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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
82102
|
Questions about battering and frying chicken
I like to fry up chicken occasionally and I've used a few different methods over the years. Typically my recipe is something like:
Place milk or egg in one dish
Place a flour mixture in another
Drag chicken through liquid, then through flour, then fry up.
It usually turns out pretty well, but I was hoping to get some clarification on what some variations on this recipe do - so:
Some recipes call for dipping the chicken in egg before coating with flour while others call for milk (or butter milk).
What is the difference between these two?
Can I mix the two together and use that - if so, how would it be different than using just one?
Does it matter if I soak in the liquid for hours or do i just need to get it wet so the flour will stick?
I've seen some recipes that call for dipping in egg and flour twice. I'm assuming this just makes the skin crustier?
If I want an even thicker crust could I go even more than twice or will the batter just start falling off while frying if there is too much on there?
It can be sort of a time consuming process and I've wondered about doing some of the prep work the night before I cook.
Is it possible to egg wash and dredge in flour and then store overnight?
If so, does this affect how the chicken fries up?
If so, what is the proper technique? I'm concerned that if I had a bunch of battered chicken breasts that were stacked on top of each other the batter might peel off when I tried to separate them the next day.
I realize that I could probably figure this out through trial and error, but was hoping to figure it out without wasting any food. Thanks for any help!
Hello brh, this seems like at least 3 different questions to me (each of the groups you separated by paragraphs). We would appreciate it if you could split it up - our rule is "one question per 'thread'". Also, I think the first one is a duplicate, possibly the third one too.
Some recipes call for dipping the chicken in egg before coating with flour while others call for milk (or butter milk).
Egg provides a lot more protein and will produce a thicker, more stable crust. Milk is obviously much thinner, contains much more water, and won't cling to the meat as much. Buttermilk is a cultured product that's thicker than plain regular milk (more like a thin yogurt) and clings more heavily to the meat than plain milk.
You should also consider other options for breading. Seasoned flour is fine if that's what you want, but various other ingredients are often used. Because wet ingredients like milk or egg don't stick well to moist meat directly, the meat is often dredged in flour first, then dunked in milk or egg, and then dredged in seasoned breadcrumbs, panko, cornmeal, crushed corn flakes, or other dry crunchy ingredients. The combination of flour and milk or egg creates a sticky layer that helps bind the breading to the meat.
I've seen some recipes that call for dipping in egg and flour twice. I'm assuming this just makes the skin crustier?
Again, the order would be: flour, egg, flour. The first layer of flour helps the egg stick to the meat, and the second layer of flour creates the crust.
Harold McGee explains that the crust provides a bit of insulation that protects the meat from the high heat of the oil in which it's fried. Considering that, you can build up a thicker crust if you want to, but a thicker crust provide more insulation, and you might risk having the crust become too dark before the meat is sufficiently cooked.
Note that meat is sometimes floured even without milk or egg, especially for stewing or quick sautéing. In those cases the flour browns a bit in the fat and adds flavor, and some end up in the pan where it can be used to help make a pan sauce.
It can be sort of a time consuming process and I've wondered about doing some of the prep work the night before I cook.
If you're cooking at home, you probably don't have capacity to deep fry more than a few pieces of chicken at any one time -- you don't want to overload the fryer because you don't want the oil temperature to drop too much. Frying is all about managing the oil temperature. What people usually do is to start breading the chicken pieces as the oil is heating up. Then you (gently!) drop a few pieces into the oil to cook, and continue breading while each batch cooks. With a little practice, you'll be done breading the parts well before you're ready to cook the last batch.
I've breaded meat ahead of time without trouble, and it seems to work well especially for thin cuts like pork or chicken cutlets. I'm not sure I'd do it a full day ahead though. The risk is mainly that the flour can become fully hydrated and may not stick to the meat as well, and then the breading may separate from the meat. If the meat releases enough liquid (remember, seasoned flour and breadcrumbs usually contain salt) the coating could be fall off before you even get it into the fryer.
If you need to stack pieces after they've been breaded for any length of time you should place a sheets of waxed paper between layers to keep them from sticking to each other.
I realize that I could probably figure this out through trial and error, but was hoping to figure it out without wasting any food.
You don't have to do all your trials in one go -- try different recipes on different nights and make notes about the results you get each time. There's certainly no need to waste the food.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.990066
| 2017-05-30T18:36:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82102",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5882
|
Pre-blending Potatoes
What would happen if you put your uncooked potatos in a blender and then cooked the result?
Would you get mashed potatos? Faster?
haha, it all depends how you cook them. I say steaming would be your best option
I'm pretty sure it would be a gluey disaster, but why don't you try a small batch and let us know?
I sometimes dice potatoes before cooking them if I'm trying to make quick mash for the kids. That helps with the time and they turn out fine. I'm not sure what would happen with a blender though. grated might be the quickest... but you might lose a lot of starch in the water.
@Sam Holder - Although with Grading, I find the best thing to do is actually rinse them out of as much of the starch as possible, and then cooking them with some binder such as an egg white, oil, and a bit of cream + your spices / herbs and optional grated hard cheese .
I doubt that most blenders could handle raw potatoes, though a food processor probably could. The problem with your idea is that they'll be easier to cook before they're mashed, and easier to mash after they're cooked. I see no advantage and plenty of potential disadvantages.
It's worth noting that blending them after dicing them should work even with weak blenders. I have a very weak one and managed to blend soaked (raw) mung beans, which are pretty tough.
You absolutely can blend raw potatoes! You will need one of the more powerful blenders and not a $30 Walmart one. The result is a potato puree which you can mix ingredients and then pour like a batter in a fry pan to make potato pancakes. I have done this numerous times.
I put raw potatoes in my nutribullet and added them to Dahl. I think it turned out pretty ok. I used them in place of carrots & sweet potato, but I’ll admit that I like those ingredients better.
I'm with Michael: it sounds disturbing. I think you could probably get away with it though if you rinsed them after blending, and then saute'd them after in a little (probably a lot) of butter.
I think you need to leech out a little starch or heat it enough for it to start breaking down. Traditional mashed potatoes are lighter, having lost a good bit of their starch in the boiling process.
Mashed new potatoes, or mashed baked potatoes, or any other variation on the whole-cooked-potatoes-mashed theme tend to be much more starchy, but this is somewhat alleviated by the flavors imparted by cooking.
I think, if you just shred them and then cook them, you're going to end up with the worst of both worlds: heavy, not especially tasty, potato mash.
surely the more finely chopped they are, or even blended, they more starch will come out in the cooking? The problem could be with losing too much starch I would have thought...
@Sam Holder: Yea, that's pretty much why I thought they'd set up.
@SamHolder - I would think the starch that comes out in boiling potatoes (chopped or whatever) would get left behind in the pot when the potato chunks are scooped out after boiling - and so literally left behind, while blended potato would keep the water (and therefore the extra starch) unless extra care is taken to rinse some of that extra starch out. If the starch is lost from the potato to the water, but the water is still in the dish, it isn't really "lost", I suppose.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.990498
| 2010-08-24T16:06:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5882",
"authors": [
"Megha",
"Michael Natkin",
"Sam Holder",
"Satanicpuppy",
"dassouki",
"debug",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87",
"polynomial_donut"
],
"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
}
|
16406
|
What to look for in a pot?
What to look for in a pot. I'm supposing somebody that's just starting to live alone or a couple. Help me complete this list.
Size: small, but not too small. Maybe 2L or 3L.
Material: Stainless steel with a thick bottom. As you are going to buy only one pot to begin with, spend some extra money on quality.
Bottom: A thick bottom is a must on electric or ceramic stoves as they don't bend out of shape so easily. Also, a thick bottom is handy for slow cooking as the heat diffuses more evenly.
Handle: Same material, stainless steel. This is handy if you want to put the pot in the oven. Look at the fixture to the pot, it must be riveted on, with thick rivets.
Stove: if it's going to be induction - Glass, Ceramics, All Aluminum etc. are all out.
Price: Not too expensive. 20€ - 30€?
What am I forgetting?
The way in which this question sort of answers itself is probably encouraging more people to post recommendation-ish answers; I'd consider moving a lot of this information down to an answer and either making it a wiki or expanding on some of the details (e.g. why is a thick bottom important? Why stainless steel over aluminum or cast iron? etc.)
What do you want to cook in it? Will you use it for boiling, or for sauces, fondues, etc.?
@Aaronut, I'd make it a wiki.
Will 'the pot' be used on an induction range?
@Aaronut. Stainless means less maintenance. Aluminum is a weak material so it will bend, could be great for a gas stove. Also, where I live aluminum can be used for cooking, but not for storing food, so why take the risk? Cast iron is great for a pan, but in a multi-use pot, I'm not so sure...
@Cos, it might be.
I wasn't asking you the question, I was pointing out that the characteristics you list in this question (along with the explanations you just gave) would be more helpful in an answer than in the question. If you answer your own question within the question then it discourages other people from participating.
Modifying your original terms:
Size: 2-3 quart/liter. I consider 2.5 quarts to be ideal.
Material: Two options: hard-anodized aluminum nonstick, OR stainless-steel interior/exterior. With stainless, it should have either an encapsulated aluminum disk base or a tri-ply construction (aluminum layered with stainless)
Bottom: Thick is good, and you absolutely must have aluminum here for conduction
Handle: stainless is good, as long as it stays relatively cool. The handle absolutely must be riveted on, with thick rivets. Screws, glue, or welded handles do not last long-term. Tack-welded handles are the bane of the restaurant I work for right now; we've had several handles snap off in the last year.
Additional things to look for:
Weight: HEAVY. You want fairly thick cookware for even heating, but most of that weight should be from thickness of the aluminum disk.
Design: A flared lip around the pot, to facilitate clean pouring.
Shape: I'm partial to shallow designs, which flare out at the top. Although it's nonstick and not stainless, I love my Calphalon Contemporary shallow 2.5 qt saucepan for it's extra-flared design. This lets it transmit heat more efficiently from the range, and allows it to safely hold a larger capacity of food. It also allows for faster and cleaner reduction of sauces.
Lid: TEMPERED GLASS with a handle on top, and a flange to help seal tightly on the pot/pan. Tempered glass is very durable and lets you see the progress of your cooking without releasing the steam. The handle also remains cool, so you don't burn yourself on it; this is the second problem I have with solid stainless lids on many premium cookware lines (All Clad, and most manufacturers' tri-ply products).
Edited the original post to add the rivets.
Could you clarify the options? I'm sure the tri-ply is the best solution, but how about the price tag?
Also, 2.5 cuarts is 2.3 liters, just about what I was aiming at.
Also, if you have an induction range that's a case for tri-ply with stainless steel exterior. Might also be worth mentioning that stainless steel handle (assuming no other plastic parts) = oven safe, and if you want an oven safe lid a stainless steel lid is the way to go too (vs. the plastic handle typical to glass lids).
I ask if you planned to use these pots on an induction range, you responded: it might be.
The point is that induction ranges require specific pots in order to work. You might look into these requirements to further inform your decision.
Glass, Ceramics, All Aluminum etc. are all out.
Yes, very valid point, I'll edit the post. Thanks.
You probably won't want a stainless steel handle, as that transfers heat well, which means holding the pot could be uncomfortable. Look for one with a handle made out of some strong plastic.
Otherwise, you seem to have everything...
Thanks, but which plastic can stand 200ºC in the oven?
A SS handle is no problem, it just should have the correct shape. When it is thin and with a large hole, it is OK to touch even when there is water at roiling boil in the pot.
@BaffledCook: Perfluoroalkoxy (PFA), various polimides, among others... @Thursagen: SS is actually a pretty poor conductor of heat, as far as metals go.
@derobert, you're right, of course. The thing is when you're shopping, how are you going to tell that it's PFA or whatever? How do you even remember to look for PFA?
A couple of good hot pads are a small price to pay for the versatility of being able to put them in the oven. I would stick with stainless.
I buy AMC pots, I don't know if you've heard of them but they're pretty good. They've got handles made of some sort of polymers, and withstands very high temperatures.
@BaffledCook: Well, personally, the ones I use in my oven are metal, cast iron mostly. But the way you'd shop for oven-safe plastic is by looking at the temperature rating for the cookware. If its oven safe to 500°F, then it must be one of those plastics.
It's a tough question for just 1 pot. I would only get a metal handle if you intend to do a lot of oven broiling or baking w/ it also (Like searing the roast and then braising it).
All of that being said, I think cast iron is a great multi-purposer (stir fry, shallow and deep frying, sautee'ing, etc...) It would be oven safe and it's thick enough that if you have cheap appliances, it offers a buffer. It's obviously terrible omelets or something, but from your comment @Thursagen, it looks like you have oven aspirations...
(another awesome thing about cast iron is the fact that it will get "seasoned" over time, just make sure you season it properly the first time according to the manufactures directions and hand wash it henceforth)
How would boiling (spaghetti for instance) leave the 'seasoning'. Also, for a beginning cook, having to season or cure a pot might be a challenge.
true, boiling water won't add any seasoning... Boiling pasta means a dutch oven is the go-to, but be careful if you're going to bake it, that it NOT be teflon coated... The teflon becomes toxic at high temps...
You've got most of the big points, but I would be a little bit more specific about the handles. Stainless steel handles will allow you to put the pot in the oven, but they will also transfer heat very well and will make the pot harder to pick up after it's been on the stove for a while. If you decide to go with stainless steel handles, be sure to get a pot with handles large enough to accommodate your hands with thick potholders, because you will need them.
Also, if you're just starting out, stainless steel is a reliable, budget-friendly material. But if you really want to invest in quality early, you'll want to look into pots with copper or aluminum cores, as they will transfer heat significantly better and more consistently than solid stainless steel.
For more in-depth information about how to select a stockpot to fit your cooking style, check out this article.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.990872
| 2011-07-26T09:48:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16406",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BaffledCook",
"Cos Callis",
"Cryst",
"Jason C",
"Josh Meyers",
"Loreto Es. Torres",
"MihaiD",
"Pedro Ferreira",
"Rikon",
"Robson Christie",
"Romain Valeri",
"Staci Melendez",
"aeroNotAuto",
"derobert",
"eillarra",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79012",
"michaelee",
"pmagunia",
"rumtscho",
"terrorestial"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9537
|
Are European white truffles significantly superior in flavour to those from North America?
There is a rumour that white truffles harvested in Europe by pigs or dogs are much better in terms of flavour than those from North America, hence the reason for the higher price of European white truffles, the main reason given for the aroma difference is that it has something to do with the way the Americans harvest their truffles.
Are European white truffles much more aromatic and flavourful than the North American ones? I would like to try truffles but I do not want to spend too much money on the European ones if the American ones are just as good or nearly as good.
I think the truffles that are exported are of better quality on average than what you'll find on the european market. I've never tried the american ones consciously (they're not imported to Europe as far as I know).
You could also take into account that the fresher the truffles are the better the quality, so in theory it would be better to eat american truffles in the USA and european truffles in Europe.
Given the mind boggling price differences and the supposed high quality of the stuff found in the forests in Oregon, you're likely going to be well off picking the local stuff.
Definitely noted a difference when eating fresh truffles in restaurants in Italy and Croatia, as opposed to anywhere else in Europe.
"the truffles that are exported" -- exported from where to where? I'm a bit confused about whether you mean the best european truffles are saved for export, or truffles exported from america to europe are better than local european, or the average truffles in both places are equal and exports in either direction are only worthwhile for the top truffles.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.991576
| 2010-11-28T07:07:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9537",
"authors": [
"Der Alte",
"Luciano",
"NTlover",
"The Guy with The Hat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013"
],
"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
}
|
4762
|
Does it make sense to parboil spare ribs before you roast or grill them?
I was thinking about doing it as a time saving device - any recommendations?
How are you grilling them? High heat? Low and Slow? How long does it take to cook them on the grill?
For grilling usually I like to take a few hours: 2-3
I can kind of go either way on this. I like to cook my ribs low and slow with smoke, which takes a couple of hours. However, I'm not sure that par-boiling will really improve this cooking time. So I'd say no for low and slow technique.
My mother boils her ribs first and then grills them. In this case, they cook in the liquid and really just finish on the grill. She puts the ribs in a shallow pan, puts some liquid in, covers in foil, and throws them in the oven. I think she does about two hours in the oven (a quick google suggests about 275). Then it only takes 15 mins or so to finish on the grill. This makes tending quite a lot easier. You can boil them ahead of time and hold in the refrigerator. It also allows you to introduce some more interesting liquids for the boiling (beer, Coca-Cola, Dr Pepper).
Par-boiling for 10-15 minutes and then grilling will help reduce some of the fat in the ribs. It will also help make them "fall of the bone" if you're grilling at higher heats. However, I don't think that 10 minutes is going to substantially affect your cooking time. I could be wrong though, as this method falls dead in between the two methods I'm familiar with.
Love the "interesting liquids" idea. Always fun to experiment in the kitchen.
It probably will save some time, but I tend to think that boiling meat makes for a rather bland, ropey final product (collagen dissolves from the meat, leaving it stingy rather than juicy).
I would suggest just baking them beforehand. You can bake them (low heat, wrapped in foil) days before you intend to serve them and keep them in the refrigerator. Finish as normal (either on a grill or under high heat in the oven).
This is what my dad does, he bakes them low and slow, then finishes them on the grill. I've never had ribs that compared to his when he uses this method.
Our family recipe calls for the ribs to be boiled for an hour before being broiled. The ribs are boiled with a few onions, salt and pepper, and then a sauce is applied for broiling. This does significantly cut down on cook time, and also doesn't require the oven to be on as long and results in tender meat.
That being said, Slow cooking ribs does result in tastier ribs. The boil and broil method is best used in colder weather and don't want to cook low for the required number of hours.
When you boil ribs, the terrorists win.
The whole point of the slow cooking process is to break down the collagen in the connective tissue into gelatin which creates that unctuous mouthfeel that great bbq is known for. By boiling it, you're causing the proteins in the collagen to seize and toughen. The meat may be more tender but that's not what you're ultimately after in great bbq ribs.
"Seize and toughen"? Nonsense. Boiling also breaks down the collagen and gives the unctuous feel, and I don't see why it would toughen the protein more than e.g. baking, which will almost certainly be at a higher temperature than boiling water even if you "slow cook". Adam Shiemke's argument about the collagen dissolving out might possibly be correct, on the other hand, though personally I've not noticed this problem.
Boiling any meat, period, before grilling results in lower flavor quality. Who cares if it's fall off the bone if it taste like cardboard? When you boil all the flavor is cooked off into the water. You could make some tasty rib soup afterwords but anything other than that is going to be low quality bbq. Do the right thing, low and slow, and you can have tasty fall off the bone ribs. Never ever boil any meat under any cercumstances unless you are making soup, stew, chilli, or some other varient. Unless of course you like sub par bbq.
You are not supposed to boil the flavor out. You are supposed to boil the flavor in. Use herbs, spices, etc. I experiment with different flavors all the time. I could make my ribs taste like Filipino Adobo, lemon grass, spicy, gingery, sweet, peppery, rosemary, orange, lemony. Salt is not the only flavoring guys, which I only use very little of in anything I cook.
Boil ribs about 3/4 hr in your choice of flavoring. This will add a hint of flavoring. Cook on grill , indirect heat or with cover on with your choice of smoking wood for about 3/4 hr. I use apple wood from my apple tree. You don't need a smoker , just move the coals to one side or cover the so it stops burning to smoke. I also use 2 old clay Kamado BBQ I block all the air out after coal gets hot. Mild smokey flavor is best. Avoid making your pork taste like the pig got trapped in a burning home or forest.
Finish off in oven with BBQ sauce on low heat until tender. My family and friends enjoy the layers of flavor, fall off the bone juicy tender ribs.
I've been parboiling my ribs for years as my Dad did before me. It shortens grill time and makes them fall off the bone.
I cut my ribs into manageable short racks, add just enough water to cover them, add salt, pepper, paprika, onions, a bit of celery (chopped fine) and bay leaf. I may add other spices as the mood hits. I slow boil for about an hour, or till the meat is tender, but not falling off the bone.
I then take some of the boiling liquid and use this for a base to my BBQ sauce. I add various ingredients to my sauce pot and cook it down till thick and tangy. Then I place my ribs on the grill brush with sauce, flip, brush, flip making sure the sauce soakes and grills into, the meaty flesh. When the meat is ready to fall off the bone I give them a final brush and enjoy, Tender and flavorful to the bone.
My mom taught me to parboil with plenty of seasonings in the water as well as some vinegar onions, peppers and garlic. Then we would put them under the broiler and smother them in sauce. I guess since that's what I grew up with I never really liked "real" bbq. At least when it comes to ribs that is. I'm hosting a cookout for Father's day in the park this weekend. I may just do the same and save myself some time.
Can you explain why you parboil them? The question was about whether or not it's a good idea - have you tried both ways, to see if it's actually helping you or not?
I par boil, cause it is easy and the wife LOVES it! However, there is no doubt that smoking produces the most tasty ribs....
Smoking requires a bit of equipment and a lot of time...wish I had both..
my 0.02
I believe a short, hot, dip. Will heat up any bone in the meat enough to contribute more flavor. But always let your ribs rest...par boiling, when done right, can be a time saver, but you must compensate with deep flavor.
My ribs melt in your mouth and I par boil, but only 15 minutes then I slow cook on grill with lid down 7 minutes on one side add 7 on other then cover in sweet honey molasses Jc masterpiece wonderful pan with tinfoil to and bottom keep on grill with lid down till time to serve
If you like bland and stringy fast, parboil them. If you like flavorful,tender, melt in your mouth ribs, never parboil the ribs.
You want to sous vide your ribs instead of boiling them...
Low boil, turn burner off and remove as soon as hard boil starts. Leave covered 50 minutes, then grill. Try the same method for chicken quarters...and the grill does not flare all to heaven's height because much of the fat is in the boil.
Hi @Dorien in Virginia. Welcome to the site. At Seasoned Advice we have the option to post comments and answers. We work to keep them distinctive. Your "me too" post is generally what we try to avoid in the answer section. Answers should add to the solution of the problem or respond with information others have yet to post. We look forward to your future responses. I'll attempt to edit your response into an acceptable answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.991786
| 2010-08-10T12:57:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4762",
"authors": [
"Aman Aggarwal",
"AttilaNYC",
"BTC",
"C. D.",
"Carbon Crank",
"Cascabel",
"Enilorac",
"Kree Scriven",
"Matthew Dally",
"Maxood",
"PaulS",
"Sarala Hukkeri",
"Tom Ritter",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9585",
"moscafj",
"ptr64",
"spammer",
"stephennmcdonald",
"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
}
|
5356
|
A recipe calls for Brown Ale, I didn't want to use beer, are there any substitutions?
Here is the recipe - I didn't want to use Beer, any help?
3 lb chuck steak, cut into 2-inch chunks
***1-1/4 pints Liefmans Goudenband***
2 Tbsp peanut oil
1 oz butter
1 oz brown sugar
1 Tbsp freshly grated nutmeg
salt
pepper
3 Tbsp flour
2 Tbsp tomato purée
4 oz pitted prunes, sliced
14 fl oz veal stock
1 bouquet garni
1 to
2 Tbsp Dijon mustard
2 cooking apples
Instructions:
Marinate the meat in 3/4 pint of the beer for 3 days. Lift the meat out of the marinade, reserving the marinade. Heat the oil and butter in a large, heavy-based frying pan, add the meat, sugar and nutmeg and cook over a medium-high heat, stirring frequently, until the meat is well browned. Using a slotted spoon, transfer the meat to a casserole and season with salt and pepper.
Stir the flour into the oil and butter and cook until well browned, then stir in the tomato purée, prunes, veal stock, bouquet garni and the beer marinade. Bring to the boil, skim and then pour over the meat. Simmer very gently until the meat is tender, about 1 hour. Stir in the mustard and the remaining beer, then taste and adjust the seasoning. Peel and quarter the apples, add to the casserole and cook for 5 to 10 minutes, until the apples are tender. Serve hot.
If you have a reason for avoiding beer, that might help target recommendations around your actual needs.
Non-Alcoholic would be ideal....
I hate to be a killjoy, but almost all Dijon mustards contain wine, so you may have to find a substitute for that, too.
No beer!? Hmmm.
Well, I can't think of anything that would give you the same flavor, and as a component of the dish it looms quite large...3 day marinade in beer? No way to replace that, and brown ale is distinctive and nutty.
Beer and wine are natural tenderizers, which is what the marinade is for...They're some of the only ones that aren't acidic (buttermilk and yoghurt are others...Obviously not a good choice here) so filling that role without changing the character of the dish is going to be a serious challenge.
Are you looking for a non-alcoholic substitution, or just a non-beer one?
Since tomatoes and apples feature, you might try marinating in cider or tomato juice (depending on which flavor you want to push). You won't want to marinate for anywhere near the same amount of time: those two are acidic enough to digest your meat after 3 days. Might try apple cider and apple cider vinegar mixed. Vinegar marinated beef has an interesting twang to it.
If non-alchoholic is the point, would a non-alcholic beer (not that I endorse the taste) plus something to add a bang of flavor work?
@justkt: Not something I pay a lot of attention to, but I've never seen anything but non-alcoholic lager.
Wines and beers are acidic! They typically have a pH between 3.3 and 4 (about half-way between vinegar and tomato juice in terms of acidity). Also, in almost all cases, marinades do not tenderize meat; this is a common misconception. I'd quote Harold McGee, but I don't have his book in front of me right now. Therefore, according to Alton Brown, "Even if marinades could penetrate big hunks of meat enough to reach tough inner fibers—and they can't—it would take days or maybe weeks for the work to be done."
What, exactly, is your reason for avoiding the beer? Is it the availability? It really isn't the same without the use of a Belgian Sour Ale(or the like). There wouldn't be any residual alcohol after cooking the broth.
If availability really is the issue, you could get away with using pretty much any brown/dark ale as the marinade (Though Belgian is preferred. I once made Carbonade using Saison and an Abbey Ale and it was amazing.) Just try to stay away from something hoppy.
As it turns out all the alcohol doesn't really cook out (I thought it did too at one point)
Going out on a limb and piggybacking @Satan, almond milk might, I repeat might, do the trick. The unsweetened variety is very nutty, and perhaps if you add some brown sugar or caramel (when you're browning it) you might get 2/3s the way there. Since there's no lactic acid in almond milk I don't know if it would tenderize as well however.
You might want to try a malta beverage, and then cut back or remove the sugar in the recipe. That would take a good bit of experimentation to be sure, but malta is more or less non-fermented beer. (hopped malt soda) I would say do 50/50 water and malta, or perhaps 40/60.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.992583
| 2010-08-17T16:44:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5356",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Alesh Houdek",
"AttilaNYC",
"ESultanik",
"Manishearth",
"Matthew",
"R76",
"Satanicpuppy",
"StuartLC",
"ZomZom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"justkt",
"theUg",
"user29579",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6786
|
Can I cook couscous for a chicken dish in my crock pot at the same time as the chicken?
I'm wanted to make a lemon garlic chicken in a crockpot and I'd like to serve it with couscous. Is there a way to cook the two together? I know I can cook the couscous and then add it in the crockpot at the end but I'd prefer to avoid using an extra pot. Can I just add extra liquid (broth) and then add it in halfway, or add it in with the chicken right from the start?
I think this is going to be a bad idea; you'll go from ideal couscous texture (fluffy and light) to mush. I have an article (on my blog) about how to make fluffy couscous. The crux is simply to put it, with the appropriate amount boiling water, in a wide, shallow vessel and cover it for 5 minutes. You can even set that up ahead of time, and when you are ready to serve the food from your crockpot, just add the boiling water from a teakettle and you'll be good to go.
If this is the kind of couscous you generally get in the US, the normal method of cooking it is to stir it into boiling water and then remove from heat and cover tightly. That suggests that you should be able to stir it in at the end of cooking your chicken, along with whatever liquid is necessary to bring you to the 1.5:1 ratio. That'd be pretty much the same as cooking it normally, as long as your crockpot lid isn't too loose. If you're cooking the chicken well below boiling, you could make sure the liquid you add is boiling.
I would suspect that the liquid already in the crockpot would be a problem -- you'd need to determine how much is already there so you'd have the right proportion of couscous to liquid. (and even then, its not boiling liquid, so it's not going to cook quite the same).
@Joe: Yeah, I know it's not going to be easy, but as far as cooking in the crockpot, I think it's about the best you can do. But Michael's right; it's not exactly hard to cook it separately, and you know it'll work.
Instead of the 5 min / boiling water method, you can also steam couscous, but it's much more work -- Alton Brown's technique calls for steaming, separating the grains, then steaming a second time. Tradiationally' it's cooked in a couscoussier, which is basically a steamer, but has a larger pot underneath so you could cook your main dish at the same time.
If you could fit a steamer above the crock pot, and it was generating enough steam, and you could get the steam to not all escape out the sides ... this could work. But it'd still be something else to clean, so I don't know if you'd want to do it.
If I were going to try to keep it all to one pot, I'd probably pull the chicken, measure out the liquid in the pot, pour it back into the crockpot with any additional liquid needed, turned to high -- heat it 'til it bubbled (which is going to take a while, it's a crockpot) and add the couscous, cover, and let sit for a few minutes (might not be 5 ... you'll have to check it)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.992984
| 2010-09-05T20:56:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6786",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"max"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4094
|
If I'm using milk as an ingredient in soup, how can I prevent it from curdling?
There are numerous chicken stock based soups that also have milk as an ingredient and the milk always seems to curdle - how can I prevent this?
For protection against heat, you can stabalize the milk with starches. (eg, a white sauce made with milk won't curdle, even if you boil it). I unfortunately don't know how much you'd have to add, and of course, it'll end up affecting the texture of your soup).
For soups, you're likely better off making a corn starch/milk slurry before adding the milk, so you don't have to cook it like you would flour to get rid of the raw flour taste.
You may also want to consider the heat that you're cooking the soup at -- you likely want a low simmer, not a full boil.
Milk curdles due to acidity, so if you can raise the pH of the soup by adding something basic, it would help, although it could affect flavor.
The other thing to try is heating the milk to ~90 degrees C before adding it to the soup. This will cause the protein in the milk to change in a way that curdling won't result in as bad a final result--it may in fact appear that the milk hasn't curdled at all.
You can also "temper" the milk (as mentioned by Ocaasi): add a bit of the soup to the milk first; then add the milk-soup mixture to the soup at large. And yes, higher fat milks will tend to work better.
Try adding the milk separately to only a single cup of broth. Stir thoroughly. Then slowly add this to the pot. It will allow the milk to come up to temperature gradually in a less acidic environment. Also, higher fat milk will be less likely to curdle, in case when you said milk you meant something other than milk.
You might also try using cream instead of milk; I'm not sure I remember the technical reasons but it is much less likely to curdle. You would want to use less of it than the milk, but it won't introduce the possibly unwanted sour flavor of creme fraiche.
you can also possibly experiment with creme fraiche, which won't curdle, but the flavor is different (nuttier, but not as sour as sour cream) than milk, but at least you won't have the curdling problem! :)
The reason that crème fraiche won't curdle is because it already is curdled! I think this is the same reason that heating the milk (which denatures some of the protein) seems to prevent curdling: because you are in a way pre-curdling it.
Anything acidic ie: citrus juices, hot sauce, Worcestershire sauce, etc will also cause the hot milk proteins to coagulate~
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.993247
| 2010-08-03T12:40:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4094",
"authors": [
"Allie",
"Angelika Frank",
"Heysem Katibi",
"Peter G",
"Veronica",
"badjr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7722",
"kevins",
"neowulf33",
"shametris",
"user7673",
"zfranciscus"
],
"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
}
|
4758
|
How can I get breaded chicken to stop from sticking to the frying pan?
Whenever I fry breaded chicken cutlets, the first side browns beautifully, but when I turn them over, the next side always sticks to the pan. Consequently, one side is beautifully breaded, and the other side is bare of coating. This happens to any kind of meat that I bread. I use olive oil for frying- Ideas?
You might also use a well-seasoned cast iron skillet. This will have the double benefit of a high thermal mass so the temperature won't be down, and a surface that discourages sticking.
It might be that the oil is hotter when you put the first side in and cooled a little by the cooking meat when you flip it. You could try turning the heat up shortly before you flip, or taking the meat out, letting the oil get up to temperature again and adding the meat on the other side.
That was my thought, too -- the pan's cooled down when cooking the first side, so you need to let it come back up to temp ... like when grilling, where you flip onto a fresh section of the barbeque grate.
Perhaps add a little more oil before you flop the meat? So that would mean that the second side is also protected from sticking.
Probably a good idea. Remove the food from pan, add more oil, return food.
Consider using a higher smoke point fat for frying, such as refined corn (canola) or vegetable oil. Your pan may become hot enough that your olive oil (assuming it is extra virgin, which has the lowest smoke point of the olive oils) isn't doing you much good.
Also of note when cooking many things in a pan is that you have to leave them in place for a while for everything to "set" before flipping. Are you flipping from the second side earlier than the first?
Finally, consider your binding. I've found that using sour cream to bind flour to chicken for frying helped it stay on quite a bit, the same way that a restaurant-grade binder might. Many recipes suggest eggs. If you are using simply a liquid, using something stronger might help.
The binding portion was right on target: Thanks!!
@AttilaNYC - great!
Seconding a higher smoke point fat, I personally like grapeseed oil for high heat situations. It also adds a little nutty flavor (and my wife isn't a huge fan of vegetable oil anyway). I'd also say, slightly higher temperatures to go along with it - I cook breaded meats on a 6-7 out of 10, whereas most people I know habitually go to 5 for fear of burning.
Also, consider trying to leave the second side down for a little longer, I feel like you might be flipping it the second time too quickly. If you flip it too fast, it's not getting a chance to crust and un-stick itself from the pan - similar to how if you flip too fast on a grill, your chicken breast will stick to the grates, but if you wait until it crusts up some, you get a clean flip.
And as Princess Fi said, a little extra oil on the second side isn't the worst idea in the world if nothing else works.
In addition to adding a bit more oil and using a higher smoking point oil, you could also try different breadings. You could try panko bread crumbs, crushed pretzels, very fine bread brumbs. Also, consider double-breading your chicken.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.993510
| 2010-08-10T12:49:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4758",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"AttilaNYC",
"Brodie",
"Ezra",
"Joe",
"Joelmob",
"John Feminella",
"Steggo",
"cheeken",
"deberaxu",
"estobin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9208",
"ino",
"invalidsyntax",
"justkt",
"psukys",
"sq33G"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4220
|
Heating meatballs in pasta sauce
I made meatballs yesterday in the oven and I'm going to add them to pasta sauce tonight to heat them up and add them to spaghetti. My question is how long should I boil the meatballs for in the sauce before adding it to the pasta and serving.
The recipe I was looking at didn't use the oven so they cooked the meatballs in the sauce for 20 minutes without stirring and then another 20 minutes while stirring. So I would assume I just have to boil the meatballs long enough to heat the sauce and the meatballs. However contrary to this while looking up how long I should cook the meatballs for I came across one recipe that cooked the meatballs in the oven and then cooked them in the pasta for one hour even though the meatballs were already cooked.
So my question is how long should I cook the meatballs in the sauce? What are the benefits to cooking them for a longer or shorter time? Can you cook them for too long and if so what is too long?
20 or so minutes cooking the meatballs in the sauce has always done the job for me. You want to cook them sufficiently long so that they absorb the moisture and flavour of the sauce, but not too long such that they lose their firm texture. The reverse process of the meat flavouring the sauce is also an important one.
As a side note, it is more advisable to simmer the sauce, rather than boil it, or it will likely become too thick and may even burn.
In general, the combination of initially cooking the meatballs in the oven, and then simmering in the pan is the right way to do things. This ensures that the meatballs are sufficiently cooked, do not fall apart, and have the right firmness. Worth noting is that you should pad off the grease on the meatballs before putting them in the sauce.
I have no objections to baking them first, but I'd like to point out that I have never had a meatball fall apart when cooked in the sauce, nor has one ever been undercooked.
@Aaronut: Depends on the variation of ingredients you use. Also depends on what sort of firmness/texture you want. The traditional Italian method definitely requires baking.
If the meatballs are already cooked, then leaving them in the boiling/simmering sauce for a longer period is just going to cause them to absorb more moisture. Depending on exactly how you made the meatballs, that could make them softer, or... it could make them fall apart. They'll also pick up more flavour from the sauce.
You certainly don't need to simmer them for more than a few minutes if they're already cooked and have the texture and flavour you want. There's no food safety issue here and they're not going to burn (when making a stew or chili you would usually simmer the meat for several hours). It's purely a matter of taste. If you want them to absorb as much flavour as possible from the sauce, then simmer them as long as you can until and unless you see them starting to break apart.
Personally, I'd toss them in for 10-20 minutes and be done with it. I prefer to actually cook the meatballs in the sauce for tenderness; presumably, if you made them separately, you'd want them to remain firm, so don't overdo it.
Three concepts apply here:
1) cooking the meatballs -- 20-30 minutes should be enough to properly cook the meatballs;
2) flavoring the sauce -- you can leave the meatballs in a gently simmering sauce for up to 90 minutes to flavor the sauce;
3) texture of the meatballs -- there is a split of preference between those who like to brown the meatballs in a frying pan with a little oil or in an oven on a sheet pan, and those who prefer to put them in the sauce raw and simply poach. if the meatballs are "loose" or fragile in composition, the browning can help them stay together in the sauce, but mostly this choice affects texture. I like the caramelized, slightly crisp outer crust that forms when meatballs are browned before being placed in the sauce.
NOTE: the comment above about the fat is key. Browning in advance will allow you to drain off SOME of the fat, but you will want to skim the fat from your sauce towards the end of the meatball cooking time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.993805
| 2010-08-04T14:25:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4220",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Noldorin",
"Spammer",
"Tim Parenti",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7913",
"imsamurai",
"izb",
"joshmax",
"junglizer",
"zenna"
],
"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
}
|
143
|
Why do my burgers end up round?
When I broil or grill my burgers, I end up with burgers that are round in the middle.
I grind my own beef blend and form my patties the same every time. When I cook my burgers in a pan I don't get the rounded burgers.
What makes the burgers rounded and smaller when broiling/grilling, but not with pan cooking?
I know this is a bit obvious, but when you fry them, do you squish them with the skillet at all as they're cooking?
FWIW: loose-packed burgers made with course-ground beef don't suffer from this problem - I suspect they're better able to shrink evenly as the fat renders out, where tightly-packed patties find the edge shrinking faster than the center.
I'm not sure what causes the bowing to be more pronounced from one cooking method versus another, but the solution is to put a thumbprint indentation in the middle, creating a slight "donutted" shape. This will help to ensure you get the "patty" shape you want.
The difference is probably the level of heat being applied to the burgers. Pan frying is only heating one side and probably isn't as intense as the broil/grill method.
I always use a patty press when I make my burgers since it compacts them really well and helps them to be less round.
It's almost the same effect as frying Baloney (yeah, think back to college) - if you're using thin patties put little slits in three places and the bubbling effect will disappear.
Making an indentation works, but I prefer to poke a hole all the way through with my pinky finger. The hole disappears while cooking.
On top of using a patty press as Bryant suggested, freezing the patties first helps them hold their shape until they cooked enough to be self-supporting.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.994185
| 2010-07-09T20:04:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/143",
"authors": [
"Alexander Konstantinov",
"Blorgbeard",
"Don O'Donnell",
"Jake Pearson",
"Msrex",
"Russ Bradberry",
"Shog9",
"Spedge",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5213
|
How can I keep my reheated Oats from sticking together?
I usually make steel cut oats in a rice cooker (1:3 ratio of oats and water) and generally have a couple of servings left over. When I try to reheat in the microwave it comes out all congealed together in small little chunks. Even if I put a little milk before microwaving still doesn't seem to work - The milk stays settled on the bottom of the heated bowl and the oats are still clumped together. Any Tips?
You have to really beat the milk into it. Start with all of the oatmeal in a bowl, and add just a little milk and mush it in with a fork. Keep adding milk a little at a time until you reach the texture you like, then reheat it.
Before you store your remaining cooked oats in the refrigerator, add more hot water to them to make them looser than you would normally would, dare I say soupy. As you go to reheat your oats the next time, you will be removing moisture during the heating process which causes them to stick together and turn gummy. If they are still sticking together during the reheating process I will stir in hot water or milk until I get the consistency I desire.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.994379
| 2010-08-15T01:57:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5213",
"authors": [
"FranzQ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10259",
"itsmybiz43",
"nik3daz"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5384
|
Culinary uses for hops
Hop flowers are primarily used to preserve and flavor beer. Now that hops are starting to ripen in the northern hemisphere, I'm wondering: are there any other uses for them in the kitchen?
Don't forget hopping for aroma. Mmm!
You can use them to flavor other foods. I've seen cakes and other sweets made with hop flowers. You will probably want a low alpha-acid variety(alpha acid makes the bitter flavor), but both could be interesting.
To use, you could dry the flowers and mill to a fine powder. This can then be incorporated directly into food. I think they could be used similarly to how matcha powder is incorporated into recipes once ground.
You can also use the 'sludge' left over from brewing (mix of hop flowers and yeast
and barley bits) as an ingredient in bread, which gives a very interesting flavor. Hops alone would probably add a similar flavor.
I've heard you can cook and serve the young shoots (just a few inches long) much as you would asparagus.
Has anyone actually done this?
Infuse into oil for salad dressings
Some answers already mention Bittering, Preserving, and Flavor, but don't forget:
AROMA!
To expound on this, if you're adding for aroma, you should add at the very end of the "heating/cooking" process. This is because the essential oils of the hop will not have enough time to significantly dissolve into whatever it is you are cooking if you add it at the end. (eg. last 5 minutes.) Thus the oil scent is free to be released into the air when you smell whatever it is you are making.
If you add hops to something that's simmering/boiling and the hops are in the mix for more than 15 or 20 minutes, those essential oils dissolve into the liquid and become more of a flavoring/bittering agent, rather than aromatic.
Why is Aroma important?
Well, what you smell is complimentary to what you taste. The two enhance each other in the eating experience.
You'll have to experiment with hops, but one of my favorite hops is Amarillo. It has a very floral fragrance.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.994613
| 2010-08-17T20:11:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5384",
"authors": [
"Atav32",
"Daniel",
"Jeepinjoel",
"John M. P. Knox",
"Lottie Seaman",
"Matthew Boynes",
"gaIl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63941"
],
"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
}
|
1119
|
What oil to use when cooking steak, and what difference does it make?
When cooking steak, I have always been told groundnut oil is the best to use. But what difference does it make? Is it the best? And if it is the best, what's the next best?
are you refering to cooking your steaks in oil or using the oil as a part of a marinade?
Cooking steak in oil sorry that wasn't clear.
There are 2 things that matter, 1) taste (e.g. butter tastes good) 2) smoke point, if your pan is so hot that the oil burns the oil will taste bad (Butter have low smoke point)
I kind of want to expand this question to ask what would happen if you sear the steak WITHOUT oil/butter? I accidentally forgot to do it on my steak but there was no real issue from what I can tell I did use a cast iron pan though.
Whatever oil is in your pantry. Canola, vegetable, peanut, or even olive oil (just don't ever cook with extra virgin olive oil) is perfectly fine.
Any quality, fresh oil is going to be fine for cooking. Don't use rancid oil, and don't overheat the oil.
Why not extra virgin olive oil?
Extra virgin olive oil has a very low smoke point, meaning it's very easy to burn. Burnt oil smells and tastes bad, and may even catch fire under the right conditions.
According to this it's only a 14F difference for the extra virgin olive oil vs virgin olive oil. Is it really going to make an actual difference?
Olive oils have a wide range of smoke points depending on their quality. Your standard quality extra virgin stuff burns between 300F and 350F, much too low for frying. If you shell out for the good stuff you're fine, but for those prices who's cooking with it? http://www.seriouseats.com/2014/05/cooking-fats-101-whats-a-smoke-point-and-why-does-it-matter.html
The real reason is extra virgin is very expensive compared to normal olive oil. Why spend all that extra money when you're going to destroy all the flavour compounds that made it so expensive in the first place?
In New Orleans, steaks have been served in sizzling butter since before Ruth's Chris made it popular.
Techniques here:
http://thepauperedchef.com/2009/04/the-butter-steak-whats-the-best-way-to-cook-a-steak.html
http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/278559
The flavor is going to be the biggest difference when used on steak.
Different oils have different smoke points but for searing stake that doesn't make much of a difference because of the high temperature.
Why? it is at high temperature it does matter!
I never use oil to cook steaks. Why? There is natural fat on/in it already. If I feel I must have fat to keep from sticking, I trim excess fat off one bit and rub it over the heated pan. To keep steak from sticking to my pan, I usually season with dehydrated garlic and onion plus powdered or ground leaf spices. Those tend to stick slightly then I later use water mixed in with the stuck down spices to make an au jus for either potatoes or rice.
Here is how Gordon Ramsey does it (he uses groundnut oil (aka peanut oil), one flip, 2.5-3 mins a side, butter added mid way, sides cooked at end, feel only no thermometer)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEx9gPhtjzs
Helo and welcome to the site! Do you prepare your steak like Gordon Ramsey? Could you add your own experiences? That would actually improve your answer.
If you cook expensive meat like wagyu beef, you can request them to give you some fat (from the cow of course) and oil the pan with this fat. It gives you the most authentic taste! Usually I just use olive oil (not extra virgin).
You may want to consider a butter/oil mix. I find that works well as the oil has a higher smoking point but butter adds flavor.
What type of oil do you use with this?
I use olive oil with butter.
umm Extra virgin olive oil + butter
or
pork fat / beef fat / any form of fat
if you think a "fat" your using is going to burn fast, then just add some oil to it.
From http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/recipes/guides/oils.php
Polyunsaturated
Due to their unstable chemical structure, polyunsaturated fatty acids are more susceptible to rancidity than
saturated and monounsaturated fatty acids, especially after prolonged
contact with oxygen, light or heat. Oils that are predominately
polyunsaturated include walnut, grapeseed, soy, corn and fish oils.
These are liquid at room temperature.
Many experts don't recommend polyunsaturated oils for cooking because
they are so easily damaged by heat. They are best used in their raw
form, and used quickly at that. Never keep polyunsaturated oils beyond
their expiration date. If cooking is necessary, use low temperatures. Polyunsaturated oils should be stored refrigerated in dark bottles.
Furthermore, grain- or legume-based oils concentrate the toxins the seeds use to protect themselves against being eaten.
Clarified butter, coconut oil, beef tallow, butter and similar oils with low poly-unsaturated fat content are the best oils for frying or deep frying. No, they won't give you a heart attack.
Personally, I like refined peanut oil for searing steaks.
Here is a list of smoke points for various oils: http://www.goodeatsfanpage.com/collectedinfo/oilsmokepoints.htm
Is ground nute oil the same as peanut oil?
I like to use peanut oil IF I am frying burgers instead of grilling them. It produces a wonderful flavor. Since burgers are ground steak per se, I would say it translates to steak as well, and I do indeed cook often in peanut oil.
My choice of oil however has more to do with what I am cooking beyond just the beef itself...i.e. more Asian style vs. Mediterranean style, but alone without the culture feel of the dish wishstanding, I like peanut oil best.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.994842
| 2010-07-16T19:21:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1119",
"authors": [
"Ally Tirado",
"Anes",
"Archimedes Trajano",
"Boetsj",
"Esa",
"IanVaughan",
"Jadasc",
"Jonathan Sterling",
"Kevin Doyon",
"Laine D.",
"Lilliana Perez",
"Lori Brodeur",
"MKHC",
"Mark Davidson",
"Mike Mengell",
"Mike Yockey",
"Mo.",
"Nik Reiman",
"Simon Steele",
"Stefan",
"Stephie",
"Zaphoid",
"alumb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/990",
"mana",
"orip",
"swrobel"
],
"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
}
|
986
|
What is the proper usage of a pie bird?
I have one of those ceramic pie birds that vent steam from a pie while it bakes. What benefit does using this provide to the end result? Also, in what types of pies should it be used?
From this site I found that there are two major benefits to using a pie bird
Prevent the pie from boiling over in
the oven by allowing the steam created
when the fruit filling or other
contents are cooking to escape from
inside the pie
Support the pastry crust in the center
of the pie, so that it did not sag in
the middle
Based on the site it seems that they can be put in any type of pie.
I can add that while you could probably use it with any type of closed pie, you must use one (or a DIY steam vent) when baking a pâté in a crust. Not only will it let the steam escape, you need the big hole to fill the not-yet-set gelatine mix after it has cooled.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.995351
| 2010-07-14T21:00:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/986",
"authors": [
"AdamV",
"Geoff Hutchison",
"RadiantHex",
"Sam Hoice",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27303",
"pygabriel"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1104
|
Proper Technique for Rolling Sugar Cookies
I have an old recipe of my grandmother's for sugar cookies and I'd love for them to turn out just like hers. However, whenever I try to roll out the dough, I find I either can't get it thin enough, it is too sticky or it ends up tearing. What are the proper tools and techniques I need to roll out sugar cookie dough?
There's a lot of things that can throw off baking recipes --
Regional variations in flour hardness. 'All purpose' flour from the US South tends to be softer than brands from other areas.
The humidity and temperature.
Altitude (affects the boiling point of water, which will require adjusting baking times and possibly leavening agents)
How you measure your flour -- I'm lazy and use scoop & sweep -- my mom, however, would use spoon and sweep.
Size of your eggs. Most recipes in the US assume 'Large' eggs unless otherwise specified.
Type of salt used. Most recipes in the US assume table salt unless otherwise specified.
How you mix the dough, and how long you mix it.
How long you rest the dough before rolling out.
In your case, for rolled doughs:
temperature of the dough. (you want it chilled, but not so cold that it crumbles)
work surface / rolling pin material (specific to your problem, will affect how much things stick, and how they retain/transfer heat)
You might also want to see Baking 911 : Cookies Problems and Baking 911 : Rolled Cookies
The dough and everything with which it comes in contact must be chilled as much as possible. Chill the dough thoroughly. Throw the rolling pin in there, too. Once you take everything out, work quickly so that it doesn't warm up before you're done.
We experimented with a new cookie dough recipe last Christmas and I ended up rolling it into thick sheets and then putting it in the freezer for a while before I finished rolling it out.
Maybe try rolling the dough out between sheets of cling film
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.995473
| 2010-07-16T15:34:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1104",
"authors": [
"Bob",
"Naseer",
"Tumbleweed",
"cthom06",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2050"
],
"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
}
|
270
|
How can I prevent pan fried chicken from becoming too chewy?
Every time I cook boneless/skinless chicken breast in a pan over the stove-top it seems to end up slightly chewy. What am I doing wrong?
Do you mean tough? Is it dry as well?
Simple - you're just overcooking it. A very common fate for chicken breast.
And the solution? A meat thermometer.
Use a loose fitting lid on the pan to get a more even cook, as this simulates the oven like environment
My brother's trick as a chef is to poach the chicken breast first until just cooked (i.e. as soon as you think the breast meat is cooked through and absolutely no more).
He'll leave the breast for a few moments and the finish off in a hot pan or griddle.
Another factor may be the quality of the breast meat you're buying. It's a bit more expensive but you should always try to source free range organic chicken meat. It's way more tastier and the quality of the meat is substantially better.
I tend to pan-sear chicken in butter on medium-high to high heat until browned, then finish it in the oven at 350 degrees Fahrenheit for about 20-24 minutes. Results in much more tender, juicy chicken than fully pan cooking it.
It is to do with
(1) cooking time
(2) fat content of the chicken
(3) the way you cook it
Chicken breast contains little fat, and thus if cooked, it dries pretty easily and dry meat + heat = chewy. If you insist on the chicken breast, you can try poaching it in for example chicken stock, first, before cooking it on a pan.
You may also want to make small cuts into the chicken so that
(1) the muscle fibres are cut in short pieces which would lead to less contraction of muscle which allows for more fluid to remain in the meat
(2) more surface area for faster cooking of the chicken breast
If you do not insist on healthy cooking, using boneless chicken leg solves the problem effortlessly because of the fat.
Cutting into the chicken isn't such a great idea. You're just letting the juices out.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.995659
| 2010-07-09T22:03:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/270",
"authors": [
"Catalin Iacob",
"DavGarcia",
"Joe Corkery",
"Luke Girvin",
"Michael Mior",
"Mihai Toader",
"Shog9",
"TFD",
"heycam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/898",
"jhawes",
"miguel.de.icaza",
"sep332",
"slim"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
94076
|
Is IKEA frozen salmon safe to eat raw in sushi?
I was wondering if IKEA's frozen salmon was safe to be eaten raw in a home cooking environment? It's farmed which is a plus from what I've read, but I couldn't really find any data on their freezing process (except their little note about customer storing conditions that says it should be kept at -18°C or bellow).
You may want to tweak your question title to make it a bit less ambiguous – I read the title and was wondering when IKEA started selling frozen salmon sushi.
I personally don't trust sushi that isn't prepared by a Japan-trained (not just "Asian-looking") sushi chef, and I certainly never buy so-called "sushi-grade" fish to prepare at home. There is way more to sushi safety than people realize.
This may vary by country, as they probably don't use the same supplier for the whole world, so you might want to edit the question to be more specific about which Ikea.
Did you want to know if it's safe to eat after being defrosted?
@Robusto - I'm curious about your "There is way more to sushi safety than people realize" comment, and it seems too broad to address in comments here, so I asked it as a question: How to make safe sushi
Unless if it's labelled "sushi-grade" or "sashimi-grade", they probably don't freeze it deeply enough, so I wouldn't recommend it as-is. This is because of Salmon's high risk of parasites. However, you can turn it into sushi-grade fish if you have a freezer that reaches -20°C, and don't mind waiting.
Here in British Columbia, the government has Sushi Safety guidelines (as there are a huge number of sushi restaurants here) which instructs to use one of the following methods to destroy parasites in raw fish (except for Tuna, in which freezing is not required) when served in restaurants;
Store frozen at -20°C or below for 7 days
Store frozen at -35°C or below for 15 hours
Store it at -35°C until solid, and then keep it at -20° or below for 24 hours.
Actually, it may be better to read Manitoba's version of this document, as it gives clearer instructions for the same process.
After the fish has gone through this "sushi-grade" process, it is safe to store it at -18° before eating it raw. This is the most common temperature for household freezers, and probably grocery store freezers.
Disclosure: I have never done this process myself. However, I have never gotten sick from eating sushi in Vancouver, where they are supposedly following these guidelines. I have occasionally heard of others getting sick for a day (allegedly) from sushi, though this may just be because the restaurant (or fish distributor) made a mistake.
Update: It appears that the terms "sushi-grade" & "sashimi-grade" are not regulated by either US or Canadian law, and probably not in the UK either.
It appears the EU laws are more liberal, only requiring 24 hours at -20° for wild salmon, and don't require any freezing for Scottish-farmed Atlantic salmon (due to low risk of parasites). The salmon at Ikea is probably farmed Atlantic, so it might actually qualify (so much for everything that I wrote), though I'm not certain. I unfortunately don't have any research data, so I'm just going by law.
For alternatives, you can go with tuna, which is rather low-risk even without the deep-freezing, which is often not required by law. If you don't mind being less traditional, you can also use smoked salmon or sous-vide salmon.
Worth pointing out that the "sushi grade" label is completely unregulated, it doesn't indicate any uniform method of preparation or level of safety. Stores do have a vested interest in keeping you safe, so "sushi grade" fish likely is less likely to make you ill when eaten raw, but it's incorrect to assume that all "sushi grade" fish has gone through the same "sushi grade process".
Manitoba's version of the document probably just says to put the fish out in the snow for a day. -40C is just another day in the life there...
If you want to freeze it below -35°C for 15 hours, would packing it in dry ice be a good way to accomplish that?
[-18°C] is the most common temperature for household freezers This is an interesting point: as far back as I can remember, all the freezers in my refrigerators (refrigerator/freezer combo) were at -22°C, despite being *** graded, which indeed means -18°C
I try to believe the things said here, and there are links to official guidelines. But this is the first time ever that I hear that stuff gets killed by low temperature. I was always operating under the assumption that the little buggers only get, well, frozen, and keep replicating happily when thawed - and get killed only by reaching a certain warmer temperature (e.g., ~40°C for beneficial bacteria involved in baking bread, or ~70-80°C-ish for harmful meat stuff). Do you have a link to some ressource that shows how that works for low temperatures, scientifically?
Also... if this is possible, why do we bother with keeping stuff cold all the time anyways, and don't just have big local deep-freezers etc., making it much less problematic if something thaws which should not?
@Electrick-Gecko: "I have never gotten sick from eating sushi": That is mostly another issue, food poisoning from bacteria (bacterial infection, or bacterial toxins --- do look up Ciguatera in reef fish; toxins that cannot be destroyed by conventional cooking or freezing). Insufficiently frozen fish might give you parasites; with a long-ish incubation, you might not know for months or years you have them and you wouldn't be able to link them back to a specific meal (undercooked pork? unsafe sushi salmon? ... ), often only to a risky eating habit.
@AnoE slight freezing destroys most wormy parasites and their watery bodies; the hard freezing is to destroy the tougher parasite eggs specifically (see Seamonkies' eggs: survival mechanisms for long tough times!). The shrinking/re-expanding and the ice crystals in cells eventually, mechanically, destroys (statistically) all of them; just like flavour "flattens" over each freezing/thawing cycle, it's various molecules that get mechanically destroyed. The various options of procedures (shorter at colder temperatures) come from experiments that had to destroy a pre-set percentage of parasites.
@AnoE the information about "freezing not making things safe" refers to bacteria. They will survive freezing and thawing, and also there will be new bacteria finding your meat as soon as you thaw it. So, freezing does not reduce bacteria numbers. It does however reduce parasite numbers. In sushi, you have to accept that you will eat all bacteria present, so the freezing targets the parasites only (which are pretty widespread in fish).
If you can't find details then it's pretty likely it is not sushi safe, and I would certainly make that assumption. Sushi safe freezing would add extra costs and Ikea is all about low costs. Plus, it wouldn't be necessary if the fish is going to be cooked or cured, and that's how most want to use it. If it was sushi safe I'd expect to see it clearly marked on the packaging - it's good for marketing.
Probably true and safest path but not necessarily right: All commercially available coconuts are "organic" or "bio", but paying for the label and its inspections/paperwork isn't normally worth it. You have to know/study IKEA's cold chain to decide. I'm not in the business, but I imagine e.g., freezing at -20C making economic sense even if the law only prescribes -18C: Say after a 3h power cut the whole storage facility is still at -18.2C so you don't have to destroy the whole stock; same idea smaller scale for cold vans that get stuck in traffic. So it's risk (= chance x cost) of losing stock.
In some countries, you're mandated to freeze at -35. I've worked in such warehouses, and it's not big deal. The issue is unheat loss so to speak. THAT BEING SAID, there's no way of knowing how Ikea freezes its stuff where you live, unless oyu ask them.
I know in the UK at least the freezers in Ikea stores as well as other stores are set to under -20ºC as standard. most likely hovering around -21ºC to -22ºC.
Home freezers are also -20ºC by default. So if -18ºC in considered sushi grade then it would pass that test by default almost everywhere.
What home freezers are -20C by default???
@Behacad: the US FDA recommends keeping freezers at 0F (-18C).
Oh I see. A F and C confusion here
I would strongly recommend adding labels to your values.
I've once done precision temperature measurements in a freezer (with a thermometer with a fast response time) and, possibly in order not to get any warmer than -18°C, the freezer temperature oscillated between -22°C and -18°C, resulting in an average of -20°C.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.996135
| 2018-11-20T09:08:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94076",
"authors": [
"AnoE",
"Behacad",
"Haakon Løtveit",
"J...",
"Janus Bahs Jacquet",
"Johnny",
"Klaws",
"Matthew E Cornish",
"Nuclear Hoagie",
"Peter Taylor",
"Robusto",
"Sophie Swett",
"Warlord 099",
"WoJ",
"copper.hat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70769",
"rumtscho",
"user3445853"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102603
|
Can something have more sugar per 100g than the percentage of sugar that's in it?
If this is the wrong place to ask this, please direct me to the correct place.
I am a big fan of cereal, and I like to eat a fair amount, but don't like to have too much sugar. I recently started eating Shreddies, which claims to have only 13g of sugar per 100g.
However, (and this is where my question arises), on the box of cereal, as well as in the nutrition information, it states that 96% of Shreddies is whole grain wheat, and also on the box it says that 96.2g of whole grain goes into every 100g.
How can it be, that they say that 96% of the product is wheat, but also somehow that there is 13g of sugar in every 100g? Surely it shouldn't be possible for there to be more than maybe 4g of sugar?
Where does the other grams come from? I know whole grain wheat doesn't have that much natural sugar in it so I don't understand how they can say there is 96g of whole grain wheat for every 100g in Shreddies, but also somehow say that there's 13g of sugar in every 100g, which seems to be a contradiction.
Please could someone educate me on this, tyvm.
Perhaps the sugar is excluded from the percentage calculation?
It might also have something to do with serving suggestions or assumptions? Like, one of them is per 100g dry weight and one is 100g in a bowlful of milk? I think I've seen something like that, a food giving nutrition facts as it is expected to be served rather than from-package, and cereal plus milk is a reasonableish assumption. though if so that should be written somewhere, at least in the fine print. ...though 13g sugar seems kinda high for milk...
I think this pertains to the difference between ingredients and analysis. Ingredients are what is explicitly put into the product; analysis is what may be found in it. In other words, the ingredients themselves have components which will appear in the analysis, like sugars.
Food labels are an interesting thing... Tic Tacs are allowed to say they are "sugar free", when over 90% of a Tic Tac is sugar.
"only" 13% sugar...
Why not get cereal with zero added sugar?
Are you sure it's not sugars? Whole grain wheat contains sugars of its own and then you may have 6g of added sugar ontop of that
Interesting to note is that wheat itself has 0.4g of sugar per 100g of wheat flour, so not all the sugar is added sugar. Granted, the inherent sugar isn't very much. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/foods/wheat#nutrition
@computercarguy for cooking purposes it may not be, but for dietary purposes practically all carbohydrates ARE sugars of certain kind(frequently fructose). They act on you broadly the same way as table sugar(usually glucose or saccharose) does. So, according to your link all that 72g of carbs are sugars, which is about right. Wheat is mostly sugars.
@Aequitas - mainstream breakfast cereals in the U.S. typically contain 25-40% sugar (a few even in excess of 50%) and in the UK the average seems to be around 20-30% sugar, so yes, 13% sugar is relatively low for processed breakfast cereals.
While a simple ingredient like wheat flour may not have much simple sugar (carbohydrates are essentially all in the form of starches), it could be processed in such a way as to break down some of the starch into simple sugars. The end product would appear to contain more sugars even when none was added.
In a classroom, there can be 60% of girls, 30% of people with blond hair and 30% of people with blue eyes.
Looking up Shreddies, I found this site. It lists, in the ingredients
Whole Grain Wheat (96%), Sugar, Invert Sugar Syrup, Barley Malt Extract, Salt, Molasses, Vitamins and Minerals (Niacin, Iron, Pantothenic Acid, Folic Acid, Vitamin B6, Riboflavin)
There is no percentage for the sugar in the ingredients list.
And the nutritional information says
Carbohydrate 70g
of which sugars 13g
If that's where your confusion comes from, then it is simply that you didn't realize the different meanings of the word "sugar".
Chemically, sugars are a class of molecules with a roughly similar structure, most of which taste similar. For a cook or food technologist, "sugar" is any ingredient that constist of one or many of these molecules and can be used to sweeten food. And finally, in everyday language, "sugar" without any further qualifications is exactly one of these products, namely white crystal sugar, that consists of the molecule sucrose only.
In the ingredients list, the second ingredient uses this third meaning of the word sugar - they have put less white table sugar than whole grain into the cereal (making the white sugar amount at most 4%). The nutrition label uses the first meaning - it sums together all chemical sugars in the cereal. And it is normal for even unprocessed whole grain to contain some of those - this being a cereal, and a malted one at that, it has more of them. So, part of your "whole grain" ingredient is made up of (chemically) sugars, as well as the "sugar" ingredient, the "invert sugar syrup" ingredient, possibly the "barley malt extract" (pure malt is quite a bit of sugar), and the "molasses" ingredient. Together, the weight of chemical sugars is 13% of the cereal.
The sugar was inside the wheat all along
@Richard In this case, there is obviously quite some sugar coming from the wheat itself, else the total sugar cannot be above 4%. The 0.7% figure likely comes from a nutrition database - there they test "standard" versions of each food. This doesn't mean that Nestle uses the standard version of "shredded wheat", they must have some processing steps which create sufficient sugars in the wheat. The prime suspect here is the malting, although it does not have to be the only contributor.
@DaveBensonPhillips and the malt, the sugar syrup, the molasses.
I suspect that 96g of whole grain goes into the recipe for 100g, along with 13g of sugar and some salt, vitamins, and flavouring ingredients. At that point there's at least 109g. Then it's formed and cooked, driving off at least 9g of water, getting down to 100g.
I don't know in what form the whole wheat is added, but whole wheat flour has more than 20% moisture as sold, so it's easy to drive some of this off. This isn't water as an ingredient, this is moisture in the grain.
The wording gives it away. They don't say there's 96g of whole wheat in 100g of finished product. They say they started with 96g. That 96g has reduced to no more than 87g by the time it goes into the box. This is more obvious on ketchup - the bottle in my fridge says "prepared with 157g of tomatoes per 100g of product"
natural sugars in the wheat can shave off a few grams too.
@Borgh very little if the wheat is similar in composition to flour.
This seems to be the most likely explanation, considering Nestle Shredded Wheat (no added sugar) is only 0.7% sugar. That suggests that they don't use malted wheat and nearly all of the sugar is added.
No, 96% of the ingredients means there cannot be more than 4% added sugar. The percentage is of the ingredients, not of the product "The percentage should normally be calculated by using the same method
as that used for determining the order in the list of ingredients[...]. This
means that the weight of an ingredient to be quantified* would need to be
divided by the total weight of all of the ingoing ingredients " QUID https://www.merton.gov.uk/assets/Documents/quid_labelling.pdf
@PeteKirkham - Please continue to read further in the document you linked. Section 43 (the next page after what you quoted) addresses situations where the final weight of the product differs significantly because of "loss of moisture" during processing. There is a detailed calculation given there in butter cookies, where the total amount of butter that would be listed as an ingredient appears to be greater because the weight of butter before cooking is divided by the weight of the final product. I don't know for certain that this happened in OP's case, but the regulations indicate it could.
A couple things for clarification. First, some have speculated that the percentages do not refer to true percentages. Assuming this is UK labeling, as in the link rumtscho noted, the 96% per UK regulations must refer to the amount per 100 grams of the product by weight (from 96.2 grams of whole wheat). It turns out I was wrong about this in some cases. See NOTE added at the end of this answer. Canadian versions note that Shreddies are 94.9% "whole grain wheat."
That seemingly leaves only about 4-5% of other ingredients for sugar. As rumtscho points out, "sugar" here can include all sorts of different chemicals that count as "sugars." The ingredients list includes sugar, invert sugar syrup, barley malt extract, and molassses, all of which will contain sugars that likely contribute to the total.
And yet that still doesn't seem to be enough. I was confused at first too, as whole wheat flour only contains roughly a gram of sugars. I consulted a half dozen different products and different nutritional databases, and whole wheat flour and whole wheat berries contain around a gram of sugar per 100 grams. (It varies a bit by wheat variety, but seems to usually be in the range of 0.5-1.5 grams of sugar per 100 grams.)
So what's going on? That only seemingly accounts for maybe 5-6 grams of sugar, as OP notes. I agree that at first it was a mystery to me too. Then I went to the Shreddies website and noticed the description -- "delicious malty, milk-loving squares."
Lacking another explanation, the issue must be in the "malting." At first, one might assume the malt extract is what creates the malty flavor, but whole grains can easily be malted (that is, allowing them to sprout a bit, which also develops natural enzymes in the grain to convert carbohydrates and starches into sugars). The added barley malt, assuming it contains active enzymes, can also assist in this conversion to sugar.
As noted on this Canadian site:
Many varieties of Shreddies either use a malted cereal process or use
additions of malt extract. We could not find if Canadian manufactured
Shreddies uses Malting. If malting is used the grains would develop
enzymes through the germination process that turn the starches into
starches and sugars such as maltose through the forced germination
process of malting. The resulting rootlets would then be removed and
recycled into valuable animal feed.
The malting process provides colour and flavour to the product. There
is also a possibility that malting extract may also be used in the
flavouring of products. The malt extract is the filtered and
evaporated sweet liquid that is extracted and evaporated during the
germination process which contains mostly maltose (malt sugar) from
the malting process of barley or wheat.
Malting preserves the natural characteristics of whole grain and
extracts are nutritious and functional to processing. (Vitamin
B, and used as a substitute for refined sugar, and amino acids.)
To my mind, that's the only reasonable explanation, unless Shreddies is made from some bizarre engineered wheat variety that has oodles more sugar than usual. As that site quoted above notes: "Processing information is very difficult to discover on Shreddies." While some products will definitely advertise malting of ingredients as part of their process, I don't know what the labeling requirements in the UK are for this.
However, it's easily possible that malting of the whole-grain wheat could double the sugar content of the final cereal, as is likely the case here. Note that in this case the sugar is not "added," but instead effectively converted from the natural carbohydrates and starches in the whole wheat to sugars. (Also, it's important to note that this process will happen in your digestive system anyway when you eat whole grains, as the human body breaks down many carbohydrates into simpler sugars. I'm not saying there is no nutritional difference, only that the total number of carbohydrates you are ingesting from the whole wheat is likely about the same.)
EDIT -- IMPORTANT NOTE: After further research, I realized I'm wrong about the implications of EU labeling. The relevant information can be found at this link, but there are also UK resources that confirm this interpretation.
As discussed there, Chris H's interpretation may in fact be what's going on here too. That is, they may begin with 96 grams of whole wheat, add 13 grams of sugars (in various forms), then bake the cereal, causing water to evaporate from the wheat, and then still claim that whole wheat is 96% of the total ingredients, even with 13 grams added sugar. It sounds preposterous, but the example near the bottom of the EU regulations linked above says this is actually the way to label this process. The only time when they need to explain this absurdity is if the ingredients required to be labeled with percentages (otherwise known as a quantitative ingredient declaration, or QUID) seem to add up to more than 100%, in which case there needs to be clarification. However, since the packaging doesn't make any statements about the added sugars in the advertising, they aren't required to state the percentage of added sugars. So, if I'm reading these regulations correctly, even though added sugars might constitute 13% of the final product, they can still claim the product has 96% whole wheat. (See the example at point 27 in the EU link above,[SEE ADDITIONAL EDIT BELOW] which shows that the calculation for a QUID is generally the weight of the original ingredient divided by the final weight of the product, regardless of whether weight loss in the ingredient may have significantly changed the percentage in the final product.)
In sum, the sugar content here could be due to malting, or it could be due to a lot of added sugar that is effectively hidden in the ingredients declaration, due to loss of moisture and the bizarre EU method of percentage calculation. Or it could be partly both. I don't know that there's any way to know for certain without chemical analysis of the cereal or further processing details from the manufacturer.
FURTHER EDIT -- To address some concerns that have come up in comments on this answer and Chris H's answer, please note the link to a UK document on QUID that was provided by the commenter. (I found that link before too, but quoted the EU link as more recent. The comment claims the EU link is broken in my answer, but it still works fine for me. Nevertheless, I'm adding this for the sake of completeness and to show a UK source.) In any case, please consult page 14 in the UK link under section 43 to see the same calculation on butter cookies I mentioned above in my last edit. For the sake of completeness, I quote that regulation in detail here:
QUID declarations on products (such as cakes, biscuits, pies and cured meats) the composition of which has been changed by cooking or other treatments involving loss of moisture should be based on the amount of the ingoing ingredient expressed as a percentage of the weight of the final product. For example, the butter content of a “butter cookie” would be calculated as follows:
Ingredients:
List item Weight
Flour 100g
Sugar 35g
Butter 50g
Eggs 10g
Total mixing bowl 195g
Total after baking 169g
Formula: 50/169 x 100 = 29.6% Where this calculation would lead to declarations exceeding 100%, the declarations should be replaced with statements giving the amount of the ingredients used to make 100g/ml of the final product (eg “made with Xg/ml of Y per 100g/ml”).
In that case, the butter percentage in the butter cookies is likely overrepresented as a constituent of the final product, since the highest percentage free moisture component in the cookies was the eggs (typically ~75% water compared to ~15% water in butter and even less in flour). Nevertheless, this is the way the EU requires calculations to be done. I don't know whether this calculation method and way of adding sugar was used in OP's case or not, but the regulations appear to allow it.
So would these sugars be counted as added sugar or natural sugars in my diet?
@NotAPro - I don't really know how your particular dietary classification works. All I can say is that the sugars produced from malting come from conversion from starches in the wheat, while the sugar, molasses, etc. are added ingredients to the wheat. From what I understand labeling added sugars is not allowed under EU law, while it's complicated in the U.S.
@NotAPro - I just edited my answer to take into account another possibility according to EU labeling regulations. Honestly, I have no idea how much sugar is added to this mixture now.
@NotAPro always look at the nutritional information, it shows exactly how much of what is inside. Carbohydrates are all sugars, "of which sugar" is the added sugar. Ie your shreddies have a total of 70g sugar (according to rumtscho's answers) of which 13 is the added one.
@Gnudiff no, not all carbohydrates count as sugars, only the "small ones".
@Gnudiff - carbohydrates include many types of chemicals in that category, including sugars, starches, fiber, etc. Starches, for example, are NOT sugars, though your digestive system will break most starches down into more simple sugars during digestion. Also, "of which sugar" is NOT necessarily added sugar. Many foods (like fruit) naturally contain a lot of sugars, which must be included in the chemical analysis on a food label. Whole wheat naturally contains some sugars, and as I mentioned, it is very possible to convert more of the starches in whole wheat to sugars through malting.
@Athanasius I am, of course, speaking from dietary perspective. As a long time diabetic I can reliably use carbohydrate information on nutritional labels to determine the amount of of insulin needed. Whether those are sugars at consuming or are broken down to sugars makes little practical difference. Fibers are also frequently displayed separately on nutrition labels.
You link to the UK QUID which (if you find a version elsewhere on gov.uk as the link to the QUID PDF at the page you link to is broken) says the opposite of what you say it does - "41. The percentage should normally be calculated by using the same method
as that used for determining the order in the list of ingredients [..]. This
means that the weight of an ingredient to be quantified* would need to be
divided by the total weight of all of the ingoing ingredients ", why do you say the opposite?
@PeteKirkham - Please continue to read the document you linked in the comment to the other answer. In section 43 it gives a parallel example noting where the weight of the total changes and does precisely as I explained here (and the example is exactly the same one in your UK link as it is in my EU link, involving butter in butter cookies).
I often come across bread labeled "100 percent whole wheat." I've always taken this to mean that the grain is 100 percent whole wheat, rather than that whole wheat constitutes 100 percent of the ingredients. Obviously there are other ingredients in bread, like salt, yeast, and water.
I suspect that a similar thing is going on with this cereal. As you point out, the math doesn't work out for the cereal to be 96 percent whole grain wheat (which has relatively little sugar) and 13 percent sugar.
This all tells me that when they write "96 percent whole grain wheat" what they're really saying is that 96 percent of the grain is whole grain.
My lingering question is what the remaining 4 percent is made up of.
But on many ingredient lists I have seen, they list percentages next to some ingredients, which I suppose reasonably to mean the % of said ingredient in the overall product, e.g. Chocolate (7%), Milk (12%), etc.
If these percentages are not meant to mean this, then what exactly is the point of having these misleading numbers in the ingredients list? Because, logically, the statement on the box saying "To produce 100g of this product we have used 96.2g of whole grain", should literally mean exactly that.
If it doesn't, isn't that lying?
@NotAPro the point of those misleading numbers is to mislead
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.996812
| 2019-09-28T22:07:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102603",
"authors": [
"Aequitas",
"Alex Johnson",
"Anthony X",
"Athanasius",
"Borgh",
"Chris H",
"DaveBensonPhillips",
"Eric Duminil",
"Gamora",
"Gnudiff",
"Megha",
"Michael",
"Nelson",
"NotAPro",
"Paŭlo Ebermann",
"Pete Kirkham",
"Richard",
"computercarguy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8041",
"jwenting",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36744
|
When should I add spinach to homemade pizza?
When making pizza, do you put the spinach on raw or cooked? I would prefer to put it on raw, but I am concerned that the high water content in the spinach will release in the oven and make the crust wet. I have used well drained cooked spinach in the past but I find no matter how hard you ring it out, it is still very wet for a topping! I am using baby spinach. Any suggestions?
Bake at a high temp and the water will be less problem maybe 500 F
The moisture that you're talking about really has nothing to do with draining it or wringing it out. When it's heated, the cell structure breaks down and the water in the cells is released. Since it's predominately water, that means you have a lot of moisture on your pizza to make your crust soggy. At the restaurant I used to work at we had two methods. If there wasn't going to be a lot of spinach on the pizza, then we would just put it on raw. If there was going to be a lot of it, then we would give it a quick saute and then put it on the pizza. I would do the same thing with squash, eggplant, etc. Anything with a high moisture content. You could also roast it first. In both cases, I wouldn't cook it for long as the goal is to just get most of the water out and then let it finish on the pizza in the oven.
There are at least three different styles of 'spinach pies' that I've had (that were pizza, and not other types of 'pie'):
Spinich is cooked fully before adding to the pizza. Often is sautéd with garlic and other seasonings.
Spinich is added fresh to the pizza before it's cooked.
Spinich is added fresh to the pizza after it's cooked.
I'm not going to say that any one is particularly right or wrong. I grew up with the first style (I guess I'll call it 'Philadelphia style' for lack of a better designation, as we always had it when visiting my great-grandmother in South Philly). I've had it with tomato sauce, but it'd be more common to be a white pizza with sliced tomatoes (so you don't start with as much liquid as on other pizzas).
The third one seems to be a more California type thing, but I've also had fresh greens on pizza ~20 years ago at Generous George's (when they were still on Duke Street in Alexandria, VA). It only really works with baby spinach or other tender greens.
I've never been impressed with the middle one. I suspect it requires really knowing the heat of your oven so that it cooks the spinich just right in the same time it takes the rest of the pie to cook. You also want to put it above any cheese, so that the moisture gets a chance to evaporate rather than just being held in.
I find the best results from super-brief blanching. Drop washed spinach in boiling water for about 5 seconds, drain quickly, shock in ice water, squeeze out water (I use a sushi mat), chop if desired.
When baked for typical pizza cooking time (90sec-12 minutes depending on style) the color stays vibrant, the flavor is generally not bitter, and it doesn't dry out.
Young spinach can be ok without blanching; it doesn't dry out if kept underneath the cheese, for example. But I think the visual effect and flavor is more pleasant when spinach is blanched.
Would that work with basil, too?
@rob I'd generally place basil on the pizza just after baking, because cooking will tend to mute the basil flavor and dry out the leaves.
That said, there are some people who advocate very briefly blanching basil when used to make pesto, largely for color durability and textural reasons: https://food52.com/blog/17408-blanching-basil-makes-greener-pesto-but-is-it-worth-it
I just baked the baby spinach pizza with uncooked spinach under shredded cheese. It didn't come out soggy but some of the leaf edges were dry. Also, even though the spinach was piled high, there wasn't as much of it as I would like after it cooked down. Next time I will try using thinly sliced cheese over the spinach leaving just enough space between the slices for steam to escape. I used a thick tomato sauce, and baked on a pizza stone in a 475° oven. The overall result was good.
I would wash the spinach and put it in a hot pan to wilt (the moisture from the washing is all it needs), then add it to the cooked pizza when it comes out of the oven. The heat of an oven, especially a hot, pizza-cooking oven, will just destroy it.
First, I let myself believe the spinach was triple-washed since it said so on the package. So I kept it dry and chopped two huge handfuls as small as I could. The first thing I placed on the crust was the chopped spinach, and I spread it all evenly. I poured my sauce right over the spinach. Then I put on my other toppings and it turned out it was really tasty. The spinach was cooked perfectly, no pieces dried out or burnt. The key here is I like a lot of sauce, and I made sure all the spinach was covered.
Just rip up the spinach add to pizza spray with water and the crust,to add moisture where needed and stop crust from drying out.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.998416
| 2013-09-12T16:38:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36744",
"authors": [
"Gabriel",
"JasonTrue",
"Lightsout",
"Rob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99810"
],
"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
}
|
37386
|
Is a peanut a nut?
Is a peanut technically a nut? If not, when people say they are allergic to "nuts", are they also allergic to real nuts,(walnuts, almonds, cashews, etc.)?
No, peanuts are not nuts in the botanical sense. They are legumes, much like peas or beans.
Chestnuts and acorns are examples of true nuts. Most of what we commonly refer to as nuts are botanically drupes, including walnuts, almonds and cherries, as well as some larger fruits like peaches (which are typically eaten for their flesh, rather than their seed).
To be clear, people sometimes use the term "tree nut" to distinguish actual botanical nuts and drupes from legumes; or "culinary nut" to include all of the nut-like foods.
While technically, peanut and tree nut allergies are different things, there is evidently a large correlation where people with one often have the other, according to Wise Geek.
See also:
Serious Eats Article
Why the overlap in peanut and tree nut allergies?
I always said that a peanut is technically more pea than nut.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.998871
| 2013-10-07T01:16:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37386",
"authors": [
"10 Rep",
"Carmi",
"Loves Probability",
"Maw Maw Judy",
"Noor Almumthn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87909"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40672
|
How to set cookie crumbs
When a receipe uses cookie crumbs mixed with melted butter for a base, it usually requires it to go into the oven for about 10 minutes. I am wondering why it needs to go into the oven as opposed to the fridge. I'm thinking that the fridge will help set the butter and make it more solid so it can be sliced, unlike the hot oven. Does anyone know the reason for heating the crust? I know the oven will toast the crust a bit, but the directions on the receipes usually say that it is to "set the crust".
When you bake a crumb crust, a few things happen. Related to "setting the crust" the baking step allows the butter to seep in to the crumbs, making the whole thing more of a unified unit. It also toasts the crust as a whole, giving the crust some imperviousness to the liquid in the filling, helping the crust to avoid becoming soggy before the whole cheesecake or pie is baked. Lastly, baking brings out the aromas of the ingredients in the crust. If you don't bake a crumb crust prior to filling, it'll just be butter moistened crumbs, not a "crust".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.998993
| 2013-12-29T17:19:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40672",
"authors": [
"ExFed",
"Spammer",
"corinne",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94679",
"nimsura ",
"undoredo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35671
|
How long to cook pork ribs in the oven?
tl;dr: I've got 6 lb of super-thick pork shoulder country style ribs. How long should I cook them in the oven if I want them to taste good?
I recently bought a 6 lb. package of delicious, super-thick pork shoulder country-style ribs. But I bought them without any idea on how to cook them. So I started looking online for recipes but the cooking times vary considerably. My best assumption is that the cooking times vary due to the quantity of meat and temperature. However, I've had trouble estimating exactly how much meat is present since some of the recipes list the rib ingredient as simply "one rack" or something ambiguous like that. I don't really know how much "one rack" is. "One rack" of baby back ribs is, I'm quite sure, much less mean than what I've got sitting in my refrigerator.
So, how long should I cook these babies for?
Please note also (as I said in the answer below), country style ribs are a different cut than baby back ribs; you don't want to get a recipe for the wrong type.
Even given a standardized recipe and method, cooking times are always only a guideline. Quality recipes always give you a test for knowing when the product is done.
The reason for this is that there are many uncontrolled (at least from the recipe author's point of view) such as, in the case of ribs:
Exact dimensions of the ribs
Natural variation in the composition of the ribs
Starting temperature
Variation in your particular oven
That said, the variable most controlling over the time it takes to cook ribs, given a standard recipe and method, is the thickness of the set of ribs. A longer strip of ribs (btw, the full set of ribs on one side is called a slab of ribs—country ribs are not normally sold this way) doesn't make much difference, as the heat will penetrate through the thinnest dimension.
Ribs are a complex food to cook as they benefit from low-and-slow cooking methods, which allow the touch connective tissue of the ribs (collagen) to slowly convert to unctuous gelatin. This conversion is temperature dependent, taking many, many many hours at around 140 F, but happening in an hour or two at 180 F.
Note also that country style ribs are a different cut than back ribs (the baby variety come from a younger, smaller animal). Country style ribs are cut with a lot of meat on the bone.
In practical recipes, the amount of time this takes will depend on the exact cooking method such as braising, roasting, or barbequing.
Recipe request themselves are off-topic here at Seasoned Advise, but you can find many recipes easily by googling "country rib recipe". Indivdual recipes will give you a guideline for a basic cooking time related to the method used in that recipe, and a test or condition for knowing when they are done.
For example, this recipe for braised ribs from the Food Network suggests an estimated cooking time of 1 1/2 hour braising, and tells you that they are done when when the meat is tender (which you would test by poking with a fork, or just trying some).
An alternate method, as suggested in this recipe from Cooks.com is to roast the ribs in the oven. They use three-stage method where the ribs are covered in foil in the middle stage, but the total cooking time is about 3 1/4 hours. They carefully describe how you know when the ribs are done: "the meat should just about fall off the bone.".
Note: I haven't tried these particular recipes; they only serve as examples.
The bottom line is, ribs are generally done when they are quite tender, which you can easily tell by poking them with a fork or trying them. How long this takes will depend on what method you used, the size of your ribs, and a myriad other factors, but will be on the order usually of 2-3 hours.
I know this answer is 5 months old, but thanks. This totally answered my question. Also, that second recipe you posted resulted in the most perfectly cooked rips I could've ever imagined.
Spare ribs and pork shoulder are both cooked in an oven at the same temperature(~225F) for me. The difference is time. A pork shoulder takes at least 8 hours but usually around 12 hours to give good pulled pork. Ribs are closer to 3-4 hours for the meat to get tender but not so tender that they fall off the bone. I have never cooked country style ribs but from your description it seems like it is somewhere between these two cuts of meat.
I would cook it at the exact same temperature but start to check after 3 hours. If it's not tender enough then add a half hour. Keeping checking every half hour until you get the desired doneness.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.999139
| 2013-07-30T00:29:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35671",
"authors": [
"Cynthia Kinsella",
"Darth Pudden",
"Elina Rabinovich",
"Gaspare Bonventre",
"Jan Harris",
"Mark Lapasa",
"Megacannon",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"ViswajithR",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83566"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37546
|
Fried Dough Balls Too Doughy
I'm (attempting) to make homemade Cinnamon Dough Balls. However they seem to always come out a little doughy. How can I eliminate this problem? I've tried to poke holes in them but they just get hard. I want them to be cooked but so it's still a little chewy. Any ideas?
The balls are about 1in. to 1 and a half inches in diameter. There is no hard recipe I'm making theses as like an experiment.
Can you provide a recipe? Method? Photos would help...
There is nothing wrong with experimenting, but then you should provide your experimental proportions. Did you compare to existing donut recipes, which are plentiful? How are you cooking?
if you can't remember proportions, please list ingredients at least.
None of the clarifying questions have been answered after a considerable period of time. Voting to close as unclear since there is no real way to address the issue.
@SAJ14SAJ Couldn't it also be a great question that no one seems to have the answer to?
Judging by the three closing votes, no. But if you are seeing these comments, why not edit the question to provide more information?
@SAJ14SAJ It is clear on what I'm asking. Thus the close votes are just because someone started a snowball effect.
Young Guilo, we will need more information to be able to answer your question. Do you still remember the ingredients/proportions/procedure? And are they too chewy or too doughy? Have you tried cooking them a little bit longer?
You're probably overmixing the batter, which is making the gluten form a "network" and rendering the product chewy. Mix just until there are no streaks of flour remaining.
Try not to roll the dough too much in your hand when forming balls. Instead scoop with a spoon and then lightly form in to a rough sphere.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.999670
| 2013-10-13T12:54:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37546",
"authors": [
"Mien",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Young Guilo",
"ajschauer",
"daftar188bet10 spam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93247",
"smcg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21489
|
To make Gluten free pancakes, can I just substitute regular flour with Gluten free flour?
Will a normal pancake recipe work with Gluten free flour, or do I need to add other ingredients as well?
@Aaronut Why the tag "quickbread"? It's not a food term relating to pancakes?
@TFD: Sure it is. Pancakes are a type of quickbread, and this question is equally applicable to many if not most other quickbreads (waffles, muffins, etc.)
@Aaronut North American term, not in Oxford dictionary... :-)
It depends on what you mean by gluten-free flour. If you are buying a gluten-free flour mix that it labeled for all-purpose use then you should be able to substitute that and get a reasonably good result. Substituting straight rice or almond flour in a standard recipe will not work well, because the mixes have a blend of ingredients designed to make it perform similar to flour.
It may take some recipe/flour experimentation to get it as close to what you are used to, but will definetly make something edible. There are also various almond-flour based pancake recipes which work well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.999864
| 2012-02-19T11:00:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21489",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Carlo",
"Danial",
"Fabich",
"Georgia S",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47668"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21681
|
What is the name (in Chinese) of the utensil that is used to prick lots of tiny holes in pork skin to make it very crispy?
I have seen people mentioning this and I've heard it's available in Chinatown in NY or in Hong Kong but I can't find it listed anywhere for sale online. I think this is because I don't know the term for it so if anyone can help with a name or a link it would be much appreciated. NB: I have tried a German meat tenderiser that looks similar but it's not sharp enough. The thing I'm looking for is wooden and has lots of very sharp pins coming out the botton
The answer to the question is "Chap Zai".
The name for Chinese Crispy Roast Pork is "sio bak" by the way
talon8 - I bought a tenderizer from Amazon exactly like the one you posted but the pins were not sharp enough to make the required number of tiny holes - and therefore the skin on the pork belly did not get that crystalised look where the fat has flowed out through the skin. My best result was by using a sharp knife but this took a long time.
Anyway - long story short, I got this by emailing a number of Chinese supermarkets (was never listed on their website shops) and they told me the name. Would be good if anyone can verify this name...
The more common anglisized spelling is "Siu Yuk" (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siu_yuk). Out of curiosity, did they send you the spellings in the email?
Do you have a Chinatown where you're from? Generally, when I go to buy rudimentary Chinese tools, I go to places where they don't understand the concept of "online". :-P Maybe that's just around here. Though seriously, I think going to your local stores is probably your best bet. Maybe print off a picture and bring it to show them.
Anyhow, assuming I'm thinking of the same thing you are, unfortunately, I don't think it really has much of a formal english name. It's essentially a "Roast Pork poker" or "Siu Yuk Poker". I've also seen it referred to as a "Pork Skin Pricking tool". :-) See a picture here. Also here.
That said, I don't think you necessarily need one of these. My uncle makes a really awesome roast pork and I'm pretty sure he used a knife... I'd have to contact him to find out exactly how though.
Edit: I did some more digging, found this. It seems nobody knows what it's called... But there's another picture and lots of useful discussion in the comments. Then... there's a comment that suggests Amazon. If you just search for meat tenderizer there, there are numerous styles including, the western versions as well as one that looks much like the chinese version.
I'm not sure about the Chinese name for the tool, but what you might be looking for is often called a "jaccard".
Thanks for the answer - that will help my search immensely. I think this is basically the German item I bought - but that was too blunt. I just did some searches but I just see the non-asian variety so anyone that can give a name in Cantonese or Mandarin would really help
I found this on Amazon. It looks like the real deal around $6 + $5 for shipping. Might be able to find it in an Asian supermarket also.
http://www.amazon.com/Light-Belly-Pork-Skin-Hammer/dp/B00X72BLAG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1438915774&sr=8-1&keywords=pork+belly+needle
I know this thread is old but maybe someone will come accross it in the future, looking for the same.
What you're looking for can be found on AliExpress.com for under $3, shipping included. Just enter "meat tenderizer needles" in the search and you'll find it (a few versions exist but the principle is the same each time).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:55.999986
| 2012-02-24T13:59:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21681",
"authors": [
"ABBEY",
"Alex",
"Gwnaethoch ei Agor",
"JOANNE MARCOUX",
"Jason Bellino",
"Julian",
"babu",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9268",
"petenelson",
"talon8",
"willkil"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2903
|
How does one begin to create salsa?
Let me start by saying that I am not a cook by any means.
Now, I love salsa and I always have, but mostly I just get store brands. I've had homemade salsa before and it tends to be a lot more flavorful, and for that reason I'd like to try my hand at making some.
What exactly is "salsa" defined as? What are the core ingredients? Is it cheaper to make it myself or to buy it from the store? If I make it myself, about how long is the shelf life?
I realize that salsa tends to be pretty simple to make, but I see so many variations, and internet searches bring me many different recipes.
What will I need to get started?
Recipes
As far as salsa recipes go, they're all over the web. Check sites like allrecipes.com or epicurious.com - - or justrightmenus.com!
Shelf Life
Refrigerator. With regard to shelf life, according to stilltasty.com, you're only going to get 5-7 days out of fresh salsa in the refrigerator.
Freezer. The same source says you can keep it for 1-2 months in the freezer. Use containers meant for storing frozen foods (they make plastic lidded containers for this very purpose), and leave "headspace" in the container (room for expansion as the liquid freezes). If you opt for freezing, you can use any recipe you'd like. Food safety won't be an issue so much as quality would. For example, I would not recommend freezing a melon salsa, though it's great fresh.
Canning. You also could pressure can your salsa. The National Center for Home Food Preservation is the best resource to learn to can. If you opt for canning, be sure to follow a trusted canning recipe - you can't just can any old recipe. I would use one off the National Center's site.
Cost Comparison
It all depends on what you make and the price of your ingredients, of course. If I can get cheap salsa at cost X and expensive, tasty salsa and cost 2X, my goal in making my own is to achieve great taste at a cost less than 2X. My homemade blueberry jam costs me about $2 per jar, much more expensive than generic jam; however, good blueberry jam is about $5 at the store.
Incidentally, I'll be making salsa this summer once I can get lots of cheap tomatoes. Keep an eye on jessica.mcrackan.com late in the summer if you'd like some real examples and cost comparisons.
5-7 days in the fridge is optimistic in my experience. Salsa (especially really fresh stuff, ESPECIALLY if it has avocado in it) is significantly less good after 48 hours.
I agree that the time in the fridge depends on the kind of salsa, for sure. Thanks for mentioning that.
I've seen lots of recipes for canned salsa that don't require a pressure canner. Is this because of the vinegar content?
@Peter Turner - tomatoes are on the border for what can be canned w/ a water bath and what should be pressure canned. So, it's certainly conceivable for a salsa recipe to be water-bath canned. If the recipe gives instructions for water-bath canning and is a trusted, tested one (from Ball or the Nat'l Ctr or somewhere like that), then I'm sure it's fine.
I've lived in Austin for 15+ years, I lived a couple miles from the TX-Mexico border until I was nine years old. I have prepared many salsas at home and tasted many at restaurants and homes.
My general advice on salsa is:
Pick a base (Tomato or Tomatillo (or both!))
Add onion and/or garlic. Add dried or fresh chiles (e.g., guajillo, ancho, chipotle or fresh ones like jalapeno, serrano, poblano, hatch, etc.)
Put those things in a blender or you can chop them up and begin to cook them on your stove top. If you are chopping the ingredients I suggest buying canned diced tomatoes. If you don't use canned diced tomatoes and try to cook your salsa after only hand chopping the ingredients it will take forever to cook, and the flavors won't really mingle. You want it to boil but only for a moment. Turn the heat down so it doesn't boil for too long!
Add a little bit of salt (don't overdo it!)
Add finely-chopped cilantro.
Let it cool down and serve warm or put it in the fridge. (You'll notice a flavor difference in the same salsa based on the serving temperature)
I could talk about salsa forever, but use this process and change variables one at a time until you start to find what you like!
Salsa in Mexico is normally what you would call a spicy hot dressing that you put on the table so people can serve themselves and spread it over their dishes or inside their tacos. As we do it in the center of Mexico it must be very (spicy) hot. There are different kinds: fresh, cooked: boiled, grilled.
The most commonly used fresh salsa is the pico de gallo also known as Salsa Bandera or Salsa Mexicana, these last two names refer to the colors of Mexico's flag.
Pico de gallo ingredients are: Chopped red oval or Roma tomatoes (called jitomate in Mexico), chopped onion, chopped serrano pepper (or green Jalapeño), chopped cilantro leaves (fresh), juice of one sour lemon (or lime), a pinch of salt. You mix them and serve in a small bowl.
A boiled / grilled red sauce can have the following ingredients:
4 Serrano peppers (you can increase/decrease the number depending how hot you want it)
2 Red tomatoes (Jitomates)
1 quarter of onion
1 garlic clove
Salt
Fresh Cilantro just a bit (2 tablespoons)
1/2 cup of water
You need to bring the peppers and tomatoes to a boil until they are very tender or toast them in the grill/pan until the skin starts turning black. If grilled you may want to remove the hard skin from the tomatoes after grilling them. If you boiled them you can reuse the water in the next step.
Finally, you put everything in the blender. If you want it to be very liquid use a high speed. If you want it to be thick use a lower speed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salsa_(sauce)
If you're talking about typical american salsa, the main concept seems to be tomato, hot pepper, onion as a base for the recipe. The sauce is not usually cooked, although ingredients may be cooked separately (like roasting the jalapenos or garlic).
I'll keep this simple.
Tomatoes, onions, jalapenos--cilantro, garlic, lime juice, salt, pepper.
Dice, food process, or blend for desired texture, add jalapenos to taste, cilantro and garlic to preference, and salt as needed. Squeeze in some lime juice.
Quickly grill or roast any of the main ingredients for a smoky flavor. I've had good results with green peppers, even regular bell peppers.
It's cheaper yourself. It has no additives/artificial flavors or preservatives. It's not pasteurized, so it won't last as long. It tastes much better.
What do you mean by green peppers? Jalapenos, cerranos, etc? As long as you don't mean bell pepper...
I do sometimes put bell pepper in salsa, especially roasted. Do you disagree?
I think he's saying any kind of pepper that is green, even green bell peppers.
There are many different recipes because there are many different salsas.
Pick three or four recipes, and try them all. Then make up your own.
I've posted this before in another discussion, but my personal favorite is avocado, corn (roasted husk-on on the BBQ), cucumber, and cherry tomatoes, with a little bit of very finely diced garlic, and lime juice to taste. I usually add a jalapeno or two as well, which I also roast on the BBQ.
Definition
First, I don't know if there is an official definition for mexican "salsa", "salsa" is a liquid mixture of ingredients, hot or cold. According to the National Institute of Anthropology and History in Mexico, the salsa among Mexican people is a symbol of identity and indispensable part of our food. Popular knowledge says that a salsa that is not spicy is not a salsa.
Core Ingredients
Among all the salsas I've taste and made so far I can tell that the core ingredients are:
Onions
Garlic
Salt
Chile
Tomates verdes (green tomatoes) or regular tomatoes (red)
We can say this are the very core ingredients in a salsa.
Recipes
We need to talk about recipes if we want to know if it's cheaper to do or to buy salsa. First, we can say they're three types of salsas according to the way they are prepared:
Boiled ingredients
Fried ingredients
Fresh ingredients
We can say that salsas that are made with fresh ingredients are cheaper, but it depends on the ingredients that you can add to the core ingredients mentioned before. Some of the ingredients you can add to your salsa are:
Coriander
Avocado (which is expensive)
variety of spices
orange juice or lemon juice
But generally I think that, wether it's cheaper or not it's definitely a better taste in homemade salsas.
Get Started
First you need a blender and a cooking pot for fried and/or boiled ingredients.
For example you can use the Core Ingredients to make a salsa in three different ways:
you put onions choped, garlic and tomatoes (red/green) and chile (can be dried chile or fresh chile) in a pan without water or oil and you just wait the ingredients to turn a little burned. Then mix them in the blender to have a more traditional sauce.
You can put onions choped, garlic and tomatoes (green) and chile in a pan with oil and fry all the ingredients and then when they turn pale you blend them (be careful you need to wait until the ingredients are cooled before you blend them otherwise the blend would explode with salsa all over your face) this get's you a smoother salsa.
The other option is chop all the ingredients in dice an mixed them and you have a kind of pico de gallo which can be considered as a fresh salsa.
I usually store my salsas in the refrigerator for about one or one and a half week, but they do not last to much because we ate them all, and also is always better to have fresh salsa.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.000328
| 2010-07-22T23:52:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2903",
"authors": [
"Al Warner",
"Brian D. Adams",
"David Lozzi",
"Fairgrove",
"John",
"JustRightMenus",
"Ocaasi",
"Paul McMillan",
"Peter Turner",
"Ryan Elkins",
"Sam Hoice",
"Thizzer",
"adb12",
"detaylor",
"dunxd",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8718",
"phantom.omaga",
"philip",
"pjkinney"
],
"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
}
|
4815
|
What's the numbering system for spaghetti and does it matter?
When I lived in Italy some years ago I remember an Italian friend explaining the numbering system for spaghetti (perhaps also other long pasta). How spaghetti was sold in Italy with a number indicating its fineness.
She told me that different kinds of recipes called for specific numbered spaghetti, if you wanted to be precise.
Can anyone else explain the numbering system for spaghetti better than my vague recollection? Do people in Italy really worry about matching the right numbered spaghetti with a given dish, and has anyone outside Italy encountered a recipe calling for a specific number spaghetti?
I used to get lost in the letter soup...
They are just a "product number", and it may vary for the same kind of pasta from a manufacturer to another.
Ok, here is the straight dope, directly from De Cecco customer service:
With reference to your question we would like to inform you that the numbers you mention do not have a logical criteria but are just code numbers which we give our products each time we make a new shape.
As an Italian, I really don't know the logic behind the number. I also asked my mother, to no avail. We don't know, but as far as my feeling goes, it's just a numbering system for the product, e.g. there's no implicit meaning into it.
As far as we worry about it or not, sure we do. Matching the wrong pasta with a given sauce is almost blasphemy and as a feedback for the mistake you can be frowned upon up to being openly insulted. I'm not kidding. For example, meaty stuff (such as ragu', also known as bolognese, but only outside of Italy) are matched with penne, tagliatelle, fusilli, and in general all egg-based pasta (e.g. strozzapreti, paglierini, pappardelle, spaghetti alla chitarra). Spaghetti bolognese is heresy for us.
Spicy sauces, such as puttanesca, amatriciana, carbonara and so on, require normal pasta, and can be matched with spaghetti, or also penne. Pesto always goes with bavette, although sometimes we use spaghetti for convenience, but I feel it unnatural.
To sum up, there is no simple rule, although instinctively, if you tell me a sauce (even invented brand new) I can tell you which pasta is appropriate and which one is not.
Yeah, I've heard this before, and there's often reasoning behind matching the pasta with the sauce (though sometimes it's just tradition). "Spaghetti bolognese" was always an English modification/take on an Italian dish.
Yes, like the "Fettuccine Alfredo" that no one knowns in Italy. Also, Italians are very conservative in cooking, and they dislike variations that are not "traditionally Italian". This also means that we don't have variations of the same dish: for an Italian carbonara should always have guanciale and not bacon (even if you can hardly tell the difference...), the proper mixture of parmigiano and pecorino... I like much more foreign attitude to innovate dishes.
for sure you can't use the wrong sauce with the wrong shape. i know and understand that. my question was about using the "right" or "wrong" number of a particular shape (spaghetti 12 versus spaghetti 72).
And don't forget regionalities... you'd better not put two Italians (esp. from different regions) cooking in the same kitchen if you don't want to start hearing them yelling about which is the right way to do this and to do that :D (I'm Italian btw)
@nico: totally true.
It surely defines the tickness of the Pasta; tipically, more thicknesses corresponds to a greater number value.
Example for Barilla:
Capellini #1
Spaghettini #3
Spaghetti #5
Vermicellini #7
Vermicelli #8
Bucatini #9
Bavettine #12
Bavette #13
There appear to be a correlation, but I think it's just out of chance.
@Stefano actually is what Wikipedia (Italy) claims http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghetti
@systempuntoout: "Lo spessore li distingue in spaghettini (n. 3), spaghetti (n. 5) e gli ormai introvabili spaghettoni (n. 8). Lo spessore indicato dal numero può variare leggermente da un produttore ad un altro". It says that thickness differentiates kinds of spaghetti (along with their number), and that the number can be different depending on the producer. THe fact that thickness is indicated by the number does not necessarily imply that the number is a measure of thickness, just that there is an association between a given type of pasta (which has a given thickness) and a number.
Example, for de Cecco, Capellini #9, spaghettini #11, spaghetti #12, vermicellini #169, vermicelli #170, bucatini #15, linguine #7, linguine piccole #8. I agree that there seems to be an "implicit correlation" though. We have counterexamples in linguine piccole, and a very high value for vermicellini. It's a good mnemonic in any case, but as for the origin, I don't think it's due to that.
This is true just because in the early day of the specific pasta maker (in this case Barilla), when they started doing printed packages, they have actually done increasing numbering by thickness. But this system quickly brakes with non-spaghetti-shaped pasta and with newer variants.
@Lorenzo Yep, it have not scaled very well.
@systempuntoout: yep, they really had to use old days BASIC style and numbering 10 20 30 40... so leaving middle numbers for later additions. Well, that's does not scale much better....
@Lorenzo : Spaghetti GOTO 20. oh wait... that's why it's called spaghetti code ! ;)
Isn't vermicelli supposed to be very THIN?
In Italy, they have a numbering system with corresponding names for each number. Larger numbers indicate thicker noodles. Some US manufacturers use the same numbering system. Here is a listing from an extrusion die manufacturer. See the full list here Pasta Shapes.pdf
#1 0.6 mm.
#2 0.7 mm.
#3 0.8 mm.
#4 0.9 mm.
#5 1.1 mm.
#6 1.3 mm.
#7 1.5 mm.
#8 1.7 mm.
#9 1.9 mm.
#10 2.1 mm.
#11 2.3 mm.
#12 2.5 mm.
That is a proprietary system used by one vendor of pasta making equipment--why do you think it is more generally applicable than just that manufacturer?
Well, because I have seen it used by multiple Italian manufacturers.
Found a link here http://www.sicilianculture.com/food/pasta.htm
"Numbered" Pasta Often you will see pasta with numbers on the package like Thin Spaghetti #9. Why? What does it mean? Well, in the "old days" there were waves of immigrants that came in to work in the factories. There were the Irish, the Asians, the Germans, the Italians and numerous other ethinc groups. Other than the Italians, none of these other groups really spoke the language, and were much less able to pronnounce or decern or know the difference between "spaghetti or spaghettini". So, before the days of automated computers, the factory managers had to get everyone straight, so it was much easier to say "today, we are making #9".
this sounds like an explanation which applies to the United States, not to Italy
I'm not really convinced about it... just a feeling.
True enough. Can't believe everything you read on the internet. But Michael's answer seems to reinforce the notion.
I think Tea Drinker is right about this. It has no bearing on Italy itself...
Hmm I hardly doubt this is the true explanation, as these numbers predates both emigration from Italy and immigration to Italy... Actually it is more probably just a "product number", and it may vary from a manufacturer to another.
As far as I recall, I have seen numbers only when referring to spaghetti. Spaghetti #5 is the normal size, and spaghetti #8 (spaghettoni) are thicker; there are also spaghetti #3 (which in Italy are called spaghettini).
Normal spaghetti are always #5, but the thickness depends from the brand, in the same way shirt sizes depend from the brand.
Yes, it does refer to the size (in terms of thickness) of the pasta. I guess the number indicates the specific "drawing" (trafila in italian), where the higher is the number, the wider is the hole, and the thicker is the pasta. I don't think there is a standardized size for each hole so, depending on which trafila pasta producers use, the result might be different.
This seems to contradict all of the other answers and duplicates the current lowest-voted answer which now admits that it's just a myth. Do you have evidence to support this?
EDIT: apparently, the answer below is a 'common misconception'. See the other answers to this question. Learn something new every day!
Yes, there is a spaghetti numbering system. The smaller the number, the smaller the radius of the spaghetti.
For puttanesca, I've seen a suggestion of using #12.
Whether italians worry about this kinda thing - I dunno, but I imagine it depends on the Italian. I haven't run across recipes specifying size yet, and I don't look at it in the store (not even when i was in Italy).
I also have a great illustration for you about number spaghetti. :)
aw, not that kind of numbering! made me smile though...
Yeah, the picture is not serious. The rest is, though.
I don't think this is correct; see my answer below.
Well, you learn something new every day. Thanks!
"Whether italians worry about this kinda thing - I dunno, but I imagine it depends on the Italian. I haven't run across recipes specifying size yet, and I don't look at it in the store (not even when i was in Italy)."
Italian recipes written in Italian language never call for a specific "number", but they do call for spaghetti vs spaghettini vs vermicelli vs bucatini, etc...
I always found that lacking in imagination. Shows you how much I know - there was maasive thought and experience behind it instead.
If numbers were directly correlated to width, then #12 would be inedible as #7 Spaghetti is already relatively wide...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.001103
| 2010-08-10T19:06:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4815",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Abdul Jammaz",
"Alexander Montgomery",
"Allan Kimmer Jensen",
"Ann",
"BaffledCook",
"Chris",
"Drew",
"J.Olufsen",
"JR.",
"Jim Geurts",
"Jon Eastwood",
"Leonard",
"Matt",
"Michael Natkin",
"Nanasusie",
"Noldorin",
"Patrick Lee Scott",
"Rake36",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Shaded",
"Sig. Tolleranza",
"Sparx BPO",
"Stefano Borini",
"Stefano Ricciardi",
"Tea Drinker",
"Tobias Op Den Brouw",
"Walter Stabosz",
"Wizard79",
"caryblack",
"configurator",
"daphne",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9921",
"jpmax4d",
"natewelch_",
"nico",
"peter D",
"rackandboneman",
"rlab",
"senderle",
"systempuntoout"
],
"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
}
|
16615
|
What's the simplest method to cook rice?
For me, the perfect rice is whole, loose and flavorful. To get that result, there are a number of techniques. As the flavor depends on the broth used, let's take that out of the equation.
I'm looking for a 'fail-safe' method so the rice won't pass, without using preprocessed rice.
At this moment, the method I'm using most is Rice Pilaf. This yields a good result, but it's not fail-safe. It's possible to either under or overcook the rice.
So, the question is what variables are important and how do I adjust these to the rice I'm using?
Also depends on the recipe... you don't really want loose rice if you're cooking, for instance, risotto or sticky rice!
"Simplest"... Minute Rice in the Microwave.
@Cos, we're talking about cooking here :)
My foolproof method is as follows:
Weigh out the desired amount of rice - I use 2-3oz per person - and put it in a saucepan.
Wash the rice well by filling the pan with cold water, tipping it out, and repeating about 10 times. The more you wash the less the rice sticks together.
Put enough water in the pan to cover the rice by about 5-8mm. Leave to soak for 25 minutes until the rice grains have turned opaque white.
Put the saucepan over a high heat, uncovered, and bring to a boil. Boil until the water has evaporated and the surface of the rice is dotted with small holes. Turn off the heat. Cover tightly: if the lid isn't a tight fit, place a piece of foil on the pan, then put the lid on.
Steam for at least 15 minutes.
The beauty of this method is that it doesn't matter how long you steam the rice for once it's past the 15 minute minimum - in fact, the more it steams the better it is, especially if you have added spices or flavourings to the water.
I'll give this method a try and comment here.
My way for basmati rice:
Don't wash the rice - it's already clean and you don't want to lose the flavour or make it it wet or it won't absorb the oil.
Measure 1 cupful for 2 people.
Put a small splosh (1/2 tbs) of oil (or butter or ghee) in the pan and heat through. Add flavourings (eg cumin etc) at this stage, and then rice, stirring until well coated with oil.
Add 2 cups (same cup size as rice) cold water, salt to taste, and bring to the boil. Stir.
Cover and simmer gently for 12 mins and check done-ness. Should still have a little 'bite'.
Turn off heat, cover with clean dish-cloth, and replace pan lid. Leave 10 mins.
Serve. Can leave a bit longer without heat or transfer to an oven at 80 deg C for up to an hour or so.
Enjoy. Hope this helps.
Got from a Spanish cookbook.
Wash the rice and cook it in a lot of water as if it was pasta.
When it is cooked to your preference, pass it over a strain and cool down letting water run over the cooked rice.
Then, when you need to serve, melt some butter, your preferred seasoning and quickly mix in the rice until at desired temperature.
I use this recipe when i have to do rice for more than 6 people. It is much safer.
Interesting, I'll give that a try once.
Although we might have the perfect method, and the foolproof equipment, all of this boils down to one: The perfect method and the foolproof equipment, is operated by a mistake-ridden organism, namely, man. There's no way you can get a foolproof rice, unless everything was done by a machine, namely, a rice-cooker.
You want flavour? This is my favourite:
Measure out the rice
Put in tea. (For the total number of cups of rice used, add an extra half litre of water e.g. 5 cups, 5.5 litres, 6 cups, 6.5 litres etc.)
Mix in butter
Cook in a ricecooker.
Basic recipe ingredients:
1 cup Persian rice
2 cups boiled water
1/2-2 spoons olive or canola oil
Salt, pepper, ground garlic, etc. per taste
Instructions:
Heat the oil in a saucepan
Add the rice and stir for a couple of minutes
Add water, salt and spices
Bring to boil then reduce to lowest heat and cover for 20 minutes
Allow to sit for 5 minutes before serving
Variants:
Basmati rice is similar but should be rinsed first
Using whole rice is similar but needs longer cooking times - wait until all the water is soaked - and will benefit from more ingredients (see below)
Using chicken stock instead of water
Adding turmeric or paprika for taste and color
Adding 1/2-1 cup green peas, cut Green beans, Zucchini cubes, and/or baby carrots (frozen are ok)
Adding 1/2 cup red lentils and paprika - the lentils dissolve and give a special flavor and texture
Put 1 cup of rice and 2 cups of water into a pot with some salt. Bring it to boil and turn the heat down to the lowest possible. Put The lid on. When the water is gone your rice is ready :)
The easiest way to get your "perfect rice" would be to use a rice cooker.
OK, without a rice cooker :) Basic method
For this to be a useful answer to OP's question, you should enumerate the process by which a rice cooker cooks perfect rice.
i'll echo Thursagan. just get a rice cooker -- there is no other way i've found that is as foolproof. as for enumerating the process by which it's better, i have no idea. i consider it magic. but if you want rice that fits your qualifications, seriously... get a rice cooker.
Sorry all you need to do is wash the rice (to get rid of the starch)and then put half a cup more water than the amount of cups of rice like:
1cup of rice 1and a half cup of water
@overslacked : they have a sensor in them so that once there isn't any liquid water, it switches the heat to low, so it doesn't burn. They also have markings for the liquid based on the amount of rice, but it's not a constant ratio.
@franko: This is a site about culinary skills and techniques. Saying "buy this piece of specialized equipment that does it for you" really isn't a good answer to any question here, at least not without a proper explanation of the principles on which it operates and why it's difficult to recreate with conventional tools.
@Aaronut - understood. my apologies. the original question stressed "fail safe", so i felt a rice cooker qualified, since it's the ONLY "foolproof" way i've found. it has become an essential a tool in my own kitchen, and is no more specialized to me than a knife or a toaster oven.
@Joe - Thanks, but I already know that :D (my point was articulated better by Aaronut). And by the way, I'm not disagreeing that "get a rice cooker" is good advice, it's what I use most of the time.
Personally, I cook my rice in a pressure cooker. But I like medium grain, sticky, and moldable rice.
You want "whole, loose and flavorful". So cook it like pasta. You want to use a large pot, a dash of oil, and an excess of salted water. Cook, stir, cook some more, taste to check for doneness, and then drain with a mesh strainer, and put in a pan or wok to stir-fry with whatever flavorings you wish to use.
(I'm thinking caramelized onions, bacon bits, and turmeric for a bright yellow color)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.002002
| 2011-08-03T20:12:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16615",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adam Mosheh",
"BaffledCook",
"CarrotDestroyer",
"Claire",
"Cos Callis",
"Esfand",
"Joe",
"Kerstin",
"Michael Cussen",
"Noel",
"Ravikumar",
"Sean Allred",
"TasteExplosion",
"franko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6872",
"kblansit",
"nanoeng",
"nico",
"overslacked"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120519
|
Will adding water to a grill pan to use the remains of previously cooked food (deglazing), damage it?
Situation: I have been using this technique for some time, and I personally think it's great. But I have been told it ruins the grill pan due to the difference in temperature.
Example:
This is my (anti-stick) grill pan. At least in my country, when we say 'grill cooking' it means with a small amount of oil, just spreading it over the surface with a silicone brush. It's not 'dirty' or always like this. I was still cooking (chicken breast in this case, still a piece left that took longer). I took this picture on purpose for this question.
What I like doing is, after the meat or whatever is done, I add and brush the surface with a little bit of oil and water (usually boiling hot from a kettle). With a silicone spatula I "clean it" to get all the remains and colors/flavours in the liquid, and then I add leftover rice (made in a rice cooker after rinsing it). I might add some soy sauce or oyster sauce as well.
More or less like a mix between Mediterranean and Asian methodologies. But I have been told a few times: "You will damage the grill by adding water.". One of the main arguments is that the difference in temperature can ruin the iron/material. As I mentioned, the water is boiling hot (approx. 100°C). My findings tell me that temperatures in the pan/grill can get to 250°C.
Will this difference in temperature damage my grill? Does it matter if it's non-stick for this case?
PS: I added the "durability" tag, but I am not sure if that is accurate (maybe "maintenance"?). If I made a mistake, please feel free to edit it!
Is that pan teflon-coated? It's hard to tell from the picture.
Is this cast iron? Is it coated with enamel or teflon?
The grill's carton in which it came enveloped, only states Grill, Induction, Forged Aluminium. Anti-stick free of PFOA. I called the company and as soon as they let me know the materials, I will let you know! @Caledon
Is this a Le Creuset pan?
M.K. - that's exactly the type I've assumed in my answer. Let it cool off a bit before you deglaze & it will last years [or as long as any 'teflon' pan ever lasts before getting sticky.]
That label tells us what we need to know - it is an aluminum pan with a non-stick coating. Another piece of advice: non-stick coatings get scratched very easily, so it's important not to use metal utensils on them.
As an addition, the company e-mailed me with the anti-stick model: it is PFLUON, which is PFOA free but not PTFE (teflon?) free
The answer is: it is likely that you will damage it indeed.
The technique of deglazing comes from iron pans. It can be used on them, or on other kinds of uncoated pans, without any problem. It does come with a tiny risk of the pan suddenly breaking apart, but this is an exception, pans frequently survive daily use across family generations without breaking.
But you say that your pan is non-stick. From that information and the looks of it, as well the information that the previous one was "spoiled", it is most likely teflon-covered. Teflon is a very sensitive material, and easy to damage.
There are two mechanisms which can (but do not have to) happen to damage your pan here. The first is exactly what you mentioned: temperature difference. The thermal shock of deglazing leads to a sudden contraction of the pan material, and it is not possible to make a coated pan in which the Teflon and the metal beneath it contract with the exact same speed. This creates stress on the border between the coating and the pan body, which is already a rather weak border, because the teflon simply doesn't like sticking to the metal. With time, the repeated stress on that border can certainly damage the bond between coating and pan.
The second mechanism is a bit more indirect: temperature. To do a proper deglazing, you need a hot pan, else you end up with an unappetizing greasy soup instead of a nice fond. On the other hand, teflon coatings are not suitable for using at high temperatures, they start to degrade at around 200 C. So if you want to do deglazing, you will have to damage your pan by heating it up.
The good news is that, in the second mechanism, there is no double damage. So, if you are already overheating the pan during cooking, then you are not doing extra heat damage by deglazing, there is only the damage caused by the differential contraction.
In conclusion, if you want to do deglazing, you might consider learning to cook on other types of pan. They frequently come with a learning curve and reduction in comfort, but give you better food quality and don't need to be replaced regularly.
Huh. We never did deglazing, but the usual way my wife and I cleaned our George Foreman grill involved putting wet paper towels in between the hot plates and then unplugging it, with the belief (based on suggestions from others) being that the food on the plates would leach into the paper towel and be more readily removed. I wonder whether that temperature differential was part of my the grill started flaking after a few years.
One issue I see is that this pan is strictly for grilling, not making a pan sauce. Heat this pan very hot, put your chicken, steak or whatever in it, and after you have created attractive grill marks by artistic turning, which should take only a minute or so, transfer it to another pan (at 350F or whatever is recommended) to cook to the desired internal temperature. Make a pan sauce in that. Or cook all the way in this grill pan, but make a sauce separately.
@Wastrel With both your suggestions (creating marks only, or cook all the way), there will be juices baking onto the pan. A deglazing will 1) make use of these juices, 2) create a sauce whose taste cannot be approximated by other means, and 3) make cleaning of the pan easier. So I don't see why you recommend to not make the sauce in the pan. Also, the OP's primary concern in this question is to prolong the pan's life, and your suggestion of creating grill marks with it is diametrically opposed to that.
@rumtscho You make good points, and it comes back to the fact that deglazing in this Teflon-coated pan will eventually damage it, as in your answer. The manufacturers say that Teflon is good up to 500F but my experience with them suggests that the coating comes off even if a pot or pan is never brought to that temperature. That's why I'm strictly a cast-iron and stainless steel guy now. So far we've both barely stopped short of telling the OP that this pan is not good for the purpose it's supposed to be used for...
That looks like a 'teflon'-coated aluminium pan to me.
The trick for deglazing without damage is just to let the heat off the pan a couple of minutes before adding liquid, so you don't get the extreme heat-shock; then bring it all back to the boil together.
'Teflon' doesn't last forever anyway, but I've not known this method to shorten a pan's life - there may even be an indication that doing this with wine will actually slightly mitigate the build-up seasoning/glaze that eventually makes non-stick pans sticky.
You are not damaging the pan at all. However, in a cast iron or carbon steel pan one is often trying to build up a seasoning layer, essentially making it non-stick. Continuous deglazing will interfere with that process. I have a couple of carbon steel pans that I don't introduce any liquid to because I don't want to lose the layers of seasoning I've worked to develop. My cast iron is many years older, so that one occasionally sees liquids. Your pan looks like it is enameled, that means you have to worry even less, as enameled pans are not really intended to take on a layer of seasoning. So, if your grill pan is already heavily seasoned, or if you don't really worry about the seasoning for that particular pan (or if it is enameled)....deglaze-away...worry-free.
It is great to know! The reason it looks enameled it's because it's new! The previous one was not old at all, but it seems it was spoiled, and it needed more and more oil for things to not get stuck (which I'm not sure if it's normal or I am also not grilling it in the proper way!). Thank you!
I wouldn't support the idea that the deglazing is so bad for seasoning. I personally deglaze rather frequently a carbon steel pan, and it has good thick seasoning. See also https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13461/can-deglazing-a-cast-iron-skillet-remove-the-seasoning.
@rumtscho entirely depends on where you are in the process (that was my point). My carbon steel is relatively new, my cast iron is old and well seasoned....the latter, gets deglazed no problem, the former will wait until the seasoning builds up a bit more before it sees any deglazing action.
@moscafj oh yes indeed, people tend to forget that pan seasoning is a continuous process and not three quick cycles in the oven. Thanks for clarifying that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.002906
| 2022-05-05T10:18:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120519",
"authors": [
"Caledon",
"JimmyJames",
"M.K",
"Sean Duggan",
"Tetsujin",
"Wastrel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95770",
"insertusernamehere",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125189
|
Butternut squash: bake, then cube?
I've got a recipe that requires baked butternut squash cubes. Is it possible to bake the squash whole first, then cube it afterwards? If so, should I attempt to peel it after baking?
Cooking a large item fully through without overcooking the outside takes significantly more time than cooking smaller bits, as it requires cooking at a lower temperature (to avoid burning/overcooking the outside). It will also be more wet, as there’s less opportunity for moisture to escape with reduced surface area.
And possibly related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/40839/67
A recipe for what?
Also, "baked butternut squash cubes" feels ambiguous to me. Is it or ? Could be either. My guess is the former. Usually in a recipe, if it is baked before hand, to clear this ambiguity up, it'd be written "1 cup butternut cubes, baked". A whole butternut would be "1 whole baked butternut, cubed"
If you bake first it will be difficult to get cubes, unless you under cook significantly. Cubing first also provides more surface area for browning...thus more flavor. If it says baked cubes, there is probably a reason for it. Specifying the final recipe will help. If that changes things, I'll edit my answer.
You might be able to cook, let cool, and then cut it up… but if the recipe is expecting warm ingredients at that point, it might cause other problems
Getting the flesh off the skin is going to be challenging once it's cooked, if not impossible.
@GdD: In my experience, getting the flesh off the skin of baked butternut squash is quite easy — just not if you want to keep any shape. For recipes that want just cooked squash flesh, I’d often bake it in big skin-on pieces and then skin it with a spoon once cooked+cooled. If wanting cubes as in OP’s recipe, though: peel, then cube, then bake.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.003587
| 2023-09-09T11:40:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125189",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Joe",
"PLL",
"Xander Henderson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89259",
"stanri"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
83507
|
What is "Food Grade" Stainless-Steel or Aluminum
After a comment by @Blacksmith37 after the question Are trace amounts of lead in seasoned bakeware safe? (comment in response to answer given by @SomeInterwebDev)
Blacksmith37 says: "Food Grade" got my interest , since I have never seen it in a
specification. I checked the ASTM index , there are no :food grade"
material specifications.
I've heard the term for years, but never really 'looked into' what it meant, rather taking the name at face value. Was further surprised to find no such question already present on SA...
What makes a metal, specifically stainless steel or aluminum, "food grade"?
EDIT: I guess I need to clarify, What I want to know is what qualities of these various grades and combinations make something "food grade"? Why is 304 or 10/8 food grade and 303 (assuming there is a '303') 'not food grade'. I found those articles that are being quoted so far and have 'the list' of 'food grade' stainless and aluminum. Also would like to know if there is a reference, at least for the US) where the FDA/USDA/NASA...whoever...blesses 304 etc and not others.
That question and answer were both referring to steel, not stainless steel or aluminum. Do you have anything that suggests stainless or aluminum are similar?
only a lifetime of using both stainless and aluminum in kitchens...and having heard the phrases "food grade steel" and "food grade aluminum"
There have been a lot of resent fights re aluminum and health, though most resent studies claim to have debunked that aluminum pans are of potential source of the issue. Unfinished aluminum I think is still considered far more reactive than stainless though. Cast iron is reactive so restricted to prep only. Copper is considered OK by FDA only for non-acidic. Knowing the chemical criteria for why a given grade of stainless is passed and another is not though is beyond my alloy knowledge. Lead and such obviously are no, but what ratios of other items are beyond my fine print reading.
Cannot promise this will stay available, but http://www.cromarbo.be/documentsPDF/certification-nsf.pdf gets into some details of what metals FDA has deemed OK in food prep which would be both prep area and cooking surfaces. It has some details such as 16% minimum chromium on stainless surfaces, but full would still take more metallurgy research for full descriptions..
@dlb, thats got most, if not all of what I'm looking for. I'd like to edit some of that material into your answer, if you don't mind...
@CosCallis Go for it. Between the stuff I found and Worfgangs should be a good base at least. With metals, as they said, a lot seems to be guidelines rather than hard rules, and some is even contradictory like minimum levels for Chromium but cautions of not too much chromium.
@db the minimum for chromium is to ensure the stainless steel is actually properly stainless. The exception for edged tools is because high chromium content makes a worse edge steel in some cases - in any cases where you don't care about an edge, eg storage containers, corrosion resistance is paramount. The requirement for hardening/tempering is a) because that gets you some extra corrosion resistance and b) because ANY quality edged tools are hardened/tempered, making the distinction clear. Lead, btw, is very commonly found in steels used to make machined parts.
Cos, I am not a metallurgist, so I cannot vouch for the authority of this site, but it is a starting point for US rules. https://www.marlinwire.com/blog/food-safe-metals-for-sheet-metal-wire-forms. They list a couple of grades of steel, namely Grade 304 and Grade 316 stainless that are approved, and some general guides as to what metals are inspected for (FDA):
It must not allow the migration of “deleterious substances or impart colors, odors, or tastes” to food
Be “durable, corrosion-resistant, and nonabsorbent”
Possess sufficient “weight and thickness to withstand repeated
warewashing”
Be “finished to have a smooth, easily cleanable surface”
Have resistance to “pitting chipping crazing, scratching, scoring,
distortion, and decomposition”
In general though, stock metals would be rated for reactivity, finish, a number of factors, and are assigned industry names or titles, and by grade those are declared food grade or not. Non-food grade metals can be treated as food grade for storage by putting a protective coating, but that would not make them food grade for cooking, only for storage. Cast Iron tends to be the opposite, approved for cooking, but not for storage as it is reactive to acids and porous.
Plastics are the same way, some are way too porous and absorbing to be used for food. We tend to assume that if it is being sold as a kitchen item it is food safe, and usually that is likely true. I only think it is an issue if we are attempting to adapt something which was not manufactured for food use, though there have been far too many instances of imported items into the US and EU that have blatantly violated manufacturing rules and skipped merrily past inspections making many of us edgy of certain countries of origin.
Edit from material provided from the NSF Food Equipment Materials Standard
The attached document from the NSF provides clear criteria and test methodology for features like 'cleanability'(section 5) 'corrosion resistance' (6) and then in section 7 lays out requirements for materials.
7.1 Stainless steel
7.1.1 Stainless steel used in food equipment shall be of a type in the AISI 200 series, AISI 300 series, or AISI 400 series .
7.1.2 When used in a food zone, stainless steel shall have a minimum chromium content of 16%. Stainless steel with a chromium content of
less than 16% may be used for cutlery, blades, and similar
applications requiring a sharp edge, provided the alloy has been
hardened or tempered by an appropriate post-weld heat treatment
process.
...
7.2 Aluminum Alloy ...
7.3 Copper and Copper Alloys ... and it goes on.
While the term 'food grade' is never used this certainly looks like a standard that would be 'commonly referred to' as 'food grade'
+1 This is a better general description, but a link to the regulations of the FDA would be helpful. The marlinwire website's link is broken.
Ah here it is: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/GuidanceRegulation/RetailFoodProtection/FoodCode/UCM374510.pdf
Section 4-101.11
Also the first article in that section says that they must be SAFE. This seems to apply to almost half the things in there but the closest definition I could find was: "Safe material" means:
(1) An article manufactured from or composed of materials that may not
reasonably be expected to result, directly or indirectly, in their becoming a component or otherwise affecting the characteristics of any FOOD;
(2) An additive that is used as specified in § 409 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act; or
(3) Other materials that are not ADDITIVES...(truncated)
Here's a description for Stainless Steel. It applies in Canada, but is likely similar elsewhere:
Grades of Stainless Steel that are Safe for Food
There are 150 grades of stainless steel, but your container, cup or plate should be made from one of these (check the label):
304
The most commonly used food-grade stainless steel; it is used in food, dairy, brewing, hospital and sanitation applications.
316
The second most commonly used food grade, it has the same uses as above, but has better corrosion resistance because it includes more nickel than 304.
430
Products made from this food grade generally have less nickel content and a lower resistance to corrosion and temperature. It’s best to dry these containers right after washing.
You may also notice that products will say 18/8, 18/10, 18/0 beside the grade. The first number is the percentage of chromium that is contained in the stainless steel. The second number is the amount of nickel. The higher the numbers, the more rust resistant the product will be. Nickel is safe in small quantities but can provoke a reaction in people with an allergy to it. The average adult consumes between 150 to 250 micrograms of nickel per day. Small doses of chromium, like iron, are good for your health, but can be harmful in higher amounts—50 to 200 micrograms per day is considered safe. One meal prepared with stainless steel equipment (such as stainless steel pots and pans) gives you about 45 micrograms of chromium, according to Health Canada.
And Aluminum is typically Alloy 1100:
Alloy 1100: This grade is commercially pure aluminum. It is soft and ductile and has excellent workability, making it ideal for applications with difficult forming. It can be welded using any method, but it is non heat-treatable. It has an excellent resistance to corrosion and is commonly used in the chemical and food processing industries.
Personal Opinion
It sounds like one of the biggest factors is corrosion resistance. My understanding of food grade materials is that they are mostly looking for material that is free of toxic materials (like lead, or nickel and chromium in higher quantities), and are resistant to harboring bacteria. By their nature, new aluminum and stainless steel meet these criteria, but the ones listed above provide more resistance over time.
I also couldn't find an official requirement, these seem more like guidelines that are followed by the food industry, possibly encouraged by a discerning public. Canadian Family, for example, recommends to check the label, suggesting some manufacturers don't follow these guidelines.
I had only read through the FDA food code 2009 previously. No mention of specific grades. The USDA stuff tends to focus on the specifics of industrial food processing, something which I don't know much about.
source
Stainless Steel: Shall be of the AISI 300 series or corresponding ACI types or stainless steel that is non-toxic and non-absorbent and which under conditions of intended use is equal in corrosion resistance to stainless steel of the AISI 300 series (excluding types 301 and 302) or corresponding ACI types; or, other metal which under the conditions of intended use is at least as corrosion resistant as the forgoing types, and is non-toxic and non-absorbent.
The data for AISI 300 series are contained in the AISI Steel Products Manual, Stainless & Heat Resisting Steels, December 1974, Table 2-1, pp. 18-20. Available from the Iron and Steel Society, 410 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15086 (412-776-9460).
The data for ACI types are available from the Alloy Casting Institute Division, Steel Founders Society of America, Cast Metal Fabrication Bldg., 455 State St., Des Plaines, IL 60016 (708-299-9160).
AISI 400 series may be used for specified applications such as cutting blades and associated parts when hardening characteristics are required.
Aluminum: Aluminum is satisfactory for certain butter and dry products applications. Aluminum may be used for liquid or high moisture content product contact surfaces only when a specific functional requirement exists and the parts are not subjected to strong caustic cleaning solutions or to the corrosive action of dissimilar metals.
The aluminum type chosen for the application shall be demonstrated to be appropriate and acceptable for the intended use. (Provisions have been made in existing 3-A Standards for Aluminum Association designations 5052, 6061, 6063, A-360, A-380, A-319, A-315G, and C-413, Danish Standards DS #3002 and #4261, and ASTM standards B179, and S12c for certain specified uses.)
Lots of misleading info above; I are a metallurgical engineer, I was a voting member of ASTM "A" committees - iron and steel. There is much information in Wikipedia, mostly correct. I looked in ASTM ( the bible of materials and testing) index volume 00.01 ; there are no "food grades " listed.The closest spec is A270 Austenitic Sanitary Tubing ( for the dairy industry). From its number it was first written in the 1940's ( and revised every 5 years). BUT , no other product specs were ever written indicating no need for a "food" designation in the real world . Other products are: pipe ,plate, sheet, bar, forgings, wire, castings, etc. Stainless' 304 and 316 are the 18-8 austenitic ( typically of non-magnetic), the difference being 316 contains molybdenum ( not a factor of nickel ). Aluminum cookware is typically 1100 ( sort of pure aluminum) if wrought , And high silicon ( forget the number ) or 356 if cast . ( 356 is known to some as "sweeps" alloy because everything swept off the foundry floor goes into it.) You folks are going to get more confused trying to learn metallurgy in this venue.
While ASTM is certainly a reasonable place to go looking for something like "food grade" when it comes to metals, it is FAR from the 'Only definitive place to look'. As we can see from above the NSF (National Sanitation Foundation) does provide for what is 'food grade' and does so by referring to ASTM standards. While ASTM says what it is to be 304,316,etc. the NSF says that these are the things that 'Are Food Grade'.
I found a fairly good listing of steels with a few comments in SAE Steel Alloys . Other sites had membership requirements. ASM has good info ( much better than Wikipedia) for anyone interested. I won't mention that there is no "aircraft grade aluminum".
ASTM is the definitive place to look for material professionals.
Certainly for material professionals but not for either professional or amateur chefs (most of whom are probably not aware of the existence of ASTM). On the other hand the NSF is probably on the radar of anybody who spends much time in the kitchen at all... ASTM, I suspect, does not 'care' what 304 is being used for, they are just setting a standard for what is 304 (etc) regardless of it being used to make pans or pistons...it's all about perspective.
I assume the cookware manufacturer will have some professional staff. However, I don't doubt that right now , somewhere in China , pots and pans are being made in a plant where no one ever read an ASTM spec. And their sales department if marking them "food grade".
Food grade stainless steel is steel that is resistant to wear and tear and has heat resistance in such a way that it's safe for the use of cooking various types of food. There are a number of different grades of steel such as 18/10, 18/8, etc.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.003796
| 2017-08-04T18:10:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83507",
"authors": [
"Cos Callis",
"Wolfgang",
"blacksmith37",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55234
|
What can I substitute for tomato juice?
I have a daughter who is allergic to tomatoes, but there are so many recipes calling for tomato juice. What can I use to substitute for tomato juice?
Appropriate substitutes really depend on the recipe. You'll need to be more specific about the recipe. I don't actually run into recipes that require tomato juice that often... unless you mean tomatoes generally, and not just juice.
You might really benefit from a juicer. A custom combination of fruit and vegetable juices might give you just what you need. When you play with other juices, keep in mind that tomatoes are quite acidic.
Tamarind has a great tart flavor that sort of mimicks the acidity of tomatoes in soups and sauces. Glutamic acid is also part of why tomatoes are so tasty, so maybe adding some umami could also help (beef boulion, fried mushrooms, soy sauce, worchestershire, etc...)
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/3716/67
I agree with the people who say it depends on the recipe. I'm going to expand a little on what has already been said.
Tomatoes are acidic but slightly sweet, and of course add some red color and (depending on the juice) maybe some thickness to a sauce or broth.
Tomatoes (and their juice) can be pretty distinctive, so you shouldn't expect any substitution to come out exactly the same as the original, and depending on what you're making and whether this is a beloved family recipe you are adapting vs something you found on Pinterest that you've never had before, you may care more or less about getting to exactly that original flavor/texture/color/etc. It may go without saying, but you will want to measure the volume of your replacement liquid AFTER any adjustments have been made to it. Some recipes are pickier than others about liquid volumes.
You could start with water, vegetable broth or apple juice (or apple juice diluted with water or broth) as a base to replace your tomato juice and add some things to adjust it to make it fit what you're looking for. Using a substitute other than water will provide a new flavor basis for the recipe, using water will make other things stand out.
Another option that might need less adjustment could be commercial, prepared Polish-style borscht which is generally a broth-like beet/vegetable soup, probably available at most grocery stores that have a good International section, or a reasonable Kosher selection. You will want to check ingredients, of course, to make sure it doesn't have anything you don't want in it, and if you get a style that has vegetable pieces in it you could either strain them out or puree the whole thing.
** Adjustments **
Salt level -
A commercially pre-prepared broth (or the borscht) will probably be a lot saltier than 100% tomato juice, but maybe similar to a tomato-y juice like v8. Either way, if you start from broth, you will probably want to significantly reduce or skip any other salt called for in the recipe.
Sweetness -
Tomatoes aren't extremely sweet, but they are a little sweet. If you start from anything other than the juice, I would add a little bit of sugar -- maybe 1/4 - 1/2 teaspoon per cup of liquid, but you could also probably leave it out. Many dishes with tomato may also have added sugar in them to counter the acidity. If you are starting from a juice base, skip or reduce additional sugar in the recipe.
Acidity -
A pinch of citric acid (powdered crystals are available for canning or in some spice collections) is quite neutral in flavor.
Indian grocery stores also offer amchur (powdered dried green mango) which is also pretty neutral.
Slightly less neutral would be a bit of lemon juice (maybe 1 t per cup of liquid?) or vinegar (depending on which type you choose, it can have a strong effect on flavor).
Tamarind is available from many Asian markets and has a more distinctive flavor, and will also affect (darken) the color. If you're using tamarind fruit, you can get it in a number of forms, most commonly as pressed, dried pulp (usually still with the seeds) or as paste (a black, sticky substance more like a honey texture than a paste, IMO). If you use the paste, a little goes a long way, maybe just 1/4-1/2 t to a cup of liquid. If you use the pulp, soak a small chunk of it in hot water for 10-15 minutes and press it into the water. Use the resulting tamarind broth (ok if some bits of pulp get in). Use more pulp to get a stronger flavor, less for a lighter flavor. Don't soak it in more liquid than you want to end up with.
Another option from India is kokum, which is another fruit with a distinctive flavor which will also affect the color. If you can get "wet" black kokum it is easier to use than the dry kokum (and you need less "wet" than dry to get a strong flavor), but either way, soak a chunk of it in hot water using the same method as the tamarind.
Color -
If you are going for the red color, pureed roasted red peppers are a great option. These are available in tins or jars in your Italian section of the grocery store or at import food stores, or you can make them yourselves from fresh red bell pepper (capsicum). Again, they've got a distinctive flavor (although milder than tamarind or kokum). About a tablespoon of pureed red pepper per cup of liquid is probably good. This will also thicken the liquid, and of course you can add more or less to adjust the thickness.
A little bit of beet juice will also give a red color, and after cooking it is a little closer to the orangey red you expect from tomatoes. It also has a fairly distinctive flavor if you add enough to make it really red.
Thickness -
Pureed roasted red pepper, as mentioned before, will add some thickness and a distinctive flavor.
Mashed potato will add thickness without affecting flavor much. Other cooked, mashed root vegetables like sweet potato or carrot can thicken it up some but may affect flavor, color and sweetness.
Corn or potato starch are good, neutral thickeners if what you're making will be brought to a boil.
Red peppers are a great substitute for tomatoes. "Ajvar" is a red pepper paste (originally from Serbia), and it works well, e.g. as a pizza sauce. Or you can easily blend or juice the peppers yourself.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.004937
| 2015-02-28T23:00:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55234",
"authors": [
"CHRISTINE KITCHING",
"Catija",
"Cold Fish",
"Derpy",
"E B",
"Elaine Turner",
"Fatma Said",
"Hashem Almousa",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Keytlhen Estrada",
"Mark",
"Office Lights Ltd",
"Philip Stechcon",
"Raphael Stephanie",
"Sandy Stuy",
"Tammy Hanna",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"raymond anderson"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36238
|
Smoking a pig at 225 F vs barbecuing one at 250F?
I have seen many posts that say smoking a pork shoulder at 225F to an internal temperature of 195F will take 15 hours. I have also seen many posts that say you can barbecue a 90 pound whole hog at 250F in an above ground pit in 6-7 hours. How can this be possible? Both shoulders are whole, not cut up. Can 25F really make that much of a difference in cooking times?
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! Can you link to an example, especially for the whole hog? (You can click "edit" below your question to just add it in.) If it's in a pit, the heat transfer is very different from in a smoker.
You may want to check out the following pages:
What Influences Cooking Time
Thermodynamics of Cooking
Using their methods, I have not had a shoulder take 15 hours to come to temperature at a smoker temperature of 225 (computer-controlled). I have never done whole hog, but as Jefromi stated the actual method of cooking makes a significant difference. The Hawaiian imu (the bury-it-in-the-ground style of cooking using the retained heat from sand and rocks that were under the coals) is a much more efficient way to rapidly transfer the heat to the meat than using air to conduct the heat, and forced convection from the blower in my smoker is more efficient than natural convective currents. If my smoker did not have the blower it would take longer to get the meat to temperature, but I still don't think it would take 15 hours for a shoulder.
Whole hog weight versus time at 250 degrees:
40 pounds: 3.5 hours
75 pounds: 9 hours
100 pounds: 12 hours
125 pounds: 15 hours
150 pounds: 18 hours
175 pounds: 21 hours
200 pounds: 24 hours
From Goin' Whole Hog
AmazingRibs.com is essentially a peer-reviewed barbecue site. They don't publish a recipe until it has been tested multiple times and is nearly foolproof. They also bust some of the barbecue myths that have been spread for generations. I am not affiliated with it other than donating some money to them due to their high-quality articles.
1) A "market" size pig, i.e. one they cut up and sell in pieces at the grocery store is much bigger---(250 lbs or so) than a 90 lb. "roaster." Cooking time depends on the largest cut, so a shoulder from a market pig will be larger than the shoulder from a roaster, thus taking longer to cook;
2) 25 degrees does make a very big difference in cooking--yes, hours;
3) 6-7 hours for a 90 lb pig at 250 is not enough time in my experience. I cook ribs for 5 hours at that temp--no way the shoulder or ham is getting done to an internal temp of 195-200 in that time. I have not cooked a 90lb pig, but the 65 lb ones I have cooked took over 7 hours cooking at temps higher than 250. A lot of the recipes for cooking whole hog use homemade cement block pits--not exactly precision cooking instruments. There may be a thermometer somewhere in the pit that reads 250, but that may not be the temp at the meat which is exposed to the coals.
So, yes it could take 15 hours to cook a big shoulder at 225. It will take much less time to cook a 90 lb roaster at 250, but more like 10 hours.
It is not viable to compare cooking times for a single shoulder with that for a whole hog. There are some reasons for this:
Surface area is the biggest factor in determining cooking time per mass. A 9-pound pork shoulder may take 12-16 hours to cook whole, but if you were to butterfly it, the cooking time would be drastically reduced. You may have a 90-pound hog, but you are exposing a much greater amount of surface area to cooking at one time.
You are not going to cook a whole hog to nearly as high a temperature as you would a pork shoulder. If you are only making pork shoulder or pork butt, you can cook it to 195f+ with no problem. It will be moist, tender, and pull apart easily. When you're doing whole hog, you're also including a lot of pig (loin, back, etc) that is not so amenable to cooking to that temperature. The latter is cooked to a lower temperature, and is chopped to help tenderize it.
If you're aiming for an internal temperature of 195F, the difference between 225F and 250F is huge. Heat transfer rates are proportional to the temperature gradient, or roughly, the difference in temperature between the hot part and the cold part. Say you're trying to get those last 5 degrees, from 190F to 195F in the middle. If the hot part is 225F, you've got a difference of 35F; if it's 250F you have a difference of 60F, 1.7 times as much. So you'd expect it to take (very roughly) 70% longer at 225F.
And yes, the depth the heat has to penetrate (the distance from the surface to the center of the meat) has a similar effect, but from what I understand, when you're roasting a whole hog you flatten it out somewhat so that the thickness isn't actually that much larger than a pork shoulder.
(Still, as RudyB said, 15 hours is a pretty long time; it might be overkill.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.005415
| 2013-08-23T03:39:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36238",
"authors": [
"Ann Ivey",
"Anonymous",
"Cascabel",
"Dario Garcia",
"Lori Yocius",
"Rich",
"Rob Janssen",
"Roger",
"Rylan Zimny",
"Sunshine",
"Susan Ramsdell",
"ask",
"elaforma",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85244",
"marilou agawin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36267
|
How does fat affect gluten development in strudel/phyllo dough?
I'd like to prepare a strudel/phyllo dough from scratch,
and I have noticed that the recipe calls for about 10%-12% of olive oil mixed into the strudel dough.
I have learnt that oil and/or fat inhibits gluten development. On the other hand, I've read that oil makes the dough more flexible so it can stretch easily (I don't know why or how it does it).
Can you please explain these features of oil in the context of strudel dough?
Also, why does resting the dough help it to be more flexible?
Resting dough before kneading or after kneading is a way of manipulating the gluten. Here is a link to some explanation. http://www.savorsa.com/2013/02/ask-a-foodie-why-does-bread-dough-need-to-rest/
Fat can inhibit gluten development in things like cakes, where the fat is allowed to coat the flour before other liquids are added. In things like bread dough, it slows down the gluten development a bit, but since the flour has already come in contact with water, it doesn't stop it. In the context of your phyllo or strudel, the oil serves a couple of purposes. First, oil in a dough helps to keep it from drying out which is very important when working with such thin doughs. Second, adding oil to a dough can help to make it easier to handle (less sticky).
The resting period of your dough both allows enzymatic reactions in the dough to further develop the gluten, and it allows the gluten to relax. You can think of the gluten as strings in your dough. As you knead the dough, you're winding these strings tighter and tigher, but when you let it sit, they can begin to stretch and loosen. This relaxation makes the dough much less "tight", so that it can be rolled out more easily without springing back as much.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.005812
| 2013-08-24T07:45:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36267",
"authors": [
"Brian",
"Emily Wood",
"Jennifer S",
"M. Norbert",
"OLAJIDE ADEFEMI",
"Robert Boscacci",
"Scott Blagrove",
"TriptoVietnam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85798"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37439
|
Aromatics from roasted chicken and sauce
I have been making tandoori chicken, and made it with the following marinade.
I place the chicken on top of aromatics consisting of carrots, celery, onions and yams.
When the chicken has been roasted, I am left with the juices and the aromatics.
I am not really sure what to do with these aromatics and how to serve them. For example, the large pieces of celery are pretty awkward, they are hard to chew. I am thinking of removing the yams, mash them and mix with cinnamon, but the rest I am not sure about.
How do you usually serve the aromatics that have been cooked under the roasted chicken? Also, can you leave the aromatics in the roasting pan while you make the sauce (or au jus)? Eventually, you would remove them of course and serve the aromatics separately.
How well did the vegetables come out? I try to dice my veg (carrots potatos, onions and peppers, typically), so they're a reasonable size to just serve as-is once it's done (onions are quartered, so they don't cook down too far) ... but I've never cooked a coconut milk (or any milk) coated chicken over it, so don't know how that would affect things.
They come out great. I guess I could chop down the roasted celery before I serve it, before roasting would be preferable actually.
Remove all the vegetables and discard, they should have released all their "aromatics" to the gravy
You could press them in a chinois (fine meshed sieve) and extract more juices from them.
Pass all the juices through the chinois into a pot and reduce, and you could add a little bit of white wine to finish up the sauce to serve with the chicken.
When I roast chicken, I usually put potatoes, onions, garlic and carrots (and or other root vegetables) in the pan and they roast at the same time; most of the time, the onions are just too cooked to be served, so either I eat them myself, or just discard them.
Of the juices from the chicken, how much of it do you use for the sauce? I watched a Good Eats episode about roasted chicken and Alton Brown removed all of the juice and recommended using it for vinaigrette. Then he kept the aromatics in the roasting pan over two heaters, added broth and red vine until it reduced by half
I use all of it and add a little bit of white wine to the sauce; you could remove the juice put aside for a minute or so to have the fat float on top and remove it and put it back in and finish up the sauce.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.006007
| 2013-10-08T19:12:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37439",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Kristy Raney McCommon",
"Max",
"Oded R.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/88045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/88046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/88047",
"l3win",
"user1807337"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42410
|
Dry-aging at home
I am dry aging a T-Bone steak in my refrigerator. I have placed wooden BBQ skewer sticks on top of a plastic bowl. My steak is sitting on top of the skewers and covered in a paper towel with a small air inlet opening at one end of the towel.
Most instructions about dry aging at home tell you to remove the paper towel in 24 hrs. But why? I would think I should replace it, rather than remove it, so the moisture can still escape from the meat.
You might want to reconsider this; controlled tests demonstrate fairly conclusively that it makes no perceptible difference to the texture or flavour, and there are significant potential food safety issues.
All the dry aging instructions I've encountered (Test Kitchen, Good Eats) have the cook replace the paper towel after the first 24 hours.
I typically dry age my steaks for 4-6 days in the fridge and replace the paper towel after the first 24 hours. The first paper towel is soaked with liquid. The 2nd towels usually have a fraction of the moisture of the first towel. Perhaps the authors of the instructions you've read noticed the lack of moisture in the second towel and decided it was not worth it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.006236
| 2014-02-28T18:10:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42410",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Abraham",
"Bev Rowe",
"Chloe",
"Dalmarus",
"Haley Bressler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99122"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36453
|
How to scale up modernist Potato Puree?
The recipe for Potato Puree in "Modernist Cooking at Home" calls for precooking the potatoes in water at 65 degrees Celsius for 35 minutes. The bag should hold 500 g potatoes and 1 liter water. Since the recipe says to scale the water at 200% this means that if I am to use 1 kg of potates I need 4 liter of water.
However, trying to do this for only 35 minutes did not give a satisfactory result. Looking back, this is not surprising since the added size of the bag means it needs more time in the sous vide.
What is the right way to scale up the recepie? Should I use two bags? If that is the case, the scaling factor of the water makes little sense. How about 750 grams of potatoes, or 1.5 kg of potatoes?
I have not read this book, but I note that 1 liter of water is 200% of 500 g of potatos; could that be what is meant?
@SAJ14SAJ I believe the interpretation of the scaling factor is correct, but the question still remains on what is the best way to scale this recepie in relation to time and the number of bags etc.
Well you could always do the recipe twice, independently, at the same time. That kind of shows the scaling interpretation may be a little odd.
@SAJ14SAJ Yes, I could do that, and then it seems reasonable to use 2:1 amount of water to potatoes described in the recipe. I guess the question is about the what should be done with 750 grams and so on. I was hoping someone had some experience on precooking potatoes for potato puree in this way and tips on timing etc. I guess in a more general setting one could say: "How do I scale Starch Gelatinization in potatoes with a sous vide?".
See Jefromi's answer below; it is almost certainly as I was guessing using the same technique as baker's percentage, but with potato rather than flour as the baseline 100% ingredient. So 750 g of potato would go to 1.5 l (1500 g) of water. In most sous-vide recipes there is enough slush that the number of bags should not make that much difference. You can always divide into 2 if it is more convenient.
If you're cooking more stuff, couldn't you just give it a longer time in the sous vide bath? It's not like there's the risk of overcooking that there would be with traditional cooking methods.
Assuming it says 100% for the potatoes, I don't think you've got the scaling right. The recipe format picks a baseline ingredient, then gives the quantities for other ingredients as percentages of that ingredient. So if it says potatoes 100%, water 200%, then for 1kg of potatoes you need 2kg (2L) of water. See the detailed explanation from the source. The point here is to make things really easy, not to make you do awkward extra math.
As for the bags, you should definitely use two bags. If you do have two identical bags the size of the original one, your circulator is still keeping the water at the right temperature, and you've put in more water as directed by the recipe, it should take close to the original time. If you put it all in one bag, it'll take longer, and exactly how much longer is pretty hard to guess, since it depends on exactly how you pack it into the bag.
I feel embarrassed now =D. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
I think the issue you're referring to is that more potatoes require more time to cook to the consistency achieved by following the original recipe.
This of course (like many other cooking issues) is a thermo dynamics problem. As long as you make sure your potato pieces are small enough (I make about 1" think slices) then add twice as much water (that's what they mean by 200%, 1.5Kg of potatoes -> 3L water).
In a sous vide, it would be better to have two bags separate as opposed to one big one. The name of the game is to allow the heat to penetrate. The rate of cooking something twice as thick is not twice as long (it follows heat diffusion formula). By separating the bags you allow the circulator to replenish the warm bath around the food.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.006369
| 2013-08-31T14:37:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36453",
"authors": [
"Airy",
"Alex Feinland",
"Chris Johnson",
"HaskellElephant",
"James Welshans",
"Joe Asher",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"Wence Sailas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85563",
"seema singh"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
710
|
How do I flip an egg when preparing it "over easy"?
I tend to break a lot of yolks when preparing eggs over easy. I also can't do it too fast, making it hard to cook multiple eggs at once (they tend to overcook).
Sometimes the spatula I'm using doesn't want to slide under the egg very easily. Is there anything special about the type of spatula or special preparation with the pan or eggs that might make this harder or easier?
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6402/perfect-fried-egg
Are you breaking the cooked side or raw side of the yolk when you flip? Either way, farm fresh eggs (preferably free range, sustainably farmed) generally hold up better in cooking than factory farm eggs. I rarely break yolks when frying eggs unless I mean to for sandwiches.
The best thing I've figured out about turning eggs is: do not do it too early. You need to wait for the cooked part of the egg to develop a strong texture before it will support its own weight. It's very difficult to turn a floppy, soft egg, where it's comparatively easy to flip an egg that has been cooked more completely on one side. I also use a relatively high heat, as this "crisps" the cooked surface. It also makes the egg more attractive.
The spatula you use can make a difference, also, though I believe this is minor. The spatula you want is a plastic one with a relatively thin, flexible blade. The really heavy spatulas tend to be too tall, in my experience, and push the egg rather than sneak under it.
I should note: my grandmother uses a rounded metal spatula with great success. She has 60 some odd years on me.
Metal spatula is the correct tool only for cast iron. It will scratch the heck out of your other pans.
if you spoon a little of the frying oil over the top of the egg whilst it is cooking this will help to 'set' the top of the egg, making less likely to tear apart or break the yolk when you do flip it. Also try and flip with the yolk near the bottom of the spatula so it has less distance to travel and will be less likely to break.
Good point, about yolk placement.
A basted egg is better than "over easy" any day. Basting will completely cook the white and leave the yolk deliciously golden and runny. Isn't that what you're looking for an an over easy egg?
Just did one in butter, spooning the butter over top as it went, still flipped it near the end to finish up the top. Came out great, cooked whites, running but hot yolk. I've known of the technique, seen it used on fish and such, never thought about on an egg, thanks.
This is how I was taught to cook an over-easy egg by my mother when I was probably about six years old. And of course the oil was bacon grease stored in a coffee can next to the stove, which just made it all the better.
First thing first, may be obvious but use a non stick pan.
Let your egg cook till the bottom is hard
Flip with your spatula with care
If the heat is stronger the bottom will be ready faster and the yolk wont cook like it is hardboiled
Another way to cook egg (IMO easier) is to put a lid on your pan an let the heat cook the top of the egg
+1 for a lid. I always prefer to cook my eggs with a lid.
A nice technique I learned a few years ago would be to cook the bottom to nearly done, then toss a teaspoon or two of water into the pan (not too much, as you don't want to get rubbery eggs), then clap a lid on it. The steam will cook the tops of the eggs nicely.
Cook off all the water. If you had enough fat in the pan, the egg edges recrisp well, and you've got a pretty nice looking 'over easy' egg.
I find I don't need any added water either: just cook the eggs in a medium-hot pan (with some oil) for 4-5 minutes with a lid on. Results in something between poached and over-easy.
I've seen a few grill cooks use an ice cube which, I think, pretty much turns directly to steam and somewhat prevents your eggs getting wet. (That last part may just be my imagination...)
First, your egg should not be too fresh. I mention this in case you happen to have your own chickens or buy eggs straight from the farmer. Otherwise ignore it.
Second, your pan needs to be super nonstick. I have a small cast iron pan that is used only for frying eggs in butter. Never anything else. And it was used once or more a day every weekday for years - my youngest especially liked to head off to school "on an egg" as they used to say in the UK. It is truly well seasoned. Usually before I flip the egg, I give the pan a bit of a shake to confirm the egg moves around. If it's stuck, when you try to flip you will rip it. If so, move the flipper around under the egg to free it before attempting any kind of lifting. Remove the flipper and shake again to make sure it's free.
Third, and probably most important, the thing you're flipping with needs to be thin and smooth. A lot of things they sell to flip eggs with really suck. It also needs to be wider than the yolk by a good amount. Most of the plastc utensils for non stick pans are too thick and also not very slippery. Mine is metal but the pan doesn't mind, and it doesn't have those slots cut in it that so many slices (UK) or flippers (US) do.
Then you need the confidence to get in there and flip it all in one motion, not mess about pushing it around and suspending it in midair for too long. The yolk breaks when you lift up half the egg while the other half is stuck to the pan, when you lift it in a way that has a weight of white hanging down on either side pulling at the yolk, or when you put it in at an angle. Practice is part of it, but practice with the right tools is key. When my ideal flipper was dirty, I used to use different ones. I stopped when I realized I broke the yolk with substitute flippers quite often, and never with my preferred one. So I take a moment to wash the flipper if I need to.
Hm, mghicks' comment and Aaron's answer say that fresh eggs are better for frying. I've heard that anecdotally too, and see some support for it around the internet. Why do you say not to use too-fresh eggs?
A fresh egg means a thicker white, so the egg will spread out less in the pan. That means you'll have to wait longer to be sure the white is cooked, and that means the yolk is less likely to be runny.
The pan must be as clean as possible, and the fat as pure as possible.
Also, you can try cooking the egg on a lower heat so as to stop it sticking to the pan.
Don't use a spatula. Use a non-stick pan with curved edges like these*.
Use a 9" pan or similar, for cooking 1-2 eggs, or a 12" for 3-4 eggs or omelets.
Put a little butter in the pan before the egg(s). This adds to the flavor, as well as provides lubrication necessary for the spatula-less flipping.
When you're ready to flip the egg, pick the pan off the burner, swirl the pan around gently, to make sure the egg is "loose," and isn't sticking to the pan. If it is stuck, you probably didn't use enough butter. Use a spatula to loosen the egg only--not to flip it!
Once you are confident the egg is loose, flip it in the air with your wrist, by making a forward, then quick upward motion. The egg should flip in the air only a couple of inches. With practice, you'll be able to get the egg to land perfectly every time, without breaking the yoke, and without folding. But it does take practice. But it's worth it, in my opinion. Not only does this produce the prettiest eggs possible, but it also makes you look like a Kitchen Ninja if you're cooking in front of friends. :) I use this method for over-light/easy/medium/hard eggs, as well as omelets.
Practice with a piece of bread and a cool pan, until you can get the bread to flip over exactly once. Of course the bread won't break if you flip too hard... so practice until you can get your bread to flip clean over with the least amount of force possible. Once you have this down (maybe 1-2 dozen bread flips of practice?) try with real eggs.
You will "ruin" a few eggs this way (meaning they'll break or fold), but it won't take long until you get most or all of your eggs coming out right this way.
When I worked at a diner using this method, we would throw away the broken eggs. At home, you can still eat them, as long as you aren't too offended by ugly eggs that still taste good :)
*Disclaimer: I don't own or recommend these specific pans; the picture just looks similar to the ones I own and like. You can buy suitable pans anywhere.
Spraying or wiping your spatula with a little cooking spray may help you slide it under the egg.
Similar to Kev's answer, I don't flip the egg. However, instead of basting with the oil, I simply cover the pan with a lid. The steam will cook the top side of the egg without flipping.
Fresh eggs = stronger membrane on the yolk.
Pan should be 100% non-stick, and very slick. If the egg sticks at all, you've already lost.
Flipping should be done without a spatula. You should lift the pan, use your wrist to flip the egg(s) in the air, then when the egg reaches the crest of the flip, you should move the pan up, so it doesn't gain much momentum on the way down.
I second the pan flip technique. Practice with a slice of bread until you get the motion down.
Don't flip the egg. I always fry my eggs in vegetable oil and "baste" the top of the egg by spooning the hot oil over the top.
I'm not suggesting that there should be so much oil in the pan to float the egg, but enough to be able to spoon the hot oil over the top of the egg with a decent size tea spoon and cook the top.
I get a perfect fried egg every time (if you like a runny yolk).
If im using the grill (e.g doing bacon at the same time), I usually put the frying pan under it for a minute or so (ideally basted with fat as suggested above) which generally cooks it without the need to turn it.
It can cook and harden the yolk if you do it for too long however.
I've noticed that it makes a difference in how you pick up the egg. Slide the spatula under the egg deliberately and with confidence in one quick, fluid motion. Hesitating when sliding under the egg seems to increase the chances of not getting all the way under the yolk and thus, a less than desirable outcome.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.006834
| 2010-07-12T04:24:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/710",
"authors": [
"Alissa",
"Andres Jaan Tack",
"Andy S",
"Brian Low",
"Bruce Alderson",
"Carey Gregory",
"Cascabel",
"Cherian",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Drew Dormann",
"Ezra Free",
"Gilead",
"Kate Gregory",
"ManiacZX",
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"Rodney Schuler",
"Sam Holder",
"TM.",
"Trish",
"ant",
"gnicko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/948",
"leanne h",
"mghicks",
"rfusca"
],
"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
}
|
324
|
What safety precautions should be taken when attempting to flambe at home?
Is this one of those things that unless you've been taught by an experienced person and you know what you're doing you probably just shouldn't try? If I did want to try, what precautions should I take? Is this a valid cooking method or is it mostly just done as an impressive visual effect?
Flambe is a valid cooking method. It allows you to flash off most of the alchohol from your chosen liqour but keep the flavour.
I'd suggest that you have a wet towel at hand or a fire blanket in your kitchen if you're going to embark on this cooking technique as a first timer.
Also don't run your extractor fan above the cooker if you're using your hob. You have the potential to draw in bigger flames and ignite any grease present in your filters or pipe to the outside world. My brother worked in a professional kitchen where this happened. They couldn't get the extractor turned off for a while due to the resulting fire and they managed to light up a good length of the extraction pipe to the outside. It was like the after burners on a jet engine. There was a fire appliance involved that night.
Ultimately it's all about common sense because fire and alcohol are a fairly dangerous combination.
Also, keep a lid for your pan close by.
Safety first...if the conflagration gets out of hand you shouldn't attempt to put a lid on the pan. You should smother with a large wet cloth or fire blanket otherwise your hands and wrists will get seriously burned if it flashes uncontrollably whilst attempting to place the lid. Trust me I've been there.
Kev's answer mentions the most important aspects, but I'd like to add another observation that I believe is very important. Do not pour the liquor straight from the bottle into the pan. Not only is it very easy to accidentally use too much, there also is a risk of the liquor or its fumes catching on fire earlier than planned. This can happen especially easy with gas hobs because there's an open flame nearby. If the liquor would happen to ignite while pouring, you'd much prefer to have a small container of it in your hand rather than a molotov cocktail. So pour out the proper amount first away from the fire, preferably into something that won't shatter easily if dropped or heated, then close the bottle and put it away. Then when ready to flambé pour from the small container.
Spectacular though it may look, it is not something that only the most experienced chefs can attempt and is really not that hard. Just use some commons sense, think carefully about your actions, make sure proper precautions in case of trouble are in place before starting and stay calm if things don't seem to go well. Oh, and keep the pan at a slight distance during the whole process; it's not the time to hover over it and smell the aromas.
Make sure you keep a fire extinguisher handy, and make sure that it works. It never ceases to amaze me, the number of people who don't have one in their kitchen.
In addition to what other answers mention, I'd also recommend using a long match or a lighter with a long stem (as used for lighting fires). You don't want your fingers close to the pan when the flames start.
If you watch the pros do this on a gas stove, they'll often tip the pan slightly to get the gas from the stove to ignite the vapor above the pan to get things going, but I'd caution against trying this at the outset. It's harder to tell precisely when the flames will erupt, and without practice, it's possible to tip the pan too far, potentially spilling flaming liquid onto the stovetop (or the floor, or yourself).
I've also personally found that family members and guests like to hover around the stove when you do something like this, as it's not something they see everyday. Be sure to keep them at a safe distance (and preferably practice once or twice on your own before doing it with a large audience).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.007701
| 2010-07-09T23:39:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/324",
"authors": [
"Curry",
"FuzzyChef",
"John F",
"Johnny Maelstrom",
"Kev",
"MattGWagner",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"mbyrne215",
"nicerobot"
],
"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
}
|
592
|
Is it possible to preserve color in steamed vegetables?
When I steam green vegetables, like broccoli, they come out bright green. A few minutes later though, and they have darkened and dulled. Is this a symptom of cooking them for too long or is there some other way to preserve the bright green color?
I didn't tried it myself, but I've read that you can add a bit of baking soda when boiling green vegetables, so they'll maintain their colour better. I have not idea if this also applies to other-coloured veggies.
Baking soda preserves the colour but destroys the vitamins. You have to decide which is more important.
Typically, vegetables will lose their colour if they are over-cooked, so it's probably worthwhile cooking them for a shorter period of time.
Usually steaming is a great way to preserve the nutrients and colour of vegetables, as is stir-frying rapidly.
Different kinds of vegetables contain various pigments in their skins. Green vegetables contain chlorophyll; red and white vegetables contain flavonoids; orange vegetables contain keratin. Each of these pigments requires a different approach when cooking to preserve colour.
When cooking green vegetables, never add an acid, such as lemon juice or vinegar, as this will cause the vegetables to discolour quickly. Always cook green vegetables rapidly and preferably without a lid.
With red and white vegetables, which contain flavonoids, the converse to green vegetables is true. Adding an acid during the cooking process will retain and even restore the colour. For red vegetables use a red or white wind vinegar. For white vegetables use a slice of lemon.
Orange vegetables, which contain keratin and are generally fairly robust, for the most part can be cooked with or without the addition of an acid, and they will usually retain their colour.
Another way to preserve the colour is to blanch the vegetable in boiling water for a minute or so, then plunge them into ice water. Doing this stops the cooking process instantly. Using the method is useful if you intend to freeze vegetables.
you need a big pot of water to blanch small amount of vegetable, small portion at a time.
theoretical background:
there is gas in the immediate layer of the vegetable, which makes the vegetable appear a little bit dull. you want to drive this gas out.
the color is provided by chlorophyll, which is destroyed by heat, acidity and vegetable enzymes.
the enzymes works at room temperature, works quicker when slightly above room temperature, doubling their speed for every 10 degree C elevation of temperature, but is quickly deactivated (thus, become non-functional) at temperature near boiling point
the acid is released into the cooking solution, and the action of acid is dependent on the concentration of acid.
when temperature goes to near freezing point, all reaction slows tremendously
thus, use large amount of water and small amount of vegetable, then stop the cooking by quenching the reaction using ice cold water:
the large amount of water relative to the vegetable ensures the constant boiling-point temperature of the blanching water - this ensures fast cooking with little time for enzymes to work. if you use too much vegetable at a time then the temperature will drop due to transfer of heat from water to vegetable. this allow (1) driving out of gas quickly, (2) cooking of vegetable quickly without yellowing (caused by degradation of chlorophyll), (3) quick deactivation of vegetable enzymes
the large amount of water allows quick dilution of acid released from the vegetables
when you see the much-needed green colour you want, you want to stop the cooking process immediately to "freeze the moment" and what you want to do is to let the ice cold water stop the cooking reaction from outside to inside (especially outside, since color's on the outside)
that's basically it
The main problem with this approach is that it isn't appropriate if the plan is to eat the vegetables hot as they are now cold.
@Ryan, this allows you to pre prepare a large amount of vegetables without them losing their colour. As by the end they are now cooked, but cold, you can then reheat them at serving time either by dunking in a large pot of boiling water for a few seconds or by warming in a pan with butter, or however for how you want to serve them. Dunking in cold water might not be appropriate if you are only serving a few people and can cook all the veg at the same time (remember, blanch in small potions), but if you can't (or want to prepare them in advance) then this approach will solve your problem
If you don't want cold veges but still want them as colourful as possible, I find the following technique works a treat, left until just before a meal will be served:
If you have frozen veges, ideally thaw them first for best result. You can run them under cold water (cheapest) or warm water (quickest), or sit them in a bath of either (least attention required).
As mentioned in @bubu's answer, it's important to bring a good amount of water to the boil in comparison to the weight of veges you are going to cook (say 3-4 times the weight at least). Keep the element on maximum.
Add the veges, and set a timer for them. Choosing the appropriate time for each type of vegetable takes practice, and is a matter of preference anyway. When using veges that require different cooking times, time them to finish at the same time. eg if I'm cooking carrot, zucchini and broccoli, I'd add the carrot first, wait 2 mins, then add the broccoli & zucchini and cook another 60 seconds (for total cooking time of 3 mins for the carrot).
Sieve immediately to avoid overcooking & serve immediately (leaving them sitting around while hot will make them lose colour).
Minimising the time the veges spend heated maximises their colour. The reason a good amount of water is required, in comparison to the weight of the veges, is because when the veges are added the temperature drops, but the more water there is the less it will drop. If you have too many veges, or they are frozen, the temperature drops too much and it takes longer for them to cook and dulls their colour.
One can use a similar technique with steaming, but if too many vegetables are used then the ones closest to the steam are overcooked before those furthest away are cooked at all. The only solution to this is to produce more steam somehow (not possible in some cases), or to cook less veges at a time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.008072
| 2010-07-11T03:24:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/592",
"authors": [
"Chris Cudmore",
"Lilly Ernst",
"Mien",
"RedSonja",
"Rosalind Buie",
"Ryan Elkins",
"Sam Holder",
"The Chef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94952"
],
"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
}
|
569
|
What is the proper ratio of heavy cream to chocolate for a thick ganache?
Most recipes on the internet call for a 1:1 ratio that I've seen but this ends up being rather watery. I want a thick chocolaty ganache.
Is there anything special that needs to be done to achieve this other than adjusting the ratios? Right now I'm basically doing the "mix simmering heavy cream with chocolate" recipe.
Normal ganache is 1:1 indeed. You can make a more caramelly one by adding honey and butter:
try 14 oz cream, 12 oz chocolate, 2 oz honey, 6 oz butter diced into small cubes.
Boil the cream and honey together, pour over the chocolate, stir until melted, melt in the butter.
Yes to Vicky's recipe--that sounds divine! For ganache you can flavor it up a bit by adding a fresh ground spice to the ganache. For example, cardamom is an unexpected by highly complimentary flavor to chocolate.
Just add the cream a little at a time until the chocolate is the consistency you want. You do not have to have 1:1 you just need enough hot cream to melt the chocolate.
Ganache should not be too thick either.
There is no better way to reduce chocolate ratio but other alternative will just adjust the flavor, you may try cream cheese which will not alter the chocolate flavor that much compares to other alternatives . Next to cheese probably nuts. That will helps in the thickening .
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.008880
| 2010-07-11T00:16:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/569",
"authors": [
"Matt Parker",
"OregonTrail",
"Patch",
"Rukhsana Junaid",
"Spice Sherpa",
"Tony L.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5027",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"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
}
|
3978
|
Keep chicken with skin from catching on fire on the barbeque
Short:
Is there a proper technique for cooking chicken (with skin) on the barbecue, without little chicken-fireballs?
Long:
My previous landlord loved to cook on the barbecue, much to the displeasure of our tastebuds. (We alternated cooking days).
Her chicken always caught on fire and the skin burned to a crisp. The meat on the inside was fine of course, but the fatty skin was long since toast.
I have never tried cooking chicken on the barbecue with skin, but I'd like to try it, without setting them on fire. Can it be done, and is it really easy?
I've theorized that if I boil the chicken just a little, it might remove some of the fat and help, but I'm not sure. I won't have barbecue access for awhile (currently living in an apartment) so I can't try it, yet.
I have no idea why her chicken burned (high temperature, not paying attention, etc).
Even at low temperature, you're going to have flare ups. Don't crowd the grill, and when the flammable grease starts causing spurts of flame, move the chicken slightly.
For charcoal at least, putting the cover on reduces the amount of oxygen available, lowering heat and greatly reducing flame-ups (indeed, since there is little spare oxygen, there isn't any to feed the flame-up).
The chicken fat layer in the skin is flammable. As it melts, it drips out and down. If there is something extremely hot underneath it (like hot charcoal), it will ignite causing a flareup. Heat rises, so the heat and flame go back upwards to heat the chicken more, causing more fat to melt and drip. It is a self-reinforcing cycle.
To prevent the cycle from beginning:
lower the heat level
put a drip pan between heat and the chicken
move the chicken so it isn't directly above the heat
start with the side of the chicken with skin facing down, finish with it facing up
If you actually get the skin hot enough to catch fire while on the chicken, you're REALLY using too much heat.
Was she just grilling the chicken or was she grilling it with barbecue sauce on it?
If she was just grilling it then she most likely was using too high of heat.
If she was grilling it with barbecue sauce or other sauces/marinades that were on the sweet side the issue (and that for a lot of people doing barbecued chicken) is that she was grilling it with the sauce on the chicken for too long (probably from the very beginning).
When meats have been marinated in mixtures that contain a lot of sugar or sweeteners (sugar, brown sugar, molasses, honey, maple syrup, etc.) such as brown sugar, the meat should first be wiped off, patted dry and rubbed with a little oil before being placed on the grill. This will keep the sugary components from caramelizing, sticking and burning to the grill grate and causing burning and blackening on the exterior of the meat (chicken briquettes as a I like to call them). Boil the marinade/sauce for a few minutes and then use as a basting sauce to give a glaze to the meat during the last 3-5 minutes of cooking.
Agreed.
Lower the heat... Eventually. I'd still start on a high temperature for a good sear, but then drop from high to low/medium.
Beware of sugary marinades or glazes. For marinades, wipe the outside of the meat before cooking with a paper towel. For glazes, only use them in the last few minutes of cooking.
So I barbecue 4 to 5 times a week just because I like my food barbecue. Chicken is always a challenge and sausages to a lesser degree, however as someone mentioned above, place a drip pan under the chicken. I typically just create one out of heavy aluminum foil from Costco that has one inch sides and is about the area I need for however many chickens I'm doing. I also start chicken skin side down which is how you should do it anyway and then I turn them over and position them in the middle area with the middle burner off and the two side burners on medium-low heat. Then I leave the lid closed and try and maintain a temperature around 350 to 375 for about 45 minutes to an hour. Sometimes it is too much chicken and a lot of fat drips you can still get flare-ups so you have to be careful and watch for it however this will reduce Fireball chicken.
You need to alternate between direct, radiant heat (high flame) and indirect heat (baking).
Turn on one side of the grill only. Sear and crisp the skin, and leave it over the heat until you get your first flare up.
Immediately transfer the meat to the cold side of the grill and close the lid. Let it bake there.
I find chicken cooks through three phases
-initial heating
-rendering
-post rendering heating. (getting the red near the bone out)
The rendering phase must be done indirectly, or you will get flare-ups.
Also, when you are done, turn both sides of the grill on high to burn off the rendered fat that has dripped all over your rock/tiles.
Commercial chicken also has a lot of loose fat that can be removed prior to cooking. In particular, where the thigh meets the body there is usually a large piece of fat that should be removed. It won't add any flavour, but will definitely contribute to that greasy black smoke you are trying to avoid.
The answer is simple. Don't cook on direct heat, and don't sauce (if at all) until the end of the cook. Sometimes I like to crisp up the skins first over direct heat and then move the pieces to cook indirectly. Other times, I just cook indirectly at a higher temperature (350f+). Depends on my mood. But if you cook directly over the fire, you are begging for flare-ups to ruin your food more often than not.
My neighbor had the ultimate solution for flare ups of any kind. He simply built an ugly barbecue grill that had the heat source, in his case charcoal, two feet below the grill. Even chicken flare ups could not reach the chicken on the grill or ignite the chicken. His barbecue grill was a 55 gallon drum. Not very pretty but it sure worked for grilling chicken.
On the bottom side of the drum he cut a 10"X18" horizontal opening. Inside he placed a round 18" charcoal grill about 3" off the bottom. This was held in place by two pieces of steel T=posts that protruded through holes on the outside of the drum. On this grill he placed the charcoals. He re-attached the removed piece by two hinges and a latch. Around the bottom of the drum he put about 10 1" Holes to provide ignition air.
He cut off the top of the drum about 1" below the top. He then made numerous vertical 1" cuts around the top edge of the drum and bent the drum top extensions in a little. This allowed the lid to fit easily on top of the drum.
One foot down from the open top he placed another grill a little less than the diameter of the drum width held in place with two more t-posts. He put two wood handles on the lid so it could be safely removed to work with the food.
The entire unit could be easily disassembled and cleaned. But best of all the chicken or steak was never touched or burned by flames**.
You can sous vide the chicken then finish it on the grill so that the cooking time and chance of burning is less likely to happen. I recommend this one much more than the boiling because you loose much of the flavour that way but I understand that not every home cook has one.
Get a grill mat as seen on tv (they are cheap). I use this instead of the sous vide when crunched for time, it allows for the grill to still leave marks and catch all the fat and grease, try not to do barbecue sauce on it though because it is a pain to clean and will stick and possible burn.
You could wrap the chicken in foil and cook and then finish it on the grill to be sure it has that grill effected taste and marks.
Lower heat and try not to have a sauce or the fat drip and flame up
Drip pan
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.009059
| 2010-08-02T04:40:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3978",
"authors": [
"Jane Myers",
"Joe",
"Kaushik",
"Marya",
"Orin MacGregor",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Saul Delgado",
"Seoyoung Hong",
"ck3g",
"dan",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7604",
"sb0",
"user931563"
],
"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
}
|
488
|
Slow cooking without a slow cooker
I frequently hear people telling me about how wonderful their slow cookers (AKA "crock pot") are. In many cases they're right - meat that tends to come out tough in normal cooking comes out very tender from a slow cooker.
But do I really need a slow cooker to pull this off? It seems like such a basic concept - simmer and/or steam at low heat. What's so special about these devices? For kitchens with very limited space, can a slow cooker be "synthesized" from other cooking implements, or is there really no substitute?
I'm still waiting for someone to make a combination slow cooker / rice cooker / deep fryer / steamer for apartment dwellers ... they're all just a container with a heater. (and rice cookers will switch to warm when the water's absorbed, whereas I don't know if any slow cookers will)
I have a rice cooker with 3 of the 4 - slow cooker/rice cooker/steamer. If you were feeling MacGuyverish, you could probably repurpose it for a deep fryer - I've never checked it's maximum temp.
@Joe - my slow cooker switches to warm when done. Many programmable ones do.
@justkt : most slow cookers switch to warm after a pre-determined time, or some of the new ones because you hit temp with a probe thermometer, not because there's no water available like a rice cooker will.
It's just an oven on low - only difference is the cost and possibly safety of leaving your oven on for 8hours
@Joe, I'm waiting for someone to hack one of those electronic pressure cookers ( https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Electric+Programmable+Pressure+Cooker+!a ). Right now, I think they will supply everything except "deep fryer" as they come from the factory.
In addition to slow cooker, some rice cookers also come with a quick-cook cycle, which is excellent for such things as browning onions for soup.
@Joe I don't know if you're still waiting but someone made a machine for you (it even does sous vide) https://www.bosch-home.com/za/products-list/multicooker/multicooker2/MUC88B68
@Luciano : ohhhh.... and I'm in need of a replacement fryer, too. Thanks. Now I just need to figure out where I can get one in the US
Your best bet would be a dutch oven on a low to medium low heat in the oven. You could use a regular pot in the oven, but you'd need to stir it regularly (maybe every hour) to stop everything from sticking to the sides and burning.
This is exactly how I make pulled pork in the winter and a few similar dishes. Would you say it's the same as using a slow cooker? (Since I don't own one, I can't compare.)
I actually prefer it to a slow cooker. I find things in a slow cooker turn out "wet" as opposed to moist, particularly meat. I like the dutch oven as I find meat is tender, but still has a bit of "structure". In a slow cooker I find it almost makes the meat mushy.
You can also get creative by burying your dutch oven in the ground with some hot (heated in a fire) rocks underneath, and on top of it, then burying it with dirt. Granted, you'll have to be comfortable with digging holes in your yard and handling hot rocks, but it is fun. :) Oh yes, don't heat rocks that you've pulled from a river or lake. The water absorbed in them will turn to steam and can cause catastrophic explosions.
@hobodave - "creative" - as in using it how it was originally designed. But, certainly, a technique most people don't follow in the modern kitchen, for sure.
I don't believe there is anything that can be cooked in a slow cooker that can't also be cooked by conventional methods, in a casserole dish, with the same results. The most important question is how to prepare the ingredients correctly.
Any cut of meat, if not treated correctly, can turn out 'tough' or 'rubbery' so the first thing to do is get to understand how to prepare meat. Believe me, it's not as simple as it sounds.
There are also downsides to slow cookers, some of which have resulted in hospital cases through poisoning, simply because the slow cooker wasn't able to supply enough heat. Vegetables loose more nutrients through slow cooking as well as their colour.
I agree. A slow cooker has the advantage though that it is designed, and thus save, to leave running while you are not at home.
If you're eating the liquid in which the vegetables have been cooked, will you still get the nutrients?
@MarthaF. : Not entirely; some nutrients break down when cooked, so they might no longer be in the dish at all. This is a good thing in some cases, as humans can't always absorb the nutrients in the initial form.
Minerals are never lost from cooking, but some Vitamins are lost...Esp with longer cooking...However, some Vitamins are gained - as enzymes change form in the veges...Its a balance... Fermenting can actually significantly increase Vit C....(Sour Kraut for example). Some toxins are also neutralised by cooking. There is no golden rule, it depends on the vegetable/fruit/legume/ etc
I'd go with @lomaxx's suggestion first of a dutch oven (or any heavy oven-safe pot or crock with a heavy lid) in the oven, but the trick here is either thermal mass or insulation to help even out the temperatures in the oven that @jmoeller mentioned, and keep the food temperature from fluctuating significantly
You might be able to get decent results with a lighter weight pot by adding thermal mass to the oven (pizza stone, bricks, etc.), but I've never tried it for this purpose -- only for baking.
update : @JulesLT's comment remind me of something -- before everyone had ovens in their home, and you'd take your stews and the like to the town baker to throw in his oven after the morning's bread baking was done, you might seal the dish with bread. It doesn't have to taste good, as it's going to be thrown away, but you mix flour and water into a dough, then roll it into a strand that you can press into the top rim of the dish, then press the lid on.
I use a cast-iron casserole with a heavy lid. With some recipes it can help to add a tightly wrapped layer of foil over the top of the casserole before putting the lid on top, if you want to keep even more moisture in than the heavy lid alone will provide.
It should be noted that, as @JulesLt said, sealing the lid tightly is best for some recipes, but not others. For example, when I make chili I put a pot in the oven, but I leave the lid slightly ajar because I want the chili to stay at as low a simmer as possible and reduce while cooking.
Well, I've never tried but this is on my to-do list: Cook Your Meat in a Beer Cooler: The World's Best (and Cheapest) Sous-Vide Hack
The results seem to be very similar.
I have no idea if this would actually work - I suspect that beer coolers are not that good at insulating - but an interesting idea nevertheless!
I have a meat smoker, and I use a cooler like the one in the article to hold smoked meat. It can keep a brisket or pork butt piping hot for hours.
I quite frequently cook thing in my oven (electric).
I simply place the meat in a oven-proof pot along with water. Usually so that it just covers the meat. Then place the oven at around 100˚C/212˚F and wait 4-8 hours.
Has worked like a charm so far.
Just consider the state of your oven if you dear this. And make sure there if enough of water. I also make sure that the lid is quite tight-fitting, so that if the food-stuff would attempt to take fire there will not be oxygen enough to sustain a proper fire.
Remember that when you cook meat first it's undercooked. Then overcooked, then through-cooked. When the ligaments and filaments starts to turn soft.
Good luck
Leif
The key to slow cooking with a conventional oven is making sure the dish is piping hot before you put it in. If you have an oven on a low temperature it will never get the dish up to temperature and wont cook it properly.
Make your casserole on a hob, get it all hot. Then put in your casserole dish and in the oven. (I usually use a casserole dish that can also be used on the hob). You can then put your oven on its lowest possible setting and almost leave it as long as you want.
I often get the ingredients together in the evening, boil it all up on the hob in the morning, then put it in the oven all day whilst I'm at work. Usually around 12 hours in the oven.
The thing with slow cooking, is that the temperature (for meat, at least) should be stable, and not fluctuate.
You can create your own, more portable and expandable sous vide equipment quite cheap: http://seattlefoodgeek.com/2010/02/diy-sous-vide-heating-immersion-circulator-for-about-75/
An oven probably can't be used, as the temperature in an oven changes too much (100C setting on the oven might mean that the real temperature in the oven changes between 90C and 110C).
Sous vide can also be accomplished with a PID temperature controller, a simple, electrical heatplate and a regular pot or a rice cooker with an analogue switch (link).
If you're wet cooking, then the liquid will buffer the temperature, and it should be fairly stable. (braising)
If the recipe is a small quantity (stew for one person), you can use an insulating container like a Thermos.
I found this book at my local library. Her method is actually patented. It's slow cooker-ish in that everything goes into one pot - dutch oven - all at once. Layering ingredients correctly is the key for the meat to cook while also cooking the veggies but not over cooking. Cooking time is less than an hour. So far I tried the Pot Roast and it worked as advertised.
I have a Hamilton Beach 18-quart roaster oven. You can use it as all those things (with accesories) and I love it. Hope this helps you out.
What do you mean when you say you can use it as "all those things"? What are "those things"?
Forget electric slow cookers.The best and only way to cook stews etc for hours and hours is in the Clay Bakers that the Germans make. Cook at 100 centigrade. The clay holds the heat beautifully and the results are just fabulous. Plus it's much more rustic to get your clay pot out of the oven and take it straight to the table.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HG7I4Le-buY
I'm 63 and they've been used all my life. My Mum was Dutch and she knew how to cook stews and stuff better than anyone. An electric slow cooker is a waste of space in your kitchen, just another expensive gadget to get in the way.
While I agree that a Römertopf (the official name of the German version of a clay baker) makes great food, your arguments against the slow cooker are somewhat strange. The Römertopf itself takes up quite a bit of space, and is not that much cheaper than a slow cooker.
the short answer is you don't have to.
if you use a gas stove to simulate these slow cookers you need to have a really small fire (sometimes, even the smallest inner ring is too much for the food) and eventually you will be using more money for the heating. sometimes you can't easily cook thing without boiling when using gas stove which you can easily with the temperature regulated cookers.
plus there is less fire hazard associated with it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.009890
| 2010-07-10T13:51:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/488",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Barb Wilkinson",
"Chris Cudmore",
"CodyP",
"DLiew",
"Dikkemik",
"Eclipse",
"Fábio Batista",
"Grantly",
"Joe",
"JulesLt",
"Kenster",
"Luciano",
"Marek Grzenkowicz",
"Martha F.",
"Martin Beckett",
"OpenID-test2",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Ruz",
"Spammer",
"Svisstack",
"Toby Mills",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"ant",
"fourstar71",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/948",
"iwein",
"justkt",
"lemontwist",
"lomaxx",
"rumtscho",
"user2215"
],
"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
}
|
9063
|
How can I enhance fudge's "fudginess" and flavour?
My fudge recipe uses peanut butter, brown and white sugar, corn syrup, cream, and chocolate.
How can I can add a bit more "pizazz" to my fudge, taking the flavour from grandma's favourite fudge recipe and making it into a complicated, rich, exotic and exquisite taste?
A few things to think about:
Sprinkling kosher, sea, or another interesting salt on it for a flavor contrast
Using some small amount of pepper a la the trendy pepper chocolate bars out there, or perhaps some paprika for smokiness
Adding orange or lemon zest
Pairing with an unsweetened or very lightly sweetened raspberry syrup (at least in my experience fudge recipes don't need more sugar)
Bacon (inside or on top)
I like the lemon zest idea, what do you think about lime zest + salt, and perhaps freshly made habanero paste?
@dassouki - I like that idea, mostly because you can start with just lime zest, see if it is enough, add a bit of salt, see if it is enough, then add the paste. Along the way you'll get ideas upon ideas. Layering sounds really good. Plus the flavor combo sounds pretty classic.
By pepper do you mean red pepper? I have seen the cayenne chocolate and love it, but are you referring to black pepper?
@mfg - red or perhaps other (habanero has a great fruity flavor and all the fat in that recipe would disseminate the heat), but I wasn't thinking of peppercorns of any sort, no.
i love all justkt's ideas (well, except the bacon one... i just don't get the bacon fascination, to be honest...) and i'll add one more to the list that i don't see: some instant coffee/espresso. it doesn't take much, just a half teaspoon or so, say, but it really adds depth.
@franko: Bacon has a very diverse flavour profile including a ton of umami which makes it pair well with many other foods. If there's any particular fascination with it today, it's probably a result of the slow collective realization that fat isn't inherently bad for you. I don't know if I'd pair it with fudge either, but I'm sure somebody would eat it...
@justkt whew, i was trying to wrap my head around a smoked, peppercorn bacon fudge in white chocolate... amazing how repulsion and attraction are so similar
Salt is a must in any chocolate recipe IMO--and not added as an extra texture or flavor at the end. I find that using a little salt in the recipe really bumps up the chocolate flavor in most things.
Cinnamon will compliment the chocolate and add a warmth and richness to fudge. The darker the chocolate, the better. Instant espresso powder is another great addition.
cinnamon sounds good what do yo think about adding cloves or cardamom
I think cardamom would be great, cloves I would be careful as a little goes a long way...not sure how they would work with peanut butter though - in your recipe is this for taste or consistency? You may be able to use sweetened condensed milk instead. It gives it a "fudgey" consistency without being overly sweet if used in place of sugar.
I am also a huge fan of adding a pinch of cayenne pepper when working with flavors like chocolate, coffee, and cinnamon. It adds just a bit of heat (similar to Mexican chocolate).
You don't say what you're using for chocolate, but there is certainly an opportunity there to try some variations.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.010861
| 2010-11-12T18:26:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9063",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Abie Giordano",
"Andrey Shchekin",
"Danalog",
"Jenn",
"Steph Locke",
"dassouki",
"franko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87",
"justkt",
"mfg",
"oldwhiteguy",
"user2438168",
"user26658",
"vape"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7097
|
What are the primary differences between Ethiopian and Eritrean food?
As far as I can tell based on restaurants in the US, the cuisines of Ethiopia and Eritrea are quite similar. Are there any characteristic differences between the two, or dishes that belong strongly to one and not the other?
I asked my friend who's written a cookbook adapting traditional ethiopian cuisine for vegetarians, here's what he told me.
Ethiopian and Eritrean food are basically identical. They were the same country until the early 90s, so that's not too surprising, I guess. In both countries, wats are common and are eaten with teff-based injera. Berbere is a primary seasoning in both countries. He said the only differences are due to climate: Eritrea is at a lower elevation, so the food there uses more warm-weather vegetables like tomatoes, eggplants, etc. while Ethiopian cuisine might have more carrots, for example.
However, he did point out that "Eritrean" restaurants he'd been to in the US (specifically, in the Bay Area) were actually closer to what he would consider Ethiopian food anyway, which may explain your experience: you may be eating Ethiopian food at an Eritrean restaurant. Of course, since the cuisines are so similar, this is like going to a "Western New-Mexico" restaurant in China and being served (gasp) "Eastern New-Mexico" food--not too surprising, in any case.
Great, thanks for the insight! One of the reasons I asked is that a commenter on my blog said that Eritrean food tends to be somewhat more influenced by Middle Eastern / Muslim traditions, but it doesn't sound like that is your friend's experience. By the way, what is the name of your friend's book, sounds like it would be of a lot of interest to me.
@Michael: Unfortunately it's not yet published. The copy I have is an electronic rough draft. As my friend is heading back to Ethiopia this weekend for about three years, it may be some time before it comes out.
Lots of differences.... the spice and the way of cooking... and Ethiopians almost have no tomatoes... actually they don't use tomatos - it is mostly onion based. While Eritrean food has tomatoes and onions and we don't use that much butter and that spicey butter. Actually, Eritreans mostly use the butter when making meat dishes.. otherwise we just use oil.
What we have in common is the inerjera based food and sister sauces that are made differently .... specially the lentil sauce, the chicken sauce, the classic meat sauce, and allicha (cabbige sauce)... Other sauces the Ethios have that we don't have, and we have that they don't have. F.eg we never put meat in vegetables... like never.. they do. WE have hilbet (the best Eritrean food in my opinion), they don't have that.
Though similar on the outside, it is actually quite different experience eating Ethiopian vs Eritrean. The Ethios might miss their food among Eritreans, and the Eritreans miss our food among Ethios. They taste very very different...
We were the same country only in the 30 years by American force... I'll tell you one thing, it never affected the food.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.011183
| 2010-09-10T23:37:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7097",
"authors": [
"Eli Tharp",
"FrenchKheldar",
"Hilary Ross",
"Joan Casey Shuler",
"Karen",
"Michael Natkin",
"Nicki Sharp",
"Roshan Vermezyari",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95009",
"kevins",
"slot online spam"
],
"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
}
|
49592
|
what determines the texture of cookies
so the question is pretty much straight forward..
I ate all kinds of cookies, some of them are soft and fluffy, other chewy (like granola bars or choc chip cookies) and others really crispy and hard (like some gingerbread).
I tried to compare the ingredients on some of the products, but didn't find any significant difference.
So what is it really, that determines the texture of the baked goods?
I'd love to simply copy and paste all of this, but it doesn't seem fair: a very serious article of just what you asked: http://sweets.seriouseats.com/2013/12/the-food-lab-the-best-chocolate-chip-cookies.html
that's a lot of reading :D but an awesome article, thanks a lot.
First, it is the ingredients. For example, shortbread cookies don't have liquid, while other types do have liquid. This makes them quite different. Also, there might be ingredients you didn't pay much attention to (mono- and diglycerides, for example, which might have been present at the end as an E number only), but they still can change the mouthfeel a lot.
The second thing is the ratio of the ingredients. The same ingredients in a different ratio will work to give you a different texture.
The third thing is the process. Depending on the order of combining the ingredients, and the amount of mixing, and whether you chill them (and when, and for how long) you end up with completely different textures out of the same ingredients. It is like starting with carbon and ending up with graphite, graphene or diamonds, depending on how you do it.
The fourth thing is the baking process. You can change the temperature and time to achieve different final results.
I realize this list is very, very general. But listing all possible results which can be achieved at each step would make this a small book. Each of the four steps gives you a large number of parameters to change, which changes the end result too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.011480
| 2014-11-07T17:18:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49592",
"authors": [
"Allen Tittle",
"Gary",
"JV Patterson",
"Janice Eyers",
"Jo Johnson",
"Margery Ringland",
"Mike94",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29135"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22441
|
How can food cooked 1-2 hours ago be effectively reheated in a microwave?
I cater and cook foods for clients. Recently I have a new client and I deliver the food all precooked and ready to eat. They may not eat for another hour or more after I deliver the food.
Example of one meal: Herb-roasted new potatoes, roasted asparagus, and baked/roasted salmon.
What is the best way to reheat or warm up these dishes in a microwave?
(I ask this because they are in their late 80's and early 90's and trying to use the oven hasn't proved successful without either overcooking the food or not getting it hot enought to enjoy.)
Depending on the meal I sometimes add some water to the plate.
I agree completely with Kyra, but be careful in how much you add. I've found this particularly effective with noodles/rice and other food types that tend to dry out faster.
For me, I use the microwave's power setting. This is sometimes a misunderstood feature. When you don't set the power level, then it is 100%. This means during 100% of the cook time the magnetron inside the microwave is active and radiating your food. If you set the power level to 10, then during the cook time, the magnetron will not be active the entire cook time, instead it will be active during 10% of the time. "Power" is a bad term because it does not effect the power level of the magnetron. It affects the amount of time it is active.
This is helpful to know if you also understand that microwave energy does not penetrate very deeply into your food. It enters about 1 to 2 inches. This mean the surface of your food gets really hot when the magnetron is on, but the deeper parts are not getting hot. You use this to your advantage by setting a lower power level which allows the heat to conduct through your food naturally when the magnetron is not active. It is a way to warm the entire product without blasting the outside of it.
If you are microwaving something thick, then reduce the power and increase the time.
If you have a microwave safe shelf, then use it! That allows more microwave energy to come in conduct with more of your food's surface. The waves "bounce" inside the box, so being on a shelf lets some wave bounce under it and hit the bottom of your food.
I would suggest reheating the food covered in the microwave.
This not only speeds up the reheating process, but also keeps moisture in. And since you are cooking covered, maybe experiment with shorter cook times as to not overcook your meal.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.011694
| 2012-03-20T22:09:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22441",
"authors": [
"Dronz",
"Hooria",
"JWiley",
"Kyra",
"Ryan",
"brijs",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9973"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3349
|
Cooking with chronic fatigue
Anyone know of any good resources for cooking recipes/methods/tools for people with a medical condition that causes chronic fatigue? I'm relying too much on convenience foods and 'tv dinners', because frequently the effort of cooking a decent meal is beyond my energy limits at the end of the day.
I also have neurological disorders that cause symptoms similar to chronic fatigue. Here are a few tricks that have helped me with cooking dinner:
Make sure your kitchen is set up in an efficient organized way. Keeping your kitchen well organized is key to reducing the time you spend cooking. Take your limitations into account when organizing your kitchen. For instance, if bending down flares up your symptoms, keep the items you use the least in the lower cabinets.
Purchased pre-chopped veggies
Use tin foil / parchment paper on cookie sheets and casserole dishes as much as possible. This will limit clean up.
Try sitting as much as possible while cooking. Here is a stool that rolls around.
As alluded to in other responses, try recipes that allow you to prepare much of the meal ahead of time - while you have more energy.
Look for recipes where the majority or all of the cooking is in the oven as opposed to over the stove. While the cook times may be similar, you can take a load off if you are primarily using the oven.
Once every 3 months I cook up (in the oven) and shred a 'big buy' of chicken and store it in the freezer. I use the cooked meat for risottos, soups, pasta dishes that call for cooked chicken.
Finally, here is a resource for quick recipes: allrecipes
A quick and relatively effort free method of cooking is the electric steamer. It's simplicity itself to cook a salmon fillet, some baby new potatos and a selection of veg (which you could purchase pre-chopped for those days when you're really flagging) and then sit and wait for it to cook.
The other advantage of steaming is that you loose less of the nutrients than through boiling so that should help you a little bit as well =)
Having a wife with CF, I can appreciate your difficulty. You have the combination of not being able to put the effort into cooking, and the decreased ability to handle food with poor nutritional content (like most TV dinners).
One thing I do is to always cook about about double what we need for a meal and then either refrigerate or freeze the leftovers in meal-sized portions. Otherwise, we try and have healthy foods easily available for snacking - pre-washed spinach, good hearty bread, nuts, etc...
A slow cooker is helpful in that you can plop in vegetables and meat in the morning and let it cook all day so when you get home, dinner will be ready. It doesn't take much effort to get great meals that way and there are tons of recipes on the internet. I use mine often and I don't even work. They aren't expensive to buy.
Get a good blender. Blending food is a way to make quick drinks and soups. There are tons of quick recipes online. Vegetable drinks require just a quick rinse and minimal chop. Same with fruit smoothies. Yogurt smoothies are easy. A good blender will even heat a soup just from blending it for 5-10 minutes on high. You can even add (cooked) meats, eggs, or other proteins to the mix.
The obvious advantage is no pans, no cooking, minimal prep and cleanup. On the gustatory side, I'm not trying to recommend a bland, geriatric, babyfood diet. Blended foods can be well-seasoned and taste great. Add oil, onions, spices, salt, pepper to savory dishes. Honey, cinnamon, vanilla to smoothies. Lemon juice, lime juice, even condiments can add zip.
A big blended drink or soup with a hunk of toasted whole grain bread and butter is an easy and delicious combo. You could make bulk amounts and easily save leftovers.
Plus, it's fun to experiment, and doesn't require too much hassle or expertise.
It's well outside the scope of this site, but blending foods makes them easier to digest. Complete speculation, but I bet that easier nutrient absorption would be good for CFS.
There are some commercial products: the Vitamix, Montel William's blender, the Juiceman juicer which target some of these goals. I find a regular blender works great, though it obviously doesn't remove fiber (like a juicer, not always a good thing anyway), and you have to cut you food a little smaller if it's a lower powered machine.
Quinoa salad is easy and doesn't take a lot of effort. Cook the quinoa like rice - twice as much water as quinoa and then bring to a boil, turn it down to a simmer for about 15 minutes covered. Then toss that with whatever veggies you have on hand - I love it with tomatoes, cucumber, feta and olives for a "greek" twist.
Then you dress with either bottled dressing or vinegar/lemon juice and olive oil. Versatile and its even better the second day.
Aside from the main discussion point of this article (why it's okay for men to eat salads), the author does mention an interesting technique - they pre-chop all the ingredients needed for a salad when they have time, like on the weekends, and store them in individual containers. When they want to make salads, it's a pretty quick matter to pull out a few containers, grab some lettuce, toss ingredients+dressing, and have a nutritious meal ready to go.
Some other authors (I'm thinking specifically of Tosca Reno, of "Clean Eating" fame) recommend a similar technique: when she's cooking chicken breasts, she typically grills a few extra to use over the next day or two.
I'd also +1 the quinoa suggestion above - quinoa is a pretty quick way to pack in a hearty and healthy meal quickly. You can also cook quinoa in the microwave - I haven't mastered the technique (how long to cook, water ratio, etc.), but it's usually around 5 minutes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.012043
| 2010-07-26T21:01:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3349",
"authors": [
"Alyssa",
"Demento",
"Harvey",
"Helbreder",
"Justin Dearing",
"Justin King",
"Phira",
"Zebi",
"avj",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6246",
"nevan king",
"slm",
"three-cups"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28561
|
Is it safe to eat green onion slime?
I just harvested some scallions from the garden, where it's getting bit chilly (late November in Seattle).
After chopping them, I realized that their insides were covered in a gelatinous, slippery, viscous goo!
What is it? Is it safe to eat?
@BlessedGeek: Thanks for the reassurance. I'm right in the OP's part of the world, we eat green onions more often than yellow, white, red and sweet combined, and have never seen this slime in such brightly colored ones. Maybe it's the lighting, but when I've encountered slime in green onions, it's added a grayish, duller shade.
The cells have lysed, and the cellulose covering is damaged. That leaves tasty, yummy good food out in the open where any bug or fungus that comes along can feast on it. IOW, it's a little dangerous to eat the stuff.
Normally, people associate slime with "inedible" because some bacterial colonies can build up slime on spoiled food. But there are plants which naturally produce slime, and it is as edible as any other part of the same plant. Slimes are most common in algae, but I have also seen them in other plants such as hyacinth greens, and scallions have it too, although in normally not that much. But if you mash a "dry" scallion or the greens of a typical yellow onion, they still feel slimy, while other alliums become slimy on cooking, for example leeks.
Physically, slime is just a special kind of gel. As long as it is not of bacterial origin, it is not a sign of spoilage, and it is highly improbable that a living green plant without signs of sickness will be full of colonies of spoilage bacteria. So, I would declare it good to eat.
Specifically, this stuff is mucilage, and AFAIK it's considered a desirable trait in some other edible plants, like okra and cactus.
@JoshCaswell People actually like okra being slimy?
I found an interesting discussion on the subject that is more anecdotal than hard facts but the consensus is that if the onions are fresh and not wilted or obviously spoiled, the goo is normal and edible, albeit a bit gross, and you can try just rinsing them thoroughly.
I believe it is how the plant stores energy for the winter etc. I've typically seen it show up only after a recent watering. so if the plant hasn't been watered recently before pulling up or cutting, you normally won't see that.
Hello Davey — your post adds additional information, but doesn't answer the OP's core question of whether the slime is safe to eat. Perhaps you'd like to edit your answer, so as to include your opinion about that.
The older (more mature) green onions tend to accumulate a slimy mucus like coating on the internal wall as they get larger in size. Since I do not like the feel or appearance of the gel like substance, I slit the green shaft lengthwise
. Then I thoroughly rinse the slime off then dry with a paper towel to remove the last remaining remnants of the goo. I then throw the onions into my soup pot along with the rest of the vegetables.
I believe this gel is naturally occurring in spring onions.It does look a bit yuk but just rinse it out of the hollow stems if you don't want to eat it. Nothing to do with G.M.O.
When you've cut off the tops you can see down the tubes, if slime is visibly present then isolate and discard or rinse concern away, continue cleaning/prepping as before. Then you can move on too.
I have no idea what is actually inside the gel but I believe it to be plant derived. FYI The gel is on the inside of the plant NOT growing on the outside. I have been eating it forever because it is packed with green onion flavor! It's rare that green onions in the store have this gel because they are often more on the dehydrated side in my opinion or perhaps they are grown not to be so jelly because consumers might find it weird. I look at the gel as a delicacy and tend to use the gooier parts for cooking rather than the drier shaft if the recipe calls for limited quantities of green onions. I am perfectly fine. Not even have I turned a shade of green :-P
Another example that I can use for the seattle-ite is you know when you cut a fresh Washington state onion and it produces that white milk upon the first slice? It's the juices from the onion which is very juicy cause its fresh. You don't always see this with other onions because they are probably not that fresh even though they are perfectly edible and flavorful. Hope this helps!
Yeah, I just discovered the clear gel substance in the organic scallions green shafts for preparing salad. For years we have eaten scallions, never saw gelatin inside the vegetable. I ate some of it after smelling the stuff. Appears to be a plant gelatin and the flavor is fresh with a very light scallion flavor. Still alive and kicking'. I believe this stuff is as nutritious as the rest of the plant.- Audrey Siani
Lots of plants have gelatinous fibre.I'd check on this,but if it is,it's good for you.It grips to old debris in your intestine as it passes and cleans it out.
The only time I've seen this slime is from the green onions I've grown myself, so unless the big companies are breaking into my garden and poisoning my food I think it's fair to say it's natural.
"natural" and "safe to eat" are not mutually exclusive, so this doesn't answer the question.
I have bin a chef for 35 years & have never seen slime like this on any of the thousands of green onion i have prepared until today .& anyone that tells me this is normal is lying,slime has bin & always will be a sign that the food is not eatable .
In my opinion this is another product of food engineering (AKA: G.M.O) & that is something that no one in the world should be consuming or ingesting & should be avoided at all cost
we should eating vegetables that are naturally grown in organic gardens & not this poison the big companies call food
This was grown by my mom in her garden, and is completely organic :)
The rant on GMO and "big companies" doesn't answer the question, does it? I suggest you take the [tour] and visit our [help] to get a better understanding of how this site works - accusing others of lying isn't done here. We politely disagree. And I can assure you, plenty of users have seen this slime in their organic, home-grown onions. Me included.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.012544
| 2012-11-21T21:57:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28561",
"authors": [
"ElmerCat",
"Emmett",
"Grace",
"Henry",
"JAB",
"LINDA WALMER",
"Luciano",
"MargeGunderson",
"PepitoneConQueso",
"Stephie",
"Ted Haugum",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"andremp",
"cl adam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66125",
"jscs",
"user154685"
],
"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
}
|
5378
|
What is the purpose of seasoning a skillet?
I've seen a couple questions on how to season a skillet, and this may be a dumb question, but why do you season a skillet?
Does it impart flavor onto the food?
For how long? (which I guess is one way of asking, "How often do I need to do it?"
Do I still "need" to apply butter etc.. to the pan even though I "seasoned" it? (in this case, maybe it's a question of taste, not need)
Does 'not tasting like rust' count as 'impart flavor' ?
To partially prepare the bird at the point Coyote finally hits Roadrunner with it.
Purpose of Seasoning
protect bare cast iron from rust
make the pan surface non-stick
How often to season the pan?
You'll need to season it more when it's new.
Use it frequently and you'll need to season it less often.
Don't cook beans or tomatoes in it at first; if you do so later, you may want to re-season it.
Regarding adding butter, you're right: that would be for taste, not necessity. If seasoned properly, a cast iron pan is non-stick.
Does it impart flavor onto the food?
Not necessarily. The seasoning helps to develop a good sear on the food, and this adds to the flavor. If the seasoning is very old or if the pan is cleaned infrequently, then some flavor may come from the cook top. Old diner often attribute the flavor of their burgers to the grill that has been in place for the last 60 years and never cleaned, but I'm skeptical that this really impacts the flavor.
For how long? This depends on how often the skillet is used, and what you use it for. Baking cornbread seems to strip the seasoning off my skillet as does cooking tomato dishes without much oil in them. I scrub under water with a plastic sponge after each use, and if it looks dry, I apply a bit of oil to maintain. Properly re-seasoning takes too long, but I probably do it 1-2 times per year, and use my skillet frequently.
Do I still "need" to apply butter etc.. to the pan even though I "seasoned" it?
Probably. Foods like onions won't brown nearly as well without some butter/oil in the pan to transfer the heat. You may or may not need to apply oil to keep food from sticking, but it is never a bad idea :)
Actually, I would be careful with certain types of foods in seasoned cast-iron pans. For example, I don't make pancakes in the frying pan that I use for frying habanero chilis. It's possible the chili oil will be in the seasoning, and I don't want to take that chance.
@Martha I think I'd like spicy pancakes. Probably not without warning though...
One important rule is to season your skillet (or especially, your wok), if you can see the unseasoned metal of your pan at any time. If you've just made a dish and wiped the pan off and notice there's no coating on part of it, season it while the skillet is still hot.
Regular use of oils creates and enhances the seasoning over time. Some of the lipids create a surface that becomes non-stick, but cooking will "wear" and erode this surface depending on the actual food being cooked. Additionally some of the oils go deeper than just the surface, even if just slightly, an effect I believe is enhanced by higher heat. This does not mean you need to use huge amounts though as that will still depend on the food being cooked.
Flavor: yes, not because of the seasoning, but because of the use - less sticking can create a better sear, retaining the flavor, especially in foods such as meats where it is desired to seal in juices and yet create a surface where the chemical change imparted by heat is enhanced by not being lost due to sticking and integrity of the food is retained.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.013085
| 2010-08-17T18:55:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5378",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Anders Zommarin",
"CTank",
"Joe",
"John K",
"Kobojunkie",
"Martha F.",
"Richard",
"Ross Holloway",
"daniellopez46",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"simbabque"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1693
|
Heirloom tomatoes
What makes a tomato "heirloom" and what is the difference to conventional tomatoes?
Edited: heritage -> heirloom, makes more sense that way.
"Heirloom tomatoes" You're certainly using the terminology correctly, but all I can think is how you and the person who inherited a can of chick peas (http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/5627/) must have just come from the same reading of the will.
In the US, I normally see them marketed as "heirloom" tomatoes; I don't know if there are specific regulations in the UK or Finland that might have restrictions on the term's use. (like there now is in the US with "organic" )
Because they weren't developed for industrialized farming, they didn't focus on breeding in traits that were desired for mass production -- size, round shape, bright color, shelf life, durability in transport.
As such, there's a much wider variety, and they tend to be locally grown on small farms (as they don't tend to transport well, or be suitable for mechanized production). They might've been bred for sweetness, tartness, number of fruit per plant, disease resistance, etc, so you can't say that heirlooms necessarily taste better; a locally grown, picked that day non-heirloom tomato might taste just as good.
To make this clear -- very few vegetables are produced in a truly 'uncontrolled' environment (maybe 'less controlled' environment)-- humans have been selecting for specific traits for centuries; it's just that the processes used were much less high-tech back then -- you saved the seeds from plants that produced what you liked, it's possible that some might've even been hand-pollinated to cross breed cultivars.)
A heritage tomato is a strain of tomato that is relatively unchanged since it's original discovery and use. The originals traits are maintained by using open pollination via insects and what not in an uncontrolled environment. Selection techniques such as grafting and cutting (to clone and create hybrids), or flat out engineering are not used, while the lineage of the plants must date back at least 50+ years.
So a heritage plant will be pretty much something that would see before industrial farming came to existence. There are a lot of varieties, some of which are relatively rare and exotic, but it doesn't really tell you anything about the quality or taste.
I guess you can be assured that the plants have been grown at a somewhat smaller scale than large industrial farms, and that the plants haven't been genetically engineered, but that's not necessarily a positive to me.
A heritage tomato is one that has been passed down by seed generation after generation. Most grocery store tomatoes are F-1 hybrids developed for qualities such as disease resistance, storage, etc rather than for taste. You can't save their seeds and grow them as the seeds will either be sterile or revert to one of the parents. You can save the seeds of heirloom plants & grow the same plant from them. They have the old-fashioned tomato taste, so they are preferred by most people who really like tomatoes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.013406
| 2010-07-18T08:57:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1693",
"authors": [
"Brad",
"Dinah",
"Jamie Keeling",
"Valerie",
"Wayne",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43",
"therefromhere"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2242
|
Why do some recipes recommend Kosher salt?
Is it healthy or more tasty?
Related discussion: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1851/substituting-table-salt-or-sea-salt-for-kosher-salt
As Kosher salt goes there is also a difference in the types. Many chefs (myself included) recommend and prefer Diamond Crystal brand Kosher salt. Diamond Crystal (owned by Cargill) uses a patented process of producing salt known as the Alberger Process. In in the interest of keeping the explanation simple, essentially it creates flat salt crystals with a hollow diamond shape and jagged edges. The hollow shape provides for quicker dissolution and the jagged edges help it stick to food better rather than bouncing off as is the nature of the cubic structure of basic table salt. For this reason many seasoning and food manufacturers use Alberger salt as a "dry emulsifier". I was on a tour with Paul Prudhomme at his seasoning plant near New Orleans and he explained that the jagged edges help to keep it suspended and blended with other seasonings and dry ingredients.
Morton's kosher salt is composed of large crystals that are rolled to flatten them. They are flat but not hollow so take a bit longer than Diamond Crystal to dissolve.
Morton's Kosher salt also has Yellow Prussiate of Soda added to it as an anti-caking agent ("when it rains it pours") which tends to leave a slight bitter (not as bad as iodine) taste in the back of the throat. Diamond Crystal brand is simply salt.
Alberger salt has a lighter bulk weight than granulated salt so 1 teaspoon of Diamond Crystal salt is going to be less salt than either table or Morton's kosher salt. Look at the two packages side by side in the store sometime. They are both 3# boxes but the Diamond Crystal box is much taller due to the increased volume of the hollow crystals. Looking at the nutritional information panels you'll also notice the serving size for each is 1/4 teaspoon but the Morton's has 418 gr. sodium per serving vs. about 200 for Diamond crystal (again, due to hollow crystals). Some people recommend increasing salt by 25% when using Diamond Crystal in recipes. In cooking you can easily salt to taste and know that since it dissolves more readily you should be able to determine seasoning by taste without oversalting. In baking I typically use it measure for measure and haven't had any major issues yet. In yeast doughs however you must be cautious to make sure that the crystals do dissolve in the liquid so as not to cut through the gluten strands during the kneading process (as well as to evenly disperse).
People don't really realize that cooking is just tasty chemistry.
There are no differences health-wise. They are both the same compound, in essentially the same form. The only difference is the shape of the crystals.
Chefs prefer it because it is easy to grip with fingers. Table salt is too fine, and runs between your fingers, making it difficult to get a consistent amount when adding a pinch.
The flat crystals work better on meat (the name comes from the process of 'koshering' meat, salting it to draw out the blood) because they dissolve more slowly and have more surface area per grain. Whereas table salt would create a spot of high salinity, kosher salt tends to dissolve and coat the meat evenly with salt.
Edit (based on comments):
Kosher salt does not contain iodine, which may present a health risk. A diet deficient in Iodine results in goiter, a condition which causes swelling of the thyroid gland.
In the past, persons mainly in the central United States (seafood is a good source of iodine) developed goiter in high numbers, and leading up to WW 1, many young men were turned away from service due to iodine deficiency. It was decided that since everyone ate salt, adding a small amount of iodine to common table salt would solve the problem. And so it has. Goiter has dropped significantly since salt started to be iodized in the 20s.
Kosher salt also may taste better due to the lack of iodine and anti-caking agents. Potassium iodide (usually used for iodized salt) has a bitter flavor, and the anti-caking agents may be unpleasant in texture (usually silicon dioxide, which doesn't have any flavor).
In addition, the shape of the salt crystal changes the perceived level of saltiness. Since the crystals tend to be larger, they dissolve more slowly, meaning you perceive less saltiness per gram salt consumed. It also has less salinity per volume due to the irregular shape of the crystals and their rough texture. This makes over salting less apparent.
To add, kosher salt, being larger, tastes less "salty" than finer salts because it physically interfaces differently with your tongue. To that end, it's generally more forgiving of over-seasoning than finer salts.
Actually, there are some differences, health wise -- if you're adding salt at the end to finish to relatively dry foods, when you eat it, you're not going to disolve the salt in your mouth, so you have to add more salt to get the same flavor. Frito-Lay has been doing some tests with the shape and size of salt crystals and has found they can reduce the amount of salt without affecting the overall perceived saltiness on chips (crisps for those in the UK)
As mentioned below, there is a difference health-wise. Kosher salt does not contain iodine.
Salt started to be iodized in the 20's in response to outbreaks of goiterism (enlargement of the thyroid gland due to a lack of iodine) occurring mainly in the midwest (no seacoast, thus no seafood...most fish being consumed in that region at that time would be freshwater due to diffculty of shipping fresh seafood). Since everyone used salt it was determined to be the easiest way of increasing iodine in the diet. Now days we eat a lot more packaged/processed foods & eat out more w/ prob. more seafood per capita. If eating a balanced diet you can cut iodized salt out and should still be ok.
The reason that iodized salt is shunned by chefs is due to the long linger bitter aftertaste provided by the iodine as well as any anti-caking agents that are added to the salt to keep it from clumping....the reason that Morton's motto is "When it rains it pours".
I was aware of the iodine, but I assumed that the health effect is relatively small (since I've never heard of anyone with a goiter other than in books from the 50s), but perhaps this is from the salt. Some greens, eggs, and milk have some iodine as well.
I've been wondering about that lately. I switched to kosher salt almost exclusively due to liking its physical properties, which means that vector for iodine has been reduced in my diet. Is it reasonable to believe that the conditions which prompted iodine being added to salt have been changed enough that it could be removed noW?
Comment thread is huge. Made wiki.
Is there a kosher salt that also has iodine? I am just afraid that I get used to Kosher salt then I will never go back to salt with iodine.
@codetoglory: No, kosher salts do not contain iodine. Do you ever eat out? If so, you're getting iodized salt in any fast food, much processed food, etc. As previously noted, most people are getting iodine from a broader source of food items today so it's not a big concern. I haven't cooked with iodized salt in over 15 years.
Additionally, regular salt contains iodine (added to most table salts since the 1920's) while Kosher salt does not have any added ingredients mixed into it....
Its fairly easy to find table salt w/o iodine. At least in the US.
This isn't always accurate; it's possible to get iodized Kosher salt. Check the label if you want to guarantee it's not iodized.
I've long suspected it's merely a fad.
However, Jeffery Steingarten says he can taste the difference ...
If the salt is totally dissolved, not likely, but if it's added later in the cooking process, those salty bits might survive
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.013659
| 2010-07-20T02:22:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2242",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"CodeToGlory",
"Darin Sehnert",
"Erica",
"Joe",
"JustRightMenus",
"Kevin McMahon",
"Lee",
"Mike Yockey",
"Nellius",
"Nick T",
"Rob Kam",
"ScottKoon",
"Sophie Westerman",
"Taptronic",
"atlpeg",
"bala3569",
"bstpierre",
"derobert",
"gilly3",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/990",
"rxmnnxfpvg",
"ydant"
],
"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
}
|
2938
|
What are the differences between various types of paprika, and which have the most flavor?
I've tried various different brands of paprika but none seem to have any flavor.
Can anyone recommend a kind of paprika that is less bland? For example, I've seen certain "special" varieties such as Hungarian Paprika... how do these taste compared to the regular kind?
Knives! where are you?
If there is a Penzey's store near you, go there and you can smell their varieties of paprika for yourself :)
I don't know about brands, but there are six different types. Hot, Hungarian, Plain, Smoked, Spanish, Sweet.
Paprika releases its flavor with heat, but burns easily. So mix it in with liquid, and make sure it gets hot.
Sprinkled onto a cold dish (like deviled eggs), it remains quite bland. Add it to browned hamburger meat, and you're halfway to taco heaven.
I have hot/sweet varieties of smoked, so I would hazard that those types come in combinations too.
Spanish paprika is generally smoked; any recipe calling for it is asking for smoked paprika.
If you find that the paprika or any spice you buy has very little flavor it can have more to do with age than the specific brand. If you don't use a spice frequently, then buy it in the smallest quantity you can find and use it up quickly. Bulk purchases of spice aren't less expensive if they sit on your shelf and lose flavor.
In my experience I usually describe Hungarian paprika as having a bit more of a slight tartness to it (basic sweet paprika, not spicy) and Spanish paprika has more of an earthy/woody/dusty flavor.
Ask a spaniard what they recommend and they'll say Spanish, ask a Hungarian and they'll of course be partial to their own. What I like very well may be different than your preference. The best thing to do is sample different ones side by side to see which you prefer and determine why.
Try Penzey's for high quality spices/herbs/seasonings. They sell in a broad range of packaging so you don't have to commit to a big container only to discover you don't like it. You may also want to visit the Spice House. They are separate branches of the same family and both do mail order.
Especially with paprika, where the answer to "the spice has gone bland" is not "then add more", given it will taste papery and bitter then,..
This is the correct answer. If your paprika is bland, the problem is most likely that it is too old. Buy spices from a specialty vendor like Penzey's. Discard old spices when they aren't fragrant anymore (anywhere from 6-18 months; whole spices last longer; buy a coffee grinder just for spices). By the same logic, it's best to buy in small quantities unless it's something you use a lot of. (A price break on bulk spices is no bargain if it loses its taste before you're half done.)
As with most spices, especially once you are talking about varieties and the differences between them, it is difficult to speak directly to what each tastes like.
However, a good way of finding out the differences between spices like paprika is to "bloom" them, where you dry toast them in a skillet. i find one way of doing this and getting to enjoy they flavor immediately is by then following the toasting with a splash of olive oil and lightly toasting a bagel in the spices.
+1 In fact, it's a good idea to warm any dried spices in this way before use.
See my answer to this question here.
Well, if you can't get Paprika that would suit your flavor and if you happen to be a proprietor of some sort of a spice grinder - make your own paprika! Paprika is simply ground capsicums / chillies, so you can get dried chillies and grind them.
Personally, I grow my own chilies, dry them off and grind them - the outcome is so potent you could probably fuel a rocket with it :-)
You can use any old coffee grinder as a spice grinder. Clean it out between uses by grinding rice. (Best to get a grinder just for spices unless you like random spice flavors in your coffee, but they are very cheap and easily available at a second hand store.)
Also, note that there are about a gajillion cultivars of capsicum annuum and they vary widely in flavor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.014402
| 2010-07-23T02:11:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2938",
"authors": [
"Ben",
"Bunny Watson",
"Crickett O'Day",
"MaQleod",
"Orbling",
"Steve",
"Tall Jeff",
"flies",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7240",
"imz -- Ivan Zakharyaschev",
"isolde100",
"rackandboneman",
"user17211",
"user21370"
],
"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
}
|
2795
|
Can you purée without a food processor?
I'd like to experiment with making purées (particularly carrot and parsnip, if it matters), but I don't have a food processor or any other mechanical mixing/blending tool. Is there anything I can do or is a processor necessary?
I think some sort of mechanical aid to macerate the food is necessary for your project. Depending on what dish you attempt, there are few options.
A ricer (or food mill, depending on who you buy from) is a manual device (non-electric) that you might run cooked potatoes or parsnips through. Many people do mashed potatoes this way. Depending how cooked your parsnips get, a hand blender (or immersion blender, stick blender) may work.
However, all of this requires you to shell out some cash for a device. I'm not sure, from your post, if that's an option. If you're going for ultra-smooth texture for a bisque or other soup, it might be worth it to get one of the small-bowl food processors (just work in batches).
Good luck!
Good point on the ricer or food mill -- it won't damage the food enough to get to 'purée', but you won't have the lump issues with using a hand masher.
+1 for the small-bowl food processor. I use my Cuisinart Mini-Prep almost every time I cook something.
You're just not going to get the same texture with anything that doesn't have spinning knives (blender, food processor, etc.) You might be able to get close with enough cooking + a masher, then a hand mixer (or do the old hand-crank ones still count as mechanical?).
As things go for the type of cooking you're dealing with, consider a stick blender -- they're much cheaper than a food processor, don't have the issue with leaking seals as a bar blender, and they don't take up as much storage space.
They can't quite do the same things as the others (bar blenders are good for breaking down ice cubes for smoothies that a stick blender might choke on, and you can leave them alone while they work; food processors can shread or slice with the right disks, kneed dough with the plastic blade, or break down solid objects with pulsing to keep it from getting to pureed), but I don't think the others work for making whipped cream, either.
+1 for immersion ("stick") blender. One can be had for as little as $13 (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00023XDJ0), and they don't take up much space.
A sieve and forcing through the food with a spoon will work.
Thoroughly-cooked carrots are at least as soft as boiled potatoes, so you should be able to get a good result with a potato masher if you are patient. Use ample warm liquid (water, stock, ...) to thin it from mash to purée as you go along, and a generous knob of butter wouldn't hurt if your recipe will accommodate it. Once the purée is thin enough, a bit of brisk work with a wire whisk should take care of any little irregularities.
If you are VERY patient and completely bereft of tools, you could probably even do the job with a fork, but that strikes me as verging on masochism.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.014776
| 2010-07-22T15:16:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2795",
"authors": [
"Albus Dumbledore",
"Brook",
"Burdon on society",
"Joe",
"JoséNunoFerreira",
"Nathan",
"Pavel Repin",
"Rama",
"Synetech",
"Tanparmaiel",
"dciriello",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"nohat"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16417
|
Where to learn what ratios to use in cooking?
I am learning to cook. I want to know whether there is a good resource at what ratios of ingredients to use when I am cooking. Thank You. :)
I don't see how "quantitative" is useful as a tag. We have a search in the upper-right-hand corner; try searching for "ratio" or "measurements".
@hhh I can't add tag I don't have enought points. I tried to add tag "measurements", Hope that helps. Should I keep it?
How about Ruhlman's book, Ratio: The Simple Codes Behind the Craft of Everyday Cooking?
The entire work is dedicated to breaking cooking down into ratios, and it includes recipes. I hear the bread recipe is particularly good.
I can vouch for his batters. The doughs are good too. The sauces are a bit thick for my taste, but this is easily remedied once the starting point is clear.
The Food Network's Alton Brown show "Good Eats" frequently describes base recipes in form of ratios. But for this you actually have to watch the shows, when the recipes are published the ratios are replaced with measurements.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.015041
| 2011-07-26T15:44:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16417",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Hugh Allen",
"Karthikeyan",
"Qubei",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6468",
"rumtscho",
"user108986",
"user712092"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15759
|
Where does the shape of pretzels come from?
I wonder where the shape of pretzels originated.
My guesses:
The holes make it easy to put them on a stick or rope and store them in a place (under the roof?) where mice would not get it.
Originally the pretzel was a long thin stick, but it was impractical to transport. The pretzel shape provided stability to carry it around. It could be broken into smaller stick-like pieces and eaten.
It resembles some symbol.
Just for fun, because the kids liked it.
According to the Wikipedia article, the following is a likely story (or something similar to it, anyway) but may not be exactly right:
The very beginning of this youtube video of Alton Brown's Good Eats explains it rather well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZR_evWiDbY
Essentially, it was created by a monk as a reward for children who did their daily prayers. The shape looks somewhat like a person folding their arms across their chest, which is an older way to pray.
There is also the possibility that the loops make it practical to hang on sticks, more for display than for keeping the food safe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretzel
Support for this hypothesis is sketchy at best. Must be true because it was on TV, though. There are several legends to explain the origin of the Pretzel, and this is just one of them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.015186
| 2011-06-25T12:49:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15759",
"authors": [
"JestersKing",
"Posipiet",
"SITDGNymall",
"VF1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5484"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17987
|
How to butter-roast coffee in frying pan?
I've starting roasting green coffee beans in a frying-pan at home and in a tin foil tray, when having an outside bbq.
What would be a good way to make a Vietnamese style butter-roast? Should I just fry the beans in butter, until they are brown?
I have tried to roast the beans according to @soegaard 's explanation with coconut oil (smoke point approx. 180°C/350F). As I did not want to burn the oil, I only roasted mildly. The result is drinkable, but not exciting. There was no coconut taste.
Just frying them in butter won't work. The temperature needed to roast the bean is much higher than the milk solids can handle. If I were you, I'd begin by clarifying the butter to get rid of the milk solids, then use the clarified butter with the same method you are using now.
References:
Temperature scales for various roasts at the bottom
One way to make clarified butter
I think, I will try it with Ghee then. I'll report back, how it went!
@Sebastian How did it go?
I have been roasting coffee for a few years and have never heard of this. It wasn't so easy to find on Google. From An Overview of Vietnamese Coffee:
Thirdly, beans are generally roasted in what is referred to as "butter oil", which may or may not be actual clarified butter oil. Occasionally vegetable oils are used, and historically, traditional "home-grown" coffee roasting style involves creating almost a caramel-like coating effect with the use of a small amount of sugar, oil, and generally a touch of vanilla or cocoa. This coating blackens in the roast and the beans wind up with almost a thin, hard shell. Why is this done? Robusta beans are uniquely slow to ripen on the bush, and often pickers pick unripe beans along with ripe beans. The traditional coating gives all the beans a similar color. The presence of a few unripe beans does not hurt the overall taste effect of the blend. However, modern growers pick only ripe beans despite the extra labor, and do not feature this coating in their roasting, opting simple for a little oil to keep the beans easy to turn in the slow roasting process.
I also googled pan roasting techniques. Apparently you should be able to achieve a roasting time of 15-20 minutes. So you are spending several minutes at 200C. With such a small amount of butter and sugar, I wonder when you add the extra ingredients to the pan so as to not burn the coating.
If just using the oil to help the beans turn, then I imagine adding the oil from the start will work.
I might have to try this myself.
I added the oil to obtain the distinct flavour of buttery coffee. I did, unfortunately, not get better results so far. Have you tried and had success?
I've added about one tablespoon of butter on the beans while turning them constantly in the frying pan at about a crack and a half.... When finished it leaves a high gloss on a medium roast. The flavor is wonderful and it seems to make for an even smoother more rich flavor.
I'm Not a native speaker, so i did not get your instructions quite. Did you add the butter at the beginning of the roast or "at a crack and a half"? Or is it a messure of heat for the process?
You can roast in a pan in the oven,
stirring every few minutes, or in the same upon
the top of the range. Stir often, and roast
quickly to a bright brown, not a dull black.
While still hot, beat up the white of an egg
with a tablespoonful of melted butter, and stir
up well with it. This will tend to preserve the
flavor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.015592
| 2011-09-25T06:57:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17987",
"authors": [
"Amelse Etomer",
"BBird",
"Ivana Moncur",
"Kyle",
"Michelle Meade",
"Spammer",
"Wildan Zulfikar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69275",
"soegaard"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18695
|
What are some good substitions for alcohol in cooking?
One of my favorite recipes these days is making a good bananas foster dessert. Everyone I know enjoys it, to some extent, so it's a go-to dessert, for me.
One of my concerns, however, is that since the recipe calls for rum and banana liqueur, I can't (or at least I choose not to) serve it to anyone too young. I'm not so concerned with the legal age limit as with serving it to very young children, like a nephew under 10 years old. The idea is to burn off the alcohol, but I assume there is still some that remains in the dish after it is served.
So what I'm wondering is, what are some good alternatives to alcohol in common dishes? I obviously won't get the same "flambe" presentation from the bananas foster, but it seems like a small tradeoff when considering I'll be able to serve it to more people. (I wouldn't make the dessert for my sister, if her son couldn't eat it too)
EDIT: Not to take away from any answers, but I did find a website detailing some common alcohol substitutions
Asking about substitutes for your specific recipe is a perfectly valid question, if rumtscho's excellent answer wasn't quite enough for you to decide - but it looks like it was!
I usually use verjuice instead of white wine. In braises / sauces, I've added pomegranite molasses mixed with water or stock to good effect.
I can't give you a list with good substitutes for common dishes. First, I doubt that my common dishes are your common dishes. Second, it would be too long. If you want to substitute alcohol in a dish, you have to understand what it does in the specific recipe, and then use your imagination to think of an ingredient which will have a similar effect.
Alcohol has mostly three effects in a dish. First, it is a liquid, and its bulk must be considered. In recipes where the ratio is important (mainly batters), if you leave out the alcohol, you have to add some other liquid to maintain the original ratio.
Second, alcohol adds its own taste. A small part of it is the taste of the ethanol itself, but cooks mostly use beverages with a strong taste of their own as a component of the dish.
Third, alcohol is a solvent. It can get more taste out of your other ingredients than pure water. (Ever wondered why vanilla extract is alcohol based?) This is especially important in recipes which give it a longer time to interact with the other ingredients, such as the slow boiling of a coq au vin.
Depending on which of these effects are important to you, you have different options to act.
Just leave it out. If you aren't baking, you probably aren't that interested in the ratio. And if you expect the result to taste well enough without the alcohol, the simplest solution is to skip it.
Use a liquid substitute. This is especially important in baking and confectionery, but you can decide to do it in any case. Depending on the original kind of alcohol and taste you are aiming for, you can use pure water, a liquid trying to stay close to the original taste, or a liquid which gives a completely new taste profile to the whole recipe. For example, in a sweet dish like your foster dessert you can use caramel dissolved in apple juice instead of dark rum if you want to mimic the original, or cherry juice to create a cherry-banana dessert. Common liquids to use are sugared water (when the original recipe had a sweet liquor), a fruit or vegetable juice, a herbal infusion, clear stock, or pickle liquid. Don't be afraid to use more than one liquid to get closer to the effect you want. If the recipe already uses some other liquid, you can just use more of it.
Use a spice or condiment. This is when your main concern is the taste, and you don't care about the missing liquid. Again, you could be trying to mime the original closely (using orange zest instead of Grand Marnier), or just using any strong spice so the dish doesn't become bland. It is up to you. A special case is to use only a taste "essence": for some beverages common in baking, you can buy a propylene-glycol based condiment which approximates their aroma. Rum essence is widely available, but I'm quite sure that the whiskey flavored ice cream in the supermarket isn't full of real whiskey.
Leave the alcohol in the recipe (possibly reduced). Obviously impossible in some circumstances, like a wine sauce, but quite feasible in others. You don't have to drown the dessert in rum and flambe it. If you use 20 ml of rum per 1000 g of other ingredients, a child who eats a normal serving (150 g) will consume somewhat less than 1.2 g of ethanol if no alcohol at all is cooked out - and in practice, if the recipe calls for cooking, maybe half of the alcohol will evaporate, and a very young child will probably not eat the whole serving. I don't think that such miniscule amounts are problematic for children.
Of course, you are free to combine these solutions in any way you see fit, depending on which effect(s) of alcohol you are trying to imitate. For example, if a baking recipe calls for 50 ml of calvados, use 15 ml of calvados, 35 ml of apple juice, and a breath of powdered cinnamon. Or baste a roast with a mix of tomato and carrot juice instead of red wine. The possibilities are endless, you just have to be clear on why you are choosing whatever you are choosing.
One more thing it can be for, especially in baking, is to add some acidity, which is important for chemical leaveners such as baking soda. Ethanol also can be used for adding liquid without developing gluten, this can be used e.g., to make flaky pie crust in a food processor.
@derobert Strange. Most alcohols I have don't taste acid (except for wine, but that is seldom used in baking). I'll measure some alcohols when I'm home and post the results, but for acidity to react with baking soda, you want a pretty low pH (yogurt and buttermilk are 4.2 to 4.5) and big amounts. Also, if you have specific literature on the alcohol-gluten interaction, I'd like to read it, because I've never seen anything on the topic (at least nothing which discusses gluten formation in presence of alcohol; I've made flaky whiskey pie crust).
I was thinking of wine with the pH. Agree, that'd be pretty seldom in baking. May matter for other recipes, though (as acid is of course important flavor-wise too). As far as gluten/alcohol, I've seen that from Cooks Illustrated's pie-crust recipe that uses vodka in place of a fair bit of water, and that's their explanation. I'll see if I can't track down some source.
As for the alcohol + wheat flour != gluten claim, it's echoed by Alton Brown here. "[Ethyl] alcohol won’t combine with wheat proteins to make gluten the way that water does." He goes on to perform an experiment to demonstrate that fact.
Your title is general, but you seem to be asking just about rum and banana extract.
For rum, there's rum extract, which like many extracts comes in natural and imitation versions. It will generally still have alcohol, but you won't have to use as much. Searching around suggests that you use half as much as you would dark rum, and a fifth as much as you would light rum. Depending on the use, you might need to make up the difference in volume with water.
For banana liqueur, there's also banana extract, though I think it's a bit harder to find. Depending on the amount, if there's already enough banana flavor in the rest of the dish, my guess is that you could get away without it, or with a similar volume of water and mashed banana or even just sugar water. (I haven't tried this myself.)
One option, would be just to prepare normally, but just remove a few servings of the sauce for the kids, before adding the liqueur and finishing the dessert. I've done that with similar desserts...
You can try using orange juice instead of alcohol. I tried it before and wasn't bad :)
Instead of any kind of alcohol? Seems like it'd be a better substitute for some things than others.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.015889
| 2011-10-31T16:32:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18695",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"ESultanik",
"Ed Ungar",
"Michael",
"NRaf",
"Peta-Julie",
"Preethi Raju",
"critichu",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"kathleen ballard",
"kitty",
"rumtscho",
"talon8",
"will.rolke"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32493
|
In industrially produced soup, how does each can contain equal parts of all ingredients?
In the soup that you get at the store, how come you never get cans of just broth?
You'd think that if the soup were made in a large vat, the first few cans would have very little broth and the last few cans would have exclusively broth... but that's obviously not the case.
Obviously, every manufacturer is going to have their own proprietary methods.
However, canned goods are often made by combining ingredients (possibly partially cooked) directly into the cans, and then pressure cooking them in the can as part of the canning process.
So, for example, the broth, some celery, and some carrots might be added to the open can in measured amounts. Then, the can is sealed, and pressure cooked to both sterilize the contents, and to cook the celery and carrots through.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.016476
| 2013-03-07T18:16:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32493",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34155
|
How long does ginger root last?
I bought ginger root months ago, and I didn't use all of it. I've kept it in the fridge and it still seems good. How long will it last?
See also: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3549/how-can-i-store-root-ginger-for-maximum-shelf-life
Eat By Date claims a shelf life of about one month, in the refrigerator, which matches my experience.
Ginger root is a living rhizome, and is the plant's way of storing energy to grow later. As long as it is firm, not slimy, with no signs of a mold, with a good aroma, you should be able to use it.
You could store it in the freezer for a few months longer (about 3 or so) the next time you pick some up. Since I typically grate it, I haven't noticed any texture issues. Otherwise, I find it lasts 4-6 weeks normally in the fridge.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.016686
| 2013-05-15T23:16:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34155",
"authors": [
"Margo Silva",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Standaa - Remember Monica",
"evanhutomo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79516",
"julio freitas",
"taseikyo",
"troy_achilies",
"user28434"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34319
|
How to best barbecue calamari/squid?
Is is possible at all to barbecue uncooked calamari (tubes) without getting them tough? If so, how should it be done? Are there any preparations (marinade?) which may help to get them soft? Does the size of the calamari matter?
See: How do you cook calamari / squid and avoid making it tough?
The principles remain the same for grilling or barbecuing: you want to cook the squid briefly so it doesn't toughen up, or slowly for a long time, so that the collagen dissolves to gelatin, making the squid tender again. In between is the rubbery zone.
The main issue is that many squid are not really large enough to place directly on a grill grate without danger of falling through, so you may wish to use a fish or vegetable grilling grate. You can then grill them briefly, over high heat.
It is probably possible to use low-and-slow smoking techniques (true barbecuing), but I didn't find any really credible sources or recipes, and I have never tried this myself. You could also grill the squid to get some smokey flavor, then finish by braising them (for example, in a disposable pie tin on the cool side of your grill, with flavorful liquid) for a long time.
Googling barbecued squid recipe will give you many recipes to try, with a variety of marinades and treatments.
Thanks, I will give brief as well as slow way a try then.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.016802
| 2013-05-25T12:01:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34319",
"authors": [
"Akram ",
"Grace Graffius",
"Jordan L",
"Lisa Cummings",
"Mistinguette",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79931",
"miller chris",
"mstrap"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37776
|
Non-alcoholic substitution for dry white wine in bolognese sauce and other tomato sauces?
What is the purpose of dry white wine in a recipe like bolognese sauce? I need to substitute something non-alcoholic for the wine and while I've found many great lists of possible substitutions, the actual selection depends on the role the wine plays.
Is it there for acidity? Is there an alcohol soluble flavor I will miss if I don't use real wine? What purpose does it play and what would you substitute it with?
I'm making my favorite lasagna bolognese recipe for company later this week and some of the folk coming are in recovery. Out of respect for my guests' wishes I want to use something else, not just cook the alcohol off before adding the wine. It's too late to switch to something other than lasagna... I'm fixated. Lasagna and salad, followed by apple pie and pear, ginger, cranberry pie.
How do I make this work? Thank you for any and all input.
Since you have some responses below that seem to answer your question, please consider marking one of them as ‘Accepted’ by clicking on the tickmark below their vote count (see What should I do when someone answers my question?). This shows which answer helped you most, and it assigns reputation points to the author of the answer (and to you!). It's part of this site's idea to identify good questions and answers through upvotes and acceptance of answers.
White wine in tomato sauces adds:
Some acidity, but tomatoes are quite acidic as well
A touch of fruitiness and flavor
Alcohol, which does not all cook off, which can enhance the perception of the dish due to some flavor molecules being alcohol soluble, especially in tomatoes
Since you are avoiding alcohol itself, some of the options you might use are:
Simply omit the wine. The dish may not be quite as good, but it will still be good.
Use a splash of verjuice (un-fermented grape juice) if you can get it; this will give you some of the fruity and acidic qualities, without the alcohol.
Use a splash of white wine vinegar (unless you are concerned with the trace amounts of alcohol that may persist from its production); this will give you some acid, but you are not likely to use enough to add any significant fruitiness.
Since you are specifically avoiding alcohol, you necessarily lose the flavor enhancing effect it can have, but a good well seasoned dish will stand up without it.
I would suggest you make your sauce, and if you feel it lacks brightness, to try cooking down a little white wine vinegar or apple cider vinegar and adding it; otherwise, leave it alone.
And of course, taste as you are cooking to season it well.
Again, as one component of several in a lasagna, which is all about the integration and balance of all of the components, I wouldn't worry about it this overly much.
Thank you! That is a truly helpful answer. I appreciate you taking the time to write up the details since that is exactly what I was trying to learn.
I recently had exactly the same challenge with Lasagna Bolognese. I substituted white balsamic vinegar diluted 50/50 with water for the wine. The final sauce was actually superior to the sauce I had just made a few days prior with the same recipe but using wine.
Thank you too! While the other answer gave me the background, you shared the other half... how it turns out :) I'll try it with confidence now.
Isn't it grand when a plan comes together? :) Good luck with your lasagna. Mine was part of what turned out to be a lovely evening. Funny thing, SAJ14SAG helped me with mine too (different issue).
In Ragu,
Subbing 50% balsamic vinegar and water works very well, as mentioned. Also, I used a 30% of balsamic vinegar, a tiny squirt of soy sauce and 20% water & 50% pomegranate juice which add the wines fruity flavour ( or use chicken stock instead of pomegranate). You don't have to be precise for this second idea.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.016956
| 2013-10-20T22:03:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37776",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"Martin Schröder",
"fitzhugh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183"
],
"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
}
|
35013
|
Can you refrigerate unbaked quiche for baking the next morning?
Can I put my quiche together the night before with an unbaked crust, refrigerate over night, and then bake it off the next morning?
The crust would get soggy.
If you want to make a quiche in advance, you can make the shell and blind bake it, if required. Wrap the shell in plastic wrap and refrigerate it over night.
You can make the filling custard and have it in a bowl (I would actually use a sealable container). Eggs and cream are highly perishable, so you want to refrigerate them right after mixing.
Then, to bake your quiche, all you need to do is pour the filling into the shell and bake.
The Kitchn and Fifteen Spatulas also say you can pre-bake your quiche and then reheat it the next day for service. Fifteen Spatulas even claims the flavors meld and improve.
Good answer. I will go one step further and insist that the typical quiche tastes better cold-ish (or room temperature) than warm. It is not a universal truth of course, as with all matters of taste. But I, and many other people I know, would prefer to eat it without reheating.
The royale (custard) mixture will actually improve by being refrigerated over night as well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.017250
| 2013-06-30T00:27:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35013",
"authors": [
"Julius John Francis Spohn",
"Reteras",
"Rgass",
"Robert Toth",
"Sam Ley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9091",
"pickled lettuce",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35435
|
Are Farro (Triticum dicoccum) and Spelta (Triticum spelta) interchangeable?
I can't find Farro (Triticum dicoccum) where I live and Spelta (Triticum spelta) is relatively common.
How interchangeable are they?
What should I expect if I make a Farro dish using Spelta?
According to Heidi Julavits' in the New York Times Sunday Magazine, the grains are very different in their cooking properties, even though they are both members of the wheat family, and despite claims that they can be used in the same recipes:
Farro cooks in about 45 minutes; we cooked our spelt for four hours,
and even then the result was extremely al dente. We threw in multiple
sticks of butter, gallons of stock and $13 worth of grated Parmesan,
but the spelt remained stoically flavor-impervious.
You should look for recipes specifically for Spelt, if this is what you have available.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.017388
| 2013-07-20T22:01:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35435",
"authors": [
"CreaZyp154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87991"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35447
|
Best gas-stove cost effective alternative?
Due to the fact that my apartment is lower than the street level, I can't install a gas stove. Which option is the best alternative?
I'm looking for a cost-effective solution for simple everyday cooking, no precised gourmet cooking times are required.
While looking for a solution I was told that I should check out induction electric stove, but is that really the best solution?
I don't understand why being below grade precludes a gas stove, but even so: "best" by what criteria?
As I wrote in the question, cost-effective
Sorry, I missed that... where do you live?
No problem. I live in Israel. When the apartment level is low a gas leak might fill up your house with gas and you won't be able to remove it as cooking gas is heavier than air.
Depends on what you mean by "cost effective", and what expectations you have of cooking evenness.
A solid fuel stove will probably be cheapest (grandma style wood or coal oven), followed by a resistive electric stove and the most expensive stove being induction electric. This covers the initial cost of the stove itself. The quality of heating goes along the same direction: uneven heating with coal/wood, even but sluggishly responsive heating with resistive, great heating with induction.
But over the lifetime of your stove, the most costs are probably caused by the fuel costs. Induction as technology has much higher efficiency than resistive heating, so you will save much from your electricity bill if you use induction instead of resistive. How long will it need until the break even point in initial investment vs electricity savings depends on the exact models of stove you are comparing plus your cooking habits/frequency.
As for wood or coal, they can be cheaper or more expensive than electricity for you depending on where you live. But most people would not use them for cooking even when they are much cheaper, due to the added hassle. I only mentioned them here because you insist that your primary criteria is "cost effective".
You can get a single or double burner induction cooktop. They are relatively inexpensive, most efficient electric burners, and perform well in cooking. You will need induction compatible cookware though. They are in most sense better than other electric cooktops. The old resistive element burners are cheaper though.
Fuel based stoves have similar problems to gas stoves as carbon monoxide this time can collect and build in a place below grade.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.017482
| 2013-07-21T11:33:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35447",
"authors": [
"Roy",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19298"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10959
|
Reheating rice for 25 guests
I am having a party. I have no rice cooker. I plan on cooking the rice the day before. Is it possible to reheat it and have it taste good? How to?
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/7068/67
When making rice for a large group, you should take a hint from the restaurants and do it in the oven in a large roaster or baking pan. Put the rice in a pan, add boiling water and salt, and then cover with foil. Or you can make it like a very large pilaf which will make it more special. But oven in large pan is the way to go and make it fresh.
I don't have amounts because you will know how much you need to make. Common knowledge is 2 times as much water as the rice, and common knowledge is, generally, too much water, particularly in large batches.
Again, a restaurant recipe will do you well.
I'd agree. Rice doesn't keep well at all, never quite the same. Just do it in your oven, boil your water and add it to a roasting pan, cover with foil. Pop into a hot oven e.g. 325-350 and cook until soft. It will take some time - 45-60 min at least. Make sure the water is boiling when you put it in!
You have to be very careful when preparing rice for consumption later. Cooked rice can contain a toxic spore which causes severe food poisoning. You should cool the rice as rapidly as possible to prevent too much of the toxin being produced by the spore.
That's a good point when dealing with that much rice -- the way I know to cool off rice quickly is to spread it out on sheet pans so it can steam out (which unfortunately, dries it at the same time). If you're going to go with Yossarian's reheating technique, do this ... but I'd probably try to go with Doug's suggestion of a pilaf / oven cooking.
Wow! What toxic organism could it contain that survives for an extended time at boiling temperatures? I've never heard about this before. Can it really be dangerous just 24 hours later? Lots of recipes for fried rice and rice pudding suggest using 1- or 2-day-old rice, and I've never seen this concern raised before.
I found it: Bacillus cereus. Its spores can be found in starchy foods like rice, and can sometimes survive boiling, as can the toxins it produces. Contaminated rice tastes and smells completely normal. Fortunately, it's very rare, and the symptoms usually last only a few hours. You can protect yourself by preventing bacterial growth after cooking by refrigerating promptly - the bacteria can only grow at 50-105 degrees F.
ok, so this may not be a correct answer for a cooking site, but... maybe you could buy enough cooked rice on the day of your event from a local chinese restaurant? : ) one less thing for you to worry about on the day of your big party (and nobody needs to know)!
Rice will dehydrate when it's left over night. So it will be very dry when you try and reheat it. Cook it ahead of time, but keep it as close to ahead of time as possible. The less time it sits around, the better. When it's time to serve, place a little water in with the rice, cover it (slightly vented), and then microwave till warm. The steam from the water will help rehydrate. I don't think the result is quite as good as fresh rice, but it's much easier.
If you're using a larger rice grain (say American long grain rather than a finer one like basmati) the result from microwaving is excellent. Finer rice tends to clump when reheated as it releases more starch.
Also, a huge mass of cooked rice is quite a pain to dehydrate (which sometimes is exactly what you want, eg if you intend to saute it the next day).
I have two options here.. one was not easy and the other one was rather creative (but traditional)
Fried Rice. A quick way of reheating a large amount of rice from the fridge (I guess you pre-cook all the rice prior) is to make fried rice. Just heat up a wok and add a bit of oil will do the job. It may take you a few rounds, but it's better than reheating rice in microwave.
Make Rice dumplings - you may have heard of Chinese rice dumpling which is usually made of glutinous rice, but you can use short grain rice instead which is sticky enough. It may look kinda fancy if you serve people with rice dumplings. The advantage of rice dumpling is you can keep them in hot water before you serve and you don't need rice cooker as the whole cooking process is in a pot.
I cannot find you the exact recipe, but this blog article seems pretty good.
http://eatfirstthinklater.blogspot.com/2006/05/making-chinese-rice-dumpling-bak-chang.html
Just ignore all the ingredient and put in rice only.
I got some links here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zongzi
I do this for parties all the time. I put several large spoonfuls in a plastic ziplock bag. Seal the bag, stick it in the microwave for 3min intervals till it is hot enough. flipping the contents around in between heating.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.017688
| 2011-01-12T00:01:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10959",
"authors": [
"Carol Every",
"Chef",
"Chris Dancy",
"Joe",
"Josh",
"bananamom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1122
|
Can I prevent honey from congealing/hardening in the pantry?
This question is inspired by this answer suggesting that honey lasts a long time. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to last so long in my cupboard. I make sure it's sealed tight, but usually after only a week or two it's looking pretty nasty.
Is there a way to prevent this from happening? Or is there a standard (not to mention safe) way to "rescue" hardened honey without losing flavour or texture?
Keep it stored in an airtight container, so that it doesn't absorb moisture from the air.
If it congeals, put the container in hot water until honey is liquid (~10-15 minutes).
Clarification: Do you mean to run the container itself under a hot tap? Is the result really "good as new?"
Correct, put the container in hot water of some sort. I heat a pan full of water, and immerse the bottle.
For those people with microwaves or a kettle, you an also heat water (you want it hot, but not boiling), and give the honey a bath. It even works for plastic bottles. (when I say 'hot', maybe 150F ... you might be able to get glass jars hotter, but don't shock it as it might shatter
Hmm, sounds like you're getting "raw" unprocessed honey, which is a good thing, because that kind is in all ways better than store processed, but it tends to crystallize very rapidly.
To return it to it's liquid state, heat it slowly in a double boiler to around 145(f). It should turn clear and liquidy. Once it looks nice, cool it off by adding some cold water to the pot. Don't heat it in a closed containter: honey increases in volume when heated.
Happens to the processed stuff too, actually. Double boiler is an interesting idea. I'm not sure how easy it would be to get it out of the container and into the boiler though!
I always decrystallize honey in a double boiler. It's the only way to go.
If your honey is in a glass jar, you can also just remove the lid and put it in the microwave for 20 - 30 seconds or so. All you're trying to do is heat it up so it goes back to liquid form. (But don't microwave it in plastic! Yuck!) I've never found a way to keep raw honey from crystallizing in the first place, though.
The answer to the question is: store in the freezer. Honey will not crystallize under 65 degrees.
If it does crystallize: keep your honey raw and maintain the antimicrobial and antibacterial properties, don't warm above 105 degrees. Never microwave it. Raw honey has never been heated above 105, usually warmed by a light bulb to help it flow when extracting it.
Be gentle with your raw honey.
I learned this from my beekeeping mentor. I have two bee hives.
My family owns a bee company and we have found the best way to melt honey back to its liquid form is to immerse the whole bottle with lid still on in a crock pot filled with water and turn it on high for about an hour or so, depending on how much honey you're reheating. Fill the crock pot so that the water hits below the lid though, because water will ruin your honey. And just keep checking your honey every 30 minutes or so.
there is nothing wrong with your honey, honey that behaves that way is showing it's higher quality. You can use it as is, it will melt when you cook with it. It makes an excellent spread as is (such as on toast), and yes it will last that way for decades and even centuries if it's sealed properly.
If you really must reqliquify it, then just place the jar in some warm water and wait a while.
According to this answer, honey should be stored at 70-80 degrees Farenheit (described as room temperature, though that's warmer than many rooms I've been in). I used to store my tea honey in a cabinet that's on an outside wall, and I've seen less crystalization since moving it to a cabinet on an inside wall. That said, I still get some crystalization, especially in winter when the kitchen temperature ranges from 60 to 70. I haven't yet succeeded in preventing crystalization entirely, even though I keep it in tightly-sealed glass jars.
Other answers have addressed how to rescue crystalized honey.
I came here to ask how to prevent crystalization (assuming it's not already being kept in a cold place) and found this question. I'm still looking for improvements on what I'm doing now (given that I don't have access to the comb).
From this question it seems that you might be able to store it with the comb to make it last longer before crystallising.
According to this site you can store the comb for more than a few weeks by putting it in the freezer, it will thaw out as runny honey apparently.
Easy way to prevent crystallization: store honey in a clay jar!! ( ceramic). Never crystallizes.
Sounds interesting - do you have any explanation what would prevent crystallization?
I microwave the honey in 30 second increments until it melts back to a usable state. It works fine and doesn't recrystallize for a couple of weeks. Then I microwave again.
I love maple syrup when its in the pure forn(meaning it has not been diluted with the bought syrup) and found keeping pure maple syrup in the freezer was my answer. It will not freeze. Pours kinda slow tho. I say that to say this,maybe honey will react the same way.
Get acacia honey - it practically never crystallizes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.018097
| 2010-07-16T19:23:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1122",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Abhinav",
"Anoop K P",
"BQ.",
"Brian Harmer",
"Isaac Fufufnik",
"JSBձոգչ",
"Jack Chu",
"Joe",
"Monica Cellio",
"Robert Ellison",
"Stephie",
"Susan Aubin",
"damx",
"flicken",
"garettmd",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97",
"katy santellano"
],
"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
}
|
6287
|
Why do tomatoes get so hot?
Ever noticed how certain foods seem to get a lot hotter than others? I almost never burn my tongue or mouth... except on tomatoes; Pizza sauce, tomatoes in panini sandwiches or spaghetti sauce.
Tomatoes always seem to get hotter and retain their heat longer than almost any other food I've encountered. And they are nearly always the culprit when I succeed in burning my mouth.
Why would that be? Is there something about their chemistry that causes them to have a higher heat capacity? Do they hold their heat longer? Or is it simply a figment of my imagination and bad luck with hot tomatoes?
There's a later duplicate on [physics.se].
@msh210 How is it a dupe if it's later?
@Mong134, it's a dupe in that it asks much the same question. I don't understand the last three words of your question.
@msh210 This question was asked almost two years before the other (Physics) one. That question is a dupe of this one, not vice verse. It occurs to me now that is what you meant all along, if that is the case, then ignore my comment.
Which is the dupe and which is the original is NEVER based on date. The one with the answers is kept and the other marked as a dupe. If both have answers they can be merged. None of which applies here because cross site dupes aren't a thing.
Another physics digression.
All cooked food gets hot, and everything in any given dish will have the same temperature {*}. The tomatoes don't get hotter than the other ingredients. But they do have a tendency to burn more than certain other substances, so the question is "Why?".
You get burned when a portion of your flesh reaches a high enough temperature{+}. The food warms your tongue, lips, etc. by heat conduction until either you move the food or your mouth parts and the food reach the same temperature (a condition known as thermal equilibrium). What that common temperature is depends on the amount of heat (i.e. thermal energy) in the system. Some of the factors that come into play are:
How much (mass of) food there is.
How much (mass of) your mouth is involved (see below).
The initial temperature of the food.
The "heat capacity" of both the food and your mouth parts, which is a property of each substance that appears as a coefficient in the thermal equilibrium equation. (Don't worry, I'm not going to make you read any math.) Water has a (very!) high heat capacity, so watery foods tend to drive high final temperature and thus to burn you more easily. There is an added complication for the extra heat needed to establish a phase change (i.e. melt solids or vaporize liquids) called the heat of fusion or heat of vaporization. Again water has a high value for both of these numbers.
How fast the common temperature is reached depends on
The area of contact between the food and the mouth.
Another coefficient called the thermal conductivity. This one is complicated, but liquids tend to have a high thermal conductivity and solids less so. This is where soups, sauces, and melted cheese really get you. Note that your mouth parts has a pretty low thermal conductivity, so you only get to count the surface layers in finding the equilibrium temperature. Sorry.
Some consequences of all this:
This is why you can peel the aluminum foil off of a pan that has just come out of a 400 degree (F) oven without trouble, but if you get your hand stuck in the steam plume (which is only around 212 degrees F) you get scalded: Aluminum has a low heat capacity, and steam has a (very, very!) high one.
Small bites help in two ways: less total heat means a lower common temperature, and may allow you to move the food around in your mouth, reducing the temperature of any one part.
Some foods are just dangerous this way. You know what they are from experience: steam, hot soups and sauces, melted cheese, etc.
{*} Well, sort of. But take that as true for any particular region of any particular dish.
{+} What temperature is that? Good question. Maybe there is a medical professional around, 'cause I don't know. I'd guess around 140--150 degrees F (call it 60--65 degrees C), but don't quote me.
That could have come out of my old physics textbook. Well done.
Look at this link for temperatures: http://www.rochesterhills.org/city_services/fire_department/pubic_education/scald_and_burn_care.asp
@Lorenzo: Nice link. It seems to imply that 130 F is safe, and 150 F is not. So, I'll take a bow for a good guess.
@dmckee: Great answer! Learned a lot about heat capacity and thermal conductivity as they relate to cooking - I always wondered why I could grab aluminum foil straight out of the oven without even thinking about it. Thanks for sharing.
@dmckee Great answer. I was a physics major and am aware of water's extra high heat capacity. However, it has a relatively low boiling point. And in my experience, boiling water will cool off pretty quickly -- take a spoonful of soup or tea and blow a couple of times and you're good to go usually. So I wonder if there's something about tomatoes that either raises the boiling point of the water contained, or prevents it from cooling as quickly. Any ideas?
Mixing almost anything with mater will change the boiling point slightly, but I suspect the deal is that you can't get access to most of the mass of an object like a tomato to blow on it. It has to cool by conduction, which is pretty slow. Especially a biological stuff (like tomatoes and people) tends to have a low coefficient of thermal conductivity.
Terrific answer!
The temperature your flesh has to reach is going to be more complicated than just a constant. It depends greatly on how long its held at that temperature. Similar to how bacteria reduction is both time- and temperature-dependent. @Lorenzo: 130°F is way too high, they're just figuring that you'll pull your hand out before getting a burn.
@derobert: Of course. But I think that in this case we are looking for the temperature that will cause damage before you can react to it.
Kind of related... http://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/371/how-is-temperature-sensed
It is simply water content. Water has a much higher heat capacity than anything else we eat. You might think fats have a higher heat capacity, but that is an illusion - they can get much hotter because they don't boil at 100 C, but they hold considerably less heat than water in a given quantity. Tomatoes are almost all water, thus they can burn your mouth quite easily.
Water has a much higher heat capacity that pretty much anything full stop. And the heat of vaporization is just insane, which is why steam is such a risk.
Hmm, now I wonder how hot could be a steamed watermelon!
Great answer, but I'm a physics major so I'm a sucker for a good physics based answer ;)
@dmckee - you should try cooking on a griddle made of neutron star material sometime!
@Michael touched on a big part of it -- tomatoes are mostly water, and the specific heat of water is rather high. (the specific heat of salt water is even higher).
But in the case of pizza, there's another issue -- melted cheese is a good insulator. So, you bring up the temperature of the sauce to near boiling, but then the cheese keeps it from cooling off. And for microwaved pizza, it's even worse, because it's the fat and water that are excited the most by microwaves, so the pizza ends up heating from the inside (sauce layer) out.
True that. :) ...Extra characters...
I'm worried about your 450°F pizza sauce. You use charcoal as pizza sauce? (Remember, to get above ~212°F, all water needs to be gone. By 450, things are burning.)
@derobert : good point ... 450F oven wouldn't get the sauce that hot, unless you had an autoclave.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.018537
| 2010-08-29T13:30:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6287",
"authors": [
"Daniel Bingham",
"James Pat",
"Joe",
"Kate Gregory",
"Michael Natkin",
"Paul Lassiter",
"Rob",
"Robert Jackson",
"Sobachatina",
"User1000547",
"Wizard79",
"derobert",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"exius",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67667",
"msh210",
"nico",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"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
}
|
267
|
How do you properly cook a steak?
I love steaks so much, that I would like to get a green card and live in the States just to enjoy good steaks whenever I want.
When I try to cook a steak at home (I live in Italy), it always turns out burned outside and almost totally raw inside. Actually only a thin layer is cooked (or I should say carbonized).
If I try to lower the temperature of the grill pan, I get an extremely dried meat that resembles cork.
So, which are the basics for properly cooking a steak (say, to a medium-well grade)?
"raw inside" ain't necessarily bad...
@Knives: not raw like a rare cooked steak. I mean really raw, totally uncooked, still cold, and so tough that you can't even cut it with the miracle blade.
ah, sounds like you're starting out with cold meat then. That'll give you problems every time (well, for thicker cuts at least)
@Knives: this is my suspect, too. I leave the meal out of the fridge for about 10-15 minutes, maybe it is not enough.
Yeah, kick that up to a half hour and I think you'll be much happier with the results. Don't forget to rest the steaks for 10 min after cooking, too, particularly for thick cuts (see below).
You should be able to get a reasonable steak stovetop using a cast iron grill pan, if you have a strong enough exhaust. Oil the cast iron pan (with canola or such), then heat it very hot, until it starts to smoke. Make sure the meat is completely dry on the outside (wipe with a paper towel, water will prevent browning) and gently place in the pan. Leave it there for a minute or two (it'll smoke quite a bit!), rotate 90° to get the nice grill marks. Leave for another minute or two. Flip, and repeat for the other side.
It may splatter, have a splatter screen handy. It will smoke, quite a bit, make sure the exhaust is on high.
You will probably have a medium-rare steak now. Using a thinner cut will make it more well done (you can cut a thick steak in half with your chef's knife, making two thin steaks); so will plopping it in the oven (not sure if you want the oven before or after searing, I like 'em medium rare...).
Remember to let the meat rest for 5 minutes or so before serving.
Also, if your steaks are coming out ridiculously tough, you're probably using the wrong cut of meat, or some terrible grade. What cut are you using?
[edit: I should note that, in case it wasn't obvious, the burner should be up pretty high]
Edit by rumtscho There is a reason this answer specifies a cast iron pan. If you are limited in your cookware choice, pay attention to the maximum temperature your pan can tolerate. If you are using a non-stick pan, you have to go on medium heat and wait longer, else you'll damage the pan. (And sorry, but you can't get it as tasty as on high heat that way).
About letting the steak rest, do you just put it on a cold plate? Wrap it in aluminium foil?
@phant0m I use whatever is around. I usually use a plate if it's just one steak. Can also be a cutting board if I'm going to cut it for multiple servings. If I need it to take longer (e.g., to finish a side or sauce), tent it with foil. As long as you're not trying to rest it in the hot pan, it's probably fine.
Hmm, I tried with aluminum foil two days ago along with the method you described. It was great but it was only just warm after leaving it wrapped for a few minutes. I'd you just put it on a plate, why isn't it cold afterwards?
@phant0m how thin was it? If it's a very thin steak (say, under a half inch) it'll cool much quicker, and doesn't need as long a rest. The five minutes is with a ¾ to 1 inch thick steak.
You can use the rule of thumb method to measure the "doneness" of the steak:
You loosely touch one of your fingers with your thumb depending on how well done you want it, and the tension of the muscle of your hand below the thumb will be the same as how the meat should feel when you press it.
I like that one so much! However my problem is still that I get the steak carbonized outside and raw inside... I tried lowering the head but now I get a very dry steak :(
@Lorenzo - Coat the steak with olive oil before you apply the rub. The oil will help seal in the juiciness. Sear first, then cook over indirect heat.
@lorenzo also make sure you rest the meat at least 5 min by taking it off the heat and putting it somewhere cool but somewhat covered. After a sear, there's enough heat in the outer layer of the steak to continue cooking the inside. Resting gives the meat time to redistribute that heat.
I've been using this technique for a while. I find that it fails quite often. The tenderness of a steak varies based on the cut (e.g. tenderloin vs ribeye), fat content, thickness. And it's really hard to directly compare it to a steak as well.
This isn't really a very reliable method. Peoples hands are different, cuts of meat are different, and it's really difficult (for me at least) to distinguish much of a difference between either.
@RyanElkins But if ever there was an aptly named rule of thumb, this has got to be right up there with it. :)
First, let the meat warm to about room temperature. This way you aren't trying to heat up a cold center. Personally I prefer to only cook each side once (meaning I only flip the meat over once). The actual temperature of your grill and the amount of time you cook it per side will depend on the thickness of the steak and how you want it done. Don't use a fork or knife to cut it open while it is grilling as this will let the juices out.
How to tell when a steak is done.
Also, I would argue that medium-well is not a properly cooked steak.
Thanks for the answer. However I don't have a grill, can I cook it on a pan? Why medium-well is not properly cooked?
@Lorenzo: do you have a broiler?
Well, that last part was sort of just a joke, it's obviously to your tastes. I would imagine a pan would be similar in technique to a grill, but I have never done it before myself.
At least as a stereotype, people (in the USA) that are serious about steak typically like it somewhere around medium-rare.
@Knives: yes I have a teflon Broiler Griddle, but I read that it is not good for meat as you can't have the Maillard reaction. Should I buy a cast iron broiler?
@Lorenzo: you should consider it, though a good cast-iron skillet should do about as well as long as you can keep the temperature high. FWIW, it's not the lack of maillard that would worry me about cooking steak on teflon, it's the breakdown of the coating at the sort of temperatures you'd be wanting to cook at. When you throw the (room-temperature) meat on there, you want that sucker to be HOT!
An important part of the process missed by the other answers is allowing the meat to rest for up to ten minutes before before serving (depending on size).
This is because at temperature the muscle fibres have tightened up and are unable to retain their juices. A steak straight off the heat and cut open will instantly lose all its juices.
If you allow the steak to cool for a few minutes then the muscle fibres relax, hold the juices better and you end up with a much juicer steak with more flavour.
Resting meat is a very important part of the cooking process.
+1 another reason is that meat is a very poor conductor of heat, so while the outside could be cooked, the inside may still be rather cold. After taking it off the burner, the outside is cool, and so is the center, so the hottest part is the layer between the outside and the center. Since heat always travels from hot->cold, this means that 10 minutes after you take the steak off the burner, the center is still cooking!
+1, I let my steak rest for about 50% of the cooking time. So if I have a whole steak, I cook it in the oven, and let it rest for half the time it's been in the oven. In my opinion a steak don't have to be scolding hot, and it's better to let it rest a little longer then a little shorter.
Here is the method I use for turning out a perfect steak every time.
Pick a quality piece of meat that is approximately 1.5 inches(almost 4cm) thick.
Let it sit on the counter-top for 30-45 minutes until it is roughly room temperature.
Heat up a cast-iron skillet (or similar) to medium-high. Lightly coat the skillet with an oil that has a high smoke point (grapeseed or coconut oil).
Preheat the oven to 500F(260C). Also, put a cookie sheet in the oven during this step too (preferably one that can handle high heat without warping).
I like to put a light rub of olive oil on the meat. Then I season it with salt & pepper or garlic salt & pepper (depending on mood).
Use TONGS (not a fork) to put the steak into the skillet.
Sear each side for 90 seconds. Don't go longer than this.
Use the tongs to transfer the steak to the cookie sheet in the oven.
Cook each side in the oven for 3 minutes.
Place the steak on a plate, put a tablespoon of butter on top of it, and cover it with tin foil.
Let it rest for 5-8 minutes.
Steak should now be medium rare (about 135F(57C) at center). Serve.
Great suggestion, this worked far better for me than a grill only method on very thick steaks.
This. You can vary a bit around this with regards to particulars, but a) very hot pan, short time and b) finish up in oven for 4-8 minutes depending on temp and thickness. It'll require a bit of getting used to, but it's hard to mess up once you have some practice. If you are not sure, keep the duration in the oven a bit shorter and test it - you can always put the steak back in the oven to finish it, but there's no way to un-cook it. Me, I don't bother flipping in the oven, only in the pan and I do it around 350/375 instead. Oh, and cast iron pan can go in the oven, easier that way.
Here's how I grill a steak:
Let it thaw completely before attempting to cook it.
Set the grill to medium/high heat.
Clean the grill by putting an onion on a skewer and using that to clean the bars. It adds flavor and gets the bars clean for a clean cook.
For an average thickness steak, I throw it on the grill, close the cover, wait 6 minutes. (closing the cover is very important as it allows the steak to get enough heat.
Check for grill marks on the bottom side, if they are there, flip.
Grill for 6 minutes on the other side with the cover closed.
Use a meat thermometer to check the temp of the meat. Medium is around 140 Fahrenheit (60 Celsius). Using thermometers makes cooking a science!
Enjoy!
I left out any seasoning or marinating, because this is just how to COOK a steak, not flavor it.
Great step-by-step approach with some additional helpful tips.
It looks a lot like my recipe, but I have a little variant: set the grill to high instead and cook one side 2 minutes (time it), turn 90 degree (this is purely for having nice grill marks), cook 2 minutes again, flip and cook 2 other minutes. For a 1 inch steak, it will be medium rare/medium. Change the times accordingly for your tastes: 1.5/1.5/2 for rather rare.
@number 7. Cooking is science for hungry people.
I completely agree with your first point. Steaks should be room temperature when placed on the grill.
One thing restaurants commonly do that no one has mentioned yet is to grill the steak until it looks right on the outside, then stick it in the oven until it's "done". There's a good chance your grill is just too hot to get the steak perfect.
But this is usually done only to have the meat served at a right temperature, having the dishes prepared in advance. That way you can serve the tables faster and not have people waiting.
I wonder why no one mentioned this too. If you want to cook a thick medium steak this is your only option inside the kitchen. It turns out great without burning the outside of the steak.
Sous vide oven steaks are excellent! Drawback is the time and oven temperature accuracy. Keep your steak in the oven at about 60-65 C for medium or medium-well, but keep it from going above 70 C or it starts to become well-done, tough, or dry.
First, cooking on a very high heat is appropriate only if you want the meat browned on the outside but very rare ("almost totally raw", as the questioner puts it) on the inside. Since this is evidently not what the questioner wants, the first thing to do is to turn down the heat. This will take you a long way towards a great steak: salt both sides just before cooking, and fry on a medium heat in a pan with just a drop of oil. Time depends on thickness of the steak.
Second, as Ian Turner points out, turning frequently (once per minute is good) improves the evenness of cooking (and no, it does not dry out the meat). This is also mentioned in McGee's On Food and Cooking (p. 156), which everyone on this site should own. I find that to get good browning with this method you need a higher heat - and the turning means you don't get the burnt-on-the-outside-raw-on-the-inside problem.
Finally, always rest your meat - five minutes should do for a steak, 10 won't hurt in a warm environment. This evens out the internal temperature and hence evens out the "doneness".
You can test how well done it is either by cutting it open to see (the juice you lose is only local to the cut and won't affect the rest of the meat), or, after some experience, you can tell by touching and feeling how firm the meat it. It's worth practising this touch method.
+1 I had to learn all these tips the hard way (figuring them out myself). Great answer!
One approach I've taken from Heston Blumenthal is to keep turning the steak every 20 or 30 seconds. That way the heat travels into the steak a bit more evenly.
This is usually not a good idea as the meat will dry out.
@Alejandro: You are wrong: http://www.cookingissues.com/2009/11/13/mcgee-days-two-and-three-steak-fish-burgers-and-love/
His stated reason for doing this is to avoid the drying out. It seems to work although I have not done anything scientific.
So much differing advice - but I'll chip in with my combination (which contains much the same points as others)
1) Always allow the meat to warm to room temperature first
2) Always pat dry the meat (the same holds true for good roast meats too). This even applies if you've marinated the meat (a couple of hours lying in sliced garlic can be nice).
3) Optionally season with black pepper before grilling (season with salt after, if you want salt). I tend to lightly season each steak with a little oil and then grind over some pepper.
4) For a medium-well done steak
Griddle for 2 minutes each side on a cast-iron griddle at insane-o-clock heat, then transfer to a warm oven for another 6-8 minutes.
(Personally, like many people here, my preference is for a medium-rare steak / black'n'blue - griddling and then simply resting the steak wrapped in foil or under a lid should be enough cooking for medium-rare).
5) Rest for as long as you can stand not eating it.
To be honest, I think that the actual cooking technique can vary (you can leave the meat on a grill rather than transfering to oven, but with a griddle it's quite easy to overcook the outside - if you're sticking on the stovetop a flat pan may be better).
The two key points are warming the meat first, and letting it rest after (as heat will continue to transfer from the outside to the middle, it actually continues to cook while resting).
upvote for patting dry. I'm surprised none of the top voted comments don't have this. You will not get browning (flavor) on your meat if there's liquid on the outside.
1) Put in sous-vide cooker at 50°C. Wait at least the appropriate minimum time (depends on thickness), but no stress in waiting too long.
2) Sear in very hot pan or on barbecue
There is no step 3
Not many people who uses this equipment for cooking. A cooker that can hold 50C steadily is also quite expensive. The result will be fenomenal, but not realy an answer to "What is the basics of cooking a steak".
Indeed, my answer is a bit tongue in cheek. Still, the title of the question is "How to properly cook a steak", and that's the very best imho. There are cheap ways to cook sous-vide, btw: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2827/is-there-any-way-to-sous-vide-without-a-machine
Expensive? Perhaps if purchased commercially. Home-brew sous-vide rigs start at around $100US, most of which is for the computer-controlled temperature regulator. Of course, you'll also want a good vacuum sealer, which also start around $100US.
There is a step 3: eat!
50 C is considered "blue"! 68 is the proper temperature for medium-well done.
@Muz: 50 C is "rare". See http://www.seriouseats.com/2010/03/how-to-sous-vide-steak.html
Yeah, to be exact, rare is a temperature range roughly around 49-55 C. But a bit too close to blue IMO
I do it this way, I'm not sure it is the 'proper' way, but I'm sure they are usually better than what you describe:
Put the room temperature, already seasoned meat in the pan at a high temperature until the meat bleeds
Turn them over and lower the heat to mid temp
Wait until the other side bleeds
Eat
+1: This is pretty much my method, and I adore my steaks. Sear both sides to seal in the juices, turn down and cook to order.
Another method not mentioned here yet is the Alton Brown chimney starter method. Which is cooking the steak under a chimney starter for 1.5 minutes per side. See this foodnetwork.com page for more information. Of course this requires an outdoor cooking area, but could be useful when camping.
I have not tried the above method yet.
I use a propane barbeque and here are my steps:
1. only use the best fresh steak - not-frozen. My favourite cut is a rib-eye or a New-York strip.
2. salt steak at least 1 hour before use and place in fridge. I find 2-3 hours is better.
3. remove steak from fridge 30 minutes before use.
4. place on medium-heat grill for 3 minutes per side turning 3 times for a total of 12 minutes to get a medium steak. Note: each side is on the grill twice to get diamond markings.
5. rest on a cooling rack instead of a flat surface to not draw out as much of the juices (because of less surface area I assume). A quarter-size sheet pan with matching cooling rack is good for this.
If I'm not grilling on the charcoal grill, I basically do the rec above by Jeff Judge.
The other thing is that I always marinade the steaks before cooking. It can be as simple as salt, pepper and garlic. But can also include ingredients such as brown sugar, soy sauce, olive oil and a variety of spices.
On the charcoal grill what I do is this.
1. Prepare the coals so that all are evenly hot.
2. I move all the coals to one side of the grill.
3. The steaks start out on the "coal" side. Approximately 1 minute on each side of the steaks to sear.
4. I then move the steaks to the side with no coals below and close the cover on the grill. They stay here 4 - 8 minutes depending on the doneness desired.
5. Then they come off of the grill and rest for ~5 minutes.
6. Time to eat!
One last thing is to always use tongs and not a fork to handle the cooking steaks. You don't want to pierce them and let the tasty juices out.
Make sure to properly prep your steak. Trim it of exterior fat and pat it completely dry to provide a nice carmelized crust. Salt and pepper to taste.
One way of achieving perfect steaks that are cooked to your desired temperature without a grey layer between the outer crust and the inner pink (or red) meat is to use your oven. Preheat to 375 degrees F (~190 C). Place steaks on a wire rack over a glass baking dish and add to oven. Bake for 6-8 minutes. This heats the steaks through to avoid the ugly grey line.
Remove steaks. Turn on broiler to high and move racks so steaks will be 1 1/2 inches from broiler when re-inserted (for getting a good crust on them). Let steaks rest while broiler preheats for 10 minutes. Add steaks. Turn every 3 minutes until they reach desired done-ness, 6-16 minutes for medium-rare depending on steak thickness.
A good guide on thickness is: for 1" steaks, pre-bake 6 minutes and flip every 2 minutes. For 1½" steaks, pre-bake 8 minutes and flip every 3 minutes. For 2" steaks, pre-bake 10 minutes and flip every 4 minutes.
First, read the Food Lab articles on cooking steak. tldr: Most of what you know about cooking steak is probably wrong.
http://www.seriouseats.com/2011/03/the-food-lab-more-tips-for-perfect-steaks.html
Start with a decent cut. Typically, these will be cuts from the rib (Ribeye), short loin (Tenderloin, T-Bone, Porterhouse, Top Loin), and sirloin (Sirloin, Top Sirloin) parts of the steer. Whichever cut you go with should have a nice, even distribution of white fat throughout the muscle (called marbling).
http://bbq.about.com/cs/steaks/a/aa091397a.htm
Second, ALWAYS let your meat come to room temperature before doing anything to it. After coming to room temperature, salt and pepper it and let it stand at least 40 minutes before cooking, or cook it immediately.
Third, get a nice heavy pan and a high smoke point oil (like canola) and heat a thin layer of oil until it just starts to smoke. Don't let it smoke too long lest the oil break down and affect the flavor of your steak. Avoid butter as the milk solids will burn before achieving a high enough temperature.
Fourth, add your steak to the pan and flip every 15-30 seconds until desired doneness is reached. This is where most people get it wrong. Not flipping is an almost guaranteed recipe to unevenly cooked steak. The temperature in the pan will fluctuate no matter how high you have it cranked up, which undoubtedly means one side will be cooked differently than the other unless you flip enough to equalize any temperature differences in the pan.
Fifth, forget about any methods for testing doneness and get yourself a decent meat thermometer. Testing temperature is the only surefire way to making sure your steak is done to your liking.
Lastly, LET IT REST! From 5-15 minutes, depending on the thickness and cut. Not giving it time to rest is a surefire way to end up with dry steak.
Enjoy!
You want to accomplish two things: an interior of fifty two degrees C, and a seared exterior. As mentioned, cooking sous vide is the perfect solution: first cook it, take a flamethrower and mke the crust. No need to rest it either.
Without a sous vide you can use your oven set to low temp, and and a thermometer..remove when fifty two degrees and sear..this is the reverse searing method again.
Also, I think italian meat tends to be leaner than US meat...and that is the reason why most Italian recipes dont use thick cuts (ecept fiorentine of course) but thin cuts. They cook quickly and perfectly. But for a good steak you want marbled meat. The solution here is to use a more fatty, lesser cut, and dry-brine it for a couple of days in the fridge, uncovered. This makes even very cheap cuts tender and turn into good, nay, better steaks. because of the fat, the heat is better conducted, and you probably just have to use a hot pan.
After searing all sides, lower the heat, add some butter, and stay until medium rare.
Remove the meat, add a knife point of flour, and deglaze the pan with wine or stock or water for the sauce.
A guide to steaks sous vide:
http://www.seriouseats.com/2015/06/food-lab-complete-guide-to-sous-vide-steak.html
Brining and cooking steak
http://www.seriouseats.com/2015/05/food-lab-how-to-grill-steak-cuts-of-steak-marbling-salting-charcoal-technique-resting-tips.html
Please be sure to use units in answers! 52 c is vastly different than 52 f!
It is common practice to assume Celsius when no scale is given ( Fahrenheit is not much used world-wide). Also, in this case, 52 F would be the temperature in the fridge..but sure, no problem, i will put a C behind it.
Not here... Here, the common practice is to state your units, as many of the users are US based.
I'm not sure about this: "because of the fat, the heat is better conducted". Isn't fat an heat insulator?
Now, good point. I always learned that fat conducts easier than pure muscle, but I must say, I never questioned that, I could also be that fatty meat is less dense cell-wise.
The basics
I find that there are two keys to getting a grilled steak done perfectly:
Get it dry.
Get the temperature exact.
A lot of people recommend better quality cuts. They are right. The better the cut, the tastier it is. But it's not a definitive factor.
I've produced some awesome steaks daily, with the cheapest steaks, cheapest seasonings, and in a $20 frying pan. By awesome, I mean steaks that exceed the quality of many dedicated steakhouses using expensive cuts and thousand dollar grills (but I don't live in a steak country so steakhouses here aren't that good).
If the steak is wet, you'll end up steaming instead of grilling it. Less 'crunchiness' on the outside.
Cooking involves a lot of chemistry. I'm sure you're familiar with how water boils at 100 C and freezes at 0 C. Meats are like that too. Proteins in the meat change form after a certain temperature is reached, but stays that way no matter how much heat you put into it. So even if you leave a steak in the oven at 65 C for 24 hours, it won't burn. That's how sous-vide cooking works. If you want the detailed science, Amazing Ribs has a very concise yet informative article on this.
Past 70 C it becomes tough. Below 63 C, parasites can still live. (Yes, that includes anything below medium). Here's a guide to the temperatures on getting everything perfect.
Medium well is about 68 C. I personally prefer medium, at about 60-63 C. Apparently the American medium-rare is at 57 C. These are very narrow gradations in temperature - you can literally overcook your steak in a minute. That's why you get a thermometer. I make do with a really cheap analog latte thermometer. They're cheaper than grills and far more effective.
How to cook a perfect steak
Get some paper napkins and really dry it down until there's no moisture.
Dry brine your steak for about an hour before cooking. Wrote this up to explain dry brining. Basically just add salt and pepper and put it in the fridge.
Take it out of the fridge. Don't wash off your seasoning but keep it dry.
Put fat all over your steak. I recommend grapeseed oil because you can taste the 'true' flavor of your steak that way. Ghee is great too. Don't use butter because it burns too easily. Most vegetable oils work, experiment!
Set your grill/stove to medium-high.
Cook it on one side. Get the temperature up to about 55 C.
Flip it over. If possible, flip it over only once. Wait for temperature to get to 68 C. Bring to plate.
Eat it. Add BBQ sauce or whatever seasoning, but if you followed these steps right, the steak would have been so delicious that you wouldn't want to add anything on it.
More tips
Learn to sear the steak just right. The right sear should be brown on both sides (not grill mark black!). This takes quite a bit of skill and timing, and possibly more expensive equipment. Most people can only sear one side well, but that's ok.
Don't bother with grill or burn marks. They look nice but I've never tasted a great steak with grill marks.
Never cut a steak to see if it's done. Colors will change when exposed to air and the often poor lighting of smoke above a grill or frying pan. And you'll lose a lot of the juices while trying to cut it enough to see what it looks like inside.
Poke your thermometer on the thickest bit of steak. Or the part furthest away from the heat if you use a cheap pan/grill.
You can oven cook steak too, but I find that it's much more effort unless you're feeding a lot of people. Sear it before putting it into the oven, as many have recommended.
"Flip it over. If possible, flip it over only once. Wait for temperature to get to 68 C. Bring to plate." - that part is wrong. When your center has reached 68 degrees, the periphery is already at well over 100. When you take it off the pan, the heat from the outer portions of the steak will still travel to the center. You always have to take the meat off before it reaches the end temperature you want. How long before depends on thickness, it is between 1 and 3 degrees for steaks in my experience.
Also there is lots of debunking of the "flip it over only once" suggestion. Side to side comparisons tend to show that, the more frequent you turn, the better the end result. But this is a fine detail, you can get a good steak with both methods.
You're probably right, but just saying what's worked for me so far. I usually don't use non-stick pans when making steak, so sometimes the oil dries up on multiple flipping and the steak sticks to the pan. I've heard multiple flipping recommended on many grills.
Oh, there's also a bit of miscommunication here. The thinner the steak, the higher the fire should be and the less often you should turn it. If you're going for > 2 cm thick steaks, use a low fire and flip more often. I normally do roughly 1 cm steaks.
Many here have answered your question with a description of the whole cooking process. Thus, i feel it unnecessary to add another one.
I will focus instead on the sub-process of how to get an excellent crust on your steak. I learned this method when I listened to an interview with Tim Ferriss, author of The Four-Hour Body.
Before you sear, grill or cook your steak...
Pat it dry with a towel of some sort (paper, etc)
Place it on a plate, and place it in the freezer.
Let it sit in the feezer for 45 minutes.
Remove, and continue with your seasoning, searing and cooking procedure.
What this does is to remove all the surface moisture from the steak, allowing for a crustier crust!
I see the logic of this, but..you dont want to freeze it right? And you wont get it as nicely even as room temp meat, because the difference middle outer will be bigger (it is in fact, the opposite of sous-vide what you are doing). And does it really get that much dryer in the freezer that is worth the trouble and price in loss of quality? Pat it dry, air dry is pretty dry as well. did you compare?
The Alain Ducasse method is a great method for cooking steak on a stove-top. The idea is to cook the steak at a lower heat for a longer period of time.
Start with a 1.5 inch thick cut of beef such as rib-eye.
On medium, heat a thick stainless or cast-iron sauté or fry-pan.
Place steak standing up in the pan with the fat side down. Do not add oil or butter. Cook standing up until fat has rendered. This should take 5 to 10 minutes.
Place steak flat side down to cook in the rendered beef fat. Salt, and cook until brown for 10 minutes.
Flip steak over and salt remaining side. Add a few tablespoons of butter to the pan.
Continuously spoon butter over steak and cook for 10 minutes. Optionally adding a few sprigs of thyme on top of the steak and one or two crushed garlic cloves to the pan.
Rest steak for half as long as the cooking time, about 10-15 minutes.
Another thing that you should pay attention too is to not season the meat before cooking it, but after, right when you take it out of the pan, so the salt will melt on the meats juices. If you use salt before you start cooking it, the salt will tend to extract water from the meat and dry it out.
That is a myth that has been refuted sooo many times. Salting will NOT extract juices. In fact, salting say more than 2 hours before actually makes the meat better, 2 days is even better. You are right that salting 20 min before is not a good idea. Salting just before going into the pan is fine. Minus one.
The time and temperature vary on the thickness of the steak, but the key is to avoid continuously turning the steak as it dries it out and makes it tough.
For about an inch thick steak, I find that 3-4 minutes each side is enough for a nicely medium steak, but as I said, only ever turn once.
The turning thing is a myth: turning will not dry it out. It will cause the heat to penetrate the meat more evenly, and probably give a better result
Exactly.. Turning makes for more even cooking. A minus is in place, I think.
This is my go to method:
Lightly season your steaks on all sides with olive oil, coarse sea salt and black pepper and let stand at room temp at least 15 mins-20 mins
dry heat a heavy cast iron grill pan if you have one or use a regular pan over high heat
Open fan & windows (seriously)
in a regular pan: add steaks and cook 3 mins on 1st side then 3 To 4 mins on 2nd side - you may need to lower temp a little watch the steaks closely.
if using a griddled cast iron pan: 2 mins per side then flip them 180 degrees (to get a nice criss-cross pattern) and do 1 more min per side
let the steaks stand for 5 minutes, during which time you can prepare an anchovy rosemary 'butter': heat a small pan over medium with 1/4 cup olive oil and 8 anchovies and push them around a little until they mostly dissolve in the oil (about 4 mins) then add some finely ciseled rosemary for 30 secs or until fragrant. Spoon over your steaks.
seasoning meat either hours before or just before makes them tender. 20 min before is just the time you should NOT use. serious enough for a minus I think. I checked this myself, and absolutely true:
"Moral of the story: If you've got the time, salt your meat for at least 40 minutes and up to overnight before cooking. If you haven't got 40 minutes, it's better to season immediately before cooking. Cooking the steak anywhere between three and 40 minutes after salting is the worst way to do it."
http://www.seriouseats.com/2011/03/the-food-lab-more-tips-for-perfect-steaks.html
How long to cook a steak depends on the thickness as well as the type of cut. Tougher cuts need longer cooking time, and thicker cuts need longer cooking time and a cooler pan. I use an android app called BB Meat Master for reference on cuts and times.
One thing to check for is whether your steak is aged or not. Some countries (France, for example) do not allow beef to be aged, or it is harder to get. Steak that is not aged does not cook the same way, it gets dry if you cook it very long at all, which is why in France they never cook it beyond blue. Ask your butcher if the meat you get is aged, or if it is available.
Turn your heat down and leave it on the grill longer.
This is obvious. But this is not a good answer to the question "how to properly cook a steak". Which are the basics for cooking a steak? Should/could I use a pan? How to use oil or other fat? Should I left the meat outside the fridge before cooking? And so on...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.019319
| 2010-07-09T22:01:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/267",
"authors": [
"ADB",
"Agos",
"Alejandro Mezcua",
"Alex Holcombe",
"Binary Worrier",
"BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft",
"Brandice Smith",
"Catija",
"Colin Jones",
"Dave Griffith",
"David Tanner",
"Don",
"Doresoom",
"Eric Hu",
"Fathima Zaakiya",
"GalacticCowboy",
"Gregory Higley",
"Ian Turner",
"Italian Philosopher",
"Ivo Flipse",
"JYelton",
"Jason Freney",
"Jim Blake",
"John Stallworth",
"JoseK",
"Krazer",
"Kyle",
"Lawrence",
"Luca Bruzzone",
"Manoj",
"Marc Luxen",
"Marc-André Lafortune",
"Martin Dreher",
"Mitch Flax",
"Muz",
"Owen S.",
"Patricia Lamb",
"PaulS",
"Pauline Buckthorpe",
"Paweł Gościcki",
"Recep",
"Ritwik Bose",
"Ryan Anderson",
"Ryan Elkins",
"Shalmanese",
"Shog9",
"Stefan Egli",
"Tim Donohue",
"Todd Hunter",
"WaterMel",
"Wizard79",
"akira",
"bispymusic",
"capacitator51",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92",
"johnwards",
"kubi",
"lizette cancel",
"martiert",
"pacman",
"phant0m",
"puri",
"rumtscho",
"sdavis2k",
"syaz",
"tonylo",
"user17070",
"user8350"
],
"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
}
|
11390
|
Will using a knife sharpener reduce the lifetime of my knife?
In the long run, is it better to regularly use a knife honer instead of a knife sharpener once in a while to keep the edge sharp?
I didn't know there was a difference. +1.
You should use both. Knives have a very thin ragged edge (the burr) that is too small to see, which gets pushed over from use, and which makes the knife seem dull. A honing steel straightens this burr out. I use a honing steel before I cook every day.
Over time, the burr wears down, or can no longer be straightened. At this point, you will need to use the sharpener, which actually removes metal from the blade. One metaphor would be that if your knife was carpet, honing is like vacuuming, and sharpening is like steam cleaning.
+1, for truth, succinctness, and b/c that's a wonderfully elegant metaphor.
Nice analogy, for an illustration of dulled edge vs folded edge, I like Alton Brown's video on knife sharpening - link In my opinion, it's not worth buying a sharpening system, and spending the time to learn how to sharpen properly - in general I find it's a better use of time/money to take your knife roll to a pro once or twice a year (depending on how much you use them). But it can totally be a fun hobby, and if you wanna do it, you do you!
I worked with a 60+ year old chef who had been using the same knife since he started his apprenticeship at age 15 (no exaggeration). Over the decades he had worn away at least 1cm of blade width by sharpening and honing but it was still completely functional.
At the restaurant I work with now, one of my personal chef knife (8" Victorinox) is the same as two of the house knives... except the house knives are about 1/2" (1.5 cm) smaller.
Absolutely. A honer, or even better a sharpening steel removes a minuscule amount of material. Or knife will last a lifetime.
The honer only realigns the blade, it doesn't remove material and reestablish a true bevel.
Eventually, you'll use the honer and it won't do anything, thats when you use the sharpener.
Realize though, that the electric sharpeners often have a rough sharpening disk, and that will remove a lot of material. You want to use that sparingly.
Other than that, you can sharpen every few weeks and your knives should last years and years.
Ah, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say with the first three sentences (they seem contradictory). Can you edit this?
The heart of the matter is that you can
end up "thick behind the edge" if you overuse a sharpening device that imposes a fixed angle (that means anything guided). Since most blades become gradually thicker towards the spine, the width at the end of the primary bevel increases with each use - leading to a knife that is still sharp but does not cut harder foodstuffs fluidly any more. This can be repaired, but is nontrivial work (on whetstones, assume you will spend 1 to 2 hours. And you need to know what you are doing.).
lose blade height. There are many anecdotes around about some chef's filet knives having started out as chef knives.
There is another problem with some ill advised sharpening devices:
anything that uses powered sharpening wheels without a coolant (water) can easily overheat and permanently damage the metal.
I'm 72 been doing it a while. Buff shooting Skinning. Deer. Roos Cattle etc down to bunnies.
My main knives are Wustof Which I bought b4 coming to this country 40 yrs ago last month.
Three are still ok.
My favourite one. a 15cm Utility I've stoned\honed it down to the main body thickness of the blade.
STill does the drop Tomato trick easily. But. Time to retire.
I replaced with a nice little Damascus Japanese one. Standard handle.
What the heck. At my age..
Spoil myself...
So Moral of story.
YES. You will wear out even good\best quality. Eventually. But most won't live long enuff to see it.
Mine took not much less than 50 yrs to do so. and the primary ones still good for another ten at least.
Keep stropping. That's the secret of the extra edge. Strop, strop, the knife.
10 times a side Alternate for five minutes.on GOOD leather belt..NOT oiled.
Have fun
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.022533
| 2011-01-23T18:58:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11390",
"authors": [
"Billy",
"BobMcGee",
"Nat Bowman",
"Peteris",
"Roddy",
"SurDin",
"SurvMach",
"Thomas Junk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/88033",
"matus",
"mjmada",
"user23395"
],
"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
}
|
36609
|
Can I RE-freeze chicken soup after it has thawed?
Can I RE-freeze chicken soup after it has been thawed and heated?
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20978/never-ending-soup-is-it-actually-safe
Yes, you can, assuming that the total time the soup (which is very perishable) has spent in the danger zone (40 F to 140 F, 4 C to 60 C) is less than 2 hours for the entire lifetime of the soup and its ingredients, from raw, and through all of the cooking, heating and cooling cycles.
If you have boiled the soup after thawing it, any new pathogens will have been killed. The conservative recommendation above is because some pathogens leave behind toxins that are not destroyed by simple boiling. In practice, these recommendations may be extremely conservative, but you will have to assess your own risk tolerance.
Of course, the quality of the soup, especially if it has noodles or potatoes, may suffer during the heating and cooling cycles.
See: How do I know if food left at room temperature is still safe to eat?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.022931
| 2013-09-08T20:05:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36609",
"authors": [
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37164
|
Can you use brandy instead of rum in cake recipe
Can you use brandy instead of rum in a cake recipe
Substitution questions should provide a reason for the substitution and, preferably, the specific recipe (or an example of one) that it might be used in. See our guidelines. Providing details is far better than copy/pasting the title into the question.
FWIW, most spirits in baking recipes are interchangeable because they're only used for flavouring anyway, so it comes down to a question of whether you think brandy tastes similar enough to rum to qualify.
Almost certainly yes, but the flavors will be slightly different.
Brandy is likely to be slightly more acidic than rum, but otherwise quite similar in composition, and should perform in the same way.
If you want a more tailored answer, you should provide more information, such as the full recipe.
See also: Are there any general principles of ingredient substitutions?
Almost certainly, "No". Changing rum to brandy makes "Brandy Cake" (a quick search reveals several "Brandy Cake" recipes). In other words, it becomes something different entirely (can I replace Tuna for Beef in a steak?)
There is nothing wrong with Brandy Cake, but it isn't 'Rum Cake'.
From: Are there any general principles of ingredient substitutions?
If a dish is defined by a certain ingredient (such as the rum
in rum balls), then substituting for the signature ingredient really
isn't practical. You would be creating a new dish, or changing what
its core is.
the OP does not say that it is a 'Rum Cake' recipe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.023056
| 2013-09-28T00:06:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37164",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Galactic",
"Kat",
"Kevin Peter",
"Raúl Nuño",
"Sandra Adams DHS",
"SourDoh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87352",
"pagkly0"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37436
|
Increasing my pancake recipe..Are soda and salt in a different ratio than the other ingredients?
I need to increase my pancake recipe 4.5 times. I seem to remember that the salt and soda are increased at a smaller ratio than the rest of the ingredients. Is that true, and what is the correct ratio for salt and baking soda?
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/28216/67
In a pancake recipe, it is unlikely to be a practical concern.
The reason these ideas get started is because:
Small recipes have intentional rounding-off errors to make measurements simple (1/2 tsp for example, instead of .4321 teaspoons)
Scaling up may magnify error
In yeast raised doughs, where yeast grows exponentially over time, scaling yeast up linearly can have some complex feedbacks with proofing times and temperatures given how long it takes to work on a larger volume of dough. Because salt interacts with the yeast, it is also a crucial ingredient for scaling. That doesn't apply here.
Pancakes, in particular are very forgiving and flexible. They should scale linearly, in practice.
If you are exceptionally concerned, you can find a commercial recipe (often called a formula) which is expressed by weight and is much more accurate. These should scale quite effectively.
One issue you may have is how long it takes to cook the larger batch of pancakes, and that you will be losing leavening from the batter during that time. Unless you have four people working four griddles, you may be better off just making a large batch of dry pancake mix (everything except, typically, fat, eggs, water, and dairy depending). You can then mix in the liquids in smaller amounts as you go along, essentially continually creating fresh batter for yourself.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.023220
| 2013-10-08T17:46:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37436",
"authors": [
"C.j. Rock",
"Gourmand",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/88038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/88039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/88040",
"pete"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37597
|
What would cause maple syrup bottles to bulge?
This year a lot of our maple syrup bulged out the bottles and almost blew the tops off when loosened. There were particles found in the syrup. What is going on??
Even though the risk with canning/bottling maple syrup is supposed to be virtually nonexistent, it sounds like yours was somehow contaminated. I definitely would not use them as "bulging" cans or bottles are a prominent sign of botulism spores.
See the CDC's Home Canning and Botulism:
Home-canned food might be contaminated if:
The container is leaking, bulging, or swollen
The container looks damaged, cracked, or abnormal
The container spurts liquid or foam when opened
The food is discolored, moldy, or smells bad
That said, it's not necessarily botulism, that's just the worst-case scenario - but it definitely sounds like some sort of bacterial contamination which is usually due to either improper canning or improper storage. What you're seeing is the result of a pressure build-up, and the pressure has to be created by something, and that "something" is usually bacteria eating the food inside and producing gas.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.023380
| 2013-10-14T18:20:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37597",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44361
|
How do you make the green beans served at Din Tai Fung?
Does anyone know how to make these? I'm pretty sure they are just blanched and fried (w/garlic), but I can't seem to get it right.
I think the problem lies in that the beans are not water blanched, but rather oil blanched. The technique is called "dry frying", and is a traditional Sichuan cooking method. The oil temp is kept low to dry out the inside while cooking the outside of the food. After the dry frying you can then stir fry the food. This technique should give you the required look and texture to the food. Hope this helps.
At what temperature and for how long? Will the color stay as vivid as the pictures?
Dry frying is much lower temp than deep frying. I say around 220-225 degrees, which is higher than boiling water (212 degrees). You will have to experiment with time, but I would say try starting with about 5-8 minutes. Stir often to keep things heating evenly. Drain well, then you can just add it back into a empty hot wok and then start with the rest of the recipe. I think this will give you the texture and flavor you are looking for. In my experience, this technique gives you very dark green beans that are crispy outside (from stir frying in high heat) and dry inside from this method.
That makes sense as it is a Taiwanese chain. Anyways, I will try this post back times and temps when I get it right. Thank you both JG sd and Jolenealaska.
This picture is from a menu online. Does this look like what you are trying to make?
If so, I think you're right, they're just blanched and stir-fried with garlic. Be sure you're salting the blanching water, shock them in ice water and allow them to thoroughly drain. Mince a couple of cloves of garlic, stir-fry the garlic for several seconds in a small amount of hot, almost smoking neutral oil (peanut oil would be a good choice), add the beans and stir-fry until hot. Salt to taste. The picture doesn't look like it's anything more than that, but I haven't tried them. Are you picking up other flavors?
Yeah, I've tried that but it just doesn't have the same crunch. I just read somewhere that they might be frying (in place of blanching) then stir-frying- would that make sense?
If they are fried only, instead of blanched, I would expect to see some brownness and less vivid green. If you're not getting as much crunch as you want, I suspect that you are cooking them too long in the water. Bring a large pot of well salted water to a full boil, add the beans, stir for 30 seconds or even less. Drain and get them right into ice water. Is that close to what you have tried? Also, be sure that the stir-fry oil is very hot.
Yes, you have been very helpful, thank you. I'll try the quicker blanch this weekend. Here is the link I was talking about (with a picture) about 3/4 down the page: http://spencerhgray.com/2011/06/20/din-tai-fung-dumpling-paradise/
@justin The skin looks a bit more wrinkled in that picture than in mine but they still look too green to only be fried. In that picture they also look like they might be lightly glazed, perhaps with a small amount of honey or mirin. Do you taste any sweetness? Or sense any stickiness?
I too have been looking for the recipe for string beans from din tai fung and although I haven't found the exact recipe, I figured more than half the battle was getting the right texture for the beans. Alas, I came across this blog which most closely resembles what we're looking for: http://userealbutter.com/2011/06/20/chinese-dry-cooked-string-beans-recipe/
The technique described there is to first wash, trim and pat dry the beans. Then they are deep fried in oil, uncrowded, 3-4 min per batch.
I know this post has been inactive for a while but I was so happy I found it that I wanted to share, as I am sure there are others searching for the same thing!
Hello @Rebecca. Welcome to Seasoned Advice!
Hello Rebecca, and welcome. We are glad that you are sharing this example with us. But links do become inaccessible over time, and our users like to know a bit more about the content before going to the other site. So, our rule is that we summarize the content of articles we find elsewhere in our own answer, pointing out the most important insights from there. For a short guide on posting on our site, you can see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-answer.
They also use reduced chicken stock.
Could you elaborate? Do you mean the beans are blanced in reduced chicken stock? Or what do you mean?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.023515
| 2014-05-24T02:20:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44361",
"authors": [
"Brid Hayes",
"Cindy",
"Compassionate Caregivers spam",
"Erjol Beqo",
"JG sd",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lisa",
"Marjorie Hurshman",
"Mien",
"Renae Johnson",
"Roger-123",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"justin",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20577
|
What is the maximal thickness for choux pastry?
I recently made puff balls. I made pâte a choux, but instead of baking it as small spheres (profiteroles-like) or piping it for eclaires, I shaped it into 3 cm big balls and baked it. They puffed beautifully to more than double their original size, but the planes of dough inside remained rather moist, they were actually underbaked.
What thickness (pre-baking) can I use for choux pastry shapes so I can be sure that they will bake on the inside?
One reason why choux can sometimes appear underbaked is if it wasn't completely gelatinized in the pot. What was the texture like while you were... uh, molding it?
Technique for working with choux is important.
Sounds like you have the right oven temp to get that initial POOF! but sounds like the second stage is missing for working with larger shapes.
What we do in the bakery is start off at the high temp to get that steam expansion and slight crispness to the outside. We then turn the oven down about 50F-100F and continue to bake them so the dough cooks all the way through. At about the 3/4 point we'll sometimes quickly poke the bottoms to allow steam to escape easier.
Once you stuff the shells with your filling they get soft again so a really crispy shell isn't a big concern for us. It's about getting the right colour and the complete cooking in the middle. Also, if it doesn't quick work out you can do as another poster said, scoop out the under done dough.
Good luck!
This is not necessarily under baked.
What you made is a perfect creme puff. The dough in the middle is not raw- it has just been steamed from the inside instead of being dried and crisped the way the exterior was. There is usually very little such dough on the inside and the filling hides it.
Many creme puff recipes call for scooping out the soft dough from the middle before filling.
I don't know that there is any size that can guarantee that there will be no un-crisped dough left in the middle. Even medium-sized eclairs can have a few threads of dough inside that stay soft.
I'd add a caveat that this is only the consistency you want if you're filling it with pure whipped cream or chantilly cream; uncut pastry cream or custard will tend make for a soggy cream puff if the inside of the shell is still moist. Otherwise I'd agree, the bigger concern to me with this dense forming/baking method would be that they're not hollow and turn out like dinner rolls...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.024013
| 2012-01-18T19:00:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20577",
"authors": [
"1234567",
"Aaronut",
"Jacob Malachowski",
"Lekz Flores",
"eco_bach",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45229",
"user45185"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41749
|
Is 440° F too hot for an oven temperature?
I recently purchased a pre made casserole and the instructions stated that it should be placed in a 440* oven for 55 minutes. This seems like a very hot cooking temperature to me - am I mistaken?
Thanks.
Assuming the packaging means 440°F, no, that's not that insane. Casseroles are heavy, with a lot of liquid, so it takes a lot of heat to heat them up, especially if this is a frozen premade casserole. It is on the high side, so you might want to make sure it's not browning too much on the top (cover with foil to shield if necessary) or burning on the bottom. You can always reduce the heat partway through if you have to; it'll just take longer.
Except 440 is such an odd temperature to specify; most recipes in F would specify 450.
@SAJ14SAJ Yup, definitely, but it seems more likely that it's a typo of 450 than 350, so worth answering based on what's in the question. (And I doubt it's meant to be 440C/825F!)
I'd be worried to cook a frozen casserole at a temperature over 400...Seems likely the outside would get dry and unpleasant by the time the inside got hot. I'd be more likely to stick to 350/325.
@SAJ14SAJ, 440F is an odd temperature for a recipe developed in Fahrenheit, but it's a reasonably close conversion of 225C.
If it's a thin item like a shallow casserole, it could make sense especially if the ingredients are already cooked. Also, is it a convection oven?
I also suspect this is a typo of 350. Especially given that the casserole is frozen, there's a high likelihood of the outside burning while the inside is still cool at 450. At 350, it will all cook and warm nicely.
Broil Temps are up to 550F. If you have a Self Cleaning oven, the temps can go to 850F for that function. Any temp that exceeds 600F must have an automatic door lock to prevent you from opening the door and being burned.
Hop that helps.
Gary, while true how does this answer the question about a casserole? I strongly recommend that you take the [tour] and visit our [help] to get a better understanding of how this site works. That said, welcome to Seasoned Advice!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.024250
| 2014-02-03T23:32:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41749",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris P Tee Magician",
"Gacor MPO383 spam",
"Jennifer Towell-Makin",
"Lilly's Restoration spam",
"Mark",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Spammer",
"Stephie",
"adb16x",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98240",
"joker388 spam"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44893
|
What is the purpose of heating agar powder
Is agar powder heated so that it will form a gel when it is cooled? if not then what is the purpose of boiling it?
Wait, do you really have a recipe which requires you to heat agar powder? Or do you mean you have to heat the mixture of agar and liquid? The second makes sense, the first case not really.
@rumtscho: I think it's implied that it's the solution being heated; otherwise, the word "boiling" makes no sense (you can't boil a powder... not easily, anyway).
An agar gel sets as it cools, like almost every other thermoreversible gel - including those made from gelatin, carrageenan, and various types of gellan and pectin.
One of the properties of almost any gel is that the gelling agent needs to be dispersed and then dissolved in the solution, otherwise you'd never be able to mix it - you'd just instantly get a solid lump as soon as you tried to mix it in. The particles need to be very small and the molecules fairly far apart from each other in order to work their magic.
Most substances dissolve more easily at higher temperatures. You've probably seen this with sugar if you've ever tried to make a candy or syrup. You can saturate cold water and up with... well, sugar-water, but to get a syrup (or hard candy) you need it to be supersaturated - i.e. to have a higher concentration at some temperature than would normally be possible by just mixing at that temperature.
Here is a more detailed explanation. It's due to the second law of thermodynamics, and it's a little hard to explain in simple terms; but basically, higher concentration implies lower entropy at some given temperature, and you cannot lower the entropy of an isolated system. It needs to be able to transfer that entropy to another system, and in this case it does so by dissipating heat (and to dissipate heat, it must be given heat). It's really not the best explanation - if anyone with a stronger physics/chemistry background can summarize it better in one paragraph, feel free to make an edit.
Anyway, hydrocolloids like agar and gelatin have exactly the same issue. They'll disperse in cold water, but won't dissolve. To dissolve them, you need to heat the solution first. Agar just happens to be the most dramatic because it won't dissolve at all until you reach temperatures of about 90° C. Technically you don't actually need to boil it, but it's easier to just boil than it is to try to hold it slightly below boiling. Precision isn't necessary, as long as it's at or above the dissolution (AKA hydration) temperature.
Only once these agents are properly dissolved will they exhibit any gel-forming properties. So, you need to heat them past the dissolution temperature first.
...and why is cooling necessary?
@mylifeisalie: Obviously you would need to cool it below its melting point in order to make it a solid/gel - it's a phase change. Like almost every other liquid, it needs to crystallize, and in order to do that, the molecules need to be slowed down. If you're asking why it needs to be cooled so much relative to the melting point, that's a property called hysteresis. It's pretty specific to agar - other hydrocolloids like gelatin and carrageenan don't have it to a noticeable degree.
The way I read your linked explanation is that a supersaturated solution occurs when a saturated one is cooled. The reason that the solution stays supersaturated for a time is because the larger dissolved particles are agitated by the water molecules and can't immediately find the correct positioning to form solid crystals and precipitate out. (I don't yet offer this as an edit because I don't have a physics background, and I'm not sure if this natural-language explanation is entirely accurate.)
It depends on how you are using it. Most likely, as the other users suggest, you must heat it when combining with other ingredients so they bond together via the heat, and your recipe will set into a gel by chilling the mixture. For instance, if you are creating a silky gel topping - less firm (example: raspberry foam topped Prosecco), it is also best to use equipment that will do most of the work for you, such as a Cream Whipper/Siphon (iSi is top choice - best quality & durability).
In this case, the agar must be heated together with your raspberry/syrup mixture to allow all molecules to combine under heat, preventing separation.
Note: With Whippers, it's important to run any mixture except heavy cream -with or without liquid flavoring- through a fine chinois before pouring into the Whipper, because even a speck of cinnamon could get stuck in the whipper when dispensing and trust me, you don't want to see that :-)
The mixture must be allowed to chill for a few hours in order to properly set and create the texture of a silky gel - otherwise it will be too runny if dispensed before it's fully set. You can't rush the process, unfortunately, but I have found that chilling in an ice bath sets it quicker than in the fridge. I usually test after 2 hours to see if it has reached my desired consistency. If not, try another hour. Different flavors/ingredients respond differently, so there is no Universal "setting" time. Leaving the Whipper chilled for longer will not continue the solidification process any further than the amount of stabilizer you use. It can only over-solidify if your agar (or any other hydrocoilloid, ie: gelatin) ratio is off and you have used too much- I have ended up with many "jelly-like" textures for smoother, structured foams when my conversion of sheet gelatin to powder was off. (Many resources for sheet to powder ratio are available online)
Planning ahead and keeping in mind the amount of time it takes to set is crucial - especially for high volume/high demand scenarios such as an event or restaurant service, because you don't want to get stuck plating a dish that requires the gel/foam, when the mixture is not yet fully set.
Are you substituting agar for gelatin for Vegan purposes, or is this a recipe that specifically calls for agar? If substitution is the answer, there are many free online tools to assess the proper conversion amounts for gelatin substitutes, including agar and carrageen.
Test, experiment, and after a few times, it will become an innate.
I hope this helps. Great question!
+1 for the comment about straining before putting stuff in a whipper. it's a really, really bad thing : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/34657/67
Agar powder has particles with inter-agar hydrogen bonds.
Only by heating will water be insert in between. Once water forms hydrogen bonds with individual agar molecules, it is considered dissolved. However, it is still at a high temperature, where water molecules are relatively freely exchanged around the agar molecule.
Once cooled, water molecules bound to agar are not so freely movable, and that is solidification.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.024476
| 2014-06-15T04:02:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44893",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Insurance Center of Winchester",
"Jewel dandeker",
"Joe",
"Ralph Fiscus Jr.",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"logophobe",
"mylifeisalie",
"rumtscho",
"uwu spam bad boy uwu"
],
"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
}
|
44591
|
What can I do with a large amount of dried cilantro?
My husband came home from America and proudly Presented me with about 4 cups worth of dried cilantro he bought from pensey's spices. I do love pensey's, but I don't see how coming from pensey's can save this stuff from it's existential crisis. What do I do with 4 cups of dried cilantro?
Cat litter? Garden mulch?
Salsa? Or does it lose its magic when it dries? What am I missing here? (Maybe I should add that I'm not a very pro-cilantro person. It tastes a bit like eating aluminum to me.)
Please don't try to give questions clever titles - our goal is long-term searchability, not short-term attention. Separately, you can generally substitute any dry herb for its corresponding fresh variant, so this seems to apply to just about all cilantro - not that there aren't several recipes using dried cilantro specifically. I don't think this fits with our culinary-uses guidelines, but I'm open to ideas...
@PrestonFitzgerald For most of us that love cilantro, drying it simply ruins it. It's worse even than basil for that. The dried has none of the character of the fresh. Even Penzeys, which is a darn good brand, can't save dried cilantro.
@Aaronut the one thing I am positive you cannot do with dried cilantro is generally substitute it for fresh.
Try indian dishes...huge applications. Eg: Daal, Aloo methi, etc.
@WayfaringStranger : I agree 100%.
You can't dry flat-leaf parsley either. I have some, posh freeze-dried, still actually looks green not brown... it's rubbish.
Cilantro (or as the rest of the world calls it, coriander) is one of the most ridiculously applicable cooking herbs I have had the privilege of using.
That said, you are correct - when dried, it's application becomes far more limited (to a far greater extent than most other herbs and spices).
I have successfully used dried coriander in english stews, curries, pies, ice-cream, fried/breakfast egg seasoning, salads and coffee.
I have not successfully used it in stir-fries, any asian cooking, thai curries, or anything complicated or french, where fresh coriander does seem to work.
Take this with a grain of salt, but I think it has something to do with the way coriander breaks down in slow-cooked or oil-heavy dishes, so fast stuff or with coconut milk etc doesn't work so well with the dried herb.
In Caribbean cooking, you can use it in rice and beans dishes. Namely rice with red or black beans. Add while stewing the beans. If you're using canned cooked beans, add it just as you're starting the burner, so that the flavor has a chance to come out.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.024997
| 2014-06-01T19:05:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44591",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Dr. Sukhvinder Spam Saggu",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Melvin Finley spam",
"Minnow",
"Monstermushroom",
"Preston",
"Sarrbet",
"SutharMonil",
"Tetsujin",
"Valerie",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"ancharika patpak",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"materialindustri1"
],
"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
}
|
42302
|
How can I serve banana flambée for the next day?
How can I serve banana flambée the following day without it going bad. This is for a French Project about MArtinique.
Are you talking about Bananas Foster? Because that's not a French recipe, it's from Brennan's Restaurant in New Orleans (USA). And since the main idea of that recipe is the presentation (i.e. the flambé), I'm having a little trouble figuring out why you'd want to make it in advance... or do you want to prepare everything in advance except for that part?
@Aaronut I get a lot of hits on bananas flambee, independent of the well known bananas foster. It looks like there is a regional variant to Martenique, with lime juice an cinnamon. http://buenvivir.net/buen-vivir-recipes/martinique-rum-flambc3a9-bananas I have to admit, I was initially thinking Foster as well.
Short answer: you cannot reasonably make bananas flambee ahead.
While it would be conceivably possible to prepare your caramel and cook the bananas through the day before, you would then need to refrigerate them over night.
Reheating them would be tricky, and might even take more time than preparing them in the first place--and you would not want to serve them without reheating, as the dish would be gloppy and dissonant between the hot parts from the flambee, and the still cold parts.
This is a dish best served a la minute, that is, prepared at the moment of service. There is little prep work that can be done the day before that will save you significant time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.025248
| 2014-02-25T01:53:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42302",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"DanishChef",
"KhalfaniW",
"Nico",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98802"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1611
|
How can I add a strong orange flavor to my dishes?
I love the taste of oranges, and I'm looking for ways to introduce that flavor into some of my cooking.
I've tried adding orange juice and pieces of orange when frying or baking, but I find that these only add a hint of orange to the dish, and of course it is really easy to drown something in orange juice without adding much flavor.
Orange zest is where most of the oil is. This can be removed with a grater and some patience, or a peeler if you have a light touch, but the best way is a zester. They are fairly expensive and only do one thing, but they are the best tool for the job. Mircoplane makes a nice line, and I have no complains about mine.
You want to avoid scraping the white pith from under the colored part of the skin, as it is bitter and doesn't contain the flavor oils.
From the days before microplane, my mom would use the 'star' side of a box grater, and a light touch. You can also use a vegetable peeler, then take a knife and scrape the pith off, before chopping it up. (but you won't release as much of the oil as with a grater)
Zest freezes well. A jar prepared from the skins of 3 or four oranges, or limes, will last months in the freezer, without losing flavor.
Another option: confit the orange peel in a mix of vegetable oil and white wine, say for 30 minutes at 200F. This peel could then go in closer to the end of when your cooking as its going to be soft and more edible directly.
Orange oil. It also comes in lemon and lime - it's far more concentrated then extracts.
Triple Sec, Grand Marnier, or Blue Curaçao
Mmmm Grand Marnier :)
orange blossom flower liquid. You can get it at most middle eastern food stores
Some options would be: orange peel as a spice, orange juice concentrate, and orange extract (probably not in your local grocery store, but you can order it).
I recently picked up some orange flower water, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_flower_water, which works very well for adding orange flavour to desserts or fruit salads.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.025412
| 2010-07-18T02:54:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1611",
"authors": [
"Adam J. Forster",
"Computerish",
"Daniel Mošmondor",
"James Eichele",
"Joe",
"Scott",
"Tommy Andersen",
"Trip",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"eckes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8567",
"nickf",
"thing2k",
"viyyer"
],
"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
}
|
4772
|
Why do I need more time and liquid than my risotto recipe calls for?
Whenever I make a risotto, I always find that I need about 50% more liquid and 50% more cooking time than my recipe suggests. I recently made a Jamie Oliver risotto that called for 1 cup arborio, 2 cups chicken stock, and 20 minutes. I used more like 3 1/2 cups of stock and it took a good 30 minutes. My stock is heated in a separate sauce pan, and I add it a little at a time (although probably more than a ladle, maybe two?). I stir frequently but not constantly (probably once a minute). I consistently seem to have this issue regardless of the recipe source.
Am I do something wrong? Or is this a case of a recipe playing it on the safe side?
The different brands of arborio seem to have an effect as well.
20 minutes sounds on the short side for risotto anyway, maybe the recipe was overly optimistic
It’s worth noting that there is a wide range in quality of recipes. Professional cookbooks may use a ‘test kitchen’ to try their recipes with a variety of pan sizes, types of stoves (gas, electric, etc), different brands of ingredients or regionally available varieties of produce… your average food blogger likely determine what worked for them on their specific stove, at their normal temperature, humidity, and altitude. But the good news is that the salt and most flavorings are going to get transferred, so if you run out completely, you can switch to water
Have you tried adding more liquid at a time while cooking? If you add too little liquid at a time, it would very quickly evaporate without progressing the cooking of the rice. Maybe try 2-3 ladles of liquid at a time?
It doesn't sound like you're doing anything wrong. I've found risotto to be one of those recipes that can vary up to 50% (usually less) from what the author calls for and still turn out great. I've even used recipes that call for "2-4" cups of broth. You may be overcooking it though, the rice should be al dente. It's not uncommon for people to overcook this until you have a mushy risotto.
Mushy risotto. Yuck. I like mine to be al dente enough that I can reheat in the microwave and it's still edible.
I live at 7500' and have noticed it requires approx 50% more broth and time than the recipe on the back of the bag of arborio rice calls for.
This is due mainly to the fact that the boiling point is affected greatly by air pressure, so the higher above sea level you are, the lower the boiling point. For me it is around 198 degrees. Thats 14 degrees less than what the recipe is written for so you can see how it will take considerably longer to cook therefor requiring considerably more broth.
You can figure out the boiling point for your elevation using this chart:
I used to have this problem as well, until I started following the 'rules' a bit closer, and added my liquid in smaller batches with more stirring. Are you making it with small batches and continual stirring?
I updated the question, but yes. I do small batches and stir a lot. However, I probably do more than a ladle at a time and I do not stir constantly, just very frequently (every minute).
It could also have to do with the age of your rice -- older rice will take more liquid and more time to cook.
I find that I typically need about 3:1 ratio of liquid to arborio rice. There are other varieties of rice (carnaroli for example) that may need slightly different ratios, but the best thing to do is have a little more liquid than you will need and then just keep going until the rice is perfect and serve immediately.
Since most of the liquid loss is evaporation, maybe it's simply that you're cooking it a little hotter than the recipe writers do.
In my experience, risotto made using hot stock will require more liquid than risotto made with cold stock. Think about how quickly the stock is boiled off; it will boil off more quickly if it's already hot.
Every restaurant I've ever worked in uses a recipe based on cold stock. However, I have used hot stock before and it turned out fine. I just needed more stock in order for the Arborio to absorb the moisture it needed.
Maybe not more time but definitely more stock.
Rices tend to take longer to cook at higher altitudes and need a bit more liquid... It can be something as simple as the recipe was written from someone cooking at sea-level, and you are at a higher elevation. Just use the extra liquid and cook to the proper texture.
The whole point of a good risotto is to put as much flavor into the rice as possible. Don't worry about doing better than the recipe writers.
I find that if you stir more you need less liquid, but also you damage more grains, which is bad for the texture. Just take the time you need and you're better off.
The recipe I use calls for 4 cups of stock to 1 cup of rice, and I have liquid leftover if I do it right. So it might be the case that the ratio you are using is a bit tight.
My risotto is always tasty and has proper texture, so more broth doesn't seem to hurt things.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.025654
| 2010-08-10T13:30:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4772",
"authors": [
"Hitesh Patel",
"Joe",
"Lucas Haferman",
"Martin Samuel",
"Observer",
"Parker Hubley",
"Rake36",
"Rob Mosher",
"Sandy",
"TehShrike",
"Tom Wirt",
"dsummersl",
"hodale",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99597",
"karanchanana",
"kip",
"lejahmie",
"rumtscho",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11461
|
What should I look out for when cooking with truffles?
My birthday is coming up, and we saw some black truffles at Whole Foods, so we thought it was time to try cooking with this rather expensive ingredient. I've never cooked with truffles before, and it's $30 worth for a dinner. That's probably the single most expensive ingredient I've ever used in a recipe. So it's making me more than a little nervous.
How should I treat truffles while cooking with them? Are there any pitfalls to avoid?
Ok, first of all make sure you are getting French or Italian truffles, not Chinese or Oregon. Some people like the latter but they are quite a bit different. Black truffles do well cooked, while white truffles are usually only used shaved raw over a dish. When I use them, I like to use them in a situation where I will really be able to taste them. A few classic ideas are an omelette, risotto, or pasta with a cream sauce. Those all carry the flavor and aroma of truffles very well. Chop some of it very fine and put it in the dish and then slice the rest paper thin (with a mandoline if possible) over the finished food right before serving.
Truffles are a very delicate ingredient that can lend a rich, nuanced flavor. I have always used them with other delicate flavors to bring out the complexity. I only use preparations that have 1-3 strong 'front' flavors if a delicate ingredient is included.
I have used truffles to good effect in omelettes, cream sauces, and shaved on top of certain roasted meats or fish.
Also, since they are ephemeral, it is vital to finely slice (shave) or mince them. Large pieces will be tasty, but you get less 'bang' for your truffle buck this way.
In general, truffles don't do well with prolonged cooking. You lose the delicate fragrance associated with it.
White truffle is never cooked. Just garnish at the end - table side. Its fragrance is very delicate.
Usually you add it at the end , or shave it on top. You need to use a mandolin or truffle slicer, thick slices aren't as good as thin pieces.
In restaurants, we often preserve the truffle, or use scrap to make truffle butter. Then we use these by products as part of the cooking ingredients -e.g. as a truffle stock for risotto base, and the butter to finish the dish. Shaved truffle rounds out the dish. Thats how you get complexity and depth.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.026061
| 2011-01-25T16:49:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11461",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27346",
"snowballhg",
"timmyl",
"user23538",
"user27346"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5409
|
Why isn't my vinaigrette emulsifying properly?
I made a vinaigrette tonight. Normally, to make one, I put vinegar and oil in a mason jar and shake to mix. This usually seems to emulsify the mixture properly and it holds for a while. Tonight, I made one with 20% red wine vinegar, 20% champagne vinegar, 10% dry sherry, 50% Greek olive oil, and nothing else. I found that after shaking, it started to separate within about 30 seconds, being completely split again after about a minute. Why did this particular mixture not stay in a stable emulsified state?
How long is your normal "a while"?
I'm not sure. 10-15 minutes? Long enough to plate dinner, sit down, wait a minute, and then put it on a salad. This one had split by the time I had turned around.
As Michael mentioned, a shaken vinaigrette is only going to stay together primarily while you're shaking it. If it's been staying together long consider yourself lucky all the other times...this time was what should be "normal".
The more particulate such as herbs, mustard, spices, etc. that you have in a vinaigrette the quicker it will emulsify and the longer it will stay emulsified. The particles of spice and herbs act as physical barriers that help to interrupt the droplets of oil so that they aren't able to coalesce and come together as they can when you have just oil and vinegar/acid.
When doing vinaigrettes by hand using a whisk, start with your acid and add the salt along with anything else, leaving the oil last. Adding salt to the acid component will help it to better dissolve so you get a truer reading on the flavor. When it's added last as it's usually written in most recipes: "season to taste with salt and pepper", the salt usually hasn't dissolved by the time you taste it and you're much more likely to add too much, resulting in a dressing that's a bit saltier than you might like.
The manner in which you drizzle the oil and manner in which you whisk it when doing by hand, are also important factors. When whisking vinagirettes by hand, drizzle the oil form a higher level so that as it hits the bowl you have a finer stream that's easier to emulsify. Also, use a back and forth "zig-zag" motion rather than a circular whisking motion. The "zig-zag" motion will allow the wires of the whisk to better break up the oil into droplets and emulsify them with the acid. Using a circular motion creates a vortex in the center of the acid where the oil tends to pool, resulting in an oily vinaigrette.
The great part of using an immersion blender (aka stick or wand blender) is that EVERYTHING can go in at once. Use a container that's deeper than it is wide (such as 2 cup liquid measure) so that there's plenty of depth for the liquid. Garlic, shallots and herbs can even go in whole. The immersion blender will blend up your garlic, etc. and emulsify the oil with the vinegar. An immersion blender or a standard blender provide you with a the most stable vinaigrette.
Normally I use vinegar, salt, pepper, and mustard. Mix those, and the add oil and shake. This gets a nice emulsification. Was it just the lack of initial salt and mustard that caused the problem?
I would say so. I meant to ask if you are normally adding anything other than the oil and vinegar. In your usual method the pepper and mustard are assisting in emulsification. Salt is going to dissolve so doesn't count except for flavor.
I'm surprised you generally find that technique will produce emulsification that lasts any significant length of time. I've been know to use the jar & shake occasionally, but usually it only stays mixed for under a minute. Unless: you add mustard, like a teaspoon or so of Dijon mustard. Mustard is a powerful emulsifier and will help stabilize it.
To build a normal emulsion without any help from mustard or other emulsifiers, you must add the drops of oil a little at a time into the vinegar while whisking or whizzing with a blender or stick blender, allowing them to disperse. Otherwise the oil all bonds to itself and it won't get dispersed in the vinegar no matter what you do. Once you've got the emulsion fairly well started, you can add the oil a little faster.
I thought for sure this was the answer, but I added some mustard and it didn't help. Does the mustard need to be added to the vinegar first rather than the mixture?
Yes, it will help to have the mustard dispersed before adding the oil. The other thing you can do is start with just 10% of the oil and get the emulsion started, then add the rest.
The temperature is, as far as I understand, another important factor. Don't keep the oil and vinegar in a cold place, they mix more easily at room temperature. I can only agree with the mustard tip! Also, egg yolk(I've used it boiled and mashed) is an emulsifier that you could try adding.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.026375
| 2010-08-18T02:29:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5409",
"authors": [
"BDW",
"Cascabel",
"Darin Sehnert",
"Hollie Roberts",
"Ilmari Karonen",
"Michael Natkin",
"ND Geek",
"User1000547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50553",
"pgreen2",
"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
}
|
89320
|
Why would I ever use my oven's 'bake' setting when it also has a 'convection bake'?
Whenever I bake something I use the convection bake setting of my GE range because the fan is supposed to make for more even baking. The range also has a 'bake' setting. I'm just wondering why would I ever want to use 'bake', the setting without the fan and supposedly uneven heat? Interestingly, there is a 'convection roast' setting but no corresponding 'roast' setting!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.026764
| 2018-04-21T16:30:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89320",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17202
|
How can I dice vegetables on a small cutting board?
I have a fairly small cutting board - about 8.5" x 12.5" (22cm x 32cm), and I am finding it difficult to dice vegetables, especially the onions, without stuff going all over the place.
Is it my technique that's sloppy or should I just get a bigger cutting board?
What sort of problems are you having? If you're working in small batches (eg, cooking for one), you might be able to get away with that size, but I really prefer something at least 12"x18 if not larger. (but not so large that you can't easily store in, move it around, etc.) If the issue is counter space in a cramped kitchen, consider getting one that's large enough to span the sink, but you'll just have to find other place to clean it than the kitchen sink.
If you can't get a bigger cutting board, here are a couple pointers to getting the most done CLEANLY in a small space (mostly tricks from my kitchen manager):
Use a sharp knife. It's easier to control, and when you chop, pieces don't move as much. Hone it at least daily to keep the edge aligned.
Organize your work on the board. If you're right-handed, keep raw ingredients on the left side, and finished, cut product on the other.
Keep the spot you're using to cut clear. It may only be 4-6 square inches, but it shouldn't have anything to get in the way. I like to use the bottom middle of the board for cutting and the corners & top to organize stuff in various stages of cutting.
Remove trash (trimmings, ends, unusable vegetable scraps) from the board. Either keep a trashcan next to the counter, or use a bowl to collect garbage. This frees up space on your cutting board.
You can use additional bowls to store uncut material, and finished results. This frees up more cutting board area.
All of these tips help, but I'll tell you what my chef told me: the bigger your cutting board, the more room you have to work, and the faster you can go. As your knife skills improve, you will be able to work in a smaller space without problems. But first, start off with plenty of room. As you you gain experience, your cuts become more precise, you organize your space, and work faster and cleaner.
With this advice in mind, you should move to a larger cutting board. The extra space to work make it much easier to develop proper knife skills, because you're not trying to cramp yourself in. I suggest the largest board that you can comfortably fit in your sink for cleanup. With professional knife skills, I can handle prepping multiple items on an 8.5" x 9.5" cutting board; however, I find that my 11" x 14" board provides a lot more room to organize my work, and is more comfortable to use. At work, I use the biggest board I can fit on my station.
I disagree that your board is small. My go-to everyday boards are about 4"x8" - smaller than a standard piece of office paper folded in half. I use them to chop onions, carrots, cabbage, potatoes - even watermelon! Sure, they're small. But they fit easily in the dishwasher and the cupboard, and I have four of them so I can always grab a clean one.
My tips:
sharp knife. We all agree on this
prep bowl. Don't accumulate finished product on the board - there's no room for it
economy of movement. Don't knock down neat piles. Have a gesture repertory.
For example, when slicing a carrot I can do about 4-6" of carrot without moving the carrot. Then one hand pushes all the carrot slices up towards the empty end of the board while the other moves the carrot forward so I can start slicing again. If the pile of slices wants too much of the board, it goes into a prep bowl.
I don't feel cramped at all cutting up one potato at a time or one of anything at a time and putting them into a pot or a prep bowl as I go. I like that my cutting boards don't take over the universe when I am working. I do own a giant wooden one which is mostly for serving pizza on, and occasionally for bread, a medium oval wooden one that gets a ton of bread use, and a giant plastic one that ... well, if I recall correctly it mostly gets used by visitors who are more comfortable with large boards. To me the advantages of the small boards are all I notice. And I the meals I routinely cook serve 6-8 people.
It's certainly possible to work in a small space, but I don't think it should be encouraged for someone who has not developed their knife skills yet. It builds bad habits, such as paring where slicing is more appropriate, and not arranging pieces to use the full length of the knife. Some people also feel cramped and develop bad technique from a perceived lack of space. It's slower too, because you lose time moving items to/from a prep bowl. This is not an issue when you're prepping for only 6-8, but it really matters when you're in a professional setting and are cooking for 50.
I think the majority of people who cook for 6-8 are not rehearsing to cook for 50, where they will have someone to clean their cutting boards. I would rather a new cook have two small boards - use one for meat, another for veggies, and wash them both while the dinner cooks - than one large one they cross contaminate or that never goes in a dishwasher. Not to say that many large ones and a scullery staff isn't better still, but it's not an option for most people.
Man, I love the term gesture repertoir..and boards taking over your universe..I think just like that too, but didnt find the terms yet, Ballet in the kitchen... mind if I steal them?
It's probably mainly technique given that size, but you're working on the smallest board I'd consider suitable to the task without really cramping your style. So much of knife work is the skills and technique - but its also the knives. Dull, un-ergonomic knives really are a pain to use and the result is overall sloppy work.
All that said though - in cutting anything though, I always give myself as much space as I can. Stuff falling off board and such starts to become dangerous(in a food safety concern), unless you just have a sparkling sterile kitchen. If that's your biggest board, and you're cutting meat on it sometimes - I'd consider a bigger board for more reasons than an onion.
Use a very sharp knife and slow down.
A dull knife requires more pressure, and food (especially hard foods, like carrots) tends to break free and bounce around when you're cutting it up. A sharper knife will allow you to use more of a slicing motion, rather than exerting pressure, and food will stay put better.
Working slower will let you concentrate on using a slicing motion rather than trying to push through the food. It will also move the food around less, so you'll have less trouble knocking it off the board.
Also, keep a bowl nearby to transfer already-cut-up food into and get it out of your way.
How do you get to Carnegie Hall? Practice!.... To quickly improve your technique you may find a Mandoline Slicer helpful. With the julienne attachment you can get strips quickly, easily and consistently. Once you have the strips, dicing is easy and should be doable with a minimum of mess.
[The Mandoline slicer I provided a link to is a "typical model". From Amazon to Walmart you may find a variety of brands and models with an assortment of attachments and of varying quality. This is not an endorsement of a particular model.]
Three comments: one, a mandoline is generally only useful for fine slicing or julienne cuts, not dicing. Two, a mandoline (note the "e": a "mandolin" is a musical instrument) will facilitate some cuts, but will do nothing to improve technique. Three, if you're going to suggest a mandoline, the Benriner is one of the best inexpensive ones. They're quite popular with restaurants as well.
if you cross cut a collection of julienne slices you get "diced". Doing it this way yields more consistent results and in that respect better results = better technique. 2) I thought the 'e' was required but spell check said otherwise... I believed spell check at the time I typed it, I have since edit the spelling. 3) I was specifically trying to avoid brand endorsements.
Heh, spell check is a lying, dirty hussy when it comes to cooking terms. I've had to correct it a couple times. Personally, I don't tend to think of dicing as appropriate for a mandoline, but as you say, it can be done. I just use my knife skills.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.026840
| 2011-08-28T01:25:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17202",
"authors": [
"Ben0708",
"BobMcGee",
"Cos Callis",
"Fabian Blechschmidt",
"Heath Cadriel",
"Jack Box",
"Jan",
"Joe",
"Kate Gregory",
"Marc Luxen",
"Meysam",
"RHK Chesterton",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jbyrd",
"lynochka"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45878
|
Why commercial gummies do not melt?
I've noticed that commercial gummies do not melt, even when they are left in the sun, while home made gummies melt even at room temperatures sometimes.
What is the secret ingredient? Sugar?
This is worth a look: https://www.haribo.com/enUS/consumer-information/gummies/ingredients.html
Commercial gummies also get a coating of wax (beeswax and/or carnauba wax) to prevent them from sticking together. Perhaps that has something to do with it?
Gelatin is solid even at high-temps if you get it concentrated enough. My guess is it's the lack of water.
@john3103 I'm not sure that concentrated gelatin tastes quite as pleasant, though. :) I'm remembering the bottom of the Jello dish when I was younger.
I'm pretty sure that sugar can't be a secret ingredient of any kind of candy!
I've been making a lot of room temp gelatins lately; not gummybears, something else with a bit lower gelatin concentration. The secret ingredient seems to be time. The first day, things are pretty jiggly, but even when hermetically sealed, things get tougher and tougher over a course of about three to four days. I expect it's some colloid maturation process involving random chains finding their best fit over time. Don't quote me on that, but the same sort of thing commonly happens on a faster timescale with gluten maturation in bread dough.
A few hours in the fridge can speed up firming, but I'm not sure you end up with the same final gel structure that way.
You have to dry the gummies for 3 days. Start with so much gelatin that it's just slightly difficult to eye dropper into the mold, then back down from that. Let them harden overnight in fridge, spray coconut oil on hands and on back of gummies in the mold, then rub them with your hands as each one is removed, making sure they are coated with the oil, but very thinly. Dry them like that, individually set apart on parchment paper. Where I make mine, it's always 85F. At that temp, the 1 gram (1ml) gummy molds won't droop (much). Just blow on them with a little fan. Cold dry air from an airconditioner is slower, just use the room temp air.
Larger gummies will droop out of shape using this method, so dry them in the fridge. Takes 3 times longer, but gummies fully exposed in fridge can lose 2-3% moisture per day. In room with fan, as much as 10% moisture per day.
After drying the gummies until they are slightly firmer than Haribo, recoat with oil using your hands.
They'll spoil easily unless you add Potassium Sorbate. Get that at a beer brew supply shop, along with corn sugar which can be used 50/50 with regular sugar to help prevent crystalization.
Check web for amount of Potassium Sorbate to use, but it's very small. And considered so safe, it's ok to use on "organic" candies.
With proper sorbate, and sugar content above 55% by weight, you can stick them in a mason jar with some moldy (fully furry) gummy bears next to them, and they won't spoil even after a full week. Not sure beyond that, I ate the little guy to see if he picked up moldy taste. Nope.
I just checked the ingredients on one of the Vitafusion bottles I have and I believe the secret ingredient to "non-melting-gummies" is WAX. They use either beeswax or carnauba wax. Other than that they are pretty much like homemade gummies with the exception of using glucose and sucrose syrups which I don't believe would make a difference in whether they melted or not. So, I would make up a melted beeswax and dip each gummy in that. Unfortunately, you would not be able to polish them up in the big drums that they use so that might be an issue. Maybe color the wax with a natural food coloring.
If you want firmer Gummies cook to a higher temp and add modified cornstarch or cleargel after cooking alsobe sure to bloom your gelatin. I am a former Candy maker with 20 years experience. You can find cleargel on amazon or if you have a local gourmet store they may carry it.
I've been experimenting with gelatin alternatives to make vegan gummy bears, and in my research I've noticed the temp influenced changes for different ingredients:
gelatin (melting point): 95F / 35C
agar agar (starts to lose firmness): 149F / 65C
agar agar (melting point): 185F / 85C
konjac (melting point): 217F / 103C
I have also read that too much water in the mix can cause it to "bleed". You can get reduced water in the heating method, which means your final "goop" that you pour into molds should be high in viscosity to reduce this bleeding effect on a hot day. But then usually that means the sugar concentration will be much higher, so some people use maltodextrin (a glucose) as a portion of your sugar content as it is less sweet than sugar.
Agar is also quite interesting with its huge melting point hysteresis...
The "secret" component of commercial gummies is gelatin and if we take a look here especially the Production section where it says commercial gelatin is comprised of animal products such as animal bones, bovine hides, and pig skin. And from our knowledge of basic chemistry we know that bones, skin, and hides don't readily melt in room temperature or when they are kept under the sun. At the same time there are gelatin that are made for vegetarians and instead of animal parts they use a plant called Konjac which doesn't readily melt either.
Did I say anything incorrect ?
I'm not the downvoter, but I haven't seen any home recipe which makes "gummies" with anything else than gelatin or maybe a vegetarian substitute like agar. So presumably, it's not the gelatin by itself which makes the difference. But I admit that the question doesn't really provide enough information for a good answer and maybe the OP has some very unusual recipe which doesn't have gelatin (I wonder what it could use instead).
And from our knowledge of basic chemistry we know that bones, skin, and hides don't readily melt in room temperature or when they are kept under the sun. This is specious reasoning.
I don't know what the secret ingredient is, but I can guess, based on ingredient lists I've seen. My guess is corn syrup that has been heated to make it thicken, perhaps combined with gelatin or something to make it return to its shape after pressing on it. I could be wrong.
I've been making gummies for a few years now. My biggest hurdle was drying them fast enough to package. My recipe uses gelatin, pectin, sugar, corn syrup, citric acid and flavor. In my experience the gelatin, which is a large amount compared to other ingredients, can't be heated over 212°F, or it will lose it's gelling capabilities. My gummies are completely shelf stable, and do not mold or melt under any conditions.
That being said I ran into an issue with them being sticky, thus looking very unattractive once pulled apart from each other. Anyways, having read that Haribo uses starch to mold their candies, I tried using it as a coating at different stages of production, molding and drying and have found the best way to have unsticky gummies, no matter what.
I found that more than a light dusting in the molds before pouring, was not beneficial, and unnecessary as it made them look "lumpy" in appearance.
I tried dusting them after drying demolded in front of a fan for a few days, and found that not enough starch would "stick" rendering the starch completely useless and the gummies still stuck together due to moisture in the air.
What I found was there is a small window of time in which the starch, lightly dusted and immediately brushed off well, will leave enough of a coating on them that they will not stick together or look powdery. And I found that to be somewhere between 20-24 hrs after they are poured into silicone molds, and ready to be pulled out. I dust them completely, brush all excess starch off immediately, and allow to dry more under a fan for another 24 hrs. At that time I can place them into Mylar or plastic baggies, and they become even less dusty looking the longer they stay sealed, however never sticking together and completely shelf stable even 6 months later.
I did venture once to try a citric acid and sugar coating, and failed miserably.
I hope this helps. I don't know why it works, but maybe a commenter or a different answer might explain why.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.027492
| 2014-07-25T18:45:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45878",
"authors": [
"Brōtsyorfuzthrāx",
"Dan Woods Hole",
"David Erickson",
"David Richerby",
"John Reese",
"Jolenealaska",
"Marti",
"Monica Apologists Get Out",
"Outdoor Options spam",
"Polly Sterkel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66523",
"jeanette hockensmith",
"john3103",
"kskhoo",
"lary Michael",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"samuel Martens"
],
"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
}
|
22369
|
How to recognize when American style chewy cookies are done?
I made chewy chocolate chip cookies. The recipe gave baking time suggestions, but noted
check your cookies before they’re done; depending on your scoop size,
your baking time will vary
and suggested to bake them "until the edges are lightly toasted". However, I used dark brown sugar, so my dough was much darker than in the pictures, it was an ochre shade. I didn't notice any changes in color, and I don't think I could in the dark dough, but my second sheet got rather hard after cooling, I suspect I overbaked them.
How can I notice the right moment to take cookies out of the oven?
Most cookie recipes (including the Nestle Tollhouse recipe) call for 9 - 11 minutes at 375 ° F (for a 3-bite sized cookie). Within this range, finding the exact time (and temperature) for your preferred done-ness and with your equipment can be a fussy business.
One of the best indicators is the darkening color at the outer edge of the cookie, as shown in the last picture in your recipe. (For what it's worth, substituting dark brown sugar for brown sugar may make a significant difference in the outcome of the cookie.)
You can also gently poke the edge of a cookie to test it. (Only do this if your fingers are used to enough kitchen abuse to be OK with poking hot cookies and gooey melty chocolate.) The edge of the cookie should be a little crispy and have a texture when done. When un-done, it will be liquid and gooey, like the middle of the cookie.
If no other methods prove useful, I fall back to the "test cookie" method, where I bake one cookie at at time at different intervals of time (30 seconds), wait until they cool, and then re-use the time from the best resulting cookie. (Same for dialing the best temperature.) Go with a slightly overdone cookie for a tie breaker; when baking your batches of cookies, the extra mass will take a little longer to bake to the same done-ness. Yes, this is a tedious and fussy procedure, but once you've got this figured out, you can replicate it ever time. And, as with all baking, practice makes perfect.
You say that finding the exact temperature is fussy. Can you tell me the correct temperature for the inside of a done cookie? I am willing to stick a roast thermometer into one of them, to control for doneness. Or did you mean the best oven temperature setting?
I meant oven temperature. I know of no standard correct inside cookie temperature. I think that this is largely because it'd be really difficult to find the middle of a small cookie. Also because anywhere between the range of "burnt" (black and tasting of charcoal) and "underdone" (it's still batter on the inside) is a matter of baker's choice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.028449
| 2012-03-18T15:59:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22369",
"authors": [
"Big McLargeHuge",
"Gabriel",
"Janie",
"KatieK",
"Nathaniel Johnson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50305",
"ogmios",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
51975
|
I accidentally boiled away most of my soup, what can I do to recover it?
I wanted to reheat my chicken tortilla soup and walked away and forgot about it. When I went back to the stove very little liquid was left in the pot, it was practically all boiled away.
I used a Mexican tortilla soup stock by Swanson. Other ingredients in this recipe are black beans, corn, diced tomatoes, onions, jalapenos and tomato paste, plus the chicken. This is the only Mexican recipe that I make.
What should I do?
What would happen if I poured in 3 cans of water for example? What would happen to the flavor of the soup?
If I add preheated water will the water dilute the flavor?
Do I just put in 1 cup/can or can I put in 3 cups/cans of water?
Reheating it all over again to get the flavour into the water will overcook everything else to mush. You should start again, and eat the failed leftovers as burritos or enchiladas as you suggested.
Seems like you've lost your account - normally, you should be able to edit and comment on your own question regardless of reputation points, but since you're unregistered and probably changed computers or closed your browser, you've accidentally created a different unregistered/temporary account. Consider registering a permanent account and then contacting the team for an account merge, to get the edit/comment functionality back.
You're lucky that you didn't boil it away completely ... then you end up burning things and have a pot that's a pain to clean.
If you add preheated water, you don't need to reheat the soup--just mix in and enjoy! Depending on how strong it is, you could also just eat it as-is--IMHO the best soups always reduce the stock anyway.
I'm with James - a few cups of hot water will do fine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.028834
| 2014-12-26T04:01:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51975",
"authors": [
"A1 Chimney - Chicago",
"Bob",
"Cricket g",
"Erin Devaney",
"Flat Roofing Installation Ltd",
"Joe",
"Lindsay Hall",
"Luxury Sprinter",
"Ming",
"Yusuf Imron",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jackson hall",
"w anderson",
"Διονύσιος Παλλαδινός"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
52045
|
How should glasses/cups be oriented in storage?
I believe that it's better to store glasses/cups right-side-up in the cupboard, but at work everyone stores them upside-down.
Which is safer/more sanitary?
Do you work at a restaurant?
If the glasses are at all damp, it may make sense to store them up-side-down. In bars and restaurants, you often see plastic mesh like this:
That webbing lines trays, shelves and the area beside the sink for drying dishes. The mesh keeps the dishes or glasses, which may still be damp, from actually touching the surface they're sitting on. In the case of glasses, it also keeps the glasses from forming a seal to the surface beneath. That mesh often gets cleaned, as does the surface under them. In that case, it makes sense to store glasses up-side-down.
Do you have mesh lining your cabinet? Are the cabinet shelves wiped down regularly?
If not, it is far more sanitary to store your glasses right-side-up, and to be sure that they are dry before they are put away.
Even if they don't have mesh, there's textured shelf liner that you can get that's sufficient to break up the seal (and help contain spills). I don't store glasses upright, even in closed cabinets, because of my time living in an apartment with the occassional insect problem. (and this is the time of the year when mice try to find their way in as we approach freezing)
Bars and restaurants store glasses upside down to keep them clean from splashes of drink/food while in racks in the busy production areas. There is little chance of trapped moisture causing mould etc. as most glasses are used every day. It is more awkward to turn glasses over as they are served, but saves having to cover them all the time
This is generally not a problem in a domestic environment, and glasses should be stored in normal position to ensure they do not retain any trapped moisture and therefore grow mould etc.
Don't know that I agree with the "more awkward" part. It's one very smooth motion, which to me feels more natural than not turning them - but maybe that's just my long habits.
Where did this urban myth start? Storing a cup upside down has few real advantages. The usual story is that it prevents cockroaches from crawling all over the cups. If this is the problem, then why don't people store their plates and bowls upside down, which roaches etc would definitely crawl over.
I might be wrong, but, my experience is that roaches that fall into a cup, stay there. Evidenced by the poor woman who discovered an upturned roach in the bottom of her parfait glass under the trifle, at a wedding reception where I was working. The trifle was brilliant up to that point. I'll never forget the muffled squealing! Sorry. I do store glasses or mugs upside down, sometimes, if the base is small and the rim large, to avoid them toppling over. Storing cups, glasses, mugs upside down:
Pros
May save some airborne dust, but, in a cupboard and used regularly, dust rarely has time to accumulate. I swill out my cups with left over boiling water (in the case of tea) anyway.
Would stop roaches etc from entering the cup but, negated by the fact that the rim is definitely exposed to a dirty surface.
Prevents cups toppling if base is significantly smaller than the rim. Incidentally, if none of this matters to you, cups/mugs stored alternatively, in both orientations, may allow for more efficient storage. This allows people the option of both preferences.
Cons
Rim of cup exposed to dirty, unhygienic dirt and cockroach surface, rarely cleaned.
Traps remnant moisture possibly allowing the dirty cupboard surface particles to stick to the rim of the cup much like the salt on a margarita glass.
+1 for the image of dirt sticking like salt on a margarita glass.
Some people don't want to put the part of the glass your mouth touches on the possibly dirty cupboard bottom. Let's assume that the insides of your cupboards are clean enough (you have no mice, rodents etc) that this is not an issue. Further, let's assume that you have cupboard doors and the aforementioned lack of vermin, so worrying about dust and pests getting into an upturned glass is not an issue.
What does that leave you, if cleanliness is not a problem? I stack many (but not all) of my cups and glasses. Grabbing the top one from an upside-down stack is easy - you have the whole cup surface to grab. Grabbing the top one from a right-side up stack is hard - you have to grab just the little bit that sticks out the top. Therefore all stackable cups go in upside down. For the sake of consistency, so do the others.
If you ever spent time in a hospital setting, you would have been instructed to place cups/glassware right-side up in cupboards to prevent contamination from germs. It makes sense. You put your lips against the rim, but never ever lick the bottom of a cup or glass.
I get the stated question is more sanitary
Consider what is easier. A lot of people do what is easy. They come out of the dishwasher up side down.
I worked a dishwasher in a restaurant and I could pull 4 out of the rack at a time and put them on the shelf. If I had to grab them one at a time and flip them it would take 4 times as long.
If you are stacking them and bringing them out in a stack the stack is more stable. Can pull them off the stack more easily up side down. If they bind and have to wiggle it is easier up side down.
rim side down. i was raised in a household where my parents were depression era kids. they got in the habit of putting glassware rim side down to avoid the glasses filling with dust from the dustbowl clouds that blew through on a regular basis. it just stuck over the generations and became how you do things in our house.
Logically, I would choose to store them upside-down, both to 1) Maintain a cleaner/more sterile glass interior, and 2) having slightly hard water, to avoid a cloudy spot drying in the bottom of the glass (if they are stored before being fully dry). That being said, I still tend to store them right side-up for aesthetic reasons.
Answer: Rim side up, unless you frequently clean and thoroughly sanitize your cupboard, or you live in a dust bowl.
Period.
Less contact with non-airborne germs. And, realistically, how many airborne germs are roaming any given cupboard? Not many.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.029062
| 2014-12-28T17:09:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/52045",
"authors": [
"Carol Jean Stephens",
"Carolyn Blakeney",
"Connie Berry",
"Connie Crandall",
"Dolores Briones",
"Don Cardegena",
"Estelle Hughes",
"Joe",
"Joe M",
"John Walker",
"Jonna Davenport",
"Lis Hebfile",
"Lorel C.",
"Stephen Eure",
"Suzy Rascan",
"The Vap",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13218
|
Which containers should I use for souffles?
I want to make some individual zabaglione & fruit souffles, but don't have ramekins. Also, I don't have much experience with souffles (but I have made them some times).
I have at my disposal:
10 cm tartalette forms, nonstick, made from some very thin sheet metal, probably steel
6 cm silicone muffin cups
6 cm muffin pan paper liners. I have made muffins in them, stacked in twos on a rack. The muffins flow much wider than when contained in a pan, but are still not too flat.
plain porcelain tea cups
Which alternative will work best, and why?
Out of each of these I would say the tea cups although I really think you would be better to purchase/borrow a souffle dish. The souffle needs to rise and a vertical makes this far easier.
I wouldn't use anything metal is it may get too hot too quickly and overcook the outside of the souffle.
Something else you might want to try is to use a casserole dish but make sides from heavy duty aluminium foil (about 6 inches high should do) or use a deep baking tin.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.029591
| 2011-03-16T22:49:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13218",
"authors": [
"E.M. Connor Durflinger",
"Ravindranath Akila",
"Sue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27413"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16830
|
What is the ratio for soft polenta?
I want to cook a soft polenta. I would like the consistency to be like pudding - just firm enough to hold a shape (it doesn't flow out of the spoon if you take a heaped spoonful), but not firm enough to be cut into pieces. My ingredients will be cornmeal (not cornflour; it seems to be ~600 µm grain size), milk and olive oil. I am looking for the correct ratio by weight to achieve this consistency.
If you don't have a ratio for this case, but know a ratio for a similar polenta (e.g. cornmeal + stock) which gives this consistency, I'd be glad to know this one too, I think I can get the tweaking right by myself.
Yes, it depends on brand, humidity, etc. My local variety is 1:4 to 1:4.5 (polenta:water) to get to that softness level
Add nothing else until you have the polenta at the desired consistency and softness
I made it with 1:5 (polenta:milk) because of the ~10% dry matter in milk. The consistency was great. For the record, I also added 0.25 parts olive oil after the polenta was cooked.
For better authenticity (I know you are not asking for that, but still...) you might want to replace the olive oil with butter, or some other tasty animal fat. The polenta areas in Italy are mostly (*) not olive oil areas, and I can imagine that the olive oil, if it is a good one, would add a marked taste of its own. 1:4 sounds good, remember that polenta becomes stiffer as it cools down, so don't be dismayed if it just looks like yellow soup in the pot.
(*) exception: the Garda lake. Polenta and olives.
Where I live (Lombardy) we don't generally add butter to polenta, which is just made with water and cornmeal. If the polenta is getting too hard, we add olive oil, not butter, to make it softer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.029710
| 2011-08-12T08:35:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16830",
"authors": [
"Debi Smith",
"Nancy",
"Nanhydrin",
"Prue Gibbons",
"avpaderno",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"olier",
"rebuspop",
"rumtscho",
"twalters"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75844
|
Using applesauce to sub for butter in biscuits
I know that the general rule is that you can use half the amount of butter or oil a recipe calls for and replace the other half with applesauce. My question is, can you do this for baked goods that are very butter dependent, such as biscuits? By biscuits I mean American Southern-style biscuits, which are mainly flour, butter, and some type of riser. I was just going to try it and see what happened, but I figured I'd ask the experts before wasting ingredients.
Last I checked, this "general rule" only applies to cakes/quickbreads.
What do you mean by "biscuits"? There are different types even within the same area, and the word means totally different things between British and American English. Best post a recipe.
Added clarification. I mean typical American South biscuits.
As noted by @Catija, this is not a general rule for baking. It only applies to certain things. I don't see it as an option for 'American South' biscuits due to the sugar content.
You could substitute some lard or shortening and get nice biscuits, but with applesauce it would be totally different
Adding butter to biscuits or bread is what allows for that flakiness in the crust and that creamy texture in the bread itself. Lard would give you the same effect -- it's pretty much the saturated fat that makes the biscuit taste so great. Substituting applesauce for the butter won't give you the same results. It will be edible, but it will be more like a quickbread or cake than the biscuits you were hoping for.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.029881
| 2016-11-24T20:26:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75844",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Cindy",
"Jason B.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49678",
"pocketlizard",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91167
|
What food can contain a hot drink?
Tempered chocolate, thickened caramel, even ice can all be used to produce a container (aka cup, mug, glass) for a liquid which, after drinking, can then also be consumed.
Is there an edible material which can be used to create a container for a hot drink? eg: Hot chocolate or coffee?
The other requirement is that this needs to be fairly straightforward to make at home; I'm aware of an espresso cup available in Italy, but this is using industrial techniques by professionals.
I have wondered about using brandy snap, but have only just learned how to make them, so have not had time to experiment.
I wouldn't fancy picking up a brandy snap full of hot drink -- it would probably soften with the heat
Any brandy snap I've ever met was full of holes!
Well, I wondered about it - not saying it's a good idea.
Any container can be consumed if you're brave enough.
Bread bowls are frequently used to serve thick soups, so they could probably hold coffee or hot chocolate. Here is a patent application for an edible cup. It might give you some ideas. See also, this project, where an industrial designer is attempting to replace disposable containers with edible ones. Probably critical is how hot your liquid will be, and how long you want it to be contained.
Dense, hard bread was used as plates, historically - trenchers - even for foods that can be generously sauced. Some of the liquid might soak in, but the structure should remain sound.
I would imagine a dense cracker, like hardtack, could be shaped into a cup and baked hard, and then used without leaking. A fluffy/airy cracker would sog up pretty quickly, and in a richer dough fats might lift out with heat (and leave openings for liquid), but a simple flour-and-water dough could probably be made sturdy enough to hold liquid without dissolving for some time. Maybe like salt dough ornaments, only without enough salt to be inedible? Perhaps sugar instead? or edible play-dough recipes, may become sturdy after baking? Should work for "sturdy", anyway.
It would be tricky to balance sturdiness with palatability, though, as a generously sturdy cup would tend to be both tough and tasteless (and dry), a thinner one my be less sturdy, and one that can soften or gain flavorings from the liquid would have to be carefully timed not to soak too quickly.
You might manage something with an unleavened sweet cracker, or a very hard/crunchy cookie, rolled out on the thinner side so it can be comfortably bitten into once the liquid is drunk. Perhaps spices can give it flavor, as too much sugar will disrupt the cracker's consistency as it dissolves. It may be helpful to dry before baking, as is done with clay, to prevent cracking or the formation of air pockets... since docking will be counterproductive. Or perhaps baked twice, to draw off extra moisture.
Perhaps, combining some of your ideas, a flatbread dough baked pressed into a bowl, lining it, then toasted
Hardtack would definitely work in the sense that it's edible and can easily retain liquids. I recently came back from a yachting trip where we used it as an ingredient for soup. We smashed the things to little pieces and boiled them in the soup for an hour or so, and even after that, they were quite hard and crunchy. The things are very dense and extremely hard when dry.
Someone already asked and here a while back, and most of the answer revolve around using a "gel" coating like agar-agar on edible stuff like waffles.
The thing is that liquid and hot liquid will dissolve a lot of food stuff, either fat, sugar, salt, or baked things like waffles, cookies, snaps of all kind.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.030050
| 2018-07-20T11:59:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91167",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"JohnEye",
"Matt W",
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9475"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84618
|
Proper Slow Cooker Usage
I am wondering if you are supposed to put water in all slow cookers? I saw my roommate put water underneath the ceramic insert and would like to know if that is the proper procedure? I have never owned a new one and my ceramic inserts tend to break often, would like to know if that is why?
I always make sure there is liquid in the cooking portion of the crock, so I'm at least doing that right. But would you have any insights into why the ceramic inserts break on me so often. I keep them clean and store them in the cupboard(no 'off-label usage), but they keep on breaking....am I just getting my hands on cheap cookers? or is there a trick or something that will help extend the life I get out of them?
I've never seen a slow cooker that needed water added, in fact most manuals would warn you against it, however it may depend on the brand. What's the brand and model?
The brand is a Bella- the model number is 1320-F. So you are saying that generally slow cookers do not require water in this manner? I'm sorry I am rather inexperienced with slow cookers.
Ive never seen one that does @NavajoDreamchild
No, you should not add water outside the ceramic pot. It is not required for proper cooking, and while the slow cooker I’ve seen all have that area watertight, doing so may cause water to splash onto the control knob.
I'm not sure they're really watertight, even if protected against the odd accidental splash. Not just the manual but the outer container warns against putting water outside the cooking pot in mine (and, as I recall, my previous 2 as well)
Ceramic can crack if it gets a sudden temperature shock. So if you’re using it to store a prepped food in the fridge, and put it straight into the metal exterior of the slow cooker, the sudden heating may crack it, although you may not notice at the time. It’s a good idea to let it come to room temperature first.
I wouldn’t put really boiling hot liquid into it either, as in a casserole you’ve just brought to the boil on top of the stove.
Likewise, running cold water directly into a very hot ceramic insert could crack it, too.
Slow cookers don’t get hot enough to cause significant thermal stress in ceramic.
@Sneftel I agree in normal use. You can use a grill to brown topping in some models, with care, and of course that's more thermal stress. I'm not sure if it's possible to abuse it and cause cracking (by preheating the outer empty, which you're not supposed to do)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.030351
| 2017-09-26T07:07:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84618",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"Navajo Dreamchild",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61005"
],
"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
}
|
84038
|
Is tomato sauce safe if the water evaporated in the canner?
When I opened my canner after the allotted time, I became aware that water had evaporated and the lids were not immersed in the water -as when I started. Most likely evaporation the cans sealed almost immediately. Is my tomatoe sauce safe?
National center for food preservation says you're in trouble: http://nchfp.uga.edu/publications/uga/using_bw_canners.html I've ignored their rather stringent advice in the past without killing myself, but only you can make the call.
If the water was boiling the whole time, you are fine.
There is research-supported (finally) evidence that "Steam canning" is actually just as effective as boiling water bath canning, if done properly. Unfortunately, the folks that have been insisting that you must have everything submerged are rather slow to change recommendations based on the research, after decades of claiming that they didn't recommend it since there was no research. It makes me wonder what in heck their actual agenda is.
In any case, if your boiling water bath was boiling the whole time, the portion of the jars that was "steam-processed" would have been steam processed properly, so you're good.
Note that while the research was aimed at the "steam canner" pots, a partially full boiling water bath in a normal pot is exactly the same above waterline when the lid is on.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.030565
| 2017-08-31T17:41:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84038",
"authors": [
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86033
|
Make existing cheesecake recipe chocolate?
I have a cheesecake recipe that I have used many times, and absolutely love. I also love chocolate. So I was thinking, why not combine the two? There are plenty of recipes out there for chocolate cheesecake. My concern is that these are all new and different recipes to me, and while there is nothing wrong with that, I was wondering if I might be able to simply use the recipe I already know?
My thinking was that I would melt some semi-sweet chocolate and mix it into the batter, perhaps with a dash of chocolate extract as well to enhance the chocolate flavor. Is this a reasonable approach? or would the addition of the melted chocolate change the consistency/character of the batter such that it wouldn't work, perhaps not setting up properly or something? Would there be any caveats I should be aware of, or adjustments I would need to make for it to work?
Apparently (according to comments) the specific recipe makes a difference, and the technique can't be generalized to cheesecakes in general, or baking in general. As such, here is the recipe I use. Nothing special, it's just one I know works and produces results I like. It actually came from the box of cream cheese originally:
1 cup graham cracker crumbs
3 Tbsp. sugar
3 Tbsp. butter, melted
5 pkg. (8 oz. each) PHILADELPHIA Cream Cheese, softened
1 cup sugar
3 Tbsp. flour
1 Tbsp. vanilla
1 cup BREAKSTONE'S or KNUDSEN Sour Cream
4 eggs
Heat oven to 325°F
Mix crumbs, 3 Tbsp. sugar and butter; press onto bottom of 9-inch springform pan. Bake 10 min.
Beat cream cheese, 1 cup sugar, flour and vanilla with mixer until well blended. Add sour cream; mix well. Add eggs, 1 at a time, mixing on low speed after each just until blended. Pour over crust.
Bake 1 hour 10 min. or until center is almost set. Run knife around rim of pan to loosen cake; cool before removing rim. Refrigerate 4 hours.
In particular if there's egg in the mix, you have to be careful with the sequence you combine the ingredients in -- melted chocolate+beaten egg -> melted chocolate+partly cooked egg
@ChrisH I'd assume that's why, when using melted chocolate, you typically cool it first before adding to the mix - to avoid that.
but if you cool it too far it solidifies again; when I've made them you don't cool it but add to cool ingredients then add the egg.
@ChrisH You'd think that, right? But in several recipes I've done in the past that use melted chocolate, you cool it to room temperature - and it is still a paste like consistency, not solid. That said, adding it to the cool (well, room temperature, you don't make cheesecake with cold ingredients) ingredients before adding the eggs makes sense.
"My concern is that these are all new and different recipes to me, and while there is nothing wrong with that, I was wondering if I might be able to simply use the recipe I already know?" - this reasoning is incorrect. Changing a recipe ycan be many things, but it is never simpler than using an existing recipe which you have to learn. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't try doing it, just be prepared that, if you want to reach the same quality as with one of the existing recipes, it will be a long process, not a simple thing.
@rumtscho My experience has been that most recipes I find online are mediocre at best (in my opinion, of course. Others may disagree). Thus my desire to take a good recipe and improve it rather than try half a dozen mediocre recipes trying to find one good one :)
I understand the motivation, yes. What I meant is that designing a new recipe (even when based on an old one) is hard. It requires the ability to predict what will work - and choosing a good recipe requires the same ability, and is easier. So, if your recognition ability is at such a level that you have to bake 6 existing recipes to find a good one, then improving your own will take you many more than just 6 tries until you have a good recipe. There are good reasons to go down that path, but "getting to a good recipe with a minimal amount of failed trials" is not one of them.
@rumtscho Thus my query here rather than just trying it :) Attempting to short-circuit the system by getting advice from people with better recognition ability than mine. May not work :)
Some additional digging with more specific search terms turned up this recipe: http://www.kraftrecipes.com/recipes/philadelphia-new-york-chocolate-cheesecake-52676.aspx which is effectively exactly what I suggested doing. The only difference is that the number of eggs used is decreased by one, and, of course, the recipe doesn't use any chocolate extract. So apparently I was on the right track :)
5 pkg. (8 oz. each) PHILADELPHIA Cream Cheese, softened
1 cup sugar
3 Tbsp. flour
1 Tbsp. vanilla
2 pkg. (4 oz. each) BAKER'S Semi-Sweet Chocolate, broken into pieces, melted, slightly cooled
1 cup BREAKSTONE'S or KNUDSEN Sour Cream
3 eggs
Beat cream cheese, 1 cup sugar, the flour and vanilla in large bowl with electric mixer on medium speed until well blended. Add melted chocolate and sour cream; mix well. Add eggs, one at a time, mixing on low speed after each addition just until blended. Pour over crust.
Bake 1 hour 5 min. to 1 hour 10 min. or until center is almost set. Run knife around rim of pan to loosen cake; cool before removing rim of pan. Refrigerate at least 4 hours or overnight. Store leftover cheesecake in refrigerator.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.030703
| 2017-11-30T20:34:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86033",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63328",
"ibrewster",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17804
|
Is lots of red juice normal when making sous-vide steak?
So I made a 1lb hanger steak via sous-vide the other day and cooked it for 45 minutes at 130F.
After I seared in a cast iron pan, I took the meat off of the pan and let it sit for a few minutes and then sliced it up(against the grain) into smaller portions.
I noticed a lot of red juice in the plate as I was slicing it up but after I put it on a plate and it was sitting at the table, the meat almost ended up swimming in red juice.
When I order medium rare steak at a restaurant and it comes out pre-sliced, I don't usually notice this much red juice.
Is this normal?
UPDATE:
Found this great article explaining what was going on:
http://www.seriouseats.com/2009/12/how-to-have-juicy-meats-steaks-the-food-lab-the-importance-of-resting-grilling.html#continued
He has another article about sous vide ( http://www.seriouseats.com/2010/03/how-to-sous-vide-steak.html ) where he claims that you don't need to let the meat rest after searing. This is the one that originally led me to not need to rest the steak.
Looks like there is some resting that is required. Will post up with results next time I make some steak.
How long was the steak in the skillet for searing and how long was the rest time (less than or greater than five minutes)?
About 1 minute per side @ 450 F for searing. I rested it for about a minute after I took it off the pan and started slicing it with a serrated steak knife.
@alexpotato - covered it in my answer, but a longer rest and sharper knife.
Found a good link with regards to resting.
You do not need to rest sous vide meat, but you do need to rest seared meat. So if you end with the latter, you need to rest. This is highly dependent on thickness of your meat and searing time.
Pretty much...yes, but you can fix it!.
When you properly sous vide or very slow cook anything, you'll retain more of the myoglobin color because of the even cooking that often doesn't go above 140 at all. So a properly cooked steak like this will retain much more of its red colored myoglobin. Simply put, the meat will have more red juices to release! (Its a great, great thing about sous vide.)
As @Ronald mentions, the other thing is the resting of the meat. It's an important step as the muscle fibers relax after the heat is off and hold juices better then. An often misstep for the home cook is they allow a hot piece of meat to rest on a flat, solid surface. This causes the bottom of the meat to steam against the board, open the fibers in the meat more, and release the juices on to the board. Rest your meat on a raised baking rack so that it has air circulation all around it.
After a short rest - for most steak 10 minutes is fine, then you can cut into the steak. Use a very sharp knife to slice. The meat here is essentially a sponge and you don't want to compress it and squeeze out the juices. A dull knife will do this and you'll lose more juice on the cutting board again. Use a sharp knife and apply steady, even, but light pressure while slicing - let the edge do the work (if it won't, sharpen the knife more).
By the way, I only recently learned resting on a cooling rack (instead of flat cutting board) thing from a rouxbe.com lesson!
Does flipping the steak while it rests accomplish the same goal of avoiding steaming?
@alexpotato - Not really. Flipping isn't to avoid the steaming, its to keep the juices towards the middle of the meat. Imagine an hourglass that you periodically rotate - the majority of the sand will stay in the middle. Steak are thin enough that I've never flipped them during resting, but do for a large cut like a roast.
I just wanted to add a counterpoint to what I'm seeing here. A lot of people mention resting the meat but this is strictly unnecessary for a sous vide prepared steak.
The purpose of resting in standard preparation techniques is to allow moisture that has been driven into the center by intense outward heat to redistribute itself evenly across the steak. In sous vide cooking there is no extreme outside temperature (a quick sear will not drive moisture inward) so it is not necessary to rest the meat.
I've found this to be true in my own sous vide experiences which have been pretty numerous in the past couple of years for an at home cook, but a quick google search found this thread:
resting meat
Usually a steak at a restaurant is allowed to "rest" for 10 minutes before being served, perhaps that helps? Also, cooking in a normal method gives more opportunity for moisture to escape.
OK, I'm just winging it, I don't have a sous-vide set up yet.
See my post to this question for some more information on this. Sous vide has a lot of things that are counter intuitive to conventional cooking techniques
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.031163
| 2011-09-17T11:06:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17804",
"authors": [
"AaronN",
"Brian",
"GnoveltyGnome",
"alexpotato",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7454",
"rfusca",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6507
|
Pizza baking order
First few times I thought it was coincidence but now I'm puzzled. I'm baking two pizzas, one after another, made from the same dough and with the same ingredients. Every time, the second pizza base is much better: thinner crust, more elastic, you know, closer to perfect pizza.
I have two pans and I tried them in a different order, same result. Only difference is that the second pizza gets 15 minutes more dough raising, but raising 3 hours or 3 hours and 15 minutes shouldn't make such a difference.
Any idea what is happening?
Are you letting the dough rise with the ingredients on it or putting them on closer to baking. If the latter, then it may be that the timing really is making a difference.
@Kevin, @Hugo - I learned at a class (for non-professionals) at culinary school that for thin-crust pizza you put the ingredients on max one minute before baking rather than risk a soggy crust.
I think it might be the humidity inside the oven that's making the difference. After cooking one pizza, the oven is filled with the steam given off by the cooking dough, sauce, etc.
The humid air in your oven is probably heating the pizza up faster and more evenly (which is what you want for pizza).
Try putting a pan of hot water in your oven for a few minutes before you cook the first pizza and see if that makes the difference.
The Bread Baker's Apprentice suggests this for many of the breads in the book. Works amazing things for exterior crusts.
I'll definitely try this. Climate in the oven could be responsible.
That's it, I've just eaten one of my best home made pizzas
Maybe its your oven and not the dough? Are you letting it get fully heated?
I do, but maybe the oven performs better when longer at full temperature.
Agreed. For your second pizza, the oven has been hot for a while and so it may have reached a higher temperature. Try baking nothing for the time it takes you to bake a pizza but with the oven on, then baking your first, then your second pizza. See if they both come out better.
A pizza stone should help smooth out temperature differences in your oven: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4012/storing-pizza-stone-in-oven, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2502/what-are-other-uses-for-a-pizza-stone - if you aren't using one for NY or Neopolitan pizza, you are making life more difficult for yourself. Also, the hotter your oven the better your pizza for those two types.
@justkt : if you have a pizza stone, make sure you also get an oven thermometer -- I've heard of some cheaper ovens using a timer to report they were 'ready' (not necessarily at temperature), and the extra thermal mass is going to possibly make the problem of pizzas cooked one after another even more a problem.
@Joe - interesting. My oven has a reverse problem (it doesn't go off until well after it is at temperature).
Also, never put a stone in a hot oven. Put it in before you turn the oven on (or, better yet, leave it in all the time).
What style of pizza are you making? The perfect Chicago pizza is different than the perfect NY-style pizza is slightly different again from the perfect Neopolitan pizza?
Since you mentioned the perfect pizza crust is thin and elastic, I'm assuming you mean an NY or Neopolitan style pizza, as the perfect Chicago-style pizza crust isn't all that thin. When you say pan, though, I think deep dish.
By elastic it sounds like you mean when rolling out. If that's the case, it sounds like your dough needs a bit of resting time before you roll it out to let the gluten relax after dumping it out of whatever container you are letting it rise in.
For an NY-style or Neopolitan pizza, you want to be baking at as high a temperature as possible. You ideally are doing this on a pizza stone, sliding dough in and out onto it. For these pizzas you want to be putting them on something hot. You only need to bake a pizza around 10 minutes, maybe even less, in a traditional oven at 550 degrees F (~ 278 C)
For Chicago style, I follow the most recent Cook's Illustrated recipe (from January of this year, not the older one that I definitely don't like) with a few adaptations to the crust (as, IMHO, the ideal Chicago style pizza crust is 80% bread flour, 12% semolina flour, and 8% rice flour by weight) and I bake at 425 degrees F (~ 218 C) with the rack in the lowest position of my oven for about 30 minutes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.031568
| 2010-09-01T17:19:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6507",
"authors": [
"Dennis Williamson",
"Erik P.",
"Joe",
"Miroslav Zadravec",
"Nikolai Bolekoff",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"justkt",
"kevins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.