. Thanks.
I know this is an older question but here is a method I developed over the years:
I use nonstick pans but I‘ve done it also in stainless.
I use a small amount of oil and warm it to thinly cover the pan bottom.
I add the potstickers, tight but in a single layer, and cover with hot water about 2/3 of their height.
I bring it to a boil moving the pan slightly back and forth just to move the potstickers in it. I do not use lids.
I boil them, turning them halfway and moving the pan regularly to not let the dumplings settle and stick.
I continue until the water nearly evaporates and slimy dough residue starts showing in the pan.
I increase the heat and now I move the pan in a circular motion until the potstickers “pick up” all the dough slime.
After a minute or two the dumplings sit in clear oil (just coating the surface). I sear them on three sides until they start showing crispy surface.
I use 2 pans simultaneously to make about 30 potstickers. This method requires staying nearby pretty much the whole time (once they are frying you can step away as they will no longer stick but you still have to watch the browning).
The dumplings are soft and juicy on the inside and crisp on the outside. After using several other methods I settled on this one and my diners love it.
(I understand my answer is broader than the narrow question of why the sticking problem recently emerged with a stainless pan. Recent scratches in the pan may be the cause but I found that moving the pan and making the potstickers slide prevents the sticking even in pans than no longer have perfect surfaces, stainless or nonstick).
I sometimes get the individually frozen potstickers and I use the inverse procedure. I fry each one in medium heat until you get the brown bottoms and then I add the water (or stock) to the pan.
Food likes to stick to metal, that is why cast iron pans need to be seasoned. In stainless steel the oil is supposed to get into all the microscopic crevices in the pan, but this does not always happen.
THe ones I buy direct this on the package.
One of the things we like about them is that they are sort of crispy and it seems like that would be lost if I added water after they fried. Is my assumption wrong?
These answers have touched on your solution. An even layer of oil is good because you wont let the edges touch the hot pan, where the oil is shallow. But also, another thing you can try is to cook the pot-stickers from non-frozen and/or bake them for a few minute and then fry.
If you choose to keep your current procedure, when the oil ripples, grab the pan handle (with a hot pad) and shake gently back and forth to evenly distribute the oil. This often gets rid of the ripples and allows for even depths. I would recommend experimenting with different techniques, though, like thawing first and/or baking or nuking for a few minutes before frying.
How are these pot-stickers made? From scratch or from a bag? If there are instructions, what are they?
These are from a bag, but my wife likes them so much I'm thinking of trying to make them myself.
I know it dirties one more pan, but the two-step method is better for potstickers:
Boil the potstickers the specified time (usually around 8 minutes)
Heat up a pan on high, add the oil, fry the pot stickers.
As much as I love olive oil, for frying things on high heat, you can't use it - it'll be burning. For potstickers, fried rice, stir frying vegetables, I use grapeseed oil. And unless you're doing just a few potstickers, I'd use more than 2 tablespoons.
I wish the burners on my electric stove could get that hot. It takes everything it has to get olive oil smoking. :)
Please, all pot stickers should first go into hot oil for 1-2 minutes to get the browning that will create your Sticky, Crispy bottom. As soon as you can sense the browning is right, you could peek at one, add enough Chicken Stock to steam covered for 4-5 minutes. Remove cover and let all remaining liquid evaporate, tilting pan to keep liquid in contact with pot stickers. When evaporated, pot stickers are ready. They will now have a caramelized bottom that is far more flavorful than any you've had prepared without the stock! you will need to remove them from the pan carefully with a metal spatula, but it is so worth it!
Happy dining!
You want perfect potstickers?
Steam them first, you may need parchment paper or cabbage or oil underneath so they don't stick.
Then sear on high heat for color, with oil. Thats how restaurants get this perfect dumplings.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.918598
| 2010-07-26T19:13:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3338",
"authors": [
"Alex G",
"Brandorf",
"Christian Wattengård",
"Haydar",
"Mike T",
"Omnifarious",
"Sam Holder",
"Ville Salonen",
"abe",
"bmargulies",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7352",
"linda",
"rahul",
"s_hewitt"
],
"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
}
|
18898
|
What can replace vegetable butter?
I am making a dairy- and gluten-free cake. What can I use to replace vegetable butter?
possible duplicate of Butter substitute for baking - althought I'm not absolutely sure what "vegetable butter" is supposed to be.
Indeed, are you talking about something like pumpkin or apple butter, or are you talking about margarine?
If by "vegetable butter" you mean a butter substitute made from vegetable oil, it probably already is dairy- and gluten-free.
Vegetable butter is vegetable fat with the consistency of butter - e.g. cocoa butter or maybe coconut oil. I've personally never seen this used in cake, but if it is part of the recipe (or if the question is about vegetable shortening) then it is indeed already dairy- and gluten-free. The only replacement would be... butter.
We usually bake with Earth Balance Buttery Sticks in any recipe that calls for butter. They are dairy and gluten free and can be easily measured by cutting according to the scale on the side of the wrapper, just like regular dairy butter.
If a liquid product is needed, Earth Balance can be melted and will provide more flavor than simply using oil.
Your link shows that the ingredients are different vegetable oils. Your description (sticks, wrapper) suggests they have butter consistency. Which means that they are "vegetable butter" - the exact thing the OP is trying to replace. (At least by Aaronut's definition, and I accept that as correct, because it makes most sense of all alternatives I can think of).
@rumtscho - Vegetable oils and butter consistency, true. My read on Aaronut's definition was for single ingredient vegetable butters, (I may have fixated on that because he specifically mentioned cocoa butter) and my read on the OP's question was that she was likely looking for an alternative to a more traditional margarine product, which will often still contain dairy. Of course, we're all just shooting in the dark unless the OP clarifies her question for us.
Look for the kosher symbol on different types of butter. You will need to find a substitute with the word "Parve" on it. Parve means no dairy products. From there just check the labels to make sure it is gluten free. Other things that I have used to replace butter have been olive oil or applesauce (works great in brownies).
Here is a chart if you would like to substitute olive oil for the butter. http://www.amazingoliveoil.com/substitute-olive-oil-for-butter.html
Actually, parve means neither meat nor milk. Such items can be then used in kosher kitchen with either meat or milk products without problem. I doubt whether one would be allowed to sell parve butter as butter is by definition a milk product, and parve means that it's not a milk product.
Well, as I have Jewish friends that use parve products for their butter replacement. So, I do believe that it is possible.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.919211
| 2011-11-11T08:37:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18898",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Andrea",
"AtlasRN",
"Cascabel",
"Christine",
"Ilessa",
"Judy Watson",
"No'am Newman",
"Speedwell Colliberry",
"baka",
"edsobo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8269",
"mrjink",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16172
|
Ingredients to Get Started with Indian Cuisine
I'm interested in slowly getting started with Indian cooking and building up my store of spices. However, I generally don't have as much time to cook as I would like and really don't have enough space to go out and binge spend on cooking materials for Indian food.
What are the bare minimum ingredients / spices / etc that I would need, to make some tasty dishes for a wide array of palettes (in case I can convince friends to try my cooking).
Hi Michael, Welcome to the site! Polls and recipe requests are not considered on topic on this site (See the [FAQ] for some details). However, there is an on topic question here. I've edited your question so that it is more in keeping with the site. Please feel free to edit further if I haven't really gotten at the essence of what you're looking for.
Seems pretty similar to the Curries from scratch question.
Indian foods uses a lot of spices. Almost in a level that you will find one new spice in every new recipe.
Still the most common spices AFIK are the follows in the decreasing order of frequency of use
Turmeric powder
Coriander powder
Cumin powder and seeds
Chili powder (You can replace with green chilies if you must)
Garam masala
Dried red chilies
Black peppers
Also asafoetida, fresh coriander leaf, whole cumin seeds, whole mustard seeds. Also, if you can get some ajowan, get it: While not useful in every recipe, it is really great in eg samosas and tikka marinades.
Also, these are very commonly used ingredients
Garlic
Ginger
Onion
Green chili peppers
Tomato
...
Cashew nuts for added thickening (as a paste of boiled cashew nuts) or whole as an ingredient (or both - cashew-thickened real korma with sundry vegetables, dried fruits, and whole cashews added is mind blowing - bring on the saffron too!).
Also always make some yogurt (Unflavored and unsweetened) available
Most common vegetables are
Cauliflower
Cabbage
Potato
Bell peppers (Green)
Red Kidney Beans
Most common grains are
Rice (Basmati rice is considered as delicacy)
Dal (Many varieties, but you might need mung bean, lentil, toor daal, urid dal )
Whole wheat flour and normal flour
Traditionaly different kind of oils are used but now a days mostly vegitable oil is used. You will also need ghee (Similar to clarified butter) to make some complex and rich dishes.
Suggested edit: Add tomatoes (for northern) and coconut in all forms (for southern) to commonly used ingredients...
I think you can get started quite easily with only two spices: cardamom and garam masala, the second being more important. Many of the other spices and flavors are quite common to a decently stocked kitchen. Garam masala is the quintessential indian spice mix. Add some cream, sub butter or oil for ghee, and use some fresh veg and chicken, and you can start putting together nice curries, etc.
Other useful spices (that I believe are fairly common) are: turmeric, chili, cumin, coriander curry powder, star anise, black pepper, cloves and cinnamon sticks.
The garam masala is indian for "hot mixed spices." and is a general blend of spice suitable for indian food. It's generally used as a base mix from which you can adapt. The blend varies depending on the brand you buy. Garam masala usually contains some of the following (not in order): black & white peppercorns, cloves, malabar leaves, mace blades, black & white cumin seeds, cinnamon, black, brown & green cardamom pods, nutmeg, star anise, and coriander seeds. The largest weight will be on the cumin and coriander.
but while using @yossarian list, keep the ground spices which will rich in fragrance and taste and you stock them for last longer due to its preserved shelf life as mentioned by Rincewind42.
Here's the list of four Indian spices I can't live without:
Garlic - not really known as Indian spice but used in many dishes; if you're cooking Hare Krishna recipes but are not into Hare Krishna beliefs I recommend replacing asafoetida with garlic. And I recommend Hare Krishna recipes (unlike their beliefs), they are usually extremely detailed since they can't taste the dish before they offer it to Krishna.
Turmeric powder - this is the spice that gives color to curry, and it likes to give color to anything it touches, especially wood and plastic. If you spill it, it'll stick more if it's wet.
Caraway powder - most recipes use cumin seeds, but in my opinion powder fits better with most dishes, and I like caraway more because it has similar but more intense taste.
Chilli powder - again, I like powder because it allows for more precise dosage.
Obtain these and you can cook many dishes. And then there are non-essential but more often used spices:
Coriander - seeds and powder are interchangeable; but coriander leaves can be replaced with parsley
Cinnamon - powder or sticks
Ginger - fresh ginger is better than powder, but it doesn't last
Garam masala - a combination of spices, usually mixed in the dish before serving
There are a lot more spices in Indian cuisine, but for most dishes this is more than enough. Rincewind's remark is valid - I prefer most of the spices in the list in the form of a powder, but they last longer in the seed form, and taste better if they're freshly ground, but the difference is not as important, especially if you're still experimenting.
Most of the Indian dishes use pretty ordinary ingredients - it depends on the recipe itself. Once you cook your first dishes, you can try making ghee, paneer or chapatis yourself. But until then, you can replace ghee with butter, and paneer with tofu, and skip the chapatis.
The absolute minimum spice rack I'd use for indian food would be:
- Coriander seeds
- Cumin seeds
- Chilli powder (and whole chillis)
- Black & White pepper.
From this you can mix many spice pastes for some reasonable curries, masallas or kormas.
To get more into the authentic flavours you will have to build up an extensive selection of spices. If you don't cook too often, then try to buy your spices whole. They will keep their flavour longer than ground spices. If kept dry, most whole spices can last years.
the question is about Indian spice mix which the consist even more then 26+ spices,and especially their ratio obviously when using black pepper,white pepper and whole chilies or chilli powder altogether.
@yossarian has pretty good list (though I'd argue that cumin and turmeric are more useful than cardamom). I'd add ginger and chiles (fresh or dried cayenne, serrano or Thai green) to the list of essentials, and you'd be all set to make some delicious basic curries.
every spice has it own significance and health benefits, their ratio is to either enhance or neutralize the vegetable's taste and properties. cardamom is used for fragrance, garnishing and flavoring. Green cardamom is used with Indian sweets and spice tea while Black cardamom is used in curries. It also has preserving property. so you can't say that its less useful than turmeric and cumin.
@SunishthaSingh This is a food and cooking site, not a health site. And we all understand that every spice has its use, but the fact is, there are some spices that are used in more common dishes than other spices, and that's what Laura is talking about here.
@Jefromi i am not discusing here bout the health, just wrote because none of the ingredient is less or more useful. Its used for a purpose. And what ever we eat is not just for taste obviously for health so just few lines i used here to mark its reason behind using. Hopefully you have heard "eat healthy live healthy", That's it.
youssarian's list is great as far as my experience goes. as far as other ingredients go, lentils and rice (basmati) are usually very easy to get ahold of. start with that and some meats or tofu, and try some basic dal or other recipes. you'll be up to speed in no time!
here it not asked about what to cook,its just the minimal spice list.
@SunishthaSingh The question says "ingredients" in the title and asks about "ingredients/spices/etc" in the body; while there's a focus on spices, and most of the answers have understood this as a spice question, it's not at all unreasonable to discuss other basic ingredients as well.
oh i do understand it very well,ty for your kind information. But i just answered as none of the ingredient is useless or less useful...thats it...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.919795
| 2011-07-15T16:52:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16172",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Almudena Lopez",
"Cascabel",
"Dev",
"Michelle",
"Nanci McNamee",
"Rincewind42",
"Sunishtha Singh",
"Tuhls",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6615",
"mgrossmdjd",
"rackandboneman",
"user1028321",
"yossarian"
],
"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
}
|
4159
|
What can I use in place of allspice?
I have a recipe for Dutch apple raisin cake that calls for a half teaspoon of allspice, which I don't have. Would ground cloves or nutmeg or a combo of both work? I know that allspice is a spice unto itself.
The closest thing is to combine equal parts of ground cinnamon, cloves, nutmeg, and black pepper.
Hobodave's suggestion is good. Also, you could just choose any combination of the classic "sweet" spices and be content with making something slightly different than the original recipe but not necessarily better or worse. Don't be a recipe slave!
This Dutch Person (TM) endorses not being stuck on the allspice requirement. I generally don't use it either! :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.920537
| 2010-08-04T00:27:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4159",
"authors": [
"Misha Moroshko",
"Morts",
"Nav",
"Tobias Op Den Brouw",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8457"
],
"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
}
|
39781
|
a good substitute for pineapple when cooking a ham
I want to make a Dr. Pepper glazed ham, which calls for pineapple juice. Unfortunately, my child is allergic to pineapple. What can I use to replace the pineapple juice and pineapple bits on the ham?
Can you provide the recipe you're using so that we know where the replacements need to happen?
Pineapple brings a touch of acidity, sweetness, and general fruitiness. I am going to assume you would have been using canned pineapple, so the enzymatic action is not really a factor (and it would be stopped as part of the cooking process). It is also hearty enough in texture to stand up to the baking.
For the juice, I would recommend basic orange juice, perhaps cut with a little extra lime juice for complexity and acidity. For a fruit garnish, peaches (frozen or canned since it is not peach season) should work quite well.
If you can find good mango, that would also work very well.
This application is very flexible and forgiving. With the soda, and the cherries, you could even omit the pineapple part entirely, and still have a good outcome.
I think maybe apple juice, rather than orange juice. Just a guess though.... Definitely mangoes though.
Apple juice wouldn't be bad but it tends to be very sweet with little acidity to balance it out.
Based on my experiences with sweet-and-sour asian dishes, I'd say good or even okay mango would work just as well, if not be an improvement. (I find canned pineapple or pineapple juice to be cloying or bland compared to fresh, and generally like mango better in savoury foods.) If you're going to puree / juice, and not eat it as-is, you can "fix" it not being perfectly ripe with some lime juice and/or brown sugar or honey. (In fact you might want to do those even with a ripe mango - mango/lime/honey is a delicious combination in and of itself.)
Lot of people are talking about the acid in the pineapple. That's irrelevant in this case: pineapple runs around ph 3.5, and most soda runs ph 3 or less (coke runs around 2.5!). Additionally, a ham will be so heavily processed that the usual "It'll help tenderize the meat!" bit won't apply either.
So really, it's a question of flavour, and that opens the doors for a wide realm of experimentation. Orange juice, mango juice, some kind of fruit syrup from your kids favourite fruit cups...Sky's the limit.
My family always went with the Coca-Cola ham, rather than the more educated Dr. Pepper version. The Coke ham is basically ham, basted with a mix of coke and nasty yellow mustard (French's or similar). We studded it with cloves, rather than cherries, so it's a bit more savoury.
Hard as it may be to believe, the taste is quite good (hell of a lot better if you go out and find coke with actual sugar which IMHO makes for a better glaze). This would probably be my choice: I'd rather do a slightly different dish than to monkey around with substitutions for integral ingredients.
With respect, the acid in the pineapple is not irrelevent. While it doesn't matter for the chemistry--and I don't think anyone suggested that it does--it matters a lot for the overall flavor balance. In this case, pineapple is an accent ingredient, not a signature ingredient, so subbing for it is not so strange. http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35814/are-there-any-general-principles-of-ingredient-substitutions
Mix soda, mustard and brown sugar together. Throw in cloves or allspice to taste.
Another option is to use cherry preserves with lemon juice and lemon zest, brown sugar, cinnamon and a dash of salt.
You could also use apricots. They are great to replace with pineapple.
In general: take out stuff, add stuff, make it your own.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.920641
| 2013-11-26T23:06:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39781",
"authors": [
"Carmi",
"Giovanni Enriquez",
"KatieK",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93146"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73569
|
Mold or dry sourdough starter? (pic included)
I fed my starter and left it out for two days. See attached pic. It smells like beer (which as I understand it is good), the top is dried out a bit with a rubbery surface, underneath it seems nice and active with no signs of mold. I can't tell if the white spots are surface mold or if its just the dried out flour.
it looks like it's just dried out on top and a little overfermented. pour off as much liquid as you can and feed it using a small portion of this starter and a lot of flour and water, i would recommend a 1-10-10 ratio.
Thanks. I'll give that a go. Is it safe to assume if it were mold that it'd clearly smell as such? Nothing about it smells "off" to me....
@Brad - Yeah, you'd have no doubt if it was mold.
For what its worth, I did what you suggested and it worked like a champ. Baking with it today :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.920920
| 2016-08-30T14:26:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73569",
"authors": [
"Brad",
"PoloHoleSet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50190"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73761
|
Macarons are wrinkled, cracked and have no feet
I've tried to make French macarons 4 times, but despite succeeding in the past, I just can't seem to get it right. I have no clue what I am doing wrong, despite watching many Youtube videos and "macaron faqs". Would anyone know what I'm doing wrong? As the title states, they are wrinkled and have no feet. I did leave them out to dry for some time- in tray one I used a hairdryer. I'm somewhat tempted now to give up on the recipe (I can't post a link, but Google "Good food chocolate macaroons" and it's the first one) and use an Italian macaron recipe. Here are some pictures. Thanks!
Tray one
Tray two
Similar question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67094/why-are-my-macarons-cracking-on-top
As well as the answer I gave in the question @Catija referred to in her comment, I suspect you are not beating your meringue enough. In total you should be beating the initial meringue for a good ten or eleven minutes.
There are a lot of myths and complications around macarons. The Internet would have you believe that you must used aged egg whites from French hens, almond flour with grains individually measured for the correct size, and a hundred other things. It's mostly nonsense. Use this recipe, follow it exactly, and you will be much closer to success without all the fuss.
In my experience the three critical factors are:
beat the meringue sufficiently. It should be super-stiff.
macaronage correctly - this is the trickiest part, but the description of the correct consistency in the recipe I linked is a good one.
ensure your oven dial is accurate with an oven thermometer. It almost certainly isn't.
use powdered food colouring. Gel food colours are intended for use in icing and are not oven safe. They brown at relatively low temperatures and ruin the appearance of your macarons.
Good luck.
Agreed with this. 1/4 tsp cream of tartar added right before beating can also help and decreases the time needed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.921018
| 2016-09-06T18:49:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73761",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Matthew Read",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4152"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73830
|
Should I buy a used flat griddle?
Hi there I am opening a hot dog joint where we will also sell hamburgers and I am trying to decide whether I should buy a new or used grill. I spoke with a salesman at an equipment store and he told me if I buy a used grill it can be trouble if it has many scratches and deep nicks. He told me the food will not cook as well and also will get a different taste. The problem is when I went to look at used grills they mostly all have scratches and nicks all over the surface. Can someone help me out and let me know if what the salesman said has any merit?
A new griddle will soon have have scratches and nicks.
When you say 'nick', are we talking more 'deep scratch' or 'gouged' ? I've heard that there are some food items that are less forgiving of less than smooth surfaces (I want to say it was the 'smashed' style hamburger), so it may be a factor of what you're cooking, too. Oh, and I have a spatula that when new had really sharp corners ... I took a metal file to it to fix the problem.
Every little black dot you see in the image is a nick. They kind of look like ice pick damage. We will be cooking burgers and grilling hot dogs.
A random thought -- depending on the griddle's design, and if the manufacturer is still in business, you might want to look into what the costs are to replace the griddle surface. If that cost plus $480 is cheaper than a new griddle and the hoses and are okay, it might be worth getting the used griddle ... if it gives you problems, then replace the cooking surface.
If we are talking about the cook surface then my money tends to go towards a used one, as long as it has been properly cleaned over time and taken care of ( i.e. few scratches, dings or buildup). That being said a used one that has been taken care of will also work better for cooking because of the oils that are already seasoned into it. The thing to watch for in buying used would be the underneath, make sure the lines are good and that the underneath is well maintained. Buying used will not only save you some money but also some time and frustration from dealing with "sticking" issues which can come from using a new flat-top. Plus "used" adds character, but that's just my opinion.
Thanks for your detailed answer. What do you think about this grill in the picture? It has many nicks I wonder if it's worth buying.
That actually looksreally good from what Ican tell in the picture, those little dings and scratches shouldnt be an issue. Deep gouges in the surface are what you want to stay away from. I 've put out alot of food on worse grills so if they're asking a fair price and the insides look decent and function well, I'd say go for it. And good luck on your new business, I wish you the best.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.921202
| 2016-09-09T02:19:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73830",
"authors": [
"Jesse4113",
"Joe",
"Tate MasterT8 Boger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35753
|
Why does batter often taste sweeter than the baked product?
If taste cake or quick bread (zuchini, banana, etc...) batter I find that it very often tastes quite a bit sweeter than the finished and baked product.
What happend during baking that reduces the sweetness?
I think that SAJ14SAJ listed some good examples, and that these certainly contribute to the overall taste. But I think there is yet another one, whose effect is strong enough to matter: rising.
Let's say that you coat 1 cm² of your tongue with a foodstuff. The more tastebuds are activated by a sweet molecule, the more is it evaluated as "sweet". First imagine your batter. It is dense, and coats all of the tastebuds on your tongue. Each of them is likely to register a few sugar molecules.
Now imagine the baked cake. It has air bubbles in it. If the plane of a cake cut has X% air bubbles by surface, then only 1-X% of your taste buds come in contact with the sweet cake. And the concentration of sugar molecules in the solid part of the cake surface is the same as the concentration in the batter, so you have the same number of sugar molecules per activated taste buds, but less taste buds activated. As cake volume contains lots of air, you also get lots of air bubble area in a cut. The effect is reduced by chewing, but by the time you have chewed the cake very well, it has also been diluted by lots of saliva, so now you have a much better coating, but less sugar molecules per taste bud.
By the way, this effect also occurs with salt in bread dough vs. baked bread, so I don't think there can be factors uniquely bound to the details of sweetness perception, as salt uses very different chemical pathways of being tasted.
In the end, except for some very minor carameilzation, there is actually no actual reduction in the amount of sugar in the baked good, and actually proportionately more sugar as some of the water is evaporated. Any perceived increased sweetness is in fact a perception issue, not an issue of there being less sugar in the baked product.
This is speculation, but informed speculation:
Two major seemingly relevant things differ between the batter and the final baked product:
The sugar is dissolved in a syrup in the liquid phase of the batter
Most of the starches are in inert bundles or granules
Compare this to the baked state:
The sugars are locked within the matrix formed by the starch and protein (the structure of the bread), and not available to taste receptors until dissolved; this is one reason why cake gets sweeter as you hold it in your mouth
The starches are gelatinized and more available to taste
Therefore, in the batter, there is less starch competing for access to the taste receptors, diluting the ability of the sugar to reach them. At the same time, the sugar is already dissolved and more readily accessible to the taste receptors. Finally, the sugar is not locked away in the structure in the batter, and is more available to taste.
Thus it would be easier to perceive the sweet flavor.
Of course, it could all be psychological as well, but that would be outside the scope of a cooking Q&A.
I agree with the dissolved argument. But starches do not taste sweet, no matter gelatinized or not. Think cooked rice.
@rumtscho My point is not that they taste sweet, but rather that they compete physically for space because they are freer to interact than when they are in their tight granules....
ah ok, I misunderstood you then
A theory I've heard of is to consider the fact that while it's baking it makes the whole house smell delicious. All those aromatic flavor molecules you're smelling are no longer in the cake!
But sweetness isn't from aromatics.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.921453
| 2013-08-02T16:27:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35753",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Drew",
"Filip Todic",
"K Nels",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sara",
"Sushi",
"Yepspark",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83786",
"rumtscho",
"soliel"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32504
|
Is there a reason to peel onions for storage or sale?
I typically try to buy organic onions. Recently the only organic onions that are available are already peeled (i.e., have the outer papery skin removed).
Why is this being done?
Presumably there is a cost to peeling the onions for the consumer so there must be a benefit either for the consumer (although none comes to mind) or during the processing of the onions.
I have never, ever seen or heard of onions being sold whole but pre-pealed. It sounds... unlikely... to be a good practice.
Is the outer layer still a bit dry and thin, so you still have to remove something?
@Jefromi no the outer layer is just as you would find it under the dry paper skin if you peeled it yourself. It is fleshy like the normally edible part. I usually peel off the first layer before using them though.
My local grocery store does this too. Very strange. I avoid them. Onion skin is nature's wrapper. I don't want random people groping my onion flesh.
Are you sure that these onions are not just fresh and have not yet developed the dried skin?
@HenrikSöderlund In my grocery store you can tell that they were peeled. There is no dirt. They are "wet" to the touch. You can sometimes see where some of the paper is still attached. I've always found it very odd.
Ask the produce manager for some unpeeled organic onions. They surely don't store the onions peeled, but do it as they're arranging the produce. It would be very surprising if they didn't have sacks of unpeeled organic onions in the back of the store.
@HenrikSöderlund they are sold as "peeled" onions.
Could be a method of cleaning up onions with mold on the surface. Here in US, last summers drought seems to have impacted the onion crop, and those available are neither the size nor quality they should be this time of year.
@Wayfaring Stranger I venture that they HAVE been treated against mold at some link in the chain. Plenty of 'organic' bio-cides allowed these days
@SAJ14SAJ we used to get pre-peeled onions in 25 and 50 lb bags, but that was from a produce purveyor. I've never seen them pre-peeled in the grocery store, but there really isn't a reason not to do it.
@Mong134 Was that in a professional setting where they would have been used in a day or three at the most? I have never seen that in a home setting, and it seems it would be a very poor thing for the shelf life of the onion.
@SAJ14SAJ it was a professional setting, and sometimes we would go through a bag or two in a day, but typically it was more like a week before we'd go through the entire bag.
Combination new technology and an excuse to charge more.
It seems to be a 'value added' feature driven by new technology in processing harvested onions and the 'convenience' of not having to peel the Onion.
According to fruit today this is a growing market. As others have noted sometimes Organic means an excuse to charge more. Peeled onion aids that front.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say no. I think it's an excuse to increase the price of these "premium" groceries.
Similarly, pre-sliced mushrooms and pre-diced celery are available in my local grocery store at a premium price. Added processing adds extra cost of production and therefore price to the consumer.
In the case of onions, I think this is a marketing gimmick to make these veggies seem fancier. I cannot think of any benefit for storage.
It may also be an issue of product differentiation. Meaning, it makes the organic onions easily recognizable in a room full of other, similar onions.
For some people, the convenience of not having to slice and dice is worth paying a little bit for. It may seem trivial to you, but it's not just a marketing gimmick. Peeling onions isn't really on the same scale; it doesn't take anyone very long.
That's true @Jefromi. I do sometimes buy pre-sliced mushrooms if they are priced similarly to their whole counterparts for ease of prep. I'll edit the answer accordingly.
I don't think there's a good reason for it. It might make the onions look prettier to some people, and look convenient (pre-peeled!), but it's not like that saves you any significant amount of time, and it leaves them vulnerable to damage and drying out faster.
Particularly true for red or white onions, which are a very attractive purple and snow white respectively when peeled. Put them next to some leafy greens and carrots, and you might really increase sales of all of those items.
Sometimes we see peeled onions at our local farmer markets. I have asked several vendors about this and most said it is a result of trying to make sure every particle of soil is washed from the onion. Many of them use vegetable scrub brushes and those automatically rub away the skins during the scrubbing process. One vendor said some people grow in more dense and clay-like soil and will need a vigorous scrubbing process. Some vendors are also concerned about passing along any soil-born contaminant so they not only scrub the skins off but also dip in a very weak bleach solution.
One vendor said he took the skins off because the Hmong vendors in our area did so and their onions looked so clean and shiny. This vendor said he did it to be competitive in that market.
I grow my own onions so I've never purchased any with the skins off.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.921786
| 2013-03-08T01:28:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32504",
"authors": [
"Caleb",
"Cascabel",
"DQdlM",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"Pat Sommer",
"Preston",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"User1000547",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22978
|
Will tomatoes keep for longer if you keep the stalk in?
I know that avocados are supposed to keep longer with the stalks; I would like to know if it is also true for tomatoes?
Ripe, or green? Green'll keep for a month or more in a box at room temp. Add a ripe apple, and by the end of the month your green tomato will be ripe too. Never tried this w tomatoes on stems, a month or two being long enough for my purposes; fresh, tasty tomatoes thru November.
Removing the stem from a tomato opens up a hole where air, moisture, and bacteria can pass through. Keeping the stem in, or somehow sealing the "scar" from the stem, will prolong shelf life.
(Published in Cook's Illustrated - requires subscription - http://www.cooksillustrated.com/howto/detail.asp?docid=1173)
Yes, leave the stalks in. It was by accident that I discovered this works. I was in a rush and I picked a bunch with all the stalks attached. By the time I got home one was knocked off. It turns bad much faster. So I purposely did it again, with the same results. Once the stalk dries out, that’s when I notice the tomato starts to turn. Sometimes I had them for a couple of weeks to my surprise. If you would have told me, I wouldn’t have believed it.
The tomatoes may continue ripening if you keep the stalks in.
Are you sure that the ripening rate with stalks is the different from the one without stalks?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.922245
| 2012-04-12T12:38:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22978",
"authors": [
"Graeme Bulluss",
"Jason Buckner",
"Jon",
"M.Rahamathullah",
"Mary",
"Ogarnij Fizykę",
"Sion Griffiths",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"doesntgolf",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"rumtscho",
"verbose"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
50069
|
How much cake batter to make two 6"x2" cakes?
I have two 6"x2" cake pans, and am wondering how many cups of a box cake mix batter I need to put into each pan? Thank you!!
It depends upon how thick you want it. A 6"x2" rectangular pan, filled 1" deep will obviously contain 12 cubic inches of batter. 12 cubic inches = .83 US cup. So, to fill both pans to a depth of 1 inch, you would need 1.66 cups. To fill both pans to a thickness of 1.5 inches, you would need 2.49 cups. To fill both pans to a depth of 2 inches, you would need 3.32 cups of batter.
That's a 6X2 inch rectangle, of indeterminate depth, which is how I interpreted your question. A round pan with a diameter of 6 inches would hold 28.3 cubic inches of batter for each inch of depth. 28.3 cubic inches equals 1.98 cups.
Here's a conversion site for cubic inches to cups.
A 6"x2" rectangle is an odd shape and size, so I included an answer to another possible interpretation of your question. Please comment, especially if you don't feel that I've fully answered your question.
Your calculation here uses batter depth, but I assume that the OP wants to achieve a certain sheet thickness, and the starting depth of the batter isn't important. Indeed, depending on the batter, there is a lower boundary of sheet thickness (the cake always breaks if you try to make it thinner) and an upper boundary of sheet thickness (the cake doesn't bake in the center). Somebody who works with box mix frequently will know these boundaries, and know the rise factor, so could give an estimate of the usable range.
@rumtscho I'm kind of assuming that the OP knows the depth of batter she wants, that she has made the cake before. It is the depth of the batter is the primary variable to determine the thickness of the sheet. I understand the question to be asking how to convert this measurement that can be expressed in cubic inches, to cups.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.922411
| 2014-11-25T18:35:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50069",
"authors": [
"Ashborn Industries",
"Catherine Stasi",
"Dennis Patrisso",
"Jerry FK",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mary DeGaetano",
"Stephen Janas",
"Susie Bachman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15845
|
Does splitting spaghetti in half change the taste?
I've heard that splitting spaghetti in half before cooking them change the taste. Is it true?
Is it bad that I assumed you meant horizontally, so you'd have two spaghetti of equal length but half the diameter?
No, it's not true. It will not change the way they cook. Noodle cooking times vary by what they're made out of and by thickness, not by the length of the noodles.
The kids and I seem to prefer eating shorter noodles and dodging the hassle of spinning the noodles, but when there's company over we tend to do it the classic "right" way. No difference in taste.
I can think of one way it would really change the taste, and for the better.
If you don't have a spaghetti pot and are cooking your spaghetti in a shallow pot, you first throw your spaghetti in at an angle, and a large part of them remains over water. As the lower portion cooks and gets soft, it flexes, and the upper parts slide into the water and start cooking too. In this case, half of each spaghetti rod is cooked for a longer time than the other half - if you leave them on the stove for the perfect time, one half will be slightly undercooked. Depending on how big the difference in time is, this can produce a noticeable problem in taste.
Of course, this is not a problem if you have a pot which is deep enough for the pasta to be submerged when still stiff. So your statement is true, but only under the correct assumptions.
I often cook spaghetti in a too-small pot - but I just gently help push it down as it softens, which really doesn't take long, so the difference between one end and the other is small enough that I never really notice.
A thought that may sound a little sciency:
You have 50 long spaghetti and 100 short spaghetti (half the length of the long ones). The short ones have twice as many spaghetti endings, so the surface of the endings of spaghetti is twice as high for the short ones.
If you believe that the endings of a spaghetti have a different taste than the central parts, then the taste of the endings becomes more influencial with shorter spaghetti.
You could try using small spherical spaghetti to get the highest possible influence of the taste of the endings.
Or conversely spaghetti hoops should be without that taste as they have no endings.
The endings of spaghetti noodles have a tiny fraction of the surface area, and are no different from the rest. I should give you -1 for abusing scientific reasoning... but instead I'm going to hope you're just joking or trolling.
@BobMcGee, definitely not trolling! I hoped that showing a thought process which one could easily derive an answer from, would be nice. You are right, the surface area of the endings is small, but I assumed that to be known. And I wrote "If you believe that the endings have a different taste" which would mark an unexpcted extreme case.
The taste of a dish could be changed though, shorter spaghetti means more sauce to stick on them, changing the ratio of sauce to spaghetti. If the sauce had a not infinitesimally small thickness, it would make a difference. But sorry, did not want to offend.
@bobmcgee The taste does change if we take it as far as Sebastian suggests. The core of a properly cooked pasta piece is al dente, while the outer layers are soft. A spherical or nearly so pasta shape (orzo, couscous) has a very different ratio of aldente to soft parts when compared to a spaghetti shape. But of course, the effect is negligible when reducing spaghetti from 20 cm to 10 cm length.
@rumtscho: That is a valid point, for other shapes of pasta where the ratio of surface area to volume is small enough that breaking the pasta changes it greatly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.922601
| 2011-06-29T21:41:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15845",
"authors": [
"Aaron Haueisen",
"Adelina",
"Amelse Etomer",
"BobMcGee",
"Cascabel",
"Eric",
"John Curry",
"Leonardo",
"Rincewind42",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6615",
"rumtscho",
"user54855"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15943
|
Substitute for red bean paste?
I recently bought a book of Asian recipes. The author seems to have a huge crush on red bean (azuki) paste, since about a half of the recipes call for it. Unfortunately, the availability of red beans seems to be on about the same level as dodo eggs. Is there something that can be used as a substitute to get a close approximate of the taste and texture?
+1 for dodo eggs :) (and because it's an interesting question, of course!)
Asian markets should have red bean paste, if you can locate one near where you live.
Black bean paste is also incorporated into Asian cuisine, and has a similar flavor, although earthier. Add a little sugar, maybe a little ground cashew or peanuts for nuttiness. It won't be the same, but it should work well enough.
Since black beans are more common, this may work well enough for you.
Thanks! I'll give black beans a go, they are luckily available at my nearest supermarket and I've tried and loved them before.
White (navy) beans. They have a very soft, somewhat creamy, neutral flavor (at least in comparison to kidney beans or black beans). They're used by Japanese people to make shiro-an (white bean paste), so I guess that means it has their seal of approval.
So go ahead and use navy beans. They can be found in just about any supermarket in America. I'd personally use home-cooked beans instead of canned beans.
Well it really depends on the dish. If we do a sweet dish with red beans like japanese mochi, you can be creative and add things like whipped cream, fruit or chocolate. But if its like a red bean porridge/soup, I recommend something like blackbeans or any kind of nut/beans and try sweetening the taste. The reason wht red beans are common in asian dishes is because they are easy to find in those countries and taste sweet. So substituting with something sweet would be a good idea.
I suggest marron paste, can be similar in texture to koshi an, and tastewise, it is not that far as well imo.
I suggest sweet potato paste. The texture is similar. Preferably roast the sweet potato before pureeing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.923020
| 2011-07-04T17:37:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15943",
"authors": [
"Davor",
"Kaivosukeltaja",
"Rirukage",
"Victoria Martinez",
"William",
"Zibbobz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6664",
"nico"
],
"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
}
|
21893
|
Why does a white sauce (bechamel,veloute) sometimes turn grey?
I usually see this happen with bechamel. Sometimes as the sauce cooks, it starts to get a faint grey tint.
I don't believe I am cooking the roux too long. I think that would tend to brown rather than turn grey in color. Am I simply cooking it too long, or could it be something else?
What are you cooking it in? I would suspect that some reactive pots (especially alu) can be problematic.
Is the roux itself a normal colour (yellow-brown)?
I didn't notice any discoloration in the roux, it seemed to appear after cooking it for a period of time.
Cook ware is the number one item to look at. Aluminum pots/pans will cause a greying to your sauce if they are not clad in stainless steel. You'll get a reaction with acids and the aluminum that will cause disclouration to a light coloured sauce.
Aluminum gives great heat conduction for the dollar but is reactive. That's why you'll see so many present day aluminum pans will be aluminum cored with a steel outer to stop that reaction but give the rapid heat transfer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.923217
| 2012-03-01T21:12:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21893",
"authors": [
"Mien",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6755",
"jeffwllms",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16876
|
Juice from meat extinguishing charcoals when grilling?
I've never heard anyone else talk about this problem, but it seems to happen to me all the time:
I've been grilling regularly on a Webber charcoal grill for about a year. I have done my best to follow the instructions in the Webber manual about how to use the grill. I always use "the direct method" as I am usually cooking burgers or steaks, and frankly the results have not been too shabby so far.
But here's something I don't understand. When I cook a particularly juicy meat, especially a marinated meat, the juice always falls down on the charcoals, and it seems to extinguish many of them, at least partially. This wouldn't matter so much, except that it seems to lead to a big discrepancy in temperatures between the time I put the meat on until I flip, and then between the flip until the meat is ready. So if a recipe calls for 6 minutes on each side, after the first 6 minutes one side is super charred, and then I need to leave it on the second side for longer than 6 minutes to achieve the same. It's also painful because I often will grill a vegetable after the meat is done, and it always seems to take much longer than I expect.
Does anyone else have this problem? What should I do? I've seen drip pans at the store, but again the manual for my Webber suggests that these are only necessary when grilling by the indirect method.
Are you sure you're getting the coals hot enough? They should be about a third to a half white when you start. I typically have the opposite problem of flare ups
Likewise I usually have to opposite problem of fat and oil dripping from the meat causing flames to leap up.
Yeah, thanks guys. Based on the answers I am getting below, I think it may be a problem of not enough coals, and therefore not hot enough of a fire.
I'm really glad you asked this question, because I've had the exact same problem. I agree with rfusca below - we are likely not letting the coals get hot enough. When the coals are ready, the juices from the meat will not cause the coals to die out.
As a fellow Webber'er and long time griller, I'm going to wager one of three things going on here:
Your coals aren't hot enough. One of the biggest problems I see with folks and charcoal grills isn't waiting long enough for the coals. There's should be no visible flame and slightly more than half of the coals should be white. In a chimney starter - this is around 25 minutes for me. If you're using another method, YMMV.
You don't have enough coals. If you've just got enough coals to spread a thin layer across your grill, then they won't keep heat well and they'll cool down fast. If the liquid hits them too much here, they won't heat back up well. They should be grouped together somewhat and generally a couple layers thick for best heat.
There is waaaaay too much marinade still on your meat when it hits the grill. If its been soaked properly in the marinade, you don't need to have it still be gushing fluid when it hits the grill.
If there are enough hot coals, #3 should not be an issue (it takes a lot of water to cool really hot coals). BTW if your hand can stand four seconds just over the grill, it is cold.
Thanks for the answer. From what I am hearing, it seems like #2 must be my problem. Regarding issue #1, I don't think this is the problem as I pretty much always wait until the coals are 90% ashed-over (I guess I could be waiting TOO long but...).
Regarding #3, I don't think this is the problem either, as I often have this problem even if I'm using nothing but salt and pepper.
So about how much charcoal should I be using for a Webber 18.5" grill? The instructions say 40 charcoals, and I literally counted them out last time. Too few?
I use natural lump charcoal and have for years, so I'm not sure what 40 bricks really looks like. Doing some visualization, this sounds like a bit too little if you're going to fill the grill - if you're spreading them all out and it comes to little more than a single layer, then either bunch them up more or add more charcoal (its rare than I/others spread them out over the whole grill as often times you want multiple zones of heat). Also, try lump charcoal - its just better all around (hotter, cleaner, less ash, etc).
Here is what I think is happening. Bear in mind, I'm going off some assumptions which I'll note in my response.
If you are following directions from Weber, you are probably cooking with the lid on (which you should). I think the amount of liquid being released from your meat is working against you. More steam than can be exhausted is being generated, thereby starving your coals of oxygen. As your coals cool, they will no longer boil off the liquids that fall on them, which amplifies the extinguishing effect.
Here are some suggestions, any combination of which may mitigate your problem (it will require some trial and error, but the results of even your failed trials should still be delicious):
Dry your meat before putting on the grill. Try to get the initial rush of liquid out of your meat before cooking. You can do this by leaving it out at room temperature for 15-30 minutes, and patting it dry with paper towels right before putting it on the grill (going straight from fridge to grill will ensure maximum juices run out onto your cooking fuel).
Use more fuel, and make sure it's fully-ignited.
Go for depth, not breadth, with your charcoal. Only cover about half the charcoal grate with the same amount of fuel. Sometimes spreading your coals across the grate can create oxygen supply problems.
Make sure you have enough airflow through the grill. Both the top and bottom vents should be open to 100% during direct grilling. Use the bottom vent to regulate temperature if you need it. If you feel you need extra airflow, prop the lid open a little.
Hopefully this helps. Good luck, and happy grilling!
I've never heard of excess steam causing issues. I use a water pan regularly and don't have problems with it extinguishing coals.
In a sauna, for maximum steam effect, do you put a water pan in the middle of the floor, or do you pour water directly over the heated rocks? There's a world of difference between water sitting in a pan, away from the heat and slowly evaporating and water being superheated through direct contact and expanding into steam. If you fill the chamber with steam, you will invariably displace oxygen in the area around your fuel.
The only time that there's going to be some massive direct contact is right as they're laid on the grill, in which case the lid should still be open. Other points are good, I'd just be really shocked if excess steam was choking out the coals.
Cook juicy things, like chicken legs and burgers, over INDIRECT heat.
Leave the coals either on one side of the grill, or the center. And so place the food either beside or around the coals.
The juices will fall around the coals and not on them.
You can heat the grill up prior to cooking to still get a good char, then move them away from the coals, and cook with the lid closed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.923346
| 2011-08-14T21:37:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16876",
"authors": [
"Dr. belisarius",
"Malady",
"Min jang",
"Nels Beckman",
"Rikon",
"Rincewind42",
"Sean Hart",
"Steven L.",
"Taylor Heffernan",
"Tina Carter",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94049",
"mtelesha",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9371
|
What is causing my butter toffee to separate?
Each year at this time, I make 4-6 batches of Butter Toffee (2c sugar, 2 c butter, 2 tsp vanilla, 6 tbsp water), but only about half usually turn out ok. About half way through the heating process, the unsuccessful batch starts to separate. Once, I saved it by doing something magical to the temperature and stirring vigorously, but I don't know what I did. Every other time, Once it starts separating, it is a lost cause.
I use the same pan, same stove, same wooden spoon to stir, and I think I am either using heat that is too high, or too low and too long. Help!
There is a very long thread about the subject here http://www.cookingforengineers.com/recipe/159/English-Toffee. Too long to copy here. Seems the important things are: Use cane sugar, control temperature, use a pinch of salt, .... and have luck.
If you are using an electric stove you might have heat fluctuations enough to make it separate.
Try using an emusifier, like Lecithin; a quantity of 0.1-0.2% of your batch size. You can buy it at health stores.
The fat that you see on the toffee, usually comes from the components cooling at different speeds.
As with anything that you are making using melted butter, like a hollandaise sauce, adding a spoon or two of very hot water and stirring will help to bring these components back together, it helps with the dispersion of both the fats and the heat. Stirring is an important component to ensure the heat is equally distributed throughout the mixture, which ensures it cools evenly.
Water is an emulsifier now?
Water isn't an emulsifier. Very hot water and the action of stirring it act as an emulsifier in this case.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.923930
| 2010-11-22T21:18:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9371",
"authors": [
"Bridget Bryant",
"Cascabel",
"Daniël W. Crompton",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Janet",
"Lorin Gardner",
"Michael Rice",
"Moklasur",
"herman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84787"
],
"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
}
|
13922
|
Tips for remembering recipes
I often find myself remembering the ingredients that go in a recipe, but forgetting the exact amounts. Are there some tricks/tips that professional cooks use to help them remember recipes so they don't have to keep their eyes glued to a recipe list?
Thanks!
The best way to remember a recipe is to understand the relationships between the ingredients. If you know what determines how much butter you need, you'll never have trouble remembering how much to put in.
I suspect part of the answer is familiarity with the food. What is it supposed to look like? What is it supposed to smell like? How do things change after a certain amount of time? What should the texture be? What should it feel like either to the hand or through a utensil? How would you know if it's too much of something, and how do you fix it?
For example, when thinking of a risotto, the basic technique is to saute the rice with some oil and other flavorings (such as onion), then put in hot broth a little at at time, stirring until it is absorbed, and then repeat until the rice is the right texture. Then once it is, finish the dish by adding the last flavorings. (Things such as cheese, which would be damaged by too much heat.)
For meats, so long as you know the temperature you're trying to reach (and have a good thermometer), the rest is playing around with flavorings and making sure it looks/smells as good as possible. (Which would mean things like starting with a high-temperature sear to get some nice browning before lowering the tempurature enough to cook it all the way through.)
Ratios are important in baking, but in most cooking, I suspect it's more about understanding how the ingredients interact. For example, take something basic like onions. What happens when it's raw? How about only slightly cooked? High temperature versus low? Wet cooking versus dry cooking? Each of these things would affect how the final dish would come out, and you plan when to add the onion based on which of these flavors you want to achieve.
I have the best results when I cook a recipe over and over, and start playing with some of the variables. For example, when I make a stir fry, I vary which vegetables I put in when, and how they're cut will affect that. I play with the seasonings and try different combinations added at different times. The more I do it, the better feel I have for what's possible and what's tasty. I think that's why the best cooks can go without recipes -- they're working from so much experience that they can do it without questioning how they understand it.
Outside of baking, most recipes hold up surprisingly well when you ditch the amounts and approximate. Little things like adding 1/2tsp salt to meat as opposed to just sprinkling a bit on, sauteing in 1tbsp of butter vs sauteing in a hunk you cut off the end of an unwrapped stick, that sort of thing don't really need exact numbers. My partner and I never bother with recipes for things like baked chicken breasts anymore: we figure out what seasonings we want on it and then just season to taste. Same with stir fries and other quick dishes.
For the things that need exact amount (generally dishes that rely on chemical reactions, like baked goods), we keep recipes handy and look it up.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.924112
| 2011-04-10T17:17:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13922",
"authors": [
"Mariea",
"Rubal",
"SeeSeeCat",
"WiredPrairie",
"ZSG",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45608"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12719
|
What to look for when buying a rice cooker?
I think I can best explain the question by using a computer analogy. When buying a laptop there are specific qualities that a person looks for like
Processor speed
Screen size
Amount of memory
What are the qualities to look for with a rice cooker?
size? a long enough cord to reach where you need to plug it in?
normal size ~4 people
Volume
Volume is usually the primarily advertised statistic for rice cookers. This indicates the volume of cooked rice that can be prepared in one cycle. Common sizes include 5.5 cups and 10 cups. 5.5 cups is completely adequate for a family of five people for a single meal.
Bowl quality
Bowls in entry-level models are typically aluminum. Higher end models will be stainless steel. The same heating properties present in pans are relevant here. Aluminum heats quickly, and unevenly. Steel provides a more even heat.
Also of concern is the interior of the bowl. Nearly all bowls have a non-stick coating of varying quality. I've seen the coating start to flake off within a handful of uses on the cheaper rice makers. Higher end bowls can have a durable coating that lasts years or longer.
Cooking logic
The simplest and cheapest rice makers will have basic static logic. You put rice in, push a button, and the logic simply applies X amount of heat for Y minutes.
Higher end models also have additional functions including:
Presets for multiple varieties of rice
Delayed/scheduled cooking (like a slow cooker)
Keep warm functionality
Digital displays
Elapsed/remaining time displayed
Dynamic monitoring and adjustment of temperature/humidity
Cooking/Heating method
Most rice makers use a simple coiled electric heating element located under the bowl. This is a major cause of overcooked/browned/burnt parts where the rice contacts the heated area. This is exacerbated by cheaper aluminum bowls.
Higher end rice makers use induction heating. Induction is a rapidly alternating magnetic field which uses the entire bowl as the heating element. This heats much more evenly and is far less likely (almost impossible) to burn the rice.
The highest end rice makers add pressure cooking capabilities. Pressure cooked rice purportedly is softer, and retains softness longer than regular cooked rice.
Brand & price
This is probably the most important. In my experience, you actually get what you pay for. Without fail every American brand rice maker (presumably made in China) I've used has been atrocious. The most positive thing I can say about one is "it worked great for the first batch".
There is one Japanese manufacturer that stands out from the pack: Zojirushi. I cannot overstate how amazing their product is. It literally just works, every time. I received the Zojirushi NP-HBC10 5-1/2-Cup Rice Cooker and Warmer with Induction Heating System as a gift over two years ago. I have used the hell out of this thing and have never had a less than perfect batch of rice.
@mgb: Cool, I learned something new.
I was wrong it - uses temperature. When all the water is gone the temperature will rise quickly, it senses this and reduces power to the heater
That temperature sensor makes my Panasonic DE-102 great for cooking down onions for soup. On 'quick cook' the unit'll stay on just until the onions are lightly carmelized. (add a little oil, cycle 2X..., perfection without constant vigilance)
@MartinBeckett is correct. You know the little springy thing in the bottom? That's the thermostat; it gets pressed against the base of the bowl for better conductivity. The rest is simple physics: boiling water is an endothermic process—it absorbs heat (known as the latent heat of vaporisation)—so the temperature remains at boiling point. Once the water has evaporated, the heat is no longer absorbed and the temperature will spike.
Aluminium does heat evenly. Thin aluminium can warp causing differences in evenness but rice cookers have water conducting heat between aluminium and rice so this is negligible.
The cause of browning is probably the less sensitive temperature control and poor heat dissipation in a heating element. Think about it, a temperature sensor outside a thin bowl would reflect the bowl temperature more accurately. Fast sampling of that sensor would easily determine the correct time to shut off the heating element.
I don't own a rice cooker, but here are the questions I would ask before investing in one. (This is probably a partial list, and I welcome suggestions.)
How much rice will it make?
How long does it take?
How much counter space does it take up?
Can it be used for cooking anything other than rice? (I think some rice cookers have steamer inserts to allow cooking other things, but I'm not sure of that.)
How do I clean it? Can it be put in the dishwasher, or do I have to do it by hand? How much work will it take to clean it?
Can you delay the start of the cooking? (If I'm making something else that takes an hour to cook, I'd like to be able to set the rice up in advance so that it's finished when the other items are.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.924398
| 2011-03-02T16:29:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12719",
"authors": [
"David Arnold",
"Jeannielee",
"Joe",
"Jordan Gray",
"Ker p pag",
"Martin Beckett",
"O.O",
"Sammy Spets",
"Theresa",
"Tonatiuh",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"fabstei",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"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
}
|
12777
|
Is there something I can do to keep ice-cream soft?
I have bought a electric ice-cream churner, I have tried so many different flavours, different recipes, used alcohols.
Have read previous questions and a don't believe that leaving ice-cream out to thaw -scoop then refreeze is the only answer.How do the commercial companies keep them soft.
I generally find the next day it is fairly reasonable to scoop, but day after day -the longer it stays the harder it becomes.
Yes, actually, there are two magic ingredients: Guar gum and Xanthan gum.
Guar gum is a thickener, but in small quantities can also prevent the growth of ice crystals which would cause the ice cream to harden into icicles.
Xanthan gum is a stabilizer which helps keep air (called overrun) in the mixture. Air is generally churned into ice cream by ice cream machines, but it won't stay that way without the stabilizer.
Any hints on how much to use?
@David: It's going to depend a lot on the specific ice cream, but typical recommended quantities vary between 1 tsp to 1 Tbsp of guar gum per quart of ice cream. For the xanthan you usually use approximately 10% of the guar, so around 1/8 to 3/8 tsp per qt. You don't need much at all, and I would very strongly suggest adding it gradually, lest you end up with an awful goo from using too much.
Sorry, one thing to add to that, @David: Xanthan gum and guar gum have viscosity synergy - i.e. using them together causes substantially more thickening - so if you're going to use both, you'll want to reduce the quantities even further.
I just had a thought that Breyer's All Natural ice creams don't harden with time in the freezer (though as I recall, they used too, and I remember being surprised when they stopped hardening up) and I thought they didn't have any stabilizers. Well, I just looked at their website and they somewhat recently started stabilizing their natural Ice Creams with Tara Gum. So I guess that's why their ice creams stay soft so much longer now. I thought that maybe my freezer was not as cold or something. I guess now I can buy 20 cartons at a time instead of my normal 10!
Tara gum is very similar to guar gum @timmyp - just harder to find. It's funny how people obsess over these things being somehow artificial; guar gum comes from beans, and xanthan gum comes from seaweed or whey.
They call it "Natural Tara Gum". I agree that the "Natural" thing is pretty ridiculous. :)
Tara gum comes from a plant so I guess that makes it even naturaller! It's all pretty much the same elephant, though.
@Aaronut,that is exactly what I was looking for in a answer. With the added comments it will be good to try the next couple of batches.Just one other question is there any flavour ingredients that won't react well with the gums. Again thank you.
@Burdon: Shouldn't be. Gums are, for all practical purposes, flavourless due to the tiny amount you'll be using, and the only thing that can really affect their function is extreme pH (and you're probably not making acid ice cream).
The magical ingredients for commercial ice cream are stabilizers, emulsifiers, and really good freezers. As Aaronut notes, stabilizers can go a long way... Personally, watching a bowl of ice cream melt without losing its shape makes me a bit uncomfortable, so... use in moderation.
But if you don't happen to have any gum available, here are a few suggestions drawn from my personal experience with home churning:
You want air. Lots of air.
My little (1.5qt) churn came with a bunch of recipes starting out at 2/3rds of the final volume (1qt). That's enough if I want to serve it within a few hours, but since I don't have a blast freezer in my kitchen the end result tends to lose some air while hardening. I've found that aiming for a post-churn mixture where air is around 50% of the volume works much better.
Start with a custard
Yes, I mean eggs. Egg yolk. There's some additional fat in this, but you're working with cream so you should have plenty of that already. There are also emulsifiers and proteins, and I suspect this is where the real value comes in: remember, the eventual goal is to end up with a sort of frozen foam stable enough to resist falling while hardening. It's also nice if you're able to mix in that air without turning the milk fat into butter... I aim for a maximum temperature of 140° to 160° F when cooking the custard, as this seems to provide sufficient texture without curdling (but if you do have problems with the mixture curdling, try using a double boiler). The final product should be thick enough to coat the back of a spoon, and you should chill it as quickly as possible (and you want it good and cold before trying to churn it - at least down to 40° F).
Use plenty of sugar
This is your anti-freeze. It won't keep ice crystals from forming, but it will keep the liquid from freezing solid (the more crystals form, the more concentrated the solution and the lower the freezing temperature). If you add the sugar to your custard, you can be sure it's properly dissolved - sugar granules don't do you much good. Once frozen your perception of the sweetness will decrease, so if you're tasting as you go along don't be afraid to go a bit beyond what you'd normally be comfortable eating.
Use heavy cream
Well, this should be a given, but... The lower the milkfat content, the more water and hence more ice you'll end up with. You can combat this with more sugar, but you'll still have trouble whipping in enough air because you'll have less fat to stabilize it.
Harden it fast, store it cold
You probably don't have a way to blast-freeze the final product either, but you can still do your best: make sure your deep freeze is as cold as possible (I keep mine at or below -10° F), put the ice cream into small, thin-walled containers (I re-use pint-size yogurt containers) and bury them in frozen veggies. Using multiple containers has the advantage of letting you take one out to consume without exposing the rest to room temperature, but more importantly it increases surface area: if you must put it all in a single container, try to find a wide, shallow one.
And once you have it cold, keep it cold - the longer it takes to freeze, the bigger the ice crystals will be, but the colder you keep it once frozen the less they'll grow over time (you'll also lose less air if you can avoid freeze/rethaw cyles). Not so much of an issue if you want to eat it tomorrow, but critical if you're aiming for soft creamy goodness a week or two out. Avoid auto-defrosting freezers for this same reason.
Experiment!
There are a lot of variables here. Fat content, sugar, other ingredients, the design of your churn and temperature of your freezer, ambient temperature, altitude, container size, personal taste... Don't be afraid to play around with things until you hit a recipe and process that you're happy with! It took me a couple of days to get comfortable making vanilla ice cream, but several months of trial and error (wonderful, delicious trial and error...) to get a pumpkin ice cream I was happy with. Fortunately, it's fairly easy to find folks willing to help eat your "mistakes"...
Good advice in general, but I have to protest your characterization of the stabilizers as simply a band-aid solution for a bad batch or something that turns the ice cream into putty; good ice cream benefits from those as much as bad ice cream, just like pure whipped cream, chantilly cream or ganache. In fact, I'm not even sure that they'd work properly without heavy cream.
@Aaronut: Didn't mean it to come off like that (I must still be irritated by the mucus-like shake I tried to consume last week); I've certainly enjoyed a fair bit of ice cream with gum in it, although I have no personal experience using it. Like most things, I suspect it comes down to proper vs. over-use.
Indeed, over-use of xanthan or guar can be pretty gross as I recently discovered. On the other hand, so can eggs and sugar, you just have a higher margin of error with those.
@Aaronut: so can cream, unless you like chewing butter... I've edited to adjust the tone.
Who doesn't like chewing butter? The only thing more delicious that I can think of would be chocolate butter.
By the way, Aarobot is not my handle here - not that I can blame an MSO veteran for that little faux pas. ;)
@Aaronut: HA! Had to read that a couple more times before it dawned on me... Ah, the dangers of similar pseudonyms...
@Knives ,appreciate all the suggestions, a lot I currently do ,a few of yours I will experiment with.
Most elaborate answer on that topic so far. But in regard to "You want air", how would I get more air into it? The only way that comes to my mind is whipping cream and adding it to the mixture. Any other options I missed?
That's what the ice cream churn does for you, @floele: it works air into the mixture as it freezes it. There are other ways to accomplish this, but it's really hard to beat a churn. This is also why it's critical that you have a cold, homogenized mixture before you start churning: otherwise, you're just freezing the water out.
Thanks, but you make it sound like you could decide for yourself how much air gets into it ("I've found that aiming for a post-churn mixture where air is around 50% of the volume works much better"). Assuming that you are not changing the machine, what else would you do?
Plan ahead, @floele: if you want 50% air, start with no more than a half-filled churn. If you fill it fuller, you'll run out of room before you've worked enough air in.
Thanks, if that really makes the difference, someone should have told me sooner ;) (might explain why some recipes yield a different consistency than others, despite having similar ingredients, they just differ in starting volume). Need to test that some time.
Both sugar and alcohol lower the freezing point of water and keep the ice cream "softer" at lower temperatures. Too much sugar and the ice cream is too sweet. A little bit of alcohol goes a long way in lowering the freezing point though.
One of my favourite ice cream recipes is Whisky and Honey Ice Cream. 2-3 tablespoons of whisky in a half gallon batch of honey ice cream adds great flavour and ensures that I can open the freezer and enjoy a spoonful of ice cream immediately.
Here's my recipe: http://www.triplemotion.com/2008/12/26/whisky-honey-ice-cream/
I don't like emulsifiers or other chemicals. In my experience ice cream with no additives will stay nice for a week in the freezer, if it's lasting longer than that, it's probably something wrong with the flavour!
I love just vanilla ice cream with a couple table spoons of good bourbon. It will definitely lower the freezing point and make the ice cream softer. If you aren't trying to add any flavor a bit of vodka will do the trick too, that is great for sorbets too.
80 proof vodka is about 40% alcohol and 60% water. I wonder if more satisfactory results might not be had with pure grain alcohol. I recall that, in my youth, it was commonly available at liquor stores, sold under the brand "Everclear" (powerful stuff.) Any suggestions for making a stable ice cream with artificial sweeteners?
@whitecap41 If you want to ask something new, please post it as a question instead (there's an Ask Question button at the top right). As for pure grain alcohol... if you have it you could use it, but it doesn't really matter. The 40% alcohol has a much stronger effect than the 60% water, and you only need a couple tablespoons at most. With pure alcohol you could use just one tablespoon, but it wouldn't really be a noticeable difference.
Grain alcohol would lower the freezing point so much that you would hardly be able to put any in the mix. The main reason I had whisky is for the flavor, so I'm not sure what you'd get out of adding grain alcohol apart from an ice cream that's very hard to freeze..
You're getting a lot of somewhat misleading answers. Stabilization and emulsification are important topics, but to deal with excessive hardness you have to suppress the freezing point. Pastry chefs and commercial ice cream makers do this almost exclusively by varying the balance of sugars.
Sugars are water-soluble and have relatively low molecular weights, which gives them a high degree of freezing point suppression. The easy answer here is to add more sugar. It will work, but you may end up with something too sweet for your tastes. Luckily, there are sugars besides table sugar (sucrose), some of which are both less sweet and offer greater freezing point suppression. The ideal choice is dextrose, which is just granulated glucose. It's about 70% as sweet as sucrose and offers twice the freezing point suppression. you can buy on Amazon, or some health food stores or supplement stores* You can vary the proportions of sucrose and glucose to get the sweetness and the freezing point where you want.
Another good trick is trimoline, also called invert syrup. You can buy at a cake and pastry supply store, or make your own (refer to internet). This is a thick syrup that's half glucose and half fructose. It's about 20% sweeter than sucrose, and offers significantly more freezing point suppression. I like to start with a sugar blend that's 10% or 15% trimoline by weight, because it offers some stabilizing and texture improving properties in addition to controlling freezing point.
The second most common way to supress freezing point is with alcohol. Despite what you might read from some sources (David Lebovitz) including alcohol will not make your ice cream smoother. It will usually do the opposite, since most sources of alcohol are also sources of water. So I recommend using alcohol only if you're making an alcohol flavor (rum, etc.). Then you know it's going to drop the freezing point, and you can compensate with your sugar mix.
Yes, there's math involved here. Or excessive trial and error. Pick one!
*Do not confuse with "atomized glucose," which is a powder made from dried glucose syrup. It seems similar, but has very different properties, including much less freezing point suppression.
It would be all about controlling the water and preventing ice formation assuming we are dealing with ice cream and not sorbets or ices. Any of the common ingredients added somehow bind free water and prevent it from reaching out and joining forces with other water to form crystals.
Extra solids in the form of milk powder or even cream cheese are particularly effective at this as well as egg yolks.
Solids are probably the single most effective ingredient that makes ice cream smooth and prevent crystallization. Sugar is number two. Corn syrup is used because it contributes a certain texture while being less sweet tasting than table sugar so we can add a touch more without making the ice cream taste too sweet.
With extra solids and extra sugars we will get exceptional texture but there will still be free water so we soak that up with micro sponges like guar gum. No one would make a gravy without a starch so why do people always expect ice cream makers to thicken ice cream without a starch? Guar gum's microparticles puff up like tiny sponges and now being little sponges instead of water droplets water cannot bump into other. Water droplets form big drops of water and finally ice crystals.
Lastly, you could boil the milk for 4 minutes and skip everything except the extra solids. That is called denaturing. That is what Hagen Daz does. The milk protein unwinds and when it reforms it traps water in its newly formed strands.
I have been making ice cream for 24 years.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! I edited your answer for readability and deleted the opening editorial comment. You can always re-edit or roll back, but we don't allow disparaging editorials on other answers. That's what votes are for. FWIW, I think you offer good information here.
The main "not so secret ingredient" is sugar. My second "not so secret ingredient" is pectin (non-secret swiped from, IIRC, the side of a Hagen-Daz® sorbet container on the list of ingredients.) I'm a lot more comfortable with pectin than weird stuff that only shows up in processed foods, and pectin is on the shelf at most any grocery store.
I simply mix in some powdered pectin - I keep a box in the kitchen for that purpose, with the inner bag wrapped up tightly after it's first opened. Some folks like to dump in a jar of jelly but I find that blows my budget and does not seem to work any better. If cost is no object or the only good/easy way you can get a flavor you want is in jelly or jam, go there.
Not being a person who likes to watch things over and over again, I did have a script of a Good Eats (Alton Brown) ice cream episode floating around the kitchen for reference and insight for quite some time. But the basics are ~30% sugar and some pectin, IME.
This is our more-or-less canonical question on ice cream softness, and it mentions a ton of things to pay attention to - but if you have trouble with too hard ice cream, it is hard to decide in which order to troubleshoot. My answer repeats many of the points made in other answers - but the added value is that you can decide what you should try next. While it is not impossible to try a later point before you have taken care of an earlier one, you will probably get the most mileage out of your quest if you follow the order here.
Use proper ratios
This is the first place I'd start: your recipe. While it is true that, if everything else is just right, you can produce creamy ice cream with outlandish recipes, I would strongly suggest that you first learn how to get a good result with a benign recipe before you start exploring new territory.
McGee's "On Food and Cooking" suggests that dairy-only recipes need around 17% fat and 15% sugar to be smooth, and recipes that include a stabilizer of some kind (egg yolk for French style, starch for gelato style, or emulsifying additives) can get away with less, but still typically over 10% fat. Try using recipes from a reliable source without changing them first, and check the percentages against this suggestion.
Use an ice cream maker
There are ways to freeze ice cream base without an ice cream maker, and they work in a pinch, but the resulting texture is not very good. I am not saying you should never use them, they can be fun, or the best option available - but if you want to optimize your texture, this is the most basic prerequisite. Hand-cranked ice cream makers work, of course - you just have to be willing to do the cranking.
Use the proper temperature
Your ice cream maker has to be at the coldest temperature to which you can get it, and the base has to be as close to 0 C as possible. If the maker is the freezer-bowl type, freeze it for much longer than it says in the manual, preferably at least 48 h. When you cool down the base, don't just let it go down to fridge temperature (4 C in the USA, frequently higher in Europe) - use an ice bath to chill it down to almost 0 C.
Use emulsifiers
There is a huge variety of options to choose from, some already mentioned in the other answers. I won't get too deep into the difference, there are books on that, and the choice can be quite subjective, depending on what texture you like and what you can easily buy. Note that they are good, but not a cure-all: if adding a reasonable amount (use tested recipes!) is not sufficient for you, then adding more of the same, or a different one, won't necessarily make it better, but rather give you a gummy texture and reduce the aroma.
Make your ice cream with more overrun
If you can change the speed of your machine, or use a different dasher, try it. These options are rarely available though, so your only option on this front might be to use another machine which has been designed for higher speed.
Depress the freezing point.
The typical methods are to add alcohol and/or salt, and to replace part of the sugar with a sweetener high in fructose. An answer here also mentions propylene glycol.
Use a better machine
There is quite a bit of difference between ice cream machines, even within the same type. This is one case where you get what you pay for - the more expensive machines tend to make smoother and softer ice cream. Of course, the correlation is not perfect, so reading comparison reviews is recommended.
Store the ice cream at higher temperatures before serving
Maybe you got a book by a famous ice cream parlor and followed the recipes to the T, even bought the kind of machine they recommend, and hoped to get the exact same texture as in the parlor - but when you took it out of the freezer, it was harder than expected. The difference here is that ice cream parlors' vitrines are optimized for serving temperature, not for storage. If you desire more softness after executing all the previous points, you will have to let the ice cream warm up a little bit before serving - ideally, you can let it spend some time in a * ice cube drawer, but if that's not available, the fridge is also a good option. You'll have to measure your optimal time, it will depend on a lot of variables including the recipe you used, the container you are storing it in, and how much ice cream is left in the container.
I agree with your ordering for the most part, but I'd put #4 and #6 lower down. There's no need to second-guess the recipe and run to the chemical supply house... normal ice cream recipes can be used to make normal ice cream in normal ice cream makers. Getting wacky with melting points and lecithin should be saved for clever molecular gastronomy things, or for if physics changes.
Also, I'd suggest clarifying #7. Crappy ice cream makers will make extremely "smooth and soft" ice cream... which will turn into a brick in the freezer. (IME #3 and #7 are the most common culprits.)
@Sneftel I agree that many people are happy with oldtime recipes with few ingredients. They can easily stop after 3, or, if they have an aversion to some ingredients, skip 4 and 6. I tried ordering the points in "most bang for the buck" style, and for me, replacing the machine (for #5 or #7) would be a huge decision with small impact, while trying out different recipes is easy, cheap, and makes a bigger difference. Also agree that the goal is "soft after storing in the freezer" - I thought that's too obvious to state, and it's in the question anyway :)
Technically Xanthan Gum is a polysaccharide, derived from the bacterial coat of Xanthomonas campestris. It is not associated with milk ingredients, but was discovered on corn. Many people believe that those with corn allergies should avoid this ingredient, however commerically produced it is generally corn free.
Adding a dash to your ice cream will definitely improve ice crystal formation, thickening and hardening. However, the real secret is fat content. Fat doesn't freeze, but water does. So, if your ice cream is mostly milk it has a relatively low fat content and will turn out much harder. Use heavy whipping cream to make ice cream that you prefer to stay softer.
The key is to keep your ice crystals small. Freezing it fast (as mentioned by Knives) is one option. I've seen liquid nitrogen and dry ice each advocated to this end. The other option is additives.
Commercial ice creams are quite the chemistry set indeed. The gums mentioned as well as methylcellulose and carageenan form gels and minimize ice crystal formation. Glycerol monostearate and lecithin both emulsify and limit ice crystal formation.
I'm using a Krups ice cream maker. Without easy access to E numbers, and only a domestic ice cream maker, I find that the biggest variables are fat, sugar and water content.
Without an expensive ice cream maker, you can't really rely on air or flash freezing. My maker just won't stay that cold longer enough, and it can't churn enough air into the mix.
The biggest improvements to my own ice cream came from perfecting my custard and just not using flavourings that add too much water. And before churning, I try and get the custard as cold as possible. Usually I leave it in the fridge over night.
Heh... One blisteringly hot summer day I actually put the entire churn into the freezer and let it run that way to stay cold.
Yeah, when I was researching ice cream makers, it turns out that they actually used to sell machines where the power came from a flat ribbon cable. They were designed to be let in the freezer while you churn!
One other suggestion, at least if you're using a "freeze the bowl"-style churn, is to store it in the coldest place you have available: the difference between -10F and +10F is huge.
I suggest grain alcohol as a possible "magic ingredient" (this time backed by experience.) I had made a ice cream of sorts with low-fat yogurt and sucralose. Left in the freezer overnight, it became too hard to scoop.
I let it thaw in the refrigerator (about a quart), then added two tablespoons of Everclear grain alcohol (95% alcohol, 190 proof). I also added a tablespoon of corn starch, cooked for a minute in half a cup of milk. I then ran the whole thing through my countertop ice cream maker. It now retains a nice, soft texture after freezing.
I'm very late to this party, but no one has mentioned marshmallows. The other answers are better and what the OP was probably looking for, but marshmallows can be used to great effect in ice cream. They provide the fluffiness you get from other methods. I can't find the recipe I really like, but here are three other examples, but ones I haven't tried:
this, this, or this.
A professional ice cream machine -- one that doesn't have a base which lives in your freezer, is going to be the best way.
As @Ray said -- you need to keep the ice crystals as small as possible. The best way to do this is to start with an extremely cold base and freeze it as quickly as possible.
Premium commercial ice creams don't have to contain stabilizers and gums since they're made on machinery designed to freeze as quickly as possible.
That being said, I've had luck with this recipe:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/dining/01mini.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Which does not use crazy chemicals just cornstarch.
FWIW, I suspect the starch in this recipe is doing pretty much the same thing as the gums Aaronut references... It's gonna be easier to obtain (at least for most of us in the US), but given my experience with how cornstarch-thickened mixtures break down when frozen I'm not sure it would be as effective for long-term storage. Cheap enough to be worth a shot though...
Italian ice creams aren't made with any stabilizers or gummy or glicerina+
I made peach ice cream that stayed soft in the freezer.
Half gallon recipe:
2 cups peaches (sliced and peeled; blanch the whole peaches for easy peel)
3/4 cup sugar
1 Tbsp. lemon juice
1 tsp cinnamon (optional)
--Add these and rest in fridge for 2-8 hours
--puree half of this and add to pan with
2 cups halfnhalf
1 cup heavy cream
1/4 cup sugar
1/2 cup brown sugar (or more or less for sweetness)
--add 4 beaten egg yolks and vanilla extract then cook to make custard
--refrigerate to cool then make ice cream; halfway through process, mash other half of peaches then add.
The softening could be from the egg yolks (custard), the peach juice, or the alcohol from the vanilla (I use mexico vanilla from st luis; has the red rooster "sello de calidad". It is delicious but requires more volume which is more alcohol)
It took about an hour until the motor stopped. That is long but my machine is a tiny space saving bucket and the addition of the mashed peaches probably warmed the mixture.
While this sounds like a good recipe, it doesn't address the central, original question, sorry.
The pectin from the peaches and the sugar both will inhibit crystal formation and keep the ice cream softer.
My Mum always made ice cream with carnation milk, once it started to set she would stir it well every hour or so to froth it up again. I have a batch in the freezerat the moment I hope it tastes like the good old days.. Kate
Carnation is just a brand name and they have several products, including evaporated milk which I seriously doubt would be of any help. I would guess that you're talking about condensed milk, though I still have trouble seeing why that would keep ice cream soft - especially if you have to keep stirring to "froth it up again".
@Aaronut using either evaporated or condensed milk as a substitute for the normal milk will reduce the liquid in the ice cream recipe and thus reduce the iciness when frozen. It is indeed a way to end up with a softer ice cream, but it also leads to a significant change in the recipe. Still, not a bad tool to have in your icecreammaker belt.
@rumtscho: Most of the ice cream recipes I'm familiar with use cream, not milk, so I'm not sure what you're supposed to substitute it for. I guess if it's custard-based?
Condensed and evaporated milk are both plausible. The condensed has added sugar, which will prevent crystal formation; and the evaporated milk has a higher ratio of protein to water which will prevent crystal formation.
Even better try glycerine, a form of clear liquid sugar, don't forget to deduct the sugar value of the glycerine from the recipe. It always works for me.
glycerine could help to keep it soft, but it is not sugar.
Glycerin does taste a little sweet. Maybe thats what they mean.
Here's how commercial companies keep ice cream soft and keep ice crystals from forming: They add propylene glycol (anti-freeze, yes anti-freeze)!
See: http://www.ehow.com/list_6962663_foods-drinks-propylene-glycol.html
See also: http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/antifreeze-in-your-ice-cream-2/
I'd rather have the ice crystals.
1- propylene glycol isn't toxic. Ethylene glycol is the toxic one. 2- Ehow and a personal blog which sources ehow are not reliable sources. The labels of the ice creams that I have examined do not contain it. Freezing solid is not proof that propylene glycol was included- many "natural" ingredients can prevent crystallization of water. See the other answers above.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.924902
| 2011-03-04T16:28:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12777",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alexander Michalak",
"Alwyn",
"Baso Urat",
"Burdon on society",
"Cascabel",
"Christopher Perez",
"DTC",
"David Norman",
"DragonFax",
"Esteban Hinestroza",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kb 94",
"Megasaur",
"Mitch B",
"Shaels VR",
"Sheila",
"Shog9",
"Sneftel",
"Sobachatina",
"Tom M",
"draksia",
"floele",
"fstab",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"ice cream",
"kubilay",
"kylieCatt",
"logophobe",
"rumtscho",
"timmyp",
"user147781",
"user3125707",
"violadaprile",
"whitecap41"
],
"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
}
|
120771
|
Can onion be eaten raw?
Can onion be eaten raw? I am not sure if it first has to be cooked.
This site typically doesn't permit questions like "is this healthy" https://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic. You might be able to edit this into an interesting question, if you instead asked why it is that onions taste hot. Note that this question is indirectly answered here https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8289/why-do-onions-taste-sweeter-when-cooked-at-lower-temperature, especially in the last two links provided in the answer
Word of advice: leave the onions for situations when you don't need to "look your best". The onion breath is real and after a couple raw onions no amount of breath mints or tooth brushing will help; your sweat will smell like onions. You just need to wait it out. They are very healthy, rather tasty, but there's a reason they are used more as a condiment than ingredient.
Onion can be eaten raw, and there are many cultures that have food preparations making use of raw onion. There are, of course, many varieties of onion, and many types alliums (leeks, chives...etc.), each with their own flavor profiles. You certainly might like some raw more than others, and these different alliums are often used (cooked or raw) according to their individual flavor profiles and applications.
My tongue and esophagus are still hurt and swollen
@Tim see a medical professional at your earliest convenience.
@Tim : some people are allergic to onions, or even all alliums. If that’s the case, you probably want to avoid them even if they’re cooked.
When my father was a boy he was evacuated to a small farming village in the north west of the Netherlands, and in that village the boys would eat onions as my father would eat an apple. Raw, just take the dried skins off and bite into it.
It takes a getting used to it, as the onion flavour is quite strong and onions also have a sharp taste.
But it is not harmful, unless your are allergic.
Of course, in preparing food we use raw onions in several ways, the most basic I used was cut very thin and eaten with just a bit of lemon juice (youth hostel meal where we made use of whatever was there and there was not much.) It is way more common to find raw onion in mixed salads, sliced quite thinly, also to tone down the taste.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.927482
| 2022-06-06T23:40:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120771",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Juhasz",
"SF.",
"Tim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70120",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84029
|
How do I time slow cooking to be ready for lunch?
Slow cooker recipes often need to cook for 6 or more hours. As I mainly eat my main meals at lunchtime, that means getting up particularly early to prepare the dish.
Is it safe to delay the start of cooking dishes that use meats such as chicken/beef/etc?
If this is not safe, what process can I follow to have a safe meal ready at lunch without having to cook in the middle of the night?
If it seems to you that the original question (food at room temperature) doesn't answer your question: we cannot do any better than that, because we cannot guess what temperature the meat in your slow cooker has, and how long it spends in the danger zone. If you can measure it and ensure that it is within the limits, then it is safe, if you can't, then it is unsafe.
@rumtscho : the question being asked is "is there a way to do it". Please stop doing the knee-jerk reaction and linking everything mentioning slow cooker and some sort of a period at room temp to that question. And it wasn't even about chicken -- beef was an alternative, too.
@Rich, your better option would be to get one of the electronically controlled slow-cookers that will switch over to 'warm' after a certain time, or that has a probe that you insert into the meat so that it'll switch to 'warm' after a given temperature. I saw once (but it might've been on kickstarter) someone who had made a slow-cooker that could chill, so you could do what you're asking, but the price was rather high when electronic controlled cookers can get similar results.
@Joe I do not see "is there a way" in the question, the OP asks if their two envisioned ways are safe. If you think that there is a related question that can be answered, please edit it in before voting for reopen, else people will expect and answer the question that is being asked, making it a duplicate. And duplicates don't have to be exactly identical - in this case, it doesn't really matter if it is chicken or beef.
@rumtscho : it's an XY problem : http://www.perlmonks.org/index.pl?node_id=542341 ; https://meta.stackexchange.com/q/66377/139598 . He's giving his ideas of how to do it (eg, starting with frozen meat) as an alternative, but missed the one that would be safe.
@Joe I see where you are coming from. Still, I think that properly answering a well-worded question is, in the long term, better than answering a poorly worded question. I took a stab at editing, do you think this is a good way to express it? Also Rich, do you agree with this change to your question?
You could leverage an approach I used when I had small children and wanted to make meals that would take 45-60 minutes, yet we needed to eat within about 10 minutes of getting in the door. I would make Tuesday's dinner after dinner on Monday, then put it in the fridge and warm it up the next day.
Here's how that would work for you: on Monday, after lunch, start the slow cooker. Let it go all day. in the early evening it will be done. Cool it and put it in the fridge, all tender and fully cooked. The next day, warm up your serving and you are all set.
If you alternate the kinds of tough flavourful meats that benefit from a long slow cook with those that cook more quickly and can be prepped right before your main meal, you can essentially alternate cooking and noncooking days, lowering overall effort.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.927822
| 2017-08-31T11:06:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84029",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
26025
|
What would you use to wash pretzel hot dog buns?
I was inspired after seeing a hot dog with a pretzel bun. I have the recipe pretty close to where I want it, but I'm not sure what to use as a wash. I tried egg whites so far and wasn't very happy.
I'm open to all suggestions as I'm not sure what I want or what the expectation of a pretzel hot dog bun should be. Also would you doing anything special with the boil? I'm just using the standard baking soda and water at the moment.
A lye solution is the "standard" wash for pretzels. Since food-grade lye can be difficult to come by, sodium carbonate (not to be confused with sodium bicarbonate, aka baking soda) is sometimes used instead. But I understand that you are looking for something non-standard.
It might be kind of helpful if you could clarify what's unsatisfactory about the baking soda and water, since a lot of people seem to be happy with it for home pretzel making.
@Jefromi I should perhaps have said "traditional" rather than "standard". And silence might have been a better option considering I've only ever sampled German Brezeln (which have a glossy, deep caramel glaze from the lye wash).
@EDabM See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14466/why-is-lye-used-in-some-recipes-for-cookies
If you want the hardcore, traditional pretzel flavor and crust, lye is really the only way to get it. You can dip it in a boiling bath of baking soda or washing soda for a minute or so. This can have the downside of giving the bun a really thick, leathery crust like a bagel. Alternately, to do a lye dip, you add one ounce of lye to one liter of water (add the lye to the water, not the water to the lye), stir and give it a few minutes to dissolve. The dough can be dipped in or brushed with the cold lye solution then baked. This will give you the really dark, thin, papery crust with that distinct pretzel flavor.
While the lye certainly isn't a chemical to be careless with, if you obey proper precautions (keep it off your skin, don't splash it, etc) it's nothing to be afraid of either.
You could get a better crust on the pretzels if you used baked soda instead of baking soda and it's still safer than playing with lye.
As for the wash... egg whites aren't going to give you much flavor. Did you try a regular egg wash? It will give the best color and shine. For flavor, though, you could try clarified butter or some sort of oil. You could mix it with spices or herbs - I brush oil and minced garlic on dough and bake it like that with nice results.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.928128
| 2012-09-06T21:29:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26025",
"authors": [
"BMH",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Laura H. Gaudette 69",
"ShockThreat",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85370"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75209
|
Can one use cooked egg to make fried eggs (sunny side up)?
As a kid, I never really liked cooked eggs, but fried ones. Naturally, I've always wondered if cooked eggs could be reused to make fried eggs with sunny side up instead of using new raw ones. I thought it was probably a really stupid question, but then I've found these related questions:
Is there any way to bring an egg to its natural state (not boiled)
after you cook it?
Can one bake a cake with a cooked egg?
Now, obviously, it seems a very tall order to get runny yolk if it's already cooked, but what is the closest thing we can get? How close can we get to dipping bread into yolk?
Considering the answer to "can you unboil an egg?" is "no", I feel that the answer to this should be obviously also... "no".
Hi CuriousCupcake. Welcome to Seasoned Advice! No question is a stupid question, but you're right. This is a tall order. It may help us provide better answers if you help us understand why you'd want to do this. Why wouldn't you just cook the egg to your preference in the first place?
Yeah, this seems like a clear duplicate. We're totally fine with basic questions, but basic questions have basic answers (in this case "you can't un-cook it at all") so I don't think we need too many permutations of them. If there's really something different you're trying to find out, feel free to clarify and we'll see if folks want to reopen.
As far as i know, there's no way to actually uncook the egg or change it from a boiled egg to a fried one - even the method used in the question about un-boiling only referred to whites. You might be able to alter the texture and perhaps presentation to make your boiled egg look similar to a fried one, if that helps?
Well, solid whites are solid whites - I would expect the texture to be pretty similar from boiled to fried, though you might slice them thinly and fry them if you want the extra grease, hardened edges and browning in your egg whites. Additionally, if you have them sliced thinly, and lay them overlapping on a very hot oiled pan, you might encourage them to stick together (with browned and hardened bits holding the pieces together) in a shape similar to fried egg whites, although it will still be more fragile and prone to breaking at the seams.
Yolk is trickier, since it won't un-set into liquid once it has set up - even the process noted in un-boiling an egg was only for egg whites. A hard boiled egg is dry enough to act as a paste, so just mashing it won't do - on the other hand, adding some liquid (perhaps butter for flavor and color) and blending into a thick liquid could get you a looser, still egg-flavored and buttery-tasty sauce to dip your toast in, very similar to dipping in just yolk. As a bonus, you would likely have more yolk-sauce than you would actual yolk, so you get extra dipping action.
I've used set yolks to make a sauce (although that was gelatinized by drying, not set by boiling), and the result was very thick - it took a lot of liquid and still wanted to set up as a paste when I let it sit. So a set-yolk sauce may turn out to need quite a bit of liquid to reach runny yolk consistency, or it may have a tendency to re-thicken quickly. But I think it would still be possible.
I suspect that you could get a runny yolk with only adding a little bit of a strong acid. Probably not edible, though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.928356
| 2016-11-02T18:10:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75209",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Joe",
"Preston",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
83228
|
I need help with a bread recipe
I have a cinnamon bread recipe. I am confused about some of the measurement's. It calls for 1 cup of shortening, unsalted butter and melted butter. It does not tell me how much unsalted butter or melted butter. The directions says add the butter to 1/2 cup of sugar and salt, would this be the butter or the shortening? It does not say any thing about adding the shortening any were in the directions. The melted butter is for the top I think. The cinnamon and more sugar have no amount either, those I think I can use my own judgement. I have never tried to make this type of bread before. Can someone help me figure this out?
I've bolded the parts I'm not sure about:
2 pks of yeast
2 cups of scalded milk
1/4 cup water
1/2 cup sugar
2 eggs
1 cup butter flavor shortening or 1 cup real shortening
Unsalted butter
7 1/2 cups flour
1/2 tsp. salt
Melted butter or margarine
Cinnamon
Sugar
Directions
Mix yeast and water
Mix sugar and salt stir together add butter, but do not stir
Pour scalded milk over sugar, salt and butter.
Add 3 cups flour mix until soft dough forms.
Mix eggs and yeast into dough
Add more flour until dough is stiff knead for 8 minutes
Put into a greased bowl let rise until doubled. Punch down let dough
double again
Then take dough out of bowl and let it rest for 5 minutes. Then Divide
in half roll into 15x7-inch rectangle
Brush butter over the top of rectangle (I think this is the melted
butter) Then sprinkle with cinnamon and sugar. Repeat 4 or 5 times.
Roll up jelly roll style and put into loaf pans. Cover and let rest
for 45 minutes.
Bake at 375 for 45 minutes Add nuts over the cinnamon and sugar
(optional)
This is word for word. I do not have a phone so I cant put pictures on here.
A quick inspection of common 'Cinnamon Bread' recipes suggests that what your recipe is say is 1 cup of Shortening OR Unsalted Butter; plus some melted butter ('some' being enough to baste/coat the bread with). Shortening and butter are often interchangeable in a recipe, at least 'functionally' (that is for the chemical properties) Butter will most often produce the 'tastier' result.
Edit: After you added the recipe you are using I am revisiting what I wrote earlier to say that while the way this recipe is worded the distinction between 'butter flavored shortening', 'shortening', and 'unsalted butter' is unclear as written but that by ratio (fat to flour) would be consistent with the idea that 'unsalted butter' is offered as an option to the shortening. I would have to second @Jefromi's suggestion: find a better (more well written) recipe.
Ok this is great because I don't have shortening, I was going to go buy some.
I'm guessing that the parts with "??" are someone's notes, whether actually handwritten on your copy, or transcribed, and that beyond that this is a recipe that's gone through some modification and transcription without careful editing.
So:
1 cup butter flavor shortening or 1 cup real shortening
Unsalted butter??
This is the fat that's incorporated into the dough. The second line reads to me like someone wondering whether they can use unsalted butter instead of the shortening, especially given that the instructions refer to mixing in butter. Could be the recipe originally called for butter and someone changed it to shortening without changing the instructions, or that someone tried to change it to call for butter but only changed the instructions, not the ingredient list.
Melted butter or margarine??
You also need fat to brush on to hold the cinnamon sugar. It's inconvenient but not that unusual for the recipe not to include a quantity; you just use as much as you need. This is entirely separate from what you mixed into the dough.
Honestly, given that the recipe looks a bit unreliably written and you're having trouble, I'd just find a clearer recipe, unless you really are set on making this specific recipe (like an old family recipe).
Yes the ?? are from me to let everyone know what part exactly I was unsure of.
The rest of the recipe is exactly how it was written. I found it in a recipe book that I got after my mom passed away this year. I'm sure it was not her recipe it was not her hand writing.
Still, it was handwritten. That leaves you open to all kinds of weird things happening with notes. It seems quite likely that the first is just an alternative to the shortening (as opposed to you needing both), given that shortening isn't in the directions but butter is. And the second looks like just a run of the mill case of omitting a quantity for something where the exact amount doesn't matter.
The ?? are from me to let everyone know exactly what I was unsure of. I found the recipe in a old cook book of my moms. I don't think it was hers the writing does not look like hers. I also don't remember her ever making it. I think you are right I will find another recipe to try.
Sorry I commented twice. oops
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.928626
| 2017-07-24T18:48:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83228",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"GJ.Baker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54545"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82921
|
Is cat food safe for human consumption?
Completely genuine question
Background
I was just feeding my cat, I was giving her some cat food that had 'duck' on the front and I remembered that I had some of that duck meat when I went to a restaurant and thought it was nice. The cat food looked really tasty so I decided to get out a tablespoon.
My cat was obviously quite disappointed that I had put a spoonful of her cat food into my mouth. I only took one spoonful. I didn't think it was that bad.
Question
Am I going to get really ill?
Can I eat cat food again?
Please don't judge me...
@Max but that question is closed, so it doesn't really matter that it's a cross-site duplicate. :)
Was this wet food? In a can/pouch? Did it require refrigeration before opening?
Wet food, a pouch, no refrigeration. I just took it out of a cardboard box. @Catija
Don't ever serve it to someone else unaware of the fact, and you won't be judged :)
Who downvoted it? Given that there are certainly quality standards for pet food, their transferability to human food safety is a perfectly valid question. And I assume most parasites or microbes that would make a human sick would make a cat sick. And I could think of more ingredients that would make a cat sick but no human than the other way around.
Some people taste pet food for a living http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-514630/Pedigrees-chum-Meet-man-M-S-tests-pets-ready-meals.html
@rackandboneman it's irrelevant who downvoted it. I don't necessarily agree with it but it doesn't really matter. Perhaps they don't see this as an on-topic question? Perhaps they don't think it was researched sufficiently... it doesn't really matter.
It is researched sufficiently. I just found multiple opinions on the internet (some saying I would die, some saying it was nutritious, etc)
If you don't tell us about your research, we can not know you did it.
It's perfectly safe.
Pet food has to go through the same sort of preservation methods as human food in order to give it a good shelf life so it's not going to have nasty foodborne illnesses. Cat and human metabolisms aren't too far off, and cats don't require nutrients which are harmful to humans so it won't hurt you one bit.
As for whether it would be healthy to eat long term that's a different story and not for this site.
Some documentation to support this: http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-02/can-people-safely-eat-cat-food-0 . I would note that there are some "fancy" cat foods that are sold raw... which is why I made the comment I did earlier asking if it needed to be refrigerated. :) While cats don't need food to be cooked, humans are more likely to need it.
"It's perfectly safe." Is it really? I'm pretty sure the food safety standards for animal feed are a lot less stringent than the standards for human food. That's why it usually says "not for human consumption" on the container.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.928998
| 2017-07-10T16:23:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82921",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"David Marshall",
"Featherball",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"nick012000",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
39353
|
What are the differences between baking in bulk and baking in smaller amounts?
I know that you need different techniques and tools to bake in bulk. But do recipes need to be changed as well? How does one take a recipe that you would bake at home in a small batch (e.g. baking bread, pies, muffins, etc.) and then convert it into a bulk recipe?
Yes, recipes need to be changed as well.
The most important [IMHO] difference is leavening (yeast/baking powder/soda etc.)
The next issue is ratios, once you get beyond 'doubling' a home recipe your ratios will get out of sync.
When you multiply dry ingredients (other than yeast) do so By Weight rather than dry measure. (note for sugars in a yeast leavened recipe: sugar is often 'treated as' a 'wet ingredient', still multiply by weight, this will provide the correct amount of food for the yeast)
Rule of thumb for yeast baking is to multiply everything but DO NOT
multiply the yeast for doing 2X or 4X. When you are increasing the
recipe by 8X you double the original amount of yeast. Your rising time
may increase but that also happens with temperature variations.
Rule of thumb for chemical leavening is to multiply carefully ALL
ingredients. If using baking soda and acid, sift the baking soda with
flour and mix the acid (vinegar, lemon juice, sour milk) with other
liquid ingredients. That way you don't lose rising power when mixing
more dough.
But for chemical leavening, you have to bake the mix without it
sitting around. So you might weigh and set up 4X, 4X, 4X if you need
12X yield.[from King Arthur Flour]
Home sized recipes can usually only be doubled safely. Beyond that,
due to rounding, the ratios within the recipe will get out of sync. We
have a number of pro resources here, take a look:
http://www.kingarthurflour.com/professional/flours.html(Ibid)
These are, obviously, only 'general guidelines, your mileage may vary with any given recipe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.929239
| 2013-11-11T10:43:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39353",
"authors": [
"Helen Clare Dale",
"Jim Raden",
"Yashwanth",
"elunicotomas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93284"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17525
|
How to cook and plan meals when ingredients are not reliably available?
My wife and I have just moved to Mozambique Africa for her job. She works all day it's my job to do the cooking. I've never been much of a cook, but I could always follow a recipe and the results were acceptable.
The problem is that here in Mozambique, the availability of ingredients in the stores is limited and unreliable. For example, last week the supermarket didn't have carrots, unflavoured yogurt or plain bread--all things I know that they've had in the past. For someone who cooks by following recipes it's very difficult to plan if the ingredients you need are not reliably available.
What I'm looking for are tips and strategies to cook and plan meals without recipes using available ingredients. Currently the lack of ingredients has reduced my repitoire to a small set of basic dishes for which I know that I can get all the ingredients. I'm not afraid to experiment, but without a recipe many of the experiments don't end so well! I feel like I'm lacking a basic knowledge of cooking techniques that I could build on to improvise meals.
Finally, it's difficult and expensive to get books here so any pointers to online resources would be the most helpful. Perhaps there's a basic cooking course online that I could start with? I have the motivation to improve my cooking, but I don't know where to begin....
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7925/how-to-use-csa-vegetables-most-efficiently ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16687/how-do-i-skip-the-planning-and-shopping ;
I'm all for your actual goal - improvising more complex dishes based on existing ingredients - but sometimes the solution isn't to find a recipe, but to do something so simple you never needed one. Almost any vegetable can be roasted or sauteed, and just add a bit of salt and pepper, or whatever on your spice rack that smells good. It may not be fancy, but if the vegetables are fresh, you'll probably be happy.
One of the things that we forget in the U.S. is that foods are seasonal -- if we didn't have food flown in from the southern hemisphere, we wouldn't have berries and most other fruits available year round.
Learning to cook based on what's available isn't something that's typically taught, but I'd recommend the following:
Learn different techniques, and what can be prepared with that given technique, so that you can more easily improvise. You might consider reading Pam Anderson's How to Cook Without a Book: Recipes and Techniques Every Cook Should Know by Heart. (unfortunately, not available as a download, sorry. And no, not that Pam Anderson, this one used to work for Cook's Illustrated), which goes over some basic things that can be easily varied using whatever's on hand.
Stock up on non-perishable stapes when they're available. I wouldn't recommend clearing out a small store of all of their flour, but if you know they don't always have it, pick up some extra so you'll have some on hand when they don't.
Learn to make 'ingredients'. There's a lot of stuff that we take for granted in the U.S. as being an ingredient, but are processed foods to some degree. You mention bread and yogurt, but also pasta or stocks. If you can't always find it, you might still be able to find the necessary stuff to make it. (although, I admit, some of them require being prepared in advance)
Ask the natives. The local recipes are going to be made to use the local ingredients, so if you're going to rely on recipes, use theirs. You could also ask the local shopkeepers for advice on what to use and how to prepare it ... odds are, there are going to be produce that wasn't available wherever you used to live, so you're not considering some things when shopping. There might be some good local alternative to carrots. (eg, yams come to mind, and not what we get in the U.S. as yams, but African yams, which are firmer than sweet potatoes)
... as for the online resources ... well, the only one that comes to mind right off the top of my head is The Cook's Thesaurus aka. foodsubs.com, which offers substitutions when you can't find an ingredient, but unless you're going to either look in advance of shopping what all of the alternatives are, you're going to need a smartphone and data service wherever you're shopping ... it might be easier to just ask the shopkeeper what they'd use as an alternative, as they'd know what they have, rather than your trying to look for 5 different alternatives that aren't in stock, either.
This happens everywhere. My wife is exceptionally skilled at building a meal where every single ingredient is missing from the store.
You should try to go about it the other way around: go to the store, see what they have, and figure out what to cook from there. This allows you to take advantage of sales, high quality produce, and unusual meat items. And you'll never run into the missing ingredient problem again.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.929418
| 2011-09-06T19:26:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17525",
"authors": [
"CBRF23",
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"Mim",
"Nicolas Bernard",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3158
|
What is the difference between butterscotch, caramel, and toffee?
I've always thought they were the same. Tonight I noticed a slight taste difference as compared to caramel when I had some "butterscotch" for the first time in a while. Now my assumptions have been thrown to the wind. Is butterscotch essentially caramel plus some liquor?
Butterscotch and caramel are very different things. The taste difference between the two is far from 'slight' in my opinion.
Caramel is typically made with granulated sugar, milk and/or cream, butter, and sometimes vanilla. The primary flavors of caramel are the sugar and milk/cream.
Butterscotch on the other hand is made with brown sugar. It's primary flavors are brown sugar and butter. It typically also contains milk/cream but they are not as prominent as caramel.
Toffee is butterscotch that has been cooked to the hard-crack stage.
There is no liquor in butterscotch.
There is a lot of leeway in what things get called caramel, butterscotch, and toffee. The important differences to keep in mind are that caramel is made with granulated sugar, whereas toffee and butterscotch are made with brown sugar and much more butter.
interesting, wondering if you've ever had sticky toffee pudding? It's basically an awesome cake on top of a pool of "toffee". I'm wondering if the toffee is technically butterscotch because its in a liquid stage.
Doug, google "stick date pudding". It's the more delicious dish on which sticky toffee pudding was originally based (and is in no way lacking in toffee, nor bad for people who don't like eating dates). You'll thank me.
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.
The names are used for different stages of caramelization of white or brown sugar:
Butterscotch = caramelized brown sugar 239°F-257°F (115°C - 125°C)
Toffee = brown sugar caramelized to hard crack stage 302°F-320°F (150°C - 160°C)
Caramel = white sugar heated to the point it browns, which starts at 338°F (170°C)
The -scotch in the butterscotch has nothing to do with alcoholic drink and the Wikipedia lists a few theories of why it has that name.
I totally disagree, because in my opinion it looks, smells, and taste the same. I think there is absolutely no difference between butterscotch and caramel.
@Hudson - I agree, there is definately a significant taste difference. I like butterscotch and caramel very much, so much that I even prefer either of them over chocolate, most of the time (I do like chocolate too, but not as much as butterscotch or caramel).
We are actually talking here a distinction of semantics rather than taste. It is more a matter of where you come from and what has been called what in your experience. The brown or white sugar distinction of butterscotch/caramel is common but not universal. The butter or not distinction clearly relates to the name butterscotch which should always have butter in it, but to be confusing caramel may or may not. And when you have them as sauces or flavourings there are no holds barred and you may have considerable milk/cream/butter in either!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.929817
| 2010-07-25T03:25:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3158",
"authors": [
"David M W Powers",
"Doug T.",
"Hans Vonn",
"Kevin Fegan",
"MGOwen",
"Shihan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57530",
"peter",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28026
|
Will cooking chicken longer in soup make it less tough and stringy?
I tried a new chicken soup technique and am not quite thrilled with the results. The point of this technique was to achieve flavorful, tender chicken. Well, the broth is tasty but the chicken is kinda tough and stringy-not awful - but I'm going for tender perfection.
I poached the cut-up whole chicken, starting with cold water, low simmer, etc. Then I removed it from the poaching water, removed the meat from the bone, tore it into small pieces, and refrigerated it. I added the bones and skin back to the poaching water with herbs, and the broth came out great.
The idea was to add the chicken pieces as needed to the broth before serving, but my first bowl reveals the aforementioned tough chicken. Researching chicken soup gives me conflicting answers; some say longer cooking will eventually make the chicken tender, and some say it will make it stringier and dryer.
So do I take some of the broth and simmer the heck out the chicken, or just deal with the toughness and try for something better next time?
There's several major reasons why meat and poultry can be tough:
Collagen: muscles exist to impart a force between bones, when they contract there must be a connection between that muscle and the bone or the muscle would not be able to do work. Collagen is a strong protein that is distributed throughout a muscle and connects to a tendon, allowing the muscle to distribute its' force to the skeletal structure of the animal. The more load a muscle takes, the more collagen is needed to distribute the force, and the tougher the meat is.
The animal was stressed before slaughter: if the animal was stressed before slaughter it will have lactic acid buildup resulting in tougher meat
Poor treatment after slaughter: Once an animal dies chemical changes happen that toughen the meat, and the correct treatment is needed to allow the meat to relax again. If that isn't done right you'll get tough meat
Freezing and thawing: freezing makes meat and poultry tougher
Collagen breaks down in the presence of heat and moisture, so a long stewing at low temperature could make your chicken tender. The collagen helps make your broth thicker and taster too! That would take a maximum of 2-3 hours on a low simmer. If it isn't tender by then it isn't tough because of collagen and there isn't much you can do. If you've got a chicken that was stressed, not processed correctly, and then frozen there's a limit to how tender you'll be able to get it. You can try cooking it a couple more hours, but if it isn't tender by then it never will be.
OK! Thanks so much for that! I will try a long simmer and see what happens. It is a supposedly fresh, free range, organic chicken so I would hope it received better treatment than mentioned above...
Update: 2 hours of simmering made it somewhat better, but, yeah, I think we're working with a losing chicken! Oh well!
Another technique is to tenderize the meat prior to cooking either physically, by pounding or cutting across the muscle fibers, or chemically, by adding ingredients that will help break down the collagen and muscle.
I have found that when cooking chicken for BIR curries (which uses pre-cooked meat which is then cooked again in the curry sauce), if you don't get the cooking time absolutely right, the meat will sometimes be tough. This all depends very much on the size and type of the chunk of meat used (breast, thigh etc), and the quality of the individual chicken. This ends up in very inconsistent results when it comes to tenderness, but can be compensated for by extending the cooking time.
In your case, what I would do is cook your chicken to the desired level of tenderness, remove the majority of the meat and immediately place it cold water to prevent further cooking. I would then return the carcass (and possibly the thigh/dark meat as well if preferred) to the stock and boil the daylights out of it until the gelatin is extracted from the bones (i.e. they are soft). I would then strain the broth of solids, leave to cool, and add the reserved chicken.
The broth will then only require gentle reheating and as the most vulnerable part of the bird is perfectly cooked, no stringiness. Depending on your preference to the texture of the meat, you can either reserve the dark meat as well, or just extract all the flavour and discard, the choice is yours.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.930201
| 2012-10-26T03:08:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28026",
"authors": [
"Etoile",
"Home Chef Cooking",
"Jonny",
"Joseph Samuel",
"Micah Berek",
"Severin Schraven",
"Suncat2000",
"deep_succ_69",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79688"
],
"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
}
|
18894
|
Improve flavor of Sorbet made in Magic Bullet?
I'm trying to create a sorbet using a frozen fruit (specifically strawberries) using the magic bullet. The way that I do it is by literally putting a bunch of frozen, ice-hard strawberries into the bullet and pulsing the bullet for a long time giving it breaks so I don't burn out the motor. I end up with what looks like a strawberry sorbet BUT it tastes empty.
Goal: I want to create a strawberry sorbet which tastes good and is healthy (so I'd love to avoid processed sugar). Also, if there's a faster way to do it other than by pulsing the magic bullet forever that would be awesome too!
Current Developments: I've tried adding lemon juice, it made it a bit better but it still had a hollow ice flavour.
Despite the name - the Magic Bullet isn't magic - just saying ;)
haha definitely not, it's just a small blender with a bad motor.
It's useful though because you can whip it out quickly, use it, and then clean it without much hassle
Oh, I've got a knockoff brand that lives on my counter. So I understand.
The best way to make sorbet is of course in an ice cream maker, but I'm guessing you weren't looking to buy one. You could also do granitas, by freezing in a pan then scraping, but I'm not sure that'd be any faster than a blender. It also sounds like your strawberries are maybe too cold - you could thaw them partially, then blend.
You'll get a fuller flavor, I think, if you move away from a sorbet and towards sherbet, by adding cream. Alternatively, you may just have too much water...
@derobert - diary definitely helps. In a magic bullet, even a spoon full of yogurt makes a big difference.
Almost any normal sorbet recipe will contain a decent amount of sugar, and strawberries are no exception. I'd guess probably 1/2-2/3 cup per pound of strawberries. Use a substitute if you have an aversion - honey, agave, raw cane sugar, whatever you prefer. (Of course, anything liquid is going to contain some water, and cause a bit of ice, but it's still doable.) A sorbet without any extra sugar, even when frozen normally in an ice cream maker, is going to end up with a very icy texture, which will probably keep you from experiencing the flavor as much. The sugar helps soften it.
The other common way to soften a sorbet is alcohol. Rosé wine (thank you, David Lebovitz) works quite well in a strawberry sorbet. Vodka can be your go-to liquor for any impromptu sorbet with other fruits, since it'll add alcohol without any flavors that clash. Beyond that, either look for recipes, or look for mixed drinks containing the fruit you're using.
You might also be having problems simply because your strawberries aren't that great. Did you freeze them, or were they storebought? If you bought the strawberries yourself, you'd know they were decent before freezing, while not all storebought frozen fruit is as flavorful.
Finally, it's possible that your frozen strawberries collected some extra water in the form of frost, which then makes your sorbet icier. If there are obvious big chunks you could scrape them off.
Really good answer. Anything frozen tastes and smells much weaker than the same thing before freezing. You have to make your sorbet base as sweet as jam to have a normal sweetness after it's frozen. And yes, you need enough solids in it so you don't end up with lumps of hard water ice. Strawberries are almost pure water, sugar or another sweetener has to provide the bulk.
+1 - Thanks this works great! I combined information from all answers, to make a great sorbet, so read them all!
Try the lemon juice, a touch of honey, and just a tiny, tiny bit of vanilla.
Ooo honey and vanilla, that I didn't think of. I'm going to try all the suggestions tomorrow night, so I'll get back to you then!
To boost the flavour of 'not-great' strawberries, try throwing in a few raspberries (fresh or frozen) and the lemon juice suggested by rfusca. Their very intense flavour will add zing to your sorbet.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.930614
| 2011-11-11T00:00:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18894",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"ChrisM",
"Gary",
"L. O'Connell",
"Matt Young",
"RTM",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7939",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18999
|
How to incorporate alcohol (rum) into a cake recipe?
How can I incorporate alcohol (rum, in this case) into an existing cake recipe (pumpkin cake, for example)? Can I simply replace the water with rum?
Can you give some more information about the recipe (or even link to it)? The amount of water and the density of the cake might have some effect on answers. (But in general water -> liquor is a fairly safe substitution, I think.)
Alcohol evaporates much more quickly than water, and rum is about 40% alcohol. So a straight substitution might cause problems. But it depends on the recipe. I have no idea what kind of cake you're making.
You can also try, rather than putting it in during the baking process, to pour the rum into a pan big enough to fit te cake or loaf and have it soak up the alcohol. Additionally, rum is a very strong flavour, and might overpower or conflict with the pumpkin, so be careful not to use too much or you might end up with pumpkin flavoured rum cake as opposed ot rum hinted pumpkin cake.
If you're using around 3-cups of flour 1/4 cup of rum is definitely safe to use. Not knowing the recipe, and just in case there are other liquids, just adjust them to incorporate the rum so measurements stay equal. Cheers!
If I just want to add aroma to the cake, I just add a small amount to the batter. If I have an ingredient like dried fruit or raisins in the cake, I might soak them in rum for a couple of hours before incorporating into the batter. If I want an actual boozy flavor, pouring a modest amount over a baked cake, while still in the pan, will allow it to absorb more. Finally, you can make an icing or glaze from a mix of powdered (confectioner's) sugar and liquor instead of water.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.930927
| 2011-11-17T19:13:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18999",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Dennis Farrar",
"Hayden",
"JenJackson",
"Marcus",
"Mike Baranczak",
"Zak A. Klajda",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5602",
"yanhan"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16709
|
What is the best type of wood for a French rolling pin?
I'm looking at getting a French rolling pin but I want to make sure that I get a good one. I've seen them made from various woods such as oak, cherry, maple, and bamboo. I'd imagine that a harder less porous wood would work better but I'm not certain what wood would work best. So, what's the best wood for a french rolling pin?
I'd imagine that there's not just one good wood for a rolling pin, and at some point, you can make an aesthetic choice.
@Jefromi - You're correct, there are probably multiple good woods for a rolling pin. By asking for suggestions I'm trying to avoid doing something silly like getting a wood I thought would be good, but causes problems, like oak, which I learned is probably too heavily grained.
I am not a wood expert, but I have done a fair bit of carpentry as well as cookery. I agree that the key is having nice hard wood with fine grain; you don't want to damage a delicate dough or provide places to stick. Bamboo "wood" is usually a composite material, with the thickness built with layers glued together and then carved/lathed down to shape; so, I imagine it would have little lines that might open over time with use. Oak seems too heavily grained for this application. My french pin is maple. It came from a wood turner who does primarily pens and pencils. He makes pens from a variety of wood but the rolling pins are all maple.
I think the principle is the same as with cutting boards: fine grains and hard woods, preventing scratching, splitting, and splintering. So, maple seems like a good suggestion.
Any fine grained hardwood will do and if it is a solid block that is better than glued up but many are glue ups as well. I would not use walnut personally but maple and white oak--not red-- or ash or hickory are good choices. Poplar if you want to have a slightly less hard wood to turn would work as well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.931104
| 2011-08-08T03:09:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16709",
"authors": [
"Allan knight",
"BobMcGee",
"Candy Borst",
"Cascabel",
"Gaia",
"Patricia Shanahan",
"Pridkett",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6971"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17318
|
Replacement for celery with equivalent nutrients?
I have this recipe:
2 celery sticks
1 cucumber (large)
2 large handfuls of spinach leaves
1 large handful of lettuce (dark)
1/2 freshly squeezed lemon
But I don't like the "aroma" of celery. So what can I use in place of the celery sticks? The replacement should have similar nutritional values to celery.
The best replacement I have come up with is 2 tomatoes.
Celery has nutrition? I thought it was just crunchy water, like lettuce.
Any green veg is going to be a fair replacement. If you are after maximum nutritional intake and not fashion, you need to chew them, not drink them. Saliva and chewing are major parts of digestive process
@Joe: Dang you for beating me to that comment!
I suspect that celery is included in this recipe as a flavouring rather than for it's nutritional value. Simply remove or reduce the celery and increase the other items.
I don't know if this is myth or not, but I-think-I-heard-it-from-a-guy-but-also-may-have-dreamt that celery (like iceberg lettuce) requires more calories to burn than is contained therein; hence making it a net loss in terms of caloric intake (so in addition to flavor, it may be there as a weight loss thing).
@mfg : those calculations typically include the energy required to chew ... if this is a drink, it's likely gone through a blender, so wouldn't hold true.
Iceberg Lettuce, as it is also very low in vitamins and minerals like celery and has a good crunch. According to the USDA's "MyPlate", 1 cup of iceberg is 1/2 serving vegetables, and 1 stalk of celery is 1/2 serving vegetables, so to get equivalent nutritional value for 2 stalks would take 2 cups shredded.
You could add more vitamins and minerals by replacing the celery with something more nutrient dense.
They indeed have very similar (lack of) nutrition: iceberg lettuce and celery on nutritiondata.self.com. (Choose 100 grams from the drop-down for easier comparison.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.931286
| 2011-08-30T16:22:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17318",
"authors": [
"Abhishek Harge",
"Alex",
"BobMcGee",
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"Joyce E Combs",
"Rincewind42",
"TFD",
"ben",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69656",
"mfg",
"urelement",
"user37175"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3671
|
How to make caramel sauce for sundaes?
I've been experimenting with making a caramel hot fudge sauce (something like on a McDonalds caramel sundae but better) and want some ideas.
My latest was:
Microwave brown sugar and butter, stirring often, until it's sort of mixed together
Mix in a can of sweetened condensed mix
Microwave again, stirring every 30-60 seconds for 10 minutes or so until it goes a bit (golden) brown (use a very large glass bowl, or it'll boil over - be careful, the mixture gets super hot and will boil your face right off - you have been warned)
mix in a bit of cream or it'll be too chewy
... which produced a thick milk caramel with a rich toffee aftertaste, but it's pretty labour-intensive.
Any tips?
I like your idea, especially the sweetened condensed milk!
Are you limited to using a microwave? Or is that just a preference?
Microwave is preference - when I tried it on the stove, it was even more labourious and time consuming, I had to stir it the whole time, and I still got a lot of lumps.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.931479
| 2010-07-29T06:58:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3671",
"authors": [
"Chad",
"Furkan Gözükara",
"Laura Thomas",
"MGOwen",
"N Snowden",
"Tom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6649",
"idshanks",
"mary griggs",
"stsquad"
],
"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
}
|
7853
|
Keeping Hot Sauce From Separating
Last fall I tried my hand at making a homemade hot sauce. Essentially: roast peppers, blend with vinegar, garlic, salt and other spices, put in jar for three weeks, strain and you have hot sauce.
The sauce was great, but after about a week of sitting in a jar in my fridge it separated and became rather unsightly. Of course, after shaking it up it returned to normal. Is there a way to keep a sauce like this from separating?
Thanks!
Whenever you see a sauce separate, it's because you have an Emulsion, which is two or more immiscible liquids. In cooking, these liquids are typically water and fat.
To stabilize an emulsion, you use an emulsifier. The most common food emulsifier is lecithin, and the most common natural source of lecithin is egg yolk. If you don't want the taste of egg or your food is not going to be cooked (i.e. a vinaigrette), then it you can actually go out and buy pure lecithin (soy lecithin is common to find).
As the wikipedia entry mentions, there are other natural emulsifiers such as honey and mustard, and often when you see recipes calling for mustard when it seems to be a strange ingredient to add (such as cheese sauce), the reason is to help stabilize the emulsion.
Additionally, the most common emulsifier used in packaged or processed foods is sodium stearoyl lactylate. It sounds scarier than it is; you can buy it in the store just like lecithin.
I wonder if pectin could be used as an emulsifier in this case?
@ThinkingCook: It's possible, but pectin is also a jelling agent so you'd have to be careful. You don't want your sauce turning into jam.
Very interesting. I'll give that a try. Thank you!
do you use prepared or ground mustard?
@mfg: Dried mustard is just prepared mustard minus the water, so either one is fine. Which one I would use depends primarily on what I have on hand and secondarily on the water content of the recipe. If the water content is minimal then I'll either use prepared mustard or make some by dissolving the dry mustard in some water. Mind you, neither one is a "preferred" emulsifier for me - I only use them in selected dishes where I want that flavour, like Mac 'n Cheese.
Oh, so that's why that macaroni & cheese recipe called for mustard powder! @Vecta, the oils from the peppers is what contains the spice, and vinegar is mostly water, so the oil & water do not mix. Try a thickening agent like guar gum power, which is like cornstarch, but about 10x stronger, so you only need a tiny bit. It will hold the two antagonistic ingredients in place. I use it for my frappaccinos!
@Aaronut - To be precise, dried mustard is a specific prepared mustard without water - which might be very different from other kinds of prepared mustard. The one dried mustard available where I am is usually much sharper and harsher than the mustard I would buy to spread on a sandwich, for example. It might not matter if the mustard is being used in a small amount for emulsification purposes - but it might, if the taste is very different than expected, or if mustard is used also for flavoring. I've had at least one recipe turned inedible from the difference.
How much lecithin to add to a recipe? Do you have a percentage by weight?
Xanthan gum will also work very well for holding this kind of sauce together. Somewhere around 0.2%-0.5% by weight should be right. Shear it in with a blender for a good long time. I'm a little concerned about the food safety of your sauce though. Are you certain it will remain good for weeks as you are planning?
Shouldn't the vinegar preserve the ingredients for at least a few weeks? Those jalapeño peppers you buy in jars last for months in the pickling vinegar and I don't think they use any other preservatives.
You could leaved a sauce like this at room temperature indefinitely. The only thing you need to be aware of is that over time your hot sauce will become less hot as time goes by.
I think it would depend a lot on the acidity level; when you buy canned jalapenos or commercial hot sauce they have presumably made sure the level is sufficient. I'm not saying Vecta's sauce isn't safe, just that it is something to think about.
That's true, @roux. Pan-frying the garlic first on high heat will draw out the moisture and probably kill most of the spores (they are resistant to heat, but not immune above 120° C or so). Keeping the garlic in an acidic solution will slow the growth of botulism and keeping it in the refrigerator will slow it even further. I've heard that garlic oil can last years in storage - that may not be very safe, but the combination of fried/sautéed garlic, vinegar, and refrigeration probably makes the risk minuscule over a few weeks.
These are all good concerns that I'll keep in mind if I make this recipe again. For anyone interested, here is the recipe I used for reference: http://www.onehungrychef.com/2009/10/condimentaholism.html
i was thinking cornstarch would work in cream sauces for reheating in the microwave
We have found that blending the sauce for an extended period of time keeps it from separating...I mean days of blending...Just leave it in the blender and when time allows give it a good blending and then let it sit...You will find after about 3 days of periodic blending the sauce will no longer separate.
You'll probably need some kind of emulsifier. For a long-term sauce like hot sauce, you're probably going to want an industrial strength one, and I don't really have many suggestions there...I never make sauces where I can't just use mustard or egg yolks.
Or you can just try sticking the whole thing in the blender for a while; that'll do it with salad dressing (for example), and it might work for your sauce as well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.931622
| 2010-10-05T15:34:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7853",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Chloe",
"Christine Yee",
"CookingNewbie",
"Megha",
"Michael Natkin",
"Nicole Peterson",
"ThinkingCook",
"Vecta",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"mfg",
"sarge_smith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
83068
|
Calculating the effect of a marinade on nutrition
While watching a collection of olive oil based chicken marinade recipes I was wondering if there is an effective way of calculating the effect that a marinade might have on the nutritional value of meat being marinaded? While I am principally interested in 'calories' I would also like to, for instance, be able to calculate differences in fats and/or carbs. I am not so interested (at the moment) about vitamins or minerals.
The tools I have seen simply aggregate the total of ingredients, but in a marinade many of those ingredients are left behind (and therefore should not count as calories for the dish) but I have to believe (and other articles suggest as much) that there is 'an effect' but I am yet to find a manner for calculating that effect.
Several answers to How to calculate the calorie content of cooked food? dance around the question, and as @Bikerboy389 suggests, maybe I'm "sweating the small stuff" here...still I would like to know. Especially where oils are concerned I'm thinking the effect might be more than just 'a little'
You need to be more specific about what you mean by "nutritional value". If you're just interested in the calories, say that.
Yes, I edited that in.
That's helpful. I think we may have some similar questions that would address this. I'm guessing the answer is something along the lines of "it is a negligible amount of change". Most of the questions about absorption rates of marinades seem to imply that there's very little absorption, so I'd bet that your unlikely to need to worry about this... but I'd be happy to have it proved otherwise.
@rumtscho Thanks, I would agree that this is a duplicate, surprised it didn't come up when I labeled the question (or on a google search before I tried..). I fully expect that this would be a difficult question to answer (at best) but I have been surprised before. Since an answer more conclusive than the one provided is unlikely to be forthcoming I will delete this one shortly. (will wait a few minutes so you have the chance to see my reply.)
You don't have to delete duplicate questions - actually, the preference are to let them stay, for exactly the problem into which you ran. Two people can express the same problem in different words, and then the search engine fails to help them. The more differently worded duplicates hang around - but closed and pointing to a single place with answers as opposed to having half-duplicated answers spread among them - the more likely that the next person searching will find it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.932070
| 2017-07-18T18:12:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83068",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Cos Callis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16982
|
Why add pasta water to pasta sauce?
I've noticed that many Italian chefs add to their pasta sauces some of the water they used to cook their pasta. What is the purpose of this?
Is that text from a recipe you have found? Your question structure is confusing.
Looks as if the question is in the title, and the answer is in the body.
Hi David - we encourage members to answer their own questions if they can, but please note that there are separate spaces for questions and answers. I'm removing the question text - feel free to add it again as an answer. You can grab the original text from the revision history.
I believe the primary reason is that the pasta water is already hot. When you need to thin your sauce on short notice, you add hot pasta water and it will not cool down your sauce. Secondary benefits are:
The pasta water has nice salinity, so you're not diluting the salinity level of the sauce. This assumes you salted your pasta water. You did, right?
There is some starch in the pasta water. However, since the pasta water has already achieved a high temperature, any thickening benefit would already be achieved. If your pasta water is anything like any I've ever seen, it's just about as runny as any other water. So this benefit is probably negligible. Perhaps it has more of an effect once the pasta water added to the sauce has reduced.
Pasta water from restaurants can become very 'muddy' according to McGee. Look at my answer here.
-1 You're missing the main reason. If you cook your pasta in a reasonable amount of water (i.e. enough that there's not a lot of extra by the end) there's so much starch that it'll be really thick once it comes to room temperature, and it helps the sauce stick to the pasta.
@Jefromi not sure what is meant by "a reasonable amount of water" as it seems you are assuming that means "there's not a lot of extra by the end". One person's reasonableness may be another person's miserliness.
@jeffmcneill I suppose I meant something like "not way more than is actually necessary" and maybe also "an amount that will yield reasonably starchy water". I know a lot of people follow the old advice to use tons and tons of water, and they wouldn't have starchy water, but if you don't have a giant pot that you fill up, then you will tend to get starchy water. In any case, whatever is "reasonable", the point is that it's not only possible but easy to get starchy water, so this answer is missing one of the reasons people use pasta water.
Adding water will thin a sauce, but the starch in the water does help it cling to the pasta, and adds some body to the sauce.
Another key step is to finish cooking the pasta IN the sauce (in a skillet, usually) before serving, allowing the starchy pasta to absorb the sauce more completely.
See also: http://www.seriouseats.com/2014/05/does-pasta-water-really-make-difference.html
I don't believe this. This is primarily water, and won't thicken the sauce. I believe it's to THIN the sauce, and the water just happens to be handy. No down vote, but I think you've repeated a myth.
@chris, why don't you try it? I'd been having a bit of trouble with this, but I realized it was because I was boiling my pasta in too much water. When you boil the pasta in a smaller amount of water, you find that the water will have a much higher concentration of starch. This starch can be really critical to a cheese-based sauce coming together properly. With a really watery water (for lack of a better term) you just end up with clumps of cheese and (separately) water.
@ChrisCudmore : http://www.seriouseats.com/2014/05/does-pasta-water-really-make-difference.html
@Joe's link provides strong evidence for this answer, both points on starchy water and the proper courtship and marriage of pasta and sauce, accompanied by pasta water.
In a restaurant you will cook a lot of pasta in the same pot of water over the course of the night. This water will end up having quite a bit of starch. Using a bit of this starch water will help the sauce adhere to the pasta.
At home the resulting water isn't going to contain as much starch, but it will still help. You wont see quite the same effect as a professional kitchen.
I'm not sure which professional chef said it, but he said that it would be great if they bottled this starchy pasta water for home use.
I think it was Bill Buford in "Heat"
You can get similar results with a lower water to pasta ratio (less water).
Harold McGee did a great piece on the amount of water used to cook pasta that discusses this topic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/dining/25curi.html
Basically, if you're going to do it at home, use less water, and you'll have a more concentrated, flavorful liquid, which you can use like stock in a sauce (not saying it is stock, but it has a lot of flavor). It's obviously starchy and salty, but it will have a good amount of wheaty flavor.
I find the water from whole wheat pasta also has a lot more flavor than white pasta.
Probably the most famous dish that I'm aware of that makes use of this technique is Cacio e Pepe, a Roman pasta dish where the sauce is made from olive oil, pasta water, pecorino romano and/or parmigiano reggiano, and of course a good amount of black pepper. Sometimes butter is used as well. It's a pretty cheap meal, but very comforting. Sometimes I make a vegan version with olive oil, earth balance, fresh garlic and some nutritional yeast (fiancee is allergic to dairy).
The starch in the cooking water acts as an emulsifier, so for a dish like spaghetti, aglio e olio it will make a more luscious sauce.
I thought it gives either the pasta or whatever you add it to flavor. Once you cook the pasta in it, it has the starch and the salt that might enhance the dish more when you let it steam and absorb into the food.
Pasta water does thicken the sauce... you don't pour in huge amounts, just add bits here or there to increase flavour and to thicken with starch. The main benefit of this is that the sauce will bind with the pasta. If you pour in a huge amount, it will drown your sauce.
Source: I learned to cook pasta sauces in a Roman kitchen.
This is just wrong. The starch in pasta water is already cooked and gelatinized. It can't get any thicker than it already is by cooking it more. It will only thicken the sauce if your sauce is already essentially a water consistency.
Adding the pasta water does thicken the sauce & help with acidity. I make a pasta dish my family loves & once in a while it doesn't turn out right. I finally tracked down the reason for this. Every time I forget to add the pasta water, it comes out wet. With it, it's smooth, creamy & all the pasta has soaked up the sauce.
I cook my sauce down & then add a small amount of the water (about 1/3 cup) then cook it a little longer to let it thicken back up. It doesn't take but a minute or two to get it back where it was. I also make my pasta with a little less water. The past water just makes the sauce creamy and luscious.
Give it a try both ways. I'll bet you'll see & taste the difference.
Many people build it into to recipes as they feel it changes the mouth feel of a sauce. Some chefs refer to it as adding silkiness, or a creamy finish. This is subjective of course, but i think it does add something to the body of a sauce.
On top of this it's already seasoned and hot so is good to "loosen" a sauce that has been simmering for a while (as other users have stated). I certainly don't think it thickens a sauce (the starch content isn't that high), but it tastes thicker... somehow.
Everyone seems off base on this. The simple reason to add water is to cut down the acidy taste. My mother (Sicilian) always used 2 cans of puree and 2 cans of paste. She added 2 - 3 cans of water and the sauce never tasted acidy at all.
Lots of sauces made without pasta water don't taste acidic either, so there must be other reasons people use it. And diluting sauce to reduce acidity is going to dilute other flavors too. (And this is specifically pasta water - your answer makes it sound like she was just adding plain water, to compensate for using so much paste.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.932415
| 2011-08-19T13:47:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16982",
"authors": [
"A.L. Young",
"ALIN",
"Aaronut",
"Ava Brown",
"BaffledCook",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Chris Noyes",
"Cody Hake",
"Ginger Burnett",
"Jacqles",
"Joe",
"Joe McMahon",
"Katey HW",
"Marina Shaylitsa",
"Ray",
"Robb",
"Rustic",
"Stephen Sockett",
"Sungam",
"Veron",
"Vicki A. Jones",
"abcd",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95751",
"jeffmcneill",
"klinore",
"mathworks",
"paul",
"takrl"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17275
|
Should you avoid cooling a frying pan with water?
Sometimes after I fry something, I wash it immediately in water because it's a bit easier to wash (before the remains stick to the pan).
Does this damage the pan in any way?
If you cool a pan too quickly it could deform, especially if your using a cheap pan. A cast iron pan could crack. This is most likely to happen if you dip a hot pan in cold water.
If you want to get a jump-start on cleaning, de-glaze the pan with a cup of water as you would when making gravy. Pour off this liquid and set the pan aside to cool completely.
Yeah, de-glazing a pan always ruins it...
@Didgeridrew It looks like you implicitly approved (by amending) a suggested edit from an anonymous user that was actually an attempt to reply to this post. (It adds a sentence to the last paragraph that contradicts it.) Might want to be a little more cautious going through the queue!
Heated metal will move towards the source of the heat causing the valley in the middle of cheap cook ware. The heated bottom side is hotter than the inner surface of the pan and expands more.
If heated and cooled slow this is much less likely to occur.
Cooking at too high a temperature and pouring water in the pan while very hot will cause this type warp.
When I was first married my wife, we had cheap aluminum cookware. She was always warping the bottoms. About once a month I would take the clean skillet and get it quite hot, then holding the pan with a thick oven mit turn it upside down and run very cold water on the bottom of the pan.
I may have to do the trick three or four times but eventually the bottom would be flat as new till she burned something and poured cold water in it again.
Be prepared for a lot of steam:
I wore a light jacket when pouring the water on the hot pan to keep the hot steam off my arms (as well as the aforementioned oven mit)
DON'T TRY THIS WITH CAST IRON COOKWARE
This would depend on the kind of pan, the heat level of the pan, and the coldness of the water, if any of these are at real extremes, but I'm guessing that in most cases, you will not have a big problem with pan damage. Make sure there is not a lot of hot fat in the pan when you add the water (which would cause spatters ), but that's more of a personal safety issue than a pan damage issue. There are other things in a kitchen that I'd worry about much more than pan damage (dull knives, for example)
Devin_S' answer is a good one but as he said, be cautious if you are using a cheap pan. I use cast iron and carbon steel pans mainly and occasionally very thick bottomed stainless. When I finish cooking (frying or otherwise), as soon as I remove the food I use paper towels to absorb any oil and then add just enough water to coat the bottom of the pan, then only a light scrape is required to loosen any stuck bits. You can then allow the pan to cool and wash it after dinner. I only use soap on my cast iron or carbon steel pans if they are really a mess. Washing with soap 'could' cause food to stick to the pan but I just season with oil, reheat the pan and allow it to cool again before storing it. I've been doing it this way for years using the same pans and my Mother did it this way before me and her Mother before her. Never had a pan warp or crack.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.933351
| 2011-08-29T17:34:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17275",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Charon",
"Chris Cirefice",
"Deandre Clark",
"Kev jack",
"Mahesh Patidar",
"Mary Lou Soliz",
"Pamela Martin",
"Ryan Lanham",
"TFD",
"Vlad",
"Willa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94744"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20689
|
Why was there not enough foam in my garlic foam with soy lecithin?
This was my first attempt at making a foam using soy lecithin. I used 3 garlic cloves, 2/3 cup water, 2/3 cup milk. Then i used an immersion blender. I got a bit of foam on top but there wasnt a lot of it. It felt like a waste of a lot of milk. How much foam should I be expecting?
For now, I put the foamy mixture in the fridge, is there a way to salvage and get more foam?
How much lecithin did you add?
it was just 2 grams
What brand / type of soy lecithin did you use? I've had better luck with ones bought specifically from the well known modernist supply places than granules from a health food store. Also, are you keeping the immersion blender half immersed and tilted so it injects a lot of air? In any event, this isn't going to be a real stable foam, it would be one you'd need to make to order probably.
Just an idea... I've had problems making foam because of hard/basic tap water (a lot of chalk in the water) - making frape though, not garlic foam:) Foam will more easily form in soft water as you can easily test with a piece of soap. If you have hard tap water you could try using boiled water (some of the chalk in the water will react and leave a residue on the bottom of the pot) or bottled water with pH 7 (neutral). Another idea would be to add just enough acid for neutralisation but I imagine that could be a bit tricky and you'd risk the milk curdling so I wouldn't recommend it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.933673
| 2012-01-22T21:40:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20689",
"authors": [
"Michael Natkin",
"Sobachatina",
"Tim Ruddick",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7287",
"moorecats",
"zeromorphism"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15151
|
How can I tell if a balsamic vinegar is good?
I bought a bottle of balsamic vinegar, and it smells so sour when I put my nose over the bottle.
Is it supposed to be like that?
Well, it IS vinegar. However as you probably already know, higher quality balsamic vinegar is less sour and more rich tasting than its cheaper counterpart. It's unlikely that your balsamic is spoiled--in most ways vinegar is as spoiled as it's going to get.
More likely is that you've uncovered one of the issues with balsamic vinegar: Most of what you can get in a supermarket is of low quality, and is not produced in the traditional way (years of curing and evaporation in wooden casks). What you can get is more likely to be much more mundane wine vinegar with flavorings. And that is often more acidic-tasting and pungent than the real thing (which costs an arm and a leg).
I'd say sample it carefully and see if it's as sour as it smells. It might be OK, or you might want to find a new brand or get it at a store that goes through it faster (check the best by date, if there is one).
These imitations are usually called "balsamic vinegar of Modena". If you see those exact words, run away.
When I taste it, it is so sour that my tongue have irritating feel on it. But the taste is fine, except the sour.
@gunbuster: Some of the non-authentic ones are really sour, for sure. The only thing to do is try others that are within your price range. We use the Whole Foods house brand most of the time (it's not "real," but has a decent balance of sweet and sour), and then have a really nice one from Sur La Table for special situations.
To give you some basic parameters, a high quality balsamic vinegar will be thick and syrupy, quite sweet as well as tart, and cost a minimum of around $30 for 3 ounces. It is meant to be drizzled in tiny quantities to finish a dish, not mixed into salad dressing.
To add to what @Aaronut said, the correct name of the balsamic vinegar of Modena is "Traditional Balsamic Vinegar of Modena," which is a protected designation of origin. Nobody should call "traditional balsamic vinegar of Modena" something that is not obtained using a specific method. That is why "balsamic vinegar of Modena" is the name used for the imitations of the "traditional balsamic vinegar of Modena."
As far as imitations go the Trader Joe's one is quite acceptable.
Also, often cheap (in all senses) imitations contain caramel. When you see caramel and/or thickeners in the ingredient's list, an alarm should start ringing.
I have found what improves a cheaper balsamic vinegar is to remove the top, rubber-band some cheesecloth on the top, and put it in the back of your pantry for a year or so.
There's a good chance your vinegar went bad, though vinegar of all qualities can usually be used while cooking. Expensive vinegars can be used straight, such as with cheeses, as a sauce over pasta, or glazed on fruit.
Lower quality vinegars are better for cooking (Put balsamic in towards the end of the cooking/heating cycle, as the flavor will dissolve when heated too much!) and mixing in foods.
How do you know when a balsamic is good quality? Yes, there are stamps of approval from balsamic boards in Italy, and high-quality balsamic vinegar should only come from a few of these regions. When you pay more for a good balsamic (price is a good indicator), you'll often get a wax seal, a sweeter flavor from aging, and a much more viscous vinegar. The older, more expensive, and more aged it is, the more like honey it will look when you pour it out of the bottle. Runnier, looser balsamics are diluted with water and will often taste more tangy (as does yours--though again, there's a good chance it went bad). Try Dodi brand or balsamics from the Emilio region, especially those that come with certificates.
Great balsamics are aged, thick, sweet, and sticky, so although yours is probably fine for cooking, I'd invest in a higher-quality vinegar for special occasions.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.933822
| 2011-05-31T09:59:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15151",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cathleen Baldwin",
"Michael Natkin",
"avpaderno",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"lamwaiman1988",
"nico",
"renegade"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17486
|
Why does cheese have an expiry date?
I am wondering why there are expiry dates on cheese. Sorry if I am not very clear about how cheese is made, but isn't cheese made from rotten milk? Some cheeses have molds on them too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casu_marzu -- not for the faint of heart
Cheese is not made from "rotten" milk, let me clarify that. Rotting is an uncontrolled process in which bacteria, molds and other life forms colonize milk, eat it, release waste into it and die. The resulting, rather unpredictable, crud we call rotten (or more precisely spoiled) milk.
Most cheese is the product of highly controlled action by bacteria that produce acids that coagulate the casein in the milk. The type of bacteria, the temperature, the amount of time they are allowed to act, the amount of water you drain out of the curdling milk, all control the end result in terms of texture, taste and flavor.
The kicker, though, is that cheese is by no means a sterile product - not even cheese made with pasteurized milk. Bacteria remain inside the cheese, and of course bacteria (and molds and yeasts) land on its surface through its processing and shelf time. While the action of these bacteria can be slowed down by cold and dryness, most cheeses will go bad after a while. How long is "a while"? It depends. At room temperature, mozzarella will go bad in a matter of hours while an aged unopened Parmesan may sit happily on a shelf for months and even years.
(apologies for the short and brutal definition of cheese: I have omitted curdling by other methods and the various surface treatments that can be applied to cheese crust)
This answer makes me happy that I'm lactose intolerant.
@maker: you do realize your intestines are full with bacteria anyways, right?
@nico I try to comfort myself with the thought that I'm missing the enzyme to digest cheese, and have less bacteria as a result ;)
Note that many products that naturally come with bacteria are actually more resistant against spoilage: the "intentional" bacteria are harmless, but compete against spores, molds, etc that come later. A completely sterile product is heaven for the first bacterie that finds it.
Being lactose intolerant is one of the worst things that can happen to a person! Others including: Diabetes, Celiac, or pretty much anything that keeps me from eating delicious foods! Never be happy for them!
Most hard cheeses (like cheddar) no longer have significant lactose due to the fermentation process, so there is no need to cut all cheese out of your diet solely for that reason. However, finding it creepy is a fine reason.
@KateyHW never tell a lactose intolerant person he can eat cheese because "it doesn't contain a lot of lactose". Depending on the seriousness of the condition, the tiniest amount can lead to very serious consequences.
I really like a cheese like Camembert when it becomes old and starts to loose shape. It has a strong smell but the best flavor ever!
Most if not all supermarket products have expiry dates for many reasons, stock rotation, product recalls, insurance, etc
For many products you can generally ignore it, and use normal food safety advice on how long something will last
People have always done this with wine, why not other foods?
Interestingly it has become a sort of modern hobby. Buying fresh bulk cheese and ageing it yourself to see how "tasty" you can get it
As Walter points out, cheese is not made from rotten milk. It is made from clean milk that is deliberately infected with specific cultures that cause the milk to coagulate
Building on some of the answers above:
Expiry dates on cheese serve a couple of purposes: one, to let markets know when to throw it out/return it to the vendor, and two, so that you know if you're buying a cheese today whether you can expect to use it next week.
For judging the fitness of the cheese itself in the fridge, it's generally pretty obvious when a cheese is bad. It's sprouting lots of fuzzy mold, exuding smelly liquid, and/or just reeks in a way it didn't when it was new-bought. I tend to find that most cheeses are actually good significantly longer than their expiry dates would indicate if stored properly.
Moisture, moisture, moisture! That is the difference between aging cheese and cheese going bad. Aged cheese is allowed to "dry up" relative to the amount of time it is aged whereas cheese that goes bad is due to aging while maintaining its moisture content.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.934162
| 2011-09-05T07:45:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17486",
"authors": [
"Brian",
"Catalin Hritcu",
"Cyberson",
"Katey HW",
"Linda",
"MSalters",
"Sandra",
"Shefh-d'jeur",
"Shelbi Powell",
"Sklivvz",
"Steven Bell",
"Thomas",
"Vincent",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84457",
"jwenting",
"makerofthings7",
"nico",
"synapse"
],
"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
}
|
17692
|
Where can I buy corn kernel for making popcorn?
I want to home make popcorn by myself. Watching some video on youtube, I saw they are using a kind of kernel of corn. Are they different to what we eat normal corn? It seems that they are much smaller.
Popping corn is different to 'sweet' corn. It would be easier to suggest a location to buy it if you told us roughly where you were, i.e. your country.
I am in Hong Kong.
Ask at your local supermarket for "popping corn", not popcorn. Usually in the snacks section or whole foods section
In Hong Kong try Edens or Little Giant
On the mainland be careful "popping corn" is a pyrotechnic device !
To make popcorn you don't need any special equipment, just a saucepan and a little practise
Yes is different from normal corn. Gets hot with oil and small water inside makes corn pop.
In the U.S., it's always sold dried and in whole kernels, unlike other kinds of corn, which are sold either whole (i.e., corn on the cob), as canned or frozen kernels, or dried and ground up as cornmeal or corn flour.
It's usually easy to find "microwave popcorn" at any supermarket, which is a handful of popcorn and some oil and flavorings inside a paper bag that is designed to be put into the microwave. Loose popcorn is less common, but still readily available if you know where to look. There's also little foil frying pans with a similar mixture to what is in the microwave bags, that you can cook on the stovetop, but those are rare these days.
There is a special kind of corn used just for poping. You should be able to get this at your local market. I have seen many varietys of specialized poping corn from online distrubutors though. A buddy of mine bought some from here.
Sweet corn is different from pop corn due to pop corn having a extremely tough shell. The shell lets steam build up inside until it EXPLODES!
Amazon is almost always a good starting point for "where can I get....?" questions: Amazon Popcorn, you will probably pay more for shipping but it should get there. (I don't know of any restrictions on importing popcorn, but that doesn't mean there aren't any.)
For home popcorn production you can't beat a Whirley Pop popper. Any of these is a great way to go. (I don't normally endorse brands, but this is an exception.)
If you want to learn more about popcorn then the is the book "Popcorn" by Patrick Evans-Hylton
You should be able to find it anywhere South Asian (Indian) groceries are available. Its been some time since I was last in HK but I think you could try the Kowloon area.
I have an air popper to pop my popcorn kernels. In the USA I can find it in bags or bottles usually closer to the bottom row out of direct line of vision, but near the microwave popcorn in the snack, cracker, chip section.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.934566
| 2011-09-13T07:21:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17692",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6194",
"lamwaiman1988"
],
"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
}
|
27799
|
In what situation could we use black garlic?
I read that there are something called black garlic out there. What is the common usage of black garlic? What is the difference of its from common garlic?
EDIT: Black garlic starts out as regular garlic and is put through a fermentation process that besides changing the color of the cloves to black, also mellows the flavor and reduces the sharpness associated with raw garlic. The texture of the cloves become very soft, also. While I have never used nor eaten black garlic, a website, linked below, is dedicated to everything related to black garlic, including how to use it in recipes.
Blackgarlic.com has a wealth of information on how this fermented version of garlic is made, its unique qualities including taste, texture and chemical properties, where to get it and...recipes!
http://blackgarlic.com/
NEW EDIT: And to balance out the linked info. so there's a non-commercial reference, I found this very in-depth article on black garlic's attributes that includes a reference to a scientific study: http://www.wellbeing.com.au/newsdetail/Black-Magic-Garlic_000553
Down-voter, please provide reason!
I'm not the down-voter, but I would imagine it being because you're only linking to a source and not really answering the question.
@citizen, thanks for feedback, I've edited my answer.
It's also a little awkward that, though there is information, the site is essentially an advertisement for an online store. (Though I'm sure it wasn't your intention, that did make your answer look a little spammy.)
@Jefromi, thanks, I added a 2nd link to a non-commercial site.
It is not a fermentation process.
@Mo1 according to the information on blackgarlic.com, it most certainly is produced through a fermentation process. Please provide evidence to the contrary.
It’s says fermentation but fermentation is the breakdown of a substance by bacteria, yeast, or other microorganisms. Black garlic is just heated. So by definition it is not fermentation.
Black garlic is slow-cooked and fermented using a process developed in Korea. In Southeast Asia, it is sold as nutritional supplement (in energy drinks, etc.) more often than as an ingredient. The garlic is charcoal black in color, and tastes mostly of the caramelized sugars in the original garlic, and only faintly garlicky. Think of it as a sort of sweet garlic jam.
Since black garlic is essentially a sweeter, less garlicky roasted garlic, it could be used in place of roasted garlic. This would include salad dressings, pasta, and pizza. Obviously, it can also be used for Korean, Thai and Vietnamese food. While I haven't had it this way, I imagine it would give a terrific flavor boost to Vietnamese or Korean clay pot dishes.
That being said, I don't buy black garlic despite it being fairly easy for me to obtain (I live in San Francisco). The flavor isn't that much better than regular roasted garlic, it's far more expensive, and it looks unattractive.
I agree with the expense bit... only the other day I came across some in my local super market here in Spain, I should have realized the price would involve a second mortgage as it was in a small, but very pretty little pot!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.934907
| 2012-10-14T12:37:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27799",
"authors": [
"Akosua M. A. Lusietto-Porch",
"Cascabel",
"David",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Mo1",
"Nate Radebaugh",
"Trusha",
"citizen",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"fukiburi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70944",
"linda",
"nick012000",
"sonlessatou",
"wysiwyg"
],
"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
}
|
15445
|
Is there a "safe" way to cook ghost chili?
I may want plant some ghost chili pepper, but I am afraid it will be too hot to eat.
Is there any safe method to prepare/cook ghost chili which will not reproduce insanely hot heat from the throat to stomach?
What about habanero chili pepper? Is it safer to eat?
A ghost chili is about 10 times hotter than a habanero. If you're used to spicy food then you should have no trouble at all with a habanero.
I'd say 5 times hotter... habaneros range from about 150k SHU to 350k SHU, with the naga jolokia (ghost chili) going from 1000k SHU to 1.5 million SHU. But yes, they can be used like a hotter habanero, although probably not as sweet. Raw habaneros have a very pleasant bell pepper sweetness under the spiciness, which adds a nice note to dishes cooked with them.
possible duplicate of How can you reduce the heat of a chili pepper?
Dilute heavily by using a very small portion of peppers per dish
Allow cooking time for the pepper flavor to permeate the dish before adding more. It's not like black pepper where the taste spreads instantly.
Remove the seeds and membranes holding them, as this reduces spiciness considerably
Cut peppers very finely or puree so there aren't any large pieces to deliver a shocker in the final dish
Wear gloves when handling the peppers
If you don't use gloves, wash your hands well before touching your eyes, mouth, or other "sensitive regions."
AND FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD AND HOLY, DO NOT FRY OR SAUTE THE PEPPERS.
No, seriously. The last one is a mistake you only make once, and should be on a warning label with all store-bought chilis. The capsaicin somehow becomes volatile when heated enough, and the result is like filling your entire domicile with pepper spray.
I am ashamed to say that the last two cautions are drawn purely from personal experience. It's not the kind of "hot date" you want to share with an (un)lucky person, believe me.
My brother regularly cooks steak with copious amounts of onions and habaneros; occasionally this results in noxious capsaicen-smoke that runs everyone out of the kitchen... That said, we regularly cook with, sautée and fry hot chilis without any ill effects...
There may be some trick to preventing it... it might be a specific temperature range that causes it. But it's well worth avoid as it makes the kitchen nigh-unusable.
I once started rinsing a food processor I'd chopped a lot of habaneros in with fairly hot water (~150°F). Yeah, DON'T DO THAT EITHER.
I imagine your "hot date" won't forget to make sure hands are thoroughly washed if they are going anywhere near their "sensitive regions" again, either. Ouch.
The "heat" from a chili is from its acid content... This is why milk is so good when you have a spoonful of curry or chili that is too hot for your palette. In the same way, some ingredients will dilute the heat of the chili, while others; while not having a heat content of their own can intensify it.
As an edit, try to avoid processing fresh chili mixtures in plastic... The plastic or its scratches seem to absorb the compounds and will affect other ingredients that you may choose to blend later.
I like a glass bowl blender to make chili paste rather than my plastic food processor.
@AdrianHum No, the heat from a chili comes from it capsaicin, which has nothing to do with acid content. This is an oleophilic compound, which is why it binds to plastics readily, and does not rinse off with water. Milk has both water and lipid components, and the lipid component can bind to capsaicin.
Also make sure to clean the cutting board thoroughly afterwards - a quick rinse will leave enough capsaicin on it to make eg salad items cut on it afterwards uncomfortably hot for people not used to spicy food.
I too have experienced that last point - but it's also a way to reduce the heat in the peppers - by releasing it into the air through frying! :) The key is to have a strong fan over the stove. Perhaps as a bonus it will keep squirrels off the roof? :)
The hottest part of any chilli is the membrane the holds the seeds (contrary to popular belief that says it's the seeds themselves). If you remove this, you remove a lot of the heat. So if you want to try using ghost chilli, I'd suggest A) removing the seeds and membrane and B) chopping finely, then adding a little at a time to your dish, tasting after each addition until it's just right.
I'd also recommend wearing rubber gloves while you prepare the chilli, otherwise you'll blind yourself if you happen to rub your eyes. Capsaicin stays on your hands for a surprisingly long time.
This applies regardless of what variety of chilli you are using.
What membrane? membrane of the seeds?
Yes. The white stuff the seeds are held by inside the chilli.
I just came back from a local chili festival where I was able to taste the ghost chili for the first time. My favorite by far was a dark chocolate and toffee brittle with ghost chili. You can absolutely taste the difference between the ghost chili and habanero. I was surprised at how different the flavors are, but folks who aren't used to using different chilis may not taste the variation. Thanks for the advice, as my husband's immediate reaction was "Let's fry some up with eggs tomorrow." I thought...let's not.
I also suggest, for anyone wanting to get the heat and flavor from chilis without using what may be a chili that's too hot for them-- chili vinegar. Just pack a jar (or a bottle if you want a nice display) with as many chilis as you want, top with a mixture of red wine and apple cider vinegar, and pop it in the fridge. Let it sit for a few weeks before using it. The flavor matures with age.
Lots of folks will tell you to throw it away after 6 months. I just keep topping off the vinegar after I use more than a third of the jar and have kept different jars of pickled chilis like this for upwards of 16 months. When I feel the chilis have been hanging around too long, they become hot sauce. Use the vinegar in everything from salad dressing to marinades to sauces.
If you put your hand into a jar, or use utensils that are not spotlessly clean, you should not keep the jar for more than a few months!
@TFD: What pathogens could grow to dangerous levels in a refrigerated jar full of vinegar?
@CareyGregory There are a variety of bacteria and moulds that grow in acid environments. Common human ones are responsible for urinary tract infections. Some have been found to survive in highly acidic and boiling hot mud pools? The cold does not kill them, just slows them down, over time they grow into dangerous numbers
@TFD: Yes, I know cold only slows them, but I was unaware of pathogens that could grow in an acidic environment and that were also dangerous to humans to ingest (not sure how an ingested pathogen would make it to the urinary tract in an uncompromised adult). This might make a good question, actually.
Some people will call "sacrilege" and "cheating", but I find it perfectly acceptable to use part chili part sweet peppers (bell peppers work, but I prefer the long red kapia). Adjust the ratio depending on your heat preference. It also works with chili powder and red pepper powder.
Of course, combining this with ElendilTheTall's advice for removing seeds plus membrane will give you more chili before you reach your heat limit, so I'd do it too.
"Blasphemy" would be more appropriate.
@Aaronut, I'd accept on my plate a pepper grown in Marduks recording studio, as long as it is sweet.
I like this idea. It's cheating, but it's clever. The best possible pepper to sub in would be the new habanero bred specifically not to produce capsaicin. Perfect match for chili flavor, sweet, and a seamless substitution.
"Ah- that pepper is not hot at all"... "Okay- let's do three-four at a moment"... "OOOHHH WATER...."
Of course, one can trust the users of english.SE to find the perfect word. I am very happy with sacrelicious as description for a non-hot chili (thank you @horatio).
I make hot pepper jam, and the sugar cuts the heat. I haven't used ghost pepper, but I have used habaneros and scotch bonnet. The recipe used is in the pectin I buy, although I chop and use the entire peppers, to make the jam hotter.
But, as others say, always use gloves when handling the peppers, and the boiling fumes when making the jam can be hard to take.
It makes a great jam for meat and tomato sandwiches, with a heat that sneaks up and slaps you.
hot pepper jelly is amazing on fried egg sandwiches, too. (or even just toast)
If you use cheese and/or sour cream with your chili, that will counteract the spices in the chili. Also be sure to have a glass of ice cold milk on hand to drink. You can use acidic fruit juices like tomato or orange if you cannot have dairy. The fruit juice also counteracts the spices.
Peppers like that work best with dishes that have plenty of emulsified-in fat in the sauce - anything based on coconut milk, cream, yoghurt ... can be spiced to a pleasant level with a small amount of them. More watery sauces/broths (that includes "brown" chinese sauces, red tomato sauces and tomato based chili) will come out unpleasantly harsh even if not inedibly spicy (if familiar with Thai food, compare a Gaeng Phed with a Gaeng Pa made from the same amount and type of paste to see which direction things are going).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.935215
| 2011-06-14T03:49:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15445",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adrian Hum",
"BobMcGee",
"Carey Gregory",
"Cherrie",
"Dushyanth Shenoy",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jeff Strunk",
"Joe",
"Mad Martian",
"Melodie",
"Poh",
"Ron Dahlgren",
"Ryan Elkins",
"Spam",
"TFD",
"Tara",
"Thaddeus Howze",
"Thomas Thorogood",
"Tom",
"Xoque55",
"ZinebM",
"bubu",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91480",
"lamwaiman1988",
"mfg",
"rackandboneman",
"robert vanmerkesteyn",
"rumtscho",
"user3169",
"user70602"
],
"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
}
|
15660
|
Which type of blueberry for making jam?
If I want to make blueberry jam, which type of blueberry should I use?
I just bought a pack of blueberry, but I found that the flesh/pulp of them is not blue, but light green in color. When people say "blue"berry, do they mean the color of the skin only?
How many type of blueberries can be bought in markets?
All the blueberries I've ever eaten had insides that were a pale gray or green color. The skin is the blue part -- although it turns a nice purple when cooked.
Common names of plants are a very unclear matter. There are big differences not only between languages, but also regional differences within a single language.
There are lots of (closely related) plants which are sold under the name blueberry. And probably not even the person who grew (or gathered) them can tell you the exact species. While it does matter when it comes to jam (for the same reason it matters whether you use Roma tomatoes or Cherry tomatoes for a sauce) it is highly improbable to find a source which can consistently provide you with a specific known variety. Also, you probably have to study some very specified botanical literature and be provided with parts of the plant other than the berries in order to be able to identify the type with some degree of accuracy.
On the other hand, don't let that come in the way of good jam. Blood orange marmelade may taste different than bitter orange marmelade, but both are good. The same goes for blueberries: you can use any variety, even if some of them would be a bit better on their own.
What you need for a jam is a good sweetness to acid ratio, the proper amount of pectin, and as much aroma as possible. A softer texture also helps to prevent unpleasant lumps. So generally, you want to go with the ripest fruit available. They are soft, and have the fullest aroma. This is something you might want to consider with your current source of berries: maybe they're not a special "green on the inside" variety, but only underripe. If they don't taste very sweet, and their aroma isn't very complex, I'd try to find other sources. Farmer's markets and organic stores are usually able to sell much better fruits (because they cater to a picky, price-inelastic clientelle), but of course they cost a lot too.
Sweet fruit is always good, but you need enough sugar added for food safety. A ratio of 2:1 (fruit to sugar) can still be kept in the pantry, more fruit than that and you need to refrigerate the unopened glasses too. With blueburries, you'll need to add both pectin (to get the jam to gel) and acid (to get the pectin to work). This is the part which will vary with fruit variety: more watery types will need more pectin, and less acidic types will need more acid. If you want a good quality jam, you'll need to do some experiments until you get the proportions right. If not, you can buy "jam sugar" or however it is called in your country - this is sugar with pectin and acid already added. It won't have the perfect ratio for your fruit, but it will more or less work. But then, if this quality is enough for you, you can skip buying the expensive berries and slaving at the stove, and buy manufactured jam.
i'll also just add that, from my own experience (last week!) making blueberry jam, the blueberries i bought are exactly as you describe (what i think of as a common, ordinary blueberry), and during the cooking process the jam turned into the dark blue color i expected.
This is my experience as well. The color comes from the skin and infuses through everything. Grape jellies I have made have been exactly the same.
When I buy blueberries, they are usually purplish on the inside, and colour everything without cooking (e. g. a smoothie). Of course, they are probably bilberries rather than blueberries, the distinction isn't made here. Still, good to know that the "green" fruits are usable too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.935947
| 2011-06-21T06:13:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15660",
"authors": [
"Domon",
"Lynn Crumbling",
"Martha F.",
"Sobachatina",
"Tomer Weller",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"user420667"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
52312
|
Moldy black truffles-are they edible?
Help! My friend brought me 3 Italian black truffles in brine (according to the label), packed by the producer in a glass jar. When I received them they weren't actually in liquid. I didn't realize they were supposed to be refrigerated. I left them in the cupboard for a few days and now I have discovered a gray, fuzzy mold growing on them with a bit of slime on the bottom of the jar. This is very sad. Can I rinse them off and still eat them? It would be such a shame to throw them away. Also, as a side question, I've never used truffles before-are they supposed to be hard? Or is this another sign that they're old and moldy and should be tossed in the compost? Thanks for your input.
From Google:
While you probably won't die from eating fungus, keep in mind that foods that are moldy may also have invisible bacteria growing along with the mold. The colorful mold you see on the surface of food is just the tip of what is going on inside. Most molds are harmless, but some are dangerous. Some contain mycotoxins.
My suggestion is that unless you are trying to make penecillin, throw them away. The risk is not worth it. Italy is still there.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.936259
| 2015-01-05T23:39:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52312",
"authors": [
"Megan Hodapp she her",
"Paula Avila",
"Ramona Bedwell",
"Rose",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124207",
"moriah johnson"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15186
|
What can I cook for Indian guests without trying to mimic Indian cuisine?
I am raised in Belgium, with the Belgian cuisine related to the French and (to a much lesser extent) the German. I'm having Indian friends over for dinner and I don't know what to cook for them.
Last time I had an Indian friend, I tried to cook something authentic, the way my grandma would have prepared it: lots of veggies, with very little spices and not too salty. It was not a hit. Indian people are used to very spicy food (compared to Europeans).
I don't want to try to mimic the Indian cuisine in front of Indian people. That won't work. But I still want to prepare something that they will like, based on our local culture. Can you give me any suggestions?
Not meaning to state the obvious, but have you checked their dietary restrictions? I have several Indian friends who do not eat meat (obvious), eggs (less so), garlic or onion. I know others who chow down on beef big time.
It may sound strange, but people from other nations have prejudices about "foreign foods" - they like the foods they are used to. Indians hardly ever eat out - when they do in India, they usually go to "Chinese" restaurants, but the Indian "Chinese" cuisine has a very heavy vegetarian bias. You could serve them vegetable curry and frites ... all Indians are accustomed to vegetarian cuisine, it is very high class to them, even if they are not vegetarians! Ice cream is also OK, if it doesn't have eggs in it - with fresh fruit, or just the fruit. Mulligatawny soup for starter?
In addition - whilst you might think it could offend Indians if you try to present them with Indian food, in my experience they are pleased that you are trying to provide food to accommodate their taste. Do not be afraid to attempt / "mimic the Indian cuisine". The food you make may not resemble what they get at home, but they will appreciate having "familiar food". Give them the delicacies of classical French cuisine, and they will start asking questions about the preparation and provenance of all the ingredients before consenting to approach the table! Remember it's all foreign muck to them!
If Belgian food is anything like the Dutch food my Oma made, your best bet is to limit it to the dessert course and strike out in a different direction. Even there, throwing in an extra pinch of salt and a little fresh ginger or cardamom powder may help liven it up for your friends.
One area where you'll both be happy: Mediterranean/Middle-Eastern fare. If you pick a recipe with plenty of aromatic herbs and spices, and maybe yogurt, it'll have the rich flavors your friends are used to. However, they won't be the same dishes they have at home, so they can't compare unfavorably to their mom or auntie's cooking. Flatbreads, kebabs, braised lamb, goat, yogurt sauces... these will be familiar elements, but by using Mediterranean or Middle-Eastern versions, you'll give them a taste of the exotic too.
Using South or Central American cuisine will have similar results; dishes rich in pungent chilis, cumin, and coriander will combine elements of comfort food with something new. Indian chapatis and naan (flatbreads) are very similar to homemade tortillas. It goes without saying that beef is to be avoided. Depending on what part of India your guests are from, coconut milk and tamarind paste may be other familiar elements to play with.
Portugal also has a fine tradition of spicy foods, including the Vin d'alho which Indian adapted into the now-familiar vindaloo.
If you don't feel comfortable with these cuisines, you might do Indian, but with a fusion twist. I found that Saag Paneer with blocks of feta instead of paneer is absolutely divine. Halloumi cheese might work well too. In fact, I'd say it's better than the original dish.
A word on dietary restrictions:
Presumably you know your friends' dietary needs, but if they're bringing new acquaintances it is wise to give some thought to dietary restrictions. Many Indians are Hindus, who do not eat beef, and another major fraction are Muslim. Muslims follow a dietary law called halal, which is very similar to kosher law, and likewise excludes pork and animal blood. It also excludes alcohol... which means a spicy tamarind-port pork marinade isn't viable.
A sizable part of the Indian population is also vegetarian, so any meal should include a vegetarian entree.
I'd say that having a vegetarian entrée is good advice for any large and/or unfamiliar group. There's almost always someone who won't eat the meat, whether it's an issue of religion (kosher/halal), life choices (vegan/vegetarian), health (fat/cholesterol), or plain old personal preference (I know at least one person who will only eat white meat).
@Bob: note that halal not only excludes pork, but also any other meat that is not processed to be halal (that means that the animal has to be killed following a specific procedure, by certified butchers etc.). Depending on where you live it may be more or less easy to find halal meat.
You can find recipes online for the following suggestions :
One thing you can try is to give a shot to Indian Chinese cuisine. I'm sure everyone must have tried some cooking some Chinese at some point. Basically they use spices to tastefully to fire up a Chinese dish. They are pretty easy to dish out.
Also you can try to mimic the Goan cuisine. Goa is a tiny part of India which had a huge Portuguese influence (The dish that BobMcGee mentioned Vindaloo, belongs to the Goan cuisine). Most Indians are unfamiliar with this cuisine, however they can relate to it. It relies heavily on seafood. The good thing about this cuisine is that it has this whole other branch of 'Hindu Goan cuisine' that has a variety of dishes for vegetarians. A lot of online recipes depict it to be spicy which is not true. This cuisine does not emphasize on heavy use of spices, rather it uses the spices in such a way that it enhances the flavour, rather than suppress it.
Good luck. :)
+1 for suggesting a cuisine I've never heard of, but which fits the bill precisely (Indian chinese)
My understanding is that a true Goan vindaloo is nowhere near as hot as what's come to be the standard in American- and British-Indian cuisine.
+1 on Indian Chinese. Hakka Chinese was one of my favorite foods when I lived in Canada
@Joe - you're right, the vindaloo are quite mild. You have to remember that a lot of curry names are "styles" adopted in other parts of India and beyond - you can buy TINDALOO curry in Bradford, and that is the hottest curry you are ever likely to meet.
Mexican food is a good way to go. Tacos are easy, and you can do bean tacos with all the veggies and fixings. I am not Indian, but I married in to an Indian family, who are vegetarian. You can make almost anything vegetarian, without using gross substitutes. I think we sometimes make it harder than it really is. I know I am guilty!
Well, considering neither French or German cookery makes much use of hot spices, that's a tricky one. Perhaps a beer casserole with chilli sausages if you can find them and plenty of black pepper, or moule frites spiked with lots of fresh red chillies?
If by some chance you like this answer please send me some of those purple cone-shaped jelly sweets you can only get in Belgium :)
@ElendilTheTall You'll need to send me your snail mail address, then.
Lol. They're a good excuse to visit Brugge, one of my favourite places, but thanks anyway :)
FYI, those sweets are called cuberdons.
Ha, yeah, I Googled it right after I typed it :)
Nice idea, but sausages are not a safe bet with Indian guests -- Hindus and Sikhs don't eat beef, and Muslims do not eat pork. Finally, many Indians are vegetarians.
Well, obviously I assumed Philippe will check that kind of thing!
It might be too late for your friends, but one thing to consider is that Indian food tends to be very complex; it's not like the one-dimensional spicing that you get in other cuisines.
Now, I'm not as familiar wih Belgian cuisine, and although I did grow up in the Netherlands, the neighbors I hung out with the most (as their mom was the English teacher at the local high school), were Dutch-Indonesian, so I'd lean towards Indonesean food as a possibility ...
... but my next idea would be to take something that's basically a Belgian dish, but is typically served with a sauce on the side ... so you could then offer up a variety of different sauces, some of which lean more towards Indian food.
For instance, as James Barrie mentioned frites -- you could serve it with some european sauces (eg, schaschlik or the sauce for patatas bravas), but also make some other asian or indian inspired sauces that they could try instead. You could also use kroketten with different fillings instead of frites if you wanted more variety.
I second BobMcGee's suggestion about Mediterranean fare. Another item to consider would be Italian food. Pasta al arrabiata is a favorite amongst quite a few Indians I know because of the chillies used in the recipe. A more difficult dish is eggplant parmigiana.
I think you have a point - but are these dishes popular with Indians because they are easily identified as vegetarian?
@klypos -- It is possible. Also, in many places these are the only vegetarian choices they have.
One thing that came to me - Speculoos, the Belgian cinnamon biscuits (praise the Lord, Lidl sell them all over Europe). I was having tea and a couple of speculoos (I'm addicted, or perhaps that should be verslavend), and it came to me that there are a lot of recipes about for cheesecakes with a broken biscuit base. The base is usually digestive biscuits, but a base of broken speculoos would be possible, and also add a spicing that would interest an Indian - while being Belgian!
I think I'm going to try it anyway, even if it doesn't help you.
Make Italian food. A solid saucy pasta tends to be agreeable across the board and is incredibly easy to tailor to any sort of dietary restrictions. All of my Indian friends really enjoy Italian food.
I suspect a simpler, alternate strategy might be to focus on making some flavorful condiments: chili sauces, seasoned salts, powdered chilies, tsatsiki-like yogurt, compound butter prepared with a few spices, herb or spice infused vinegar, mustards, strongly seasoned roasted nuts that could be dropped onto a salad. Local pickles may go over well. Then serve foods in your comfort zone and allow your guests to adorn things to their taste.
At one party, I made a simple dish with deep-fried (non-battered) eggplant wedges tossed with freshly grated ginger and soy sauce, variations of which exist in China, Korea and Japan. It was quite a mixed crowd, but this particular dish was a big hit with the Indian guests, who told me it was an Indian dish.
If you have non-vegetarian guests, you might try offering dishes that are popular in your area but have more spices than average; in Germany, Zigeunerschnitzel was popular, for example. I'm also inclined to believe that Northern Belgium offers a few dishes that are a bit more intensely flavored, at least with vinegars or mustard.
Very simple solution would be to prepare a simple lentil stew (dal or dahl) to serve along with a menu in your comfort zone. It's simple, ubiquitous, healthy and delicious. It doesn't have to be terribly hot but is much better with fresh spices -- I get mine in small quantities from the bulk section of the health food store.
My mind immediately goes to Gumbo. It would be somewhat exotic to all of you (I would think), yet familiar as a spicy stew served over rice. Since the varieties are endless, you can satisfy any dietary restriction. Make it as hot as your Belgian sensibilities can enjoy, and pass hot sauce. This is a good basic recipe for a typical gumbo http://www.gumbopages.com/food/soups/chixsaus-gumbo.html, check out the whole website, it has a wealth of information about all things Cajun and Creole. This is my absolute favorite hot sauce for this or any similar application http://www.outsidertart.com/dry-goods/sylvia-s-xxx-hot-sauce
Not all indian food is excessively hot, and they may enjoy trying the local cuisine. I would avoid the blander fare, though. Complex flavors and light textures would be the way to go. Moules-frites might be ideal, so long as you used a flavorful broth - Moules marinières, Moules parquées and Moules à l'ail all feature rich, strong flavors in a light seafood dish. A spicy remoulade would go well with the frites.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.936421
| 2011-06-01T19:05:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15186",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Avinash Bhat",
"BobMcGee",
"ElendilTheTall",
"James Barrie",
"Joe",
"Kevin Morgan",
"Koyeli Biswas",
"Michael",
"Mien",
"Philippe",
"Ray Mitchell",
"dave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87631",
"klypos",
"listix",
"nico"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19332
|
How can I make my Hot chocolate thicker?
I've been trying to make a thicker hot chocolate and I'm not sure what to add without taking away from the flavor of the chocolate. Usually what I do is boil the milk, and then I add chocolate baking powder and shaved chocolate.
if you're trying to recreate a thick hot chocolate you've had elsewhere, perhaps a higher-fat milk (or add cream to it) would help?
You can also try flavored coffee creamers, if you have those around but not plain cream.
What is "chocolate baking powder"?
Spanish hot chocolate and Italian cioccolata fiorentina both use cornstarch as a thickening agent. Both are used more for dipping or sipping (churros in the former case), however you could easily just use less cornstarch to make it more 'drinkable'.
Try a teaspoon of cornstarch, mixed with a little cold water, added to the milk when you boil it.
As Kate Gregory suggests, you could also use full-fat milk, or loads of shaved chocolate.
The hot chocolate you find at an Italian cafe is thick, even without being cioccolata fiorentina. :-)
Good to know. My knowledge of Italian cafes is sadly lacking unfortunately; I've had cioccolata fiorentina in a Carluccio's. Sponsorship for a fact-finding mission to Italy greatly appreciated. :)
I would agree with Kate to add higher-fat milk or cream to it and I would avoid putting in thickening agent if possible.
One thing I have tried at a cafe before that instead of boiling the milk, they used the espresso machine steamer to mix milk and drinking chocolate powder together. The hot chocolate turned out really nice and thick.
The other way of making thick chocolate I discovered was to melt cooking chocolate in a bowl on top of a pot of boiling hot water (just like hot you making chocolate cake, but no butter). While you are melting the chocolate, you may add in some sugar and cream or milk. Therefore, you will get a very thick chocolate drink and you are always in control of the thickness.
I find cornstarch gives an unwanted flavour for chocolate milk or cocoa, as does xanthum gum. Guar gum works well, it dissolves with a whisk and thickens without heating. I use 1/8 tsp per cup. Available at health food stores, large grocery stores and amazon. I have not tried carageenan but that is what the dairies use, so if you like the creaminess and flavour of commercial chocolate milk, go with that. Commercial chocolate milk is usually skim milk and i prefer whole milk which also makes it thicker also. You want something that suspends the cocoa butter particles in the liquid. Check out emulsifiers in Wikipedia if you want some background. Other liquids with some emulsifying characteristics: cream, rum, egg yolk (look up using a liason). You can also use glycerin. Before freaking out at the name of a chemical, know that glycerin is a plant based product and is often taken from coconut oil and other edible oils. Glycerin is used in Bailey's Irish Cream. Can't be all bad.
Mexican style hot chocolate, Atole, is thickened with masa harina - a fine ground flour or meal made from corn that has been nixtamalized or processed with a strong alkaline, either slaked lime or lye, to improve its nutrition.
The corn taste is inoffensive in the Atoles I've had, mild and sweet and complimenting the chocolate taste, a bonus rather than a problem. This drink is traditionally flavored with cinnamon or other spices (this is specifically called champurrado), but it is not required to to be tasty. The result is a thick, hearty, and very chocolaty drink - just what you seem to be looking for.
Instant masa is nixtamalized, cooked with CaOH, then mashed into a paste with a mill before being dried to powder. Great thickener!
@WayfaringStranger - Thanks for mentioning it! That it is nixtamalized is helpful information for anyone not familiar with the product, I should have remembered to mention how it's different from regular cornflour/cornmeal :)
If you're looking for a flavorless thickener which you cannot even tell is there, Guar Gum is your man. You can get it in your cooking store or specialty grocery for an inflated price, or go to an arab or indian grocer (trust me, there's one around you) and get it for cheap. This is also good to have around because it is especially good at thickening acidic liquids, like some chocolates.
Or xanthan gum.
Xanthan imparts a slimy feel if you use much of it. Powdered Tapioca might work, as might a whisked in egg yolk. That latter probably has a name that isn't "hot chocolate".
half teaspoon of Physlium Husk.... unflavored. Adds a little fiber too.
Cornstarch sifted if preferred for lumps and literally like 1/8th or maybe even less per every 8 ounces of fluid. "Bloom" your starch like you would yeast for breads in a small side cup with 1/4th a cup of warm milk stirred to remove any lumps and introduce it to your heated mixture before adding chocolate.
You can also use an egg yolk in the same manner ratios change to one yolk for every 12 ounces of liquid. Or (bear with me you non- old world cooks) pigs blood as a coagulation method adds a nice amount of richness and actually enhances the chocolate. You can get it by the pint from a good butcher. 2 oz blood for every 14 oz of chocolate. Note that last measurement is not liquid!
Note: adding too much of any of these will turn your lusciously creamy drink into pudding by a fraction so... Experiment. (:
Source: Italian grandparents made it these ways.
See if Ciobar is available in your country. This is what you find in Italian grocery stores, cafés and homes. If you can't find it at the local shop I'm sure you can buy it online.
Can you provide more info on what Ciobar is?
DONT USE THICKENERS. Yikes. If you make it on pure chocolate it will be thicker. Just choclate and milk. Full fat of course. If you want it even thicker cream and milk mix.
Welcome to the site! If you are wondering why your answer was downvoted (not by me), I recommend taking a look at this help page. Just a hunch - perhaps an edit would be in order.
@Stephie I'm not sure I picked up any rudeness. On the other hand, after stating so adamantly that thickeners should not be used, the author might have been expected to expand on that somewhat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.937427
| 2011-12-02T21:03:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19332",
"authors": [
"Cassie Vanko",
"Chad",
"Chris Steinbach",
"DRF",
"ElendilTheTall",
"GentlePurpleRain",
"Kate Gregory",
"Linda Lassiter Lucas",
"Megha",
"Mien",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"avpaderno",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/586",
"mbowles",
"rfusca",
"sanepete",
"shennan",
"user42072"
],
"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
}
|
6186
|
What is sumac used for?
A friend of mine told me she uses sumac (I am not sure she was teasing me, or what).
Is sumac used in cuisine? If it is used, what is it used for?
Sumac is commonly used a tart flavoring element in the eastern Mediterranen region. Historians believe that it was the common sour element in cooking for that area prior to domestication of lemons. It is a characteristic seasoning element in Fatoush, a Syrian bread salad.
It's not usually available in the mainstream spice section of most grocery stores. The best place to locate it is in mid-eastern markets, delis, upscale stores such as Dean & Deluca or online through Penzey's or the Spice House.
I find the sumac is often left on tables next to the salt and pepper at Persian restaurants. It is commonly used to add a light sourness to kebob.
It's used in Mediterranean cooking, though I don't know why more people don't use it. There were shakers of it on each table at a restaurant I used to go to before its nearby location closed - http://www.sorrentogrill.com/. Anyways, my favorite thing to get there was the Braised Chicken on Wednesdays. I would heavily sprinkle sumac on it!
The sumac gave a great earthy, slightly acidic, and very slightly salty flavor. It was the reason I got the dish - because I knew I could have the sumac with it!
They also served warm pita with a yogurt sauce. I would add sumac to that yogurt sauce, along with some salt, for a great way to start the meal.
You should definitely get some and experiment with it. It's certainly not a strange taste, just a very pleasing combination of flavors you don't get from other spices. If you ask me, it also has a hint of mushrooms.
The fruit of some varieties is used in traditional Middle Eastern cuisine. They dry it and use it like paprika (though it's flavor is more citrusy.)
Make sure you get the right kind. Sumac runs the gamut between edible and poisonous.
salads of any kind
if you make any deep fried food (such as falafel) dip them once into sumac, it adds an amazing flavor
on top of dips
in meat loaf / meat ball type dishes
I asked the same question to one of my friend, we do not use sumac that much either. He basically said whenever you eat onion use sumac. I tried couple times it works. You can add it to any salad. I make onion salad with sumac, very easy. Mix onion and sumac and squeeze it by hands. It goes great with hot dog, burger etc.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.937928
| 2010-08-27T15:58:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6186",
"authors": [
"RICARDO HOLMES",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57298",
"iman1003",
"mhbuur"
],
"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
}
|
12667
|
What is chickpea flour used for?
I bought a bag of chickpea flour once thinking (erroneously) that I could use it to make hummus. I've since bought dried chickpeas and made hummus the "right" way... but now I have no idea what to do with my unopened bag of chickpea flour. What is it generally used for?
Now, I know it can be used as a substitute for eggs (in vegan baking) and flour (for gluten-free cooking), but I'd rather not use it as a substitute for something better if I don't have to, so I'm looking for recipes where chickpea flour is the preferred ingredient.
OK, we are at 16 answers and they keep coming in, all of them suggesting random chickpea flour based dishes. It is an established ingredient with many uses. If there was any doubt based on the question itself, the answers show it: it does not fit the culinary uses guidelines (http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/740/).
Chickpea flour (gram flour, besan) is very useful in Indian cookery.
The most common use in the West is probably for making bhajis and pakora. The most popular of which are Onion Bhajis, very popular in the UK. They are essentially an spiced onion fritter, shaped in either discs or balls. Any vegetables can be used to make pakora (which is essentially the same thing) or bhajis, but spinach (sag pakora), aubergine (us eggplant, brinjal bhaji), potato (aloo pakora) or cauliflower (gobi pakora) are the most common, sometimes in combination.
Gram flour is also used for making poppadoms (also papad, papadum, a crisp fried pancake, served as an accompaniment to meals with chutney.
One of the more commonly seen uses is in chevda (sometimes chivda), or as we call it in the UK usually Bombay Mix (I believe it is called Punjabi Mix in the US). A mixture of dried savoury snacks, coated in spice. One of the primary ingredients is sev, a dried noodle made from gram flour. Mixtures predominantly composed of sev are called sev mamra.
There are also a number of Indian sweets made with besan.
Besan Barfi (barfi is something akin to fudge, made with condensed milk):
Besan Ladoo (little sweet balls):
NB. You can use it as an egg substitute in vegan cookery, but soya flour works better for the same purpose and, in my opinion, has less associated flavour.
Gorgeous pictures!
@Martha F.: The deep yellow of the besan looks good easily, makes you hungry. ;-)
You've succeeded in making me very hungry.
@keithjgrant: Funny how people vary. I've always found talking about food, reading menus, etc, can substitute for eating for awhile at least - a placebo and delaying tactic for the inevitable meal. Although it can make you ravenous when you stop.
I was going to randomly suggest some kind of fritter. Good answer.
In addition to what Orbling said, chickpea flour (called besan in Hindi), can also be used for making cheela or puda, which are like the Western pancake.
Also in addition to the ones Orbling mentioned, Mysore pak is another sweet that can be made with besan.
Quite often cheela is spelt chila, obviously there is no exact spelling as the alphabet is changing, same as all the translations. Some forms of dosa are made with besan are they not? I've not had mysore pak in years! All this talk of sweets is not good, I really want some jalebi now! ;-)
Yes, I've seen cheela spelt as chila. It's sometimes difficult to convey the exact pronunciation of Hindi words in English.
Chickpea - Garbanzo flour
I use it in many ways. Normally I start with the whole pea and run it through my Vita-mix blender, quite often along with lentils, great white northern beans. Depending on my end use I may run the batch through a sieve and rerunning coarse through the blender again.
The floured bean mix I keep some ready on the shelf for soup & sauce thickener _ and flavor. It is quick to cook.
When doing vegetarian meat recipes, I normally do a flouring of garbanzo, red winter wheat, etc. using about 1/2 this mix to approximately 1/2 vital. In this case I shoot for about 75-80% fine to the coarse thus introducing some texture into the completed recipe. I normally use the foil and steaming method over the boiling stock.
Hummus: sprout the garbanzo s { 2 -3 days} then dry the garbanzo at a low temperature. The flour in the blender. And of course your choices of the other hummus additives. Be inventive. Note normally I skip the drying phase and just blend the sprouted garbanzos into a paste - and then refrigerate.
this is very hard to red. What has it got to do with chickpea flour as per OP. Please look at other well voted answers as a "style guide". And also please read help on formatting (question mark on top right of answer box)
Nobody has mentioned socca? It's a delicious pancake from Nice, France. I first had it in Brooklyn at Pates Et Traditions where they serve it very crispy and buttery. Here is a recipe.
there's an italian hors d'oeuvre/bread-like side dish called "farinata" that is basically made with just chickpea flour, salt, olive oil, and not much else that is very delicious. it's kind of like polenta, but not exactly the same. very very easy to make. check out google!
Or, similar to that, but fried, are the panelle, which are typical from Palermo and delicious.
I use it to make Indian-style onion fritters. I think it's pretty commonly used in South Asian cooking, especially when things are fried.
You can use it to make felafel also. http://www.neetascleanrecipes.com/2010/08/baked-falafel-green-wraps.html
You can use it to make Sicilian panelle! They
Are delicious!
1 cup Garbanzo Flour
2 cups tepid water
2 Tbs of fresh chopped parsley
Pinch of Salt and Pepper
Cutting board
Frying pan
Vegetable Oil
Combine flour, water, and a pinch of salt in a pot, mix well with an electric mixer (you will see bubbles continue mixing until all bubbles and lumps are clear).
Next move pot to the stove and place on medium heat. Add the parsley and a pinch of salt and mix well. Also add a pinch of pepper as desired.
Continuously stir flour/water on stove until thickened.
Remove from stove, pour mix onto cutting board, spread mixture out on board and let cool.
Once cooled cut into squares, about 3”x3” and about a 1/4" in thickness.
Cover the bottom of the pan with vegetable oil, heat oil, once the oil is hot we are ready to fry the Panelle.
You want each side of the Panelle to be a golden brown in color and crispy in texture.
The amount of time it will take to fry depends on how hot the oil is. You don't want the oil too hot, you want to fry the Panelle slowly so that they don’t burn.
You can serve the Panelle with marinara sauce for dipping, use them in a sandwich, or alone.
I sometimes use it to thicken stews or gravies. It contributes an excellent flavor.
the best Anzac biscuits my kids and I have had were made with besan flour.
You can read some special dishes which ask for chickpea flour on Wikipedia.
Here you see some dishes which are more tastier because of the chickpea flour.
There are lot's of Persian recipes that use Chickpea flour too.
Including شیرینی نخودچی, کتلت, کوفته
I need to find out the English names, and I'll post some photos right out of our kitchen (hopefully soon).
All good foods - those would translate to Shirini-E / Nan-E Nokhodchi (chickpea cookies), Cutlets, Kofteh (like many of the Kofteh Tabrizi balls (though I usually see these done with soya protein).
How about tortillitas, a seafood pancake from Spain?
Chickpea batter (compare the pancakes/cheela mentioned above) also makes a good egg substitute in dishes where an egg garnish/pieces of cooked scrambled egg are used, eg japchae, pad thai or fried rice dishes.
I'm very surprised no one has mentioned this, but paratha, chapati and roti are all often made with chickpea flour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.938173
| 2011-02-28T22:07:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12667",
"authors": [
"AMIT KUMAR",
"Avinash Bhat",
"BlueBuddy",
"George Tirebiter",
"Georges Oates Larsen",
"Jeff",
"Martha F.",
"Orbling",
"Osvald Ivarsson",
"PoloHoleSet",
"TFD",
"TLW",
"Terry Haddix",
"TimH - Codidact",
"WandaKay Jayo-Meads",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99452",
"hurricaneMitch",
"hvogler26",
"jtopper",
"keithjgrant",
"nico",
"oskarlin",
"rumtscho",
"user26126",
"varantir"
],
"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
}
|
6433
|
Why does my Velveeta queso dip get clumpier the longer it stays in the microwave?
I had a bizarre experience with Velveeta this past weekend and was hoping you all could help me out.
I bought a block of Velveeta and some Rotel canned tomatoes to make a queso dip. I microwaved the dip for about 8 minutes total (taking out after 5 to stir.) After the 8 minutes were up, I started stirring the queso and noticed that the cheese was still clumpy.
So, I stuck the queso back in the microwave for four more minutes and when I took it out, it was worse than before.
This has never happened before, usually when it gets clumpy, you can just throw it in to the microwave for a little while longer and it comes out nice.
What happened here? Do some foods become clumpy when they are cooked too long? Could the Velveeta have been bad? I've made this several times, and I don't think I did anything different here.
Griener - I've never had this experience with a dip made from Velveeta and Rotel. Did you put anything else in? I always add milk, for example.
@justkt I didn't put anything else in. I never do, milk is a good idea though.
From what you're describing, I think the cheese (or cheese-like substance, in this case) 'broke' ... that is, the oil separated out of it.
I'd recommend:
Don't melt it at full power
Stir it multiple times during melting
Melt the cheese (or "cheese-food") seperately, then add the tomatoes, so the tomatoes don't get hot, causing uneven heating.
I'm not sure if there's a good way to recover cheese once it's broken. Some starch will help keep dairy from breaking in the first place, but I don't think it'd help you in this particular case.
I bet that's what happened, we microwaved it at full power and only took it out to stir once. I'll try your suggestions next time, thank you.
sorry Joe, forgot to mark your answer. Thanks for your help.
If you stir it vigorously with a whisk for about three minutes while hot it will recover
the cheese curdled---cook on lower setting about 50% and stir more often!!!
Kraft has changed the velvetta. it is now crap instead of the cheese we all grew up with and love. Look at all the complaints on the web. Kraft is trying to save a little money and screwed up their product. Kraft will not admit it, but they should fire the person that is responsible and go back to the old product we love. I will never buy another box of Velvetta.
This happened at the end of of 2012 and all the velvetta now will not melt, the oil seperates out of it and it makes a gooey mess.
This question was asked 4 years ago, so a change made in 2012 wouldn't have affected it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.939051
| 2010-08-31T14:46:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6433",
"authors": [
"Carmen",
"Champo",
"Joe",
"Judy Postier",
"Robert Greiner",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"justkt",
"tom48170",
"user12870"
],
"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
}
|
4507
|
How does roasting beef in a rotisserie compare to doing so in a regular oven?
When I prepare roast beef at home, it's never as good as the one prepared with a rotisserie.
What is the difference between a roast beef cooked in a rotisserie, and a regular oven?
Dry and even heat. There is still a difference, even with the same cut of meat and using a roasting rack to avoid roasting the cut in its juices: meat on a rotating skewer will be exposed to uniform heat. If you set the temperature of a home oven to 350°F, the top of the roast will be exposed to that temperature, but the bottom, in line of sight to the heat source, will be much hotter.
Commercial rotisserie ovens also cook the meat by convection and use the heating elements to create the outside crust. As the meat roasts, it becomes darker and absorbs more of the radiant heat from the roasting coils. So the outside ends up getting overcooked unless the roasting coils are carefully controlled, which is kind of hard to do. In a convection oven the temperature is constant around the roast.
Additionally, the roast done on a spit is going to lose less juice because of the rotating action. As gravity is pulling the juices downward the meat is rotating so what would have been the bottom is now becoming the top, thus the juices can't run out as easily.
Is that really true? If the roast is being heated to at least 60C (i.e., medium-rare range), then the juices it loses are due to the denaturing of collagen. I'd be surprised if the force of gravity alone could counteract the squeezing of the proteins. Even if the rotation did prevent moisture loss, the rotation speed would have to be finely tuned to the size of the roast: too slow and gravity will pull out moisture, too fast and centrifugal force will also pull out moisture. Or maybe that's why organizations like the Confrérie de la Chaîne des Rôtisseurs exist... ;-)
More even crust around the whole surface.
If you are roasting in a pan, the meat is likely sitting either it's own juices or in some other liquid. Even if you are flipping it over halfway through, the top and bottom are stilling spending half their time wet. Roasting a turning spit, the whole exterior gets exposed to the same amount of dry radiated and convective heat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.939297
| 2010-08-07T03:59:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4507",
"authors": [
"Annie Lagang",
"Barbara Daca",
"Bilbert",
"Coco590",
"DaveBurns",
"ESultanik",
"James",
"MGZero",
"Marcelo Bittencourt",
"Nicole",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8612"
],
"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
}
|
17637
|
Why does my German nut strudel fall apart?
I have a recipe for nut strudel, which calls for the following:
2 cups flour
1 stick butter
8 oz cream cheese.
I have made it twice, and both times the crust is all crumbly and does not roll well. Tastes great but looks like a mess.
Why wouldn't it hold together, and what can I do to fix it?
and the question is?
I've edited this to be a proper question; however, the recipe is obviously incomplete (no prep instructions and no nuts listed in the ingredients). Including the entire recipe or a reasonably complete summary will improve your odds of getting the right answer. If the recipe is online, you should link to it.
Assuming @Aaronut's translation to a question is correct (and it probably is...), what is the temperature of the butter when you mix it with the flour to form the crust? Are you melting the butter? (this would be bad) Are you cutting the butter into small (1/4 pieces)? Is the cream cheese in the crust?
I think the formula lacks water as gluing agent...
Another possible answer is that 'it went nuts'.
This is not a Strudel recipe. Аs BaffledCook showed with his recipe, a Strudel is made with a phyllo dough (flour and water, usually no egg at all). The dough is then rolled out until it is paper-thin, and the filling is rolled into it. The dough gets a bit hard and flaky after baking, especially if the filling is somewhat dry, but it doesn't fall apart.
The recipe you have is not for a phyllo dough, but for a cheese-oil-dough (German: Quark-Öl-Teig). As you mention nuts, I suspect that the whole dessert is in fact a Nusszopf, one of the more common use cases for a Quark-Öl-Teig. I can see how the butter led the other people here talk about flaking pastry, but in fact this type of dough isn't supposed to be a flaky pastry, and it is normally made with a neutral vegetable oil, not with butter. If it falls apart, this means that you used too much fat and not enough water, which is probably due to both the ratio and the substitutions.
First, there is the problem of cream cheese. It is not exactly the same thing as quark, and it has a very high fat percentage, I think about 75% of the dry matter. Quark is available in three fat types, with 10%, 20% or 40% fat of the dry matter. So the first thing I'd do is to use another substitution. If you have a Russian market around you, ask for tvorog. Else try ricotta (if there is some whey in the package, don't throw it away, use it in the dough). Both are drier than quark, so maybe you can add some milk to them (my gut feeling says 20:80 milk:cheese). If you want to stay with cream cheese, you probably can do it, but you'll have to calculate how much additional fat you have and then reduce the amount of oil you use.
The second point is the fat. Your recipe says butter, but you'll improve the plasticity of your dough with a liquid oil. Use a neutral-tasting vegetable oil.
Third, I have no idea how much a stick of butter is, but as you have all the symptoms of too much fat, your recipe probably has too much. The ratio of good quark-öl-teig is 4 parts flour, 2 parts quark, 1 part oil (measured by weight!). It also incorporates some liquid (milk or egg or water, just 1-2 tbsp) and backpulver. If you don't want to go fancy, you just roll it out at maybe 1.5 cm thickness, cover with the nuts mass, roll, and bake. There are advanced braiding techniques too, but they don't affect the taste much.
The texture of the baked Nusszopf is similar to some cakes, but somewhat harder and crispier. Here a picture of what it looks like (the dark parts are the nut mass):
A stick of butter is usually 8 tbsp / 1/2 cup.
As commented above, your formula lacks 'water'. A German recipe calls for:
250 g Mehl (flour)
125 ml Wasser, lauwarm (lukewarm water)
1 Ei(er) (Größe M) (Big M egg - whatever that means)
1 EL Öl (one spoon oil)
1 Prise Salz (a bit of salt)
The recipe uses the oil to coat the dough while resting, and the egg to brown the dough in the oven.
The butter is used in the filling to coat the dough from the inside (you put the rest of the ingredients on top).
Edit As Cos indicated, maybe the technique you are using is off. If you work the butter-flour fast and cold, the pastry will be flaky. That is because the flour coats the butter fragments, but the butter doesn't melt.
If you 'work' the dough with your hands, it gets warmer, the butter melts and gets integrated with the flour. This way the dough will become flexible and the pastry will not be flaky. So, there you have it. Work the dough with your hands until you get a smooth and probably sticky dough.
Water is not a neccessity for such a crust. Here is an example of a pie crust recipe that only uses butter, cream cheese and flour. http://busycooks.about.com/od/piecrustrecipes/r/creamcheepastry.htm It is one more stick of butter than OP uses, but the ingredients are likely fine, this is probably a matter of technique.
@CosCallis, you're probably right. In the end cream cheese and butter contain water...
Eggs are normed in the European Union. 1 Ei Größe M means an egg size M, or 53-63 g, which is a very common size. (The size is given on the package, so the customer can decide which size to buy).
@rumtscho, You're right, I was reading it wrong. I read egg big M. M is medium size so it got my mind spinning in the wrong direction. LOL.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.939649
| 2011-09-10T17:44:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17637",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BaffledCook",
"Barbara",
"Bettye Ruth Perry",
"Cos Callis",
"Madagainmedia",
"Sharon",
"adam",
"carol m mader",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17922
|
How to make tofu that is crispy and flavorful outside and soft inside?
I know how to fry tofu to make it firm, and also how to dry fry it and marinade it to make it flavorful. Neither of these cooking techniques mimics the tofu I get at my local Thai restaurant.
When I order tofu there, it is perfectly fried to give it firm texture on the outside, but when you bite in, it's juicy and melts in your mouth, making the tofu experience much better. It literally blends with the other flavors this way and I can't figure out how they do it. I'll also note that the inside is not seasoned, it's the internal texture that makes it taste so good.
Is it the type of tofu maybe? Or the frying time? Any ideas?
Most likely, they are using a softer tofu than you.
For whatever reason, the US is infatuated with unusually firm tofu, and supermarkets emphasize the "extra firm" varieties. In Asia, especially Japan and Korea, but even in China, most applications call for a softer, more custard-like tofu.
If it's soft inside, when you deep fry the tofu, it should stay fairly soft inside. The cornstarch or potato starch you coat it with will make the outer bits crispy.
I see, thank you :) I will try this next time and post results.
I should add that the fried tofu I've seen in Thai restaurants as an appetizer is generally fairly simply seasoned... Salt and Pepper is a good start, mixed in with the starch. I've also occasionally added bits of shiso when I wanted to make a more refreshing version of this to go with Japanese dishes.
Do you ever deep fry it, or are you always doing a pan-fry/shallow fry? Most of the tofu I see at Thai restaurants is deep fried, which yields the texture I think you are talking about. You may or may not be willing to deep fry at home, but I think if you do you'll get the result you are looking for.
i get the soft tofu, then cut into strips and roll in panko. fry in a shallow pan like you would fried zucchini. the panko keeps the crusty outside, and the soft tofu stays nice and "gooey"
Try broiling it. Depending on how soft you want the inside you can pres it first too.
Veganomicon has a good "basic broiled tofu" recipe, but basically just put some soy sauce + oil on sliced tofu and stick it in the broiler for about 8 minutes each side, or until you get the desired texture.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.940104
| 2011-09-21T20:44:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17922",
"authors": [
"JasonTrue",
"Yolanda",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7498",
"morgueanna"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30416
|
Roasting large quantities of garlic: whole unpeeled heads or peeled cloves?
I'm going to be making a soup dish that calls for 50 cloves of roasted garlic. I have always roasted garlic by cutting off the top of a head, drizzling it with oil, and wrapping with foil. Then when they're done I just squeeze out the paste from each clove. But some comments on the recipe say it's easier to roast them already peeled in a covered dish so you don't have to squeeze 50 cloves and deal with all the stickiness and peels.
Since I already know how to easily peel whole cloves very quickly, it doesn't make much difference in the amount of work for me to do it either way. In fact, it's probably quicker to peel them.
My question is, does it affect taste or any other quality to roast them as an entire unpeeled head rather than as peeled individual cloves? And if not, should roasting time be adjusted?
Garlic roasted as a head, as unpeeled cloves, or as peeled cloves is all much the same. It is just easier to handle unpeeled, and even easier when kept as a head
For easy results just trim the excess paper skin and roots of a whole garlic head, carefully trim just the tops of most of the cloves
Don't drizzle with oil and wrap in foil, this will just make a mess, and steam them more than roast them. Garlic is already very oily, it shouldn't need any more. Roasting items should be exposed to dry heat, not steam
Roast until soft and medium-dark brown. When cooled slightly, pull cloves apart and lay them out on a board. Squeeze out each clove using a firm spatula or other blunt tool. This should not be too messy. Wear disposable gloves if you don't like garlic on your hands
I think the olive oil is traditionally just added for flavour, not because any more oil is needed. And the steaming effect from the foil helps soften it up if you plan to use it as a paste. I do however agree that both are unnecessary, the garlic roasts just fine without it and unless you're eating the roasted garlic by itself, it's basically a waste of perfectly good olive oil.
I've found it easier to not cut the garlic first, but roast completely whole. Once through the papery layers, with an intact clove it's easy to pinch and peel swathes of the heat-hardened inner skin from where it was attached to the base, and the soft garlic clove slips out neatly - which is less messy than squeezing out the paste, as happens when the clove is exposed..
Peeled cloves can burn where they touch your roasting pan when roasting for a long time or at higher heat. Roasting in the skin protects against this a bit. So you may have to adjust your roasting time and method if you go with peeled cloves.
Personally, I would go with whole heads as I find they steam a little during roasting anbd produce a better texture at the end - fewer dried out bits.
If you plan to freeze, I've seen it suggested that you roast the cloves individually, so you can freeze them that way and use them a little at a time instead of having a large amount of paste. From what I understand, the papery skin does not freeze well, and it's easier to peel first if you want individual cloves for measuring.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.940315
| 2013-01-26T00:58:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30416",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Andy",
"Anthony Fannin",
"Asif LalDin",
"Gilbert Santini",
"Kent",
"Kris Cottingham",
"Megha",
"Misbah",
"Stratos Ion",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71181"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20895
|
Coffee brewing methods - scientific analysis?
Can anyone point out websites or academic articles analyzing coffee brewing methods?
I can easily identify taste differences between the various methods, but I'd like to know which ones are comparable and what variables are most important.
Methods:
drip
cold-brew (toddy)
pour-over
french press
other?
espresso
Beans:
type (arabica, robusta, other?)
roast (light->dark, freshness)
ground (fineness, consistency)
You can read about all this stuff all over the internet, but it's all anecdotes. I'd like to see, e.g., the results of mass spectroscopy given different processes.
This is way too broad a question. The variables that affect espresso are almost completely different from those that affect pour-over.
Alright, remove espresso from that list; espresso depends on pressure and temperature of the water being pressed through, while the other methods cannot depend on pressure. If you still think it's too broad, help me refine it further.
Also, note that I'm not asking for users to come up with their own experiments - I'm asking for references to published (academic?) literature.
This article from Gizmodo links to a company that makes refractometers specifically to measure particulate levels and pH balance of coffee. Good read, and lots of scientific looking charts related to coffee flavor. Chasing the Perfect Cup of Coffee With Science
Related: We have quite an extensive Q&A on manual drip coffee, many of the principles of which would also apply to automatic drip. I do think that this question is pretty broad, but so are all [resources] questions; this one is at least focused on a fairly specific topic.
I did some cleanup on this old question. The link-only answers were no longer useful, except for one I converted to a comment. Since we have a special understanding with Coffee.SE to migrate all questions, I migrated a newer duplicate there instead.
I’m voting to close this question because it is old, unanswered, and there is a better one at Coffee.SE -https://coffee.stackexchange.com/questions/5923/any-scientific-studies-on-time-versus-temperature-when-brewing-coffee
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.940585
| 2012-01-29T19:57:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20895",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Mr47",
"PhilS",
"Ward - Trying Codidact",
"eterps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8029",
"jesosk",
"keflavich",
"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
}
|
44325
|
Can I save a Creme Brûlée with a soggy crust?
I wasn't thinking, and put the top layer of hardened sugar on my creme brûlée last night. Now it's a little bit soggy, and I'm trying to figure out how to save my dessert for a party today.
By the way, I originally used powdered sugar. Not sure if regular or powdered is best
I can think of three approaches:
Leave as-is
Re-apply another thin layer above the existing soggy layer
Re-melt the existing soggy layer, hoping that it sets in crunchy.
Any alternative ideas or suggestions?
Plus one for basically answering your own question! :)
Just before the party, sprinkle some granulated sugar on top. Use a blowtorch (preferred) or a very hot broiler to "brulee" the new sugar. That will cause both the old and new sugar to get browned and crunchy.
I just saw this on a related question. Alton Brown on Creme Brulee. He shows great blowtorch technique, do it just like that and you'll be fine, no need to remove the soggy layer.
Yup, this is exactly what you need to do. Remember, the "crust" is just caramelized sugar. If it gets soggy, just add some more sugar and re-burn it with a torch.
You may want to keep the flame a little further from the top than normal for a few passes, just to help re-melt the layer underneath without burning the new top.
I love to hear after-the-fact success stories! My pleasure. :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.940787
| 2014-05-22T18:19:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44325",
"authors": [
"Colin Park",
"Jennifer S",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kelly Ann Degville",
"Lepage Builders",
"Matthew",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"logophobe",
"oldVermonter",
"user104157"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2766
|
Timing cooking: methods / workflow
I'm looking for methods to improve timing or workflow during cooking. How to multi-task effectively, getting the maximal amount of differing dishes on the table, for each course, etc. A multitasking / scheduling problem.
Of course, practise makes perfect (and I've been practising: certainly not perfect yet though). Say you reach the level where you can dissect a recipe (which, if written correctly, should be a straight arrow in time, tell you when to multitask, and not surprise you with 'combine the current result with that other recipe from the next page you should have started on an hour ago') and plan out your strategy. How do you improve at this point? What tools can help you?
I imagine professional chefs, with the additional complication of also having to instruct multiple souschefs, will have insight or even formal training on this - but what about us amateurs?
EDIT:
After a bunch of good answers, I feel I need to add that I've been cooking with pleasure almost 17 years now. People enjoy coming to our house for dinner (or at least they say so). Many answers tell me stuff I already know (which doesn't make them bad answers!).
Say you were in my shoes, and looking to stretch yourself - what would you reach for?
One advantage that professionals have is that everything is cut up and portioned well before the actual prep time. Then it's just assembly and heating.
Mise en place? Definitely, and something I (we all?) do when cooking complex meals. But if the meal's easy and you're waiting for something to cook, you can be more effective doing simple chopping if you'd otherwise be waiting.
I came up with a technique one Thanksgiving that I've used for complex meals ever since.
I have three Digital Cooking Thermometer/Timers and a dry-erase board on my refrigerator.
On my dry erase board I draw a table something like this (I don't use the actual headings, they're here for clarity):
Task 1 | Task 2 | Task 3
Baste turkey (60) | Prep green beans (30) | Prep pie (15)
Baste turkey (60) | Prep potatoes (20) | Turn down oven to 350 (20)
Baste turkey (60) | Cook green beans (10) | Cook potatoes (20)
The numbers in parentheses are the time in minutes. I set each timer to the appropriate time, and cross out each item as I go. The thermometers are positioned directly above each column.
(You can use any timer really, I just like mine to serve two purposes)
It's flexible enough that you can do just about anything this way. You shouldn't feel obliged to use a single column for a specific item, it's unnecessary. Notice that potatoes span columns 2 and 3.
Clearly this requires thorough planning, but your question states that this is assumed.
I had tried other methods where I planned everything meticulously using the wall time (e.g. 4:30 start potatoes, 4:45 start beans, 4:50 baste turkey, 4:55 resume beans) but this was chaos and you will inevitably lag somewhere which means you're having to adjust your times in your head on the fly. Not fun.
Update
I didn't make this clear, but you don't need to set the timer to time exactly how long each task will take to complete. You can (and should) include any appropriate buffer time before the next task needs to begin. e.g. In my example above "prep green beans" would never take 30 minutes, likely just 10, but for the timing of my meal I don't want to start my potatoes until 30 minutes later, hence 30m for the green beans.
I'll sometimes also have a timer set for an "idle" task. (e.g. if I don't need three timers for most of the meal prep, but I'll need three towards the end (dessert), then I may set timer 3 for a 60m "idle" task to let me know when to start dessert) I initially overused idle tasks when starting this out (e.g. Task 2: prep gb (10), idle(20), prep potato (10), idle(10), cook gb (10), ...), but this confused the hell out of me and I had timers going off that had me scrambling to see that the next thing to do was... nothing. That's why I started bundling idle time into the previous task.
clever. did you come up with this on your own?
@SamAlterman: Yep.
This sounds especially useful when working with others. I sometimes feel that co-cooks are less aware of schedule (not should they often need to be: they're here for fun, not for hard work), and this might help them as well.
Interesting to see how different people cook... I can tell from many comments that hobodave is an accomplished cook, and I consider myself one as well, but never in a million years would it occur to me to use such a system. I just think for a few minutes about the meal, get in mind a general timeline of what things need to happen first (make dough, boil beans), then start gathering and prepping all my raw ingredients and fire them at the appropriate amount of time back from when I want to serve.
@Michael at Herbivoracious: I'm just a huge geek. :) This system is overkill for a typical meal for two. I've had to cook rather huge meals in ridiculously small spaces, with very limited equipment. I used to cook full Thanksgiving meals for 8 in a dorm study lounge in college with very little in the way of equipment. I've also lived in some pretty tiny apartments with less than 6 sq. feet of counter space available.
@hobodave - I hear ya. I was thinking on my drive home that I shouldn't have been so categorical in my statement. I've done a couple "underground dinners" of 7 courses for 16 people, and in those cases I definitely used a thoroughly planned timeline.
Well there you go. I've cooked that many courses for that many people, but (almost) never with that formal a timeline.
Last party we gave, we cooked so much that we didn't really get to relax and enjoy the party ourselves. (We did have fun, but not like we'd expected). Structuring a bit more formally might have gave us a red warning flag about the kitchen-vs.-chat time we had available.
I noticed the 'dry erase board on the refrigerator' comment ... if you have a shiny fridge, you can typically use the whole thing as a white board. (but then my fridge mysteriously died two days after someone drew a tombstone on it ... and I couldn't find one of the 'freezer on the bottom' ones in that finish)
The way that I devolped the skill that you are talking about was working 50 hours a week inside a pizza kitchen, but I don't think you have do anything so extreme to accomplish your task. All the other answers here are correct but i think the biggest hurdle to any cook when it comes to this is knowing exactly how long any given procedure is going to take you. When I read a recipe, I rarely even glance at the ingredient list the first time I read it. Instead, I jump straight to the text to see what techniques and cooking methods it wants me to employ. This tells me how long it's going to take me, and my second read through will tell me what I need to have on hand (I do that one looking at my pantry normally) and if I am going to be making any subsitions this evening.
The most important component to this process it that I know how long it takes me to do anything I need to in the kitchen. Without this knowledge, you can't successfully time manage, and even with it you might drop the ball a few times and overcook or undercook something. I used to teach the guys who cooked in my kitchen a set time limit to wait before firing each dish based on what else was on the ticket, and most professional line cooks use a shouted time countdown to the pass to keep the kitchen coordinated. In a home cook situation, all of that is going to be in your head or your kichen timer.
Basically, the best way that I know how to build this up is cook on a clock. Time yourself and get some good refrence points on how long it is going to take you to do the basics and build from there. When learning a new technique, I find I need to use it about twenty times before I am using it at the speed that I am going to be from then on. I also try to never do something new when I'm cooking for an audience. If I haven't made it or something similar to it before, it ain't hitting a guest's mouth at my table.
Another thing that I notice that a lot of homecooks do that the pros don't is hover over the food. They have a hard time putting the food in the pan and walking away until it's time to do something to it. That can be a major time sink right there.
But I would say the most important thing you can do to get better at your work flow is just preparation. Food hitting the table at the same time and at the correct tempature happens in your head long before you ever turn on the stove. It means having a game plan and being able to adjust it for unforseen circumstances but doing everything in your power to prevent such circumstances from happening to you. If you are cooking a recipe, it means knowing it well enough that you aren't having to read it while using it.
Anyway, I was trying to hit the general, and hobodave's anwswer is a great example of exactly what I am talking about. You are going to have to find the best way to do it for yourself. Hope this helped.
But I love cooking new and untried things for my guests! ;) More seriously though, sure, I get that, it's sound advice.
@ocaasi if you ever make it down to the deep south, i' take you for a slice and you can see why i said in the oven... it's more of a half in half out thing but whatever :)
I just couldn't shake this image of you shrunk down inside one of those brick ovens with the little semi-circle openings and the white-hot cinders in the back... If you think it's at all more accurate, please change it back. (I believe you that it was INTENSE).
Your way is clearer, i was just adding some humor that unless you could see the giant fish oven that the shop used, no-one would get anyway. I think we should let clarity win the day here.
Whether you like the show or not, one thing you can learn from watching 30-Minute Meals is how to develop a good sense of timing and work flow.
The preparation of a meal is presented pretty much in real-time as the chef preheats ovens/pans, gathers ingredients, does prep work, cooks, and serves an entire meal in 30 minutes... as you watch each step of the process.
You can learn a lot just by watching her sense of multi-tasking and work flow.
I don't trust her commercial breaks. Maybe in the earlier seasons, but she seems to get a miraculous amount of stuff done in the breaks, and suddenly a food processor is set up, etc. It's better than the chefs who swap out stuff, or make comments about 'and you'd want to cook this down for 5 minutes', which if you miss you'd have screwed up the timing.
@Joe: I've actually been to a 2007 taping of 30-Minute Meals. She doesn't cheat! The show is filmed live to tape. It's freaky to watch her work; she's a machine. Can I make a meal of hers in 30 minutes? No. Can she? Yes.
@hobodave : that stills throws you off, "I can cut stuff up at the same speed", you think, as she's talking and cutting, but if she then switches to overdrive when the camera's off, it'll throw your time estimates. If I ever do a cooking show, I'll keep a clock in camera at all times, and use time compression so you can be assured how much time has elapsed.
I didn't notice any overdrive during a commercial break; if anything it seemed like a steady state of overdrive. One of the biggest time savers for her is when she goes to a cabinet and grabs like 900 things and brings it all back to the counter. When I cook I grab things one and two at a time.
@hobodave : conveniently, she only needs the stuff that's right up front, so she doesn't have to go digging trying to figure out that the tumeric's fallen way in the back.
@Joe: Well... of course :-D I also must admit having a crush on her, so I'm blindly supportive. :)
I've not watched this show, but ready-steady-cook (=BBC - I'm in europe) and Masterchef are fave shows what I have a bit of time to spare. I'm pretty good with common techniques (chopping, for instance), but no pro. I'll go watch a few online, see if there are any surprises. Good prep and good tools help, of course. :)
So as I see it, we really have a few issues here --
Improving timing.
The more you cook, the faster you'll get at it. (unless you try to go too fast, and cut off a finger ... that slows you down). And sharp knives -- can't stress the importance of sharp knives enough. It's also fairly important to learn how to flip your food in the pan. It looks cool and showy on TV, but it serves a couple of legitimate purposes: it cools down the food and the pan; it's quicker than trying to use something to stir; it actually gets the stuff on top (not cooking as fast) down to the bottom and visa-versa (more even cooking that stirring), and it can be done one handed, so you don't have to go and wash that slimy chicken hand before tending to things.
Watching other people cook, even cooking shows, and watching their technique might give you a few clues for improvement -- how to quickly dice an onion, or dispatch a bell pepper, etc.
Multitasking effectively.
This one's tricky ; Ian's comment about using all of your senses is important -- if you hear the sizzle in the pan change, it might be time to give it a flip (or past time); smells that something might be browning a touch too fast ... by the time you see the giant grease fire or hear the smoke alarm, it's too late. But for a lot of things, it's instinct after a while -- give things a stir or a flip even if you don't think they need it yet; it's better to be too early than too late for most foods.
(You can also get "Order Up" for the Wii -- but even on hard, it's a little too easy; and the final "Fortified Chef" was easier than playing the harder levels, so was a bit anti-climactic; we need a patch to make it harder)
And to build on the chickeny hand comment -- I always try to keep one hand clean at all times, so I can try to deal with whatever emergency comes up. (unfortunately, it's my right hand, as that's the one I hold the knife in, and my cell phone's in my left pocket normally, so people calling me when I'm trying to cook really sucks). For breading I normally sacrifice the right hand, and leave the left one clean ... so practice the food flipping with both hands.
Scheduling
There's a few things at play -- mise en plas helps -- so you've got everything prepped before you start cooking; but not everything's quick cooking. You really need to look at your menu, and select some stuff where you have to do the work ahead, then it's going to bake for 30 min, unattended, while you select another item that's going to take 10 min prep and 20 min to cook, with occassional stirring, and then the last item that's going to take 20 min prep but no cooking. As FordBuchanan mentioned -- there's sometimes items that can be done in advance, but its also important for looking at the places where you can pause -- turn it down to low while you're catching up on something else.
You also have to be able to read the recipe and see how accurate their time estimate for you is -- if it calls for mostly chopping, and you're great at chopping, it might be less prep time ... but if you're crap, it might take you twice as long. (hmm... yep, I did say I need to build better recipe management software a few years back that would handle that ... as well as I know, none of 'em handle that aspect yet)
2 Things I thank you for:
The clean hand. That may come in handy.
The MasterCook format (from your link). It may help in other matters. Thanks!
Learning to use all your sense in the kitchen is important, so you can smell how well something is cooking, hear the changes in sound as things are at different stages of being fried etc. This saves a lot of time and gives you a back stop in case you forget about something, you might hear a change in the sound and know that it needs sorting. This is something best learnt by practise and by trying us those senses whilst cooking.
True! And the little idiosyncracies in sound your own fave dishes and utensils / pans have.
I've had to learn that you don't have to constantly stand over every dish. Also learn what elements of a meal can sit on your stove top and what needs to be removed from the heat to avoid over cooking. For example when I make Chicken Parmesan Tomato sauce is the first thing I work on, The chicken is one of the last.
If you're not going to prep your meal ahead of time start your prep while you're heating the oven or pans.
Watch cooking shows, both traditional and the ones about restaurants, Not some of the techniques they use and never mention. You can pick up some little time saving tricks from them here and there.
As the Italians say: "The pasta doesn't wait".
One skill to hone is to be able to read a recipe and then read and time it backwards. The things to note are which stages are time dependent, and which ones can be done well in advance.
I try to time stuff but always leave 20% extra time at each step for mishaps and unforseeables.
I'm a student living with several people and sometimes if I need a peeler or a knife or even a spoon, I have to look for one for several seconds because people keep changing the place where everything usually is... or borrow your stuff.
Everything might be dirty from the other guy using the kitchen, so cleaning stuff quickly in between is sometimes necessary. I hate not timing every component of a dish perfectly so I've become quite good at timing stuff and in between cleaning.
But try to leave 20% extra time, 5 minutes becomes 6 minutes etc.
I expect needing a bit more time than the ideal on most steps, but not all that much - I do not live at a dorm any more. That, and having 'buffer-safe' elements - some sauces can sit quietly for a while quite safely.
Cook with other people. Have a kitchen party.
Then you get multiple people working at the same time, and you don't have to do everything! Have an appetizer for people to munch on as they cook, and provide a well stocked kitchen and some food.
It's faster, and more people means more new food when you've exhausted all your usual recipes.
I do this all the time. Some people know that when they come to my house, they'll most likely be cooking. It doesn't improve my own skills though.
If you're wanting to really maximize your scheduling efficiency in a demonstrable, repeatable manner, a Gantt chart could be your friend. You can make these charts with Microsoft Visio (it isn't free, though, but I gotta believe a free alternative is out there somewhere). It will allow you to visually demonstrate items that can be parallelized, how dependencies affect timing for competing processes, and how long you'll ultimately need to complete your tasks (i.e., the cost of the "critical path" for the system).
You'd even be able to rework it to accommodate an assistant or two, if desired. Please note, however, that your assistants are very likely to look at you strangely when you refer them to the project schedule for Thanksgiving.
A good answer - but it's basically hobodave's answer as well, right? While I applaud the nice result this planning will put out, I guess it will be a casualty on the kitchen floor as soon as something goes out of whack - whiteboard (and a bit of yelling) will help.
Still, when cooking for a huge meal, many courses, a few cooks, it might be a nice tool to get everyone on board. And it will pinpoint bottlenecks (too many pans, not enough fire) as well.
Maybe... though mine is perhaps more consistent/definitive in terms of method, and allows you to map dependencies more clearly. Basically I just wanted to offer up what's probably the most extreme management method you could feasibly use. :)
Which you did, yes. :) But I assume you don't have Gantt charts in your kitchen yourself. Do you use a watered-down version, or is it all floating vaguely in your head (like it is for me)?
Yeah, definitely no Gantt charts in my kitchen -- I just review recipes ahead of time and hope everything sticks (the floating-vaguely-in-your-head technique). Luckily I haven't been in charge of handling any epic feasts, or I'd have to add more structure.
If you want to get really simple and primitive, use strips of paper for each item you're preparing. Make each strip to scale, where length correlates to time, say one inch per hour. Draw out hour lines on a sheet of paper (again, one inch per hour). Start from the time you want all your food to be ready, and work back. It will help you visualize dependencies, things that can be done in parallel, things that can sit after completion, etc. Basically, it's a poor man's GANNT chart, but much more user-friendly. If you lay it out correctly, you'll have a quick and dirty schedule of what time you should be preparing/cooking which dish.
Shameless plug for my own iPhone app but I got fed up with drawing out a backward plan every time I cooked a Sunday Roast and so developed an iPhone app.
You can set up individual dishes with alarms for each stage and then select as many dishes as you want for a full meal. It then does a backward plan so that everything is ready at the same time.
Scheduling is done with an interactive gantt chart so you can set up dependencies and delays etc. You can also email dishes to each other for importing.
Any feedback would be gratefully received as I've just started on the next version.
Thanks,
Gareth
DinnerTimer iTunes Preview
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.940984
| 2010-07-22T13:30:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2766",
"authors": [
"Carl Gregory",
"Chris Cudmore",
"DigitalNomad",
"Joe",
"JohnFx",
"Michael Natkin",
"Ocaasi",
"SamAlterman",
"Sapph",
"Sky Red",
"Tobias Op Den Brouw",
"Trishan",
"dmcnelis",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8457",
"jpwco",
"mendota",
"quentin-starin",
"ricky197311",
"sarge_smith",
"stack",
"user3746441",
"zeocrash"
],
"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
}
|
5849
|
How can I make sorbet without a recipe?
I would like to be able to make sorbet with whatever ingredients I have on hand without always looking up a recipe. I understand that it's important to get the correct balance of sugar, liquid, and other ingredients for the end product to have the right texture.
There seem to be a couple options for testing your sorbet mixture: syrup density meters and refractometers. Before I spend money on one of these tools, I'm wondering:
Can I reliably make sorbet without one of these tools?
What techniques do you use to make sorbet with each of these tools?
Are there advantages/disadvantages to one way or another?
What do I need to know about the different scales (Brix, Baumé, specific gravity, other) and what readings should I target?
Are there other things to consider regarding ingredients (purée v. juice, effect of additives such as alcohol, etc.)?
Too much to go into here, but let me refer you to Harold McGee's less well known book, The Curious Cook: More Kitchen Science and Lore, where he has an entire chapter devoted to this topic, complete with tables for a whole bunch of fruits.
Your question asks about a lot of very specific scientific detail, but really, with a bit of experience, you can make sorbet without any of that.
For most fruits, you need about 1/3 as much sugar as fruit by volume - two cups of fruit and 2/3 cup sugar is pretty common in recipes. This works with a good variety of fruits - for example, mangoes, strawberries, and kiwis should do well. If it's too thick, you may also want to add a bit of water, perhaps even up to the amount of sugar you used. With less water, you'll get a richer, more velvety, perhaps almost creamy sorbet, depending on the fruit; with more water it will of course be icier.
Of course, you'll end up adjusting the sugar sometimes - a bit less for very sweet ripe fruits, and a bit more for less sweet ones. But so much of the sugar is coming from what you add that you don't usually need huge adjustments; it should generally be somewhere in the 1:4 to 1:2 range. And there's enough variety just in the sweetness of the same fruit that predetermined ratios aren't always exactly right anyway.
If you make a few sorbets from recipes, you should be able to judge well by taste: before freezing, it will be quite sweet, a bit more than you'd want to eat. Unsurprisingly, it should be similar to the sweetness of melted sorbet, perhaps a bit more sweet than melted ice cream.
And as always, adding a shot of liquor will soften it up; this is handy if you find that sorbets softened only by sugar are too sweet for your tastes. Neutral things like vodka are handy since they'll work with any fruit, but sometimes this can also be a way to add an additional flavor. And if your fruit works with a wine - strawberry-rose and blackberry-cabernet are both pretty good - then using wine instead of water will soften it very nicely.
Finally, I noticed the juice vs puree point. I've never made sorbet with juice, but I suspect that'd be prone to being really icy. I've always used pureed fresh fruit; it'd have to be really good, fresh juice to taste as good as fresh fruit.
I have made sorbet twice without following a recipe, just guess and go. I made rhubarb sorbet and watermelon sorbet. You need to make sure you add a heapingly large amount of sugar, and at least a shot of alcohol. I did with 1 1/2 shots and it turned out find.
Doing this though, you will not get 100% perfect texture. It came out of the machine good, could have served it up like that, or maybe chilled an hour. After chilling 3 hours it started to become less silky.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.942703
| 2010-08-23T20:45:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5849",
"authors": [
"Bertnee",
"Piers Moore Ede",
"Stefan Bischof",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78974",
"monksy"
],
"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
}
|
3871
|
How can I rescue a soft boiled egg that is too soft?
I love a boiled egg, but it has to be soft. On occasion I get it just too soft, so some of the white is still 'snotty'. Oviously I only discover this once I have opened the egg, when it is too late to put it back in the pan.
Is there some trick I can use to continue to cook the white a little and rescue my egg so that the white is set but the yolk is still runny?
I think you can just boil it again, like for 6 minutes.
@user3528438 But how do you boil it after you've already cracked the shell? That's the question.
Steam it? Same time.
Let it sit, pray carryover cooking does the job (unlikely)
Wrap it in plastic wrap, tightly spin the top to close. Twist 'the tail' into a knot or secure with string. Put it back in the water.
Position it 'hole-up' on a baking sheet, put in an oven (time-consuming)
Crack the egg over a bowl, finish in a pan on low heat (not ideal for runny yolks)
Microwave (sad, but could work)
I vote for number 2.
Number 2 seems like the winner to me. I'll try it next time.
I've used the microwave method mentioned by Ocaasi, placed in the cup but it's touch and go. You seriously only want to allow about 3 seconds.
Another method I've tried is to just hold the open egg, with tongs, in the boiling water, obviously keeping the open end out. This was slightly better the microwaving because the results of a few too many seconds in the microwave, is worse than the problem you're trying to solve.
So, I came across the same problem. I just filled as much water in the pot without covering my (already sliced in half) eggs. Then boiled for a couple mins. Cool thing is I was able to watch the runny egg whites harden. I attached a pic :)
You can actually peel an underdone soft-boiled egg and, if the white isn't cracked/broken, drop it into boiling water briefly. That's a method some folks use intentionally to make poached eggs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.943021
| 2010-07-31T15:38:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3871",
"authors": [
"David Hayes",
"John Montgomery",
"Kelly Cook",
"Mana",
"Sam Holder",
"cat wang",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79366",
"pacoespinoza",
"riotburn",
"unluddite",
"user3528438"
],
"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
}
|
758
|
What's the best way to defrost ice-cream/sorbet quickly?
I made some sorbet at the weekend, and realised just when we were due to serve that I had forgot to take it out of the freezer to soften, and so it was rock hard.
What is the best way to bring it to a usable temperature quickly? We chucked it in the microwave and then hacked it with a spatula, but ended up with a lumpy texture as many parts were still very frozen. Any ideas to avoid a repeat in the future would be appreciated.
The best way? Plan better. :)
The microwave is rarely a good plan for quick defrosting, as you found out. I would suggest putting the container in warm to hot running tap water.
The warmer the water is the faster it will melt, but it will also melt more unevenly - though nothing like the microwave. The important part is that the water is running, and is at least room temperature.
It's not going to be quick like a microwave, but it'll be faster than just letting it sit.
Edit
I've never tried this, but I imagine a hair dryer might work well too. It'll just be noisier :) The concept is the same, just moving air instead of water.
That is rather condescending. He knows to plan better. But this is a forum where others will benefit from reading previous questions and answers. If someone else forgets, which is easy to do if you are having fun with friends, that they can easily check this site since Sam added this question.
You should check your sensitivity at the door Kyra. I don't intend it to be condescending. The fact is, that's the best way. However, I provided a solution and answer to his question in the event that Sam makes a mistake. I didn't suggest that it was a bad question or that Sam was somehow inferior to anyone. We all make mistakes. P.S. Welcome to the internet. (Now that's condescension)
Why running water? I haven't had to defrost a tub before, but my gut instinct tells me that submerging the entire container in a larger container of hot water would thaw it more evenly and almost as quickly. You could also probably use a torch - just be careful not to set the container on fire if it's one of those plastic things. ;)
@Aaronut Possibly to ensure a constant stream of hot water as opposed to the water temperature falling as it warms the container. A torch sounds pretty interesting though :)
@Aaronut: Science! If you just set the tub in still water then what happens is the water in contact with it gives up it's heat to the ice cream, making that water cooler. You end up with a little area of really cold water around the ice cream. Obviously this circulates throughout the water, but only by the relatively slow thermodynamic process. Also, as it progresses the water temperature decreases (obviously) and it looses some of it's umph. With moving water, you are constantly and rapidly bringing fresh hot water into contact with the container. This allows for faster defrosting.
A torch would probably be too focused to melt the ice cream evenly, plus you run into that air flow thing. That's why hair dryers blow air. If you held your hair next to a hot coil it would take significantly longer to dry. (Evaporation also is sped up by moving air).
Thanks for the concern @Kyra, but I've thick enough skin, and enough of a sense of humour to take anything @hobodave can throw my way. I don't feel it was condescending, after all he did put a smiley. I think the hot running water might have been a better plan, and at least I have some more options for next time. Thanks.
how about putting the tub in a pot with water on a medium-low setting? sort of bain-marie
Don't. Ice cream is hard. It melts slowly. Instead, focus on scooping.
Get the largest spoon you have, or ideally, an ice cream scoop. Fill up a cup with boiling water, or as hot as your faucet will get it. Dip spoon/scoop in the water. Scoop. Dip. Scoop. Shake off excess water as you go.
Like a hot spoon through ice cream.
Huh. I actually have always used the microwave, and never really had any problems. The secret is to stick it in for 20-30 seconds, and then to just walk away, and leave it for a minute or two. The interior will thaw slightly, while firming up the edges.
Mind you, we're talking about quarts and pints here. God knows how you'd defrost a gallon.
Unless you can get heat into the centre of the tub all that's going to happen is that your sorbet (or ice-cream) is just going to melt around the outside.
Why not just have another drink, enjoy the pleasant company and stimulating conversation and let the sorbet soften in its own time :)
If only, unfortunately when there are 32 people all waiting for food to be served, and you are already 10 mins late, the prospect of waiting another 25 mins or so is not all that appealing to everyone.
Kev hinted at the answer -- warm the middle of the tub:
Take a few metal table knives (fully metal, not with plastic or wooden handles), warm them slightly (eg, dip in hot water, then dry them off), and then push them into the block. This allows for conduction through the knives into the middle of the frozen mass.
(although, I admit, I've never done this ... I just use Ocassi's method, as I don't want to re-freeze it each time I take a serving from it)
When you go to the kitchen to get your ice cream, don't tell the guests what you're doing. After you take it out, announce dinner. That way, you can eat dinner while the ice cream defrosts. Check on it when everyone has finished, then tell them you have dessert. Now you can give them ice cream.
while this could work with some foresight, I don't know that it addresses the "quickly" aspect of the question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.943257
| 2010-07-12T16:58:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/758",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"David Z",
"Joel",
"Kryptic",
"Kyra",
"MaybeGr8",
"Michael Natkin",
"Mischa Arefiev",
"Reed G. Law",
"Sam Holder",
"SourDoh",
"Tamara Wijsman",
"Tom Gullen",
"Tomas Markauskas",
"dnozay",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96092",
"nickname",
"orb"
],
"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
}
|
6112
|
Is there a significant difference in flavor between black and white truffles?
I've tried both black and white truffles on separate occasions, but never side by side. Is there a meaningful difference between the two as far as flavor is concerned?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.943750
| 2010-08-27T02:28:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6112",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17019
|
How do you get a feel for the heat (direct heat)?
On my stove, it appears that low heat is 1 - 3 on the nob, mid is 4 - 6 and high is 7 - 9. It works for me.
But, I'd like to know if there are indicators to determine the heat without the convenient numbers. Suppose I want to cook on a camp-fire...
What visual indicators are there. A smoking oil is too hot, anybody knows that. But I've no idea what to look for. Do you 'just' eyeball it?
I'm with KatieK. That said, this 'how hot' can be mysterious for Professionals as well.
In "Seven Fires, the Argentine way of Grilling," a book about cooking on open flame heat (outside mostly), the author mentions traveling around to a bunch of Argentine steak places to time and measure what the chefs did mostly by touch and feel.
So, even for a pro, getting it just right takes a lot of time and experience. If you're persnickety, maybe you should get an infra-red thermometer.
There are a few factors that make it pretty easy to gauge heat:
Splash a few drops of cold water in a dry pan on an element. If it bounces on the surface with a great fuss of noise, it's hot (medium-high). Oil in a pan like this will smoke quickly, and is perfect for browning as adding ingredients will quickly drop the heat. Do not leave your hardware at this heat for long without adding anything to the pan.
Place your hand 3-4 inches over your grill or pan. If a few seconds become uncomfortable, it's above 400/450. If you can stand more seconds, it's 350ish. And if it's comfortable it's probably not warm enough. I don't start grilling until my grill is closer to 600F (very obvious in a second or two).
If you have oil in a pan, look at the texture of the oil. If it's thick, it's still cool. You'll see it start to thin out and spread around (the oil will look very active); this is oil quickly warming. As soon as the oil is at it's thinest it's hot. When it starts to smoke, it's at the upper edge of it's heat range (add food quickly, or remove from heat). The texture of oil is quite neat to watch as it heats.
If you're deep frying, you'll see the texture change from #3. As well, you can drop a tiny drop of water in the oil. If it makes a fuss and starts to spit, the oil is above 350. The more fuss, the closer it 375 it is. Note that using too much water is dangerous, so you can alternatively try a small portion of the food you're frying. No bubbles means it's too cold.
Very nicely put. I'll train myself with this method, but I do need the metric system!
Too many years of using US-manufactured equipment – we use Celsius here for most other things. One day I will adapt my brain to use metric measures for cooking.
for 4. you can also dip the end of a wooden spoon to get bubbles, so you don't have tiny bits of food floating around gettin' burnt.
You can hold your hand over the heat source, and count how many seconds pass before you have to pull your hand away from the heat. This is often done to gauge the heat of a grill.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.943806
| 2011-08-21T21:35:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17019",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Bruce Alderson",
"Christophe Debove",
"Locke",
"Nicolas",
"Tara",
"TopDog",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"jbx"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7346
|
How can I train myself to identify flavors better?
I'd love to be able to cook well and I think a part of that is identifying flavors.
We all have different palates, but there are probably some basic techniques that can be used to figure out what the meal is made out of.
For example, there is a spicy Indian dish at a restaurant nearby that I love and it's pretty simple (chicken and rice), but I can't identify the contents of the marinade, and the owner wont tell me what it is.
So, outside of trying every spice there is, what are some tips to identify flavors?
Taste as often as possible: while cooking, when you have raw ingredients at hand, etc. etc.
This is a really difficult topic to approach, and I think the only reliable way to identify flavours is through years and years of practice using those flavours in your cooking.
To start with, I think the easiest thing to do would be to understand the different types of flavours. Those are:
Sweet
Everybody knows this one. Sweet is the taste of sugar, candy, and so on.
Sour
Sour is the taste of acidity. Citrus fruits like lemons/limes, vinegar, pickles, and so on.
Salty
This is the taste of, well, salt. Needs no further explanation, I hope.
Bitter
Bitterness is what makes you want to grimace - but many people do acquire a taste for it. The best examples of bitter are probably coffee and beer. Leafy greens and horseradish are other good examples.
Savoury or Umami
This is the taste of "hearty" foods - meats and cheese especially. Specifically, it's the taste of protein. Glutamates (i.e. MSG) also provide this flavour.
It's actually a lot more involved than this - our taste receptors can detect many more subtle flavors, but those are the easiest to tell apart. The most notable "quasi-flavour" is probably Hot or Piquant (not to be confused with pungency, which is a more general term for anything "strong" tasting such as horseradish or garlic); this type of heat is due to capsaicin, which is found especially in chili peppers, and I call it a quasi-flavour because it doesn't actually work on taste receptors, it works on pain receptors, and it's addictive due to the subsequent release of endorphins.
Anyway, all that aside, the place to start would be to get used to the five basic flavours above. Eat some foods that are chiefly one flavour - a caramel, a lime, a few flakes of horseradish, a hunk of meat, or... a dash of salt, I guess. Get used to what they taste like.
Then you should be able to start recognizing combinations - for example, a cured sausage will be salty and savoury. Lemonade is sweet and sour. If you're able to start identifying the flavour types then you can start trying to narrow down the actual ingredients and ask yourself, "What could be adding this [bitter] flavour?"
Most full entrées will try to establish a balance of all of these flavours with all of these flavour elements. For example, a Chinese stir-fry sauce will include sweet (sugar or honey), sour (rice vinegar), salty (soy), and umami (sesame oil), and used on vegetables which are primarily bitter (i.e. broccoli). Whenever you're eating a food that's really great, expect it to have something contributing to all the basic flavours and try to think about what elements could be used to create them. Even if you only manage to figure out 4 out of 5, chances are you can substitute something else for the 5th and manage a similar taste.
Of course, it's worth repeating that this isn't just going to come magically to you. You need to pay attention to what you're cooking; only when you've constructed hundreds if not thousands of your own concoctions will you be able to deconstruct the ones that others have made - and even then, it's kind of tricky if the recipe is complicated, because lots of preparation steps will change the flavour, like browning (Maillard reaction, adds sweetness) or roasting (tends to add savouriness).
As far as spices go, they're pretty much all in the same flavour category (which I'd really just call "spicy") although they may also lend varying amounts of umami or pungency to the final dish. The only way you're ever going to be able to identify spices is to start experimenting with them - lots of them - and learn what they taste like separately and together. I would say that this takes years for most cooks, and sadly, I don't think there are any shortcuts.
Well, that's it for my intro. Hope that helps!
Not all heat is capsaicin; there's also isothiocyanates (in mustard and horseradish), cinnamaldehyde (cinnamon), or even the bite from freshly diced raw onion.
@Joe: I'm not sure if I'd call those things "heat" - that's why I added the alternate word "piquant." My intent was to refer specifically to that heat (the kind from capsaicin), which is easily distinguishable from the other kinds.
@Aaronut I would definitely say there are different kinds of "piquant". Living in Thailand I can now easily and clearly distinguish between when a dish has chilis in it and when it has black pepper. Cumin spice is also completely different, as is horseraddish. It's not all capsaicin and it's not all the same heat flavor.
@Aaronut Please fix your assertion that all heat is capsicum. It's false.
@Daniel, I never made that assertion. As I already explained to Joe, I was referring to the specific type of heat from capsaicin (not capsicum). Black pepper is not "piquant" and neither is cumin. Horseradish, wasabi, etc. are considered "pungent", not piquant. I will add a clarifying note but I do not agree that there is anything to "fix."
@Aaronut Ah, fair enough. But I still don't think the distinction is clear. Your sentence structure "The most notable quasi-flavor is hot" still leads me to believe you are talking about all hot or spicy flavors. And even the pungent clarification doesn't do much to assuage that. I think it would be better to generalize it (hot or spicy is detected by pain receptors and is produced by a variety of chemicals). Or specify very clearly that piquant refers only to capsicum heat and that it is just one of the "heat" flavors.
One thing that my mother suggested to me when I first started getting interested in learning to cook beyond blindly following a recipe was that I try making scrambled eggs with one single spice in them to see how that flavor affects the taste of something I know well. It's actually a pretty good way to train your tastebuds to understand what flavor a particular spice imparts. You could then move on to combinations of spices.
For Indian food, however, they're probably using a combination of lots of spices. Garam Masala can be up to 12 different spices, not counting aromatics such as onions and garlic. So you may be better off trying to compare different recipes for that particular dish and seeing what the difference is with those particular spice mixtures.
In general, I'm a big fan of trying different things and seeing if you like them. For example, I can't stand the flavor of black licorice, and so I avoid anise and all variants. However, I wanted to try making a chicken pho which called for star anise. I tried it, and found that in very small amounts, I actually like it. So go and experiment. Try different recipes for the same things, and try modifying your own recipes a bit at a time. Sometimes it may not work, but even then you'll be learning a lot.
I really like the tip about trying a new spice with a dish you know well!
Here's a little story about one successful day of palate training. I would think a similar exercise would work with all kinds of flavors. Just pick a handful of complementary flavors at a time.
I went "back home" for a few months a couple of years ago. My dad came to me and asked my help with stir-fries. He wanted a better feel for the seasonings, how to put different flavors together, creatively and freehand, to create sauces. I thought that sounded like a fun challenge. I took his credit card and went shopping. My poor dad didn't have any idea what he was getting into :) I came back with garlic, ginger, cilantro, mint, Thai basil, sesame oil, chili oil, oyster sauce, five spice, mirin, soy sauce, sriracha, chili paste, fish sauce...you get the idea. I also got a tube of plastic 2 oz portion cups. The only seasoning ingredients he was really clear on were ginger and garlic, he always started his stir-fries with those, so I started there. I sauteed some ginger and garlic and simmered that for a few minutes in a big stock pot of chicken broth.
Then we just started tasting, one ingredient at a time mixed with a few tablespoons of broth. I had a little saucepan out for ingredients that benefited from heating a little bit in the broth. We went back to ingredients several times, we adjusted concentrations, we just played like that for a couple of hours. Then we started, "No peeking, what's this?" Once he got good at that, we started with combos. He had a real epiphany with sesame oil when he tasted it with soy and cilantro. That was probably the best moment of the whole exercise. When we were finally done playing, he made soup for the family's dinner. He just threw stuff in, tasting after each addition, correcting as he went, and made a very nice soup with nicely balanced, complex flavor. I was very proud.
I don't think there are any shortcuts to trying the individual spices. If you only want to figure out that Indian dish, you could practice with just the typical range of Indian spices. It is often helpful to close your eyes while tasting and try to really imprint the flavor in your mind, and associate with the name and appearance of the food you are tasting. (I find I have a terrific memory for food and terrible for wine. I think the reason is that wine all looks you know, pretty much the same, so I have nothing visual to hang the flavor memory on.)
Agreed ... you have to know what spices taste like individually to be able to figure things out ... but you also have the issue that some spices will mellow or intensify or otherwise change as they're heated ... that's actually a key part of some indian dishes where they toast, grind, then fry the spices.
I agree, when it comes to the flavour spices and herbs impart you have to start with those herbs and spices. Smelling them or choosing a dish to cook based on the spice you'd like to work on is good. With curry to get good at this you might need to start making your own curry paste and spice mixes, Madhur Jaffrey's Ultimate Curry Bible is an excellent resource for this.
To continue with smell: much of the flavor of food is the combination of tastebud sensation (sweet/sour/etc mentioned previously) and the fragrance of the ingredients. Many herbs have tiny bit of bitter or sweet, or even a little sour perhaps, but they have radically different fragrances.
Something you can do is close your eyes and sniff herbs and spices and concentrate on the sensations you experience. If you want to get really experimental, try stirring some into hot water to see how their fragrance gets transmitted into a medium.
If you are really, really, really serious about learning NOW vs. gaining years of experience, do some experiments. For example, get a tiny frying pan and something bland like tofu or chicken breast. Cube the tofu/chicken, then saute up a cube at a time with different spices. Clean the pan between each cube, put in a dab of fresh oil, repeat with a new spice. Consume each bite by sniff, tasting, thinking about initial impressions, aftertaste, anything. Take notes! If you have all day, try 2- and 3-spice (or herb) combinations. Change proportions. Think like an engineer :-)
I highly recommend the book, "Taste What You're Missing" by Barb Stuckey. She's a 'supertaster' and a professional taster, and her book includes suggestions for testing and improving taste bud tastes (salt, bitter, umami, etc.) at the end of each chapter. She also covers how we taste and why some of us taste things differently than others. Lots of great information. (No affiliation.)
Identifying a spice mix is hard, but you can get familiar enough with individual spices to narrow down the likely components, particularly the dominant spices in the mix. Since the dish in question is an Indian dish, good candidates would be cardamom, turmeric, cinnamon, garlic, black peppers, coriander, ginger, asafoetida (aka hing), and cayenne.
If I'm trying to reverse engineer a spice mix, I take a bite and see what flavors I can detect. Sometimes it's obvious. Things like cumin, coriander, and cayenne can be very noticeable if you've eaten enough of them to be familiar. Some have unique colors, such as the golden yellow of turmeric.
If I were trying to duplicate the sauce or marinade from a particular restaurant, I'd just tinker with the mix until I got something I like, and approximates the original.
It's designed for wine flavours, so it's a little limited for general culinary use, but Nez du Vin sets might help. See this one here, which contains 54 aromas and costs £249.50 (about $400).
The book "The 4-Hour Chef" covers this quite well. If you can get a copy, take a good look at Lesson 02: Scrambled Eggs and the flavor chart that follows.
Testing different flavor combinations
Scrambled eggs cooked in grapeseed oil are the best base for testing different flavor combinations. Grapeseed oil is neutral and makes sure that the oil doesn't add a different flavor.
Your goal should be to simplify various recipes into the core ingredients. "Lemon and herb" chicken is always a base of lemon, olive oil, garlic, plus some mystery herbs.
What I would do is mix some garlic with the eggs. Scramble it under a low fire in olive oil. And add the lemon after cooking. Then try the mixture with different herbs until I get a great tasting combination. From the same batch of scrambled eggs, you can prototype a dozen different "lemon and herb" recipes, at low cost!
Some popular combinations, greatly simplified from The 4-Hour Chef:
North African: Lemon + parsley. This is a great combination for a lot of dishes, from chicken to couscous to fish.
North East African: Garlic + cumin + mint
West European: Olive oil + garlic + various herbs (oregano, basil, or parsley work great, tomatoes are popular too)
Mexican: Lemon + chile
Indian: Cumin + ginger + garlic
East European: Paprika + fat/lard + onion
Indochinese: Fish sauce + lemon/coconut/curry
Japanese: Tamari + sugar
Chinese: Tamari + scallions + ginger
Deconstructing different flavor combinations
The others have given good advice on identifying flavors, so I won't repeat those.
Remember that you have taste receptors at the top of your mouth and in your intestine. The nose makes up for a lot of flavor... taste is what's on your tongue, flavor is the whole experience.
Don't just roll food on your tongue. Sniff it. Add a little bit of warm water to a spice, roll it in your mouth, and swallow it. A lot of herbs taste like leaves, but have different smells that only come out with water/swallowing. Many herbs/spices are really hard to remember, try to associate them with a dish that you know they're used with, e.g. rosemary with lamb.
Try to identify individual flavors that make up a dish. It's hard to tell what's in your food unless you know what everything tastes like. Taste a bit of the rice, the chicken without the marinade, and then the marinade itself. If you think you can identify the spices used in the marinade, test it out with the scrambled eggs trick.
Indian food is a challenge because it can contain a lot of strong spices, and few people use the same spices.
I wish I could offer more, as I'd like to get better myself ...
The only thing I can think to suggest other than what's already been said is to make sure to smell the food -- and as Michael said, it can help to close your eyes. Although the basic flavors are carried through taste, a large component of flavor comes from scent (which is why everything tastes so bland when you're congested).
And it doesn't help with spices so much, but when trying to identify foods, I also consider texture (although cooking and preparation are a big component of this), and other aspects of the food that aren't just the flavor (eg, is it astringent? how does it feel in the mouth? does it clear your sinuses? if it has heat, is it a fast attack and go away quickly, or does it build slowly and linger?)
Learn oenology. A big part of it consist in flavour identification.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.944211
| 2010-09-15T23:14:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7346",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Andy Hayden",
"Ann Ward",
"Ben",
"Daniel Bingham",
"David Maitland",
"Don",
"Glenn",
"Jeroen",
"JesseW",
"Joe",
"Jordan Little",
"Joy",
"Luvi Lescher",
"Samuel",
"Sherwin Yu",
"Some_Guy",
"Souha Younes",
"c2setters",
"etoile",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9453",
"maček",
"mhartm",
"sudowned",
"vwiggins"
],
"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
}
|
24637
|
How much is a bunch of spinach?
I have some recipies for green smoothies, where some of the ingredients are for example "1 bunch of spinach" or "1/2 bunch of spinach".
The spinach I've found in the store are usually fresh leaves packed in a plastic bag of for example roughly 250 grams... But, how much is a bunch?
Does your bagged spinach include leaves? (I also more frequently see bagged baby spinach than full-size spinach.)
Ack, does it include stems? (of course there are leaves!)
Yeah, it's a bunch of green leaves. Like, 6x4 cm in size. I'm pretty sure it's regular spinach and not baby spinach, as there are other bags which says baby spinach on them :)
@Jefromi Ah, hehe, yes, the leaves have a few cm of stems as well
But they're all separate leaves, not a single connected plant. Like a "ball of salad" or a "tree of broccoli".
A bunch of spinach usually weighs something like 250-500 grams. My best guess is that something like half that is the stems, which can easily be as long as the leaves. So very roughly, I'd say a bunch is 125-250 grams. Alternately, if you want to go by volume (e.g. if your store has bulk loose baby spinach), think of a bunch as something like a head of lettuce, except with the bottom third to half mostly stems.
Full-size spinach also definitely gets a lot better than 4x6 cm leaves, so you may still be using somewhat more tender baby spinach, but that of course won't cause you any problems. (The stems on baby spinach are tender enough to eat, especially when blending, so you can use everything in your bags.)
In any case, smoothies are really forgiving - not only do you not need a lot of precision, but you can just add and blend until the color and flavor look how you want!
So 1 bunch is roughly one bag like that then, maybe a bit less. Perfect! Thanks :) You're right that smoothies are forgiving. It's just that I'm very new, and when you don't even know what a bunch is it's a bit difficult to decide how much to use :p
A bunch is the amount of a produce you can hold in you hand considering the picking and sales process
So for spinach, a bunch is a full handful holding the stems, you fingers do not need to touch, it just what you can hold on to comfortably
This is a very imprecise measurement
But bunches of lettuce and spinach are generally whole plants - they were grown until they were that size, not picked by the handful.
@Jefromi depends where you are from? A lettuce grows as a 'head', and you take a 'bunch' of lettuce leaves. A bunch of spinach (as per OP) consists of multiple heads of spinach, unless you let your spinach grow tough! I don't think a bunch is a weight type unit, it depends on the produce, and has more to do with keeping produce for sale in usable units, e.g. everything at one or two dollars. A bunch of coriander is very much smaller than a bunch of spinach, but it is the same price
One bunch of spinach is 340 grams ( 1 cup)
Hmm, on what do you base this?
I dont have an answer more like a comment. I am now harvesting a lot of spinach. And selling per bundle. No my first dilemma was how much is a bundle. So I think of you look at the large whole leaves bundles that you buy in stores stringed at the bottom, a handful around the stems are a bundlef. One can weight that out of curiosity and see what a bundle then weights. It might come to the same answer in grams as previously discussed of 200 - 250 grams.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.945753
| 2012-06-22T16:26:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24637",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jolenealaska",
"Svish",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203"
],
"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
}
|
3613
|
How do I sweat onions?
A recipe calls for me to sweat finely chopped onions. What do I do, and why?
related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2391/how-to-caramelise-onions as ocaasi said in their answer, this is just at the end of the same spectrum
First, finely chop the onions. This makes them smaller, faster-cooking, and less of a textural presence in the dish. Do it by cutting straight through the poles of the onion, resulting in two halves. Then chop off the knobs and peel off the outer layer. Run the knife 8 or 9 times along the vertical (from pole to pole), but don't sever one end completely. Cut finely across these verticals to make a fine dice. Run the knife over the pile a few times if your cut isn't small enough.
Second, cook the onions. The purpose of sweating is to draw moisture out, concentrating the flavor and enhancing conversion from starch to sugar. Heating the onions releases their aroma and reduces the chemical bitterness they exhibit when raw. Heat up some oil in a pan to medium-low heat. Add the onions. Add salt. I wouldn't cover the pan, since the lid will prevent steam from escaping. Stir/shake to prevent sticking or burning. The onions will get soft and then translucent. (Eventually, if you kept going they would get limp and browned; this is referred to as caramelized and considered a different thing than sweated, so although it's just further along the same spectrum, you shouldn't go that far for this recipe).
That's how I'd do it and why. I don't know if it's a textbook answer.
to be on the safe side, and to prevent catching, I'd err on the low side with the heat and stir/shake the pan often
I generally assume cooks will overfuss with cooking ingredients, but the alternative (stick/burn) is definitely just as bad. Also, I get away with slightly higher heat since my cookware (teflon over electric) isn't that professional, so it would depend; stainless steel could easily burn on medium. I incorporated your tips into the answer.
Generally when a recipe calls for sweating onions, they intend the onions to not be caramelized... or brown. You should stop once they get to translucent.
I'll edit to clarify. I though the parentheses made it clear but I can see how it'd be ambiguous).
You need a pan with a tight lid, put it on the hob on a low heat with a small amount of oil. Add the onions to the oil, stir them round so that the onions are coated with oil, put the lid on and leave them for 5 minutes. Take the lid off, stir and put the lid back for another 5 minutes. Repeat this until the onions are soft and translucent but not browning.
What is a hob? I've seen you use this term before, but can't seem to get a relevant Google hit.
@hobodave A hob is what you'd probably refer as a stove top.
@hobodave, sorry, a hob is a stove top/gas burner (As per http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=hob) =)
Sweating onions doesn't mean to put on a lid. It just means to cook them until they are translucent and giving up liquid, over a low enough heat that they don't caramelize.
@Michael, I never said it did, but the way I was taught to sweat onions involves putting the lid on, so that's the one I've documented :)
Re. lid or no lid: 1. I've seen it done both ways on cooking shows on TV and on the Web; 2. Google results for "sweat onions" include both methods, 3. when sweating onions, I always cover the pan initially to trap the steam which steams/cooks the veggies w/o browning them, then remove the lid in the final stage to slightly brown the veggies.
Sweating is done with lid on pan. Not using a lid would be like using the sauna with the door open.
Sweating is the process of releasing flavors with moisture and low temperatures. Fat, in this case, is used just to hold the non-volatile flavors as they're released from the onion. No browning takes place. The pan is covered so the lid traps steam, which condenses and drips back on to the onions. Some cooks cover the onions directly with a piece of foil or parchment, than add a lid as well. The cooked onions have a more mellow favor with this technique as the more you cook an onion, the sweeter it gets. Sweating onions is especially desirable when making white sauces that contain onions, as no color is added to the sauce. Also used in make risottos.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.946047
| 2010-07-28T18:49:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3613",
"authors": [
"Denys P.",
"Greg",
"Michael Natkin",
"Monica Cellio",
"Nat",
"Nathan G.",
"Nick",
"Ocaasi",
"Rob",
"Rowland Shaw",
"Sam Holder",
"Takias",
"adimitri",
"aqn",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/771",
"jkj"
],
"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
}
|
1817
|
What is braising?
I have a habit of buying braising steak, when intending to stew some beef (be it to eat as a stew, or to later use as a pie filling), but I've always wondered what braising actually is?
Braising uses minimal liquid to achieve a moist, slow, cook. Stew is soup with attitude: it's much more liquid, with chunks of the star of the show floating in it.
That works as a difference for me...
From The Professional Chef:
To braise meat, first sear it in hot fat to the desired color, then simmer it in a covered vessel in stock or another cooking liquid. The amount of liquid used in the braise is crucial to the success of the finished dish.
One of the benefits of braising is that tough cuts of meat become tender as the moist heat gently penetrates the meat and causes the connective tissues to soften. Another benefit is that flavor is released into the cooking liquid to become the accompanying sauce, thus virtually all of the flavor and nutrients are retained."
That sounds a bit like how I'd stew it, which is where I wonder where the distinction is?
Sounds to me like it's nothing more than the quantity of liquid -- adding liquid would turn a braise into a stew, I guess.
@Rowland - stew would (more often) be cubed meat, braised would more likely refer the a larger cut done at once (e.g. pot roast)
the rule of thumb is: if the meat comes from a part of the animal that moves a lot , it'll be tougher and therefore braise it; otherwise roast leaner cuts.
Braising is a combination of fast dry heat and long slow moist heat.
The fast dry heat is able to create the flavorful crust on meat in ways that slow heat can't. The dry heat can be extremely hot air in the oven, direct radiation from a broiler, or contact with a hot steel or cast iron pan.
The long slow moist heat creates a steaming process. Importantly, the meat is NOT submerged and boiled in the liquid. The long heat helps break down the tough connective tissue, and the steam helps the meat not dry out. The steam, rather than immersion means more flavor stays with the pieces of meat instead of leeching out into the broth like a stew.
Braising is best used for meat that is too tough to use as good steak, but good for more than just becoming stew meat.
I'd say the defining difference is in the size of the meat pieces. A Swiss Steak for example, is a braised tough steak. If you were to chop the steak first, you'd be making stew. Braising - Whole cuts, to be presented whole. Stew - chopped cuts, to be served in a bowl or over potato/rice/barley
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.946462
| 2010-07-18T19:38:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1817",
"authors": [
"Chris Cudmore",
"Dean Rather",
"Hajar",
"Matt",
"Rowland Shaw",
"dassouki",
"gnibbler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87",
"offby1",
"sdg"
],
"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
}
|
4922
|
Dutch oven instead of oven?
I'm moving into a small apartment with no oven. Before, I had a 16" oven stone to bake my bread and I'm looking for something to keep baking.
Would a duch oven over a gas kitchen work? I can't use coal (I have no terrace or backyard).
Do you have any suggestions to survive without an oven?
I would recommend a combination toaster and convection oven. While I have a regular oven in my small apartment, I rarely use it in favor of saving energy (and money on my energy bill) by using the toaster/convection oven. I have purchased toaster oven sized muffin tins (just a 6 muffin tin) and a toaster oven sized roasting rack that fits two sizes of meat. My oven came with a roasting pan. The convection features have done wonderful things for my pies. You can get them big enough to make pizza in. As long as you aren't cooking for a crowd, it will work wonders. Things I've successfully baked in there include:
Muffins
Cake (did have to do it one cake at a time for a layer cake)
Pie (the convection feature is perfect for pie!)
Bread
Cupcakes
Pitas
Steak (well, it was a broiled steak recipe - the best I can do without a grill)
Chicken breasts
I had a friend who rented a place that has a convection cooking setting on the microwave. We successfully used it to make muffins once, but I haven't tried it further.
What, no pizza? I thought that's what toaster ovens were made for.
@Joe - our convection/toaster oven only goes to 500. We do pizza at as high as we can go, and since the big oven goes to 550, we do it there. Plus ours is 9" x 13" - hard to fit a 12" stone.
oh, right, trying to cook the crust. You have to go with alternate crusts for the toaster oven pizza -- english muffins, baguette, bagel (although, you have to fill the hole w/ something to avoid drippage), naan, tortilla (for those who like the thin & crispy), etc. Most any bread product will do.
@Joe - we found ovens that came with stones for 12 inch pizzas. Since we have a conventional oven, though, we didn't want it taking up that much of our limited counter space. All that to say, it can be done.
A counter top/toaster oven can probably cover many of your needs.
You can get ones that will hit the normal 500 F of an oven.
Here is a list of examples available at Bed Bath & Beyond
My Aunt Morey used a stovetop oven, on top of one of the burners of her kerosene fueled stove. She made absolutely fabulous cakes and other baked goods with it!
A modern-day version of the same thing is made by Coleman. (Amazon sells it for about $30.) It's made to work on top of their propane stoves, but I don't see any reason why it wouldn't work just as well on top of a gas burner stove.
Hard as you may try, the dutch oven still cooks from the bottom up and is not like a conventional oven which heat comes from all over the place
You can buy a counter top oven and I don't mean a toaster oven; rather you can actually get a mini oven with two racks.
It all depends on your budget too. You can buy a normal oven, if you are in north america, you can get a 110 volt rather than a 220v oven provided your electric circuit can handle it (consult with the owner or a certified electrician)
If you still want to make your own bread, you may want to purchase a bread-maker. Or, you can make your own boiled bagels. For the last step, I've heard you can pan-fry them instead of baking them.
Sounds impossible to survive without an oven. It is better to take any stovetop oven.
But if you have some budget, then countertop smart and small in size ovens are being preferred as compared to Dutch ovens. Although Dutch ovens are inexpensive but can't beat the services that any toaster countertop oven can offer you. Even with some specific settings, you can bake cakes, loaves of bread and cupcakes with great ease. However, it is effortless to roast chicken and to perform other meat-related activities in a toaster oven. Here, you can visit user-friendly toaster ovens if you make mind to get one.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.946820
| 2010-08-11T19:33:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4922",
"authors": [
"Fábio Gomes",
"GeeH",
"Joe",
"Patricia Turley",
"Rebecca Dessonville",
"dpg",
"dwwilson66",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9494",
"justkt",
"transplantedcook.com",
"user9486"
],
"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
}
|
30178
|
What cut of meat is used to make shabu shabu?
I'd like to explain to a butcher what cut of meat is required to make shabu shabu. Can anyone help me?
Very high fat, thoroughly marbled ribeye is a good start, but there's a fair amount of variation. The extremely thin slices are also not something that every butcher is accustomed to producing, but that should get you to the right beginning.
I know little of shabu shabu, but if it is very thin slices and you don't have a full service butcher who can handle the job, you may want to do this: get the ribeye steak whole (boneless or remove meat from the bone yourself), then put in the freezer until it is very, very cold, but not frozen (an hour or two, probably). This will allow you, with a very sharp knife, to slice it very, very thin. I have used this method to make the worlds most decadent steak sandwiches.
Nearly any cut of meat will work, just adjust cooking time in stock (seconds to minutes)
The common cuts of beef are sirloin, topside, shank. Any meat with a decent fat content will do. Cut as thin as you dare. Chicken needs to be about 5 mm thick to hold together. Fish slices depend on fish variety
For beef, about one hour per 500 g (pound) in a domestic freezer is all you need to be able to slice it thinly
Korean markets sell thinly sliced ribeye. Japanese markets sell thin cut meat for sukiyaki which you might be able to use.
My local super market (Big Y and Stop and Shop) sell shaved meat for Philly cheesesteaks and they’re fatty enough and super thin.
Never never take topside or shank for Shabu shabu. Its disaster. Marbled Ribeye is the right part for shabu shabu.
Please elaborate more in your answers. Answers with longer explanations receive better attention in these Exchanges.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.947149
| 2013-01-17T22:56:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30178",
"authors": [
"Chris",
"Jason P Sallinger",
"PAK",
"Rwm",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sobia Ellahi",
"UnclearFizzyCyst",
"dua fatima",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70607",
"kenneth hunt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25049
|
Why is my homemade pork sausage rubbery?
We just made some pork sausage and fryed up a patty to check the spicing. The taste is fine but the patty is rubbery in texture. What did we do wrong or not add to the mix?
Would you describe it also as "dry" rather than "juicy"? What cut did you use? What was your fat/lean proportion?
We definitely need more information. Can you edit and add your recipe? Perhaps then we can find an answer or some suggestions for you.
You may have ground your pork too fine (or over mixed it) -- you want to use a relatively coarse grind with a lot of fat when you are making pork sausage.
agreed. texture needs to be course and cooking time not too long.
I agree with what has been said above. Over working meat can really have an adverse effect on the texture. There are a few ways I avoid this problem. First, make sure everything your working with is very cold (i.e. meat, seasonings, grinder itself, bowl). The colder it is the less the fat will melt and make a sticky mess that I find makes me more prone to over mixing. Second, I always season the protein first before grinding so that i don't have to mix rigorously to incorporate seasoning post-grind and make the texture poor.
Also, if your cooking from fresh, i find it best to just take a portion of meat from the ground mix and gently shape it into whatever shape you would like and then using a spatula compress it in the pan while it's cooking, this, I find, give me the nice crumbly texture of ground meat rather than the rubbery, spongey texture you are encountering.
Part of the problem I've encountered with rubbery meat is the terrible quality you find at the stores such as Hy-Vee, Walmart, Target, Aldi, etc. They are using pork that is mixed with 11% "added ingrdients". Most of it is made by Hormel. I hate the stuff. It won't brown right, tastes salty, and has a nasty, overprocessed texture that is rubbery.
I now buy pork at the Fareway grocery store - they use only all natural meat and it cookes up a lot better. The local meat locker (where farmers have their animals processed) also has much better quality pork - not pumped full of salt water. The texture and flavor is delicious.
I used Hormel ground pork last night and the results were horrible - it had the texture of a cheap turkey roast, rubbery and grainy. I wrote to Hormel and told them how bad the product was. They responded by telling me they're sending free coupons. Puke!
You've got some good information about meat quality, but it feels like a more of a rant against specific brands. It would be a better answer if you just left that out.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.947346
| 2012-07-15T16:35:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25049",
"authors": [
"B.Swan",
"Cindy",
"Erica",
"Hans Jerrick",
"Hany Lyly Ya",
"Keith Davies",
"MJA",
"Peter",
"Samantha Morris",
"Tony Weddle",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67293",
"jscs",
"kalebo",
"shazmoh",
"zanlok"
],
"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
}
|
25328
|
How do I substitute skim milk for dry milk in a muffin recipe?
My muffin recipe calls for 1 1/3 cups of nonfat dry milk. Other than the 4 eggs, there is no other liquid. How much skim milk would I substitute for the dry milk?
You don't, it will not work.
You want to substitute liquid milk for dried milk.
What you don't realise is that the dried milk in such a recipe is acting as a bulking agent, ie. the dried milk is already substituting for some flour.
If you don't have dried milk, you should look for another recipe that doesn't use it, if you want to be certain of reliable results.
I have to respectfully dissagree with the above post. 2 cups of water and 1 cup of dry milk gives you 2 cups if milk... it does not add to the bulk. You can however, substitute scalded milk for powdered milk. Powedered milk is called for generalky when regular milk enzymes will react with your ingredients and make an inferior product, especialky in bread making. Scalding the milk removes the enzymes.
While in general you can substitute in either direction between powdered milk plus water for fresh liquid milk, as asked in the original question, there was no additional liquid to remove from the recipe. The dried milk is being used directly as an ingredient in its own right. Substituting fresh milk would certainly make up for the milk solids and sugars, but it would also add a large amount of water making the original recipe unworkable.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.947610
| 2012-07-29T15:50:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25328",
"authors": [
"Fred",
"Gurmeet Singh Matharu",
"Pieter",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Supa Suriyawong",
"Tony Stewart EE75",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72066",
"ndstate",
"user236416"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47475
|
Sandwich wraps always getting way to crispy
I sometimes make sandwich wraps using water, flour, salt and oil.
I mix salt, wheat flour and a tiny bit of olive oil and add hot water until I get a homogeneous sticky dough and let it rest for about 45 minutes. After that I roll it out down to about 1 mm. I heat up neutral oil in a pan and bake the flat round dough until bubbles show up, then turn it over.
But they always get so solid in their centers they can't be wrapped without braking them. They are more like flat, toasted noodles. This happens no matter what frying pan I use or temperature I use to bake them.
What am I doing wrong?
It sounds like you're trying to make flour tortillas. It might be helpful if you specified the amounts of each ingredient you use AND your technique - it would probably be MORE helpful for starters if you clarify how you cook your bread - you say you "bake them" but you also mention a "frying pan."
wow I wish I had that problem. I like crispy!
If you are using a "tiny bit of olive oil," I'm sure you are using too little. I have only made tortillas using shortening and lard and when doing so, my fat weighed-in at nearly a quarter the weight of my flour. I don't know how you measure-out your ingredients, but that would be roughly 1/3 cup lard or shortening for 2 cups of flour (with a little over 1/2 cup water and maybe a teaspoon or so of salt). Also, I always used water that was cool to warm - never hot.
The fact that you are getting bubbles is a good sign. If you increase the fat percentage in your dough and still have problems, try rolling-out your tortillas thinner.
To be clear - I have never made tortillas using oil, I have only made them with shortening or lard. But having said that, the fat is certainly an important textural component of this unleavened bread.
So all in all you just suggest adding more fat? I'll try next time. Thanks!
I very regularly make tortillas myself using a very similar method, and had exactly the same problem. As I'm trying to cut down on the amount of fat used, I have been putting less and less in recently, but I'm still getting them lovely and soft. Here is my recipe:
Ingredients:
60g of flour per tortilla (plain white works well, but I've had good results with brown flour too)
Water (In my experience, the temperature is irrelevant)
Olive Oil
Add water in small quantities and mix until the dough comes together, but is still quite dry (if it's too wet then you can knead it until all of the water is taken in, but try to keep it on the dry side)
Tear up the dough into little chunks and splash on a glug of oil (I'm afraid I can't be more specific about this as I never bother measuring it, but I don't put in much)
Combine the dough again, and knead it for a minute or two. This normally produces a smooth, pliable dough
Separate the large ball of dough into portions
On a floured surface, roll out each portion to the size of the frying pan (normally about 1-2mm thick)
Dry fry on each side for a few minutes, until bubbles are appearing and none of the dough is visibly raw
THEN (and this is the important step, as when I used to make them until this point, they also used to solidify) once fried, put the tortilla into the oven at a low temperature (50 degrees C) between two sheets of silver foil. What this does is keep them warm, and more importantly, keep the moisture in the tortillas. If you just put them in the oven (or leave them out) without the silver foil, all of the moisture will evaporate, and it'll become brittle, and not very wrappable.
I've have a very different experience to the other answer, where varying the amount of oil doesn't really change the texture that much, but can change the flavour (and their relative healthiness).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.947760
| 2014-09-27T09:43:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47475",
"authors": [
"Beth",
"Charles Copeland",
"Cristy Caldwell",
"Oresta Stepaniuk",
"Stephen Eure",
"bot47",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27288",
"ron Wood",
"seasoned",
"sherry lau",
"stacey payton"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33773
|
How to make crispy/dry potato chips/crisps?
I've tried frying chips a few times, but, even though it's fun and tastes relatively good, they did not turn out like commercial potato chips (such as Lay's). My homemade chips soaked up too much oil, making them slightly too 'wet', for the lack of a better word. Commercial chips in general are much drier than my homemade chips, and I presume less oil per chip correlates to less calories per chip.
So how can I make potato chips that are more like the commercial kind?
I am going to get "unsciency" as I used to make fries for hours on end at a local mom and pop shop.
How thin / thick doesn't really matter, you'll just have to adjust your frying time accordingly.
1) Use a starchy potato
2) slice your potato evenly, with a peeler if you don't have a slicer or mandolin
3) soak them in water for 30 mins with a pinch of salt
4) let them dry a bit
5) blanch them with vegetable oil until they are limpy but has no visible color change (Oil
should be hot enough that when you put them in, 5 seconds later there are bubbles)
6) cool them completely, I throw them into a container into the fridge
7) refried them by putting in enough pieces in such that it will still bubble immediately (oil should be hot enough when you drop a spot of water or chop sticks in that it bubble immediately, but you wouldn't hear like a crackling or have oil splashing at you)
8) Take them out one piece at a time as they change color.
The key is vegetable that's pretty much the only oil that makes things cripsy at lower frying temperature, other than bacon fat, this makes a much more golden chip, and generally a easier time to control, so you can make more at the same time. Shortening, olive oil, peanut oil, butter, lard has been tested and isn't really good. Sesame oil is good too if you like the taste of it. Also, don't attempt to drain the oil after blanching, the oil will come out when you re-fry them.
Salt or season while warm.
I found this Good Eats episode S02E10 Fry Hard (Fish & Chips). It explains various things regarding frying, including how to choose your oil which apparently is quite important. Overall A.B. provides a similar outline to yours.
Commercial potato chip makers like Frito Lay use significantly different ovens than residential ovens. They also prepare the potato chips differently. From what I understand Pringles for example starts with something similar to mashed potatoes. For example (from Modernist Cuisine):
Adding 0.5% of Methocel K100M by weight of slurry can reduce the oil
uptake of the chips after frying by up to %20.
you can however, make nice kettle chips at home using this recipe or similar. It typically does involve double frying.
If I were to attempt to make chips similar to commercial ones (haven't recently) the process would go as follows:
Slice the potatoes
Blanch them (a few seconds in boiling water, then ice water). This should stop the enzymatic browning for next step.
Put the chips in a dehydrator for a few hours (1-2).
Spray with oil.
Bake in a convection oven at 350F on a wire-rack till done.
Keep in mind that Potato chips are technically a form of glass as far as the physics classification is concerned. The dehydration step is there to make the chips less soggy and more crispy (closer to glass since).
updates: Regarding the potato chip 'glass state of matter' note. It refers to the suspended crystalline structure of the starches in the potato chip. I first heard it from Nathan Myhrvold. There are also 'glass potato chip' recipes out there in the wild.
There is a section on making fruit and vegetable chips in Volume 3 (pg 323-331) of Modernist Cuisine, if you're interested. Having looked at it now, the process is similar to the recommendation above (including the dehydrator) but suggests sous vide cooking the chips at low temperature and frying in oil in the end.
Could you add an explanation (and preferably a citation that confirms your statement) about "potato chips are technically a form of glass"? I really don't know what you mean by that.
I am too curious as to the glass analogy. Helpful answer thanks!
I think most potato chips are deep fried, not baked...
I am not springing for the money for MC when I will never make any of those crazy things. :-) I am glad someone investigates the edge of what is possible but I feel no desire to go there for those prices! I look forward to the clarification of the glass thing--note that "crystalline structure" is kind of the opposite of glass-like.
MC is on sale at amazon for only $461. Oh my. http://www.amazon.com/Modernist-Cuisine-The-Science-Cooking/dp/0982761007/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1367012845&sr=8-2&keywords=modernist+cuisine
@Laura. updated answer regarding 'gass' + additional info.
MC at home: only $95...
@SAJ14SAJ the At home version has a lot of the info and the big MC is really an encyclopedia. They did spend years on it and he compares it with 5 'school text books'. As for the Glass note, he mentioned it in a talk about a (iirc) 'funny state of matter where stuff want to crystalize and end up forming a glass'. It also makes sense. Don't beat me more on this as my memory is not a tape recorder (i'll refer you to the botulism bit ;)
Kenji Lopez-Alt has published one of his magnificent Food Lab articles on the potato chips, with the goal of light colored potato flavor like his favorite brand, while having the robust crunch of kettle chips.
He points out that when fried, potato chips undergo several processes:
They dehydrate
Oil enters the empty spaces left by water
Sugars, starches and proteins undergo browning reactions, creating flavor—but too much of this leaves a burned or off taste
Potato chips are so thin (Alt finds a 1/8 inch, or 0.3 cm thickness done on a mandolin for uniformity ideal) that it is difficult to get them crunchy without leaving them also over browned and bitter.
In order to remove extra sugars and starches, to limit browning, Alt recommends the same technique he developed for French fries: blanching in water acidulated with vinegar. They are then dried, and deep fried. The vinegar allows the potatoes to maintain their shape during the blanching.
Once blanched, the chips are dried, and then deep fried in a fairly traditional manner.
See his recipe for details.
Note that the Frito Lay page on how they make their own chips indicates a similar technique: thinly sliced potatoes, rinsed to remove extra starch, and then "cooked to a crispy crunch in all-natural oil" which I take to mean deep fried.
As I do.
Homemade are never as thin as those bought, unless you use a slicing machine.
Wash the potatoes to remove excess starch.
Dry them well.
Use lots of oil, very hot.
Put potatoes in the pan a few at a time, so they do not overlap.
When just they have taken color, turn them on the other side.
Lower the heat.
The cooking time depends on the thickness, are more subtle and less time is needed.
Just golden on both sides, drain them out the oil and put them on a plate where you have arranged 3-4 sheets of kitchen paper.
Raise the fire.
Put other potatoes in the pan and proceed the same way.
Sprinkle the freshly made with very little salt, cover with other sheets of kitchen paper, for the next potatoes, and cover with a plate or bowl upside down, so that they retain the heat.
When they all are ready, press a little with hands, because the paper towels to absorb all the oil. Put them on a platter, on which you put a paper towel, and take them immediately on the table, still warm.
I made sweet potato crisps by cutting with my potato peeler, then putting them in my deep fryer, make sure its very hot, a few seconds latter they are ready. They were lovley.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.948085
| 2013-04-26T16:18:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33773",
"authors": [
"Adendum",
"Cindi Hall",
"Dominykas Mostauskis",
"Laura",
"Lloyd Richards",
"MandoMando",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78486",
"krefcenz",
"user2983931"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
50335
|
Are there any substitutes for squash puree?
I am trying to make a recipe that calls for squash puree. Unfortunately, I am unable to find any in stores. Is there a good substitute?
When asking for substitutes, it's usually a good idea to provide a recipe or at least the dish you're trying to make; sometimes different substitutes work better for different things.
An excellent point. I will post it tomorrow.
Have you looked in the frozen food section? Squash is often sold as a frozen puree. I remember hating that stuff as a kid.
If you want something storebought, just get pumpkin puree - it is squash puree, not really even a substitute. Pumpkins are squash, and "pumpkin" is a pretty broad term, covering a lot of winter squash. In fact canned pumpkin is often made with things more similar to butternut squash than what you'd think of as pumpkin (jack-o'-lanterns and all). Just make sure you don't accidentally get some kind of pumpkin pie mix that has spices and maybe other things added.
I suppose if you can't find that either, you could also look at baby food, since squash is fairly common there.
If you really can't find anything in the store, though, don't just give up on the recipe. It really is incredibly easy to make - just cut squash in half, throw in the oven cut side down, bake until it's soft, scoop it out and mash up a bit. The actual active working time is only a couple minutes, and you'll probably get much better flavor than you would from canned goods.
Is it appropriate to check this answer if I like it? I did that in another exchange and was told I might want to wait a bit in the future. How long should I wait?
@StanShunpike It's up to you, and it depends. It's been a decent fraction of a day, and this is a pretty straightforward question, so it's not crazy to accept (especially if you're willing to accept a different answer if a better one shows up). If the question were more complex (more room for different answers) or it'd only been half an hour, it might be a bit hasty. See for example http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/28550/133299
It is quite easy to make the puree yourself. No need to substitute.
This doesn't answer the question. I want an example of a such substitute. If you have one, share it!
@StanShunpike I think Brian suggested to make the puree yourself instead of substituting. I edited the text to reflect that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.948700
| 2014-12-05T03:40:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50335",
"authors": [
"Brad Mcendollar",
"Cascabel",
"James B",
"Jerome Yara",
"Jolenealaska",
"Matthew Caro",
"Michal Dudek",
"Nicole Normandin",
"Riley Haynes",
"Robert VerBruggen",
"Stan Shunpike",
"Tami Mull",
"Windell Barnes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.