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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
115388
|
How can I tell if my extra virgin olive oil is rancid?
I couldn't tell by smell if my bottle of Great Value olive oil was rancid or not - and decided to taste it to check - about 2 teaspoons. It had the bitter, peppery sorta burn in the back of my throat that some people have said is characteristic of good olive oil.
Is it likely that it is rancid? I can't quite describe its smell or taste.
Good olive oil is supposed to have a peppery burn in the back of your throat. It is also not uncommon for it to have bitter elements. There is no way to discern if your oil is bad by your description. Olive oil that has been exposed to heat or light, or is just old, will no longer smell fresh. Fresh olive oil generally has grassy aromas with some olive mixed in. Rancid oil might smell waxy, some describe it as smelling of old crayons or old walnuts. It might taste fatty, as opposed to fresh and grassy. If it is rancid, couple of teaspoons is not going to cause any harm.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.949043
| 2021-04-23T20:37:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115388",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123679
|
Non-dairy substitute for meat to protect from tomato acid
I have an Italian cookbook and I really like the Bolognese Meat Sauce. However, I have learned I really do not do well with dairy and one of the steps is to “cook the meat in milk before adding wine and tomatoes to protect it from the acidic bite of the latter.” Is there a non-dairy substitute that would protect ground beef from the acidic bite of tomatoes?
What is meant by acidic? If it is flavour you can just just choose tomatoes that are not too ripe. They are still acidic, but not in the flavour. If instead you mean the acid in terms of acid action you could add some sodium bicarbonate.
Dear all, please don't use this space to discuss ways to manage a lactose intolerance. We have a rule against medical advice, and we make the assumption that the OP knows their condition better than us and has made an informed decision about their own diet.
@rumscho That is right. But why did you leave for so long posts that gave misleading information and intervene only after another post corrected them?
@rumtscho It is surprising that mentioning ingredients on a cooking site could be taken as medical advice.
@Biblasia I now realize that my comment is misleading for people who don't see the comments I deleted. When the OP asks for "a non-dairy substitute", then answering with non-dairy ingredients is perfectly fine. Any other suggestions about how to manage their allergy, and guesses that some kinds of dairy products may be safe to consume, are not OK.
@rumtscho Then why was my comment removed? Is it wrong to inform people who are wanting to avoid milk and are looking for a substitute for it that many of the substitutes on the market actually contain milk ingredients like casein? How does giving this information, for their benefit, constitute either the giving of medical advice or a suggestion for how to manage their allergy? They can do what they want with the information, but how is the information itself contraband? How do they make "an informed decision" without being "informed"?
@Biblasia To put it another way, we answer these questions by being entirely agnostic about the medical background. Imagine that the question had instead said "I dreamed yesterday that eating milk will bring me bad luck this week, and I firmly believe that my dreams always tell the truth, so what will be a non-dairy substitute". Only post things which would fit this imaginary version of the question.
@rumtscho I still don't get it. I'm not trying to argue, just trying to understand. Cooks work with ingredients, and no medical degree is required to find "casein" in a dictionary and identify it for what it is--milk protein. If I had dreamed that I needed to avoid milk, I wouldn't expect to have good luck by getting a bit of it disguised in some way in my food. I would be happy that someone alerted me to the fact. Said with respect (and probably my last remark here).
@Biblasia I know that it's surprising how extremely strict we are with moderating away this type of information. The reasoning behind it: somebody could have posted a comment similar to yours, which happens to be untrue. Say, "oats have the same cosmic frequency as milk, so watch out for dairy substitutes made with oats, they will also trigger your allergy". There are three options: 1) leave all of these comments, 2) decide which ones are true and which ones wrong, and leave only the true ones, and 3) remove all. We don't want 1), and for 2), moderators and users have to decide which...
... statement about a physiological/medical result is true and which is wrong, and this is something we cannot deliver, and don't want to get into discussions about. So we are left with 3) - remove all of them. To know which ones we remove: information on which ingredients can be used in a tomato sauce is OK, information based on assumptions of which ingredients the OP should avoid consuming, given what they told us about their medical condition, is not OK here.
There are many 'bolognese' recipes – although purists will say they do not count as authentic to the Italian origin – that do not use dairy. Indeed, bolognese is very popular in the UK and I think most people would be surprised to learn that the Italian standard recipe includes dairy (as well as white wine, not red).
You will be fine just leaving out the milk from your existing recipe; 'protecting from the acidic bite' is just a florid way to say 'tastes a bit better' and the difference won't be dramatic. This is also somewhere you could experiment with substitutes like non-dairy milks. You could also search for bolognese (or meat ragu) recipes and pick one without dairy that sounds appealing.
My experience with soy milk is that it behaves mostly like regular milk when cooking, but if you use more than a small amount it makes your dish taste like soy, which can be unpleasant (especially in savory dishes).
@Bass I thoroughly disagree with everything you've written there. Many recipe books explicitly encourage adapting recipes according to taste, dietary needs, or ingredient availability. There are some types of recipe (cakes come to mind) where ratios or timings have to be fairly precise, but for everything else "follow it to the letter" will more likely lead to anxiety than enjoyable food. The important thing is to understand what the ingredient / instruction you're changing was doing, and what effect a change is likely to have - which is exactly what is being discussed on this page.
Modify recipes all you want. You are the master of your own destiny.
My interpretation is that you're not looking for any potential way to reduce "sharpness" in a tomato-and-wine sauce, but that you love this particular recipe and want to match the taste as closely as possible.
For that purpose, it is best to use a non-dairy cooking cream imitation. It is not the only way to reduce the sourness, but mixing tomatoes with a fatty emulsion produces a rich and mild taste that is very different from adding sugar, carrots, or other ways of controlling the sour taste. You could in principle also try a milk substitute such as oat or almond milk, but the cream substitute will work better.
A couple of words to the "milk protects meat" idea: You didn't find anything, because the book uses a very misleading wording. There is no need to protect meat from acid, there are many recipes where chunks of meat get marinated in high-acid ingredients, including wine, for better taste. Also, if you mix milk and ground meat, you won't get any kind of protective layer or the like, the later ingredients will have just as much contact with the meat.
Update as lupe notes in comments, coconut milk has the desired physical properties, and does indeed change the taste of sour tomatoes into a milder one. It will move the taste very far from traditional Italian, so you have to try for yourself and see if the new combination is something you enjoy.
I'd be tempted to try a little coconut cream or milk - it's quite a mild flavor, it's got the right attributes, and it doesn't split. Don't know if it'd end up tasting like coconut though.
@fyrepenguin thanks!
@lupe thanks, I added it to the answer - or, if you prefer to write your own answer, I can roll back my edit.
@rumtscho - definitely good - fits better as a comment from me, particularly as I've not tried it. agree with you about it being a long way from traditional italian, though with a small enough quantity it may not be super noticeable.
Coconut milk/cream does split when heated - we tend to add it after the heat is turned off if we don't want it splitting, but it does emulsify well
+1 for "a rich and mild taste". I make a vegetarian Bolognaise with lentils and am always pleasantly surprised what the milk does to it. It is added after about 2/3 cooking time and really changes the taste to "rich".
A small amount of sugar (tsp or less) can help balance acidity of tomato. I mainly use half a grated carrot, rather than sugar for the same purpose, in my basic tomato sauce. As @dbmag9 suggests there are many bolognese recipes, the one I favor only uses tomato paste, which is less acidic than other forms of tomato. ...and I agree, no problem leaving milk out if you must.
Adding sugar should be the solution of last resort. If you can select the tomatoes for the sauce from the flavour point of view the result will be way much better. Tomatoes that are red, but the pulp is still firm. Those are the best choice, if they are San Marzano it is even better.
I also use carrot.
@FluidCode most of us cook on a budget.
Tomato juice, being acidic, may curdle many of the milk substitutes on the market. The result may be unappetizing, so you will want to experiment a little before assuming it will all work well.
Personally, I like making a sauce from cashews to replace cheese, and a thinner version can replace milk--but the thinner version may be more visibly affected by curdling, depending on the strength of the acid mixed with it. There are other options, some with soybeans, some with almonds, etc. In some places, "rice milk" is on the market, and I have even seen a milk substitute made from pistachios. Health-food stores may have some nice options; you may just have to look around a bit to see what is available in your area.
Welcome! I've edited the health advice out of your answer, since it's off-topic on this site.
I once knew an italian farmer that gave me some tomatoes just collected from the plant.
They tasted as sweet as a fruit.
Then I understood what a famous gangster confessed once. That he always cooked bolognese with canned tomatoes. The reason is that tomatoes for groseries and supermarkets are collected before turning red, so they are easier to move without breaking. Then they turn red after a while, but not in the plant... Canned tomatoes, are collected after becoming red, so they are sweeter.
Its actually a little silly to suggest that milk will protect from acid, because as any cook will tell you ... what happens when milk and acid meet ? The milk curdles !
What I would suggest is the following:
Using a seperate pan, boil off the alcohol from the wine before adding it to the meat. The alcohol is what gives the "acidic" taste. Also don't use horrid cheap wine, there's no such thing as "cooking wine", if you wouldn't drink it, don't cook with it !
Same with the tomatoes really. Just dumping raw tomatoes into the dish won't give you the best flavour. Stew the tomatoes a bit before hand to concentrate the tomato flavour and (gently) evaporate some of the excess water (tomoatoes have a high water content which will obviously dilute flavour). Maybe throw some garlic and herbs in there too...
The tomatoes are the acidic-tasting part. Have you tried this advice?
@wizzwizz4 "The tomatoes are the acidic-tasting part." In Italy apart for this and other recipes that explicitly include dairy it is said that cooking cream and butter are the common solution of the inexpert cooks to smooth the taste. It helps, but it is not necessary.
@wizzwizz4 Tried what advice ? The one I gave ? Yeah, I've cooked my fair share of Bolognese in my life and that's how I do it. If your tomatoes are still acidic after following my advice then the problem is with your tomoatoes, not my advice.
Jeez !
What about simply using lactose free milk?
Not non-dairy, obviously, but if it's just a matter of dairy sensitivity that would do the trick.
Not everyone’s issue with milk is lactose. Mine is casein. Sheep, goat, or A2 milk might be okay if that’s your issue, but depending on your reaction it’s often not worth the risk.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.949172
| 2023-03-20T01:36:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123679",
"authors": [
"Biblasia",
"Daron",
"Dennis Williamson",
"FluidCode",
"IMSoP",
"Ivana",
"Joe",
"Journeyman Geek",
"Little Code",
"RonJohn",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98106",
"lupe",
"rumtscho",
"shadowtalker",
"wizzwizz4"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
624
|
Do I need to use sterilized jars straight away?
When making jams and preserves you obviously need to sterilize the jars. After the jars have been sterilized do you need to use them straight away or can you sterilize them in advance and keep them for when you're ready to use them?
@Aaronut: done... I was just looking at that question in the home page thinking "that doesn't look right" :)
of course, if one is not American it becomes sterelised :)
@Pulse: It's still spelled with an i after the r!
Yea, that was a typo, my bad :)
You should be packing the jars while they are still hot, for rawpacked or hot-packed products. For hot-packed products, this helps avoid the risk of the jar breaking.
For great instructions on how to can at home, see the National Center for Home Food Preservation.
Personally I'd sterilise my jars as they are needed. Doing so ensures there are no bacteria and also keeps the jars slightly warm. Placing a potentially hot substance into a cold jar is asking for trouble.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.950073
| 2010-07-11T13:44:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/624",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brown Eyed Girl",
"EricSchaefer",
"GavinR",
"Greg",
"Pulse",
"dcharles",
"gkrogers",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"jjxtra",
"lomaxx"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1420
|
Is wagyu beef suitable for amateur cooking
I love steak and I've recently had wagyu beef at a local restaurant and it was delicious and unlike any other steak I've tasted.
I noticed that a local supplier sells wagyu beef and it's close to $100 / kg and whilst it isn't something I'd have every night, I'd be interested in trying it out myself.
Having said that, being such an expensive cut of meat, I don't want to just dive in head first and ruin it so I was wondering if I there are any special techniques that need to be applied when cooking wagyu beef to "maximize" it's flavour, or at least to avoid ruining it?
Is it something an amateur could attempt or should it be left to the pros?
Why not just ask about preparation methods? The particular "spin" on this question makes it far more subjective than it needs to be.
Background information may add useful hints as to the experience level, training, equipment, culinary preferences, and goals of the questioner.
In some ways you could consider it especially suitable for amateurs. Due to the high fat content it is much harder to stuff it up by overcooking than lean cuts.
I'd say basically, make sure you get cooking steak down and then try it. Try to cook similar size and styles of beef cuts and once you're happy with it and can consistently get it to a standard where you're happy with it, move on to the Wagyu. There's more to cooking a steak well that you'd think.
With an expensive ingredient like this, it's best not to try too many hacks or flavour enhancements so you can experience it in full. That's the best way to maximise the flavour - minimise other flavours.
Just buy it and enjoy it, really. If you're willing to shell out $50 for a pair of steaks, why the heck not. Worst case scenario may be that you don't prepare it as well as a "pro" would, and you don't get the same sensation you had at the restaurant - even then, it'll still be pretty good unless you completely mess up.
Sidenote: I'd get a pretty good bottle of wine for the occasion as well ;)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.950222
| 2010-07-17T13:59:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1420",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Jason",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Ocaasi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4602",
"lamelas",
"user2215"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
575
|
What varieties of potato would be good for chips / french fries?
What varieties of potato would be good for making chips / french fries that can be cooked in a deep fryer to give a nice golden crunch on the outside, but still be nice and fluffy in the middle?
Chips aren't the same as fries.
@random, I think lomaxx is referring to the British (and probably other cultures) term for fries.
Chips are fries on a bulk diet of starch and carbs. They're obese compared to the anorexic fries. Crisps are those thin wafers of nothing. @nat
The potato is probably not as important as the method. Simply frying them will not get you the fry you want. Basically you boil them, then double fry them. Here are the steps for The Perfect French Fry:
Ingredients
2 pounds russet potatoes (about 4 large), peeled and cut into
1/4-inch by 1/4-inch fries (keep
potatoes stored in a bowl of water)
2 tablespoons distilled white vinegar
Kosher salt
2 quarts peanut oil
Procedure
Place potatoes and vinegar in saucepan and add 2 quarts of water and
2 tablespoons of salt. Bring to a boil
over high heat. Boil for 10 minutes.
Potatoes should be fully tender, but
not falling apart. Drain and spread on
paper towel-lined rimmed baking sheet.
Allow to dry for five minutes.
Meanwhile, heat oil in 5-quart Dutch oven or large wok over high heat
to 400°F. Add 1/3 of fries to oil (oil
temperature should drop to around
360°F). Cook for 50 seconds, agitating
occasionally with wire mesh spider,
then remove to second paper-towel
lined rimmed baking sheet. Repeat with
remaining potatoes (working in two
more batches), allowing oil to return
to 400°F after each addition. Allow
potatoes to cool to room temperature,
about 30 minutes. Continue with step
3, or for best results, freeze
potatoes at least over night, or up to
2 months.
Return oil to 400°F over high heat. Fry half of potatoes until crisp and
light golden brown, about 3 1/2
minutes, adjusting heat to maintain at
around 360°F. Drain in a bowl lined
with paper towels and season
immediately with kosher salt. Cooked
fries can be kept hot and crisp on a
wire rack set on a sheet tray in a
200°F oven while second batch is
cooked. Serve immediately.
Worth reading is also the science behind the perfect fries.
The right variety of potato is very important - here's a guide - http://www.allotment.org.uk/vegetable/potato/potato-flavour-type.php
In most non North American cultures hot chips are much bigger than American French fries, and typical local potatoes are different, so this technique does not work. A double boil in oil is usually required
In the UK Maris Piper potatos are good for making chips. A lot of 'chippies' in the UK use them.
Kestrel, if you can find some. King Edward, although people don't grow them much nowadays because they are susceptible to disease. Golden Wonder, the classic chipping potato.
Looks like the preferred potato for the Netherlands and Belgium is Bintje, that one is being mentioned in various places. It also seems that a slightly floury potato gives better results than a waxy one.
White diamond are great they are from South Dakota in the United States. They make a potato that has the perfect starch content for chips.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.950423
| 2010-07-11T00:46:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/575",
"authors": [
"Ben Gartner",
"Debbie A",
"Eight Days of Malaise",
"Ghaith Subei",
"Jacob Krall",
"Jeff Hebert",
"Nathan Koop",
"Rudra Pandey",
"TFD",
"Yair Simo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79",
"ilhan",
"mike the mike"
],
"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
}
|
431
|
What is a good fish for cooking crumbed / battered?
I love cooking fish in a batter or crumbed. I usually use flathead which is nice, but I would like to know what other fish works well when being cooked in a batter or crumbed?
What sorts of fish do you have available? I imagine the answer will vary quite a bit depending on the fish you can readily get.
When I fancy fish and chips I tend to use either cod or haddock and create a rich beer batter. Serve that with some home-made chips and you're set.
If I want something lighter, but still with a crust, I'd tend to go for mackerel. If that's not available, I'd be looking for seabass or snapper.
Snapper is an interesting suggestion... will have to give it a go
Try adding a little lemon pepper mix into the recipe, really gives it a bit of zing :)
I would be very careful using either Cod or Haddock. In many parts of the world they are endangered and should be sourced responsibly. There are usually other similar fish that are pretty good and which are not endangered.
The Greenpeace "red" list, which lists fish that you should not buy because they are "endangered" is not so straight forward. Their criteria also includes GMO, fish farming, imported species, and child labour. These factors may be important, but are not actually making the fish endangered
Cod is your classic batter fish, used in most Fish & Chips recipes. I've used Tilapia in batter before, it works great.
Tilapia is firm and extremely versatile in what you can do with it.
Tilapia works great when cut into inch long pieces: dip in egg batter, plain flour, fry....
+1 There's a store near us where we can get cheap tilapia. It's proven to be amazingly versatile including for uses such as these.
I like to use Mahi, sometimes covered in crushed macadamia nuts. Served with some coconut rice and a mango salsa it's amazing.
Pangasius (or 'Panga') seems to be popular as well these days. It's firm enough to use for your purposes as well, typically aquacultured, and cheap.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.950724
| 2010-07-10T09:24:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/431",
"authors": [
"Daniel Renshaw",
"David Webb",
"Dinah",
"Dylan Beattie",
"Henrica Roelofs",
"Ian Turner",
"Owen S.",
"Pulse",
"Steven Oxley",
"TFD",
"Toni Frankola",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/901",
"lomaxx"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12794
|
Uses for brewers/nutritional yeast?
I grew up putting this stuff on my popcorn and absolutely love it. I recently found out that you can also put it on salads that have a vinaigrette dressing and it's also delicious. Are there other common applications that I am not aware of?
FYI - Brewers/nutritional yeast != baking yeast
Brewer's yeast is not the same as nutritional yeast; each is grown in a different medium. Most people people prefer nutritional yeast, which also has a better nutritional profile.
Was going to suggest putting it on popcorn. Damn, you beat me to it! :)
It's a great addition in just about any clear stock soup (non-cream-based) such as chicken, beef and even vegetable. (It's actually great for vegetarians and vegans who may have difficulty getting enough of their b-complex due to a meatless diet.) It enriches and deepens the flavor while providing a bunch of minerals. It's also an easy way to "rescue" a soup whose depth of flavor and savoriness (umami) fell short.
Couple of caveats:
It might make your stock cloudy if
you add too much
It doesn't seem to
stay in solution in stock too well. Needs frequent stirring in the bowl
to keep a consistent flavor
You can also use it as a base for vegan mac and "cheese".
We used to make this in college all the time. I forget the exact portions, but about 2 cups soy milk, 1 cup nutritional yeast, a little soy sauce, hot sauce and cornstarch to thicken it if needed.
It's not so bad.
Also I like it sprinkled on cooked kale and other greens -- especially when mixed with tahini and yogurt.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.950926
| 2011-03-05T02:15:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12794",
"authors": [
"Graham Charles",
"Harlan",
"Kaylee McGinnis",
"Kree",
"Luxqs",
"Schwern",
"Tim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45",
"shotwell",
"user2664691"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
721
|
What's the best way to cook brown rice?
Apparently the ratio of water to rice for brown rice is 1.5:1. I simmered my rice for about half an hour with the lid on the pan and the rice was still hard and the water nearly all gone. What am I doing wrong?
I usually pop my rice into a pan, shake the pan to even the rice out across the bottom of the pan.
I then add cold water to cover roughly half way up my thumb where my thumb is touching the surface of the rice.
Place onto the hob and quickly bring to the boil and then immediately turn down to the lowest setting on the smallest ring and cover with a lid.
Leave the rice to cook for around 30-35 minutes. Don't be worried if it looks like it's going to dry out, the steam in the pan under the lid will keep things moist. Don't be tempted to remove the lid to check on things, you'll lose all the moisture/steam and it'll dry out/stick.
The recipe on my bag of brown rice says:
1:2 ratio of rice and water
No salt in the water
Cook for 35 minutes
Rest for 5 minutes
Remove any surplus water
They always come out good and soft :-)
+1 on the 1:2 ratio. I add the rice after the water is already boiling and then turn it down to simmer. Also, I'm at around 5,000 ft so my brown rice takes a good 45 min.
I don't worry about the ratio at all when I cook brown rice. I find the following pretty bullet proof:
Fill with enough water that it won't all evaporate / absorb and bring to a boil.
Add brown rice and simmer 30 minutes.
Drain the rice and
Put it back on in a steamer basket to steam for 10 minutes.
Great quality and a very consistent result.
Before I got my fuzzy-logic rice cooker, I would use 2.5 cups water per cup of long grain brown rice. Take it to boiling, and then 45 min. covered, with the heat about as low as it'll go on a gas stove. If you see much boiling, you've got the heat too high. After 45 min., turn off the heat, fluff, and let it sit 15 minutes before serving.
If the water is evaporating on you, you have the heat up too high, or a poorly fitting lid.
Rice cooker does the job perfectly, every time.
You're not doing anything wrong. Brown Rice can be weird like that.
Just pop some more water in, and keep cooking it.
If there is no water - add some more water.
If the rice still tastes undercooked, cook it some more.
Brown rice can be a bit chewier than white rice, so it may be worth finding someone who cooks with brown rice to tell you when it's done.
My grandmother always let her rice sit in water a couple of hours before she even cooks it. Since it is already measured out all she has to do is turn it on. We usually used the electric cooker for convenience but the stove works just the same. Most Koreans and Japanese let their rice soak in water even overnight. The rice comes out perfect, not soft not hard just the right amount of bite.
A new article from America's Test Kitchen suggests that the best way to cook brown rice is by the immersion (or pasta) method, cooking the rice in rapidly boiling water.
They suggest the advantages are:
The hotter water cooks the rice faster, reducing cooking time to approximately 25 minutes (not counting the time to bring the pot of water to a boil)
The rice is all immersed, and so evenly absorbs water, preventing hard or under hydrated patches
Archived version of link is here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.951096
| 2010-07-12T09:22:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/721",
"authors": [
"Boris Callens",
"Igor Zinov'yev",
"JW.",
"Kiesa",
"Pauli Østerø",
"alexandrul",
"edoloughlin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95668",
"luke",
"polyfun"
],
"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
}
|
707
|
Is it safe to deglace a cast-iron pan?
I've heard that pouring a cold liquid into a very hot cast-iron pan can destroy it (because it's more brittle than a steel pan for instance). Is that true or do most of you deglace in cast-iron pans as well?
A metal pan will not crack simply from cold liquid. If you heat it up to a very high temperature and submerge it in cold water, that's not such a good idea. But deglazing is just a tiny amount of liquid.
Now, aluminum is another story - if it's hot enough and you pour cold water (or cold anything) on it, it can warp, even with a relatively small amount of liquid. And for Teflon and other "coated" cookware, you can ruin the coating that way. But heavier steel or cast iron - no way.
If you're really concerned, just keep the deglazing liquid at room temperature. Deglazing is usually done with vinegar and you keep that at room temperature anyway, right? I deglaze my CI all the time with cider vinegar and have never experienced even the tiniest crack in 10 years. I'm pretty sure it's safe. It's great, actually; CI deglazes very easily, you just need a small splash of vinegar.
I've never deglazed with vinegar -- but I've had no problems with years of using water, broth or alcohol. Deglazing is actually my preferred way of cleaning my cast iron: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/261/how-do-you-clean-a-cast-iron-skillet/509#509
+1 Didn't know that about coated materials, do you know if the coating comes off in that situation or is it ruined and just stays on?
Interesting @Joe, I think I only use vinegar (I always have cider vinegar around for this purpose). Of course you can deglaze with anything, especially on cast iron where the browned bits aren't even really stuck. All of the things you list can also be kept at room temperature if you happen to be paranoid!
@kryptic: It's hard to say for sure because every coating is different and the companies don't really disclose a lot of information about them. Some coatings don't even need the water, they'll leach into the food with just a high enough heat. Others don't readily leach into solids but are easily absorbed by water. It's partly because of all these unknowns that I tend to eschew the chemical non-stick coatings for all but the most basic cooking tasks (mainly frying on low to medium heat).
@Aaronut - And for a bonus when you use vinegar you get some extra iron in your diet. :)
@Sobachatina: I could be mistaken, but I don't think that a small splash will actually leech off the iron; it might wear off some of the seasoning but I haven't had problems in that respect either.
I, in fact, always use cast iron if I plan on deglazing. I find that the cast iron produces more of the little stuck-on bits of food that make a sauce from deglazing much better.
Vinegar will almost certainly remove some of the cast iron's seasoning. If you must do it, be prepared to re-season.
@keith: I've been doing it for years and have never had to re-season. YMMV, of course.
Cast iron is more brittle, sure, but cast iron is practically indestructible, so that's like saying "diamond is more brittle than jello". You probably could shatter it, if you tried really hard, but there is no way you'd do it just by dumping a little liquid into the pan, while it's at a normal cooking temperature. Even if it was way beyond a normal cooking temp, throwing liquid in the pan would just cause some really energetic steam.
Now, run it up to 1000 degrees or so, then lob it into a bathtub full of icewater, it'd probably shatter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.951512
| 2010-07-12T03:50:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/707",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Colin K",
"Gordon Tucker",
"JD Isaacks",
"Joe",
"Kryptic",
"Pops",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94",
"keithjgrant"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
701
|
What oil or fat to use for different purposes?
I understand that one of the main reasons to use different kinds of fat or oil is the temperature at which it burns, e.g. an extra-virgin olive oil to fry a steak wouldn't work. Taste is also a very important aspect. Can you give a list of the most commonly used oils/fats and what they are used for?
Also, related question on oils: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/670/when-is-a-cooking-oil-not-appropriate-to-substitute-for-another
"Commonly used" depends mostly on the culture, I'd assume. There's a lot of different oils, so I've organized by use rather than try for a complete list.
Some of the ones that you might find in a "typical American" foodie's kitchen include:
For frying: something with a high smoke point : peanut, sunflower, soy, extra light olive oil
For baking (muffins & cakes): something with a mild flavor : corn, canola, "vegetable", soy
For baking (biscuits & pastry, or greasing a pan) something solid at room temp : butter, shortening, lard
For general pan cooking: olive oil (any kind), butter, anything from the "baking (muffins)" list. update: this assumes sautéing heat or lower; see 'frying' for higher heat applications.
For salad dressing: any nut oil, mild oil, or virgin / extra virgin olive oil
For sauces: Butter.
For finishing: something flavorful to drizzle over at the last second... odds are, it's extra virgin olive oil, but possibly sesame or a nut oil.
Now, there's regional differences -- in the south, it's pretty common to save your bacon grease for cooking and to use shortening for frying. Lard's still popular in hispanic (and likely other) cuisine, schmaltz (rendered poultry fat) is used in both Jewish and French cooking. Ghee (similar to clarified butter), is used Indian cuisine ... and the list goes on.
If you're looking for a 'must keep on hand' list -- a mild oil, extra virgin olive oil and butter will get you through most anything. Add shortening if you like baking, and sesame oil if you like to cook asian food, and you'll be prepared for most anything.
Excellent summary and examples of regional uses; very helpful.
And due to the question that spurred my clarification for general pan uses ... extra virgin olive oil can be used for a wide variety of tasks, but cooking with it (anything above warming) will destroy the fruitier qualities ... if you're on a budget, you're generally better off with a mid-quality olive oil ... don't use an expensive cold-pressed variety unless that's all you have available (or you like wasting money).
There are a great many oils and fats on the market, which you choose to use will largely depend on several factors:
Type of cuisine being prepared
Health considerations
Flavour profile required
The most common oils are probably
Olive oil - This is a great oil for preparing a whole variety of foods, it's also great in salads. It typically comes in four varieties:
Extra Virgin
Virgin
Refined
Extra Light
Olive oil has numerous health benefits and is great for the heart. Olive oil has a smoke point range between 208c for Extra virgin and 243c for Extra Light.
Sunflower oil - A good all purpose oil, useful for cooking and salads. Sunflower oil has a smoke point of 226c
Corn oil - Not a great deal of taste but is great for frying. it's also not terribly healthy. Corn oil has a smoke point of 233c
Peanut oil - My favourite when cooking Asian food. Peanut oil has a smoke point of 225c.
Butter is also commonly used in cooking either alone or with oil. Butter brings a richness to sauces, it's also great for adding at the end of the cooking process to add a little sweetness and shine to the food. Butter has a smoke point of 150c.
Another form of butter, referred to as clarified butter or ghee is used in the preparation of Indian food. it has a slightly nutty flavour and a high smoke point. I nearly always make my own but you can buy it. Ghee has a smoke point range between 190c and 250c.
It addition to the aforementioned oils, there are a number of 'specialist' oils that are fantastic in salads:
Walnut oil
Hazelnut oil
Sesame oil
All of these have a very distinctive flavour and should be used in moderation. sesame oil is really great in Asian food. Add a little sesame oil with the peanut oil for cooking or add a little towards the end.
Edit: I forgot to mention lard. Lard is used in a variety of cooking processes, including baking and frying. It has a relatively high smoke pint, which makes it ideal for deep frying. It's also used in a process called larding, where small amounts of lard or lardons from bacon fat are injected into lean meat by means of a larding needle.
I'm confused: shouldn't the temperature of olive oil be lower than the one of sunflower or peanut oil?
I've clarified the post a little, so I hope it makes more sense.
+1 for smoke point information - see also related question http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/670/when-is-a-cooking-oil-not-appropriate-to-substitute-for-another
Peanut or sunflower oil: high smoking
point, good for frying
Clarified butter: similar to above but more
flavor
Olive oil: a lot of taste, extra-virgin oil burns quickly
Butter: low smoking point, I usually use it for sauteing at low heat, e.g. garlic
here on the wiki you can find table of cooking oils and their usage purposes:
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.952047
| 2010-07-12T02:48:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/701",
"authors": [
"Alex Angas",
"Dan Puzey",
"Gordon",
"JYelton",
"Joe",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"Matthew Scouten",
"Pulse",
"SAGExSDX",
"TheQ",
"crtjer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91",
"tobiw"
],
"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
}
|
1160
|
How to make Jalapeno Jelly?
A friend of mine got into a discussion about how awesome it would be to have really spicy Jelly for a number of things, or atleast just to try the taste.
It didn't seem like there was anything that would specifically make this impossible so I ask:
Is it possible to make Jalapeno jelly, and if so, what would I need to do to make it?
FWIW, it's really quite good on toast w/ a plate of scrambled eggs...
There's quite a few recipes online.
This one seems pretty simple.
It looks like in general, you:
Liquify your peppers
Cook the result with vinegar
Strain it
Cook the result with salt and sugar
Add some pectin
Add some whole jalepenos (probably optional)
Transfer to jars
Yep, it's possible! AllRecipes has a highly rated recipe for Jalapeño jelly:
http://allrecipes.com//Recipe/jalapeno-jelly/Detail.aspx
I tried a raspberry jelly with paprika, and that was pretty good. Wouldn't eat it by itself, but it would be good as an inbetween dish to clear the palate, or maybe there is some other use. I'm still thinking of ideas for it.
It seems like a jelly equivalent of chili chocolate.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.952442
| 2010-07-16T19:51:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1160",
"authors": [
"Niv",
"Shog9",
"Walter Roman",
"awithrow",
"debug",
"dolma33",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"raphink"
],
"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
}
|
108549
|
"Parts is parts" in sausages?
I'm not sure I really want to know the answer to this, but in the United States, are sausage manufacturers required to specify certain cuts of meats in their sausages, or does "beef" or "pork" suffice?
The reason I ask is that some brands of chorizo sausage disclose with great specificity what parts of the pig go inside their casing. For instance, the cuts in the Cacique brand pork chorizo contain:
PORK (SALIVARY GLANDS, LYMPH NODES AND FAT (CHEEKS))
On the other hand, several other brands simply list "PORK" as the meat. Is this disclosure (or concealment) by marketing choice, or are certain cuts required to be explicitly called out in the ingredients?
You need to specify a location, there are country and local level laws.
I'm reminded of 'law & sausage', though it must be said I really don't care how they make law & I probably don't want to know how they make sausage ;-)) I once made the unfortunate choice to read the ingredients list on a haggis… & these days rarely can be persuaded to eat it.
I am no expert on US regulations (thus this is a comment rather than an answer) but I found that this company lists 3 pork products on their website, 2 of which have these ingredients while the third justs lists "pork". I suspect these ingredients might be considered pork byproducts rather than actual pork.
Does the packaging state "Product of USA" or another country?
@user3169 The producer's website indicates it's produced in the US.
Following on from my comment, I have found some (old) US government documents that seem to answer this question. TL;DR: salivary glands, lymph nodes, and fat are "pork byproducts" (thus not "pork") and as such must be named explicitly on the ingredients list.
The long answer: The USDA's 2005 Food Standards and Labeling Policy Book lists:
MEAT BYPRODUCTS:
Byproducts must be individually declared by species and specific name in the ingredients
statement, e.g., Pork Liver, Beef Tripe, and Beef fat.
and
“(Species) tongue trimmings” may also be used to
identify salivary glands, lymph nodes, and fat from which the muscle tissue has not been removed.
(note that OP's ingredient list specifies "Cheeks", suggesting that these may indeed be "tongue trimmings". A different USDA website gives some idea of what is considered a "byproduct":
virtually all parts of the live animal that are not part of the dressed carcass.
The policy book further defines Chorizo (which OP's product is marketed as) as:
CHORIZO (SP):
The product name “Chorizo” can be used for any type of chorizo sausage that is cooked, dry, semi-dry, cured and fresh without further product name qualification. Other requirements for various types of chorizo apply, including the sausage standard.
Finally, we can find the following text:
SAUSAGE CLASSIFICATION: [...] Cooked sausages and/or Smoked sausages: [...] Meat byproducts may be used when permitted by standard.
There are a few plot holes:
There is no mention of byproducts in any type of sausage other than "cooked and/or smoked", so I cannot tell if they are allowed or not.
The policy book has an entry that seems to forbid the inclusion of these ingredients, contradicting the quotes above:
Trimmings with fat from tongue is acceptable ingredient in cooked sausage products covered under section 9 CFR 319.180 of the regulations. Lymph nodes and salivary glands are not acceptable ingredients.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.952574
| 2020-05-22T13:48:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108549",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"LSchoon",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"user3169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37995
|
How can I color pasta during cooking or afterwards, preferably using natural coloring?
My daughter asked me if I could make her red bowtie pasta in honor of Matt Smith as Dr. Who.
I'd rather not use an artificial dye. Either way, how would I go about coloring the pasta itself? Assume that I am starting from store-bought dry pasta. Would I have to add the dye to the water in large quantities, or would adding some to melted butter and tossing work?
possible duplicate of What ingredients can be added to pasta to give a different color?
@razumny For me, the wording of the question body was clearly referring to premade pasta. Now that you understood it to encompass pasta from scratch too, I would normally ask the OP to clarify. In this case, if he really meant from scratch, we would have to close as a dupe, so I will edit the title to cover the other case only. This way, we have an interesting question even if the OP decides to go for self-made pasta.
@rumtscho: I must have missed that when I read the question originally. Drat...
@razumny you didn't miss it, I added it to the body. This is a case where I deliberately changed the meaning of a question to refer to only one of two possible interpretations. It is not done normally, but in the case that the OP had had the alternative interpretation in mind, the q would have been closed anyway, so I decided that it is justified this time.
I did intend on using pre-made pasta, people. I'm sure it would be trivial to find a recipe for colored fresh pasta.
I wonder if a KoolAid concentrate soak, followed by a rinse might work. Some of the dyes used the stuff are wicked strong. The hitch would be whether the associated flavor can be removed with a rinse, with out leaching the dye.
You are not stating whether you are making the pasta yourself or if you are using premade pasta. I am going to assume it is the former.
For red pasta, I would recommend substituting some of the liquids with beetroot juice. You will need to experiment with it to get the color right.
I would also recommend trying it in pasta both with and without egg, as the yolk will play a role in how the color develops.
A bit late for me to respond, but I was referring to coloring pre-made pasta. I thought this would have been obvious, as I expect it's trivial to look up recipes for colored fresh pasta.
I tried boiling the noodles with colored water and it didn't change the color at all.
I made a corn starch slurry with cold water (approx 1/2 cup) and McCormick's Colors from Nature (red 2 tsp), which is just concentrated beet coloring. I mixed it into the drained, but hot pasta and came out with a nice pink color.
I finished it with extra virgin olive oil to help keep the noodles from sticking.
It's not as uniform as I'd like, and a bit dark in some areas, but it'll work for a Minnie Mouse themed pasta salad.
I've tried dying pasta by just adding food dye to the boiling water, but you don't get very deep colors.
I then tried letting it sit in the (cooled) water for a while, but it really didn't get that deep. (I didn't care about the texture as much; I needed something to use as intestines for halloween a few years back)
If you have the time, it might be easier to just make fresh pasta.
On the other hand, even just tossing with beets turns it pink. Coloring after draining might be more promising?
@Jefromi : I could never get anything more than a pink ... not even a deep pink. (I ended up adding blue to get it more purplish). I don't know if vingear would've helped, as that helps to set the color on eggs (but I think that's in part to eat at the calcium) and on really bright t-shirts.
Yeah, make it from scratch. Tomatoes or beets to make it red, spinach to make it green.
Purple cabbage could also help to get colors anywhere from blue to red. The vinegar might not do much to set the color, but it could keep it stable since lot of natural pigments change depending on the pH.
I haven't tried it, but this how-to suggests cooking normally to al dente, then soaking the noodles after cooking in a fairly concentrated food-coloring dye bath (2 T water + 20 drops food coloring) in a zip-top bag. http://www.tablespoon.com/recipes/rainbow-pasta/d7cb2f45-dea6-43e7-893f-6708e2dc10ec
I just saw a video where someone mixed the cooked pasta in gel food coloring, and it took on quite vibrant colors.
I suspect that the colors will then transfer to whatever the pasta comes in contact with (like your kid's face, if they're a messy eater), but it might be useful once in a while.
And in looking at the amounts he was using, I wouldn't be surprised if a pound of pasta required an ounce (2TB / 30mL) or so of coloring. (although he was using a strand pasta, which has more surface area than bow tie pasta)
If you just happen to have a vacuum pump, you can try
infusing the color similar to this article. This method should push the color all the way through.
Otherwise, making it from scratch is the way to go. This video explains how.
Interesting idea, and I am tempted to upvote, but do you think it will really work? The article mentions that the fruits should be airy enough, and pasta is rather dense in its structure. Do you know of somebody having success with that, or was it just an idea to try it with pasta too?
@rumtscho, have seen Dave Arnold (the inspiration to the article) infuse denser things and the physics of it are sound (Pasta flour granules are huge by comparison and fairly porous).
I do happen to have a vacuum sealer. Maybe I'll try this out and report back!
i added food coloring to my boiling noodles, turned out great! very deep and fun!
How much coloring did you need? Did you use less water? Joe seemed not to have luck with this.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.952870
| 2013-10-30T02:00:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37995",
"authors": [
"A.Dumas",
"Battaxe2006",
"Cascabel",
"CheshireKing13",
"Diana Speller",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Joe",
"Kealie Busuttil",
"Kit",
"MandoMando",
"NadjaCS",
"Novuog",
"Shai Schnarch",
"Snor",
"SourDoh",
"The Code Geek",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"citizen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89491",
"idk",
"razumny",
"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
}
|
16843
|
How do I make the panko bread stick to my egg-coated chicken?
I am trying to do a pan-fried schnitzel with chicken breast coated in a mix of eggs, salt, pepper, some ketchup, a bit of olive-oil and sweet paprika.
Once I coat the chicken in the egg mix, I try to cover it with panko bread, but for some reason it doesn't stick and leaves tiny holes once it's pan-fried.
Somebody says I should coat the chicken with flour prior to the egg, but I'm not convinced that would do the trick.
Does anyone care to explain what to do?
I answer this question the professional way here (Dave's answer is more or less the same): http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15507/alternative-for-shake-and-bake/15511#15511
Possible duplicate of Alternative for shake and bake?
Panko won't stick to chicken (too dry), but will stick to egg. Egg won't stick to chicken (too smooth and non-absorbant), but will stick to flour. Flour will stick to chicken. Dredge first through flour, then through (well beaten) egg, then through panko. It's a tricky combination, but if you do it right the results are excellent. Any dry spices you want to put in can go in the flour. While I don't know for sure, I would certainly wouldn't include any oils in the coating, as none of flour/egg/panko will stick to oils.
Alternatively you could dredge the chicken in flour then dunk it in a light batter, then coat with Panko. It'll give you a much thicker crust but the battering will allow you to add more herbs for flavour. Depends on what the desired end result is.
Just wanted to second NOT adding oil to any part of the coating. That oil lets the cooking oil penetrate and break up your coating. Way back we tried making falafel, and used oil when they were too dry--into the fryer, and it was like they disappeared! The oil inside mixed with the frying oil and they broke up.
This is the combo that I use and it is very successful.
This works every time:
dredge in the seasoned flour (a teaspoon each of oregano, dill, onion, garlic, ginger and
paprika)
dredge in an egg/sour cream mixture
dredge in the panko
This method should work great for your schnitzel.
Use water or milk to thin the eggs, and not oil. I've found the eggs by themselves were too thick and didn't stick well, but thinning them out let them wet the surface evenly enough to get breadcrumbs sticking nicely.
And oil won't help any of it stick, and doubly so because the oil will probably make it easier for the coating to dissolve in the cooking oil, rather than staying together. Besides, you will likely get enough oil in the recipe from frying.
As for flour... well, I've used it sometimes, and not used it sometimes, I've never seen a dramatic effect from pre-flouring before an egg wash, at least not one that outweighs the extra fussiness of the step. On the other hand, I sometimes make a thin batter with flour, spices and the egg mix, and dip in that before the breadcrumbs for a thicker crust... which is probably a similar effect to a flour layer, but much easier for me.
Disclaimer - I've used these breading techniques on cheese, or on vegetables like eggplant, and not actually on chicken - I think the principles would be similar, though.
I got mine to stick I mixed Parmesan cheese the shakin kind like a pizza joint, into my panko with spices, I used our free range chicken eggs , spray with cooking spray (I found olive oil spray is best) then dip into panko mix then egg then panko. I do 400-450 in glass dish butter coated.
Then cook for around 35-50 minutes depending on the size of the chicken. Enjoy I hope this helps garlic and Parmesan and creole with pepper and salt is a must try. Happy Cooking.
I don't use flour when panko breading instead I put a layer of panko on a tray and then dip each piece ofchicken or pork in a seasoned egg mixture and lay them on top of the layer of panko then put another layer of panko on top and let rest for 15 minutes to allow the pankao to absorb the moisture and bind to the meat...then fry as usual
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.953374
| 2011-08-12T20:45:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16843",
"authors": [
"2sheds",
"Aram Alvarez",
"BobMcGee",
"Chef Flambe",
"Jordan Baldwin",
"Luciano",
"Shane",
"UPVC Doors Ltd",
"bikeboy389",
"g.kertesz",
"haakon.io",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97164",
"robjmills",
"thesquaregroot",
"victorhooi"
],
"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
}
|
25535
|
How to find a good sweet potato fry cutter?
I am looking to make my own sweet potato fries, however sweet potatoes are harder to cut than regular potatoes.
Even more expensive cutters such as the Nemco N554503 fry cutter are not recommended for cutting sweet potatoes.
Does anyone know what makes a cutter suitable for sweet potato fries?
Here's one that claims to be but this video begs to differ
Shopping recommendations asking for the "best" brand are not allowed, I had to edit your question.
I have the Progressive International Jumbo Potato Cutter and it works well for sweet potato fries. The product spec for them lists "Yams" which are sometimes what sweet potatoes are called in the U.S. (technically, yes, yams are different but real yams are not often available in the U.S.). The LEM Products Commercial French Fry Cutter specifically lists sweet potatoes:
Makes French fries, sweet potato fries, zucchini sticks and other
favorites
The LEM cutter looks promising, I will give it a try.
Note that looks an awful lot like the Weston fry cutter from the video link in my original comment. While the Weston doesn't specifically call out sweet potatoes, it does seem to be the same mechanism.
That’s interesting, this product does indeed say both “for yams and sweet potatoes” as well as “NOT FOR YAMS AND SEEET POTATOES”. I am guessing that as people returned them broken that they updated a part of their literature but failed to update the other part.
Ziggy's Potato Cutters will handle sweet potatoes...they are harder on the blade but it does a fine job. www.ribbonfries.biz
Although we don't normally want self-promotion, I think in this case given that the top voted accepted answer basically just lists two brands and links to them, I can't really justify deleting this as spam. It's also indirectly helpful, in that it suggests that ribbon fries rather than traditional fries are easier for sweet potatoes.
You can improve the operation of the sweet potato cutter by microwaving the potato for about a minute and cutting off the ends to square it up against the blade. And don't try to cut with one push. Rather a series of less forceful pushes pressuring the potato a little bit at a time. Don't be afraid to use PAM on the blades to reduce friction. Good luck.
+1, while I disagree about the use of the microwave the rest of the answer is solid and does work.
Most varieties of sweet potato will not successfully chip, or hold together during the cooking process when chipped into the traditional square rod shape. Sweet potato turns mushy very quickly during the cooking process, and may also go very chewy if even slightly over cooked
Commercial sweet potato chips have been carefully selected and pre-cooked to hold shape and maintain strength for the a quick hot oil fry finish. Frozen sweet potato chips are generally intended for cooking in the oven
I would suggest you experiment with different sized discs cut from the width of the sweet potato. Using an adjustable depth Mandoline will help with this
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.953847
| 2012-08-07T19:28:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25535",
"authors": [
"Aida",
"Andre",
"Cascabel",
"David Wrightson",
"Escoce",
"J Crosby",
"JoeFish",
"John Smith",
"L. Kindness",
"Nojuan Especial",
"Revita Shrestha",
"Sabrina Lopez",
"Tom MOT",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8522",
"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
}
|
11733
|
What is the effect of soaking minced beef in milk
Rex Stout has a recipe for "Broiled Georgia Ham" where the ham is soaked in milk for an hour. Elsewhere I have read that you can soak chicken livers in milk before sautéing them.
Having read a little, it seems that this is done to tenderize the meat and I'm tempted to experiment by making meat loaf with milk soaked ground beef.
Before I set about ruining tomorrow's dinner I'd like to ask if anyone knows already what the outcome of this experiment might be.
Bolognese sauce, at least the classic Italian version, has milk added towards the end of stewing, and as Elendil mentioned, soaked bread in meatloaf or meatballs, and there's plenty of meatball-in-cream-sauce type dishes; I just can't think of any that call for pre-soaking ground beef in milk before cooking; If cooked over high heat, I'd assume the sugars from the milk would carmelize, but the extra moisture might steam the meat ... I have no clue what it'd do to a meatloaf.
I adore Rex Stout, but always assumed that the dishes he uses are only the most impossible figments of his imagination, only used to emphasize how much Nero Wolfe is different from mere mortals. As for the milk, I have never seen it used for soaking meat, but when boiling potatoes, adding some lemon juice to the water makes them very soft and easy to mash, while adding milk makes the flavor milder, but they get harder and slicker, you cannot mash them. I don't know if it has the same effect on meat, but using an acid to make meat more tender is usual, so maybe milk is not so good an idea.
If this is an old recipe, it could be the ham was more like salted pork, where you needed to soak to decrease the salt concentration?
It is quite common to make meat loaf with milk-soaked cubes of bread, but I've never heard of tenderising meat with it. Having said that, some kind of fat is common for marinades (yoghurt for example), so it might work. I'd try it with full cream milk, not half-and-half.
I think the reason for soaking liver in milk is to make the taste milder, as lamb, pork and cow liver can be quite strong tasting.
Yes, soaking liver in milk is used for that reason (as passed on from my mother who used to cook professionally).
I believe milk helps to absorb strong flavor from meat. It may also impart a pleasant flavor of its own, but I have not been able to discern this. I have never heard that it can tenderize meat, and cannot think of an explanation that would support this.
I have used milk to soak organ meat before cooking (beef kidney).
Not sure how much lactic acid is in non-sour milk, but that would help in a tenderizing - seems like not as much as other things, though, that are more used, and more acidic.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.954148
| 2011-02-01T21:17:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11733",
"authors": [
"Arroz Al Athentico",
"Epsilon",
"Greybeard",
"J. Win.",
"Joe",
"darthbith",
"dwjohnston",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67481",
"kiwimatt",
"minzeycat",
"rumtscho",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4321
|
What is the difference between pancetta and bacon?
I see pancetta next to the bacon at a local butcher and was wondering what the difference was between the two?
I addition to what Tabiasopdenbrouw said, and more to the point of usage/taste:
Bacon is typically cut thinner and ends up crispier than pancetta.
Both are often rendered for their fat before adding onions, peppers, etc... to the pan to pick up those pork fat flavors.
Pancetta is often saltier in flavor though this is usually the case because the pancetta is cut thicker or into dices, so you get bigger bites of it and thus more salt. This is the biggest different between the two.
Bacon and pancetta are both made from pork bellies; the difference between them lies in how they’re prepared and cured. To make bacon, pork belly sides are brined and then smoked. Pancetta, the Italian version of bacon, is made by seasoning a pork belly side with salt and lots of pepper, curling it into a tight roll, and wrapping it in a casing to hold the shape. It’s cured, but it isn’t smoked.
From here.
Actually, you can get smoked pancetta and un-smoked bacon.
Usually Italian pancetta is much thinnly sliced or diced instead. Does not really cook well in a pan as bacon does.
Yeah, perhaps I should have mentioned some more varieties. :)
This assumes that we're asking about American bacon (uk: streaky bacon), not 'back bacon' (us: canadian bacon)
@Joe: aka real bacon ;)
Canadian bacon, pfft. It's called peameal bacon.
mhhhh pancetta... mmmmhhh bacon.... There are only two things that nature intended to be used only as food: honey, and pork.
Aaronut: +1000 for Peameal Bacon.
pancetta resembels to unsmoked bacon and it is cured in salt and spices usually rolled into a sausage shape and a bacon is normally not rolled and is smoked.....pancetta is from belly and bacon can be from back,belly and hind leg....hope this helps u...
Pancetta from what i have been shown how to make is nothing like bacon. ours is cured where bacon is not. Also after 9 months of curing it does not need to be cooked. We don't roll ours. we leave the ribs in for the curing process and clean it up after when we are ready to eat it. It has so much flavor on its own aswell with a piece of bread is amazing.
Uh, whatever gave you the idea that bacon isn't cured?
my apologies, i did not do my research. It is i guess done in a different method than what i am use to. Curing can encompass a wider scope of methods.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.954425
| 2010-08-05T12:20:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4321",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Aarthi",
"Carmine De Luca",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Christoffer Madsen",
"James",
"Joe",
"Justin Helgerson",
"Marti",
"MissesBrown",
"Sharon Myers",
"Stefano Borini",
"Tobias Op Den Brouw",
"Vinay",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9064",
"lorenzog"
],
"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
}
|
356
|
What is the difference between various types of flour?
Is there a difference between the various types of flour that you see in the stores (i.e. Cake, Bread, and All-Purpose? Is it really necessary to stock 3 types of flour in my pantry or is this just a scheme from the manufacturers to get more money?
Also note that Ben McCormack's answer is actually quite good because it references a great article on flour by our own Chef Darin.
There are actually quite a few differences between the different types of flour. The number of different types you store will really depend on your particular requirements.
All purpose (or plain) flour is a blend of different types of wheat and has a relatively low protein content.
Bread flour is typically made from a single, high protein wheat. It also has a higher gluten strength. It may also contain ascorbic acid (vitamin C)
Cake flour is also typically made from a single type of wheat (different from the wheat used in bread flour) and has a high starch content, it also has the lowest protein content.
There are many other types of flour, all of which server specific purposes, for example;
Self raising flour, Whole wheat flour, Chick pea flour, Rice flour, Semolina flour
And others.
Essentially it's important to use the right type of flour for a give recipe.
Good response, but it's worth noting that some brands of all-purpose flour may have relatively high protein/gluten content. I believe that King Arthur's AP flour is one of those that do.
Wading thorough the minefield that is flour is always interesting. For the most part it will come down to reading the manufactures information on the packet. I imagine there are just as many variations of all purpose flour as there variations of plain flour (how all purpose flour is known elsewhere). You also have to consider mixed all purpose, hard and very hard varieties. With all those considerations we end up with protein values ranging between 11 and 13.9% just for all purpose flour.
Chef Darin Sehnert, of chefdarin.com and the teaching chef at a cooking school in Savannah, GA, has a great in-depth article on the various types of flour:
https://web.archive.org/web/20120103014449/http://www.chefdarin.com/2009/08/flour-power
He answers questions such as "Why and when to use cake flour" and "Why and when to use all-purpose flour." It's a long read but does a great job of exploring the different types of flour.
The difference is the amount of protein contained in the flour which can range from 5% to 15%. Bread flour usually has a minimum of 12% because bread needs it to rise properly. Cake flour has lower amount of protein, and all-purpose is in the middle.
See also here. The link at the bottom opens a table of the different protein ratios for the different products it is used for.
After all these years someone finally told me why my bread won't rise. +1 for that. puts Bread Flour on the shopping list
One element of the question that hasn't yet been answered: "Is it really necessary to stock 3 types of flour in my pantry...?"
Probably not. At least two are good, but it will cost you more than just buying AP. You can actually blend your own all-purpose flour by mixing a soft flour (like cake or pastry flour) and a hard flour (like bread or "high-gluten" flour). Many professional bakers take this route. I have entire cookbooks where all recipes specify mixtures of two types of flour, usually bread flour and pastry flour. "All-purpose" does not exist, and you tailor your blend to the specific purpose of the recipe.
Speaking of which, as alluded to in other answers, not all "all-purpose" flour brands are created equal. Gold Medal probably falls around the middle, while King Arthur all-purpose is harder and closer to bread flour. White Lily all-purpose is softer and closer to cake flour.
There are also further subdivisions than three. Most commonly, I've seen a five-fold division. Going from softest to hardest:
Cake flour: from soft wheat, very soft and light, essential for very light types of cakes with feathery and downy textures. Often bleached, not just for color but chemically it makes the flour softer than otherwise possible.
Pastry flour: quite soft and low in gluten (also from soft wheat), but not as much as cake flour. Good for pastries, biscuits, cookies, quick breads, pancakes, other tender baked goods. Not normally bleached. (White Lily is close to this.)
Normal "All-purpose" flour: blended from various wheats, not really great for anything. Not terrible at anything either. National brand flours (like Gold Medal) fall into this category.
Bread flour: made from hard wheat, better for making breads, rolls, and other things that depend on a yeast rise. Doughs will rise higher, resulting a in a lighter loaf. Will also result in a tougher product unless the dough is tenderized by including things like fats/oils or milk. King Arthur all-purpose flour is close to the "bread flours" marketed by regular brands like Gold Medal. King Arthur bread flour is even higher gluten.
"High-gluten" flour: made from hardest wheats, these are specialty flours, predominantly used by professional bakeries. They have an even higher gluten content than standard bread flour -- the highest possible from normal wheat (without isolating gluten separately and concentrating it). High-gluten flours are essential for very chewy things like bagels and chewy pizza (though some prefer a lower gluten flour for a more tender pizza crust). They also can be added to whole-grain bread doughs with heavy ingredients to provide enough lift to get a light or sandwich-style loaf.
For a while, I only tended to stock high-gluten and a very soft pastry flour. I could then create any other flour in-between by blending these two in whatever quantity was appropriate to the application. That's effectively what all-purpose flours do anyway, so this gives you more control. I haven't done this for a while, because I've moved away from the place I could buy specialty flour in bulk 50-pound bags for reasonable prices (and I've moved away from the people I used to share these purchases with). Things like pastry flour and high-gluten are so expensive and generally available only for mail order, so the home baker is stuck with the options in the grocery store. (By the way, I personally avoid most cake flours because of the bleaching, which can also affect the flavor of the flour -- a good-quality soft pastry flour is almost always sufficient. "Unbleached cake flour" that you sometimes see these days is usually pastry flour in terms of strength.)
I haven't discussed here the various types of whole-wheat flour, which seems like a different question. Whole-wheat is naturally high in gluten, often even higher than bread flour, but because of the additional bran and germ elements, it doesn't tend to rise as high or produce results that are as chewy as bread flour. Various size grinds and different levels of "extraction" (i.e., what size particles are taken out, how much of the whole-grain elements are removed) make various brands of whole-wheat flour seem very different. And then there are things like self-rising flour... just don't do it (in my opinion). Add your own leavening if necessary.
Finally, it should be noted that this classification only goes for the United States. Similar sorts of flours exist in Europe, for example, but different types of wheat and different processing can yield further variety in other characteristics of the flour. This is just a continuum from soft/tender to chewy. But by varying things like ash content, moisture content, etc., you can change other characteristics of the flour, like how much water dough will absorb, etc. without changing the tender/chewiness factor as much. So Europeans end up with types of flours that can do things differently from what American flours do.
Cake flour has less protein than AP flour which has less protein than bread flour. Cake flour is sometimes ground finer. The wheat used is known as soft (cake) or hard(bread) or a mix...the goal being to achieve a certain protein level. Professional bakers will care about this more than you need to.
No, you can't turn AP flour into cake flour, but you can, pretty much, use AP flour instead of cake flour. The cake MAY potentially be a little tougher/firmer, but you probably won't notice the difference.
Having cake flour around won't mess you up, if you make biscuits regularly, for instance, since soft flour is better for biscuits, which you definitely don't want to be tough. But if you just want to make this cake, substitute AP for the cake flour and you should be fine. If it calls for beating it for a long time after you add the liquid, you might cut back on it a bit, so that you develop the gluten a little less (more protein can build more gluten...see bread flour above), but most cakes don't call for a whole lot of beating anyway.
I do make a lot of biscuits. Thanks for the tip I will have to try the cake flour for them.
Cake flour has a lower protein content than AP flour. It's essentially the opposite of bread flour (higher protein content). You can add protein (turn AP flour into bread flour) in the form of vital wheat gluten to increase the protein content of your flour, but I don't know of any way to go the other way around. Some brands of AP flour from the southern US are "softer" and could probably be used as cake flour. "White Lily" is one of these.
I think it is worth mentioning that in the Central-to-Eastern Europe and in other places likely as well, you differentiate 3 basic types of flour according to how fine it is milled:
00 flour or smooth flour, used into sauces;
half-whole flour, for general purposes, especially into most baked cakes;
whole flour, for making breads and dumplings; it is as well put in a thin layer into a baking tin to prevent burning-on.
It is quite difficult to purchase whole flour in many parts of the world and people don't use it to bake bread there. This makes Eastern-European people quite unhappy about the bread quality all around the world.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.954694
| 2010-07-10T00:54:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/356",
"authors": [
"Alexander",
"Capsicum spammer",
"Casebash",
"Harlan",
"Julia Hughes",
"Mary Barney",
"Phillip Senn",
"Phob",
"Pulse",
"RedSonja",
"Sedat Kapanoglu",
"Spammer",
"Varuuknahl",
"dtw",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77421",
"jesse t",
"knallfrosch",
"mikej",
"xofz"
],
"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
}
|
14919
|
My sourdough starter is bubbling but not rising, suggestions?
I've been trying to grow my own sourdough starter; I went with a 'pure' method, with 50g each of hard-wheat flour from a local mill and water. I've fed it once and it seems to be bubbling nicely after a couple of days, and the taste is nice and tangy, but I'm not noticing the increase in volume that I would expect. The area I'm in (the Pacific NW) is still fairly cold (the interior temp in my house is probably mid- to upper-60s) so I suspect that could be a factor, but at what point (I'm about 4 days in now, including a second divide-and-feed pass a day or two ago) should I start to expect any real vigorous expansion out of the starter?
Without an accurate description of what exactly you did (what, when, how long, temperature (room and ingredients)) one can only guess at what went wrong. I'd like to refer you to two of my answers, which hold a lot of information that may already help you with your problem: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29963/techniques-for-making-sourdough-starter-in-cold-altitude/36313#36313
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39876/how-does-hydration-of-a-sourdough-affect-baking-features/40012#40012
Although I'm happy to provide another answer if you provide more detailed information.
If the starter is "bubbling nicely" then you may be already there.
Bread rises because the CO2 produced by the yeast is trapped by the protein in the dough. If you see bubbles then your starter is already producing the necessary CO2.
A starter has so much water in it that the protein doesn't trap the gas- thus you see bubbles rise to the surface. If you expect your starter to trap the gas and expand then it would have to have more protein. This isn't required for a starter to work.
You should be able to use the starter in a bread dough and that bubbling will turn into rising.
Great information. If my starter has a strong vinegar smell, what does that mean - would that affect bread rising at all?
Sourdough is a combination of yeast (which provide rising power) and bacteria (which make the starter sour and keep other nasty things from growing in it).
New starters will usually establish strong bacteria growth long before they get strong yeast growth. The bacteria growth will start within the first couple days, which will make your starter begin to taste sour. Bacteria can produce bubbles too, but they produce so much acid on their own that the bread produced will not rise very well. With a starter that's only 4 days old and has only been fed once or twice, it's very likely that you're still seeing more activity from bacteria than from yeast. (Low temperatures, like those mentioned in the question, will also tend to favor bacteria growth over yeast.)
In my experience, it can take as many as 10-20 feedings with whole wheat flour to establish strong yeast growth, depending on your recipe. With rye flour, I've seen it in only 4-5 feedings under ideal circumstances.
In any case, the "bubbles" you see in a starter in the first few days are primarily produced by acid-generating bacteria. They help to make your starter more sour, which will keep other bad things from growing in it. That's the first step. The second step is regular feedings once the starter has some sourness. The feedings will dilute the acidity temporarily and allow yeast to establish growth.
Ed Wood says low temperatures favor the growth of yeast, while higher temperatures favor the growth of the bacteria. You're saying the opposite? "Low temperatures...will also tend to favor bacteria growth over yeast" I'm confused now.
@jbyrd - I'm not sure what the context of Wood's comment is, but it depends on the type of bacteria. A new starter has different bacteria growing than a mature one. Each type of bacteria has a different growth curve, depending on temperature. Yeast growth rates decline significantly below 65-70F, but there are plenty of bacteria that still grow reasonably at those temperatures in a new starter. Many people have trouble establishing starters at low temperatures because random bacteria can outcompete yeast until proper acidity is established.
I wouldn't expect much expansion on a newly cultured starter. Given the high water content it will be very 'slack'. Even my many generations old one doesn't rise much unless I leave it at room temp for an afternoon.
I would continue with the growth pattern you are following, i.e. cut it in half and feed again a few times. There would be no harm in taking the 'discard' each time and baking it up to see what you get. I'd make a simple starter-only loaf like the KA 'extra tangy' recipe and see what you get.
I created my starter 11/06/13. We've had a cold winter here in Connecticut. It took until after Thanksgiving for the starter to be ready to use in any baking. I arrived at this understanding through reading different posts on different websites and also the book I was using by Chad Robertson "Tartine Bread". In the book, he said it might be a matter of days to ripen and I began to think I might have killed it through some error. He did talk about placing a spoonful of starter in a cup of warm water and watching to see if it floats, floating starter in this scenario means it is ripe and ready to use!
I finally came across an article of a t.v.appearance he made where he revealed it could be a full month before one's starter is ready to use. I suspect with winter growing colder, adopting a clear feeding schedule, evening out how I compose the feedings, establishing a feeding time… this all sapped energy form my starter. Eventually, the starter was four weeks old and I was testing it each day. Finally, I could see the samples floating in the water when I would conduct a float test. Occasionally, I would come home from work and see it produced hundreds of bubbles over the course of the day as in the photo above… Give it some time!
I recently started a sourdough culture by mixing warm water with flour, incubating, and feeding it once per day for a week. I used it in a no-knead recipe, and it made a brick that had a few large air pockets but very few little bubbles.
I fed it again for a week and tried again, producing this:
It's a huge improvement, but there are still some very dense parts in the middle, and the loaf didn't rise much overall.
I'm going to keep feeding it and trying this recipe periodically. Hopefully it will improve with each iteration.
Lovely photo but it's not entirely clear to me how this is answering the question?
The implied answer is "keep on feeding it, use the discard to make a loaf, and track progress. It may just take more time." Upon rereading the question, I agree that this isn't much of an answer. Oops. :/
Hey, if you post another picture every week, we'll eventually be able to judge whether or not this answer is any good...
Yeah I've just started a new starter and am at the same stage. At the start of the week it was a very sour starter with some bubbles but little rise.
I got some improvement when I started feeding it then putting it in the residual heat of the oven - long after i'd used it for cooking dinner and that seemed to promote more yeast action.
My last starter took a month before it would be predictable.
Also, while your starter is getting settled. I recommend collecting the discards and making a a loaf with the help of baker's yeast - it gives you a lovely sour and light bread and softens the blow if your first few sourdoughs come out as bricks.
I've posted this as an answer to Techniques for making sourdough starter in cold/altitude but I think the warm water bath maybe the solution here as well. It certainly worked for me. I posted my 1st hand experience as a sourdough novice so that you can see if something similar happened to you.
I live in Richmond Hill just north of Toronto, Canada. The temperature in my house is kept at 18C (65F), and this is my 3rd attempt at making a sourdough starter with just water and flour. Two previous attempts failed probably because I was using just All Purpose White Flour and there was just not enough wild yeast in there. This time I used a 50/50 mixture of Whole Wheat with AP and I believe the wild yeast in the less processed WW made the attempt successful.
If you don't want to read the rest of the detailed post just remember the most important point is that in a cold room you need to put the starter in a warm 25C/75F water bath and re-heat the bath every 8-12 hours for the yeast to establish itself.
Day 1:
50g WW + 50g AP + 100g cold water that has been boiled.
Day 2:
I see just a few bubbles, with a bit of sour smell.
Added 50g WW + 50g AP + 100g cold water that has been boiled
(Nothing discarded, just double the weight)
Day 3:
A lot more bubbles on the top but not on the side, very little rise in volume, with a very strong vinegar smell.
At this point I though that the smell is not right so I googled and found the answer right here in this thread. I realized that my room is so cold that it may take 11-18 days for the starter to form. I also read that different micro organisms in the starter thrives at different temperatures. Lower temperature encourages the growth of lactic acid bacteria (LAB) which produce acetic acid, which explains the strong acidic smell of my starter right now. What I want is more lactobacilli (which produce the milder, more pleasant yogurt like smell) and wild yeast. Lactobacilli thrives at higher (25C+) while yeast likes 21-25C.
So I split my starter into two jars. Added 100g AP + 100g cold water that has been boiled to each jar (nothing thrown away, and I stopped adding WW). I then filled a big stainless steel pot with hot tap water and added some cold tap water to bring the temperature to about 25C (I used a candy thermometer). I put the the jars in the water bath and left them in a cold oven. Before I went to sleep I re-heated the water bath to 25C again.
Day 4:
Checked at noon and found that my starter is bubbling like crazy, success at last! The vinegar smell is now replaced with a milder, more pleasant sour smell. I added 200g AP + 200g cold boiled water to each jar, and re-heated the water bath to 25C.
Day 5:
The starter is bubbling so vigorous that it has more than doubled in volume and oozed out of the jars. I am not ready to bake bread yet, so I stirred the jars down, took out a cup of the starter to make a very nice sourdough chocolate cake https://www.kingarthurflour.com/recipes/sourdough-chocolate-cake-recipe and put the two jars into the fridge for future experimentation.
Addendum:
Today I baked my firsts sourdough loaves. Turned out pretty well. Not much sourness, which is good. I tried using the https://www.karenskitchenstories.com/2016/08/sourdough-hokkaido-milk-bread-with.html recipe, using only about 60g of starter from the fridge mixed with 60g of water and 60g of AP flour to triple it. But after a few hours there was not much activity. Tried putting it into the oven but I may have turn the heat up too high and since there is not much flour/water mixture there I may have killed the yeast. So I abandoned the recipe, took out another 100g of starter from the fridge and added 100g of water + 100g of flour and left it overnight. The next morning I can see bubbles so the yeast is alive but not vigorous. So I took the pot to my room where it is sunny today and left is sit there for about 4 or 5 hours. It became very bubbly (I have 600g starter, so othat is 300g flour + 300g water) and I mixed in with 5 cups of flour along with my tangzhong made with 1/3 cup flour + 2/3 cup water. I also added 1/4 cup Crisco oil with 6 TBSP of sugar. I kneaded it and added just enough water to make a smooth dough. I let it ferment for about 10 hours for the volume to double. Then I gently shaped the dough into 3 loaves, and left them in the cold oven overnight. The loaves have double in volume in the morning and I baked them straight away. The crust was not bad and the texture is quite nice. So sourdough starter can definitely rise the dough twice.
So the lesson here is that you need to make sure the starter is tripled under warm conditions (21-25C). The best way to do that is by using a water bath (hot water from faucet mixed with some cold water) and then leave it in the oven (without turning on the oven, of course). Maybe a good idea for you to get a cheap candy thermometer to make sure the water is not too hot. You also need to give the starter enough time to ferment. The final dough also needs at least 12 hours to rise properly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.955408
| 2011-05-19T17:54:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14919",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Anpan",
"Athanasius",
"Deborah",
"Lisa Bird",
"MacPhee",
"Perdi Estaquel",
"Queue21",
"Ruben Verschueren",
"Shog9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96633",
"jbyrd",
"lukecyca",
"tox123"
],
"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
}
|
8245
|
Crisping prosciutto
This may seem like an obvious question, but I have a couple of recipes that I make a lot that require crumbling crisped prosciutto over / in them.
Whilst I have experimented with many frying / baking techniques to crisp the prosciutto to a consistency that will crumble nicely without being burnt, oily or rubbery, I have never quite perfected it.
Does anyone have any tips that may help?
I've done this with both diced prosciutto and thinly sliced prosciutto. For the diced, tossing in a little oil and searing seems to work best. For the thinly sliced, popping it on a cast iron surface and placing it in a 350 degree oven does very nicely.
A little oil gets those small chunks really going. Works for me as well.
I always do bacon in the microwave, on a plate, between paper towels. It's quick and the doneness is very controllable. Maybe try that with prosciutto bits?
I've never tried that, I've taken to lightly baking in the oven for best results, but I will give it a try. Thanks
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.956418
| 2010-10-18T03:37:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8245",
"authors": [
"Mathias",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/798",
"johnc",
"nrobey",
"sysadmin1138"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18607
|
Substitution for egg to bind hamburger mince
My wife is having pregnancy cravings for (homemade) hamburgers, but has developed a prenatal allergy / intolerance to egg.
What is a possible replacement for egg to stop a hamburger pattie from collapsing into mince during cooking?
I never use egg in my burgers, just beef and pepper. Salt added to the outside immediately before cooking.
A bit of corn starch would help if you cannot add egg at all.
An interesting though, I'll give it a try
Great :) Just to add, in Asian cuisine, corn starch is used a lot to make food "stick" together.
Have you tried not adding egg? In my experiments, egg is needed when you add breadcrumbs, but if you just form some ground beef into a patty and fry it, it doesn't fall apart. Hm, let me clarify that. If you take a single blob of ground beef straight from the styrofoam and press it in a patty press, it doesn't fall apart. If you take two pieces and put them next to each other in the patty press, it does fall apart as you cook it. So when I need to add an extra bit, I add it on top. That works. So there is at least one way you can make a hamburger without adding egg. Now, if you wanted to mix spices into the beef, then you might have a problem. I'll admit that. Better than nothing, though.
Thx, we do tend to add onion and breadcrumbs
I've never used anything other than beef, dry spices, and sometimes garlic to make my hamburgers. Truthfully, I much prefer the taste of a burger with no binders. We buy our beef by the half cow, and make plenty of burgers. Freezer -> defrost -> Mix beef with spices -> Form burgers while still cold (I make a round ball with the meat, them compress it) -> straight to grill. We've never had any issues.
I will also say, that my wife is much better at making evenly sized, well formed burgers, that hold together really well..
This is correct. Should be recognized as the right answer.
There are two things you need to do to make perfect hamburgers without egg or other binder.
First knead the meat balls so that the meat binds together. Kneading give you a better bind you will get. Press the meat firmly into your mould before popping out.
Second, after forming into shape, refrigerate the meat pats.
This process first stretches the proteins in the meat. When chilled, the proteins contract again but now they are twisted together in a bond. When cooking, the pat will hold together just a well as any that you buy in a shop.
If find that this works even when I add liquids to the meat. I often season my meat with Worcester sauce mixed in. Even with this extra liquid the meat will hold together just fine. No egg required.
The more you knead, the more the fat melts in the burger before you've even cooked it and the drier your burger is after cooking...
Beef fat melts at hand temperature??? Secondly if you that stressed, need with a tool not your hand. The above works. It's used commercially. Rather than knocking it, why don't you try it.
Been there, tried various methods, found kneading for long periods is not good. Different strokes etc. I guess. Agree totally with refrigeration however.
Personally, I've never managed to over knead, but I've adjusted my wording above to prevent misinterpretation. I still hold that more action is required than simply forming a round shape. Pressing and folding several times does distinctly improve the stability of the shaped pat prior to refrigerating.
Oh, you've got to pack it a bit for sure. I usually pack until a coherent ball can be formed, then flatten to a disk.
I used to do that but found the edges could split a bit when you flatten. I now use a round mould and press firmly into that, taking particular care that the edges are well formed, then drop the pat out to a plate.
You can fry it without an egg at all.
I just form a patties, leave them on the table or in the fridge for a hour or so and then fry it.
Nothing fall apart, everything is fine.
You can use what is called a flax egg, it is 1:3::milled flax seed: water (4Tbsp is about 1 egg in terms of binding strength). Not only is flax the secret glue in many vegan recipes, but it might be a good additive for your wife's diet.
I too had an intolerance to egg when I was pregnant with our last child. In place of egg when making hamburgers or meatloaf I used a jar of veal baby food. It helped bind and keep the dish moist. Doesn't really add or subtract from the flavor of the beef either.
Best of luck to you!
3 tablespoons water
2 tablespoons chia seeds
Let this sit on the counter for ten mins.
Mix in with 1 lb. hamburger meat.
No egg needed or breadcrumbs either.
For added taste add 1 tbsp. tomato paste
or 1 tsp. Worcestershire sauce
Works perfect every time.
My mom made it this way for years!
Using pork mince will make a good burger as the proteins in pork meat bind naturally and so you do not need the egg to bind the mix. Just work the meat a little to encourage a good mix.
The taste would be utterly different, though.
Pork burgers are not real hamburgers.
1 Tbs flour for 1 Pound of meat
Can you provide any detail on what this does, why it works, or how you are supposed to do it?
Just my opinion, but here's how you do it:
Form the ground beef into a patty. (Don't over-handle it, knead it, or compress it. That will make it tough or chewy. Completely ruin the texture.)
Cook it. (Preferably on a grill, but frying is almost acceptable if necessary.)
There's no need for eggs, or cornstarch, or bread crumbs, or any other impurities, pollutants or additives. If you're adding that stuff, you're not making a real burger. The idea of adding anything to a burger is kind of repulsive.
Nearly world-famous, quasi-chef Alton Brown walks through the process and philosophy of making a quality burger: https://youtu.be/cOP6QuhyONc
And these guys have way too much fun with an "instructional take" on the process too: https://youtu.be/gaIyaobHKY8
Time for some molecular gastronomy. Transglutaminase ("meat glue") should work perfectly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transglutaminase
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.956563
| 2011-10-27T21:51:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18607",
"authors": [
"Beth Johnson - Pastry Chef",
"Catija",
"Doug S",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jesus Almoriandolococo",
"K2so",
"Kamil Jarosz",
"MD-Tech",
"Patricia Lynch",
"Rincewind42",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"cookiesfromhome",
"davidaniel",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7783",
"jhampl",
"johnc",
"user37496"
],
"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
}
|
10638
|
Any magic formulas for roasting a gammon joint?
wondering if there is a magic formula (i.e weight/temp/time) in order to get a gammon just right?
Could you help out those of us who have no clue whether a gammon is animal, vegetable, or mineral?
Slow cooked, braise, to internal temperature of 160 F plus. So, covered in the oven, with some liquid. Treat it like a pork shoulder or a fresh picnic and you should be fine, since most ham recipes (which is what this is, really) assume a ham that is already cooked.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.957093
| 2010-12-31T18:55:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10638",
"authors": [
"Jackie Kehl",
"Kelly T.",
"Marti",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"namu"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9510
|
using medium chilli powder instead of kashmiri chillis, what ratio should be used?
I have a recipe for making a madras, and it suggests substituting chilli powder for the chilli's, but doesn't suggest how.
Wondering of anyone can give me a pointer as to what ratio to use?
Can you please explain your rollback? Aside from removing some valid tags and restoring some invalid ones, your original wording was highly ambiguous and you've done nothing to clarify it in your own wording.
Content had been added that was projected as coming from me. I didn't have time to edit it fully, so I rolled back. Feel free to re edit any ambiguous items but please avoid adding words from my voice.
@Aaronut Yeah, the rolled-back edit did fix some things, but it also bizarrely added this "my mom always said" which clearly didn't come from the OP.
Does the recipe have you using fresh chiles or dried? Are they left whole, chopped, or ground? Better, can you link a recipe?
I've been growing a variety of chilis recently and have experimented with drying several varieties. By best, Mk. I eyeball guess is that the dried flesh occupies between 1/2 and 1/4 the volume of the fully hydrated flesh.
So I'd shoot for approximately 1/3 as much (by volume) dried chili as fresh (assuming that you are comparing to finely chopped fresh chili, because the dried stuff does not retain the shape of the original).
Of course for small thin chilis that you can dry whole (like the little Thai reds) the substitution is one dried chili plus some moisture equals 1 fresh chili.
by as much, do you mean weight or volume? I am using powder, not dried chillis.
@Mild Fuzz Good question. By volume, because that's what my Mk. I eyeball judges. Yes, that is imprecise. Maybe next time I weight them before and after.
You only have the Mk. I? ;)
This recipe almost certainly means ground chilies aka chile pepper powder, NOT the spice mixture that is also called chili powder in American English.
Cayenne Pepper powder, or a "Deggi Mirch"/"Lal Mirch" powder from an indian grocer, will do here. They are in the same order of magnitude when it comes to heat. Western style cayenne pepper powder could be lacking in flavor, while kashmiri mirch powder could color the curry too strongly - a mixture would be wise.
Use whatever amount of the powder you are comfortable eating in a curry of that type.
Kashmiri [also known as lal] mirch has almost no heat, certainly compared to a cayenne. it's more like a new mexico or even a paprika; lots of colour, not much heat. Deggi mirch even more so, as it's a blend of paprika & kashmiri. - https://pepperscale.com/kashmiri-chili/
This seems not to be so universal: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:85miIb-sYL0J:cercenvis.nic.in/PDF/Chili_Powder.pdf ... rates MDH brand (very common abroad at least) Deggi Mirch powder as 48000 scoville, this isn't really a joke.
That seems to be comparing brands of different 'mixes', none of which I've heard of. if you scroll right to the bottom, there's a short scoville list of actual chilli types, from which you'll see kashmiri mirch is actually 1500-2000. I do note from the same list, they call cayenne lal, which would definitely be a source of confusion. Wikipedia says lal is kashmiri - but then it goes onto the same brands that have 60k scoville. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashmiri_red_chilli Anyway, the kashmiri I buy is 'pure' kashmiri & has almost no heat.
I trust these guys & buy most of my spices from them - it's out of stock right now, because, as they say… if they can't get the right stuff they won't sell it. [Good job I've got about 250g in my cupboard already ;) https://spicesontheweb.co.uk/kashmiri-mirch-chilli-powder/
Edited to remove the pure "kashmiri" powder, since it is likely you are accurate on the stuff. Still doubtful on the deggi, and whether deghi and deggi might actually be different also..
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.957188
| 2010-11-27T10:54:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9510",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Anthony Agius",
"Cascabel",
"FuzzyChef",
"Ian",
"Mild Fuzz",
"Mio Ishida",
"Mrdave",
"Schamp",
"Tetsujin",
"Zmart",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"ibid",
"rackandboneman",
"roberto tomás",
"user62572"
],
"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
}
|
9797
|
how can I tell if my pots and pans are ferrous?
I am looking into replacing my hob with an quick, induction type electric hob, but they stipulate that the the cookware must be ferrous. I have decent cookware, but how do I know if it is correct?
If a magnet sticks to it, it's ferrous.
I'd like to give a more elaborate answer, but there isn't anything more to it.
The wikipedia page has a nice description of how induction stoves work and why they generally require pots made of ferromagnetic materials.
Ferrous means an alloy that contains iron in reasonable amounts...that would include all forms of steel and we know that not all steel is magnetic.
@jbarker2160 - I was actually paraphrasing the text on the test magnet that came with my induction stove.
I have a pressure cooker made (or clad) in stainless steel. Please note that many types of stainless steel are only weakly magnetic. For stainless to be completely non-magnetic, however, it needs to be in an annealed state. Not likely with cookware.
Thus, I can tell between something that's weakly magnetic if you use a neodymium magnet. These are significantly stronger than your typical fridge magnet. Frequently they are sold online with the caution to not allow skin to get between two of these magnets as they can snap together forcefully and deliver a painful blood blister.
BTW, ferrous = made of, or contains iron, (all types of steel are ferrous).
18/10 stainless steel, as is often used for cookware at least here in Europe, is not magnetic and will not work on common induction hobs. Also, neodymium magnets can be salvaged from broken or obsolete hard disk drives (do not attempt to borrow from a working drive!).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.957528
| 2010-12-05T09:41:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9797",
"authors": [
"Carmi",
"Cascabel",
"Haley Freeman",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Peter Mortensen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"rackandboneman",
"richard"
],
"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
}
|
9404
|
yeast subtitution in a recipe with no water
I have found this recipe, but I want to use dry active yeast, rather than easy blend. My question is can I proof (right word?) the yeast in the milk? and how much should I use?
Kalács (Hungarian version of challah) doesn't contain any water either, so the yeast is proofed in milk. Doesn't do it any harm that I can see. :)
Yes, you can proof the yeast in the milk. Heat the milk gently to around 120 degrees F (use an instant read or candy thermometer to check). I would use all the milk.
I have no thermometer, but is it roughly the same temp as I need to get water? I am used to gauging that the old fashioned way (i.e. guessing with my fingers)
and should I use the same amount of yeast as the recipe suggests?
@Mild Fuzz - same temp as the water - should be comfortable for your fingers. You can use the same amount (active dry is strong stuff), but it really should be about 4/3 more for a correct substitution.
You CAN proof the yeast in the milk, but if you do, be careful not to get it too warm. Think baby bottle on wrist temperature.
Note that if your yeast really IS Active Dry Yeast (you haven't had it above your stove for the last 3 years), you can probably just dump it in. It might take it a little longer to come around, but yeast is very resilient. I tend toward the overnight in the refrigerator method of bread making, longer slower growth by the yeasties.
Another thought, if you really need the yeast to move fast, you can kick it up a little bit, assuming you have yeast in bulk. The only reason why your recipe is calling for 2 teaspoons is because that is how much comes in a packet.
Easiest is just to dump it all together and make sure that your dough has time to rise, no matter how long that takes. When I make sourdough bread, it can be all day, but if it is alive, it always rises.
you have to be careful adding too much yeast to any bread recipe, as yeast will die off if it is acting too fast. This is why dextrous malt is sometimes added to recipes for bread - it helps yeast act without causing overactive yeast
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.957947
| 2010-11-24T13:01:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9404",
"authors": [
"Ian Lewis",
"Marina Berti",
"Marti",
"Mild Fuzz",
"Shri Samson",
"feedc0de",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3363",
"justkt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9196
|
domestic bread steaming -> will my stone be okay?
Trying to maximise the oven rise of my loaf, and think I will try the steaming method, but what is the best way to do this in a domestic electric oven, and will could it damage my bread stone?
try hot water in a hot thick walled pan plus spraying the sides (not bottom) of your oven about 3 times 30 seconds apart during your first few minutes of baking.
I would not go ahead and just toss water on the oven floor as this can both damage your oven, as well as lower its temperature.
Instead, I would use a baking pan with some boiling water, put it on the lowest rack. The temperature of the oven will keep the water boiling, and thus releasing steam throughout the baking.
but my stone will be fine?
I have a pizza stone and I did this the other day. I used the oven and a pan of boiling water (with the oven off) to make a proofing cabinet, which worked great! Then, turned the oven on, made sure the water was nice and steamy and baked my bread. I didn't necessarily get more of a rise out of the bread, but it did give it a really wonderful crusty crust. Pizza stone was unaffected.
@Mild Fuzz Oh yeah, definitely. The potential problem is thermic shock, and the risk for that when using a baking pan full of water is pretty much none.
I use an old pressure cooker. I drilled and tapped the lid for a 1/8" valve with a "dip tube". I hooked 1/8" copper tube to the valve and run it into the oven. When the cooker comes up to pressure, I put the bread in the oven and open the valve for ~10 - 20 sec. This blows super heated water into the oven which instantly flashes to steam. No liquid water comes in contact with any part of the oven of any stones or the bread.
I use ice cubes on a baking sheet, on the lowest rack setting, as I want the steam to be gentle on the bread and it seems to me that boiling water would give off too much steam. I put in ice cubes in at the beginning and then about half-way through. Generally I am looking for a better crust on the bread rather than a rise though so maybe that is where the boiling water would be beneficial. I have used both baking stones and terra cotta planter bottoms and it did not affect or harm either.
Use the wand from an espresso machine, aimed into the oven vent under the right-rear burner of your stove. Remove the burner first. Shoot the steam into the hole for about a minute. If you have a Scunci steamer, this will work too.
This does not answer the question. The OP asked what the results of steaming are on the oven, not how to do it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.958157
| 2010-11-17T11:18:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9196",
"authors": [
"AlexTP",
"Diana",
"FoodTasted",
"Jamus",
"Karim",
"Magnus Nordlander",
"Marc Yu",
"Mild Fuzz",
"Rob",
"Samsara",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81102",
"justkt",
"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
}
|
46029
|
Should I taste-test food before serving it?
Do all chefs sample food before serving it?
I ask because I feel like there is a huge sanitary problem here. If the chef gets a taste of the food, doesn't he risk his saliva getting into the food itself?
When I cook at home, should I sample all food before serving it? Is it sanitary?
Some background: I watch a lot of cooking shows, and go to some food festivals, and more often than not, I see chefs taste whatever they're cooking with a small spoon, and later reuse that same spoon to taste again. I could understand that using one spoon for each taste is wasteful, but at the same time I feel like it could cause serious sanitary issues.
If you've got a commercial-grade dishwasher, and extra 100 spoons isn't a big problem.
As Bobby Flay once said, "If you're not tasting, you're not cooking". It's the best way to know whether what you're serving is properly seasoned and allows you to adjust the dish as you make it.
@DanC That's so true that I have to agree with it despite my all-consuming hatred for Bobby Flay.
The safety question has already been asked and answered, including some about what typically happens in kitchens: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43407/food-safety-when-tasting-from-dish You will probably get much better answers to the part about what you should do (particularly in terms of cooking good food, not safety) if you focus on that.
The way my mother taught me (and incidentally also the way my wife cooks so her mother probably taught her the same) is to never lick the tasting spoon or put it in your mouth. Instead use the tasting spoon to drip the sauce/soup onto your palm or back of your hand and taste from there.
Mythbusters determined that double-dipping has no significant effect. They used chips, but if the thing being double-dipped is a spoon, I doubt the result would be much different.
I just use a new spoon. You don't need to taste it that many times.
I remember watching an episode of Chopped where one of the harried chefs used the same tasting spoon twice. The judges basically read him the riot act, and he was the one chopped that round. (They came up with other, food-based, reasons for chopping him, but the tasting spoon thing was definitely a factor.)
@PhilFrost: Mythbusters isn't exactly the most reliable source, especially if you look at their methodology for that experiment. They didn't monitor the dishes, they didn't use a control, they made no effort to factor in viruses and other non-bacterial risks, etc. IIRC, they also tested one double dip, not several as might be the case if someone reused their spoon again and again.
Note that this depends in part on which tradition of cooking you come from. There are some where a master chef is supposed to be able to rely entirely on their nose rather than tasting a sample. I have no opinion on whether that's actually practical or not, since I don't attempt it.
They don't use the same spoon twice in those shows. You just never see them grabbing a different spoon due to editing.
Any halfway competent chef should indeed be tasting. The only way to know whether you're putting up good food is to check it yourself - and you'd better be consistent if you want to continue getting paid for it.
That's not to say that all chefs do, nor that there's any one standard for how frequently to taste or what method should be used. It's pretty obvious that using your hands to taste or double-dipping is frowned on... but shortcuts do happen when it's the middle of the rush and you have 30 things to be doing at once.
The best practice I've personally seen in a commercial kitchen was to have a large set of spoons at each station, kept with the "business end" submerged in hot water with a mild sanitizer solution. Each chef also carried a few clean towels which they changed out copiously throughout the evening (these have a million uses, from wiping hands dry to cleaning plate rims to handling hot pan handles). When tasting, we'd grab a spoon, tap off excess water, wipe with a clean towel if necessary, take a small taste, and discard. This got to be as much of a habit as washing your hands after handling raw meat or wiping down your cutting board. The used spoons would be collected and washed regularly along with used pans and so on, then returned to the line. With a system like this there's minimal risk for contamination and relatively little waste, except for frequent washing.
At home, you can play things a bit looser, unless you like washing all of your spoons every night. Double-dipping isn't a big concern unless you're ill, in which case you shouldn't really be cooking for people. You're probably introducing your friends and family to just as much contamination in the form of dust and such simply by having them in your home.
EDIT: I agree with Jefromi's point in comments, so I want to emphasize this further.
Safety aside, I strongly believe that tasting is necessary to make you a better cook. It teaches you how to make corrections on the fly and balance flavors, rather than simply following a recipe. As a matter of fact, even if you're following a recipe, you will need to account for variation in things like produce. Fruits vary in their flavor depending on how ripe they are, where they were grown, whether it was a good season... The vegetables that I get at my local market may be a slightly different variety from yours... Meats vary widely depending on how the animal is fed and raised, even if you're using the same cuts. Even when using packaged ingredients, you can't guarantee complete consistency unless you use the exact brand as written in a recipe. (And I dare say that if your recipes uses only packaged ingredients, you can do much better.) Recipes cannot account for this sort of variation in anything but the broadest strokes. It's up to you to balance all of this, plus the preferences of yourself and your guests. If you're only tasting when you've finished cooking, it's probably too late to correct any problems.
Like any skill, cooking ability is improved by practice and feedback. Tasting as you go provides you with immediate feedback on how the dish tastes and what it needs, rather than just at the very end when you sit down to eat. Learning how flavors interact, how much seasoning is enough, and so on are fundamentals. They're what help you get creative, go beyond cooking someone else's dishes, and start coming up with your own.
So: yes, you should taste, and you should taste often. There are many ways to deal with safety concerns, but there is no other way to get better at fixing your mistakes before they hit the table.
Can't you make do with two spoons? Get stuff from the pot with one, pout onto the second, lick that one. Of course you'd have to keep track of which is which, and get the first one clean in another way.
@Raphael Can you? Sure, but this was a busy environment. Transferring contents between spoons would be slower and more delicate, in addition to the problems you identify. We were going through hundreds of pieces of silverware for guests anyway, so a few extra from the kitchen wasn't a problem. At home, I just use one spoon and keep it clean with my mouth.
Yes, chefs and cooks taste the food they prepare; even an experienced chef will do this, mostly to check seasoning (salt, pepper, etc.). However, most experienced cooks will taste less and will know how to tweak the preparation without having to constantly taste and re-taste.
Cooks usually use spoons - tons of spoons - to taste food when they prepare it. They use 1 spoon for each taste they do; there are also different variations on the technique to minimize the waste.
In most TV food shows, it is understood that it is not restaurant or commercial food preparation; it is more like preparing food at home.
Remember that most food is cooked, and that enough heat will kill most germs. (add all the disclaimers you want here)
At home, taste away...
Easy way to minimize spoon count: Use one spoon as a tasting spoon, and another spoon to put whatever you're tasting onto your tasting spoon. This way, you only get one spoon in touch with yourself, and can give the other one a quick rinse. Or use whatever your stiring with to put your food onto your tasting spoon.
Boiling water (or the equivalent 100 C temp) will kill all germs, since they are single celled life forms filed with water. http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/drinking/travel/backcountry_water_treatment.html
@goldilocks see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermophile
@msh210 Cool -- but you won't find those on people or in food. Also, they still can't survive above the boiling point: the ones that exist above the normal boiling point (100 C) exist in deep sea high pressure environments -- pressure increases the boiling point. You could get 'em with a pressure cooker ;)
Certainly cooks should taste their food as they go, especially if they're making something they haven't made many times before.
"Double-dipping" is common (even in commercial kitchens). It's the kind of thing a lot of people do, but no one wants to get caught doing it.
This question is related: Food safety when tasting from dish, and you might find the answers and comments illuminating.
At home, personally I see no harm in the cook double-dipping. I've never worried about it when cooking for family or close friends. Of course you shouldn't cook for anyone if you're sick or think you're getting sick. That's actually a bigger concern to me in professional kitchens than a presumably healthy cook double-dipping.
I feel safe doing that with pots of boiling liquids like soups... something like salsa or guacamole, that aren't cooked, seems like a risk for microbial contamination.
One can reduce the number of spoons used to taste test by using a system of two spoons; one spoon goes into the dish while the other is tasted from. This way, after spooning from the first spoon to the second, the first can be put in the dish again without risk of contamination. To prevent flavours from mixing, you could keep one spoon to taste from and then have another spoon for each type of dish prepared.
+1. This is how you do it. We always have personal tasting spoons when we cook. It also prevents enzymes in the saliva from affecting the food (could be important if you cook a big batch and intent to keep some for the next few days, i.e. bernaise sauce and such things..).
I always taste food, all the time, all throughout the cooking process. It is the only way to know if you are serving something that is good or not.
What I do, is "clean as you go". As you are preparing a meal, you should not end up with a mountain of dirty dishes afterwards. All of that should be cleaned as you're cooking. Therefore, if you practice this, then when you want to taste you have already washed your spoon that you taste with.
All of these cooking shows, there is most likely one of a few reasons that it appears the person cooking has not washed their tasting utensil between tasting.
There is not a sink available.
They did wash it, however, they edited that part out, or switched to a different camera. I'd be willing to bet these chefs that are on TV do not taste food with a spoon that is dirty. That spoon was probably washed when the camera was not looking... therefore, you were not looking either, since your view relies on the view of the camera.
If you don't taste you can end up with something very wrong without knowing it:
My mother had allergy issues that kept her from tasting what she was preparing, she was also blind which meant the only labels she could read were the ones she put on things. One day she baked some oatmeal cookies. My father and I each tried one--completely inedible. The culprit: She had mixed up some food for baby birds with the oatmeal. They were in similar containers, they had similar textures.
She figured it out first and managed to gasp out "chick mash" before being overcome with laughter. I understood and was likewise overcome. My father didn't get it and was standing there trying to eat his cookie and asking us what was so funny--which of course made us laugh all the harder. It's been 30 years but I still chuckle at the memory.
If you have sanitary concerns about taste-testing, you could do what I do:
Use the main spoon/utensil to transfer a small amount to a bowl/plate.
Use a second utensil (like a small spoon or fork) to taste from this bowl or plate.
This allows you to reuse your secondary tasting utensil without it ever touching your main utensil. If you're really concerned about contamination, just be careful to not touch your main utensil to your tasting utensil or bowl/plate.
Yes, you should taste the food! How else can you really know if it is good or not? I am a professional cook trained by the US Air Force and the correct way cooks normally taste the food is to use the spoon they are cooking with, to put some food in a small tasting dish, where they will use a different(!) spoon to put it in their mouth, thereby not cross contaminating the food.
You have to taste test in order to get the spices right. Otherwise you are just guessing. And you taste test to check the perfect flavoring influenced by the cooking method. When I was working as a cook and I went on a veggie diet I started using my co-workers to taste my food and they quickly became my biggest fans :)
Putting it into a dish also helps to cook it off more quickly. I’ve been watching some Japanese cooking programs, and they’ll put hot liquids on what looks like a small saucer, and then drink it from that
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.958546
| 2014-07-31T19:34:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46029",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Benjamin Rous",
"Big John",
"Bonita Deegan",
"CLAYGE miller",
"Cascabel",
"Christine Bayertz",
"Dan C",
"David Jones",
"Deborah Pavlich",
"Dianne Kosar",
"Fred Qian",
"JAL",
"Jobs Alert",
"Joe",
"Julianne",
"Kay Dunbar",
"Macke",
"Marti",
"Nathan K",
"Phil Frost",
"Profile Spam Account",
"Raistlin Majere",
"Raphael",
"SBI",
"Sally McGee",
"Shirley Kelly",
"Spammer",
"aliffrafiq haziq",
"goldilocks",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"john3103",
"keshlam",
"logophobe",
"msh210",
"oobusdoobus",
"slebetman",
"starsplusplus",
"user23219"
],
"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
}
|
55727
|
Ingredient Identification: Hong Kong restaurant spicy spice
I was at a fast food restaurant in Hong Kong which was apparently popular for its spicy dishes - there were cartoons on the walls and lots of red peppers everywhere. It looked like a chain, sort of on the level of In-N-Out or Five Guys, but with spicy ramen. My wife and I ordered different dishes and they both were, well, spicy.
But! This spicy-ness was a different sensation than I've had before or since, and I can't find what was causing it! The best way I can explain it is lots of little ants with hot feet running around on my palate. This isn't very appetizing, I realize, but it was delicious - usually, hot foods will spread out evenly around one's palate, but this was (I'll try again) like those "pinhead" toys where each bit of hotness was a separate point (rain on a tin roof?) It was delicious!
I hope I've given enough clues for someone to tell us what the heck this was!
Is it possible it was hot + tingly? (There are things like Sichuan pepper with a numbing/tingling sensation.)
@Jefromi - tingly is a great word for it, yes. Sichuan pepper? Sounds like you're on the right track. Thanks! (answer for upvote and possible accept...?)
I have no idea if it's a likely ingredient in Hong Kong ramen though.
@Steve Take a look at this: http://www.epicurious.com/recipes/food/views/sesame-noodles-with-chili-oil-and-scallions-51170210 and this: http://www.mattfischer.com/ramen/?p=992 The first thing that occurred to me was Sichuan pepper too.
@Jolenealaska - will leave your lips buzzing is spot on. Will try these soon, thank you!
It's possible it was a combination called 麻辣 (ma-la,) literally "numbing and spicy", a mix of hot chilies and Sichuan peppercorns (which are called Huā jiāo [花椒].)
Great! Thank you - I'll give this a try on the weekend!
sechaun pepper causes that "buzz"....I remember listening to an NPR program where someone actually did research and through a large sample of tasters discovered the "frequency" of the buzz felt to be around 50hz almost always the same for all people. That's strictly from memory though and the number could be way off. It was interesting anyway.
60hz if it is an american-chinese dish, though!
It is the Sichuan peppercorns. I ate in Beijing and Chengdu. Awesome sensation. Even lips begin to tingle. There is literally nothing else like it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.959662
| 2015-03-15T19:33:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55727",
"authors": [
"Ben",
"Beverley Howarth",
"Blynn",
"Cascabel",
"David Joyce",
"Hana B. Zulkifli",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kim Hevelone",
"Lee Conger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"myrto kritikou",
"rackandboneman",
"torgerman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37929
|
Can I substitute regular dried lemon peel for sweetened dried lemon peel?
I have a recipe for mini lemon-poppy seed bread that calls for purchased sweetened dried lemon peel (3 oz). Can I substitute dried lemon peel since I can't locate the sweetened? The recipe is for Mini Lemon-Poppy Seed Loaves from Cuisine at Home magazine. The 3 oz. (1/2 cup) lemon peel is mixed in with the flour mixture.
Please provide the recipe for context....if they really mean candied lemon peel, that would not be a great substitution.
WOW...Three ounces is A LOT!
@Jolenealaska Yes, that is what makes me think the intended ingredient is candied peel.
Even candied that's a lot, unless it's still hydrated.
it could be demi-sec to account for the weight, thought I don't know if I've seen demi-sec peels.
We get still-hydrated sweetened (but not hydrated) peel around here, Dr Oetker manufactures it. It is still used in small amounts, maybe 2-3 g per recipe, not 3x28 g.
If what you're looking for turns out to be candied lemon peel, any one of us can help you make it, it's easy. Show us the recipe, we can definitely help.
@Rosemary It looks like you're talking about what they call "European Lemon Zest"? They describe it as "Best-quality European lemon peel. Lightly sweetened, very finely grated peel."
We made this recipe last night with Watkins Dried Lemon Peel, which we think was unsweetened. The bread did not come out well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.959912
| 2013-10-27T13:26:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37929",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Dennis Nowland",
"Eyeslandic",
"Gabrielle Garfield",
"Jolenealaska",
"Maggie Maybloom Slater Achorn",
"Mick",
"Quasi_Stomach",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Susan Kay",
"cdegroot",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91680",
"rumtscho",
"woody"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9633
|
Can I substitute Fenugreek seeds for leaves?
I have accidentally brought a load of fenugreek seeds, as apposed to leaves, and wonder if I can use them as a substitute.
if not, what any ideas for what I can do with them before they go in the bin?
Fenugreek seeds are intensely aromatic and go quite nicely in curries, and any dish where such a flavour is required. In the middle-east they use it quite a lot, often as a condiment. Highly used in spice rubs, pickles, marinades, anything where a strong spice flavour is required and often in puddings as an aromatic like nutmeg is used in English cooking.
The leaves have a similar flavour, but not quite the same, you could use the seeds in their place adding them in to the spice mix if there is one, but the leaves I prefer personally. The flavour of methi leaves in thepla or in curry is wonderful in my opinion.
A great way to use fenugreek seeds is as one ingredient in creating your own 5-spice (Panch Phoron) powder. Then, you can use in stir-fry and/or sauces. I prefer the flavor when cooked some, but it may work as a chicken marinade as well.
Added the clarification because in most English speaking countries "5 spice" will be understood to mean chinese five spice, which is a completely different mixture that doesn't substitute for panch phoron and does not contain any fenugreek.
Basically, no!
They have avery different flavour. You also need to be careful as fenugreek seeds as well as being quite bitter, are very hard. They are usually roasted and ground, and if used whole are invariably fried in hot oil at the start of a dish.
Fenugreek seeds should always be roasted or fried, but then most spices benefit from this. I tend to think of them like other larger aromatics in mixes, take them out or avoid them if used whole.
You can sprout them! I have a batch going right now, they've just now got little tails (heads?) poking out. I understand the flavor of the sprouts is a bit (perhaps pleasantly) bitter. I'm looking forward to trying them.
I use fenugreek seeds in rice. I add them to the water and let them cook with the rice (usually 20-30 min). I also add onion at the same time, It gives the rice a great, but mild flavor. They come out soft and do not need to be removed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.960096
| 2010-11-30T21:26:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9633",
"authors": [
"A. Tamasyan",
"Audrey Gurtner",
"Orbling",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"rackandboneman",
"user19710",
"user19711",
"user19716"
],
"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
}
|
9420
|
Why doesn't Bailey's go bad?
I realize it can go bad after a long time, but why does it take so much longer than other dairy products? Does it have to do with the alcohol content? If so, what is the process that is happening?
I don't remember specifically about Bailey's, but I've seen "refrigerate after opening" instructions on other cream liqueurs.
I've often wondered this. Great question!
Here is a quote from the company that makes the registered trademark Baileys Irish Cream:
Baileys® is the only cream liqueur that guarantees its taste for 2 years from the day it was made, opened or unopened, stored in the in the fridge or not when stored away from direct sunlight at a temperature range of 0-25 degrees centigrade.
One of the keys to achieving this 2 year shelf-life is in our patented process of blending of fresh Irish cream with the spirits and the whiskey without the use of preservatives. The alcohol acts as a natural preservative for the product.
Under normal conditions of storage Baileys has a shelf-life of 30 months.
If you are concerned about a bottle of Baileys® please check the best consumed before date on the bottle - all bottles now carry a best before date. This number is located on the bottom left hand side of the back label. Example : Code 11 20XY would mean that we guarantee the product would taste perfect until that date (XY is the year 2 years from the date of manufacture)
(source).
The alcohol content is the sole preservative listed.
Alcohol may be the only preservative, but it's hard to think of a better one. Practically nothing will grow in it, if the concentration is high enough.
Well, there's still something working better at Baileys than at "the off-brand cream liqueurs" plants, IMPE. Don't consume all that rapidly; re-opened a bottle of off-brand one day and found it solidified in the bottle. Has never happened to me with Baileys, and it often sits around, opened, for considerably more than 30 months before it's gone, here.
Ingredients:
liqueur, acidity regulator (E331), emulsifier (E471), flavours (caffeine), colouring (caramel (E150b).
Source: a food product inventory database
The alcohol keeps the product from microbiological spoilage, the E331 (sodium Citrate) buffers the product form getting damaged by acids produced by any spoilage, and E471 (mono and diglycerides of fatty acids) keeps the fat from the cream stable in Emulsion.
Source: my opinion as a food scientist
Cheers!
baileys uses a protein powder that coats the cream to keep it from separating, and then puts everything through a process to break the cream up into smaller bits so that it stays suspended in the alcohol even better. These 2 steps combined keep it from separating, and keeps the cream in the alcohol where it is preserved better.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.960310
| 2010-11-24T19:22:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9420",
"authors": [
"Duane Hoover",
"Ecnerwal",
"James",
"Marti",
"Michael Natkin",
"Satanicpuppy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"user19279",
"user19280"
],
"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
}
|
9777
|
How to prepare eggs in shape suited for bagel?
I often buy an egg bagel from the local coffee shop. The egg is cooked to a shape that is perfect for the bagel. From my observation it is a scrambled mixture that goes into a small glass bowl, and then into the microwave.
Any more specific advice would be awesome on how to do this.
Cook an egg in the microwave, slow and at low power. It takes about four minutes at 30% power for two eggs in a round plastic container. It was perfect!
30% of what? Microwaves vary in maximum power by more than 30%.
@PeterTaylor You'll have to eggsperiment.
It's actually quite simple; you just use a circular cookie cutter like this one:
You can find these at any cookware store. It's easier to work with the ones that don't have handles, for what I hope are obvious reasons. If you buy a whole set then you can almost certainly find one that's exactly the right size for your bagel.
Just put the cookie cutter into your fry pan and crack the egg into them for a fried egg, or beat them separately and pour them in for scrambled. Generally you won't actually want to scramble them because you're aiming for something that holds together, so just let it set on one side and then flip it, or make it like a granny omelette (lift up the set edges and tilt the pan to get the un-set egg over to the edge of the ring).
The whole microwaving thing you see at coffee shops is just because they have a hundred of them in storage and don't have time to actually cook them to order. They're just heating an already-cooked egg, not actually cooking it in the microwave. You shouldn't need to use the microwave at home.
I'm not so sure about them heating already-cooked eggs. I've been to places that ladle in the eggs into their plastic containers, then microwave that. Also see : http://scientopia.org/blogs/scicurious/2010/09/11/grad-student-eating-in-style-breakfast-sandwich/
Won't microwaving an egg make it all rubbery? shudder
@Joe: Some people may microwave eggs, but I've seen them make the breakfast sandwiches right in front of me at a few different chains and unless I was hallucinating, the eggs were already cooked before they went in there. They weren't in a bowl, they were wrapped in wax paper or something.
@Mrs. Garden: Yeah, I really wouldn't recommend the microwave for cooking eggs. Reheating them for 10 seconds or so usually won't hurt them too much, though.
I'd go the cheap route and wonder down the canned fruit isle of your local megamart. there are a lot of different sized cans (I grabbed a set of 4 short pinapple tins which were the perfect size from crumpets). You might be able to find a nice cheap set of rings if you just pop the top and bottom off. I would suggest using one of those can openers that leave no sharp edges.
@Aaronut : we go to different chains then. The last time I saw this being done (starting from a liquid) was Chesapeake Bagel Bakery, specifically the one near George Mason University (where I was attending some workshops). The meats they had were pre-cooked and kept in a heated container; I don't believe they microwaved them as they were already warm.
@FoodTasted: I'd honestly just shell out the $1 for a cookie cutter, but I guess if you're on a really tight budget then a short can will work too.
@Joe: I'll take a closer look next time I need to eat one of those things, as it's possible I imagined it, but I am 95% positive that I saw them take out pre-cooked egg. It's probably already warm, too, they just get it "hot" so it'll melt the cheese.
@FoodTasted- You're my new hero
there are three competing types of product in the quickserve market for eggs, one set is a round, precooked disk, the second is a jug of prescrambled eggs that you portion and cook, and the third is the flat sheets that you bake in the oven. First and third are cooked ahead, then kept warm, although I'm sure some people are cooking to order in a microwave. And you can cook an egg in the microwave suitable for a sandwich (It comes out the consistancy of the egg on the mcdonalds egg mcmuffin).
I just tried something off the Internet for the first time and I will be making them many more times! Put a blob of butter in a microwave safe cup, I used the fake stuff with yogurt in it. Microwave it for 20 seconds, swirl it around in the cup coating the sides part way up. Crack 1 or 2 eggs in it, I did 2 but with a soup cup, add a splash of milk or not, wish it with a fork microwave for 90 seconds.
I JUST finished this 10 minutes ago yummy. I have a 1000 watt microwave. You could put it on a bagel with a slice of ham and or melt some cheese in it. I just put a little pepper on it and ate it right out of the cup with a different fork.
I just went to Einstein Bros and wondered the exact same thing. Came home and experimented a bit and found the following method worked perfectly:
Spray a small bowl or microwave safe dish with cooking spray.
Break a single egg into the bowl. Puncture the yolk.
Sprinkle with salt and pepper.
I got the best results by cooking for 60 seconds at 50% microwave power (its a 1000w microwave).
And it just slides out.
Its my go to method to cook up a quick egg now. Its fast and very little clean up.
Next I am going to try variations like sprinkiling cheese, paprika, bacon crumbles, etc on top.
Also check out http://www.buzzfeed.com/arielknutson/easy-ways-to-cooks-eggs-in-a-microwave for more microwave egg reciepes
As said low & slow in the microwave. I put them in a round small oven safe bowl. Salt & pepper. Bake in oven. You can scramble them first then bake for a fluffy scrambled egg. I use small round oven or microwave safe bowls for this. Works well. 350f in oven. Bacon & biscut at same time in oven.
It's really difficult to understand when you're talking about a microwave and when you're talking about an oven in this answer. Could you edit it to clarify?
I don't know about cooking an egg in the microwave but Bed Bath & Beyond sells rings you can use to make the eggs whatever shape you want. I have seen hearts, rectangles, and circles. If you want to go a little bit old fashioned use a piece of toast and cut out the middle to the size that fits. I have scrambled, made mini-omlettes, and fried eggs with toast and the little round rings.
-Everytime I have tried to cook an egg in the microwave I get exploded eggs all over the inside of it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.960580
| 2010-12-04T18:27:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9777",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adam Jaskiewicz",
"AlistairH",
"Cascabel",
"Dan H",
"Donna",
"FoodTasted",
"Jake Dube",
"Joe",
"Marware",
"Mrs. Garden",
"Neko",
"Orat",
"Peter Taylor",
"Ray Mitchell",
"Seishun",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93642",
"sarge_smith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47763
|
Decoration food long-term preservation
I need to preserve some fruits (raisins, figs, pomegranates, and dates), in tiny bottles, so they last for years.
I don't mind ruining the food, as it will anyway not be used for eating.
I can fill the bottles with liquid if required, as long as the original color is preserved.
How and what can I fill these bottles with to avoid the fruit's spoilage and decay?
None of the classic food preservation techniques will work for you. They are about having the food stay edible, not stay beautiful.
Most fixation solutions will work, but you probably don't want to keep them around your house. For example, if you filled the bottle with formaldehyde, it will not only be a major problem should it break in an accident, but I'd be also worried about anything which might seep through an imperfect seal - it is highly volatile, and neurotoxic and carcinogenic already in the ppm levels.
The one good way I see to do it is to use man's favorite poison: alcohol. Fill the bottles with ethanol until they are fully submerged. In principle, drinking alcohol at 37.5% will do, but in this case, the stronger, the better. Just use medicinal ethanol, it's also cheaper because you don't pay taxes.
I can say from experience that alcohol will eventually affect the color and appearance of the fruits (though I usually do this for the benefit of the alcohol). Previously-dried fruits like raisins will do pretty well but they'll almost certainly degrade over a period of years. But then, I can't think of anything better.
I think mineral oil is also commonly used for this.
Agree with @Logophobe: I forgot to mention that the lifetime is more likely to be many months (well, probably 1-2 years) than many years. But using very strong alcohol should help, his experiments probably didn't involve medicinal alcohol.
First suggestion
Fill the bottles with clear resin.
I used this many, many years ago at a church camp where we made our own keyrings by surrounding a small object with clear resin. I remember it as being reasonably straightforward. Google returns lots of how-to videos for using it.
I don't imagine it will keep the food for a long period, as biological processes will still take place in the entombed items, but it might be long enough for your purposes.
Second suggestion
Scan the food items, 3D print them in a material that won't decompose, paint it, put it in the bottles surrounded by plain water. :-)
Given the current state of 3D print technology, just using wax fruit will give a much more realistically looking decoration. It can turn out to be cheaper, too. But +1 for creativity! I'm not sure about the resin though, I'd expect something as large and watery as a fruit to change inside the resin, shrivel maybe. Not all changes in a fruit come from its contact with outside air. But I admit I haven't actually tried it, maybe it works.
~~
Vacuum canning is probably the most practical approach. The jars in the photo below are a half gallon in size. And, of course, the sizes just go down from there.
This pretty much limits you to the use of Ball mason jars though. But you could carry some of their lids around for awhile (just the disks) and see if somewhere you can come upon some alternative jars whose mouths just happen to be the same size as that of the Ball's. That' what I would do. Don't worry about not having the screw-on part. Just prep the rim with an ultrathin coat of soft glue, (just so nothing can snag itself under that slight, exposed little lip), and let your decorative genius take care of the rest!
There are a variety of vacuum sealing machines on the market. The one pictured below is a Wolfgang Puck. For any of these machines the same principle is employed. The disk for the jar fits into a cap. The cap is placed onto the jar. Air is drawn from the jar by attaching a hose to a port in the top of the cap. Voila!
~~
You've neglected to mention that the food has to be already somehow preserved (dehydrated, for example) to make this work.
I was relying on the details included on the page to which I provided a link, but I agree that it would have been good to have mentioned it myself as well. Thanks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.961220
| 2014-10-08T03:29:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47763",
"authors": [
"Brenda Degroot",
"Cascabel",
"Claire Partridge",
"Debra Knutson",
"Kim Wheeler",
"Lewis Thomas",
"R P",
"Thomas Raywood",
"becky thompson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"logophobe",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3840
|
How is Pâté made? What are the ingredients?
How is it made and what are the ingredients?
This is a very broad topic. Akin to, "How is cake made, and what are the ingredients?"
Broad questions like these are going to be unavoidable for questioners who don't know anything at all about the subject (no offense questioner!). @ hobodave. Your answer below seems like the right balance of answer, explanation, and a semi-response to the impossible open-endedness.
For a good introduction for the home cook to trying something as ambitious as a Pâté I've found this book to be excellent resource: Charcuterie: The Craft of Salting, Smoking, and Curing. Pâté is not the singular focus of the book, but about a fifth of it is dedicated to it.
The general method involves grinding or pureeing the meat, while taking special care to not melt or break any of the fat from the animal in the process. (Keeping the blades cold is always key concern.) Cooking the pâté should also be done gently by either poaching in water, or placing in a water bath in the oven.
Pâté is a mixture of ground meat and fat minced into a spreadable paste.
Source: Wikipedia
Liver is most commonly used. There are literally endless combinations of other ingredients. Vegetables, herbs, spices, other meats, etc. The meat is typically cooked and then processed into a paste like substance, though textures vary.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.961574
| 2010-07-31T00:37:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3840",
"authors": [
"Emily Pugh",
"Gilad Naor",
"John",
"Krzysztof Kowalczyk",
"Max Yankov",
"Ocaasi",
"TOMvonMOM",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8147",
"jay",
"ændrük"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105
|
Is there an alternative to cornstarch when used to thicken a pie filling
I made a some pies a couple of days ago. The recipe called for cornstarch and it thicken the filling after it came out of the oven. The only thing is I could taste a bit of the cornstarch when I was eating the pies. I would just use less of it but I am afraid of making my pies to runny without the cornstarch.
Is there an alternative to cornstarch to thicken the pie filling or should I just use less and hope I still use enough?
There are several alternatives, but the most common I know of are tapioca flour and arrowroot powder/flour.
That said, most cornstarch substitutes aren't appropriate for pies, because they break down under high heat. The only substitutes for corn starch that I'd use in a pie are potato starch and tapioca. Tapioca powder can be hard to find in some areas though; I usually get it at Asian grocery stores.
Instant tapioca pearls are the pie thickener of choice for many bakers I respect.
Tapioca is not merely a substitute - it's superior (IME, IMHO)
ClearJel is a product you may want to look at.
Did you whisk the cornstarch in water separately before combining it? I think that reduces the starchy taste a little bit.
Otherwise, maybe try a roux? I've never heard of using it in baking, but it will thicken things without adding a starchy taste. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roux
When used as a thickening agent in sauces, cornstarch is dissolved in a small amount of liquid to keep it from clumping when added to the hot liquid. When using cornstarch as a thickening in fruit pies and cobblers you don't mix with liquid. The point is to absorb the liquid exuded by the fruit and thicken it. In this instance the cornstarch (or other starch) is combined with sugar so that the granular nature of the sugar breaks up the clumps of starch and prevents it from clumping as it absorbs liquid.
We have a person with Celiac disease in our family, so generally we make the substitution the other way around, but generally you can substitute 2-3 parts flour for one part cornstarch to get the same thickening properties. Unfortunately flour generally imparts more flavour than cornstarch.
I like to use Xanthan gum. It works really well and a little bit goes a long way. It doesn't add any additional flavoring to the recipe either. I highly recommend it.
Any starch will work, so cornstarch, wheat flour, tapioca flour, potato starch, whatever. The results will be slightly different, as different starches require different ratios with liquid. My guess is that you can safely reduce the cornstarch in the pie, as the amount required to actually taste it (on top of your fruit, sugar, etc!) is probably quite a bit. Most pie recipes I've seen have used wheat flour, though. What kind of pie?
Its a raspberry and pear pie from the projectwedding.com. Specifically http://www.projectwedding.com/wedding-ideas/pear-and-raspberry-mini-pies
One thing I do with apple pies (that I would suppose you could do with at least the pear half of this pie) is to mix some dried fruit (dried apples for an apple pie) in with the fresh fruit, to sponge up some of the juice - it also means that the filling collapses less than when it's all fresh.
I already upvoted @Aaronut's tapioca suggestion - tapioca was the only thing we used for this purpose in my family.
If you cook the cornstarch in the liquid when you add it that will improve things.
Another alternative is to use Agar Agar, which is a seaweed derived gel.
It's expensive, but clear and quite amazing.
Also , Heston Blumenthal uses it
Happy Pie!
Absorptive thickeners - nut meals, breadcrumbs - work well in some pie fillings, though the texture and color is different.
Cornstarch will taste uncooked if it doesn't reach near boiling during cooking. In the recipe maybe it would be better to cook the cornstarch first as if making custard, then stir it gently into the filling. But if they are fruit pies, how about using more fruit and no thickener? That's how I make apple pies, and they're fine. Or arrowroot would thicken at a lower temperature than cornstarch so that might work. It gives a clearer, more transparent glaze too, which could be prettier.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.961766
| 2010-07-09T19:44:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105",
"authors": [
"Bruce Alderson",
"Carma Willes",
"Christopher Bottoms",
"Darin Sehnert",
"Ecnerwal",
"Gerstmann",
"JoshFinnie",
"Judy Buisman",
"Kyra",
"Laura Kane-Punyon",
"ManiacZX",
"PaulS",
"Scott Quinn",
"Wesley Sonnier",
"ceejayoz",
"fencliff",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7210",
"justkt",
"lula treviño",
"mnsr"
],
"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
}
|
1093
|
What can you do with an infrared thermometer?
Infrared thermometers have plummeted in price in recent years, and are now inexpensive gadgets for the home cook, not to mention the pros.
What are the primary uses of an infrared thermometer in the kitchen?
The old "community wiki" model for big list questions is not used any more, so I unwikied it. I hope we can get answers which try to sum it up instead of listing single places to use the thermometer. Edited the text accordingly.
Infrared thermometers work very well when measuring the temperature of hot oil. For deep frying it's not a big deal, as standard probe thermometers work fine. But for shallow frying or sauteeing, the IR thermometer does an excellent job at providing the temperature of the oil. (Note that IR thermometers are not accurate when measuring the temperature of a dry steel pan, as the shininess makes the pan look much cooler than it is. IR thermometers work fine on dry cast iron pans, though!)
IR thermometers work rather poorly when measuring the temperature of hot water, however! Rather than measuring the temperature of the water surface, which is usually similar to the mass of the water due to convection, it measures the average temperature of the water vapor coming off the surface! In my experience, boiling water measures about 200 F with an IR thermometer.
indeed. I was about to ask a question about this but luckily found this here. I just started using a IR thermometer device and recently tested this on my All Clad saute pans. Temperature was reading ~200F but as soon as any olive oil was put in, smoke was immediately generated which indicated it was above ~400F, at which point the device started registering that approximate temperature. very interesting phenomenon.
One thing I've found surprisingly useful is how accurate it is measuring the temperature of microwaved liquids. This can be handy when bringing milk or water to 100 degrees when making yeast breads. The convection of the liquid when heated by microwave means the surface temperature is within a degree or two of the center of the liquid, at least in my experience.
For hotter liquids, where the water vapor is cooler than the liquid, it may better to measure the side of the pan below the water level.
They can also be used to get a quick reading on the grate temperature of a grill. Probably not as accurate as a grate mounted thermometer (sometimes seen inside a smoker) though.
I bought one to measure the temperature of a firewood oven. Immediately I noticed it was useless.
In order to bake on those ovens, you must have enough temperature in the bricks, not just it their surface. Using the terminology: They have to be soaked. Luckly I had built the oven with plenty of sensors between them.
But there is one dish which needs a lot of temperature in the surface of the oven: pizza. Unluckly my I.R. thermometer could only read up to 325ºC (or so) (600 ºF). That wasn't enough for pizza.
So I bought a new "expensive" I.R. thermometer that reads up to 900ºC (1650 ºF). Now I know greater pizzas are made between 400ºC and 450ºC. (750~850 ºF))
You have a firewood oven? Wow! Not really pertinent to the question at hand, but are you saying that if you go above 450ºC for pizza, you are heading away from the optimal temperature?
Only curious because the STG for Pizza Napoletana specifies 485ºC.
I'll check it with more attention next time I'll take note of the measures. I just noticed below 400ºC, they took too long to make, and over 500ºC too short. I haven't had that new thermometer for too long.
Great for making yogurt & checking temp of boiling milk @ 185f + cooling to 115f.
Its critical to get the correct temp or you will kill the culture used to make the yogurt.
Works like a charm!
yes, although liquids at 185 will be under-measured by an IR thermometer, because the water vapor will be a bit cooler. But it should work relatively well at 115.
You can't measure the inside temperature. You will just get the superficial temperature which is usually almost useless.
You need a thermometer that can be inserted in the food (for example a meat thermometer) and then you will be able to do exciting things, for example the perfect temperature for frying oil (just under the smoke point) or the steak grade (raw, medium, well done).
I agree that infrared thermometers are not useful for things like steaks and roasts. I disagree that they're not useful for cooking, though!
My infrared thermometer also has an instant-read probe, so it can be used for both.
As a BBQ master, I use IR thermometers to measure grills for correct temp or find hot/cold spots.
However you cannot just read the grill straight down as the IR will read the flame or flame tamers down below.
However if you cast your eye at an angle to the grill until you cannot see below and take a reading at that angle, It will read the surface accurately.
I also use the IR gun for pressure frying where the oil temp is critical before sealing.
(Dont try pressure frying unless you know what you are doing)
The best use, imho, would be to make sure your oven was hitting the correct temperature. Other than that, I can't think of anything cooking related.
To anyone thinking temperature guns are a mere luxury item, they are no more an extravagance than a blender or a food processor. Users are able to cook with confidence knowing that friends and family won’t become ill, refrigerators and freezers are operating at their optimum and foods are cooked perfectly every time. That they have many other uses in and around the family home is just an added benefit. Infrared thermometers are an affordable tool in their own right, but can actually save you money and they will eventually pay for themselves many times over. They may not actually prepare and cook the food for you, but they do take all the guesswork out of the cooking process and will give you more time doing other important things, like eating and breathing.
For more information, see my blog post on infrared thermometers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.962187
| 2010-07-16T13:44:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1093",
"authors": [
"Andrew",
"Bryn Blair",
"Chris Steinbach",
"CodingInsomnia",
"EatinDonuts",
"GalacticCowboy",
"Harlan",
"J.A.I.L.",
"John K",
"John M. P. Knox",
"Josiah",
"Koen Peters",
"Nick Musey",
"Sawyer Marden",
"South Texas Clinic For Pain Ma",
"Victoria Wilson",
"amer",
"binomo markets",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95893",
"kennbenn",
"nate",
"rumtscho",
"user277303",
"wassertim"
],
"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
}
|
5147
|
Should asparagus be peeled before cooking?
I have it from two sources that asparagus should be peeled before being cooked in simmering water (Julia Child) or fried in butter (Heston Blumenthal). I tried Julia's method once and I've been discouraged from peeling them again ever since.
I probably overcooked on that attempt; they turned out a bit limp. But even so, don't asparagus look nicer with the skin on? And what's wrong with the skin anyway?
The asparagus spears I buy are quite thin with tender skin. Does the advice to peel only apply for thick asparagus spears?
I've heard the same recommendation before - the idea is that if asparagus is very thick (say, 1/2 inch or more in diameter), and if the bottom is much thicker than the top of the spear, then peeling it will help it to cook more evenly.
If you have particularly thick asparagus that seem tough, you may want to peel the bottom section. First, chop or snap off the bottom inch or so, as it will most likely be inedibly tough. Then peel the next 2-3 inches up. You'll want to lay the asparagus down on a flat surface to do so, so as not to snap it while peeling.
I've never had asparagus from a grocery store that was tough enough to warrant this, but it can happen with homegrown, for whatever reason.
I agree -- I never peel more than about 2" (5cm) of the bottom, and only then then they're fiberous and tough.
no mention of green vs white?
As a rule of thumb that would pretty much coincide with what JustRightMenus said: green asparagus is generally not peeled, but white asparagus should definitely be peeled. I think it's the same plant, just cultivated in a different way. (And interestingly, in Germany and the Netherlands, the green stuff is much less common, whereas in North America I've never seen the white ones.)
You're right about green vs. white. White is just the same plant grown without light.
Strange, I've never heard of peeling asparagus. Ive never done it even with the thickest of stalks. The only thing you have to make sure you do is snap off the woody ends of the stems. I also only steam, roast, or grill my asparagus.
My grandmother used to peel her asparagus (the thick-stalked ones) so that it would cook up tenderly and look pretty on her platters. She used to peel her celery, as well (apparently because she believed that thick celery skin was bad for the digestion in addition to being ugly. I've seen similar ideas in some of my old cookbooks).
In several of my old cookbooks, the peeling of asparagus is presented as having to do with being able to eat the late, woodier pickings (peeling it ensures tenderness) and aesthetics. Frankly, I think unpeeled asparagus looks just fine, so I don't peel mine---and thick asparagus is great for the grill!
Normally, I just snap off the woody ends, but if the asparagus is particularly thick I will slice it length-wise on a diagonal. It all comes down to preference, and which is more labor-intensive. In general, I disagree with peeling fruits and vegetables because so many vitamins and good-for-you stuff are in the peels!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.962734
| 2010-08-13T21:41:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5147",
"authors": [
"Christian",
"David Feitosa",
"DustyD",
"Izzydorio",
"Joe",
"Matt Fordham",
"Michael",
"Ste",
"Steve",
"freshr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3721",
"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
}
|
6565
|
How can huge bubbles in pizza crust be prevented?
When making pizza, often the dough bubbles up hugely, displacing toppings and generally making a mess of the pie.
Are there any secrets to preventing this? Does the key lie in the dough recipe, the distribution of toppings, or something else? Or is there no real secret, other than watching and popping the bubbles when they form?
From Encyclopizza
There’s a difference between bubbles
formed from under-proofing versus
over-proofing. Bubbles from
under-proofing tend to be flat but
large in diameter. If unpopped, they
can blow up an entire pizza. This is
the process by which pita or pocket
bread is made. Bubbles from
over-proofing tend to be high but
smaller in diameter. They rise up like
little ping-pong balls and eventually
form a hole at the top, at which time
they stop expanding. They almost
always burn. Most pizza bubbling
problems are of the under-proofed
type.
To resolve a bubbling problem, dough
fermentation must be adjusted
accordingly. To stop bubbling caused
by under-proofed dough, increase the
amount of fermentation. To stop
bubbling caused by over-proofed dough,
reduce the amount of fermentation.
In addition to proper proofing, it has
been found that reducing the amount of
water in a dough formula can help with
reducing bubbling when dealing with
the under-proofed type. The reduction
in moisture aids in creating the
pinpoint holes in the cells walls.
In addition, you want to make sure you properly knead your dough. Some people poke tiny holes in the dough to prevent overly large bubbles. As a final resort you could observe your pizza in the oven and poke bubbles as they form.
I worked at a local pizza restaurant for a couple of years, and that's exactly what we did - open the door every couple of minutes, spin the pie and pierce any bubbles with a fork.
Also, from your description I'd guess that ours were over-proofed. I wasn't the dough guy. :)
However, I think a little crust-bubbling and even a little browning of bubbles is the sign of a good pizza.
After the dough has been rolled and stretched, dock the dough. You can buy a fancy docker (a 'spikey' rolling pin type device) but unless you make lots of pizzas, it seems silly to have a specialized tool. A fork will work just fine.
I must admit, I've been caught with a fork in each hand "drumming," dancing, and singing whilst making pizza. :)
I assume "dock the dough" means poke it with a fork all over the place?
DOH! (or should I say DOUGH!) Yes, to dock dough means to poke holes all over it.
Letting your dough rest in the refrigerator at least overnight and up to a couple of days before rolling out will stop big bubbles. The bubbles are co2 gas being released by the fermentation caused by the yeast. Refrigeration drastically reduces the speed at which the co2 is released but allows the flavor to develop fully. A long rest in the fridge will also make the dough easier to roll out by reducing "bounce back" from the elasticity of the dough.
We occasionally buy pizza dough at the supermarket, keeping it in the fridge for a couple of days, until we are motivated enough for making a pizza. More than once I saw the bag really inflate as the dough gets fermented. Unfortunately, this never stopped crust bubbles from forming.
Try docking your dough. A plastic docker is only 4 or 5 bucks at restaurant supply or cooking store.
its all in the proofing and density of the dough ! I find a dense and underproofed dough to be bubbly and simply hard to work with as its usually hard as a rock when refrigerated for service !
therefore a softer wetter dough proofed to perfection and youre results in the finished product will speak for itself !!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.963132
| 2010-09-02T09:11:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6565",
"authors": [
"Bruno",
"ElendilTheTall",
"GalacticCowboy",
"Juju",
"Michael Pryor",
"Sandy Searls",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87980",
"ysap"
],
"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
}
|
12003
|
What is a good spicy potato wedges seasoning?
I've taken a liking to the simple potato wedge as an alternate to mash potato when preparing meat and three vege. However, I'm trying to get a recipe that consistently deliveries tasty wedges.
My current method is:
Wash potatoes
Chop potatoes
place in plastic bag
Add a little oil and spice mix*
Shake
Bake
* The spice mix is the part I've been having problems with.
I was using:
1 part salt
2 parts pepper
3 parts paprika
But this wasn't giving consistent results.
I've stuck with Nandos Peri-peri seasoning for a while as a safeguard, but I'd like to go back to my own spice mix.
I'm looking for spicy Mexican flavours, but using only spices/herbs, and not salts or flavour enhancers, apart from sea salt (not garlic salt or onion salt).
Any suggestions?
as you mention inconsistent results -- were you using the same type of salt, and same grind of pepper each time?
@Joe yes sir, cracked pepper, seasalt, paprika each time, the ratios only changed. One time I got a result which was just pepper and really not nice :(
Try adding onion powder, too. I like it a lot better than the all-dominating presence of garlic; it's softer and helps to blend your other flavors together.
@zanlok Unfortunately I can't use onion. All onion type veges are out of the menu, health reasons.
the 'really not nice' comment for pepper -- what temp are you cooking at? you might be burning the pepper which is going to throw off the flavor.
@Joe ~220 degrees Celsius for 15 - 25 minutes, til cooked through. Problem last time was there was so much pepper it was actually spicy.
Add cumin, chili powder and garlic powder to your salt and pepper. You might like a bit of curry powder or turmeric too, but I don't know if you'd call that a Mexican flavor.
+1: turmeric rocks fries. nice for savory/earthy flavor and happy color.
I'll try the Cumin, Chilli and Salt&Pepper. I already have those at home from our Thai Curry spice stock. :) Shall update this as the winning answer if it's nom :)
I like this one, the only thing I'd add is dried oregano.
A nice mix is salt , Malay curry powder and a touch of sugar as it basically has a bit of everything above
I once mistakenly used ground cayenne pepper rather than paprika when frying some shrimp, and the result was a taste explosion!
I would recommend substituting half of the paprika for ground cayenne.
Agreed -- start with a pinch of cayenne and work up from there.
for a unique chili flavor instead of the more common/hearty paprika tang, 1:3 cayenne and pasilla powders work well together for a spicy/deep-rich zest
Try a little Rosemary and Thyme, Garlic, Cajun spice. All of those are great on potatoes!
I recently had them with Dijon mustard as a spice, and it turned out really nice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.963467
| 2011-02-09T23:31:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12003",
"authors": [
"Burdon on society",
"Gary",
"HelloGoodbye",
"James",
"Joe",
"Keira Pup",
"Martha F.",
"Sonia D.B.",
"cup",
"glasnt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96070",
"tchrist",
"tpianca",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10622
|
Stew? Roast? Non-Braised Chicken?
I occasionally experiment in the kitchen by tossing together rather arbitrary mixes of whatever I have handy.
Tonight I'm making something which I would call a stew, but with much less liquid. It's in the crockpot where it should be ready in about three hours. It's not braised chicken, because I did start without the pre-cooking that "braising" implies. I'd be inclined to call it a roast but it's being done very slowly.
So, of curiosity, what would be the best term for it?
Here's what I did:
* wash/scrub and trim four large carrots
* eat two tangerines, washing the rinds
and placing them in the bottom of the crock pot (under
the carrots which now form a sort of gridiron)
* add in a whole yellow onion (peeled and quartered)
and a couple of shallots and whole potatoes
(forming a ring around the edges)
* season four raw chicken thighs which seasoned salt,
chili powder, minced ginger, whole cloves, and oregano
and place those on the bed of carrots. with just enough
water to submerge the carrots
* put a small pat of butter on the top of each piece of chicken
So you can see why it's like a stew or a roast but not quite either of them.
What is it?
Sounds to me like you are making an American interpretation of a Pot au Feu chicken. When making a Pot au Feu neither browning the chicken nor fully covering the chicken with water is necessary as long as the lid is very tight to hold the steam.
I would call this steaming chicken.
and 'eat two tangerines'?
I guess it means, take the rinds of two tangerines, discarding the flesh (by eating it).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.963732
| 2010-12-31T05:07:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10622",
"authors": [
"Andrea Alden",
"Ken Drake",
"Lynn",
"Saileela",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21820",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"slim",
"user21780"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11196
|
Crusty french bread
The crust on my french bread never turns out "crusty" like it does in restaurants, what am I doing wrong?
See also Techniques to get a nice golden-brown crust on bread and How to achieve great baguette crusts (of which this may be a dupe).
@justkt: I would say it is almost an exact dupe of the latter: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9934/how-to-achieve-great-baguette-crusts
To promote a crust on a bread (ie. getting it 'crusty'), the bread must be baked in two phases. First, steam must be introduced (and not vented) for about a third of the bake time. Then, you must evacuate the steam and bake the remainder of time dry. This is the trick to making crusty breads. Also critical in the promotion of crust is temperature. You must bake crusty breads at a high temp., at least 400 degrees (which is what I bake my crusty-style breads at).
Also of note, crusty breads tend to be lean doughs, that is one without a high fat content.
The answer provided by mrwienerdog is true, but short on details.
Heat oven to at least 500 degrees F, ideally with a pizza stone inside. Also inside should be a thick metal pan that can handle having water poured into it. Carefully position shaped, proofed bread on a pizza peel or unrimmed baking pan that is generously dusted with corn meal.
Heat 1 c. water to near boiling.
When your oven is heated, open oven and slide bread onto stone (or place the baking pan on the rack if you don't have a stone). Add 1 c. water to the metal pan that you heated in the oven.
Open the oven after 30 seconds. Mist the sides of your oven (being careful to avoid the glass pane, which may shatter if in contact with cold water when hot). Do this twice more. Then lower your baking temperature to the prescribed temperature.
This amount of water should be the correct amount to promote the critical early steam without steaming your bread for the entire baking time.
I've found that the misting isn't really necessary if you're using the pan-with-water technique. Just to warn you though... I used a cookie sheet for this and over time it had a tendency to rust, so maybe use a pan you don't care if this is its only purpose.
As mentioned below, you need to maintain a high temperature and steam the loaf for part of the baking time.
An easy way to get both of these things in a home oven is to use a covered cast-iron or ceramic pot and pre-heat it with the oven. The mass of the cast-iron maintains a consistent temperature, and the cover allows the loaf to steam in its own water.
There is more detail on this method here: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/08/dining/08mini.html?_r=1
I have a 30" oven and what works for me was to place a small cast iron pan with lava rocks on the lower rack and the stone on the middle rack. Preheat oven to 500F and have 1/4 to 1/3 cup of boiling water ready. Put your loaves on the stone , pour the water over the lava rocks, close the door, turn down to 425F. Bake about 35 to 45 min keeping watch for the degree of color you want.Too much water will result in the loaf having a caramelization of the crust, which looks dark brown and shines. Try venting oven 1/2 way thru cooking and again at 3/4 time if you have a oven with a good seal.
When we made this bread at school, they told us to throw a few icecubes into the bottom of the oven every 5-10 minutes while baking. These are gas ovens, not sure if it makes a difference between electric or gas. But the bread I made with this method turned out fantastic!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.963906
| 2011-01-18T18:34:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11196",
"authors": [
"Allison",
"Henry N6HCM",
"Kevin",
"Mrs G Roberts",
"Netty",
"Orbling",
"arax",
"arjunrc",
"hsatterwhite",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"justkt",
"scook"
],
"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
}
|
11334
|
Is there a substitute for dashi?
I adore Japanese cooking, but when cooking for vegetarians, I don't want to use dashi (bonito) stock. However, if I just omit it, the result doesn't taste authentic.
Anyone have a substitute?
Personally, I find that Japanese (and Thai) cuisine is so commonly dependent on fish stocks, sauces, etc. That I avoid the entire cuisine, hard to replicate the tastes without such major ingredients and without them, why bother.
Well, I'd like to try, at least. I lived in Japan for two years and I'm not going to just give up just because it doesn't taste exact. That said, I would like to make vegetarian Japanese food that tastes as authentic as possible.
Dashi (だし) is a class of stocks, and while katsuodashi (かつおだし) made with bonito flakes is the most common type, there are plenty of alternatives.
The most common purely vegetarian one in Japan is kombudashi (昆布だし, こんぶだし) made from kelp. You can try to make your own, but well-stocked Japanese grocers will have powdered instant versions of this in stock. Here's one from Ajinomoto:
Note the green packaging to differentiate it from the red/pink katsuo versions. We use kombudashi often at home, and in miso soup etc the taste is not noticeably different from katsuodashi, although it does lack the strong "fishy" notes.
I have heard of the eastern fish sauces being substituted with a mix of a little light soy sauce, and a couple of fermented bean products, yellow bean sauce and fermented tofu, blended.
If you combine the fermented products with a kombu stock (as suggested by Elendil), you might get a closer variant. Remains to be seen how effective it would be.
Fermented tofu or yellow bean sauce are not used in Japanese cooking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.964479
| 2011-01-21T21:32:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11334",
"authors": [
"JARVIS",
"James",
"Orbling",
"Phil Hannent",
"SaltAndPepper",
"calico-cat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4138",
"lambshaanxy",
"user23264"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11304
|
How do I press avocadoes to make avocado oil?
Avocado oil is expensive and I've been trying to figure out a solution to make my own. I'd love to make a press (I do woodworking) but I haven't found anything online.
Is there a way to extract avocado oil from avocadoes at home?
I wonder if that oil is separated using a centrifuge instead of a press. It seems like it is so emulsified with the other yummy parts of the avocado that it would be hard to separate with just pressure. Just guessing though.
@Michael - I know it's a mechanical process. Using a centrifuge doesn't sound unreasonable to me, though.
I changed the new [extraction] tag to [oil-extraction] - I think there are sufficiently many potential questions on the subject to warrant a tag (since every fruit/vegetable/nut/seed is different) but [extraction] by itself has high potential to be confused with something else (i.e. juice extraction).
There is a reason why it is so expensive - your average avocado contains only 15% fat, so if you could achieve 100% extraction, you would need 30 avocados per liter. But I suspect that with a home press, you can only get much lower amounts out of the avocado, so probably 50-60 avocados for a liter. I don't know where you live, but I would have to pay over 1 Euro for a 200 g avocado, so it would be more expensive to make my own oil even if I didn't factor in my time.
http://gemsfromstackexchange.tumblr.com/post/139600680450/how-juic-avocad
@epicTCK Is it sad that I joined this community for the sole privilege of upvoting that comment and this question?
@VoteToClose Look at my profile and tell me how many of the sites I actually joined to use. Nope, just upvotes on cool stuff.
The cold process is easy.Just blend the fresh pulp using a kitchen blender to make a thin and smooth pulp.Heat the pulp in low heat and maintain a 50 degrees celcius heat for about an hour and a quarter.This is called malaxation which enables the oil molecules to collect into globules visible by eye.Then after malaxation,take the warm malaxed pulp and strain it into a cheese cloth or a muslin cloth and press by squeezing out the oil as it collects into a container beneath.There you have pure virgin avocado oil.I never buy cooking oil at home.I use this for deep frying,baking and desserts making.Its very health and pocket friendly cooking oil especially if you live where avocado is grown in plenty like my home area of Meru in Kenya.I have 20 avocado trees which i make use of.You can try this too at home and enjoy your cooking.
Malaxation, what a lovely word! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaxation
Except the definition doesn't match the usage above.
From the definition, it is referring to the first step, using the blender.
I made avocado oil from my trees here in southern Florida. I whipped up the pulp of 12 avocados with 1/3 cup coconut oil. I whipped for about 25 min with a hand blender on high. The mixture looks creamy and starts to look shiny.
Then I put in my food dehydrator overnight . I cut muslin circles to fit the tray and layered it about 1/2 thick. There was enough to do two overnight batches. Dry till it's almost a leather. Peel it off the muslin and press the oil out. I used my potato ricer. It's a rich dark emerald green.
Store it in the fridge.
I've heard of this being pressed, or cold pressed. The 'pulp' not the seed. Then use a muslin cloth squeeze out the oil.
Perhaps then separating the oil via a light boil or by skimming the top after letting it separate.
I'm sure there are easier or more efficient ways, but I figured I'd share my findings.
Press the skins only (with an orange press). Mix the pulp with coconut cream (not creamed coconut or cream of coconut), heat on stove. Put cheesecloth over a bowl. Put heated mixture into cheesecloth. Pick up sides of cloth, close so it resembles a bag, and squeeze. Squeeze as much oil out as you can.
You can combine the oil produced by pressing the skin with the oil you squeeze. Most of the oil is in the skin.
Another cold pressed method without a dehydrator is to mash or blend the flesh, spread it very thinly on baking sheets, pie pan, etc. let it dry in the sun until the pulp turns black and flakes are hard, then strain it with two layers of cheesecloth, butter cloth,nut milk bags, or a thin old cloth of similar material to cheesecloth. you can also put the pans in the oven and turn the oven to the lowest setting, but this uses a lot of energy.
I've done this, and its simple and easy. Am in Uganda, so I get avocado pears.
Blend it or mash the ripe avocados, then spread out to dry in the sun.
Put in a cloth, and squeeze out the oil. It comes out quickly....a dark green appearance.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.964676
| 2011-01-21T04:26:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11304",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Addison Crump",
"Bald Bantha",
"David Starkey",
"Jaxon Jesse",
"Jon Chan",
"Mal1",
"Marine",
"Michael Natkin",
"Pat Starr",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Siobhan McIlroy",
"Upper_Case",
"Volker Siegel",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"calico-cat",
"greenie2600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64642",
"rumtscho",
"theamateurcook"
],
"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
}
|
11308
|
How to prepare Stevia leaves for consumption?
I have a Stevia plant growing on my deck and I'd love to use it in a recipe. Does anyone know a way to use Stevia leaves?
Stevia leaves are commonly cut, then hung for drying, then either ground up into little flakes and used sparingly in drinks such as teas or recipes. The leaves themselves are also very commonly used unground as garnish in drinks as well as added to recipes.
Just remember to compensate accordingly for the extra sweetness they will provide, and you really cant go wrong with some experimentation at first.
In terms of a particular recipe I'm not really sure what to recommend so hopefully this is still helpful.
Thanks :) I notice that when I eat the leaves as-is, they have a bit of a bitter aftertaste - does drying affect it?
I know that if you harvest before the plant flowers you can have a lower bitter taste as this is when they are the sweetest. The stems and veins contain alot of the 'bitter taste' so removing them can also help lower it. The actual drying should be more of a preservation of the flavors so you should do it same day you pick. The drying process is often hanging them upside down in good circulation.
In my experience, stevia always has a bitter aftertaste. There are commercial stevia sweeteners that are supposed to be less bitter, but to me, they all taste worse than saccharin.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.965101
| 2011-01-21T06:29:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11308",
"authors": [
"Chris Cameron",
"Marti",
"Razzek",
"Ward",
"Wayne Conrad",
"calico-cat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67439",
"kothandaramar",
"lynvie",
"user128619"
],
"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
}
|
11305
|
What does beating eggs actually do (chemically speaking)?
When I look at a lot of recipes, any eggs usually have to be beaten before they're added. If it's all going to be mixed anyway (and well, in dough for example) is it really necessary?
The main purpose of beating an egg is to "denature" the protein within the egg. Proteins are long chains of amino acids and they have lots of internal chemical bonds, which hold them together into tightly contained units. When a protein is denatured, those internal bonds break and the amino acid chains unravel and become elongated. At the same time, atoms that were previously bonded (as part of the internal bonds I mentioned) become available to bond with other molecules.
When an egg is heated to 40 degrees celsius, its protein chains become denatured and elongate, which allows chemical reactions to occur. The egg changes from a liquid solution of protein into a solid mass.
A similar thing happens with you beat an egg. The physical act of beating causes the protein strands to stretch, thereby causing the protein to denature (the internal bonds are broken as a result of the application of physical force). So, rather than the protein chains being bound up into tight balls, they become long strands. This is similar to gluten when it is developed. These strands form structures that allow the trapping of air, which results in a lighter texture.
Beating eggs is not just about mixing. It's about changing the structure of the eggs to produce a physical effect. To read more about this, see "The Science of Cooking" by Peter Barham.
This is exactly what I was looking for! Thank you!
what does this mean in regard to the nutrition content of the egg?
@Fitri: Beating an egg does not change any nutritional values.
When you cracked the egg and it was in the bowl, you can see that its snuggled together. not mixed.
When beating it, the egg expands which allows the air to be trapped which makes the texture lighter.
This shows that the protein molecules aren't snuggled together but its preformed as an expanded strand egg, which shows the protein molecules every where from small to expanded.
This is about when beating the egg when used as a force called physical.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.965256
| 2011-01-21T05:28:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11305",
"authors": [
"AMC",
"Fitri",
"Gary Thompson",
"ICHome Technology Co spam",
"Robert Cartaino",
"Ryan J. Smith",
"Trilliun",
"calico-cat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8",
"user23196"
],
"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
}
|
11906
|
What to do with a Sizzler?
We were gifted a Sizzler yesterday - a sort of elongated shallow cast-iron pan on a wood base for serving and keeping warm at the table. I know these are supposed to be for helping things caramelise, but I'm at a bit of a loss as to what to serve in it and how to make use of it.
Any ideas?
Oh, and I should add - I've already begun to season it in the oven.
My version of this ( http://www.amazon.com/Lodge-Logic-Pre-Seasoned-Fajita-Set/dp/B00008GKDP/ ) actually came with a set of instructions. It's not meant to be used for cooking, only for serving. Place the pan in a hot oven for about 30 mins to heat it up (while you're cooking), then put your fajitas on it to bring to the table. The cast iron will retain heat for a long time and keep anything you serve on it sizzling hot.
A cast iron pan would be a great way to cook fajitas, but the shallow sides and strange shape of the "sizzler" pan make it impractical to really cook on. The same instruction book also recommends using another cast iron pan (two, actually) to cook the fajitas.
If you want to use it for something other than fajitas, it would work just fine as a small griddle. You could probably cook pancakes, a strip steak, or chicken breast on it, but nothing that requires any stirring.
My immediate thought is to use it to serve fajitas. They do it in restaurants; why not in your home?
(Just in case, I'm suggesting it for serving the meat or veggies, not for grilling them.)
Use it to make pittsburgh style steak. I absolutely love doing that. Get or cut your own thick 1.5"< steaks. Put the pan in the oven and get it as hot as possible. (be sure to leave the wood place out of the oven :-) ) Turn on the broiler and toss on the steak after coating with the seasoning. Turn once. Check the temp to make sure the inside is done to your liking. I serve it with blue cheese crumbles that melt into the best steak sauce ever.
Other options include fajita steak or chicken with peppers and onions.
Essentially the possibilities are endless. Just be careful as they will burn you if not handled properly.
The key for the Pittsburg steak is as you mentioned the caramelization. The seasoning includes a little sugar to help that along.
If it's large enough to contain a serving or two without spilling while you carefully mix it, you could make a sort of a dolsot bibimbap, which is usually served in a hot cast iron bowl. Heat the pan, then add a layer of cooked rice, then some cooked vegetables and/or meat, crack an egg on top, and stir gently. You'll get a nice crust of rice on the bottom that develops as you eat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.965587
| 2011-02-08T02:01:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11906",
"authors": [
"Doc Walker",
"Milkjuice's Own",
"Tony Huynh",
"calico-cat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4138",
"user24560",
"user3565446",
"user47449",
"zac"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12577
|
Is Spaetzle a pasta or a dumpling?
Is it a pasta or a dumpling and what is the difference?
To me, a pasta is smooth and shaped and doesn't have any "filling" (but can have ingredients added to color or flavor it before it is shaped) and a dumpling is either a dough of some sort either cooked in a stew-like liquid or filled with something and then cooked.
When I saw spaetzle prepared,it seemed like a pasta to me. What distinguishes pasta from dumplings?
My answer to the "pasta or dumpling" question is yes. :)
Ravioli and tortellini are pastas, right?
Spätzle originates from a region spanning Austria, Switzerland and southern Germany. I can tell you that here in southern Germany, Spätzle is definitely considered a sort of pasta. You can buy premade, prepackaged dried Spätzle, and it is always on the pasta shelf. So I'd say it is correct to refer to it as pasta, at least for historical/traditional reasons, even if it doesn't meet some technical criteria for pasta (or does meet some for dumplings).
As for technical criteria, I don't know of any decision criteria for either category both are loosely defined in my head by enumeration of their elements. Maybe there are some official criteria, but kitchen taxonomy isn't as hard defined as e.g. biological taxonomy, and it varies by region/country. Consider for example, the German word Braten, which is generally translated as a roast. But while a German cook may consider a piece of meat cooked in a dutch oven on a stovetop a kind of Braten, any cook from the Balkans will tell you that this is not a roast, as it wasn't made in a "real" oven, but in what is, in his eyes, a pot. So would you define the meat as a roast or not? I'd say that here regional tradition is best. If it was a German recipe, you are free to call it a roast. If it was a Balkan recipe, you'll have to call it something else, depending on the exact recipe. Similarly, for Spätzle, I'd say just go with the tradition and call it a pasta.
I would say Spätzle is closer to pasta than a dumpling - it's a dough similar to pasta (eggs, flour, water, salt).
For me, the main difference between pasta and dumplings is that pasta is cooked in water and sauce is added later, while dumplings are often cooked and served in the broth which flavours them.
The English language wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaetzle also seems to suggest that it's an adaptation of pasta, especially since it's associated with those areas of Germany, Hungary, Austria etc which are closer to Italy.
I don't think I've ever cooked dumplings in anything other than water.
There isn't really a difference between them, or at least it is a very loose one, since dumplings can be regarded as a variety of pasta, such as tortellini.
In Italian language, "pasta" commonly indicates just dried durum-wheat pasta or fresh egg pasta (such as spaghetti, maccheroni, etc.) while there isn't an exact translation for "dumpling"; stuffed pasta like ravioli, tortellini and cannelloni AFAIK lacks a collective name and just go by their own name.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.965824
| 2011-02-25T13:20:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12577",
"authors": [
"Alissa",
"Cascabel",
"Hoytman",
"Jan",
"Kyla",
"Marti",
"Mercur1c",
"Paride Azzari",
"Population Xplosive",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25926",
"xangua"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9903
|
Le Creuset vs. Lodge Enamel
My wife and I both love to cook and I'm looking to buy a nice, 6 qt, enameled dutch oven.
Le Creuset is the first that comes to mind, but I've been doing some research and have since learned that the Lodge Enamel product line often comes up as a close competitor in quality (not aesthetics).
Would you guys recommend purchasing a Lodge enamel dutch oven?
There is a good answer to a similar question, here
What to look for when choosing a dutch oven?
but since I had already written my answer, I'll leave it.
It depends on why you are buying it. There are several factors that go into picking any Dutch oven.
Weight/thermal mass. The ability of the oven to retain, and release heat evenly is determined by its thermal mass, which is why they are made of cast iron and very heavy. Cooking quality for both with be comparable. Both are VERY heavy. There are other brands that work...there is a Mario Batali Dutch oven that has gotten good reviews, and I even have a Tramontina that I bought in a grocery store that is very well made and works well.
Lid fit. The lid has to be a good fit. If it is loose, or warped, when you are doing a braise the liquid will escape and your braise becomes a dehydrate or a burn. This is where "cheap" brands fail. However, either of these brands will do you well.
Thickness/evenness of the finish. This is, in my opinion, more aesthetic and long term care based, but if you are going to buy enameled, make sure you get a decent finish. There are some that look more like the enamel has been painted on. This is mostly your call. The problem with enamel finishes is that you have the chance of cracking or chipping it, and once that's done, there is no cost effective way to fix it. But the enamel affects the cooking least of all. I cook most things in my Lodge cast iron (no enamel) dutch oven, and while it affects the color of some dishes, there is the additional iron that I get in my diet...no Geritol ™ for me.
Cost. You can compare cost, but this will potentially be the biggest variable. It's why I own the Tramontina.
Status. This is a non-factor for me, but if you take dishes to your gated community potluck, the Le Creuset has more status. It is, after all, French.
Both are good brands, both will allow/help you to cook good food. You have to determine what the cost/status difference is between them, and how important that is. If both cost the same, I would probably go with the Le Creuset. Since they rarely do, I have more Lodge than Le Creuset in my kitchen.
Great answer, just one small nitpick: Since cast iron is reactive, if you are cooking on a raw, un-enameled dutch oven, then acidic foods like wine and tomatoes (which are commonly used in braises) can pick up off flavors.
I've heard the quality on the Lodge enamel is top-notch. Given that they're pretty good on customer service from all I've heard, and they do know cast-iron, I'd say it's well worth the risk.
I have several Lodge pieces and a small set of Le Creuset, and I love both. I don't have an enameled lodge of any kind, but I can't imagine that it would be a bad purchase.
I bought one of the Lodge enameled dutch ovens as a Christmas gift for someone last year. She owns several Le Creuset pieces, and says that the Lodge compares very well to them.
Probably too late for the OP, but I have a Batali enameled cast-iron 6 qt dutch oven that is fantastic. It compares favorably price-wise to the Lodge, it's durable as I need it to be (I've used it probably 50+ times over 2+ years and the enameling is holding up very well). It is very sturdy, even-heating, and the lid fits tight. The biggest upside is that the lid has little nubs that make it self-basting (so you don't need to use the aluminum foil under the lid trick when doing a long braise). I love this pot!
The only possible downside is that the rim where the lid rests is not enameled, but I keep it dry and it hasn't rusted at all. I guess the other possible downside is limited color selectcion with the most widely available color being persimmon. I got one in brown so I don't have to think about Mario Batali's orange Crocs every time I make chili.
I think you'll find most decent enameled dutch ovens have a bare-metal joint between pot and lid. It helps reduce the chance of chipping of the enamel. I'd almost go so far as to recommend against an enameled pot that wasn't like this.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.966096
| 2010-12-09T06:22:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9903",
"authors": [
"Damodaran",
"ESultanik",
"Kyle Jones",
"MisterRios",
"Nicolas Pierre",
"Reshma",
"ameena",
"anhquan",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"john",
"karthik reddy"
],
"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
}
|
10921
|
Substitute for lemon grass in curry dish
I have a meal planned in a few days and it calls for lemon grass. Problem is I've been to the store a couple of times and they don't have it.
(the store is a block away and I don't feel like driving all the way to the next one to look)
The dish is curry spiced noodles, basically a stir-fry. Any suggestions?
Western grocery stores generally don't carry lemon grass, you'll need to go to an Asian market. Many of them will also sell dried (powdered) lemon grass, which is definitively the best substitute you can find for fresh lemon grass.
Honestly, there's really very little else you can substitute. Lemon grass has this hint of citrus flavour but also, as the name implies, a sort of grassy, herb-like flavour.
If I were really desperate, I would substitute lemon zest (fresh only), at 1/2 tsp for each lemon grass stalk called for by the recipe, and several pages online seem to suggest adding in some arugula (to give it that grassy quality). But be warned, it is not going to be the same, it's going to be a great deal more bitter, so consider either reducing the quantity or adding more sweet/savoury spices or ingredients to the curry to compensate (cinnamon, perhaps).
@Aaronut: Do they not carry it in the US? In the UK, almost all supermarkets carry it.
@Orbling: I live in Canada so I can't speak as to the USA. However, most supermarkets here don't carry it. I think there's one that does, but I don't like to go there because there's a T&T (Asian market) that's closer. Then again, most supermarkets here seem to have stopped carrying toasted sesame oil as well, and I have to get it a health food store. Maybe the crappiness of supermarkets is just a Toronto/Canada phenomenon, but it would seem from this question that it's not quite that localized.
@Aaronut: My apologies for implying you were in the US. Whilst we do have specialist regional grocers in the UK, they are not over abundant outside of cities. I live in London, and even there it is a 40 minute drive to my nearest Chinese specialist, and about 20 minutes to my nearest Indian specialist. The supermarkets stock most foreign ingredients here, certainly enough to cook most popular dishes in Thai, Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Caribbean, Mexican cuisines. It depends on the local population mix for others.
Don't worry @Orbling, I didn't take offense. Anyway, it's very much the opposite here; most supermarkets tend to only carry common/mainstream ingredients but there are specialty stores, Indian groceries and so on, in almost every pocket of the city. Probably a result of our high ethnic concentrations. Thing is, even if you can find something in a regular supermarket, it's usually going to be less expensive at the specialty store because they sell enormous amounts of the stuff.
@Aaronut: I think with London being such a melting pot of cultures, there is no mainstream, so the supermarkets stock everything, lol! Of course you get cultural enclaves, and the less widespread communities tend to have specialist shops within those places. You are totally correct on the cost factor, the specialist stores tend to be many times cheaper for ingredients. Quite interesting.
It's certainly not a Canada wide thing... here in Calgary, many of our larger grocery stores care a wide variety of ethnic ingredients. Specifically I get my lemongrass from Superstore and have bought toasted Sesame Oil at numerous places (Sobeys for one).
@talon8: Superstore is the one place that has Asian ingredients (but only some of them) and toasted sesame oil used to be available all over the place but seems to have disappeared from the shelves during the past year. I think people are reading a little too much into what I said earlier; I never said that no supermarkets ever have any ethnic ingredients, just that most of the "'round the corner" supermarkets will have relatively few of them.
Aaronut- if you're in Toronto there are a ton of chinese grocery stores that should carry it. I even think the bulk barn near the chinese populated areas carry it.
There is no replacement for the flavor. It's a lot more delicate and fragrant than normal citrus. You can freeze it though. It does freeze well, just wrap it well ( so it doesn't pick up other flavours). You can also steep in it a neutral oil ( like grape seed oil). Just chop it up and drop it in hot ( not super hot) oil, let it gently cook for awhile.
There might be minced or preserved lemon grass in the world food isle? Or a curry paste which already has a lot of lemon grass in?
It's widely available in Atlanta (and I assume the rest of the US) as a powder in the world food aisle. It's occasionally available fresh with the veggies. I've used zest as a substitute, and it's better than nothing, but as @chef says, it's not the same.
@vwiggins, a world food isle sounds awesome! Where is it? ;o)
Well I would suggest if you really can not get it, then leave it out altogether. It provides accents of flavour rather than a primary usually in most curry recipes, so it can be omitted.
If you want to substitute it, then you can use lemon or lime zest, possibly with some mint leaves to freshen it a little. But the end result will not be the same, just enhanced in a similar fashion to that which lemongrass achieves.
In my experience, also, it is best simply left out if you don't have it. It isn't a must have flavour.
Would you say to leave it out of ALL dishes if you can't find it? I want to make congee (recipe calls for brown rice, lemongrass that I can't find, sweet potato, bok choi, soy sauce, sesame oil, almonds, red chili flakes, ginger, cilantro and scallions), but my local grocery store that used to carry lemongrass hasn't had it in weeks. Doesn't seem like mint leaves would fit in that dish...but I feel like it'll be missing something if I leave out the lemongrass-ness entirely.
@Laura: If you can not obtain an ingredient that provides a significant taste factor, then the end result will not taste as expected. Lemongrass is not often star of the show, occasionally perhaps, but not usually. I would say just add some lemon or lime juice or zest, not too much, and see what it tasted like - or just leave it out altogether. In that congee recipe, I would probably use a squirt of lime juice instead. It wouldn't be the same, but would be alright with the other ingredients.
I always think lemongrass tastes more like lime than lemon. I'd use the grated zest of a lime, perhaps mixed with some of lemon.
Lemongrass freezes well. If you cannot find it in the fresh section, try the frozen section of the market. Personally, and unfortunately, I haven't been able to find it even it at my own local Asian market. Recipes in some of my cookbooks call for lemon zest as an alternative.
I'm certainly not an expert but as was mentioned briefly before, lemon balm might be a better substitute than lemon or lime zest. It has a subtle lemon-y flavor and also the 'grass-y' note (if fresh). I've used that before when I was out of lemongrass and it was better than leaving it out. I just had to play with the amount, however, adding tiny bits at a time and tasting.
It's not identical, but probably not a bad substitution. Especially if you add a dash of lime zest to it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.966487
| 2011-01-10T22:14:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10921",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BobMcGee",
"Carmi",
"Chef",
"Gibbons",
"Laura",
"Orbling",
"bmorenate",
"cynthia",
"heyliene",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808",
"talon8",
"user22400",
"user744959",
"vwiggins",
"wting",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11300
|
How do I hand-roll homemade pasta made with egg?
I have a very simple recipe for homemade pasta dough (one egg to 100g flour, some oil), and found this worked great on my first small batch. I mixed it in a stand mixer and immediately rolled it out, using lots of flour to keep things from sticking. It was a bit thick, but I chalk that up to inexperience.
On my second batch I made slightly more dough and split it into four balls before rolling each one out. The first two I rolled out almost right away, cut and shaped the pasta, and threw on a plate with some flour until I got around to cooking it.
I left the last two balls of dough sitting for 30 minutes or more before I got to them, and these were much, much harder to roll out. I've since discovered (from Google and word of mouth) is that this is the opposite of what should happen, I'm supposed to let my dough rest to make it easier to work with.
So was this an anomaly? Should I repeat this (tough) task with the understanding that my previous experience was a one-off?
Or is there a special technique to rolling pasta dough made with egg (as opposed to water)?
Any thoughts as to what went wrong? (Or, perhaps, confirmation that my word-of-Google-mouth rumors are incorrect?)
(Also, I'm not monetarily endowed right now, so I won't have access to any other rolling equipment besides my trusty rolling pin)
Pasta dough has to be sufficiently moist to be rolled properly.
Rolling the pasta (in a pasta machine) aligns the gluten strands so they stretch out and become parallel to each other. If the dough is too dry, it is more difficult to align them. This is why it's a good idea to coat unused dough in a thin coating of oil and cling wrap if you're not immediately working with it (a damp tea towel over the bowl will work as well).
Thanks for the suggestion, that's probably what made the later batches harder to roll - they were drier.
Did you leave the dough covered either with either a slightly damp cloth or tightly with plastic wrap? (I prefer the latter). If not, the surface will dry out and it will be very hard to roll.
No, I didn't cover it. That's a great point.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.967021
| 2011-01-21T02:40:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11300",
"authors": [
"Anandhakumar R",
"Peach",
"Tony Arra",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3897",
"rotanimod",
"sXe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
38202
|
How to keep fried fish warm and crispy during transport to venue?
I frequently cook for my choir and I wanted to serve fried fish. The problem is I have to cook the food at home and transport it to the church. How do I keep it warm and crispy for about an hour after its cooked and during transport? Additionally, what can I put it in to keep it warm once I arrive. I'm sure putting it on a steam table would make it soggy.
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/3890/67 ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/20297/67 ;
Fried foods neither hold nor transport well. They are best served directly from the frier. If they do need to be held, a slow oven which will keep them dry (by allowing steam from the food to leave) is the best way.
There simply is no good way to hold, transport, and serve fried foods that will maintain the crispy quality. Think of every delivery meal you have ever ordered of mozeralla sticks, chicken fingers, or even just plain french fries. They simply are not the same as at the restaurant.
If you absolutely insist on serving fried fish, the best way to transport it would be in a single layer, in an insulated container, lined underneath with paper towels to absorb some moisture, and with vent holes so that at least some of the steam can escape instead of condensing back on to fish and making the breading even soggier.
You could improvise such a container with plastic or foil takeout containers, punching (fairly large) holes in the top, and using blankets or towels underneath and around the sides as insulation. Make sure you leave the ventilation holes uncovered, so that the steam can escape.
Still, you will have tension between keeping the food hot, which requires no holes and lots of insulation, and keeping it (somewhat) crispy, which requires allowing free air circulation, but would cool the food faster.
In the end, this is a situation where choosing another item, one that is friendier for holding and transporting, will serve you better.
Poaching the fish would be ideal, as would creamy or saucy dishes with the fish as an ingredient instead of the featured player.
For crispiness: keep the fish on a cooling rack and well ventilated no matter what - even when using steam tables, which should be fine for this purpose.
For warmth: I have no idea how the fish will fare depending on how you transport it, but do not let the time between cooking and eating be longer than two hours unless you can reheat the fish with a fryer or oven that gets hot enough for long enough to get out of the danger zone of 40-140 degrees Fahrenheit.
Have an empty cool steam containers or aluminum foil pans, place in the vehicle. place the fried fish ontop of a wire rack right out of the oil. when all done, place fish in paper bags. place wire rack in the cool aluminum foil pan or steam tray, place hot fish out of the paper bags, then place fish ontop of rack. Cover fish on a rack with paper, paper bags or wax, or parchment paper.
when you arrive, place fish in paper bags to carry inside, have your warmers set up to be hot. Place the racks inside, then take fish out of bags and place on rack, then cover again with paper. fish should stay crispy and warm
Fry up all of your fish ahead of time. When you arrive have that fish put into an
air fryer or counter top convection oven that you keep to perk up crispness on on your truck/ mobile kitchen. If you do not have a deep fryer on your truck you can prep everything, bread it, and then bring just the fish on the premise.
As a piece of fish is done, add it to the sides/meals and/or a chafer lined with lots of paper towels ... no top goes on the chafer unless it has perforated holes.
It works best and beautifully we have done it many times for old fashioned fish fry.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.967227
| 2013-11-06T19:27:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/38202",
"authors": [
"Amanda Hedlund",
"Joe",
"Matt Briançon",
"Nayken",
"Zoe - Save the data dump",
"douglas e. rush",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90013",
"user89988"
],
"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
}
|
39334
|
Black/purple ingredient in stir fry?
I've had stir fry a few times lately and have noticed this strange ingredient in it. It is a blackish purple color, and looks a lot like a noodle! The other seasonings have mostly overpowered it so I can't describe its taste. I think it is a vegetable, but I am clueless. Anyone have any ideas?
Can you add a picture>? Or at least say what type of cuisine or region this stir fry came from?
I should have taken a picture! The stir fry was from a campus dining hall, so I'm not sure what region is is from. They use it in all types of Asian cuisine.
Ah, if it is from a dining hall, what you have is a universal product called Mystery Meat. I wouldn't worry about it. Just close your eyes and hope for the best.
Wood ear mushrooms maybe? wood ear
I believe this might be it. I've wondered myself too, but after some inspection, it was this (in my case).
I was a kid when I had it in a stir-fry for the first time. It was love at first bite, so made it a mission to find out what it was, where to get it and how to use it. I still use it all the time.
I think it may be this, just sliced very thin.
Sounds a lot like eggplant to me. It's purplish-black on the outside, and has a very mild taste when cooked that's easily overpowered by other flavours.
I don't know about looking like a noodle - maybe it's just the way it's cut. But it's a fairly common ingredient in stir-fries.
Maybe it's just detached skin from narrow slices.
It might be red cabbage. I'm not a big veggie person but I know it's purple lol.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.967545
| 2013-11-10T19:21:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39334",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Constantina",
"Gabrielle",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mien",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Yatin Varachhia",
"banned",
"bgardner",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91302",
"user26495"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40647
|
Chicken has a strong, offensive chemical odor when boiled.
I purchase grocery store chicken and boil it for chicken and dumplings, as well as to feed my dog. It has a strong chemical odor that doesn't go away in spite of seasonings, etc. How do I get rid of that odor? I tried soaking it in vinegar, but that didn't help.
When it doubt, throw it out. -- Food service maxim number 2.
Is this one chicken, or all the chickens you buy from that store? I've never experienced that kind of odor before; either it's coming from somewhere in your kitchen (cleaning solvents?), or you should probably involve the local health board...
Do others also smell this odor?
We once had a question about chicken smelling strongly of sulphur, and some answer suggested that there is a step in chicken processing which involves sulphur, but the traces of it are supposed to be neutralized in a later stage. Maybe the OP smelled sulphur too? The word "chemical" could be anything.
I would identify the source of the smell before consuming it. That said, I would certainly not consume any product (or wear it for that matter) that had a strong chemical smell, even if I were able to identify it.
If it's a recurring issue, perhaps it's the allegedly benign carbon monoxide used at some of the bigger stores to preserve meat for lengthier shelf life. CO itself does not have an odor, but perhaps the meat develops a scent after being on the shelf that long. I prefer to go to a smaller food chain in my area that does not prepackage the meat. I would find another meat source. There is no reason to have to perform detective work prior to eating food you just paid for. I don't think anything you eat should have an uncertain and questionable smell or taste.
How long have you tried keeping the chicken in vinegar?
I would recommend keeping it in a mixture of curd and vinegar overnight because both of them help break down proteins in the food. I've tried this with tandoori chicken where I too had an offensive smell from the chicken every time I kept it marinated for a couple of hours 2-5). However, the last 2 times I marinated it overnight (almost 12 hours) and the smell is gone after that.
Try adding root ginger to the water.
Why would adding root ginger help beyond masking the chemical flavor? Perhaps you could expand on your suggestion.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.967819
| 2013-12-28T23:10:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40647",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Carey Gregory",
"Daniel",
"Eihwaz",
"Michael",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sean-Jiun Wang",
"Twisty Express",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94614",
"rumtscho",
"samir balar",
"tM --"
],
"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
}
|
81886
|
How do you cook lasagne noodles?
Do you throw it all out in a tall pan at once or by batches? In what pan should you cook it?
Do you put them on top of each other in the pan?
Do you place them horizontally or vertically?
With oil in the water or not?
How do you drain them in the colander without everything sticking?
Should you boil, par-boil, or let them soak in water before layering (concerning run of the mill DeCeco lasagne)?
Not sure if its available where you live, but there is such a thing as no-boil lasagna noodles. They're typically what I use, as they avoid the extra step of cooking the pasta before I can build my lasagna, and I find that the no-boil variety better absorbs excess liquid, which results in a more stable final product.
lasagne v. lasagna ... there was an edit offered to change OP's title. For anyone concerned...the Italian word is a plural form, lasagne meaning more than one sheet of lasagna, though in many other languages a derivative of the singular word "lasagna" is used for the popular dish.
@CosCallis I don't understand how you can raise the issue of whether ‘lasagne’ is plural without first addressing the much more serious issue of whether either count as ‘noodles’! In my part of the world, ‘pasta’ is an Italian-style dish, and ‘noodles’ an Eastern-style one — and there's no connection between them. ‘Lasagne noodles’ is merely a contradiction in terms!
OR..don't at all. "No boil" is kind of a gimmick, any store bought dry lasagna noodle can be 'no boil' just put them into your dish dry. If you don't already start with a small layer of sauce at the bottom and then add the noodles, sauce, cheese, etc..repeat and bake. During the course of baking the noodles will absorb liquids from the sauce and soften. I prefer this because it leaves the layers with enough structure to stay together better on serving. One caveat, you might want to thin your sauce just a little if it isn't 'thin enough' to begin with. Add some more wine, broth, beer or wine...did I say wine twice? ;)
(also see Turning regular noodles into no-boil noodles)
It's personal preference, but if you've never tried boiling your lasagna noodles before hand, you should try it. Starting with uncooked pasta will work, but in my experience, the noodles become dough-y and unpleasant. Boiling the noodles before hand gives a better texture, IMO.
I have tried and there are occasions when I will do so, but, in general, I find I prefer the results from not pre-boiling.
I mainly use freshly made egg pasta and cook two or three sheets at a time. I build the lasagna as I go. So...
Bring water to boil. Add a couple of tablespoons of salt. Do not add oil. Drop in a couple of sheets of pasta. Fresh takes a minute or two. Remove to a towel on counter top with a spider. When cool enough to handle, transfer to lasagna pan and add condiments. Drop a few more sheets of pasta into water and continue layering. Then bake.
For dry pasta, use a large pot and add all of the pasta. Salted water...no oil in water. Cook for a couple of minutes below the package recommendation. Drain. You could use a little bit of oil here to keep pasta from sticking together...or refresh in cool water bath. I would blot dry before layering. Build your lasagna. Bake.
If I add all the pages at once they stick together in the pot. How do you prevent that?
@BarAkiva large pot, plenty of water, stir frequently....or smaller pot, two batches.
I use freshly made pasta and don't boil it. It's going to bake for 45 minutes or so, it cooks fine.
@KateGregory sure, that is one way to do it. I prefer to cook first.
For normal dry store-bought noodles, I recommend assembling the lasagna with the noodles uncooked, but then leave it in the fridge for a few hours, up to overnight. That will soften the noodles enough to give the right result. I once boiled the noodles fully (as per the instructions on the box), and while they were nicely al dente at the time, they got too mushy by the end of baking. If you don't have the time to "pre soak", then I suppose boiling them for around 1/2 the recommended time would give the right result. The way to keep them from sticking is to use a large enough pan and stir regularly. Instead of draining in a colander, fish them out and drop them into a bowl of cold water. Oil in the water does nothing.
Assembly: Start with a layer of sauce on the bottom, then noodles, then whatever other ingredients, and cycle. End with sauce on top of a noodle layer, and possibly some cheese on top of that if you want. Store bought noodles should be about the same length as the short dimension of the pan, so they fit approximately 3 side-by-side in a typically sized pan. Don't overlap noodles.
Simple for me. Doesn't take a trick. I buy mid- to high-grade box lasagne noodles (not the no-bake stuff- bleagh).
Your pot and water height does not need to be higher than the length of the noodles. Boil rapidly, add a modicum of salt, add noodles. Reduce heat to a gentle simmer. The noodles will ply eventually, (pretty quickly), submerging. I never follow times on boxes. When the noodles are pliable like a stiff eel, remove carefully (I remove from the standing pot, never use a colander), place on parchment paper sprayed with a non-stick cooking spray, take care of everything else while they sit.
I place them in the bake pan. In water with spice like garlic in it. Cover place in fridge & let soak till 1/2 to 3/4 soft. This I find adds extra flavor to them. Remove & use pan to bake them in.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.968057
| 2017-05-22T11:38:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81886",
"authors": [
"Bar Akiva",
"Cos Callis",
"Kate Gregory",
"gidds",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68458",
"kitukwfyer",
"moscafj",
"senschen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88877
|
What can I replace pineapple with in a cherry dump cake?
I would like to make a cherry dump cake, but some kids are allergic to pineapple. What can I replace it with?
The recipe I am working with is:
1 (20 oz.) can crushed pineapple with juice, undrained
1 cup chopped pecans or walnuts
½ cup (1 stick) butter or margarine
1 can Duncan Hines Comstock® Country Cherry
or 1 can Duncan Hines Comstock® Simply Cherry Pie Filling Topping
1 package Classic Yellow Cake Mix
Preheat oven to 350ºF. Grease a 13"x 9" pan. Dump pineapple with juice
into pan. Spread evenly. Dump in pie filling. Sprinkle cake mix evenly
over cherry layer. Sprinkle pecans over cake mix. Dot with butter.
Bake 50 minutes or until top is lightly browned. Serve warm or at room
temperature
Welcome, Lois! We don't address health questions here. There's simply no way for us to know whether the person you're talking about is allergic to cherries - you'll have to ask them. Can you please include the recipe you're using? It's difficult to give suggestions for substitutions if we don't know the entire recipe and process.
1 (20 oz.) can crushed pineapple with juice, undrained
1 cup chopped pecans or walnuts
½ cup (1 stick) butter or margarine
1 can Duncan Hines Comstock® Country Cherry
or 1 can Duncan Hines Comstock® Simply Cherry Pie Filling & Topping
1 package Classic Yellow Cake Mix
Preheat oven to 350ºF. Grease a 13"x 9" pan.
Dump pineapple with juice into pan. Spread evenly. Dump in pie filling. Sprinkle cake mix evenly over cherry layer. Sprinkle pecans over cake mix. Dot with butter.
Bake 50 minutes or until top is lightly browned. Serve warm or at room temperature.
Lois, Thank you for adding the recipe. This is not your typical "chat room" (though we do have one of those) but rather a Q/A forum. As you can see I have taken your recipe from the comments and edited the recipe into your original question. This will make it easier for other members of the community to see what you want and provide whatever help they might be able to offer.
Any canned Apple Pie Filling (such as the Duncan Hines) would provide a similar flavor and texture to the pineapple you want to replace. You might want to mix in some apple juice (or cider) to the apple pie filling to thin out the liquid in order to get the right consistency and volume.
Of course you will want to make sure you aren't simply replacing one allergen with another.
If the person you are cooking for is not allergic to citrus you could use orange or grapefruit. Get packaged and prepared grapefruit or mandarin oranges. This would bring you closer to the acidity range pineapple has.
You can normally find both orange juice and grapefruit juice with pulp since the recipe calls for "undrained". But if you prefer the recipe having the "chunked" pineapple consistency, you can find already peeled grapefruit and oranges packaged in their own juice that you could crush on your own if it isn't at the desired consistency.
Can you explain how this acts as a substitute for the solids in the can of crushed pineapple? Even juice with pulp (that I've run into) has nowhere near the amount of solids as a can of crushed pineapple with juice.
@Catija You could also just buy canned or jarred already peeled oranges or grapefruit. Those would normally be found in the refrigerated section of a produce aisle and is normally packaged in it's own juice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.968490
| 2018-04-03T22:51:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88877",
"authors": [
"BelethorsGeneralGoods",
"Catija",
"Cos Callis",
"Lois ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66274"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
83441
|
Can I tenderize my chicken before I vacuum seal it
I want to infuse more flavor into my chicken (skinless breast). Should I use my Jaccard tenderizer then pour my marinade on the chicken and vacuum seal it.
This question is similar to better to marinate in vacuum? but is not a duplicate as the other question is very specific about how the chicken is to be used and this is more of a 'general' question.
This is actually (IMHO) a 'very good' idea, especially if you plan to freeze these cuts in order to use later. Marinating is a 'surface process', it does not deeply penetrate the meat. Tenderizing significantly increases the surface area thereby increasing the contact with the marinade. Freezing continues this by disrupting the cell walls of the meat, again improving surface area contact. As it thaws the marinade will continue to coat the meat and improve the flavor, you would not need to thaw and then marinade.
I would caution against using a strong alcohol in your marinade (say, stronger than beer or wine) as it may not actually freeze and it could also inhibit the freezing of the breast where it is contact, causing freezing to not preserve the meat as well. Whatever you use, try to freeze some of it first, just to make sure.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.968718
| 2017-08-02T14:26:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83441",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3183
|
Pasta preservation
I have some extra pasta, cooked.
I have no extra sauce to put the pasta in.
What's the best way to preserve it so it lasts for a day or hopefully two without getting dry or rotten?
Toss in oil and do not salt. This should help keep the pasta from drying out. Refrigerate until you are ready to use it. Before use, quickly reheat the pasta in boiling water or in a hot pan, which will give the starch a fresher, "just cooked" texture (this is the same reason that you toast old bread)
I'd have to taste test, but when in college, doing the same (storing tossed in oil), I'd either steam it back to life (quicker than boiling).
Besides Kevin's recommendation, if it's a smaller pasta (not long strands or sheets), you can turn it into a pasta salad; there are plenty of recipes online, and it's often better if it's had a day or two to sit for the flavors to meld.
You can also freeze individual portions in sandwich bags, then heat back up in boiling water. A lot of resturants (of the lower end) do this with their spaghetti. Since it doesn't require any additions it won't change your flavor profile. Stays good for about 2 weeks, after that you will start to notice texture change.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.968856
| 2010-07-25T14:35:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3183",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Marcel",
"NickC",
"Rob",
"Stormenet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jwenting"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
396
|
What cookbooks do you always come back to?
Like me, there are probably a lot people on here that have a lot of cookbooks, but I find I keep coming back to the same 1 or 2 books to give me the basis of most of the stuff I cook.
For me, I find myself coming back to the Jamie At Home book and Jamies Italy but I'm interested to see what other cookbooks others have as their "go to" cookbooks?
Why is this closed? This is bullocks, a cooking SE SHOULD have a cookbook recommendation section.
Since this got bumped, for the record, this was closed because it did solicit polling - there are 86 answers! It should have been closed long before then, but we weren't vigilant enough. There are many closed programming book questions on StackOverflow, too; it's not like Seasoned Advice has done something weird here.
Definitely the Joy of Cooking. It's not a convenience cookbook for people with busy schedules or low patience - the majority of recipes in there are geared toward flavour and not specialty diets or quick prep times - but at least 9 out of 10 recipes I try in there have near-perfect flavour and texture.
IMO, this should be in every cook's kitchen, even the ones that don't really use cookbooks. It has all the classic recipes, and you never know when somebody will ask you to make Chicken Kiev.
+1. It's a great staple of any kitchen. Tons of very basic instructions for when a more complicated recipe something like "blanched potatoes" and you've forgotten how to blanch a potato.
I've actually found that the Joy of Cooking has led me astray more often than leading me to the right path. I leave it on the bookshelf and consult other texts.
@Daniel: No book is for everyone, of course, but I'm curious to know some examples of this. The only recipes I tend to ignore in that book are the Asian ones; virtually everything else I've tried has been perfect (although I obviously haven't tried everything).
I've tried a number of recipes from that book, and about the only one I found to be good was the alfredo one. Which I frequently modify to spruce up. All the others were bland and flavorless. Or just boring. Or plain didn't work. I just had bad experiences with that book, and eventually stopped using it.
It's indispensable; it's like a dictionary. It's the one book you take if you're going off to live in the third world for a year. It tells you how to cook, clean and prepare anything and everything. But as a cookbook for great recipes? Eh, not so much.
Alton Brown's I'm Just Here for the Food If I'm going to be using a technique I'm not 100% familiar with.
This book totally changed how I cook.
Bittman's "How to Cook Everything." It's really great - simple and easy - plus you can get the whole thing as an iphone app for $4.99.
I purchased this recently after a recommendation from a chef, and I'll say it's one heck of a tome, and contains a ton of recipes.
I love working with dough and baking my own bread and pastry. So my bible is Peter Reinhart's The Bread Baker's Apprentice. I use this book so often that I don't even bother to return it to my bookshelf anymore.
thats awesome. Will have to take a look as I also love cooking with bread / dough
it also is the only book I store in my kitchen instead of my bookshelf
I agree. This is an excellent book for baking bread. The explanation on the baking process is so well explained. The pictures are great too. =)
Not a book, but Google is the one I use by far the most. I typically have a rough idea what to cook, do a google search to find recipes for inspiration and then make something with bits and pieces from various sources.
The New Best Recipe from Cook's Illustrated.
Just the right balance between recipes and discussion of technique. I always consult this book before cooking a new cut of meat for the first time.
The key between 'The Joy of Cooking' and 'The New best Recipe' is that every every recipe in both cookbooks work every time, however, the quality of the finished dishes from 'The New Best Recipe' always are much better than 'The Joy of Cooking'.
References I use:
Harold McGee "On Food and Cooking"
Michael Ruhlman "Ratio" - Using these ratios, one can make all sorts of things without a recipe
Michael Ruhlman "The Elements of Cooking"
Cookbooks I'm fond of:
Marion Cunningham "Learning to Cook" - Got me started 11 years ago.
Lynn Rossetto Kasper "How to Eat Supper" - Also her NPR show, "The Splendid Table".
Lynn Rossetto Kasper "The Italian Country Table"
Marion Cunningham "The Fannie Farmer Cookbook"
Phaidon Press Inc. "The Silver Spoon" - The bible of authentic Italian cooking.
Love Ratio. It's amazingly informative.
I know it is a long list, but we cannot forget Julia Child's Mastering the Art of French Cooking. Full of techniques.
Madhur Jaffrey's "Indian Cookery" (a newer edition of this) and a Danish book called "Mad" (eng: Food) from 1939.
I also frequently use "Reader's Digest Complete Guide to Cookery" for all those techniques and methods that I only need once in a while, but when I need them, I need them desperately.
I found an old copy of Madhur Jaffrey's 1975 book "An Invitation To Indian Cooking" at a used book store, and it has nearly fallen apart from all the times I've been through it. I love her recipes.
Love Madhur Jaffrey; such a good compromise between easy and authentic.
Diet for a Small Planet
I disagree with a lot of their activism, but their dietary facts are spot on. If you want to know how to eat healthy as a vegetarian, start here. (We're not vegetarians, but some of our friends are and we like to entertain with full meals.)
When my spouse was young, their family couldn't afford meat very often. This and Joy of Cooking were my mother-in-law's bibles for how to feed the family healthily during some rough spots.
I usually recommend the more traditional Joy of Cooking. It was pretty much the american cookbook for about 50 years. It's decent, and it's got a recipe for pretty much everything.
A more modern choice would be Bittman's How to Cook Everything. Same principle, but a more modern take on it.
Both books have huge amounts of text dedicated to first principles. How to do this or that, what this or that meat is good for, what herbs go together, how to make the base sauces, etc, etc. If you're looking for reference rather than recipes, that's a good place to start.
Moosewood Restaurant Cooking for Health and Moosewood Restaurant Simple Suppers by the Moosewood Collective
I've never used these specific books, but every Moosewood book I own is frequently used and top-notch (I have 4 or 5 of them, all well worn. Particularly the original Moosewood cookbook and "Sundays at Moosewood").
That was my second cookbook I owned after 'The Yan Can Cookbook.' Good choice!
I recently purchased The Professional Chef (Culinary Institute of America) as both a cookbook and a reference guide. Despite what the title suggests, it is filled with basic information about: identifying different vegetables, herbs, and fruits; explaining the cuts of meat, their purpose and origin; chapters on different basic cooking techniques such as grilling, roasting, baking, etc.
It has a wide variety of recipes and some excellent resources for someone learning to cook. The best part is that the book will continue to serve you well through more professional culinary endeavors such as starting a catering business, opening a restaurant, or just cooking a meal for family and friends.
I agree completely, this book is amazing, great information, clearly laid out and logically divided. I love just picking a section and reading through portions of it.
I had precisely the opposite reaction to pro chef -- it felt exactly like what it is: a textbook, designed by a committee as an accompaniment to culinary arts classwork. I think that a culinary arts textbook is a good pick, but there are definitely better ones. The recipes I've had that came from it get the job done, but aren't knock-outs by any means.
1080 Recipes, by Simone Ortega.
This is a classic of Spanish cooking that almost every mother gives to their children when they leave home ;-)
http://www.amazon.com/1080-Recipes-In%C3%83%C2%A9s-Ortega/dp/0714848360
definitely going to check this one out
Seconding the recommendations for How to Cook Everything and The New Best Recipe, and I have to add How to Cook by the writer and TV presenter who taught millions of Brits: Delia Smith. It's the third hefty, indispensable volume on my cookbook shelf.
But if I had to keep only one, it'd be How to Cook Everything — it's ridiculously exhaustive. Not just a recipe book (though it's certainly that, and in a big way), but an encyclopedia of practical cookery. It's been invaluable as I learn my way around the kitchen and the grocery aisles.
My favorites are:
Vegetarian Cooking for Everyone by Deborah Madison - the best general vegetarian cook book I've found
The Voluptuous Vegan by Myra Kornfeld and George Minot - time consuming but handy when vegan's visit
The Roasted Vegetable by Andrea Chesman - lots of vegetable recipe but not all are vegetarian
The Bread Bible by Rose Levy Beranbaum
King Arthur Flour Whole Grain Baking
The Good Housekeeping cook book is a classic. Has all the basics such as how to make sauces to roasting beef.
The copy I have is my aunties which was published in 1953 and it lives in my kitchen.
+1 - me, too! It's useful for generic information about cooking times and temperatures as well as specific recipes.
Jacques Pépin's Complete Techniques
Slightly off topic as they don't really have many recipes in but I find the following three reference books really valuable...
On Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen - by Harold McGee
Really useful reference book about cooking processes and ingredients. Want to know why something is working or not working the way it is, or how to cook that mystery ingredient. McGee is your man.
The Oxford Companion to Food - Alan Davidson
An encyclopedia of food knowledge, ingredients and gastronomical history. Very down to earth and well written too.
Larousse Gastronomique
If you want to learn about classic European cooking this is the book to have. All of those classic techniques and gastronomy in one book. Lots of recipes as well.
When you have some ingredients in front of you and an ambitious plan and no actual recipe On Food and Cooking is a treasure.
Although, often Larousse isn't practical if you aren't running an estate kitchen. Look at the recipes for Demi-glace, or even stock. ... Start with one cow, one goat, hindquarters of a deer, 2 pigeons, one incontinent, three legged chicken...
Michael Ruhlman's Ratio is an excellent book detailing not just some recipes, but why recipes have what they have (and in the quantities they do). I found it's great to help free your mind from following recipes blindly and move to making your own (or improvising more).
Plus, some of the recipes in the book are quite good on their own. They also tend to be either simple enough to easily modify or have the simplified ratio detailed so that you know what's optional and what's mandatory.
His blog is also quite good a highlighting certain ratios and encouraging me to try new dishes.
My favorite reference cookbook is the unfortunately out-of-print The Settlement Cookbook. It's old fashioned and many of the recipes are under-spiced, but it's my go-to book for basics like how long to cook baked potatoes.
Out of print, but available on Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?id=gNYqAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=settlement+cookbook&source=gbs_slider_thumb#v=onepage&q&f=false
It's also the place to go for great-great-grandma's fruitcake, as well as no-fooling old timey pickle recipes. Cherry leaves instead of alum to keep the pickles crisp. Who'd have thought? I think my copy is early 1920's.
I have a 1945 copy; it has sections on baby food & food for invalids. And it's not out of print -- it's actually out of copyright, so it's back in print again
Alton Brown's "I'm just here for the food" is a great go-to if you need to look up a technique.
As far as recipes go, I've loved everything I've cooked out of two Jamie Oliver books. "The Naked Chef" and "Food Revolution". Both contain simple recipes that use fresh ingredients.
You also can't really go wrong with any book authored by Julia Child.
Jamie at Home, and Jamie's Ministry of Food (aka Food Revolution) are two of my cooking books i come back to often
jamie-at-home link
http://www.jamieoliver.com/jme/books/info/jamie-at-home/100006.html
I have found many great ideas and cooking techniques in these books:
More With Less (especially cooking for larger crowds and using bulk ingredients).
Simply in Season (great for adding seasonal variety).
I always end up referring back to the Larousse Gastronimique (I have several different editions), The Professional Chef (which is the Culinary Institute of America textbook), and Jacque Pepin's Complete Techniques. Harold McGee's On Food and Cooking is a fantastic book, but I don't find myself referring to it much when I'm actually cooking something.
If I could have only one cookbook I'd choose The Cooking Book, by Victoria Blashford-Snell. It's an extremely well elaborate illustrated hardcover guide for everyday cooks. It doesn't only contain delicious and accessible recipes greatly categorized but step-by-step guidance for techniques and, last but not least, suggestions for serving and what to do with left-overs.
From appetizers to desserts, from lunch box to elaborated party dinners. A superb book!
What I especially like about this book is that (a) it has a very neat categorized index with photographs and (b) it isn't just packed with recipes -- it has all sorts of constructive suggestions to learn to cook.
Naming those published in English:
Kitchen Confidential by Anthony Bourdain
and
Mastering the Art of French Cooking by Simone Beck, Louisette Bertholle and Julia Child
My all time favourite cook books are, in no particular order:
An Omelette and a Glass of Wine
and
French Provincial Cooking
You're welcome. I hope you enjoy it as much as I :)
Along the lines of The Joy of Cooking - you must have I Know How to Cook. It's originally in French, recently released in English.
If you can, get the older French editions before they've messed with all the recipes.
You mean, if you can speak French?
Correct, if you can find them and read them, they are the better option.
The Cook's Companion by Stephanie Alexander is considered the Australian cookbook bible.
Favorite? Probably not, but if I had to limit it to one cookbook, I'd use The Best Recipe. It's a 1000 page tome with most everything you want to know how to cook. The reason I love the book though, is their approach. For each recipe, they gather a bunch of different recipes and then make them all, figure out what they like and don't, change the recipes, make them again, etc. until they find the "best" recipe. The fascinating thing about the book is that they document all this along with the recipe, so you can figure out not just how to make a dish, but why you're doing it a certain way. That knowledge, gleaned mostly from this book, is what allowed me to step beyond following a recipe and actually start to cook and be creative in the kitchen.
Also, I would NOT get The French Laundry book. That is not a Tuesday night, throw something together kind of a book. If you want a Keller book, get Ad Hoc at Home. It is by far his most accessible book. But even that wouldn't qualify as a bible for your kitchen. Note: I'm not saying The French Laundry book isn't good, just that it doesn't meet the standard of the question.
I can't believe no one has mentioned either of these: (my kids and I are suckers for pictures)
Better Homes and Gardens New Cook
Book - great hardback / binder
style
Betty Crocker's Picture Cookbook - mix of the old-fashioned and modern
I inherited a Betty Crocker preference from a really old book given to me by my grandma, bless her soul. And, Better is a great little variety book, perhaps targeted more for beginners; the kids love looking through this one in the afternoon now and again, to help decide that great age-old question: "What's for dinner?"
The Better Homes and Gardens New Cook Book is probably my favorite cookbook ever. I started reading it when I was ten, and it was my "cooking teacher". Once I got started cooking, I used it less and less, but it's still one of my reference books. I consult it from time to time for favorite recipes or ideas.
The America's Test Kitchen Family Cookbook
This is by far our favorite cookbook. Not only do they try dozens of variations of every recipe to find the best, they explain why it is the best. They have tons of advice on what can and can't be substituted, why ingredients are the most important, and have prepare ahead instructions. this is a great cookbook and we have bout it for many friends.
I keep on bouncing back to the original Naked Chef.
River Cottage Everyday
Best Recipes: From the backs of Boxes, Bottles, Cans, and Jars. It's just what it sounds like -- recipes from packaging.
Ad hoc at home and the French Laundry by Thomas keller is the book I stick with
anything by the CIA
I know not everyone grills, but I love How to Grill by Steve Raichlen. It has lots of recipes each showing a different technique.
I also like Mexican Every Day by Rick Bayless. It has several simple and flavorful recipes.
If you are just looking for a good source for recipies then Leith's Cookery Bible is probably one of the best sources. It covers almost every cuisine type, has over 1400 recipies and is simply written as a cook book. Well recommended.
The Williams-Sonoma Cookbook: The Essential Recipe Collection for Today's Home Cook
Seriously one of the best cookbooks I've ever used. I almost always turn to it when I'm hosting a dinner party. The recipes are amazing and cover a very broad base - from cooking the "Perfect fried eggs" to "Beef bourguignon".
We bought it a two-pack with:
The Williams-Sonoma Baking Book: Essential Recipes for Today's Home Baker
Which is also the best baking book I've ever used - hands down.
I used to have access to a large collection of their single topic books. Gorgeous pictures, informative information, lovely food.
Rebar: Modern Food Cookbook
The best vegetarian cookbook my wife and I have ever seen. We've made over 40 recipes from this book and are impressed every single time.
From Three-Sisters Burritos (filled with butternut squish, pinto beans & cilantro) to Audrey's deluxe Mac & Cheese (with pine nut crust) this book is a winner!
Essentials of Cooking By J. Peterson
I have the french version, named 'L'ABC de l'art Culinaire'
It explains all the basic stuff, as how to cut vegetables, clean fish, poultry and the different cooking techniques, goes quite advanced sometimes as how to smoke your salmon etc...
It's not a recipe book, there are some, but it learns you so much more!
i'm a pesco-ovo-vegetarian (no dairy; eggs and fish are okay)
I keep turning to isa chandra moskowitz's cookbooks:
vegan with a vengeance
veganomicon
vegan brunch
plus:
vegetarian cooking for everyone: by deborah madison
how to cook everything : by mark bittman
The Guardian just put out a list of the "top 50 best cookbooks of all time". They'll soon add the final 10, but the first 40 are there now.
The Boston Cooking-School Cookbook, aka. The Fannie Farmer Cookbook, but about the only time I check a cookbook is for baking, so this one comes out each year for christmas cookies, and when I feel like making bread.
Years ago I read How to Cook Without a Book, and I tend to be like @Fredrik, and check Google pretty often, although I also have a collection well over 100 cookbooks that I've gotten over the years. (I volunteer at my library processing donated books for sale, so I get the opportunity to snag anything interesting for $1; plus my grandmother's collection from when she moved into a nursing home, and I browse used book stores when I travel)
Real Fast Food by Nigel Slater.
It has a great section on building a pantry of items that will let you make a variety of quick, delicious meals. Then, of course, it goes on to give you recipes for some such things. I've given this one as a present multiple times.
Joy of Cooking has almost everything in it, at least my edition from the early 70s does, pickles, smoking, spices, canning, freezing, oh yeah, and cooking, lots of cooking. Mine is now held together with a large rubber band, love it!
Out of all the cook books, the one I keep coming back to is the book my mum bought me when I got married 20 years ago.
The book is Leith's Cookery Bible, and I like it because it covers a good sampling of different cuisines, recipes and cooking styles. There are a ton of basic recipes that you will make time and time again.
A cheaper version exists here and here (if you are in the UK).
I agree with a number of the suggestions here, but I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Starting With Ingredients yet - it's a wonderful book for folks like me who find something particularly interesting at market, take it home, and then try and decide what to do with it. And while it's not a cookbook, I'm a big fan of The Flavor Bible as both sanity check and inspiration for various bits of improvisation ('hmmm, I'm going to be doing something with this. What are the core flavors to go with? Oooh, that'll work...')
The cookbook I use more than any other is The Cook's Companion, which is a distinctly Australian book (covers ingredients found and grown here, etc) but there's no reason why it wouldn't be useful elsewhere in the world.
As far as baking biscuits and cakes goes, there's no way I can go past the Country Women's Association (CWA) cookbook. Again an Australian creation, and it can't be found on Amazon, but it's the tome of English-style baking in Australia.
Penguin Cordon Bleu Cookery is the one cookbook I would take with me to a desert island. Ok, maybe a desert island with a good organic greengrocer and butchers...
Perfect to find out exactly how to cook whatever classically; I seldom follow it to the letter, but always check it to find out the important basics.
Vegan Cupcakes Take Over the World. I use this book so often, the pages are coming loose from the binding. (What ever happened to lay-flat bindings, anyway?)
I know numerous non-vegans (myself included) who really like the cupcakes out of this book.
I always seem to come back to the cookbooks written by Giada de Laurentiis. Giada's Family Dinners has a lot of my family's favorite recipes.
For Italian food my Italian copy of Science in the Kitchen and the Art of Eating Well is my first port of call; the Granddaddy of Italian cuisine.
I really like How to Cook Everything by. Mark Bittman
this is a huge and amazing book that is really like an encyclopedia CIA's Professional Chef
The Silver Spoon
My favorite cookbook of all time and the one I've been returning to for a decade is Extending The Table.
The compilation books by Books for Cooks. Books for Cooks is a London based cook book store, with test kitchen. Every so often they publish a book with the best recipes to date, and they are all amazing.
Molto Italiano by Mario Batali is the one I keep coming back to. It's recipes are easy to follow and are relatively basic, but if you find decent to good ingredients, the food turns out great. I have loved just about every recipe I have tried in the book, although the baked ziti and the fettuccine Alfredo were probably the best tasting.
For South-East Asian food, Cradle of Flavor by James Oseland, is best book out there. It has a description of all the non-traditional ingredients, including tips on how to find them in the US. He even includes the Thai name for Pandan leaves, since they tend to be easier to find frozen, from a Thai manufacturer. The beef rendang recipe is amazingly close the versions I've had in Jakarta.
The New Best Recipe (America's Test
Kitchen)
How to Cook Everything
The Balthazar Cookbook
The Silver Spoon
660 Curries Ad Hoc at Home
Since I've just started to learn how to cook I've found Cooking Simply Everything pretty useful. The main focus of the book is to teach you the best way to cook individual pieces e.g the different ways to cook carrots. There's a couple of recipes thrown in there too.
The one we always come back to is a (german) baking book:
Roland Gööcks großes Backbuch
It's a hardback issue from 1976, has been out of print for a long time, and by now it's so worn-out that we've got to get another one.
Due to my roots I keep coming back to the Cape Malay Cookery Book. It was at one point the most shoplifted book in South Africa. It contains most of the dishes my mother used to make for me when I was young and now I want to create them for myself.
White Heat (Marco Pierre White) is half autobiography and half recipie book which keeps me coming back.
Gorgeous Desserts by Annie Bell is my goto book for when Im entertaining and need a dessert - the pictures alone are wonderful.
Bill Granger's series of books are great, in my opinion. His recipes are easy, fresh and tasty.
The Way to Cook by Julia Child is a great basic reference, and I use it all the time for that "how do I make a..." question. I don't use it much for recipes anymore, but when I can't remember the proportions for flour and fat in a roux, I go here first.
I have found that my new favorite "Go to" cookbook is"
The Complete Book of Gluten-Free Cooking.
We are not gluten intolerant, but it has some of the tastiest recipes in it that I have made in a long time!
The "ginger tea series" by James Barber:
Ginger Tea Makes Friends
Flash in the Pan
Fear of Frying
These are three tiny cookbooks of simple, throw-it-together with what you have, recipes. Each recipe is illustrated in a one-page hand-drawn comic and they include entertaining and helpful tips (like which parts of the recipe you can go take a bath during). They consistently make yummy, fuss-free meals.
Have to agree with @Fredrik about Google. I would add YouTube for technique, especially when you are trying something totally new. Seeing a video of someone doing it is worth 1000 recipes.
Now for books, aside from the already mentioned reference books like Joy of Cooking, The Art of French Cooking, The Silver Spoon (I use the Italian version!), and Boston Cooking-School Cookbook I would throw in a couple of non-reference books that continually draw me back.
The The Greens Cookbook, really way ahead of it's time and a perfect balance of complimentary flavors in every recipe. Deborah Madison is a true master who understands food on a very deep level. Many of my favorite recipes come from this book and I have been using it for over 20 years.
Sundays at Moosewood Restaurant because it's like travelling around the world from your kitchen. Recipes from the heritage of many of the cooks at Moosewoods Restaurant. Actually learned to cook several new cuisines from this gem. Even wowed my Ethiopian friends. Another heavily bookmarked recipe book.
Ignore the fact that they are both vegetarian cookbooks. They are great cookbooks in their own right.
All books about molecular gastronomy from french scientist Hervé This.
I have many favorites, but the Victory Garden Cookbook is among those I use most often. It has chapters for each of the most commonly grown vegetables, with tips on storage and preparation, and a variety of recipes.
For vegetarians, Mark Bittman's How to Cook Everything Vegetarian is an excellent all-around book I always come back to
Mine is the Conran Cookbook - I must have/have had over 100 cookbooks, but this is the one that I've used most over the years, and has the most flour and sauce on it's pages.
Only maybe half the book is recipes, the rest covers things like equipment, basic techniques, identifying good ingredients, cuts of meat, etc.
In terms of recipes, it's not a book I look at for inspiration or adventure, but it's the book that I think taught me most about cookery. The recipes work, and don't seem to gloss over things - I suspect because the book dates from a time when most British cookbooks were pedagogic.
Recently, the one that has had the most use - Snowflakes & Schnapps - a book of Northern European cookery (Scandinavia, Germany, Baltic states and Bohemia).
Like other folks have mentioned multiple times, I'm partial to The Joy of Cooking.
I've also had good success using cookbooks from the Silver Palate:
Silver Palate Cookbook
Silver Palate Good Times Cookbook
The New Basics Cookbook
I'm showing my roots here, but the cookbook I refer to the most is Az Ínyesmester Nagy Szakacskönyve by Magyar Elek. Horváth Ilona: Szakácskönyv is a close second.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.973824
| 2010-07-10T04:14:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/396",
"authors": [
"0xC0000022L",
"AIB",
"Aaronut",
"Adam S",
"Albert Renshaw",
"Alberto Zaccagni",
"AlexC",
"Allison",
"Andre Holzner",
"Andrew",
"Andriy Drozdyuk",
"Angelo",
"Ashish Sadhwani",
"Ashley Williams",
"Bangkok Personal Shopper",
"Benny Jobigan",
"BobMcGee",
"Bobby",
"Boetsj",
"Brian Clozel",
"Carey Gregory",
"Carl Bergquist",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Christian Hang-Hicks",
"Christopher Chase",
"Collin",
"Cristián Romo",
"D W",
"DMA57361",
"Dan Herbert",
"Daniel Bingham",
"Dave G",
"Dennis Williamson",
"Drake",
"Ether",
"FerranB",
"Georg Schölly",
"George",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"Hath",
"House",
"James",
"Jared Updike",
"Jeff Yates",
"Jeremy French",
"Jesse Weigert",
"Joe",
"Joel in Gö",
"Johannes Setiabudi",
"Jonathan Leete",
"JoweeB",
"Justin Abrahms",
"Kaadzia",
"Kalyan Maddu",
"Korneel Bouman",
"Kredns",
"Lars Andren",
"LeafGlowPath",
"Luke",
"Macromika",
"Martyn",
"Mathias Bynens",
"Matt McMinn",
"McN",
"MicTech",
"Miles Erickson",
"Minderella Grace",
"Mohit Jain",
"Nathan Koop",
"NicJ",
"NickAldwin",
"Nithu",
"Noman_1",
"Paul Lammertsma",
"Paul Weber",
"Peach",
"Pulse",
"Recep",
"Richard",
"Rihan Meij",
"Rob",
"Robert Hui",
"RolandTumble",
"Rox",
"Ruben Steins",
"Ryan Olson",
"Stephanie",
"Synox",
"Taeraresh",
"Tara",
"Thekrazypig",
"Tim Kennedy",
"Tim Sullivan",
"Tom Kerkhove",
"Tom Smilack",
"Topenda",
"True Soft",
"Vicky",
"Vivi",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"YO MOMA",
"Zoredache",
"ahsteele",
"alex",
"ase",
"avpaderno",
"bdhar",
"boxed-dinners",
"bradenkeith",
"calvinf",
"cambraca",
"cd1",
"dave thieben",
"david",
"diabolik",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"eeijlar",
"fbomb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2820",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9773",
"iamtoc",
"infrared",
"justkt",
"konamiwa",
"kubi",
"lardymonkey",
"lomaxx",
"louiser89",
"m0j0",
"mohlsen",
"mootinator",
"rbrayb",
"rem",
"sElanthiraiyan",
"s_hewitt",
"schulz",
"steve",
"user2215",
"user2289",
"user2767",
"westy"
],
"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
}
|
11385
|
Salted butter in toffee
What effects would using salted butter instead of unsalted butter have on a toffee recipe?
I'm using the basic
Equal parts butter and sugar
Heat to soft crack (285 F)
Poor into flat cooking sheet or something similar to cool
Besides the obvious - your toffee will have more salt in it? Salted butter also contains more water than unsalted butter, and varies more on both salt and moisture content on a brand-by-brand basis than unsalted butter. A higher percent of water means less fat, so after the water cooks out, your ratio of fat to sugar will be off somewhat.
Great! That bit about the fat to sugar ratio is exactly what I was looking for. Thanks!
AFAIK salted butter has typically 1 to 1.5 percent less fat than unsalted butter, not more water. The salt mostly displaces fat in the manufacturing process. Butter is typically a product with more than 80% dairy fat. If the manufacturer goes to 1% salt (400mg sodium per 100g) it has ~0.8% less fat. No much to worry about
I think that you guys should go and comment in http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13782/what-different-uses-do-we-assign-to-salted-butter-vs-unsalted-butter as none of the answers mention anything about the water/fat content of the butter
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.976897
| 2011-01-23T17:13:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11385",
"authors": [
"AntonioMO",
"Porcupine",
"SpringvilleBeef",
"TFD",
"erik",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57528",
"rodi",
"squillman",
"tracy"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19884
|
Stirring butter toffee mixture while cooking
When making toffee (equal parts sugar and butter, half-pinch of salt, water, vanilla) is it necessary to continually stir the mixture after it comes to a boil and the sugar has completely mixed in with the butter?
If it is not necessary, is it also not recommended? Or does it matter one way or the other?
I'm not sure it matters that much. In melting sugar for various candies, the reason for not stirring is so that you don't inadvertently cause the sugar to recrystalize. For toffee, that isn't a concern. I'd stir it at least enough to ensure it won't scorch, and not worry about it otherwise.
I tried it both ways and came to the same conclusion. Thanks!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.977063
| 2011-12-22T05:16:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19884",
"authors": [
"Digityogi",
"Sarita Graham",
"copper.hat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57525",
"squillman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7498
|
Do I have to discard leftover sushi?
We had a party Monday night and ordered Sushi for 20 people - about 25 percent of the Sushi went uneaten, mostly plain rolls like tuna and yellow tail. I would hate to throw out 10+ rolls - any suggestions?
I had the same problem last month... I was so sad while throwing away all that yummyness...
A friend of mine lived in rural Japan for some time. He said that whenever a Japanese family would host a dinner party, they would often order a 200+ piece sushi platter and there would always be leftovers. He said that the common practice was to leave the leftover sushi on the kitchen counter overnight---unrefrigerated---and eat it the next morning for breakfast. I'm not recommending you do that, but at least that's what a portion of the Japanese do!
I realize this is quite an old post, but I think this needs to be stated based on the posters suggesting to "use your nose": While it is true that fresh fish should have no "fishy" or "off" odors, your nose is NOT a food safety indicator. Plenty of food, sushi included, can smell fine and be simultaneously incubating bacteria that can make you sick. Smell is NOT a reliable indicator of food safety! That is why we have to recommend the consideration of time and temperature.
I'm assuming these rolls contain raw fish. If that's the case I'd urge you not to eat them raw the following day. It might be safest to just throw it out, but you could try deep frying them in a light tempura batter. Just a few minutes should be enough to cook the fish.
mmm this sounds delicious.
As hobodave points out, you'll need to cook the fish, because the leftovers won't be safe to eat raw. While deep frying sounds tasty, I'd be concerned that the cooking time would be too short to kill much bacteria. Perhaps you could layer them in a casserole dish, maybe throw some more rice, sesame seeds, sauce(s) on top, and bake until browned as an asian casserole of sorts.
Be smart, though, and if they've been out of the fridge for a long time, or if they smell strongly, just toss 'em.
First a red flag on the raw fish here. That said, some shops keep the sushi refrigerated for a couple of days before selling it. It's not what I prefer, but it is still edible. If you kept it out on a buffet for a couple of hours then I'd say you're going to have to say goodbye to the rolls.
If you're willing to take them apart you could go for a stir fry solution. Let's say a fishy variation on this recipe.
Before proceeding, consider carefully where the rolls have been and use your nose.
chop up your left over raw fish into tiny pieces and mix well with finely sliced green spring onion, tiny bit of soy sauce and sesame oil. Top your rice with it and enjoy!
Using refrigerated leftover raw fish for the next day has never been an issue for me. You have to be sure of the quality of your fish when you buy it though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.977177
| 2010-09-21T17:00:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7498",
"authors": [
"Chris",
"ESultanik",
"Julie-Anne Whitson",
"Lasse",
"OmegaJunior",
"Sandra ",
"SandyToes",
"dolma33",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6000",
"martin jakubik",
"moscafj",
"rina",
"travis taylor"
],
"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
}
|
1572
|
Flaky pie crust for sweet fruit pie: butter, shortening, lard, or combination?
I specify sweet fruit here because I think there would different good answers for a savory or a custard based pie.
What's "shortening"? Is that another name for margarines?
Hydrogenated vegetable oil. Similar to margerine, but without the flavoring and the color.
@Rowland shortening is a key ingredients to a lot of old time cooking methods / recipes. In some recipes, butter and margarine is not a substitute for shortening, rather pig fat is
Sounds like the closest equivalent term in the UK would be a "hard margarine"
Wikipedia points to "Cookeen" as a UK brand of shortening. The product page simply refers to it as "solid vegetable oil"...
It actually depends on the quality of the shortening you're able to get. You might think they're all the same, but you'd be wrong.
When I was taught how to make pies, we used shortening, and the crusts were perfect. However, I was told that for home baking, the shortening you buy in supermarkets (Crisco, normally) just isn't going to cut it and to use Tenderflake (lard) instead. I actually verified this once and found out that he was right - using the exact same technique, the supermarket shortening just didn't turn out the way the "industrial" shortening did. The crust is always too mealy and dry and tastes "off" somehow. Unless a lot has changed in the past 5 years, lard is actually much closer to the good shortening that's being used in bakeries.
Butter would, obviously, impart a much richer flavour than shortening, but I wouldn't use just butter in a fruit pie. You won't get anywhere near the flakiness of shortening or lard. Half-and-half is a decent compromise, but the result is neither as flavourful nor as flaky as lard.
So, generally, I would stick to lard. You could take plor's suggestion and mix it with some butter, but I've found that the flavour and texture is very good with just lard; if you do decide to mix, be careful not to overdo it, otherwise you'll lose all the wonderful flakiness that the lard imparts (I'd recommend 75% lard).
Don't mix lard with shortening. That can only take away from all aspects of the quality, and unless you're worried about nutrition (in which case, why are you using lard at all, or eating pie for that matter?) then there's absolutely no reason to "taint" the lard this way.
P.S. Don't forget to add some sugar. A little goes a long way in pie crusts.
This. A lot of crust texture comes down to mixing technique - I've actually managed to get a half-decent crust using only olive oil for fat via careful freezing and mixing... But unless you're looking to spend serious time putting the stuff together, lard is the way to go - I've never found anything else as forgiving and easy to work with, or as tasty...
I typically use lard and then brush with a little butter afterward. Still flaky, but buttery too!
I've always tended to use butter in pastry, be it sweet or savoury. The trick in making it flaky is to minimise how much you work the dough, and trying to keep the fat from melting. A food processor is ideal for this, as you can pulse it to quickly combine the flour and fat.
You can also add icing sugar to a sweet pastry, which I've found can make a crispier pastry, and will hold a wet filling much better (when blind-baked)
I actually use about 2 parts lard (or shortening if you can't get lard) and one part butter. That way it is flaky but still gets some of the buttery flavor.
Lard makes flakier crusts, but I think that butter makes better crust because it imparts more flavor.
Like Rowland said: use butter, and don't push it around too much. If you don't have a food processor the old way to try to stop the butter melting was to dip your hands in cold water (then dry them) first...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.977568
| 2010-07-17T23:19:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1572",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Francisco Noriega",
"Josh",
"Rowland Shaw",
"Shog9",
"dassouki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87",
"rfusca",
"thehiatus"
],
"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
}
|
7444
|
When should I use convection when baking?
I think I understand what convection does, and (some) of the benefits, such as eliminating hot/cold spots, and being more efficient overall. Does this mean that I should always take advantage of it? If not, which circumstances are better for convection, and which are better for regular bake/broil?
In other words, you want to know whether to have the courage of your convections?
@bmargulis: boo!
Related question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19435/fan-bake-vs-bake
@bmargulies your pun needs to be out of circulation ASAP or some moderator with no sense of humor may cook your goose.
We have a convection oven and almost always use it. I can't remember the last time we didn't use convection. Our model automatically decreases the temperature, so if you set it for 300, then it will heat to 275. Not sure if that is a magic 25 degree number, but it seems to work. Almost all recipes cook time wise as they would with a non-convection oven. Our also has a single and multi-rack mode, and it circulates the air differently in that case. We have NEVER had any problems with the food drying out more with the air circulation as they say that is a common negative.
I am sure the effectiveness varies oven to oven, but in our case, we always use it (except for broiling of course).
In addition: Convection ovens tend to heat more evenly. As they cycle air they speed up the equilibrium therefore removing cold-spots in the oven. With some ovens you may have to rotate the food to get and even browning, however with convection this is less of a worry.
Anytime you're in a rush, the convection oven's a big help.
Wikipedia had this to say:
By moving fast hot air past the food,
convection ovens can operate at a
lower temperature than a standard
conventional oven and yet cook food
more quickly. The air circulation, or
convection, tends to eliminate "hot
spots" and thus food may bake more
evenly.
A convection oven will have a
reduction in cooking temperature,
compared to a conventional oven. This
comparison will vary, depending on
factors including, for example, how
much food is being cooked at once or
if airflow is being restricted by
using an over sized baking
tray.[citation needed] This difference
in cooking temperature is offset by
the fact that circulating air
transfers heat more quickly than still
air of the same temperature; in order
to transfer the same amount of heat in
the same time, then, one must lower
the temperature to reduce the rate of
heat transfer to compensate.
I sometimes feel like it dries things out a little more than a traditional oven, but that may just be a function of it being easier to overcook things due to the speed.
drying out may actually be because of the airflow. As water evaporates the local humidity increases. Air circulation brings lower humidity air over the food and can take up more water, as well as picking up water molecules on the surface as it passes. It's kind of like wind burn.
When baking Toll House cookies! I just did a test from a 16 ounce bag (24 cookies) of White Chip Macadamia Nut. The first baking was was for 12 (half bag) cookies with a preheated non convection setting oven at 350. The bottom was overdone and the edges looked too dark (almost burnt). This took place in 10 minutes when the directions say cook 11 to 12 mins. The second baking was for the remaining bag of 12 cookies with a preheated convection setting (same oven) at 300 for 10 minutes. The bottom was perfect golden color and edges were perfect golden as well. A nice added small flavor was a little coconut oil brushed on cookies just before baking. This last batch of cookies cooked on convection was wonderful in looks, flavor and texture. This was my first experience using the convection mode of my oven. From now on I will always use the convection setting when baking anything. I believe the lower temperature combined with less cooking time is the main factor based on my test. Actually, I am thinking the convection mode acts as a toaster oven when set on toast, because during the convection the broil (top burners) are on at the same time as the bake (bottom burners) making it equal cooking coverage on top and bottom of cookies or anything else.
I have tried twice to bake a double-crust Blueberry pie in my convection oven with poor results both times. The crust comes out hard as a rock (homemade crust, not store bought). After the first attempt, I tried again adjusting temperature and time, but the results were still poor.
As you know, berry pies require high heat for the berries and sugar to interact and produce a filling that is firm and not watery. Since the filling is inside the crust, it has to cook too long at a high temperature for the convection oven to "not" overcook the crust.
When I make the same pie in the regular oven, it turns out perfect every time. So I have sworn off baking fruit pies in the convection oven. I also find that it dries out foods that have to cook more than 30 minutes or so.
If yours is a convection/microwave type of oven, then be sure you don't have the control set to "mix" when you make chicken wings. Microwaving meat has always been undesirable to me as it makes the meat tough and chewy. My oven has the option to cook with convection only, microwave only, or a "mix" of convection/microwave.
The convection seems to work best for me when roasting meats or baking a covered casserole (so it doesn't dry out). I doubt I'll ever attempt to bake a pie in there again. I have looked all over the Internet and can't find any good advice about how to solve the baking problem with fruit pies.
Very helpful! Thanks for sharing some convectional wisdom We don’t bake meat much so nt worth the price just to have it dehydrate things.
I made buffalo chicken wings using the convection feature and they came out tough and not crispy as experienced in non-convection cooking.
I'm actually gun shy about the convection option as a result.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.977892
| 2010-09-19T18:44:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7444",
"authors": [
"Chris Cudmore",
"Dina Taylor",
"Highly Irregular",
"Lynsey Gaskell",
"Mandy Clarke",
"Michael",
"Tesserex",
"bmargulies",
"clearlight",
"hsigrist",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98211",
"remix090378",
"tsturzl",
"user970638"
],
"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
}
|
1827
|
Do I need clarified butter to make mac-n-cheese?
Ok, someone mentioned Mac-n-Cheese. Which led me to a mornay sauce. Which requires a bechamel. Leading to roux. Dropping me on the doorstep of clarified butter. I haven't ever used or made it. Is there a reasonable way to make it? Can I make a huge batch and keep it forever? Should I even bother for a mac-n-cheese?
Clarified butter is rather simple to make. It's simply butter that has had the milk solids and water removed. It does last longer than regular butter, and can be stored for several weeks in the refrigerator. It also has a higher smoke point than regular butter, so you can use it when higher temperatures are called for without it smoking or burning.
Slowly melt your butter and let it sit for a bit to separate
Skim off the foam from the top
Gently pour the butter off of the milk solids which have settled
You'll be left with about 75% of what you started with. I'm not sure what you mean by huge batch, but I usually make about a sticks worth at a time, as needed.
A really easy way to make it can be found here, on Cooking for Engineers.
Wow, great find. That certainly seems easier than what I've been doing.
Clarified butter, also known as ghee, is wonderful. Stores in the fridge forever, has a great mouth feel, has a particular scent, and, unlike butter, doesn't burn! You should definitely try it. You can buy some the first time, so you know what you're going for, but afterwards you can make your own.
I always have some in the fridge, and use it primarily when cooking Indian food.
Ghee is clarified butter. Clarified butter is not ghee. Ghee is a browned clarified butter, the milk solids are allowed to cook and brown slightly during the clarification process. This gives ghee it's characteristic nutty flavor and scent.
No way! I've been using and making and buying ghee for twenty years and had no idea it was any different than clarified butter. (I used to make massive batches of ghee in a university kitchen called Annapurna; the chef who taught me how to do it was Indian. His ghee was strained and not brown. Also, the jars of clarified butter I buy are not brown, either, but they're labeled "ghee.") +1 for astonishing me. goes off to google ;-)
Well ghee is still yellow, it's the milk solids that are browned but these are removed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.978383
| 2010-07-18T20:19:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1827",
"authors": [
"Kristo",
"Martin Liversage",
"Muad'Dib",
"goblinbox",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"luispedro",
"user26846"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8465
|
When boiling water without any other ingredients in it, why start from cold?
A question about probably the most mundane subject in cooking: boiling water.
For cooking techniques where you drop ingredients in simmering or boiling water - such as for vegetables, pasta, many rice recipes - I have often seen the recommendation that you start by putting cold water into a pot, then bring it to a boil. Why would you not start with hot water from the tap? It's going to be quicker than heating cold water, and your water heater is going to be way more energy efficient than your stove top at heating the stuff.
In particular, is there any physical or chemical process that starting from cold water encourages or prevents from happening?
(To reiterate: in the case where you add stuff to cold water and then start heating it, there clearly is a difference with starting with hot water; this question is about the case where you drop your ingredients in pure water that's already boiling.)
Cold water boiling faster is one of those persistent myths that proves that many people are unable to think critically. Feel free to laugh at people who haven't thought it through. :-p
Have you considered performing a simple test measuring how long it takes your cold water to boil versus warm water?
I always start from hot water. But then I have a newer hot water heater that I know is free of sediment.
@ceejayoz I'm late to this party, but recall there is also the counterintuitive Mpemba effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpemba_effect), which was also ridiculed at first. I'm not claiming there's such a thing a reverse Mpemba effect, but maybe the myth persists due to misremembering which way it's supposed to go.
Re: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21471/is-hot-tap-water-safe-for-cooking?noredirect=1&lq=1 in the sidebar… never drink tanked hot water. Hot water is only potable if it comes directly through an on-demand heater directly off the mains supply.
Some people say cold water boils faster than hot water, this is false, found here and here.
One reason might be (from the first link):
"Some water heaters may introduce additional sediment into the water, giving you another reason to consider starting with cold—at least, if time is not of the essence."
I haven't read all the links, but what IS true is that if you start with boiling water and make ice out of it, you'll get ice faster than starting with cold water. But you'll get LESS ice from the boiling than the cold water - it's faster because some evaporates.
The idea that cold water boils faster than hot is total nonsense. If you try to boil cold water, it will take some time to reach the temperature of the hot water. From that point, it will take exactly the same amount of additional time to boil as the hot water would have done if you'd started with it.
@ward Sooooo not buying
@Rob Not sure what you mean, that's exactly what the answerer is saying too.
@JohnMontgomery I have GOT to quit reading these things so early in the morning.
There have been plumbing systems in which the hot water was likely to have dissolved more [toxic|unsightly|unpleasant-tasting] material from the pipe walls or joints than the cold. In particular any system that uses lead-based solder, can leach minute{*}, but detectable amounts of lead into the drinking water, and the hot water is more efficient at this.
In this case that advice amounts to "use the clean water".
{*} Really minute. Like "Use this water all you life and not suffer any ill-effects" minute. But it can be detected, and who wants to chug down a glass of lead solution...
'minute' depends on the water system. There was an issue that years ago a chemical was added to the water systems in the Washington, DC area that caused the solder to start breaking down giving off significant amounts of lead. This has resulted in the recommendation that you run the cold water for a minute before consuming it. (we have signs on every water fountain at my work). Hot water would've been stored in a tank and can't easily be flushed out like the cold water can.
My hot water tap is supplied by a combi boiler which heats the water on-demand, supplied by the same cold water source as my cold water tap. As a result, I'm confident that the water is reasonably fresh and clean. I don't use it for brewing tea or coffee, but I'm happy to boil vegetables and rice in it. It saves a couple of minutes bringing the water to the boil.
My parents' hot tap is supplied from an insulated immersion heater tank. The same water can sit in there for days, and it may heat and cool several times in that period. It is supplied by a header cistern in the attic. Last time I looked at the header cistern, there was a crop of dead flies floating on the surface, and some unidentifiable gunge settled at the bottom. This hot water is suitable for bathing and cleaning; it's not suitable for cooking.
If you don't know the details of your plumbing, and you're not sure it's safe, don't cook with water from your hot tap.
Vegetables and rice? You are supposed to put grains in cold water and bring to boil slowly, because they profit from the soak. I can understand starting with hot clean water for recipes where you add the ingredients to boiling water, like pasta and short-cooking veggies, but not for rice.
My basmati recipe is 1 part rice, 2 parts boiling water, salt, simmer covered for 10-12 minutes until absorbed. Brown rice might benefit from a soak though.
To explain the attic cistern -- it's a UK thing : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfHgUu_8KgA ... taller buildings in other countries frequently have water tanks on their roof-top, and those feed both hot and cold water : http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/27/nyregion/inside-citys-water-tanks-layers-of-neglect.html
There has been a lot of discussion over the years in cooking circles about whether cold water or hot water comes to a boil faster, and the people that wrote those recipes are passing on their determination on to you. There is zero functional difference between one pot of boiling water and another. Once a roiling boil has been achieved, the water will always be the exact same temperature. That is one of the reasons that we use water as a cooking medium.
Assuming the two pots of boiling water are at the same altitude, of course.
assuming pressure to close all the loopholes.
I think you need to assume the same isotopic ratios in the hydrogen and oxygen atoms, too, if you really want to close all the loopholes. (Oh, and pure water, of course.)
No, there are no different physical processes. The only thing to be wary of is that water heaters can be pretty icky places so, depending on your system, you might want to avoid drinking that water. On the other hand, if you have an electric kettle then by all means use that to heat the water: it's clean and, like your water heater, much more efficient than heating water on the stove.
The idea that cold water boils faster than hot water is complete and utter nonsense. Suppose you have a pan containing a litre of water at 40°C. That pan will take some amount of time to boil – let's say five minutes. Water has no "memory" of its past. It does not know how it got to 40°C so how it got to 40°C cannot possibly influence how long it takes to boil from that point. In other words, any litre of water at 40°C will take five minutes to boil in that pan. In particular, if you put a litre of water at 20°C in the pan and start heating it, it will take some amount of time to come to 40°C. After that, it will take the standard five minutes to boil. In other words, surprise!, cold water takes longer to boil than hot water because, first, the cold water has to be turned into hot water and then the hot water has to be boiled.
The specific heat capacity (SHC) of water is 4.184, which is a measurement of how much energy (in kilojoules) it takes to raise 1 liter of water by 1 degree celsius. Your stovetop is constantly generating heat energy and transferring it through the pot and into the water, which absorbs it and raises its temperature. Once the temperature reaches 100 degrees celsius (212f), the water begins absorbing that heat energy to convert to steam, which converts to a gas at the bottom of the pot and rises to the surface, causing boiling.
So let's say the average recipe uses 4L of water. Tapwater comes out around 4 degrees C, and your water heater has water at about 60 degrees C. In both cases, the temperature will have to be raised to 100 degrees C, and while we don't know how much heat our stove generates, we know that it will be the same.
The amount of heat required to raise an amount of water by a certain temperature can be shown with the formula:
Q = mc(T2-T1)
Where Q is the total energy required, m is the mass(4L of water = 4kg), c is the SHC of water (4.184), and T2 and T1 being the difference in temperature. So if we plug in our respective numbers:
Q = (4kg)(4.184)(100-60) = 669.44 kJ
Q = (4kg)(4.184)(100-4) = 1606.656 kJ
So as you can see, the cold water requires 2.5x more energy than the hot water. Your stove will be outputting a certain number of kilojoules per second of heat energy and once it has put in the required amount the water will reach 100 and start to boil. These numbers may vary based on different temperatures of hot and cold water, but warmer water will always boil faster.
Welcome! While this is probably correct, it's not actually addressing the question of why recipes recommend you start with cold water. You're really just explaining why hot water boils faster... which isn't the question at all. If you look at the other answers, particularly the top rated answers, you'll see a good explanation for why this is the general recommendation.
My high-school chemistry teacher claimed that hot water is inferior at storing dissolved gasses, and that hot water has probably been sitting in the plumbing system for some time, so a great deal of the dissolved oxygen gas has been expelled. On the other hand, cold water from the taps is more "fresh" and enriched with oxygen gas. Even after boiling water, the trapped gases will take some time before they escape. So if you start with cold water, whatever you're cooking with the water will become more enriched with oxygen gas than if you started with warm water.
Dissolved oxygen gas = tasty?
What foods are enhanced by dissolved oxygen? And in what way?
This is incorrect. Boiling water has almost zero dissolved gas in it so, from that point of view, it doesn't matter whether the water started hot or cold.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.978622
| 2010-10-24T16:34:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8465",
"authors": [
"Becca",
"Catija",
"David Richerby",
"Debby Petree",
"Falon Miller",
"Jackie Hawver",
"Joe",
"John Montgomery",
"Josie",
"Michael Hoffman",
"Mike Welsh",
"Penny Krueger",
"Rob",
"Tetsujin",
"Todd Trimble",
"Ward - Trying Codidact",
"Zoredache",
"ceejayoz",
"don'tburnme",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79366",
"paparazzo",
"phil",
"renegade",
"rumtscho",
"sarge_smith",
"slim",
"user17395"
],
"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
}
|
41823
|
How do I separate crackers stuck to parchment paper?
I just made sunflower seed cheddar crackers. The dough is spread all over a layer of parchment on a cookie sheet . I baked for the required time but the parchment is stuck to the bottom of the crackers. They are not fully cooled, will that make a difference?
Melted cheese will frequently stick to parchment paper that is treated with quilon (the most common coating). Many restaurants and bakeries will use more expensive silicone coated parchment, or mats like silpat, when melting cheese.
If you mean that the parchment is stuck to the bottom of the crackers, try putting the whole thing in the freezer for a while.
You might try brushing water over the back of the parchment paper, letting it sit for a while, and seeing if it will peel off better when damp.
Sometimes that will help release the sticking (although sometimes it won't), and other times it might soften the surface of your crackers enough to lose just the outermost layer to the process of getting the paper off. You might want to re-toast your crackers after, since the moisture won't help their storage.
If your crackers aren't cool when you're checking the sticking, it is better to let them finish cooling, sometimes that helps. I would suggest flipping the paper over and letting cool paper side up, to prevent moisture from accumulating where the cracker sits on the paper - the moisture itself may help, but letting moisten and dry out again may make the sticking worse.
In the future, you might want a thin layer of oil, or flour, to prevent the dough sticking to the paper while it bakes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.979435
| 2014-02-06T22:41:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41823",
"authors": [
"G Harrison Horn",
"Mami",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Tulasi Sri",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98872",
"ifiwerearichman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42413
|
Cryovac tenderloin left in trunk of my car
I unintentionally left a whole cryovac tenderloin roast in the trunk of my car for 36 hours, big mistake I know! The temperature range during that time was between 25 - 55 degress, mostly in the 35 - 45 degree range. Is it safe to eat?
Most likely not
Celsius or Fahrenheit?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.979712
| 2014-02-28T20:40:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42413",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"LanguagesNamedAfterCofee",
"Spammer",
"Todd Gatts",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99053"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42414
|
Preparing spaghetti without boiling water
I saw a commercial on televison for preparing spaghetti without boiling the noodles, just place them in water for about on hour. Can this be done?
Was it a commercial for instant noodles? They exist, but are preprocessed. Normal noodles can't work with just soaking.
This is practically a duplicate of Could rice or pasta be cooked without hot water? but I guess there might be a difference between "boiling" and "hot" water.
You can certainly cook spaghetti in water as low as 180 F.
Soaking it in cooler water will hydrate the starches if you wait long enough, but won't cook the proteins, so may not be optimal.
Sort of like eating raw, wet dough.
There are two types of noodles sold on the market, instant and normal.
If you purchased a random package of noodles, SAJ14SAJ's answer applies (although I am not sure if the 180 F is indeed enough - I have higher figures for the gelation of wheat starch in my head). There is some temperature a little bit below boiling which will work, but less than that will not end well.
If you have noodles marked as "instant noodles", they might work with just adding water. You have to follow the instructions on the package, because they might need fairly hot water too. But you can't use regular noodles that way.
Instant noodles are rare. If you are not sure what kind you bought, you probably have the ones which need cooking.
The 180 F number comes from Kenji Alt.
You need hot water. Otherwise you will have just a bunch of pasta made soft-soaked in cold water. Something I won't really eat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.979786
| 2014-02-28T21:42:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42414",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Gironda",
"Keith Pham",
"Richard",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99280",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44793
|
How can I prevent pork from becoming tough while being held at warm temperature?
I work at a nice restaurant and bar. We sometimes make pork loin roasts and gravy for our banquets. The pork is cooked to 145 degrees internally and is very tender and delicious when sliced, but as it sits in the gravy in a warmer or on the banquet line, the meat toughens up.
What causes this? Is putting it in the warmer the cause of the problem?
Could be that the warmer continues to cook the meat, making it tougher as it cooks it (but it isn't hot enough to make the collagen in it melt)
I think this is normal. I have heard of other empirical observations, for example tough sous vide despite controlling the temperature tightly.
The problem is that temperature scales assume that you stop heating the meat at this temperature. But what toughens the meat is not temperature, it is energy. Each joule you put into that meat is beating up a piece of protein, breaking up weak bonds, destroying the tightly woven kinks. It is a stochastic process which speeds up with temperature.
So, what you want to happen is that almost all actin is denatured, and almost none of the myosin is denatured. At room temperature, the energy of the average molecule part moving with heat energy is so low that only one in a gazillion actin parts and one in a kilogazillion myosin parts are breaking free per minute (I don't have the actual numbers, sorry). If you heat that up to 145, at a rate of 10 F per minute, it spends a minute in transition from 75 to 85 F, at which time a gazillionth of your actin gets cooked. The next minute, it transitions from 85 to 95 F, and maybe a thousand times more myosin gets cooked than in the last minute, as well as a thousand times more actin. Repeat that until you reach 145, and in the last minute, you are adding sufficient energy per minute to cook 99% of the myosin and 0.0001% of the actin per minute.
If you were to keep the pan on the high heat and let it get up to 155 in the next minute, this will be a minute during which you are cooking the meat at a speed of 99.9999% of the myosin and 1% of the actin per minute, for example. This doesn't matter for your myosin, because it is cooked anyway, losing its ternary structure, but the energy is not yet high enough to make it lose its secondary structure. But you get a lot more actin converted. And if you let the temperature climb for another minute, the energy in this minute will be sufficient to convert another 99.99999999% of your myosin (if it were still raw, which it isn't) and almost 100% of your actin. Now you have a shoesole steak on your hands.
This is why you are told to remove the steak from the pan when it reaches a certain temperature. It is not the reaching of the temperature which turns it, but the total amount of temperature which has gone into it since the start of heating.
In scenario two, you know enough to remove it from the pan at 145. In the next minute, while it is resting, it goes down a few degrees, and maybe another percent of your myosin is converted, but certainly not enough to get it tough. Everything is great when you serve it after maybe 10 minutes of resting.
In scenario 3, you keep it hot for a day. The temperature is high enough to not worry about food safety. Which means that there is still a significant amount of heat energy pouring into your meat per minute. It may only be cooking 0.1% of your myosin per minute (as opposed to a 5 degrees higher temperature which would be cooking the myosin at a rate of 10% per minute) but if you keep it there for 1000 minutes, you get 100% of your myosin converted, so you get a shoesole again.
This is a simplified description of what I think is happening. Again, none of the numbers denoting denaturing speed are accurate; I use them to illustrate the logic behind the physical process here, but the actual speed can be orders of magnitude off. And besides, there is more complicated stuff happening in heating meat, and more of it is still being discovered. But I think this is sufficient as an explanation of why you are getting tough meat. The "cook it to 145 F" rule is a gross oversimplification which only delivers good results if you really stop heating it then.
Do you have any sources for any of your claims? I'm aware that holding meat at a certain temperature is not analogous to holding water at a temperature, there is a certain historicity/path dependence at play, but I haven't seen any sources to corroborate these claims before and am genuinely curious about where you got your information. When do these effects dominate, in the 10/30 minute range? How long do you need to hold 125 F for a med-rare steak to become tough? With eggs, you can hold temperature almost indefinitely, and they are also masses of protein, fat, etc. (no myosin/actin though)
@Ron no, sorry. It is my best understanding of how this stuff works based on reading many different sources on both cooking and physics over the years. This is why I don't have real numbers. McGee On Food and Cooking contains a great explanation for the actin-myosin part (mostly the information from my old answer linked in the second paragraph) but not from the "what happens over days at the same temperature" part.
What about simple moisture loss? Even if it's sitting in gravy, something that concentrated could be sucking out some of the meat juices through osmosis. This probably isn't the main effect but could be contributing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.979952
| 2014-06-11T22:32:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44793",
"authors": [
"Home Accents II",
"Micah Chong",
"Rachel Turner",
"Ron",
"Tyler legenD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"logophobe",
"prithal",
"rumtscho",
"spammer",
"user19641309"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30168
|
How to add flavor to potato soup (using minimally processed ingredients)?
I've made my first potato soup and it has no taste.
Just to get an idea this is how I made it: chopped and onion and a carrot and place them with some oil to fry. After the onion got brown, I added the potatoes, water and salt and kept it cooking until the potatoes were done.
It tastes like ... just... boiled water.
How do I salvage the soup, preferably using minimally processed ingredients (for example, avoiding MSG)?
I am sorry, but what counts as a chemical? Water is H2O, plain old salt is NaCL. The hot flavor in peppers is called capiscum oil and is a chemical. Soup normally is not started from a water base, but from a stock of some kind, whether chicken or shellfish, or even vegetable.
As SAJ14SAJ says using water as a base for a soup made with a bland ingredient like potatoes is not the best course of action. How much salt did you add? I would just guess you've not seasoned it enough.
Edited to remove reference to chemicals, substituting the best reasonable alternative I could come up with ("minimally processed ingredients") so that the question would not need to be closed. I feel there is a legitimate underlying question here.
"Traditional ingredients" is probably another reasonable way to ask this - the kinds of things that you've always been cooking with and tend to be able to buy at arbitrary grocery stores. You can also just not bother being that specific. This isn't the kind of community where people are going to say "msg and synthetic bacon powder, no other options"; you'll always get real answers like the ones below.
Some ingredients I like to include in potato soup:
Cooked, chopped bacon
Corn
Shredded cheddar (or similarly medium
strong cheese)
Cabbage or broccoli
Any combination or all of the above can be added to potato soup. The cheese, in particular will add an overall creamy flavor and texture.
(If you weren't concerned with the MSG and/or sodium, I'd suggest a couple of chicken boullion cubes, too.)
First, cook your potatoes in stock, not water. I prefer chicken stock but you can use vegetable stock if you prefer. Make sure you use only enough stock to barely cover the potatoes, and cook them with the lid off. When the potatoes are done, add milk or cream until you achieve a nice, creamy consistency. If necessary, you can thicken it by mashing some of the potatoes against the side of the pan. You can also add some grated cheese. I would use a hard cheese like Parmigiano or Romano. Now just season to taste. With a simple soup like potato, I would stick to salt and pepper only. If you do use other spices, be careful because they will easily overwhelm the delicate flavor.
Seems to me that, aside from telling you to add ingredients (I am going to assume that you added salt prior to adding water to help sweat the ingredients), you may be missing the step of fully preparing your stock. While browning your onions will have been effective; did you just add the carrots along with the water, did you give them an opportunity to sweat and brown as well?
Some considerations:
Be sure that you allow the onions to fully brown. This will ensure that they have expressed their fullest flavor
Be sure that your carrots are being steamed (covering the pot with a lid is very helpful) and then cooking fully to create your stock
If you added the carrots and the onions at the same time, but the onions are browning sooner than the carrots even get soft, add some water to the bottom of the pan to prevent the onions from burning, but to keep the carrots cooking (only add enough that onions float but carrots rest on bottom)
I would also add that roast the potatoes might be helpful. Also, you can alter the soup by pureeing some portion of the potatoes and adding it back to the pot.
In terms of a few additional ingredients: toasted sesame oil, fennel (whole, fresh), dill (whole, fresh)
Fresh herbs like parsley, rosemary or thyme will give your soup zing.
If you are after salvaging this pot of soup rather than starting over, some possibilities
1 a sprig of rosemary and some garlic that's been fried with a slick of olive oil
2 white pepper horseradish and sour cream
3 fresh snipped fennel green with baby peas and asparagus (primavera)
I think you can cook your potatoes in water it is not a problem the question is how to make it fragrant even though you don`t have a stock base:
first put some onions, 2 garlic cloves,3 celery leaves,small chopped carrot all of them with natural butter and let them cook for 5 minutes till they turn translucent take them to the mixer and ground then finely put them back in the pot and put 3 cups of water let them simmer for 5 minutes in another pan fry your potatoes just a little bit then add them to the simmering vegetable stock when the potatoes are 75% take them all to the mixer again and mix them then return back again to the pot here you can add cream or cheddar cheese add your black or white pepper and salt if you want an oriental flavor add 1/2 tb of cumin
The answers above are best if you're starting from scratch, but if you want to salvage this pot of soup a stock (or bouillon) cube or powder is your best bet. It's processed but it should work.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.980396
| 2013-01-17T17:36:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30168",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Charlotte Saine",
"Dave",
"DevKhokhar",
"Donbhupi",
"L Price",
"Maggy",
"Marosh Fatima",
"Roshan Hill",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sam Dugger",
"Skalár Wag",
"Stefano",
"Steven Rugg",
"Steven Z",
"Tommy Jackson",
"User that hates AI",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"s6xi",
"universalhandle"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30869
|
Substitute Quinoa Flour to All-Purpose Flour
If the recipe calls for 1 cup All Purpose Flour, how many cups of Quinoa flour should I use to completely replace All-Purpose flour?
Can you elaborate what you are trying to make? You can't directly substitute quinoa flour for all purpose flour for many recipes.
This question cannot be answered in the general case. Wheat flour is very complex, with aspects of its behavior in recipes deriving from both its starch content, and from its unique protein content which forms gluten. To get some sort of reasonable answer on how to make substitutions, you will need to provide context of what kind of recipe, and what constraints you have for how to do the substitution. It is rare that a single alternate product will completely replace wheat flour. Often, you are better off finding recipes designed for your product of choice.
Further to other comments, a huge number of flour-based recipes - quite possibly the majority of them - rely specifically on gluten, which won't form at all with quinoa flour, so there is no correct substitution. It is certainly possible to make (or approximate) many of these dishes with non-wheat flours, or even totally gluten-free, but rarely with straight substitutions; typically these involve a number of other changes to the recipe.
If you want to replace 100% of gluten containing flour in a recipe, you will probably need to vary the amounts of the other ingredients, the cooking time and the cooking temperature. It doesn’t behave the same as gluten containing flours in the oven.
Every recipe is different, but some very general rules of thumb are (for which there are probably just as many exceptions – I know, it's so annoying. But look on the bright side: Grain and gluten free living will certainly keep your creative side ticking):
Reduce the cooking time
Reduce the cooking temperature
Increase the amount of moisture in the recipe
Increase or add more binding agent (such as eggs). The lack of gluten can mean the final result doesn’t hold together as well. This rule is the least likely to be true, but it’s worth keeping in mind if your results are less than amazing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.980864
| 2013-02-12T22:03:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30869",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ian E.R. Little",
"Jay",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Shirley Darby",
"foodlover",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"tomahh"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30871
|
If the recipe says simmer beans for 3 hours, can I just turn up the heat and cook faster?
I just got home from work, and tonight is my night to cook. Unfortunately, I just realized this recipe for Mexican beans says I should simmer the beans for 3 hours. I'm too hungry for that, but I really want to eat these.
Would be okay to skip the simmering? Or is there something else I can do to produce the desired effected?
Water boils at 100C. Making it boil harder won't make it hotter.
You probably want to just use already-cooked beans, from a can. (Hope there's a store nearby.) Then you just have to cook as long as it takes to let the flavors mingle; half an hour is plenty.
If you happen to have a pressure cooker, you can cook dried beans much faster, something like 20-30 minutes. See for example this recipe - you can add back in whatever seasonings you like from your recipe.
But otherwise, there's no way to speed up cooking dried beans - boiling water doesn't get any hotter than 100C, and it just takes time for them to slowly soak up water and cook through.
Again, we post about the same thing at the same time :-)
If you have a pressure cooker, you can shorten the time to cook the beans by using it. You will find many recipes and articles by googling "beans pressure cooker", such as this recipe posted on Serious Eats for refried beans, or this recipe for Boston Baked Beans, again courtesy of Serious Eats.
However, without a pressure cooker, you cannot increase the temperature of the cooking beans past the boiling point of water, so they will require a certain amount of time to cook.
in fact cooking at a boil rather than low low simmer takes longer imo for beans to get nicely tender -toughens them up then they burst on me
Any chick peas I have cooked after soaking seem to get soft enough in about 20 minutes of simmering after bringing to the boil. Any longer and they are mush! Cooking for over and hour seems crazy!?
These are beans, and cooking for over an hour is not crazy.
Especially as the recipe doesn't say to soak them first (that's the crazy part.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.981079
| 2013-02-12T23:15:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30871",
"authors": [
"Jay koski",
"Lorel C.",
"Pat Sommer",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SF.",
"Working Title",
"cody",
"grumpster3",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72265",
"jim",
"rumtscho",
"suzanne",
"user3572761",
"wintermute"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33540
|
Does a head of lettuce really need to be refrigerated?
At the grocery store here in Germany I saw that lettuce isn't refrigerated. So I brought a head home and it's been in my pantry for 3 days and it seems fine... The English speaking internet says that's not ok, I don't know what the German one says.
In my experience, different varieties of lettuce have wildly different behaviour in this respect: Boston lettuce is quite sensitive, whereas iceberg lettuce can withstand minor thermonuclear blasts.
It is all due to storage lifetime. Lettuce is particularly perishable, compared to many other vegetables.
You will get a considerably longer storage lifetime if it is refrigerated, rather than kept at room temperature.
According to the USDA:
Storage Conditions: Lettuce should be quickly cooled and
maintained as close to 0 °C (32 °F) as possible with 98 to 100% RH.
Head types are better adapted to prolong storage than are the other
types, but none keep longer than 4 weeks, and about half that time at
5 °C (41 °F). Film liners or individual polyethylene head wraps are
desirable for attaining high RH; however they should be perforated or
be permeable to maintain a non-injurious atmosphere and to avoid 100%
RH on removal from storage. Lettuce is easily damaged by freezing, so
all parts of the storage room must be kept above the highest freezing
point of lettuce of -0.2 °C (31.6 °F).
They follow up later in the document with this chart showing how lettuce's respiration rate increases with temperature—and of course, once harvested, the lettuce only has so many nutrients available to metabolize:
You can see at warmer temperatures, the lettuce will expire much more quickly.
Usually sellers hold the lettuce at room temperature during the hours of sale (to show to buyers) and place them in the refrigerator in the night.
But attention. The supermarkets assemble the heads under plastic films (as said), which retain moisture, and daily keep them anyway in departments "fresh." The small vendors display the salads without protection, but often spray water, to maintain the freshness of the leaves, which otherwise would wilt.
The result is the same of cut flowers placed in a jar with water.
+1, important to note that the lettuce in stores isn't actually left at room temperature for days.
Having worked in a produce store I can tell you the practice of putting produce into a refrigerator at night is far from universal... Most stores have no storage other than what you see as a shopper. However it is treated during the day is how it is treated at night, possibly with a plastic sheet to cover. They count on the stock selling fast enough for it not to matter.
@SAJ14SAJ, yes you have reason. But saying what should be done, we don't consider who does different, or maybe steals on the weight, or maybe intentionally fails to give change. We have to consider who acts correctly and honestly. I have found that a bakery close to home selling sweets in the package, where the expiry date had passed. I simply changed baker.
@violadaprile I don't think their practices are intended to deceive or harm (I want to say the aren't disingenuous, but worried about the language barrier). Most retailers, especially small ones, simply have no storage outside of the retail floor, especially not refrigerated storage in quantities large enough to move the produce stock into it at night. Think of what that would do to their rent, utility bills, and therefore the cost of produce.
Yes. In fact (here) most of selles have storages "under" retail floor with refrigeration (and yes, language barrier is an obstacle) :-). I see it almost always. And have a friend (when young we did any job) who worked 5-9 am to get legumes from storage, do package again and put them into shop. before it was opened to the public. So I so tend to think that the majority of retailers operate in this way. What is the correct one.
Of course, I have not done a specific study and statistical, but personally I've never seen operate differently.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.981304
| 2013-04-16T16:13:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33540",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Erik P.",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17832",
"violadaprile"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
83363
|
Do I need to cook smoked beef before eating?
I bought some beef from the supermarket that said "smoked beef" on the label and nothing else. It was contained in the fridge, not the freezer section. I'm not sure how to prepare this for eating. I tried making a few slices and put it in the foreman for about 5 minutes. It turned out tough after about 30 minutes after grilling.
How do I prepare this and how long can I store this in the fridge?
Please do not remove information that adds context to your question. After what you did, there's no way to answer it.
What it looks like you have there is a Pastrami. Though not a particularly 'good' one, perhaps made from Eye of Round rather than brisket. It has been brined (soaked in a salt solution) in order to preserve the meat and then smoked (most likely to an internal temperature of 175°F (80°C)). This should make the meat 'completely safe' from food borne illnesses and is good to eat either cold (which I prefer) or hot (as in a Reuben sandwich). It is typically shaved (sliced very thin).
It should be stored wrapped in a cold place (the fridge). It has a reasonable shelf life, you might check to see of there is a 'best by' date, beyond that it would be impossible to say 'how long it will last' as there are just too many unknowns.
Looks like you bought a piece of meat that is generally used to flavour stews and soup. Pop it in the slow cooker with some cut up potatoes and other vegetables and water. You can add some desired peas, beans and barley. After 6-12 hours, will make a great stew (or with extra water, a soup).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.981624
| 2017-07-29T16:35:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83363",
"authors": [
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013"
],
"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
}
|
83765
|
Irish cream liqueur
Is the protein powder used in Irish cream liquor made with seaweed and is the caramel coloring made with wheat? I have celiac disease and these answers are very important to me.
Not sure what you mean. Do you have a specific brand you're talking about? Each brand may be different.
The only way to get a reliable answer is to ask the manufacturer of the specific liquor. We can - at best - give answers that start with "Most Irish cream ..." or "Typically...". As your health depends on the answer, I suggest you ask those who must know for sure.
And if you have the answers, you may actually answer your own question (including the brand and the date) here, so that future readers might perhaps also benefit from your research! Welcome to Seasoned Advice! Have you taken the [tour] and browsed our [help] yet?
With many drinks the manufacturers don't release a full list of ingredients. If you're specifically talking about Bailey's then they don't, so you'll never know. Of course, there are many brands of cream liqueur so a full list for some might be available.
Out of curiosity, why do you think specifically that the protein powder might be made with seaweed (carageenan?) and the colouring with wheat?
Having made Irish Cream and now reviewing several recipes online just to check, including the ingredient list for the more popular brands (esp. Bailey's) I have found NONE that contain 'protein powder' (seaweed based or otherwise). The home recipes commonly omit any caramel coloring and the manufacturers provide no further details beyond "caramel coloring".
The Bailey's site does contain some allergen information, but doesn't even list wheat as a concern...read into that what you will. The do say:
If you are a person with a serious food allergy, you should consult your doctor before consuming Baileys. Your doctor can then contact us for a more detailed list of component ingredients if required.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.981767
| 2017-08-19T01:35:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83765",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Niall",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84443
|
How to dehydrate chili at home?
Chilies have different temperatures for dehydration. Does anyone knows what temperature to use for Tabasco and Habanero? And the duration of the process?
Do you own a dehydrator? or are you using an oven?
@Batman i bought a dehydrator but I usualy use an oven.
If you want to be fancy, you can make a Chilli Ristra (the string of dried chilies). I've heard that jalapeños and other thicker fleshed ones require more care (or they rot), but if you're not in a humid area, it could save a lot of effort and oven time. You'll find instructions online.
@Joe thanks!!! Thats a good Idea!!! In wich Case i use the chili ristra? In fine dining?
It has nothing to do with the type of dining ... it's fancy in that it's decorative and looks impressive if you give it as gifts. It's just a string of dried chilies that you can hang up in your kitchen (although, away from the stove or sink, so they don't re-absorb moisture).
Just remember that drying chilis in your house may stink it up something fierce. The fumes can make your eyes water, so do it at a time you can ventilate. Better yet, run the dehydrator in a garden shed or garage if you have one.
When i dry them in the oven (160° celsius) they liberate that gas. Even i lower temperatures they stink as well?
As Alton Brown teaches in an episode of Good Eats 'heat' is not the key to dehydration, but rather air flow (you can skip to about 12:00 in). What you need is the "Blow Hard 3000" (A Box fan and a stack of air filters, the cheap ones are fine). He recommended (and I have tried and was successful with a variety of meats & herbs, including pablano peppers) taking a stack (4-5) Heat and Air filters. For peppers (and many other applications) fast moving dry COOL air is better than heat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.982293
| 2017-09-15T23:33:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84443",
"authors": [
"Batman",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user54817"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86703
|
Mixing 60% and 81% dark chocolate to get 70%
I need 70% dark chocolate for a cake recipe (actually 72%, but the recipe notes that slightly lower content will be fine), also, according to the recipe, high-quality chocolate is not a must.
In my local supermarket, 70% dark chocolate was priced extremely high, and 100 grams of 60% and 100 grams of 81% chocolates (of different manufacturers) costs half the price of 200 grams of 72% chocolate.
Will mixing 60% and 81% dark chocolates (the recipe requires melting the chocolate) give me similar result to a 70% dark chocolate?
Don't forget the whole "chocolate" vs. "baking chocolate" thing too...
I think you should try it and tell us what you discovered. Ideally, you'd bake two cakes, one with the 70%, and one with the 60-81 blend, and see if there is a perceptible difference. But so much for saving money if you go that route.
Functionally, it should work out fine; but it is not an exact substitute.
Based on the fact that your recipe gives you a tolerance for both strength and quality of the chocolate I would say it is probably fine to proceed boldly with your plan to mix the two. You might try a small sample melt first (as suggested here) by mixing an equal but smaller amount to check your results first.
Will this create 72% (or even 70.5%) chocolate, actually no. There is more to chocolate than just the %cocoa. % of cocoa is just one element to the formula. The 72% 'on the shelf' almost certainly has different ratios of sugar, chocolate liquor, butter etc. Once melted these would react differently with the other elements of your recipe if that recipe were more exacting in it's requirements.
There is an interesting collection of articles on the chemistry of chocolate here, but nothing indicates that you should face any problems from an inexact match of 60+81 vs. 72
You're right that it won't be an exact substitute, but actually even a 70% may not be exactly like the thing intended by the recipe. Somewhat like with wine, dark chocolate varies a lot in taste between brands and cultivars (and years? Not sure). Such differences will generally surface much less pronounced in the final result though, unless the recipe asks for little but chocolate.
I'm not sure I see your point. Unless the recipe specified the criteria you mentioned (sugar, butter, etc) or the exact brand of chocolate, and the store carried that exact item, is there some reason you would expect the 70% available at the store to match the recipe better than a mix of 60% and 81%?
@prl, if you are trying to duplicate a recipe for which you have an exact expectation then substituting this chocolate mixture will not create the same experience, it will be 'off'. If you are (as I believe OP to be) simply following a recipe then this will be 'just fine'.
Yes, you will obtain a 70.5% chocolate, but percentage in chocolate is not the most clear thing. It indicates the percentage of ingredients derived from the cacao (cocoa) beans, but it is not always specified how much chocolate liquor, cocoa butter and cocoa solids are used.
see source
Nonetheless to use this mix in your recipe is ok, because you will have the same quantity of sugar (well, check the ingredients of the two bars you'll be using to see if they contains other things apart from cacao, cacao butter, and sugar); the actual chocolat-y-ness of the cake will depend on the exact ingredients of your bars
Now add appropriate capitalization and this would be a fine answer.
I'm sure this question is effectively answered, but on the technical side:
Stepping away from culinary expertise, math will give you an equation of 11 parts of 60% and 10 parts of 81%, to arrive at 70%. If you want 72%, then do about the opposite, making the 81% more dominant.
It's around 13 or 14 (81%) to 10 (60%), to arrive very close to 72%.
I'd expect, however, that unless a recipe is extremely delicate, (what you gave us seems to say it's not) near-equal parts of each will suffice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.982477
| 2017-12-26T12:29:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86703",
"authors": [
"Cos Callis",
"J.R.",
"Nobody",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7358",
"leftaroundabout",
"prl",
"user541686"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40181
|
What is a "Bubble Gum" flavor
There is a "flavor of bubble gum", not only for bubble gum, but also for kids toothpaste and milkshakes.
Is it possible to reproduce this taste in the kitchen?
What ingredients are required?
Are they available to consumers or are they 'commercial chemicals'?
I am tempted to close this question as "not clear what you are asking". What is your personal definition of "artificial chemicals"?
I'll ask in other words: is it possible to reproduce this taste in the kitchen?
@SergeyKirienko, welcome to "Seasoned Advice". Rather than injecting a comment you have the opportunity to "edit" your original question. (or members of the community may 'edit it for you')
Thank you for the additional info @Sergey and for the edit @Cos; I reversed my downvote.
In the US, bubblegum flavor is also commonly called tutti frutti. A search for this term will give you many recipes.
Amazon offers several "Bubble Gum Flavoring" or "Bubble Gum Extracts" in both "Natural" and "Artificial" varieties. While the manufactures don't list specific ingredients this is one recipe:
Here is my basic bubble gum recipe based on "10 parts..." the key is really in the wintergreen, cinnamon and clove. Fruits can vary a bit-but you will find this to be the "ticket."
3 parts banana flavor 3 parts pineapple flavor 2 parts wintergreen, 1
part cinnamon and 1 part clove.
As I said Bubble Gum flavor is complex and not just one or two notes.
The oldest formula included a fruit like "king fruit" or "passion
fruit" but I find most any tropical flavor will pull through.
Whether you (or various manufacturers) choose to use "natural" or "artificial" versions of these flavoring is an individual choice, but it is clearly not limited to "Just artificial chemicals".
Beware that wintergreen oil is quite poisonous: as little as a teaspoon can be fatal. The Drugs.com page on it contains the following: "The highest amount of methyl salicylate typically used in candy flavouring is 0.04%." "Because of this toxicity, official labelling requirements have been changed so that no drug product may contain more than 5% methyl salicylate."
This is slightly offtopic, but is wintergreen replaceable with anything?
Peppermint or Spearmint would provide a similar flavor profile.
@CosCallis: I would say if you substitute spearmint for wintergreen you might get something which tastes equally good (or better, even) but I would guess you won't get anything too "bubble-gummy".
There is a plant called Lippia Polystachia which has that kind of flavor, commonly sold at garden centres. Looks and handles similar to a lemon verbena.
From my perspective, the closest flavor to wintergreen is root beer. I don't think spearmint or peppermint taste anything like wintergreen.
I found this thread because I just ate a candy called "circus peanuts" which I never knew anyone to like them. It tasted like a bad peace of classic bubblegum. I can distinguish the banana flavor mixed with something like wintergreen. At least that's my impression. I will have to try a piece of bubblicious bubble yum some time and see how similar its flavoring profile is. That is the classic bubblegum flavor I grew up with. bazooka Joe was around too when I was too young to chew gum, but bubblicious really was the most popular when I was a kid.
Seems like a good answer to me.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.982800
| 2013-12-12T13:40:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40181",
"authors": [
"Allison A Smith",
"Cos Callis",
"Fattie",
"Fengrong Ye",
"Foodie Tom",
"Gary Hickman",
"IJM98",
"John Meacham",
"JoséNunoFerreira",
"Max",
"Mike M",
"Sarah",
"Sergey Kirienko",
"Sobachatina",
"alex_reader",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93377",
"myhomegrocers",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68016
|
How to keep wild turkey meat moist
What some effective techniques to ensure that wild turkey legs, wings, thighs stay moist when cooking them off for soup?
I usually simmer in lightly salted water for 3 hrs. Then I hand pick the meat and chop to size before adding it back to the broth and other ingredients. Those big old gobblers are very tough and I am looking to make the meat more tender. Am I cooking too long, not long enough?? Should I add something, or do something to better prep??
I recommend you add this additional info to your question using the edit button and add anything else you think will he helpful as well. It definitely gives us a lot more info to go off of :D And welcome!
For your simmering, the issue is going to be what temperature the water is actually at -- you want to start it in boiling water, let it return to the boil, then let the temperature of the water drop to the temperature you need to cook the turkey to for safety (I assume 165°F), and hold it 'til the turkey is cooked through.
@KenSnyder I edited 'the best way' to 'some effective techniques' as the 'the best' can be subjective where 'effective' just asks for 'things that work well'.
I would recommend using a pressure cooker. This will preserve the moisture of the bird while cooking it thoroughly with the added benefit of taking significantly less time. (45 min - 1 hour depending on the size of the bird).
I'd recommend brining or salting the meat and roasting it, then chopping it and adding it near the end of cooking for the soup. Wild turkey is difficult to say the least!
The reason for my suggestion is that I make a shortcut version of chicken and dumplings that uses a rotisserie chicken from the grocery store, with the shredded meat stirred in at the very end. Works nicely there, so adapting that to your turkey soup would just require you to roast your own turkey meat instead of cheating like I do.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.983105
| 2016-04-04T19:40:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68016",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Cos Callis",
"Joe",
"Ken Snyder",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"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
}
|
3078
|
How to make thick and fluffy pancakes?
I recently had thick and fluffy pancakes at a restaurant and I am eager to figure out how to make them.
Anyone know the secret behind getting thick and fluffy pancakes? Is it adding baking soda? Using carbonated water (does this even work?)?
Separating the eggs and whipping the egg whites before folding into the batter could assist in this. At home it's not a problem, but if it's a very busy that you had them in they're not likely to be doing this due to the fact that this will need to be done in batches.
Adding a bit of baking soda in addition to the baking powder could assist as well, but only if you're using buttermilk. If you're using regular milk the baking soda is going to create a soapy taste. In the case of buttermilk and baking soda, the primary leavening would be coming from the baking powder and then the acidity of the buttermilk would provide the reaction for the soda to give that extra "oomph". If you're using baking soda then you'll have to use the batter right away otherwise those bubble will rise to the surface and pop, releasing their CO2 to the air. Same goes with adding seltzer water...add just before cooking the pancakes.
As for replacing milk with seltzer water...this will add bubbles to the batter but having less fat in the batter (presuming you're using whole milk) will increase the gluten development. If you're using low-fat or nonfat buttermilk or regular milk it may not be as much of a difference. The benefit of buttermilk (besides flavor) is the acidity that it provides. Acidic doughs don't allow gluten to develop as easily and therefore create a more tender texture.
Overmixing pancake batter is a MAJOR issue with most people. Make a well in the center of the dry ingredients, add the liquid ingredients which have already been beaten together and then carefuly fold just until combined so there aren't major pockets of dry ingredients but by no means should the batter be smooth. Mixing to a smooth consistency will develop gluten and create tough pancakes. A few lumps are fine as they will hydrate upon sitting.
If you're not using baking soda and seltzer water you can improve tenderness by letting your pancake batter sit after mixing for 30-60 minutes. This is the idea behind chilling pastry crusts. It not only allows gluten to relax but mainly it allows the starch granules of the flour to absorb moisture, hydrate, and expand (bloom). This is could likely be part of what contributed to the pancakes you enjoyed at the restaurant. If it's a very busy place, most likely they produce their pancake batter in large batches a day ahead for the next day's service. This extended resting time would allow for maximum hydration of the starch which will make a thicker batter. The thicker the batter the less spread you'll have on the griddle. Obviously this provides limitations if you wake up with an appetite for pancakes!
If this:
[image was removed due to it being a scam image]
Is what you are looking for, (we call them Толстые блинчики or fat pancakes) then baking soda is used. We also separate the yolks and mix them with sugar, vanilla, cinnamon, cream and flour. The whites are whipped separately and folded into the mixture.
Image is broken.
Adding a little bit of carbonated water will definitely help make your pancakes fluffier. The goal hear is to create little bubbles in the pancake, so they are literally "airy". I've read from sources that you have to let the batter sit for 5 minutes before beginning to cook. Besides for that, one of the biggest mistakes that everyone seems to mention is: don't overmix the batter. Most people (myself included) think you need to work out all the lumps. The goal is just barely mix the ingredients together enough.
It is also helpful to have your batter be on the thicker side, because it gives it more chance to inflate up before it spreads out on the griddle.
Skip the baking powder and seltzer, and move up to yeast based pancakes.
The batter takes 90 min or so to prepare, but your cakes come out all thick bubbly and tasty.
With a set of crumpet rings, I made my own, you can cook pancake-like-objects over one inch thick. Syrup and butter do them well, but they absolutely rule in a big saucer of home made onion soup.
Look up "Yeast Pancakes" and "Crumpet Recipe"
You can use strong bread flour to make thick cakes, or use cheap flour, and add a 1/4 cup of powdered gluten (dough enhancer) to give it some strength.
using half and half water and milk also makes them less heavy, especially if you're using whole wheat flour or oats.
I don't believe that things like baking soda, buttermilk, etc. are "the secret". You can make both thick and thin pancakes with them. The thickness in thick pancakes is not up to leavening; there is only so much leavening you can achieve with any combination of baking soda and baking powder. Adding whipped egg whites works like it does in a souffle - the pancakes can get somewhat higher in the pan, but will fall a bit when they cool. You still should use whipped eggwhites, but they are not sufficient on its own.
What you need is a recipe that produces a thicker batter. Then it doesn't flow much and stays piled enough for a thick pancake.
This leads to the next problem, which is underdone pancakes on the inside. To avoid it and still have thick pancakes you have to:
use the whipped eggwhites, to have an airier structure while frying. Yes you will lose some of the height to deflation afterwards, but during frying, it will prevent underdoneness.
learn exactly when to flip the pancakes. The best learning technique is to observe the bubbles, but be aware that they show up differently in thick pancakes than in thin ones.
good temperature control. You have to really setup your pan, stove and oil in such a way that there is a constant heat output, and that it is in the (somewhat narrow) range that works with thick pancakes. If you get it too low, they soak up too much fat and don't brown properly, but if you get it too high, they burn on the underside before the middle cooks.
in the end, there is a "trick" which I find no shame in using - preheat your oven to about 120 Celsius, and take the pancakes off the pan into the oven for about 5 minutes. It takes care of the last pesky pockets of dough which you find in thick pancakes even if you think you did everything right.
One may also put a lid over the pan/griddle to cook them through, for all or half of their cooking. Especially useful when tossing frozen blueberries or strawberries onto the cakes. Or just making them extra thick. Oven works to make sure they are done but lids over cakes also guarantees maximum rise.
Citric acid is the key. It is very cheap, comes looking like sugar, get it fine or break it up (I use coffee/spice mill). It makes sure the baking soda and baking powder use up every bit of their ability to create CO2 (bubbles) and not leave behind a bitter soapy taste (that merely adding more of baking soda/powder could).
Buttermilk is expensive (though easy to make with citric acid or vinegar) and hard to find these days in the USA and usually a low fat version (which is silly).
The point of these acid types is to fully activate the baking soda and baking powder (baking powder is basically baking soda plus citric acid though they use different ingredients for stability and general purpose use).
But in this case we want big and fluffy!
I worked in fancy breakfast place that folks raved about the fluffy, hearty pancakes. There's a lot of tricks for different tastes, people have mentioned yeast and day before prep to sour the cakes, give them a hearty flavor and texture. Also adding small amounts (almost undetectable as a specific flavor) of allspice, cinnamon (the flatter ceylon type), star anise, ginger powder, nutmeg , coriander (tunisian daqqa mix) can give the cakes a non-specific aroma that triggers yumminess.
For small amounts of batter I just mix in the citric acid, use both baking powder and soda. Obviously don't make the batter too thin. For larger amounts, on busy days or specials, I kept a fine powder or a squeeze tube with citric & water solution to mix in from time to time if the cakes were not puffing enough. If you mix in coarse citric acid you'll get dark spots and craters in your cakes. Used in these small amounts it doesn't affect the flavor. If anything it gives that sourdough goodness.
So that is my secret, don't tell anyone. Follow the other suggestions (don't over-beat batter, act like you're in a hurry and just get it together - but don't leave big dry lumps), medium high heat, wait till bubbles form throughout cake before you flip and flip once only.
Oh, amount: I'm a cook, don't measure, but think about the same amount as baking soda or half as much as baking powder/soda combo.
Here is the closest I have come to that style of pancake. I think the secret is buttermilk. Also griddle cooking will give the best result.
It's simple don't overwork the batter you want thick just mix everything a little and add a little more pancake mix make it a little dryer you want thin make it a little wetter and mix it more. that's it .
Use beer instead of milk. Beer cakes are to die for.
A way I accidentally stumbled onto in the past is to use a large amount of icing sugar. The pancakes coming out very fluffy and nice. I wish I could tell you the amount I used but its been so long since I have made them. I accidentally mistook icing sugar as flour so in the end I probably used 1:1 or 1:2 icing sugar:flour ratio. I'm not sure if that much is needed though, you will have to experiment
I'm sorry, but this amount of sugar would make the pancakes unbearably sweet. Most pancake recipes have very little sugar in them.
Yes, good recipe for cookies, but wouldn't do anything for fluffing pancakes. But you said it worked, so...hmmm...big cakey cookies?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.983310
| 2010-07-24T11:11:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3078",
"authors": [
"Adam Davis",
"Andy_Vulhop",
"Catija",
"D Masina",
"ESultanik",
"Hebekiah",
"Light Metal",
"Mohamed Saligh",
"Omar Kooheji",
"Pete Stensønes",
"Poma",
"Sharon Greig",
"Tom",
"gary hayward",
"harwig",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85473"
],
"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
}
|
27344
|
Too big tin for meringue cake recipe. How to solve?
So I have this recipe for a hazelnut meringue cake. It asks for an 18cm tin. However, I only have a 24cm tin. I went to the shop today but they do not have a 18cm tin. So i guess there are several other possible options.
I could make more of the recipe using the 24cm tin. However the surface of the meringue will be about 2.25x the meringue then when using the 18 cm tin. So does that mean I have to use over 2 times the amount of ingredients? Or won't that work?
An other option is not using a tin at all. I actually thought that you do not need a tin for making meringue. So I can just draw an 18cm circle and put the mixture on the baking tray. Will this work or not? I have very little experience with meringue so far.
Two meringues will be made with (original recipe for 18 cm tin):
-3 egg whits
-175 golden caster sugar
-85 grams chopped roasted hazelnuts.
Which idea will work? Or is there a better idea?
-edit-
So I draw a circle and put the maringue mixture on. It worked out very well!
The cake turned out delicious.
Thanks for the feed back.
Nice to hear the cake turned out fine.
Both solutions will work.
If you are making more mering, then make sure the thickness of the meringue layer in stays the same as for the small tin. If you scale the recipe correctly this happens automatically.
I think your math is off though. The area of your 24 inch tin is only 1.77 times larger than the 18 inch pan.
Assuming your pan is round: The area of the large pan is pi*24^2 and the area of the small is pi*18^2 the ratio is therefore pi*24^2 / pi*18^2 = 24^2 / 18^2 = (24/18)^2 = 1.77 .
If your pan is square the (almost) same computation will give the same result.
Woops I took 8 and 12 in stand of 9 and 12. That is really stupid! 64/144. However I'm going to draw a circle anyway now. Thank you for the feed back!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.984107
| 2012-09-23T11:19:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27344",
"authors": [
"Happy Chi",
"JAD",
"Kevin",
"Lotte Laat",
"Redbrddad",
"drgoodie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61622",
"ron rothman",
"soegaard"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19667
|
What is a more common substitute for Shaoxing cooking wine?
I have never cooked with Shaoxing wine, so I'm not sure what would be its best substitute.
Pale Dry Sherry.
http://chinesefood.about.com/od/cookingfaqs/qt/rice_wine_sub.htm
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.984292
| 2011-12-14T21:09:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19667",
"authors": [
"Daniel Heywood",
"atsui",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42853",
"monsto"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17032
|
Can palmiers be refrigerated/frozen overnight?
I want to make palmiers and refrigerate or freeze them overnight then bake them in the morning. Can i do that, or would they not turn out right?
You should be able to cut them, wrap them up, and freeze them to be baked and served the next day without a problem.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.984350
| 2011-08-22T06:48:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17032",
"authors": [
"Jaguar",
"Jason Cabral",
"Sallie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36609"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11817
|
My toasted couscous didn't soften properly. Why?
My wife bought some toasted Israeli couscous at a specialty store recently, and we decided to cook it last night. Unfortunately, it did not seem to cook like we are used to, and some of it was still uncooked after other bits were breaking down from overcooking.
We used a recipe that we'd previously had success with using regular Israeli couscous: cook a little shallot in butter, toss couscous in the butter when the shallot is soft, add some chicken broth, bring to a boil, cover and simmer over low heat for a few minutes, finish with toasted pine nuts and golden raisins.
The couscous itself was a little odd--some pieces were very dark, and they all seemed very rough on the outside, not smooth like I'm used to.
So the questions are:
Is uneven cooking likely to happen with toasted couscous? Does toasted couscous need different cooking techniques from what we used (recipes I'm seeing don't seem to say so)?
Is it possible that the uneven toasting/roasting caused the uneven cooking (the darker ones cooked less, for the most part)?
Was this even actually couscous, or something else that isn't meant to be cooked the same way (wish I had a photo of the raw item)?
There was a restaurant fad during the mid 90's when restaurants were making Israeli cous-cous like Risotto. Add butter and onion or shallot, add cous-cous and toast for a minute, then add the liquid usually chicken stock one cup at a time until the cous-cous was just right. I think chefs were also mounting the finished cous-cous with butter. I've also seen a chef blanch parsley and puree the parsley in the blender with vegetable stock. This was added to the cous-cous at the end for a bright green color and flavor. Under pan roasted sea-bass it was fantastic.
It sounds like it might have been fregola, a toasted pasta from Sardinia. It is quite similar to Israeli couscous. There is nothing wrong with the cooking technique you are using, I think you just might have found a brand/batch that isn't very well made. If there is a lot of unevenness in the toasting or size of the pieces, then that will likely result in an uneven cooking in the liquid. As you can imagine, the darkly toasted pieces have more of a shell that makes it slower for them to absorb water. Don't give up on fregola though, it can be delicious stuff. You can also buy regular Israeli couscous and dry-toast it in the pan for awhile before adding the other ingredients.
Ah! That is exactly what it was. My wife didn't remember what the label said, but that pic is definitely the same stuff. And I think you're right that it wasn't well made and the over-roasting of some grains was our biggest problem.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.984526
| 2011-02-04T16:56:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11817",
"authors": [
"Adam S",
"Drea",
"Gustav Bertram",
"Zoe",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4039",
"rbiser",
"user961627"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37662
|
How fast does pork fat spoil?
I have a mini-oven with a tray I use to fry my bacon for breakfast.
Quite a bit of fat leaks out from the bacon onto the tray. It sits there, in room temperature for a day or two, then I put more bacon in and fry it again. Eventually I'll collect the fat for other use or even just wash it out, but that's definitely not something I do every day.
How long can I go safely without washing the tray, just letting more fat collect, before I risk it goes bad, and need to get rid of it?
Would switching the oven on every day, whether I use it or not, just to heat the fat, to kill developing germs make this time longer?
See also How long will bacon grease keep in the fridge?
This is an unwise practice. While pure fat is actually fairly stable, you don't know how much residual water and other components remain in your rendered fat. You should collect it and refrigerate it (it should last at least a week, probably much longer in practice) in an sealed and air tight container (to minimize rancidity) if you intend to reuse it.
Otherwise, you should discard it immediately.
For the cannonical answer and reasoning, see: How do I know if food left at room temperature is still safe to eat?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.984761
| 2013-10-16T17:33:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37662",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30867
|
Are there visual differences between regular and decaf coffee?
I once asked a waiter at a restaurant how he managed not to mix up cups of regular and decaf coffee when bringing them to various tables. He replied that he could tell by looking at the bubbles – in one type, the bubbles linger, whereas in the other they disappear quickly (of course, I can't remember now which one he said was which).
However: I can't find any evidence or research that supports this, but I don't have any reason to believe that the guy wasn't being serious.
Is there any truth to this?
The only visual difference I personally know of is the label on the container the coffee is shipped in. However, waiters have other tricks to give the right drink to the right person. One of the most common is to stage the drinks on the tray in the same physical order as the guests at the table, from a reference position--usually where the waiter tends to stand for that table. This is what I did in my long ago youth. It also works for sodas which also tend to all look the same.
Even without the container, you can tell by the roast, and even when you make the coffee. Decaf tends to be darker and you need to grind finer when making espresso. But to tell after the shot is pulled? I suspect that the decaf does generally have less creme due to the extra processing. But it's been years since I had any decaf beans ...
@WayfaringStranger Can you post your answer using the 'answer' function rather than using a comment. Thanks.
@RC Done, as requested.
Coffee foam/bubbles is made up of a mixture of proteins, sugars, oil droplets, caffeine etc, and the lifetime of a bubble is highly dependent on the composition of its membrane. Given that decaf is coffee that's been solvent extracted, it wouldn't be at all surprising to see its different composition affecting bubble lifetime. However, no one seems to have conducted definitive studies of the matter. – answer upped from comments as requested.
Background: I'm no expert, but I'm very picky about coffee. I prefer dark, smooth roasts that aren't too bold. I used to grind my beans by hand with a mortar and pestle prior to brewing in my French press, but I got lazy and addicted. However, I still pay close attention to the appearance, smell and taste of my coffee. Now I grind with the machine at the store and use a Keurig. I just had decaf coffee for the first time. I bought two bags of self-ground coffee beans: a bag of Sumatra and a bag of decaf Sumatra (Swiss water method, not solvent-extracted). I have had this brand/roast many times before as recently as a couple of days ago.
When I brewed my first cup of decaf, I freaked out because it looked weird coming out of the Keurig! There were teeny bubbles (not quite foam) swirling around as it poured, then they kind of grouped in the middle once it finished. They finally dissipated about halfway through the cup. But coffee DEFINITELY looked different.
In some restaurants the decaf is instant. Instant and brewed coffee will look very different in terms of things like bubbles, or a little sheen on the surface. After all, the waiter wasn't telling you how to tell them apart in all circumstances, just how he tells them apart at work.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.984903
| 2013-02-12T20:46:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30867",
"authors": [
"Dragonchild",
"Jvan",
"Kanta M.",
"Megasaur",
"PhooBar",
"Robert Cartaino",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"customer spam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8",
"oryxandcake",
"user72268"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33619
|
Safety of Calphalon pots and pans
I hear so many thoughts on Calphalon hard anodized pots and pans. Are these safe to use?
Yes, they are safe to use.
Even if you believe certain claims about metallic aluminum, the anodized coating is essentially aluminum oxide which is very, very hard and very, very non-reactive. So it is unlikely to enter your food either chemically or physically, nor to react with your body even if it did. It is essentially pre-reacted.
This is the same material that rubies and sapphires are made of (not counting the impurities that give them their color).
The government sponsored sources all indicate any level of aluminum consumed from cookware is dwarfed by the amount of aluminum naturally occurring in foods in any case. Some sources, especially the Health Canada ones use a lot of soft language, but always say there is no known risk—any risk that does exist will be quite small.
See also:
Michigan State University Extension article on cookware
Health Canada, and 2nd Health Canada
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.985199
| 2013-04-19T21:14:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33619",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46068
|
Is it safe to eat chicken that is still frozen?
I ate half of a pre-packed chicken sandwich before realizing it was still partially frozen. Is there anything to worry about, and can I eat the rest?
I must say (thankfully) I've never come across frozen pre packed chicken sandwiches but I assume the chicken is cooked and normally you'd just thaw and eat? In that case I can't see a safety problem and it may be safer if anything from a food safety point of view.
I am confused by this question. I have eaten thawed frozen chicken sandwich before. I don't see how eating the sandwich thawed is less dangerous than eating it when it was frozen.
Aaronut's answer is fine, I'm just coming at it from a slightly different assumption.
Sandwiches like these are common in gas stations and convenience stores in the US. You can buy them in multi-packs at grocery stores or places like Costco.
In multi-packs they are sold frozen, in convenience stores they have often been defrosted.
They're perfectly safe still frozen as they were fully cooked before being quickly frozen and presumably stayed frozen until they were defrosted in the refrigerator before sale (if they're purchased thawed).
The only way these would pose a food safety risk is if they were thawed and left in the "danger zone" for longer than 2 hours, either somewhere along the distribution chain (highly unlikely), or after purchase. That's being very conservative, BTW.
Freezing extends the safe storage lifetime of any food. I would have to assume that a frozen sandwich may have been frozen for a long time and therefore probably isn't the best quality, but it isn't any less safe than a refrigerated, "fresh" sandwich - in fact it's probably safer, although the operative word is "probably" - that's not necessarily true unless you're sure that it's been frozen the whole time.
The confusion here is probably coming from the fact that if you've tried to cook raw chicken from frozen, and you find that the center is still cold or frozen, then for sure it means that it's undercooked and not safe (yet) to consume. But sandwiches aren't made from raw chicken; the chicken will have been cooked beforehand, and then frozen, either separately or in the sandwich. You're dealing with freezing after cooking here and that's perfectly fine.
Food may be stored much longer in a freezer than in a fridge, but thawed food will often spoil faster than food which has never been frozen.
@supercat [citation needed]
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.985319
| 2014-08-03T10:56:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46068",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Angelica Rios",
"Chazzyjc c",
"Cynthia",
"Dynamics 365 for Marketing",
"Guy A. Harrell",
"Julie Carder",
"Kalopsia UAE",
"PeterJ",
"Spammer",
"Veronica",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"supercat"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18922
|
What does pulling on syrup (in the semi-solid state) do to the texture/taste?
I have seen this done at candy shops before, where the syrup is pulled/stretched 10s of times before they are allowed to cool off.
What chemically does this do to the sugar? How does this affect the taste?
It aerates the sugar (you do the same for taffy) - adding tiny bubbles in the final product.
It makes the finished product lighter and chewier instead of denser and hard.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.985557
| 2011-11-13T03:39:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18922",
"authors": [
"Michael Schwartz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41065",
"letmedoit"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19918
|
What types of sauces would pair well with boiled pork knuckles?
I'm going to be boiling some pork knuckles. What type of sauce would be a good pairing?
I am guessing that because pork knuckles are fatty, the sauce should tend to be sour or pepper-ish to balance out the fatty taste?
One traditional accompaniment for pork is apple sauce. This follows the convention that a fruity sauce cuts through the fattiness of meat - duck a l'orange is another example.
Apple sauce is easy to make - just taking a cooking apple, chop it up, stew it down with a little water, then stir in some sugar and butter to taste.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.985629
| 2011-12-23T10:33:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19918",
"authors": [
"Candlejack",
"Flair Bartender LTD",
"Joyce Mahnke",
"Newtoonquine",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43467"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6408
|
Hanging at home
I'm looking into the technique of 'hanging' meat, and whether there are 'home' applications that would be safe and have a beneficial effect.
Now, there are a lot of (possible) synonyms that muddle the waters (for me). There's hanging, dry-aging, faisandage (for game birds), and more. What I'm looking for is the 1-3 day (near) room-temperature storage of meat and the spoiling / enzyme process that will cause a flavor change. Feel free to help me along by clarifying the answer.
Basically:
Is there any (good) use for this technique / process for supermarket / butcher cuts of meat?
What should be taken in consideration for safe execution?
I investigated the possibility of dry aging beef at home a while back and decided that in my small apartment, at least, I did not want to risk the possibility of spoilage or contamination. These are the resources I found at the time:
Is It Possible to Dry Age Beef at Home has a list of steps and tips
Dry-Aging Beef Pays Off With Big Flavor calls for a shorter amount of time that I might be more comfortable with
Standing Rib Roast - Dry Aged discusses Alton Brown's technique for dry aging at home
How To dry age steak at Steamy Kitchen goes over the use of an interesting item called a Drybag for dry aging.
Because I'm not highly confident on controlling my refrigerator temperature in my rental and don't have a lot of space, I didn't end up trying these techniques at home. Some day, perhaps!
And the article from Serious Eats that was posted years after your answer, in which they call for a roast in a separate fridge with a fan for air circulation.. They also mention that Alton Brown's (and America's Test Kitchen's) sub-week fridge aging to not be worth it. And he links to Go Lb. Salt who mention the dry bag is still just wet aging
For cuts of meat you bring home from the supermarket, you're probably interested in dry aging. Dry-aging will allow the enzymes that are already in the meat to break it down and tenderize it without letting it spoil.
If you're doing this at home, without any special equipment, you really need to do it in a refrigerator. If you let meat sit out at room temperature for 3 days, you'll just end up with spoiled meat. Meat needs to stay below 40F or so to prevent spoilage.
justkt's answer has several links with more information, but the main principles are the same.
The general technique is to cover the meat in a clean towel or some other absorbent material, and make sure it is suspended on some sort of rack over a pan so that air can circulate around the entire piece. Change the covering regularly to keep the meat dry for about 3 days. Enjoy your tasty and tender steak.
This really is not dry aging. It's refrigerator aging, and markedly different than the commercial dry aging that results in an amazingly delicious steak.
@hobodave I wouldn't expect the exact same results, but what is "markedly different" about it?
Everything. http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3440/what-is-the-purpose-of-dry-aging-a-steak/3451#3451
@hobodave Interesting . . . but I still wouldn't say "markedly different", but rather "rough approximation" or "imitation". It still seems to be the same basic process, just less effective and over a shorter time period.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.985720
| 2010-08-31T12:11:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6408",
"authors": [
"Bob",
"Hemanth G",
"Jack",
"Joe",
"babel",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"mirageglobe"
],
"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
}
|
6417
|
Alkaline cooking
I have a (molecular) cooking recipe with instructions on introducing an agent to create an alkaline (base) environment while cooking (to influence the Maillard reaction).
What 'normal'/common ingredients can I use to create such an environment in my pan?
That is absolutely correct, an alkaline environment will speed Maillard reactions, and baking soda is a simple choice for creating it. The one thing to watch out for, depending on what you are cooking is that it can also create a mushy texture. You'll want to use a very small amount, less than 1% by weight for sure.
Baking soda is the easiest and safest way to get a base in cooking. I've never heard of using it for browning, though.
Lowering the PH aids browning. A lot of pretzel recipes will have a baking soda wash for this purpose (as well as texture).
@Sobachatina: Lower pH = more acidic. A base (higher alkalinity) would have a higher pH.
@Sobachatina Now that I think about it, I think I have seen pretzel and bagel recipes that used either baking soda or a lye solution . . . but I certainly wouldn't recommend anyone use lye in a home kitchen.
Here's a chicken recipe that uses baking powder to get a nice crisp brown skin -- I guess because of the influence on the Maillard reaction: http://thepauperedchef.com/2008/02/crisp-skinned-r.html
@Martha baking powder actually contains baking soda (base) + cream of tartar (acid), leaving it with a neutral (or close to it) ph. I wonder why that recipe works; it seems that straight baking soda would do a better job.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.986043
| 2010-08-31T13:18:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6417",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Bob",
"Jared Payne",
"JeremyP",
"Martha F.",
"Nathan Dunn",
"PRB",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"peters"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2770
|
Flavour combinations - structural analysis
Without neccesarily going into molecular cooking (although we could): does any literature / website / theory provide information on flavor / flavour combinations that go well together?
(ignoring texture at this time: I'm sure it's a contributing factor)
The palate 'likes' certain combinations of sweet, salty, fatty, etc., sure. And certain complex flavours are found in many different recipes - a result of tradition and empirical succes.
Examples:
tomatoes, mozzarella, basil (generally: tomatoes and green herbs)
soy / ginger
carrots / celery (baked, often with bacon or a meat)
strawberries / cream
etc. etc. etc.
The dream answer to this question would be some sort of map, visually grouping things, but that may not be possible in 2d.
+1 Great question! I've never thought of this. Cooking is art and science.
I've gotten some great answers I will be looking into. Instead of marking one answer as 'the answer', how do people feel about making this a community wiki?
Check out a site called Food Pairing. They have excellent graphical visualizations of what combines well with given ingredients and also use common flavor profiles to help you determine appropriate substitutions. I think this is pretty close to the "map" you are asking for.
Khymos is a great resource as already mentioned.
Ah yes, I know that map style well, there's a (German, I think) site that does the same for bands (music).
I'm liking what I see, though.... for instance, when I enter 'mango', I get suggestion I immediately understand, but also ones that require a bit more cleverness.
Edit: Is it just me, or is their ingredient list still a bit short?
I picked up The Flavour Thesaurus at the weekend. It is organised much like Roget's Thesaurus, and for each flavour has entries for several flavours that work well with it. Many entries have either recipes or suggestions. There is an ample index for cross-referencing. One thing to note is that the entries are written in quite a familiar style, some may find this annoying, but I thought that many of them hit the mark.
I've followed the website http://khymos.org/ for a while now. Their tagline—molecular gastronomy and the science of cooking—pretty much sums up what they're about.
There are many resources on their site about the molecular reasons of why foods taste the way they do, why foods go well together, and how cooking processes work.
I find their TGRWT (They Go Really Well Together) section to be particularly interesting: http://blog.khymos.org/tgrwt/
+1 This site certainly looks well worth browsing through. I'll add it to my morning ritual!
Indeed, very useful site. They have a great resource there as well called the Hyrdocolloid Recipe Collection.
I've seen a ton of recommendations for The Flavor Bible.
Yes, it has both a lot of theory and nearly exhaustive lists of combinations that have been found to be pleasing in practice.
Also, cuuks (site) seems to be useful.
I like it a lot; I use it to jumpstart my creativity and record my more sucessfull combinations.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.986242
| 2010-07-22T13:38:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2770",
"authors": [
"Jon",
"JustRightMenus",
"Michael Natkin",
"Paul Trapani",
"PetrosB",
"Tobias Op Den Brouw",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8457",
"kashyap1123",
"pxh",
"roja",
"stusherwin",
"tenpn",
"user4929"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20655
|
Should I press the chicken breast against the pan when I grill it?
When I'm about to grill a chicken breast, I usually cut the breast in very thin pieces. I put some oil in a square grill pan (exactly like this one) and turn on the stove (in a very high temperature). After a few minutes, I spread the oil, turn the temperature in medium and put the breast chicken there. I usually wait until the side of the chicken that I'm looking is almost completely white. Than I turn the slice.
My cousin is a chef, so he knows a lot about food. When I said that I pressed the breast chicken against the pan, he said to me not to. He told me just to leave the slice there and, when there's a lot of water in the side of the piece that I'm looking at, then it's the time to turn it. I tried this, but the other side of the chicken is never beautiful as the part that was against the pan. Than I kinda freak out and start pressing with the fork again, afraid that I might eat a raw chicken - wich stinks!
Can you guys give me some advice? I read a lot about it on the Internet and here, tried a lot of things, but most of the advice and recipes didn't work. I'm using only salt and olive oil to marinate the chicken breast (and the oil that I put in the pan). Since I'm on a diet, I can't use sauces that are not 'natural' (like italian sauce, sold in the supermarkets).
Sometimes I believe there's something wrong with the size of the pan, considering the size of the stove burners (maybe the pan is too big for it?). Does that have some impact?
Just my opinion, but the problem is that you're grilling (well, frying actually) chicken breasts in the first place. The meat is so lean to begin with, it's just going to cook away what little flavour/texture there is. Most people (that I know) pan-sear them for a few minutes and finish the rest in the oven.
Are you slicing before you cook?
When you say "raw chicken - which stinks", do you mean that raw chicken has a bad smell or just that you hate eating it?
The only method I have personally found to be reliable for grilling/pan-frying chicken breasts to a relatively uniform doneness is to pound them very, very thin with a mallet or rolling pin. Thin, as in scaloppine-thin, so that it cooks almost instantly in the pan.
Every other stovetop-only method is almost certainly going to produce a bland, tough cut, regardless of whether you press it down or not. As noted in my comment, my usual (lazier) method that does not involve pounding is to get a nice sear in the pan, then jam in a temperature probe and bake it in the oven until it's done (the USDA recommends 165° F, I usually don't go quite that high).
If pressing the meat actually accomplishes anything at all, it would most likely be to just squeeze out whatever tiny amount of precious juices the breast does have, and possibly give you slightly more even cooking on the exterior only; it will not help to cook the interior much faster unless, as stated above, the cut has been pounded extremely thin and flat, at which point it doesn't really matter.
P.S. Salt and olive oil is a terrible "marinade" for any cut of meat, especially a chicken breast. The salt is just going to get suspended in the oil and never reach the meat at all, and the oil itself won't have much of an effect on such a lean cut. You really need to change your marinade as well, preferably to something water-based (or at least not 100% oil).
Hey Aaronut, thanks a lot. The problem is that I can't bake neither pound. I cut the breast in thin slices. Is that ok? Is what I'm doind considered grilling?
@Andre: No, if you use oil then you're sautéing or pan-frying. Grilling means using no fat. I can understand maybe that you can't bake if you don't have an oven, but can't pound? Why not? You can get a decent wooden mallet for under $10.
@Andre If you want succulent chicken without an oven, you should poach/simmer it and then sear it, to get a good crust. Or maybe braise it, which is similar. Aaronut, what do you think about that?
Well, is the side you put down to start with beautiful looking? Put the ugly side against the plate and nobody will know! The problem with pressing it is that any juices that are in there will get squeezed out, and chicken breast doesn't have much to begin with. You might need to cook it a little longer than if you were to press it against the pan, but if it's sliced pretty thin (1cm or so?) you shouldn't have any trouble cooking it through.
A pan like that on just about any burner will have some hot spots and some cooler spots. You'll just have to get used to where it's hot and where it isn't, and maybe move stuff around accordingly.
If you want to experiment with different flavors, try a little acid (vinegar or lemon/lime juice) and/or some herbs.
I wouldn't recommend acid to someone using a cast iron grill pan.
Ok... So I'll have to get used to it, right? Not pressing anymore, just leaving it there and, when the breast is 'beautiful', maybe leave it in the cooler spot of the pan.
That might work, right?
My def. os beautiful: brown in bothes sides, and well cooked. My cousin can get all the chicken breasts that he makes like that.
Maybe it's just my head, that is thinking that the chicken might not be well cooked. It's just that when I cut the breast into slices, the smell is so bad... Even when I put the chicken breast in the refrigerator. But when I heat it in the microwave... Damn, it's good!
Aaronut, why not?
BTW, when I meant beautiful and ugly sides, I meant after the grilling.
@Andre, because iron is a reactive metal and pouring acid into it will ruin the seasoning and leach iron into your food. Some iron is not a bad thing in small quantities e.g. what you get from a wine marinade or tomato sauce, but I would never throw any significant quantity of undiluted vinegar or lemon juice in there.
@Aaronut that sounds more like an old wives tale. How is acid going to eat through the seasoning for starters, and then how is the iron oxides going to get back into you food? I regularly use acids in my cast iron ware, the pans are old but still look perfect. There is no sign of corrosion. Are then any studies on this?
@TFD - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2002.tb09582.x/abstract "..but acidic pH or organic acids (citrate > lactate) significantly increased iron amount..." and http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20513/can-i-increase-my-iron-intake-by-eating-food-cooked-with-cast-iron
@Aaronut Have you read that Wiley article in full?
@Aaronut I meant for a marinade. Not pouring a bunch of it into the pan. And I haven't had problems with acidic ingredients in my well-seasoned cast iron. Of course I don't simmer acidic stuff for a long time in cast iron, or leave it sitting on the pan.
@TFD: I can only see the abstract, which indicates that it is not an "old wives tale", and the lowest pH they tested was 3.7, much higher than vinegar or lemon juice which are around 2. It's true that acids aren't as imminently harmful to the seasoning as detergent, but by leaching iron and promoting premature rusting, they certainly do damage it over time.
@TFD I read the article in full. Quote: "The effect of pH was strongly significant (p < 0.001), with
an increase in iron content of 2 to 9 times when the pH was lowered
from 7.2 to 3.7. The effect of chelating compounds was also highly
significant (p < 0.001) [...] with more iron dissolved
in the samples containing citrate than in the samples
containing lactate. No significant effect was found of salt." and "The amount of iron released to the porridges in this study is clinically relevant". pH was chosen to resemble fermented African porridge. They didn't test pan durability/corrosion.
I don't press the chicken breasts down on the pan when I cook them. This is how I cook chicken breasts - they come out cooked evenly throughout, slightly browned on the outside and lovely and moist on the inside:
We have a saute pan like this: http://sautepanrecipes.com/saute-pan/
It's smooth inside, but importantly it has a lid. I put it on a med-high heat with some olive oil to heat up for 5 mins.
I put the (skinless) chicken breasts on the chopping board and cut them in half with my knife blade parallel to the chopping board (like cutting a cake into 2 layers).
I cook the chicken breasts in the saute pan for about 5 minutes each side (I go by feel rather than by timer), but importantly I cook with the lid on. The trapped heat and steam makes sure the breasts cooks all the way through evenly and is lovely and tender and moist. Kids and the wife both love them like this.
I haven't tried, but I reckon that I could cook the breasts whole (without cutting them in half) if I turned the heat down a little bit and cooked them for a bit longer. In fact I might try that tonight!
A technique to try if you don't have an oven:
Lightly oil the pan and the surface of the chicken just before frying (nothing is gained in doing it earlier)
You do not need to pound and otherwise manipulate the chicken
Fry the chicken briefly in the pan to colour the outside, then lower the temperature and place a lid over the pan to cook through (to simulate a small oven). Any lid will do (sauce pan, baking dish etc.) as long as it mostly covers the food being cooked, without touching it, and is heat proof. A folded up piece of aluminium foil will do at a pinch, but better to invest in something reusable
Cook for the time required (as if in a normal oven), and when nearly done, increase heat and remove the lid to fry off condensation, and crisp the outside as desired
Around 20 minutes cooking is the normal time with the lid on. If the chicken is burning before this time, you have the pan on too hot. Adjust time for thickness of chicken
This technique can even be used for a whole chicken (spatchcocked)
this post is 8 years old but it's one of the first that came up when I looked this up. so here's my input. high heat is only good for certain things, and meat isn't one of them. when you fry on high heat the outside burns, and the inside doesn't get nearly as cooked as the outside. so basically if you fry it on medium and just flip them whenever it's better. I personally leave my chicken about half an inch in thickness, coat it in Vegeta and fry them bad boys, flipping them every now and then so the chicken doesn't start curling and develop a weird shape where I can't get the other side cooked. hope this helps someone
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.986565
| 2012-01-21T12:56:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20655",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adam Jaskiewicz",
"Andre",
"Elli",
"JasonJ",
"Luís Guilherme",
"Max",
"Mugen",
"TFD",
"booboohoopuloo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8534",
"nilon",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho",
"svkaka"
],
"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
}
|
21977
|
Maximum time for rising in a breadmaker
I have a Panasonic SD253 breadmaker. The function chart shows 2hr 55min - 4hr 10min rising times available for the French Bake program. How do I make sure it rises for the full 4hr 10 mins?
And amazingly enough, having checked the manual, the manual doesn't say. Or at least I couldn't find it in the manual.
How automatic is the breadmaker? If it can detect when the dough has doubled in size, this might be why you can't set a more precise time.
Take a peek of the dough every 1/2 hour.
If you see in a certain peek it's lower than the last time you saw it, it has fully risen and is starting to fall.
The dough should be about to reach it's rising limit before it begins to be baked, but not pass it. You can change the dough's rising speed changing the amount of yeast from your recipe, or controlling the dough's temperature, among other ways.
Its down to the volume of yeast you use.
Yeast will continue to rise the bread as long as there is food and the temperature maintains within its required range (45c 115f)
so if you have 1 hour yeast and use 1/4 of the required amount for 1 hour bread, then it will take 4 hours to rise.
http://www.abreadaday.com/?p=1195
see the link above for an example of bread cooked using the no knead 4 hour rise method.
Of course this is generally true for bread, but I don't see how it is connected to changing the breadmaker setting.
There is no way to set this particular machine to a more specific time than the "window" it gives, which is between 2 hours 55 minutes and 4 hours 10 minutes.
The way to "make sure the bread rises for the full 4 hours 10 minutes" is by modifying the ingredients to allow for this.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.987595
| 2012-03-04T16:14:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21977",
"authors": [
"David McGowan",
"Kas Appiah",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64653",
"rumtscho",
"soegaard"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21982
|
How long would you keep this Caesar dressing?
My Caesar dressing contains the following: mayonnaise, parmesan cheese, lemon juice, worcestershire sauce, garlic powder, fresh ground pepper.
How long do you think I should I keep it before I pitch it?
And why is it that bottled commercial dressings last months and homemade do not?
What do they have in theirs that we don't have in ours, and can't we put it in ours?
Is your mayonnaise home made or from a bottle?
Commercial dressings have very precise measurement & control of the pH, temperature (for sterilization), water availability, etc. Many also have preservatives.
See also http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2746/making-longer-life-homemade-mayonnaise and http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21068/how-long-can-i-store-a-food-in-the-pantry-refrigerator-or-freezer
Mayonnaise I use is just Hellman's from a jar.
Commercial dressings are often produced under standard circumstances, which helps predict how fast they'll spoil. Most home prepared food must be thrown out not because it's gone bad, but because we cannot trust it's still good.
I make a nearly identical recipe for caesar dressing, and have safely used leftover dressing up to a week later. I can't vouch for any "technical" food spoilage rates, only that my friends, family, and I have never gotten sick from eating salad with dressing in this age range.
I can't speak to anything longer than that, as the dressing never seems to last that long!
As a closing note: if you are in doubt, don't eat it!
Ok,Thanks! I usually make about the right amount but sometimes have a little left over for a single serving.. Yes, about a week at the most is what I've kept it in the past, but always wondered if it was going to waste.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.987807
| 2012-03-04T19:25:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21982",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"MSalters",
"Pat",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Tracy",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9363",
"roman-roman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28243
|
Freezing things like Fettuccine Alfredo
I don't have a lot of time to cook during the week, sadly, so I've been taking things like this for lunch http://www.eatyourbest.com/sitecore/content/Home/products/classic-favorites/fettucini-alfredo.aspx . It's simple and tasty, but I would prefer to make things like this at home on the weekends and freeze it for a later date.
I know freezing a cream sauce can be kind of complicated/impossible, so if I were to try and freeze some portioned home-made Fettuccine Alfredo what are some things I need to do to help it come out of the microwave and not be awful?
Edit: I wasn't 100% specific in my query originally - I also want to prevent as much damage as possible to the sauce, since I know milk based products don't always freeze very well. Will the reheating process be affected by any damage to the sauce, or would the steps I take to ensure the sauce doesn't separate during reheating also protect it from freezer damage?
The problem with an alfredo sauce isn't in the freezing, it's in the re-heating: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8775/how-can-i-reheat-a-roux-based-alfredo-sauce-in-the-microwave-without-separatio.
Thank you, that's a fantastic correlary to what I'm trying to accomplish. I will def. keep that in mind while trying all this out!
The best way to freeze something is to do it fast. Chill the food first in the refrigerator before putting it in the freezer. Keeping the food thin/flat rather than thick will help the center to chill faster. Loading up a sheet pan with individual portions works well for this - just be sure you have room for it in the refrigerator and freezer.
However, the larger problem with this type of sauce is re-heating of it - the sauce tends to split into its constituent ingredients. Reheating the sauce very slowly on low heat is the best way to prevent the splitting. You can also consider adding some lecithin to the sauce during cooking, which will help stabilize it. See How can I reheat a roux-based (alfredo) sauce in the microwave without separation? and Keeping A Sauce From Separating for details.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.988005
| 2012-11-05T18:24:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28243",
"authors": [
"David",
"Jimmy",
"Jody Hartley",
"Joellen Fry",
"KatieK",
"Lisa",
"anonymous dude",
"bioSlayer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9593"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91173
|
How do I fix improperly seasoned cast iron pans?
I'm quite new to cooking as a whole.
A few months back I bought a set of VonShef cast iron pans. When seasoning them, I unfortunately made two errors. First, in my naïveté, I used vegetable oil as the seasoning; and second, I didn't remove the excess oil, leaving a sticky and uneven finish in the pans. After a couple of failed attempts at cooking with this situation, and some food sticking to the pans, I've been putting off using them to avoid further catastrophes.
So how can I go about rectifying my mistakes? I've watched a few videos on YouTube about the proper way of seasoning, and it seems you can clear seasoning by either sanding it down or burning the pan. But how would you also clear off burnt food stuck to the pan?
I hope you can see what I mean in the below pictures.
Have you tried filling the pan with iron fillings and leaving it in direct sunlight for 24 hours? https://xkcd.com/1905/
Hey Chris, you do not seem to have the slightest problem? Vegetable oil is perfect - what were you thinking you should use ? (I personally prefer peanut oil in general - and I use it (and every type of oil) in cast iron pans.) Your pan looks perfect. Can you describe any problem you are having?
A rather similar question: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/24776/67 ; for info on seasoning : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/641/67 and stripping seasoning : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/11592/67
Cast iron care need not seem so intimidating or mystical. There are lots of ways to take care of it, and though many will profess their own gospel and taboos associated with cast iron cookware, many different solutions will work. You just need to understand some of the basic principles and the rest is personal preference.
First, in my naivete I used vegatable oil as the seasoning
There is nothing wrong with using vegetable oil as your seasoning. That is often what you will be cooking with anyway, and every time you cook with oil you are contributing to the seasoning on your skillet - so obviously it is a fine type of oil to constitute your seasoning.
second, I also didn't remove the excess oil, leaving a sticky and uneven finish.
This has happened to me a number of times, even after removing excess oil. When you season it in an oven (preferably upside down), the oil heats up which can often cause it to run more easily before it has a chance to bond to the iron. That can cause it to leave spots without seasoning, and the spots that are seasoned will sometimes be sticky. I would just repeat the process again until the surface is completely seasoned. I usually wipe a light layer of vegetable oil on mine, turn it upside down in the oven, and bake it for an hour or two at around 350°F with a cookie sheet under it. It'll probably smoke a little bit, but don't worry about it.
Additionally, when I break in a new cast iron whatever, I like to cook with really greasy and oily foods (like bacon) the first few times I use it. It will help create a better seasoning and get rid of those sticky spots. Really let it pool up and try to cook for a decent amount of time. That can help get a nice, uniform finish on it. Scrape it clean with a lightly abrasive sponge or nylon brush and rinse it in cold water (maybe a tiny amount of dish soap if you really want, but it honestly doesn't need it). Dry off. Cook on it again. The more you cook with it, the better the seasoning will get.
Looking at your pictures, I would not do anything so drastic as use a caustic cleaning chemical to strip the seasoning off and start over. Just scrub it nice and clean with some soap, dry it off, and try seasoning it again. And again if you are still not satisfied. You'll get there.
Just as a comment, not part of the answer... Cast iron can take a lot of abuse and still come out as a wonderful cooking instrument. Even if your seasoning chips off, you get rust, whatever, you can scrub it clean and get some new seasoning going. I heretically scrub with soap and warm water from time to time, and use metal spatulas. I just make sure to cook with some oil afterwards.
When the asker says their pan developed sticky spots after they didn't wipe off the excess oil, I think they mean that there were puddles of sticky oil residue in the pan, not that there were parts of the pan that didn't get seasoned and caused food to stick.
@DavidRicherby Yeah, I guess I didn't directly address that. I'll see if I can edit it in, but short answer is that it doesn't matter and those will go away by doing exactly what I said.
Exactly as @blackthorn says. However, you can go further than that. It doesn't matter a toss if you constantly wash it with chemical sprays, detergent, paint, acids and your workshop grinder. it makes no difference at all. You just cook with oil next time. (But then - you cook with huge amounts of oil, every time!!!) The whole "seasoning" thing is from another era, it's just about convenience / time saving.
Please do not listen to Fattie's advice. Stripping your pan's seasoning will make it a worse cooking utensil.
Cast iron frying pans are the only kind I own, and based on your photos I don't think you need to start over with the seasoning. Cast iron is tough as nails, you can always rescue it so long as you don't drop it and crack the pan, and it's easy to care for and maintain.
In this case you can just clean them well and put down another layer of oil. I would use a scrub bud and warm soapy water, applying only light pressure until the cooked on food is removed.
Then I would re-do your seasoning process but be sure you get it hot enough so that the surface isn't tacky when it's done. If it does come out tacky, you can heat it again until the problem spots go away.
Note that generally you should avoid both the soapy water and scrub bud, since they remove the seasoning somewhat, but in this case that's exactly what you want. I use a steel scrub bud and soapy water on my cast iron a couple times a month when I forget to clean them right after cooking and food dries to them, as long as you only apply light pressure it doesn't hurt much, my well seasoned pans stand up to this just fine.
Finally I would be sure to cook with plenty of oil at least for the first few months. Cast iron is not non stick the way Teflon or other coatings are, even when well seasoned, it needs a nice layer of fresh cooking oil.
Serious Eats has a good guide on cast iron, lots of people over complicate it. Even they recommend repeating the seasoning 3 or 4 times, which I think is overkill. Do it once and cook with lots of oil for a while, they'll season up nicely over time.
Source
Place your cast iron pan upside down in your oven and run the 'Oven Clean Cycle'. Wash with dish detergent and dry with heat.
Reinitiate a proper seasoning.
If your oven doesn't have a clean cycle, use the highest heat setting available and bake for a few hours.
If you really want to start all over, I recommend buying a can of Easy Off oven cleaner, which is really just a lye concoction.
Put the pan in a large plastic bag (outside), and spray the pan all over with the oven cleaner.
Close the bag up tightly, and let it sit for 24 hours. You can give it another round of oven cleaner halfway through if you want. This will strip off all the seasoning on your pan.
When the 24 hours are up, put on rubber gloves (oven cleaner is really nasty), take the pan out, rinse it down and immediately dry it off, because it will start to rust right away. You can also rub it down with some vinegar at this point, which will help neutralize the rust.
Once it's all stripped and very dry, you can start the seasoning all over again.
I have stripped pans this way with great success. As for the oil to use, there are all sorts of arguments about it, but I have used flaxseed oil, also with great success. I've seasoned cast iron in a hot (500° F) oven, turned upside down, like some places recommend, and it works well to get a base down.
Good luck! I know this sounds like a pain, but it really lets you salvage your precious cast iron.
Your fry pan isn't that bad, I wouldn't even start over. Here is what I would do, with some tips at the end.
Go to the store and buy a tub of lard.
Warm the pan on the stove and rub around the lard, it doesn't need to be very hot, just hot enough to melt the lard.
Use a paper towel and rubs some excess lard on the handle, the underside, and all the non-cooking areas.
Place the pan, up-side-down in the oven and "bake" it on 400 for 4 hours.
Turn off the oven and let it cool. When it comes out it should be a bit sticky and the grease may be a bit uneven, but this is not an issue.
Using a towel and water (NEVER DISH SOAP), wipe down the surfaces you're going to be touching and the bottom. Leave the insides alone.
Choose some good greasy foods to cook, bacon, hamburgers, fried chicken, etc. Try to say away from foods that have a sauce or a delicate taste (like veggies)
Cook at least 3 meals, DO NOT CLEAN IN BETWEEN. just wipe out the extra grease.
You should be good to go, just remember these tips
Never use dish soap, use plain salt, or sand
Let food sit in it till it cools. If you cook bacon, for example, let the extra grease sit in the pan till the pan cools.
If you need to get out stubborn foods, then just burn them out. Put the pan in the oven on 400 for a while, then wipe away the ash. (works well on the stove top if it's not too bad)
Never let the pan sit dry. If you washed the pan out (again never use soap) immediately put some kind of oil in it. It helps to put the oil in it that you normally cook with.
If you see rust spots, brush them off with a stiff brush, and "reseason" You don't have to do the whole pan but it doesn't hurt, and it's really easy to do.
A good seasoning is more than tough enough to withstand dishsoap. If you wash seasoned cast iron with soapy water and the seasoning is damaged, it wasn't seasoned... it was just greasy.
Put it in the self.clean oven cycle. Tske it out when cooled and wash down.
I tried flaxseed oil and wasn't impressed. I mixed crisco, red palm oil, ans grapeseed oil. Put the pan in the oven at 200F for 10 mins. Take out and rub down really well. Now wipe it all off. Think its all.off? Tske a paper towel and wipe it again. Put in oven for 1 hour at 475 and let cool. Repeat.
Im a first time cast iron user and repeated this process 7 times with my 1st 2 new skillets and they csme oit gorgeous and completely non stick. Then i restored 2 old pans and only did this process 3 times and theyre both completely non stick and gorgeous
Oh and DONT USE EASY OFF
If you wouldnt eat it.....dont put it in your POROUS cast iron!!! Self clean oven.....hell charcoal grill or propane grill.......but chemicals? Eww.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.988235
| 2018-07-20T18:31:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91173",
"authors": [
"BlackThorn",
"David Richerby",
"Fattie",
"Joe",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68294",
"user137369"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102380
|
1946 Horehound Beer recipe - what is "capaicine"?
I was researching Horehound Beer recipes on (the old newspaper website) Trove. I found the name of an ingredient - perhaps a herb, that I did not know: "Capaicine".
As best as I can read, this recipe is:
HOREHOUND BEER
Ingredients are: 4-lb. horehound herb,
18-lb. sugar, 1½-lb. licorice extract, 1½-lb.
treacle, 4-oz. quassia chips, 10-oz. crushed
ginger, 2-oz. coriander seeds, 2-oz. capaicine,
4-oz. caramel, 2-oz. tartaric acid,
¼-pint brewer's yeast. Suspend the horehound,
ginger, coriander and quassia in
a muslin bag in a copper and boil in
about 15 gallons of water for half-an-hour,
Add sugar and than other ingredients.
Strain off into fermenting vat,
Strain sufficient water through herbs to
bring up to 24-gallons. When at 80-deg. F.
break up yeast in a basin of brew and
stir into the bulk. Allow to ferment for
about 24 hours, skim off top and filter.
Fine down with one pint ale finings.
NOTE: Australia used imperial measurements until 1966.
As stated, I am unable to identify the ingredient "capaicine". I don't think it's misspelling of "capsaicin". I wondered for a while if it was maybe a misspelling of "cinnamonmum", but have since given up on this idea.
I could of course, be reading the old newsprint incorrectly.
NOTE: This particular beverage must be delicious, since it is to be made in ~100 litre batches.
Bonus question: Is the "caramel" referred to, a browned sugar-syrup (perhaps made from condensed milk) or a colourant? A lot of recipes add "burnt sugar" for colour.
I think you've misread the spelling... that looks like "capsicine", not "capaicine". (Of course, that would still make it a typo.)
I suspect that the word intended was "capsicum". 2 ounces of chili pepper would be reasonable given the amounts of other spices. 2 ounces of capsaicin would be difficult to source and would make the beer essentially inedible.
Possibly French origin based on some search results I can see.
I would vote for a spelling error, and that capaicine is actually capsaicin. I can't find any reference for the original spelling. I have never consumed horehound beer, but it seems to me that, in looking at the ingredients, a little spice-heat would make sense. Think of the spiciness you get in the back of your throat when drinking ginger ale. I would say caramel is a color additive. It is not uncommon for sodas to have caramel color added. I'm no expert on 1940's beverages, so I would be happy to be corrected.
Edit: Thanks, @Sneftel....Your reasoning is more sound than mine...I would also go with "capsicum", as opposed to "capsaicin" (upvoted!). This also aligns with the comment below about a reference to chili peppers, though I have not specifically come across that.
In the end, if you interested in recreating this recipe, I bet you could zero in on the level of spiciness by experimenting with chili flakes. Maybe not 2 ounces at once, but a little at a time until the desired effect was achieved.
While your reasoning is sound, I'm wondering if capsaicin would be a readily-available ingredient in 1946? (EDIT: found and advertisement for capsaicin capsules from 1867).
2 ounces of capsaicin in 24 gallons of water would make pepper spray, not beer.
capaicin is an old way to refer to chili peppers, particularly cayenne. It is NOT the active ingredient capsaicin. (Google thinks the same way and always go "did you mean...")
I definitely agree with using chili flakes. You'll get more consistent control of heat level than with fresh peppers, which vary between producers and throughout the year.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.989388
| 2019-09-19T01:03:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102380",
"authors": [
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"Kingsley",
"Sneftel",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71968"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117047
|
How can I prevent discoloration in lactic fermented vegetables/sauces?
I make lactobacillus fermented hot sauces and have noticed that they get a slight brownish discoloration over time. I'm curious if there is something I can do to keep the original color of the food.
Frame challenge: fermentation IS a preservation process on its own merit and food preservatives are there to prevent microbial growth (thus, preventing unwanted fermentation)
Hi STW, the idea of "food color preservative" is so unusual, that at first it didn't even register with me, or with Juliana, what you are trying to do - at a first read, it seemed that you are asking for a preservative in the sense of making sure the food doesn't spoil. I reworded the question to get rid of the misleading phrase. It is also broader now, which is good - if there is a solution, it doesn't have to come in the form of a magic powder.
Ok, now this reads better. More details are needed, tho: where do you observe the discoloration? All over the sauce or only at the surface? How do you process your ingredients - do you leave them whole or blend them before fermentation? What kind of vessel?
I appreciate the attempt to remove ambiguity, but the edits lose the fundamental question of "what preservatives are compatible with lactic fermentation?"
@STW It seems that we still have a misunderstanding. "How do I preserve food (= prevent microorganisms from multiplying in it)" and "How do I solve the cosmetic problem of food changing its color" are two entirely different questions, addressed in different ways. Your text reads as if you think they are the same, making it impossible to answer. Please edit the text so it is clear which of the two questions you are asking, or tell us which one it is and let us edit it.
@STW since you did not make an edit yourself, I went back to the version which makes it an answerable question.
If it's darkening that begins at the top, then I reckon it's oxidation.
Get air bubbles out first (vibration, tapping) then pick a technique to remove air or replace with nitrogen.
Freezing would also slow oxidation but not ideal for many textures.
If the issue is oxidation, then first ensure the brine completely covers the top of the veg, and introduce an air lock.
Thanks for the answer, unfortunately my question was edited and made far broader than intended. The effects I observe are a general loss of color as well as darkening, which is usually most prevalent at the top. However I do use an airlock, and keep the vegetables submerged. Since inevitably small bits float above the brine I do occasionally stir things
@STW sorry it's been a million years, but whenever you stir your ferment, you're introducing oxygen. You might consider using a few thick slices of onion (or another veg that won't interfere with your hot sauce flavor profile) as a way to keep all the small bits of veg weighted down, and thus avoid the need to disturb/oxygenate it. You can also purchase fermentation weights for this purpose, but I'm happy to sacrifice an onion to the task personally. (Especially since I can eat the onion later!) Good luck!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.989801
| 2021-08-31T20:48:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117047",
"authors": [
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"STW",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/926",
"kitukwfyer",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.