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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
34084
|
How to correctly infuse cream into vegetables
I tried to cook a butternut squash curry, and I feel that the squash wasn't exactly "infused" with the sauce. I've had similar experiences with making gratin, and I feel I may be making the same mistake.
As for the recipe, it is basically:
heat up butter, cook garlic and ginger.
throw in curry powder, after a minute add in the squash + cream.
bring the mixture to a boil, then cover and lower the heat.
cook around 20 min, then uncover and raise the heat for 5 min.
The result was very tasty, so it wasn't a failure, but I felt like the dish came in two parts: the sauce, and the squash. They didn't really 'join forces' so to speak, which is something that I feel is a hallmark for a good curry (squash, pumpkin, etc). To try and be more explicit I expected the squash chunks to be more creamy and moist. Mine seemed to resemble a baked potato in terms of texture, a little dry and grainy. The flavors also seemed to remain separate (most of the flavor being in the sauce), whereas I was expecting the sauce/flavor to be absorbed by the squash.
Side note: the recipe asked for coconut milk, and I used whipping cream and water as a substitute, hope that wasn't the culprit...
It is not clear what failing to become "infused" or to "join forces" means here. Short of pureeing the dish, the squash is going to be chunks within the cream sauce. Can you better describe the outcome you are getting compared to the outcome you are expecting?
As to gratin, I usually cook it for much longer than 20 minutes, so perhaps that's part of it?
You probably need to add some more liquid, pref. water so that the flavors can seep through the squash. You recipe seems to have very little liquid and since you seem to be using a lot of cream, maybe the flavors don't get absorbed by the squash because the sauce is too thick?
Are you looking for a result more akin to potato dauphinoise?
Thanks for the comments. SAJ14SAJ - I'll try to describe it a bit more:
I think you expected to get curry flavored squash chunks, but it doesn't work like that. Sliced up squash simply isn't going to absorb that much flavor. If you really want to meld the two you need to physically combine the two. You could either smash it all up, or use a blender of some kind, of the two mashing would be my choice as it would preserve some texture.
If preserving the chunked-up texture of the squash is important to you then try blending 1/4 of your cooked squash with all of the sauce, then reducing it down a bit in a pan before adding the squash back in, that will make the sauce much more squash-y.
Also, I'd recommend you use coconut milk next time, it has much more flavor than whipping cream and water, and flavor is what you need.
Thanks for the answer, I've tried to make my question more explicit. I feel like you addressed the flavor aspect very well, but I'm wondering also about the texture of the squash chunks.
@MikeK., the texture of the squash chunks has to do entirely with the type of squash you use. There's many different varieties, you have to try a few to get the result you want. Some squashes are stringy, some are starchy, and some are creamy. I don't know that many varieties, however of the ones I know I'd choose butternut squash.
Squash has way too much organic structure to just fall apart in a stew. You need to puree that thing somehow. A good place to start is to use a good stick blender, if you have one, and cut into the heart of the finished stew while it's still hot. Once the mixture is smooth and glossy, you'll have a smooth creamy soup.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.031929
| 2013-05-13T01:17:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34084",
"authors": [
"Bai Yang",
"Cerberus",
"Dharini Chandrasekaran",
"GdD",
"Laura Hutchinson",
"Mike K.",
"RetroCUBE",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Stefano",
"deniadi aly",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9262",
"shwoseph"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18419
|
How to Replace Icing Sugar in a No-Bake Cheesecake
Are there any good substitutes for sugar in Cheesecakes? I am not interested in synthetic sugar like Aspartame. I want to use natural sugar substitute like honey. But if mix honey into the cheese (e.g: Philadelphia cheese), will it ruin the cheese cake. I don't mind getting the honey taste in the cake, but will I get the same consistency in the cheese compare to if I mix sugar into the cheese?
This is the recipe. I got it from www.recipify.com:
250 gr of digestive biscuit/biscotti
80 gr butter
80 gr Philadelphia cheese
5 table spoon of Nutella
4 tablespoon of icing sugar
400 gr of creme
Melt the butter in the sauce pan.
Crumble the biscuit, and pour the melted button onto it. Cool it in the fridge for half an hour.
Mix the Philadelphia cheese with the icing sugar. Once you have done that, mix the Nutella.
Whisk the creme. Combine it with Nutella and Philadelphia mixture.
Put everything onto the crumbed biscuit. Leave it in the fridge overnight.
Thanks
Are you asking because you eat a Primal/Paleo style diet? If so, it may be worth mentioning as it will influence the answers. The answer suggesting barley malt for example would not be acceptable, as barley contains gluten which the Primal/Paleo diet excludes (just as they exclude processed sugars in favor of natural foods like honey). This information will be useful in helping people up- and down-vote the answers accordingly.
Ok...tbats a whole other thing from 'cheesecake'...no bake stuff is much more forgiving.
Can you make cheesecake with honey instead of sugar? Sure!
Is it as simple as just replacing it 1:1? Not quite, there's increased moisture, but check the top answer here.
You'll need to reduce any liquid you might be adding a bit. Without seeing your exact recipe, I can't give you an exact answer there.
Whoa. Whoa. Whoa....thats not cheesecake, thats no-bake 'cheesecake'. And that's not normal sugar, that's icing sugar.
No bake 'cheesecake' is much more forgiving about the ingredients - you'd not trying to set a custard like, you just want a thick, flavored, semi-firm pie filling. Add the honey, but leave off a touch of the creme, maybe 20-30 g overall? Icing sugar will actually thicken it a bit as its not only not a liquid, but its also got cornstarch in it. There's about 1/4 tsp of cornstarch in that much icing sugar, so I'd add that. If you're against cornstarch, I don't think it'd be the end of the world to leave it off.
I'd add the honey and then add 350 g of creme and see how the consistency is. You'll probably end up adding another 20g or so, but I'd wait and see.
thanks for the tip. So let me summarize what you are saying from my own understanding - just to make sure I get it right. I should mix (or whisk ?) the Philadelphia cheese with 20 - 30 g of honey and 1/4 table spoon (or did you mean tea spoon) of corn starch. I should put it in more creme. Instead of 400, I should put 450 or 470 depending on the consistency of the mixture.
@zfranciscus eek no, sorry, i mis typed on the creme, see my edit!
tsp = teaspoon, not tablespoon
thanks for the edit. One observation that I made from your edit is that, reducing the amount of creme will make the cake firmer - less liquid means a more consistent cake. To make things simpler why don't I just ditch the creme all together. What do you think about the purpose of the creme in this recipe? Is it more for taste ? Or is it an agent to soften the Nutella and the Philadelphia cheese mixture?
@zfranciscus if you ditch the creme it will be very firm, not to mention there will be much less of your mixture
The best replacement of sugar is malt. For cakes, I prefer corn malt (or barley malt). We no longer use honey in cakes. With honey also, if you heat it up to more than 50 C it will loose some nutritional value (some say even 37 C).
I make 'no bake' Baileys and Chocolate Cheesecake never use the icing sugar - always works for me
Welcome to SA! Is your recipe similar to this one? If not, knowing that it "works for you" in this one recipe isn't necessarily very helpful. Please include some information about your recipe and how it is similar to the one in the question.
I'm going to leave this; I think it's an answer but not necessarily a very useful one, for the reasons Catija mentioned.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.032271
| 2011-10-18T00:00:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18419",
"authors": [
"Bryson",
"CO_Cook",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Harry Trotman",
"IntrepidSuccess",
"Person",
"R. Beno",
"Teresa Raffaelli",
"born2taste",
"chicks2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7690",
"rfusca",
"taswyn",
"zfranciscus"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6007
|
When boiling potatoes, should I put them in with the cold water or in to the hot?
I've heard both. What's the correct way to boil a potato? Why?
Cold, it gives the inside more time to come up to the same temperature with the outside, for more even cooking.
That makes perfect sense, but I'd alway seen hand waving and the word starch included in any explanation. Is there anything to that?
Not to mention, dropping potatoes into boiling water is hazardous to your fingers!
@yossarian - indeed, there is another more complex aspect - I don't want to paste in a long quote from McGee, but the nut of it is, the more of the potato you can get to spend time at 130-140 degrees, the less the starch will ultimately soften. Since the outside is inevitably going to get more cooked than the inside, giving it time at that lower temperature allows that transformation to happen.
According to McGee "On food and cooking: the science and lore of the kitchen" P.283 potatoes have an enzyme that firms the cell walls at 55ºC-60ºC (130ºF-140ºF).
Starting cooking from cold can make the potatoes firm.
Starting cooking from hot will make a more granular potato.
That's also the reason that you shouldn't add cold water to cooking potatoes if you don't want them to be firm.
I have done it both ways, depending on whether I'm in a hurry. Ideally, you will fill the pot with your spuds and then add cold water to that pot and then add to heat. As Michael describes above, this will give more even cooking and you can avoid the outer surface "splitting" and other wise breaking apart with this technique.
Maybe you boil the potatoes instead of having them simmer. I prefer steaming, myself.
If your house heating system is the kind that gives you a tank of pre-heated hot water, it makes sense to use this water. Boil your potatoes using water from your hot tap. This way, you will save time and money and your boiled potatoes will taste just as good.
I tried cold water with purple spuds just now. They came out creamy and yum and easy to mash.
Does it work better than hot, though?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.032644
| 2010-08-26T00:45:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6007",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Cascabel",
"Jeff Sheldon",
"Melissa Flannery",
"Michael Natkin",
"Trudy Thompson",
"Yvonne Aguilar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91492",
"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
}
|
5405
|
What's the purpose of a parchment lid?
I'm making some saffron rice. After sautéing some onions and saffron and then toasting the rice, it calls for simmering with broth for 8 minutes with a parchment lid. What is the difference between a parchment lid and a top? Is it just the vent for steam? If so, can I just partially cover with a lid? Does the parchment need to be directly resting on the rice for it to "work"?
note: I know what a parchment lid is, I just don't fully understand why you'd use one.
For my 2 cents, I've never ever used a parchment lid in recipes that call for it. I think Joe's explanation of the purported purpose is right, but I just can't see it making a whole lot of difference, and I've never noticed any moisture problems in the dishes I've made this way. I'd love to hear from someone who says they can really see a difference having made a dish both ways.
http://remcooks.com/2012/10/19/how-to-make-a-parchment-paper-lid-parchment-cartouche/
A parchment paper lid is another one of those French techniques that has been around a while. In France, it is referred to as a cartouche. Its purpose is to control the rate of evaporation, which in turn slows the reduction of moisture and concentrates a sauce or stew in a much more efficient way. It’s used in preparations where you are trying to control heat and evaporation, for instance poached fruits, onion confit, braises, etc. In these applications, if you simply use a standard pot cover the heat inside the pot will get too high resulting in the food cooking too quickly, turning to mush and not holding as much flavor. On the other hand, if you leave them uncovered, too much moisture will be lost and the food will not be done. Another effect would be the food will also be exposed to the air resulting in it becoming discolored.
The problem with lids is in how they drip -- the water tends to condense and run down the sides, making it so there's uneven moisture in the dish. Some dutch oven lids solve this by putting little nubs all over the lid, so it drips more evenly all over the dish. With a paper lid, you don't get that large collection of steam in the air above the dish, so you don't run into those problems. You also won't get as much total evaporation, as there's less liquid-to-air surface for the liquid to evaporate from.
You could go with a just a skewed lid, but it's possible that the rice might come out less than ideal. (although, I'll one for taking shortcuts ... if I can get an 8/10 with 1/2 the effort, I'm all for it -- you just have to know how the shortcut might change things ... this one's a bit of a toss-up, because using a normal lid means there's one more thing to clean, but that's balanced by the extra trash from the parchment lid).
I'd like to know where this recipe originates from...my guess is from a chef or restaurant based cookbook. Parchment lids are generally used in restaurant kitchens for various reasons, but generally they are disposable and can fit onto any size pot when needed, thus eliminating the need for lots of lids. This is cheaper in the long run for the kitchen as well, and parchment takes up less space. Plus for some cooking methods like poaching, nothing beats a parchment lid to keep delicate items submerged in their cooking liquid.
It could also be that the author found the parchment lid as a superior method for keeping all of the ingredients submerged in the liquid while simmering? I bet that a partially covered lid would do the same job, but it is hard to say without having the entire recipe with method to examine.
It's a Thomas Keller recipe from Ad Hoc at Home.
Ahhhhh now that makes sense. He uses parchment paper lids a lot in his recipes. I think for at home purposes, it's not worth purchasing parchment paper, but if you want to follow the recipe to a T then do what he says!
his recipes do seem to cross the line sometimes. I refuse to par-boil three different types of potatoes in three different pots. I've only got four burners!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.032880
| 2010-08-18T00:35:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5405",
"authors": [
"Avery Wittkamp",
"Dan Breen",
"Guy",
"Lucas Wiman",
"Mindy",
"Rexi",
"SCHERRY",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77241",
"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
}
|
5916
|
How should I sautee Portobello Mushrooms?
I frequently use Protobello's in a stir fry or pasta dish as a meat substitute. I find that they absorb a significant amount of oil if I put it in the frying pan. However, if I don't use enough oil, then they start to burn. Once they've gotten to a certain point, they sweat out a lot of water. However, they often end up either burnt or greasy. How can I cook them properly so that neither of those things happens?
Mushrooms DO require a good amount of oil due to the fact that they will initially absorb it.
However make sure that you're adding salt to them right away to help begin drawing the juices out and start them over high heat, making sure that the pan is "screaming" hot before you ever add the oil and the mushrooms so that it will retain the heat even after the mushrooms are added to the pan. As the juices begin to exude from the mushrooms they will take the place of the oil and as the juices evaporate, the oil will aid in browning of the mushrooms.
As they moisture begins to evaporate you can begin to decrease the temperature to avoid having to add more oil and keep them from sticking to the pan. I think mushrooms taste best when they've been allowed to cook to the point where the moisture has evaporated and a really good browning has taken place (not burnt of course).
Solid advice; the other variable to consider with portabellas is how you slice them, since they are so enormous.
Thanks. The salt is great advice, which I had not been doing. My pan is definitely hot, but probably not screaming.
I had another shot at portobellos last night (which prompted this question). I found that using a spray bottle to oil the mushrooms rather than just pouring oil in to the pan seemed to work much better. I'm not entirely sure why this worked, but I'm guessing that by pouring in to the pan, the mushrooms only absorb the oil on the side that's touching the pan, and the other sides may burn. When using a spray, you can evenly coat the mushrooms so that they don't absorb the oil unevenly and avoid burning.
I use an oil mister, rather than prepackaged cooking spray, so it's actually the same oil that I would otherwise just pour in the pan.
Some mushrooms are best roasted/baked in the oven. You don't need oil if you don't want it (I add bissel olive oil), just some granulated garlic and a pinch of salt. Add a bit of white wine to rescue the flavor from the pan.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.033331
| 2010-08-25T03:00:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5916",
"authors": [
"Blane Blake",
"Michael Natkin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162940",
"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
}
|
5022
|
How could I make stuffed french fries?
I had an idea a while back to make stuffed french fries. I was thinking specifically about a cheesy, thick, french onion soup sort of a thing inside a crispy french fry (not a steak fry). I can't figure out how to get a hot, liquidy substance inside without it coming out during frying or serving.
That sounds awesome, but difficult.
Perish the thought! What you want are Belgian fries - http://www.belgianfries.com/bfblog/?page_id=260
IMHO this is exactly the sort of question we want on this site.
So I have a method that I just worked out but it is insanely labor intensive and only suited to small batches. With that said, here you go. Also, steps will be slightly out of order so make sure you read completely through.
To create filled french fries:
First, you need to cut your potatoes into slightly larger fries than normal. You are looking for about 1/2 to 2/3 of an inch on each side. You need to preheat your grease to 275. Once your grease has preheated, parcook the french fries. They should be cooked but not crisped or browned. Lay fries in a layer on a pan and place into fridge. Prepare your injection. I used sour cream but you can add whatever you want. (I thinned the sour cream down with a little milk till it got to the consistency that I wanted) Load your injection into a syringe and inject into the now cooled but not cold fries. Don't over-inject or you will ruin fries left and right. Inject by running the needle fully in, then slowly removing while slowly deploying the filling. As you inject, lay on a pan in the freezer. This is important because you need to get the fries frozen as quick as possible.
While you wait, prepare your seasoned flour. I tried some with out the flour and the fries tended to lose the filling. Your are going to be working the fries in small batches. It is imperative that the fries be frozen through, if they aren't you will lose your filling. Toss a handful of fries into the flour and coat thoroughly. Alternately, you can coat fries in an egg wash then flour, but the results were a little too far from traditional fries for me. Toss the fries into 375 degree oil until fries brown and are crisp on outside. You need to watch carefully and as soon as they start floating count to ten then remove. You can't over cook them or you will not have any filling remaining.
A couple of extras:
I don't know how a filling that is predominately water will work in these, but I would conjecture very poorly given how fries cook.
Your hole in the potato is only going to be sealed with flour so you might see some leakage. I couldn't figure out a way around that.
You benefit from the freezing with a much improved bite texture over my normal fry prep.
The final result has a high wow factor, and was pretty tasty. I am not sure the results are worth the effort, but I think if you try a high flavor filling it will go a long way to making it worth while.
@sarge, did you just come up with that and try it out based on this question?
@yossarian yeah, it seemed an interesting challenge and I happened to be off today.
@sarge_smith, that is freaking awesome. You rule.
@yossarian thank you, I would have never even thought to do something like that if you hadn't asked the question. Stuff like this is why this site is great.
@sarge_Smith, I just realized you forgot the most important detail, how were they?!?
@yossarian I think that next time I will use something a little more flavorful than sour cream cut with milk but the bite texture was way better than my normal fries so I would say good but not great. I think I could make 'em better over time but it is a lot of time in the kitchen for what is essentially non-dipped fries. I can definitely see my self pulling them out just for the wow factor though, I can really imagine the looks of surprise when somebody bites into them for the first time.
I think you might be able to get a better seal if you were to smear over the end which the syringe went in with a mash potato & flour mix, maybe with a little water/milk
@sam I think I might try some potato flakes mixed in to the flour next time. I also want to try using some high gluten flour as it might hold up better as well. I also want to try a second syringe with a sealer in it. Maybe an egg white to plug the hole.
@sarge_smith, I'm super excited that they turned out well. It certainly does sound like a lot of work, but I assume you could do it as far ahead of time as you wanted since you freeze before frying. I'm excited about trying this now. I think cheesy might present some more problems, but I'll figure it out.
What if you went another route and made firm mashed potatoes, formed them into little, finger-food-sized logs, baked them for a bit to firm them up, and then injected them with your filling, coated them in some sort of tasty batter, and then fried them?
What you describe would be a croquette : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croquette
The typical technique is to freeze them after injecting and coating. Then, go straight from the freezer to the fryer!
How about injecting them post-frying with a very thin tipped syringe? You'd have to be quick :)
I think that anything thin enough wouldn't be able to get melted cheese or pureed onions in to the potato. Anything big enough to do that would leak the filling out.
I have a baster that has a threaded insert to add a needle to turn it into a really big injector. (needle's maybe 2mm across). If you used something like cheese that would fry and self-seal, you should be fine, but you'd have the work the cheese hot, which could get tricky.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.033585
| 2010-08-12T17:21:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5022",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Chris Summers",
"Good Cook Bad Cook",
"Joe",
"Sam Holder",
"Sarah",
"TheSpatulaQueen",
"Vincent Buck",
"g anderson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9893",
"sarge_smith",
"smcg",
"stevvve",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5420
|
Can I add uncooked noodles directly to soup?
Most noodle soup recipes that I see call for boiling and draining the noodles separately, then adding them to the broth already cooked. Is there any reason that I can't just add the dry noodles 10 minutes before the soup is done, and add a little extra water or broth to compensate for that the noodles take? Doing it this way would allow the noodles to take up some of the broth's flavor, and also save dirtying an extra pot and a colander.
similar to what julio said, the main reason is that typical wheat-based noodles release a lot of starch into the water, which changes the consistency of the soup. the starches can add a dirty colour to the water, but more than that, they can also thicken the soup undesirably (think of making a roux). Finally, if there are leftovers, the noodles can sometimes become completely water logged, making eating it the next day a bit of a soggy experience.
That said, with all these considerations there are times when you might add the noodles directly in-- non-starchy noodles (eg. like rice noodles) seem to do ok. also parboiling regular pasta before hand seems to help a lot with the starch and can still help you achieve the flavour integration you mentioned.
Just what I needed to know. I frequently thicken with corn starch anyway, so a little extra thickener hurts nothing. "water logged" noodles in a second day soup never bothers me.
Some people prefer to cook them separately because when you do so, you can see the water changes color a little and they don't want that (mainly flour) in their soups.
Another advantage is that you can have your soup ready and just cook the noodles on demand. The noodles go to boiling water, the soup is just very hot, but not boiling. That's what restaurants do.
If those reasons are not important for you, do as most of us do and cook them together :)
+1 for the flour comment. This is especially pertinent with well-floured homemade noodles.
That's how I cook noodle soup. And yes, it does give them a nice flavor. Just be sure you don't add them too soon: it's easy to over-cook the noodles by leaving them too long in the hot broth.
With a cream-based soup the added starch adds desired thickness. It isn't worse for the soup than adding corn starch or extra flour, and color change would be indistinguishable. Same for a tomato-based soup, or an egg-flower soup.
I like robust soups in general, and I think throwing the water out in general is a terrible thing to do to a food product. Any soup that calls for discarding more nutrients and flavor from a product already 'enriched' out of the crop's natural value isn't one I'd be interested in cooking. Cooking flavor into the noodles beats wringing more out.
Madness? This is ... just starch, from a refined flour product, all the good stuff has already been milled out...
In my opinion, just no. Lol it changes the clarity and viscosity of a carefully crafted broth/sauce. If you have leftovers the noodles will have absorbed most of the liquid by the next day, leaving you a gelatinous pile of goop. It takes minutes to boil them separately and you can add to your serving bowl as needed. You will enjoy the end result far more. Do add a bit of the noodle's cooking liquid to your broth/sauce, but don't over do it. Every time I see a recipe advising cooking noodles on the main dish, I keep on scrolling. That's just lazy.
I suppose it you prefer a clear light soup, it would preferably be better to cook the noodles separately and then pour broth over to maintain the clearness of the broth and texture of the noodle.
Any soup I cook that requires noodles gets put in the same pot as the other ingredients. The noodles will have more flavor and it helps thicken up the soup for a heartier meal.
I have been doing this for quite a while and it is the ONLY way I cook noodles when they are going in a soup. It really doesn’t have a different taste.
Well first of all, any sauce you make that'll have pasta in it, must have at least 1 to 2 tablespoons of pasta water in it, i.e. 1 to tbsp of the water you boiled the pasta with.
Second of all, it's all about the amount. If let's say you're adding a 1/2 cup of rigatoni or fussili then you're fine, add'er up; but be advised when reheating, pasta will break easily on you. If you're putting let's say skinny noodle type pasta, then don't put it from the start. What you can do is half boil the pasta in the normal water, drain it, and then add it to your soup 5 / 10 minutes before it's done.
I will add uncooked noodles to soup that have been soaked for 1 hr. As for thickeners, I prefer potato flour that keeps the broth a clear and translucent look. Potato flour goes a long way as a thickener~go for 1/4 normal & add more if required.
I would say NEVER cook noodles at the same time for all the reasons the smart friends above suggested. But my adamant reason is that it makes the soup look and taste like dishwater!
I agree that it can be bad for the appearance, but I don't think pasta starch dissolved into a soup makes it taste like dishwater...
All the reasons the smart friends above suggested? You're the only one saying to never do it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.034055
| 2010-08-18T06:01:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5420",
"authors": [
"Allan Gray",
"Bud Adams",
"Cascabel",
"Garry",
"Gayathri",
"Johnny Burger",
"Kyle Delaney",
"Matthew Scouten",
"S. Parnell",
"Sushi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64342",
"justkt",
"okayGraphics",
"rackandboneman"
],
"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
}
|
4073
|
Why is my cheese sauce gritty?
Sometimes when making a very simple cheese sauce (butter, flour, milk, cheese [cheddar, usually]), the final sauce has a sort of gritty or slightly pebbly texture (rather than smooth) - it seems like maybe the cheese hasn't totally melted, even if I continue to heat the sauce.
Why does this happen? How can I avoid it?
Can you give more information on the method you are using to create the sauce. There are a few different methods and each would have different problems.
Definitely: melt butter, add flour and cook (stirring), add milk slowly, allowing sauce to thicken and stirring to prevent lumps, heat to below boiling, add cheese and allow to melt, add seasoning.
Could be an unfinished roux (the butter, flour mixture). But most likely it's because the cheese was heated too quickly or too much, causing the protein to clump up.
Suggestions:
Melt with less heat
Use a double boiler (to reduce hot spots within the pan)
Toss the shredded cheddar with cornstarch first (starch helps reduce clumping)
Add cheese in smaller batches (easier to maintain correct heat level and stir cheese in)
I've put chopped cheese into boiling white sauce before and never had the cheese split on me. Has this actually happened to anyone because it seems a little odd unless the type of cheese has a large influence.
I take the sauce off the heat before adding the cheese. Ever since I started doing this, I never had a gritty cheese sauce.
I have two suspicions: One, you're undercooking your roux, the flour and butter mixture, and not fully incorporating the flour. Two, you're adding too much cheese too quickly and it isn't melting smoothly. Solutions: cook the roux until light golden brown, finely grate the cheese and add it slowly, stirring constantly.
In my experience it's because of:
too much heat
too much acidity (for example from a shot of lemon juice)
Too much heat causes the protein in the cheese to clump. You can use a mixer to dissolve the clumps (mix at the highest speed).
Too much acidity also does the same. The more sour a sauce gets the faster it clumps when heating. Lemon juice gives a nice flavour but it's finnicky. When the sauce clumps you can save it somewhat using a mixer.
I've run into this problem the first few times I made macaroni and cheese from scratch. Things that I've learned are:
don't use low fat milk -- the higher the fat content the smoother your cheese will melt/incorporate.
once the base is made (the flour, butter, milk "sauce" -- bechamel?) take the pot OFF the heat.The more your heat your cheese sauce, the more it will get gritty.
if possible, mix with a good melting cheese -- to make my cheddar sauce, I use 1 part moteray jack (which has no taste (IMHO) but is a really good melting cheese) to 1 part sharp or extra sharp cheddar cheese.
Hope that helps.
Three other possibilities are:
If you used pre-shredded cheddar it's sometimes dusted with an anti-caking agent which can make things tricky.
Your cheddar is a reduced fat cheese which doesn't have enough fat content.
The flour you are using for your roux shouldn't be a whole wheat/whole grain. You can cook that down and it still won't be as smooth or finely integrated as using an all-purpose flour.
Hope this helps.
At Modernist Cuisine, they wrote:
Cheese is an emulsion of dairy fat and water, but that emulsion tends
to break down when it gets hot. The starch particles and milk proteins
in béchamel act as emulsifiers, but they aren’t very good at their job
and result in poor flavor release.
... ... Sodium phosphate keeps the water and fat droplets mixed when the
cheese is melted. We use sodium citrate, which has the same effect and
is easier to find. The resulting texture is as smooth as melted
American cheese, but as complex and intense in flavor as any of your
favorite cheeses.
and watch this video.
Good cheddar has little chunks of calcium lactate on/in it - could it be that?
I'm just using plain ol' cheddar, sadly, so probably not.
When you're in the UK go to a Tesco supermarket, and ask for Collier's Welsh Cheddar - it's amazing and it has the little chunks on it which definitely adds something! Or go to a good British cheesemongers as there is a good choice of artisan cheddar.
I can think of a few reasons why you may be getting this grittiness. I use the following method when making cheese sauce, and it tends to turn out very smooth.
Melt (hard) butter in pan at a low temperature.
Add the appropriate amount of flour. (Better too little than too much, as adding more later should not hurt.)
Whisk the butter-flour mixture quickly to create the roux, still at low temperature. (10 - 20 seconds)
Add the milk and whisk quickly, mixing in the roux. Turn the heat up immediately and continue whisking.
When the sauce is sufficiently thick, reduce the heat and add in the grated cheese. Stir until smooth again.
This the method I use, though I usually cook the roux a little longer than that. It's weird, sometimes the sauce comes out great, sometimes the texture is totally off.
Yeah, it's quite odd. Do you have the heat up very high when adding the milk to the roux? I just find a lot of whisking tends to help the smoothness enormously.
Not too high, more like medium heat.
The more you brown your roux flour/starch in oil or dry, the worse its thickening power; The carbohydrate polymers undergo radical changes when browning, mostly shortening. Thus, you throw your cheese into a warm-hot roux/bechamel that won't get any thicker and doesn't have the necessary quantity of starch to separate the cheese components. It's possible you undercook your roux too: it takes quite a bit of time for the starch granules to swell and leak their starch.
I have found that adding gradually adding flour to the butter using a sifter reduces the likelihood of a gritty texture.
It's best to use half and half or whole milk. Every time I use 2% milk it comes out separated and grainy/gritty! I guess it has something to do with the fat content that gels it altogether!
Many of the other answers are good, but I still often have the same experience with certain cheeses such as cheddar (it's 'smooth', but not as smooth as I would like).
If the proportions are reasonable, a hand blender works for me every time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.034579
| 2010-08-03T05:34:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4073",
"authors": [
"Beenybudmom",
"Caleb Knauff",
"Carey Gregory",
"Confused",
"Geoff Wilton",
"Ian Turner",
"Jack Fraser",
"Jenna",
"Jennifer Hayes",
"Lapple",
"Madeline Trotter",
"Mike K.",
"Noldorin",
"Poul",
"Rich",
"SarahVV",
"Shirley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83606",
"jofl",
"john",
"mary",
"mrog",
"steve",
"sudarkoff"
],
"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
}
|
3023
|
Tips for making caramel with palm sugar
The other day I was making flan and decided to try palm sugar instead of white sugar to make the caramel.
Although palm sugar is better than white in a lot of ways, the melting point of the sugar seems to be a lot closer to the burning point. Needless to say, I ended up with a black pool in seconds.
Does anyone have any suggestions to help control the temperature to keep it from burning?
I've used this palm sugar caramel recipe before without problems. It uses about 25% honey as well as the sugar.
17oz palm sugar
4.25 oz Honey
14 oz heavy cream
As soon as the sugars get to 320 ℉ (160 ℃), take the pan off the heat and deglaze it with the cream. If you let it sit on the heat any longer, it will burn. After adding the cream simply cook it again until it reaches 250 ℉ (122 ℃). Then, remove it from the heat, pour it into your prepared form, and let it cool to room temperature.
I followed hobodaves recipe and it was excellent. I wanted something that would be nearly liquid at refrigerator temperature and used about 3 more oz of cream. I made the recipe twice. The first time I went to about 304F and the flavor my wife said was burnt. I thought it was perfect and had a flavor close to past it's prime, but very rich. The second time I went to about 301F and it made a caramel with the flavor of a Weurthers. I liked the first one better but it's up to your preference.
A double boiler will heat more evenly, and you can turn down the heat on the eye as low as you want as long as you are still producing steam, and cooking the flan in a water bath will also chill the heat out. To my knowledge, palm sugar has a low melt point and high burn point with the only real diffrence the fact that it has more non water soluble bits that processed white sugar. Not a pastry chef though, and I have rarely used the stuff myself (mainly due to cost issues)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.035422
| 2010-07-23T18:00:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3023",
"authors": [
"Rc1273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5485",
"jwadsack",
"technowizard12",
"zoul"
],
"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
}
|
11735
|
Can I use guar and gelatine together?
I am baking a fancy cake recipe for the first time, and have trouble with it.
Basically, the cake has three layers. The first one is a flourless bisquit. Then there comes a guar thickened puree made of fresh mangoes and grand marnier , and above them JI am supposed to smear a thick wallop of a mascarpone-sour cream combination.
I have all three ready (not yet combined), only the puree is quite runny. I expected it to get as hard as starch-based custard does when it cools (frankly, I have never yet tried to achieve something actually stiff with guar). But I have already put three times as much guar as the recipe called for, and it is a very viscous liquid - when you pull the spoon out of it, you see ridges which slowly run back to smoothness. It is yummy, but there is no way it will carry a thick layer of the dairy stuff (which is not quite hard itself). There is a lot of puree, about 750 ml for a 28 cm cake, so the layer is supposed to be thick.
The best solution I can think of is to mix some gelatin into the mango stuff. But I have never used gelatin and guar together, so I am not quite sure what the result will be. First, will the taste suffer (I know that thickening agents shouldn't have an impact on taste, but I've actually had too much gelatin ruin the taste of the thing). And second, will some weird physical effect caused by the guar prevent the gelatin from setting?
And if you have any better idea than the gelatin, I'd be happy to hear it.
Thank you for the answers; I ended up mixing puree and mascarpone, cutting the bisquit in diamonds and serving each diamond alongside a big scoop of the mango-mascarpone mix. It was a success. Next time, I'll use another gelling agent from the beginning.
To me, the definitive guide to all these gelling agents is "Texture", the free e-book at khymos.org (which I know about because of this site, by the way). It says that mango is an inhibitor to the working of gelatin, so gelatin won't help as much as you might hope. Having said that, some of the example recipes do use gelatin, so it might still help enough.
About guar gum, it says that acidity (low pH) is an inhibitor; are there any acids in your mango puree? It also says that guar gum leads to high viscosity when warm and low when colder, so cooling it down should definitely make things more solid. You could also try some of the other agents; maybe xanthan gum will help.
You wrote less, but you deserve the best answer for the book recommendation, I took a look at it and like it a lot.
You'd have to use a whole lot of gelatin to ruin the taste. My guess is that when you experienced that in the past, you were using (perhaps unknowingly) flavoured gelatin or "dessert gelatin" instead of ordinary, pure, unflavoured gelatin crystals or sheets.
Erik is correct in that gelatin does not do well with tropical fruits (including mangoes), nor acidic environments, nor alcohol, and you have all of those things. Stay away from gelatin. A much better idea here would be Agar (also "agar agar") - again, make sure it's pure agar, not the flavoured dessert stuff - and use about 0.2% agar by mass. You need very little of it compared to gelatin, so it most definitely won't affect the taste. In fact, I might go as low as 0.1% because you don't really want setting action, just thickening. By the way, make sure you hydrate it properly; agar needs to be boiled before cooling in order to set.
Of course one of the nicest things about gelatin is the fact that its gelling action is reversible and it has a melting point of around mouth temperature, so gelatin desserts or fillings will literally melt in your mouth. But if you combine it with guar gum then you'll get a lot less of that anyway since guar is not thermoreversible like gelatin is.
Xanthan gum is another interesting choice due its shear-thinning property. What that means is that it won't literally "set" like agar or gelatin, but will hold firm as long as it's not moving. That can get you a little bit closer to the melt-in-your-mouth feel of gelatin, but you also risk having it all ooze out while you're slicing the cake, or fall apart on your fork. It's really more useful as a stabilizer than as a gelling agent, but I thought it worth explaining in more detail since Erik mentioned it in his answer.
Any of these things can be used with guar gum, corn starch, or any other traditional thickener; just don't use too much or else you'll end up with Jell-O (or worse) as your filling.
By the way, another thing you can use (which is quite common in fruit fillings) is pectin crystals. The most common kind of pectin does well with high acidity and sugar, which I believe is what you want, although I'm not sure about the acidity of your filling - you'll need quite a bit of acidity (around that of orange juice) and quite a lot of sugar (60-80% according to Khymos). It's a little trickier to get this right, and I'm not 100% sure about any possible negative interactions with guar gum, so I'm leaving this as more of a footnote than a recommendation.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.035605
| 2011-02-01T22:59:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11735",
"authors": [
"Brad Werth",
"Chris Mann",
"David Richerby",
"Jeff Davis",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"user281804"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55645
|
Can I make Irish Brown Bread using a covered loaf pan?
Have a recipe for Irish Brown Bread that says to use a shortening pan & mentions the lid. Would a loaf pan with foil over the top work the same way?
As someone who's eaten plenty of irish bread (and lived in Ireland) I have to say I've never heard of a shortening pan. Neither has Google! Where did this recipe come from?
Is a shortening pan like a Pullman loaf pan?
Vegetable shortening used to come in a bucket-like tin, but I doubt that what your recipe is talking about unless it's fairly old.
The only "loaf pan with a lid" I'm familiar with is the "Pullman" pan. I have seen suggestions to use a board wrapped in foil or foil under a casserole dish set on top of a regular loaf pan if trying to emulate that form without the right pan. Foil alone would probably not hold. I don't own one and have never emulated it. I suppose if someone was using a bread pan to store grease in for use as shortening, a Pullman pan would help to keep things out of it. But as with @miken32 I can't find any reference to a pan by that name.
This was my thought.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.036115
| 2015-03-12T21:36:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55645",
"authors": [
"Ad Snyder",
"Catija",
"Jackie Botts",
"Michelle Miller",
"Nicky Metson",
"Pattie Busby",
"Ross Ridge",
"Simone Kukla",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"miken32"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12814
|
What are common/traditional uses for merguez?
I found today something new in the supermarket and decided to try it. They are called "traditional french merguez", and seem to be raw sausages made from lamb and beef, moderately spicy. I have no idea how to use them (except to use them just like any other sausage, but I think that it would be a missed opportunity). Is there a traditional way to prepare them, and what are the usual combinations?
I already found a ton of recipes on Google, but I'd prefer to hear some more on their traditional use, and also about combinations you have tried and found to work well.
Edit Having slept over the question, I think I can make it a bit more specific.
Preparation methods: Are merguez usually boiled, grilled, fried, roasted, or something else?
What are the typical combinations? Currently, I only know about couscous. Are they eaten with certain veggies, or herbs, or other things?
Eating occasion. Are they considered a snack, a breakfast, a main course, or something else?
I am aware that anything I listed is possible, but I am asking about the traditional way they are used. If the answers still tend to sound like "undefinable", "all of the above" and "any way the cook feels like", please vote to close the question.
@daniel, changed it to ask about the most common and traditional ways to prepare them. Is this specific enough? I mean, you could use a Munich white sausage any way you like, but everybody in Germany knows that the "right" way is to eat them boiled with mustard and lye pretzels, and hoped to hear if there is something similar for Merguez
If the half-sentence "grilled or with couscous" exhausts the topic, feel free to close the question. I really don't know if there is more to be said on Merguez or if that's all there is.
Favourably, we put them on the barbecue.
You can also just fry them in the pan like a chipolata.
I wouldn't eat them in combo's where you use normal sausages.
It doesn't go well with apple sauce for example.
But this is of course a question of taste.
I prefer them (when not on the BBQ) with food which doesn't contain a lot of spices, like lettuce and tomatoes with boiled potatoes.
Like you'd use any other sausage. Omelets, toad in a hole, pigs in a blanket, etc.
Tranditionally speaking it's grilled. Served along side couscous or in a sandwich. I've had them served along side eggs spiced with cumin and harissa before as well.
Or they can be used as a component of a tagine, in which case they would not be grilled, but probably seared and then added to the stew as it cooks.
From Wikipedia:
Merguez is usually eaten grilled or
with couscous. Dried merguez is used
to add flavor to tagines. It is also
eaten in sandwiches and with french
fries. In Germany, it is often grilled
on a schwenker.
I would add that it would be good in a cassoulet.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.036261
| 2011-03-05T18:15:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12814",
"authors": [
"Alessandro",
"An Nguyen",
"Davide Orazio Montersino",
"Hornerr",
"Katarzyna",
"SomeAmbigiousUserName",
"gdc",
"gemini_diva78",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50276",
"mowwwalker",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15412
|
How to fold camembert in dough
Every time I bake camembert in bread dough, I do a bad job of enveloping. Usually, I make a thin dough circle (like a pizza base) with diameter somewhat less than three times the camembert's diameter. I put the camembert in the middle and the herbs, nuts and spices evenly on top of the camembert. Then I gather the dough sides up and make a bundle. I roll the bundle between my hands until it is smooth. After a short time for a last rising, it goes into the oven.
What I don't like in the method above is that I end up with lots of doufgh atop the camembert. I'd like a uniformly thin(fnish) crust around the cheese. So for dinner today, I decided to improve.
I formed a camembert sized concave dough shell. I put the camembert into the shell, put the spices on top, then made a camembert sized dough circle and placed it on top. I pressed the seam to glue it shut, then gave it a smooth shape. Again some raising, and then I put it into the oven seam side up. Sadly, the seam must have opened in the oven, and most of the mildly expensive cheese has flown out. It is 11:40 pm and my dinner is ruined ;(
Does anybody know a practical way of enveloping the camembert so there is no risk of a seam opening, and the dough is evenly distributed?
I usually just close the seams like your failed attempt, and haven't had that issue. It may help to get the seams on top of cheese rather than on the sides.
Hey I know this is an old post but just in case anyone else is stuck with the same problem, I found this worked for me.
Roll out the dough so it's roughly 3x diameter, place the camembert in the middle. Fold two opposite sides over the top of the camembert. Then with the remaining unfolded sides, fold one on top and one underneath.
You're still left with a little more on top than underneath, but it worked well for me.
Ok. Here's a bit of a math geek answer. I have NOT tried wrapping and baking camambert, but I think this will fix your problem.
Try your original method, but roll the dough out so that the radius is twice the radius of the cheese (instead of three times). When you go to "wrap" the cheese up, the dough will not reach the center of the cheese...but that's ok, because you have the excess dough from the folds to make up the difference. Does that make sense? Roll the bundle in your hands, as you mentioned before.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.036543
| 2011-06-12T21:43:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15412",
"authors": [
"Debbie",
"Ellie",
"Josh Kimbrough",
"Paul D. Eden",
"anemia0",
"bellisima",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97807",
"user32628",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4119
|
Can active dry yeast be substituted for a compressed yeast cake in baking?
A "compressed yeast cake" is called for in each of my great-grandmother's bread recipes. Can I use active dry yeast as a substitution for one? If so, how much active dry yeast should I substitute per compressed yeast cake?
Yes, those cakes are typically 0.6 ounces, and when substituting you should use one packet of active dry yeast.
They are completely equivalent, with a strict conversion ratio of 1:3 (so if you have a recipe calling for 20 g of fresh yeast, you would use 6.7 g of dried, rounding up is OK). It is the same thing you are using, living organisms of the species Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The difference is in the nutritious medium in which they are packaged, it is fresh in one case and dried out in a special non-yeast-killing method in the other. Once they "wake up", they act the same way in all recipes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.036771
| 2010-08-03T16:34:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4119",
"authors": [
"Chris",
"Felix Dombek",
"Stephane",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7733",
"luis.roca"
],
"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
}
|
21241
|
Will microwaving lemons make them easier or more efficient to juice?
I've heard many people say that microwaving lemons before juicing them causes them to release more juice. I'm skeptical, although not enough so to ask this on Skeptics.
I cannot think of any physical reason why this should be so, and I don't believe it, but I would love to have some kind of response when people say this, or even to be proven wrong!
From practical experience: Warm lemons will give you more juice, no matter how you warmed them.
In my 900W microwave it takes 1/2 inch water 1 minute to boil and around 30 seconds to become hand-hot, (I know it may take a bit longer when heating a lemon with the skin acting like an insulator although this effect will be lessened due to the high oil content of the zest). You probably won't 'boil' the lemon however if you did it would produce by far the most juice as the water in the cells would turn into steam and burst creating a semi-juiced lemon before you've even cut it in half.
A cell membrane is made up of many intricate structures, one of which is fatty acid tails. When these melt the cell becomes more 'fluid' and becomes more permeable. This fatty acid melts at around 65 degrees. This would create a lemon that is a lot more flexible and juicy.
Cell membrane diagram.
Based on this evidence, I personally would say that microwaving a lemon actually could help with juicing, the effect will be most noticeable when you're juicing a lot of lemons without a juicer.
You're not supposed to microwave them until hot, just something like 15-20 seconds to get them a little warm. I don't think you're trying to cook it ("melt" the cell walls of the juice vesicles).
I should probably be more direct: does heating a lemon to, say, 100-120F (~40-50C) noticeably weaken cell walls in the juice vesicles?
@Jefromi Ive done some extra research and it melts at around 65 degrees so not quite in you temperature range however not exceedingly hot either. Btw I've added this info to the post.
It makes the lemon easier to squeeze. I think it has the most effect on the peel; it's softer and more flexible when warm, so you're able to get more juice out of it than you could otherwise if you're juicing by hand. That's especially true if you're trying to juice several lemons - you'll just get tired and stop being as thorough if it's harder.
It definitely still makes it easiser if you have the squeezer-style juicer, since those do basically turn the fruit inside out in the process. It probably doesn't help as much with the kind that you push the fruit down onto.
I cannot think of any physical reason why this should be so, and I don't believe it
Have you tried it? Buy two lemons, nuke one of them, and squeeze them both. Measure the juice that you get from each. Better, have someone else (who isn't aware that the lemons are different in any way) squeeze the lemons and tell you if they thought one was easier to squeeze than the other. It'd also be interesting to warm up a lemon in a low oven or just a bowl of hot water.
My own experience is that a short spin in the microwave can make limes easier to squeeze. Limes are often small and very firm, and getting any juice out of them at all is sometimes difficult. The microwave trick does seem to help with this.
It definitely helps significantly with limes, in my own personal experience.
I'll also say bashing the offending citrus against the cutting board and giving it a heavy pressed roll before attempting to juice helps as well. I usually do both.
I use to warm lemons (and oranges) letting them for a while (maybe 4-5 minutes) in a pot of warm water. They do release more juice. If you feel skeptical about microwave, you can try this way.
Softening lemon with water and all that jazz takes time. Best is microwave, just 30 - 45 seconds is enough to make it soft to squeeze more juice.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! We do not: a) discuss health here and b) ask questions in the answer section. Please take the [tour] and visit our [help] for more details. Without the last paragraph (which should be removed, the remainder is a comment at best.
I put the lemon in the microwave for 50 seconds till it bursts and then I let it cool and squeeze it's the easiest way to get lemon juice I'm surprised nobody has figured this out yet
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.036899
| 2012-02-11T00:24:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21241",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris Macksey",
"Sebiddychef",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8920",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13138
|
What is the correct French word for brisket?
What word can I use to accurately describe brisket of beef in French? I usually go to the butcher with a chart of US beef cuts and point to it but it neer seems to correspond to the same piece. Does anyone know the definitive translation?
I don't know where you live, but if you are in Paris, if you go to a butcher on rue des Rosiers (in the traditionally Jewish area of Paris), they will know what a brisket is - I've gotten some there.
I asked for a brisket...
It's not that simple. Every culture cuts their beef differently (or not at all!) and therefore has different names for it
Around the Belgium, Dutch, French low lands they call what the US call brisket and flank, just flank. And what other parts of France might call brisket is not always cut separately, it is just part of the chuck
Confused, we are...
Many butchers in cities receive partially processed carcass parts, so parts like the chest (brisket) may have been removed for processed meat etc
So you need to take a cutting diagram to a butcher whom displays whole carcasses and you should be able to get what you want
As I understand it the brisket extends from in front on the fore legs, between the forelegs and a short way past them? When we have a beast killed most of that goes into the salamis, yum!
Edit: Some common words used are:
Flanchet
Plat de côte
Poitrine
Tendron
A popular brisket cut is a long thin (10mm) strip of the full width of the brisket (left to right). A serving is a single slice slowly grilled and topped with a chunky sauce
To surmise: there may not exist a word to describe brisket to a French butcher. My German mom could never get the exact cuts she wanted in the Netherlands - and those are neighbouring countries. But try taking the charts and images to different butchers until you find one that gives you something you like.
@Erik : quite true; I remember watching a UK chef talk about a 'feather steak', which not only wasn't an official name, but came from the way that the primals were broken down, so just doesn't exist in the U.S. And even when you do have names, they might be only barely overlapping areas (eg, sirloin in the US vs. UK)
The traditional cuts can also vary within countries, I remember reading (probably in Kästner's "Die verschwundene Miniatur", where the main character is a German butcher) that the traditional cuts of meat are quite different in different regions of Germany.
The UN has a standards document that contains translations of beef cuts from English to French, Russian, Spanish, and Chinese. (To try to work around the fact that everybody has slightly different cuts of meat.)
They list:
(Boneless) Brisket - Poitrine sans os
Brisket deckle off - Morceaude poitrine sans os épluché
Brisket navel plate - Flanchet / tendron sans os
Brisket point end deckle off - Gros bout de poitrine sans os épluché
Good spotting! Typical UN document, nothing to do with harmonising people, just harmonising large scale global trade
excellent pointer to standards document! People may laugh at this sort of text, but it is really important that, when you send a shipload of beef from Argentina to Belgium, there is a very clear understanding of what exactly is beef, what it should look like and how it should be cut. Good trade relationship make for good international friendship.
I live in Bordeaux but used to live in Texas. Here is my "modus operandi" when I need a specific piece of meat like the brisket. I show my butcher a diagram and show him the part I need. The usual term for brisket is "poitrine" I ask him to cut a piece of 5 kilos and to leave the fat on the top of it. He knows me now and always tell me when he has a entire beef coming in, that way he is sure the brisket is still there. They usually don't sell it in France so I pay +/- 5 euro/kg.
"Pointe de poitrine" seems to be the right word for brisket.
Enjoy!
Ahh ... pictures. If there's one thing I've learned from IKEA, it's to give up on words and stick with pictures.
If you're living in France then I apologize if my Canadian French leads you astray, but according to the (bilingual, obviously) Canadian Food Inspection Agency, the terms are:
Pointe de poitrine (Brisket or flat brisket)
Poitrine complète (Full brisket)
Here's that same page in English if you want to cross reference other cuts.
The French word is le tendron, it is also known as le gros bout de poitrine.*
Sources:
http://www.civ-viande.org/ebn.ebn?pid=62&rubrik=4&morceau=2&contenu=1
http://www.civ-viande.org/ebn.ebn?pid=56&rubrik=5&item=37 (interactive graphic)
Use Google Translate to translate from French to English.
*I do not speak French
Not terribly surprised that the Canadian version is different... in your case, le tendron would be the full brisket (owing to its 10 kg weight); the other one must be the flat brisket.
My French is poor, but I would be cautious using the "tendron" word, while in classic french it means flesh from ribs (brisket), it more often means "young girl" :-)
don't worry the flesh meaning is the first that comes to a french mind
The Canadian Beef Council has a bilingual chart of beef cuts (PDF) which might be useful.
(Although, French and Canadian cuts might not be the same, even if they're in the same language; I know US and UK aren't. But with pictures, the butcher might be able to identify the correct bits for you)
In a fantastic French cookbook called Saveurs Américaines, Editions du Chêne, 2002 the brisket recipe calls for JUMEAU de BOEUF.
OK, be careful- someone suggested poitrine, you need to specify poitrine de boeuf. I say this because I accidentally bought what seems to be pork belly by just saying "poitrine".
Google translate . Pointe de poitrine de boeuf is the correct translation , I had it verified by my butcher when I asked him for the cut he knew no question asked .
Look here, english french terms.
http://www.inspection.gc.ca/francais/fssa/labeti/mcmancv/beeboe1f.shtml
That's Canadian French?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.037259
| 2011-03-14T23:40:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13138",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Chris of Oxford",
"Erik P.",
"Eve",
"JDelage",
"Joe",
"Karen",
"Margaret",
"Mohana ",
"Nikko",
"Ray",
"Sam",
"Shammel Lee",
"TFD",
"Theodore Murdock",
"Uma",
"Walter A. Aprile",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99961",
"smithkm",
"user428517"
],
"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
}
|
13377
|
Where can I find buttermilk in France?
The translation for buttermilk is given as babeurre, but this doesn't correspond to anything I can find in grocery stores or cheese shops here. I suspect that the word means something in Quebec but it doesn't ring any bells here.
Does anyone know what I should be asking for and where I can find it?
If you can't find it, there are plenty of substitutions. You can either spike milk with an acid (about 1TB lemon juice or vinegar to 1c. milk (15mL acid to 250mL milk) for use in most baking recipes, or use a mix of yoghurt and milk (between 3:1 to 1:1 depending on the consistency you want, but if you're going to bake with it in something that calls for baking soda, you might need to spike it with a little acid)
You'll want to look for one of two products either lait fermenté or lait ribot.
Lait fermenté is a cultured buttermilk. This is homogenized and pasteurized milk which has been cultured with lactic acid bacteria. This is the de facto standard buttermilk in modern times. If you go to an American grocery store and buy buttermilk you are buying cultured buttermilk.
Lait ribot is traditional buttermilk. It is the fermented liquid leftover from churning butter. This is not commonly found in the US and other western countries.
See also: Buttermilk
Thanks @hobodave. Do you know what brands it is sold under?
@Zippy: I'm afraid not. I have Google to thank for this answer. I've never been to France.
@Zippy In Belgium it is sold at Carrefour (a French chain) under the "Luxlait" brand. Perhaps in France as well?
buttermilk is a french "petit lait"
AT first time, you should know what is a buttermilk. it is lower in fat than sweet milk. Old-fashioned homemade buttermilk is the slightly sour, residual liquid which remains after butter is churned, ie. milk from the butter or buttermilk.
so, you can obtain your own "petit lait" by yourself..
Buy a brik of "creme liquid entier", let it spins and spins in your kitchenaid. (or with fouet electique) to obtain your own butter and "petit lait"
2 rabbits with one stone. This is a case. lol
"2 rabbits with one stone".... The English version of that would be "two birds with one stone."
I just bought some lait fermenté to use as buttermilk in a recipe for corn muffins for our Thanksgiving dinner a few days ago. I bought it at the Carrefour supermarket in Ferney-Voltaire, France. It comes in 1 liter Tetrapak "bricks" and is made by Yoplait (well-known primarily for its yoghurt). under the actual name....."Lait Fermenté.
Chuck,
Geneva, Switzerland
Sorry, my fault. I didn't see the title.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.037771
| 2011-03-22T18:20:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13377",
"authors": [
"Alina Barnett",
"BARTOL",
"Carey Gregory",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Joe",
"Nels Beckman",
"Zippy",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632"
],
"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
}
|
41598
|
What parasites are problematic in sous vide?
Obviously, one should use only clean ingredients. However, especially with game and river/lake fish that's rather difficult.
What are parasites that should be taken into account in sous vide cooking, or any other tightly controlled low-temperature cooking?
What is the minimum core temperature and time to kill all parasites?
For sake of reality, "all parasites" should be limited to those in Europe and northern America.
I'm not looking for "just boil everything" or "only use inspected ingredients". Also, note that in sous vide, same temperature can be maintained for extended period of time. At least some temperature guidelines are higher than they have to be to account for quick, uneven cooking.
I would have added a comment but I don't have enough rep :( Freezing the fish before cooking (in sous vide) might be an alternative to kill the parasites: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/723/what-exactly-is-sushi-grade-fish
All information that gives safe cooking temperatures without reference to time at that temperature is wrong. The FDA guidelines, and state and local health dept. guidelines not only confict with each other, they are flat out wrong!
They all represent efforts to simplify molecular biology to two or three mindless rules. In the process, they guarantee that you will either overcook your food, or (if you care about good food) ignore the rules. Or possibly both.
For a summary of the actual bacteriocidal data, take a look at Douglas Baldwin's site: http://www.douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html#Safety
He has compiled information based on the actual growth and death curves for the pathogens that concern us most in the kitchen: salmonella, e.coli, lysteria, clostridium perfringes. Taking care of these will also get you out of the woods with protists, parasitic worms, norovirus, and everything else besides bacterial spores (another subject ... more relevant to canning).
For an even more thorough examination of the issue, take a look at the Microbiology for Cooks chapter in Vol. 1 of the Modernist Cuisine series. Both Baldwin and Myhrvold have arrived at the same conclusion by consulting the actual science. The official guidelines are irrelevant.
The original question is "what is the shortest temperature and time to kill all parasites." By "parasite" I'm assuming the OP means pathogen, since parasites are technically just one type, and not usually the most important.
There's no good answer if we take this question literally, because killing all of anything is almost impossible. Autoclaving in a pressure cooker at 250°F / 121°C for 30 minutes still leaves about one in a trillion botulinum spores alive. Pasteurization leaves about 1 in 300 million pathogens alive (by definition, actually).
Cooking guidelines aren't about trying to kill everything; we just try to bring pathogens down to a safe level. A safe level is one where if you eat the food that's been refrigerated properly, in a reasonable amount of time, and you have a reasonably good immune system, it will be very unlikely that you'll get sick. I know that's a lot of disclaimers, but it's a messy world.
Here are some basic guidelines. You'll get much more thorough versions looking at the above (or similar) sources. This stuff is best expressed as a graph. I'm padding it a bit for simplicity and safety:
126°F / 52°C for 6 hours
130°F / 54.5°C for 2 hours
135°F / 57°C for 40 minutes
140°F / 60°C for 12 minutes
150°F / 65.5°C for for 1 minute 15 seconds
160°F / 71°C for 8 seconds
This is the time for killing salmonella (the most heat resistant of the pathogens we care about) to pasteurization standards.
Please note that these are not cooking times: these are times the food needs to be held at the temperature after reaching it. Normal minimum cooking times just reflect how long it will take for the center of the food to reach a given temperature. The above times are additional.
You may have noticed that the first three temperatures above are well within the FDA's "danger zone." It's curious that the official guidelines consider your food in danger when it's actually in the process of being pasteurized.
But it's not necessarily that complicated. We don't really have to pasteurize food most of the time. If you eat conventionally cooked medium-rare steak, fish that doesn't taste like rubber, or chicken that still has some juice left in it, then you eat un-pasteurized food. It's not a problem, because with the exception of ground meat, virtually all pathogens reside on the outer surfaces of the food. And they get more than hot enough when you sear the food, whether the main part of the cooking was sous-vide or some other way.
Pasteurization is mostly an issue with cook-chill sous-vide, which is where you prepare food for reheating many days (even weeks) later.
Botulism is not a concern unless you're doing cook-chill and trying to keep the food for way, way too long (or in a much too warm fridge). The bacteria does indeed like the airtight bag, but it doesn't like the cold.
Considering my previous answer, which used to be just like this (no mention of parasites) why does this one get voted up when mine was voted down?
Modernist Cuisine, Vol 1, p122 (includes my bold):
A separate family of parasitic worms, known as nematodes or anisakids,
includes species such as Anisakis simplex and Pseudoterranova
decipiens (which is also listed under the genus Terranova or
Phocanema). These worms follow a life cycle that resembles that of trichinae but in a marine environment.
Raw fish poses the biggest risk
of infection because cooking fish to an internal temperature of 60 °C
/ 140 °F or more for at least one minute kills the worms. Several food
safety guides assert that 15 seconds at an interior temperature of 63
°C / 145 °F will also do the trick. Those temperatures, however, are
high enough to overcook the fish, at least to many people’s taste.
Not
surprisingly, sushi-loving Japan is the epicenter of foodborne
anisakid infections, also known as anisakiasis. Tokyo alone tallies
about 1,000 cases annually, most of which are from home-prepared sushi
and sashimi. Only rarely are sushi bars with professional sushi chefs
implicated. The U.S. reports fewer than 10 cases a year.
Anisakid
infection occurs more frequently in certain fish species that
fishermen catch near the shore, such as salmon, mackerel, squid,
herring, anchovies, and rockfish, than it does in other species.
Coastal fish are more likely to eat infected copepods that regenerate
in seals and other marine mammals. Farmed salmon do not eat copepods
and are therefore generally anisakid-free, as are wild tuna and other
deep-ocean species.
Wild salmon, however, are especially prone to
infection. In 1994, for instance, an FDA study found anisakids in 10%
of raw salmon samples that were obtained from 32 sushi bars in the
Seattle area. Despite this alarming statistic, human anisakiasis cases
are still relatively rare because most ingested larvae die or pass
harmlessly through the intestinal tract.
The technique traditionally
used by chefs to detect worms requires them to hold fish fillets up to
a light and inspect them visually, a procedure called candling. Master
sushi chefs say they can feel the worms with their fingers. And
although some chefs can indeed find a few worms through candling or
handling, studies suggest that others may be easily missed, especially
in salmon or mackerel. No matter how experienced the sushi master,
then, neither method is fully reliable.
Freezing kills anisakids, and
in this way the food industry ensures that worms pose no health risk
in fish that is served raw. For commercial retailers, the FDA
recommends freezing and storing the fish in a blast freezer for seven
days at −20°C/−4°F, or for 15hours at −35°C/−31°F. Most sushi is, in
fact, frozen before it is served; the 1994 FDA study found that all
but one of the anisakid worms spotted in the Seattle sushi were dead
or dying—casualties of the freezing process. If done improperly,
however, freezing can negatively affect the taste and texture of the
fish.
Modernist Cuisine, Vol 1, p123-124 (moreso Asia, but for posterity it is worth mentioning):
[ … ] species of liver fluke are endemic to Asia and Eastern Europe,
where researchers have linked them to eating raw or undercooked
freshwater fish.
Researchers have tied many infections, mostly in Asia, to eating raw,
pickled, or poorly cooked freshwater crabs and crawfish (especially
Chinese “drunken crabs”) that are contaminated with lung flukes,
another major fluke group comprising eight known species. These
animals produce a serious human disease called paragonimiasis, in
which immature worms infect the lungs and encapsulate themselves in
protective cysts, where they can remain for decades.
A table on freezing times by FDA:
So, to kill parasites, a blast freezer is the way to go.
Afterwards, we need to cook sous vide to get rid of nasty bacteria.
This is my sous vide bible: http://www.douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html
Cook-hold sous vide (hold the temperature and serve):
For cook-hold sous vide, the main pathogens of interest are the Salmonella species and the pathogenic strains of Escherichia coli. There are, of course, many other food pathogens but these two species are relatively heat resistant and require very few active bacteria (measured in colony forming units, CFU, per gram) to make you sick. Since you’re unlikely to know how contaminated your food is or how many of these bacteria your (or your guests) immune system can handle, most experts recommend a 6.5 to 7 decimal reductions of all Salmonella species and a 5 decimal reduction of pathogenic E. coli.
Cook-chill sous vide (chill after cooking for later re-heating and serving):
For cook-chill sous vide, Listeria monocytogenes and the spore forming pathogenic bacteria are our pathogens of interest. That’s because Listeria is the most heat resistant non-spore forming pathogen and can grow at refrigerator temperatures (Nyati, 2000b; Rybka-Rodgers, 2001), but appears to require more bacteria to make you sick than Salmonella or E. coli. Most experts recommend a 6 decimal reduction in Listeria if you don’t know the contamination level of your food.
While keeping your food sealed in plastic pouches prevents recontamination after cooking, spores of Clostridium botulinum, C. perfringens, and B. cereus can all survive the mild heat treatment of pasteurization. Therefore, after rapid chilling, the food must either be frozen or held at
below 36.5°F (2.5°C) for up to 90 days,
below 38°F (3.3°C) for less than 31 days,
below 41°F (5°C) for less than 10 days,
or below 44.5°F (7°C) for less than 5 days
to prevent spores of non-proteolytic C. botulinum from outgrowing and producing deadly neurotoxin (Gould, 1999; Peck, 1997).
We all consume small amounts of harmful bacteria that passes through our system unbeknownst to us, so we're talking about cooking to safe levels.
There is an easy table of data for this, and it is based upon the thickness of the items you are cooking sous vide. Please keep in mind, cylindrical items will cook faster in sous vide than their relatively box-shaped counterparts (a roulade, for instance, vs. a 1" thick steak.)
Also, depending on the meat, you will want to cook it to a different temperature to cull those particular bacteria (fish vs. chicken vs. beef)
There are several tables of data:
http://www.douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html#Fish_and_Shellfish
Pasteurization Time for Lean Fish
(starting at 41°F / 5°C and put in a 131–140°F / 55–60°C water bath)
55°C 56°C 57°C 58°C 59°C 60°C
Thickness 131°F 133°F 134.5°F 136.5°F 138°F 140°F
5 mm 2½ hr 1¾ hr 1¼ hr 50 min 35 min 30 min
10 mm 2¾ hr 2 hr 1½ hr 60 min 45 min 35 min
15 mm 2¾ hr 2 hr 1½ hr 1¼ hr 55 min 50 min
20 mm 3 hr 2¼ hr 1¾ hr 1½ hr 1¼ hr 60 min
25 mm 3¼ hr 2½ hr 2 hr 1¾ hr 1½ hr 1¼ hr
30 mm 3¾ hr 3 hr 2½ hr 2 hr 1¾ hr 1¾ hr
35 mm 4 hr 3¼ hr 2¾ hr 2½ hr 2¼ hr 2 hr
40 mm 4½ hr 3¾ hr 3 hr 2¾ hr 2½ hr 2¼ hr
45 mm 4¾ hr 4 hr 3½ hr 3¼ hr 2¾ hr 2½ hr
50 mm 5¼ hr 4½ hr 4 hr 3½ hr 3¼ hr 3 hr
55 mm 5¾ hr 5 hr 4½ hr 4 hr 3¾ hr 3½ hr
60 mm 6¼ hr 5½ hr 5 hr 4½ hr 4 hr 3¾ hr
65 mm 7 hr 6 hr 5½ hr 5 hr 4½ hr 4¼ hr
70 mm 7½ hr 6¾ hr 6 hr 5½ hr 5 hr 4¾ hr
Pasteurization Time for Fatty Fish
(starting at 41°F / 5°C and put in a 131–140°F / 55–60°C water bath)
55°C 56°C 57°C 58°C 59°C 60°C
Thickness 131°F 133°F 134.5°F 136.5°F 138°F 140°F
5 mm 4¼ hr 3 hr 2 hr 1½ hr 60 min 40 min
10 mm 4¼ hr 3 hr 2 hr 1½ hr 1¼ hr 50 min
15 mm 4½ hr 3¼ hr 2¼ hr 1¾ hr 1¼ hr 60 min
20 mm 4¾ hr 3½ hr 2½ hr 2 hr 1½ hr 1¼ hr
25 mm 5 hr 3¾ hr 2¾ hr 2¼ hr 1¾ hr 1½ hr
30 mm 5¼ hr 4 hr 3¼ hr 2½ hr 2¼ hr 2 hr
35 mm 5½ hr 4¼ hr 3½ hr 3 hr 2½ hr 2¼ hr
40 mm 6 hr 4¾ hr 4 hr 3¼ hr 3 hr 2½ hr
45 mm 6½ hr 5¼ hr 4¼ hr 3¾ hr 3¼ hr 3 hr
50 mm 7 hr 5¾ hr 4¾ hr 4¼ hr 3¾ hr 3¼ hr
55 mm 7½ hr 6¼ hr 5¼ hr 4¾ hr 4¼ hr 3¾ hr
60 mm 8 hr 6¾ hr 5¾ hr 5¼ hr 4¾ hr 4¼ hr
65 mm 8½ hr 7¼ hr 6¼ hr 5¾ hr 5¼ hr 4¾ hr
70 mm 9¼ hr 8 hr 7 hr 6¼ hr 5¾ hr 5¼ hr
Table 3.1: Pasteurization times for a one million to one reduction of Listeria in fin-fish. I used D605.59 = 2.88 minutes for lean fish (such as cod) and D605.68 = 5.13 minutes for fatty fish (such as salmon) from Embarek and Huss (1993). For my calculations I used a thermal diffusivity of 0.995×10-7 m2/s, a surface heat transfer coefficient of 95 W/m2-K, and took β = 0.28 (to simulate the heating speed of a 2:3:5 box).
http://www.douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html#Chicken_or_Turkey_Breast
Pasteurization Time for Poultry
(starting at 41°F / 5°C and put in a 134.5–149°F / 57–65°C water bath)
134.5°F 136.5°F 138°F 140°F 142°F 143.5°F 145.5°F 147°F 149°F
Thickness 57°C 58°C 59°C 60°C 61°C 62°C 63°C 64°C 65°C
5 mm 2¼ hr 1¾ hr 1¼ hr 45 min 35 min 25 min 18 min 15 min 13 min
10 mm 2¼ hr 1¾ hr 1¼ hr 55 min 40 min 35 min 30 min 25 min 20 min
15 mm 2½ hr 1¾ hr 1½ hr 1¼ hr 50 min 45 min 40 min 35 min 30 min
20 mm 2¾ hr 2 hr 1¾ hr 1¼ hr 1¼ hr 55 min 50 min 45 min 40 min
25 mm 3 hr 2¼ hr 2 hr 1½ hr 1½ hr 1¼ hr 1¼ hr 60 min 55 min
30 mm 3¼ hr 2¾ hr 2¼ hr 2 hr 1¾ hr 1½ hr 1½ hr 1¼ hr 1¼ hr
35 mm 3¾ hr 3 hr 2½ hr 2¼ hr 2 hr 1¾ hr 1¾ hr 1½ hr 1½ hr
40 mm 4 hr 3¼ hr 2¾ hr 2½ hr 2¼ hr 2 hr 2 hr 1¾ hr 1¾ hr
45 mm 4½ hr 3¾ hr 3¼ hr 3 hr 2¾ hr 2½ hr 2¼ hr 2 hr 2 hr
50 mm 4¾ hr 4¼ hr 3¾ hr 3¼ hr 3 hr 2¾ hr 2½ hr 2½ hr 2¼ hr
55 mm 5¼ hr 4½ hr 4 hr 3¾ hr 3½ hr 3¼ hr 3 hr 2¾ hr 2¾ hr
60 mm 5¾ hr 5 hr 4½ hr 4¼ hr 3¾ hr 3½ hr 3¼ hr 3¼ hr 3 hr
65 mm 6¼ hr 5½ hr 5 hr 4½ hr 4¼ hr 4 hr 3¾ hr 3½ hr 3¼ hr
70 mm 7 hr 6 hr 5½ hr 5 hr 4¾ hr 4½ hr 4¼ hr 4 hr 3¾ hr
Table 4.1: Time required for at least a one million to one reduction in Listeria and a ten million to one reduction in Salmonella in poultry starting at 41°F (5°C). I calculated the D- and z-values using linear regression from (O’Bryan et al., 2006): for Salmonella I used D606.45 = 4.68 minutes and for Listeria I used D605.66 = 5.94 minutes. For my calculations I used a thermal diffusivity of 1.08×10-7 m2/s, a surface heat transfer coefficient of 95 W/m2-K, and took β=0.28 (to simulate the heating speed of a 2:3:5 box). For more information on calculating log reductions, see Appendix A.
http://www.douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html#Beef
Pasteurization Time for Meat (Beef, Pork, and Lamb)
(starting at 41°F / 5°C and put in a 131–151°F / 55–66°C water bath)
55°C 56°C 57°C 58°C 59°C 60°C
Thickness 131°F 133°F 134.5°F 136.5°F 138°F 140°F
5 mm 2 hr 1¼ hr 60 min 45 min 40 min 30 min
10 mm 2 hr 1½ hr 1¼ hr 55 min 45 min 40 min
15 mm 2¼ hr 1¾ hr 1½ hr 1¼ hr 60 min 55 min
20 mm 2½ hr 2 hr 1¾ hr 1½ hr 1¼ hr 1¼ hr
25 mm 2¾ hr 2¼ hr 2 hr 1¾ hr 1½ hr 1½ hr
30 mm 3 hr 2½ hr 2 hr 2 hr 1¾ hr 1½ hr
35 mm 3¼ hr 2¾ hr 2¼ hr 2 hr 2 hr 1¾ hr
40 mm 3½ hr 3 hr 2½ hr 2¼ hr 2¼ hr 2 hr
45 mm 4 hr 3¼ hr 3 hr 2¾ hr 2½ hr 2¼ hr
50 mm 4½ hr 3¾ hr 3¼ hr 3 hr 2¾ hr 2½ hr
55 mm 5 hr 4¼ hr 3¾ hr 3½ hr 3 hr 3 hr
60 mm 5¼ hr 4¾ hr 4¼ hr 3¾ hr 3½ hr 3¼ hr
65 mm 6 hr 5¼ hr 4¾ hr 4¼ hr 4 hr 3¾ hr
70 mm 6½ hr 5¾ hr 5¼ hr 4¾ hr 4¼ hr 4 hr
61°C 62°C 63°C 64°C 65°C 66°C
Thickness 142°F 143.5°F 145.5°F 147°F 149°F 151°F
5 mm 25 min 25 min 18 min 16 min 14 min 13 min
10 mm 35 min 30 min 30 min 25 min 25 min 25 min
15 mm 50 min 45 min 40 min 40 min 35 min 35 min
20 mm 60 min 55 min 55 min 50 min 45 min 45 min
25 mm 1¼ hr 1¼ hr 1¼ hr 60 min 55 min 55 min
30 mm 1½ hr 1½ hr 1¼ hr 1¼ hr 1¼ hr 1¼ hr
35 mm 1¾ hr 1½ hr 1½ hr 1½ hr 1¼ hr 1¼ hr
40 mm 1¾ hr 1¾ hr 1¾ hr 1½ hr 1½ hr 1½ hr
45 mm 2¼ hr 2 hr 2 hr 1¾ hr 1¾ hr 1¾ hr
50 mm 2½ hr 2¼ hr 2¼ hr 2 hr 2 hr 2 hr
55 mm 2¾ hr 2¾ hr 2½ hr 2½ hr 2¼ hr 2¼ hr
60 mm 3 hr 3 hr 2¾ hr 2¾ hr 2½ hr 2½ hr
65 mm 3½ hr 3¼ hr 3¼ hr 3 hr 3 hr 2¾ hr
70 mm 3¾ hr 3¾ hr 3½ hr 3¼ hr 3¼ hr 3¼ hr
Table 5.1: Time required to reduce Listeria by at least a million to one, Salmonella by at least three million to one, and E. coli by at least a hundred thousand to one in thawed meat starting at 41°F (5°C). I calculated the D- and z-values using linear regression from O’Bryan et al. (2006), Bolton et al. (2000), and Hansen and Knøchel (1996): for E. coli I use D554.87 = 19.35 min; for Salmonella I use D557.58 = 13.18 min; and for Listeria I use D559.22 = 12.66 min. For my calculations I used a thermal diffusivity of 1.11×10-7 m2/s, a surface heat transfer coefficient of 95 W/m2-K, and took β=0 up to 30 mm and β=0.28 above 30 mm (to simulate the heating speed of a 2:3:5 box). For more information on calculating log reductions, see Appendix A. [Note that if the beef is seasoned using a sauce or marinate which will acidify the beef, then the pasteurizing times may need to be doubled to accommodate the increased thermal tolerance of Listeria (Hansen and Knøchel, 1996).]
There's also a table for Government (I'm assuming US Government) pasturisation times:
http://www.douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html#Government_Pasteurization_Tables
As well as a list of sources:
http://www.douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html#Bibliography
Setek throws down the gauntlet. Anyone else?
This answer doesn't mention a single parasite. It only discusses bacteria.
@rumtscho You're absolutely right, oversight on my part. I'll consult my other sources and edit, but if I can't find anything, I'll delete my answer.
@setek - Your original answer was fairly comprehensive and authoritative (even if it didn't specifically mention parasites). If you still have the content, it would be worth integrating along with this information as a resource for anyone else coming across this question.
@RayMitchell I sure do, I've amalgamated it all now :)
Edited for clarity. USDA Recommendations do not fully apply to this technique
Additional Source
The biggest risk with sous-vide is botulism. The lack of oxygen with this particular technique allows the botulism bacteria to thrive. The general recommendation is that the meat must reach an internal temperature of at least 131F/55C within 4 hours. This should properly "pasteurize" the meat.
USDA Recommendations:
Pork, beaf, veal, and lamb STEAKS are now considered safe at 145F.
Fish is safe at 145F (sushi anyone?)
Poultry is safe at 165F
All GROUND meats should be cooked to a minimum of 160F.
You'll notice that by these guidelines, a medium-rare burger is considered dangerous. So you'll have to use your best judgement. For context, E. coli is killed at around 155F, so there is logic to these numbers.
Personal recommendation: All meat should be cooked to a minimum of an internal temperature of 140 degrees, and kept there for at least 90 minutes. The meat must reach 131F within 4 hours to prevent the risk of botulism.
Poultry should always be cooked to at least 160, according to USDA recommendations, but Salmonella will die if cooked at 131F for at least 90 minutes. This should be sufficient.
I'm normally the first to quote official food safety guidelines, but they really don't apply to sous-vide. Otherwise you might as well just say "don't do sous-vide, ever", because nobody, ever, cooks sous-vide chicken at 165° F. Bacteria are killed at much lower temperatures, it just takes much longer, which is a safe practice as long as the cooking is uniform and the temperatures and times are very precise (which is exactly what sous-vide is).
With the regulatory agencies not understanding sous-vide (or more properly, low temperature cooking), especially in aggressive jurisdictions like NYC, it is very close in practice to don't do it, ever...
@Aaronut you're right for the most part. I think as long as the meat is cooked to 131F within 4 hours, and then kept at that temperature for at least 90 minutes, most if not all the threats are terminated (including Salmonella). However, as SAJ14SAJ stated, there don't appear to be official guidelines on this, so I figured I'd list what was available.
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4292/is-it-safe-to-eat-a-cooked-steak-that-briefly-touched-the-plate-that-was-holdi answers this question better. Might want to redirect it there.
@TonyArra that is a very different question. It definitely does not answer this question.
@Olli I was referring to the best answer to that question which has a much more detailed explanation of how long it takes to kill certain bacteria at certain temperatures, and the USDA guidelines for this.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.038020
| 2014-01-30T17:16:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41598",
"authors": [
"8CK",
"Aaronut",
"CJCONATY5",
"Ching Chong",
"ClearPath Orthodontics spam",
"Dent Mavericks Auto Hail Spam",
"HPAML",
"Ming",
"Mobile Desktop Apps spam",
"Olli",
"Passionscape Pte Ltd",
"PellucidWombat",
"PraN",
"Ray Mitchell",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Tony Arra",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98261",
"rumtscho",
"stephan norsten",
"trish",
"ulastogelmania spam",
"user982671"
],
"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
}
|
18178
|
How to make a non-salty cheesecake?
There are lots of American cheese cake recipes which call for cream cheese. And I don't know about cream cheese in the USA, but in Europe, cream cheese is salted. It may be not as salty as, say, feta, but the salt is definitely noticeable. As a result, my cheesecake's taste is a combination of sweet and salty.
Do you have any ideas how to solve the problem? Of course, it would be perfect if you can tell me a brand of cream cheese without salt which I can get in Germany. But if not, I would like to hear ideas about how to make the salt less noticeable. Adding more sugar or using a different kind of cheese (e.g. mascarpone) are not an option. Or if it is normal for a cheesecake to taste that way (I have never eaten a genuine American cheesecake), please tell me so I can stop worrying about my cakes.
Also, I have observed that a cheesecake tastes less salty after a day or two. Is this real, or just my imagination (or me getting accustomed to the taste)? If true, what causes this to happen?
My wife makes excellent cheesecake, and I don't find it salty. The standard American cream cheese is Philadelphia, which has 105mg of sodium per 28g serving. Is the sodium content of the cream cheeses you've used higher?
In the US, Neufchatel is a common substitution for cream cheese. Would you be able to get that?
Cheesecake with Neufchatel has a much different flavor in my experience. Unless the cheesecake has very, very strong flavors otherwise - its not a substitute for me.
if you're in or near a major city, you should be able to get Philadelphia brand cream cheese in the food section of your Kaufhof. I have seen it at Galeria Kaufhof and the KaDeWe food halls in Berlin, also in Hamburg. Although as someone who is neither German nor American, I personally think German Kasekuchen is far superior to American cheesecake! :)
There is also the option of using a ricotta base for your cheesecake, although it's less "American".
I would 'cut' a standard cream cheese like Philadelphia with mascarpone, which is essentially triple cream with a cream cheese-like texture.
Now thats an idea I can get behind.
The cheesecake recipe I use calls for roughly equal quantities of Burgos cheese, cream, and yoghurt, which is a similar idea.
As Katie mentions, Neufchatel is a good substitute. Granted, what follows is just based on the sodium content, and may or may not account for the extent to which the cheese tastes "salty"; however, I think if you play around with other brands you may find the right one.
Philadelphia Cream Cheese is generally marketed as the essential Cheesecake making cream cheese for Americans; but if it tastes salty here is some nutritional data:
There are 125mg sodium per ounce of cream cheese, Philadelphia brand. Their "1/3 Less Fat" and fat free varieties have 120mg and 190mg, respectively. Their "Light Cream Cheese" spread has only 66mg (in 25g, 28g/oz). So building a Philadelphia Cheesecake may not be the best brand.
However, for 2 tablespoons you have other brands to consider:
Cream Cheese (Plain):
Very Low Sodium – 35mg or less:
Nancy's (35mg)
Low Sodium – 140mg or less:
Bruegger's: Plain (85mg), Plain, Light (90mg)
Lucerne (Safeway) Whipped, 2 tbsp (65mg)
Morning Select Whipped, 2 tbsp (60mg)
Mozzarella Co — has an unsalted and lightly salted cream cheese
Richfood Whipped, 2 tbsp (65mg)
TempTee Soft, 2 tbsp (70mg)
Cream Cheese (Flavored):
Low Sodium – 140mg or less:
Bruegger's: Strawberry (70mg), Honey Walnut (85mg), Wildberry (85mg)
Crystal Farms Blueberry or Raspberry (100mg)
Marzetti Fruit Dip (85mg)
Philadelphia: [Whipped] Cinnamon 'n Brown Sugar (55mg), Mixed Berry (55mg), Blueberry (110mg), Swirls Peaches 'n Cream (110mg)
Hopefully they have any of those brands in Germany for you.
As for masking the saltiness of the cheese itself, you might try a variant on your crust. I do not know if you use a standard pastry crust or not, but a graham cracker or oreo crust might go a good distance to distracting those salt buds by making a raucous for the sweet buds. I am thinking of spartan solutions, so trying to avoid veering too far away from a plain cheesecake, no toppings added.
Also, are you using unsalted butter in the recipe? You could try using a less processed sugar if you are using white sugar, or switching out the white sugar entirely for an alternative sweetener that is subtle enough to match; I am thinking that despite it's nosiness, honey might make for a decent pairing as it has a bit of mouth feel to distract from the salt.
If he's in Europe, he's almost certainly using unsalted butter; but most cheesecake recipes don't contain any butter (except for the crust), so that's no help. The problem is almost certainly the cream cheese: in Europe, this tends to be a savory sandwich spread type of thing, possibly with little acquaintance with actual milk products.
You'll have to make your own cream cheese from scratch. It's a hassle to make, but you get to control what goes into your cheesecake.
We're a cooking site, not a health/nutrition site, so I'll go ahead and edit your answer down to the relevant parts.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.039552
| 2011-10-04T15:51:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18178",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Danny Nelson",
"Kathy",
"KatieK",
"KimbaF",
"Martha F.",
"Marti",
"Peter Taylor",
"Spammer",
"Zero Morph",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/770",
"lori Fillers",
"mary howard",
"mjobrien",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11507
|
Resources for cooking for a person with type 2 diabetes
I am a private chef and will have to cook for 16 days for a person recently diagnosed with type 2 diabetes.
The meals I'm required to prepare are lunch and dinner. There will be six people and dinners are served family style.
I have occasionally cooked for the family in the past and the meals have always been simple, eclectic and very healthy made from the highest quality ingredients which I have access to. I have never baked for this family and don't see any reason to start now.
What I need is information and resources on low-glycemic, diabetic diets. We also love to eat creative, fun and interesting foods so that should make it easier. I'm just curious what ideas are there, so please share.
Recently diagnosed Type II Diabetes patients are frequently prescribed a low-carbohydrate diet. The type of carbohydrate ("slow" or "simple" are familiar terms) doesn't matter so much as the total number of carbohydrates.
A person with this dietary prescription would have learned to count gross carbohydrates and to eat the same number of carbohydrates at every meal. Their calories ought to come primarily from protein and fat, but also from a modest portion of carbohydrates.
Therefore, something such as a salad w/ dressing, a protein, a vegetable side, and a modest portion of starchy food would probably be most appropriate. Legumes, and other fiber-rich sources of carbohydrates, have the added benefits of being more satisfying and nutritious (as opposed to, say, white rice). They also sport a low glycemic-index.
For example: Salad, a reasonable portion of a creamy-type chicken dish, a steamed (non-starchy) vegetable side, and a modest portion of whole grains, legumes, or starchy vegetables.
Dessert, for the recently diagnosed, is probably too optimistic. Something along the lines of a low-sugar lemon sorbet might work. Sugar substitutes, although they taste bad, are medically acceptable.
You can find specific recommendations on the number of carbohydrates for diabetics on various websites, but it's probably easiest to just ask your client about their individual situation.
There is one extra consideration that is easy for a cook to miss: thickeners, such as cornstarch or flour, can have a very high carbohydrate content; certain vegetables, while they do not seem starchy, actually have quite a bit of sugar. If your client is seriously following the diet I've described, then such carbohydrate sources must be taken into account.
I give you the green check because you very elegantly summed up the information throughout the web I have been looking at.
Assuming that this is a relatively mild case of diabetes, this isn't too different from "normal" food.
In type 2 diabetes, the problems begin when too much sugar is made available to the body quickly. This is actually more easily avoided than most people realize, through some simple guidelines.
No simple, easily absorbed sugar. This is obvious. Avoid any sugar that comes in packets. Also go easy on sweet fruit (like peaches or grapes) as they contain sugar too.
More complex carbohydrates. Carbohydrates (aside from sugar itself) are broken down by the body into sugars. This is fine, the energy has to come from somewhere. However, different types of carbs break down at different rates, and therefore have a different effect on the blood sugar levels. This is defined by the food's glycemic index (GI). Try to aim for foods with a lower GI, these are occasionally surprising. Sweet potato, for instance, has a lower GI than potatoes.
More fibre. Another simple method of slowing the rush of sugar to the bloodstream is to eat the carbs with fibre. Generally, nature has done just this, and it is man who has refined it into pure sugar. Sugar cane is like chewing a stick. Whole grains, like whole rice, quinoa or oats, are quite fibery and slow down the sugar absorption from their own carbs.
That's a quick run down of the basics.
For more information on the glycemic index, see http://www.glycemicindex.com/
Disclaimer: I am not a diabetic, but I eat as described and am hoping to avoid becoming one.
I've also heard about problems with dried fruit (eg, raisins), as the sugars are more concentrated. (but I'm not diabetic, either)
There are two issues with dried fruit. First, they are more concentrated (sugar/weight) as the water is gone. Second, a lot of dried fruit is soaked in a sugar solution before dehydration, which is done to keep it nice and soft, as well as sweeten it. If you get a chance at a health-food store, find sugar-free dried pineapple, and compare it to "regular" dried pineapple.
Just a note re the glycemic index: I've just been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and clinical advice was that although low GI foods can be helpful, you need to be aware that foods with a low GI score are not inherently 'healthy' and appropriate for diabetics. Fat inhibits the release of sugars into the bloodstream, so some foods with a low GI score can contain a lot of fat. As losing weight and then maintaining a healthy weight is often required as part of managing diabetes, high fats foods are obviously to be avoided. As ever, common sense applies.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.039893
| 2011-01-26T18:20:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11507",
"authors": [
"Adam S",
"Carmi",
"Joe",
"John the programmer",
"QuizzicalPigeonUK",
"ascarb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"indofraiser",
"sheridp",
"tog22"
],
"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
}
|
46811
|
What is the correct timing when cooking spaghetti sauce from minced meat and prepared tomato sauce?
First, after adding a little oil in the pot, when do I add the minced meat? Then how long do I leave it?
Also, when should I add the sauce? (I use a spaghetti sauce already prepared with all stuff in it.)
Finally: after I add the sauce, how long should I leave it before in the pot before I serve the minced meat sauce?
Add the meat when the oil is hot, then break it up with a spatula or wooden spoon. Cook it until it is completely browned. You may need to pour off quite a bit of liquid that comes out of the mince.
The jar of spaghetti sauce should tell you how long it needs to be cooked for.
Add oil enough to make a 2mm layer on the bottom of the pan then onion,
celery and carrot and let cook (not fry) until onion get golden, sprinkle 1 dL of wine and let it "vanish" (sorry I cant translate "sfumare" in cooking terms) then add the meat (mixing some times) and cook it until all meat changes colour to light brown, then add the tomato sauce, half glass of milk per kilo of meat and cook on appropriate heat for at least 2 hours mixing every five minutes.
I suspect that the 'sfumare' is equivalent to the French 'au sec': https://www.thespruceeats.com/what-does-au-sec-995570 . And your instructions would make for a really good bolognese, but if someone's working from ground meat + pre-made sauce, and asking about timing, they might not be looking for something that's going to take 2+ hours.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.040342
| 2014-09-02T14:04:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46811",
"authors": [
"Helen Ryu",
"Joe",
"Linda Parker",
"Matthew Beard",
"ROGER HURLIMANN",
"Ronald Ptolemy",
"Sim shah",
"Terry Duren",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"peter oliver"
],
"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
}
|
88512
|
Bottled tomato sauce separated
I made tomato sauce yesterday but looking at the bottles today it has separated, can I re cook it to hopefully thicken it? I made it with fresh tomatoes.
Has this been pureed, or just cooked down for a long time?
Hi yes I cooked it for a couple of hours let it cooled then put through the blender, it tastes good il just give it a good shake before we use it.
Simple tomato sauces (type "coulis") often separate, as fresh tomatos contain a lot of water. We've had it with such sauces prepared for freezing, and used the sauce as a basis, which worked perfectly well.
You can recook it, but depending on how much liquid there is, that can require a lot of time: you'll have to evaporate must of the (separated) liquid. The taste will change (more 'caramelised', 'cooked' taste): longer cooking and higher temperatures at the end due to the higher concentration of dissolved matter.
Or you can skim off the liquid that separated.
To be safe, in both cases you'll have to sterilise your sauce again using the full cooking time.
But why bother recooking it if the taste was correct: such separation is perfectly normal in sauces that are not very concentrated and commercial tomato sauces have additives to avoid this separation (added ingredients like carrots help, and so does some starch, and there are others, look at the bottle). And if you use the sauce as a basis, you might cook it again at that stage.
The above assumes you did cook the sauce according to instruction regarding conservation (so long enough to sterilise the sauce correctly).
Thanks I think I will leave it as you say I can use it for a base, it was cooked for the right time then I put it through the blender, it tastes good thats the main thing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.040495
| 2018-03-22T05:26:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88512",
"authors": [
"Caroline T",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65963",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56225
|
Why does adding commercial processed cheese to fondue change its consistency?
I like to experiment with cheese fondues. I've had good results with the traditional Emmentaler and Gruyère mixture, but the best result I've had was when I added some cheese from the supermarket that was labeled as a "Cheddar Blend". I'm not entirely sure what that means, but it resulted in a fondue that had a wonderful creamy consistency, which very quickly settled into a nice even coating when lifting out the dipped items. It didn't add a huge amount of flavour on its own, but it helped to carry the stronger flavour cheeses, which I've often had trouble getting into a good consistency on their own (they often either wind up too thin [leading to soggy wine-flavoured bread] or a bit grainy from the flour or cornstarch I try to use to thicken it a bit.)
My question, then, is what is it about this 'Blend' cheese that improved the consistency of the fondue? I imagine it's something they add to make it a blend in the first place.
The magic is from Sodium Citrate
Most mass produced cheese it based on "cheddar blends". Basically large (50 Kg to 1 Mg) blocks of cheese are made in a milk factory. When a consumer product is to be made from it, the cheddar is shredded, flavour and/or culture is added, and then using heat and pressure it is re-packed into consumer sized packages
In some cases Sodium Citrate is added to improve the hold-together of the cheese
Sodium Citrate is an old additive for "cooking cheese", and it can be made at home with baking soda and lemon juice. Gently heat the juice of half a lemon in a microwave safe bowl, then add 1/2 to 1 tsp of baking soda and heat until fully reacted (bubbles cease). Add about a cup of grated cheese (hard or soft) and repeat a gentle heat and stir cycle until it forms a smooth "sauce"
This will remain liquid while warm
If you let this cool you can mold it, or form "slices"
http://modernistcuisine.com/recipes/silky-smooth-macaroni-and-cheese
Very interesting; sounds like some more experiments are in order.
While I am not certain if any of these ingredients were in the brand of cheese you bought, I figured you may be interested to hear that according to Heston Blumenthal there is two ingredients, in addition to cheese, you need to make a good fondue. One is acid, which will keep the protein from "clumping together", in the recipe I saw he used a bit of white wine and lemon juice. In addition, he added in some corn flour to keep the fondue smooth, I note that you already mentioned this in your question.
Finally, his goal was to make the fondue "stringy", not "creamy" as you ask for, but I figured you might be interested anyway sicne it seems you are doing a bit of experimenting :) I found the entire cooking show where he dealt with cheese here, it was episode 5 of the first season of "How to cook like Heston".
Hello! The question was why the processed cheese changed the fondue consistency, not how to make smooth fondue. I know the title was misleading, this happens sometimes when people don't pay much attention to wording of the title. I edited it to make it clear.
General suggestions on manipulating cheese consistency are also welcome. I do want to preserve some of the stringiness, as I like the texture of the cheese too, so I think it's balancing act with the Sodium Citrate to get something partway between a true fondue and a cheese dip. I'm also hoping it means I can add other delicious cheeses that normally wouldn't melt well. Thankfully my friends are gracious in their willingness to consume fine cheese and wine in the name of science.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.040640
| 2015-03-31T00:17:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56225",
"authors": [
"Dan Bryant",
"Erik Armstrong",
"Funeral Homes Ditmars Park",
"Jessica Sanchez",
"Kenneth Charles",
"Lori Staebler",
"Tom Peggy Hession",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"kitty Perrichet",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
876
|
Properties of a good steak?
I'm talking about what makes a good piece of meat for a steak.
not how to cook it.
What type of cut? Thickness? dry aged? to marinate or not? seasoning?
I've always been partial to a Ribeye (high fat content), cut to a minimum of 1.5 inches to achieve a nice crispy (more brown then grey) outside with a red interior.
lots of pepper, little salt.
So much of this is a preference thing.
@ceejayoz: while there's of course some personal preferences, there is also a centuries-old popular wise about what makes good in a steak.
Maybe your title could be edited to say "Properties of a good cut of meat for steaks?"
I've come across two great, and very different, types of steak. The first is typical in Argentina and is not aged at all, but from a young calf (6-10 months old), free ranging and grass fed (hence not like classic veal). This is really juicy, tender, and with a very "bright" taste. Good high-end Argentine restaurants usually serve meat like this, and in the UK you can order it from pampasplains.com, which I think is great.
The second is from an older cow and dry aged to tenderize, but the aging also gives it a deeper, more bone marrow-like flavour. The best I've had of this type was a cow from Limousin in France, served in Paris at a small restaurant called Le Sèvero (8 rue des Plantes, 14th Arrondissment, reviewed in the NY Times a while ago). It was amazing! In London, 32 Great Queen St's "Hereford beef" is a similar style and also excellent. They get it from a Hereford farmer called Tom Jones (seriously), who serves several restaurants.
Good steak should never be marinated in anything - all it needs before cooking is salt, maybe pepper if you like (though I sometimes eat it with Coleman's English mustard).
I'm fairly sure that grass-only feed is important to good meat, i.e. no cereal-based fattening-up, though it's hard to separately test this one variable. Breed also clearly matters (all Argentine beef seems to be Aberdeen Angus or Hereford). I love a nicely marbled, fatty steak like the ribeye, but my (Argentine) wife prefers leaner cuts like sirloin and filet - clearly a matter of taste.
When dealing with grass-only feed, the aging process makes all the difference. Make sure your butcher knows their stuff, otherwise you'll be eating steaks that are inconsistent.
The good Argentine meat I described is generally grass-only fed and not aged, but as I wrote it is still tender because it is so young.
Jeffery Steingarten wrote a lot about this in his book The Man Who Ate Everything.
While there is a lot of "preference" here, there are some things that just make steaks better.
Dry aged beef, ideally 5 to 6 weeks intensifies the flavour, though it also reduces the amount of usable meat, which is why it's more expensive. Additionally, dry aging increases the "gaminess" of the taste. Wet aging provides some of the benefits without as much loss, but it isn't as effective.
The more marbled it is, the better it is. The flavour and moisture of the beef comes from the fat, so the more lines of fat through the raw meat the better the flavour and texture will be once it's cooked.
Thickness is going to depend a lot on personal preference. You can cook a thinner steak to a perfect medium rare or a thick steak to well done, depending on the temperature and style of the heat source.
Me, I like a thicker cut 36-day dry-aged sirloin steak, liberally salted and peppered served medium rare, with a slice of brie cheese on it.
Anthony Bourdain mentions several times in the Les Halles Cookbook that he doesn't like sirloin because it doesn't have enough flavor. Personally, I haven't done enough comparisons to be able to agree or disagree.
Anthony Bourdain smokes too much to notice subtle flavours. :-)
A ribeye is my answer. You want to get a steak marbled well with fat, rather you eat the fat of not. That is where the flavor hides. My sister turned me on to Allegro liquid marinade, they have many different varieties to choose from.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.041183
| 2010-07-13T17:35:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/876",
"authors": [
"Fuzzy Purple Monkey",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"Manjima",
"Nicu Zecheru",
"PaulS",
"Tim Sullivan",
"Wizard79",
"ceejayoz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7325",
"mfinni",
"nicorellius",
"s_hewitt",
"sledge",
"systempuntoout",
"tobiw"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20340
|
Why is my salted butter weeping? And is it safe to eat?
I have some butter with sea salt crystals in, which I keep in the bread bin, unrefrigerated.
I have noticed that it seems to be getting wet, with small amounts of what looks like water appearing on the inside of the packet, and on the butter?
Why is this? What is this? and is my butter still safe?
My initial guess was that there may be too much salt for the butter when it is at room temperature. However, 6-10% salt content is considered ideal with respect to curbing bacterial growth, as well as the retention and preserving the integrity of flavor. I highly doubt that your butter is salted to such a high degree that it would actually
Lacking further information, here are a few explanations
Precipitant from within, due to high buttermilk content: One purpose of salting is to remove buttermilk. Perhaps you are using a high buttermilk butter, and as salt facilitates the removal of buttermilk, if the butter was not properly worked relative to salt content you may be seeing either buttermilk or casein precipitant on the surface. Also, the buttermilk may not have been well washed out.
Precipitant from within, due to improper salt/water mixology: Salt should be worked into butter around 58'F, "theoretically butter containing 15% of water should be able to dissolve 5.4% of salt" (source). It is possible that (1) the temperature was not sufficiently high (i.e. to address addition of sea salt as opposed to table salt) to turn the salt into solution, or (2) the carrying capacity of the water was exceeded and salt crystals remained, or (3) the churning cycles were not sufficiently long to incorporate the crystals. These three things would contribute to higher reactivity in the butter than if it were properly dissolved. See explanation of Mottled Butter below for more info.
Precipitant from without, due to non-ideal elements in sea salt: Another explanation is that your sea salt had a high concentration of Calcium Chloride, which can attract water from the atmosphere to the surface of your butter.
Did you perhaps buy Mottled Butter;
Mottled butter is butter which is Uneven in color This unevenness in color may be due to several different causes. It may be due to specks of curd (speckled butter) and it may be due to certain organisms (dappled butter). These causes of mottled butter are not very common in factories where the manufacture of butter is properly carried on. The most common fault of mottled butter is the improper incorporation of salt and the presence of an excessive amount of buttermilk. Mottled butter caused in this way is common...
Whenever there is undissolved granular salt present the moisture is attracted and the color deepened at that particular place source
My guess based on the maount of information you gave about the butter (has sea salt, sweats at room temperature) is not that anyone of these answers is distinctly responsible, but that it is a confluence of the various factors resulting in a mild mottling (perhaps imperceptible to the eye or the palate unless you eat the whole block in one go) that is both attracting moisture from the air, and pressing it out of itself.
I am guessing that if you find the liquid problematic (i.e. does it have a funny taste/smell?) you can put it in the fridge and it will stop sweating/weeping. Otherwise, you run the standard risks of fats and proteins stored with a mild curing at room temperature.
water dissolves salt based it temperature. It weeps out as part of the same phenomena that causes sugar to settle in the bottom of a cold cup of coffee. Refrigerate or put ice in your storage container
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.041528
| 2012-01-10T22:11:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20340",
"authors": [
"Schilcote",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44605",
"the other one"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9172
|
How can I create a sweet pizza that looks like pizza?
Looking for a bit of inspiration for an idea I have. I want to serve 3 courses of pizza: starter, main and dessert. It's a gimmick, I know, but a fun one I think.
Got the starter and main nailed, but as neither of these will look much like a standard pizza, I wanted the dessert to look just like a pizza.
My (as yet untested) idea is to make a slightly sweeter base (not too sweet, toppings will add sweetness) and for toppings I am thinking:
Rasberry Jam (as the red base)
Mascarpone and peanut butter (as the cheese, peanut butter to add a little crunch)
Caramelised Sugared banana slices (hopefully, these will come out brown enough to look a little like pepperoni)
Will the above work? If so, do you have any suggestions for the execution? If not, what should I do instead?
I have edited your question to tighten it up a little (per standards here: http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/09/good-subjective-bad-subjective/) and hopefully provide the answers you are looking for. If I have changed it too substantially from your intent, please feel free to edit it again.
I feel they are pretty semantic issues, not really changing the essence at all
If you make the base neutral - a typical Neopolitan dough would do - you could use white chocolate shavings to give an appearance of cheese as well. I would keep the amount light.
While looking to verify this idea, I found a recipe that gave me a few more pieces of inspiration. Instead of carmelized sugar banana slices, try dried fruits (strawberries, sweetened cranberries, raspberries, etc.) for your toppings. These will look like sausage bits or pepperoni. You can also use pineapple and make it look like a Hawaiian pizza.
You could also use almond cream as a white sauce or as some of your cheese for a richness that is not too sweet.
Ooh, that recipe looks yummy, and it's giving me ideas: if your cake-decorating skills are up to it, you could make fondant or marzipan mushrooms; and chopped toasted hazelnuts could look a bit like sausage.
@Marti I once did marzipan mushrooms for a birthday cake and my son (then 4) refused to eat ... his favorite cake. He was sure our cat mistakenly used it.
Use sweet roll dough for the base. I think a standard pizza base would clash a bit.
I'd try something like brioche- or challah-type dough + raspberry jam + white chocolate shavings + raspberry fruit leather cut into rounds with a cookie cutter. It could also work with a shortbread dough - think Linzer cookies. (Just make sure to choose a softer shortbread rather than a crispy one, otherwise it'll be very hard to slice.) If you don't oversweeten the crust and use a good raspberry jam (perhaps a no-sugar-added all-fruit one), it shouldn't be too sweet, and raspberries & white chocolate is always a good combination.
Hey! this one sounds a very un-pizza dessert! I like it! :)
In parts of Germany they make a dish called Flammkuchen, which is a type of pizza. A traditional savoury topping is bacon + sour cream + onion, and a traditional sweet topping is sliced apple with Calvados and cream. I've eaten both versions, in Heidelberg and in the Black Forest, and I recommend them heartily.
Here are some recipes. I've not made them, so I can't vouch for them.
http://www.chefkoch.de/rs/s0/apfel+flammkuchen/Rezepte.html
welcome. Do these dishes look like a typical American pepperoni pizza, or could one be made to? If so, how?
They are thin-crust, but otherwise look like normal pizzas. Here are some pictures of Flammkuchen with different toppings: http://www.nicoletta-backtechnik.de/flamm.php
Basically, it's just a thin-crust pizza, topped with sour cream + sugar + grated lemon rind, and then with sliced apples and chopped nuts. I like it without too much sour cream. They should be cooked in a very hot oven (gas mark 7).
To make it look like a pepperoni pizza, I would: (1) make a thin base of sweetened apple puree as for an apple tart, maybe tinted with a little bit of raspberry puree, (2) top it with the sour cream mixture, (3) top it with rounds of sliced apple and rely on cooking to change their colour, or rounds of sliced firm plum/peach.
Chocolate pizza
recipe
Cherry pizza
recipe
Fruit pizza
recipe
Crumb topping as cheese - interesting.
Yeah, the crumb topping looks like grated Parmesan at best, and I don't think I've ever had a pizza with just Parmesan on it. (Plenty of pizza places put out shakers of grated cheese, but that's in addition to the melted mozzarella that's already on the pizza.)
@Marti "Se miente mas de la cuenta por falta de fantasía, también la verdad se inventa" ... bad translation -> Most lies are due lack of imagination, reality is also an invention (Antonio Machado) :D
These are good links (and great photos), but generally answers here should be usable without having to follow a link. Not that you should reprint the entire recipes here, but try to give us the basic idea (i.e. by describing it as a chocolate pie using pizza dough for the crust and crumb topping to simulate the appearance of cheese). Otherwise, if the links ever break then so does the answer.
@Aaronaut In this particular case I rather prefer not to endorse any "pizza as a dessert" recipe. I gathered the images and protected them from the eventual disappearance from their servers, by using SE proposed servers, giving credit where is due. "Pizza as a dessert" as the OP says very clearly is just a gimmick, so I feel the photographs are more important than the recipes. The taste of a dessert with a dough similar to pizza is ...
@belisarius - why does it have to be just a gimmick? The OP's "gimmick" comment applied to making all the courses be pizza based. Pizza as dessert deserves our culinary attention as much as anything. I refuse to believe it couldn't be done well.
@justkt You have the right to (written with my mouth busy munching home-made Crème brûlée ) :D
If you don't actually endorse the content of your answer then either don't post it, or post it with disclaimers. As is, your answer just isn't complete; one has to follow the links to actually understand anything you're talking about. This is more or less like posting a Wikipedia link as your answer; it's fine for certain types of questions if and only if you actually quote or paraphrase the relevant parts.
You might consider docked puff pastry (poked with little holes so it doesn't puff much) for your crust. It'll be light and buttery and a good foil for the sweet stuff you put on.
I'd think about doing grilled stone fruits like peaches, plums or nectarines, or maybe some grilled pineapple. These items can be pan seared effectively too. This stuff won't look like a regular pizza much, but they'll be awesome.
You could also go for a white pizza (usually uses a cream or pesto sauce instead of tomato). Start with a neutral dough as recommended above and add a layer of cream cheese icing for the sauce. I'd go with coconut shavings for the cheese, as they'll brown a little bit and give some contrast to the sauce. White pizza doesn't usually have toppings beyond cheese, olive oil and spices, so the only other thing I would put on is some fresh chopped mint leaves as it comes out of the oven.
I had an idea to make a cookie cake that looks like pizza:
chocolate chip cookie crust
jam for sauce
shaved coconut for cheese
fruit roll-ups for pepperoni
green gummy bears for peppers
I've had chocolate spread and marshmallow pizza before, however it is extremely sweet. It was more a gimmick than a serious dish.
I'd guess by using less sweet chocolate spread and experimenting with different marshmallows, perhaps with the addition of chopped nuts, mint leaves or maybe something like a raspberry sauce could make something worth eating.
I've thoroughly enjoyed dessert pizzas from a local pizza shop:
Banana, berries, chocolate (white and milk), custard
Apple & cinnamon, apricot, crumble, custard, berries
They are both delicious!
a cinnamon bun pizza
Sweet Yeast Dough rolled out
Drizzle with melted butter with cinnamon & icing sugar
Bake & drizzle with milk based icing!
This won't really look like a pizza, given the color and consistency difference in the toppings.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.041841
| 2010-11-16T13:14:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9172",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ali",
"Cat",
"Copper Topp",
"DamonJW",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Erica",
"Marti",
"Mild Fuzz",
"Mom",
"Nick",
"SF.",
"Sloan Quinn",
"Sukhi",
"djechlin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55282",
"immulatin",
"justkt",
"random",
"sock",
"zino"
],
"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
}
|
43930
|
How does fast food restaurants make grilled chicken
In most of the fast food restaurants which do grilled chicken, when they get an order, they take a chicken which looks like it is pre-cooked as it is yellowish in colour, and put it on the grill
This is the case with restaurants like Nandos etc. During the grilling they apply the sauces and then serve
How do they precook the chicken? Do they marinate it and use an oven to heat it?
Nando's chicken is definitely marinaded, but I'm not sure about precooked. Perhaps an acid in the marinade gives it a cooked appearance.
I doubt any would boil it in water -- not only will it leach flavor, but they have more difficulty in controlling the shape (it might curl, making it obvious that it wasn't grilled the whole way). If they pre-cooked it, they likely would've done it in a low oven ... but if they do it, they won't develop the same grill marks as they would from grilling raw chicken. They would be better off slicing it into cutlets for faster & more even cooking times.
If you are wondering explicitly about Nandos, it is marinated for 24 hours before its cooked. It is then cooked before its ordered:
[The chickens] are cooked in a special oven for an average cycle of 30 minutes,
reaching a temperature of at least 75C, then kept in a warming drawer
at a temperature of 63C.
Source
When an order is placed, they take the Chicken and finish it on the grill.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.042582
| 2014-05-06T08:06:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43930",
"authors": [
"Diane M",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Hugh Chalmers",
"Joe",
"SepidJ",
"Spammer",
"cTen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21008
|
Why do Asian savory recipes call for a few pinches of sugar?
I've got a few Asian recipes (e.g. Mongolian lamb and Singapore duck) that request only ⅛ teaspoon of sugar for a meal fit for 2 or 3 people. That feels too little to affect sweetness.
Are there particular ingredients common in Asian cuisine that require de-acidifying with sugar, or is the sugar used for another purpose?
I'm guessing that's for adding the sweet to the sour.
First, there are plenty of sour ingredients in Asian cooking, that are de-acidified by a little sugar. Tomato paste, peppers and soy are examples that come to mind.
Second, and this is the Zen-style answer, is that the sugar is to sweeten the dish a little. One teaspoon of sugar in a sauce is plenty sweet enough, especially if you're not used to having 6tsp of sugar in a can of Coke daily. Sweetness, like saltiness and spicyness, is something we get used to easily.
+1 for the second paragraph! To the OP: you can demonstrate that to yourself by making something where it can easily be mixed in late (e.g. a sauce), and just trying it with and without the sugar. I think you'll find that a little bit of sweetness is a nice part of the flavor. (And the first teaspoon does a lot more than the 10th teaspoon.)
@jefromi I would have agreed with that for a whole teaspoon, but the OP talks about one eighth of a teaspoon, which is half a gram. There is probably more salt in this dish than sugar.
@rumtscho: Oops, I'm bad at reading! It might still be possible to taste the difference, though, and perhaps identify it as a difference in sweetness, even if the sweeter version doesn't taste sweet on its own.
rumtscho is correct, just one eighth of a teaspoon for meals which have 12-16 ounces of meat plus vegetables. There are no tomatoes or peppers but soy sauce is common. Yet many other Asian recipes with soy don't have sweetness added.
I can certainly taste the difference, that little bit of sugar is rather useful! Especially as I fry the food briefly on high heat which I guess might tend to caramelize that sugar. More sugar might make it too caramelized for some people. That said, normally I would use about half a tablespoon of sugar, but Singaporean duck and Mongolian lamb are already very sweet (due to their fat, and the marinate, I wouldn't want to make it significantly sweeter.)
Then again, I rarely have sugar. I don't have sugar in my coffee, my oats for breakfast have only half a teaspoon of honey, etcetera.
Personally I don’t think sugar brings out much flavor in anything other than to make whatever it’s in sweeter. I also disagree with the first comment about tomato paste, soy sauce and peppers being sour. They are not sour. They are savory if they are not spoiled. If these items taste sour, then they should probably be thrown out.
Welcome Kati. Sour and savory aren't mutually exclusive properties. Both tomato paste and soy sauce are objectively sour, both being acidic if you measure it. Peppers may or may not be, depending on type of pepper and preparation. Many peppers are made into "hot sauce" that are usually acidic (and salty) for preservation of the sauce, though sweetened with sugars in many cases.
since i don not use MSG, I add a pinch of sugar to add flavor to my recipe.
aside from that, in our country we celebrate fiestas. we prepare foods in great quantity. like estofado(pork with banana, potato and pineapple) it is really a sweet menu becuase we add generous amount of mascovado sugar to achieve its ideal flavor. this food is still edible after two days with out keeping inside the fridge. i am convinced that sugar contributes to the preservation of food.
This is really a comment, not an answer. With a bit more rep, you will be able to post comments.
I'm not buying that an eighth of a teaspoon of sugar in a recipe to serve two or three could have any preservative effect.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.042756
| 2012-02-02T06:11:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21008",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Betz",
"Cascabel",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Jolenealaska",
"Jordan",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84504",
"jontyc",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24646
|
Can vanilla pods be blended into a paste?
As recipes using vanilla seeds often request the pod to be chucked in the pot, I'm thinking there must be no unappealing flavors in the pod itself.
I've seen vanilla pastes for sale but they seem to be a mix of the extract and the seeds.
So what about blending up used pods with a bit of liquid (vodka?)? Tasteless?
I believe you could do it, but as the pods itself are really fibered you don't want to eat them I think.
What you could do is cooking the pods. For example when I make a vanilla ganache, I always bring heavy cream, vanilla seeds and the pods to a boil. Then I let it sit for approx. 30 min an take out the pods. This method can be easily adopted to make vanilla syrup.
To make vanilla sugar just put some scraped out pods into a sugar jar and let it sit for a few weeks.
So you see - you can use the pods for many things, but eating the directly doesn't seem to be popular.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.043075
| 2012-06-23T10:10:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24646",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29419
|
Preventing heavy top layer of cake from crushing cream layer
I'm making a flourless cake with almond meal, thus quite dense, and it's also covered completely with whole cherries.
I thought I'd slice the cake horizontally and put a layer of cream in. The top layer will be quite heavy and I fear the cream will be squeezed out the sides. I wouldn't mind this too much normally, however I'll be transporting it in the springform tin I baked it in and suspect the squeezed out cream will smudge everywhere.
Just beat the cream until it's stiffer? Is there some additive that makes the cream firmer? The cream I was just planning on whipping it with confectioner's (icing) sugar and vanilla extract.
Update:
Gelatine method below worked perfectly with Australian Thickened Cream(35%, pre-thickened with Carrageenan and guar gum--I thought Aussie stuff was pre-thickened with gelatine?). Cream came out thick and did not squeeze out the sides when the heavy top layer was put on.
See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29395/how-can-i-thicken-whipping-cream/29397#29397
Pillars. I use banana chunks or few other stable pieces to hold up a heavy layer. Not a real answer but heck, solves problem of ooze out the sides
To make the whipped cream firmer, you could set it with gelatine or agar (which I think would be better unless the cake is being refrigerated until just before serving). For the recipe, I refer you to http://video.about.com/southernfood/How-to-Stabilize-Whipped-Cream.htm (video).
Having looked at the video, you might even want to add a half more of the gelatine/agar so it is really set (much like a pastry cream in a fraisier).
Also, if a creamy filling is required could a pastry cream be used instead of whipped cream? It would set and cut much better (although would lose the lightness of whipped cream which you may be after - you could fold whipped egg whites or cream into it but then you have the same problem of it squeezing out).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.043183
| 2012-12-24T07:45:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29419",
"authors": [
"Albert Cornelius Doyle",
"Amndeep7",
"Elaine",
"Pat Sommer",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Tgeste Flate",
"Thomas McPherson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68510"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23404
|
Is blanch freezing vegetables required for short term storage?
I need some vegetables to last for about a month until I've juiced them all.
Blanch freezing many vegetables sees them last for periods 6 months and longer, but it's a bit of a hassle.
Would just ziplocking them in the freezer direct give me a month? I'm talking carrots, celery, spinach, zucchini. I'm sucking air out with a dustbuster which is nowhere near a vacuum sealer but hopefully better than not doing it.
Would putting the celery and spinach in a bowl of (sugared) water keep them going?
Blanching is done to halt enzymatic action that would start to destroy the plant cells. You can freeze without blanching and the veggies will still be edible even after 6 months but their quality will decline faster.
If you are planning on juicing those veggies within a month then you are going to be doing a lot more damage than the freezer will and I don't think you would see much benefit from blanching. The spinach and celery might stay a little greener when it thaws- the carrots and zucchini would probably not be effected at all.
As for the sugar water. Are you planning on freezing them in the water? I don't think that would do much but dilute their juices when the ice crystals rip them apart. Of course you wouldn't be able to keep spinach in a bowl of water for a month- that would be more like a swamp than food.
I'm not planning on freezing with the sugar water, just having them sit on the bench. I only considered sugar because I seem to recall flowers in a vase last longer with a bit of sugar in the water.
Have you considered taking an hour or two and juicing all your vegetables at the same time? Put them in separate containers like they type you would get Chinese soup in? In essence you’re doing the same thing, but in a different order without the blanching, sugaring or extra work. The plastic they use for Chinese food freezes without splitting, and then can put in micro for defrost, or just put in fridge the night before. (Can be purchased at party store or Costco) Also leave a little room at the top of the container for expansion so the container doesn't bulge.
I like using Freezer Zip Locks. Once filled and air removed, they store flat on the bottom and makes it easier to stack. When you need it, put it in a bowl or plate and defrost in fridge. And you don't have to worry about expansion.
Also Celery stays much longer in the fridge if you wrap it in foil. I have had celery stay fresh for a month.
Interesting idea about doing all the juicing at once, although I tend to juice the fruit and veges that I feel like at the time. Nice tip about the celery in foil.
When you freeze veg or fruit juice, it tends to give you big crystals that can easily break apart in a blender adding a little warm liquid. You could use smaller zip locks, even sandwich bags (just don't toss around when frozen). It just may give you the flexiblity you are looking for. Just food for thought.
Some great ideas up there but here is one for getting the air out of freezer bags is dump the DustBuster and use a straw. I close the ziplock as much as possible and slip a straw in the opening and suck the air out. As soon as the bag collapses around your food close it the rest of the way.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.043375
| 2012-04-27T12:12:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23404",
"authors": [
"Claudia",
"Julia Ceaser",
"Kat",
"Lorraine Scully",
"Onepotmeals",
"Shon",
"duke50",
"haxkalibrr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8315",
"jontyc"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13953
|
How long does uncooked meat last when kept in the freezer?
Chicken, beef, or even shrimp? How long can I keep it there before it goes bad?
You may check out the answers here as it is very similar. http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11209/how-long-can-you-freeze-raw-chicken-before-it-seriously-affects-its-taste/11213#11213
We can read here: One of the best-documented accounts of a prehistoric meal comes at the end of Frozen Fauna of the Mammoth Steppe (1990), by Alaska zoology professor Dale Guthrie. After successfully unearthing and preserving "Blue Babe," a 36,000-year-old steppe bison ... Guthrie's team celebrates by simmering some leftover flesh from Babe's neck "in a pot of stock and vegetables." The author reports that "the meat was well aged but still a little tough, and it gave the stew a strong Pleistocene aroma."
If it is sealed in an air tight container and the freezer always stays very cold so the meat never thaws- then chicken and beef will stay good indefinitely. I have used both chicken and beef that had been frozen in my deep freezer at 0F for years with no ill effect.
I can't speak for shrimp as I have no personal experience but I would expect it to be the same.
Shrimp freezes very well, lasts years and is still good for soup or stir-fry. The trick is an air tight container or vacuum bag
Generally, meats dry out (freezer burn) when frozen before they become unsafe to eat. You can reduce the drying effect by double-wrapping meats, and a vacuum sealer is especially helpful. Freezer burnt meats become tough and grainy, but can normally still be used in stews, stocks, and other preparations that hide the damage.
As long as it has been kept frozen meat and poultry will be safe to eat indefinitely.
The quality of the meat may deteriorate with time. This depends on whether the meat was packed in a airtight container before freezing. The major risk is freezer burn which attacks the edges and surface of meat first. It can be trimmed off and the remainder of the meat used safely. If used with a combination of other flavors any freezer effects are not noticeable.
Meat which has been packed using cryovac will keep safely and maintain good texture and flavor for several years based on my personal experience. Cryovac is a process in which a food product is sealed in thick impermeable plastic where all the air has been removed
Finned fish which has been kept frozen will remain safe. Quality seems to be dependent on how delicate the fish is. My husband went fishing in Alaska about 10 years ago and brought home cryovac-ed salmon which was still tasty about 60 days ago.
Tangentially, smoked salmon which has been cryovac-ed keeps indefinitely. I "discovered" an old hostess gift and researched on line whether it was safe to eat.I was unable to locate any data which gave a "best by" or expiration date . It went back in the upper cabinet subject to further research, though.
I rely on the Harold McGee books. Madeleine Kamman, The Making of a Cook and Cook's Illustrated magazine. Kamman is getting a bit dated but she writes for both home and restaurant cooks . These three sources avoid the Food Network hype
People might not believe this BUT I SWEAR it's true: when my mother father died in December 1993, and I moved my mother in with me (her only child/son) and looked after her until she died in 1998. She had 4 deep freezers!!!, one of which I kept running (and it still running) in my garage (and has NEVER been defrosted - (a chest freezer)). Over the years, just sorta never got around to completely eating down to/through the bottom half/kept refilling the top 1/2) until recently when I thought 'gotta get this sucker emptied. So, about a week or so as I was working my way down and got down to (hold your breath): 1996!!! Found a beef roast, well wrapped/no sign of freezer burn soooo... decided what the heck: Thawed out plus about 45 minutes in a convection microwave and IT WAS DELICIOUS. Yah couldna told it from fresh from the store.
So, like the man says: if its well wrapped, kept real cold/never thawed and no (or little) freezer burn, it will keep a LONG TIME - like 18 years in this case!!!
While that's definitely interesting, I think it's worth pointing out that this is both anecdotal and definitely the exception to the rule.
Dry-Aging Beef Pays Off With Big Flavor: http://www.finecooking.com/articles/dry-aging-beef-pays-off-big-flavor.aspx I've had it frozen 3 or 4 years. Well packaged, not burned, it tastes fine. Never made it to 18 years though.
Roasts and steaks will last 6-12 months and ground beef will last 3-4 months. (via KitchenHacks)
Your link does not say whether the time periods are for food safety reasons or food quality reasons
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.043673
| 2011-04-11T16:28:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13953",
"authors": [
"Adriano P",
"BelwarDissengulp",
"Bruce Alderson",
"ColleenV",
"Count Iblis",
"Karthik Upadhya",
"Rene Johnson",
"SourDoh",
"TFD",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Wulfhart",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97625",
"piquet"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19061
|
How long will eggless pasta dough last in the fridge?
I made some fresh pasta for myself, but the recipe made double the amount I need. I didn't have time to make the rest of the pasta and dry it, so I just wrapped the dough ball in plastic wrap and stuck it in the fridge.
How long will the dough last in the fridge?
I can probably use it tomorrow or in the next 2 days.
The recipe is basically 2 cups flour, 1/2 cup water, no eggs. I used half white whole wheat, half AP, tbsp of olive oil. (Yes it's very good, even w/just some olive oil, parmesan, salt and pepper)
Paul,
I make my own pasta dough frequently. Since my standard recipe makes around 40oz (1 kg) of dough, I always have leftover, so I've had plenty of experience with saving it.
Even with eggs, pasta dough will be fine in the fridge for a week; the texture will be unaffected (if anything, it will be better). If you want to keep it longer than a week, it can be frozen for several weeks wrapped tightly in plastic wrap, and more-or-less indefinitely if you vacuum-seal it.
Glad to hear about your WWW recipe, I'll have to try that.
Most importantly: there is nothing in the recipe that will go bad in two days. I am unsure whether the texture will be affected after two days in the refrigerator. But make sure the dough is wrapped tightly. The most common way to store fresh pasta is to freeze it. Tell you what, make an experiment: Freeze half and refrigerate the other. Then after two days compare the cook both and tell us whether is a difference or not.
It was fine the next day. It was a little less stretchy, but that might have been because it was a little cold and I didn't let it get all the way to room temperature before running it through the machine, so it got some holes in it. It worked fine after running it through a few times on the largest setting, and tasted pretty much the same.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.044052
| 2011-11-21T23:56:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19061",
"authors": [
"Elizabeth mountain",
"Gail G",
"Steve",
"TheCrzyMan",
"d-_-b",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41739"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14747
|
Tricks to preserve chips (french fries)?
Since I can remember I've always been crazy about chips (french fries for the Americans). As a result I always make too much when I make them for me. The problem I have and have always had is that they never seem to keep very well. The minute they cool off they become floury and stale. I find that this even happens with oven chips.
When I was a kid my mother used to reheat chips for me in the morning, melting some butter over it, which help rehydrate them somewhat and give them a bit of flavour, but this never really worked all too well.
What I'd like to know is if any of you know of some tricks to help preserve the chips? And also for interest's sake why this happens? This never seems to happen with baked potato or mash. They do lose some of their flavour sometimes, but not in the same way chips do.
You say chips and french fries, but the UK chips, if done properly, like you might get from a chippie, are very different to french fries.
Here is an excellent recipe by the guys over at Cooking Issues (and also a follow up report) with almost everything you'd ever want to know about chips. That first recipe is supposedly good even after they've cooled off:
Our standard fries are good even when cold.
Another option is to cook a lot of chips but stop after their first frying and freeze them; when you want to eat them, simply put the frozen chips into the fryer for the second frying. This also has added benefits:
Freezing acts like partial dehydration. When the frozen fries are finished, they liberate water freely, leading to rapid dehydration and good crust formation with a porous interior. Pre-frozen fries are crunchier than fresh and stay crisper longer after they are fried, but they tend toward hollow fry.
+1, but this technique does not necessarily work for all local varieties of potatoes around the world. Often just a par-boil in oil is required
I've found that reheating Fries/chips in the toaster oven is the best way to reheat them. They're crispy and not dried. They end up just as good as before. if you don't have a toaster oven, maybe a standard oven would work for you?
I gave up french fries a few years ago (new year's resolution), but I seem to recall this method working rather well ... maybe not as good as before, but better than any other reheating procedure. (and I've also been known to heat 'em up like that, chop 'em into smaller bits, then turn 'em into a tortilla de patatas.)
+1, I think the key may be that they are on a wire rack, so they get re-crisped all the way around. I think you could get similar results in a standard oven if you used a wire rack rather than traditional baking sheet.
Very interesting idea, I shall definitely have to try it. One problem though, I don't have a toaster oven... :( Will give the normal oven trick a try.
If you prepare a lot of chips and blanch them in boiling water for 5-7 minutes, then drain them well, you can freeze them and then just use them as you need them. That is how they prepare frozen chips at the factory.
but they don't keep more than about two hours when they've been par-fried first - they lose texture and won't fry crisp.
I've known a lot of chip shops prepare chips by frying at low temperature first, then put them to one side and fry portions as customers ask for them, but with the waxy varieties of potato used for chips in the UK they don't keep more than about two hours when they've been par-fried first - they lose texture and won't fry crisp.
Not a lot you can do to revive them when they have been fried .
My mother would peel the potatoes and cut them into thin slices which she cooked in the frying pan - "frying pan chips" as they were called in our family.
Quite often she would peel the potatoes the day before, then leave them to one side in a bowl, covered with water. They always tasted better when she did that ...
The previous comment thread was deleted because it had turned into a stream of personal attacks. Please refrain from any further personal attacks or suggestions that users of this site are incompetent. If an answer contains inaccuracies then please limit comment activity to facts relevant to the answer. If the personal attacks continue then the answer will be locked.
As decorum seems to have gone out the window, this post is now being locked. Disagreement and/or factual errors may be indicated by downvotes or comments; however, it is not an acceptable use of the editing system. Period, end of story.
I think we should just eat them when they come out or heat them back up in water. You can just put them back in the chip pan or boil at a flame under them.
i promise this works
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.044229
| 2011-05-13T11:54:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14747",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brock Vond",
"Chancey",
"DeVil",
"Gerda",
"Joe",
"Julia",
"Lisa DeLaricheliere",
"Mary-yet Xuchelle",
"Matthew Ingersoll",
"Midori246",
"Nathan Bettenhausen",
"Orbling",
"Peaceilover",
"TFD",
"Tom Robinson",
"ZC H",
"boucekv",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"ignacio",
"jakeeden",
"ricky",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47285
|
Which type of flour would be better to use in this case?
I have 450g whole wheat white flour and I would like to bake a bread which needs 500g. I have also different types of flour, corn and barley flour, Which one to use for that 50g shortage of flour? Note that the shops are closed now, that's why I need to use one of flour types I have at home.
Can you give us some more detail about exactly what flours you have?
@ElendilTheTall: Sure. As I said, 450 g whole wheat flour, corn and barley flour (200 g of each).
As you will be using whole wheat flour as opposed to the flour called for in the recipe, you won't need to choose based on preserving the original texture. I would recommend the barley flour as being most compatible with wheat flour.
I second the barley flour since it has more protein content than the corn, and bread flours tend to favor higher protein flours.
Your WWW flour is going to be 90% of the flour content so the small 10% won't affect much overall.
Depending on the locale, the "corn flour" might not be flour at all. In the UK, that just refers to cornstarch, which is not an appropriate substitution at all. If it's actually cornmeal then it might be OK.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.044746
| 2014-09-21T08:19:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47285",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Charles Crisp",
"David Yappeter",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Gigili",
"Judy Runolfson",
"SHANICE LAKHRAJ",
"Steeeeeev",
"Stephen Sharpe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45174
|
Substitute apricot with some other fruit in this Sunny-Side-Up Apricot Pastries recipe
This recipe (scroll down to the bottom of the page) calls for apricot to use on the topping of the pastries. What fruit do you recommend to use that will be as good, along with its jam for the glaze? What about mango? I have no idea about cooked mango, have never eaten one!
why do you not want to use apricot? without knowing that, people may recommend things that still don't work for you
@KateGregory: I don't have apricot at home and I'd use other fruits that I have in the fridge. (mango, apple or some other fruit that people recommend)
Any stone fruit or berry would work well in this application.
I'm not sure what kind of answer you are expecting. If you want it to taste like apricot, nothing except apricot will work. If it is OK for you to taste like something else, any fruit will do, and none is better than the other one. Can you give some criteria - what are you trying to achieve?
If your objective is to maintain a similar color/texture/firmness, then cling peaches are the way to go. Except they are almost always found canned (I live in California and sometimes find them fresh at farmers markets where vendors come from the Sacramento valley).
I'm a fan of the pear. Bosc and Anjou will hold up well during cooking (Bartlett pears may fall apart).
Both should work well with the pastry cream and vanilla in the recipe.
If you end up using pears, consider adding just a hint of almond extract or amaretto to the pastry creme.
I didn't see the link for the recipe, but if it calls for fresh apricots you can substitute
Peaches. Freestone vs Cling refers to whether the flesh is attached to the pit. when you slice the fruit. We get Michigan peaches in Chicago. There is no appreciable taste difference between the two.
I would skin the peaches.You dunk them in simmering water for about 30 seconds, remove and rub the skin off with a paper towel
Use peach jam for the glaze. Add a bit of lemon juice to punch up the flavor.
Some variety of plums. Look for firm fruit which the store or vendor says are sweet. For this I would use a strained orange marmalade for the glaze, again correcting with lemon juice for tartness. Plums should not be skinned first.
Nectarines. I would not skin these. I use nectarines interchangeably with mangoes in a fruit salad . For a glaze try red currant jelly. Smuckers makes a nationally distributed brand in the US but my international supermarket has several alternatives
It is a matter of personal preference but I think you should confine your substitute to stone fruits rather than apples and pears because of the different flavor and texture profiles.
Apples have a lot of pectin and can be used as a base for a glaze which is flavored with something to complement the stone fruit you use.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.044896
| 2014-06-28T10:44:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45174",
"authors": [
"Chalcedonian1",
"Cooks Corner Jackie Ryan",
"DrRandy",
"Gigili",
"Justice Baltimore MD Auto spam",
"Kate Gregory",
"Nelson Rodriguez",
"Nurse Lyndsey Kay",
"QSR Productions LLC - Tulsa",
"Suxzie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6035",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14755
|
Barley Miso substitute?
I have a recipe that calls for barley miso. I don't find barley miso in the store but they do have about five other types. Can I substitute another one? which one?
thanks
What type of food are you cooking? With that information we might be able to give you a better answer for your specific situation.
Miso is (usually) just a flavouring agent, so you almost certainly can substitute any other type of miso. The flavour will of course be slightly different, but it is not going to ruin the recipe.
Barley miso that has been fermented for a long time is quite dark with a very strong flavour, so you may want to increase the amount of white miso or other miso to taste.
recipe is of a soup that uses wine and miso for most of it's flavor (from Friendly Foods by Ron Pickarski)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.045167
| 2011-05-13T15:01:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14755",
"authors": [
"Betty",
"ESultanik",
"Mark",
"abe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6112",
"user250034",
"user31084"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15007
|
Can ruined whipped cream be rescued?
If you whip mayonnaise too long and ruin it, you can restart with a new yolk and reuse the ruined mayonnaise.
Is there a similar way to rescue whipped cream that has been whipped too long?
I don't think so. In the mayonnaise case, all that has happened is the fat has come out of emulsion and gathered together again, so you can re-emulsify it. In the whipped cream case, you've started to create large fat crystals (butter). I guess technically it might work to heat it up to melt the butter, re-emulsify it into cream and then beat it again, but I don't think it would be worth the effort. You could go ahead and finish churning it into butter and buttermilk if you want to avoid wasting the cream.
@debbie Sure, if you actually properly churn it all the way into butter. But that does take a good bit of work!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.045268
| 2011-05-24T16:04:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15007",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15390
|
Do I need a special oven to cook a pizza as evenly as the chain stores?
When I buy a pizza from Pizza Hut or Domino's, it has a crispy base with a soft cooked middle and a properly done top.
When I make a pizza in my own oven (electric, fan assisted, maximum 230° C), I can get it done to the same standard as a local Indian takeaway but not as good as any of the major chains. I'm wondering if my problems are due to the oven or the pizza.
Ideally I would like to buy an oven that can go up to 550° C like a brick-built oven. I'm wondering if I can get a better result with a better oven? I'd like to do it for under £100 (UK).
I think that if I can bake the pizza in 5 to 6 minutes, that may do the trick; unfortunately I don't think I can afford any of the 90-second pizza ovens or install one at home.
There are several problems here. First, forget about 90 sec. I've been in a pro kitchen (not chain) and their pizza oven needed much longer, I think also longer than 5-6 min. Second, good crisp pizza needs a pizza stone, and this needs a long preheating - you are looking at at least half an hour before you can put the first pizza in, that's for a bad (thin) stone. Third, I don't think you can get a pro level oven for 100 pounds, I think they start at 500 pounds and higher (and need 400 volt). Still, maybe somebody knows an acceptable cheap alternative.
I use a standard oven with a pair of pizza stones, and find it replicates the industrial kitchen equipment with a few hacks.
I used to work in a number of different pizza restaurants, and have since found a number of tricks to getting better crusts at home in a standard oven.
First off, I worked with 3 different styles of industrial ovens:
Standard stone + gas - The oven base and walls are stone, and the oven is fired with natural gas. Temperatures (if I recall) were ~600F, and these oven fit 10-12 pans at a time. Cooking time was in the range of 15-20 minutes, depending on the thickness of the pizza toppings.
Forced air, stone + gas - This is a similar style of oven, but with fans forcing airflow. These ovens roughly halved cooking times, and produced a different style of browning on the top surfaces.
Conveyor + gas - These ovens have a conveyor that moves slowly over flames. I've seen units that can bake a thin pizza in 5-7 minutes.
In all of the industrial units, temperature and oil was the key to getting perfect crusts.
I've been able to reproduce the basic effect with a home oven. Note that this isn't the New-York style wood oven crust (bordering on burnt), rather it's the medium-thickness crust with a good crunch to it.
My method is simple:
Preheat the oven to its highest temperature, including a pizza stone on both racks if can
Start with a sticky dough, but make sure that the bottom side of it is well oiled before placing it on the stone
Keep the dough thin, and prebake it for 3-4 minutes on each side (the goal is to get the crust started before adding toppings)
After prebaking, drop the oven temperature to ~400F, add toppings, and bake for an additional 10-15 minutes
Before removing, turn on the broiler for 3-4 minutes. Do not walk away (it inevitably burns the moment you step away)
The key is the oiled/prebaked crust, and preheated oven. The end broil helps brown the cheese (and adding some dry cheese to the top improves this).
I too have a fan-assisted 230 degree-max oven, and I cook nice crispy-based pizza all the time, thanks to one thing - a pizza stone. Traditional pizza ovens have a stone base that absorbs the moisture from the crust, crisping it properly. A metal pan or sheet doesn't do this, so you get a soggy crust.
Pizza stones replicate the stone base of the traditional pizza oven. They are sized to fit in most conventional ovens, and you can get them from most cook shops, or Amazon, for about £10. Simply place the stone in the oven when you turn it on to preheat, let it get good and hot, then take it out and assemble your pizza right on the stone. Put it back in for 4-5 minutes et voila - a great crispy pizza every time.
You can get wood-fired, stone-based ovens (Jamie Oliver markets them these days) that you have built in your garden, but I'm pretty sure they cost a lot more than £100!
I agree with the recommended stone but would add trying other dough recipes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.045369
| 2011-06-11T20:21:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15390",
"authors": [
"Crucial Coffee",
"Danica",
"Hagen von Eitzen",
"Joy Grayson",
"R891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"iskra",
"mfg",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22784
|
How to maximize and preserve horseradish potency without vinegar?
Is there a way to pre-grate and store horseradish in a manner which preserves and maximizes its potency without relying on vinegar? Preferred storage time is approximately a few hours, a day at most.
Freshly grated horseradish is going to lose some of its potency within minutes, let alone a few hours. Isothiocyanate, the hot chemical in horseradish, wasabi and mustard, aerosolizes extremely rapidly, which is why your eyes water just standing over it. So you can't preserve all of its potency.
The best way to maximize potency while storing it for a day is to make sure it has as little contact with air as possible, and to refrigerate it. Vacumm-packing will do this, as well as simply finding a very small container you can fill to the top with grated horseradish and then seal. If you have access to argon or other neutral gas wine oxidation preventors, then it might be interesting to experiment with them.
If you were storing it for a longer period, I would recommend vacuum-packing and freezing, but not for just a day.
Why couldn't you just use another liquid (water or oil)?
I'm not sure, actually. I haven't tried using another liquid, and the storage advice I can find online all says exclusively vinegar. I have tried the vac-pack method on wasabi, though, successfully.
I'll have to give this a shot. Someone (offline) explained that vinegar (or similar acid) stops an additional reaction which breaks down the isothiocyanate. He also suggested dehydration (as in wasabi powder) as a mechanism to prevent initial reaction which generates the isothiocyanate, which, when re-hydrated is finally activated.
Four years later, wanted to update -- vacuum sealing and refrigerating did an excellent job at preserving the potency.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.045712
| 2012-04-04T16:40:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22784",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Eli Lansey",
"FuzzyChef",
"Lukas Rieger",
"Reaching-Out",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"sherry"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27968
|
How does double-bagging sous vide food affect cook time?
Does double vacuum bagging food for sous vide cooking measurably increase the cook times? Or is the extra bag not thick enough to make an impact?
If there's any air space between the two bags, then you might be defeating the purpose of sous vide.
@ChrisCudmore You're probably right. But vacuum sealed each time should minimize that. Many recipes suggest double-bagging for durability on foods that require a very long cook time.
I agree with Sean, this will have no effect if there's no additional air in between, but why are you doing this anyway?
@yossarian Two reasons to do it. 1) Many recipes suggest it for durability with long cook times. 2) For the purposes of kosher food, the same bath can be used for milk and meat foods.
i've never seen a recipe call for 2 bags even for recipes 72h in length. No matter how many layers of plastic between your food and the water some transfer of ions will occur so I guess there is an acceptable level of tolerance for kosher foods?
@Brendan The general rule is that "double wrapping" food is OK. We're not concerned with transfer of ions; a whole discussion of kashrut-science related issues will take far more than the characters allowed in a comment ;)
it's an interesting conversation topic i think that's for sure. I wonder if there would be a market for someone to develop a "kosher" sous-vide packaging for those purposes. Seems like a money maker!
@EliLansey what type of vacuum machine are you using to double bag? Chamber or edge sealer?
@Brendan At the moment, Ziplock bags with the water displacement method. I realize that increases the amount of insulating air sneaking in.
honestly something you may want to try is to seal the first bag as tightly as you can and then put that in a second bag full of water and put that into the bath so you minimize the air space and the water is more in contact with the food.
I double bagged because my first one vacuum sealed but there was a little meat juice in the seal and I was afraid it would open up there a little and leak. I stuck the whole thing into another bag and vacuum sealed that one as well. There is no air space between the bags. The meat is corned beef and I'll be cooking it for 48 hours. I came here to find out if the extra thickness would affect my cook time. I suspected not, and am convinced by responses here that it will make no difference. Thank you, everyone!
Plastics have a very low heat capacity. On top of that, the plastic in a bag is very thin. While you are doubling up on the imperfect vacuum in your bags, the effects should still be negligible.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.045887
| 2012-10-23T21:32:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27968",
"authors": [
"Brendan",
"Chris Cudmore",
"David Lofthouse",
"Eli Lansey",
"Fahrquar",
"Heather C",
"Prkl8r",
"Shirley Joyce",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6610",
"user64295",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15865
|
Convert seed based measurements to pre-ground?
I want to use a recipe that gives ingredient measurements based on the spice seeds. My local grocery store does not have at least half of the ingredients in seed form. But the store does have them pre-ground. How can I translate this recipe's measurements into something I can actually buy?
Ingredients:
1 1/2 dried chipotle chiles, stemmed, seeded, chopped
2 tablespoons pink peppercorns
2 tablespoons coriander seeds
1 teaspoon fennel seeds
1/4 teaspoon cumin seeds
2 teaspoons dark brown sugar
2 teaspoons kosher salt
1 teaspoon mustard powder
Read More http://www.bonappetit.com/recipes/2011/07/chipotle-rub#ixzz1Qo0PBoPp
Converting whole spices to ground spices is not as simple as matching up the weights. Ground spices have a distinctly different flavour from the whole. The freshness of the grind will also affect the taste quite considerably as well as how carefully they have been stored. When the spice is freshly ground it will have a very strong intense flavour, so you would reduce the amount you use slightly. However, ground spices rapidly loose parts of their flavour. The taste changes and you may find you will end up using more than the recipe states in order to get a similar taste. However, you'll never get exactly the same taste, grinding changes the spice.
The best solution is to try to get an supply of the whole spice from an online store. You can then use them whole or grind them yourself, fresh, as the need arises.
Thank you, but ordering from an online store doesn't help me this weekend. However, since you have the most votes, I will accept this answer.
Just thought of another point. The recipe you linked too was for a spice rub. The powder and the whole spice will stick to the meat differently. So it might affect how effective the rub is. Power will probably stick better than whole seeds so you may find that using powder spices means you can hold back a little as less of the spice will fall of when cooking and handling.
This is all true, but as an answer to this question, not so good - the recipe in question involves grinding all the seeds. So it all ends up ground, and the question is just how much ground coriander comes from a couple tablespoons of seeds.
Here's a really nice table: Culinary conversion calculators. It has quite a list of spices. Note that, as previously mentioned, you need to compare the weight of the whole and ground spices.
Also, freshly ground spices are a gazillion times more flavourful than spice purchased already ground!
See link to Chef's Resources for up-to-date information. To protect against link rot, the current state of the table (with lines w/out values removed) is below:
Spices Oz per Cup Tbl per Oz tsp per Oz
------------------------ --------- ---------- ----------
Ajwain 2.40 6.67 20
Allspice, Ground 3.37 4.75 14.33
Anise, Ground 4 12
Anise Seeds 3.56 4.50 13.5
Annato Powder (Achiote) 5.19 3.10 9.25
Basil, Ground 2.67 6 18
Bay Leaves 1.33 36/oz
Bay Leaves, Ground 3.79 4.20 12.66
Caraway, Ground 5 15
Caraway Seed 4.10 3.90 11.70
Cardamom, Ground 3.31 4.80 14.50
Cayenne 3.56 4.50 13.50
Celery Salt 8.42 1.90 5.70
Celery Seed 3.81 4.20 12.60
Celery Seed, Ground 4.00 4.00 12.00
Chervil Leaves 1.12 14.33 43.00
Chili Flakes, Red 2.82 5.67 17.00
Chili Pods, Casabel 9/oz
Chili Pods, Arbol 50/oz
Chili Pods, Guajullo 5/oz
Chili Pods, Japones 80/oz
Chili Pods, Morita 9/oz
Chili Pods, Pasilla 2/oz
Chili Pods, Paquin 500/oz
Chili Powder 3.76 4.25 12.75
Chinese 5 Spice 3.76 4.25 12.75
Chives 34 46.67 140
Cinnamon 4.09 3.92 11.75
Cloves, Ground 3.69 4.33 13
Cloves, Whole 3.00 5.33 16
Coffee, Espresso Grind 2.82 5.67 17
Coriander, Ground 3.35 4.78 14.33
Coriander Seeds 2.29 7 21
Cream of Tartar 6.40 2.50 7.50
Cumin, Ground 3.38 4.73 14.20
Cumin Seeds 3.84 4.17 12.50
Curry Powder 3.62 4.42 13.25
Dextrose, Powdered 3 9
Dill Seed 3.69 4.33 13
Dill Weed 1.70 9.42 28.25
Epazote 1.60 10 30
Fennel, Ground 3.72 4.30 12.90
Fennel Seed 3.69 4.33 13
Fenugreek Seed 6.19 2.58 7.75
Fermento 4 12
Flour, AP 4.25
Garlic, Granulated 5.65 2.83 8.50
Garlic Powder 4.49 3.57 10.70
Garlic Salt 8 2 6
Ginger 3.25 4.92 14.75
Herbs du Provence 1.45 11 33
Hibiscus Flowers 40/oz
Kosher Salt 6.02 2.66 8
Lavender, Dry 1.07 15 45
Mace 3.24 4.93 14.80
Marjoram 1.41 11.33 34
Mint Leaves .53 30 90
MSG 6.40 2.50 7.50
Mustard Ground 3.43 4.67 14
Mustard Seeds 6.40 2.50 7.50
Nutmeg 3.87 4.13 12.40
Onion Powder 3.75 4.27 12.80
Orange Peel 4 4 12
Oregano Leaves 1.71 9.33 28
Paprika 3.84 4.17 12.50
Parsley Flakes .69 23.33 70
Pepper, Black Coarse 3.84 4.17 12.50
Pepper, Black Cracked 4 4 12
Pepper, Black Table Grind 4 4 12
Pepper Flakes, Red Crushed 2.82 5.67 17
Pepper, Szechwan 2 8 24
Pepper, White Ground 4.12 3.88 11.50
Peppercorns, Black 4.57 3.50 10.50
Peppercorns, Pink 7.50
Peppercorns, White 4 4 12
Pickling Spice 5.33 3 9
Poppy Seed 4.80 3.33 10
Pumpkin Spice 3 5.33 16
Rosemary, Ground 2.82 5.67 17
Rosemary Leaves 1.78 9 27
Saffron 1.20 13.33 40
Sage, Ground 1.45 11 33
Salt, Kosher (Diamond Crystal) 4.80 3.33 10
Salt, Kosher (Morton) 8.73 1.83 5.50
Salt, Seasoning (Johnny’s) 8.21 1.95 5.85
Salt, Table 10.13 1.58 4.74
Savory Leaves 2.67 6 18
Sesame Seeds, White 4.37 3.66 11
Sugar, Granulated 6.86 2.33 7
Sugar, Brown 1.5 4.5
Sugar, Granulated 1.5 4.5
Tarragon Leaves 1.30 12.33 37
Thyme, Ground 3.75 11.25
Thyme Leaves 2.29 7 21
Turmeric 4 4 12
Wasabi Powder 2.70 5.75 17.25
More info: http://www.chefs-resources.com/culinary-conversions-calculators-and-capacities/dry-spice-yields/#ixzz4lE9vGNSg
You don't need to compare whole vs. ground -- you just need to know the one that you don't have, and a really sensitive scale. (1tsp of whole black peppercorns is 1/10.5oz = 2.70 grams; 1tsp of ground black pepper is 1/12oz = 2.36 grams)
The right way to do this, of course, is by weight. So if you are willing to do the research to figure out how much 1 teaspoon of fennel seeds weighs, and you have a precise enough scale, you can just weigh out the same amount of ground spices. Failing that, I'd use about 20% less to account for the fact that ground spices are more densely packed than the seeds. (I just confirmed this for cumin - a teaspoon of whole seeds weighs 1.95 grams and a teaspoon of ground weighs 2.5 grams). On the other hand, if you figure that maybe the ground spices aren't as fresh and pungent, you might want to use the whole amount to somewhat counteract that.
For leafy herbs (which you didn't ask about), the typical suggestion is use half as much.
Try this link. I also have a lot of dried spices and not much access to the fresh ones.
http://www.smithandtruslow.com/spice_conversions.php
That looks useful but maybe you could summarize some of the information here by editing into your answer? Link-only answers are discouraged on Stack Exchange sites because they aren't useful in the future if the link changes or is no longer available.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.046142
| 2011-06-30T23:39:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15865",
"authors": [
"Apoorva Agwan",
"Cascabel",
"Claire holehouse",
"James",
"James Sumners",
"Joe",
"PeterJ",
"Raymond Holguin",
"Rincewind42",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16366
|
Is there a hand blender with a metal coupling connection?
I used to have a hand blender of the stick type http://www.jmldirect.com/Power-Blitzer-With-Cook-Book-PP5125/
It was pretty good except the coupling teeth were made of plastic and looked prone to fast wear especially if someone hit the power button by mistake before engaging the coupling. After about 6 months the inevitable happened and I came home and the coupling had become a molten lump of plastic.
Does anyone know if there is a brand of blender of this type that has a metal coupling connection. It seems to be the most obvious thing that manufacturers are creating a built in expiry in these tools.
I've never heard the term "clutch gear", are you referring to a coupler/coupling? Or can you show a picture of what you're talking about?
Clutch was the word that came to mind but I think you are right, coupling is better.
My Kitchen-Aid has one and is detachable.
Coupling design matters more than material. If you make your coupling short and thin, concentrating all the force in a small area, it will strip even it's metal. Conversely, a well-designed coupling is longer, so the strain is spread over a large area.
I have a Cuisinart CSB-76 hand (immersion) blender, and it has handled ice numerous times without any problems. It has a plastic coupling, but it is a good 3 cm long to spread out the force over more material. If I recall correctly, the professional-grade Vitamix blender also uses a plastic coupling, but with careful engineering to prevent problems.
It is now common to advertise kitchen appliances based on their motor's power (700 watts in this case), but many of these appliances will have mechanical failures if called on to deliver that much power. I suspect that you'd be better served to look for a lower-power blender from a reputable brand with good consumer reviews. I don't think the professional-grade immersion blenders I've used in restaurant kitchens are rated to more than 400 watts.
Personally, I recommend the Cuisinart CSB-76, and have never had a case where I needed more than its 200W.
Also, if you go up to the professional-grade models (Robot Coupe, Dynamic, maybe Waring) they'll almost all have replaceable parts. Replacement couplings are usually $15-$20.
I like the way people on amazon have contributed images of the coupling for those cuisinarts, they must be impressed
I've had some nasty experiences with hand-blenders. A 800W model ended on the floor in pieces after my wife smashed it (on low it whipped the cream onto the wall). We're using Braun now.
try hamilton beach. the models i looked at have metal coupling. but they are expensive
update:
i decided to purchase from walmart simply because if there's a problem with it, i can return/exchange it locally
so i purchased a top of the line ninja. it works great. the only thing it doesn't do is liquify; if your mix has grapes of blueberries in it, there will be tiny chunks of grape/blueberry skins floating around. same with peppers. otherwise, the ninja is working out great for me. the blade bearings have never leaked, and it doesn't make a whole lot of noise
i've been using it for three years now
so yeah, what BobMcGee said goes
If you could link to one that you know of that would be very helpful, I found only rubber ones. Although that seems better than plastic and they look servicible.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.047199
| 2011-07-24T18:37:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16366",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BaffledCook",
"Black Rock",
"Bluewind",
"Chloe",
"Elizabeth ",
"Sarah",
"Terry",
"barrymac",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679"
],
"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
}
|
16375
|
Are roasted nuts nutritionally different from raw nuts?
If I roast a selection of mixed nuts, does it significantly change their nutritional content?
Also: Are there any potential food safety issues around roasting nuts (e.g. does it damage the oils)?
As per the [faq], questions about health and nutrition are off topic here.
In general cooking any food make it more digestible, and make more nutrients available. Fats don't magically convert on cooking unless you burn it
@rumtscho: Despite the awkward wording, there is one specific and testable claim being asked about, which is similar to (for example) this one about oil smoke points. This could do with some editing but I think it's within our guidelines for nutritional questions (i.e. that they need to relate to cooking somehow).
@Aaronut I would probably have edited the title too, if I had thought of that, because in its current wording, it makes a bad precedent. But yes, good edit and good answer. +1 from me.
@rumtscho: Thanks, I meant to edit the title too. This one should be better.
Discussion of the long-term health effects would be little more than speculation; however, there is a specific nutritional claim which can be tested, and has been tested in the commercial food-processing setting.
See: Formation of Lipid Oxidation and Isomerization Products during Processing of Nuts and Sesame Seeds:
The aim of the present study was to quantify some nutritional and safety quality parameter changes that take place in nuts (roasting) and sesame seeds (dehulling, roasting, milling, and sterilization) during processing.
...
All these parameters were significantly affected by the different processing stages, especially by roasting and sterilization (tahina). Nut roasting and sesame heat treatment increased the primary (hydroperoxides) and secondary (aldehydic compounds) lipid oxidation products, with the p-anisidine value reaching 6−11.5 and thiobarbituric acid reactive substances 3−5 mg/kg (equiv of malondialdehyde) in the different end products. In addition, roasting led to the formation of CML (between 12.7 and 17.7 ng/mg) and tFAs (between 0.6 and 0.9 g/100 g) in nuts and tahina, which were absent in the raw material. Roasting parameters appear as the critical factor to control to limit the CML and tFA formation in the final product.
You'd have to read the whole study for a detailed analysis of how roasting affects the lipid oxidation products, which are the same products seen in rancid or overheated fats, but there is going to be some effect.
This is really more of an issue in a food plant because they use big machines designed to roast huge quantities of nuts (we're talking 200 kg/h for a low-end, $5000 gas-fired machine). The heat characteristics of one of these machines is going to be completely different from the comparatively slow roasting of a tiny quantity of nuts in a home oven, so don't panic.
To be any more specific, you'd have to specify the kind of nut. The oils from different nuts peroxidize at different temperatures; some unrefined nut oils start to smoke at around 160° C / 320° F (peanut/walnut), others go well into the 200° C / 400° F range (e.g. almonds). In any case, it's very rare that you'd actually be heating the nuts up to these temperatures unless you left them roasting too long, and they'd smell very burnt at that point.
Just don't eat hundreds of pounds of roasted nuts every month, and don't burn them when you roast them, and you'll be fine.
P.S. I would like to say that roasting improves nutrient bioavailability as TFD mentions in an earlier comment - however, I was unable to find any studies relating to nuts specifically. There are several around beans and legumes, which are somewhat similar nutritionally (in fact peanuts are a legume), but it would be irresponsible to make inferences based on that.
Here's a good article addressing your question:
http://www.whfoods.com/genpage.php?tname=george&dbid=104
Edit: To paraphrase the article...
In a nutshell, yes and no... Roasting nuts over 170 degrees Fahrenheit (75 degrees Celsius) can damage the fats, causing the the fat to break down (and potentially release free radicals)...
The article advises against commercially roasted nuts because you don't know at what temp they were roasted
Roasting nuts under that temperature should maintain their nut integrity :)
Fair enough... I was in a hurry...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.047737
| 2011-07-24T21:28:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16375",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Rikon",
"TFD",
"curiousdannii",
"fyngyrz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6791",
"iluminameluna",
"marilyn",
"pts",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17031
|
Principles of full flavour in dishes
I have become interested in learning how to cook better, and how cooking works.
I prepared a dish, a kind-of pie made from tortillas as the base and top, with potato, feta cheese, sauteed soft rings of onion, mushrooms, garlic and spinach in olive oil with pepper as the filling ingredients, and baked until crispy. A pretty simple recipe.
A lot of my meals so far seem to be based on this base of onion, mushroom, and garlic.
When eating the dish, I found that certain ingredients on their own were too much, mainly the spinach (bitter) and feta cheese (overwhelming), and that certain combinations of the ingredients were good, potato and feta, or onion and garlic, but when I ate full slices (ie. containing nearly all ingredients) they all faded into each other and lost sharpness and therefore seemed bland
I know without going into the specifics of my preparation of these ingredients, it may be hard to come up with suggestions, and this is a very general question but I am trying to understand the bigger picture of combinations of tastes, and cooking techniques to make food that tastes really good, so I am wanting suggestions of further ingredients, or techniques to refine this base, and add more flavour and quality to my dishes.
I appreciate any input or suggestions.
Thanks
If I was looking at this 'recipe' I'd say you need some kind of herb to pull it together. Cooked Onions, mushrooms,potato and garlic tend to be fairly subtle in terms of flavour. Spinach and feta are quite variable, young spinach isn't as bitter and feta can be anything from creamy to very salty. I'd suggest some oregano or maybe some rosemary
One of the most important things to consider when designing a dish is the balance of tastes in the dish: salty, sweet, sour, bitter, and umami. Remember that certain tastes can combine with each other to cancel each other out, enhance one another, and sometimes even create new tastes. Here are three rules of thumb that should help:
Sweetness can complement and even suppress bitterness. As an example, think of beer.
Saltiness, in general, enhances the other tastes, and can often be masked by them. Sweetness, for example, can suppress saltiness and, at the same time, saltiness can enhance sweetness. That's why many baked confections contain salt. Also, that's one reason why a classic pairing for salty feta cheese is sweet watermelon.
Sourness/acidity can make fatty foods seem less fatty. That's one reason why fatty meats are often served with vinegar-based sauces.
It is important to think about what each ingredient contributes to the dish in terms of taste, flavor, texture, and color. If two ingredients are serving the same purpose, then chances are you don't need one of them. In your specific case, here is what some of your ingredients contribute in terms of taste:
Feta: Salty.
Onion: Sweet.
Mushrooms: Umami.
Spinach: Bitter and slightly sweet.
The other ingredients are mostly just adding flavor and texture, which may not be necessary in your case. Also, keep in mind that the oil, feta, and tortillas (assuming you are using flour tortillas) all contain fat, so you may want to bump-up the sourness a bit. Also, if you found that the spinach was too bitter, you could offset it by reducing the amount and perhaps caramelizing your onions a bit more to add sweetness. You could also add some balsamic vinegar to your onions as they caramelize which will both make them sweeter and also add some acidity.
As a final suggestion, make sure to write everything down! That way, then next time you try this recipe you will know (1) how much of each ingredient you used before, and (2) what ingredients you'd like to alter.
Great in-depth answer. Exactly what I was wanting. I will try your suggestions next time. Thanks!
My guess is that you are using too many bold flavors that are getting confused in your palate when you eat them all at once. I would recommend retrying this (and other) dishes you make with 3 or 4 'flavorful' ingredients and seeing how that changes the end product. Look at traditional dishes from cuisines you like - an example would be a Greek spinach-feta pie. There are really only two bold flavors in that dish - feta and spinach. Another classic example is a basic margherita pizza - three flavors; mozzarella cheese, basil and tomato sauce (which counts as one bold flavor as opposed to each of its component ingredients flavors). This isn't universally true, especially for things like stews that tend to have many flavors that cook down into each other, but for basic, experimental recipes I think it is a helpful rule of thumb.
That is an interesting point that I may be using too many bold and competing flavours, and a good idea to look at other traditional recipes. I will take a look at a spinach feta pie recipe before I try it again. Thanks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.048094
| 2011-08-22T05:39:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17031",
"authors": [
"Adam Luchjenbroers",
"Beetle At Bay",
"David Hayes",
"Lain",
"Sarath",
"cow",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7172",
"jimioh"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56499
|
How to balance the bitterness of Habanero peppers?
I'm a hobby hot sauce maker and I'm wondering how do I balance the bitterness of Habanero peppers? All the super hot peppers in the Chinense family have a strong bitter taste that comes with the extreme heat. I've used citrus, salt, sugar and the bitterness still shines through.
Capsaicin is an extremely bitter(in addition to spicy) off-white crystalline powder. The bitterness is also very dependent on the individual. You'll need to add a lot more sugar or possibly vinegar to offset this.
The flavor of certain fruits play well with chilies including stone fruits and mango. And, anecdotally at least, are know to counteract the bitter effect of the capsaicin.
Or you could use a milder chili.
I use pineapple, garlic, onions, carrot, apple cider vinegar; citric acid.
Have played with roasting the above vs not; gives a more complex flavor.
The carrot and onion seem to calm down the bitterness.
Alternatively; you can try my jelly recipe minus the pectin (very sweet base you could build off of):
4 cups granulated sugar
strawberries
habaneros
1 orange, 1 lime, 1 lemon
apple cider vingear
Typical jam steps; add ingredients; bring to 200.
I usually very slowly cook my peppers in a lemon juice infused syrup. This has to me at least the effect of gently activating the pepper flavours and infuses the pepper with other flavours that albeit don't take the bitterness away at least mask them ever so slightly.
I've used citrus, salt, sugar and the bitterness still shines through.
Yes, that's how it's going to be. Once a taste, especially bitterness, is present in a dish, you cannot remove it any more. You can try to dilute it, or to distract the senses with other tastes.
I assume you don't want to dilute, because this will also dilute the super hot peppers, so you will end up with something as hot as regular chili. You found out that the distraction strategy is not working for you, you still notice the bitterness. So there is nothing more you can do. The taste is there to stay, the only option is to get accustomed to it - it is entirely possible to get an acquired taste for bitter foods when you expose yourself to them enough.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.048479
| 2015-04-08T19:38:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56499",
"authors": [
"Bhavika Patel",
"Christine Mahoney",
"Lynn Zirk",
"Revathy Raja",
"Sue A Berkstresser",
"candy drischel",
"geraldine cordary",
"hexhead",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160091",
"mosquada walls"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65363
|
When should I add diced vegetables to a pie, and how long to cook them for?
Earlier this week I cooked my first meat & potato pie. It was quite good, however I felt that it lacked a little depth, and also seemed like a meager portion for the amount of meat that I used.
I was hoping to bulk it out with other various vegetables (I realize this would mean that it is no longer an official meat & potato pie, but I'm OK with that).
My ideas for things to add so far are mushroom, carrot, frozen peas or swede. I would want the larger vegetables to be cut a similar size to how I cut the potato (approx 1cm³), however I would then have no idea how long to cook them for.
So far I cook the beef and onion for 2.5-3 hours, using the leftover liquid as the base for the gravy, and cook the potatoes separately for around 10-15 minutes to soften before adding to the pie before baking it in the oven. The onion is almost nonexistent by the end of cooking, but adds flavor to the gravy.
So when adding any of the ingredients, should I add them to the meat/onion to add to the flavor of the gravy (whether for the full time or part-way through), or cook them separately like with the potato?
And how long should I cook each of the vegetables for considering their respective size?
parsnips, sweet potatoes, green beans, and a second batch of onions that is added sauteed (not cooked to bits) before baking would come to mind... I assume that you already have some garlic and hot peppers in the gravy?
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is about flavor pairing, and this makes the question subjective
@rumtscho I've edited it so that it is on topic.
@Mike.C.Ford thanks for editing! I also put the new questions in the title, so it's clear what the question is about. Reopened, I hope you'll get some nice answers.
Ah, and I edited the usage guideline of the [tag:ingredient-selection] tag to make it clear what it isn't for - the info was already in the longer tag wiki, but not in the tooltip which appears when you use the tag.
@rumtscho thanks, when adding the tag originally I was dubious that I had the correct one, but then forgot to remove it after the edit.
@Mike.C.Ford the tag is truly confusing. I just wrote a Meta question, http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2148/, to change it. Users should be able to rely on the "if there's a tag for it it's in scope" heuristic, and a tag which seems to mean what you had in mind, but turns out to mean something entirely different is not only not helpful, it's actively harmful.
There are two approaches you could use on this, which are to either make a stew with all the ingredients and then turn it into a pie, or prepare separately and then put together into a pie. Which to choose depends on your personal preference. Using the stew method blends all the flavors together and is less work and cleanup as you don't have to cook the vegetables separately. Cooking separately keeps the flavors of each vegetable more distinct, but is more work and cleanup. Personally I prefer the stew method as I like the blending of flavors.
Either way the challenge as you have recognized is to get the vegetables to the right cooked consistency, and in either case the answer is to subtract the cooking time imparted by the baking from the pre-cooking time. Baking does not cook the vegetables nearly as quickly, over time I have figured that using a 3 to 4x multiplier works ok, if a vegetable takes 5 minutes in the steamer to cook it will take between 15-20 minutes in the oven roughly. So for carrots you would ordinarily cook for 15 minutes you would pre-cook them for 10 minutes and then bake for 15-20 minutes.
Another option is to use a fork to test doneness, I've found that if I can get a fork to just start to sink into a carrot piece then putting it into the oven for 15 minutes will finish it off. Getting the vegetables to this state at the same time is the challenge, but it can be done.
This is my personal experience with cooking vegetables to be done at the same time, from longest to shortest cooking times:
Beans
Hard root vegetables: carrots are in this class
Other roots: potatoes, parsnips, turnips
Squashes
Hard leafy vegetables: winter greens, collards, cabbages
Brassicas (broccoli, cauliflower), string beans
Soft leafy vegetables: spinach, kale
Green peas: these take no time at all, cooking them more than a couple of minutes turns them to mush
There's a lot of variation between these classes, for instance cauliflower takes longer than broccoli, and thick runner beans take twice as long as fine french beans. You need to keep these in mind.
If you are making a pastry topped pie the only thing baking is for is to cook the pastry top. If you cool the filling below a certain point the vegetables will stop cooking, or at least slow down quite a bit. My favorite trick is to wait until the vegetables are just about perfect before dumping a couple of handfuls of frozen peas into my filling, this melts the peas and they cook perfectly in the residual heat while bringing the temperature down quickly. I then fill and bake.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.048687
| 2016-01-13T10:01:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65363",
"authors": [
"Becki Papenfuss",
"Hasan Günyol",
"Kulsum Faisal",
"Lisa The-Adventurer",
"Maryjean Mariani",
"Michael Keegan",
"Mike.C.Ford",
"Opal Grissom",
"Penny Frost",
"Steven Servais",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57361
|
How to change this frosting recipe to get a thicker result?
Making chocolate cake and frosting per recipe below from Hershey's recipe. The frosting we made is a bit too liquidy to put on the cake, more like icing. is there a way (or even hack) to make it thicker, short of adding a cup of powdered sugar to cut the ratio of the liquid ingredients?
"PERFECTLY CHOCOLATE" CHOCOLATE FROSTING
1/2 cup (1 stick) butter or margarine
2/3 cup HERSHEY'S Cocoa
3 cups powdered sugar
1/3 cup milk
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
Melt butter. Stir in cocoa. Alternately add powdered sugar and milk, beating to spreading consistency.
Add small amount of additional milk, if needed. Stir in vanilla. About 2 cups frosting.
Is it still warm? Let it cool a bit?
Is it solid enough, once set, that you could just apply multiple layers on top of another?
Cream Cheese.
Whip in as much as you need to...
It won't be perfect Le Cordon Bleu, but it will be pretty good.
Bon Appetit
My 10 y/o went with this FTW, and Mother's Day was saved.
As with most things, when adding ingredients to correct a problem, do a small test batch and slowly incorporate the ingredients until your desired consistency is achieved. After you've found a ratio that satisfies you, then mix up the whole batch.
Here are my favorite add-ins for frosting thickness:
Dairy Alternatives:
Goat Cheese
Strained sour cream /creme fraiche (strain for 12+ hours; save the whey and use it for making biscuits later!)
Strained super-thick greek yogurt (same note as above)
Cream Cheese (Jolenealaska already suggested, see above)
Powdered milk
Powdered whey protein
Nutella
Dry Pudding Mix
Non-Dairy Alternatives:
Non-dairy Dry Pudding Mix
Peanut Butter/Almond Butter/Sunflower Seed Butter/ etc
these obviously may change the flavor profile if utilized, especially peanut
Avocado
Strained coconut cream
- use a nut milk bag to strain/press out liquid...this can be a pain
Powdered plant protein powders(hemp/soy/pea/bean)
when using these, be aware that many of them impart a beany/grassy flavor if used in quantity...just depending on what you select
Black Beans
I use about 1 T of canned beans without added salt when I do this...but I also run it through my Vitamix, so this solution may not be for you unless you have a powerful food processor/blender
Xanthan/Guar/Locust bean/Methylcellulose/Gelatin
Use these sparingly, on the order of a few grams...these can be difficult to find if you are not in an area with specialty food markets (like Whole Foods/Trader Joe's)
I think this will live long as the definitive answer! Thanks so much
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.049104
| 2015-05-10T14:50:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57361",
"authors": [
"Ann-Louise Cross",
"Geraldine Prosser",
"Jennie",
"Mickie Savage",
"Raymond Cartier",
"Stephie",
"Sue Fear",
"William Craine",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35440",
"prototype",
"rackandboneman",
"yosef schapiro"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90549
|
Why is soaking water usually discarded when making plant milk?
Most recipes that I see for soy and nut milks ask you to soak the seeds and discard the soaking water.
The only plant milk recipe I've used that keeps the soaking water (Scratch Soy Milk by Andrea Nguyen) turns out just fine.
I've also experimented with using the soaking water in almond milk, and this too is fine.
So why should I discard the soaking water? Is it just a matter of taste, or is there more to it?
Hello Porcupine, very nice first question! I had to remove the health part of it, because it is off topic for us - we don't have medical specialists, and hearsay health advice often turns out to be misguided. Sorry that I had to edit that out, I still hope you'll get good answers. Welcome on the site!
Generally, we soak grains and pulses then throw away the soaking water. If we didn’t it would likely turn sour in a few days. Also soaking helps remove some of the phytic acid, therefore unlocking more nutrients. I suspect the phytic acid will be in the soaking water which we flush away. Phytic acid prevents absorption of a number of minerals.
It's to remove all "extras" that could gather surface.
As we know everything gather dust, bacteria and we don't know where it have been before. That standing water is perfect for all little things to thrive.
BUT your almonds for example have been pasteurized, but with what? The cheapest method is to use polyphenylene oxide.
All of the above stay in that water if you don't discard it. It's not for taste purpose but rather healthy reasons.
Also I discovered that when making aquafaba from soaked chickpeas using soaking water make foam turn to water in matter of minutes. When boiling them in new water foam is much better and usable.
Could you please explain what you mean by “pasteurization”? Pasteurization means short time heating to 60-100 degrees C. That’s not a standard procedure for nuts. And what’s about the PPO? Polyphenylene oxide is a heat resistant plastic used for computer and auto parts, not a food ingredient?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.049332
| 2018-06-24T19:16:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90549",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92731
|
use of xanthan gum in tomato ketchup
If we make tomato ketchup of 100kg tomatoes.
What would be the procedure to add the gum?
What quantity of gum should be used?
Currently we are using corn starch as a thickener but it does not give the desired result.
related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84064/how-to-get-the-texture-of-commercial-ketchup?rq=1
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! Note that we are not a “service”, we are a community of people who enjoy cooking on various levels. I have removed all personal contact information from your post, all answers, should the community have some, will be posted right here below. Your question is also bordering on “too broad”. Please take the [tour] and browse our [help], especially [ask] to learn more about how the site works.
Hi, we can only deal with one question per post, or a few very closely related ones. You asked four. The fourth, about shelf stability, is unrelated to the other three. The first, "how to use", is mostly the same as the second about procedure. So I removed those and left only two, which makes it more answerable with a single post. Stephie's suggestion about reading the help center is very useful here.
Can you include a recipe and how thick you want the ketchup to be?
Xanthan gum is a polysaccahride obtained through a fermentation process. It is used to greatly reduce syneresis, stabilize emulsions, and to keep particles suspended in mixtures. It is "shear thinning", meaning that liquids with xanthan are viscous when at rest, but fluid when stirring. It has other culinary uses as well, but would be a good experiment your ketchup application. You will want to add in a concentration of 0.7 - 1.5% of your total batch. Be careful of using in a higher concentration, as xanthan can impart an undesirable, mucous-like texture if used too heavily.
Credit to Martin Lersch, and his terrific pdf called "Texture: A Hydrocolloid Recipe Collection."
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.049618
| 2018-10-08T09:34:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92731",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"Ess Kay",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69382",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19945
|
Topping bread with poppy seeds or sesame seeds
Should the seeds be sprinkled over the dough before baking, or will they burn?
Should they be soaked first to prevent burning?
Should a wash (cornstarch?) be used to stick them to the dough?
Anything else I need to know?
You should sprinkle them onto the dough before baking. They shouldn't burn, but they will toast and release some tasty oils. You don't need to soak them either.
Using a wash depends on the wetness of your dough. If it's fairly wet, you'll probably be fine. If it's a drier, more stable dough, use a simple egg wash, which will help the seeds stick and give a nice glossy finish to the top of your loaf.
It seems using boiled cornstarch wash is another option.
If just sprinkling them doesn't work, frequently you'd flip the bread top-down onto a damp towel, then set it in seeds, then flip it back over onto your pan/board/whatever.
@Liz No, egg washes don't burn. They do promote nice browning, though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.049802
| 2011-12-24T05:55:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19945",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris Prince",
"Juan Chacón",
"SourDoh",
"biryani",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6143",
"takrl",
"user43515"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23196
|
What's an efficient way of removing seeds from citrus fruits?
My application is for juicing but I guess it would apply to fruit salads as well.
I have an auger-style crushing juicer and roughly remove seeds I see before ramming the orange/lemon/... pieces down the juicer chute. Unfortunately a few seeds escape detection and as I like to put the pulp back into the juice, I get a few crushed seeds in the juice. Not nice.
Are there any accepted utensils/techniques for removing the seeds beyond probing each piece?
The best way I've found so far (for juicing) is to just thoroughly squeeze the pieces between thumb and forefinger over the flat part of the juicer chute so the juice flows down the chute and the seeds pop out for removal.
We have a twin-screw masticating juicer (an older model Angel juicer) and although the seeds come out quite chewed up, I wouldn't want to drink them and we've never put the pulp back into the juice.
One possibility that comes to mind is to cut the oranges, etc., into pieces and separate out the pieces that have seeds from those that don't. Run the seedless ones through first and save that pulp to put into the juice. Then run the pieces with seeds through and toss that pulp.
Had the same problem. Solved with apple seed remover. Just cut out the the middle part with it, and problem solved.
Which middle part? In my experience, lemon seeds are found within the wedges. And if you remove most of the center, including large parts of the wedges, it seems like a wasteful solution, even if we assume that there are no seeds in the outer wedge portions.
With many citrus fruits, altering the way you cut them already helps - eg with many lemons, if you slice the sides off instead of cutting it into slices, you get all the seeds in the remaining centerpieces.
The fraction of pieces that still have seeds in them might be best processed with a food mill (mouli).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.049938
| 2012-04-19T04:17:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23196",
"authors": [
"Adrian Evetts",
"Antonello",
"Catalyst",
"Dennis Golomazov",
"Jane",
"Jesse Locks",
"Joel",
"Tricky12",
"dmg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52858",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19637
|
Why add yogurt to curries spoon by spoon instead of all at once?
A few recipes I have might use 5 or 6 tablespoons of yogurt but want it fully mixed spoon by spoon and cooked for 30s before adding the next spoon.
Can't I just dump the lot in and mix well?
Edit: The recipes tend to share the same order: cook spices, add onion & garlic, add browned meat, mix in yogurt, add water, simmer for an hour or more. So it's quite a dry mix when the yogurt is added.
Yeah, I think that's the key. I also add yogurt to vegetarian curries where I'm adding it to a whole pot full of cooked vegetables. In that case, you add it all at once.
Yogurt curdles at high temperatures. If you curdle a big lump of yogurt, breaking it up well is hard, and it doesn't taste too well. You want to end up with tiny particles evenly dispersed in the dish. So when you add it a spoon at a time, you can mix it really well before it has had time to curdle.
An alternative method is to do it the other way round. You remove a spoonfull of the curry and dump it into the yogurt, then stir immediately. When it is completely absorbed, you add the next spoon. You continue until you have something like a 1:1 mix in the bowl, then dump it into the still cooking curry and stir.
The second method requires less than 30 s between spoons, but isn't necessarily less work. (You may have to prepare a separate bowl for the yogurt). However, it produces even smoother results. If you have a problematic yogurt (low fat content, high clumping tendency), use the second method.
Edit HenrikSöderlund's comment makes me think that my explanation wasn't clear enough, so here an addition.
The yogurt will curdle a few seconds after it is dumped in the pot. The point is, you don't lumps of curdled yogurt. A lump of curdled yogurt is grainy and sour and doesn't mix well with liquid. Encountering a lump of curdled yogurt in your soup/curry unpleasant in a way similar to encountering a lump of undissolved baking powder in your cake.
On the other hand, A tiny droplet of curdled yogurt is too small to feel as grainy, too small an amount of acid to give you an unpleasant sensation, and small enough to form a suspension with the "broth". That's why you have to break up the yogurt in droplets before it curdles, and this is only physically possible when you start out with a small amount like a single spoon.
It is even more important to do that when adding to the dry-ish mixture described in the edit than when adding to a simmering broth. The broth is below 100°C, the curry base can be much hotter, causing the yogurt to curdle quicker. Also, a liquid will dissolve the yogurt easily and disperse it, but with the dry curry base, you have to rely on stirring only to reduce the yogurt to droplets.
Everything in your answer makes sense, but will it really make that much of a difference here, where the recipe calls for the curry to "simmer for an hour or more"? Will not the simmering cause the yoghurt to curdle anyway?
@HenrikSöderlund see the edited answer.
There are two key considerations at play, slurry and concentration of flavor.
Adding spoon by spoon while mixing allows you to more smoothly integrate the curry powder and avoid clumping. Also, if you are unsure how much of the curry powder you will want (e.g. in a new recipe, a new brand of curry, etc), you will want to gradually temper it down as once you have added too much yogurt, you will have to add more curry and so on.
Adding the process of cooking it will further the distribution of the flavor and allow the mixture to create a smoother mixture (think of how it is easier to dissolve sugar in hot liquids as opposed to cold). I do not know if I would necessarily bother with that step, but it may be useful.
Hah, I didn't notice that we are posting simultaneously until the last moment. Are you sure he is adding curry powder to the yogurt? Because of "cooked for 30 s", I think he is adding yogurt to a bubbling pot of curry.
"think of how it easier to dissolve sugar in hot liquids as opposed to cold". This makes a lot of sense.
@Rum I was misunderstanding the question; I thought he was wondering why you add powders ("curry" qua curry powder) to liquids gradually instead of all at once. I did not realize he was using "curry" to refer to the entire dish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.050146
| 2011-12-13T23:01:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19637",
"authors": [
"Beth",
"FuzzyChef",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"Jonathon",
"SQB",
"ScarletPumpernickel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8315",
"joelw",
"jontyc",
"mfg",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23118
|
Is cooking with hydrogen peroxide an accepted practice?
I had some pork (shoulder) I had to use today, suspecting it might be unsafe tomorrow.
So I thought I'd soak it in some hydrogen peroxide, about 2-3% concentration to at least get rid of any surface bacteria.
After about 10 minutes, the pork looked half-cooked and felt extremely pliable. I assume the proteins had denatured like in a ceviche. Stir-frying it quickly to finish it off took less than a minute and it was really tender.
Is cooking with hydrogen peroxide an accepted practice?
Quick googling for «hydrogen peroxide ingestion» turned up quite a few links on hydrogen peroxide therapy. While the practice of drinking H2O2 for health improvement seems dubious, I see no problems in ingestion of very small amounts of H2O2 with meat (if you wash it off before cooking of course).
An obvious follow-up question is, does soaking meat in hydrogen peroxide render it any more safe than simply cooking it at an appropriate temperature?
Or "Can you do a safe pork seviche using this method?"
Tried it myself on some mid-quality frozen pork. Meat became tender without getting polluted by the taste of vinegar or lemon juice. Who cares if it's accepted as long as result is so awesome! Thanks for the tip, I'm going to do it from now on.
Hydrogen peroxide isn't very good at killing bacteria outside of a petri dish. This is a very pervasive myth. The bubbling that you see when you pour it on a cut or raw meat is due to an enzymatic reaction unrelated to anti-bacterial action. Link
The Hong Kong Centre for Food Safety offers the following information and advice:
Use of Hydrogen Peroxide in Food Processing
Because of its strong oxidising property, hydrogen peroxide is used as
a bleaching agent in some foods such as wheat flour, edible oil, egg
white etc. in countries like the US, Canada, Australia and New
Zealand.
It is also allowed to be used as an antimicrobial agent in food, e.g.
milk, and as a sterilizing agent for food packaging materials.
and
Safety of Hydrogen Peroxide
Oral ingestion of 3% hydrogen peroxide solutions (household strength)
generally does not result in severe toxicity but may result in
vomiting, mild irritation to mucosa and burns in the mouth, throat,
oesophagus and stomach. Ingestion of higher concentration, e.g. >10%,
can result in more dangerous sequelae such as burns to mucus membranes
and gut mucosa.
Hydrogen peroxide is unstable and would decompose in contact with food
and after cooking.
and, finally,
Advice to the Trade
If hydrogen peroxide is used in processing food, only food grade
hydrogen peroxide should be used in processing food.
The amount of hydrogen peroxide to be used in food processing should
be limited to the amount sufficient for the purpose.
Appropriate measures should be taken to remove residual hydrogen
peroxide from the finished products.
Based on this information, it seems there is some precedent for using hydrogen peroxide in a cooking environment.
No mention of using it to eliminate or reducing cooking time however. My searches similarly revealed nothing.
HOLD ON! NOOOO! Not over the counter HP. It's the additive/stabilizers in the HP that can ALSO harm you. NOT MEANT FOR CONSUMPTION. Like the other answer says, There is food grade HP you can obtain through the proper channels that can be used, but again needs to be washed off. Once in a while I would say, mouth rinsing... and so on. Most importantly we also have good bacteria in our stomachs that you will kill off, hence the stomach warnings.
I am a big fan of HP, use is all the time. I sanitize my vegetable with it in my sink filled with water. But it doesn't soak in, and I rinse. It give the veggies and fruit an oxygen boost, and they last longer. I put it in my flowers, or make my own rainwater for plants with it. HPeroxide is also created by nature. I put a sprayer in the little bottles and spray my counters and cutting boards after using chicken or something suspiciously bad or can cross contaminate. It’s an odor neutralizer. Garbage cans and smelly laundry. Mold growing in your basement, I spray it down. It removes fresh blood stains and some old ones. Just don’t use it on fabrics without rinsing; it can bleach over a period of time.
Another method my mother taught me. NOTHING stands up to salt. If something was on the edge of turning bad, she would cover it in salt and let it sit. Not too long, the salt will dry out the meat. Then rinse. Use your nose closely, if it still has an odor, throw it out. Even if you know you will cook it a long time killing the bacteria, you will still taste the rancid flavor. Also try and cut off as much of the fat as you can. The fat goes bad faster than the meat.
My simple philosophy... When in doubt, throw it out. It is cheaper than getting food poisoning.
Lastly, if it is tenderness you want, try Velveting your meat. Did you ever wonder why Chinese Food was so tender? It’s amazing how well it works. An old Asian secret that they really don’t tell you about. I use the water method, not the oil. I can’t have too much fat in my diet for health reasons.
I'm actually surprised I didn't mention I was using food grade HP, for as you say, it's quite important. I wouldn't touch the other stuff.
"When in doubt, throw it out" - it's a saying often said and if I was cooking for others, I'd do it. But to throw out 10, 20, 30 worth of meat, it'd have to at least smell bad before I'd throw it if I was the only one eating it.
I hear ya. I was the youngest of five, raised by a Single Irish Mom. I know the dilemma and have pushed it a few times myself. I found cutting off the questionable parts, salting, then rinsing then follow up with very strong brine and rinse again mostly works. Sometimes I precook the meat till almost done, then use it when I'm ready. I learned a lot from my mom.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.050495
| 2012-04-17T12:18:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23118",
"authors": [
"Chris Calo",
"Eli Lansey",
"FLYYYYY",
"J. Win.",
"Kevin",
"Mischa Arefiev",
"Mohit Gupta",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Onepotmeals",
"alariva",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8486",
"jontyc",
"suz",
"trtlgirl"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21776
|
Why does rice expand by more than the liquid volume it's cooked in?
Does air get trapped or sucked into the rice during cooking?
Also note that if you have a pot of cooked rice, the grains won't fit nicely next to each other. There will be some space in between, so the volume would appear larger than it actually is.
Starch is composed of two polymers (linked chains) of glucose (sugar): Amylopectin and Amylose. Amylopectin is a branched and much larger molecule than Amylose.
Starch molecules in a grain of rice are actually arranged in a semi-crystalline state. The granules are about 2μm in size in rice (different plants have different granule sizes).
Starch becomes soluble in water when heated. The granules swell and burst, the semi-crystalline state is lost, and the smaller amylose molecules leach out and form a network that holds water. Although the network of molecules holds water, it will of course have a larger volume than the volume of neatly-aligned molecules plus water. This process is called gelatinization.
So you can imagine that in a dry rice grain, the strands of starch are like the fairly neatly stacked threads in my T-shirt, some shorter, some longer branched nets. As you heat it, the threads get moving and tangled up, absorbing the water, but also expanding even more in size like that big mess of lint in my clothes drier.
A similar process happens with popping corn, except the water is contained in the kernel of corn and not added. It's quite apparent to see how much larger the volume of a bowl of popped corn is compared to the small package of unpopped corn with water inside.
There is no space between uncooked grains of rice when they’re submerged in water. There is space between grains of cooked rice. The extra volume is that empty space.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.051005
| 2012-02-27T06:39:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21776",
"authors": [
"Carole",
"Chawker21",
"Mien",
"Millberg",
"clone45",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48406"
],
"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
}
|
23301
|
Removing ramekins from a bain marie
So you've just cooked your creme caramels in a water bath/bain marie/double boiler with only about a quarter of the ramekin appearing above water level.
I've tried the follow methods in the past and feel there must be a more efficient, more secure or less dangerous way:
tea towel/oven mitt: not enough ramekin to grab onto without dipping the towel/mitt and your hands into boiling water.
Tongs: very unstable grip, ramekin can easily slip.
Lifting out with an egg flip: flips bends due to weight of ramekin.
Scooping water out: too much manual labor, often awkward as little room to scoop from.
A true bain-marie actually has a fitted rack or platform that allows water through, which you can lift out with handles. It's very convenient.
If you're just using a baking dish filled with water, I'd suggest getting yourself a mesh roasting pan with handles, like this one:
Then you can put all your ramekins on top and just lift out the whole rack when you're done.
If I don't have one of these on hand, I usually use a wide shallow bowl to scoop water out; you don't need to scoop it all out, just enough to firmly grip the top of the ramekins.
Some silicone oven mitts might also help; they don't get "wet" like regular oven mitts and so they'll protect your hands from the hot/boiling water just fine.
Yet another alternative: canning tongs. These are designed to grip wet, round things. They're what we use to lift ramekins out of hot water -- as well as for canning!
You could siphon the water out (fill the siphon with cold water before inserting it to the hot water, of course).
Not sure how good your tongs are—better ones may help.
Lastly, if ramekins are the right size, jar lifters (as used in home caning, with mason jars) would certainly work well.
I will add two other suggestions for completeness, although they are not as good as the ones already mentioned.
Adjust the baking time so that you can let them cool gently in the bain marie, then remove them.
Get silicone oven mitts and plunge into the boiling water.
You might look into Indian-style tongs, sometimes called pakkad or sharashi
This kind of pincer-style tong is primarily used for grabbing and lifting pots off the fire (for the kind of pots that have no attached handle). There's a gap or space, which can hold the lip of your pot (or in this case, ramekin), while the gripping power is where the metal flattens and braces against itself - so you hold it like a vertical handle over one side of the pot, grab the edge (it won't slip because the side of the pot is gripped securely between the metal pincers, with the strength of your fist), and lift the ramekin up and out.
You might also look into pot grippers or pan grippers, there seem to be a variety of tools (with different designs, handles, and so on) under that name for securely bracing, holding, or lifting hot pans even when they have no suitable handle. You should be able to find one suited to gripping the edge of your ramekin firmly enough to lift it out of the water-bath.
Depending on how full the ramekins are, and how you need to set the grip, you should be aware that they may puncture a small hole in one edge of your creme caramel or whatever, since the gripping surface runs down into the pot - so if you're going for photo-presentability, that may be an issue, if you're going for how to safely lift the ramekins out, that may be an acceptable trade-off.
One more trick that might keep you from needing to buy new equipment:
Take a couple of wide rubber bands, and twist them around each side of the tongs. (no idea what they're called ... arm? tong?). I save the really wide ones from when I buy broccoli in the grocery store.
This will give your tongs more grip and make the ramekins less likely to slip.
I just used a metal spatula, pushed it under it, then lifted it up onto a hot pad, for safety, and then slid it into the wire rack to cool. Might take a couple gentle pushes to get under it, but it worked out for me, having five ramekins in a 9x13 dish.
Twist a wire cage (from some food safe wire - iron should be fine, electrical wire IS NOT) around your ramekin, eg a few loops of wire twisted together. let top wires stick out far enough to safely hold them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.051208
| 2012-04-24T22:19:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23301",
"authors": [
"Dave",
"John",
"Milton Segura",
"Mjs",
"Samantha Wilson",
"Stephen Stubbs",
"Tera Cashen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52792",
"lasan"
],
"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
}
|
24016
|
Why does the roux separate from my gumbo?
I love gumbo, and make it about once or twice a month. However, I've noticed that my roux will occasionally separate from my stew and float up to the surface. I've sampled it, just to see if it had absorbed some of the flavors, but all I got was a floury taste.
I've had gumbo enough times to know that this shouldn't be happening - the roux should be enriching the flavor of the stew and mixing in, but it isn't.
A rough outline of what I do:
Make roux with vegetable oil and flour in a 1:1 ratio.
Mix in bell pepper, celery, and onions (aka "trinity"); stir frequently for 10-20 minutes.
Mix in garlic, cayenne pepper; stir for two minutes.
Mix in thyme, bay leaves, white wine; bring to boil.
Add chicken, andouille, shrimp, tomatoes, clam juice, chicken broth; bring to boil and simmer for 30 minutes.
Add okra; simmer for 10 minutes or until ready to serve.
Here's some thoughts on possible problems:
I usually cook it in a slow cooker once I have all the ingredients simmering. I've only cooked it the conventional way (read: in a pot) once, and it didn't separate. (When I cooked it in the pot, some of the roux was in the stew that boiled off the top of the lid; a tasting revealed that it was more flavorful than the stew).
2. I've sometimes gotten lazy or been in a rush, so I only cook the trinity for 10 minutes instead of the full 20. (I've also noticed that the trinity gets uncomfortably slimy-looking after the 10 minutes, which has prompted me to prematurely move to the next step on a few occasions.)
And finally, an error I am not making: I am not burning the roux. It may smell smoky, but it is not burned.
Given this, what could be the cause?
EDIT: I've just made it again, and it's definitely not because I'm undercooking the trinity. Based on the evidence, I'm going to go with Sobachatina's answer, until I can try it again.
SOLUTION: Forgot to update this until I got pinged about a change on this question. The slow cooker made the roux separate from the gumbo; it has never separated from the stew when cooked in a pot, likely because the starch doesn't fully gelatinize when in the slow cooker. If anyone wants to look further and try to figure out when the starch is sufficiently gelatinized, drop a comment below with your result and I'll update this solution.
Making a roux has two purposes:
Coat the flour granules with fat so they are able to dissolve into the cooking liquid without binding up.
Cook the flour to remove the raw cereal flavor.
When the cooked, fat-covered, flour is introduced to boiling liquid the starch granules swell and explode tangling up the cooking liquid. The cooking liquid is thus thickened and delicious.
If your roux is separating then the starch has not gelatinized. Because you saw this problem in the slow cooker and not in a pot I suspect that you are simply not bringing your liquid to a full enough boil to gelatinize your starch.
I have never seen a roux separate out. The roux should dissolve into the cooking liquid. You might check your ratio and make sure that you don't have too much oil in your roux. Variability in measuring your flour might account for why you see this intermittently.
Interesting; I had no idea the roux gelatinizes until I read the Wikipedia entry on starch gelatinization. While a possibility, I don't think that this is the case, since I simmer my soup for 5 minutes before placing it in the slow cooker. I'd need to cook it again before making this conclusion, so it might take me a while to get back to this.
I'm interested in hearing how it turns out for you. BTW, simmering is generally considered just below boiling or about 200F. Wheat starch gelatinizes at 212F. It is possible to simmer it all day and not have it thicken.
Really? I always bring it to boil, then just low enough to continue boiling. I hope that doesn't mean I've been cooking wrong all this time.
No- that sounds correct. I just wanted to make sure that it actually came to a boil.
If it's a very low boil, then it's really only boiling at the bottom. The rest of the pot might be enough cooler that it doesn't work.
I cook gumbo all the time. I usually cook large gumbo for parties.. 30 quarts or greater at a time. I can tell you from experience exactly what is happening... And one of the answers above is right on. Your roux is not mixing due to a temperature issue.
I ALWAYS use 2 pots when making a gumbo... No matter what kind of gumbo it is. I use a cast iron skillet for the roux and a 30qt stock pot or bigger for the actual gumbo.
When I make the roux, I get the fat/flour mix to a chocolate color before cooling it with the trinity. Once I put the trinity in the roux, i stir and sit the roux for 5 - 10 minutes. It cools.
When I transfer to my stock, the stock has to be very hot... A rapid (roaring) boil. If not, the roux will never mix. The stock has to be hot enough for the flour to mix. The oil opened the flour using heat. If the stock isn't hot enough, the heated, open flour will cool and close on impact with the stock causing it to "separate". Once this happens, the roux is toast. Start spooning!
Make sure the temperature of the stock is very hot. Just because you see a boil doesn't mean anything. You need to stir the stock to make sure the boil isn't just from the bottom center of the pot (where the source of the heat is). Though you may see a boil in the middle, if is most likely from the bottom center and rising to the top (heat rises) leaving the sourounding stock below boiling. STIR. STIR. STIR the stock and make sure you have a RAPID boil around the stock and not just the middle. Once you add the roux, continue to stir making sure you don't let the cooler roux affect areas of the stock. Stirring constantly for 5 minutes of so will make sure you blend the roux with the entire stock as well.
I have also had this happen when using a stove or cookware that I was not familiar with. If you end up with a separated roux, spoon out what you can... Make a new roux and add this new roux back in. If the original roux was a dark roux, if will separate as a sheet and not break into granules that sink or are too small to fish out with a spoon. It will not hurt the gumbo. You basically are left with a stock or soup. Get the old roux out.... Boil that stock high... Add a new roux and go to town with the gumbo, chances are some of the original roux did mix well. Cleaning out what didn't mix and adding a new roux will surprise you how thick and flavorful the gumbo can be.
On a side note, the lighter the roux, the greater the roux will act as a thickening agent. The darker the roux, the less it thickens BUT the more it FLAVORS! I have actually intentionally made two rouxs for the same gumbo.... One for thickness and one for flavor. It's easy to screw up by having too much roux... But once you get used to doing it and learning where the right mix is, it can make for an amazing gumbo.
You might try doing the roux and chicken stock in a separate pan. Make the roux, and when it starts to turn golden (or dark brown - your choice), pour in a cup of stock and whisk continuously while adding. This will make a gravy like substance, to which you can add the rest of the stock to thin out to the correct consistency. There's really no reason to coat the vegetables in roux and the only reason the traditional recipe does so is so that you can get away with one pan.
I assumed that coating the vegetables in the roux was supposed to be a substitute for stir-frying or cooking the vegetables in oil, as well as help the vegetables soften up for the stew. I'd try your suggestion, but unfortunately I only have two pots which I could do this in, which I am using for the stew and rice, respectively.
I usually have this same problem when I make a really big batch of gumbo. I've tried all of the usual stuff: adding cold stock to hot roux, hot stock to cold roux, doing an extra vigorous boil. None of it worked. I've come to believe the adding cold to hot trick is old kitchen lore that has no scientific foundation.
To settle this, I read some academic papers on the subject. My summary is below, but I highly suggest you read this article if you're interested in the subject.
To start, there are three ways to get oil and water to mix together.
Vigorous mixing breaks up oil and water into tiny droplets that disperse through each other. Eventually, the droplets will eventually recombine with their like droplets until there's once again oil floating on top of water.
Emulsifiers include ingredients like egg yolks and mustard. Emulsifiers are molecules that have one end that is attracted to oil and another end that is attracted to water. When oil and water are mixed together in the presence of an emulsifier, the tiny droplets are held together by the emulsifier. This prevents the droplets from recombining as quickly as in #1. One example of an emulsion is mayonnaise which is oil and vinegar emulsified with an egg yolk.
Starches act as a thickening agent and thus get in the way of oil droplets trying to recombine.
Here's what you should do
If your oil is separating out then your roux didn't have enough thickening power. The flour loses its thickening power the longer you cook the roux. To make up for this loss you can add some additional raw flour after your roux has achieved a deep copper brown. This extra flour at the end will retain its thickening power, which will give you some additional insurance in preventing your roux from breaking.
For full disclosure I haven't tried this yet. I'm making gumbo later this week, so I'll try to report back. The paper I linked above has me convinced this will work though. I'll update this post later if I can remember.
You might also try techniques from making bechamel (another roux-thickened dish) .... add the liquid in increments, so you're basically thinning it out, rather than just combining the two and stirring. See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/4421/67
I've had my roux separate on more that one occasion and the cause I found was in the technique of adding cold stock to a hot roux, you have to temper your roux with the colder stock a little at a time, or you will end up shocking the oil and flour and the roux will separate from the stock liquid. I found the remedy to this; Oh shet moment on a Cajun cooking website that saved the day, and it was a pretty easy fix, just crank up the heat and continue to stir your gumbo until the stock and roux reach a temperature where they come back together.
Although I am not from Louisiana, I have made gumbo dozens of time and live in the New Orleans area, I had my roux separate twice. Tonight was the second time. I found a fix on another web page. I used Xanthan gum which is an emulsifier. It bonded the roux to the stock. However I used too much and now my gumbo is extra thick. Make a slurry with it first and then add to the gumbo and it will pull it together. It doesn't need much. it may be hard to find though. i found it at a larger grocery store with the gluten free foods and the health food.
Not cooked enough. Boil it an additional 15 minutes on the stove top. I always use unbleached all-purpose flour.
Good-Luck!
Chef Bourque'
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.051626
| 2012-05-26T03:48:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24016",
"authors": [
"Alok Nayak",
"Cascabel",
"Edwin",
"Flaco Montano",
"Joe",
"Julie",
"Nick Fortescue",
"Rian Webster",
"Sobachatina",
"Steve Moore",
"brian sherrington",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8483",
"jamesbergen",
"shy"
],
"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
}
|
66367
|
How much thermostat "range" in oven temperature is too much?
I recently renovated my kitchen and have a new Bosch wall oven. I've noticed many baking recipes that used to be reliable are no longer so. I have a ThermoWorks ChefAlarm and calibrated my oven according to the procedure on their website. The accuracy of the oven is pretty good – usually only 5-8 oF lower than the display says. But the temperature swings are surprising: they're ± 30 oF. So if I set my oven for 350 oF, the temperature ranges back and forth from 320 oF to 380 oF over time.
I've never checked the range on previous ovens so I can't say if this is normal. It seems to me to likely be a problem, especially when a cookie might only be in the oven for 10-12 minutes. Does anyone know? And a follow on: I'm tempted to reach out to Bosch customer service to see if there is a field modification to change this behavior. Does anyone know if that's realistic?
Lob a baking stone into the bottom of the oven to act as a thermal ballast.
@thrig: that made sense to me at first but as I think about it more, that doesn't change the control circuitry that allows the +/- 30 spread. So I think all it will do is slow down the cycle between 320 and 380? Dunno - just thinking out loud here. It's still an interesting experiment to do with the thermometer.
The oven will take longer to heat, as some energy is heating the stone. When the thermometer trips off, and the temperature in the oven decays, the stone will release heat into the oven, thus slowing the rate of heat loss, meaning that when the thermometer trips back on, the heat source has less work to do to bring the oven back up to temperature. Thus, the expected result of adding a battery to the system should be to dampen the temperature swings.
@thrig: Still thinking out loud and getting nerdy with this. The control circuitry of the oven is temperature-based, not time-based, yes? If so, the oven will decay from high to low (e.g. 380 to 320) more slowly but the oven will still wait until 320 to turn the heat back on. Then it's the same slow rate to heat things back up. If that's the case, isn't it true that the problem is now worse, since whatever is cooking will spend more time away from the requested temp than at it? That is, your average temperature over time hasn't changed, but you're now at the average much less. Am I off here?
The rate of change is different; without the stone the oven will fall faster past the trip point for the thermometer, which is not at the observed peaks, but somewhere between them. With a stone, one would expect to see less spread, e.g. 330 and 370, depending on the size of the stone, etc.
I would second thrigs recommendation, but would suggest instead a baking steel rather than a stone. It would be more robust than ceramic, which would easily crack if liquid was spilled on it or if it was dropped.
This is fully normal. Ovens are not stable, temperature-wise, and I have frequently seen such large amplitudes in temperature. Of course, it is much nicer if your oven can hold a constant temperature, that's why some people will accept the expense of an Aga. But in principle, baking recipes can handle that. Note that from a historical point of view, people used ovens with solid fuel, which had much larger temperature amplitudes and no temperature display, and their baking goods were still tasty. Ovens are not temperature-accurate, and recipes are robust for that.
As for the recipes which are no longer reliable, the most likely explanation is that your old oven was also inaccurate, but in a different pattern. Another possibility would be a different mix of radiant, convective and conductive heat, which means that the same recipe in the same pan can require a different time. In general, a recipe which specifies time is reliable for a specific combination of pan, oven and amount. If you bake until ready instead of waiting for a time given in the recipe, the problem disappears.
Thanks. I haven't run my calibration test with convection mode on but am thinking of doing so. Would it be your expectation that the temperature swings are less or about the same?
There are ovens where at least an oven thermometer will be spot-on all the time... but they have their own thermal mass. Such a wide range does sound like a potential problem though, when drying or proofing things in it...
It's been a while since this post was active but I wanted to share my experience. I am from Spain but I currently live in Dominican Republic. Here most people use gas ovens. I used to rent a furnished apartment that had the cheapest range possible. Later on I moved to a knew place and bought myself an expensive semiprofessional gas range.
With the first oven, I used to cook the most amazing ribs at around 95-100ºC for 9 hours. It was almost impossible as I had to trick the oven by putting the knob in an almost off position, but measured a totally stable temperature compared to my new expensive oven. Turns out that the first oven did not have a thermostat, the knob regulated the flame intensity by adjusting a valve. The scales were completely off, as it was probably calibrated at a completely different climate, but it was really stable.
Now I have a great looking oven that I find unusable for most stuff that requires temperature stability.
This does not really answer the question. If you have a different question, you can ask it by clicking Ask Question. To get notified when this question gets new answers, you can follow this question. Once you have enough reputation, you can also add a bounty to draw more attention to this question. - From Review
We just had a Samsung technician in our house checking the gas oven. He told us temp fluctuations of 60 degrees or even 90 degrees is completely normal. His explanation is that a gas flame is either hot or it's not (that is, off). So when the oven cycles on, it gets very hot very quickly. There's no way to moderate it. Once it hits 400 degrees (for a setting of 350) it shuts off and the oven slowly cools down to about 318 (in our case) and cycles again. He suggested that electric ovens likely don't cycle as deeply because their resistance coils don't go stone cold the way an open flame does. I know my wife was happier when we had an electric oven.
Also, gas ovens generate a "Wetter" heat due to the amount of condensation generated from the burnt gas. While this may be desired in certain recipes, where optimal crisping and browning is required electric is the way to go.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.052616
| 2016-02-09T16:13:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66367",
"authors": [
"Angus Sinclair",
"DaveBurns",
"Fiona Linnane",
"Greybeard",
"Jean Powers",
"Jill Costopoulos",
"ariola",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8494",
"rackandboneman",
"thrig",
"user158916"
],
"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
}
|
20190
|
What is the inside of a nut called?
My 3-year-old and I were sharing our traditional mix of Christmas nuts. He's getting pretty good at cracking them open by himself, and wanted to know what the part he eats is called. Anyone have an authoritative answer?
Also see http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/32206/kernel-vs-core and http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/39578/why-the-meat-in-sweetmeat
I've always heard the "meat" of the nut, or "nutmeat". Alternate terms include "kernel" or "seed" or, well, "nut".
If you were to ask a botanist, the edible part is the embryo and the endosperm, though it varies depending on which type of seed you're referring to. Also, for a few seeds—not sure if any of them are called nuts—we eat the seed coat as well (e.g., beans).
Meat of the nut or "nutmeat" is correct - http://www.yourdictionary.com/nutmeat
@JacobG interestingly enough, that also validates "Kernel"
I would have said kernel. Nutmeat sounds a bit archaic.
Anyone else giggle at the term nutmeat or am I just being really immature?
@Jay those are not mutually exclusive options, you know ;)
Seed, kernel, and often nut are the entire thing, including the shell. I've always heard 'meat' as the culinary term; I'm going to edit to add in the biology names.
Iv actually always known the inside of a peanut named the mouse, I don’t believe anybody that calls it a embryo. This part of the nut is definitely called a mouse.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.053190
| 2012-01-05T13:40:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20190",
"authors": [
"Asad Iqbal",
"Crytak",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Hodan Abdullahi",
"Jacob G",
"Jay",
"Martha F.",
"Rhonda B",
"Thomas Williams",
"Yamikuronue",
"derobert",
"entropid",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8499"
],
"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
}
|
6544
|
When adding vital wheat gluten to a bread recipe, should one reduce the amount of flour equal to it?
I've always thought that the rule of thumb for adding vital wheat gluten to a bread recipe was to add one tablespoon of it per cup of flour called for. A friend is telling me that rather than do that, I should count the vital wheat gluten as flour, and for every tablespoon of it that I add to the recipe, I should subtract a tablespoon of flour from the recipe. Which of us is correct and why?
The bread recipe that I'm following calls for 3 1/2 cups of whole wheat flour and 1/4 cup of dried, nonfat milk powder. I don't have the milk powder, so I thought that the vital wheat gluten would make a decent replacement for it. I also thought that I should increase the flour to 3 3/4 cups and add the vital wheat gluten on top of that, rather than directly substituting it for the dried, nonfat milk (because I've always treated it as an addition/improver).
ETA: I know that both dried, nonfat milk and vital wheat gluten are added to bread recipes to improve the texture of the crumb. What I don't know is how bakers traditionally treat vital wheat gluten: is it counted as part of the flour, or is it considered an addition/improver?
I wouldn't replace milk powder with vital wheat gluten. Vital wheat gluten changes the gluten content of your recipe. It's good for, say, turning whole wheat flour with a lower gluten content or AP flour into flour suitable for bread.
When I add vital wheat gluten, I subtract flour as your friend does. I only use it when I am not using a high protein flour.
The dried nonfat milk powder is likely in the recipe for flavor. I would instead use milk in place of water and either up the flour as needed or replace with flour as needed (you can tell this during kneading). I've done this just fine in bread recipes before.
Agreed. One other note: if you are making bread by volume instead of weight, you are probably already off by more than 1 part in 16 anyhow, so you may as well just adjust by feel.
Gahh! Baking = science. Please do not adjust by feel. Do the math and you will have good results. That said, agreed with everything else.
I know that both dried, nonfat milk and vital wheat gluten are added to bread recipes to improve the texture of the crumb. What I don't know is how bakers traditionally treat vital wheat gluten: is it counted as part of the flour, or is it considered an addition/improver? I'll be trying it both ways to see if there is a significant difference.
@sarge_smith Baking = art! ;) In all seriousness, I generally do weigh my ingredients for baking; I just don't know too many other people who do the same, so I thought it would be best to convert to volume when asking my question.
@luls - I think many people on this board who bake use a scale. As I said in my answer, think of vital wheat gluten as a way to turn a lower protein flour into a higher protein flour - it's just a part of a flour that would be present if the protein content were higher.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.053380
| 2010-09-01T23:11:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6544",
"authors": [
"Iuls",
"Michael Natkin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"justkt",
"sarge_smith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21286
|
No oil on non-stick pans?
My boyfriend is convinced that a non-stick coating on a pan (Teflon, seasoned cast iron, eco-ceramic, what have you) is equivalent to eliminating the need for using any cooking oil whatsoever.
Is this in fact the case? I'm fairly sure that it only reduces the amount of oil necessary to keep things from sticking, but I'm having a hard time proving this (other than the empirical tests that keep failing). Essentially, he is a huge fan of fried eggs, but is trying to avoid the eventual heart attacks.
Fry an egg with no oil? How do you even do that? And worrying about a little vegetable oil when you're eating a fried egg is a little silly.
I am just as mystified, but he won't take it on just my say-so.
When trapped living a life without butter, one hopes to end it as quickly as possible.
Take a look at this http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3594/cooking-an-egg-without-oil-or-butter question
Thanks, and although the answer there is interesting, he's looking for an answer due to science, rather than semantics or empirical experience. He's spent his life searching for this Holy Grail, and doesn't want the quest to be a lie.
Hahaha, I used to be a man of science. Now I just want results :) Good luck to you!
Oil is a heat conductor and a solvent for flavors, not merely a non-sticking agent substitute. It's like claiming that if you have a non-sticking teflon pot then you don't need water to make soup.
There are two parts to this question, the stated part, and the unstated "are you really frying an egg if there is no oil?"
For the first part, most manufacturers of non-stick pans claim that their product makes oil unnecessary, and generally I've found that to be true. A little oil helps, but "necessary" might be a stretch.
To maximize your non-stickyness of a non-stick pan, you should always preheat the pan before adding the food, at least to 250F or so. Preheating causes the teflon to expand a bit, closing up pores and micro-scratches in the surface.
It is also common for oils from the past to form a polymerized layer on top of the teflon, making the pan more sticky. This is actually worse when you use aerosol spray oils, because the tiny droplets hit the pan and very quickly polymerize to form a slightly sticky layer. This layer is similar to the one you intentionally create when seasoning a cast iron pan, but in this case it is not helpful. All-Clad recommends periodically cleaning teflon pans with a light scrub of baking soda and water to remove that coating of oil. It should bring back the maximum slippery of your teflon.
When cooking protein-rich foods, you can also minimize sticking by letting the food cook a bit before attempting to move it. The loose, floppy denatured proteins in an egg are extremely sticky, but when they coagulate (set) from cooking, they become less sticky. It may seem impossibly sticky at first, but may release on it's own after a minute of cooking.
As to the second, unstated part, oil provides flavor, and is also a heat-transfer vehicle. When the food is on the pan, if you looked at it with a microscope only a small portion of the food is actually in contact with the pan. Those areas will get heated more, and other areas will get heated less. A little oil fills those gaps, causing more even thermal contact, which allows fried food to fry, rather than just get burned in some areas.
It is really a matter of taste whether the flavor of the oil and the way that it changes the texture of the food is appealing to your boyfriend. I wouldn't like it without any oil, but if he does, well, so be it. If he doesn't really like the taste, but is concerned about health, I'd suggest using a little olive oil - it has no cholesterol, is low in saturated fats, and has a good flavor. Different than butter, but still very enjoyable.
Thanks! The details, and the explanation on the build-up of stickiness are really helpful. He'd tried seasoning without success, had previously had a teflon pan which stopped working, and now has an eco-ceramic non-stick pan which he really enjoys.
@Hannele I heard ceramic serves 7 times less than teflon.
I've tried many, but never found a "non-stick" pan, using no fat, that could cook an over-easy egg without sticking. (30+ yrs cooking experience in restaurants and personal chef.) I always used a folded up paper towel with a thin layer of olive/canola oil on it, just quickly rubbing over the bottom of the pan. This does work after pan is heated, using less than a gram of oil (if that). It's silly to worry about that minuscule amount, considering the amount of fat in the yolk, btw. This trick also makes the best crepes, not oily at all.
After more than half a century of use, exclusively, of cast iron frying pans and EVOO (rid my life of butter decades ago), a few months ago I substituted an irreplaceable broken cast iron pan with a Teflon one. It's been good.
A few weeks back I bought one of those 'stone'' ones. It's s mottled grey, with a brownish plastic handle. Light as aluminium. The first thing I did after washing it, was to see if the ads with oilless frying eggs sliding around freely, were the usual dishonest marketing bs. But nope; with no oil the egg didn't stick at all. Flipped and fried briefly, yolk punctured and left liquid in the centre, the egg slid around like Rimmer on his space surf board.
This morning, I've just cooked eight thin crepes with no oil and no problem at all.
I'm amazed.
I sell most of the frying pans besides Teflon, ceramic is greener and that one is 60% less oil that you need. You can get many versions of this pan; some of them contain silver ions which are antibacterial. My sister has this one and adds a splash of water but no oil).
I would recommend a marble frying pan; with marble you don't need any oil what-so-ever to cook with it. Nothing sticks and it's easy to clean. No need to scrub, just warm soapy water. I get heaps of people coming to my shop saying they bought the blue ones that they sell at big W and the surface peeled; the ones I sell do not peel.
As for cast iron, this really depends on the type of cast iron. Enamel coated ones still need a bit of oil (depending on what you are cooking). The non coated ones don't need oil but you need to season them (which means placing the pan on medium heat and running oil over it after every use) or it will rust.
http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/757216 has an answer posted that says "You can find many "Mable Coat" frying pans at grocery stores here in Japan. They tend to be quite inexpensive. They are not actually coated with marble, and I don't think they are ceramic-coated either. Translation of the description of the coating for a frying pan listed at Amazon Japan says "fluorine resin paint film processing", which is the same phrase used to describe a Teflon coating. I figure that "Marble Coat" is just another brand name for a typical PTFE nonstick coating, like "Silverstone" or "Excalibur"."
@Mayee As you can see from barlop's comment, there's no such thing.
From most people's experience, the non-stick qualities of these ceramic coats are not AS good as that of teflon, especially when the cookware has been used and abused for a while, so it is doubtful that they work well for roasting things, especially starchy foods, without oil. I found that some things (eg Roti dough) that will not stick to (or release quickly from) seasoned cast iron (which can handle some but not ALL starchy/sugary stuff) will stick terribly and permanently to so called non stick ceramic.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.053624
| 2012-02-12T19:21:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21286",
"authors": [
"Brian",
"Carey Gregory",
"Cascabel",
"Hannele",
"Mischa Arefiev",
"R S",
"barlop",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9119",
"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
}
|
94741
|
How to prevent chocolate covered items from sticking to the cooling rack?
I made my first chocolate covered creams as a Christmas test run, but I put them to dry on a cake cooling rack. This morning the chocolate was so stuck that when I took them off the chocolate was tearing off. Not worried about rescuing this test batch, but what can I dry them in to prevent it? Or should I dip one side then the other?
For the stuck ones: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86452/chocolate-covered-cookies-stuck-to-cooling-rack?rq=1
Just eat them straight away. I promise they won't stick to the inside of your stomach.
It was a nightmare, had to eat the whole batch myself!!! Couldn't risk people seeing bad chocolate work
@DavidRicherby they might stick to the OP’s hips though.
The simple approach is to skip the wire rack and place the dipped confections on parchment paper, waxed paper or a silicone mat. (Some use plastic wrap or aluminum foil, but this may stick as well. Oiling helps.) After cooling, they should come off easily. However, there’s a chance of them developing “feet” when the runoff pools on the parchment, especially if the coating is on the runnier side.
If you use a rack (which reduces the “feet” by letting the excess chocolate drip down), you should lift the creams up once they have mostly, but not fully, solidified and transfer them either to the above mentioned parchment or a clean spot on the rack. You can also oil the rack very lightly, but the effect is not too much.
In any case, make sure you let all excess chocolate drip off well before actually placing the creams on whatever you choose for the cooling phase.
You only beat me by a few seconds, but this answer is also more complete than mine. The Teflon stuff is really good for this though, so I'll leave my answer
That is brilliant advice, thanks so much. Here comes batch 2!!!!
In my experience, parchment paper or a silicon mat are preferable to wax paper. Depending on conditions, wax paper can sometimes still stick. I highly recommend the parchment paper route.
One thing you can put them on is teflon cooking liner (example). Chocolate doesn't dry by evaporation but but cooling, so you don't need airflow underneath. You can put this on top of a cooling rack or any flat surface. It's very non-stick, but because it's flexible if any chocolates do stick you can peel the sheet of the chocolate rather than the other way round.
Otherwise very lightly oiled foil or greaseproof paper can be used.
Excellent will try it, thank you so much and merry Christmas
Another approach is to use a skewer. Dip the item, then stick the other end of the skewer into something (a block of Styrofoam, perhaps?) The skewers can all lie parallel to the floor if the items are light, or straight up and down for heavier things - again perhaps in a block of something, or just standing up in a cup or glass.
If you're worried about the hole, you can paint over it with a bit more melted chocolate, or redip just the part near the hole. The rest of the item will be cool and dry so it can sit anywhere.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.054564
| 2018-12-12T08:36:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94741",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"David Richerby",
"Guildenstern",
"Stephie",
"emilie heard",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71252"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22582
|
Can garlic or onion stored in the fridge help to sanitize?
Can garlic or onion stored in the fridge help to sanitize? How to protect fridge from dangerous elements which can spoil stored food?
I have often heard claims that garlic has antibacterial properties when consumed. I haven't read any reliable sources which prove or disprove that, so it could be false. Even if it inhibits the growth of certain bacteria, the botulism cases caused by improperly stored garlic alone are an indication that garlic, unlike substances like pure ethanol, doesn't kill all bacteria. But even assuming that garlic has some antibacterial properties, it doesn't do anything for your fridge. Oh, and I have never heard these claims for onions - just because two plants are botanically related, it doesn't mean they have the same effect on living organisms.
Garlic isn't something magic which kills germs through its mere presence. You would have to get it in contact with them. As germs live on food, if garlic is indeed, as per our assumption, antibacterial, you would have smear garlic juice on each food item before packaging it, which is clear nonsense.
Luckily, you don't have to do that. There is no need to sterilize your fridge at all. It doesn't preserve food by killing bacteria; it preserves food by lowering the temperature to a point at which bacteria don't multiply, or do so very, very slowly. You don't have to rid of the bacteria present in food before you put it into the fridge, it will keep anyway for a reasonable length of time.
The only thing you want to do is to keep your fridge clean of spilled food. Bacteria multiply in food media. If you put a droplet containing bacteria on a clean, cold metal surface (like a fridge wall), they will fall "asleep" due to the temperature and eventually die of starvation. If you put them in that puddle of spilled pancake batter you didn't clean because you were in a hurry, they will start multiplying very slowly. After a few days to a few weeks, you will have a big bacterial colony in your batter puddle. And while the bacteria won't magically jump to any food items held in the same fridge as the puddle (airborne pathogens are pathogens people cough on each other, they can't fly by themselves), any physical contact of a food item with the puddle will result in contamination.
Bottom line: Keep the fridge clean on the inside with a sponge and some detergent, and you are safe from fridge-caused bacterial contamination. Your food can still spoil if held for too long time in the fridge, but there is no way you can prevent that except for methods which change the food a lot (e.g. canning, salting, or drying). Garlic will not help you in any way.
Not true, raw garlic and onions do one very important thing for your fridge, they create a stench like no other.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.054975
| 2012-03-27T12:57:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22582",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"SteveSmith0056",
"Ted",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50849",
"kenshinji"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24169
|
how to ensure carrot pieces stay longer in the refrigerator?
I blanched a big carrot and cut them into pieces and stored them in a airtight container in the refrigerator. I ate them for about 5 days - one piece out of the container for each meal. But after that, they've gone stale - some sour liquid leaking out of the pieces, and sour taste and smell. I had to threw them out. What can I do next time to make them stay longer? What sauce should I sprinkle to the pieces for better preservation? Would it be better if I put them in the freezer? Would it be worse?
This is a big/thick carrot, so it needed to be cut to pieces before a human mouth & teeth can handle it. They don't sell thin weaponized carrots like in Shoot Em Up where I live.
By the way, that sour taste and smell, I encountered the same taste when I blanched nappa cabbage and stored it in an airtight bag in the refrigerator. I was probably making the same mistake.
Edit: I should mention that I haven't used salt when blanching them. I also forgot to put the vegetable in cold water after. Maybe the problem was I didn't blanch right?
Tempted to say "first, use a properly sharp knife, it makes more difference than you think when it comes to cut veg staying fresh", but it seems it is an answer I see fitting about 1000 questions on SE :)
First, how many days would you like them to last? A week? Or even more?
Try to add to the container cold water, and change this water periodically, this way, they can last for about a week (I do this method),
or try adding some citric acid to the water.
If you want them to last even more than a week, try to make them as pickles.
Sounds like fermentation to me. Without some preservative (salt or acid like vinegar, for example), you're going to pick up some bacteria out of the air and they'll eventually have their way with your food. You can't expect cooked vegetables to last but so long in the refrigerator, especially unpreserved food that you're dipping back into regularly.
I'm curious why you feel the need to cook a week's worth of carrot in one go. As I'm sure you know, blanching doesn't take all that long. Surely you could just cook one or two days' worth at a time, and know that while you'll have to cook your carrot more often, you will also have a lot less risk of having to throw any spoiled carrot out.
That's the solution I'd recommend.
I would not blanch before refrigerating stored vegetables, especially if I wanted to take my time using them up. Carrots store very well immersed in cold water, however the water should be changed daily. This keeps them fresh and hydrated. I have done carrots this way for years, and can keep them for at least two weeks (until they are used up). A general rule of thumb for most vegetables would be to keep them hydrated until used.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.055211
| 2012-06-02T16:35:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24169",
"authors": [
"Charles",
"G_H",
"J brown ",
"Lucian Sava",
"Phyllis A Panchley",
"cegfault",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55201",
"rackandboneman",
"scot",
"user219628"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25510
|
How can I chill ice coffee quickly?
I brew coffee using a french press. After I've pressed it, how can I make it chill fast?
I've tried pouring it into a wider container (larger surface area) and putting it in the freezer. This is not optimal since I don't want to thaw the contents in the freezer. Also, this takes some time and risks spilling the coffee.
When it is cold enough I put some ice cubes in a drinking thermos, pour in the coffee, close the lid and shake it. This part of the process works well because the ice "only" transfers the cold to the coffee and not the surroundings. I guess I could use crushed ice instead for greater effect?
Is there a better/quicker way of making iced coffee?
I've tried to edit your question but it's not totally clear where you're going with it. Have you posted one method or two? Are you starting out in the freezer to cool it off slightly and then icing it, and looking for a better overall process, or have you switched from using the first method to the second? In either case, please note, we don't permit polls here as per the [FAQ#dontask], so please avoid questions of the form "here is what I do, what do you do?" in the future.
I don't drink coffee so I don't know what happens to the freshness, but what happens if you make it the night before, and put it in the fridge for consuming the next morning?
@Aaronut, sorry if it was unclear, I just wanted to ask the question in the title. I provided "What have you tried?", so I don't get these answers.
@lemontwist I think that freshness is not a problem, but the problem is rather that when I feel like having some ice coffe I want it the same day(hour) :)
Brew it strong and then add ice. Alternately, freeze some coffee in ice cube trays and use those frozen coffee cubes to chill the new batch without diluting it.
Agitation (shaking) with cubes is a good substitute for crushed ice -- both ensure that the hot coffee meets the cold surface of the ice quickly.
If you sweeten your iced coffee, using chilled simple syrup will help cool the brew and avoid problems getting the sugar to dissolve (sugar doesn't dissolve well in cold liquids).
Thx for the advice with brewing it strong and coffe-icecubes :) I already use (vanilla) syrup so that works fine.
If you crush the coffee-ice and shake, it will cool the fastest, combining all of these methods.
One of the fastest ways to cool something is with an ice bath. Pour your coffee into a large glass or metal bowl, and place that into an even larger bowl filled with ice water. Using a Bundt pan for the inner bowl will cool the contents even faster, as more of the pan comes into contact with the ice water than the bowl.
It's an efficient method, but I also want to minimize dishes and work :) I mean filling up 2 ice trays and pouring it over to another container. But thanks for springing an idea, I'll definitly fill up my sink with cold water and placing the french-press itself in the water, since it only has thin glass walls.
That's certainly an option! For maximum effect, toss some ice cubes in that cold water.
Make your coffee hot, then combine several easy methods to dissipate heat:
1) Pour your hot coffee into a metal cup (a martini shaker?), which has better heat transfer properties than ceramic or glass. For even quicker results, plan ahead by frosting the metal cup in the freezer.
2) Put the full metal cup in an ice bath. For an even colder ice bath, add salt, which can lower the temperature due to an effect known as freezing-point depression.
3) Dip a metal spoon in and out of the full cup. (Note: dipping is more effective than stirring or just leaving the spoon alone.)
If making hot coffee cold quick is what you're after, you'll have a hard time finding a more effective method than this.
I would suggest making the iced coffee the night before, brew it at double strength for best results. Make sure to sweeten it with sugar (if desired) after it's just been brewed. Pouring over ice the next morning will dilute it just enough to taste like the perfect cup of iced coffee. I prefer to make my coffee with an aeropress but French Press pot works great too.
If you really need a good fix for same day, make a couple espresso shots and chill over ice.
I've also found this article really helpful on cold brewing which doesn't make the coffee so bitter tasting (less need for sweetening) http://thepioneerwoman.com/cooking/2011/06/perfect-iced-coffee/
Enjoy!
Looks a bit tedious, but maybe I can use some ideas from it :) I'll also check out the aeropress
Awesome, glad you can take some ideas :) Aeropress, you may fall in love with it!
You could try the cold-infusion technique described by Harold McGee here.
You can improvise a cold-brewing system using a French-press pot or just a pitcher or bowl, with fine sieves, cheesecloth, or cloth or paper filters to strain out the grounds. Infuse coarsely ground coffee overnight in cold water, about 5 cups for every 1/2-pound of coffee, then press or filter the brew from the grounds. In my experience this can become tedious because fine particles clog the filters.
As Caleb suggested, brew it strong and add ice. You can also pre-chill the container for an added cool boost.
I've got a single-walled steel ice bucket with a tight fitting lid. I pour the hot coffee into it, close the top, and then shake it vigorously under cold running water for a few moments. That'll bring it down to room temperature nearly immediately, without diluting it with melted ice, and the bucket is really easy to clean. I keep the bucket in the freezer also, so it has a slight head-start (though time-wise, it doesn't really make a huge difference even if the bucket was room temperature).
Pros: Really fast. Self-contained and easy to store. Easy to clean.
Cons: If you aren't careful you may be able to burn your fingers if you try to shake too vigorously right off the bat -- the water won't be able to dissipate the heat quickly enough.
A cocktail shaker could work as well, maybe even better! It just needs to be uninsulated, made of a material that conducts heat quickly, and able to seal just well enough to not splash out too much when shaken.
I've often had iced coffee in France. The method the café used, which I have used successfully myself was this:
Put ice in a cocktail shaker
Add the coffee (with sugar already added if required)
Shake until it feels nice and cold.
Then strain into a long glass.
The benefits of this method are that you get a bit of a froth/crema/head on top of your iced coffee, and it's very quick.
This works terrifically with espresso. I use my Aeropress with a fellow prismo attachment and the shaker together results in a lovely crema.
Far and away best method for French press that I have found is to put in the grinds for a full pot, but only half the water. Let is steep the normal time and then add ice cubes for the rest of the volume. To top it all off I like to make some ice cubes out of coffee so I don't dilute the final drink. Just be careful about getting "soot" in the ice cubes. Best of luck!
Cold brew is the best but sometimes I forget to make it - Just as a back up when I do make it I fill an ice cube tray with some of the cold brew coffee and keep it in the freezer. That way when I forget and have to brew hot, I can throw in some frozen cold brew ice cubes and boom cold coffee - no watered down taste - and if you brew a lil extra fill the cubes you took out of the freezer with the extra brewed and you will always be ready.
For Cold Brew easy I put 1 cup of ground coffee (I like 365 organic from Whole Foods) with 4 cups of water over night (12 hours) and strain it in the morning.
If you want daily iced coffee, brew your coffee in the evening and put it into the fridge overnight. Then put in some ice (or even better, coffee ice cubes) to make it even colder.
I mostly make iced lattes. When I do I combine the espresso and the optional syrup (caramel in my case) in the same cup to dissolve the syrup faster, then pour it into a cocktail shaker with ice. And then I shake it.
Then I prepare a tall glass with ice cubes, straw and latte-spoon. Strain the now ice cold caramel espresso into the glass, and fill until happy with the milk of your choice. Personally I prefer normal low-fat (0,7%) cowsmilk.
For added "fun" replace the caramel syrup with Baileys irish cream, or whiskey ;)
Variation on cold brew - they have coffee in pre sealed filter bags for some automated coffee machines. You can get a pretty good brew with throwing these bags in a flask w water overnight. Remove the bags in the morning and you're good to go. Gives a light, almost floral coffee :)
Well first put ice in a gallon zip lock with salt and put a smaller bag with coffee in seal and shake lightly or set in freezer for 5 mins and poor in ur cup and there u go
use dry ice(solid carbon dioxide) or liquid nitrogen.
Not very practical advice for the kitchen.
It looks like the typical advice from "The modernist cuisine".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.055498
| 2012-08-06T14:57:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25510",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adelle Charles",
"AlexMA",
"Ben-David",
"Codingpan",
"Dayna",
"Idealdo Félix",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Jean",
"Joseph Lord",
"Juliana Allese",
"LarrySnyder610",
"Michelle Tremblay",
"Pooja Malik Patnaik",
"Prem",
"Throsby",
"Viktor Mellgren",
"Will Yates",
"amicitas",
"andybega",
"asac",
"heathenJesus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58480",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9344",
"konaya",
"lemontwist",
"mcnooge",
"mehmetic",
"onepound",
"rjp",
"ruth robertson"
],
"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
}
|
27829
|
What oil/fat is best for basting sunny-side-up eggs?
I've recently gotten into sunny side up eggs. I definitely like the top to be set up a bit, so I baste them in the hot cooking oil. I'm wondering what oils and fats people find best for this. So far I've tried coconut oil, lard, ghee, and whole butter. They all work (and taste) fine, but there's definitely a difference in how well the oil runs off the top of the egg.
Coconut oil seems to run off pretty quickly and get back in the pan to heat up again (which is what I want). The others seem to stick on top of the egg a bit more, which makes it harder to keep getting enough fat in my spoon to baste them continuously.
It's not that there's anything wrong with coconut oil, but I'm curious to try other methods. So what fat (or combination of fats) have you found most effective and delicious for basting sunny side up eggs?
My favourite oil for basting is none: I just put a glass lid on the pan, add a teaspon of water and let the top of the eggs cook in the steam. The few times I have basted, the olive oil I've used for cooking the eggs has not seemed to run off very well.
Bacon grease is wonderful for basting eggs. If you remove most of it before adding the eggs to the pan you can spoon it over the top and you won't run out as quickly even if it's sitting on top.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.056265
| 2012-10-15T17:18:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27829",
"authors": [
"Jill",
"Johnnie Sue",
"Manyana",
"MegsB",
"Nicolás Marzano",
"PattyD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63939",
"jo hall"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30385
|
Chili with bitter aftertaste and not enough kick
I cooked chili using the following ingedients:
Oil for sauteing
1.5 pounds beef, minced
1 large white onion, finely chopped
1 red bell peper, diced
1 orange bell pepper, diced
2 Tbsp tomato paste
1 14 oz can of chopped tomatoes
1 12 oz bottle of beer
2 tsp sugar
1 1/2 tsp ground cumin
1 1/2 tsp cayenne peper
1 tsp red peper flakes
2 tsp Tabasco
1 tsp dried oregano
1 tsp smoked paprika
1/2 tsp garlic powder
1 tsp crushed coriander seeds
2 tsp Worchestershire sauce
1 can of cooked red kidney beans (drained and rinsed)
The method was, basically:
Saute onions and pepers for approx 5 minutes
Brown beef
Add tomato paste, and mix
Add can of tomatoes and mix
Add beer
Add sugar, salt and pepper
Boil for approx 20 min
Add remaining spices
Cover and simmer for 2.5 hours
20 minutes before it's done, add the beens
Two problems:
A slight bitter aftertaste
Not enough kick
I think that the bitter aftertaste is from the cayenne pepper. I have read that cayenne pepper is quite neutral in taste (not bitter) and carries a lot of heat. Is this correct?
Then I tried this: Put a couple of spoonfuls of chili on a plate. Add 1/4 tsp (approx) of cayenne pepper and mix. Taste. Well, the heat increased, but not TERIBLY so (it was perfectly eatable). Also the bitter aftertaste became worse.
I also tried tasting a tip of a teaspoon of cayenne pepper, directly. Ok it was hot, but not unbearably so. Most of the heat was in my throat, not in my mouth (mostly as an aftertaste), and I did have that bitter aftertaste
Can something be wrong with my batch of cayenne peper? Or is this how cayenne peper realy tastes?
I could reduce the amount of cayenne in my recipe, but then I would need something to increase the heat.I could go with more tabasco (I tried this on a spoonful of chili) but this would, also, increase the acidity (tastes a bit sour) which is not terible, but not ideal either
Any sugestions?
By your own description, you have narrowed it down to the cayenne pepper.
I personally have never had this experience with cayenne; for me it just seems to add a certain hotness to the foods it is in, without much other flavor of any sort.
I can only infer you have a bad batch.
Add red pepper. Lots of heat, little taste change, no bitterness.
The 'not enough kick' would definitely be from the cayenne -- 1/4 tsp on a 'couple of spoonfuls' should've had plenty of heat. How old was it, and how was it stored? It will loose heat over time, and I don't know if it's possible for it to pick up other flavors (or for other flavors that are normally masked to come through).
I've never known cayenne pepper to have any flavor, so if it is bitter you may have a bad batch, or the brand you are using may have put in additives that give it a bitter flavor. You may have other sources of bitterness:
beer: brewers add hops to beer to give it bitterness, and some beer is more bitter than others, it depends on which type you chose
Tomato paste: this can have a bitter taste if it is not fried off. If you add it directly to liquid it often adds bitterness to a dish
Kidney beans: I've always found that canned kidney beans have a bitter taste, even if rinsed
So there's other ways you could get bitter chili. I'd balance it out by adding some sugar or honey plus maybe a bit of lemon juice or tamarind paste.
Those other possible causes--plus local burning--are true, but the experiment with adding cayenne to a smaller sample was pretty telling.
It does sound like the cayenne powder is the source, but it could be in addition to bitterness from other ingredients.
It isn't great, is it @nicoleeats? You've got to fry it to get rid of that aftertaste.
Thank you for your answers! I did fry the tomato paste (a bit) by adding it to the browned meat mixture and stirring vigorously for a minute or so over hot flame, before adding the braising liquids. I always do this when I cook with tomato paste. Also, I checked for taste before seasoning with the spice mixture, and there was definately no bitter taste there. Now that you mentioned it, I think the problem may be the beans: I did put a lot of beans in the pot, and if I remember correcty, when tasting for spices before putting the beans the was no bitterness (or at least a lot less)
Bitter Hops from the beer seems the most likely culprit here.
Different brands of cayenne pepper taste quite different. Some not so good.
I bought some Frontier Cayenne Pepper from Amazon. I was curious how hot that actually was, so I put some on a spoon and tasted it. Definitely hot (as in, I do not recommend repeating this experiment). Also had a nice pepper flavor.
Tried the same with my store brand that I had before. Was not hot (at least, not compared to the Frontier stuff!), and also tasted pretty bad. More like dirt. Spit that out, and deposited the rest in the trash.
That's what they have here in the bulk aisle at Carrs (Safeway). I concur, it has spoiled me for the other stuff.
The cumin! Cumin can leave a horrible aftertaste. I avoid it in my chili for this very reason. It's like a skunky, lingering unpleasantness. I don't think it's the pepper or the tomato, you would have smelled the tomato if it had been sour.
This is a person-to-person thing. Some people abhor cumin for its musk and others will have no idea what you are talking about. I used to date a girl who got only "body odor" notes from cumin some days. Other days she liked it and it was fine. Funny how noses work.
If you used a beer with a high IBU (International Bittering Units), such as an IPA, the bitterness will concentrate as liquid in the beer evaporates. Using such beers in a reduction sauce is also frowned upon for the same reason.
I recommend using a dunkel or bock beer with chili...lower IBUs, and higher malt...leave out the added sugar.
To be fair, there's a lot of other liquid - the bitterness of one bottle of beer is spread across the entire volume of chili (probably a lot more than 12 oz) so it takes a fairly bitter beer to taste through all the chili flavor.
My experience is making beer bread, but I found that using a pretty bitter beer was the only way to actually get any beer flavor into my finished product. Beers that were less hoppy and more malty just made the end result taste "better", but not identifiable as beer.
Your bell peppers may be the answer to bitterness. They contribute bitterness when picked too early (often in store-bought items), when cooked at too high a temperature and for too long, and when the white rind inside between the compartments (it's called the placenta of all things), is not removed. The latter is quite bitter. Yellow are slightly more bitter than red, and green is most bitter of the three.
I've heard that the acidity in tomatoes can make a chili sour and that a common trick to make soups and stews less sour is to put in a little baking soda. Just make sure you cook it a little while longer to get rid of any reaction (if it bubbles) and clear out the flavor.
I had this problem in a pretty big way after riffing on Cook's Illustrated's Taxs chili recipe. There was a very pronounced bitterness, which I am certain came from the roasted dried chiles.
I found a wonderful video by Barb Stuckey, author of "Taste: What You're Missing," where she explains how the bitterness can be balanced out with other flavors (especially sweet, sour, or salt.)
The ingredients you can use are only limited to your imagination once you understand the principles, but some of the better additives I found that will mask/complement the bitterness are:
Fresh or no-salt canned tomatoes
Lime juice
Chocolate
Corn
Brown or regular sugar
More salt
Maple Syrup
The only mexican peppers I know that are bitter are the various dried peppers like anchos. The seeds are terribly bitter. Also as you soak and boil them to soften before blending for chilli sauce you must change the water and rinse them well after the soak and before blending.
The biggest issue is some peopke are mudh more sensitive tontge bitter taste. Supertasters which I am are much more sensitive to basically all flavors.
One thing cooking longer decreases the bitterness usually if its got meat or other protein in it. I think its tannins in whatever pepper it is and I bet if you tasted tannins in something e.se to compare youd find it similar maybe just different in intensity. Its got that bitterness with astringent effect ƙdryness on the tongue) thats tannin bitterness.
Try adding a ltitle more cumin. Not much. A dash at a time will take away the aftertaste. Be very careful not to over do it!!!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.056442
| 2013-01-25T04:41:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30385",
"authors": [
"Aero",
"Cascabel",
"Cindy Purvis",
"Eric Brown",
"GdD",
"J. Deroo",
"Jeannine Jewell",
"Joe",
"Joe Gerhardt",
"Jolenealaska",
"Korley Labs",
"Preston",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Vold",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"andreas obuaculla",
"baldururikson",
"beenish chaudhry",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99293",
"sarge_smith",
"spouky"
],
"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
}
|
8822
|
How can I prevent scum forming in the water when I poach eggs?
When I poach eggs, an off-white foam/scum forms on the surface of the water and sometimes attaches itself to the egg. Does anybody know what causes it, and how I can avoid it?
EDIT: I use malt vinegar rather than white vinegar, which I think discolours the foam/scum and makes it look more unpleasant, so I think I'll change to white vinegar.
After much experimentation, I have found that the keys to avoiding the off-white foam/scum are:
Use eggs that are as fresh as possible, as this greatly reduces the amount of scum.
Use white vinegar instead of malt vinegar, as this avoids discolouring the scum, which makes it more visible.
A few tricks I've seen used in restaurants:
Add a bit of vinegar to the water (supposed to cut scum, keeps egg together better)
Increase the surface area of the pan (many restaurants use a large rectangular pan for poaching)
Use more water (reduce the ratio of protein bits to water)
Slide the eggs in more carefully and use fresher eggs (less protein separates)
Instead of poaching, you could try steaming. It is less 'aggressive' but you should calculate about 20% more time for the same result.
Also, you could push a needle trough the shell at the flat of the egg. There is a small air chamber there and the pressure can escape without shedding egg-white. Be careful to not push the needle too far in, as you'll rupture the membrane...
With a fresh egg, the chamber is better defined, so you'll have less trouble there.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.057251
| 2010-11-04T10:37:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8822",
"authors": [
"Linda",
"Michael",
"Nick Williams",
"PAM",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33855"
],
"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
}
|
10375
|
What ingredient gives vlaamse mayonnaise that special kick?
I love Dutch frites, and I particularly like the Flemish Frite Saus called vlaamse mayonnaise that they serve at the Frite shop called VleminckX Sausmeesters on Veotboogstraat (just one block off Kalverstraat, the main walking street down the center of Amsterdam).
What gives it that special kick. It's a bit more tart than American mayonnaise.
This should probably have a "cuisine" tag, but I'm not sure which cuisine it is... can you comment?
@Aaronut - the question says Flemish and Dutch, and giving the spelling, I think one of the two or both applies.
@justkt: Yes, I'm just not sure which.
I would say that either dutch-cuisine or belgian-cuisine would apply, since this type of frite is popular in both countries. However, my experience is with the Dutch version, though the Dutch refer to the type of mayo that I am describing as "Flemish" mayonnaise, when they translate it.
Got it. Here's to our first question on Dutch cuisine!
Frietsaus is just a special mayonnaise
Commercially it is lower in fat than plain mayonnaise
It has oil, starch (replaces extra oil), whole egg yolk, whole mustard seed, sugar, distiled vinegar, and lemon juice
So the kick is just the extra acid (vinegar and lemon juice), the bite from the whole seed mustard, mixed into a lite sauce, not a heavy greasy mayo
BTW: VleminckX Sausmeesters is just a touristy thing, there are plenty of shops in Holland that serve great fries
Personally I think that potatoes from Europe are a bit plain compared to many other continents/countries. the best I have had are from Fiji, the warm humid conditions make excellent deep frying potatoes, and I suspect they lace the cooking oil with a little coconut oil too :-)
Thank you for the detailed answer. And yes, you are correct, there are many places that serve outstanding frites (in Amsterdam as well as many other places around the world). I've tried a number of them, and this one place has become my personal favorite (for now).
Here's a specific recipe that sounds like exactly what you're looking for.
@Josh - Seems about right except for egg, should be just egg yolk?
Yes, that did seem strange. But wikipedia says about mayonnaise, "Some recipes — both commercial and homemade — use the whole egg, including the white." It would help to reduce the fat content, as an alternative to adding starch. (As an added bonus, when eaten with fries you'll actually have a pretty nice balance of carbs from the fries, fat from the yolk and oil, and protein from the white!)
It seems indeed like a good recipe, but I like my mayonaise more if I add a little pepper.
Adding a tablespoon of water is a good idea if you don't want it to be too greasy.
Confusing, OP tastes mayonnaise so why is frietsaus (fritessaus) the accepted answer? Dutch mayonnaise is usually quite sweet and soft while Flemish mayonnaise is more sour and salty (it has my preference, but that's probably because I eat it less). Fritessaus is neither of the mayonnaise described, but still good in it's own way (and indeed less fat), though it certainly doesn't come close to Flemish (or Dutch) mayonnaise when it comes to taste. Closest fritessaus that comes to (Dutch) mayonnaise would be "Oliehoorn" in my opinion :)
Dijon Mustard.
It might be lemon juice as well, but you need a little bit of mustard to get the right balance, in my opinion. (although, I admit, it's been a few years since I've been to the Netherlands, and I likely haven't been to that specific restaurant)
Well, "vlaamse" simply means "Flemish." All I've been able to find online is sites like this one which claim that the traditional flemish mayo on fries is actually richer and less sour than the stuff we're used to, so that doesn't give us any hint as to what secret ingredients this particular recipe includes.
However, one of the standard ingredients in mayo is vinegar, which itself is a popular topping for fries in some areas. Extra vinegar would definitely give mayo a tart kick like you're describing. Think of the flavor of salt-and-vinegar potato chips... is that the same sort of kick that this mayo has?
Could also be some other natural acid source (lemon or lime, for example), or a food additive one (e.g., citric acid). Or maybe stronger vinegar (higher acetic acid content vs. water).
I have seen a recipe where lemon was called for in vlaamse mayonnaise. However, when I followed that recipe, I did not end of with the substance that I have regularly had on frites. The Dutch also sell tubes of what they call Frite Sauc, which is also very nice, and I'd like to make. Again, it is more tangy (and richer) than regular American mayonnaise.
It is actually called Fritesaus or Frite Saus. I misspelled the name in my previous comment.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.057417
| 2010-12-21T14:04:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10375",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Bono",
"Cary Jensen",
"FvD",
"Josh",
"Mel",
"Mien",
"NuMessiah",
"TFD",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"justkt",
"ladygargar",
"user21233",
"yonetpkbji"
],
"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
}
|
4464
|
How to succeed with making omelette
Sounds simple but I seem to fail every time, that is it turns into scrambled eggs instead. How do you make it so that you can flip it over both without it breaking and before it burns?
whisk egg thoroughly with some whole milk, generously butter the medium hot cast iron, pour the egg mix, sprinkle salt and pepper, cover the lid and cook the omelet in low heat.
This depends on which type of omelet you want to make, I'll run through the three types I know how to make.
The thick Waffle House style omelet (it's the kind that poofs up and is about an inch thick all the way around, IHOP also serves this omelet) is achieved by beating the eggs and incorporating a LOT of air in to the mixture. Restaurants do this by using a milkshake machine to whip the eggs. This type of omelet is easy to flip and cook, you just put enough butter to coat the pan, pour off any excess and then pour your egg mixture in to the pan (you are going to have to use an omelet pan for this). Let the omelet cook while occasionally swirling the pan in a circular motion. When the omelet has cooked most of the way through flip by either the toss in the air and catch in the pan method (not for beginners!) or the fork and spatula method (place spatula underneath and hold omelet onto the spatula with a fork on one corner). This will yield a thick fluffy omelet but it can be hard to work enough air into the eggs at home.
The second type is the French omelet and it doesn't require flipping at all. The french omelet is what you see in fine dining brunches if you see it at all in the U.S. This omelette is made by mixing your eggs and pouring the mixture into a medium low heat pan. As it cooks you take a fork and pull the cooked egg off the bottom and into the center of the omelet. Here is a video that goes more in depth.
The third type is what I call the grandma omelet. It's made in a frying pan instead of an omelet pan and features a fairly flat egg wrapped around some cheese and other toppings. For this omelet you need medium heat. You should coat the pan with butter and pour in the egg mixture to a heated pan. Let cook for a minute or two, then swirl the uncooked egg to the outside of the pan use a fork to lift the very edge to allow the uncooked egg to take the place of the cooked next to the pan. Let the egg cook till desired doneness (side note: your omelet should and will have a small amount of uncooked but heated egg, it should be not runny, but still not be entirely set) and add toppings and fold over. Then serve.
To address your scrambled egg problem, you need to let the egg set more before attempting the flip and lowering the heat on your pan will take care of the burning. Just remember that eggs are extremely delicate and respond better to lower heat and close attention.
Also the names are just the ones I use in my head, if somebody knows the correct terminology, let me know and I'll update to reflect it.
One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet that I find makes all the difference is this: I put the eggs in a bowl of warm water for 5 mins or so before I crack and blend them. Cold eggs tend to get rubbery when they hit the hot pan.
I also use clarified butter (ghee), and I ALWAYS keep a LOW heat. After gently pouring the eggs in, I let it just sit for a minute or three, until it's clear that the bottom has set. Then, using a rubber spatula, I gently lift and loosen the omelette all the way around, and shift the uncooked egg part so it flows underneath. Once the top is almost dry, I put in my ingredients across one half, and then quickly lift and flip the other half over it, making a half-moon shape. The insides will continue to cook while I gently flip it over to one side and the other, finishing the outside to a very light golden.
That's my technique, anyway. :)
I usually make open omelette which can be a bit trickier but my technique always works perfectly so maybe it would help you as well.
First I melt around 1 teaspoon butter and I spread the beaten eggs in the pan with a spoon. I put the lid on and let it cook over very low heat until it's almost cooked all over (around 5 minutes). To flip, I let it slide to the lid and flip it over the frying pan. If you want it folded, the low heat and the fat will allow you to have a better control of the the doneness and you won't fail.
The technique I used to use was to lift up the edges and tilt the pan very slightly, to move the uncooked egg out to the sides. This worked pretty well in the sense that it didn't break or burn, but didn't produce that perfectly smooth omelet.
The technique I use today is to simply use the bottom of a fork and make circular motions across the surface to spread around the uncooked egg. I do this on lower heat and, obviously, with lots of fat (butter or bacon fat if I'm making bacon at the same time). When the top "layer" of egg starts to set, it's time to add the other ingredients, briefly melt the cheese / warm the vegetables / etc., and fold.
To fold it, simply tilt the pan so that the egg starts to slide off the side; then use a fork or spatula to lift the end and fold it back over the other side. Works for me every time.
To prevent burning while maintaining a high heat, use clarified butter. You get a higher smoke point, because the milk solids are no longer there.
I'm pretty happy with the way I make my omelets so here is the way I do it. I usually make very small omelets and they cook for no more than 45-60 second on a very hot plate. I use either one or two eggs. The result is a pretty wet and "runny" omelet, but I think they taste delicious.
take one or two ROOM temperature eggs
(not directly from fridge) and wipe them well together. I only add salt, pepper and a pinch of water.
cut the vegs you want in your omelet. I prefer garlic, onion, red pepper and mushrooms. Since its a small omelet, cut them very well and use small amounts.
heat a little oil in a very hot pan for some secs
add garlic and onion in the oil and cook for some secs, add red pepper, mushroom etc. for some secs
then add eggs and use the trick of lifting the omelet so that everything gets cooked
i usually have the plate so hot that it takes no more than 45 secs to make the omelet, after that amount, I add some cheese, flip it over and take it off the plate
This makes a great omelet and usually it's a bit runny and wet just like I prefer it :)
Like Kyra said, I use butter (somewhat liberal amounts) in a Teflon pan before pouring the egg. Make sure the pan is to temperature before pouring the eggs in. It helps if the eggs are at room temperature. The eggs should bubble fairly soon after pouring, 10-15 seconds. That helps to make sure the omelette is cooked without burning.
The right size pan is important. Use a large enough pan so that you don't have too thick of a mass to cook through.
As far as flipping, if you're not good with flipping it in the pan there is no shame in using a spatula :) Something flexible with a little give at the tip I have found helps to get underneath the omelette without breaking it up too much. Be sure that you get under it enough or else it will break.
A French-style no-flip omelette can also be made without needing to pull the egg toward the center with a fork.
For many years, the top hit for "omelette" on Google was Pineapple Girl's omelette recipe, which is quite easy to make, and has a special addition over the traditional French omelette: a delicious, crispy filigree of egg around the border. The original site is now down (and has consequently disappeared completely from Google search results), but the internet archive still has a copy of what was the world's most popular omelette recipe.
While I hope the internet archive of this omelette recipe will always remain available, I'll also give my own set of (overly wordy) instructions on how to make this type of extra-delicious omelette:
You'll need eggs, whatever toppings and spices you want for the omelettes, at least one 10-inch non-stick skillet, or ideally one per person (that is, ideally two), so you can sit down to eat with your guest(s) without anyone having to eat an omelette that's not piping hot from the skillet.
Begin by setting out three eggs per omelette to warm up to room temperature, and then prepare whatever filling you want for your omelettes...this can be anything.
Personally, I've found one set of toppings I like and tend to stick with it: diced ham (or diced ham steak, if a whole ham is too much to buy at once), grated cheese, a few sautéed mushrooms, some wilted spinach, and a lightly cooked diced roma tomato (the latter usually cooked together with the spinach, but separately from the mushrooms).
If your toppings don't require pre-cooking, and you're reasonably quick at chopping/shredding them, you can wait until after getting the omelettes are started to prepare them, but I find it a bit nerve-racking myself, and prefer to have everything ready in advance.
If you used your skillet to prepare any of the toppings, you'll probably need to wash it again before using it to cook the omelette, or it may still end up sticking. If it's in perfect condition, it may not be necessary.
Scramble the eggs, together with any spices, i.e. a dash to an eighth of a teaspoon salt, optionally pepper, perhaps a hint of hot spice via a spiced salt such as Tony Chachere's (which makes much it easier to add just a hint of hot spice than trying to pinch an optimum dusting). Optionally, add about two tablespoons of milk to the egg, for a softer texture (personally, I like this recipe about equally with or without milk, try it both ways).
Spray the skillet with oil, heat the skillet somewhat, and add the egg. Swirl the egg in the skillet so it leaves a thin layer all around the skillet, the layer should extend about 3/4 of an inch above the egg in your skillet.
Now wait until the egg has mostly firmed up, but still has a thin layer of runny egg all across the top. Swirl the skillet a second time to re-coat the same 3/4 of an inch above the omelette. This time, the layer will be noticeably thicker (although still quite thin).
At this point, you can begin adding toppings on half of the omelette, to let them warm up a little. If the omelette isn't cooking evenly, add them to the runnier side, since the side you add them to will stay in the pan longer.
As the omelette continues to firm up, the thin layer of egg will become crispy and brown, and pull back on its own from the side of the skillet (this is why a non-stick skillet is a necessity for making this type of omelette). When this happens, add any remaining toppings, and fold the more cooked half of the omelette over the less-cooked half, enclosing your toppings. Be careful not to break off the lacy border.
Give it a moment more for the cheese to melt and (if the lower half was still overly runny) for the egg to firm up a little more on the bottom, then serve (carefully, don't break off that lacy border) and enjoy!
Lots of butter (actually, I use Smart Balance, wife=nurse, what can I say), medium heat, very think coating of egg. I make my eggs simply as 1 egg + 1 tbl.spoon water, whisk. Teflon rounded edge pan. No flipping over, just flip up the sides over the center to cover chesse, ham, etc. added on top when just starting to dry out.
The deal with omelettes is practice and more practice. And you need to use more heat than you can probably imagine. The pros saute at much higher temps than most home kitchens are able to deal with. I will cook some restaurant style dishes at home including omelettes. My trick is to have all of my mis en place in order and ready for the intense and fast pace of cooking an omelette. My favorite technique is to finish the omelette in a 425F oven just after flipping it. You need the oven hot for roasted potatoes anyway right. At home I whip two eggs with a tsp of heavy cream and a pinch of kosher salt in a copper bowl. I use a heavy Lincoln professional 8" non-stick skillet with its plain metal oven proof handle and the pan has never seen a dishwasher or tool other than a wooden spoon or chopsticks. A great pan will allow you to use much less fat. Burner on high but only let the pan partially preheat or the fat and non-stick surface will burn. Pour in about 1/2 tsp of olive oil and a tsp of butter (olive oil helps keep butter from burning). Pour in the whipped eggs immediately into the sizzling fat. I then use a wooden spoon to work (French Fold) under the omelette to allow the raw egg to slide under the cooked. This happens fast. About a minute.
Flip the omelette free style. Top with a little shredded Tillamook or Beechers aged cheddar and then put the pan in the oven for about a minute--it will fluff up and melt the cheese. Pull the pan out of the oven and add fillings like some sauteed mushrooms and fresh herbs, fold over onto the serving plate by letting the omelette slide half moon onto the plate and then using the pan like a hinge fold the other half moon over releasing the omelette onto the plate with the rounded part of the omelette matching up the round edge of the plate. Pairs well with Irish Coffee.
Lots of butter to grease the pan. :D
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.057831
| 2010-08-06T16:11:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4464",
"authors": [
"Boris mae Chan ",
"Cabriolet",
"Dee",
"DjCoax",
"Ella",
"Eugene",
"Evie",
"Jet",
"Julie",
"Mark",
"Nicole",
"Pie21",
"RedFox",
"Tina",
"abbuzze",
"ana",
"chromy96",
"debutante",
"dredlocs",
"gandharva",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95027",
"user8406"
],
"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
}
|
40146
|
If a few of my eggs crack when making them hard-boiled, is it still safe to eat them?
I was making about a dozen hard boiled eggs last night and a few of them cracked when boiling. The yolk partially came out of the shell but I continued to cook them as other ones in the pot were fine. Is it safe to consume the partially broken eggs after they cool?
are you sure it was the yolk (yellow?) If some of the white comes out it's no big deal but I usually trim the part away that came out because it is rubbery. Use the cracked ones first.
very little yolk but a lot of white (between all 12 eggs)
Yes, it certainly is safe to eat them, it happens all the time. They won't last quite as long in the fridge as ones which don't crack, but as long as you eat them in a couple of days you are fine. They may look like nuclear mutants but they will taste the same.
To avoid cracked eggs heat the water more gently so they come to a boil slower, heating too quickly can cause the eggs to crack.
Heated water makes for better boiling? I feel there's something missing here
Heating the eggs too quickly can make eggs crack, heating the water more gently, i.e. slower helps to avoid that @npst.
Ah, "gently". I see.
I've edited to rephrase, hope that is clearer.
Maybe it was my fault for being someone who brings water to a boil before adding the eggs (for timing reasons). Now I understand your (valid) point
Yes. They may taste watery but they won't hurt.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.058895
| 2013-12-10T20:17:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40146",
"authors": [
"Bronson Armer",
"D H Newman",
"GdD",
"Huy Do",
"Kate Gregory",
"Lori Pierce",
"MrSimplemaker",
"Zero",
"amekha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9937",
"npst",
"sari "
],
"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
}
|
43747
|
Honey changing into unusable, hardened clump
I buy raw, unfiltered honey from the grocery store in jars sold/packed directly by the farmer.
When I had used the last jar to about half, I noticed the honey beginning to dry(crystalize?) to the point where I couldn't use the honey around these spots.
Not too long after this, the entire jar had crystallized into a block of unusable hard stuff.
I didn't do anything differently with this jar than the last jar, but only now am I having the issue. My question(s):
Why is the honey crystallizing, and why so rapidly?
1) Is the honey unusable at this point?
2) Should I store the honey differently after purchasing it(move from jar to other container)?
3) I've never seen this happen to the filtered, strained(fake) honey from the store, so what causes this to happen in the raw and unfiltered form?
Filtered honey is not fake, at least not by legal definitions in the US and EU. This misconception arises from confusing the terms ultrafiltration and filtration.
Honey is entirely useable after crystallization. This is a natural and spontaneous process and doesn't affect the honey negatively in terms of flavor or quality. It's dependent upon the sugar content of the particular honey, and in particular the crystallization speed is determined by:
the nectar source collected by bees (the sugar composition of honey),
the methods in which honey is handled (processed) and
the temperature in preservation.
To re-liquefy, gently heat it in a water bath in its container, up to 40°C (104 °F) - the temperature of a beehive in the summer. Beyond this will damage the honey.
Don't store honey in a cold area - the optimum temperature is 20-27 °C (70-80 °F). Ideal crystal formation occurs at 11-18 °C (52-64 °F), and storing in the refrigerator accelerates the process.
More information in the PDF at the bottom of this post.
Reference:
www.montcobeekeepers.org/Documents/Honey_Crystallization.pdf
Microwave also works to dissolve the crystals. 15-30 seconds with the top off the container. Honey heats up fast!
Be very careful in the microwave though because if you have a plastic container it can melt and even if it is glass there can be some very hot spots and some un-affected spots depending on your microwave. Warm water seems best.
More to the point with a microwave it might heat in a way that causes the glass to shatter as the honey expands into a liquid again. Warm water is the safety, best way.
@indofraiser Has that happened to you? It shouldn't if the container is open; besides which, liquids that solidify as crystals usually shrink when they melt back to liquid form.
I've been microwaving crystallized honey since the 70's Had one cheap clear honey-bear melt a bit on me about 4 years ago. Lesson: don't buy or keep honey in cheap plastic containers. Got a first degree burn once when I nuked some a little too long, but no other problems. It's just something that should be done with care, like not letting the water get too hot if you're going to use the soak in a pot of hot water method.
Crystals breed crystals, so once a sugary substance starts to crystallize, it will seem to crystallize very rapidly. Gently warm it in a water bath or the microwave and the crystals will dissolve.
This is very common with "raw" honey, but it happens with processed honey as well. It's normal.
Crystalized honey is perfectly safe to eat. Warming the honey should return it to liquid form. This is usually best done by placing the closed container into warm water (to the touch, but not so hot that you can't hold your hand in it) until the crystals break down (drying, opening and stirring the container, if possible, will help to evenly warm the honey and thus prevent crystals from forming off of any fragments you may accidentally leave behind). If you are impatient, you can also warm the container in a microwave, but you should keep a close eye on it so that the container does not melt, and be VERY careful when handling it. I highly recommend that if you choose to use a microwave oven, that you warm it in 5-10 second intervals with frequent stirring. Hot honey can cause severe burns. My brother has a permanent scar about 2.5 inches in diameter on the back of his wrist from a honey warming accident when he was young.
So long as the original container is air tight, you won't really benefit from moving it from one container to another. However, keeping it in a stable "room temperature" environment (around 72 degrees) should help to prevent crystals from forming quickly. Cold environments cause crystallization to occur much more rapidly, since the molecules slow down and can cling together more easily.
One possible cause of this is that most honey sold in stores is pasteurized - the honey is treated to kill bacteria and prepare the honey for "long term" storage. This process has the added benefit of breaking down any crystals that have started to naturally form in the honey. With vastly reduced quantity of crystal deposits, additional crystals take longer to form. This also typically gives the "fake" honey a smoother texture, and a slightly different flavor (regardless of the crystals that build up easily, I prefer non-pasteurized myself).
Honey crystalizes because of the crystals and and solids(pollen, wax, dust and microbes suspended in it. Filtered honeys have much less of this and thus are less likely to crystalize, also less likely to taste like honey.
Some honeys are more prone to this than others due to a high sucrose content, while others with a high fructose content almost never crystalize(tupelo, pure sourwood, which is rare)
It's a myth that honey doesn't spoil. If crystallized too long some will spoil, as the sucrose crystalizes the remaining water dilutes the other sugars. When the moisture content gets above 18-20percent microbes can grow. Due to the high osmotic pressure and acidity it's almost impossible for anything harmful to grow in it but some plucky yeasts and fungi will begin to break it down. This can affect flavor, usually mildly but can add an alcohol or vinegar funk.
Any gentle reheating will dissolve the crystals. Keep it below 140 degrees to maintain flavor. As long as it smells good and doesn't have any obvious fungi it is safe to eat.
Just soak jar/bowl of honey in dish of hottish water for a while and it will soften and usually go runny; that's if you aren't looking for a more scientific answer..!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.059087
| 2014-04-28T12:11:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43747",
"authors": [
"Brad",
"Cate1227",
"HowToTellAChild",
"ITCaliGirl",
"Joanne Quinn",
"Llamageddon",
"Noha trips",
"Patti Keck",
"Peter Moore",
"SevenSidedDie",
"Stephen Daniel Robertson",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"indofraiser",
"jiggunjer",
"kard",
"leremjs"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23186
|
Making "french fries" out of Cassava/Yuca root
I'm surprised this question isn't already on here, maybe I missed it...
To start, had my first taste of yucca cooked as a sort of alternative french fry at a Bolivian restaurant, and it was delicious. Reminded me of a tastier, sweeter french fry.
So inspired by this, I bought some myself and attempted to replicate it, but utterly failed.
What is the best way to replicate the recipe? After watching a video on youtube of how to prepare it, I deep fried it in oil, but it overcooked much too quickly.
UPDATE:
I tried out the selected answer's recipe yesterday, and it worked fantastic. I did a few things differently though, mainly due to time constraints. Full recipe:
Cut off brown skin.
Slice into steak fry slices
Boil for 10mn (I would suggest less, some thinner slices became too soft)
Place in freezer (I only had time for 20-30 mn, but I'd go with the full hr as suggested by the selected answer if you have the time)
Heat Peanut oil (Med-High) in deep cooking pot (can get messy) and cook until brown.
Sprinkle with salt
Note: The answered recipe suggests frying until golden/golden brown, but I found a darker fry to be much tastier!
I edited your title because the "best way" to cook cassava or yucca in general is pretty subjective, while how to successfully make something like french fries from it is not.
I had something similar at a US chain restaurant called Bahama Breeze. It was like a Yucca croquette and totally amazing.
Thank you for coming back with results, it is always interesting to know if the advice here works in real life :) But I don't understand step 4 - blanching is normally done for 20-30 seconds, not 20-30 minutes to an hour.
No prob! Uh oh, got blanching mixed up with step 5 from the selected answer, and tbh didn't know the complete definition in the first place.. I'll update that!
This is how my mom prepares it (she's from Brazil, so it might be a tad different):
Cut off all the dark brown skin
Wash it and put it into a pot of water and bring to a boil
Boil for about 10 minutes (it should still be slightly firm, but not hard)
Cut it up into french-fry sized pieces
Put the slices in a single layer on a cookie sheet and place in the freezer for about an hour
Heat oil, fry them for about 10 minutes (until golden brown)
Sprinkle with salt
Steps 1-5 can be done ahead of time and you just pull out what you need from the freezer to fry. I have not personally made these, but I ate hers a lot and they were fantastic!
What purpose does freezing accomplish?
@EliLansey From what I've read, you don't want them too soft when you place them in the fryer, so this probably rehardens them for that purpose.
Chilling after blanching tends to result in crispier results for both potatoes and cassava.
@Michael: I'll be testing out your recipe this week, and got peanut oil. This is what your mom uses right..?
@Eli- the freezing opens up the interior starches which makes the fries much more fluffy when they are fried. http://aht.seriouseats.com/archives/2010/05/the-burger-lab-how-to-make-perfect-mcdonalds-style-french-fries.html
Cassava requires preparation before eating to remove toxins.
A common way to prepare for modern agriculturally grown Cassava (low in toxins) is simply boiling the Cassava first, the toxins are absorbed into the cooking water, and this water is thrown away. Assume this happened when the chips where made too.
Like other soft starchy vegetables, deep fry in lower temperature oil than you would use for potatoes.
Think you could expand on this a little? How long do I boil the cassava, and what's the best oil/temp/time combo?
Serious Eats recommends boiling for potatoes as well, purely for texture: http://aht.seriouseats.com/archives/2010/05/the-burger-lab-how-to-make-perfect-mcdonalds-style-french-fries.html That might be related.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.059728
| 2012-04-18T19:52:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23186",
"authors": [
"BobinGA",
"Brandon bigboy Pope",
"Brendan Sleanbeck",
"Cascabel",
"Charlie Martin",
"Don",
"Eli Lansey",
"Heisenberg",
"JWiley",
"Jacob G",
"JasonTrue",
"Ketutar Jensen",
"Rayan",
"Sobachatina",
"The Old Pro",
"TheWanderer",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9973",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36315
|
Gritty texture in cookies
I made this recipe last weekend and while it came out very tasty, there was the occasional gritty texture/crunch similar to sand at the beach getting in your mouth. This was more of an issue since the recipe produces a more cake-like cookie, so the grit stands out more.
The batter was pretty thick and difficult to stir, but it seemed fairly well mixed.
I have a feeling this is somehow related to the baking powder/soda, but not entirely sure.
[EDIT]
SAJ14SAJ mentioned the creaming method being a possible source to the issue. I wasn't entirely sure with that step, how exactly would you "cream together" sugar and butter? It said only to soften and not melt, and it definitely didn't appear "creamy" when I was done with it.
Creaming means to beat together the fat and sugar, incorporating air, until the mixture lightens in color and is somewhat fluffy. This is definitely much easier done with an electric mixer.
That's probably the source then, mine was nothing like that.
It is unlikely that the chemical leavening was a contributor to perceived grittiness. If you had extra leavening, especially in clumps large enough to perceive, you would also have a very metallic off taste, that surely would have been worth mentioning.
These cookies are made by the creaming method, and have very little water. The most likely suspect to cause graininess is the sugar.
If there were clumps in the granulated sugar for any reason, they might not dissolve completely during the mixing or baking, leaving a gritty texture.
The way to prevent this, if you consider the effort worth it, is to sift the sugar through a very fine strainer prior to using it in your dough.
There seems to be at least some grittiness in each cookie, so it wasn't just a few clumps here and there. No metallic taste either. Can I just add something additional to the mix to allow the sugar to dissolve better? If it's a small amount of moisture it would cook out anyway, right?
The pumpkin should be wet enough to dissolve all the sugar under normal conditions. I mean, really, the liquid in the butter should do it... Did you happen to use a coarse sugar like turbinado?
Maybe not the butter, but the eggs anyway....
Definitely the eggs. I was just thinking of things like shortbread that manage to not be gritty, but have almost no "wet" ingredients.
Cause of gritty sugar texture: Baking immediately after mixing dough instead of wrapping/covering it chilling and waiting at least 1 hour, 2 hours for best results.
Its common, no one wants to wait 2 hours for homemade cookies:)
Let the dough sit overnight. The granulated sugar will 'dissolve' in the dough and the cookies won't have that granulated texture.
If you do this, you need to use double-acting baking powder (where it gives off gas once when it gets wet, and a second time when it gets hot).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.060102
| 2013-08-26T13:55:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36315",
"authors": [
"Andrew Awala",
"JWiley",
"Jaamine",
"Joe",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"Withtheboysat3.a.m",
"alxndr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9973",
"user85216"
],
"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
}
|
21881
|
What are the impacts of a worn pizza stone?
While cleaning out my oven I noticed that there were some chips in my pizza stone (the one below is about 1.5" long). I would like to know what the impact is, if any, of worn pizza stone.
What degree of wear and tear is to be expected, and what is dangerous or otherwise the point at which you just need to get a new one? (I.E. Do I need to replace mine for what appears to be such a minor, superficial problem?)
Is there anything that can be done to repair cracks, or is it even necessary or advisable?
What would be the impact of those varying degree of wear and tear, be it uneven heat transference or the likelihood of it cracking in half?
What are you expecting to happen? It's a piece of stone!
@tfd While I'm not expecting anything crazy, I guess I want to know what the impact of varying degrees of wear would be; edited question
@TFD: If this has happened, does it mean there might be invisible cracks elsewhere? If there's one down the middle, might it catastrophically fail?
I'm more concerned that your pizza stone appears to talk to you - particularly that it talks in pink word bubbles.
@Jefromi Stone doesn't catastrophically fail, it just cracks. The only thing I can think of that sometimes does is tempered glass
@TFD: Well, catastrophic failure doesn't necessarily mean exploding everywhere; it could mean dumping pizza on the bottom of your oven. In any case, it sounds like you might want to just write an answer!
@TFD If you want to outline signs of wear and tear that indicate you better start thinking about investing in a back-up stone, I'd be happy to accept it. I just don't want to get caught unaware and ruin a heating element with a 16" pie; or throw away one that's perfectly good. And yes, my stone talks to me in pink bubbles, as my dutch oven does in red and skillet in carbon black.
Nice speech balloon!
Pizza stones are typically either:
Refractory ceramic with a high thermal conductivity, moulded into a useful shapes. Fired, but unglazed
Diamond saw cut slabs of suitable natural stone
Either type will respond well to heating and cooling in a normal oven. And take reasonable amounts of general wear and tear
Both types will chip on the edges if whacked, and will develop cracks over time that will cause it to split, normally only into two pieces
If they crack during normal use, and are fully supported by a metal oven rack, they will still perform fine, and may even continue to be used in the future
Warning: Natural stone that has been submerged in water for a long time may explode when next heated in the oven. But normal washing and care should not cause this situation
Note: According to many recent studies and famous books like "Modernist Cuisine", a pizza stone is not enough, you really need a large slab. e.g. a 10 kg steel sheet
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.060380
| 2012-03-01T17:49:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21881",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8315",
"jontyc",
"mfg",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54490
|
How to compensate for the unavailability of Italian basil in authentic Italian pasta sauce?
I'm making my own pasta sauce from fresh tomatoes but unfortunately Italian basil (ocimum basilicum pilosum) is not widely available in my country. Here are my options:
leave it out entirely (so the sauce will only contain garlic, onion, tomatoes, evoo and salt
replace with indian holy basil or tulsi (ocimum tenuiflorum) which is widely available - even have some in the garden
try to make up flavour with dried herbs (I only have oregano, sage, rosemary and thyme in my pantry) for this option can someone please recommended an appropriate flavour combination of these dried herbs for 2 pounds (1kg) of fresh tomatoes? E.g 1/2 tsp rosemary, 1/4 tsp thyme, 1/4 tsp sage, etc. I'm not familiar with their flavours and don't know how to combine them properly
also have chilli flakes so could try making an arrabiatta (sp?) style sauce - does this require basil?
Hello, and welcome. Our editor allows you to make a bullet list. You have to start a new paragraph (with an empty line before the last) and have an empty space after the star. Alternatively, you can use the list button in the bar above the window, there is one numbered with 1 2 3 and the one beside it has bullets.
Based on the responses below (one is mine), I am not sure that this question is appropriate for this forum. There is not one "authentic" pasta sauce. Pasta sauces in Italy are specific to the dish and to the region. The possible responses are too broad. Any variation of your suggestions above will make a perfectly adequate sauce for pasta. However, below, we have an admitted novice providing suggestions for an "authentic" sauce and a suggestion for a version of a Bolognese sounding sauce. Again, both probably delicious, but "authentic" is going to be hard to pin down in this case.
I'm not familiar with 'holy basil', but many people in America use 'sweet basil' when making Italian food ... but 'sweet basil' is actually from India : http://healthresearchfunding.org/difference-between-basil-and-holy-basil/ . If the only difference is the peppery quality that the site mentions, I suspect it would be a fine substitution.
I second Joe's suggestion to try Indian holy basil. It's a cultivar of sweet basil and should work just fine.
Okay so let me first say I'm a novice with Italian food. However I have faced the exact same issue.
Follow these steps that I've created:
Put a teaspoon of dried rosemary in a mug of water and microwave for two minutes. Pour the water into the sauce. Discard or re-dry the rosemary sticks.
Put a tspn of dried oregano straight into the sauce.
A pinch of sage OR thyme won't hurt but a tiny, tiny pinch.
Add the Tulsi - one handful of the leaves or more - it will be fine, trust me. Just make sure there's nothing sweet in the sauce as it'll make it taste a tad Thai.
And yes - lots of garlic!!
Always garlic
As passed down from my very Italian Godmother...
Start by browning a few pounds of pork shoulder or other pork as per personal preference.
A good half dozen cloves of garlic, smashed, no need to brown.
A big fist full of parsley. I'm surprised nobody has mentioned parsley. as far as basil or other herbs we never used anything but parsley.
Put everything in a large cook pot and add canned or fresh tomatoes, leave a few inches of
space at the top.
Add one small can of tomato paste.
Simmer for at least a couple of hours or all afternoon. Add meatballs about an hour before
you are ready to serve.
Endorsed by an ethnic Italian as being as good as his Grandma's.
If you are making your pasta sauce to use it immediately, I'm sorry, but there isn't a real replacement for basil. I have a basil plant in my garden but I use it only in right season when it grows. When is winter and the basil plant is died, I don't make a sauce that requires basil, I make another sauce.
Instaed if you are making jars of pasta sauce, you could simply fill the jar with sauce without basil, and later when you'll want to use it you can heat up the sauce adding some dryed basil.
A typical, basic Italian tomato sauce is made with canned (preferably San Marzano) tomatoes. It is simply made. Saute some onion, with some garlic (not a lot...one or two cloves, sliced, per 28oz can of tomatoes), half a grated carrot (to balance acidity of tomato), some herb (I prefer thyme, but oregano or marjoram are fine). Don't let the onion and garlic brown too much. A little on the edges is fine. Then add hand crushed tomato and cook for 20 - 30 minutes. This basic sauce then becomes the ingredient for a variety of Italian dishes. From there it really depends on what kind of pasta (or other) dish you want to make. Basil, you see, is not even necessary. Fresh tomatoes will work, but it will produce a slightly different tasting sauce, without the depth of tomato flavor and umami that you get from canned. When fresh tomatoes are in season, most authentic Italian recipes use them raw...or tossed into something hot.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.060876
| 2015-02-07T07:16:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54490",
"authors": [
"Chris Bergin",
"Cremation Service Ditmas Park",
"Inverse Universe",
"Jamaican",
"Jeff Peacock",
"Jiminokc Snyder",
"Joe",
"Mary Nelson",
"Mike Kempen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho",
"sandra varnado"
],
"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
}
|
32726
|
My cooking pot keeps smoking
The cooking pot just keeps smoking when I put it on the element and I don't understand why because I used it on my moms stove before without any trouble. But when I put the temperature to MAX it starts smoking and setting off the smoke alarm. When I take the pot off and look at the bottom it's white but it goes away when I wipe it off. I THINK it's a cast iron pot, so is this normal to be smoking? Because when I put the temperature to 7 it cooks fine with no problem.
Are you talking about heating it without anything in it, or burning your food and releasing smoke? Is there possibly any residue from anything you've previously cooked in it? Or is the smoke coming from the bottom of the pot?
There are a lot of variables here that can cause smoke.
Are you oiling the pan before use? Direct contact electric stoves set to high or max typically cause light oils (olive oil) or other oils with low-ish smoke points (coconut oil) to smoke pretty quickly.
There could be crud on the bottom of the pan as noted by a previous ans.
There could be crud on the heating element itself.
Cast Iron will smoke if it's seasoned well and placed on a direct heat source. The fats in the pan and oils that keep the cast iron from rusting (and also give it the smooth, stick-free surface, and excellent flavor profile) will cook off under high direct heat, causing smoke.
To tell if it's a cast iron pot, look for raw, exposed iron. If not, it could be enamled cast iron, which would not smoke like a seasoned cast iron pot or pan.
note: cast iron should not be heated rapidly under direct heat, you can crack the pot... heat cast iron gradually
Your stove is probably hotter than your Mom's. Try using less heat. You can burn your pan.
Also, if you're using oil in the pan, what kind is it? You need to know the "smoke point" of your oil in order to assess whether it's good for pan cooking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_point). For example if you're using olive oil, the smoke point of Extra Virgin is only 375 but the smoke point of Extra Light is 468 so you can get the Extra Light more than 100 degrees hotter than the EVOO before it burns. The higher the smoke point, the larger your margin of error.
Smoke usually comes from debris or oil build up on the pan.
If you clean the pan properly the clean pan will not smoke until you add something to it.
With older cast iron pans the can get a thin build up of debris - thickened burnt on oil for example, which will smoke at higher temperatures, that is normal.
Watch out for pots and pans with wood or plastic handles, specially when using gas, since it's possible to burn or melt them at the higher temperatures. Some of the cheaper plastic one give of some nasty gasses too which I'd avoid inhaling!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.061279
| 2013-03-16T01:06:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32726",
"authors": [
"Anna Jones",
"Carlton",
"Cascabel",
"KENNETH SMITH",
"Kaan Uzdogan",
"Luna Fiona",
"NiceGuy",
"Terri K",
"Theodor Artzoglou",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75931"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32835
|
How to make a proper scone?
I love to eat scones, they are my guilty pleasure, but I can never cook them right, They just become Hockey Pucks, because they are too hard and the size of a puck. Is there any tips with making scones?
I use this recipe http://www.bbcgoodfood.com/recipes/1729/ultimate-scones but I tried buttermilk, soy milk, lite milk, rice milk and even 2% milk but nothing works.
SW American or English scones? The former is fried bread dough, the latter a sweet shortbread (biscuit in the US). I assume that you are referring to the English version 1- because it is harder to make correctly and 2- because you said "proper".
Could you please edit your question to include the recipe & steps you're using? Much easier to troubleshoot if we know.
related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25144/how-to-make-softer-scones
@Sobachatina There aren't really SW american scones-those are doughnuts, sweet shortbreads are called biscuits in England. The closest things to scones in the American lexicon is in the South(eastern) part where they are called biscuits.
OP from Oz, 99% likely they are English scones
@sarge_smith I did some research. It turns out that that second definition of scone is regional to just a couple states in the Rockies- according to Wikipedia. I think an informal survey of coworkers is in order.
@Sobachatina There are desserty, bready things called scones in the U.S. that you find in coffee shops, but they are baked not fried... I was saying that I was unfamiliar with ANY product named a scone that had fried dough. I think I was further confused by your calling the british scone sweet, as they are more a bread application with little to no sugar added, although there are a few varieties with fruit baked in. Nothing like language confusion to be confusing :)
I would wager, however, that you are doing two things wrong and if you stopped them, your scones would be as delicious as the biscuits I regularly serve.
The most likely culprit is that your butter is too warm. You want that butter to be as icy cold as a witches heart. All the flaky and delicious is because that butter is going melt once the gluten is set and not before. You can facilitate that melting by sticking the cubed butter in the freezer for a few minutes so it's as firm as possible. Once you have it in the dough, you also want to get into the oven as quick as possible.
The second most likely thing is over mixing. With any quickbread like scones, the less you touch, the better it will come out. You want to mix the milk, butter and flour until the dough just comes together and minimize the amount of rolling out that you do. The less you handle, the less gluten build up you will have, and more tender and flaky your final product is.
Update
Okay, now that we have a recipe, I'm going to double down and say you have a combination of both the above problems. On step 1, do not use your fingers. Fingers are great mixing tools for a lot of things, but scones are not one. You should instead cut the butter into the flour. If you have a tool like this:
then use that, otherwise you can use a fork. The resulting mixture should look sort of flaky and crumbly. The big thing is, you should have no un-buttered flour when you get done. If the butter seems really soft by this point, just toss the whole thing into the freezer for five minutes, otherwise continue. Add the buttermilk (and you should use the buttermilk for a lot of chemical reasons that I just don't feel you will be interested in, but it is important to the amount of rise you get), making sure to mix as little as you need to get the whole thing to come together.
We are going to ignore the last sentence of step three, because whom ever wrote this recipe hates new cooks with the fiery passion. Instead, you are just going to plop the dough down and form it into a sheet suitable for cutting. You should be mere moments away from sexy British scones and tea. The last and final bit of advice comes with a nod to GdD, as your oven temp can probably be adjusted to maximize your rise. I won't really worry about it, though, as the temp in the recipe should yield decent results.
+1 for "icy cold as a witch's heart" because that is how I'm going to write it in my own recipes from now on... plus these are both excellent suggestions.
Adding to @sarge_smith's good answer I would also add:
Wrong type of flour: you can make scones with any flour, but the best results come by using pastry flour, which is a bit finer and has a low gluten content. Definitely don't use any type of bread flour as they have extra gluten. Gluten is your enemy when it comes to pastry. If you cannot find pastry flour buy the flour with the lowest protein content you can find.
Not enough baking powder: I've often found that recipes don't call for enough baking powder. I'm not sure why, it could be that pro bakers have slightly higher quality supplies which leaven more effectively, or they are fresher than what is in most cupboards. It could also be that they round up or down by teaspoon. Whatever the reason I find that very often I need to add more than the recipe says, sometimes by 50%. If a recipe calls for 2 tbsp I'll add 2.5 or 3.
Oven temperature: When pastry is baked leavening agents create gas bubbles that make the dough rise, then the heat causes the dough to crystallize, trapping the gas bubbles. Getting the maximum rise requires getting the timing right, you want the dough to crystallize just as the leavening agent has risen the dough to its maximum. If your oven is too hot the dough will crystallize before the leavening agent has done its work, if your oven is too cool then the gas bubbles will escape before the dough can crystallize and trap it in. Temps shown in recipes are just best guesses, your oven may be hotter or colder. Placement in the oven can also make a difference. So experiment with your oven temps and placement of the tray.
If we are talking about the same thing as the US biscuits, then "not enough baking powder" is wrong. These are steam-based, and if they don't rise, then the dough is not wet enough. Baking powder should be kept to a minimum in them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.061543
| 2013-03-19T21:38:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32835",
"authors": [
"Amos Elroy",
"Erica",
"Guimoute",
"Irene Cc",
"J.P.",
"Jbo",
"Leonardo Fabregat",
"Mercury Maximus",
"Sobachatina",
"TFD",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76100",
"nkoniishvt",
"rumtscho",
"sarge_smith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35299
|
Why do chefs use salt and pepper bowl after touching raw foods
When I see chefs on tv handling raw chicken or such and then stick their fingers in a salt bowl to seasoning them why is the salt in the bowl not contaminated too. I see this all the time on cooking shows.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.062152
| 2013-07-14T16:38:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35299",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32926
|
How can I make the exterior of my croissants less hard and more flaky?
My croissants look good and they taste fine but they have an extremely flaky/hard exterior, it is like a biscuit even though they are light in weight and have the bee caves inside as supposed. I would like to have the one that is really flaky but not toasted.
I use
2 cups of bread flour
2.5 tsp active dry yeast
2.5 tbsp sugar
1.5 tsp salt
1.5 tbsp of butter inside the dough
1/2 cup of milk
1/2 cup of water
I knead it long enough and then I leave it to chill overnight. The next day, I place butter slab, make 3 simple layers with 15 minutes freezing in between, and finally let them chill for the last time for 1 hour plus in refrigerator before I shape them and let them proof for 2 hours at room temperature. I bake them at 400F for 10 minutes and at 370F for another 10 minutes.
this is a technique that might help with the shell issue:
I suspect your croissants are losing humidity during proofing, possibly freezing the butter block, and possibly baking resulting in a harder shell. If you have a humidity controlled proofer and oven, then those parts may not be your problem. Otherwise, read on:
Peter Reinhart in The Bread Baker's Apprentice suggests pouring boiling water in a flat pan/container and placing in the bottom of the oven during the baking (of breads) in order to keep up the humidity. This Link has the recipe published with Peter's permission. Notice how the freezer doesn't come into play (freezer is a dehydrator and pretty good at it, too) although some recipes call the freezing part a must.
Croissants are lighter than bread loafs so they may require a different humidity profile than breads during baking (as noted by commenters). However, for proofing humidity levels should be high and the temperature around 80F or 27C.
To achieve that, for the proofing period keep the dough in a turned-off-oven and turn on the oven light a long with a the boiling water method. This usually prevents 'the skin' formation and a dried out crust. It also helps with getting a better rise during baking. The oven light bumps up the temperature but if you're room temperature is close, don't bother.
You may wish to read this piece on humidity and baking and generally the Maillard Reaction. Here's an excerpt that might explain the problem:
"Under dry oven conditions, the dough will have rapid evaporation of the water from
the exposed surface. This will cause premature formation of a dry inelastic outer shell
on the bread surface"
Humidity during baking actually contributes to crust development.
@SAJ14SAJ citation please. the main suggestion here is 2-hour at room temperature might dry the shell. Though, Peter suggests humidity in baking (as noted). I do see the 1000 daily croissants at our french baker protected from drying, though I've never walked in at 4AM to see the oven settings.
http://baking911.com/quick-guide/how-to-az/bread-get-good-crust This was just the first hit on google, but they have the core of it. Moisture in the proof box yes, but in the oven, steam helps promote crust development.
@SAJ14SAJ first hit on google? I know you can do better. humidity contributes to crust colour, not thickness. Here is the piece you want to read: "Under dry oven conditions, the dough will have rapid evaporation of the water from the exposed surface. This will cause premature formation of a dry inelastic outer shell on the bread surface"
@MandoMando- Steam in the oven also promotes expansion per your link but it causes gelatinization of the starches at the surface of the loaf producing a crisper crust. It is steam that makes the characteristic crispy crust on French bread. I don't know how it would effect croissants though. I'm at work and don't have my books available to prove it.
@Sobachatina right, can't guarantee which effect will take dominance in croissant's case given the size, layers of fat, and the nearly hollow, low moisture, center. For the purpose of OP's question, however, the answer is mostly focused on keeping moisture pre-baking time while not ruling out the baking part. That should serve to improve on the issue OP has raised.
alright, i ve tried the boiling water container while baking twice and i got crispier results.
@RibalDhaibi great, that settles that part. Did you try the high humidity proofing?
no Mando i didn't try the humidity proofing that you ve mentioned earlier, I also use the (off) oven for proofing though but I didn't try to place a boiling water container in. i will try in my next batch and also I will split the batch in 2, some to go for humid proofing and the rest to chill for 15 minutes in freezer prior to baking as dnozy mentioned, both worth a try. btw, may adding an egg to the dough help somehow? i ve seen an Australian guy who added eggs to the croissants on youtube, here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvYMnMT6eVc
@RibalDhaibi well croissant is halfway between puff pastry and brioche (which has eggs), so you could use an egg. By the same token you could use all milk (3/4 total). I'm assuming you are egg glazing before rise and once more (gently) before baking. Did you see my comment on the butter? 12Tbs vs 1.5? That's a big jump.
for some reason i could not locate your comment on the butter! sorry, but hope you will be able to repost it next
@RibalDhaibi I've moved it here from below the question: "can you verify the butter amount? The equivalent recipe from The Bread Bible calls for 12tablespoons of highfat butter."
inside the dough i add 1.5 tbsp of butter and for the slab i use 8 tbsp of butter which is one block, again that is for 2 cups of bread flour or 500g
@RibalDhaibi that's consistent with Peter's. Although both Peter and the Bread Bible suggest using all-purpose four instead of bread flour (less protein yields softer).
thank you Mando for your advice, I definitely will try also all purpose flour soon, and I am hopping for better results.
I am not a croissant expert, but it's worth a try.
Do the same thing you have done before but:
proof the croissants
chill the croissants for 15min in the freezer
bake
You can also try to use a lower temperature;
I have seen some recipes that call for 15 - 20min at 350F.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.062227
| 2013-03-22T17:08:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32926",
"authors": [
"J. Canfield",
"J007B",
"Jacqueline",
"JensM",
"MandoMando",
"Naomi Evans",
"Oh Gee",
"Omiod",
"Paul Lewis",
"Quinn Keaveney",
"Ribal Dhaibi",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sobachatina",
"Stephanie Goehring",
"donutella",
"eastclintw00d",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76159",
"king khan"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33629
|
homemade chilli oil
I am making chilli oil using light olive oil, crushed chilli, dried garlic, dried fennel seeds and parsley. I have been making this for years. I am concerned about this Botulinum business. Should I be concerned? And what can i do to avoid this?
Currently, I heat the olive oil before putting it into the mixture, jar it, and normally keep it in the cupboard for months, with no problems with taste.
Another thing I am wondering is, how does one measure the expiry date on homemade chilli oil? Can someone help?
Yes, you should be concerned. Botulism is obviously very rare, and most people never get exposed to dangerous amounts of it even if they follow unsafe practices. Nevertheless, simply heating/boiling a mason jar does not sterilize it, it only pasteurizes it, so this is an unsafe practice, especially when you add the element of room-temperature storage.
Low-acid food needs to be pressure-canned. Period. It's been discussed on this site and it's covered by the FDA. Here's a relevant snippet:
What is the Best Way to Prevent Botulism?
The control of foodborne botulism is based almost entirely on thermal destruction (heating) of the spores or inhibiting spore germination into bacteria and allowing cells to grow and produce toxins in foods. To prevent foodborne botulism:
Use approved heat processes for commercially and home-canned foods (i.e., pressure-can low-acid foods such as corn or green beans, meat, or poultry).
Discard all swollen, gassy, or spoiled canned foods. Double bag the cans or jars with plastic bags that are tightly closed. Then place the bags in a trash receptacle for non-recyclable trash outside the home. Keep it out of the reach of humans and pets.
Do not taste or eat foods from containers that are leaking, have bulges or are swollen, look damaged or cracked, or seem abnormal in appearance. Do not use products that spurt liquid or foam when the container is opened.
Boil home-processed, low-acid canned foods for 10 minutes prior to serving. For higher altitudes, add 1 minute for each 1,000 feet of elevation.
Refrigerate all leftovers and cooked foods within 2 hours after cooking (1 hour if the temperature is above 90 °F).
One of the most common causes of foodborne botulism is improperly home-canned food, especially low-acid foods such as vegetables and meats. Only a pressure cooker/canner allows water to reach 240 to 250 °F, a temperature that can kill the spores.
To summarize, in order to do this safely you need to do any or all of the following things (preferably all. in case you accidentally don't do one of the others correctly):
Acidify or pressure-can the low-acid ingredients.
Refrigerate the jars.
Boil it again before consuming. (You don't need pressure-canning temperatures at this stage).
(Note that I am assuming "crushed chilli" is coming from fresh chillies and not dried ones. If you are using 100% dry ingredients then it is probably safe although not 100% risk-free - see the answer to dry garlic in oil --> botulism risk?)
P.S. Regarding expiration, the oil is either safe or it isn't. It's safe if it's been properly pressure canned, otherwise you should assume it isn't safe and boil it as per #3 above. If it's been properly pressure-canned, then it should be good until/unless the oil goes rancid, which is more of a function of storage conditions (temperature, light) than time, and which you'll definitely be able to taste and probably be able to smell.
I agree to your PS - Oil get rancid by light: Otherwise is a conservant.
I have seen chili oil go rancid with and without heated oil. Neither way protects against the botulism toxin. Please note that this answer has been completely changed with now correct information (thanks to Aaronut and SAJ14SAJ):
updated
Home canning methods don't kill the botulism spores (thanks Aaronut for pointing that out). You'd need to use pressure canning techniques (temperature of 121C for at least 3 minutes) to be be as safe as possible. Otherwise it's recommended that Oils infused with fresh garlic or herbs should be acidified and refrigerated.
The FDA's Bad Bug Book provides details as well as the following recommendation:
Because the botulism toxin is destroyed by high temperatures, home-canned foods are best boiled for 10 minutes before eating.
Finally the FDA has this fact sheet specifically covering information on how to deal with this bug.
Whatever purpose could the potato serve that a timer does not? That seems very spurious, and a waste of the potato. Also, as a low acid product, isn't pressure canning indicated?
Sorry, on canning, I cannot go with the Nona principal. On almost anything else, yes :-)
You boil your jar to sterilize it. I guess your jar is a glass jar. Potato serves to keep the temperature at boiling, without the jar explodes. You can also use a cloth that cover internally the pot and isolates the glass from contact with the bottom and sides of the pot.
Olive oil can last for years if kept away from sudden changes in temperature and in the dark. In Greece and Sicily it is put in clay jars and buried up to his lids.
@violadaprile: That's all well and good, but you need the temperature above the boiling point of water in order to kill C.botulinum spores. The jar does not "explode" if you use pressure-canning techniques, which is what is required for low-acid foods. Storing unsterilized oil containing low-acid food at room temperature essentially guarantees that any spores present will germinate. So this answer is wrong, and dangerous. Botulism is rare, and most of these infused oil preparations don't end up getting inoculated, but that doesn't make them safe.
Glass jars explode if you boil them, with pressure canning too. The pressure is guaranteed by hot-filling, which brings out the hot vapors, and by the rapid closure, before the air returns. But if the reason for the potato is not that, then I assure you that in all my experience and my grandmothers and great-grandmothers had never heard.
@Aaronut grateful for the catch.
@MandoMando I did mention it in the first comment... :-)
@SAJ14SAJ you did too. Thought you were just holding your standard confrontational stance ;) somehow i'd recall 63C for spores kill, didn't verify, and wouldn't see the fuss. Eating coal right now.
Cooking oils boil at temperatures hundreds of degrees higher than needed to kill botulism. Heat the oil and seasonings to the required temperature in the oven or on stove then make sure the container you will store the oil in is sterilized. After you pour the oil into the containers it is not different from any commercial oil you would buy that has been opened . As for expiration date, you'd have to research the specific oil you have and the expiration date it had when you bought it.
Cooking oils do not boil, they pyrolise, and that at temperatures much lower than needed to kill botulism spores.
@rumtscho Not true: reports cite 120°C as the temperature to kill the spores, and most oils have smoke points over 160°C; some are over 250°C.
@DanielGriscom good find! I remembered over 250 C for spore destruction for some reason, so that would have been well over most smoke points. Must have been misinformed.
@rumtscho Can you provide some links verifying that oils don't boil?
I don't have online sources for this, it is something I have read in books. You can find the information, although not so directly described, in Wikipedia, because cooking oils are mentioned in the pyrolisis article there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrolysis
@rumtscho from this and the other sources I've seen it appears oils experience pyrolysis, and then as the temperature increases they boil.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.062739
| 2013-04-20T00:28:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33629",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Daniel Griscom",
"MandoMando",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Stu",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52810",
"rumtscho",
"violadaprile"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33835
|
Is there much of a difference between organic vs. regular olive oil?
I have this idea that if I buy high quality olive oil from non-industrial producers then it doesn't need an "organic" label because olives are pretty resistant and don't require that much pesticide.
Is this correct?
We can't provide advice on what to buy. However, I'd say that the underlying question about how much regular olive oil is "treated" is probably on topic, so I've edited the question to fit with our guidelines.
In my experience, organic olive oils are often more rancid even when I first open the bottle! This is probably due to their having been harvested longer ago than the much-more-commonly-available non-organic oils.
Olive oil degrades over time so freshness is important. Some of the higher priced olive oils sit on shelves for a very long time and by time they are sold they can be of lower quality than some mass produced olive oils.
I'd say you're in the right frame of mind and would recommend finding a brand with a local representative who can trust and know the source and timing of the oil.
Many smaller olive oil producers don't bother with organic certification because of cost, but they have same or better standards. Therefore there is a sweet-spot where you can get quality olive oil similar to organics at decent prices.
Keep in mind good olive oil is produced in many places, including Greece, Spain, and Lebanon. Not just Italy.
Thanks! Sorry I dont have enough credit to upvote yet...
"Organic" is not only about pesticides.
Other factors that would prevent something being labelled "organic" include:
use of inorganic fertilizers (mined phosphates etc)
use of farmland that has been non-organically fertilized in recent past
lack of record keeping to show that organic steps have been taken
It's entirely likely that olives for olive oil have been fertilized with inorganic fertilizer.
It's also not unusual for olive oil (and many other products) to be produced to 100% organic standards, but for the producers to not feel it worthwhile to spend the money and effort required to get certification.
It is not really correct that olives don't need pesticides. Olives are subject to be attacked and eventually destroyed by different kinds of parasites, for instance the olive fruit fly, one of the most serious pests in the cultivation of olives.
Also, olives tree can be attacked by fungus, bacteria, and parasites.
What is true, on the contrary, is that the olive trees are quite resistant to cold weather. They can go below freezing with no substantial damage (depending on the subspecies).
An "organic" label certifies that no synthetic chemical products are used. Of course, if you want to be completely sure that you are not using contaminated oil, you should avoid the possibility that pesticides are being used (i.e., it should have an organic label).
About the quantity of pesticide used, it's really difficult to give an answer. It depends on too many factors: where the olive trees are located, the laws of the country regarding pesticides, the 'common sense' of the producer.
In this interesting blog post (sorry it is in Italian, you can try with google translate) they explain that to have an organic oil you are allowed to use biological treatments (killer insects, biological pesticides, and so on) which guarantee that you have no residual pesticide in your oil.
This is the only guaranteed way to have organic oil.
Just because it says organic doesn't necessarily mean no chemical products were used. A lot of organic certification schemes allow pesticides that have been derived from 'natural' sources. I'll refrain from critiquing the inconsistencies of this approach as it's not really on topic.
Another advantage of organic olive oil is that the producers are required to use tinted glass for the bottles. Oil stored in tinted glass bottles has longer shelf life because such glass filters UV light which is principally responsible for the deterioration in oil quality especially the for loss of vitamin E over time. This is valid for Europe, I am not sure whether in the USA the same standards are in force.
I understand organic standard involves testing for adulteration (mixing lower quality and fake oils in) along with checking for pesticide residues etc. So organic can mean you are more likely to get 100% extra virgin. But scams happen with organic too, especially imports from other countries to the US.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.063336
| 2013-04-29T20:16:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33835",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Angelo",
"Deeba",
"DonnaT",
"Geremia",
"Jonas Bolin",
"Keith Reynolds",
"Monty Nabeel",
"Pete Watson",
"Sjeiti",
"Stefano",
"Voodoo",
"alejdg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78668",
"xCovelus - Слава Україні"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33841
|
Does the order of preparation steps for soy milk make a difference?
When making homemade soy milk with a blender, what is the difference between:
cooking beans -> blending --> straining
blending raw beans -> cooking --> straining
blending raw beans -> straining --> cooking
Is there any difference or advantage to using one method over another?
P.S. Since soaking the beans is always the first step, I left that part out in this question for sake of simplicity.
I know I am joining the conversation late, but I wanted to share my experience with making soy milk in two different ways. First method tried: soak, blend, strain, boil. This method produced a milk with a strong soy flavor but also a LOT of okara (perhaps my blender is wimpy?).
Another time, I soaked the beans in a crock pot, and then, just out of habit from making other beans, I started cooking them after they had sufficiently soaked. I LOVED the result. Cooking the beans produced a much milder bean with an almost sweet flavor. True, this version was much more like a soy cream (depending on how much water was added) when blended, but I liked it so much better than the grainy, almost vegetable-tasting traditional soy milk.
I think it much improved the flavor and texture, and plus, I could then add some of the cooked beans to various dishes to add extra protein where needed.
You are asking about the difference between the traditional Japanese and Chinese methods of soy milk preparation.
In the Chinese, the beans are soaked, ground, strained, and the milk is boiled.
In the Japanese, the beans are soaked, ground, boiled, and then strained.
I have tried both ways.
The Japanese method extracts more from the beans but they tend to foam a lot while they boil. Depending on your straining setup- you will also have to wait for the beans to cool before straining them.
The Chinese method is faster because I don't have wait for the beans to cool. Additionally, if I am making tofu I can add the coagulant immediately while the milk is hot.
I was not able to detect a difference in the resulting milk. I now use the Chinese method because it is faster and easier for me.
I have not read of or tried cooking the beans whole before grinding- I assume it would result in much lower yield and have the same downside as the Japanese of requiring the beans to cool before I can work with them.
Why would cooking the beans first result in a lower yield?
It's just a guess. Perhaps this warrants more experimentation.
I have been experimenting with making soymilk since I need a lot of it for my bakery. I want to go more cruelty free, so eliminating dairy would be a huge step in that direction.
I found that soaking, straining and then boiling made a huge mess bc the soymilk really foams up and boils over the pot. I found that bringing it to a boil using very low heat worked, but the heat had to be extremely low and getting it to a boil took an hour or even more!
I then tried the quick soak method, then let them soak for 1-2 hours, changed the water, boiled them for 15 mins, drained. Then, I blended with the water and it was perfect! The whole beans never boil over at all! No mess!
The order of the preparation steps for soy milk do make a difference, but primarily in the ease and convenience of the process. By fully pre-cooking the beans then freezing them, you can make small batches of soy milk daily and you don't need to filter the end product if you use a high powered blender. This works well for morning grain cereal, recipes and sauces. It doesn't work for coffee or just to drink. But it is fast, easy and convenient. Something I can do with my eyes half closed as they often are in the morning.
Thank you for making the answer fit the question better. I happened to notice it and undeleted it. Normally, if you need a moderator to take a look at a post (including suggesting that a now-improved post be undeleted) you can flag the post, then we'll get a message that something has to be done.
I've tried many processes for making soy milk and... These days, for my day to day routine,I use the "cook whole then blend method", because, at the end, it takes me less time for making a huge amount of milk (I blend 1 cup of cooked beans for 3 to 4 cup of water). I freeze the beans by the cup and I blend it directly in the mason jar.
But if I want to achieve a mellow-caramel taste, I "blend-cook then strain" the beans and let the milk cook for more than an hour on medium-low heat, stirring now and than (this method does make the milk overflow.
I hope it helps you. :-)
Yes, i have tried cooking the whole soaked bean then blend. The result is not milk. It is yellowish with transparency water. Taste not as soy milk and no fragrance at all. It was a failure. I tried two times this method and totally failure.
I believe cook the ground bean then strain will be better, because we tend to use blender (as modern folk don't have grind stone) , and the ground soy is not totally in powder form, hence lot of protein of the soy is still locked in the smaller pieces of blended soy granulate (try to imagine in microscopic level of the size).
To be fast, I will try hybrid of the Chinese and Japanese method.
first , I will filter away the blended soy okara, while cooking the extracted juice in a pot, I will add in the okara into blender and blend it again using maybe a portion of water, then cook the okara and the water or add in more water to facilitate cooking so that it wont get burn at bottom. after the okara cooked, I will strain it out hot, just like Japanese method. there you go, a hybrid, faster then Japanese and more soy milk as Chinese method.. :0)
Well it definitely does make a difference. I make soy yogurt from whole beans, 200g in 1.5l water to make it nice and thick. When blending before bringing to the boil, it has to be stirred constantly or else it will catch and burn, so I thought I'd boil the while beans first, then blend before simmering.
The result was oddly greenish and watery and made nasty yogurt. I guess the initial boil is locking something into the okara that gets released into solution if you blend it first. How annoying, I thought I had found the answer to the burning problem!
Just on the cooking side. Boil some water and while boiling, slowly stir in the soy milk. That will prevent burning.
Charles, welcome! Unfortunately I can't really understand what you mean - isn't the question about making soy milk? Please clarify, if possible, by [edit]ing your post. Let me also point out our [tour] and our [help], which gives valuable information about Seasoned Advice and the Stack Exchange system.
I use Dr. Ben Kim's method. This was the 4th recipe I tried and it yields far superior results. It is also not difficult. Soak beans for at least 6hrs then rinse and put in a pot with no more than an inch of water to cover beans. Boil beans for 15 min; Beans should be soft yet have a slight crunch (in theory this allows beans to retain more of their nutritional value). Then rinse and remove outer skin of bean if desired. Steps for removing the skins are on Dr.Ben Kim's blog. I will do this step if I have time and because I find the process strangely satisfying; Though I am not sure this step is necessary or will affects taste significantly. Next blend with 3-4 cups water and strain(I higly recommend getting a nylon nut milk bag for straining as it will drastically cut down on time spend straining and you get out more milk(I got mine on amazon, 2 for $7).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.063741
| 2013-04-30T00:12:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33841",
"authors": [
"Amy Lou Keeler",
"Damen DeFago",
"Dave C Briggs",
"Dennis Kehrley",
"Eleanor Cusack",
"Jonathan",
"Kemisss Dony",
"M B",
"Margo B",
"Mateusz Tracz",
"Nairiya Marga",
"Samuel Cole",
"Sandra Lail",
"Sobachatina",
"Spammer",
"Stephie",
"colinm",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84716",
"karim rkaina",
"p c",
"rumtscho",
"user13341805"
],
"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
}
|
107807
|
Flour types and their effects in levain
The first time I made a levain, I used all-purpose white flour. This took over a week-two weeks to become active. I recently started a levain using whole wheat flour, and found it to become active much faster from the more nutritious flour.
Now due to covid19 wiping all flour from the shelves I did not have enough to sustain my starter with the usual whole-wheat flour. Since it appeared to be stable and strong, I read that it is possible to use another flour for feedings though it may take time for the starter to acclimate. So, I used the only thing I had: white all-purpose. The starter did not acclimate, and I had to restart everything when I was able to get whole wheat flour.
My question:
If a levain can't use a different type of flour for nutrition and do so effectively, how is it working when used in an actual bread recipe?
Meaning, if it sits stagnant for days when fed all-purpose, why would I expect anything different from a recipe using all-purpose?
Sorry, can you clarify what your AP is made of if not wheat?
@Spagirl white, bleached AP wheat flour (only endosperm used) vs whole wheat flour
I would say that for "actual" bread (I assume sold in bakeries or markets) they eirther use self rising flour without a surdough or a flour that is not AP bleached one. Or they add yeast.
I've also read about the combination of instant yeast with the levain, but that's outside of this question.
I think you made a typo in the first paragraph where you wrote "started a levain using wheat flour" instead of "whole wheat flour" hence the confusion
You can feed your starter with whatever flour you have, keeping in mind the following things:
1) If you want to change flour type you should start with an active, healthy culture (don't start with one that is dormant or low activity). I would feed it at room temperature using the normal flour for a few days and make sure it is robust and active. Your new flour will have different yeast and bacteria strains which will compete with those in your current starter, so expect there to be a period of lower activity while things adjust to your new food. If the starter is not healthy and active enough to begin you could end up with problems like you did.
2) You may need to feed it more often, and you should keep it at room temperature to give it the best chance of a healthy transition.
3) this will change the flavor profile of the bread. The extent to which this happens depends on the type of bread and method you're using.
4) some flours make more robust starters than others. Also, starters with some flours need to be fed more or less often than others. You need to judge the activity of the starter.
More nutritious = whole wheat vs AP. Thanks for the answer, but it doesn't address the difference I'm seeing. Also from what I've read, flour type in your starter doesn't have to match your recipe flour.
@JWiley — you said "more nutritious yeast." I've edited your question to reflect what I think you mean. Also, there was a typo in my answer which made part of it confusing so I fixed that as well. Please let me know if this still doesn't answer your question.
Thanks again, but I'm really looking for the "why" here. More specifically, why switching to AP from whole-wheat flour to feed my starter basically killed it(0 activity over multiple days, mold grew eventually), and hence why using it in an AP based recipe would have any effect.
@JWiley, OK. I added some info to my answer which hopefully answers your question.
Thanks, that's useful. I followed the levain recipe to the letter, temperature and all, but I think it just wasn't ready for a full AP transition. My question could benefit from some more specificity around levains' use in recipes too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.064470
| 2020-04-22T14:45:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107807",
"authors": [
"JWiley",
"Luciano",
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9973",
"myklbykl"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66370
|
Prevent pepper spray effect when cooking raw hot peppers
Something I've noticed when using raw, fresh jalapeños and adding them directly to heat. It can sometimes put out a "pepper spray" which can make you and others around the area you are cooking cough and have trouble breathing.
So my question is, how to prevent this? And other tips for working with even hotter peppers that need very little to create a spicy atmosphere.
EDIT: Don't think the linked question is very helpful in terms of cooking with hot peppers, seems more to do with oil use.
Possible duplicate of Deep frying and burning eyes although not an exact duplicate question, the issue and resolution are the same.
Just read that question and the answers, and the accepted answer doesn't really help much. It just says to vacate? I'm supposed to vacate while cooking?
@JWiley: Weeeeeeeeeeell....it's a bit like that. I have an excellent tolerance (and love) for capsaicin. I eat peppers raw, fry them, and eat them fried, without any problems. I consider Jalapenos to be hottisch, but not overly so. I still tear up from onions though, not one lifehacker suggestion helped. Always have, always will. Still have to cut them though. In my opinion there's only one way: Battle through it and hope to build up some tolerance, or keep your self away from it as much as you reasonably can, while still getting the job done.
@WillemvanRumpt same here. I can eat hot food al day long, but the vapors can gas me if they even hint at starting to burn in the pan. Onions make me cry and it hurts REALLY badly, I just turn the ceiling fan on before I cut them to disperse the vapors as fast as can be, and I cut the base and top off quickly and discard them right away so they aren't under my eyes. Rinsing the freshly skinned and top/bottom cut onion helps a lot too, but not completely.
JWiley making sure you can safely leave the kitchen for a minute or two - make sure there is a safe, maybe even slow-heat, place (cold or slow burners, cork mats, baking sheets...) to park a hot pan if things will burn in it if left unattended; have a clear path to a place with fresh air; prepare things like soaked rags if you might need them - is wise.
I look forward to the answers. My tangential advice: do not insert or remove contact lenses after working with jalapeños.
I don't tend to have this problem, so I'm not a good person to test it ... but I wonder if a splatter screen might help
You have a couple of options, one is to wear a respirator or a bandanna that is soaked with water over your mouth. There really isn't any way around these fumes being created when you put peppers on a hot pan unless you cook them at a very low temperature. The reason is that the capsaicin molecules become airborne when heated.
Whenever I cook with peppers I incorporate them in with the dish after I have done any sort of frying.
For peppers, you’ll want to cook them on an outside grill or inside on very low heat and without oil.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.064794
| 2016-02-09T16:26:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66370",
"authors": [
"April Stringer",
"Brendan Barratt",
"Escoce",
"JWiley",
"Jillian Colson",
"Jim Doherty",
"Joe",
"Paulb",
"Teri Foster",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9973",
"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
}
|
86337
|
Can Of Tomato Soup in England
I’m using a recipe that includes a can of tomato soup but i don’t know how much to use. I can’t find cans of it because I use cardboard boxes for it.
How much is in a can of tomato soup in milliliters or cups?
Do you mean you are using a US recipe in England, or the other way around?
from a quick google, a regular can of campbell soup concentrate is about 284 ml
Just to clarify, tomato sauce or tomato soup?
Could you post the entire recipe @Niamh?
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/54543/67
It won't quite help for this specific question, but for older recipes that specify a can number, as opposed to just assuming that all food of one type comes in a specific sized can, I've transcribed a list
I would expect a British recipe to specify whether the soup is condensed (usually Campbell's brand) or ready to eat (after heating), examples are Heinz, Baxter's or any of the many supermarket own brands. So you need to specify what the recipe calls for. If it's condensed, the tins contain 295ml of the concentrate. The other sort comes in several sizes, but if a British recipe calls for "a can" I'd say it's likely to be 400ml, unless otherwise specified.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.065087
| 2017-12-13T17:12:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86337",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"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
}
|
23406
|
Wet Cooked Ham Slices
If you were to open a packet of cooked ham slices and they were wet, is that a bad sign? Are they gone bad? Is it ok to eat them?
Extra water in cooked ham is 100% fine to eat, see here. In general, you can use the printed "use by" date if you're in the US and you'll be safe. I'm adding my answer to provide an authoritative source for you, so you'll know for certain you won't get sick from it.
Quotation, for @adamlynch:
HAM: In order to be labeled as "Ham," the product must be at least
20.5% protein in lean portion as described in 9 CFR 319.104. Added water is permitted in a product labeled as "Ham." In fact, water
will be declared in order of predominance in the ingredients
statement. This is how the cure solution is introduced into a ham.
HAM AND WATER PRODUCTS X% of Weight is Added Ingredients: Product
contains more additives than a "Ham Water Added," but the product name
must indicate percent of "added ingredients." For example, "Ham and
Water Product 25% of Weight is Added Ingredients" for any canned ham
with less than 17.0% protein.
As you can see, water added to ham is perfectly safe to eat, as it's normal for it to be present in the ham.
I don't see where in the source it says anything like "extra water in cooked ham is 100% fine to eat"
@AdamLynch quotation added.
Yes, they are okay to eat.
There is a rumour here (Europe), but I don't know if it's true, that companies put water in the ham to have more weight. And of course, water costs less than ham, so they have more profit.
I think it's more along the lines that they are in such a rush to get the product to market, that they don't hang it to dry. The just throw the ham in the package and let it finish brining in there.
No, they add water to improve the texture of reformed ham. Better quality ham usually notes 'No Added Water' on the packet.
As @ElendilTheTall said, it's not rumour, it's fact. It also applies to a lot of meat as you'll quite often find chicken breasts, for example, that have been injected with water (plus salt, etc,..) to "pump up" the weight =/
@Rob: That's not really what Elendil said - he said that they add water for a different reason, not weight.
I think added water for weight applies more to raw meat than cooked ham.
In america water is often added to ham, but the packaging is required to say so. In general the water is salty and added for a preservetive/flavor.
It is true water is added, but I beleive in USA only a certain percentage it allowed. It can also be a sign that the packages was almost if not completely frozen. When that happens, defronsting forces out the water. I just wrap the entire stack in paper towels and let it sit on a plate for a few minutes to draw out the extra water.
Chances are it is fine, but always use your nose and follow my simple philosophy... When in doubt, throw it out. It's much cheaper than getting food poisoning.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.065226
| 2012-04-27T14:03:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23406",
"authors": [
"Adam Lynch",
"Andy",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Doug Nawrocki",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Isabella's Can Opener",
"Long time bread maker",
"Nathan C. Tresch",
"Rob",
"darethas",
"domen",
"hamid",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9984",
"user52967",
"user52988"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67178
|
Why do American supermarkets only carry lamb and not mutton?
When I go to the supermarket I do not see much, if any, mutton, just a lot of lamb.
So, I have postulated some possible explanations:
mutton (the meat of a sheep) is being sold as "lamb",
mutton tastes weird to Americans so all of it is exported,
mutton tastes weird to Americans so it is turned into dog food,
all adult sheep are only used for wool and are then retired and put out to pasture where they live out their retirement years playing pinochle and shuffleboard.
What's the explanation, why is there is so little mutton and so much lamb meat?
Most lamb in the US is imported from New Zealand... we don't produce a ton of it locally... And, no, we generally don't like eating mutton. You're more likely to find it in a specialty market.
So, in New Zealand do they have mutton for breakfast, lunch and dinner?
You don't get mutton unless you let the baby sheep live... which they generally don't. I'm pretty certain they don't eat a huge amount of mutton in New Zealand, either.
What about all the wool sheep? What do the baby killers do with all those?
One of the strongest ethical objections in knitting (besides mulesing) is that the adult sheep get transported to the Middle East under appalling conditions, where the animals which did not suffocate en route are slaughtered and eaten. So, not 4.
Also, depending on the country, number 1 would be illegal.
2/3(b) might apply: they've never tasted it, but think it's cheap/tough/unappetising so don't buy it. So it's not sold, so no one tastes it...
As a side note: all sheep are not equal. Like in other domestic animals you typically have different breeds for different purposes. Some breeds are "better" for wool, others that grow quicker and are larger are breed for meat etc. (Though there are quite a few "multi-purpose breeds".)
have you been to supermarkets all across the us? if not, you might want to specify your region. there is a LOT of variance across the states. it's a big country. walking into one supermarket and looking around doesn't tell you much at all about what "american supermarkets" are like.
This is also an issue in the UK
in NZ (where I am) we only see lamb in supermarkets. Mutton might be sold in specialty stores but I would not expect the average person to want to eat mutton (or even know its existence).
In response to item 1: Mutton dressed as lamb? Are you implying they're pulling the wool over your eyes?
I wasn't aware there was a difference between lamb (the meat of sheep) and mutton (the meat of sheep). I had to look them up to find the difference. I'd never made the connection that 'lamb' is the meat of lambs, young sheep. Also, we don't eat much lamb errr sheep here, so I don't think there's much demand for two different types of sheep meat, and so if people want sheep they probably want the most tender of the two and not the more gamy of the two.
In Spain popular wisdom advises one not to mix "churras" with merino (two different kinds of sheep); because the result won't be good for meat, like the first, neither wool, like the second.
Although this isn't directly an answer to the question, there is some history involved in any discussion of why sheep are not commercially raised in the United States. In a nutshell, there were actual armed conflicts as well as acts of sabotage between ranchers of sheep and cattle during the 1800's and early 1900's across much of the western US. Although the reasons for those conflicts have largely been removed, large-scale sheep operations have never taken hold.
Americans as a group can be fairly homogenous in our tastes. Any store trying to cater to the most consumers in the USA will have to have beef, pork, chicken, and turkey products, but anything outside the big four is not widely popular. Smaller stores and boutiques carry all kinds of meats, but the larger supermarkets actually tend to cater to a more narrow audience, not a broader one.
It's not just American supermarkets that rarely carry mutton, this situation is similar across the Anglosphere, and I suspect most Western countries too (or at least those without a strong mutton culture). The reason is largely economic. Mutton is expensive and not as tasty as lamb.
First, the immediate reason is that nobody really eats mutton anymore. Yes, there are certain locales, cultures and movements still eating mutton or are trying to bring it back, but today, on aggregate, the demand for mutton is near zero. According to the USDA:
The U.S. market for lamb and mutton has weakened throughout the decades. Since the 1960s, per capita consumption has dropped from nearly 5 pounds to just about 1 pound. This drop is due in part to declining acceptance of lamb from a growing segment of the population, as well as competition from other meats, such as poultry, pork, and beef. Most meat is sold as lamb and comes from animals under 14 months old.
Here's a per-capita consumption graph:
If nobody buys mutton, supermarkets don't sell them. The supply chain for meats is pretty complex; it's not something that a store manager can just decide one day to order a batch and shelve to see if it sells. Meat needs to be slaughtered and deboned in an abattoir, butchered either in store butcheries or at centres (unless you fancy buying an entire, 50kg cut), and displayed in refrigerated sections. If there's enough local demand for mutton then maybe individual supermarkets can carry them, just as meats like rabbit, duck or kangaroo is sometimes sold at a few supermarkets.
But why don't people eat mutton? People just don't like it. It is an inferior good.
Mutton comes from older animals and is often less expensive but less desirable to consumers. (USDA)
.
As can be seen, the average income elasticities across the studies are 0.77 for
beef, 0.24 for lamb, -0.65 for mutton, 0.47 for chicken and 0.48 for pork.
(Negative income inelasticity = inferior good) That is, as incomes grow, as they have over this timeframe, people want to buy less of it.
Lamb is a superior substitute for mutton. Anecdotally, compared to lamb, mutton is gamier, tougher, and harder to cook. Economically, lamb and mutton have high cross-price elasticity - if one's price grows, demand shifts to the other, indicating that they are substitutes. And the real killer is...
Mutton prices have grown faster than lamb.
Mutton is still cheaper than lamb, but in relative terms it has become more economic to raise and sell lamb. There are multiple market forces at play: the cost of raising the sheep past lamb age, the efficiency of raising lambs (i.e. increased lamb weight), the growth of dairy leading to higher beef supply, the relative decline in wool reducing mutton supply and so on. You'll have to ask a farmer.
Source: Changing Pattern of Meat Consumption in Australia by Lucille Wong, E A Selvanathan and Saroja Selvanathan
Update: didn't notice that the graph was price indices and not actual prices
What's the mid-1970s Beef Boom about??
@AakashM It was more of an unsustainable growth thing - postwar boom and improving agriculture efficiency lowered the cost and increased availability. Oil shocks, economic turmoil, and the dawn of healthier eating consciousness (ie: bad press) turned the tide. The 70s were one big bubble in a lot of ways - socially, economically... the west, and the US especially, had its first postmodern existential crisis, the fallout of which we're still pretty much dealing with today.
@congusbongus price indices works well to show how prices have increased relative to inflation. It seems that each price starts as the baseline 100 so you can also see the relative change between different kinds of meat. But it won't give an idea of their actual current price.
Not sure id agree with lamb is tastier than mutton, mutton will have a stronger flavour, although lamb should be more tender
Is there a reason you keep talking about the US but all of your graphs and data is from Australia?
As has been mentioned, most of the lamb in the US is imported -- and mutton is imported, too
There's a giant consumer of mutton in western Kentucky around Owensboro. (it's the local standard for barbecue, and past reports put Owensboro near the top of the list for both for per capita number of and spending at restaurants)
As we now have a lot of smaller sheep farms making cheese and wool, especially in mountainous regions, I would suspect that there are people eating mutton, but it may be that they're keeping it for themselves. There's also a possibility of selling it to ethnic butchers, as sheep and goat are popular in some european, asian and middle eastern cuisines. (I know I can get rabbit at one of the local Italian markets, and goat at a local asian market)
Although I suspect that there may be some labeling issues in selling mutton as 'lamb' (much like people would be upset if you sold beef as veal), I've heard that some butchers who make Merguez sausage will use a blend of mutton and lamb -- the spices mask the possible gaminess of the mutton, but there's still lamb in it so they can label it as such.
I'd suggest looking in your area to see if there are large farmer's markets -- there are often farmers selling meat, cheese, and yarn there. If you find someone selling sheep products, you can ask them about obtaining mutton or hogget (1 to 2 year old sheep).
+1, I had no idea there was a mutton-based regional barbecue style.
@DanC : it helps that I lived in KY, and did some contract work which required visiting a lot of out-of-the-way places (where the large jails were). The others who were on that trip insisted that we had to go to Moonlite. That was 15+ years ago, so I don't think I could accurately describe it from memory, but I remember enjoying it.
If you go to a grocery store, you see a lot of beef and very little veal. The terms 'mutton' and 'lamb' map to the terms 'beef' and 'veal' for sheep and cows, respectively. This question is asking why, when you go to a grocery store at see a lot of adult cow meat and very little child cow meat, yet for sheep the situation is reversed, you see a lot of child sheep meat and very little adult sheep meat. The fact that mutton is imported, that it is used a lot in kentucky, and that you might be able to get mutton from a local farm don't even attempt to answer the question. 1/2
2/2 The idea that the vast majority of adult sheep meat gets sold only in ethnic shops is very hard to believe without any sort of data. I think you are on track with the labeling issue. But that only makes up a tiny part of your answer.
I think summarizing that link as "mutton is imported" is doing it and your answer a disservice: it does also talk about Americans not liking the taste as much, and mentions that a lot of mutton is used as dog/cat food, sometimes even baby food, and sausage, which is a pretty direct answer to the OP's question.
"There's a giant consumer of mutton in western Kentucky around Owensboro" Hey, enough with the fat shaming!
Barbecued mutton is common in western Kentucky, such as in the area around Paducah. I do not know if this is still popular since I have not been there in many years. I did find at least one supplier by an on line search: Hampton Premium Meats in Hopkinsville, KY.
As others have noted mutton has a very strong flavor and most Americans would not care for it.
The answer is #1.
There is no term for Hogget or Mutton in North America. All meat from a sheep is called 'lamb' regardless of its age. So likely, all lamb sold in the US would be called mutton elsewhere. (It is possible that it is all actually young sheep, or some is young some is old -- but I doubt it.)
Relevant regulation:
Under current federal regulations (2014 CFR §65.190), only the term
'lamb' is used:
Lamb — ovine animals of any age, including ewes and rams
The terms
'mutton' and 'hogget' are rare in the United States. Nevertheless, the
exclusive use of 'lamb' in the United States may be confusing,
particularly if it is assumed that only actual lambs are butchered for
their meat. Under the previous definition (2010 CFR §65.190), 'lamb'
meant 'meat, other than mutton (or yearling mutton), produced from
sheep'.
Shane, after a discussion in [chat] I removed my basically identical answer because the Wikipedia article (links please next time!) is a bit questionable - the CFR is far more vague than Wikipedia states.
Yeah, I'm pretty certain that this isn't a good interpretation of this regulation. The text of it is, literally, and in its entirety "Lamb means meat produced from sheep." It doesn't ever say "all sheep". Similar definitions include "Beef means meat produced from cattle, including Veal." It's literally just a glossary in the text. Additionally, there certainly are stores in the US that sell "mutton"... It's just not sold in the average grocery.
Wikipedia is unfortunately wrong here. The referenced 7 CFR §65.190 is being used out of context. It's part of a list of definitions that only apply to 7 CFR Part 65 - COUNTRY OF ORIGIN LABELING OF BEEF, PORK, LAMB, CHICKEN, GOAT MEAT, PERISHABLE AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES, MACADAMIA NUTS, PECANS, PEANUTS, AND GINSENG. This definition of "lamb" is only used in the definition of "ground lamb" which in turn is only used in 7 CFR 65.300 (h) which sets rules for determining the countries of origin of ground meat. It doesn't place any requirements how lamb and mutton is identified on labels.
@Catija I'm not sure what part you are taking issue with. Legally, 'Lamb means meat produced from sheep.' This is why you don't see any mutton, it is what the law says, it is what my answers says. Is my answer not clear? Is my interpretation wrong? Sure there are stores that call it mutton. As long as you don't call it something it is not, you can call it whatever you want. You can take a slab of cow meat and call it "meat of the gods". As long as the law doesn't specify MotG as something else, there's no problem. If you took a slab of beef and called it 'chicken' then you'd have a problem.
You can't take Wikipedia articles as gold. They aren't always correct. See Ross's comment for verification. Your answer is simply wrong. You can definitely buy mutton at specialty stores that cater to people who regularly eat mutton... for example, Middle Eastern and Indian groceries... Lamb is almost always exactly that... "baby sheep". The two taste very different.
@RossRidge If you say so! You seem to have a lot of knowledge about this.If wikipedia is wrong, you should definitely go and edit it so that it is accurate. Also, post a correct answer here. As it stands now I'm not sure anything you've said changes or invalidates the gist of my answer: the reason you don't see things labeled as 'mutton' in the US is because that isn't a term used in the US. Even in legalese - which is always more precise and elaborate than colloquialisms - 'mutton' isn't a thing.
@Catija Of course you can go to a specialty store and get things labeled with fancy labels. That doesn't mean anything in my answer is wrong. Sorry. Everything you are saying in this comment is in my answer! "It is possible that it is all actually young sheep, or some is young some is old -- but I doubt it." Did you miss that part? The part that says the same thing you are complaining I didn't say at all?
@Shane I think y'all are talking past each other a bit here. First off, "mutton" is a term in North America. The fact that most people don't eat it doesn't mean that there is no term. And second, mutton tastes quite different from lamb. Given that people who specifically want mutton end up going to specialty stores, I think we can infer that the lamb sold in most stores is not mutton, so your claim that "all lamb sold in the US would be called mutton elsewhere" is likely also not correct. It probably is all young sheep. (If it weren't, people would notice very inconsistent taste.)
It's true that there is some potential for ambiguity with these terms, and I think that's valuable to acknowledge—for example, I've seen "mutton" used to refer to goat in some contexts—but I afraid this answer is too absolute and would be a bit misleading. I spend a lot of time deciphering sections of the CFR (albeit usually not ag/livestock regs) and situations like this are common, definitions apply to very limited sections and sometimes differ between sections, purely for the purpose of writing regs that read more simply.
Mutton is the meat from GOAT and lamb is the meat from sheep. Lamb or sheep meat tends to be softer and easier to cook than mutton, which usually requires a pressure cooker to cook properly. Mutton is chewy meat and not so soft as lamb. Mutton is popular in India and the UK ( adopted from India) and usually served as curries. New zealand and Australia produce most of the lamb in the world but mutton is available almost everywhere. Just need to look for Goat meat!
This may be the case where you live, but in the US, this is not true. "Goat" is the meat from goats or "kid" (for young goats) or "chevon" (for adult goats). "Mutton" is meat from adult sheep.
Not the case in Australia, UK, or New Zealand either.
Or South Africa
Is there any English-speaking case where this is at all true? I know that there are places where mutton covers both sheep and goat, but is there anywhere where it is generally understood as only goat?
Anecdotally, in the American rural South I've bought goat meat that was labeled "Mutton" in the official packaging. Pretty sure it was actually goat as thats what I asked for, and it tasted like other goat dishes I'd made.
This question might be relevant for terminology. As one answer mentions, part of the confusion is likely because many places simply don't eat much of either meat (I've eaten goat meat a few times, but can't remember ever eating sheep). I've never heard of chevon or cabrito, and couldn't remember what mutton was when I read the title to this question. I thought maybe it was goat meat since I know sheep is called lamb and didn't know what goat was called.
Curried Goat is a Caribbean staple, and commonly eaten by migrant families in the UK (and is delicious) - however, as goat meat isn't that common in the UK, it is often substituted for Mutton...
@JonHanna yes, in Asia mutton generally means goat, not sheep. This confused me when I first visited Singapore, which is an English-speaking country.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.065570
| 2016-03-07T15:36:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67178",
"authors": [
"AakashM",
"Air",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"Crissy Hovatter",
"Dan C",
"Davidmh",
"Donna Welch",
"Drisheen Colcannon",
"GHP",
"GalacticCowboy",
"Harley Fitch",
"Ian",
"J...",
"Joe",
"Jon Hanna",
"Kate Gregory",
"Lindsey Toolan",
"Marie tress",
"MichaelS",
"N B",
"Neil Meyer",
"Pharap",
"Robert Paessun",
"Ross Ridge",
"Ryan",
"SeanR",
"Shane",
"Stephie",
"Teresa Kojta",
"Todd Wilcox",
"Tom Early",
"Travis Bemrose",
"Walter Neumayr",
"aqwert",
"bye",
"cleo mann",
"herb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8849",
"jk.",
"raisa raphael",
"rumtscho",
"user207421",
"user428517"
],
"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
}
|
24572
|
Is it possible to make homemade yogurt using chocolate milk?
Making yogurt from a small quantity of live culture yogurt can be gussied up using cinnamon by adding the spice to the milk prior to boiling it.
Is it possible to make chocolate flavoured yogurt using boiled commercially made chocolate milk instead of boiled milk?
are you talking about commercially produced chocolate milk, or homemade chocolate milk?
I was thinking commercially made chocolate milk.
There is no reason why you can't turn chocolate milk into yogurt. Now, much commercial chocolate milk has carrageenan added as a stabilizer. If you get issues with carrageenan separating out, you can also use Torani chocolate syrup (intended to flavor coffees) to add the flavor to normal milk.
carrageenan separating out? Why would you add carrageenan to your chocolate in the first place?
@rumtscho It's fairly common as a stabilizer in chocolate milk. The OP didn't put it in there.
@rumtscho: I have edited in an explanation of that
@BobMcGee I didn't even think of commercial chocolate milk :)
You could use unflavored milk and then add cocoa powder to the finished yogurt. I have done that with store bought greek yogurt and it tasted great even without added sugar. If you do want to add sugar you could use powdered sugar or a liquid sweetener like honey, agave nectar, or corn syrup.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.067338
| 2012-06-19T19:59:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24572",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Cascabel",
"Ray",
"Shans",
"Stainsor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32185
|
Difference between Spumante & Champagne
When winter holidays come, I always find with my parents and the whole family. Sometimes we use Spumante, some other times Champagne, both to accompain with some sweet at the end of the meal, or during the meal.
In any case, I always wondered which is the difference between Champagne and SPumante (apart the fact that they come from different countries).
Are they the same?
Is one more precious than the other?
When do you use one or the other?
Champagne is sparkling wine that is produced in the Champagne region of France. The grapes used in champagne are usually Pinot noir, Chardonnay and Pinot Meunier. I think that there are a few sparkling wines that are grown outside of Champagne, France, that are allowed to be labeled as champagne but for a purist, they aren't actually champagne. The politics are complicated, and you can get an overview of the idea at the champagne wikipedia page.
Spumante, on the other hand, is a sparkling white wine from the Piedmont region of Italy. (It is also called asti or asti spumante.) It's made from the Moscato Bianco grape. More information can be found on the spumante wikipedia page.
I find spumante wines to be very sweet, whereas you can purchase champagnes that are brut (dry), demi-sec (half-dry) and doux (sweet). Most champagnes are pretty dry. Champagnes are also typically sold at a premium, whereas you can find bottles of spumante for about $5.
I think it's a matter of taste for when you want to drink champagne vs. spumante. If the cost is an issue, then champagne should be saved for special occasions. Spumante is good for a meal or occasion that calls for a sweeter sparkling wine. If I want a dry sparkling wine and don't want to shell out for champagne, there is always Prosecco, Cava, or other generic sparkling wines.
The Piedmontese wine is officially (DOGC) known as "Asti". "Asti spumante" is also correct, but spumante is just an adjective meaning "bubbly".
Adding to Lemontwist's answer, both Champagne and Cava are produced using secondary fermentation inside the bottle (the champenoise method), whereas the spumante wines are fermented in tanks.
The difference is that you have to tend thousands of bottles for months with the champenoise method, while you can fill the same thousands of bottles from the tanks in a couple of hours. Tending to the bottles is what accounts for the price difference.
Tank fermented bubbles tend to be larger than bottle fermented bubbles. Smaller bubbles are considered more elegant.
Lastly, the grapes are different races resulting in different flavours.
Spumante is simply "sparkling wine." Spumante is NOT just Asti or Asti Spumante. And it is certainly not always made with Moscato of any form. Prosecco is a sparkling wine that does not undergo second fermentation in the bottle, only in tanks which makes it cheaper and certainly not same quality. Also, it's a different grape.
More and more producers - Deltetto (Roero), GD Vajra (Barolo) and Contratto (Canelli) - are producing beautiful Spumante metodo classico made from Pinot Nero, Chardonnary and even Nebbiolo. These are all beautiful wines that are great for celebrations big and small (like cooking a lovely dinner). Deltetto, for example, released his initially as methode champanoise, but the French stopped labeling any sparkling with any version of "Champagne."
Checkout these links for more info:
http://www.deltetto.com/pagine/eng/spumanti_deltetto/spumante_brut.lasso
http://www.gdvajra.it/sheets/VSQ-NS-Della-Neve-EN.pdf
this information is wrong , spumante is exactly the sdame as champagne as regards levels of sweetness and dryness. It constantly beats champagne in blind tastings, recently a 22 pound bottle of spumante called Kraal from theAlto adige beat Crystal and randolph churchill in blind tasting . Bothe champagnes cost 170 pounds per bottle
Your example doesn’t prove they are the same. If anything, it proves they are different, doesn’t it?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.067482
| 2013-02-25T00:00:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32185",
"authors": [
"Brian Dale Sand",
"Diamond",
"James McLeod",
"Joanne",
"KC THELITTLECHEF",
"LoneStar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91939",
"jscs",
"khanfx",
"user74118"
],
"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
}
|
9806
|
Where should I store nori or laver after opening, and for how much time?
My brother has given me laver for making Korean kimbap and there are ten “foils” or “sheets” in the package.
I have only used four of them today and I don't know whether I should cool or not the remaining ones. In my opinion the fridge might be too humid and humidity might have sheets stick to each other…
Thank you for your advice.
Just keep it dry. I buy 100 sheets packs and store them in a zip-loc type bag in the cupboard for over a year
Also, if your nori comes with a little desiccant packet (mine does) don't throw that out, store it in the zip-lock with them, it absorbs the moisture for you.
Another tip: nori generally comes pre-toasted. You can give it a quick re-toast just before using. Just wave the sheet a few inches above a burner on your stove for a few seconds. Don't catch it on fire. That will remove any slight bit of moisture and improve the flavor.
If the laver is roasted and seasoned (with oil and salt) it will only last for a day or so after opening depending on heat (oil becomes rancid) and humidity (seawead loses crisp texture). If it is dried seaweed it will keep indefinitely, however I believe it develops a stale taste unless stored in a cool dark place.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.067821
| 2010-12-05T19:57:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9806",
"authors": [
"Aviran",
"Charlotte's cook",
"LeRoy",
"Michael Natkin",
"Michele",
"Steve Jessop",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"user190797",
"user24123"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33967
|
Homemade coconut milk in coffee compared to store bought
I've been making my own homemade coconut milk recently because I don't like the list of ingredients (thickeners, emulsifiers, etc.) typically found in store-bought coconut milk.
The problem is, I really like the taste of store-bought coconut milk when I use it in coffee, because I think it tastes remarkably similar to real milk. So, I would actually like to mimic the store-bought version at home. I don't care as much about the consistency as I do about the richness and flavor (or lack of flavor, actually).
At first, I thought I could just water down the coconut milk I usually make and that would be the end of it. However, it's still not quite the same. The homemade version tastes fine by itself, but when I use it to make lattes in the morning there's a certain bitterness/sharpness I can taste. (Note: when I make homemade almond milk, I can also taste that same bitter/sharp flavor as soon as I pair it with espresso). The store-bought version tastes smooth and clean by comparison, just like real milk. I know it's not the espresso at fault, because it tastes good when I make an Americano or a regular dairy milk latte.
So, apart from the thickeners, emulsifier and fortification, store-bought coconut milk must be processed differently. In short, how do they take the coconut taste out of coconut milk while still keeping somewhat of a rich creaminess?
It might depend on the type of coconut milk you're buying. I've noticed a big difference between homemade and store-bought organic coconut milk.. The store-bought tastes a bit richer and sweeter.
Are you talking about canned coconut milk, or the newfangled coconut "milk" beverage in cartons, meant as a non-dairy replacement for milk, like So Delicious and Coconut Dream? The latter is formulated specifically to taste and behave as close to dairy milk as possible. The (tri)calcium phosphate not only fortifies the milk, but also buffers it and makes it behave and taste more like real milk. Non-dairy coffee creamer and cheap half & half have dipotassium phosphate or similar phosphate salts for the same purpose.
I don't know if I can suggest anything to help. If you try regular canned coconut milk (with no dilution, stabilizers, or fortification), is it any better than your homemade coconut milk? You might try experimenting with heating your coconut milk, or adding small amounts of salt and/or sugar, or blending the warm coconut milk to better emulsify it.
Are you removing all of the shell remnant from the meat of the coconut? If not perhaps a quick blanch could make for easy removal so that only the white portion of the coconut makes it into the milk.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.067980
| 2013-05-05T17:05:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33967",
"authors": [
"IceeFrog",
"JackWhiteIII",
"Jacob",
"Leanne ",
"Michael William",
"Micro",
"Mphiwe Ntuli",
"Regina Säveholm Olsson",
"davidcorne",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79063",
"kathleen",
"mdegges"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30602
|
How can I stabilize a souffle?
In baking souffles, I find that they start deflating from the moment I remove them from the oven. One chef suggested adding xanthan gum which is hard to find and quite expensive. Do you think arrowroot might work, or can you suggest another alternative to stabilize them?. Many thanks.
Please note that it is normal for souffles to start deflating immediately upon being removed from the oven, but they should not go completely deflated. This is part of the reason they should be served immediately upon being finished.
I found xanthan gum in the health food isle of my local super market. About AUD$3 for 100gr which is not too expensive since you don't typically need too much of it at a time.
Possible duplicate of: What kind of stabilizers can I use when making souffles, Japanese cheesecake or egg beaten products?
Try a small amount of cream of tartar instead of xanthan gum. Cheaper, more readily available, and the acid stabilizes the protein matrix.
Also, some tips from Better Homes and Gardens: use a collar, beat your egg whites to a stiff peak but remember to GENTLY fold them in, and don't open the oven door for at least 20-25 minutes to prevent cold air from collapsing the rising souffle.
And yes, even properly cooked souffles do deflate somewhat. Serve immediately and be gentle when removing from the hot oven - no banging the pan down onto the table.
Welcome to the site, and thanks for the answer! I've edited it to make it more clear what the link is pointing at.
What is a "collar"? I only know the term from the field of clothing and Googling it combined with "cooking" or "kitchen" doesn't turn up anything ...
@hippietrail http://www.giverslog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/souffle-collar.jpg
This reminds me of someones's short story - murder mystery with a twist ( forget the rest, and the author) where the finale was that a protagonist entered the kitchen with a revolver and shot - the floor - just as the souffles were done. So the souffles were murdered, which in the context of the story was adequate revenge for the person who murdered them, rather than murdering the cook.
Its normal for a souffle to deflate after leaving the oven. In the past with chocolate souffle i have had success with whipping the egg whites to a stiff peaks then carfully folding the mixture together. Keep in mind that you have only a minute or so to get the souffle to the guest carefully with out banging it on the table. The longer you can keep your souffle hot and steaming, the longer it will stay risin.
I always use s "collar" when making a soufflé and what it is is a strip of grease proof paper that you wrap around your souffle dish about 2-3 inches taller than the top edge of the dish, tied with kitchen string. It will stop the souffle from spilling over the edge of the dish.
Just remove it before serving.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.068229
| 2013-02-01T16:36:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30602",
"authors": [
"Blanche Murges",
"Cascabel",
"Ecnerwal",
"Heather",
"Joe Borysko",
"Jolenealaska",
"Megasaur",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Will B",
"egyamado",
"hippietrail",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76908",
"user71540",
"user76908"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30807
|
what to do to make oilless, butterless, eggless cookies?
I am making a cookie dough eggless, butterles and oilless. it is coming out spongy like a cake. what should I do to make no spongy cookies?
What recipe are you using? How long and at what temperature did you bake it?
I'm confused; are you using some kind of egg and/or fat substitutes? Because that's basically what a cookie is. Without that, you are in fact making a very dry cake or even bread.
You forgot flourless and sugar free.
No eggs, no butter, no oil - no good
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htxZZKv4pMw
@nukhet kuzuoglu please edit you recipe in your question, it will make easier to respond for your query
In general, it's not a good idea to mess too much with baking recipes, since they rely heavily on precise reactions between ingredients. However, there are some things you can try.
For most baking applications, you can replace the eggs with yogurt (Greek yogurt will give you extra tanginess and more calcium, etc. - see here for substitution guidelines: http://chobani.com/community/blog/2011/04/chobani-kitchen-conversion-chart)
I don't know that you'd be able to do without either butter or oil, since the fat is what helps to bind the cookies and give them their texture, but you can (in cakes, muffins, and other more bread-like baking) substitute plain applesauce for the oil (1:1 ratio). Like I said, though, that will most likely change the texture of the cookies. If you're looking to just use a healthier oil, then you could use canola, olive, or coconut oil, which are generally better for you than butter or vegetable oil (or Crisco/shortening).
Another option, if you're not too worried about the butter or could use a butter substitute, is this really tasty recipe for eggless cookie dough. It tastes fantastic, and you can eat it raw without worrying about raw eggs, or you can bake it up like normal cookie dough. The recipe is from Vanilla Joy's baking blog: http://www.vanillajoy.com/cookie-dough-for-pregnant-women.html
As stated above, cakey is what you can expect without fat. Typically gingerbread-type recipes.
Only alternative that I can see is a second baking of thin cookies at reduced temp to get brittle-crisp. Aiming for biscotti texture but without fat, not exactly.
Super dense chewy would be possible as squares (pan baked cut after)by reducing liquid but you want cookies...
Try these ..
The use something to substitute the eggs.
http://blog.fatfreevegan.com/2010/02/banana-maple-oatmeal-cookies.html
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.068527
| 2013-02-10T15:43:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30807",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Dan Green-Leipciger",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Georgy Pashkov",
"Mandi Langley",
"Patrick L Wood",
"Rob",
"Sunishtha Singh",
"User1000547",
"ashes999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76096",
"mike"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35744
|
Cake in homemade chocolates
I have added some cake pieces and cherries to homemade chocolates. Can I keep them for 5-10 days? Since the cake and cherries are in chocolate, will they last for a longer time?
I am inferring you have coated the cake with chocolate, as some sort of petit four or confection.
This will not change its shelf life. It will still stale inside the chocolate (as this is a function of the change in hydration and gelation of the starches), and while less likely, pathogens may still grow since they will have been present from before the cake was enrobed with the chocolate.
Depending on the type of cake, it should be good for between 1-4 days or so, refrigerated.
Cakes freeze exceptionally well. If you wrap your confections tightly to prevent condensation when thawed, you should be easily able to hold them for several months.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.068772
| 2013-08-02T10:35:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35744",
"authors": [
"Bruce Nagle",
"Laurel Bardwell",
"Shalini Adams",
"Stuggi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83780",
"kevinATX",
"tripleM"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42938
|
Can I use a yoghurt marinade in sous-vide cooking?
I want to cook a Indian-inspired chicken dish. The recipe calls for yoghurt in a marinade for the chicken. I am fine with the marinade, but I also want to cook the chicken sous-vide.
I now wonder whether the yoghurt will generate any problems when cooked sous-vide. I plan to cook it for approximately 1 hour at 60° C (but will look up in the tables to confirm). I am worried about off-smell and poor safety.
Is it safe to use a yoghurt marinade in a sous-vide recipe?
It is safe. In fact, the website for the Sous Vide Supreme has a recipe for tandoori chicken that uses yogurt. http://blog.sousvidesupreme.com/2012/06/tandoori-chicken-sous-vide/
It is absolutely safe. Just make sure the pouch is properly sealed and you select a low simmer temp, and long simmer time.
The definition of "simmer" is "just below the boiling point". In sous vide cooking, temperatures are frequently well below boiling.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.068883
| 2014-03-23T11:34:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42938",
"authors": [
"Biba",
"Brian Robinson",
"CannabischefAJ2186",
"Indu c",
"Raffles",
"SleepyCatzzz",
"Spammer",
"do-the-thing-please",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36511
|
Do pickled sausages need to be refrigerated?
We have a jar of Hannah's Red Hot Pickled Sausages that we just opened last night. I couldn't find any "Refrigerate After Opening" indication anywhere on the jar, so we left them out overnight. I'm still uneasy about it, but the only way to ask Hannah's is to have a facebook account. I don't have one since I don't use facebook (yes, only person on the planet), so I was hoping you may know for sure.
I have a jar of "Big John's" pickled sausages and right on the bottom it says "NEVER NEEDS REFRIGERATION"! They sit at stores and bars for for many days if not weeks and are sold by the sausage.
I found this on Hannah's Facebook page. "They do not need to be refrigerated after opening in temperatures below 75 degrees. Recommended refrigeration for temps higher."
I'm unfamiliar with Hannah's, but if they are pickled with vinegar you might be okay so long as you consume them within a few days. If it were dilly beans or gherkins I'd say you're probably fine (depending on the amount of vinegar) - but meat is a different matter.
Do they look anything like this (or have similar ingredients)?
When I was a kid, 1950's our local market had jars of everything pickled, pigs feet, sausages of different kinds, eggs, cheeses and other stuff from what Big Mike said was from the home land momma makes. None of it was ever refrigerated for months or more and I and many others ate it often. The key word is pickled, meaning preserved beyond spoiling.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.069130
| 2013-09-03T16:22:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36511",
"authors": [
"Gaijinsan",
"James Lyles",
"Oladipo Banjo john",
"Sumeet KD",
"Warner",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85698",
"pouyan",
"user5652217"
],
"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
}
|
22286
|
What should be the tooth of banana pudding pie?
Last night I made a vegan banana pudding pie for Pi Day, and despite the quality of the pie as a pie, I was left wondering if I had gotten the pudding texture right. I had anticipated something a bit looser, though gelled. This was next to Jell-O, and when you put your fork through it to take a bit it pushed out the banana underneath, or wiggled off the crust.
I was expecting something more like bannoffee pie, or a more giving texture. The cookbook refers to this as "a take on the Southern Classic;" so perhaps we Yanks are accustomed to wimpier pudding pies? I don't know if it was the recipe or the technique;
The composition was a half cup of corn starch in a slurry with a half cup of soy milk. The recipe calls to bring 1 1/2 cup soy milk, 3/4 soy creamer, and 1 cup granulated sugar to a simmer; stir the slurry and add to pot, whisking for five minutes. Then you add the pot to a bowl with 1 tablespoon earth balance, and 1 teaspoon vanilla extract, whisking until cool (put bowl over cold water).
As I do not have a nylon whisk, I had to use a small, heat-proof flat spatula to whisk in the pot. Per prior experience with corn starch slurry, I gradually poured it in while stirring instead of "adding" it. The pudding was not cold, but the recipe indicated this would take about ten minutes, as opposed to the three or four it actually took.
First, how would one describe the proper texture of a banana pudding pie's pudding; what similar recipes have a similar stiffness, texture, tooth?
Second, were my expectations wrong, or my recipe and technique?
Last, could I tweak the amount of corn starch, or perhaps substitute in part or whole a different thickener to get a more appropriate, giving tooth?
Is it perhaps that the problem wasn't that the pudding was too gelled, but that the crust didn't give enough traction (crumb'ed oreos and 4 tablespoons earth balance melted and pressed into the shell and par-baked 10 minutes), or perhaps the bananas were too few (three small on a 9" shell) or should have been cooked somewhat?
It is difficult to give an authoritative answer because who knows what a "typical" pie might be like. It might be different for every person you talk to. I will therefore answer just for myself.
All of the made-from-scratch pudding pies that I have made have been very similar- a lot of sugar and fat and some starch to make the gel. Usually recipes also call for egg yolks which also help with binding but make the pudding a little more custardy instead of just a gel.
The texture should be sliceable so that the sliced edges sag but don't flow. I have had pies that have to be scooped out which, while perfectly delicious, isn't as nice a presentation. On the other side of the spectrum is what you have- rubber- which is a great presentation when cutting but not much fun to eat.
Gradually adding your corn starch slurry is always a good idea. Often the starch is mixed with the sugar to make sure it is evenly dispersed and then added to the liquid. As long as you didn't have clumps your technique here was fine.
I don't think your expectations of a banana pudding pie or your technique are wrong. What I think is slightly wrong is your expectations for this recipe. It's "wrong" to call something a "take on a southern classic" that uses soy milk and organic margarine. The milk fat and egg yolks in typical recipes do a lot to make a smooth, custardy pudding. Doing this with different fats and soy milk could be good but I would expect it to be different.
The bananas don't have to be precooked- that would be horrible, I haven't used earth balance but if it behaves like normal margarine then your crust sounds like it is pretty normal. The number of bananas also sounds reasonable. You want a good layer but not so much that the pudding can't work in to bind it together.
Reducing the amount of corn starch a little should make the filling softer and more to your liking. You could try adding a little more fat which will also soften the pie. In the end though, I wouldn't expect a typical texture of a pie that is made completely of non-typical ingredients.
Thanks; so far the recipes from the book (Vegan Diner) are a bit lackluster generally, so I am more than happy to blame it on the book. I've had good results with vegan dessert baking generally (from other authors), and some of the other recipes are decent, it just sounds like this one didn't get sufficient testing or is not sufficiently idiot-proof to deal with me.
Soy milk gels very easily, eg tofu. I have done some experimenting with flavoring tofu but it might be more fun to try and make a pie filling that exploits soy milk's own gelling. Try adding a very small amount of epsom salts to your filling which will make your soy milk thicken. (you'd probably have to reduce the starch even more)
If part of the difference is the missing egg yolk, perhaps some food science to replace it would improve the pie, such as adding soy lecithin (assuming it's the emulsive properties that matter most to the final texture).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.069291
| 2012-03-15T15:50:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22286",
"authors": [
"Andres Kim",
"DanTheMan",
"Robin Daugherty",
"Sobachatina",
"Theodore Murdock",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9057",
"krikor Herlopian",
"mfg",
"shawn",
"user50619"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22122
|
Hamantaschen just wouldn't pinch and hold tight
I made a pretty simple and easy hamantaschen recipe last night, and it came out really well. The only substitution I made was to flex 3 eggs for 3 tablespoons milled, gelled flax seed in 9 tablespoons water. I am essentially unfamiliar with the dough, and wasn't sure what to expect. It had a great crumb, shortbread texture, but I ran into the dough unfolding/unpinching while baking.
The dough was good to work with, streched well and didn't break apart. However, it was very dry. Two main problems that may have stemmed from this were that the pockets wouldn't pinch at the edges, and when I left them to cool they dried out very quickly. In the second batch I tried moistening the edges with water to see if it would help glue them together, but to no avail. In the third the dough was becoming very inflexible and I used some canola oil to loosen it back up, but this did little to help.
As it is spoken of as a stiff dough (the author recommends chilling dough overnight), the dryness of the dough itself may not have inherently been a problem. Also, whereas the author says to "mix" the five and a half cups of flour with the liquids, I found I needed to fold cup by cup then knead toward the four cup mark, ultimately shorting the recipe by a half cup of flour. Since the drying out while cooling had no actual affect on the dough (in terms of taste, texture), I am mostly concerned about why the pockets ended up flat upon baking in many cases, instead of little pockets of plum preserves.
With a dough and recipe like this, what could I have done to ensure better pinches?
Is the amount of baking powder appropriate? The recipe didn't call for any salt, but I added some for flavor; could this have been problematic in causing over-rising?
The flax egg substitution would have had an equal amount of moisture to the egg, but would it have caused such dryness while mixing? The dough results were good in taste, just not structure.
Could over-kneading have been the problem; does too much kneading inhibit flour's ability to adhere to itself?
I do not typically use oil only doughs due to their dryer results, would subbing/splicing some heavier fats or apple sauce have improved the sticking?
Doubtless from the image above, I have not formed these before. Could my pinching technique have been to blame? Is there a secret to it? I have also seen them folded; does folding the corners yield sharper edges than pinching?
It seems Hamantaschen cookies unfolding and leaking is not an uncommon problem. Of course the flax egg substitution can very likely also contribute to the unfolding but here are some tips from someone who has been baking Hamantaschen cookies for a while.
Tips for Creating Perfect Hamantaschen
1) Find a great dough recipe. Often, the problems people have with
baking hamantaschen can be traced to an inferior dough. Here are two
foolproof, tasty dough recipes that I highly recommend. They are easy
to handle and shape, and they provide great results when baked:
Dairy Free Hamantaschen Dough
Buttery Hamantaschen Dough
Of course you can use your flax egg substituted in for the eggs that the recipes ask for.
2) Roll your dough out to 1/8 inch thick (or less). You want your
dough to be as thin as possible, while still being thick enough to
maintain the cookie’s structure. 1/8 inch seems to be the magic
number; sometimes I roll mine out even thinner than that. For a more
doughy texture you can roll it thicker, but remember– the thicker the
dough is, the harder it will be to handle and shape. Thick dough is
also more prone to opening/spreading in the oven.
3) Use a thick filling that won’t run/weep from the cookies while
baking. Knowing the proper consistency of a hamantaschen filling takes
experience, because each type of filling is slightly different.
Poppyseed filling has a very different texture than fruit filling, for
example. A good filling should be somewhat thick so that it doesn’t
run.
4) Cut your hamantaschen dough in 3-inch circles (or larger) before
filling and folding into triangles. Anything smaller than 3 inches
will be difficult to fold around your chosen filling.
5) Most fillings can be chilled before using to fill hamantaschen.
I’ve found that fruit, poppy seed, and cream cheese-based fillings
tend to be easier to work with when they’re chilled in the
refrigerator. The chilling process thickens the fillings and makes
them less sticky, which makes them easier to handle with when you’re
assembling your hamantaschen. Not all fillings are helped by
refrigeration, however– particularly chocolate-based fillings like
Nutella, which will harden with prolonged refrigeration. Check your
filling recipe to see if refrigeration is recommended.
6) Do not overfill your hamantaschen. Use 1 teaspoon of filling per
hamantaschen cookie. Do not use more than 1 teaspoon. However tempting
it might be to put lots of delicious filling in the middle of your
cookie, using more than 1 teaspoon can cause your hamantaschen to
spread open and leak in the oven. 1 teaspoon is plenty, especially
when you cut your dough circles to 3 inches… it’s the perfect amount
of filling.
7) Fold your triangles the right way! Using the proper folding method
will help your hamantschen hold together and create a beautiful shape.
Please that the sides are folded down so that each "side" has an "end" that is above and an "end" that is below in the fashion of folding the top of a box. This will help in preventing the cookies from unfolding.
Also note in Step 5, to pinch each of the 3 corners gently but firmly.
Source: http://theshiksa.com/2012/03/01/how-to-make-perfect-hamantaschen/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.069654
| 2012-03-09T14:05:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22122",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114520
|
Achieving viscosity when making cocoa spread, without butter or coconut oil, with colza oil, without nuts
I've found several recipes to make cocoa spread (meaning without nuts of any kind), but none really satisfy what I'm looking for.
I've tested a combination of
chocolate, usually 50% cocoa
cocoa powder
concentrated milk (sweetened condensed milk)
Colza oil or sunflower oil
a bit of corn starch (might be a bad idea)
a small bit of guar gum
The result was not really what I wanted, so I'm still looking for advice. I still don't have a good idea of the quantities.
It seems that the cocoa spread I like doesn't use coconut oil or butter, it's often colza or sunflower oil, so I'm still curious how they're able to get this viscosity.
In the ingredient of a cocoa spread I like, I've seen there is soy lecithine, which is something I still don't have.
Is there a temperature I should cook this at? Should I stir more?
I would say that the "thicker milk" advice of the other answer is not bad. Instead of using evaporated milk, it might be mich easier to make it with powdered milk.
Beyond that, I wouldn't try to do whatever a commercial producer is doing. Their recipes tend to be very precisely tuned, created with a lot of effort and know-how, and require steps and technologies that are impossible at home. If, for example, they are hydrogenating their oil, or maybe using only done fraction of it, you will never be able to replicate that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.070076
| 2021-02-27T12:24:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114520",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.