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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
9628
|
Does canning stock raise its temperature too high?
I've read that the ideal way to make stock is to:
crack the large bones
place the carcass in a stock pot
cover with water
bring it to a simmer (not a boil) on the stove
place the whole thing in the oven on 180F for 6+ hours (possibly add vegetables an hour before you're done)
Apparently the temperature is key. You don't want it to go over 180F because that ... does something to the stock. Harsher flavors or cloudy stock. Can't recall what.
After all of this cooking of stock is done, you want to preserve it. Canning seems ideal because it frees up freezer space. But would the canning process raise the temperature of the stock above that 180F mark that seems so critical?
It appears to me based on the link provided, preparation method and characteristics (cloudiness etc.) that you're actually talking about stock, so I've edited your post accordingly.
@aaronaut: seems reasonable -- I'm not completely clear on the difference
The difference is as clear as mud. But whatever definition you choose, the biggest difference is usually in purity, which is pertinent to this question.
The purpose of using a low simmer during stock-making is to avoid agitating the liquid. You want the fat to settle on top, but a rapid boil will simply disperse the fat and other impurities all throughout the stock, resulting in - as you've hinted at - a cloudy texture and possibly an inferior taste.
The other reason to avoid boiling is simply to prevent the stock from reducing too much. If you're simmering for 6 hours, you could lose all the water. If you leave the stock unattended during that time, and the water level drops too low, then you're not getting anything out of it; the water needs to be covering the bones in order to break down the collagen.
All that said, once you are finished with stock, you should have skimmed it and strained it through a fine sieve and probably a few layers of cheesecloth as well. If you've made your stock correctly, it will be clear and have (almost) no fat. Boiling it briefly at that point isn't really going to harm it; there's not enough fat left to cloud the stock and you're not boiling it for long enough to really reduce it.
So I would say go ahead and don't worry about the temperature. As far as I know, nothing magical happens at 180° F, that's just a rough temperature guideline for "low simmer".
In the comments thread in the post (from Michael Ruhlman) I linked, they seem to think that going over 180F makes the stock bitter (something about bitter and unwanted flavors). The author doesn't address it directly. Re: the fats: seems easy enough to skim them off the top when it cools. Boiling at the end seems like a good idea for bacteria control... worth a taste test.
@jcollum: In many cases, the stock is going to be used for something where it will be heated to boiling point anyway, presumably without this bitter flavour arising. So I imagine that any supposed bitterness resulting from high temperatures would come from the bones and other aromatics being cooked at those temperatures, just like the cloudiness.
@jcollum: I can't seem to find this comment you're referring to. Can you be more specific? I cannot think of any reason why going above 180° F would make the stock bitter - just cloudy/fatty due to the agitation.
yeah, it's in the original post: http://blog.ruhlman.com/2007/11/thanksgiving-th.html. Look for 'EdTheRed November 20, 2007' in the comments.
@jcollum: I see. Well, it's an unverified comment on the internet so take that for what it's worth. ;) I suppose it's theoretically possible, but I don't think that the overextraction that can occur with coffee applies to bones or mirepoix, at least as long as the temperature isn't absurdly high. I've accidentally left pots of stock on "bubbly simmer" for upwards of an hour or two and haven't noticed even the slightest difference in taste - just in the water level.
A pressure canner can reach 240 degrees. However, the point of the 180 degree limit is probably to keep the bones from dissolving and the turkey fats & proteins from mixing into the broth and making it cloudy. Once you strain the broth, you won't have to worry about that anymore. Of course, you might then worry about what the 240 degrees does to the nutritional value of your stock, but... that's another question. One I don't have an answer for.
Ah, you're probably right: you want to keep it from boiling while the bones are in the stock. After that, it probably doesn't matter. We'll see if the group agrees.
Canning stock once it has been created and finished doesn't cause extraction, agitation and cloudiness problems because the bones are gone, the extra proteins are removed, assuming you've clarified your stock and you are down to just stock.
The temperature above 180 problems relates to what happens during the extraction process, but once the extraction is done, you can pressure can your stock and keep it for as long as you need to. I do this with broth all the time, although I also freeze broth in ice cube trays so I will have small amounts as needed. And, yes, I know there is a difference between broth and stock, but I work mostly with broth that I make using a lot of bones AND meat, ending up with a gelatinous flavorful broth, rather than an unctuous stock.
I don't think I've ever made an "unctuous" stock. To each his own, but in my little world a well-made stock has no fat, lots of gelatin, and tons of flavour.
The gelatinous smooth mouth feel is what I was going for, but I note (in looking up definitions for unctuous) that oily is more of the sense, than just smooth. Looks like I'll have to find a different word, since it doesn't mean exactly what I thought it did. Thanks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.102953
| 2010-11-30T20:26:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9628",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Doug Johnson-Cookloose",
"Erik P.",
"GdD",
"Renuka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"jacob henry",
"jcollum",
"user39474",
"user88377"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8839
|
what is the purpose of adding oil to balsamic vinaigrette slowly?
I've been making a lot of vinaigrette dressing lately. Julia Child and Emeril both say that you need to mix up everything but the olive oil, then add the olive oil in slowly (ideally drop by drop) while whisking.
First, this is a pain because you need 3 hands. Ok you don't really, but it isn't easy to do with 2 hands.
Second, it seems like I still need to shake the dressing a lot before putting it over salad, especially if the dressing has been in the refrigerator.
Finally, the question: what is the upside of all this doing-it-slowly when you add the oil to the mix? As far as I can tell, it makes a tiny tiny bit of difference: there will still be some tiny tiny drops of vinegar suspended in the oil a few days later. Why would Julia and Emeril think this is such a big deal?
To ease the process- as with mayonnaise- support your bowl with a wet towel coiled around the base and put your oil in a squeeze bottle to better control flow.
Specifically, the reason you whisk it in slowly at first is to create small drops. If you just dump the oil in fast, it will adhere to itself and make it impossible to break up into droplets dispersed in the vinegar (or other water based liquid, such as lemon juice). This is the definition of an emulsion: tiny droplets of one liquid evenly dispersed in another. Once you've got the emulsion started, you can pour in the oil a bit faster because the already suspended droplets reduce the room for a big blob of oil to form, and act sort of as "sandpaper" to break up the incoming stream as you whisk.
But doesn't whisking break up that big blob pretty easily? Seems like a lot of work for little gain.
No, it doesn't. The surface tension in the big blob is so strong that it becomes very difficult to break up once formed. So you want a good vortex going and a thin stream to give yourself a leg up on creating small droplets. Try it both way sometime, I guarantee you will see the difference.
Is this a concern if you use a blender instead?
Even with a blender, you'll get better results if you drizzle in the oil through the hole in the top. If you blender is powerful enough, you may be able to add everything at once and let it break the droplets up, but the other way is more of a sure thing and tends to produce a more stable emulsion with consistently sized droplets.
I assume that the recipes also include a weak emulsifier like mustard.
In the presence of an emulsifier adding the oil slowly will create an emulsion. The oil will be basically dissolved into the vinegar. This will result in a vinaigrette that will be slightly more viscous and will adhere better to the target food.
With weak emulsifiers this is still temporary because the emulsion is not stable. Using a more powerful emulsifier like xanthan gum or lecithin would be permanent but I don't know if that would still be considered a vinaigrette. You would easily cross the line into mayonnaise.
In short- not having tried your particular recipes- if they are recommending the extra work to form a better emulsion then they are probably expecting the vinaigrette to be served immediately and not days later.
The last paragraph here is important, I think. Every unstable emulsion is going to separate in the refrigerator, no matter how you mix it. But assuming you plan to serve right away, then combining the liquids very slowly will result in something that is temporarily much more stable than if you had just dumped it all into a big bowl.
The purpose of adding oil slowly is to make a smoother emulsion. It will stay together on its own longer this way, but will always separate eventually. You can add a bit of mustard (an emulsifier) to your vinaigrette to keep it stable.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.103407
| 2010-11-04T15:33:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8839",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Bryan Migliorisi",
"Constantino Tsarouhas",
"James Fennell",
"Michael Hoffman",
"Michael Natkin",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7603",
"iyub",
"jcollum",
"serialhobbyist"
],
"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
}
|
7140
|
What's the US equivalent of double and single cream?
I can find whipping cream, half and half, and even clotted cream where I'm staying in the US but not double or single cream, are these familiar terms or is there a US equivalent term?
Whoever answers this should update this wiki as well: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/784/60
In the UK, single cream is a milk product with at least 18% butterfat. Double cream has 48% butterfat. Neither are common in the US.
If you can find clotted cream, which is 55% fat, then there is a chance of making double cream at home by diluting it. As some clotted creams have a cooked taste, there may be other solutions.
Was 5% fat for single cream a typo? Other answers I've found have said 18%. 5% isn't much more than whole milk, which is 4% fat.
@Jimothy is right. I fixed the answer (source http://bit.ly/1WUP4Uq). There is a cereal milk that runs at 5%, a tad creamier than US whole milk.
Light cream (single cream) is generally available only in New England and the Mid-Atlantic states. I've been all over the US and never found it anywhere else.
Here's a link to the US specifications: 21 CFR PART 131—MILK AND CREAM
From there:
Light Cream (18% or more fat)
Heavy Cream (36% or more)
Dry Cream (I've never heard of it, 40% or more)
From the percentages provided by Papin's answer, it looks like:
U.S. Light Cream is likely Single Cream equivalent
Some U.S. Heavy Creams may be close to Double Cream
U.S. Dry Cream, if you can find it, is something to consider
Update, I also learned:
Looking at fat content alone is not enough to compare US v. UK creams. Pasteurization practices are also a large factor. Apparently most (or all?) U.S. heavy cream is processed using Ultra-high temperature processing (UHT), and UHT reportedly yields less flavorful heavy cream than UK double cream.
I read Double Cream, when used as a whipping cream, can be problematic. Apparently, it's higher fat content makes it prone to over-whipping if you don't pay close attention.
In Canada, we have
Half and Half (10%)
Table Cream (18%)
Whipping Cream (35%)
There's also a "Light" cream at about 6%, but that's a newer product.
So I've always taken Half and Half to be "Half cream", Table to be single (roughly 2 x 10%) and Whipping to be double (roughly 2 x 18%)
It's not exactly a direct answer, but in terms of practicalities, I tend to use Darigold Classic 36% Heavy Whipping Cream as a substitute for double cream in recipes. and I've had a lot of success, where the cream was intended for richness as opposed to thickness.
Manufacturing cream would be the closest substitute for double cream. It is heavy cream with a minimum of 40% butterfat and is available at Costco and Smart and Final. Sometimes manufacturing cream is labeled 'heavy cream' but the label will say 40% butterfat.
USA only, not available in Canada sadly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.103736
| 2010-09-11T22:16:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7140",
"authors": [
"Deb",
"Deefour",
"Grant Hutchins",
"Jimothy",
"Jose Godoy",
"LCFoodExperts",
"Michael Hampton",
"Suzy Melkonian",
"Tomas Aguilar",
"Walker",
"alx9r",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"judy",
"papin",
"user300778"
],
"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
}
|
12813
|
What can I use instead of swede (rutabaga) when making pickle relish
I want to make a British-style pickle relish at home. I think the best recipes involve swede (rutabaga in the US), because it gives texture and flavour, but isn't overpowering.
Unforunately, I can't get swedes where I live.
What would make a good substitute?
Since I just had to look this up myself, the vegetable is known as Rutabaga in the US, and is sometimes sold under the name "Wax Turnip."
I guess it's kind of an obvious suggestion, but... Have you tried kohlrabi?
I am a big fan of swedes/rutabagas. When I can't get them I use turnips, beets, daikon radishes. Carrots/parsnips add some interesting flavor as well.
A couple other vegetables that are crunchy and nice-flavored but more exotic are celery root or jicama.
turnips will lend the necessary flavor but can be added WITH:
Cauliflower or slightly cooked potatoes such as Petite Potatoes (grade C which you can find at a farmer's market but pack some taste...yum), Yukon Gold, New Potatoes, Red Potatoes or Fingerling Potatoes.
I know some people who have substituted rutabagas in recipes with the stronger portions of a green cabbage (do NOT use the core). I came from a poor community and you learn what you can use and not. Things that grow in your garden like: the aforementioned vegetables and brussels sprouts, cooked parsnips, carrots, corn, peas, radishes, zucchini, cooked butternut squash, toasted or grilled eggplant or cheaper items at the store like jicama, cabbage and celery. Don't forget that some raw slivered (not already roasted) almonds, sunflower seeds or cashews will give you some more crunch too. I know that this is an old post but some people will find this in a search for the same issues like I found in my Google search... so Good Luck to all :)
Kohlrabi is a brilliant idea and it will not at all seem much different to the swede in a Branston Pickle type mix which has a wide variety of vegetables in it anyway. Turnip will do at a pinch but you may need to increase the amount of sugar as swedes are generally sweeter. Make sure the chunks are very small. Here is an original recipe which comes out a little dryer than the commercial Cross & Blackwell brand. Some people add tomatoes and more apple in the mix. If you can't find fresh gherkins straight off the vine, buy a cheap commercial jar of them - dice and throw in for good measure. At the end of the day it's finely chopped dates you should want rather than raisins, and flavour comes from the dark brown sugar (Muscovado is best), All spice, standard dark brown malt vinegar, and of course cayenne pepper. Make sure you keep the mix moving, with sufficient liquid. Do not allow the pan to burn at the bottom because the taste will quickly change. If you do catch the bottom of the pan, do not scrape it back into the mix. Decant the content immediately into another pan and leave the burned bottom behind. Also, once the product is in the can, and sealed, do not open and use it for at least a month, to allow the blend to mature (all the flavours will even out naturally over time).
9 ounces carrots, peeled, cut into small chunks
1 medium swede, peeled, cut into small chunks
4-5 garlic cloves, peeled, finely chopped
5 ounces dates, finely chopped
1 small cauliflower, finely chopped
2 onions, peeled and finely chopped
2 medium apples, unpeeled, finely chopped
2 medium courgettes, unpeeled, finely chopped
15-20 small gherkins, finely chopped
10 ounces dark brown sugar
1 teaspoon salt
4 tablespoons lemon juice
3/4 pint malt vinegar
2 teaspoons mustard seeds
2 teaspoons ground allspice
1 teaspoon cayenne pepper
water chestnuts might do the trick for crunch.
Could you use a turnip (or several)? My understanding is that this is the "closest" vegetable to the rutabaga.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.104019
| 2011-03-05T18:08:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12813",
"authors": [
"Andre",
"Andrei V",
"CopperKettle",
"MCRodgers2",
"Martha F.",
"RAM",
"Shog9",
"Skegg",
"Tim",
"annette mayes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86"
],
"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
}
|
10494
|
What is the difference between coffee grinds/beans labeled as "espresso coffee" and ordinary coffee?
I was reminded of this curiosity just moments ago when I got a craving for coffee and couldn't find any normal coffee beans/grounds (owing to the fact that I don't normally drink coffee at home anymore).
I unwittingly purchased this so-called espresso coffee at a supermarket in the heart of the Italian district here, and most of the writing on it is Italian; I didn't even realize my mistake until after I had used it three or four times to brew normal coffee and saw, in very tiny letters, the words "espresso coffee" written on one of the sides.
So I shelved that coffee until today; even though it seemed fine, I figured I might have been using it inappropriately. After my act of desperation today I decided to look this up. According to Wikipedia:
Espresso is not a specific bean or roast level; it is a coffee brewing method. Any bean or roasting level can be used to produce authentic espresso and different beans have unique flavor profiles lending themselves to different roasting levels and styles.
This is what I had always believed. The answer to What factors lead to rich crema on espresso? does hint at a possible difference, though: It says that darker roasts are better for producing crema. However, the coffee I have does not seem to be particularly dark a roast; it's dark, but I've had "normal" coffee that was darker.
Needless to say, I'm a little confused, and the internet is helping me a whole lot. Maybe it's because the caffeine hasn't kicked in yet.
Is there an appreciable difference between coffee beans or coffee grounds labeled as "espresso coffee" and plain, ordinary coffee? If so, what is it?
Perhaps more importantly, is espresso coffee suitable for use in a normal coffee maker or press?
It IS the roast that is the difference. The only real difference in the beans is that some beans taste better at a higher roast than others, so they are more appropriate for espresso. Your Italian grocery coffee company may be using the espresso label for marketing purposes, but in general, espresso coffee beans can be the same beans that are used for "regular" coffee, but roasted to a French or Italian roast level, which is darker than City or Full City.
Since the advent of Starbucks, many roasts are much darker than they used to be. Dunkin' Donuts coffee, which is a Full City roast, used to be the norm, but now a French seems to be what you can buy.
I roast my own coffee and take it to just into the second crack which is, generally, a Full City roast...a point where the character of the coffee predominates rather than the flavor of the roast. There is more information about roasts at Sweet Marias where I buy my green beans, and reading through the site will give you way more of a coffee education than you probably ever wanted.
So, yes, you can use the coffee you have to make brewed coffee. It will probably be roastier than you would normally have, unless it is just a marketing ploy, in which case it will taste normal. Consider how long you have had this coffee; if it has been shelved for a while "normal" probably won't be all that great, since freshly roasted coffee is, generally, way better than old coffee. But as long as the oils aren't rancid, it is more likely just going to be bland.
Interesting. So that would mean that most dark roasts (i.e. darker than Full City) are better for espresso, even if they aren't labeled as such?
I agree that espresso calls for a dark roast (and therefore a bean that does well roasted very dark) and also a very fine grind, but the word means the high pressure steam preparation method.
Oh, and FYI, the coffee was tightly wrapped and stored in the freezer, so it still has most of its flavour.
Since most pre-ground espresso coffee is very finely ground, you may end up with over extracted coffee when using a drip-style coffee maker.
What I really want to know is what type of bean a certain American burger chain with a Scottish name uses. Irrespective of year tried, price or variety of drink I have only ever managed one sip before leaving the rest. Don't know what their coffee is like elsewhere, but in the UK it is the worst coffee I have ever tasted. Even stuff out a vending machine is more palatable.
Espresso is a preparation method in which high pressure, steam is forced through tightly packed, finely ground coffee. As Doug mentions, it works best with very darkly roasted beans, and coffee sold as "espresso" will generally be prepared that way. Likewise espresso works best with a fine grind and pre-ground coffee described as "espresso" will come that way.
You can use the same beans to prepare drip coffee, though you risk getting a somewhat bitter brew. Also the fine grind means that a paper filter will work better than a perforated metal sieve. I recommend adding the water is small increments so you don't leave water sitting on the ground for a long time.
The couple of times I've tried beans prepared for espresso in a french press I've gotten a harsh and bitter cup of joe, so I don't recommend it.
This sounds about right to me. I never found this one particularly bitter, although I've only tried this one particular "espresso coffee" (by accident) and quite possibly my palate is adapted to the inherent bitterness of the French press after using it for years.
There are two aspects to making a ground roast coffee for espresso -- the grind and the roast!
As you observed, the roast is dark but not the darkest roast one can find. It's not as dark as what (in the US) is called Italian roast, and certainly less dark than what here we call French roast.
The grind is not a coarse one, but in my experience the "espresso grind" that one sees on various coffee grinders is too fine for the best cup. If there were to be a problem making a normal pot of coffee with "espresso coffee", most likely it would be that the grind is too fine (powdery) for your normal method of brewing. Paper filters would likely eliminate any actual dregs showing up in the bottom of your cup, but methods like the coffee press or brewing through one of the metallic coated reusable filters is apt to produce a certain amount of dregs. When I have my espresso coffee ground (from the roasted beans), I ask the setting be a couple of notches coarser than the "espresso" setting on the machine.
One last observation has to do with the beans. In days gone by it was thought that blending in a robusta variety of coffee produced a better "crema" than pure Arabica beans. I have my doubts about this, as robusta tends to be cheaper and there may have been an element of self-serving marketing in that trend. In any case I'm not enough of a coffee gourmet to judge the "crema" of pure Arabica as being in any way inferior.
Y right - pure Arabica is better, but the Italians insist on cheapening the mix with robusta. I used to buy my espresso from a French artisan torrefacteur, and what he made was THE BEST, shame he retired. He used Ethiopian mocha instead of robusta types and sold it to the Italians ...
@Charlotte Farley: I read Antony Wild's Coffee: A Dark History (2005) a few years ago and enjoyed its sweeping narrative. Some have criticized its fact checking in places, but the discussion of the Italian invention of espresso and 20th century marketing was engaging.
@Charlotte Farley: I roast my own beans for both drip and espresso. For some espresso blends, adding 5% to 10% of good quality robusta or monsooned malabar adds complexity. I do NOT roast those beans to make drip coffee!
Espresso coffee refers to the type of brewing method and the type of grind used. Below is an article that explains the different types of brewing methods and grinds associated for an optimized cup of coffee.
http://www.examiner.com/article/different-types-of-coffee-bean-grinds?cid=db_articles
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.104318
| 2010-12-25T15:50:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10494",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Charlotte Farley",
"Didgeridrew",
"Greybeard",
"Rick G",
"Spammer",
"Tiffany Velasquez",
"defarm",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"hardmath",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67831",
"olivia",
"r_s",
"user2993737"
],
"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
}
|
29939
|
Implied cooking temperatures on food packaging
Every time I follow directions I see instructions like this:
Bring water to boil
Stir in pasta
Return to rapid boil
Cook for 6 minutes for al-dente
I set the stove burner to high for Step 1. Do I leave the stove burner on high for the remaining steps, or do I lower the burner temperature?
It sounds like by "temperature" you're referring to the setting of your stove. If your stove is powerful enough that you don't need it at its maximum power to keep water at a rapid boil, then you can of course reduce the setting once you've returned it to a rapid boil (between your steps 3 and 4). On the other hand, if you have a smaller, older stove, you might need to keep it at high to keep the water boiling rapidly. So the answer is "maybe" - you do whatever you need to do with your stove to keep it doing what the directions say (boiling).
That said, this isn't necessarily the best way to cook pasta. You should test it, rather than counting on the time on the package to be accurate. And you don't actually have to cook it at a full boil, or boil the water before adding the pasta; see this great column by Harold McGee on cooking pasta in a way contrary to popular wisdom, and a Food Lab article based on it. You can in fact start with pasta in just enough cold water, bring it to a good simmer, and keep it there until it's done.
I never knew it meant "bring to rapid boil and keep it there"..
@Knownasilya That's supposed to be implied - if a recipe says to heat your oven to 350F then bake something for 20 minutes, it means to keep it set at that temperature, and if a recipe says to bring something to a boil and cook for 6 minutes, it means to keep it boiling for those 6 minutes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.105000
| 2013-01-10T00:51:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29939",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jenso",
"Pat pawley",
"Vaishalee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69754",
"just joe",
"knownasilya"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4322
|
Is it possible to make homemade mascarpone?
I had a piece of tiramisu that had a layer of mascarpone that really balanced the other flavors out perfectly. At the grocery store it's sold in such little/expensive containers I was looking for an alternative homemade version - any ideas?
Here are some fairly complete, although fairly long, instructions for making homemade Marscapone.
Any cream cheese (such as Philadelphia) could make a reasonable substitute, with extra cream added if necessary.
Yes, you can. You'll require heavy cream, an acid (vinegar or tartaric acid), au bain marie technique and patience and a refridgerator.
Check out preparation here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.105182
| 2010-08-05T12:23:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4322",
"authors": [
"Anderson Karu",
"Andrew Langman",
"Jessica H.",
"RG-3",
"SouthFresh",
"Stephen J. Fuhry",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8143",
"jdev"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4443
|
Any tips for ways to cook chicken breast for recipes that call for shredded chicken?
I've got several recipes that call for shredded chicken, so any help would be appreciated.
I keep both shredded/chopped chicken and pork in my freezer as kind of a "staple". For both, I tend to use the crock pot.
The easiest way (but certainly not the cheapest) is to toss boneless, skinless chicken breasts into the crock pot with a flavorful liquid. I tend to use most of my shredded meats in things with either a Southwest/TexMex or BBQ bent to them, so I often will use beer for the liquid and toss in some chili powder/onion powder/garlic powder or one of those taco seasoning packets.
If you're looking for more wide-ranging purposes, you may want to go with something more like chicken broth as your liquid. In that case, I'd also avoid seasoning it all that much as the destination dish might clash with or, for instance, if you add salt, might result in WAY too much salt in the final dish.
I usually fill the crock pot all the way with chicken and about half way with liquid.
Set the crock pot on low and let it cook all day until the meat is completely cooked and tender. I only make it this way when I can be around all day or at least can check in half way through the day because you want to "rotate" which meat is sitting in the liquid at least once in the process.
To shred, pull out the chicken and, using 2 forks, pull apart the fibers of the meat.
To chop, just toss it on a cutting board and cut into tiny bits.
I usually take the results and put them in a large bowl. Then, using a turkey baster, I add some of the liquid from the crock pot back into the shredded meat. You'll be surprised how much liquid it absorbs without getting "drippy".
I freeze mine in 1 pound portions in vacuum sealed bags and it works great.
Faster than the Crockpot, you can poach chicken breasts in water, broth, or some other flavored liquid. Shred or chop once they're cooked (about 20 mins if memory serves). This leaves the chicken a little bland though. It's ok if it goes in a flavorful sauce which it so often does but not on top of a salad. If you want to use thighs, you can cut it in to thin strips first and then sauté. This gets the same effect as shredded and is how I do chicken for enchiladas.
However, the Crockpot sounds like a great option if you have all day to tend it.
I do this as well, and depending on the recipe, will add other things to the broth, like an onion cut in half (don't have to chop it), some bay leaf, rosemary, etc.
The absolute key is to make sure you remove the chicken once it reaches an internal temperature around 160F. I use one of those temp probes that uses a long wire to a readout. This works great for roasting as well. If you don't overcook, it won't be dried out and nasty.
20 minutes of actual poaching will give you very dry meat. Here's a gentler method: Boil your broth, add breasts, return to simmer, cover, turn off heat, and let sit 15 minutes. The breasts will reach 160F from fridge temp, but not overcook. +1 to a thermometer.
And for those that are really lazy (like me), a varient on Rich's suggestion -- turn the stove to warm (or whatever it's lowest is) after slapping on the lid, and you can come back an hour, or even three hours later, without worry ... ideally, you get the liquid to 160F, and you can poach it forever.
When I cook chicken breast, my main concern is overcooking. "Stringy" chicken often ends up quite overcooked, with a "dry" texture even if it served in sauce. In my experience, crock pot chicken is always overcooked; so unless you are really looking for that texture, I would avoid it.
Poaching (as in the answer by @yossarian) is a possible solution; but you still need to be careful to avoid overcooking! Make sure to remove the chicken from the pot once it reaches the desired internal temperature (I cook to 150°F) as measured with an instant-read thermometer. There are some other tricks for a good poach, like starting from cold and keeping the water under boiling.
However, if you have the equipment, sous vide is better. It is more reliable and more hands-off than poaching. The water bath makes it impossible to go over the desired temperature. Further, by sealing the chicken in a bag with aromatics, you avoid losing any flavor to the surrounding liquid. A great place to start for chicken breast is 2 hours at 150°F. Obviously this technique requires some equipment: namely a sous vide circulator and a vacuum sealer. But if you like juice chicken breast, this is almost certainly the most reliable method.
vacuum sealer is not needed for just 2h at 150F, a ziploc bag is enough
A wonderful recipe from Yotam Ottolengh's "Jerusalem" cookbook uses shredded chicken breast in a salad. It says to generously season the whole chicken breasts with salt and pepper, roast in a oven-safe pan on medium-high heat to get a good crust going, then finish in a preheated 180 °C (360 F) to 200 °C (400 F) oven for 15-20 minutes. Check the core temperature with an instant-read thermometer to make sure it's cooked properly. Let rest a few minutes, then shred by hand or with forks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.105292
| 2010-08-06T12:24:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4443",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Lisa",
"Luciano",
"Martina Matzova",
"Nick",
"Rake36",
"Rich Armstrong",
"Roman",
"Timothy Johnson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8384",
"sleep-er",
"speedyGonzales"
],
"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
}
|
2121
|
mysterious green middle eastern plums
I was on a trip to the middle east a year or so ago around mid spring. I was offered what looked like a green plum.
The taste was very sour and hard (not soft like a plum). The locals called it "janarek" and for the life of me I can't find it here in North America.
The closest I've found were the yellow and golden plums
the mysterious green plums I'm talking about are a bit smaller and lot crunchier.
any ideas on what its name, and where I can buy it from?
Maybe you had the Greengage plum.
do you know if we can buy them online somewhere, here in north america?
I have only seen the jam online. Not even preserves.
I believe these are also known as Greengages in English speaking countries (well, in the UK, at least)
I recently sampled these at a Babylon Market in Tucson, Arizona. The owner called them "green plums" but also the name you mentioned, "janarek." He said they're not easy to find -- he gets them from a company in California that imports them. You might look around for a Middle Eastern market = )
you can also find them in Columbia, MD 21045
did some research, they are actually Sour Green plums OR Sour Cherry Plums… but not regular plums
http://parsmarketcolumbia.blogspot.com/2013/04/greengages-or-green-plum-now-is.html
The sour cherry plum...Goje sabz, literally translated as green tomato or sour green plums, is said to grow mainly in the mountain areas of Iran. Karaj, in the western part of Tehran is also considered as one of the main growing and producing areas. This self fertile round green plums is often picked before it is fully ripe and eaten fresh or cooked by itself or with sour cherries. The local usually eat them sprinkled and spiced with salt and hence are made into 'goje sabz,' a popular pastime indulgence especially among the ladies.
I’m in Calgary, Canada, and I’m originally from Syria.
We always wait for the month of May to eat
"Janarik"
They are the yummiest thing you can ever eat in your life.
So I found them yesterday at our local Arabic store here in Calgary.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.106024
| 2010-07-19T18:54:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2121",
"authors": [
"Bob Roberts",
"Jeff",
"Jordan Reiter",
"Rob",
"dassouki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87",
"mishmash",
"papin",
"yanjost"
],
"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
}
|
11399
|
How to make muesli/granola bars crunchier?
I made a simple muesli bar yesterday, and being lazy, I just left it in the dehydrator for some 3-4 good hours or so. The mix is composed of the following ingredients:
Oats mix (the ones that are already a mix)
Wheat germ
A bit of chocolate whey protein (the kind bodybuilders use)
Unsalted whole peanuts
I just mixed them with honey and milk, spread them to even thickness (around 1 inch?) on top of a baking sheet, and put them in the food dehydrator for said 3-4 hours.
The taste turned out OK (it seems to have lost some sweetness from dehydration?) but it's not crunchy enough.
Would leaving it on the dehydrator (on the highest heat) longer do the trick for making it crunchy, or would I have to use the oven no matter what?
Quantities matter. Most off-the-shelf granolas are basically brittles for the level of sweetener used.
I would use the oven. The dehydrator will obviously remove water, but it won't toast the granola like an oven would.
You could always try super-dehydrating half a batch and ovening another.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.106240
| 2011-01-24T00:15:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11399",
"authors": [
"AdamO",
"Antony",
"Matt Wester",
"Nasreen Zahida",
"ericbakes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23448"
],
"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
}
|
11465
|
Can I cook my haggis from frozen?
It's Burn's Night and I want to cook some Haggis. I froze my Haggis over a week ago. The packet advises to 'fully defrost before cooking'. After which it advises a 90 minute blast in the oven (or less so in microwave, but I would much prever oven).
It's 7p.m. here and I would love to eat my haggis tonight, is this feasible? How should I defrost it? Can I (as I'm tempted to) just stick it in the oven and let it cook through?
welcome to seasoned advice !!
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7779/i-need-to-quickly-and-safely-thaw-frozen-ground-beef-what-are-my-options
Good god, is there such a thing as frozen haggis?
You 'can' cook it from frozen, knowing that a few things will suffer. First, the outside will be somewhat dried out and over-cooked before it is done in the center, depending on how hot the oven is and the cooking time. That being said, if your Haggis is pre-cooked, it should be OK.
You can also 'Hurry up ' the defrosting process by putting it under running water. This can affect texture, depending on what you are defrosting.
Finally, you can speed-defrost something by using warm running water, but this carries SOME SERIOUS RISK if you don't cook it right away. The bacteria will love the warmth and will start to multiply, but I have done this many times when I knew I was using a meat immediately.
I went for the sausages instead. We'll save the haggis for when I've got time to defrost. Thanks for the pointer
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.106368
| 2011-01-25T18:55:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11465",
"authors": [
"Andy Smith",
"BoydDensmore",
"Frank Schwieterman",
"Ian Cordle",
"Joe",
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13268
|
Store eggs upside down or not?
This may be an odd question, but someone told me it's better to store your eggs upside down (the pointy side down).
The explanation was that there's an air bubble on the bottom of the egg that wants to go up.
If you put it upside down, the pressure on the membrane is less and it stays longer.
Is there any truth about this?
Excellent quetsion, I've heard this too
By "it stays longer" do you mean that the egg stays good longer or the membrane/air pocket stays around longer?
I don't know why you would care about the air pocket so I'll go with the other.
Orientation is not going to noticeably affect egg quality. I don't use egg cartons. I store my eggs in plastic tubs (carefully). The eggs end up in a random orientation and there is no noticeable difference between any two eggs.
I have heard to people storing the eggs differently to center the yolks in preparation for boiling. This is purely a cosmetic thing.
I'm not sure what I meant either ;-) Perhaps if there's a constant pressure on the membrane, the membrane will become thinner, so the egg would go bad a bit more rapidly than if you'd store it upside down. I'm just curious if this would make any sense.
@Mien- the membrane breaking down doesn't make an egg go bad but is an indicator of freshness. My gut reaction is that it probably isn't worth worrying about. If you are buying eggs from the store then they are already so old that it won't matter. I'll do an experiment with the next dozen eggs that my chickens lay and I'll let you know.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.106519
| 2011-03-18T14:52:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13268",
"authors": [
"Andy Holmes",
"Mien",
"Sobachatina",
"fersarr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5162",
"nixy ",
"oliver_siegel",
"user27521"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13167
|
How do you make a cake lift equally and minimize doming?
Some time ago, I baked a cake (Sachertorte to be exact).
The taste and texture was fine, so my recipe is okay.
My biggest issue was the shape. In the middle it was really a lot higher than on the sides.
I would like to redo it in the near future, but preferably with a flat(ter) surface.
(Especially since I put icing on top and I don't want it to drip off this time.)
Anyone knows the cause of my problem, or even better a solution?
I think I put enough butter on the side of my springform pan, in case this is an option.
It could be that your oven isn't heating evenly, but that would more likely make one side higher. If it's puffing evenly around, I'm not sure of the cause.
It's evenly around.
And I don't remember if it was with convection oven or 'normal' oven.
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5163/correct-way-to-join-two-halves-of-sponge-cake
I you have two pans make two thin cakes. Cut some of the dome off with a bread knife. Either way Leave some on 'cause a dome screams lovingly home made, while perfectly flat says factory made and boring! Try a thicker icing?
@TFD: how long do you bake them, instead of one big cake? 2/3 of the normal time? Same temperature?
@Mien baking time depends on the recipe, and the equipment etc etc etc..... there is no such thing as "1 time fits all"
Why the doming happens
When you heat leavened dough, two things happen:
leavening agent creates bubbles, causing the soft dough to rise. For chemically leavened doughs (baking powder or baking soda), the amount of lift mostly depends on the time the bubble creating reaction goes on and the concentration of non-spent leavening agent.
The gluten in the dough sets, building a sturdy 3-d mesh of long, branchey molecules. When the mesh is strong enough, further bubbles cannot stretch it more, despite the fact that the leavening reaction is still going on. The setting of the mesh depends mostly on heat and the amount of gluten present in flour.
The pattern you are seeing means that your cake gets hotter on the sides than in the middle. The sides get set early and stop rising, while the middle is still soft and continues rising.
This happens because the walls of the pan conduct heat to the sides of the cake quicker than heat is conducted inside the cake. You see the phenomenon in an exaggarated form in a muffin, which is usually higher than wide: it is always rounded on top, and often split, because the liquid core from the middle continues to rise after a crust has formed on the surface.
How to prevent it
Slower heating
One good solution could involve a slower, more even heating method.
This can be accomplished by using a pan which insulates well. With an insulating pan, the sides will stay liquid longer and rise more. Unfortunately there are no insulated drop-out-bottom pans.
Porcelain
I have had good results in a porcelain or Pyrex pan. The pan insulates the cake from the bottom and the sides, but not from the top, so you will need to bake it on a lower rack and/or reduce temperature on the upper heater in order to not burn the upper surface.
Getting a cake layer out of the pan in one piece can be hard.
To deal with this problem, if your batter is not too sticky, the bottom of the pan can be lined with parchment paper. The sides can be lined with a strip of parchment or well lubricated with fat. This approach is a hassle.
Insulate a metal pan
Perhaps, when combined with other approaches, a metal cake pan with thicker walls will work well enough.
You could also try a more DIY solution, like attaching 2-3 layers of a cut-to-fit silicone rolling mat stripes to the outside of the walls of a metal pan. However, it is quite hard to come up with a good attachment method (glue could release toxic fumes at oven temperatures, if it holds at all). So this method should work, but is somewhat hard to apply.
Glass and silicone pans
There are pans with glass bottoms and silicone walls but I think these would not help because the glass would insulate better than the thin silicone.
Preheating
Perhaps preheating the detached bottom of a metal pan with the oven could help, but I haven't tried it.
Minimize the center
A second approach is to minimize the liquid core by making a thin cake.
If the middle of the cake is heated quickly enough from above and below, it will set shortly after the walls do, and there will be no unset center to "bloom".
Pre-shape the cake
If your batter is liquid, you cannot use this method. But if you are working with a batter that has a spoonable consistency, don't spread it level. Instead, spread it slightly concave, with a shallow dell in the middle. This will equalize while baking.
Use a bigger pan.
I think that Americans mostly use 9 inch pans, but if you used an original sacher recipe from Austria, it is probably meant for a 26 or a 28 cm pan.
Also, there is something I have noticed empirically, even though I don't have an explanation: if you bake the same batter in pans of different width, side-by-side in the same oven, and fill them to the same depth, the smaller diameter pans will tend to dome more. So, the size contributes a lot.
Bake the two layers separately
Divide the batter into two pans instead of making a single layer and cutting it. This is unorthodox, as you get more crust but it's better than a hunchbacked sacher. You should use a scale or at least a measuring jug to divide the batter, or you'll end up with different thicknesses. Also remember to reduce the baking time, as the core will heat up faster.
Use a toothpick for probing doneness.
Reduce the leavening
The third idea is to reduce the amount of leavening agent.
The walls will always set before the core and, if there is enough baking powder, the core will still expand a little bit more. If the concentration of baking powder is low you'll get less bubbles, so less lift.
Of course, using too little baking powder will also ruin the cake, so you'll have to be cautious and experiment a bit before hitting the correct amount.
Lower heat
The fourth approach is to give the outer portions of the cake more time to rise by baking at lower heat.
This is somewhat risky, as it can result in a different texture of the final product, due to the different rate at which water will evaporate from the dough and a longer baking time. Also, if your temperature is too low, you won't get a golden crust on a light-coloured dough. This should not be a problem for a frosted cake like the sacher.
Less gluten
The fifth approach is to use a flour with less gluten.
With less gluten you get a mesh which is less dense and needs more time until it gets firm enough to prevent rising. Use cake flour instead of all purpose flour. A bit more fat will also help to inhibit gluten development but too much will change the taste and texture.
All methods I described should attribute to a solution, but probably none of them will be sufficient by itself. You'll have to pick a combination of them and see what works best for you.
General Cake Techniques
You should also apply all the usual methods for getting a good cake:
measure with a scale
use room-temperature ingredients
sift your flour
only combine dry mix with fluid mix at the last moment before putting it into the oven
preheat the oven well
These techniques ensure a better batter texture, which means a more even heating. They will also ensure a more consistent leavening process because:
the ratio of leavening to other ingredients will be correct
the batter will be more thoroughly mixed
the leavening reaction will not start early
Not following these techniques is more likely to result in a lopsided cake or a big bubble. I realize that this hasn't happened in the case you describe, but it would be too bad to get an asymmetrically risen cake after you took all the precautions against a disproportionally rising center.
TLDR :) Very thorough!
and another thing to try is a wetwrap for the pan (Wilton happens to make one (I am not affiliated with Wilton)). This is an insulated cloth strip that you soak then wrap around the pan prior to putting it in the oven ... does an admirable job at keeping the cake cooking evenly (given that it's not too deep to start with)
Thorough, but definitely needs a TL;DR summary at the top.
+1 for bigger pan, or lower heat in case of smaller pan.
I use Pyrex, but I cook it at 220 degrees C and the exact same thing happens. Should I reduce it? There are no racks in my machine, just one. I make really simple cakes/.
I have never baked a cake that hasn't risen more in the middle than around the sides. Nor, I am almost certain, has anyone else.
Guess how pros get their cakes flat; they cut the top off! To be precise, they cut the top off (generally not totally flat though), then they turn the cake over so the nice flat bottom becomes the top. Then they ice (frost) it.
You can minimize doming, but there will always be a little bit of rounding on the edge. I don't slice that much off the top, but I cheat by turning the cake over, so I'm icing the bottom of the cake
Also the classic two-layer filled sponge cake. You make two thin, wide cakes, so the doming is less pronounced. You cut the top off one to make it completely flat, then you cover it with jam or icing (or both!) and plonk the other one on top.
I frequently make a cake that doesn't rise more in the middle. Of course, it doesn't contain any flour...
I've never made a flourless cake, therefore my statement holds true :D
The problem is just uneven rising because of when the different parts of the cake cook. The solution is to insulate your cake pan.
You can wrap your cake pan in a damp tea towel (reserve one or two just for this purpose) or there are special insulated strips that are sold specifically for this by baking supply stores. Basically it insulates the outside part of the cake and the whole thing rises more evenly.
You might also want to tap your pan to distribute batter evenly and remove air bubbles before putting it in the oven, but this on its own is unlikely to get a flat cake.
Or use a bain-marie (and make sure your pan doesn't leak).
Apparently you can also end up with a peak in the middle due to under- or over-mixing your cake batter. Also, letting your batter sit too long before baking will affect rising if your recipe includes baking powder.
Bain-marie is an easy options and has always worked for me. Just submerge your cake pan into a bigger container full of water.
Use towel strips! http://judyscakes.blogspot.com/2011/01/making-cakes-rise-evenly.html
I cut mine to fit around the pan evenly and pin together.
I stumbled across this page about uneven baking of cakes. I bake about 2-3 cakes for special occasions each week. Doming can be a real issue so to ensure an even bake I use bake even strips. I attach an Amazon link where I purchased mine from but I am sure you can find them elsewhere. I bake 6, 8, 9, 10 and 14" cakes in aluminum pans 2" deep which I line with paper and a cake release oil. I use a rule that any sponge should be no more than 2" deep to allow the outside to cook in time with the middle. Any deeper cakes can result in an over bake on the edge to ensure a bake in the center. If there is a small dome in the middle of the cake I would always slice this off to give a flat top but I have found this to be minimal. The bands are soaked in tap eater prior to use (do this while making the cake batter), gently squeeze excess water and the wrap around the tin. I bake sponge cakes at no more that 150C (300F or Gas mark 2) on a low shelf. So basically a slow low temp cook but check you oven temp as they vary so much!
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bake-Even-Cake-Strips-Pkg-1-1-X36/dp/B004BQ3KM4/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1388777939&sr=8-2&keywords=bake+even+strips
I've read somewhere that if it's domed slightly, once you take the cake out of the oven, straight away push the dome down ever so gently with a kitchen towel. This will release any air that's built up in the dome. It works if the dome isn't very high.
A similar option is to invert it onto a wire cooling rack -- so then the weight of the cake is pushing down on the bulging part. This works if it's just slightly domed; if it's too much, the cake might split on you (as it won't have the internal strength 'til it's cooled)
Risky business, baking.
my cookery teacher always told me to scoop out a hollow in the centre and spread it to the edges. That way the centre is playing catch up. If you still have a dome you can compensate with icing/ slice the top off or turn the cake over. The latter works especially well for a fruit cake that will be fully iced. Turn over and fill gaps at bottom with marzipan before covering the whole cake.
I'm confused - surely it's just going to flow back into the middle? You must have some really thick cake batter.
Before cake is completely cooled, invert 1 of the layers. This becomes the bottom layer of your cake. Ice as you like then add second layer but DO NOT INVERT. This gives you the attractive slight doming effect without the cake breaking or cracking. I have done this for years without a problem. Hope it works as well for you as it does for me.
Haven't tried it with a Sacher, but encountered the doming problem with cheese cakes. In baking those now, I cover the spring form with heavy aluminum, fill a pan, larger than the spring form, with luke warm water, set the spring form in the water and bake. The results have been excellent with virtually no doming after the cake has cooled. Now that you gave me a better understanding of how and why doming occurs, I'll be trying the same method with a Schwarzwaelder Kirschtorte in a couple of days and see how it does.
Pete
Most springform pans will not be watertight enough...
Ok, I am late coming to this question, but the simple solution is to turn the baked cake OVER. you get a flat top by making the bottom become the top. Once it has been iced it doesn't matter....
But wouldn't it crack? There was a height difference of almost 2 inch (5 cm) between the middle and the sides. And not really hill-like, more vulcano-like.
My experience is that the cake will even out once inverted.
A 2 inch dome is quite pronounced, maybe you'd need to trim some of it but icing the bottom would still give you the best finish. If you turn the cake out while still warm it seems to flatten the dome quite a bit though.
Yeah, I could see this being a pretty bad idea for crumblier, heavier cakes.
Maybe use a carboard cake round, put it against the top of the cake, THEN invert, so as to avoid the drop. But a large dome might still stress the bottom surface and crack it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.106725
| 2011-03-15T18:19:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13167",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Agos",
"Allison",
"Annabell Mwangi",
"Anshuman Kumar",
"Cascabel",
"Cheryl George",
"Cos Callis",
"Edwin",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Joe",
"Justin",
"Martha F.",
"Marti",
"Mazura",
"Mien",
"Mr Shane",
"Preston",
"Rob Bos",
"Robert C Kusel",
"S M Abrar Jahin",
"Samuel Yarbrough",
"Seth",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"TvE",
"Zach Lipton",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96932",
"nathanchere",
"nico",
"rackandboneman",
"reggie",
"sat",
"sh3rifme",
"slim",
"vwiggins",
"warren"
],
"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
}
|
19030
|
How to recover jam that is too liquid?
I made redcurrant jam some months ago, with sugar/pectin-mix. I used the appropriate amount. However, the mix was very old (+5 years). I tried it anyway. The jam turned out like a syrup, it is very liquid, but the taste is fine.
If I heat my jam/syrup and I add some new-bought pectin, would it turn out fine?
I would just use it as-is, in glazes and such. Or put some in a tall glass and add seltzer water to make a lovely drink.
I put some on my panna cotta last week, but there are still a lot of jars waiting for a purpose.
I have done this before and it has worked for me. It should work, but if it doesn't, I know what will. My aunt sold Jam for a while and when the pectin didn't work she reheated and added a small amount of gelatin, I helped her stir it in, and that was the final fix for her bad mix.
If you have a bit of sun (as it is a summertime method);
* Pour the jam into a tray and leave it under the sun for some days. Check and stir the jam time to time until it reaches to desired thichness.
*The top of the tray should be covered with a thin cotton cloth/muslin in case any dust etc. not to get into the jam while it is still having sun and breating.
Otherwise I would use it to prepare lovely drinks as Marti suggested instead of boiling it again.
This is climate dependent. I wouldn't use it in Belgium, the climate isn't hot or dry enough even in the summer. Southern Europe and similar climates, it should be OK, if the jam is sugary enough to not spoil.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.108009
| 2011-11-20T18:31:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19030",
"authors": [
"Artemis_134",
"Marc",
"Marti",
"Mien",
"Serhii Sokolenko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21561
|
How careful do you have to be with adding flour for kneading?
When you're working a dough (kneading or rolling out), instructions often say to flour the surface you're working on and your rolling pin or hands. This helps the dough to stick less. However, I always am very careful that I don't use too much flour, because I'm afraid this will change the recipe. Is this fear irrational or would I need to use a lot to have an effect on the result? Is there a certain percentage of original amount of flour that you can't surpass?
I'm particularly asking about bread dough, but I think this will also apply to other doughs. I guess it would have more rapidly an effect on wetter doughs in general, but I'm not sure. So feel free to include broader answers.
Don't worry too much about it.
Be careful that some doughs are wet (high hydration - look at my question here), so they tend to stick more and are harder to manage.
If a dough is hard to manage, just let it sit in the fridge for a couple of hours. It will become tougher and easier to handle.
If you keep on adding flour, this will alter the bread formula (affecting the salt content and hydration), an additional percent or two flour won't make much of a difference.
50 or 100g will make quite a difference depending on how much dough you're working with. If you're only doing 500g of flour, 100g would take you from from 60% to 50% hydration. This will still make bread, but it will be different than what you wanted. OTOH, dusting with 100g of flour, that's a pretty large work surface!
@derobert I often work with 350 g flour only, and seeing that a heaped tablespoon of flour is over 25 gr, I can easily go to 100 g added in the course of 10 minutes of hand kneading and repeatedly adding flour when the dough starts to stick. So yes, with a wet dough, it is easy to change the hydration a lot.
@derobert, of course it will make a huge difference depending on the amount of flour you start with. The point I'm trying to make is not to be too careful about it, which is what the OP was asking.
@BaffledCook: well, then I've edited your last paragraph to clarify that it doesn't matter much, as long as its small relative to the amount in the dough. Naturally, feel free to revert if you don't like my change.
@derobert, be my guest, I always welcome improvements :-)
At the end of the day, you need to use as much flour as necessary to ensure the dough is not sticking. It's a lot worse to deal with a dough that is stuck to a pin or that is stuck to the table. The only time I've ever been told to watch how much flour to use for dusting was when I went to school, and that is because my teacher was a cheap old bugger (or so I thought at the time). Throughout the day, we would scrape this excess dusting flour into a container, and always reuse it into new doughs. As I said, at the time I thought it was cheap, but when i started running my own shops, I always did this too, any bit to help the old G.P.
However, realistically, you needn't worry about using too much dusting flour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.108167
| 2012-02-21T16:46:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21561",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Qrystal MqKenzie",
"TheSmallestOne",
"Tyler Slater",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44800
|
What's a good substitute for onion for someone with an onion allergy?
I am an allium lover with a strong allergy to all alliums. It is technically a sensitivity, as it isn't an instant reaction, but spending an hour in the bathroom because of one stray piece of red onion warrants a scarier word then "sensitivity". For those not familiar with plant taxonomy, alliums are the plant family that holds garlic, onions, chives, and leeks.
My allergy is progressively getting stronger and I can no longer lie to myself. I need a good substitute for that fantastic allium taste. Right now I can still eat garlic in reasonable amounts (thank god), but red onions are out, and everything else from white onions to leeks is somewhere in between. Any and all preparations of allium trigger the allergy, so no onion powder.
I am desperately looking for a non-allium onion substitute. My hope and dream is something that tastes like onion but isn't an allium. I would accept any strongly flavoured class of plants to switch addictions to.
related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/2596/67 (possible duplicate, although that one didn't say all aliums were an issue)
Sorry, I missed that one in my search. I shall have to be more thourough in the future.
With a wife who has dealt with a true honest, deathly allergy to onions, please distinguish between an allergy and a severe intolerance or sensitivity. My wife's reactions in the past have included instant hospital trips to emergency because of a minor cross contamination. I'm not saying you do or don't have an allergy, but as there is a difference, it'd be helpful if you didn't use the terms interchangeably. People may need to take different precautions when dealing with someone with a severe allergy. Thanks...
As far as the term to use, since @talon8 mentioned it, I tend to use "intolerance" for my own inability to stomach foods with any capsaicin (the stuff in chiili peppers) an any quantity - "intolerance" is a stronger word than sensitivity, for people who might not take it seriously... and some people are quite unhappy with the use of "allergy" for anything other than a histamine reaction - even if allergies span the list of severity in the same way, from mild to severe.
The perfect solution to you - Use the Indian spice called "Asafoetida" or "Hing". It gives a taste which is very much like Onion and Garlic - In fact, stricter practitioners of Hinduism are not allowed to eat onion and garlic (as supposedly they cause mental agitation). Thus, traditional Hindu (Vedic) cooking uses Asafoetida as a subsitute for onion in Indian recipes which almost invariably call for the use of onions.
The spice gives off a slightly funky smell (I like it, but most people describe it as bad), but tastes great. It is easily available in powdered form in Indian grocery stores - and usually comes in small containters such as this:
It has a VERY strong taste, so put a very small amount of it - about a 1/4 of a teaspoon for a dish that's meant or 4 people. Usually in Indian cooking it is quickly fried to get rid of the "raw" taste. I am not sure how well it tastes in salads, you'd have to experiment with it.
For the salad front, you might be able to cook it in the oil, then cool and use the oil to make a vinaigrette.
@Joe salad tadka :)
I'm highly allergic to onions - start coughing from the smell. I broke out in a rash head to toe plus symptoms of going into anaphylaxis two years ago, so carry an epipen and benedryl.
I use green peppers to substitute. Green peppers work well with making your own spaghetti sauce.
I use red peppers for the added sweetness when making sloppy joes from scratch.
Celery works well for tuna salad.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice SE. :)
Hi ive been cooking all my life and my soul mate hates onions and garlic, so she substitutes them for carrots. Surprisingly it does the job very well!
I could see the sweetness and texture similarities if cooked correctly ... what sort of dishes are you making?
We make everything from quiche to stir fry, salads. Asian dishes and Italian pasta and soups of course
Depending on where you are and whether you are interested in foraging, garlic mustard may be an option - not for onions and not for “bulk”, but for garlic.
It’s not a member of the alliums, but a brassica, so should be harmless.
Note that the aroma is heat-sensitive, so it should not be cooked. Use it raw instead.
As with all foraging, use proper caution. Make sure you can identify the plant (the scent is very distinctive) and don’t pick plants from possibly contaminated areas.
Try Bear Garlic. It is a green grass-like herb that tastes and smells great like alliums.
But while it tastes nice, it is an allium: A. ursinum. Your suggestion will likely trigger a reaction as well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.108449
| 2014-06-12T04:29:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44800",
"authors": [
"DrRanen801 spam",
"Erin Kenny",
"Joe",
"Kamil Drakari",
"Maddie",
"Megha",
"Professional Disaster",
"Sammy",
"Spammer",
"Stephie",
"elbrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25399",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72445",
"paemon saiedi",
"rackandboneman",
"talon8",
"user106493",
"user25399"
],
"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
}
|
51863
|
How to know potato is done without poking it to check softness?
I can never get potatoes boiled just right. They're either over or under cooked. When I think they could be about done, I poke one or two with a knife but then that one splits and cooks faster than others. It also spills the potato juices in the water, and I don't like to do that, which is why I boil whole potatoes and not sliced.
Is there a way to know potatoes have attained just the right level of doneness without poking them with a knife or fork?
It sounds more like you're testing it wrong. Grab a potato with a slotted spoon or a pair of tongs. Take a thin, sharp knife, and stab it about 3/4 of the way through, aligned with the longest axis of the potato. Lift the knife and shake gently. If the potato falls off from its own weight, it's done. If you have to use the spoon or tongs to force the potato off the knife, it needs to cook longer.
how is that different than what i described how i was doing it?
@amphibent : I didn't know what you qualified as 'poking' (some people slice almost all the way through the potato). Or what size knife you were using. (a heavy chef knife will do much more damage than a paring or boning knife). As I don't have the same issues that you're having, there's either a difference in our testing, or our cooking process.
@amphibient, boiling whole potatoes might be your problem. If the potato splits after you poke it, it is done or you've sliced it and not poked it. If all of your potatoes aren't getting done at the same time it's due to lack of uniformity of the sizes.
If you poke a potato and it falls apart... It's over cooked. Simple. Or just pull one out and try and eat it?
i am trying to avoid poking...
If you don't want to poke it, uniform potato sizes and sous vide are the way to go.
What's wrong with poking? It does not effect the cooking process, or the majority of the potato in any way
Great question easy fix as I had the same issue. Set aside or add a couple extra chunks or potatoes that is just for testing. When you test a chunk toss it, the test potatoe will be representative of how the other potatoes are cooking, it allows you to puncture without compromising the rest of the batch.
I think the problem is how the potatoes are being poked, and maybe in how they are "boiled".
If done well, then the potatoes should not split and cause trouble with cooking.
To do this correctly, you want to use a very sharp knife with a thin and not too tall of a blade. Typically, I use a paring or boning knife.
Select a potato to be tested. It should be the one of the largest ones being cooked.
Remove the potato to be tested from the water with a pair of tongs.
Line your knife up with the potato so the height of the knife is the longest axis (so there's as much potato above and below the knife as possible).
Stab straight into the potato, about 2/3 to 3/4 of the way into the potato. Do not go all the way through the potato.
Lift the knife, with the potato pointed down, and possibly shake the knife slightly. If the potato comes off, then it's done.
If the potato does not come off, then you want to use the tongs (or a folded over dry paper towel) to grab the potato and pull your knife straight out. You could also slide a fork around the knife to push it off. Do not cut into the potato to release the knife.
This will leave a minimum amount of damage to the potato, and shouldn't cause it to split in half or significantly affect how much starch leaches into the water.
This also assumes that you're only doing this a few times. If you're testing more than 3 times, you may need to wait longer before your first test, or longer in between tests.
If you're cooking extremely small potatoes, then it might be difficult to find a potato that's sufficiently larger than the size of your knife.
You should also be simmering potatoes. A rolling boil is not desired, and the agitation of the potatoes may cause more starch to be released. Once the water comes to a boil, turn the heat down so you're only getting an occasional bubble coming to the surface of the water.
Have the same kind of potatoes always (at least for a couple of weeks at a time) and keep a record of how long you did cook them and how they turned out. If underdone by a bit, lengthen cook time by a bit for the next try. And if 'overdone' shorten the cook time.
Of course you always prepare the potatoes for cooking the same, if you cut, you cut to the same (equal all over) size and if you do not peel, you select your potatoes to all have the same size and general shape.
When you think (or your timer tell you) they are almost done, you use the knife or fork and test a few. They should all be as done as the others.
If they are not, steam them.
For potatoes that do not cook reliably, you can always steam your potatoes for a few minutes (or longer) at the end of the regular cooking time.
Steaming potatoes is done in a pan with a lid, drained so there is almost no water left in the pan, and put it back on a low heat (fire on the lowest setting) and leave it for a few minutes. Depending on the heat settings, you may want to shake the potatoes a few times.
Then you take off the lid and let the potatoes dry, still on low heat and shaken more often.
I have learned this for peeled potatoes, but I guess it will also work for those cooked in the peel.
Two hints:
The color of the potato peel slightly lightens sometimes even getting transparent if it is a thin one.
The skin starts peeling a little from somewhere since the heat tries to escape out of it!!
This is an unreliable test. If you started in hot water and have large potatoes, the outside will be cooked way before the middle of the potato is done.
Thats why I said hints! I guess just by looking at it even pros will not be able to give a reliable answer!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.108889
| 2014-12-22T18:15:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51863",
"authors": [
"Bus Tech 59",
"Doug",
"Jignesh Shah",
"Joe",
"Ming",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Nancy Otte",
"Neels",
"Sheri Saul",
"TFD",
"amphibient",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"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
}
|
108562
|
Has anyone ever made margarine out of butter?
It occurred to me that since margarine can be made by emulsifying fats with a suitable level of saturation with water to simulate butter, and clarifying butter is essentially just breaking the emulsion, driving off the water, and removing some solids. So it seems to me that it should be possible to turn clarified butter into margarine by emulsifying it with water.
Doing this would probably be pointless, but I'm curious if anyone has done it just for the sake of having done it?
I'm not talking about margarine with butter derived flavouring or anything like that. This is specifically about using butter as the fat in a margarine without significant additions or alterations to it beyond clarifying it normally and then emulsifying into margarine normally.
Isn't margarine defined as a butter substitute? It's just a butter-free, water-fat emulsion. Butter is already a water-fat emulsion. ...not sure I get the point.
So... it would be de-clarified butter ?
@moscafj There is no point beyond curiosity. Rather like turning soap into oil and then using it to cook with. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAieBBeS7Ss It's not useful, but it's an interesting idea.
@Criggie Yes at one point my title was "Has anyone ever declarified butter?" but I decided this was clearer. Also I'm sure the question of whether the result would be "Butter", "Margarine", or both at the same time has the potential for a great deal of argument. I'm more interested in whether anyone has done it regardless of the semantics.
@smithkm, from my perspective, since the definition of margarine is a butter-free emulsion, margarine made from butter cannot exist.
Clarifying butter is about removing milk proteins, not really the reverse of the emulsification process.
@moscafj The semantics are not what this question is about. Whether the result is butter, margarine, both, or neither. can be another question. I'm sure any way I phrased it someone would take issue with it. My concern is with using clarified butter as as the fat in the process by which margarine is formed.
I’m voting to close this question because it is not about a practical problem of cooking.
Hi smithkm, we, as all Stackexchange sites, are particular about the type of question we can deal with. In the [help], you can see that we require questions to have practical use for cooking. Also, we require there to be an answer knowable by cooks, so voting has a chance to show you the "truth". Instances of human behavior are not suitable - if the true answer is "no", none of us can prove that.
You may be allowed to sell butter as margarine since the the composition of the lipids for margarine allows also bovine lipids in general and butter fat in particular (and some margarines partially consist of butter fat).
But it doesn't make sense economically: margarines are butter substitutes prepared from cheaper lipids (mostly(?) vegetable oils that are hardened: saturated, but also e.g. tallow).
When you clarify butter, you keep the lipid fracton, the butter fat. For margarines in the usual sense of the word, the lipid fraction of the margarine will not be the same as butter fat.
I see from the comments that you are actually wondering whether the clarification process can be reversed.
The traditional clarification by heating is probably difficult, since the proteins undergo heat denaturation, and that is irreversible.
However, industrially, butter fat is apparently prepared by a cold process, and that may be more suitable. The product also has less fat (>96 % compared to 99.5 % with the heating process), while of the remainder only up to 0.2 % - so the remainder are probably mostly leftover proteins. (source, sorry, in German)
German language Wikipedia says about clarified butter (Butterschmalz)
Die europäische Butter wird zur Entwässerung – das entwässerte reine Fett ist das Butterschmalz – nur bis etwa 90 °C erhitzt und kann im Bedarfsfall durch Zugabe von Wasser wieder teilweise in Butter rückverwandelt werden. (Die Proteine bleiben denaturiert.) Ghee wird bei Temperaturen über 100 °C entwässert und ist gar nicht mehr in Butter rückführbar.
translation (deepl translator with small corrections):
For dehydration - the dehydrated pure fat is the clarified butter - European butter is only heated up to about 90 °C and can be partially reconverted into butter by adding water if necessary. (The proteins remain denatured.) Ghee is dehydrated at temperatures above 100 °C and can no longer be re-converted into butter.
Side note: in German, "Butterschmalz" (the clarified butter obtained by keeping the butter molten for a time, maybe half an hour: the protein denatures and one fraction sinks to the bottom, another fraction yields a "foam" and the water evaporates) is subtly different from "geklärte Butter" (literally clarified butter, prepared by melting and immediately taking off the foam and decanting from the whey fraction below the molten butter).
Apparently, there was a time when emulsifying clarified butter would have made sense:
German language Wikipedia on Butterschmalz:
Die Herstellung von Butterschmalz wurde eine Zeit lang von der EU subventioniert, um den (damaligen) Butterüberschuss („Butterberg“) abzubauen. Um eine Rückführung in Butter durch Emulgierung zu verhindern, was einem Subventionsbetrug gleichkäme, musste (gesetzlich vorgeschrieben) Stigmasterin dem Butterschmalz zugefügt werden, das dann als Indikator diente. Da der „Butterberg“ seit 2008 kein Problem mehr ist, endete die Subventionierung und mit ihr auch die Pflicht zur Beigabe von Stigmasterin.
translation, again deepl + a bit of help:
For a while, the EU subsidised the production of clarified butter in order to reduce the (then) butter surplus ("butter mountain"). In order to prevent a return to butter by emulsification, which would have been tantamount to subsidy fraud, stigmasterol (required by law) had to be added to the clarified butter, which served as an indicator. Since the "butter mountain" is no longer a problem since 2008, the subsidy and with it the obligation to add stigmasterol ended.
(Stigmasterol is a substance naturally occuring in plants and also in [some] vegetable oils, but not in butter)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.109524
| 2020-05-22T21:08:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108562",
"authors": [
"Criggie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho",
"smithkm"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78635
|
Looking for Rubbermaid "Servin' Saver™" container
I'm looking for a specific Rubbermaid "Servin' Saver™" container. My co workers and I are having trouble finding it. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
Measurements are 9 in x 4.5 in x 2 in.
Measured as length width and height
It is actually 'tupperware' brand? Are there any other markings on it?
@joe It is Rubbermaid it says 4 cups, 940 ml. It had a giant 5 on the right side with a square around it and under the Rubbermaid it says "Servin' Saver™"
Maybe they are discontinued ?
If this is for a commercial operation: Do rubbermaid not answer requests from business customers directly if asked?
It's considered 'vintage' (1980s?). I found the lid for $15 (plus shipping) : https://www.amazon.com/Vintage-Rubbermaid-Rectangularl-Replacement-Container/dp/B00MW672DS/ref=sr_1_5?s=home-garden&ie=UTF8&qid=1487785195&sr=1-5&keywords=rubbermaid+servin%27+saver
@joe it's close the height is too little but yeah they might be discontinued. Is it possible to ask them to make it for us?
I doubt the manufacturer would do a special run, but I found quite a few on eBay. Have you looked there?
No mind linking them?
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_trksid=p2050601.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.TRS0&_nkw=Rubbermaid+%E2%80%9CServin%27+Saver%E2%84%A2%E2%80%9D+container&_sacat=0
The reason I won't buy or use older (vintage) plastic food containers is there's been a big change in the chemistry of plastic over the years. Most (all?) of the old plastic absorbed the food's odor and tainted anything that was placed in it later. Any fats or oil in the stored food would end up, over time, reacting with the plastic leaving a sticky gummy feeling behind that no amount of detergent fixed. As well, a lot of older plastic food containers weren't really food safe. I'm still not 100% sure they all are now but a HUGE improvement to the older plastics.
@Jude Not used for food
Not used for food is perfectly acceptable then!
@Jude Yea the use we have for them needs those exact dimensions which is why I really need them
Hope you get them then.
@Jude it's been 3 years, no luck so far
These are listed as "vintage" on Amazon and eBay so I would think they are not being made any more. I found one on Amazon for $14.00 plus $5.49 shipping. There are some complete top and bottom sets on eBay but they are (relatively) expensive, around $15.00 each. I saw similar reusable containers on Amazon for a much more reasonable price, around $1-2.00 each.
And No, I am not affiliated with eBay or Amazon. :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.110049
| 2017-02-22T13:27:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78635",
"authors": [
"Giorgio",
"Joe",
"Jude",
"Kevin Hernandez",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
80931
|
What is a good substitute for avocado oil in Indian food recipes?
I am making dal and would like a suggestion for an oil that could be a substitute for avocado oil.
For dal, any oil will work because it is a fairly minor flavor component of the dish. The other flavors (I assume onion, garlic, and spices) will predominate. I have used vegetable oil, grape seed oil, and olive oil when making dal, all with no problems.
Coconut oil or ghee can be used. Both are commonly-used cooking oils in the Indian subcontinent.
I've lived in Sri Lanka for most of the last 14 years, and those are the only oils I use in my Sri Lankan/Indian cooking. They're also the only oils my Sri Lankan mother in law uses.
Mostly it depends of what kind of Dal you are making. But generally for dal you can use any Oil , Ghee or Butter. But more preferably Sunflower oil. You'll love the taste and aroma of the dal once its done.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.110290
| 2017-04-14T23:18:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/80931",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
97497
|
Is bolognese better cooked with the meats being seared or just simply sweat without being seared?
Some recipes I have seen just sweat the meat then inserts the vegetables in them (so the meat is gray colored), but some recipes say you have to have them browned to have the maillard reaction give extra flavors.
I have watched several youtube videos regarding Bolognese recipes and all have different styles.
Besides subjectivity issues, as far bolognese is concerned these two links are quite detailed https://www.aifb.it/calendario-del-cibo/giornata-nazionale-del-ragu-alla-bolognese/ and http://www.itchefs-gvci.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=587&Itemid=976
Italian-language recipes vary a lot, but commonly they start with minced pancetta, then do the "sofrito" of vegetables in the rendered fat (maybe with oil, maybe not), then the meat which is almost always mince (ground). They seem to worry about browning the vegetables more than the meat. With mince, too much browning can create little pellets that never get tender.
"Better" is a matter of opinion. Recipes for bolognese vary widely. Both methods are possible. Try it both ways, see which one you prefer. My practice is that the meat is not seared. Because of the nature of the recipe, I usually have a lot of meat, it would certainly take longer to sear it in batches, as opposed to dumping it all in with the sweated vegetables.
Right experimentation is great but then it takes a lot of time to test several variations. I was hoping to start with a great recipe and tweak from there. Most recipes I find online and some youtube videos lack in depth of flavor. They only use 1-2 spices together with a 50/50 of ground beef/ground pork (sometimes with veal) carrots, celery, and onions, sometimes with stock or sometimes replaced with plum tomatoes, and tomato puree. But i'm used to a good tomato sauce with more depth in flavor and I find the ones online to be light and simple
I was just confused why it's not 100% seared in recipe when they say not having a maillard reaction loses flavor for the dish in general
@Pherdindy The Maillard reaction produces a different flavour, not a better one. Whether you think it's better is entirely subjective and no one on the internet can tell you which one you should prefer. I personally find that cooking the sauce for at least a couple of hours with few spices and aromatics gives a wonderful depth of flavour. My brother thinks it's incomplete without tons of spices. Neither is better.
Flavor from the maillard reaction is considered very desirable, it's why we barbecue or fry rather than poach burgers, so browning the meat is "better". I have tried it both ways with a bolognese and chili, the flavor from the browning when it is done right is noticeable and my tasters all preferred it to the non-browned product.
However, it's challenging to do that when making bolognese, I had to use a separate pan, browning the meat in batches, which was extra work and mess. It was enough work that I rarely do it that way.
Instead I do a hybrid method where I sweat the vegetables, then I push them to the side, crank up the heat and add one pack of the ground meat as a slab, smushing it out a bit to maximize surface area. After it gets a bit browned on one side I'll flip the meat to do the other side until browned, then add all the meat and sweat it all together. That way I get some browned flavor in there without that much extra work.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.110400
| 2019-04-15T15:27:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97497",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"Pherdindy",
"Pointy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71973",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37931
|
Sour Almonds use
We have loads of Almonds which have developed a strange back taste(maybe rancid) they are eatable but the flavor has changed probably due to extended storage , so we decided to extract oil out of it but is it good to use such almonds for oil? What are some other uses of such almonds?
If they truly are rancid, then you should just discard them. Any use of the almonds or their oil will just impart a terrible taste into the dish in which they are used.
If they have gone sour (I am not sure how that would be possible), then something is very wrong, perhaps an unusual type of spoilage, and similarly you should just discard them for safety reasons.
Either way, unfortunately, I don't think you should use them.
I dont know what to call it , I used sour in the sense of unpleasant flavour
Either way, why would you want to use almonds with an unpleasant flavor?
Because they are very expensive here and I have loads of them.
Sadly, it is a sunk cost. You put at risk anything you put them into, increasing the loss.
@Ali More than putting at risk the things you make with them, there's really just no point: if the almond flavor would be noticeable, the rancid flavor is going to be just as obvious, so either you might as well not have used them, or it'll be ruined.
So much this. If they are indeed rancid (and that seems the most likely way for nuts to go bad), it is fats that become rancid. If you extract oil from them, the oil will be rancid.
Throw them out! If they look funny or smell funny do not ingest them. I recently took a graduate level Mycology lab course where we learned about the dangers of the fungus Aspergillus producing extremely toxic metabolites called aflatoxins, especially in nuts. The metabolites can stick around through processing, so oil extraction won't "clean" the almonds if they have become rancid with this type of metabolite. Seriously, don't mess any old nut products. They can really make you sick.
so what about external use of the oil as a massaging oil?
@Ali This goes outside of the site scope. But in general, contact with poisons is not what you want to have, through stomach, skin or otherwise.
Yes. Aflatoxins can be absorbed through the skin. See abstract of study relating to this here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1473792
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.110708
| 2013-10-27T14:15:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37931",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cowthulhu",
"Gladys Sumaoang",
"Jaime",
"Marie",
"Privacy Name",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SourDoh",
"Watercrystal",
"bread101",
"election20",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89322",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55775
|
Can arabic gum substitute for fat in making ice cream from homogenized 3% fat (low fat) milk
Many articles suggest adding gum to ice cream batter to make it creamy , can this technique be used to add more gum to the milk to compensate for the low fat homogenized milk. Mostly recipes ask to add full cream along with milk, so if we don't want such a heavy cream ice cream can this or possibly some other technique work to compensate for the lesser fat to ensure a creamy store like ice cream?
I don't think I've tried this in ice cream, but a trick I picked up for sorbets (via looking at commercial product ingredient lists - often boring and full of things you can't get at home, but sometimes there's a useful nugget hiding in there) was to add pectin - the "regular" stuff, not the pink "low sugar" stuff (misleading - it's for "low sugar" canning, so it's mostly dextrose, or corn sugar - regular pectin is mostly pectin.) I'll use a tablespoon/15 ml for a 1.5 - 2 pint batch, and 3 Tablespoons/45 ml for a gallon batch (3 quarts liquid before freezing.)
Regular pectin mixes in quite nicely. The low sugar stuff is highly annoying (got a box by accident once - won't make that mistake again.)
I don't know if there's any compatibility issue with dairy (or not), I simply have never even thought to try it other than with sorbets/popsicles that are non-dairy. A quick look shows people using it to stiffen yogurt that isn't making it on it's own, so I think you'd be good there. For that matter, some lowfat/nonfat yogurt might also be a good ingredient for your lowfat ice "cream" attempts.
While I cannot comment on the use of arabic gum in ice cream recipes, I will share what I do to to help lower the fat in our homemade ice cream. I use a combination of Fat Free Sweetened Condensed Milk, Low Fat (2%) Evaporated Milk (you can also substitute fat free half and half or low fat milk) and unflavored gelatin as a base. Off of that base, my wife likes mocha chip (espresso powder, Kahlua and mini choc chips) and I like butter pecan. The end result is surprisingly rich and creamy and significantly lower in fat than using heavy cream and whole milk.
Based on comments, I have added the following: Both condensed milk and evaporated milk have had roughly 60% of the water removed. The final product is thick and creamy and I believe it is what helps make up for the fat, although it is just an educated guess. I have used unflavored gelatin in the past to help thicken depending on the recipe but as Ecnerwal suggested, pectin may work as well but I cannot confirm.
So.. you're replacing cream with sweetened condensed milk? Are you also reducing the sugar in the recipe?
Yes, I am replacing cream with fat free sweetened condensed milk (you can also use regular sweetened condensed milk if fat is no object. Since the condensed milk is already sweetened, it depends on the final flavor profile you are going for and how sweet you want it. I don't add any sugar for the mocha chip but for the butter pecan I add a brown sugar simple syrup and pecans for that butter pecan flavor. The other benefit of this method is it is no churn meaning I just mix it all together and freeze. If I am adding chips or nuts I partially freeze and then mix in so they stay distributed.
Also, there are a lot of ice cream recipes online that utilize condensed milk, fat free or regular, if one chooses to go this route :)
I'm asking about compared to a normal ice cream recipe with cream, milk, and sugar. It sounds like you're replacing the sugar and the cream with sweetened condensed milk, thus replacing fat and sugar with just sugar, i.e. you're just taking the fat out. It'd be good to be a bit more clear about that, because the OP is asking how to compensate for taking the fat out, and you're effectively saying "don't bother, just leave out the fat". (Also I'm a bit skeptical; in my experience that sort of substitution alters the texture, making it freeze harder.)
can you share the exact recipe with correct ingredients , can agar agar be used instead of gelatin?
@Jefromi..Since both condensed milk and evaporated milk have roughly 60% of the water removed, the thick creamy texture makes up for the lack of fat. I think that the "hard freeze" would come to bare if using only a lower fat milk where the fat is decreased and the water content is increased. I am by no means a scientist, only someone who enjoys ice cream and have found that both condensed milk products work well in my homemade ice cream.
@bread101....I am familiar with agar agar but have never used it. I am a little leery because every time I see someone use it on Chopped they screw it up:). As for your request for a recipe, I want to honor the rules of the site by not giving out a specific recipe. My suggestion is to Google condensed milk ice cream recipes and adapt them to your specific taste and health requirements :) I can only tell you that once I got my recipes down, my family and friends were delighted and ask me to make it more often than I should :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.110957
| 2015-03-16T18:34:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55775",
"authors": [
"Beach",
"Cascabel",
"Elizabeth Beltrami",
"John Davis",
"Lilith Macmahon Student",
"Lillian Arbelo",
"Newwindows",
"Nika Briney",
"Shanthi Sambanthan",
"William Belford",
"bread101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34217"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40422
|
Does kale taste sweeter and more flavorful after being frozen?
According to this wikipedia article it does.
However a chef at my restaurant had not heard of this.
The wikipedia article seems to be missing citations, and I don't have time to perform an experiment.
You have misread the Wikipedia quote. It says (emphasis added):
Kale freezes well and actually tastes sweeter and more flavourful after being exposed to a frost.
While not terribly well written (since there is the red herring that it freezes well), this doesn't mean that the harvested plant was frozen, but rather that the live plant in the ground was exposed to frost. This causes it to begin converting starches to sugars in preparation for winter, giving it a sweeter taste.
Per Burpee, for example:
Frost enhances the flavor. Some of the tastiest kale is harvested
under a foot of snow! Never harvest kale until after a hard frost or
two. A few freezing nights make all the difference in flavor as the
kale plants need a hard frost to transform their starches into natural
sugars.
but are you sure that this transformation cannot happen after harvesting? It happens when refrigerating harvested potatoes IIRC, so why not in kale?
@rumtscho I am not 100% certain not being a biologist, but normally if a vegetable is frozen after harvesting, it is left that way, and that would essentially shut down its metabolic processes. So I think this is a true inference in practice, even if there is some theoretical possibility the kale is harvested, frozen, thawed, and still not senescent and so continues starch to sugar conversion.
Parsnips are also sweeter after a frost, and I have picked, frozen, then used them to get the same effect
I found this online. Doesn't say anything about freezing, but frost does it too. So, I would think frost makes it sweeter.
http://garden.lovetoknow.com/wiki/8_Frost_Resistant_Vegetables
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.111394
| 2013-12-19T22:08:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40422",
"authors": [
"1darknight",
"Alena Barrett-Mace",
"Jennifer Gloria",
"Kate Gregory",
"Rob M.",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94018",
"longtng",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32495
|
Is a maple tree with a squirrel hole in it safe to tap?
I have a large maple in yard with hole in it. I am not sure if anything lives inside, but I see squirrels run in and out at times. Is it ok to use sap from that tree? Would it be safe? It is a large hole.
I find it encouraging that the CDC pages listing dangerous diseases transmitted by rodents does not mention squirrels (note that it mentions ground squirrels, but they are not the same), http://www.cdc.gov/rodents/diseases/direct.html. I take this as good evidence that there are no food safety issues involved - but I am not a medical professional, so please don't take it for granted and maybe check it with some kind of hotline for pest control, or disease prevention, if you can find one. After all, food poisoning is connected to excrements and I don't know how clean squirrel keep their holes.
With the disclaimer that I've never actually tapped a maple tree, I'm pretty sure this is okay, assuming the hole doesn't indicate the tree is unhealthy.
Everywhere I've seen, for example this guide says that you can tap trees as long as they're mature enough - at least 10-12 inches in diameter. I did find some references (like this one) which additionally say that you should only tap healthy trees. These guidelines are really just to make sure that tapping the tree doesn't harm it too much, and that the tree is actually going to be able to produce sufficient sap with enough sugar in it.
But a hole that squirrels play in? Plenty of trees have holes in them, and as long as we're not talking about a gaping wound in a sickly tree, it should be fine. The tree isn't actually exposed in the hole, unless it's recently created or extremely large.
Now, given that you say the hole is "large": trees grow over wounds, trying not to leave them exposed. If a wound is sufficiently large, it may not be able to repair it effectively. At this point, again, it's the tree's health that's the issue, not food safety - you don't want to tap a tree that's already struggling to heal. So if the hole is large enough to worry about this, you should inspect it: see if the tree has grown a new solid layer over the wound, or if it's exposed and decaying from the inside. If you want to know more details about what to look for, I'd suggest gardening.stackexchange.com; they'll be better at answering specifics about tree health than us!
The sap boiling process would take care of any diseases.
@JohnDyer Presumably yes, though cooking doesn't always make things safe. The point of my answer here, though, is that you should be worrying about the tree first, not food safety.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.111580
| 2013-03-07T19:53:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32495",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"John Dyer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1851
|
Substituting table salt or sea salt for kosher salt?
The roasted chicken recipe I'm following of course calls for kosher salt, but I don't have any, and getting some is out of the question.
I have sea salt and table salt on hand.
Can I substitute one of those instead, and if so, what is the proper ratio of the kosher salt the recipe calls for to either sea salt or table salt?
Out of curiosity, why is getting kosher salt unlikely? It's likely to be sold anywhere there is a restaurant, or it could be easily shipped most places you'd be likely to have reasonably fast access to this website.
Anyway, just curious.
@Peter Not everywhere ...
I don't know how well a substitution will work in this case, because I don't know how the salt is being used in the recipe.
If you're mixing the salt into something where it will dissolve, then go ahead and substitute, using the chart that @ManiacZX linked to. If you're mixing it into cold things, and it doesn't sit for very long, I'd go with a finer salt if you have it.
If it's a recipe that calls for a salt rub, where you rub the bird down with salt, let it sit, then pat dry and roast, you're not going to have as good of results with a replacement. The issue is the size and shape of the crystals; kosher salt specifically sticks well to moist surfaces to draw out the liquid, and as a result, some of the salt is taken into the meat. You're not going to get the same behavior with other salts (or at least, not in the same amount of time).
Thanks, I was looking for a general answer that took crystal size & shape into consideration... not an answer specific for this recipe.
Yes you can substitute.
If you are measuring by volume, e.g. 1/2 tsp then you need to adjust as appropriate for the size of the salt granules.
1 tsp of table salt is much more salt than 1 tsp of kosher salt. The tiny grains pack together much closer, giving you more salt.
That said, sea salt is typically closer to the size of kosher salt granules; so use that.
There is no hard and fast ratio. If the grains are smaller use a little less; if bigger use a little more.
Finally, if the recipe calls for salt by weight, then they are all equivalently interchangeable.
I'd also recommend sea salt because it's closer in flavor.
+1 for the advice around weight being equal. It may be a little obvious to some but it took a bit of Google foo to find the answer here
You can substitute between kosher, table and sea salt.
The issue in the amount for substitution is the difference of size in the grains of salt cause volume measurements to not equal the same amount of salt.
Here is a conversion chart from Morton, should be a good guideline.
http://www.mortonsalt.com/for-your-home/culinary-salts/salt-conversion-chart
People are missing a big factor in what defines Kosher salt -- the absence of any additives, especially iodine (as in iodized salt). If it is being used for the lactose-fermentation process, such as when making kimchi or sauerkraut, iodine will greatly affect the process in a very bad way, so something like Kosher salt is needed. The grain size is less important, but a larger grain is preferred.
It's possible to buy iodized kosher salt. Kosher salt is defined by the grain size (large flakes, appropriate for koshering [removing blood from] meat), not by the source or additives. If avoiding iodine (or other additives) is a goal, check the label carefully even on kosher salt.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.111916
| 2010-07-18T22:02:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1851",
"authors": [
"Bill B",
"Dolph",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Erica",
"Jason S.",
"Josh",
"Lareau",
"Mad Wombat",
"Magnus Nordlander",
"Martijn",
"Mike Sherov",
"Peter V",
"Rich Andrews",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99",
"james farrington"
],
"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
}
|
2215
|
What is ground beef?
I keep hearing about Ground Beef, but I'm from Australia and I've never actually seen it before.
Is it the same thing as Minced Beef? Or different? Is Minced beef an acceptible substitute if they're not the same thing?
What are you crazy Aussies doing now? Calling perfectly good ground beef, "minced beef"? Sheesh... ;)
We also eat Vegemite. If you've never had it, you're either missing out, or you've avoided the most vile substance on earth. I like it, but it's a polarising spread.
It's a cow with no legs
Here's a picture of some raw ground beef from the Wikipedia ground beef article so that you can see for yourself. Basically it is beef that has been run through a meat grinder, great for making taco meat, hamburgers, and the like.
That looks so good.
There's also a courser grind used for chili and the like: http://jennifercooks.com/chili-con-carne/
Yes, it is the same as minced beef.
American versus English english.
Hmm, I think I saw a question about British/Americanisms, I'll try to find it
There will be different grades of ground beef/round/chuck/etc. depending of fat content, but it's the same stuff.
@Farseeker : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/784/translating-cooking-terms-between-us-uk-au-ca
And to add an American regionalism, my mother-in-law (from NYC) calls the same stuff chopped (or chop) meat.
Chopped is not the same, meat particles in minced/ground beef are much smaller than in chopped beef. Chopping can be performed with a chopping knife, and mincing cannot :)
I've been trying to do a little research on this this, and I know that "ground beef" and "minced beef" are functionally similar, but I'm trying to verify that they're actually the same thing (as "mincing" and "grinding" are different processes.)
As they're produced from a different processes, it's possible that there might be some slight differences between the two (minor variations in texture). And of course, there's coarse grind vs. fine grind, and occassionally you can get a really coarse 'chili grind'. I've never lived in the UK, so I don't know how much variation there is in the size of minced beef. Also, for good quality ground meat, you need to keep the fats very cold so they don't melt; it's possible that that minced meat doesn't have as much friction involved, making this less likely, but I can't be certain that's the case. (can someone from the UK weigh in on this?)
And we can also throw in the term "hamburger meat" which is ground beef with extra fat trimmings, as well as "meatloaf mix" which is typically a blend of either beef and pork, or beef, pork and veal, and "mincemeat" which is a combination of meat, fruit and alcohol.
When i've seen ground meat on american cooking programmes,the meat is a lot finer than how UK mince meat ends up after browning in a pan. Mince meat is slightly chunkier.
Actually, some American foods are better with chunkier meat - try hamburger patties with hand-cleaved meat for example. But the Americans cook with whatever is available in their supermarkets, which could well be finer than the optimal for their food.
You can also get most specialty meat cutters to grind any cut of meat for you. Most ground beef you buy in the supermarket will be made from lower quality cuts. If you grind a higher quality cut you'll have the most amazing hamburgers ever. I never have time to cook a whole chuck roast so I end up having most of those larger cuts put into the ground beef when I purchase part of a cow.
Now that is a tasty burger.
Yeah, where I used to live we'd buy a tenderloin cut into filets from the local butcher and they would turn the trimmings into ground beef with it. Best hamburgers, tacos, etc ever.
@ManiacZX: Steak tartare is basically ground tenderloin with a raw egg and some spices. Much tastier than you'd think, but not for those who are worried about bacteria.
Just for reference, the official U.S. spec from 7 CFR § 319.15
(a) Chopped beef, ground beef. “Chopped Beef” or “Ground Beef” shall consist of chopped fresh and/or frozen beef with or without seasoning and without the addition of beef fat as such, shall not contain more than 30 percent fat, and shall not contain added water, phosphates, binders, or extenders. When beef cheek meat (trimmed beef cheeks) is used in the preparation of chopped or ground beef, the amount of such cheek meat shall be limited to 25 percent; and if in excess of natural proportions, its presence shall be declared on the label, in the ingredient statement required by §317.2 of this subchapter, if any, and otherwise contiguous to the name of the product.
I was pleased that the spec forbid "added water, phosphates, binders, or extenders" and toying around too much with the fat content.
Compare that to the gruesome Fabricated Steak further down on the page.
My hubby it's a chef & he says that ground meat is similar to sausage meat. In other words it is a kind of mince that is less chunky or finely ground. If you massage your mince beef it turns into ground beef. Hope that helps x
When you use the old fashioned mincing machine the Americans call it a grinder ,we call it a mincer ,so it must have been exactly the same in the olden days. Different qualities of mince in England contain different amounts of fat .the best quality hardly any fat!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.112248
| 2010-07-20T01:21:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2215",
"authors": [
"Abe",
"AuroraChrisma",
"Cerberus",
"Daniel Bingham",
"Gregbteaches",
"Jeffrey",
"Joe",
"John C",
"Luke Packenham",
"ManiacZX",
"Mark Henderson",
"Martha F.",
"Mischa Arefiev",
"Ray Mitchell",
"Ricardo Marimon",
"RichK",
"Satanicpuppy",
"TFD",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"gangleclums",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/917",
"ienrf",
"karlphillip",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4508
|
What is the ingredient that makes a Spanish paella so particular?
I have eaten paella in Spain; I then ate it in Italy, but it didn't taste like the one in Spain.
What is the ingredient that makes the Spanish paella so particular?
I remember they used a particular sauce for the meat (I have eaten both the Valencian paella and the seafood paella); if that is what makes the difference, what are the ingredients for that sauce?
I wasn't aware that Italy was particularly known for paella.
If you can find polenta in USA, then you can find paella in Italy too. :-) Italy is, indeed, not famous for paella (considering that paella is a Spanish dish), but you can find it in restaurants, and even as frozen food in supermarkets.
Yes, today Paella can be found pretty much anywhere. Somewhere, eluding me now, in on of my books on food history, or in research I did at some point, I found a reference indicating that certain areas of northern Italy had at one time been ruled by the Catalonians of Spain and some food historians believe that risotto is the result of paella originally being introduced during this reign and then over time turning it what we know as risotto today.
+1 for the interesting explanation of the origin of risotto.
@kiamlaluno: My point wasn't that it was hard to find, just that I wouldn't expect it to be much like Spain. Just like I imagine a lasagna here in the states isn't much like one in Italy.
@hobodave: In the same way you find people with Italian roots (if not Italian people) cooking in American restaurants (I went to Mamma Lombardi's restaurant in Long Island, and I am sure Lombardi is an Italian last name), you can find Spanish people cooking in Italian restaurants. Even if that would not be the case, getting the right recipe for the paella, and preparing it in Italy would not be difficult. I didnd't know all the ingredients for paella, and that is why I asked what gives the particular taste Valencian paella has.
@Darin: The crown of Aragon at one time (16th century) formally ruled Catalunya, Mallorca, Sardinia, Naples, and Sicily. This probably does help explain some culinary similarities.
The most prominent flavors in authentic paella are pimenton (smoked paprika), saffron, a sofrito of onion and tomato, garlic, and the broth.
Pimentón is not part of any paella recipe I'm aware of. In fact, saffron and pimentón don't mix well as the (relatively cheap) pimentón gives much more flavor than the (very expensive) saffron.
I'll cite a couple of examples: http://www.spanishtable.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=TST&Category_Code=receta and http://www.theperfectpantry.com/2006/09/spanish_paprika.html - google: paella recipe pimenton for plenty more
Also, onion is not part of the original paella recipe. Purists frown upon onion in paella.
@PA, the issue of onion in paella has been discussed elsewhere on this site: 1, 2.
Also, broth is not used for the authentic paella, it just uses pure water that boils the ingredients and thus becomes a broth in the pan.
When I studied abroad in Spain, I lived for 3 months with an elderly Spanish woman, who originally lived in Cuba (so I had some amazing food). Along with teaching me how to make tortilla (Spanish tortilla), she said that saffron was the special ingredient that made the paella special. I should add that to get the best flavor, you need to get real saffron, not the artificial kind. The only problem is real saffron is pretty expensive.
Saffron is cultivated in Italy and I have never seen artificial saffron, here. I agree that saffron can make the difference, but it was not that the particular taste I found; that doesn't mean the different taste between the paella I tasted in Spain and Italy could be caused by the quantity of used saffron (or by a combination of different ingredients).
The secret ingredients in paella are the socarrat and cooking with wood. Socarrat comes from the part of the rice browning and burning at the bottom of the pan, and thus slightly smoking the rest of it. Another part of the subtle smoked flavor comes from the wood.
The special ingredient of paella is saffron (as everybody else already confirms).
The best way of preparing saffron for your paella is to soak it in warm water at least 30 min. before you add it to any dish. Take care not to mix it with your broth as you are not going to use all of it. When the rice is ready to be cooked, first add one measure of boiling broth, then add the saffron infusion, then add the rest of the broth you need to measure out.
When buying saffron, look for threads, those are the stamps of the flowers. Don't buy the saffron powder. The powder is cheaper, but you can't be sure it wasn't adulterated. Saffron is very expensive, as it's very labor intensive.
Really real paella is cooked on vines. That will give a smoky flavor. But I don't think you'll find that in a restaurant.
Paella is cooked on wood, yes, but I've never heard of anyone using vines. In Valencia (the home of paella) they use wood from orange trees. And yes, good restaurants do cook over wood.
Saffron is very expensive, but a little goes a long way. When I add it to my paella, I add the amount called for to the broth and heat/steep it. It all goes into the paella. If you're removing it, maybe that's why you think the paprika overpowers the saffron.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.112972
| 2010-08-07T04:07:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4508",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Cherotich Abigail",
"Dan Fox",
"Darin Sehnert",
"Jacob G",
"Johnny5",
"Joshua King",
"Liz Phillips",
"Michael Natkin",
"PA.",
"Peter Taylor",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Santi Llobet",
"avernet",
"avpaderno",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8550",
"joe",
"rguenther"
],
"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
}
|
19343
|
What precautions should be taken while dropping cold vegetables in a hot Teflon cookware?
So, I use Teflon saucepans for cooking vegetables, only.
Tomatoes have to be added after the onions are done. Tomatoes have inherent water in them and are obviously below the pan's temperature.
I am afraid that in the long run it may ultimately damage the Teflon cookware.
What's the way out?
The only way out is to not use Teflon. Most people I talk to about cookware only ever use non-stick pans for eggs.
Tomatoes specifically will not damage your teflon pan any more than any other cold, wet vegetable. Teflon was used to store a form of uranium in the Manhattan Project because it's so nonreactive. Without it, uranium hexafluoride would eat through storage containers.
It sounds like you were also talking about thermal shock--which you can observe with a hot glass dropped in cold water. That happens on a very, very small scale with pans and food-to-be-heated. I think other factors--like scratching from spatulas and accidental overheating--would wear out the pan far, far sooner.
Teflon will slowly damage over time no matter how you treat it. Certain things will speed up this damage: too high heat, some metal tools, sandpaper. Unlike an aluminum pan, Teflon will not react to high acid foods like tomatoes by getting damaged. It is a non-reactive material.
You will see black flakes start to appear in your food when the original chemical bonding begins to fail on your pan, which should signal that you need to grab another one.
If I take full precautions, what can be the average life of the teflon vessel expected?
Depending on the pan, between 3 and 15 years. It mainly depends on the quality of the original bonding. The average is about ten years.
Also depends on how frequently you use it, and how you clean it.
You said Teflon will not react to high acid foods like tomatoes by getting damaged. It is a non-reactive material. but @FuzzyChef says Cooking tomatoes and other high-acid vegetables on teflon will speed up the deterioration of the teflon surface. Can any one of you provide references for your statements?
Anisha, Sarge Smith is correct and I am wrong. Editing my response below based on some research.
@FuzzyChef That's a relief :)
Water content of the vegetables has little or nothing to do with Teflon deterioration. The reason you add wet vegetables after "dry" ones is that the water content of the wet vegatables will prevent the dry ones from searing and carmelizing.
However, more to the point of the question, the way you should fry or saute vegetables in a non-stick pan is:
Pour oil into the pan
Heat the pan and oil to between 300F and 350F
Drop in vegetables
That being said, I personally use stainless or cast iron if I'm just frying vegetables.
EDIT: I previously posted some incorrect information about acidity and Teflon. I have removed this information based on research. As it turns out, Teflon is highly resistant to acids and would not be damaged by acidic foods in any way -- it can resist hydrochloric acid. Reference: http://www.calpaclab.com/pages/chart.html
BTW, it is also said that you shouldn't put cold water in hot Teflon pans, so tomatoes contain cold water, still they won't harm the vessel?
BTW, FuzzyChef If you don't write my name as @Anisha (when talking to me under someone else's post) I won't get the notification. My seeing the above comment of yours was a fluke.
The primary concern in the precaution against cold water on hot pans, Teflon or otherwise, is typically directed at running cold water from the tap over it (ie when rinsing to cool it down quickly before washing it). Tomatoes and other water bearing ingredients poise a negligible risk to warping relatively.
I regularly add stock and other cold/room temp ingredients and have not experienced warping in 8 years with an inexpensive pan set. how else could you fry an egg or deglaze a pan?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.113434
| 2011-12-03T08:20:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19343",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Arya",
"FuzzyChef",
"Joshua Snider",
"K erasmus",
"Lisa",
"Marco Breitig",
"Savannah",
"Trainsminny",
"Wilms",
"helen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"mir",
"sarge_smith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19344
|
Should hot water be added to the already hot cooked vegetables for making a curry or even room temperature/cool water would do?
Does it change the taste, the texture, or anything else?
And no, I am not referring to potatoes or anything specific. I am talking about vegetables in general.
This is my personal experience. It takes sometime to reach the boiling temperature (again) when you add colder water. As a result, vegetables get cooked for a longer period than anticipated. This makes some vegetables becoming mushy and not tasting as good as otherwise. (Example: Egg Plant) Therefore, I make sure to add the right amount of water in the first place.
It makes no difference to the taste or texture that I've ever noticed. It does, however, slow the process down a bit as you have to bring the water back up to a simmer from cold.
I moved the comment to an answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.113767
| 2011-12-03T08:27:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19344",
"authors": [
"Alan Francis",
"Eddie",
"M. Lindsay",
"Sony",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7824"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17197
|
What are different ways to roast Bell Peppers?
I was wondering if anyone had any tips for roasting bell peppers so that they get a nice blacked skin. I live in an apartment, and if I were to put the peppers directly on the burners, it would not go over too well. (I did start to do that, but when it started to heat, the pepper started to stick to the burner.) I tried to use my George Foreman grill, but wasn't able to get the char on the skin that I was looking for in order to take the skin off. (Note: the flavor did turn out well for what I was making, but I know it would be even better if they were charred.)
Thank you for your suggestions.
However you end up roasting it, if you want the skin off, put the peppers in a zip-top bag as soon as you remove them from the heat. Seal the bag and leave them for a few minutes, and the skin will loosen and slide right off.
Assuming by your wording, you don't have a bbq on a balcony. Another alternative to the broiler, is a blow torch to get the nice charing. :-)
http://www.open2.net/everwonderedfood/peppers_roastedpeppers.html
I LOVE this idea! And yes, I don't have a bbq on my balcony. But I do have a blow torch!
Who doesn't love a good excuse to break out the blow torch? I have fancy gadgets and am building a fancy kitchen. But my hardware propane torch is still one of my favourite kitchen tools. Nobody burn down your houses please.
Roasting them under the broiler creates a nice even color and flavor.
You also don't have to roast them whole. Cut the peppers into large slices and roast that way -- that will enable you to roast evenly without turning. I generally broil them skin-side up on a broiler pan.
Do this. You'll get the char you're seeking, and roast the flesh as well (which you may or may not get with the blowtorch method).
I'm no expert, but I think you were on the right track. Just wait some time for the bell peppers to come loose from the burners.
Good luck
I am just concerned that there would be bits of pepper left on the burners, and the ones that my apartment has are not easy to clean. :(
I guess you can just burn them off, anyway if you have an oven, try Cos Callis' method and use the broiler.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.113884
| 2011-08-27T23:02:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17197",
"authors": [
"Andrew",
"AtlasRN",
"BaffledCook",
"Betty",
"EmmyS",
"Martha F.",
"Queena de Laza",
"Sean Hart",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7185",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16228
|
What is the best way to convert recipes to gluten free, and how much xanthan gum is needed?
I am in the process of converting my boyfriend and myself to a gluten free regimen. I have had a lot of success with gluten free recipes, but I am now wanting to convert my previous recipes to gluten free ones.
My questions are:
For the flour portion, is it cup for cup? (one cup of regular flour for one cup of gluten free flour)
How much xanthan gum should be added per cup of gluten free flour?
Why are you both converting to gluten free? It seems unlikely you both have Coeliac, and gluten is an important part of the texture for many baked products.
Well, my brother was recently diagnosed with being gluten intolerant. So, in the off chance that I have it too, I don't want to wait to being diagnosed to change. Also, since we have been cutting gluten out, we have been having more energy and don't feel tired. So, it is a lifestyle change.
And with the baking, I have had so much success with my gluten free recipes. I have let friends try them, and they have no idea that the food is gluten free. So, I am starting to think that the gluten really isn't as important as one may think.
This was so helpul! I have been looking for a xanthan gum conversion!
Found the second answer to my question. Per each cup of gluten free flour, add one tsp of xanthan gum! Woo hoo!
Found the answer at allrecipes.com
This depends of course on what you are using for gluten-free flour, but according to Khymos' Data (PDF warning) and corroborated by my own experience, 1.5% is about the maximum concentration of xanthan you would ever use, beyond which food starts to get really slimy.
The recommended amount for flour is going to depend on exactly what kind of "gluten free flour" you are using. For example, you'll see at least two recipes in the link above, one using equal parts soy and rice/potato/corn starch and the other using rice flour and corn starch in approximately a 3:1 ratio (with tapioca starch added for what I presume to be heat stability).
However, xanthan gum is pretty forgiving, so you can experiment a little with the quantities and not have to worry too much. Personally, I would recommend starting with 1% as a baseline (that's approximately 1/2 tsp per cup) as well as 0.5% guar gum (1/4 tsp per cup). Guar gum has viscosity synergy with xanthan gum and will give you much more stabilizing bang for your buck.
If that's not stable enough, add up to 50% more (keeping the xanthan:guar in a 2:1 ratio). If it's too sticky/slimy, lower the quantity. Most recipes I've seen use close to a 1% ratio so that should be the best starting point.
Anyway to do it without using the guar gum? My friend uses it, and I never really liked it. The recipes that I currently use only call for xanthan gum.
@Atlas: You don't have to use guar gum, it just improves the result a whole lot. I'm not sure what you mean when you say you don't like it; it's completely undetectable taste-wise in the quantities you'd be using, it just makes the mixture behave more like flour. Feel free not to use it if you're sure there's something wrong with it, but don't up the xanthan to compensate.
I just didn't like the products that my friend put out when she used guar gum. When she used xanthan gum her recipes were much tastier. Hence will not be using guar gum.
This may not be a great answer, but Bob's Red Mill makes a great all-purpose, gluten-free flour that is 1:1. They also provide suggestions of the amount of xanthan gum to use, depending on the application (muffins, bread, pie crust, etc). Since cake flour has less gluten than all purpose, and bread flour has the most gluten...you can vary the amount of xanthan gum to simulate this without gluten.
This mix has a high content of bean flour. I find the taste ruins some baking. For example, while I find it makes good banana bread, it absolutely ruined a batch of sticky buns. They smelled awful before and after baking and had to be thrown out. The flour mix was not spoiled.
A confirmation and two suggestions, although this topic seems quite old.
1) The confirmation:
I have been using xanthan in the 1/2 tsp per 1 cup proportion stated above and it works beautifully. If you consider a cup to be 140 g of flour and a tsp to be about 2 g xanthan, that's 0.7% ... often rounded up to 1% because I don't like doing maths when I can avoid it.
2) The first suggestion: bake by weight if you can get used to the metric system. Measuring is more accurate, as you don't have to deal with packing cups, and percentages become much simpler that in volume or imperial.
3) The second suggestion: try psyllium husk. It tends to be cheaper and it makes you regular without adding taste.
I have been substituting xanthan by equal amounts of psyllium (by weight) and it works well for most low gluten recipes (pie crust, cakes, etc.). For bread you might want to go as high as 40-50g per loaf but psyllium mucilage becomes strong enough to trap fermentation gasses and allow the dough to rise. Hydrate it first or top the recipe with some extra water.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.114114
| 2011-07-17T22:09:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16228",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"AtlasRN",
"BobMcGee",
"FROST",
"John",
"Kate",
"NKY Homesteading",
"Rebecca Rosen",
"Sabine",
"Swoogan",
"geometrian",
"guest",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6499",
"user852367",
"valar morghulis"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78071
|
What nondairy milk does not curdle when heated?
I like to heat my milk for coffee (and use the microwave to do so) but I find with Soya Milk it curdles. Does anyone know of any other non-dairy milk that one can heat in a microwave please?
Curdles during heating, or curdles when mixed into coffee (which some brands of soymilk have a known tendency to)?
Hi, thanks for your comment (taken me a while to figure out and get into the site) yes I think you're right, it curdles when mixed with the coffee. Must be some kind of chemical reaction presumably as soya milk is absolutely find in tea.
related https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94595/why-does-coconut-milk-separate-in-coffee
Assuming the curdling happens when added to the coffee:
Hot soymilk is even more sensitive to curdling from acids than dairy milk. UHT (soymilk, not dairy) varieties are generally considered less prone to that effect, trying these might be worth it.
Oatmilk is often considered the best nondairy alternative for this scenario.
If palatable, this trick could also help:
Why does salt prevent soy milk from curdling in hot coffee?
Very interesting! I'll definitely try the salt test. But equally will try some oat milk - not sure I've even seen it in the supermarket but will go on a hunt. Thanks!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.114605
| 2017-02-03T16:07:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78071",
"authors": [
"Alison",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54296",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109515
|
Alternative to Wisconsin Brick Cheese
I just came across a pizza recipe that requires Wisconsin Brick Cheese.
It kind of looks like Cheddar or Emmental, however I do not know by taste.
As I am living in Portugal, finding that cheese is not that easy, so I am wondering if there are alternatives to this type of cheese, ideally from European countries, if from Portugal, the better (but I am open to alternatives available worldwide).
The page you link to gives some (admittedly US-centric) alternatives, with a 50/50 mix of low-moisture Mozzarella and Jack as best option. Cheddar apparently did not taste quite right.
Brick! It's been ages since I've had good Wisconsin brick cheese, but I do remember what it tastes like. I'll have a think and see if I can answer that.
Brick is one of those cheeses that should get more distribution. It's slightly soft and melts well, with a slight butteriness and tinge of acidity. Aged brick gets a slightly ripe flavor and smell. The closest cheese I can think of to a decent aged Brick is an aged Havarti. Similar softness, and not far off in flavor compared to other cheeses, and it should be widely available.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.114734
| 2020-07-07T10:38:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109515",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"LSchoon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22591"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13136
|
How to make a pie crust out of plantains?
I had heard of plantains, but never eaten them (or seen them). Today, there were green plantains available at the local supermarket, and I seized the chance and got a bunch.
While various Internet sources agree that they can be cooked any old way, nearly all recipes I found include fried plantains. I don't like fried vegetables much, so I thought that I could just modify a recipe. As I have never cooked a plantain, I cannot decide which would be the proper technique to use.
I found a recipe which sounds nice. It uses fried plantain slices to create a kind of pie crust, and then the crust is filled with cheese and spices and baked (it is a savory dish).
For crust:
Heat oil in heavy large nonstick skillet over medium heat. Working in batches, add
plantain slices and cook until golden brown, about 3 minutes per side. Using slotted
spoon, transfer slices to sheet of foil. Pat plantains with paper towels and cool. Reserve
2 tablespoons oil from skillet for filling.
Line 9-inch-diameter glass pie dish with single layer of cooled plantains; reserve
remaining for garnish. Using fingers, firmly press slices together to seal any gaps.
I thought of either roasting the slices in the oven without fat, or boiling them and mashing them, then smearing the mash on the pan (thickened with starch or flour if necessary) and maybe blind baking it. Do you think these techniques would work, or do you have better ideas how to achieve something sufficiently crustlike?
Edit: The conclusion.
First, I was ill some days, and the plantains ripened in this time. Seems to have had a positive effect in taste.
Second, I made a pie crust with fried plantains and a jibarito (with a non-traditional filling) with roasted plantains. Both tasted quite good, and actually very similar. The roasted ones were, of course, not as greasy and much easier to make (the ones in the pan burned on the surface in seconds, despite the moderate temperature). This will be my prefered plantains cooking method from now on, provided I can find them. Just put them on a rack in the 200°C oven and roast until they get a bit golden. Very tasty.
It's not a vegetable, it's a fruit ... and being that it's similar to a banana, you're not going to get a crispy crust from boiling and mashing, even with the blind bake ... they're just too moist. You might be able to pull off the oven roasting, but I'd still be inclined to add a little oil for better browning, like you would for roasted potatoes or oven fries. Also, be aware that green plantains are very starchy. Even when they're yellow or yellow with spots they're still pretty starchy; most fried plantain recipes wait for them to be fully black.
Isn't this a recipe-question-no-no? I love the question but just trying to understand. Thanks.
@Zippy a recipe no-no would be "please give me a recipe for X", because there is no best answer for it. Here, I am giving a recipe as a starting point and asking for ideas how to change it, and this is a valid question.
This seems like a fun adventure. I'll say upfront that I've never tried what I'm about to suggest.
When I read your question title the first thing that came to mind is a Puerto Rican sandwich that is very popular in Chicago, the jibarito. It's a sandwich in which the bread has been replaced by flattened and fried plantains. I think doing something similar could yield nice results for a pie crust. You just press the peeled plantains between two cutting boards to get your desired thickness.
As far as not frying, you should also be aware that fried plantains are damn good. I've never eaten a plantain that wasn't fried. That said, if you are committed to not frying I have suggestions as well.
First, the boiling and mashing is right out. I don't think the processing you'll be doing will result in a crust that holds up at all.
Roasting, or better yet, pan frying in butter I think is the way to go. I suggest just greasing a large frying pan with butter and pan-frying the plantain over medium-low heat until done.
If pan-frying is not your thing either, I'd suggest just brushing them with melted butter and tossing in a 400 F (200 C) oven for 10-15 minutes (complete SWAG - never oven roasted plantain). With either the roasting or pan-frying method you may wish to sprinkle each buttered side with a little sugar to add a little sweetness and a nice carmelization.
It bears repeating: fried plantains are damn good!
If you use green plantains, you can make some dough just by steaming it/microwave it for a few minutes then put it in a food processor and then the dough will form itself. I have made tortillas, pittas, gnocchis and even linguine pasta this way so I believe it could be possible to make a pie crust. But it is important that you use the very green un-ripped fruits never the yellow one as they are too moist.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.114854
| 2011-03-14T23:17:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13136",
"authors": [
"Graham Warrender",
"Joe",
"Margaret Rose",
"Venkatesh",
"Zippy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21816
|
Can you estimate how long it takes to reduce a liquid?
In a lot of recipes, there is a step that includes reducing your liquid. In most sauces, this isn't a problem, since you just need to thicken it and that's something you can see and doesn't take a long time.
However, last week I was making a base for a sauce, that included water, vinegar and white wine. The recipe asked me to reduce it till it was about 1/3 of the original amount. I didn't think it would take as long as it did and as a result, everything was ready except the sauce.
Is there a way to calculate how fast something reduces? I can understand it would depend on the ingredients, on the surface area and on the temperature, but assume that I know these variables.
It seems like to a good approximation it might just depend on the power output of your stove - do you know that?
You mean the amount of Watt? Or the setting? Or the temperature?
Watts are units of power, yes. (In some places you might also see values in BTU.) Settings don't mean much in absolute terms. The temperature of the burner is not that useful - it depends on power, but also on the characteristics of what the heat is being transferred to.
So what I understand you're saying, is that you made a reduction and then finished the sauce once you had the reduction down to the correct consistency. In future, make your reduction ahead of time and store it in the fridge. When you need it, pull it out and finish your sauce from that point. It's what we do in restaurants when we're doing sauces to order.
@ChefFlambe, good suggestion, thanks. It was the first time I made this and the recipe did not give any estimate in time. I have the rest in my freezer now.
If your reduction is taking too long and you have a spare burner, heat up a shallower and wider pan (like a sauté pan) and dump the sauce in there -- that will speed it up a bit.
If you're boiling something rapidly, and it's not in a terribly deep, narrow pot, then essentially all of the heat output of the burner is going into turning water into steam. The latent heat of vaporization of water is 2260 kJ/kg, so if you want to reduce something by a volume V, and your stove has power P, the time required is:
t = V * (1 g/mL) * (2260 J/g) / P
If V happens to be in mL, and P is in W (J/s):
t (s) = V / P * 2260
This would be modified slightly if you're using a really tall, skinny pot, since the convection within the pot, from the bottom to the top of the liquid, would be less efficient, with more heat transferred to the sides of the pot and out into the air, but I doubt you're actually going to try to reduce something like that. The P here is the effective power; for example, a gas burner wastes a lot of heat out the sides, so the advertised power will be higher. See TFD's answer for approximate efficiencies.
If you don't know the power of your stove, in all honesty, the easiest way to measure it would probably be to just see how long it takes to boil away a given volume of water, and work backwards. To get an accurate result, you should not boil a pot dry - once the water is a thin enough layer, the heat transfer might start working differently, with the pot itself heating up more, and water splattering. So you could, for example, put in a liter of water, boil away at the stove setting you intend to measure until it's substantially reduced in volume, record the time, then pour it out to measure how much you boiled away. At this point, knowing the power output might be overkill, though; you can really just measure the time per volume reduction, and use that, unless you care about the power for other reasons.
Trying to deduce the power of the stove from, say, the temperature of an empty pot or of the burner without a pot on it (assuming it's electric) would be difficult; you'd have to deal with the heat transfer between metal and air, and the convection in the air.
Dependence on ingredients shouldn't be significant - you're still just boiling water, unless there's a substantial amount of alcohol, in which case the latent heat of vaporization will be different. Pure alcohol has a latent heat of vaporization of 841 kJ/kg; I haven't found a good table for mixtures.
For solutions, as I noted in the comments, the latent heat of vaporization should be that of water, plus/minus the heat of solution of the solutes (I forget which direction that's measured in). The most common solutes are probably salt and sugar, which have heats of solution of 70 and 16 J/g, respectively. (I found this table, and converted.) The next most common thing I could think of that might be present in substantial concentrations is citric acid; this paper reports a heat of solution of -57 J/g. In all these cases it's small compared to the latent heat of vaporization of water, so pretending the liquid is water should be a good approximation. It's possible that things change if you're reducing really far: heat of solution does depend on concentration. That is, things are different thermodynamically (statistical mechanically?) in a nearly-saturated sugar syrup than in slightly sweet water.
Interesting. Do most liquids (wine, vinegar, juice) have about 2260 J/g? Stronger liquors will have slightly less, I assume.
@Mien: If I'm thinking about it right, I think that the difference in latent heat of vaporization should be the same as the heat of solution - the amount of energy given off or absorbed when the solutes are dissolved into water. I suspect that that's fairly small for anything we eat; you don't notice large temperature changes when you dissolve salt or sugar into water. But real data would make me more confident asserting that...
That formula isn't quite right—some portion of the water is escaping the pot without turning into water vapor/steam, which is why you can see it (water vapor isn't visible). You'd need to account for the portion escaping as mist.
@derobert: I'm pretty sure that most of what you see coming off of a boiling pot is water vapor which has started to condense a bit, since it's passing up into air which is well below the boiling point.
Spot on! I had to boil 3L down to 2L and used this formula to get approximately 20 minutes. I didn’t know how many watts my burner was so I estimated between 1500 and 2000.
To use Cascabel's calcs you will need this too:
Efficiency for stoves (hobs) at heating plain water in metal pot:
Gas 50% ±5%
Halogen hob 60% ±5%
Immersion 90% ±5%
Induction 90% ±5%
Resistive (most common electric type) 50% ±5%
It's hard to get over 95% efficient due to loses through pot wall etc.
Note that if you measure the effective power as I described, by boiling away some water, you don't care about this. I'll add a note referencing your answer, unless you'd like to edit it into mine (you're welcome to).
Rather than use time as an imperfect proxy for volume, just measure the height of liquid as a perfect proxy for volume†. You can use a chop stick, knife, or some other long instrument to dip into the liquid and see how deep it is at any point.
For example, if your recipe calls for a reduction to 33% of the original volume, you know you're done when the liquid height is 33% of the original height.
Specific steps:
Pour liquid into pot†
Measure height of liquid and mark or remember it somehow
Figure out the final liquid depth you want to get to
Heat liquid, periodically measuring height
Stop when measured height has reached desired height
† Pot must have the same cross-sectional area at every height. Most pots are cylindrical, so this isn't a problem.
It seems that you misread the question? The OP did not ask how to recognize when the liquid is sufficiently reduced, they wanted an advance estimation of how long it will take approximately, because without that, they cannot time the meal such that sauce and other components are ready at the same time.
Wow so complicated--here is what I have learned after cooking for 20 years and majoring in physical sciences at the UofA: So it takes about 5-7 min on high for a cup of water to come to a quiet boil on a stove top. After that, about 10% is gone to evaporation (uncovered) per min, and by about 22 min on high all the water is gone. So when I have sauces with (solutes obviously speed up how quickly water boils, since plain water has a high specific heat capacity), I just check at twice the rate to be safe. So 1 cup of sauce on high should start reducing approximately at 3-4 minutes...but never reduce at high because that might cook your sauce components causing separation. Instead reduce at medium, check at 7 min, then 10 min and 13 min for 1 cup (10, 15, and 20 min for 2 cups). In oven 350F is like the medium setting for liquid evaporation.
I know this doesn't work for recipes where the liquid you are reducing is a byproduct of the cooking you've already done, but you said that in this case, the sauce base was water, vinegar and white wine.
Just reduce a base like that well in advance of when you plan to prepare the meal. If you do it the day before, it won't really matter how long it takes, and you can keep the base in the fridge, bringing it to room temperature when you're ready to add it to the rest of the sauce ingredients. Although purists disdain this, I think it's easiest to do it in a Pyrex measuring cup in the microwave. That way, you can be sure when it's reduced to the proportions you want, and you don't have to mess with guesswork on the stove top.
I started with poaching liquid from pears which the only liquid is 2 cups of red wine. I need to reduce it by half, which will take approximately 18 minutes, after coming to a boil, left on medium for 9 minutes, at which point I poured it into a measuring cup and it was already reduced by 25% (measuring 1.5 cups of wine). I agree with the previous posters about the age and power of your stove which will affect output of heat, and most of all having all wider panel which has more surface area and allows that liquid to reduce/water to evaporate time is it faster.
Theoretically yes, practically no. If you have a lot of experience of reducing sauces with your specific equipment then you can try but it's never a good idea to use this as an excuse to leave it to reduce whilst you do something else.
Forget all that allow 20 to 30 min. It's then thick enough to use.
If you are using a small amount of liquid, 20-30 min is way too big a variance. If you are using a tiny amount (reducing a deglazing) or a very large amount of liquid, the reducing time won't fall in that interval at all.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.115257
| 2012-02-28T16:05:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21816",
"authors": [
"Alex Neth",
"Cascabel",
"Chef Flambe",
"Emily",
"Mien",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8766",
"jscs",
"rumtscho",
"user57226"
],
"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
}
|
13545
|
How to cover up bad jenever?
Last weekend, I bought a bottle of passion fruit jenever.
Normally, this tastes very sweet and has a nice fruity flavour.
But unfortunately, I had to buy a brand with which I'm not familiar with.
The taste of the alcohol is too present and it has an after taste that reminds me of medicine.
I don't want to throw away my bottle, but I won't drink it like that.
Can I add something that would make it better?
I don't want a cocktail (but 2 things together is de facto a cocktail I guess).
I was thinking of adding a bit of grenadine or (flavoured) sugar syrup.
Would this help or does anyone knows something that helps?
Try adding fruit zest (grapefruit, orange, lemon or lime), with a touch of castor sugar. I don't think its the proof that is ruining the taste, but more likely the quality of the grain base spirit used. Sugar and oils should help counteract this.
As alcohol boils away quite easily, perhaps you could try simmering it a while to remove some of the alchohol taste? Try it with a glassful first to see if it works.
You might try adding some passion fruit pulp (strained through a sieve to remove the pips) to increase the fruitiness.
Not a bad idea but you wouldn't even need to boil it. 173F will boil the alcohol and not the water.
There's not a lot of taste in alcohol. I think the "alcoholic taste" referred to comes from compounds formed during a maturation step, rather than alcohol itself. I have a bottle of "bad" jenever that has been dodging around my kitchen for 3 years waiting for an answer. I think it is going down the toilet if we don't get a good answer here!
I think it might be improved by adding Creme de Cassis (or Creme de Mures Sauvages if you can get some).
Perhaps you could try making a long cocktail with the addition of sparkling water and simple or flavored syrup.
Genever is an older form of Gin. Take a look at old gin cocktails from the prohibition era, many of those were designed to cover up the flavour of bad (bathtub) gin.
Interesting idea, the answer would be even more useful if you provided the names of such cocktails - when I look at a gin cocktail recipe, I have no idea when it was created.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.116038
| 2011-03-29T07:13:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13545",
"authors": [
"Eric Guan",
"Marcus McLean",
"Missy",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5885",
"klypos",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14028
|
How to use gelatin on fruit pie?
I feel very stupid for asking this, but I've never worked with gelatin.
I know how to work with powder or sheets, if you put it in something like panna cotta.
I also know there's an issue with gelatin and temperature.
But I want to put gelatin on top of my banana pie, like the professional ones. So I have the bottom, which is the dough, then the cream and then some slices bananas. I would like some gelatin on those bananas.
Should I bake the pie first and afterwards, put some gelatin on it?
Or put gelatin on it and bake then?
And does it make a difference here if I use powdered or sheet gelatin?
Just saw TFD's answer. @Mien, please clarify if "on top" means on the shell, under the fruit, to prevent soaking of the shell, or on the fruit, to prevent dessication and, with fresh fruit, wilting and browning? I covered the second case. TFD assumed the first and is correct that in this case jams (I think apricot is the traditional choice) work better than gelatine, which may soak your shell before it has congealed.
I edited a bit. I really meant on top of all.
OK, then all the professional cakes and pies I've eaten use either gelatin (maybe less than in a panna cotta to make it softer) or starch thickened liquid. I haven't eaten ones with clear jam, but it could function if you have a viscous sticky one, petmez-like. Gelled jam will make clumps. You could find premade sachets of thickener in the store (the German word for them is Tortenguss), but all they contain is starch, dextrose and maybe some E numbers for stabilizers and acidity correction.
It makes no difference whether you use sheet or powdered. Just make sure to use the right amount. It should be given on the package, like "this sachet is enough for 500 ml liquid". You can try to use less than indicated for a softer texture, but if you don't use enough, it will stay liquid, so you may need to experiment until you get it right.
You can't bake gelatin. It is a protein and denaturates at 50°C. The proper way is to bake your pie or fruit cake as always, and after it is ready, pour the gelatin containing liquid over the fruits and wait for it to congeal. (I am assuming here that you just want a gelatin glaze over a complete pie. If you want a complete gelatinized filling, everything below applies. Bake a shell, put the fruit in it, then fill it with the liquid).
The liquid itself can be pure water, or water syrup, or, if you used canned fruit, you can catch the liquid from the can and strain it. Then use it, pure or diluted with water. Sugar of food coloring don't interfere with gelatin, use them as you see fit (I think it's popular to color the gelatin on strawberry cakes a light red).
The mixing is very similar to panna cotta. First, bloom your gelatin by putting it into a cup with some water (1-2 tbsp) and leaving it for awhile. It should soak up the water, use it while it still looks moist, before the granules stick to each other. It usually takes around 5 minutes. Meanwhile, warm your liquid on a very low setting. It is best to use a thermometer. Dump the gelatine into the liquid while still on the heat. Stir until dissolved completely, never let it get too warm. When dissolved, remove from the heat and pour immediately.
There aren't many things which interfere with gelatin, but some fruits (or the enzymes in them) do. These tend to be tropical fruits with at least moderate acidity, like papaya, mango, kiwi and pineapple. If you pour gelatine on them when they are raw, it will have trouble setting. Cooking them should help, but I don't know how long or what temperature. If they are canned, it should be OK. Bananas are not a problem, even when raw.
And because you said you want to make it "professional": If you are talking about a thin glaze, gelatin is not your only choice. You can use starch as a thickener, many professional bakeries do so. It eliminates the possibility of getting the right texture of the glaze (which will be rubbery with too much gelatine and half liquid if you don't use enough), and maybe you'll feel more comfortable with it.
I suspect most professional chef's don't glaze with gelatin for fruit tarts/pies etc, as it will have the wrong texture compared to the soft fruit
Use hot Appelstroop (dutch apple jelly) after the tart is baked and drizzle it on, or better yet use your kitchen Badger Air-Brush with an open nozzle, or just brush it on
Add extra ascorbic acid to the glaze for fruit preservation properties
You could also try apple, quince, pomegranate, or other clear-ish fruit juice, concentrated or thickened with arrowroot
IF i wanted to do something like this I would just brush on aspic jelly.I would not use anything that would leave a taste. Another more solid substance would be Guar gum although why you would want to use that I cannot say.
If you tried to put gelatine on your fruit and then baked it the pastry would be destroyed.The Gelatine would break down. Gelatine should go “inside” the product (like a mousse) and not on top.
As it’s currently written, your answer is unclear. Please [edit] to add additional details that will help others understand how this addresses the question asked. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.116252
| 2011-04-14T09:46:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14028",
"authors": [
"Community",
"Dreen",
"Jeff Warnica",
"Jeremy",
"Mien",
"Sm WnL",
"Suzanne",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/-1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"jane Carney",
"royhowie",
"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
}
|
11779
|
How can I recreate the flavour of instant ramen without the salt?
I am looking to make my own instant ramen soup - nothing complicated, but there must be a way to duplicate the instant variety without all the salt. I've played with combinations of dried onions + no - salt chicken bouillon, but without much success. The key is something that can be kept in an office drawer for some time - I can already make homemade soup from the scratch.
Do you mean making your own ramen, or just the soup base? Ramen are slightly complicated to produce at home.
Salt is the flavor..
On the series, River Cottage Every Day, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall made some instant "pot noodle" soups along with one of his chefs. I believe some of the add-in ingredients were perishable, but they were all just-add-water recipes when it came time to eating them.
Tangentially related: Does dumping the water from boiling ramen noodles reduce the fat content much?
The Japanese use a stock called Dashi for the base of many soups, sauces and dishes including the famous miso soup. Dashi is made like tea by seeping several different varieties of dried ingredients such as dried bonito flakes, dried baby sardines, dried kelp and dried shitaki mushrooms in varies combinations.
What you can do is boil water and use a teabag to seep the ingredients for a while then just remove the teabag. It requires quite a bit of bonito flakes to get any flavor. Rather than using Ramen noodles you might opt to use cellophane rice noodles or mung bean noodles instead. Finish with a dash of soy sauce, sambal or saracha. All these ingriedents can be ordered online, found at an Asian market or Whole Foods. You might also find several other types of mushrooms (watch out for sand), fish and vegetables that have been dried which will rehydrate nicely in the soup.
Even if you made your own dashi this can still have quite a high salt level and wouldn't meet the instant requirement unless you keep two types of dried fish in your office desk draw! And I've seen low sodium soy sauce but not no salt soy sauce. I'm not sure this is a useful answer.
Most of the above could be managed in an office (canned fish/seafood and misc. dried ingredients can be stored in a desk drawer along with low-sodium soy sauce and bricks of "instant" noodles). You'd be hard pressed to find a "no salt" ramen recipe (that goes so far as to even exclude low-sodium soy sauce & salt from tinned or dried fish), but you could easily cut the sodium level in half with the suggestions above & careful selection of ingredients. Definitely more work than "boil, add seasoning packet" though...
What about some miso soup base instead?
Miso paste is more than 5% salt already!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.116780
| 2011-02-03T01:08:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11779",
"authors": [
"Allison",
"AnaiZacuNt",
"Brendan Long",
"Freedom_Ben",
"Jon Ericson",
"M Berlin",
"Ora Rae",
"Orbling",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6292",
"rfindlay",
"user168332",
"voretaq7",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12065
|
Converting teaspoon/tablespoon measurements to mL?
I have been looking at curry recipes on an American web site and it gives measurements in teaspoons and tablespoons. I am not familiar with these measurements as we do not use them locally.
Does teaspoon/tablespoon refer to the size of the spoon or its purpose?
If I have spoons that measure only mL, how can I convert a teaspoon/tablespoon measurement to these?
You say "a new website" ... could you tell us what the website is?
This probably does not work everywhere, but most liquid medicines I see tend to be dosed in 5ml measurements and come with a spoon - very useful when you can't find a teaspoon measure. (or a tablespoon, at x3,or a half teaspoon if you find the double-ended type)
Google will convert units for you: http://www.google.com/search?q=1+US+teaspoon+in+ml
You can normally use the guideline that 1 teaspoon is equal to 5 ml and 1 tablespoon is equal to 15 ml. However, do make sure that the website is American and not Australian, as the tablespoon measurement as used in that country equals 20 ml.
There's a helpful table comparing the definition of the teaspoon and tablespoon measurements as used in different English-speaking countries on this Wikipedia page (in the section "Metric measures"):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooking_weights_and_measures
Though your specific question was about a modern website, others looking into this question may need to keep in mind that teaspoon and tablespoon measures can vary widely in older books published in different countries or even in the same country. I found a blog post with a list of examples for the tablespoon measure from different books varying from as little as 12.5 ml to as much as 25 ml:
Margaret Powell (British) 1970 Tablespoon = 18 ml
Australian and New Zealand Complete cooking 1973 = Tablespoon = 25 ml
Best of Cooking (Hamlyn) - Tablespoon, (Australia) = 20 ml
Best of Cooking (Hamlyn) - Tablespoon, (British) = 17,7 ml
Best of Cooking (Hamlyn) - Tablespoon, (America) 14,2
Indian Cooking, Chowhary 1952 - = Tablespoon = 25 ml
Cook and Enjoy, De Villiers 1971 (South Africa) = Tablespoon = 12,5 ml
Complete South African Cookbook (South Africa) 1979 Tablespoon = 12,5
The Australian Women's weekly 1978 = 20 ml
(Source: http://whitegranny.blogspot.com/2008/11/beware-of-tablespoon.html)
And, though again this is probably not relevant to your specific question, it's interesting to note that in Dutch recipes "a teaspoon" refers to a 3 ml measurement, while "a coffee spoon" refers to a 5 ml measurement. (Source: http://www.dekooktips.com/wegen-meten.htm, in Dutch)
this was very much of the help;
It's actually understandable why this would be confusing to non-Americans, because the terms "teaspoon" and "tablespoon" actually have two meanings - one in cooking and one in dining.
Historically, teaspoons and tablespoons were simply two types of silverware. Teaspoons were literally for stirring tea or other liquids. Tablespoons were used for serving. So yes, the terms actually do refer to the purpose of the spoon.
They are also now used as cooking measurements across most of North America and possibly other regions:
A standard teaspoon (1 tsp) is approximately 5 mL (4.9 mL)
A standard tablespoon (1 tbsp) is 3 tsp or approximately 15 mL (14.7 mL)
For future reference, I use Google as my go-to resource for unit conversions whenever I don't know or can't remember the exact ratios. For example, you can type the phrase 2 tbsp in mL directly into the search box and it will give you the answer (29.57 mL).
For the purpose of nutrition labeling, a teaspoon is defined as exactly 5 mL.
American standard spoon measurements are:
Tablespoon: 14.8ml (about 15ml)
Teaspoon: 4.93ml (about 5ml)
They say 3 tsp (teaspoon) is equal to 1 tbsp (tablespoon).
In Japan, we use "large" or "small" for measurement spoons, but they work the same (large = table spoon, small = tea spoon).
A US tablespoon is 0.5 fluid ounces, so 14.7867648 mL, so about 15mL (and 3x the size of a US tea spoon) ...
Afaik a regular tbl spoon is 15ml and an australian tbl sp. is 20ml. I've never heard of a 12ml spoon.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.117050
| 2011-02-11T23:21:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12065",
"authors": [
"DaanP",
"Dhruva Ghosh",
"Guybrush Threepwood",
"Joe",
"John Prior",
"Lai",
"MattLBeck",
"Orbling",
"PRASHANT P",
"Spammer",
"SurDin",
"asdf",
"caprijoe",
"dan04",
"derobert",
"highlycaffeinated",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"santhosh",
"shortstheory",
"user24990"
],
"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
}
|
12151
|
How many milliliters is a "pinch?"
I found a recipe in English that mentions a "pinch" of something. English is not my first language, and Google shows that "pinch" has many meanings. Do I have to pinch it with my fingers, or can i find a suitable amount of milliliters to use?
This is why all recipes should be written by weight.
True in general, but do you have a digital scale that's accurate enough to measure one pinch of salt? I tried it on mine, and could add several pinches before its measurement just jumped from 0 g to 2 g.
thank you all for helps and thanks to aronut for increasing my question. community has fewer anger than stackoverflow
A 'pinch' is the amount of powder/whatever that can be trapped between one's thumb and fore finger.
Right, yeah, it just means an amount that is too small to be worth measuring precisely.
so amount is not matter,, it has very small amount. thank
Usually if amounts are indicated in pinches it means that exactictude is not required, and you can follow, at least in part, individual taste. If measurements are critical, like in the amount of gelatin you need for a certain texture, or certain amounts in patisserie, you will find indications in grams or ounces.
I wouldn't go crazy about finding a metric or imperial equivalent of the "pinch", also because the original recipe writer very likely did not mean it that way - you would just be obsessive, not precise.
if you want to be technical about it, a pinch is 1/32 of a teaspoon, if that helps. shrug
...which is .15 mL, but as is frequently the case when you find yourself using the word "technical", it doesn't mean much - in this case, you'll find different values for pinches, from different people trying to bring rigor to a casual measurement.
I found this table of conversions:
Tad — 1/8th teaspoon
Dash — 1/16th teaspoon (or less than 1/8th teaspoon)
Pinch — 1/16th teaspoon (or 1/24th teaspoon)
Smidgen (smidge, for short) — 1/32nd teaspoon (or 1/48th teaspoon)
Drop — 1/60th teaspoon (or 1/80th teaspoon or 1/120th teaspoon)
Hint — a trace
at http://www.ochef.com/74.htm
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.117391
| 2011-02-14T20:26:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12151",
"authors": [
"Brian S",
"Cascabel",
"Computerish",
"Daniel Fath",
"David Cullen",
"Harris",
"Kendra",
"LMAshton",
"Michael Natkin",
"Misty",
"PRASHANT P",
"Pop Flamingo",
"Pysis",
"Rinzwind",
"haim770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52034",
"logophobe"
],
"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
}
|
17098
|
What Sampling Bread to use for Pulled Pork, open faced?
I'm making a bacon based chili with smoked pulled pork (orange juice marinade by injection, smoked dried pusilla/ancho/guajillo rub) where I reserve all the liquid at the end of the process, roux it up into a gravy and fold it back in.
I am entering this stuff into a bacon recipe comp and am looking for a good bread suggestion. I am considering a monterey sourdough loaf wedge for each of the six judges bowl-plates (i.e. heel up and out for effective scooping).
The texture and fit of the bread is great and it is very available, I
am somewhat concerned about the flavor though. For my palette it is
great, but I am looking for additional suggestions on what style of
bread might have that bite of sourdough but maybe match the other
dominant flavors more effectively.
Also, should I back off of the sour, or push it even further?
Additional dominant flavors will include mustard, honey, brown sugar, jalapeno, tien tsin pepper, chocolate, coffee, malty beer, carrot puree and shreds.
It may be a little soft for that compared to most sourdough (but I like a softer bread for something like pulled pork, it competes less for texture), but I'd try a potato based bread. It's a classic flavor pairing with many of those other flavors (especially bacon!).
Most commercial potato breads are very soft, but whenever I've done them at home, I've gotten tender, but much denser. That might work better for the wedge, if mfg's willing to do his own baking for this.
Well, I'd assume if you're going to be entering at a competition you'd hopefully be doing that yourself, or at the very least a decent local bakery with options. At home, I usually add a bit of extra gluten to combat potato bread density.
I've even put bacon in potato bread and used bacon grease for the fat in bread - it comes out very much smelling like bacon!
I skipped the bread portion in plating due to the bowls I selected for sampling, however, a soft potato bread would have been ideal. I think the crustiness of what I would have used would have worked on just the outside, but the texture of the bread would have been too coarse considering there were 4-6 textures of pulled pork, plus the bacon.
@mfg - so the contest was this weekend? How'd it go?
@rfu Yesterday afternoon; I've been in a cooking coma ever since. Went well, didn't win though. Here's a gallery of pics if interested
I keep both of these recipes bookmarked because they are great and I believe would be a strong fit for your situation:
Home made soft pretzels Or hard pretzels.
one change I think would be a nice complement is substitute either "original" or "hickory" Bacon Salt for pretzel salt.
Good luck with your competition.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.117606
| 2011-08-24T15:42:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17098",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Mike McMahon",
"MrDuk",
"Simon O'Hanlon",
"Yvonne Leduc",
"cryptic_star",
"ghostbender",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"mfg",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11816
|
Is there a rule of thumb on vinegar's abilities as a preservative?
To follow up on the storage of ketchup in particular, many items in cupboards and refrigerators have vinegar listed as a key ingredient. The first things that come to mind are hot sauce, mustard, ketchup. With respect to vinegar as a preservative, is there a rule of thumb in understanding the following:
how does vinegar work as a preservative; is it solely by virtue of its acidic content?
aside from the presence of sugars or artificial preservatives, is there a kind of ratio (or other metric) of foods containing, or whose base is, vinegar to know whether something needs to be refrigerated to keep from spoiling?
what components can act to counteract vinegar's ability to preserve food?
upon combination, can vinegar stabilize anything that otherwise would spoil? (If yes, you can answer generally, don't worry about a laundry list)
Note: This is asking not about specific jarring/pickling or other long term preservation methods, but rather to the on-use storage of food items in the kitchen and their ability to keep outside of refrigeration without spoiling.
is it solely by virtue of its acidic
content?
Yes, not a lot of biochemistry is happy living at pH 2 - and the stuff that can live there is already happily living in your gut with a ph of 1
is there a kind of ratio (or other metric) of vinegar to know whether something needs to be refrigerated to keep from spoiling?
You mean foods already packaged in vinegar? It would depend on how well they had been cooked/sterilized before packaging and how strong the vinegar is.
Industrially made pickles will be a lot cleaner than something you pickle at home, but store bought pickles are likely to use much cheaper, more dilute vinegar than your grandmother did.
what components can act to counteract vinegar's ability to preserve food?
Anything too alkali will neutralise the vinegar's acidity
can vinegar stabilize anything that otherwise would spoil?
Not necessarily, it has to be something where the vinegar can penetrate into the food - it's not going to preserve steaks as well as vegetables. And of course the vinegar taste is going to help if you are trying to preserve say strawberries!
Also fungal spores can probably survive dormant in vinegar (if not grow) - fungal spores can survive dormant pretty much anything.
I have edited the second query, by 'ratio of vinegar' I was asking about foods already containing vinegar, as in the examples with mustard or hot sauce; rather than packed/brined/jarred in a vinegar solution.
If anybody does use vinegar solely as a preservative, the substantial matter ( pickle etc.) Must be used ( refrigerated or otherwise) 'online'.
Welcome! The [tour] and the [help] are designed to explain to our new users how the site works - your post seems more like a comment than an answer to the actual question, which is how the preserving effect of vinegar works. And I don’t really understand what you mean by “must be used online”?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.117852
| 2011-02-04T16:54:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11816",
"authors": [
"Kevin Cox",
"Stephie",
"chaotictoejam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"icehac",
"mfg"
],
"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
}
|
17812
|
Tweaking a Macaroni & Cheese Cake
This is basically the first loaf I have baked and I am having difficulty knowing how I should tweak it. I have four directions to go with it and would like to know in which direction I should go, or if further tweaking might improve any of the forks below.
So I'm building 'bread' for a grilled cheese sandwich using macaroni (ditalini, actually) and cheese (mornay using 1/2s cheddar, colby-jack, using roux). I am making this bread using a springform pan, so it will also be a 'cake', if you will. So anyway, I need to keep the 'cake' from browning too much, stay moist, not get super crunchy, and turn into a solid, cohesive whole.
I have two primary forks from my first test.
Test #1: 325'f @ 45min
browned slightly on bottom and sides after 45 minutes; too loose, not browned
raised temp to 425'f applied egg wash to top and edges baked for fifteen; too loose, spotted brown (bottom unknown)
applied egg wash to spots, around edges again, baked for fifteen more; less, but still too loose, bottom far too crunchy
Final for Test #1: bottom too browned, too loose
Moving Forward
Fork #1: Adjusting temp:time
sub fork #2.1.a: lower, slower
sub fork #2.1.b: higher, faster
Fork #2: Adding more mornay using a corn starch slurry prior to baking
sub fork #2.2.a: mixing corn starch slurry mornay with mac 'n cheese
sub fork #2.2.b: mixing just bechamel and corn starch slurry with mac 'n cheese
So what direction would, at least in theory, provide a denser, more cohesive solid, and allow for some browning, though not complete? (The browning will be finished off by egg-wash and cast iron skillet)
The trick was in playing with the thickness and the application of the egg wash. On the second attempt, I kept the springform pan filles to only about 2-3 pasta in the layer (pushing awy from the loaf idea, more toward a flatbread).
After adding 2 1/2 cups mac 'n cheese to the springform (sprayed and dusted), I baked fifteen minutes at 425'f, pulled it, sprinkled herbs on top, poured 60 ml egg wash (1 egg: 1 T aq) mostly-evenly around, baked another fifteen minutes.
This resulted in a reliable flatbread crust for the grilled cheese sandwich that balances the quiche-y-ness with the pasta pretty well. Basically, the baked egg wash acts like a kind of cement. I followed up with another wash on bottom, flour, cornmeal and saute in canola on a cast iron skillet.
For cohesion, I'd personally try more flour when making the roux (or just more roux relative to the cheese & milk), but I'd also consider an alternative pasta.
Ditalini contributes nothing to structure on its own. If you were to use a longer pasta, even macaroni, there's a chance to it to interlock. I'd look for cavatappi, spiralini, or break up fusilli bucati into shorter lengths. (all are corkscrew tubes).
The problem with the pasta you are suggesting, as opposed to ditalini, is one of texture. Since I was making a loaf, or cake, that would mimic (in its way) the bread of a grilled cheese sandwich, ditalini has a nice, regular texture whereas those would be more erratic in how they lie. I like your suggestion about roux, but would it be able to contribute to structure without contributing too much flavor?
@mfg : if you cook the roux to get rid of the raw flour flavor, but not so much that you develop deep colors, I don't find it has that strong of a flavor, but your taste may vary. As for the regular texture ... the only other solution I have is to use something that's more flexible, which would be a long-strand non-tube, but that's going to affect the chew and make it much heavier as there won't be thr trapped air pockets. You can try macaroni ... it'll lock together some, and still be fairly regular.
I think I am going to try out your digestion in the same thickness but in a smaller volume, like 3-4" round at 1"high.
I would also recommend a different pasta shape, I think the internal structure would be greatly improved by something longer or interconnected.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.118094
| 2011-09-17T19:54:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17812",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Katey HW",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7082",
"mfg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58052
|
Essenial cookware/utensils to buy from scratch for sustanence in the US?
I am a guy from India going to settle in the US(Houghton, MI) for higher education for a period of 2 years.
I have been bombarded by a variety of stereotypes for cooking (You won't get this and that in the US, etc).
Since my university is located in such a remote area, I don't think there would be any shops selling cookware/utensils locally. So I have to rely on Amazon/Walmart only.
So my cardinal question is, for a student creating his kitchen from scratch, what are the essentials that should be bought and from where i.e. locally or online.
I am not going to recreate Indian food there, rather would be interested in learning local cuisine and preparing the food prepared in households in the US.
I would also like get some advice on this topic i.e. whether I should bring some utensils from India or I can totally rely on Amazon/Walmart for my cooking needs?
PS: I am getting an oven and an electric stove in the apartment I would be living in.
Sorry if this question is off-topic here, please redirect me to the correct location.
I have a Indian friend who had a container shipped to him from his family in India containing cooking utensils, pots, pans, etc once he purchased a house (we're in Australia). I don't know about the shipping costs, etc, so I'm not sure how much he saved. There are ethic groceries that sell things like pressure cookers and other items (i.e. a tawa, handi, etc) at relatively cheap prices. For example, I bought my parents a very large aluminum pressure cooker from an Afghan grocery for almost a third of what I would've paid at online.
@NRaf I have a feeling that pan, plates, etc I can get in the Walmart store locally. So maybe just the utensils which are costly/rare are worth bringing along with me.
I think there could be an answerable question behind that, but as it stands, it is not a good SE question. What should you do? We don't know, and we can't take a decision for you. It is up to your personal circumstances. If you know what information you are missing to make your own decision, but have no source for that information, we can probably supply it. In this case, please edit the question to ask about it, and we can reopen.
Ok, can I ask the recommended utensils to buy from scratch and where to buy for a guy starting living in a new house? I will not go into comparison with Indian prices.
Tawas, dry grinders, idli molds, and hawkins-style pressure cookers are rather uncommon here in western europe (and probably same for the US), and not usually available cheaply.
@rackandboneman Thank you for your advice. Actually I checked the Walmart website and found that these items are available, just we need to buy an entire set so that it seems worth a buy. Since my priority is only sustenance, I am not looking for preparing a variety of Indian dishes in the US. In fact I would be much more interested in learning the local cuisine and preparing it, as it would be much more cheaper (at least that is what I feel right now). So I am not looking for Indian utensils per se, rather just utensils essential for cooking in the US...
@rumtscho I edited the question, can you please open it again?
I'm sorry, maybe I wasn't clear enough. The way you edited it, we'd still have to tell you what to buy. This is not something which we can help you with. There is no standard, objective list of "kitchen essentials", everybody will use different utensils depending on what he likes to cook and what methods he likes to use in cooking. What I meant is that, once you know what utensils you want to have in your kitchen, we can tell you about the availability in the US. But you have to know yourself what you, personally, need.
The most answerable thing I can think of is to list the things you think of as essential (and if there's any ambiguity, what you use them for) so we can let you know whether they (or something close enough) is easy to buy here. If it's not too long a list, that'd probably be fine; if it's long or if some things are very multi-purpose, you might want to break it up into multiple questions.
I'd recommend conctacting the college, and asking them if they have an Indian student group or similar. If they do, ask for contact info, and ask another Indian student who's gone to that college what they would recommend. They'd know what's in that specific town.
There is a Wal-Mart supercenter in Houghton Michigan. Local shopping will not be a problem: https://www.google.com/search?q=Houghton+michigan+mLL&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=houghton+michigan+shopping You will probably not like the winters up there at all. It gets very cold.
Remember you have to be able to get all you stuff there. Is it worth lugging a pressure cooker half way across the world to save 10$. I would bring any local seasoning that you use. Your gonna be in for some culture shock when you get there.
I agree that it is not worth saving the $10, but then I have some space in my bag and can bring some utensils with me. The thing is that I am unable to understand which ones to bring and which ones to buy in the US. Can you please elaborate on the cultural shock :)
You might have trouble with some seasonings -- if they're seeds, they might be confiscated as 'agriculture'. It's possible that other 'agricultural products' might be as well if there are concerns that they might be a plant disease vector.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.118641
| 2015-06-06T14:36:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58052",
"authors": [
"Ali Cann",
"Brenda Goodall",
"Cascabel",
"Catherine Baker",
"Cool_Coder",
"D B",
"JAI",
"Joe",
"John Mcsweeney",
"Lynn Steinhoff Dodman",
"NRaf",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33375
|
How to caramelize white sugar without burning it?
Last day I was trying to caramelize sugar to make sugar cage. I start of by adding lots of sugar into small amount of water.After that started heating it. After few minutes it started to bubbling and suddenly it changed it colour to light brown and before I could do anything it turned into dark brown and burning smell came. Now the quetion is when do I stop heating it? I want it to taste sweet but it tasted bitter.
Edit:Though I have accepted an answers I would like few more answer too.
It is perfectly normal for sugar to turn dark brown when making caramel. If it turns even darker, it is because it has been burning too hot.
The final temperature should be around 234 F, so you want to get there gradually.
As for the color, many recipes call for cream to make it smoother and tender, but only incorporate it after the crystals are fully dissolved and you're ready to take it off the burner.
I've seen a few youtube videos with just sugar and water for sugar cages...
Okay so I've to slow the flame down. Okay thanks. That would e slow though is there any faster process?
you might be able to heat it up faster, but if you try to cool it down too quick, it will be brittle. However, making sugar cages is actually just that. Sugar threads cool down very quick because of surface exposed to the air.
This, and buy a cooking termometer!!!
@nico There are many types of cooking thermometers. What is indicated for this use is a candy thermometer which is safe to use and accurate at temperatures above of up to about 350 F / 175 C. Some even go up to 400 F but sugar is well burned by then.
@SAJ14SAJ: sure, my point was just that temperature being critical, it is good to use a termometer rather than relying on colour.
Once you see the bubbling, it means the water has reached close to 100 C (assuming you're close to sea level) and once that water mostly evaporates the temperature will shoot up fast. Turn the heat lower when you see the bubbles and sail smooth from there. According to some recipes, stirring can cause crystallization. Once you've reached the desired color, dip the pan gently in cold water to stop the caramelization.
I read in an old cookbook about adding some lemon or lime juice to help. Haven't worked out the science, but trust her work.
Alton Brown Good Eats episode 'Puff the Magic Mallow' Season 11 Episode 12, he made marshmallow. However, he does talk about caramelizing sugar and temperatures (240 F per dnozay's answer). Actually, he does mention the acid as well, but it's to aid with the taste.
In addition to flavor, IIRC, the acid interferes with crystal formation. This is probably more important during the pre-caramelization stages. McGee does not indicate any affect of acid on the caramelization process itself.
add glucose (corn syrup, karo) for less crystallization. and you said little water and lots of sugar?...that's why it burnt faster. I might edit my ans. when I get home to check my recipe for making the sugar cage.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.119163
| 2013-04-11T05:30:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33375",
"authors": [
"Achyut Thaker",
"Agen Poker Spam",
"JustAJack",
"Mary Canter",
"Neer",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Viktor Gruber",
"computercarguy",
"dnozay",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77409",
"mmkm",
"nico"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37400
|
How do you use the gizmo for Café Sua Da?
Vietnamese Iced Coffee or Café Sua Da is usually served with the little brew pot dripping coffee into a glass with sweetened condensed milk at the bottom. You then stir and add ice and enjoy.
But what's the little screen with the screw for? Usually in restaurants I find it just sitting loose. Is it supposed to be screwed-on or loose? Is it supposed to constrain the expansion of the grounds or just help form the initial packed puck shape? Is the lid important?
Bonus questions: How important is it to have chicory in the coffee? What's a good proportion?
Just Vietnamese. It is also served in Thai restaurants in the West, but (much to my dismay) is not actually a common thing in Thailand. There are other things that are called 'Thai coffee'.
Here's a website that goes into it and includes this picture of the gizmo to which you refer:
This little single serving device is meant to fit over a cup, hold about two tablespoons worth of coffee, and the required amount of water for brewing. There is a screen on the bottom, and a plunger with another screen on it that screws down on top of the coffee to smush it between the two filters. The tightness of this top filter controls the strength of the coffee. The tighter it is, the slower water flows, and the stronger the brew.
EDIT: Regarding the "bonus question": I'm not aware of chicory as an ingredient in Vietnamese/Thai iced coffee, I'm only familiar with it as a traditional New Orleans addition, having migrated from France. It became a popular substitution during the French Revolution when coffee became prohibitively expensive. Certainly the website I linked to uses it, so it may be traditional for some. Certainly the French significantly influenced Vietnamese and Thai cuisine. I dug up a recipe for New Orleans chicory coffee:
"Ingredients
1 lb. coarsely ground coffee,
1 1/2 oz. roasted and chopped chicory,
2 1/2 quarts water,
3 oz. simple syrup,
Tools
Large stockpot,
Wooden spoon,
Fine-mesh sieve,
Large Mason jar,
Combine the ground coffee, chicory and water in a stockpot. Stir with a wooden spoon, cover and let steep at room temperature for 8-12 hours.
Carefully break the crust of the coffee grounds with a spoon and strain through a fine-mesh sieve into the Mason jar. Add simple syrup to concentrate and stir to combine.
Serve over ice and add milk to taste—most people opt for about a 50/50 ratio of milk to chicory-coffee concentrate.
Keep refrigerated and use within 1-2 days. Yields 4-5 cups of concentrate.
It is common in the US to use NOLA style chicory coffee in Vietnamese-style coffee; this kind of coffee is also pretty widely available pre-made, in any grocery store. Worth noting, though, that the French culinary influence is in both place (NOLA and Vn).
This looks worth a try. I wonder if you'd get the same taste just brewing in a French press?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.119440
| 2013-10-07T09:43:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37400",
"authors": [
"Awais Samdani",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Sam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87941",
"hunter2",
"push33n"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100792
|
How to get a open crumb bread without a starter
Is it possible to get an open crumb bread without an starter, and by just using active dry yeast? According to my research, to get an open crumb bread one needs a good gluten development, high hydration, strong wheat flour, and a good yeast. However, most of recipes that I have found are using sourdough starter, which I don't want to use. Is possible to get the same open crumb like sourdough bread, by using just active dry yeast? Can you provide some tips on technique?
Michael, please remember that recipe requests are explicitly off-topic. (Your post has already received a close vote for that.) But I read this post more as about the techniques, not a recipe? Please edit your post accordingly to clarify.
I attempted to edit so that this will not get closed. Feel free to edit further if you think I left anything important out.
guys i need answerss
In my experience you get a more open crumb with yeast, compared to using sourdough, which tends to give a denser crumb. The secrets are to use fairly high hydration and a long final rise. (High oven temperature and steam will also help.)
I haven't tried it as I don't have access to active dried yeast rather than the instant or bread machine variety, but I can't see why a no-knead dough method would not give you the results you want.
You would have to prove the yeast first by adding it to warm water rather than adding it to the dry ingredients which is the method I use.
Using regular and bread flour I have had great results with a proofing time of up to 18 hours. In the baguettes I have baked the result has been quite light, with holes up to 1 cm in diameter. If you baked your loaf using this method in a Dutch oven instead, you would get a different consistency due to the trapped steam. Either way, the long proofing time will give you quite an airy loaf.
so i should do a bread like the sourdough bread process but with dry yeast of course then?
I've been working on using instant yeast in place of sourdough to get open crumb bread. It works but never as spectacularly as on the YouTube videos. The things that seem to matter include:
I make a 12-18h preferment; use ~33% whole wheat or rye. The preferment will rise then typically falls by the time you need it. But you get what you want: nice lactic acid development (the dough tastes acid) and ideally the yeast is exhausted (thus the falling). Exhausted preferment yeast means that your subsequent addition of yeast is a known quantity at bulk. Is this a reasonable assumption?
Autolyse for a while; I've tried 30m-6h. The 30m is maybe not so great but the others all work fine. My observation is that pulling and watching it detach from the side of a bowl shows a forest of gluten threads trying to not let go. But I read that too long causes the gluten to start falling apart. What is too long?
I'm currently using 0.5% yeast and I'm thinking of going lower (fermentation still seems too fast). I haven't seem quantitative information on the relative yeast cell counts for commercial vs sourdough at the start of bulk. Does anyone know? If yeast is just yeast then the yeast count for sourdough must be very low (since its ferment is typically long).
I think the secret to improving gluten development in a high-hydration no-knead recipe would be to do a few rounds of folding. I suggest looking at some of recipes from Ken Forkish's book to get some suggested folding techniques and timing or if you have a lot of time and patience read the 30-ish page recipe in the Tartine bread book.
Hi @Rick. This is excellent advice. You can improve your answer by describing the folding technique.
folding I just leave mine in a bowl and with wet hands I grab the dough from one corner and fold to the middle and repeat this all the way around the dough then let sit for a half hour and repeat until 4 times, then shape the dough and put it in a banneton basket covered and refrigerate until the next morning then I bake it off. Remeber to score your loaf before you bake to allow for oven spring.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.119694
| 2019-08-18T07:36:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100792",
"authors": [
"Michael_Ben_David",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72584",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93092
|
Homemade yogurt
How do I know that my yogurt has live and active cultures in it? I used store bought organic Greek yogurt with live and active cultures as my starter, and it turned out beautiful and thick,but I'm making it to replace taking probiotic capsules. In all my studying beforehand I never found a conclusive answer as to, HOW do I know if the yogurt bacteria is in it?
What does it say on the label of the store bought yogurt you are using as a starter?
In the US yogurt will list in the ingredients the particular strain(s) of lactobacilii that it includes. It will also say on the label: "Contains live, active cultures"
Even the cheap yogurt I have looked at says it contains live cultures.
Thank you, The label states it contains Cultured, pastuerized organic whole milk...6 live and active cultures, S. ther, L. Bulg, L. acidophilus, L. bifi, L. paradise I, and L. rhamnosus.
The fact that you made the yogurt is proof enough. Your yogurt has live cultures.
In principle every yogurt is a colony of bacteria living in milk. When you make new yogurt, you are establishing a new colony, using the starter as "colonists" who then take over the new milk. The result is a lively ecosystem of bacteria.
Companies nowadays optimize food for long storage time, and frequently also for some blandness. Since a lively colony can go more sour with time, some of them actively go and kill the bacteria after the yogurt has been made. This stops the yogurt's taste from changing.
The reason why people warn you about choosing "live cultures" for homemade yogurt is that, if you happen to pick a storebought yogurt with killed-off culutres, they won't be able to colonize your new milk. Instead of yogurt, you will end up with spoiled milk, wasting time and food. They don't mean that you will make somehow "dead yogurt" from a dead culture.
If it works, meaning that with two tbsp of the store-bought yogurt you can make a new 1lt batch of yogurt, well, it has live culture! Anyway try not to keep the new made yogurt in incubation for too long, because the longer the time you leave it, the more the bacteria thrive, up to the point that they eat all the lactose and finally die due to overpopulation! normally 10-14 hours are enough to make a thick nice yogurt, but avoid longer incubation times if you prefer a milder yogurt. One of the problem with storebought is that you can keep using the yogurt to make fresh batches just for 3-4 times, after that it will no longer work and you should buy another "mother". If you are interested there are "heirloom" cultures, that instead you can perpetuate indefinitely. (I have been making mine from the same mother from 5 years now). Many people also are keeping their yogurt for years having started from store-bought.
I wanted to upvote, but reconsidered because of the mix of good information and some misinformation. First, your colony will never die of "eating all the lactose". You can end up with an overpopulated colony, and maybe many of the bacteria in it will be dead, but it will still contain plenty of lactose. You may think it's a small point, but allergic people latch on onto such statements. Second, that story of "heirloom cultures good, storebought bad" seems to be a myth created by culture sellers. I have never had a problem establishing a long lived culture form storebought yogurt.
I admit that I did not have scientific sources for the information about "lactose-free" yogurt, just Sandor Katz's books. But I just found some information in this book and apparently " lactic-acid build-up beyond 1.5% acts progressively as an inhibitor to further growth of yogurt bacteria" so even if incubation time is longer the amount of lactose that is consumet by bacteria is about 30% (of the initial amount, that is approximately 5%). I'll edit my answer
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.120033
| 2018-10-20T23:20:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93092",
"authors": [
"Andrea Shaitan",
"Lisa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70012",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93324
|
How can I save tomatoes for at least 20 days?
I want to save juicy tomatoes, but not in freezer. How might this be possible?
Tomatoes can last that long in a root celar at 15 degrees Celsius. You have to choose tomatoes bred for lasting - so supermarket ones, not homegrown heirloom varieties, and preferably not perfectly ripe and juicy. Your biggest problem would be mold, so carefully check each tomato for places where the skin is torn or the tomato has been squished. Then carefully order them such that there is enough air/ventilation around them, ideally in a single layer. If the humidity around a tomato gets too high, it will grow mold at the place where it grew out of the wine.
Note that you can do it in the fridge, and even get a longer shelf life there. But as soon as the temperature drops below 13 Celsius, they will change their taste, and this change is irreversible. If you want to avoid that, don't use the fridge. It's still advisable to test it, because you might find out that you don't mind the changed taste, or even that your tomatoes don't change taste (which means that they were likely refrigerated before being sold to you).
If you cannot do that - for example, if you just harvested a large amount of overripe tomatoes and wonder how to not lose them - your only option may be making something out of them that can be canned.
There's no point in freezing tomatoes. Freezing tears their delicate innards to shreds and they thaw to an unrecognizable mess. Stewed tomatoes can be bottled but the texture is not similar to fresh, of course.
20 days is approaching the longest I've personally every had tomatoes last in the fridge. It's a long shot but the fridge is really your only choice. Tomatoes are just fragile fruit that should be eaten quickly.
Tomato preservation methods are bottling, drying, or making sauce. All of these destroy the delicate texture.
Freshly picked home grown tomatoes might last 3 weeks in the fridge, but the chances are they'll only be for for cooking at the end of that time. I'd call it a certainty for bought ones.
Putting tomatoes in the fridge tends to ruin their texture. I wouldn't do it.
I don't know if you can get 20 days out of them without refrigeration, but there was an episode of Tyler's Ultimate where he was in Italy and claimed that there were tomatoes that had been preserved by smoking, but of the many discussion boards, I'm not aware of any that have been able to confirm that he wasn't just giving bad information. See https://web.archive.org/web/20210506232642/https://www.chowhound.com/post/smoked-tomatoes-293900
To get your tomatoes to last longer at room temperature, you can get a day or two more out of them if you store them stem-side down.
As my step father grows a lot of tomatoes, my mom will typically go through them every day or so, pulling out the ones that are starting to soften up to use that day, or if there are a lot, to make into a batch of tomato sauce. As they're constantly refilling, I doubt any of them are sitting there for 20 days.
I don't even know if you could get 20 days with refrigeration unless you are rather specific about the type of tomatoes (plum and smaller tomatoes tend to last longer, but I'd add paper towels to absorb moisture so they don't start developing mold.) I'd also avoid store-bought tomatoes, as those might already be a week old. Serious Eats mentions that refrigeration isn't so bad, so long as you let it get back up to room temperature before eating.
Update About a month back, I caught an episode of Sarah's Weeknight Meals where she was in Spain and they also had a 'storage tomato'. Some digging suggests that there are specific varieties of tomato in Spain and Italy that have been bred for longer storage life:
The Spanish 'ramallet'
a much longer list of "Longkeeper" tomatoes (with links for Europeans to buy some of them)
One technique that can be used to increase the life span of tomatoes, and many other fruits and vegetables for that matter, is to seal or cover the spot where the stem was. You can use a small piece of tape or a dot of wax, or any number of other things, to create a seal over the spot where the stem of the plant connected to the fruit... which once the fruit is harvested, is essentially an open wound. Even placing the fruit upside down, so that the stem spot is facing downward, can increase their "shelf life". The reason this works is that as the fruit ages, it loses moisture. A significant percentage of this moisture is lost through the stem spot. So preventing this moisture loss can help to keep the fruit juicier for longer.
There's also the added benefit that covering the stem spot also helps to prevent fungal growth, which usually starts in any cuts, nicks, or "open wounds" that the fruit might have.
Aside from that, from personal experience, I can say that keeping the tomatoes in a small non-airtight container, in the fridge, also seams to help them last a bit longer. On occasion I've had tomatoes last for getting on for a month in the fridge but they always end up a little worse for wear and a bit shriveled. Still fine for cooking but not the best for eating raw.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.120354
| 2018-10-28T04:19:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93324",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"mrog"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93536
|
How to avoid the blackening fruits once they are cut?
Apples and bananas start to blacken and sour in taste soon after cutting, which spoils the presentation of dish, especially in fruit salads. How can I avoid this? Also, does browning impact nutritional value?
The best way - to smear the fruit with lemon juice. At least, it`s always works with apples, pear. I would like to know, what to do with bananas.
I am aware that this is quite late.
Blackening and browning of fruit is caused by the oxidation of polyphenolic compounds in the fruit by a class of enzymes known as, perhaps unsurprisingly, polyphenolic oxidases (PPOs). PPOs are found inside the cells of the fruit you are eating and are released when you rupture the cell wall and membrane when the fruit is cut. Exposure to oxygen activates the biochemical pathway, resulting in the browning you see.
There is one simple way to prevent function of PPOs is to soak the fruit in a salt solution. Interestingly, a low (acidic) pH enhances this effect. The full version of the linked article goes on to explain that a 0.1 mol/l solution is enough to inhibit browning in a blinded observational test. Sodium Chloride, the common table salt, has a molar mass of 58.44 g/mol., so for a 0.1 mol/l solution you need 5.844 grams (0.206 oz, or about 1 teaspoon) of salt in a litre (2.11 pints) of water. Soaking for 3-5 min is plenty and will not cause substantial salt uptake on the fruit.
This is highly effective at inhibiting browning - I use it all the time on cut fruit for my children, and it will last all day with ease.
Browning does not affect nutritional value particularly. The action of the PPOs is limited to the cut surfaces, and most fruit contain about 0.2-0.3% by weight, so there is plenty there beyond the cut surfaces. Polyphenols are generally classed as anti-oxidants, so they are probably of some nutritional benefit, but if you eat a healthy balanced diet with fresh fruit and vegetables you should be getting plenty of antioxidants anyway. Some polyphenolics are classified as tannins - the dry/astringent components in some wines and tea for instance. These can make food unpalatable, but are not harmful.
This is very interesting, I have to test it someday - lately I'm eating entire fruits, so no leftovers to test :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.120784
| 2018-11-03T09:46:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93536",
"authors": [
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
94608
|
When should I add red chili to an omelette?
Is there a proper time to add red chili to an omelette? How should it be mixed in?
I assumed you meant chopped chillies in some form, the other answer assumes powder. You may wish to clarify.
Many would say never.
Paprika, one of several types of powdered red chili, is often pretty tasty in an omelette. You can put it on the finished product too. -makes it look Haute. If you can, grow your own paprika. It's tone better than the stuff that's sat in ship holds and warehouses for years. No worries about red lead contamination then either.
Chili powder will never dissolve in eggs. What you're aiming for is a suspension: the chili particles evenly distributed in the eggs. The chili will eventually float to the surface of an egg mix, so the best you can do is mix it properly right before pouring it into the skillet, and hope it sets before the chili separates too much.
... or use chilli oil, to whisk into the mix, or fry in (random late-night snack idea ;)
I often add chopped chilli to an omelette. Fresh or dried (flakes) can simply be stirred into the egg before cooking. The latter is particularly convenient.
Another approach I take is to fry onions/peppers/mushrooms, chilli and/or garlic first, until soft, set them aside and cook the omelette in the same pan (with more oil). Just before folding the omelette in half, put the veg and possibly cheese on top of one side. This is overkill for chillies alone, unless you like a huge quantity.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.121008
| 2018-12-09T16:27:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94608",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"Tetsujin",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89033
|
Can all types of honey be used to make mead?
What is the difference between raw and wild honey? Is it raw because of honey collected from apiary domesticated bees, and wild when collected from the forests? Can any honey be used to make mead? More specifically, what about wild honey, such as Tualang Honey?
To address your 'headline' question: Yes, any kind of honey can be used to make mead, however the mead may have a significantly different flavor depending on the honey chosen. Orange Blossom honey will create a sweeter mead that is lighter in color (like a lager beer) where buckwheat honey will produce a mead that has more earthy tones (like an amber).
Raw honey is 'straight out of the hive' without any processing and sometimes without even any filtering. "Regular" honey has been pasteurized and always filtered. "Wild" honey doesn't have an "official" meaning, but is probably the same as "raw". It is likely just a marketing/branding label.
note: I did find one reference to 'wild honey' being from bees 'in the wild', I find this unlikely as collecting honey from 'wild' beehives is not very efficient, is destructive to the hive and not at all good for the bees.
I've had honey from wild bees before. I can't find the brand I've tried but here's one that claims to be (at least partly): https://www.amazon.co.uk/Tropical-Forest-Organic-Zambia-Honey/dp/B006JO30G2
@ChrisH I suspect they are playing around with the definition of "wild". If you let bees 'go free' in an orange grove, but they 'choose' to return to your manufactured hive (cuz that's where the queen is) to 'make honey' are they "wild" or not? I believe this comes down to word games..
That's why I was trying to find the one I had before. I recall much more explicit wording which would rule out your interpretation.
Hallucinogenic Red honey from the The Himalayas might be problematic. http://awesci.com/the-hallucinogenic-honey-from-the-himalayan-bees/ The strain of honey can be found all the way to Turkey IIRC.
@WayfaringStranger ... Problematic, yes... but if you could get enough of it, you could make mead from it. It might have an effect more like absinthe :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.121295
| 2018-04-11T09:46:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89033",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Cos Callis",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89767
|
Please identify this nut covered cheese
During breakfast at my hotel in Germany, I saw this kind of cheese. Can anyone help to name it?
As I can remember, it tastes a bit sweet on the nuts.
This is most likely the “Castello” rum-and-nut covered cream cheese ring by Arla. The shape, the chopped nuts and slight sweetness are pretty unique.
Arla sells its products in supermarkets, but is also a big supplier for larger catering customers. You should be able to find it in most larger supermarkets.
It seems you are correct. I don't live either in Europe or US, so may not be able to find it :( Thanks anyway for your help!
Quite easy to make on your own, though. Get inventive!
@IconDaemon I am not sure what cheese i should use and never create cream cheese in first place lol
@Rendy If you search for "cheese log" you'll find plenty of different recipes. Look for one which specifically calls for cream cheese (note that the cream cheese package may be simply labeled "Philadelphia" outside the US), and which calls for sweet rather than savory ingredients.
The page on cream cheese at wikipedia uses Philadelphia-branded items in two of the three images! This brand is so ubiquitous in the US that wikipedia reports: In Spain and Mexico, cream cheese is sometimes called by the generic name queso filadelfia ...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.121488
| 2018-05-12T17:30:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89767",
"authors": [
"IconDaemon",
"Rendy",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67093"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
94413
|
Marinating fish
When I fry fish it's not spicy or crispy. I marinate it with fish masala, lemon juice, and garlic paste for 2 to 3 hours. How long should I marinate to get a crispy and spicy final product?
Coat the fish and fry at high temperature
I'm making some guesses about your brief question, but I don't think the length of time the fish is marinated is going to make it crispy unless moisture is extracted in the process. What I would recommend is, after marinating the fish as you have, dust it with flour that has the ground spices you like mixed in. If you are frying in oil, get the oil hot before adding the fish and this will help take moisture out of the outer layer making it crispy.
The marinade alone isn’t going to make the fish anymore crispy. If you want the fish crispy you will have to crust it or a batter it etc. try a tempura batter maybe?
1/2 cup ap flour
1/2 cup corn starch
SUPER cold club soda with a couple ice cubes even
*mix ingredients to make a very coating batter
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.121617
| 2018-12-01T14:48:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94413",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88498
|
Sourdough starter hydration
I’m making my first sourdough starter. Actually my second; the first one dried up and turned into cement. I figured that it wasn’t hydrated enough (the original directions called for 35g rye flour, 15g AP flour and 50g water), so in my new starter, I upped the amount of liquid by 25g.
Does hydration affect the fermentation process? Or rather, does over-hydration affect the process? Are there sourdough starters that are very liquid?
The hydration of sourdough starters can vary ...50% to 125%. Some are kept very stiff and others are kept quite liquid. A higher hydration starter will need to be fed more frequently. The hydration of your starter relates to how you will use the starter. Also, knowing the hydration percent of your starter is important when calculating the hydration percent of your final dough.
Yes, hydration does affect the fermentation, but to get a starter going you need not worry.
In fact, one of my favourite instruction (from a very experienced German baker and author, roughly translated) is:
Take about half a cup of flour, add enough water to make something like thick pancake batter....
Once you get your starter going and you have familiarized yourself with your new pet and know how to use it, then you might want to dive into the scientific details of how water and temperature gradients influence the flavour profile and yeast to acid-producing bacteria ratio etc. Or never bother, that’s also perfectly ok.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.121716
| 2018-03-21T19:39:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88498",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108360
|
Can I use diastatic malt in applications which call for non-diastatic?
I am interested in a few different applications of barley malt some of which classically would use diastatic malt and some use non diastatic malt.
I’d rather just purchase one malt for everything. Assuming I can find a diastatic malt powder without any added flours is there any reason I wouldn’t/couldn’t use it in a traditionally non diastatic scenario (such as a malted milkshake)? Many sites claim that diastatic is used for yeast growth, not for flavor but if it’s not diluted with added flours to the powder I don’t see why it couldn’t be.
diastatic malt powder is milled malt that hasn't been heated to deactivate the enzymes. To deactivate it to use as non-diastatic malt, heat to 130F/55C
the question isnt 'how do i convert diastatic malt to non-diastatic malt?'
the question is whether it's ok to use diastatic malt powder in lieu of non-diastatic malt powder, for example, in a milkshake
diastatic malt powder contains a family of polysaccharide-degrading enzymes, including amylase. these enzymes break down starches and some disaccharides such as sucrose and maltose, into simple sugars digestible by yeast. your body produces amylase in saliva. the amylase acts quickly in the mouth and esophagus and is then destroyed by stomach acid
in non-diastatic malt these enzymes have been destroyed by treatment with heat
i do not know whether it's ok to ingest large amounts of uncooked, non-diastatic malt, or large amounts of the enzymes it contains, but i don't find published evidence that it's harmful
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.121849
| 2020-05-13T22:54:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108360",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100357
|
What is White Cumin and Green Cumin?
I'm learning about the spice cumin (Cuminum Cyminum) and I understand how it is naturally a golden brown color seed that tastes bitter with a hint of lemon and warmth.
I learned that black cumin (Nigella Sativa) is a different plant all together and has a black pepper and oregano taste.
What I can't figure out is the other two color cumins.
What is Green Cumin? Is this an unripe cumin seed picked early? I see it referenced in Iranian cooking but I haven't found out what plant this is. It seems like Persian cooking uses both black and green cumin frequently.
What is White Cumin? Is this a sun bleached cumin seed left out to lose its color? Does it have a milder taste than regular cumin or is this a different plant all together? I see White Cumin listed in Indian cooking.
If anyone knows what Green Cumin or White Cumin are and can cite the plants or any references to them I'd be much appreciative!
Do you have sources/examples? I've never heard of green or white cumin before, and DeGuid's Persian cooking omnibus doesn't mention Green Cumin in the glossary.
The question is "what is language and why the people cannot stick to one original name?" ;)
What could be find under "white/sweet cumin" is actually aniseed (and sometimes it's called green cumin). What is "green cumin" is dill seeds.
The way to go is to look for latin name or the look of it. What could be more troublesome is difference between Roman Cumin and Persian Cumin (very, very very often treated as same thing). Roman cumin is much more mild than Persian (or sometimes even called Turkish) one.
White cumin might be regular cumin just looking "whiteish" because of the place of origin but might also be aniseed but it could be lost in translation of the recipe.
This article refers to green cumin as Cuminum cyminum, which is the same species as "normal" cumin, not anise or dill.
@Sneftel And photo in this article show "normal" cumin. One we don't need to call green. So I would say it's matter of translation.
Thank you SZCZERZO KŁY and FuzzyChef. Thanks for linking for me that White Cumin in Aniseed (from the Anise plant Pimpinella Anisum). Green Cumin I believe is not Dill, but is instead Fennel (Foeniculum Vulgare) with an anise like taste, but is green and otherwise looks like cumin (Cuminum Cyminum). Even the scientific literature is unclear http://www.phcogj.com/sites/default/files/10.5530pj.2017.3.51.pdf If folks find other reliable sources feel free to share. THANK YOU!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.121995
| 2019-07-25T03:33:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100357",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"Sneftel",
"Stephen Inoue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8286
|
Can I make pasta with quinoa flour?
I'm going to be buying quinoa flour and wanted to use it to make up pasta. Is this a direct flour replacement in a typical pasta recipe or are there other changes you need to make?
Hi Brian, welcome to the site. I have edited your question so it is more in keeping with what we allow here (see the Faq). Please feel free to re edit if you think I have misrepresented what you wanted to ask.
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3062/will-adding-lemon-juice-to-non-wheat-pastas-make-them-starchier
In the pastas that I have made the structure of the noodle is built out of protein- usually entirely from gluten from wheat flour. In fact the base of my pasta is just flour and water (or juice or pureed vegetables, etc.) Egg noodles, obviously get structure from the egg.
Quinoa has no gluten and will impart no structure to a typical pasta.
You could easily add it to a normal pasta recipe as long as it was not in so high a concentration as to compromise the gluten structure. Without experimenting I don't know what ratio this would be.
A cursory google search found several quinoa pasta recipes. The ones I looked at were similar in that they relied on a variety of starches and egg for structure. I imagine these would taste fine but they would be more like dumplings or egg noodles than al dente Italian pasta.
The results of the quick search:
http://gfgourmet.wordpress.com/2007/01/09/quinoa-pasta/
http://ezinearticles.com/?How-to-Make-Quinoa-Pasta&id=3181479
Thanks for the links.. Love the Quinoa Pasta page, but the pasta isn't really Quinoa... it seems to get is consistency from all the other forms of flour used... I would be nice to try.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.122191
| 2010-10-19T06:19:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8286",
"authors": [
"Adrian Hum",
"Alvaro Bittencourt",
"Megan",
"MisterXtm",
"Sam Holder",
"Sobachatina",
"gtl_pm",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37369"
],
"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
}
|
8706
|
Should I prick sausages during cooking?
Whenever I go to a BBQ and sausages are cooking, the chef will always prick the sausages while they are cooking. I have no idea what this does, I assume it's to get the fat out, however I recently read that you should never prick sausages as it results in them being dry inside?
So my question is, should I prick sausages with a fork or knife during cooking?
Some of these answers consider fresh sausage and some consider emulsified sausage. You really do get different ideas depending on what type of sausage you are working with.
I'd say no never prick the sausages if you can help it. the fat inside helps to keep them succulent and moist, and if you have a problem with the splitting and are pricking them to release the pressure as was stated by @foodrules, then I'd say you are cooking them over too high a heat. Lower the heat, or if you are BBQing move them further from the source, then you will get to have unsplit, moist sausages. When pan frying I prefer a very low heat for a long time. This allows a delicious sticky crust to develop on the outside of the sausages. mmm...
If they were meant to be pricked why would they not come pre pricked?
Exactly right - I fry sausages in very little oil, on the lowest flame I can get, for an hour or so. I'd aim for an equivalent on a BBQ.
Here in Argentina is very common to bbq LOTS of sausages for big parties. Just for reference:
To ease the work of turning them, we usually hold them together with metal skewers, that also serve the purpose of draining the fat:
But if you don't prick them (besides of the aforementioned holes), they usually EXPLODE.
Note: here the skins are usually made from cow guts
@GUI Junkie Humbly, one here :) ... You really learn how to BBQ after facing a party of 100 starving guests. You learn for example that you should prick the "chorizos" as late as possible allowing the fat to melt well and fry the meat "from inside". The second photo shows clearly a stack: the upper sausages are kept hot but will not be put on high fire to finish them until pricked.
All I've had all day is pretzels, and I have to come across this photo? Mmmmm...
BTW nobody asked what the guys are drinking in the photograph :)
@yoda Mate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yerba_mat%C3%A9
@yoda The world is smaller now http://www.amazon.com/Taragui-Mates-Bombillas-500g-Yerba/dp/B003D3YT08/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1307137986&sr=8-6
A very simple answer why you prick sausages. When the sausages get heated up, the fat content and also air pressure inside start to grow. Pricking sausgaes allow the air and fat to be 'released', otherwise, the skin of the sausages will start to crack which eventually will result in losing more juice and 'fat'.
Yes, Pricking may lead to dry sausages, so you don't have to overdo it and also use the small toothpick to do it which will reduce the damages.
Just a week ago I've eaten one that had the toothpick still sticking in the sausage. Maybe that helps keeping it from cracking while not letting it dry out.
I never prick sausages and they never split either. If you cook them at the correct temperature and monitor them, they should not split.
A lot of sausages today don't have traditional skins, so build-up of steam and air isn't the same issue.
It's no coincidence that one British name for sausages is "bangers" - if you have a sausage with a traditional, animal-based skin and you get it to a high temperature without first pricking the skin, it can actually explode. Pricking's a non-issue with most sausages now as the "skin" isn't made from animal guts any more, but beware the artisan butcher with his traditional methods.
@Spratty the reason that artificial casings have to be used is that an animal does not produce enough intestines to make all the sausage from it own meat. It is also quite skill intensive and arduous job cleaning guts. Cooking guts gives a smell that leads most rational people converting to veganism. It is often not worth it for the butcher.
I always do when pan-frying - it's astonishing how much fat comes out. I prefer the resulting texture. Barbequed sausages really can't be pricked much because of flareups, and I usually try to eat something else if I have a choice, because I find them too greasy. Perhaps my "just right" is someone else's "too dry" - it's certainly true that pricking them makes a very noticeable difference.
The flares are avoided with a well designed barbecue
I have often cooked boerewors on a high grill, you just need to turn them often and constantly watch them. It does make the cooking process harder than it needs to be but sometimes the hungry guest don't want to wait for the coals to calm down.
I think the whole point of putting the fat into the sausages is having the meat cook in it. I would prick them as little as possible.
If you prick your sausages, you are in the wrong.
It defeats the purpose of fat in there in the first place.
If you prick them, they dry out. If the casings burst, you're cooking on too high a heat.
Cook on a lower heat for an extended time, and the casings caramelise... oh mama!
Do not season with salt or pepper before you cook them, the salt will draw the moisture towards the surface, and evaporate during cooking. Season AFTER they have been cooked.
There is an important distinction to be made between emulsified sausage and fresh sausage. Boerewors the national sausage of my homeland is a fresh sausage. You don't break the casing unless you want to chew on a metaphorical car tire.
For the many different types of emulsified sausage from the German tradition this less of a concern because the fat is already emulsified in the meat. You just poke a few whole so that the whole casing does not break, but then again you get many hot dog shops that break Frank's in halves on your bun. Depends on the style.
Never prick a sausage. All that effort of keeping the meat cold to avoid fat not melting during seasoning and casing process will be all for nothing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.122386
| 2010-10-31T23:56:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8706",
"authors": [
"Brando",
"Chris Brown",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Georg Schölly",
"Hex",
"Ken",
"Leonardo Santana",
"Neil Meyer",
"PaddySe",
"Spratty",
"Steven Rajam",
"Stuart F",
"Tasty Chicken",
"ceejayoz",
"codeMan",
"connersz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78562",
"sakuya.luo",
"slim",
"user17855"
],
"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
}
|
7932
|
Am I making this noodle correctly?
I decided to make pad thai noodles from scratch. The recipe I found for rice noodles said to let the rice soak overnight then grind the resulting mixture in a blender. After that it called for steaming the batter in small batches then slicing into noodles. The problem that I had is that these noodles did not cook up in my wok correctly. They got extremely gummy and were grainy.
I have experience with pasta, but I have no idea where I went wrong with such a simple recipe. Anybody have any ideas on how I can fix this?
EDIT: the recipe was this
1 1/4 cup rice
1 1/4 cup water
oil to coat steamer tray
Place rice in water overnight, blend until smooth (smoother better than not), ladle into oiled steamer pan one ladle full every five minutes, remove noodle sheets and slice noodles.
FWIW, I'd just buy rice noodles - you've got your work cut out for you just with the other ingredients.
sarge_smith is hardcore!!
A difference I see between your recipe and other alternatives is that you don't have any other starch besides your rice. Other recipes include a good amount of tapioca or potato starch. The other difference was that other recipes used rice flour instead of rice.
You might also want to consider a change in technique. You can make rice noodles like a crepe rather than in an oiled steamer pan. Simply use a non-stick or oiled crepe pan, put in batter to crepe thickness, and let it cook until it begins to pull away from the edge of the pan. Invert and release in one motion onto a cutting board and slice.
so could I add rice flour to the mix to increase the starch content? And this recipe produced a layered block that you then sliced, do same as they come out of the pan or indiviually slice the "crepes"?
@sarge_smith - what I saw was rice flour plus a good mixture of tapioca starch as opposed to all rice (for example). Individually slice the 'crepes' as they come out.
ahh... so I am basically working from a bunk recipe. Thanks
@sarge_smith - let me know how an alternative recipe goes.
you were correct, I added tapioca flour to the mix and they came out great. I still need to tweak for texture but they are handling like rice noodles now. Thanks for your help.
I watched Chef of Red Lantern, Luke Nguyen visit a noodle making family in China near the Mekong river - he noticed they used glutinous rice flour (sweet rice flour) to make their flat rice noodles.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.122898
| 2010-10-08T01:49:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7932",
"authors": [
"Doug",
"MGOwen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"justkt",
"sarge_smith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13175
|
Where can I purchase Banquete Chilero Sauce from Costa Rica in the US?
I have been to Costa Rica twice and I fell in love with Banquete brand Chilero Sauce.
It is a hot sauce with a wonderful flavor but it has some fairly unique properties -- specifically that it is very similar in color and consistency / viscosity to asian sweet and sour sauces. This lets the sauce cling in a thick layer on the food to which it is applied.
I have tried looking for this sauce but it is hard to find even by mail order in the US and the price for shipping from Costa Rica costs many times more than the sauce itself. Apparently a lot of places carry Lizano sauce but this brand of Chilero seems to be left out.
I enjoyed this sauce from Costa Rica as well, and ordered it from Ticoshopping.com. However 2 of the bottle arrived broken and the contents spilled all over the place. It would help if someone showed them how to pack items for international shipment. 12 bottles loose in a cardboard box with packing peanuts doesn't cut it.
:(
Well, I just heard back from them and they are reshipping some bottles to replace the broken bottles. So they do have GREAT customer service.
I bought some from there too. You pretty much have to buy a dozen because it costs so much to ship the stuff.
Costa Rica Superstore carries it, though they appear to ship from Costa Rica.
I'm afraid I don't know of any stores that you can physically visit to purchase the sauce though.
Costa Rican Store just got it in and is getting it added to their website. www.CostaRicanStore.com. The prices will be similar to the Lizano Chiero with the Free shipping Special.
[Lizano Chilero (http://costaricanstore.com/costa-rica-free-shipping-specials/lizano-salsa-sauce-free-shipping-from-costa-rica/lizano-chilero-free-shipping.html)
http://www.ticoshopping.com/Banquete-Chilero-8-pack-55-oz
they have it! its about $16 dollars to ship!
Yeah... that's where I bought it. I had to buy a case to make the shipping worthwhile.
Amazon has this other brand - maybe worth a try at least for the ease of ordering.
Hmmm... Thanks for the link. I don't think it's the same thing. That's a red hot sauce and Banquete brand Chilero Sauce is a weird orange color. It's pretty much the exact same color and viscosity as Asian Sweet and Sour Sauce but spicy... which is awesome.
FWIW, Lizano sauce (their dark Salsa sauce) is very easy to get in the US and seems quite popular.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.123124
| 2011-03-15T22:48:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13175",
"authors": [
"Adisak",
"Alex Dong",
"Dudu Wholesale spam",
"Esther Adams",
"John Allers",
"Jędrek Kostecki",
"Keroronsk",
"Rob Audenaerde",
"Steve ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96202"
],
"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
}
|
17482
|
How to store parts of whole chicken for long time?
I bought cooked whole chicken. According to stilltasty.com and with my experience, for more than 1-2 days, I have to place it in the freezer. But then if I want to eat a part of it, I have to thaw it all. So I thought to break it in parts.
But then again, the parts stuck together. Then I place it under a jet of cold water and separated the part I wanted. Do you have a better idea?
When you want to freeze things so that they don't stick together, you need to freeze them separately and then combine later. So, for example, if you're freezing blueberries, you can freeze them on a cookie sheet and then combine them in one bag or container.
For chicken, I wouldn't advise freezing the pieces uncovered (as you do for blueberries). Instead, I would package the pieces in containers that only hold one meal's worth. You can always defrost more than one package if necessary.
This could be a plastic container or wrapped individually in plastic wrap or aluminum foil, or even a zippered plastic bag. Any of these would allow you to unwrap individually and defrost.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.123353
| 2011-09-05T00:55:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17482",
"authors": [
"AAlex",
"Antony",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37593"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22089
|
Is there a way to make falafel without deep frying?
I see in this video how the falafel balls are fully submerged in oil. Are there other ways (e.g. baking) to prepare the falafel balls after the balls are formed? Note: I do not ask for recipes.
They are so good deep fried, why would you want to take that away?
If your concern is about oil content in the food, if the oil temperature is kept high (over 350F) and you pull the falafel before the bubbling stops, the actual oil retention in the food is VERY low, which is surprising to many. Pan frying will actually absorb more oil because of the low-temp oil sitting on the exposed portion of the food can absorb better than high temp oil which is being driven out by steam. That said, if your need is simply because a large quantity of oil can be impractical to cook with, then read on.
Even at optimum temperature for the oil used, you will get around a 10%+ increase in oil calories because of surface absorbed oil in items like falafel. The uptake of oil happens after you remove them from the oil, the holes where water has been driven out, cool and suck in the surface oil. With potatoes you bang the basket to remove excess oil, but doing this with falafel 's will break them. One technique to stop this absorption is to glaze the falafel's before deep frying with a gelatinous substance like methyl cellulose, experimentation is required on this :-)
Growing up, my mother always used to bake them. They do turn out a bit drier than if you deep-fried them, but not overmuch. They cook for about 15-20 minutes at 400°F (~200 °C), or until golden and crispy on the outside.
Alternately, you can pan-fry them, as other answers have suggested.
Or you can split the difference and oven fry them. If you're unfamiliar, Google can acquaint you with the process. Here's a good NPR article to get you started: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130673515
I could imagine this would turn out pretty well. Particularly with the oven frying method -- brushing some oil on the outside of the falafel would do well to prevent evaporation. And I'd consider kicking the temp up to as high as 450f.
We don't fry, pan-fry, or bake our falafels. Instead, we put them on a non-stick grill (same grill we use to make pancakes, etc.). I imagine that a non-stick frying pan would do the same.
We don't use any oil at all. Depending on your non-stick surface, you may need to spray it with PAM or something similar.
We get a fairly nice browning, but we end up with a shape of a round patty instead of a ball. We've found that refrigerating the dough for an hour prior to cooking helps a lot in making sure that the batter stays together. I haven't found them to be any dryer than when I am frying them. The recipe I used was by the Looneyspoons girls, in their new recipe book. It worked very well.
Just fry them in a pan with a few tablespoons of oil like you would meatballs, you won't get the same all round browning but it'll do.
You can pan fry them if you're careful (6-12mm oil). It helps to coat the balls with rye flour or similar before frying. Leave them alone to fry until the bottoms are nicely brown, then turn carefully w a metal spoon.
If you have trouble with them breaking during the turning, you can flatten them from perfect ball shape a bit. However, that's best done as soon as you put them in the oil.
Falafel can be baked in the oven for about 20 minutes using few tablespoons of oil around 200°C (392°F). You should be careful when forming the balls not to make them too large. It is better to make them a little bit thin to make sure they are well cooked, and help prevent stomach aches. After baking or frying, you can use a paper towel to soak up the excess oil.
lilghtly coated in rapeseed oil, or oil with high smoke point, and air fried
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.123581
| 2012-03-07T17:00:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22089",
"authors": [
"Ivana",
"Louise Carroll",
"Sam Ley",
"Sean Hart",
"TFD",
"dpollitt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9091"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32418
|
What's the difference between serving from a ceramic plate and metal plate?
What's the difference between serving from a ceramic plate and metal plate?
I think the ceramic plate lasts longer, but suppose the metal one is in good condition for a long time.
What do you mean "in good condition for a long time?" As in Metal plates don't shatter when you drop them?
Allan Chow, I was thinking at the effect of rusting or oxydation
It is completely a matter of aesthetics, other than the tendency of a metal plate to bring its contents to room temperature more quickly due to its higher thermal conductivity compared to ceramic.
More than exactly, by an order of magnitude, at least. If you know of a metal--at least one commonly used in dishware--with a lower thermal conductivity than ceramic, please do share. For example, Pyrex glass has a thermal conductivity of 1.05 W/(m.K), and cast iron 55 W/(m.K), that is watts per meter kelvin--and iron is one of the worst heat conductors of the metals. Copper is 401 W/(m.K). http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-d_429.html
Stainless (16 W/(m.K) on that list) is the worst-conducting metal that might be used. Also, of course, when the temperature of the food is really important, you can preheat or prechill the plates.
@derobert And yet still an order of magnitude more conductive than any non-metal...
Yep. Metals conduct pretty well. Its actually more complicated than the thermal conductivity, though, as e.g., a thin (light) stainless platter will heat through fairly quickly (and conducted heat declines as the temperatures approach equilibrium), so it won't be much worse than the heavier ceramic plate. And the heavy cast iron plate almost certainly needs preheating, because there is a lot of iron to heat. (OTOH, a nice preheated iron plate will keep things warm for a while—think of the hot fajita plate)
I agree that there is more to it than the thermal conductivity--admittedly oversimplifying. The effect is magnified because the platter becomes a heat sink, effectively increasing the surface area for heat to transfer to the air. And don't get me started on unscrupulous vendors who sell lumps of iron as "miracle defrosters" when a plain cast iron pan will have the same effect...
Hah, I use a heavy aluminum jelly roll pan as a "miracle" defroster. Great heat sink! Wonder how much I'd confuse people if I posted a video to YouTube suggesting using a (clean) CPU heatsink & fan as a miracle defroster :-P It'd be cheaper... Anyway, getting OT, should probably draw you into chat someday.
One potential difference may be the color of the plate. Food on a higher contrast plate (i.e., white vs. gray) will tend to look more appealing, and will also cause you to eat less due to the Delbouef illusion.
@SunishthaSingh The OP has asked about the difference between serving on the two kinds plates, assuming that they're in good condition, not about their life and condition. This answer is helpful - presentation and perception are aspects of serving that certainly affect how we enjoy our food.
Yes, as Jefromi said, I asked in any sense, not (only) about the life and condition of metal vs ceramic plates
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.123921
| 2013-03-04T22:41:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32418",
"authors": [
"Bogdan",
"Cascabel",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"derobert",
"grumpasaurus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5009"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13803
|
Need to refrigerate vinaigrette?
I've made a red-wine vinaigrette dressing using olive oil (which makes up the majority of the dressing), red wine, garlic, and basil.
My problem is that whenever I take it out of the refrigerator, especially when it gets low, the olive-oil leaves it practically solid. I understand that this is normal for olive oil, but it is rather annoying having to get it out 30 minutes before I make a salad or a sandwich (as I don't normally have that kind of time).
My question is, since everything in there but the garlic doesn't need to be refrigerated, is it safe to leave it out of the fridge and let it stand at room temperature? Or is it like all other (store-bought) dressing where after opening (mixing) it requires refrigeration?
Yeah I should point out that it's not /raw/ garlic, it's pre-prepped, minced garlic from a jar. Is that still a problem though?
Yes, you should refrigerate it.
Once a commercially bottled dressing is exposed to the air it is contaminated. Your homemade dressing is no different, and is likely more contaminated to begin with. The bottom line is that your dressing is food -- for humans, bacteria, and mold. It might not be the most hospitable of environments, but something is bound to find a home there. This process is arrested by refrigeration. Additionally, the garlic and basil will be going through a decay process that would be delayed by refrigeration.
I'm not sure what kind of olive oil you used, but I've never had a vinaigrette turn solid in the refrigerator. If you're in a rush I'd suggest submerging, or running hot water over the bottle you store it in to quickly thaw it. You'll shorten the shelf life, but if you're using it frequently enough (used all in less than a month) that shouldn't matter.
I use extra-virgin olive oil (doubt the brand matters), and I go through about a bottle of this dressing a week so the shelf life isn't a problem. Thanks!
@daniel: It's not magic. White flour doesn't require refrigeration. Neither does water. Mix them together. Now it'll spoil (or become a sourdough starter).
Neither vinegar nor oil will grow bacteria, but together somehow they can? I don't buy it. "I've never had a vinaigrette turn solid in the refrigerator" -- you shouldn't be surprised in the least to find that olive oil gets sludgy when refrigerated. Maybe it isn't solid, but it sure doesn't flow easily. It's like molasses when refrigerated. -1.
My employer makes vinaigrette dressing professionally and distributes to Kroger stores, Meijer, and other chains. What Adisak mentioned about acidified ingredients is correct. In fact, you could acidify them yourself as we do. Mix the vinegar and flavors together (garlic, spices, etc...), and refrigerate over night. Make sure to blend/puree the ingredients to allow the acidification to work properly. Food code states that the finished product should be at a certain PH level to be used as shelf stable (non-refrigerated). But that shouldn't be an issue as long as you aren't adding more than 50% oil to the mix (plus the testing meters for ph in non-clear liquids are expensive). And leave water out of the mixture as it adds more complex variables into the equation. And as many have said, dry ingredients are the safest, but on the other hand... sadly just don't taste the same.
Not adding more than 50% oil? The recipe I used said to use a 3:1 oil to vinegar ratio. Is that too high???
I have another solution: you could use grapeseed oil instead. It doesn't solidify when refridgerated. It's what I use for all my dressing needs :)
Daniel is right about the raw garlic and botulism. If you make a dressing with raw garlic, eat it right away - don't store it. It's possible that the vinegar would kill the bacteria, but I wouldn't take the chance. This also means you shouldn't store raw garlic in oil. This doesn't apply to cooked garlic, by the way.
Otherwise - go ahead and leave it out. I've never seen a vinaigrette go bad, and I doubt that I ever will.
It's not raw, it minced garlic which comes from a jar but without looking I can't tell you if it's cooked or not. Thanks for the information though.
I make a basic Garlic dressing 2 or 3 times a week (virgin olive oil, white wine vinegar, crushed fresh garlic and salt). If I chill it for 30 minutes prior to use I don’t have a problem but if I chill lt overnight then it forms a thick crust which looks like fat. If you leave it for 30 minutes you will find the crust breaks down and it returns to its original consistency and is ready to use.
You can use garlic powder and leave it out. Two weeks. Then make fresh. Just make smaller quantities . 2/3 vinegars 1/3 olive oil.
Olive oil with any vinegar with only dry ingredients added is safe to leave on the counter. It's fresh made properties begin to deteriorate immediately. Pungent qualities and olive oil flavor will get stale flavor after a few weeks for sure. I've tried it. Answer , make it fresh once a week.
Garlic can be risky, however.
Note... fresh garlic is risky... dried garlic is pretty safe and so is commercially processed minced garlic from a jar (it's been acidified which is a preservative process by adding citric acid or phosphoric acid). I would still refrigerate nonetheless.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.124211
| 2011-04-06T15:35:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13803",
"authors": [
"Adisak",
"GerritS",
"Michael",
"Mike S",
"Nichole Smith",
"Stevew",
"Umberto P.",
"Yamikuronue",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89896",
"jcollum",
"rick green",
"skippy"
],
"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
}
|
14066
|
Can I fix a box cake recipe where I added oil instead of water?
I screwed up and put 1 1/4 cup veg oil instead of water in my box cake recipe. Is there any way to fix this? Can I add flour or something? Or is it doomed for the trash can?
Does the recipe call for oil? If so how much?
If the recipe calls for oil, butter, or any other fat, then you can try to scale the other quantities to match it.
If not, there's still a chance you can salvage it. The oil doesn't actually chemically react with the mix at all, it just "coats" it; in fact, most cake recipes use some amount of fat in order to slow gluten formation (i.e. stop the cake from getting tough and chewy).
However, if the recipe called for 1 1/4 cups water and you used the same quantity of oil instead, then that is going to be way too much oil for a single serving.
What I would do is double or maybe even triple the cake mix, make sure it's very well mixed with the oil, then add however much water you needed in the first place.
If you realized your mistake early (i.e. if the original recipe called for a lot more than 1 1/4 cups of water) then you might be able to just proceed as normal and end up with a very moist cake, but more likely you'll still need to add some more cake mix (and the corresponding amount of water) to compensate. I'd still double it, because otherwise you'll be stuck trying to figure out how to use the leftover mix.
Don't just add flour; the amount of water that the recipe calls for is proportional to all of the other ingredients in the mix, and it's virtually impossible for you to know how much extra water you'll need to compensate for the added flour. Besides, you'd only end up with a bland, flavourless cake if you did that.
If none of these options appeal to you then I'm afraid it's destined for the trash, unless you want to prepare your own cake mix from scratch and combine the two recipes.
I just made this mistake as well.. hoping to find an answer somewhere on the web, I came across this forum. I ended up just continuing and seeing how it went. The end result was very moist cupcakes, they held together well and I would only say the chocolate flavor was less potent than normal. Although after frosting, it was less noticeable!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.124621
| 2011-04-15T10:48:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14066",
"authors": [
"Daniel Power",
"Liz",
"Orbling",
"Tess",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432"
],
"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
}
|
18500
|
How long can fish be left out?
I was defrosting fish and forgot about it. It has been left out for a long time. How long can fish actually be left out before it goes bad?
Someone can feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm 99% certain that the rules for fish are exactly the same as those for meat, which makes this a duplicate of Is it safe to cook a steak that was left out (raw) for 7 hours? It's not safe to leave out at room temperature for any length of time, let alone a "long time".
@Aaronut Not a duplicate - rules for fish are different. Fish begins to deteriorate as soon as it leaves the water whereas stake can last for a much longer time without going bad.
@Bizorke: Everything "begins to deteriorate" once it's dead. Can you back up the claim that it's any different from other kinds of meat with a source? And if so - might as well post an answer.
@aaronut Alright I was actually just reading up on this a little while ago. I'll post what I found.
If fish deteriorates so quickly, how could olden day fishermen dry their cod for storage before the cod went bad?
@Doug - different method. Their cod in that case started fresh, and was likely cut thin enough to dry out before 'wet' spoilage set in. Often accompanied with a large amount of salt. Alternately wood-smoke, to also help dry/cure/etc.
A quote from the below link;
"Do not thaw frozen seafood at room temperature. Thaw in the
refrigerator or defrost in the microwave oven. If thawing in the
refrigerator, allow one to two hours per pound of seafood".
http://www.uaex.edu/Other_Areas/publications/PDF/fsfcs100.pdf
&
Another quote from the link below;
"... If food is allowed to remain at room temperature for two hours or
longer, bacteria can multiply and cause food poisoning. - Even a tiny
amount of contaminated food can cause severe illness. If you have any
doubt about the safety of the food, throw it out!"
http://www.calpoison.com/public/food.html
I know the fish is long eaten or thrown away by now, but since the question is still open I'll post.
Defrosting requirements of raw fish is a little different than that of land-mammal meat. I'm sure that the growth of bacteria for meat and fish is about the same, but fish will actually deteriorate faster than the meat even in the absence of bacteria if exposed to air.
I would cook and eat meat that's been left out raw up to 2-3 hours (depending on room temperature). However I would not eat a fish that's been left out in a warm room for much more than an hour of being defrosted. Fish decays faster than meat. It was my understanding that fish decays faster in air than in water (I was always told to always defrost fish in the sink rather than the counter), however I couldn't find adequate references to back that up (see comments). Whether in the sink or on the counter, bacteria will probably spread at just the same rate as any meat once the fish is defrosted so the clock is ticking.
The fish is not being destroyed by air, it is destroyed by its own enzymes (they are more active than meat at room temps, because the living temp of fish is lower). So while the "fish spoils quicker than meat" part is correct, the "it would be the same if defrosted under water" part isn't, at least when compared to meat defrosted at the same temperature.
@rumtscho Ahh I see. It was my understanding that fish decays faster when left in the air. I looked around but could only find one reference for this, but it's in the context of long-term storage rather than defrosting: http://fishcooking.about.com/od/howtochoosefreshfish/qt/freezing_fish.htm
In any case, I can edit my answer.
I don't have an online reference to link to, but just re-checked with On Food And Cooking. Page 189 in the 2004 UK edition (subsection The Perishability Of Fish) confirms that fish spoils quicker than meat because their enzymes and the bacteria living in/on fish are active even at low temperatures (5°C is "balmy" for them), while the analogues in warm-blooded animals "slow to a crawl" in a fridge. But he also mentions that fish oil oxidizes quicker than saturated fat, which isn't harmful, but I guess you can make an argument that it reduces the taste qualities of the fish.
I'm not too happy with this about.com article - I find the idea that there is less flavor loss in frozen fish than in frozen meat suspicious. But the reason why they are so adamant against air is not so much oxidation in the raw fish as freezer burn in the frozen fish, as they admit in their third point. Which makes sense too, freezer burn is unpleasant on any kind of food.
The reason's provided seem logical to me. But yea I agree that it's not the best source; the article itself would be a lot more credible with some references. It's written by an experienced seafood chef though.
It certainly doesn't matter that the OP's fish is long gone. We are producing answers for posterity.
According to the bio, the about.com article was written by a fisherman and line cook, not a seafood chef - there's a major difference, and the article doesn't cite data or sources. In any case, the question was about food safety, and the kind of enzymatic spoilage being discussed here is not relevant at all to the 2-hour room-temperature window. It might be more pertinent to a question about how long you can store fish in the fridge, but as far as the danger zone goes, the rules are still exactly the same for meat and fish.
@slim it's not for posterity this came up in Google as a first result
It depends what the ambient temperature is and exactly how long it's been left out. If it smells bad, looks a funny colour or is suspect in any way, throw it out - no amount of fish (or the money you paid for it) is worth a bout of food poisoning.
Of course, this is only valid as a negative check. If it's visibly spoiled and/or odiferous then it's definitely bad. But if it smells and looks fine, that still doesn't mean it's free of (potentially severe) bacterial contamination.
Defrost fish should be cooked immediately or you can keep maximum 2 days in the refrigerator after defrosting... fish poisoning is the worst .... be aware!!!
According to the FDA, no longer than 2 hours, based on basic safety. My friend works for a top of the line restaurant in LA and they leave the raw fish at room temperature for up to 7 hours. She once told me that at culinary school the rule is no longer than 4. Even so, don't wait plan ahead and keep it fresh.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.125101
| 2011-10-21T15:34:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18500",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ann Glenn",
"Donna",
"Doug",
"JSideris",
"Lorraine Winston",
"Sarah Bradbury",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/835",
"makerofthings7",
"prolifier",
"rothschild86",
"rumtscho",
"sdg",
"slim",
"swak"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10184
|
What's causing the metallic aftertaste in my Nutraloaf?
Thanks to all of the wonderful help thus far, I've finally been able to make my Überfood. It's called "Nutraloaf", and is kind of like a meatloaf with a bunch of other stuff in it.
It has no real taste (not a problem) and the texture is a little mushy (I will try baking it longer in the oven), but the idea is I can simply eat this 3 times a day, every day, and not have to worry about making any other food.
However, one problem is that I'm getting a metallic aftertaste. I don't know if it's the ingredients, or the fact that I used a normal oven instead of a convection/steam oven.
This is the recipe I used.
2 oz Ground Beef
Brown off in kettle and drain thoroughly
4 oz Canned, Chopped Spinach
4 oz Canned Carrots, Diced
4 oz Vegetarian Beans
Open and drain all vegetables well
4 oz Applesauce
1 oz Tomato Paste
1/2 cup Potato Flakes
1 cup Bread Crumbs
2 oz Dry Milk Powder
1 tsp Garlic Powder or Flakes
Combine beef and vegetables. Gradually blend in remaining
ingredients until well combined. Mixture should be stiff
but moist enough to spread. Each loaf should weigh 1 1/2
pounds precooked weight and be scaled to insure proper
weight. Place mixture into a loaf pan that has been
sprayed with pan release and lined with filter paper.
Each loaf should bake at 300 degrees Fahrenheit in
convection/steam oven for approximately 40 minutes or
until the loaf reaches 155 degrees internal temperature.
It is a subtle aftertaste and it went away after I had a stick of Wrigley's gum. I would prefer to not have to chew Wrigley's after every meal, since I don't really like chewing gum. I'm sure a peppermint or buttermint would also help with the aftertaste, but would prefer to fix my nutraloaf recipe or cooking technique.
So how can I remove this metallic aftertaste? Or, where can I even begin looking for what's causing it?
I'm sorry, but I'm not having that an Uberfood can be made mainly with ingredients that are dried or come from cans. This does not have a single fresh ingredient in it apart from the meat. I'm not surprised it had no flavour and tasted weird. Do yourself a favour and cook up large batches of a few different things, using fresh ingredients and freeze in portions. Then you can eat a varied, healthy diet and still spend a minimal amount of time cooking.
Agreed: meat, beans, three vegetables, and a fruit doesn't give you everything you need. Your body is not going to be happy with you if this is all you ever eat.
@sam holder: Sounds like he's intentionally going for prison food: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutraloaf
Are you seriously complaining about the taste of your Nutraloaf? I'm pretty sure it's designed to taste bad.
Brendan, his post claims that the Nutraloaf itself has no taste and that isn't a problem, it's the aftertaste that seems to be causing problems. I however agree with everyone else in thinking that he should just make meatloaf or something with a side of vegetables... you can mash them together on the plate if you want homogeny!
@Sam Holder, that is a good suggestion; I did try that once and kept a very regimented diet, but they ran out of the freshlike canned green beens one week due to a crazy sale (I guess I could have went generic?), and that threw the whole thing off. I'm very picky about consistency; some say that's boring, spice of life, etc. But, I'm happy this way... and I don't have to feed anyone else but me!
I'm not sure this is a legitimate question. Paste the recipe into google, and you'll get correctional institution websites. This is prison food, served as punishment. I think we're being trolled.
Given this food's typical application, perhaps someone is trying to sneak you a metal key.
You said that you drained your canned vegetables, but did you rinse them? Sometimes just dumping out the packing liquid isn't enough. I always rinse any beans that I get out of a can at least a few times.
If you wanted to add a little taste you might want to throw in some chopped cilantro. It packs a lot of flavor and overpowers a lot of tastes. Of course some people think it tastes like dirt.
I like the idea of an Uberfood. That only puts us a few short steps away from getting all of our nutrition in pill form!
It sounds like most of those ingredients came out of metal cans, yes? Certainly the spinach and carrots, and I imagine the beans, tomato paste, and possibly the apple sauce? Canned foods do sometimes have a slight metallic taste, especially if you don't use them all at once and continue to store them in the can after opening it: (about.com)
However, I definitely wouldn't rely on this (or any other single recipe) as your sole source of nutrition. Even if it does include every one of the hundreds (thousands?) of nutrients your body needs in reasonable ratios (which is questionable), that still doesn't mean it's good for you.
For example: if every meal you eat has lots of vitamin C and zinc, your body won't be able to absorb the trace amounts of copper it needs, since they interfere with each other. To be healthy, you need to mix up the nutrient profile of your meals.
That makes perfect sense. Do you know where there is any research on needing to "mix up nutrient profiles"? I am very interested in this, but I can't find anything. I asked my Doctor, and he said to see a nutritionist... but it's a far drive, and I haven't made it there yet, especially in this weather.
@JJC: For starters, have a look at studies such as The effects of variety in food choices on dietary quality or Inadequate Nutrient Intakes Are Common and Are Associated with Low Diet Variety in Rural, Community-Dwelling Elderly. Honestly, I don't even feed my cat the same food over and over again, as its believed to lead to bizarre allergies, intolerances, and addictions.
You could use frozen vegetables instead of canned vegetables.
My guess: Lack of salt. Unless you're used to doing without, most things taste really odd without it. Anybody who's tried low-salt V8 Juice knows that bitter, metallic taste you're describing.
You might get used to going without the salt, or you might consider salting your Nutraloaf mixture some. After all, there's no reason to leave the salt out entirely if you're not making a punishment of it.
+1 - keen observation, I tend to notice this with canned soups I just never knew why!
Very good idea. Once I had it "perfectly bland", I was going to try to spice it up with salt and maybe pepper or paprika. That might mask the aftertaste, which is fine with me.
You may want to carefully inspect your loaf pan. I have had times where very small scratches were causing rust to form. You do not need to throw away the pan, though. Just insert some aluminum foil before making the loaf next time. Pop it in the oven and you are good to go.
I put "parchment paper" down... doesn't that do the same thing?
I am pretty sure that the paper would be a sufficient layer between pan and loaf. As long as there is no tearing or soak through.
Canned spinach always has an awful, somewhat metallic flavor: spinach is very easy to overcook, and tastes terrible when overcooked. The process of canning requires high temperatures for durations that ultimately require spinach to be overcooked.
Looking at this recipe, even if you replaced the canned spinach with frozen or fresh, it would probably still turn out awful (though perhaps not quite as bad), because spinach can't survive cooking for 40 minutes. Ideally, it should cook only until it's wilted, which is only a couple of minutes at boiling temperature.
I've seen recipes that call for spinach to be overcooked, the water discarded, and the spinach to be wrung out inside a (paper or lint-free) towel to remove as much liquid as possible, before being added to something and cooked further, which I expect is to reduce the overcooked flavor.
However, I'd hardly call the result a building block for a "superfood", as the process likely discards the majority of the water-soluble nutrients, and I'm pretty sure it only reduces the overcooked flavor, so I prefer (if possible) to alter such recipes to add the spinach at the last minute, or (if not) to look for another recipe that treats its ingredients better, which is what I'd recommend in this case.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.125611
| 2010-12-15T21:57:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10184",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adrian",
"Anon",
"Brendan Long",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Eli Lansey",
"Elizabeth",
"Frank Pierce",
"JJ Caldwell",
"Naomi Campbell",
"Roberta",
"Sally",
"Sam Holder",
"Sarah",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Vrinda Gupta",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6610"
],
"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
}
|
10159
|
What is a good resource for learning about Molecular Gastronomy?
Before frequenting this site I had never even heard of molecular gastronomy and now I am intrigued. Is there a good resource to learn about the process either web or in printed format that would be a reliable source of information?
Khymos is a fantastic resource, and has probably the best collection of recipes out there at the moment.
There's also a lot of good stuff at the French Cullinary Institute's Cooking Issues blog. They've got a good post on hydrocolloids that's quite enlightening.
I actually disagree on the McGee recommendations. While it's an excellent book, full of great info, I don't think it's a good starting point for molecular gastronomy (in the sense of the cooking movement rather than the more literal sense)
This very site. Take a look at the other questions tagged molecular-gastronomy.
Of particular note is this similar question which has a great answer by daniel.
I can recommend The Fat Duck Cookbook by Heston Blumenthal. He explains each recipe in detail and goes into the chemistry behind it as well. There is also On Food and Cooking by Harold McGee, which I think is the reference book to have.
The McGee book has its own Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Food_and_Cooking
Harold McGee's On Food and Cooking for a start.
Hervé This' Molecular Gastronomy: Exploring the Science of Flavor is a good choice if you are interested in the science behind molecular gastronomy. You may not learn much in terms of recipes or cooking techniques but it provides lots of short essays about the science behind cooking. Keep in mind about the bad translation though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.126409
| 2010-12-15T16:34:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10159",
"authors": [
"Anne",
"Joel",
"Kathy Cunningham",
"dkguru",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20812",
"qwertzlcoatl"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7680
|
Is it possible to cook a meatloaf using clear glass Pyrex containers?
Still trying to restock my kitchen pans after my recent move and am on a budget, but what I do have is as set of clear pyrex, that looks about like this set: http://www.amazon.com/Pyrex-6021224-Storage-10-Piece-Clear/dp/B00005B8K5/ref=sr_1_1?s=gateway&ie=UTF8&qid=1285775513&sr=8-1
My question is can I use it to cook a meatloaf? If I cannot use it to cook a meatloaf then have you ever cooked a meatloaf on a cookie sheet without it falling to pieces and/or burning on the bottom?
Are you concerned with the fact that these are glass, or that they're shallow pans?
I was more concerned with the temperature and shattering glass and meatloaf shrapnel. :)
as far as I know, there's very little difference between glass Pyrex storage and glass Pyrex baking dishes.
Pyrex bakeware may be one of two things: borosilicate glass or tempered glass. Storage will be either tempered or plain glass. Borosilicate is the most thermal-shock resistant; plain glass the least. Tempered should be fine for baking, as long as you don't (for example) take it out of the oven then toss it on a cold, wet surface. Put it on heat pads instead.
As an alternate to a cookie sheet, I'd recommend a broiler pan, if you have one; that way, any extra grease will drop away, and be contained underneath. The pan's generally a little deeper than a cooke sheet, so you won't have as high of a risk of sloshing hot grease on you when you go to remove it from the oven.
related http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17970/is-pyrex-safe-to-use-on-a-gas-burner
I see no reason you couldn't use that Pyrex set for a meatloaf - I've used glass casseroles for meatloaf before (so glass in general is no problem), and that set says the bowls are oven safe.
As for the cookie sheet method, I would be afraid of it falling apart as you described, but if you were to go that route, I'd recommend wrapping it in aluminum foil to help it keep its shape.
When baking with a glass dish, you may want to lower the temperature 25 degrees, as glass dishes conduct heat better than light metal pans. Other than that, you should be totally fine.
And remember to bake it without the plastic tops—use foil if your recipe recommends covering.
I have always preferred to use glass baking dishes as I think they clean up much easier. So all my meatloaves were made in a glass dish. I form it smaller than the dish (sort of mounded in the center) so the liquid has somewhere to go.
This is probably long-resolved for the OP, but to any other Pyrex owners out there: I had a few of the blue glass-looking ones several years ago. Someone gave them to me, so no clue on the price point or any descriptive sub-names.
Thinking they were like my beloved but lost old-school Corningware®, I browned two big thick rib pork chops in one on the stove burner before putting it in the oven, at about 350F. Not 20 minutes in they shattered all over the oven and yes, saturated the chops and their stuffing with bright blue shrapnel.
The glass is not made for direct or really high heat, so the issue was putting it directly on the cook top. Any time you know you need to use the cook top, ALWAYS use a metal dish of some kind.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.126603
| 2010-09-29T15:57:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7680",
"authors": [
"DrKNa",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"In the Booley House",
"Joe",
"Lashes77",
"Varuuknahl",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"justkt",
"kajaco",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37462
|
Can "cream-style" corn substitute for creamed corn in cornbread?
I was searching for an extra-moist cornbread recipe, and found several that said the secret was to add some creamed corn. From the descriptions/quantities involved, it seemed clear that they meant canned creamed corn, not the homemade variety. However, all I've ever seen in the grocery store is cream-style corn, which does not generally involve cream, or even dairy products of any sort. (The ingredients are usually corn, sugar, cornstarch, and salt.)
Thus, my question is twofold: (1) is actual creamed corn available canned, and I just don't know about it? (2) If I use cream-style corn, will it have the same effect of adding extra moistness to my cornbread, or should I substitute something else instead?
It's canned cream-style corn that the recipes are expecting you to use, it's not a substitution at all. It does make for nice cornbread.
Creamed corn is a dish made from the kernels of fresh, sweet corn, that are cooked down in their own juices. Cream is not normally added; the creaminess is the liquid from the fresh corn thickened with the native starch.
This is in contrast, to for example, creamed spinach, which is spinach cooked down in a bechemel or cream sauce.
Canned versions of creamed corn are readily available.
Either will work in a corn bread recipe to add more corny flavor and texture.
Hmm. All the "creamed corn" recipes I could find involved copious quantities of heavy cream.
That's to make creamed corn. It's a totally different animal homemade than canned. The canned product is more like when you scrape cobs to get the "milk".
The home made version is the same thing, you cut the kernels in half (often times) down the rows, then cut them off the cob, then scrape out the extra "cream", and cook the mixture down.
In our age of profligate consumption, a lot of recipes add some dairy, but it is not necessary to the identity of the dish.
@Marti By searching for recipes, you were selecting for the actual-cream + corn dish; cream-style corn (sometimes also referred to as creamed corn, like in your recipe) is available in cans so people don't generally bother writing down a recipe for it.
@Jefromi, it sounds like maybe the question I should be asking is "what's the difference between creamed corn and cream-style corn?" Or something. Because now I'm even more confused.
There must be a quirk in US labeling laws that prevents labeling creamed corn as such. Otherwise, no manufacturer would use a horrible phrase liked "creamed-style corn." Probably we have a standard of identity for labelling that requires cream in "creamed" products leading this ambiguity, but that doesn't change the fundamental history and identity of the dish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.126909
| 2013-10-09T19:21:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37462",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jolenealaska",
"Marti",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8583
|
Are sea bass fillets meant to be crisp on the flesh side when fried?
I've just cooked some sea bass fillets (according to the instructions), and was instructed (by the instructions) to turn them from the skin side to the flesh side mid-way through cooking.
This led to the flesh side being slightly yellowed and crisp, which seems strange. Have I been led unwittingly into some form of cooking faux-pas, or is all as it should be?
Nothing wrong with slightly crispy flesh, however I wouldnt do it 50% on each side.
Depending on the fish (I would enjoy monkfish and tuna less crispy than seabass or salmon), I would do it a maximum of 30% cooking time skin side up and a minimum of 10-15% - as you want some colour on there after all.
If you want to avoid getting the flesh side crispy start pre-heating the oven and a frying pan, then fry it skin side down for a few minutes, turn it and fry it just briefly on the flesh side, then transfer to a baking dish and finish it for a few minutes in the oven. Keep the skin side up and place it high in the oven to ensure the skin stays crispy.
I certainly like it coloured, but cooking time shouldnt be 50/50 time/side more like 70/30, skin down/skin up
@NBenatar: Oh Gosh. If Only Someone Would Write Similar Time/Crispiness Variations In An Answer It Might Do Quite Well. waggles eyebrows meaningfully
I think this is largely going to be a matter of taste. However, I think that's perfectly appropriate. If I'm frying fish, then I want some of the crispyness. You could probably avoid it by using a lower temperature and longer cooking if you wanted, but I think it's one of the nice things about sauteeing fish.
I agree this can be down to personal preference, but sea bass being regarded for it's soft fine silky flesh (when cooked). You may want to try cooking them skin side down until crispy, and flipping over onto the skin side until cooked. Generally when I pan fry sea bass fillets, it's on a high or medium high heat and once the the skin is golden brown I flip them over, take the heat off and serve them after a minute or two (there's plenty of residual heat in the pan).
You can also try steaming the fillets skin side down for 5-8 minutes just to experience how soft the flesh can be when cooked delicately.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.127177
| 2010-10-27T18:03:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8583",
"authors": [
"Amir Uval",
"John Tapper II",
"NBenatar",
"Ph. Es",
"Puneet Garg",
"Stu Pegg",
"cherylcourt",
"graved",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2633"
],
"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
}
|
7935
|
When to spray or when to use olive oil?
So what's the basic rule of when to spray with PAM etc or when to use olive oil?
For ex, for making an omelet, I usually use the spray.
Clarification: is there a good guideline when to use olive oil when frying? is that when I need a liquid to fry something on?
What are the mechanics of using olive oil when frying?
Olive oil is now in spray cans too.
With using oil, make sure that you're paying attention to the smoke point. Extra Virgin Olive Oil isn't good for higher temperature cooking - you want a higher smoke point oil at that point.
That said, I only use sprays for baking. Otherwise I use one of butter, vegetable oil, peanut oil, or olive oil.
Not all olive oils are the same -- Extra Light Olive Oil is great for high temps (to about 450F) ... Extra Virgin Olive Oil will smoke much earlier, and you're ruining the fruity qualities by heating it.
@Joe - good point, I so automatically think that Olive Oil = EVOO that I forgot to clarify.
I recently bought this oil mister (http://www.amazon.com/Prepara-PP02-OM100-Oil-Mister/dp/B0026L7BNU/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1286686630&sr=8-1) and filled it with olive oil to have another option besides the aerosol spray cans. Works pretty well, doesn't include any other ingredients, and can be refilled easily from large bottles of oil.
I only use spray when doing things like waffles in an iron, possible pancakes too.
Otherwise it always OO or butter for some things (like eggs as roux says).
You can also use a pastry brush to brush oil on the pan to avoid using too much oil and in lieu of sprays.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.127401
| 2010-10-08T07:51:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7935",
"authors": [
"James",
"Joe",
"MGOwen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"justkt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19898
|
Uses for juicer pulp
What do you do with juicer pulp?
Does it still contain any flavor to make something out of it?
How about vitamins?
You might want to specify what it is that you're juicing; I'm not an authority on this but the answers could be wildly different for fruits vs. vegetables and even the different kinds of each. I'm adding the [fruit] tag on the assumption that it's what you have.
In some asian cuisine, you can sun dry the pulps (or remains) of fruits. Use the dry pulps to stir fry meat dish could be tasty because these pulps gives out fruity aroma to the meat and also absorb excess oil from the meat to balance out the dish ingredients.
really like the idea to use it in asian dishes
This depends on the type of juicer and how well it extracts the juice from the fruit. The best juicers leave a relatively flavourless pulp (which is, however, very high in fiber). If you're curious about the flavour, try tasting it! (I've heard of the pulp being used to make muffins, but other flavouring agents are definitely required).
I am not sure about the vitamins, I am willing to guess that they exist primarily suspended within liquid (water for the water-soluble vitamins, oil for the fat-soluble ones) and a good juicer will leave only trace amounts of either type in the pulp.
We have a twin-screw masticating juicer (an older Angel juicer) and have found that when we make carrot juice, the pulp works well in carrot bread or carrot muffins. It's quite dry and it's finely shredded and ready to be mixed in to the bread.
I have no evidence to support this, but based on my understanding, it should be a great source of fiber, it definitely has "some" flavor and color (in many cases enough), no juicer is perfect so there are some remaining vitamins and other goodies that you expect from that fruit or veg in the first place that could be released (to be absorbed) by cooking.
So you need to try! and report back so that we can get inspiration!
I love the texture of pulp so I mix it back into the juice.
If you're talking about a rotary shredding juicer (such as a Mr. Juiceman), then the only use I've found for it is compost. A combination of juicer shreddings and coffee grounds is an excellent way to enrich the soil for gardening.
I wouldn't eat it though, personally.
I wouldn't eat it either. The coffee would make it all gritty :D
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.127557
| 2011-12-22T16:05:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19898",
"authors": [
"ABcDexter",
"Aaronut",
"Brian",
"Gabriel Solomon",
"Neuron",
"Stefanie Zucker",
"a06e",
"charlie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43502",
"slim"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11656
|
What's the best pasta, and cooking approach, for making pasta salad?
I love the pasta salad you can buy in shops and would love to be able to make something comparable. The part that I love the most is the dense, thick pasta that comes in these salads.
When I try to reproduce this at home by making standard pasta shapes and leaving them to cool, I end up with thin rubbery pieces that are dull and disappointing.
So, how can I make great pasta for pasta salads? In particular, what pasta should I buy and how should I cook it?
I'd think you should buy some of the same shapes that you see in the salads you like... you could go find a chart of pasta shapes online and figure out a name, perhaps? Or do you mean you're cooking the same shapes and they somehow get thinner?
I mostly use spirelli in pasta salads, but other thicker pasta works as well. I just cook them in a good amount of water (with salt/oil), nothing fancy really. But don't cook them too long or they will be too soft and not tasty.
I don't know about the packages in your country, but here, the time is always too short (you hardly can call it al dente), so if you cook it the time written plus one additional minute, you have the perfect time for pasta salad pasta :)
But it is of course a question of taste, so I would recommend to vary cooking times and see what you like best.
Penne or fusilli work well in pasta salads. The key to cooking pasta well is:
Use as big a pan as possible, with plenty of water, to dilute the starch that comes out of the pasta.
Add plenty of salt - a good couple of tablespoons of sea salt, more for a big pan.
Get the water to a proper rolling boil, add the pasta, stir, put the lid on the pan to get it up to the boil again quickly. There is no need to add oil if you do this.
Cook the pasta as per packet instructions, but check it a couple of minutes before it should be ready. You want it to have a bit of bite, not be totally soft.
Get your dressing onto the pasta ASAP to prevent it from drying out, and drizzle with good olive oil to help it last longer.
adding the dry pasta to plenty of boiling water is hugely important. if you don't, the lower temp of the pasta will bring down the temp of the water below boiling and you'll end up with slimy pasta that's slightly bitter. boil lotsa for pasta!
check website of jamie oliver: http://www.jamieoliver.com/recipes/pasta-recipes/a-basic-recipe-for-fresh-egg-pasta
Work every time for me.
Goos luck.
Bart
If he's trying to recreated pasta salad from shops, odds are, making your own pasta isn't going to do it. At the very least, you'd need a pasta extruder to get most shapes used for pasta salads, as you most don't use rolled pasta.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.127785
| 2011-01-30T18:44:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11656",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chicken Pie",
"Joe",
"Mark E. Haase",
"Petey B",
"Seema",
"Ted Tanton",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user23938"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20318
|
When can I not substitute Romano for Parmesan?
I noticed that good Romano costs 1/3 as much as good Parmesan.
I know that Romano is aged much less than Parmesan is and that accounts for the difference in cost. However, the flavors of the two are very similar to me.
In what situations would it be important to use only Parmesan instead of substituting cheaper Romano cheese?
On the other hand of the spectrum; when not to use well-aged parmesan over romano / less aged parmesan. I once made a risotto with very heavy, delicious parmesan, but it came out terribly wrong since the savoriness (?) was extremely overwhelming. So more flavor / aged is not always better :)
It's a different flavor. Romano is sharper, more grassy; parmesan is nuttier and sweeter. I actually prefer romano where I have a lot of other strong flavors. If there's other sharp flavors in a dish, such as olives, chili pepper, or capers (e.g., puttanesca), I'll go with romano which seems to stand up better to the robust flavors. For something with a more subtle flavor such as a ragu bolognese, butter or cream-based sauces, risotto, etc. I feel that a good parmeggiano reggiano can stand up to the other flavors in the dish without overwhelming them.
If cost is your main concern, I've had some parms from Argentina that are actually pretty good. Reggiano is definitely better, but depending on what you're using it for, it might be an option. I wouldn't use it in something like a risotto or fettuchine alfredo where it plays a key role in the dish, but if you're just grating it on top it will work fine. An in-between option is Grana Padano, which is advertised as a "budget" substitute for reggiano. In my experience, it's pretty good, but where I live it's only a little cheaper.
IMHO, Pecorino Romano tastes very different from Parmesan. It is a lot saltier. Parmesan's flavor is also more subtle and the notes duller.
However, having said that I'm having a hard time thinking about when it is not ok to substitute Romano for Parmesan. It is an interesting question, but I don't think it has a definitive answer. I think it comes down to a matter of taste.
Maybe one situation is if the dish is already salted, you may just want to use Parmesan so that you're essentially adding the Parmesan flavor without adding saltiness.
I just made Lasagna Besciamella - a melt in your mouth recipe that I’ve used before, However, this time I used a combination of Parmesan and Romano instead of parmigiana-reggiano, and the Romano dominated the dish; it tasted strong, it was not good; even left an aftertaste! An expensive mistake!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.128037
| 2012-01-10T16:37:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20318",
"authors": [
"Alex Morales",
"Ankit Gupta",
"Jessika",
"Max",
"Rodger",
"Spyros Schismenos",
"Thorpentin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45000"
],
"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
}
|
47700
|
Terrine shrunk during cooking
I did my first terrine this weekend. I used this recipe with 300g rabbit meat, 100g rabbit livers, 300g pork cheeks and 300g lard, marinaded in armagnac, white wine and salt overnight, minced, mixed with shallots and herbs, put in the mould and cooked.
During cooking the meat seemed to shrink about 1cm from each side and fat seeped in on the sides. When refrigerated the fat turned to solid so there’s a white chunk of fat on both sides which I don't think is desired.
Any ideas what went wrong? I believe I followed the recipe to the letter. Could it be a problem with the recipe - is the ratio of meat to fat wrong here?
Update:
The meat did not fill all the terrine mould. Had there been enough meat to just over-fill the terrine and put something on top to press the meat down, would the shrinkage not have happened?
Aside from the actual reasons and whether you made some error, there is no reason to assume that a layer of fat is not desired. The aversion towards eating pure fat is a cultural phenomenon localized by geography and time, and is not present in classic French cuisine. So there is a high probability that everything went as intended, including the layer of fat.
I wouldn't be surprised if they want fat surrounding the whole thing, to seal it in & preserve it, as you would have with confit.
Actually, it sounds like everything went right to me, that's a classic terrine. You simply picked the wrong recipe if you don't want fat - 1/4 of it is lard after all. When you cooked it the fat melted and got squeezed out to the sides, that's perfectly normal.
If you want less fat then replace fat with gelatine which will solidify to hold it all together.
No I'm cool with fat, just thought that it should remain mixed with the meat instead of on the sides. I'll try just over-filling the terrine and putting something on top to press the meat down next time.
Sure, the fat will still separate next time, it'll just float to the top instead.
If fat gets squeezed out from a perfectly emulsified mixture, you are overcooking it, it's basically the same process as mayonnaise curdling. But I don't know if your mixture was perfectly emulsified (maybe you failed there), or whether it is meant to emuslify at all.
The terrine was half-immersed in water and I took it out of the oven at 72°C so it shouldn't have overcooked. I don't understand the emulsification concept for a meat/fat mixture. As far as I know emulsions are made up of liquids with a continuous phase (oil in mayonnaise for example), a dispersed phase (egg yolk) and usually a stabiliser (mustard). I'm very interested in how this applies to the terrine mixture.
Terrines almost always shrink. The water in the ingredients evaporates out, so the volume reduces - there's nothing you can do about that. However, not filling the mould will have exacerbated the problem. All terrine recipes are careful to state that the mould should be filled - yours even says to mound it slightly. It also says to use caul fat to help it hold its shape. I'd suggest following both directions in future.
Yeah I think that's what went wrong. I'll try that next time.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.128268
| 2014-10-06T09:03:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47700",
"authors": [
"David Miller",
"GdD",
"James Overaa",
"Jay Clark",
"Joe",
"Michael",
"Norma Wing",
"Pam Smith",
"Robyn Mathis",
"Vivian Umeagudosi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77854
|
Butter burns when pan searing mahi mahi
I have been trying to cook some new things, and I bought myself a good allclad skillet. I've tried pan searing fish a few times, using some hipster techniques I saw on YouTube.
I heat the pan pretty high, add in some peanut oil, and add the fish (already seasoned on both sides)
I leave it for a few minutes (med high heat) and then flip it. At that point, I added in a tab of butter, a crushed garlic clove, and some fresh herbs. As the butter melted I basted the fish.
The thing was, at that point the butter got really dark. Should I have lowered the heat, or done it more toward the end?
In this case since the fish filet was pretty thick I had the heat lower then when I cooked a bass filet, but had the same basic issue.
video
thanks.
You've answered your own question...lower heat, butter and baste for the last minute.
Or use clarified butter; without the milk solids, which do burn at a much lower heat, it can withstand a much high heat, 400 degrees, before burning.
"hipster techniques"? This is about as classic as you can get.
@JK I meant "hipster" for me, as in mimicking chefs on TV :)
high heat saute: oil alone is best
medium to high heat saute: some people do a 50/50 mix of oil and butter
low heat saute: butter alone should suffice
Line cooks in a restaurant will often use 1 ladle of melted butter from the steam table, and one ladle of a vegetable oil. If they scoop the butter just right, they avoid the milk solids.
Use a very high heat oil such as peanut or avocado. These oils have a much higher working temperature than does butter. Think about it. Do you want seared Ahi or do you want smoking butter. By not using butter, and using a high heat oil, you get the food that you want - seared Ahi
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.128672
| 2017-01-28T01:15:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77854",
"authors": [
"Giorgio",
"J K",
"badperson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54079",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45563
|
Can you make Bearnaise with olive oil?
I'm looking to make a 'paleo version of Bearnaise Sauce.
Can you substitute olive oil for butter when making Bearnaise sauce?
I wonder which humanity learned first- to harvest milk or press olives. I would think the only fat that would be truly 'paleo' would have to be rendered mammoth lard.
You can make sauces like Bernaise with olive oil instead of butter, but they won't be Bearnaise, they'll be something else entirely. It may taste good, but it won't taste like Bernaise. Look at this Google Search I used the name hollandaise, just because that's the most basic sauce of that type.
I'd give it a shot after looking at some of the links @Jolenealaska's search turned up. I've made plenty of bearnaise in my day... And I'd probably make "paleonnaise" the same way with the bowl over simmering water, whisking, while slowly drizzling warm oil into the mixture until the desired consistency is achieved. No citrus or cayenne, add shallots and tarragon reduction. Actually sounds tasty (to me).
I agree with @Sobachatina, there's nothing remotely paleo about olive oil, or butter for that matter. Paleo refers to foods that humanity ate as hunter-gatherers, before animal husbandry.
Don't make any emulsion sauces with olive oil. The high speed of dispersion, especially with an electric blender, creates unpleasant bitter compounds in the oil. But frequently, even the speed of a hand whisk is high enough to ruin the taste. Either that, or you are too slow to create the emulsion at all.
You can form yolk-fat-emulsion sauces with practically any fat, and olive oil is an unfortunate exception with its taste change. Just choose another fat compatible with your diet. From a purist's point of view, they won't be a Bearnaise, the French sauces are very tightly classified. You will also get an obvious difference in taste (only butter tastes like butter), and, if you are using a liquid oil, a slight difference in handling - you can let a liquid-oil-emulsion cool down, while a butter or lard based sauce will harden into an unpleasant grainy mass.
If your base food is very plain/bland tasting, you can play with subtle oil tastes to create an interesting effect where the main "seasoning" is the oil in the sauce.
I didn't know that about olive oil. Weird, since it's so common in vinaigrettes.
@Jolenealaska I'm not sure I find it quite this easy to ruin. Maybe I'm less sensitive.
I've heard for mayo that you can add olive oil towards the end, but you want to start with a light oil when you're first setting up the emulsion ... I don't know if that would reduce the bitterness simple because of scaling, or if there's something about when you're initially beating it harder.
I don't know exactly what makes it that way, but I can imagine that prolonged beating and oxidation play a role, so both vinnaigrettes and drizzling at the end shouldn't present a problem (or not much).
Yes, you can make a "light Bearnaise" with olive oil, in fact Gordon Ramsay has done it before and it's featured in a recipe somewhere. Just warm the oil slightly (as you would warm the ghee/clarified butter in an actual Bearnaise sauce,) to keep the temperature correct.
I usually make it this way, as I have more olive oil than I do ghee, also the smell of ghee gets to me a bit. The sauce comes out lighter and you can taste the sourness a bit more, so it would be advisable to ease up on the vinegar a bit.
Since most Bearnaise recipes use a volumetric amount of ghee, you can simply substitute for the same volumetric amount of olive oil (which you may or may not use all of, since you have to judge by eye whether the mixture is about to split or not.)
Source: me. Also Gordon Ramsay did it.
It wouldn't be bearnaise then. Can you make hollandaise with olive oil? It would taste so different that it wouldn't be hollandaise.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.128848
| 2014-07-14T19:11:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45563",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Michael E.",
"Sobachatina",
"Tina Biancalana",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45657
|
Why did my attempt at pan-searing beef filets fail miserably?
Background: I am very much an amateur cook; I would consider myself a novice at best, so pardon my ignorance!
I decided to try to cook a nice dinner for my family recently. Part of that dinner included some small (~6-7 oz., 1.5-2" thick) beef tenderloin steaks. After doing some Internet research I decided on a preparation method that included pan-searing them for a few minutes on each side (with the goal of getting the steaks to the approximately "rare" stage), followed by a stint in the oven to finish them off. This seemed straightforward to me, so I decided to give it a try.
As a novice cook, the only skillet that I had on hand that was suitable for use in the oven was an old cast-iron one, so I used that. Following the recipe that I had found, I added 1.5 tablespoons of olive oil and ~1 stick of butter [*] to the pan and put it on high heat. After the foam subsided from the butter, I placed the steaks in the pan. The Internet consensus seemed to indicate 3-4 minutes of searing on each side would get the steaks to rare, so I waited patiently.
Unfortunately, after 3 to 3.5 minutes, it became apparent that something had gone wrong: the kitchen began to fill with smoke, and when I turned the steaks, the side that had been seared was burned horribly. I had to abort cooking them at that point to mitigate the smoke; I later found that the steaks had cooked through much more than I would have expected by that point.
While my result was discouraging, I'm trying to do some post-mortem analysis to try to determine what went wrong so that if I get up the nerve to try this again, I won't ruin another meal of expensive meat! Some possibilities that came to mind:
Was cast iron a bad choice as my cookware in this case?
Should I have lubricated the pan differently?
Is there some other detail that I missed that could have changed the outcome?
[*] "A stick of butter" is a US measurement, it denotes 113.5 g of butter
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/45594/67
Nobody else has mentioned it and I don't think it was the cause of your problems but a stick of butter sounds like a huge amount, to me.
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44194/are-cooking-show-minutes-really-minutes -- you never know if the Internet's "a few minutes" is what a timer says or how long it feels to them.
Look up the Cook's Illustrated method for doing thick steaks - low temperature in the oven to evenly cook it almost to the desired level, then a fast sear on the outside. Works great! And, as others have mentioned, high heat and butter are not a good match. Better to brush the steaks with oil and if you're seeking the flavor, you put some herb butter on after while it's resting on the plate.
Butter is a very bad choice for frying at high heat, as it burns extremely easily. Cast iron is the ideal pan material though, so you are halfway there.
Take a flavourless oil like sunflower and brush it
directly on the steaks - don't put the oil in the pan.
Preheat the pan until it is ridiculously hot.
Preheat the oven if that's the
method you're going to use
Season the steaks generously with salt and
pepper
Sear the steaks and cook in the oven until desired level of
doneness is reached.
Rest the steak on a wire rack (or failing that, a plate) for 5 minutes so it doesn't leak juice all over the plate.
Personally I would omit the oven stage and just cook the steaks in the pan, turning frequently. Add a knob of butter near the end and baste it over the steaks with a spoon.
A probe thermometer is a great investment to make if you plan on cooking meat properly. You cannot rely on rules of thumb like pressing the steak or just timing it. There is a good chart here for the temperatures at each level of 'doneness'.
OP, this will still smoke quite a bit (especially if the pan is as hot as is ideal) so be prepared for that. But it should make for a very nice steak.
Smoke like that is what the above-oven fans are for. Or, if you don't have one built in, a regular fan and an open window will do, as my wife and I found out when using our (incredibly low-quality) oven for a year and a half.
After waiting an hour, and before brushing with oil, pat the steaks dry with a paper towel. Any moisture on the surface of the steak will cause it to "steam" instead of sear. If you salt them at the beginning of the hour it will draw out even more moisture for you to remove.
Just out of curiosity - and yes this qualifies as nitpicking I guess - "You cannot rely on rules of thumb like pressing the steak" - do you just mean that it'S hard to do for a beginner or that it's really impossible in some situations? Timing obviously doesn't work (way too many variables), but checking the texture by pressing seems just fine and seems rather far spread at least with TV cooks (ahem).
Given years of experience (and I mean cooking steak day in day out), pressing the steak is arguably a viable method, but it's by no means foolproof - there are still too many variables. For the common or garden home cook, a probe thermometer is far more reliable and just as easy. People seem to have the idea that using a thermometer is far too high tech and fussy - somehow going too far. This is wrong. Meat is expensive. I want it cooked safely but tastily. A thermometer ensures both and takes seconds to use.
Sometimes you can just skip the oil, too. As long as the cast iron pan is seasoned, the meat should release when it becomes seared. If you wash your pan like me, coat the inside of the pan with a very little bit of oil. Use a paper towel to spread the oil around and to wipe out all the excess. Go for a nice shine that prevents rusting.
"3-4 minutes of searing on each side" sounds very high to me, and likely to result in a burned steak, especially if you don't flip it frequently during the process.
It's important to realize that there are (at least) two temperatures that matter when cooking meat: the peak surface temperature, which determines how well browned (or blackened) the meat will be, and the peak core temperature (which will, typically, be much lower), which determines how well done the interior of the steak will be. Also, whereas the core temperature obtained by a given cooking process will strongly depend on the thickness of the steak, the surface temperature mostly doesn't.
Thus, while a thick steak like yours does need a longer cooking time to reach a given core temperature, simply leaving it sitting on the hot skillet for a long time is likely to cause the exterior to overheat and burn. There are several ways to address this issue, such as:
turning the steaks frequently while searing them, giving the exterior some time to cool down between turns;
reducing the heat after initially searing the outside of the steaks, and cooking them under low heat until the inside reaches the desired temperature;
transferring the steaks into an oven after searing them, and completing the cooking process there; and/or
letting the steaks rest for several minutes after cooking, to let the heat transfer from the exterior to the interior.
It sounds like you did plan to use the oven option, but then seared the steaks for way too long. What you should've done, instead, would've been to sear them at high heat for only a short time (say, less than a minute per side) before moving them into the oven to complete the cooking process.
Alas, it's hard to give a precise cooking time for any desired level of rareness, since it varies so much with things like the type of pan, the level of heat, the frequency of turning and the thickness and the type of meat used. What you really need to do is either practice until you can gauge the appropriate amount of cooking by eye and experience, or cheat a little and get yourself a good meat thermometer.
(I particularly recommend the thermometer if you're cooking meat that's thicker than you're used to. The degree of surface searing is easy enough to observe by eye, but to get the interior temperature right, you need either a thermometer or lots of trial and error.)
In any case, I would say that your real mistake was in trusting an arbitrary time value taken from the Internet more than your own eyes and nose. You could've avoided this disaster if, instead of "waiting patiently", you had checked frequently to see what the steaks looked like underneath, and took them off the heat as soon as it was clear that they didn't need any more searing.
It's also important to note that the heat level of a stovetop is extremely imprecise. Even among "identical" stoves, the heat level may vary by 50-100 degrees at a particular setting.
+1 for checking what's happening on a regular basis. It's the only way to know.
+1 Searing (esp. on high heat) does not take very long.
I don't recommend frequently flipping a steak when pan-searing or frying. What you're trying to accomplish is a caramelized crust on the meat surfaces. My method is similar to some listed above.
Remove the steak and thaw if necessary (I thaw in the refrigerator due to food-safety concerns), then set the steak out for at least an hour to allow to reach room temperature.
Season the meat with salt and pepper, at least on the first side to sear: you can add seasoning while it's searing if you want... or season ahead of time on both sides.
Heat the pan with an oil that has an extremely high smoke point. Peanut oil, safflower oil, extra light olive oil (but watch it), until a drop of water in the pan appears to "dance".
Place the steak in the cast iron and listen, without disturbing it, until the noise abates, then carefully attempt to raise it using tongs (NOT a fork). If it comes free of the pan easily, turn it over and marvel in the seared color. Repeat for the other side.
By now, your oven should have been heated to 450F, so when it's seared, pop it into the oven uncovered, for 8-10 min. An oven-safe meat thermometer, preferably remote reading, is a good idea while you're getting the hang of things.
Remove from the oven, and using tongs (NOT a fork!) place the steak on a wire rack for 5-10 min. Cover lightly with a foil tent. Do NOT remove the temp probe.
Slice (or not), remove the probe, and serve.
Strictly speaking it is not carmelization but the Maillard Reaction which gives seared meat its characteristic flavor. I only know this because I was surprised to be corrected by the (perhaps too comprehensive) http://robertwolke.com/told-his-cook/
Thanks for the tip on how to determine when the sear is complete. I think I was was mistaken on how long it should take.
I'm an ex-professional chef,recently retired,(jan,2014),and feel that I could offer you some advice on where I think you went wrong.
There are indeed many variables to consider,and ,as such,congratulations on 'having a go'.Please don't let this 'failure' put you off trying again.You learn more from your failures than you do from not making mistakes at all.
As in life,experience,and practice,are everything.
Since I am not familiar with your 'set-up',what I shall do is run you through what we did "in the trade".First things first,you don't really need an oven to cook your fillet steaks,all you need is oil,salt/pepper,cast iron pan (preferably flat,not ridged),a ferocious flame,an open window,or door,tin foil and 10 minutes of your time.
Remove the meat from the fridge about an hour before you intend to cook it.This allows it to come up to room temp,and decreases the amount of shrinkage.It also allows it to become a little 'looser',allowing easier heat penetration.Put your pan on the flame,and whack it up to full heat.Do not be afraid,the pan can take it.Open the window/door.Dry the fillets with a disposable cloth/towel.Put a small amount of oil onto your hands,and rub the fillets,just enough to coat them,they don't want to be dripping.DO NOT SEASON YET !!.The pan wants to be smoking.Yes,smoking,then carefully place the steaks into the pan,and resist any temptation to move,or lift them for the next two minutes.After the time has passed,turn the steaks over,with your fingers,or a pair of tongs.DO NOT PIERCE THE MEAT.Season the meat NOW.Cover the pan loosely with tin foil,allowing the steam to escape,and place by the side of the stove top for 5-6 minutes,to allow the juices to spread throughout the meat.Don't forget to turn your gas down.At no point should you pierce the meat,as this allows those lovely juices to run out.After the 'resting period,you will have a small amount of cooking liquor in the pan,this is called 'jus'.You can thicken this jus with a little butter,cut up into tiny squares,added one square at a time,until the jus begins to thicken.This technique is known as 'to monte au beurre' .Serve your meal,enjoy the praise,and become a legend. BYE !!
With all due respect to the kind people writing recipes online for newly hatched cooks everywhere, steaks are not a dish - it's an artform.
Please take this as constructive advice and let me elaborate:
Cooking steaks just right demands taking into account so many factors that following a recipe is not reliable. Instead, my advice is to simply experiment and expect to spoil at least a few brave chunks of good steak.
Even if you are a seasoned steak chef, sometimes it's worth cooking a steak for the dog just before you cook the steaks you intend to serve to the guests, if it's a very special occasion.
Factors you will want to adjust while experimenting incl:
Thickness of steaks
Steak starting temperature
Thickness of skillet
Skillet temperature / flame size / skillet preheating
Grease type (I recommend vegetable oil only - for beginners)
Grease amount
Time
Advanced Steak Cooking Techniques:
Dont forget to pat the steaks dry with some paper towels. This avoids excess moisture from preventing the surface of the steak from reaching high enough temperature to produce that crispy brown steak goodness - technically referred to as the Maillard Reaction
In the future, when you have become a beefy steak chef, this technique can be reapplied immediately before flipping the steak - which has the potential of producing a mind-boggling DOUBLE PERFECTION STEAK.
Good luck.
I appreciate the general idea here, and certainly agree that it'll take some trial and error to get some details right (e.g. your stove isn't the same temperature as everyone else's) but I think it's kind of silly to ask everyone to try varying all of these factors themselves. You shouldn't have to try all of your skillets and several different cuts of steak and different amounts of oil and so on to get a steak you're happy with.
I agree with your assessment, that it's silly for everyone to learn by personal trial and error. However, may I ask if you have a better idea?
Did you dry the meat? Moisture on the exterior of the meat will impede browning. Also in a well seasoned cast iron pan, I won't use any oil at all. Salt, pepper, straight into a hot pan. Cast iron is great for searing, however it can also take a long time to get hot enough. I'll also mention that tenderloin can be unforgiving. They tend to have less fat, which makes them easier to dry out. If you are new to cooking steaks (or aren't afraid of some delicious fat) then look for a more marbled steak.
Cooking is easy; baking is too. The first thing you need to do is ignore all the BS about how hard it is, or how you have to do weird things.
As others have pointed out, you use a pan to brown the steak, creating the Maillard reaction. "Searing" (as in "to seal in the juices") is one of those BS things to ignore. You don't need an extreme heat to brown meat - basically you want to avoid wet-cooking it. So enough heat to get a fry going, no need to smoke your oil. Using a cast-iron pan is fine, since it'll hold the heat when you add the meat. As others have stated, butter is not a good idea - enough oil to lubricate the pan is all you need (and it doesn't matter that much which kind, though it's kind of a waste to use flax, walnut, etc. I do use olive sometimes if it's handy, not that you can appreciate its flavor.)
I think you should take the steak out of the pan as soon as you've browned it. Yes, use tongs, and I like to brown the sides too. Finish it in the oven - eventually you'll be comfortable using the how-it-feels method, but a thermometer will help at first. In theory, it shouldn't be necessary to let it "rest" when you oven-finish the steak, since it'll be in the oven long enough for enough heat to reach the center. (Then again, I think rare steaks are crap - I want mine medium+.)
In short, cast-iron is a good choice. You shouldn't have used butter, and it sounds like you used way too much. IMO you should have started with something like a rib-eye, and not a very thick steak.
why high heat. I cook for medium rare about 3 minutes per 1/2 inch per side on medium heat. Usually dry pat on a seasoning before searing. I use a cooking oil in pan. you put butter on steak when you put them in oven.
There's quite a bit of myth in here as well as recommendations that aren't the best way to go about things. You really can sear in butter..clarified or not. It burns horribly at temperatures high enough to sear. As for "cast iron" pans..they're OK if you have an old one like an early Griswald. New Cast Iron pans ( the last 35 years or so ) are not polished or ground. They have a sand casted texture that reduces searing efficiency. Carbon steel or Stainless are probably the best. As for temperature..you can mess that up too. If the pan is not hot enough you'll get a greasy off colored piece of meat. If its too hot you wont sear..you'll burn. I find that about 450 to 500 F or so is a good pan temp and many oils will handle it. There's been a bunch of talk about turning ( mostly from Heston fans ) or not turning. The thinking is not turning allows better contact and searing while turning aficionados say frequent turning ( every 15 seconds ) provides a rotisserie like effect and prevents deep penetration of the pan's heat. They both seem to work.
Sorry about your steaks.
I am a middle aged woman who has been cooking meat for a , long long time.
I have never successfully mastered pan frying a chop or steak. They always turn out overcooked.
If you have an oven, most likley there is a broiler which allows the meat direct exposure to the heat source.
Try broiling your steaks. Experiment with how close to the flame/electric coil it should be.
I agree that the meat should be brought to room temperature and the surface dried. That said, the aunt who taught me to cook had done so for the USO during WWII and gave me the instructions on how to a frozen steak. (This was long before microwave defrosting). Room temp is optimal though. Drying the surface is very important
I have a gas stove. I place the meat about 2" from the flame . I raise the meat slightly off the bottom of the pan and add enough water to cover the bottom of the pan. This keeps down smoke and avoids grease fires and flares. When I don't have a rack to raise the meat, I have used stainless steel forks, tines down as an improvised rack under the meat.. The curve at the base of the tines is sufficient to raise the meat off the bottom heated surface, avoid contact cooking on the bottom side and allow the water underneath for grease control
Don't salt the meat until after cooking. Salt draws out the water and decreases juiciness. ( Brining is a completely different process, by the way. That gets salt into the meat to make it juicy)
Pre-heat your broiler for a few minutes..
I cook 1 1/2- 2" boneless rib eye steaks and occasionally sirloins for 6 minutes on the first side and 5 on the flip side. This is long enough to get a Maillard reaction brown on the fat without the bitterness of a char . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maillard_reaction .
You can slice to check for doneness or use the thumb test. Use your finger to poke the uncooked meat so you have a sense of how it feels.
Holding your hand open press the fleshy part at the base of the thumb. That is how a raw steak feels when pressed.
Touch the tip of your thumb to the tip of your index finger. ( don't press them, just touch.) Now press the fleshy part of the base of that thumb. That is how rare feels.
Touching thumb to middle finger gets you a medium rare touch, thumb to ring finger gets a medium feel and thumb to pinky gets well done feel . Here is a link with pictures. http://www.simplyrecipes.com/recipes/the_finger_test_to_check_the_doneness_of_meat/
You can always put the meat back under the broiler for 1-2 minutes if it is not done the way you want it.
Sometimes I want the bitterness of a char. At those times I put the meat back in the freezer for about half an hour, dry the surface and broil for roughly eh same time.
This technique can ( and has ) been done with most any type of pan or aluminum foil. I don't use iron because 1) I don't have to and 2) it is too heavy to pull out of the broiler quickly and easily.
My husband is from Nebraska. He likes butter on his steak. I add a pat after the steak is cooked to melt on top. That gives him teh flavor and avoids the problems you encountered.
I take exception to two points here: first, salting before cooking helps distribute the salt more evenly throughout the meat, and moisture loss is fairly minimal. Second, this literal "rule of thumb" for doneness isn't nearly as reliable as using a thermometer and measuring temperature.
This doesn't answer the question. The question is why the asker's attempt to pan-sear steaks failed. Pan-searing steaks is perfectly possible so "Because you tried to pan-sear them; you should have broiled them instead" is not any more of an answer than "Because you were trying to cook steak; you should have eaten fish instead."
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.129188
| 2014-07-17T11:16:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45657",
"authors": [
"Ben Jackson",
"Brian S",
"Bruce Wang",
"Cascabel",
"Dan R.",
"David Richerby",
"ElendilTheTall",
"GalacticCowboy",
"Gladys LaMastra",
"Jason R",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Voo",
"Zibbobz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"logophobe",
"msw",
"ps2goat"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27311
|
Which Korean dishes are typically hottest?
For the typical palate of most people from English-speaking countries, just about all Korean food is spicy.
But for those of us who love hot spicy food, I want to know if there are certain specific meals in Korean cuisine which generally have the reputation of being the hottest.
For comparison I know I have Mexican friends that think certain Mexican dishes are too hot for them. Are there some Korean dishes that even some Koreans avoid for being "too spicy"?
I'm not entirely sure that the answers you cite are actually answers. Phall is a British creation, and the only reason it's the spiciest is because Western cultures have decided they want to have a single spiciest dish. And I don't think green curry is universally the hottest Thai dish.
Well I don't think Stack Exchange answers have to be undisputed, otherwise they wouldn't encourage multiple answers per question. If there's not a "hottest dish" there's still a 100% objectively correct answer: "No" - well hopefully with some explanation. I think that's much better than preemptively closing the question. Also the fact that there's an "only reason" for a question having an answer is different to a question not having an answer.
There's a difference between disputed answers and answers with many equally good answers. As you can see in the faq, while we're fine with some competing answers which hopefully eventually provide a single complete answer to the question, we don't really go for questions that "solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion". It would be better if you at least asked "what Korean dishes are typically hottest", rather than about reputation and a single dish.
Ah OK on some SE sites asking in your recommended way would look like a "list question", but in the end I think it all comes down to interpretation of the SE guidelines, and each site tends to settle down to a slightly different pattern. I'll take your advice to re-word - thanks!
We're not huge fans of lists either, but it's better than artificially asking for a single answer when you know you'll get lists anyway.
I found ojingeo bokkeum (오징어볶음), which is squid stir-fried in a chilli sauce, to be pretty intense, especially as a jeongol (전골) or stew, where it's both hot (as in spicy) and hot (as in temperature). The sweetness of the stew does nothing to lessen the intensity of the dish.
Also ridiculously spicy is buldak (불닭), which is again a stir-fry of chicken in a chilli sauce, with tteok (떡) or rice cake.
I forgot about ojingeo bokkeum, I used to love it, so after you reminded me I went out and fount it. Not as hot as I remembered but that always depends on the restaurant, the cook, and their tendency to "weegookize" dishes (-: (Sorry I seem to have accidentally voted this answer down and I can't vote it back unless it's edited apparently.)
I find Korean restaurants here in Sydney cater to such an overwhelmingly Korean clientele that they don't bother uigukising anything. Thai restaurants here on the other hand are big offenders in this respect...
True indeed. I do find it easier to convince Thai restaurants that I can handle it that Indian restaurants in Australia. Of course if you try too hard they might even take it as a personal challenge and you can get more than you bargained for (-:
A Korean friend I asked suggested "jeyuk deopbap" (제육덮밥 in Korean). In English it seems to be translated as "spicy fried pork".
It will be served with rice. But you can also find "Jeyuk bokkeum" (제육볶음), which is just the spicy pork alone, no rice.
He suggests to order it "very spicy". It might work better to try to say this in Korean but it's hard to pronounce. Try to write one of these down or copy and paste it from here and print it out, or show them on your smartphone:
매우 매운 (maeu maeun)
아주 매운 (aju maeun)
I found ojingeo bokkeum (오징어볶음), which is squid stir-fried in a chilli sauce, to be pretty intense, especially as a jeongol (전골) or stew, where it's both hot (as in spicy) and hot (as in temperature).
"For the typical palate of most people from English-speaking countries, just about all Korean food is spicy."
Uh, no its not. There are many Korean dishes that aren't spicy at all. As in, they have no spicy/heat creating element to them. The typical green Korean chili pepper (풋고추) is not hotter than a Jalapeno pepper on the Scoville scale, anyway.
To answer your questions of "Are there some Korean dishes that even some Koreans avoid for being "too spicy"?"
Yes, there are. Because not all Koreans enjoy eating spicy food. So some Koreans might avoid a dish thinking its too spicy for them, that others may think is not that spicy.
"I want to know if there are certain specific meals in Korean cuisine which generally have the reputation of being the hottest."
Sure there are some meals that some people think are very hot, but I think its pretty subjective. It could be 20 dishes. And obviously, lots of dishes can be made less spicy or more spicy so its sometimes just up to the cook.
I agree there's tons of non spicy stuff and for me, spicy but not too spicy stuff. But I can tell you the number of times I've eaten with American English teachers that have lived here for months or more who still won't eat most Korean stuff because they insist it's all too spicy without trying it, I'm just going to leave that wording as it is.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.131019
| 2012-09-20T20:16:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27311",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Deanna.C.Kennedy",
"J. Doe",
"Jan Ivan",
"Shane",
"Tansu Açık",
"TheBrianPrather",
"Tmace",
"Yair Daon",
"ajay nehra",
"hippietrail",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6231",
"jogloran",
"lhk",
"pabouk - Ukraine stay strong"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27532
|
Is wasabi considered to be spicy or to be a spice?
I was just talking to a friend about what to eat for dinner and he said he didn't want anything spicy.
He then mentioned that Japanese food doesn't have anything spicy and I said "Wasabi".
Apparently he doesn't regard wasabi as spicy while I do.
So which one of us is right? Within the fields of gastronomy and the culinary arts is wasabi considered a spice, or something else? Is it right to describe it as "spicy"?
IMHO wasabi's role is much closer to that of a sauce or a condiment
@MischaArefiev: Interesting. I came across the term condiment in regard to wasabi while researching this question and said to myself "well some things could be both a spice and a condiment" but now your comment makes me wonder if that's right after all...
I think the main problem is that your question is conflating "spice" and "spicy" - to most people, "spicy" means "spicy hot". Most spices are not spicy in that sense. (Elendil's answer generally points this out too.) Given that, I'm not sure what you're confused about - of course it's a spice, and of course it's not spicy hot. Along with that, I think people tend to dislike questions that seem pedantic and likely to just create debate about definitions. So it does seem to at least partially fit the "unclear and not useful" description on the downvote button.
Hmm I would definitely count it as "spicy hot". I would've expected the best way to deal with "spice" and "spicy" not really matching works better in an answer than trying to get rid of the question... but hey it's not my site I just thought it would be an interesting question for cooking type people to teach non cooking type people.
The best way to deal with inconsistencies or unclear ideas in questions is for the question to be edited, and you're the best person to do that. This is far friendlier for both future readers and future answerers. A downvote is not "trying to get rid of the question", it's a sign that the question should be improved. There are no close votes - no one is trying to get rid of it. And yes, it's polite to explain downvotes, but it's better to vote without a comment than not to vote at all.
Oops sorry I must've thought it had a close vote. Too much coffee today...
OK I re-worded it very slightly to ask about whether either term "spice" or "spicy" is appropriate.
Regardless of the "spice" issue, wasabi IS spicy. Not spicy in the same way as hot peppers, but nonetheless a function of chemesthesis, via which we experience "spiciness"/"piquance". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spicy
It's up to you. You could call a broom a spade if you wanted. Is avocado a fruit, condiment, dressing or a vegetable when I use it in salads?
Readers of this thread might well find this thread from English.SE approaching the topic from the other angle to be of some interest: Difference between “spicy” and “hot”
In my book, this is pretty trivial. Wasabi is absolutely a spice - it's something with a very specific flavor, derived from a plant, that can be used in fairly small quantities to add flavor to something.
It's not spicy (spicy hot, piquant) in the normal sense, though. It doesn't contain capsaicin. It is hot in some sense: it contains allyl isothiocyanate, which we obviously have a very strong reaction to. This is the same compound that's in horseradish and hot mustard. The reaction is very different from capsaicin, though. Capsaicin causes you to register heat at a much lower temperature than you normally would, so you're actually feeling heat, like you would if you were burning your tongue. It's quite literally hot, as far as your body is concerned. It's also an oil, so it can't be washed away easily with liquid, and the burning tends to linger. Wasabi, on the other hand, doesn't produce an actual sensation of heat, you feel it mostly in your nasal passages, and can easily be washed away with liquid, so it tends to be a brief sensation. So sure, "hot" is a reasonable way to describe it, mostly because we don't have a word for the actual sensation, but it's definitely not the same thing as a hot pepper.
I'm sure you can find plenty of people who would say that these are just two different kinds of spicy hot (piquancy), but arguing over definitions isn't going to get us anywhere. The important thing is that there's a fundamental difference, and there's no way you could substitute one for the other. If you want to understand why I think this (and it's not just a personal definition), go to any recipe site, search for "spicy", and see how many things with wasabi/horseradish/mustard supplying "spiciness" you find.
Edit: To stave off further debate in the comments, let me just repeat: arguing over definitions is not useful. There are probably a lot of people who think "spicy hot" should include this, and a lot who don't. I wouldn't generally expect anyone to think of wasabi without context when you say spicy hot, but you're welcome to use the terms however you and the people you talk with understand them.
Yes personally I would consider chilis to be one kind of hot; mustard, horseradish, and wasabi a second kind of hot; and black pepper a third kind of hot. I would call them all "spicy" and I would call them all "hot". I definitely wouldn't consider any of the types to be able to substitute for each other, though within a type possibly. The fact that others seemed to think otherwise made me think asking the experts at this site a good idea. Thanks for your answer.
And yet, "hot mustard", which contains the same chemical compound (or at least, the chemical compound which is created via the breakdown of another, related one) in horseradish/wasabi. And it comes with the explicit "hot" as in "spicy". The reason you could find many people who would say that they are two different kinds of spicy hot (piquance) is that THEY ARE.
@heathenJesus: I explicitly mentioned pretty much all of that in my answer, including why I feel that doesn't mean that they're the same thing. To clarify... First, there's clearly a culinarily difference. Some people, like you, will say that they're two kinds of something represented by the term spicy hot, and I understand why, but I respectfully disagree. For example, if someone asks for a dish to be spicy hot, I don't think they're looking for some wasabi mixed in. They want capsaicin. In any case, like I said in my answer, it's not going to get us anywhere to argue about definitions.
@Jefromi: I would say that if someone asks for a dish to be spicy, hot, or just as much asking for "not too spicy", that it depends entirely what the dish is. If they're ordering maki rolls they'll be talking about wasabi, if they're ordering pepper steak they're not likely to be talking about capsaicin either.
Unless it's spicy tuna... look, what I've said is in general true, and we can pick at it all we like, but that's the best you'll get.
Actually, the best we'll get is the real definition. Capsaicin is not the only chemical that causes the chemesthetic sensation of "spiciness". You acknowledge the existence of this fact, and then denounce it because it doesn't fit your personal definition. Quarters and nickels are fundamentally different, and cannot be substituted for each other, but they're both still coins.
Comments are not for debate. If you absolutely think I'm wrong, post another answer. Better yet, go ask on the english stackexchange.
I've also heard there are weirdo's in some part of the US that would call something with onions or garlic in it "spicy".
I think the issue is primarily linguistic, but there may also be a mismatch between your experience of Japanese food and the average Japanese experience of Japanese food.
Let's start with the experience itself. Wasabi is generally used in moderation in Japanese cuisine, and when real, fresh wasabi is used, instead of the mustard/western horseradish mix that's more common, it's more pungent than spicy. That's a fairly nuanced distinction, and you may find both Japanese and non-Japanese that would use the word "spicy" to describe what amounts to a nasal reaction, instead of the more direct tongue stimulation that say capsaicin, or glutamates trigger. In Japanese, you might say piri or piri-tto to refer to an abrupt sensation of pungency that doesn't linger, like (real) wasabi offers, or tsuun to refer to the tingling sensation in a more visceral onomatopea. Karai is used to describe spicy foods (and, in some cases, to describe salty foods, typically soups, but let's ignore that for now).
In any event, wasabi isn't really used as heavily in everyday Japanese cooking as its popularity in the US would suggest. Additionally, the US has latched on to spicy tuna rolls and complex, multi-ingredient gooey "rolls" as representative of sushi, even though in Japan most makimono are minimalist creations involving little more than some cucumber, or gourd, and aren't even the reason you go out to a sushi restaurant. The multi-ingredient ones with say egg and pickled vegetables are still simpler in taste than what most Americans would get excited about.
For many Japanese, seeing the ridiculous amount of reconstituted wasabi served with their little plate of nigiri-sushi or the sriracha augmented rolls comes as a bit of a surprise when they visit the US. Our culinary preferences tend to be adventure-seeking, whereas Japanese tend to have more interest in sappari (refreshing) or assari (light/subtle) flavors and are more focused on texture contrasts than intense flavors.
To some degree, wasabi is a regional food (Shizuoka prefecture grows much of it), even though it's found around the country thanks to modern distribution. Sushi is not an everyday experience for most people, either, and it's not seen as a "spicy" thing when it is consumed, because most people don't eat it with loads of wasabi; they want to taste their fish.
From a culinary perspective, mustard is one of few "spices" that wouldn't actually be referred to as an herb that's really used in Japanese cuisine. (It's also a major component in mass market wasabi). Ginger is an exception, though it's also mostly used sparingly, and generally fresh, so it is only arguably "spice".
The "spicy" flavors that are popular in Japan are probably the Japanese interpretation of English-style stews called "curry". These use Indian blends of spices adapted to Japanese tastes, but most versions are sweeter and milder than they are "hot". It's somewhat common, but not necessary, for people to enjoy extra spicy curries. But curries have a status that is vaguely foreign, like tikka masala or mulligatawny soup in England, even if both are really "local" innovations. Even if you're Japanese, you may not quite consider curry as a spicy "Japanese" food.
Additionally, you may notice even in English, the notion of "spice" isn't perfectly attached to the notion of "spicy." If I use cloves or ginger in something, it might be "spiced" with spices, but perhaps isn't considered spicy.
A very good answer. I really expected my question to garner clarity rather than debate but I thought culinary and/or botanical definitions would reveal a yes or no and it turned out to be fraught with subtle linguistic issues and personal views. But "it's complicated" is sometimes the best answer. So thanks! (-:
Spice is defined in the Chambers 21st Century English Dictionary as:
spice noun 1 any of various aromatic or pungent substances, such as pepper, ginger, nutmeg, cloves, cinnamon, etc that are derived from plants and used for flavouring food, eg in sauces, curries, etc, and for drinks such as punch.
While wasabi is sometimes added directly to food during cooking these days, traditionally it is made into a paste and served as an optional side dish - a condiment, as Mischa says.
However, while it is not truly a spice, that's not to say it is not spicy, which has the colloquial meaning of not only tasting of spices, but also tasting hot, like, say, black pepper or chilli peppers (though the latter is hot for a different reason - mustard oil as opposed to capsaicin).
So it depends on what you mean by spicy. A curry might be spicy, as in tasting of spices, but still be mild in terms of heat.
I actually considered including mustard and horseradish in my question actually. But I decided to keep it focussed. I completely overlooked black pepper in my ponderings though.
Black pepper is interesting, as it is classed as a spice, but is also used as a condiment. Blame the Romans.
Yes I was just looking into this too. Horseradish is probably only a condiment but paprika and dried chili flakes could probably be both spices and condiments.
Fresh Horseradish is used in things like fish mousse, not just as a condiment :)
Horseradish is neither a spice nor a condiment. It is an industrial nasal fumigation agent for use only by medical professionals and masochists.
@Sobachatina You girl. Roast beef is nothing with horseradish sauce.
Horseradish and wasabi both clear the sinuses like nobody's business and are used as condiments but don't feel particularly spicy in the mouth. (love your comment Sobachatina! Made me laugh out loud!)
Y'all need to try Tewkesbury Mustard - hot English mustard mixed with horseradish. Nut up or shut up! :)
Is "hot English mustard" not a tautology?
If you know that all English mustard is hot, yes. But some people don't, I'll wager.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.131815
| 2012-10-02T10:58:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27532",
"authors": [
"Andrej Adamenko",
"Bill",
"Cascabel",
"Cynthia",
"ElendilTheTall",
"JoaoBotelho",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Mandy",
"Matrix23",
"Mischa Arefiev",
"Nanny",
"Peter Taylor",
"Sally Jackson",
"Sherylene R Stancliff",
"Shufflepants",
"Sobachatina",
"Walid Sliem ",
"heathenJesus",
"hippietrail",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9344",
"marc",
"robin",
"user171453"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5595
|
Why do bananas turn black in the refrigerator?
I've noticed that a banana in the refrigerator will turn pitch black in just a few hours. Why is this?
Your fridge speeds production of polyphenols, which speeds the blackening process. Unrefrigerated bananas ripen by ethylene gas which will also eventually turn them black, but the cold short circuits that process.
And there you have it! Although I'm curious how it speeds production of the polyphenals since normally cold will slow any sort of chemical process. Any ideas?
I think the answer is something along the "blah, blah, blah oxidation, blah, blah" lines. I know that the same kind of chemical compounds are produced when aging whiskey in oak and then oxidized. I don't think anybody has a study on bananas specifically but I would guess that the cold does retard the chemical process that retards the production of the polyphenals in the first place, thus letting the compound that makes them oxidise first.
Actually heres a paper but it's behind a pay wall. sorry.
It is because, the water that is present inside the veins of bananas get expanded when is cooled from 4 deg celsius to 0 deg. at refrigerator. As the expansion of veins reaches climax it can't be holded any more and finally bursts causing blackening of bananas. It is included in the topic ANOMALOUS EXPANSION OF WATER!!!!
Sorry, but while it's true that water does expand slightly as it's cooled from 4C to 0C, it's a very very tiny amount of expansion (about 0.01%). In order for it to expand enough to actually burst veins or cells in fruit, you have to freeze it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.132884
| 2010-08-20T00:35:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5595",
"authors": [
"Bhuvan Rikka 웃",
"Cascabel",
"Jozsef Tallosi",
"Michael Natkin",
"ThN",
"beckanae",
"derio",
"elrac",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"sarge_smith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10340
|
Shredded steak for south east asian dish
I have a recipe for Nasi Goreng, which calls for 1/2 lb of shredded raw rump steak.
I'm not sure how one goes about shredding steak - any suggestions?
I agree that there is a translation issue. For recipes I've used, I will cross-cut the meat into thin slices, then thinly slice the meat WITH the grain. The result will have a stringy texture - not 'bad' stringy, but stringy like good braised meat that can be shredded or 'pulled.'
This has worked for me for Korean dishes like Bulgogi and a few others.
And it helps to pop the meat into the freezer for about 30 min before you slice -- it'll firm up to make it easier to slice thinly (but be careful about freezing it for too long, or it'll be like trying to shave a brick)
Don't freeze the meat. Use a good sharp knife. That should suffice. If you don't have a good sharp knife, then you can resort to such trickery as firming up the meat in the freezer, at the price of reduced flavour, and reduced tenderness (ideally, you want to make sure the meat is freshly cut, and at room temperature when it goes into the pan. Which is impossible when cutting it cold)
Well, if you braise it long enough it's easy to shred. But raw and shredded? Not so easy.
I would think you may be seeing a language problem--perhaps they mean "ground" instead of "shredded." Otherwise, maybe cutting it into very fine strips would work. Have you had this dish before? What was the texture of the beef in that instance? That way you'd know at least one method that would work.
Its a spicy fried rice, with lots of other things such as onions, prawns, egg etc in it. I've previously had it with small pieces of chicken in, but this is a recipe my father has dug up. Maybe they just mean diced beef - that would certainly work - just wondered if 'shredded steak' was a known cooking term was all.
I also think there is a problem with the translation. I am pretty sure it should read "finely sliced".
And lest we go overboard, let's not forget we're talking fried rice here--any way you like your beef is fine as long as you're able to cook it according to directions. Cubes, paper-thin slices, ground, whatever.
@ bike right on... any recipe should have room for you to adapt as needed
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.133079
| 2010-12-20T15:37:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10340",
"authors": [
"Bob Sheffield",
"Christoph Grimmer",
"Durathor",
"Geuff Dubrovski",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"Joe",
"KSmith4964",
"MarsJarsGuitars-n-Chars",
"Martijn",
"Not a cook please help",
"Schurman Brenton",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85859"
],
"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
}
|
35823
|
What does "curd" mean in a South Asian recipe?
I've seen the word "curd" used in a few South Asian recipes (like, notably, some "Butter Chicken" recipes). In one video, it kind-of looks like it might be cottage cheese (or something like that), which would make sense given what "curd" means to me in the US (like, "curds and whey"). However, it also may have just been plain yoghurt, or something else.
I've looked through a couple of recipe books and I see no mention of it. For the recipe in question I'm pretty sure that yoghurt would work just fine, but I'm curious.
In the recipe in question, the "curd" is put in a food mill with some garlic, ginger, and peppers, and some spices. Thus, with either cottage cheese or yoghurt, it'd end up more-or-less the same, with possibly more fat and acidity from the yoghurt I guess. (It's a marinade for the chicken so it doesn't seem critical to me.)
At the restaurants where I have made butter chicken, we used a very thick yogurt to make it. A Greek yogurt (or even sour cream) would work, provided it wasn't excessively sour.
If you're feeling more DIY, you could strain some regular yogurt through a coffee filter to make it a bit thicker and use that.
OK, yes I figured it had to be thick yogurt. (Since it's the marinade, and some/most of the recipes I've seen have additional acid there anyway, sourness could probably be balanced.) Thanks!!
In India curd means plain yogurt.
Curd is homemade Yogurt, we call it Dahi in Hindi
Curd in indian curries can be substituted by "PLAIN" Yogurt.
(A BIG No to flavored Yogurt).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.133316
| 2013-08-05T19:15:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35823",
"authors": [
"Daisy Cook",
"Max",
"Omid 94",
"Pointy",
"User49582934",
"hoopa234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84482"
],
"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
}
|
8253
|
How should I adapt a recipe if using very new dried yeast versus slightly older dried yeast?
I make bread and pizza bases using "fast action" dried yeast (like this: http://www.sainsburys.co.uk/groceries/index.jsp?bmUID=1287396076254 ).
My bread recipe calls for one sachet, my pizza dough recipe for two sachets. I notice that when I have just purchased a packet that still has a few months to go on its "best before" date, I get really lovely fluffy bread and pizza. As the yeast approaches its "best before" date, it gets less and less effective, but simply adding more of it doesn't give the same results - should I change the recipe in some other way? For example, add more sugar, or less salt?
I saw this similar question: Does active dry yeast really expire? but it doesn't quite answer my query.
First off, how do you store your yeast? Storing yeast in the fridge helps it to last longer; I've had some yeast in my fridge for a year that is still going strong.
As your yeast begins to become ineffective, I would personally get new yeast. Once yeast looses its power, you're simply not going to get the same effect out of it.
Interesting - I just keep it in the cupboard, it doesn't suggest on the packet to keep it fridged. It's sealed in foil sachets in the box.
@Vicky - the package has no vested interest in helping you keep the yeast longer, and it certainly isn't going to hurt you if you keep in at room temp, but yeast does last longer in the fridge (http://whatscookingamerica.net/Bread/yeastbreadtip.htm, http://www.foodsubs.com/LeavenYeast.html). You can also freeze it (http://www.ochef.com/280.htm). You could also consider buying less at a time if you consistently don't use enough to make the big box worth it before the yeast starts to go.
Freezing it is the way to go over the fridge. Less moisture and the yeast will positively stay inert in a below freezing enviroment, plus if you are going to have to proof it anyway, no added time to use.
it's already in single use sealed foil sachets; from the first link you gave, keeping it in the freezer would only help if it was opened. @sarge_smith: it's "fast action" aka instant, no need to proof it anyway.
@vicky the difference between instant and active dry is merely the concentration of live yeast in the mix. You don't have to proof with instant but if you are storing for a long period and are noticing less leavening action, you can proof to "wake up" the instant the same way you do with the active dry. Additionally, temp can kill the yeast even while it is stuck in the package. The reason you keep yeast in the freezer is it forces the yeast to enter a dormant state. Which means that there isn't any chance of it wasting some of that precious CO2 while still in the package.
A general advice to get the best flavor from your doughs I've consistently found is to add as little yeast as possible. It will take longer, but it will happen and it will be worth it.
I would try to give it more time to raise and see if it works. If time doesn't help, I don't think anything will do it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.133575
| 2010-10-18T10:06:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8253",
"authors": [
"Cooking Diego",
"Phil Patterson",
"Vicky",
"Zombo",
"cabs",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/197",
"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
}
|
4018
|
How long can I leave an uncooked steak out?
This is similar to This Question, but hopefully different enough.
I have 3 porterhouse steaks sitting in my refrigerator that I need to cook up tonight. I've been told leaving them out for an hour and salting them a half hour before cooking is the way to do it. However scheduling conflicts dictate that I either leave my steaks sitting out for an hour and a half to two hours, or eat at 9 o'clock at night.
Will the steaks be ok being left out that long? or will I need to just suck it up and eat a late dinner?
Note: my apartment is usually kept at around 70-75 degrees.
Another option would be to use the Cooks Illustrated method -- put the steaks in the oven, and let them warm up to 90 degrees. Then sear the outside. This requires only 15 minutes out of the refrigerator. http://www.tinyurbankitchen.com/2009/09/oven-to-pan-seared-prime-ribeye-steaks.html
Even if you just pull them out for about 30 minutes once you get home that will be better than not letting sit out at all. The main benefit is that it will cook easier and you'll have a natural gradation from brown to pink on the inside rather than the gray color that often occurs. I myself don't typically pull meat out an hour before cooking it.
But
As long as they haven't previously been sitting out for an extended period of time, most likely you'll be ok for 1 1/2 hours since the steaks will be cold when set out. Make sure that they remain tightly wrapped/covered to minimize exposure to air.
I suppose, in the end, this is more a question of how you like your steak cooked. If you like it rare, then you probably won't want it out very long in the first place. If you like it well done, then really you can leave it out for hours and it's not going to make much difference.
For the elusive medium, you have to have the steak around room temperature, or the inside is going to cook too slowly. That'll leave you with the involuntary medium-well, or a band of "under done" meat.
So judge based on the ambient temperature, not arbitrarily by time. Sitting beside the grill for 5 minutes in the summer in the south will bring your steak up to an acceptable temperature. On the other hand, if your house is 50 degrees year round though, it can probably sit on the counter for a while without danger.
Good answer. Just a note that if you want that band of raw meat in the middle, like what's sometimes called a "black and blue" steak (black on the outside, raw on the inside), you should definitely throw it on the pan or grill while it's still cold!
@Harlan: That's pretty much how I like it, actually. Fridge to plate in 10 minutes or less. Why buy steak if you're going to cook it to death? Might as well have a hamburger, and save a buck.
50 degrees year round? That sounds miserable. I'd die.
@hobodave: It's been 100+ here all week with 100% humidity. I feel like I could live in a walk-in freezer, no problem.
Two hours is pushing it. It should be ok, but I never recommend letting one sit for more than an hour. If you can lean towards 90 minutes, do that. Two hours is the absolute maximum.
The official time for food to be left out before it is considered unsafe to eat is 4 hours.
http://www.idph.state.il.us/about/fdd/fdd_fs_foodservice.htm
However like all government guidelines, this certainly takes into account a large margin of error. Your steaks will still be safe resting after an hour and a half outside the fridge. Personally I leave my thick steaks out for two hours to come to room temperature.
It is however preferable to salt your meat as far ahead of time if you can manage it.
http://www.seriouseats.com/2011/03/the-food-lab-more-tips-for-perfect-steaks.html
This. Health regulations in most countries allow 4 hours as that's the amount of time it takes for bacteria to grow to dangerous levels. Note that freezing preserves bacteria and doesn't kill them, so this is the total time that steak can be safely left warm.
If I forget to get steaks out the freezer and am in a hurry, I microwave them in tightly sealed plastic for a minute on each side, and then broil/grill.
If the steaks are already at least thawed to fridge temperature, leave them out for a shorter time on the counter, or even put them in the oven at 150 before broiling/grilling.
@Eric: Microwaving warms the steak from the inside, so it's a very good way to warm something thoroughly -- thus practical, not stupid. And the microwave-plastic-cancer link is an urban legend.
@dancek: Speaking of tall tales, microwaves heat from the outside. Sit down and think about it for a moment: last time you microwaved something a little too much, was it the outside that overcooked or the middle? When you defrost something, does the outside or the inside defrost first?
@derobert: Microwaves heat both from the outside and the inside. Microwaves consist of photons. They travel until they hit a particle and transform their energy to the particle's kinetic energy, also called heat. Now, it's more probable to hit a particle near the surface than deep inside [cookable thing], but the microwaves do penetrate food (it's just a matter of probability distribution). The result is that thinnish objects, such as steaks, do cook rather uniformly -- not entirely uniformly, but more than otherwise.
@dancek: Ovens heat (at least partially) with photons (in the infrared range) as well. So photons don't make a microwave special. But microwaves are at a very different wavelength, and quick Googling tells me the penetration depth is 10–20mm. So I suppose that for steaks, assuming proper alignment, you are indeed correct.
I have never had a problem leaving steaks out for 2 hrs. Nice room temp steak before the BBQ makes nice juicy perfectly done medium rare steaks. People worry WAY too much about bacteria. Wash hands before touching them. If your steak goes bad in 2 hrs then it was bad to begin with.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.133845
| 2010-08-02T19:27:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4018",
"authors": [
"Dave",
"Harlan",
"J Trana",
"Jakob",
"Martha F.",
"Muz",
"Robbie",
"Satanicpuppy",
"StackExchange saddens dancek",
"derobert",
"hagope",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7534",
"pka",
"rudolf_franek"
],
"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
}
|
9072
|
What flour and technique do I need for hand pulled noodles?
I can't get the dough I tried to be good enough so that I can pulled it and make noodles out of it. What kind of flour exactly do I need? What are other things do I need?
I have used self raising flour as a base with water and yeast according to some random recipe on the net but it is not what I expected. I did a little research and found out that I should use a special flour for this but can't find anywhere what it is.
@Arief - welcome to the site. As you can see in our FAQ (http://cooking.stackexchange.com/faq), this site is not for recipe requests. Instead you can ask a question that says "This is the recipe I have used. How can I fix it?" That helps us help you in a concise, objective way.
As justkt has mentioned, we don't do recipe requests here; however, if you would like to amend your question to include the specific recipe(s) you've attempted and what specific problems you are/were experiencing, then we can definitely help you.
sorry, I just edited my question, hope it's ok this time.
@Arief - I cleaned it up a bit, but it should be fine. Thanks.
The only thing is that we still don't know exactly what went wrong. Was the dough too loose to shape in the first place? Did the noodles end up too thick? Too brittle or crumbly? Every little bit helps; it's still kind of a mystery what "good enough" and "not what I expected" really mean.
I really do think it's important to know the specific recipe you tried as well, because there are so many, all with different kinds of flour.
This is the last write-up on the topic, and it's much simpler:
For hand-pulled noodles, you need:
Bread flour (wet gluten 29-30%, protein 11%-12%)
45% added water
1% alkaline solution
kansui powder or (Lye Water + Baking powder) or Peng or Baking Soda
Ingredients (Alkaline solutions)
kansui powder
55% sodium carbonate (Na2CO3),
35% potassium carbonate (K2CO3),
10% sodium biphosphate dodecahydrate (NaHPO3.12H2O)
Lye Water
potassium carbonate (K2CO3) 74.5% in 100ml
sodium biphosphate (NaHPO3) 3.4% in 100ml
Instant ash Peng
sodium carbonate (Na2CO3) 90%
Sodium chloride (NaCl) 1.15%
It is recommended to use bread flour because of its higher wet gluten content compared to normal white flour. You will also need a small amount of alkali. One recommendation is to use kansui powder, due to its ph of 11. If kansui isn't available, the next option would be baking powder and lye water. If either isn't available, the next option would be to use sodium carbonate 1% of total weight flour weight (e.g. if you use 100g of flour, use 1g of sodium carbonate). If you're using a lower gluten dough like all-purpose flour, then baking powder will do just fine. If you're using cake flour, use baking soda.
(Remember to add the kansui/baking soda/baking powder/sodium carbonate to the flour and mix it in before adding water.)
Sodium carbonate vs. potassium carbonate:
I've haven't had success with bread flour, plain flour or all-purpose flour with potassium carbonate. Even though it increases the ph of the dough, it still does not give the dough its stretchability.
Why use alkaline solution in the first place?!
Alkaline solution will increase the water absorption and gluten creation of the dough to enable it to be pulled sooner than normal by leaving the dough to rest at room temperature for 45 to 60 minutes. The downside of the alkaline solution is that it also breaks down gluten after the peak absorption is achieved. So on one side you have faster absorption but on the other side the dough will become more resilient to pulling if left too long.
For a non-alkaline solution, use this tutorial. It will cover all the basics that you will need to learn, and you WILL need to use all-purpose flour or plain flour. Noodle flour works best.
In conclusion:
Without sodium carbonate it's possible to have hand-pulled noodles with any flour. The downside is you will have to knead the dough for 45 minutes and leave to rest for 2 hours until you can start pulling your noodle strands.
Without sodium carbonate the noodles are harder to pull and I had most success with cutting each strand and going from there from the video.
Great tips. Caution Lye water is a strong alkaline (caustic) solution, a much safer alkaline for kitchen use is baking soda
Alkali do not help with pull. There is no where near enough water for 12% gluten flour in this recipe. Please comment if anyone actually pulls noodles with this recipe.
The dough needs plenty of kneading, not yeast, knead in one direction (the pull direction). It's similar to pulling sugar
Use regular (low to medium gluten) flour and water, let it rest so the flour is fully saturated. Some cooks will use baking soda to help with tough dough
It's is probably wetter than you might expect too
It can takes a while for the dough to be good, so be patient
It can take years of practice to pull noodles well, it's probably not an ingredient problem
One technique is to pull and bang (gently bang the "pull" onto a floured bench), so that you are continuously resetting the "pull" into an even shape. This sets up a rhythm so that the dough has time to relax between pulls and wont break so easily
I missed it the first time around, but I noticed the OP said "self raising" flour. That sounds like a terrible error to me, but now that I see you mention a use for baking soda above, do you think maybe that's why his recipe called for it?
Yeah, this isn't your Mothers pasta. The baking soda (or self raising flour) makes the dough "softer". If the dough is too hard it will break
This is the best hand pulled noodle tutorial I've found out there. Enjoy!
Edit: (quotes copied without asking permission (what's the policy for that?)
Ingredients for making hand pulled noodles are relatively simple. You need flour, water, some oil, and a little salt. In addition, you can add some lye water or baking soda.
Since most U.S. flour is really high in gluten, we'll mix a little bit of it will something that is really low in gluten: cake flour.
The recipe is 300g total. Flour for dough. Salt for flavor. Baking soda for texture. Oil for workability.
-156g cake flour
-25g regular flour
-110g warm water (the warmer the better)
-2g salt
-1g baking soda
-6g vegetable oil
Notice this is a formula, not a recipe.
Combine all the ingredients in a bowl. Take a heavy spoon and stir it a bit. When you're ready, pour the mix onto a kneading surface and begin working it with your hands. Once it feels relatively smooth, you need to start the real kneading process. You have to knead and stretch the dough until the gluten structue starts to break down. If you've ever made bread, you know you have to work the gluten by kneading the bread ball. With noodle dough, you have to take it PAST that bread stage. It will end up feeling a lot like clay, and when you stretch it you'll notice it doesn't tear.
Pulling
1. Be careful with the way you hold the dough. Make it a point to not grip the dough too tightly or it will tear when you pull it. Also try to hold the dough with anything BUT your fingertips (instead, hold the dough between your knuckles, for example), as your fingertips can apply too much point pressure and cause the dough to thin out and break.
2. The dough will resist long stretches. To get around this, it needs a rest here and there. You can provide this by stretching the dough like you're playing an accordion; many short, quick pulls. The dough also gets a rest when you fold it.
3. Speed helps if your noodles are uneven. The faster you stretch, the less the noodles will stretch under their own weight (which is the primary cause of unevenness).
4. Your first pull should be a full arms length. Pulls after that should be less than a full arms length. Otherwise you will end up with tears, especially with a smaller amount of dough.
Links go away eventually. Could you include a brief summary of the relevant information? (e.g. no yeast is involved, you want soft flour...)
It would be really helpful to know the recipe, as I'm not sure what technique you're trying to do--"pulling" noodles isn't familiar to me.
In general, if you can't get your noodles rolled out, these are the issues I'd look at, in order of likelihood:
Your hydration is too low (too much flour and/or not enough water). When this happens, the dough just breaks up instead of stretching.
You need to knead longer or let the dough autolyze (fancy word for let it sit for 20-30 minutes). Having more gluten makes the dough more stretchy and it'll hold together better.
Your dough is too cold. Don't heat your dough, but let it come up to room temperature (70f/20c) and it'll be easier to work.
Your flour is too "hard" for your application. This is not that likely to be your problem, though. Hardness is a measure of how much protein is in the flour, and harder flour will make a stiffer dough with the same amount of liquid because more gluten is formed. Cake flour is very soft, as is Italian 00 flour. All-purpose is harder, and bread flour is quite hard.
pulled noodles are totally different than Italian rolled pasta. It's a different technique entirely.
yeah, I looked that up afterward (maybe I should have done it beforehand). It looks cool, and definitely requires a completely different dough--though I suspect that problems with dough are problems with dough. It's a fairly standard set of issues. Thanks for the heads up, though.
I thought at first that protein content was very important, but later I realized that it isn't so.Between 7-10% is good. Some (1%)salt and baking soda(1%).
10% needs a little more kneading and more water.
Two things are really important:
1- humidity. Dough must have humidity all time, don,t let it get dry.
2- kneading technique.perhaps you are not teaching the time to pull noodles and it is because you are not kneading good or enough time.
Use Chinese technique, first and second period, and knead like a machine
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.134343
| 2010-11-12T21:20:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9072",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Arief",
"Bambi Loeffler",
"Carol Sn",
"Gaurav",
"Jane Harrison",
"Jason",
"Jason R",
"Jonathan",
"LarsK",
"Maria Cummins",
"Marti",
"Nida Sahar",
"Shambhala",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"Tamaryn",
"bikeboy389",
"cnrhus",
"event_jr",
"grace von moltyn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"justkt",
"user1801105",
"user275517"
],
"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
}
|
12439
|
Is Indian food more expensive to prepare than Chinese food?
Based on my subjective experience, Indian food at restaurants is more expensive than Chinese. This seems to hold across restaurant classes, low end takeout is a buck or two more then Chinese takeout, and mid-range is a few dollars more.
Could this be due to the cost of preparation itself - ingredients, equipment, etc. - or is this likely just a result of the local economics?
I think the subject of this should be changed to include restaurant in the title. Otherwise the post is initially misleading.
The only way to answer this would be to poll a statistically significant number of restaurants of both types, and get them to give their average food cost per seat. Since restaurants are unlikely to disclose their food cost (since it tends to be about 1/4 to 1/3 of the menu price), and since small restaurants may not even have the accounting to know their food cost on a dish by dish basis, it is unlikely to be possible to produce a true answer to this question.
It's entirely possible that the cost is related to staffing, and not ingredients -- how many Chinese dishes can a chef cook in an hour vs. Indian ones? How much prep time did each one take? And are the chefs kept busy so you have economy of scale, or are they spending a lot of time waiting for the next order?
Near as I can tell, it's probably the local economics. It seems to me that the cost is different per "component" but would probably balance out in the end.
Chinese food, generally speaking, relies more on fresh vegetables (carrots, peas, bean-sprouts, broccoli etc.) and meat. This means that the storage costs and spoilage costs are higher relative to Indian food, which is higher in legumes and beans that are much easier and cheaper to store, and last forever when dry.
On the other hand, Chinese is generally quicker to prepare (think stir fry, though not only), which means less time on the fire, and less man-power used. Indian food usually requires more cooking time, which may mean that the restaurant has a larger capital outlay for stove space.
Aside from that, in my experience at least, Indian is usually a register above Chinese for "comparable" places. The Indian equivalent of a Chinese place serving simple rice and 10-12 stir-fry dishes would be a simple Thali bar, but there aren't many of those, as us Westerners like to order several different meat/vegetable main dishes at a time, as opposed to a set menu.
Anyway, note that I haven't done any proper costing of these type of food preparation.
Well, also keep in mind that many Indian dishes can be prepared in advance whereas most Chinese dishes are prepared à la minute, the latter requiring more kitchen staff during service.
@ESultanik: That's a good point that I hadn't thought of at all. I still think it's mostly the register of the place, that the Indian is usually a level up from the Chinese in terms of how close it is to family-style cooking in the homeland.
I think Carmi's answer is a pretty good theory for the differences between Indian and Chinese restaurants. It makes sense to me that labor- and time-intensive Indian cooking makes Indian restaurants more expensive than quick-cooking Chinese ones. To add on to that, I'm wondering if the number of different spices and their costs plays a role, too.
Like Carmi, I haven't done any proper cost comparisons between the two, but I do cook a decent amount of Indian food. In my experiences, Indian dishes require a larger number of spices than many Chinese dishes do, and those spices tend to be more expensive. For example, an Indian curry might include cumin, coriander, turmeric, asafoetida, garlic, chiles, cilantro, nuts (almond or cashew) AND ginger. Having to purchase all thoses spices costs me a lot more than making a Chinese dish with a pre-made 5-spice powder combined with soy sauce.
Some Indian food requires spices that are pretty expensive to get (at least in the US): saffron, fenugreek and cardamom, for example, are pricey. You don't typically see those in Chinese cooking, but they appear fairly regularly in Indian food.
All of that being said, I do think that local economies play a large role. There are Chinese restaurants everywhere in New York City, but Indian restaurants are less common and more expensive. However, where I grew up in Massachusetts, there were almost as many Indian restaurants as Chinese, and I can get lunch at a new Indian place there for less than $5. Not sure there is a definitive answer for your question.
'fast food' chinese contains a lot of cheap beansprouts and noodles or rice. Even take away indian contains a lot more sauce and meat.
I always wonder this. A similar takeaway from the Indian will usually be 50% more expensive.
To be honest, I think the fresh fruit and veg is dearer in Chinese food than the potatoes and spinach in Indian. Indian venues use very little variety in way of healthy vegetables.
As for saying the Indian meats take a longer time to cook you are looking unfairly. I believe tikka is done and put aside them mainly added to bought in sauces later.
Think about Chinese foods such as twice cooked pork. It is braised slowly as part of the dish.
The Chinese use a lot of spring onions, ginger, garlic and other ingredients that are so similar to Indian food.
To be honest, I think Indian restaurants just price up to a point where people would stop buying, and the Chinese charge reasonably.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.135085
| 2011-02-21T16:59:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12439",
"authors": [
"Carmi",
"ESultanik",
"Joe",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Shell R.",
"That Guy Who Makes Things",
"Zombies",
"christopher",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"tirefire",
"user25622"
],
"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
}
|
9871
|
What is the ideal way to prepare (and the type of) beef for a homemade meat pie?
What is the ideal way to prepare (and the type of) beef for a homemade meat pie?
I'm really interested in ..
1. whether there is a certain preference for the type of cut to use.
2. how much you should cook (if at all) the meat before you put the pie in the oven.
3. Is there a certain size that works best (for cooking purposes more so than eating).
4. Should I remove all of the fat content before searing?
5. Is there an ideal ratio of meat to gravy in the pie?
6. I want a meat pie where the meat content is still a bit tender, but the gravy is hot. any tips?
Your filling is basically a beef stew/casserole, so any cuts that suite long slow cooking are fine. They get cooked again while the pie is baked, so premium cuts will just be wasted
The lower grade and 'off cut' parts are what are most commonly used. Like rump, brisket, chuck, shank, neck etc
Using a bench top slow cooker makes cooking this all very easy. The beef needs to be fully cooked before making the pie. An eight hour slow cook is fine
You want the pieces to be a variety of sizes to fill out the pie shape, but make sure you have some at least the height of the pie filling. The larger pieces tend to be better, but that could be a matter of taste and culture
You need to get rid of plenty of fat before and after cooking. A mouth full of fat in a pie is not nice. There is already plenty of fat in the gravy and pastry, so trim off all you can
A good meat pie should have a solid layer of meat connected with gravy, not swimming. It should also not be so full as you can't eat it with your hands (for a single serve pie) without loosing half the contents
Puff/flakey pastry works best and holds everything together
Avoid overly strong flavoured gravies, you don't want to hide the beef and pastry taste
Before you attach the lid, place a slice of tasty cheese, or an extra generous serving of cracked pepper on top of the filling
A respectable pie looks like this - thanks to Ponsonby Pies (not made in Ponsonby anymore)
Many steak pies in the UK tend to have a double crust with a shortcrust bottom and a puff/flaky top - is your suggestion to use puff for top and underside?
For plate serving either, for party food or for a portable lunch only use puff
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.135496
| 2010-12-08T02:50:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9871",
"authors": [
"Andrew Stone",
"Henry wolfe",
"Kitchenette",
"Mmmh mmh",
"Orbling",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9860
|
What is the best way to making a great pavlova base?
What is the best way to making a great pavlova base?
Can you explain what you mean by "base"? Do you mean the crust?
@aaronut, the base is just a meringue.
If you want pavlova, just follow any New Zealand pavlova recipe on the web. If you want meringue use a meringue recipe. Do you have specific problems? Two important things, room temp egg white, and everything very clean (contamination and oil on cooking bowls etc)
@TFD hey mate you sound like you have a pretty good idea of how the base should go down? could you provide an answer, I'm having trouble choosing one to accept.
The secrets: (some are old wives tales, but hey, it's an old recipe)
Eggs: Room temperature (you don't put eggs in the fridge do you?) and not fresh
Contamination: Make sure everything you use to prepare the base is perfectly clean, especially no grease. Use boiling water to rinse everything first. Metal or glass bowls are best, as plastic is harder to get 100% clean. Also make sure no yolk gets into the egg whites
Beating: When eggs whites have gone firm, add the sugar a little at a time using a powerful beater machine going flat out. NZ'ers use their trusty but ancient Kenwood Chef with the glass bowl for ten minutes until the it looks like the Swiss Alps on a sunny day. You should not be able to feel the castor sugar when you squish some mix between your fingers. If they go dull you have over beaten. They will still work but will go extra soggy when cooked as the sugar runs out
BTW: Use ear muffs when using your Kenwood Chef, I kid you not!
Size: Height = radius, or a little less. A radius of less than 10cm means you won't get Pav, just meringue. You can experiment with baking paper rings to hold the mix into a perfect cake shape if fussy. I wouldn't bother though
Problems:
Collapse: You opened the oven door ... DON'T
Cracking: Normal, don't worry. This is a messy desert and you'll be covering it with whipped cream soon!
Crystallisation: over cooking
Marshmallow like in middle: Normal, that's what a Pav is meant to be like. If it's not like that you have over cooked it, or you didn't make it thick enough. Foamed egg white is a self-insulator, once the outside cooks it stops the heat getting into the middle
Weeping: too much sugar, over beating, or not enough cooking. Cook for little longer on humid days
If truly stuck, go on a course http://www.creativetourism.co.nz/workshops_taste_pav.html
This is what they should look like
A pavlova base is a meringue with cornstarch added. The addition of cornstarch makes a soft, marshmallow-y center. The Joy of Baking has what looks like a comprehensive recipe, although I haven't made it.
I've always just made it with a normal meringue base and only just learned this was "wrong" (silly English heritage I guess) . If you want to use a meringue base, there are two main considerations:
Individual or Share? - You can either make small individual portions or a single large meringue that you cut. Meringue doesn't always cut great and the whipped cream makes the whole thing soggy, so you have to eat it in a day. Individual meringue's may be a bit big for a single serving and are harder to get chewy. Generally, I'll do a big one for a party and individual ones if I know how many diners I have.
Hard or Chewy? Some people like their meringue really dry and airy, for which you leave it in the closed oven for a long time after cooking, maybe even overnight. Or you can pull it out a little earlier, leaving the center gooey and chewy. I have a strong preference for the second variety.
Other than that, all you need to do is make a meringue. I generally use the recipe from Delia Smith (she likes them chewy too). Essentially you just whip egg whites, disolve in some fine sugar, and bake it. It's super easy (if you have a mixer) and it's always a huge hit.
Good luck.
To anyone that isn't familiar with Pavlova (Australia's Favorite Treat), I strongly recommend you try one: Meringue topped with whipped cream topped with loads of fresh fruit.
A Pavlova is NOT "simply a meringue". It has similar ingredients, but it has a totally different cooking process. Unlike meringue it must have cornstarch to set, and is cooked briefly in a med oven and then the oven is switched off and it is left until cool. It resembles a large gooey cake with a thin crisp shell. Whipped cream and fruit are added on the day of serving so the cream is fresh, the cake is already "soggy". The Oxford English Dictionary has recently (correctly) credited it as a New Zealand desert. Many NZ'ers travel between Oz and NZ , hence it's popularity over there
@TFD, you appear to be correct! I'm English, living in America, and I've only ever had it as a meringue base. But I prefer mine gooey anyway, so it's probably more similar than a dry meringue. I'll update my answer.
BTW, it most definitely is a meringue. While most recipes don't call for a binding agent, others use cornstarch (like pavlova) or cream of tartar.
I discovered how to make pavlovas a couple of years ago and have always found them really easy. My recipe uses egg whites, golden caster sugar, cornflour and white wine vinegar.
I have heard that it can be tricky to get this right so I always follow the exact same stages:
Preheat oven to 180 degrees C
Cover the baking sheet with greaseproof paper
Whisk the egg whites until they form stiff and shiny peaks
Add the sugar a couple of tablespoons at a time, and when it is all added continue whisking for 3-4 minutes until it stands in peaks
Add the cornflour and white wine vinegar and whisk
Spoon on to the baking tray, making a dent in the middle
Place in the oven and turn it down to 120 degrees C
Cook for 1 and a half hours, then turn off the oven and leave until completely cold before removing.
Peel off the paper, and fill with whatever you like (I used thickly whipped double cream, and fruit.)
I have included the whole recipe because I'm not certain which of the stages is key. I would guess that properly whipping it (stages 3 & 4) and the cooking method (starting it off hotter, then turning down, and leaving it in the oven until completely cold) is probably part of it too. I also read when I first saw the recipe (can't remember where, sorry) that the white wine vinegar and cornflour are key to helping it set well too.
Having read the comments and Yossarin's answer - they are right to point out that it will go soggy if you top it too long before you want to eat it.
The typical NZ cooking time is 150C for 45 minutes, and then let it cool. It wont go soggy, because: it already sort of is soggy, cream and set egg white don't self mix, and if you can keep this in your house for longer than a day without eating it you made it wrong :-)
I think it would be the water from the berries I top it with that would make it go soggy - you're right that cream and set egg white wouldn't mix by themselves!
Try thinly sliced kiwifruit or preserved peaches
In terms of physically MAKING the base, shape the mixture into a ring on the tray, so that the outside of the pavlova is slightly higher than the inside. This helps the cream and fruit not fall off when you're cutting it.
The mixture needs to be really stiff so that it doesn't expand outwards into a big flat pav. I find that using a ratio of 1:2 icing sugar:caster sugar also helps form a stiffer and glossier mixture.
I am not sure if the making the outside higher than the middle really helps. It's a round thick "cake", it is usually sliced into fat wedges. Things slide off and break when you serve the wedge
In my experience, the keys to good meringue are : Old Eggs and a clear day.
The fresher the egg, the thicker the white. An egg fresh out of the chicken will have a heavy gelatinous white that sticks to the yolk, and only a little bit of watery white.
As the egg gets older, the whites convert to the more watery form. This is what you want for meringue.
Secondly, I have much more success on clear days than I do on rainy days. I think it has something to do with the air pressure and humidity.
Pavlova is a formula. Have used it for 50 years & my mother used it weekly in their hotel as well. Weigh egg whites and use 2x sugar. Some cream of tartar can be added but I don't always use. Have never used vinegar. Can add vanilla. 350F 15 minutes. Turn oven off. Leave an hour then crack the door and leave till dry. Mum's pavs were epic - often to feed 25 people in her dining room. The formula was given to me by my mother-in-law who had used it for years too. Dont over complicate! It is a forgiving dessert!
Hi as a Kiwi who loves Pav, the best way to cook it is Bake for 5-10mins at 180°c, then turn the oven OFF &leave until oven cold (@ an hour). Do not open door. I love a crisp shell but love the mallow centre. I know this comment probably too late! I hope you had luck. I don't really care what vinegar I use, normally malt vinegar just cos thats in front lol. Oh & when you haveput your cream on, sliced kiwifruit is Yum!
And if kept in airtight container should last up to a week, don't cream until close to eating,oh & strawberries & flakes chocolate another fave topping. When I put onto baking paper, I sieve icing sugar, also do this inyour serving platter so it doesn't stick.
And one more thing you basically beat it until you don't taste the sugar grains.
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. It's best if you edit this information back into your original answer; comments are meant to contain side discussions, not information critical to a question or answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.135836
| 2010-12-07T21:38:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9860",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alex",
"Andrestand",
"Anonymous Type",
"Bluebelle",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Dodzi Dzakuma",
"Rob",
"Sa Keeley",
"Sherry Storms",
"TFD",
"Vladislav",
"dso",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53222",
"pedrozath",
"the frenchy",
"user20241",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11807
|
Does ketchup belong in the fridge, or the cupboard?
I'm hoping this will solve a biiig long-running debate I have with my friends. Heinz Tomato Ketchup (The UK version contains sugar from beets, rather than HFCS like the US version)
I tend to think that ketchup should live in the fridge, once opened, because I'm a real stickler for the use-by instructions.
However, my friends, and their friends think I'm nuts, and are convinced that ketchup should live in the cupboard. Having eaten ketchup stored in both fridge, and cupboard, the only difference being that refrigerated ketchup also cools the food it's just been applied to.
Consensus of the cooking gurus then?
At home I have always kept ketchup in the fridge after opening but now that I think of it, pretty much all restaurants that offer ketchup keep it on the table. And if you do ask for ketchup it is usually room temperature, implying it wasn't just pulled from the fridge.
@duchess, as far as I know, restaurants also throw out their ketchup and other on-table condiments fairly frequently and refill from fresh bottles. At least, that was the practice at restaurants where I and my friends have worked.
It lasts longer in the fridge, if you are an infrequent user, but lasts a fair while in a cupboard. Also, IMO, condiments, particularly ketchup, are better served cold.
I don't think it makes a huge amount of difference, especially as ketchup is loaded with sugar and vinegar and is generally well-sealed. The scientific thing to do would be to buy two cheap bottles of ketchup, open them, then leave one in the fridge and one in the cupboard and see which one lasts longer.
@ElendilTheTall - But how do you tell when the ketchup is spoiled?
The same way you can tell anything is spoiled; it looks/smells/tastes spoiled!
Anything can spoil eventually, refrigerated or not. Keeping something under a lid and refrigerated restricts the number of airborne colonizers that might get access to it, and the cold temperature means that even if they get there, they will grow much slower than at room temperature.
For something to spoil, it needs to be colonized by bacteria or fungus spores, and it needs to contain some nourishment to support their growth, not too much chemicals that prevent their growth, and not too much competing life forms already present. So, things with a high concentration of salt or sugar tend to be unhospitable to bacteria and fungi growth, because they are hygroscopic (they draw the water out of cells). Extreme high or low pH (eg acidic) also retards growth. Think of things like ketchup, mustard, jelly with labels that say "refrigerate after opening" but most people ignore them. Alcohol is unfriendly if the concentration is too high, and of course natural fermented foods are already occupied by human-friendly bacteria.
Ketchup is sealed in a bottle, usually with no fingers or utensils inserted into it, so it stays pretty sterile. It is also protected by being hygroscopic (due to high concentration of sugar and salt) and its acidity. Ketchup as a word and concept is descended from an Indonesian fish sauce, and has been around much longer than refrigeration. I think you can leave it out with no worries unless you see obvious mold growth.
+1 "Ketchup is sealed in a bottle, usually with no fingers or utensils inserted into it" is the big clue - except when your little ones suck sauce directly from the bottle and contaminate the opening, even the fridge wont help then! But most people usually go through the stuff quickly enough that no one notices a little mould
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.136599
| 2011-02-03T23:25:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11807",
"authors": [
"Blamdarot",
"David Wilkins",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Islands",
"Martin Beckett",
"Orbling",
"Pops",
"Sarah Jean",
"TFD",
"duchessofstokesay",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4483",
"sharon"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10367
|
How can I make perfect sticky rice?
I have a couple of weeks off of school, and thought I would try my hand at some dim sum, specifically lotus leaf wraps, but first I need to figure out how to make the sticky rice. So:
What type of rice would be best for this purpose?
What is the optimal way to prepare it (i.e. to be as sticky as possible while still being firm)?
Anything else I should know before trying it out?
Yes... But you may want to reword ypour question. Recipe requests are off topic. If you post a recipe or something you're thinking of trying, we can help explain or maybe help you improve it.
I've made a lot of assumptions in editing your question; however, as it was originally worded I would have had to close it. If my assumptions are wrong then please feel free to make the appropriate corrections - just please make sure that it's not worded as a recipe request, as those are off-topic here. Thanks!
Apologies, first question I've ever posted. I would say your assumptions are spot on, I am really looking for some pointers in making a nice sticky rice, not a recipe. Thanks.
I am happy to give you a brief idea, but you may have to tell me how much info you need
Get the lotus leaves from chinese shop and they are usually dried leaves, so you need to soak them in water for a night. After that give it a wash and cut it to the right side
sticky rice is a type of rice, so that's what you need. Don't use any other rice as they won't stick. You will need to soak the rice in water for couple of hours and add couple drops of oil.
Prepare whatever you want to put in your rice like mushroom and meat
When u make the wrap, put a layer of rice on the leaf and then place the meat and mushroom on the rice. After that put another layer of rice on top and wrap it up
Put the wrapped rice to steam and I cannot help you with the time, but it's between 10-20 mins
Good luck
Note that "sticky rice" is often sold in Asian markets as glutinous rice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.136917
| 2010-12-21T01:42:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10367",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"ExpatFoodie",
"Snellgrove",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"mrwienerdog",
"talon8",
"tchitowngirl"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9431
|
How to identify turkey liver
Making turkey gravy - the recipe says to not use the liver. How can I identify the liver from the magical bag of turkey bits?
I ended up with 4 things. The first looked like 2 organs connected by some sort of tendon. The 2nd was more firm and sort of bean shaped - a little bigger than the first digit of my thumb. The last 2 looked like they might be the same thing - dark red (I would say "liver colored" but they are all this sort of darkish red color), kind of flat, with tear drop shapes on one end.
Still need to find the neck - I know what that looks like - hopefully it's in this bird somewhere.
Here is a great place to go to compare identified inards with what you have.
http://www.eatmedaily.com/2009/11/offal-of-the-week-turkey-offal/
Personally, when making gravy, I just use the drippings from the turkey, sometimes I throw the neck in for a little extra, if I need to make some more. Call me squimish, but I usually toss the rest, but that's just me.
As that photograph indicates, the liver is (almost always) very dark and smooth.
Thanks - looks like I have a heart, a gizzard, and 2 livers. I will accept this answer when I am permitted (have to wait a few more minutes).
@Ryan Elkins: I always use the heart and neck, but never anything else. Doesn't taste like much.
+1 for the website find, but please don't be squeamish about using the giblets! While the turkey is roasting, you can make a quick turkey stock using the neck, heart, and gizzard. The liver can also go into the stock, or -even better- you can chop it fine (soak in milk beforehand if desired) and add it to your dressing/stuffing as a "mystery ingredient*. Given the ratios involved, the stuffing won't taste like liver, but it will taste richer and meatier.
For me, the liver is the "Cook's Portion". At some time during the day, I'll fry it up with some onions and eat it. Even better when I'm doing duck.
Use them all. I make one gravy (often a jar-name brand is usually best) without the good stuff, and one, again using a jar, with the neck boiled for hours and the rest fried and simmered for the last hour of turkey cooking, minus what I eat. To answer the question, the two soft dark red parts are most likely the liver or if they feel muscularly or hard, it is the heart or kidney.
I love just frying the liver up and eating it, in small portions. Gizzards are good that way as well. At times when I make one batch of gravy I have to separate the lumps and not tell one sibling that those parts were in the gravy. My dad, my boyfriend and I eat the good stuff as a bonus. She never knows.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.137099
| 2010-11-25T00:59:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9431",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Amanda",
"Chris Cudmore",
"INT",
"KJ4RNV",
"Kristina Kissel",
"Marti",
"Ryan Elkins",
"Satanicpuppy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41"
],
"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
}
|
4388
|
How safe is steak tartare?
How safe is steak tartare?
What can I do when preparing it make sure it is safe to eat?
ate it a lot of times (with horse meat). I'm still alive :)
@Stefano Borini: People always repeat that argument. It's silly. The ones who died aren't here to comment. :P
not exactly dupes, but the following questions also provide good enough: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2923/is-it-safe-to-eat-raw-fish http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2957/is-it-safe-to-eat-raw-eggs
@hobodave : good point :) but it's unlikely you die. You just get sick eventually.
Butchered meat is generally sterile except on its exterior. (That doesn't mean parasite- or botulism-free, but it's a start.)
Get the best quality you can from a source you trust. Keep it at as low a temperature as possible, and don't expose it to warm air for more than the few minutes it takes to prepare.
Cut with a clean knife on a clean surface. Put it right back into the fridge at a very low temp.
Salt and acid, if you use them in your sauce, will provide some anti-bacterial benefits, but this is not foolproof.
People all over the world eat raw meat, but it's best to start with small amounts and see how your system handles it. If you're a child/pregnant/old/sick, it's much less of a good idea.
Surely you should qualify this as "Butchered red meat ..."? Then again I'm not much of a cook.
It's as safe as any other raw meat consumption. It all comes down to quality beef and best practices when handling.
Two rules of thumb:
Don't use steak from a supermarket. Use a butcher, preferably one you know and trust.
Tell your butcher you intend to eat it raw.
+1. Finding a trusted butcher is the most important part of a steack tartare recipe.
Three: eat it soon!
If you are really nervous, a trick I have heard of is to start with a really thick piece of beef. Then sear it on both sides in a hot pan. At this point the outside would be deemed safe and the interior is typically safe so you cut away the cooked parts. Then proceed to make the steak tartare with the still raw inside part. As a bonus those nice browned parts from the outside are a treat for the chef.
Use fresh beef that has been properly stored and handled. The natural state of beef is generally sterile, external pathogens are introduced in processing and multiply quickly on the beef. A good butcher who maintains a clean environment significantly decreases the chances of contamination. Keeping the beef cold until eaten slows the reproduction of any bacteria that happen to have made a home on your meat.
There is always a small risk of contamination, so people with compromised immune systems shouldn't eat raw meat. Most others are able to fight off bacterial infections, although it won't be pleasant.
I have eaten raw beef (including store bought ground beef) all my life. In fact, my mother told me our butcher fed me a small ball of raw, ground beef when I was a baby. She said it was my first solid food. I am now 80 years old & have never had any type of food borne illness, Probably have eaten at least a thousand pounds of raw beef of almost all cuts, gallons of raw oysters including some in southern Mexico, & still tell the waiter in the resturants "just knock off their horns, wipe their ----, & throw it on the plate" My step dad always said the way I ate a steak was "put a bandaid on it & it will get well", but he is now deceased, may he RIP.
I'm glad things have worked out for you, but it's definitely not always that way - entities like the FDA recommend cooking meat for a reason. The other answers here are a lot more realistic, telling people what they need to know to be confident they will be safe, even if they're not as lucky as you.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.137380
| 2010-08-05T22:20:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4388",
"authors": [
"Anatol",
"BaffledCook",
"Cascabel",
"Kristoffer Nolgren",
"Leblanc Meneses",
"Liang Zhao",
"Lila",
"Marlene",
"Mike Sherov",
"P Ramesh",
"Stefano Borini",
"donna",
"hippietrail",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99",
"jacob",
"mouviciel",
"user871"
],
"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
}
|
42470
|
Why does my roast beef smell wonderful but tastes bland?
My crockpot roast beef has the best aroma ever but the flavor of the finished product is only average. I had a 4 pound tri-tip roast and seasoned it with the usual onion, garlic, worcestershire sauce, cumin, basil, beef gravy packet, and enough beef broth to just cover roast in the crockpot. We walked in the door and the delicious aroma filled the whole house. But, when eating the roast, it was just okay. Lots of delicious aroma but very little flavor in the roast beef.
Why is this?
Please provide the full recipe and method for any hope of a reasonably helpful answer.
Also please give details of the beef you used: what cut is it and what grade/quality.
It would be much easier to identify if this whole smell-ivision ever took off...
I'm going to put this on hold for now since we don't have a good way to tell what's going wrong. Penny, if you come back, just edit your post and add a little detail, and we'll reopen it right away so you can get some answers!
I had a 4 pound tri-tip roast and seasoned it with the usual onion, garlic, worcestershire sauce, cumin, basil, beef gravy packet, and enough beef broth to just cover roast in the crockpot. We walked in the door and the delicious aroma filled the whole house. But, when eating the roast, it was just okay. I was just wondering if anyone else had ever experienced this.
This is still a little unclear. What do you mean "seasoned it"? How much did you use? Was it a quick rub? A marinade? Did you just toss those things in the pan with it? Post your recipe, please.
@PennyB Also, someone went ahead and did this for you, but to clarify more, you can just edit your question so the new details are easy for everyone to see up there!
How long did you cook it for?
It might help to know if the liquid in the pot had flavor. Or was the sauce/liquid bland tasting too?
Its probably important to note that on a 4 pound cut of meat, whole, no seasoning is going to penetrate the interior of the meat. That's what sauces are for :)
Wow! I did not realize how difficult it was going to be to communicate here. :)
The seasonings that I put in the crock pot aren't from any "recipe," nothing is "measured." This is just my usual way of doing a roast in my crockpot. Since rfusca said that no seasoning is going to penetrate the interior of the meat and that's what sauces are for, I am wondering if I should exclude the onion, garlic, cumin, basil, beef gravy packet and beef broth and only use worcestershire sauce, maybe mixed with another couple of sauces, barbecue or steak sauce??? What do you do?
@Penny : I usually cut it into slabs, and let it soak in the juices for a bit. (assuming I didn't cook it 'til it shreds under its own weight ... which I prefer, but the folks I tend to cook for aren't fans of)
Interesting! This sounds very sensible. I am going to try this.
"What do you do?" With a tri-tip, I generously salt and pepper, then grill to rare, rest for 5 minutes, slice and serve ASAP. Crockpots are ok for doing low/slow cooking (though you should brown your meat and deglaze the pan into the crockpot rather than just throwing meat in). Tri-tip is much better cooked hot/fast (I like a charcoal grill, but it's hardly the only option) to no more than medium.
If we're talking about a solid, four pound cut of beef - the only flavor you're ever really going to get is on the exterior and just a little bit into the interior of the meat.
That said, cooking in the spices/components you list still may provide liquid gold. I would simply take some of the liquid that's leftover in the slow cooker after the roast has cooked and make a gravy out of it. You'll get the flavors you put in and have something to sauce the interior of the meat - that have been flavored with the juices of the meat as well.
Otherwise, if you're looking to 'infuse' more flavor into the beef itself, you'll need to consider something like a stew rather than a whole cut.
I like your suggestion about making a gravy from the leftover liquid to sauce the interior of the meat. Sounds wonderful! Thank you for that suggestion. :)
We walked in the door and the delicious aroma filled the whole house.
This is actually a strong hint as to what might be going wrong. Whenever you smell a delicious aroma during cooking, that's aromatic compounds that would otherwise add lots of flavor being lost to the air. When simmering a sauce, for example, it's not just water that is boiling away. If it was, you wouldn't smell that delicious aroma.
The higher the cooking temperature, the more of these flavorful aromatics will be lost. It's for this reason that many recipes recommend reducing sauces on as low a simmer as possible.
The smaller and lighter those [aromatic] compounds are, the more likely they are to jump out of the pot with the evaporating water and float off into the air.
J. Kenji López-Alt, Ask the Food Lab: Do I Really Need To Reduce Wine Separately?
It seems like the chemistry behind all this isn't really that well understood, but experimenting with two pots (of stock, for example) cooked at different temperatures and tasting the difference proves it to be true.
In summary: try cooking at a slower temperature for longer. An alternative to this would be to use a pressure cooker. The cooking temperature will be higher (thus reducing the length of time needed) but due to the pressure cooker being a sealed container, the aroma compounds aren't lost to the air.
It's in a crockpot, so it's already long and slow
I'm not sure knowing it's being done in a crockpot alone means we can know it's being cooked long and slow.
I guess so but it would be unusual to use a slow cooker for not cooking slow
(Although I do think a sealed Dutch oven in a 200 degree oven is a far better method of slow cooking)
Apologies - I've just googled crockpot and it's not what I thought it was. Indeed, it's probably being slow cooked. Still, the points still stand, at least as something to give some consideration to.
Thank you for all the good input! My roast was cooked long and slow in my crockpot. I have great fear of pressure cookers because of the horrible accidents they have caused in my family. I know they have been greatly improved but, when they malfunction, they are very dangerous. This is true of any appliance, I realize, but having seen what a pressure can do, I am very afraid of them.
I had the same problem for months. My final solution was to beat up the roast a bit before I put in the slow cooker, and occasionally stab a few holes in the roast so the tasty liquids can get inside. I also reuse the left over liquid as a gravy. Presentation wise the roast looks like it got hit by a truck, but who cares when every bite is juicy and tasty.
Also consider that long exposure to heat actually removes the flavour from a lot of herbs and spices that really need to be added at the or near the end of the cooking.
You could try infusing flavour into the meat with a syringe, or making sure to sear the entire outside very well prior to placing the roast into the slow cooker.
Also, proper seasoning (salt and pepper) goes a long ways to bringing out natural flavour in meat.
Thank you for your suggestion. I like the idea of using a syringe to infuse flavor.
When you cook the meat in a closed dish then lots of liquid comes out. I have trouble understanding how flavour can enter the meat when cooking is extracting the liquid. Injecting the meat with a flavour (herbs etc) seems likely to be the only way of getting flavour in (unless you consider vacuum extracting moisture and then adding it back with flavour added?
I had the same problem. This is what I did. I took my already cooked rump roast, shredded the meat, melted some better over medium heat in a large pan. I added the shredded meat and a few splashes of broth from a beef bouillon cube. (just enough to moisten.) Then I seasoned it with garlic powder, salt, pepper, meat tenderizer, and Mrs. Dash table blend. Then I stirred the mixture and let it heat thoroughly til the meat soaked up the broth. Hope this helped.
It probably does not have anything to do with you or your method of cooking if the flavor problem is isolated or infrequent. The problem is likely the meat. I cook roast the same way every time and it is usually excellent with a robust beef flavor. Unfortunately, every once in a while, the meat is flavorless. It usually seems to come from grocery store beef on sale, even choice graded roasts that look great. I have noticed that dark beef (not bloody) has a more robust beefy flavor than light colored bright red beef. I have had the same experience with ground beef.
One time I made some meatballs with ground chuck from a meat market. They were fantastic. My wife's brother begged me to make them again the following week. I went to the grocery store and picked some ground chuck and made the meatballs the same way. They came out flavorless and my brother in law was so disappointed as was I. After experimenting over the next few years, I discovered it was the poor quality of meat from the particular grocery store that I purchased the meat from.
marinade your whole roast over night in the liquid my roast come out full of flavor every time I use beef onion soup mix and beef broth
The very first thing that came to my mind is that you are using too much liquid -- which when evaporates while cooking, emites pleasant odors, but makes the meat over tender.
I realize this is an old question, but I must have missed it. If you want your roast to have internal goodness (I.e. From the juices in the Dutch oven or marinade) you need to perferate the meat.
You can use an ice pick to do this. On the cutting board, make a grid of holes about 1 inch (or 2cm) apart. This allows the juices or marinade to reach the interior.
Little secret here. Celery juice is a natural nitrifier, which makes meats taste OMG delicious. If you take a whole celery heart and food process it into slush and then use a Baster to inject the celery juice into the ice pick holes you will have an amazing end product.
I golden brown the roasts after seasoning with steak or roast seasoning.
put in oven or crockpot. add a little water, cover and cook until about half way. then I remove while the roast is still firm to cut through, making about 3/4 in slices. lay them back in the broth after tasting the broth and see if it needs more of something. by cutting, the juices will permeate the meat and when you serve, you'll have nice lovely slices.
Finish cooking/baking until they are fork tender..oh my! delish :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.137751
| 2014-03-02T23:43:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42470",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alarec Scarbrow",
"Amritha J",
"Carmella Penirelli",
"Cascabel",
"Coinhaven- Cryptocurrency",
"Gabriel Glenn",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Kshitij",
"Leez",
"MAYA STEVENS",
"MrFurniture spam",
"Nat Bowman",
"Penny B",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sophie Obertance",
"Spammer",
"Vince Bowdren",
"akh22",
"cocomac",
"highBandWidth",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99535",
"jcorcoran",
"mylastresort",
"rfusca",
"top9nhacai",
"user99436"
],
"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
}
|
42564
|
Are feral hog hind quarters hams, or a different type of pork?
I recently hunted feral hog and had one processed. I have two full bone-in hind quarters. I wondering if these are considered hams or a different cut/type of pork. How would one go about cooking a full bone-in hind quarter? What are the proper temperatures to cook feral hog to? I would like to make a ham if possible, also maybe pulled pork or something else with the second hind quarter. Thinking maybe in the smoker too.
Cuts differ from country to country. I looked at your profile, and you're from the US (Just stating it here, so that others do not have to search for it).
They would be fresh hams, the hindquarter of a pig.
The word ham, unmodified, implies a cured product.
I would imagine that for a feral hog, if you are willing to risk eating it, that you should cook to the highest temperature reasonable, which in the case of a fresh ham might be at least 180 F, and as high as 200 F. The best application at these ranges would be making puiled pork, which requires long, low, and slow cooking; smoking is definitely an option.
See also this recipe, although for a pork butt, should be easily adaptable to the fresh ham, which is similar, although not quite as fatty and full of connective tissue, so it won't be quite as tender when done.
Good answer, thanks for the info. I was unsure exactly what a "ham" was. I think I'll smoke these and then pull them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.138976
| 2014-03-06T17:23:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42564",
"authors": [
"Andrew",
"AndyWarren",
"LN Manil",
"Mien",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99531",
"wholesale iPhone Samsung spam"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11118
|
Cheeses similar to queso fresco
Queso fresco is one of my most frequently purchased cheeses; among other things I like it crumbled over salads. I do like a lot of common salad cheeses - crumbly goat cheeses, blue cheeses, and feta - but I often want something more mild.
Unfortunately, queso fresco is not quite so common in stores away from Texas. Are there any common similar cheeses that are more widely available? The best my searches have come up with is "mild feta", but I'm hoping for something a bit better, since in my experience it can be a bit hard to identify mild enough feta in the store, and it's also more commonly sold already crumbled and more expensive.
It might be worth looking for ethnic markets, but even check what the larger chains near you have; both of the Shoppers Food Warehouse near me have a huge hispanic section. (and their produce doesn't tend to look like it's been sitting around for a while)
@Joe: This is actually a pretty hypothetical question - the store I shop at has plenty of Mexican cheeses. I may move someday, though, and I have friends as far away as Quebec who liked it in my salads and have pretty low odds of anything Mexican in their stores.
Dry ricotta or even dry cottage cheese are similar. If you have access to an Indian grocery, paneer is a somewhat comparable choice.
I use paneer and queso fresco interchangeably. They are produced using pretty much the same technique.
It is also really easy to make it yourself.
How do you make paneer?
I really need to get around to giving cheesemaking a shot! That could be my go-to answer, if it turns out I can pull it off reliably.
Foodsubs.com has a nice list of types of cheese, including possible substitues.
For queso fresco it suggests:
Substitutes: Mix equal parts cottage
cheese and feta cheese OR farmer
cheese OR cotija cheese OR feta cheese
(similar texture but saltier) OR queso
anejo OR mild goat cheese OR paneer OR
ricotta cheese OR jack cheese
I should probably have looked a little closer at that list I found it - paneer is indeed a good suggestion, but I missed it among the others. Thanks! (If I can't find fresco, I doubt I'll find cotija or anejo; jack is the wrong texture, cottage is iffy, yadda yadda.)
It depends on what you mean by 'mild' ... Ricotta salata, a firmer version of ricotta, isn't too sharp, but it's quite salty.
Unfortunately, in my area, it's sold even fewer places than queso fresco, but if you're in an area with a large Italian population, it might not be.
You might also strain and press your standard ricotta to make it a little firmer.
Good suggestion; salty is different but not really a problem. (Sometimes I go for saltier friends of the queso fresco anyway.) Too bad it's hard to find too.
I'd like to suggest Bocconcini Cheese, a fresh mild cheese that doesn't detract from the flavour of a recipe.
That is indeed a great kind of cheese, but I'm not sure it makes a great substitute for queso fresco - it's soft and moist, not crumbly, and I think a bit less salty.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.139137
| 2011-01-16T22:56:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11118",
"authors": [
"Carol",
"Cascabel",
"Haf",
"Joe",
"Kimberly Lawrence",
"Krystyna Zielinska",
"Mira",
"Simon",
"Tunapaykid",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user22794",
"user22827",
"user51877"
],
"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
}
|
978
|
What's the proper way to muddle mint for a julep or mojito?
Not a huge fan of the mojito, but my wife loves 'em. A good julep is another matter... But mine have a bad tendency to end up with lots of little mint pieces that get stuck in my teeth. So what's the proper way to prepare the mint in these drinks without ending up with a green leafy mess?
The classic mistake when making a Mojito or a Julep is to over muddle the mint. Pounding away at the mint will release so much flavour from it, that you won't taste any of the other ingredients. A perfect Mojito should comprise a balance of flavours. The other main constituents do not have a particularly strong flavour, so its very easy to swamp them with mint and end up with a glass of alcoholic toothpaste. Mojito = Rum, Mint and Lime. Julep's are a little more tolerant, due to the richer flavours of the other ingredients, but the same basic principles still apply.
Don't overdo the amount of mint you add. Leaves from one decent sprig of mint will do. Muddle the mint gently for about ten seconds. You want to bruise the leaves and release a little bit of flavour, but not grind them into a pulp.
Finishing off a Mojito properly is also essential. You only need a splash of soda. Adding more than a shot will just dilute the ingredients and destroy the subtle flavours. Most importantly, don't forget to taste the drink after you've made it, even if its for someone else! This is the best way to learn and improve your mixing and muddling techniques. It is also sometimes possible to rescue an imperfect drink (eg. by adding a touch of extra lime juice if its too sweet) if really necessary.
it's also key to leave half the lime in the drink. the lime peel's oils are key to the flavor. it takes up space, but it's worth it.
Leaving the lime in the drink (or even going as far as muddling with the lime) is an optional extra. But you've still got to be careful not to overpower that gentle white rum.
When we make mojitos, we put the lime, sugar, and mint into the glass then crush it with a wooden spoon. Do this separately for each drink.
This is pretty time consuming which isn't a problem when you're making 1 or 2 glasses. If you're making more, you may want to use another method.
I haven't had to muddle mint but I found this forum that tells you how. It says to bruise the mint but not to break it up. They recommend using a muddler, a pestle or the end of a rolling pin or the back of a spoon.
This site makes a case for not muddling the mint at all; muddled mint can give "really muddy, dirty flavors," according to their expert, Leo Robitschek of The NoMad and Eleven Madison Park in Manhattan. If you're looking to avoid bits of mint in your teeth, they have two suggestions:
Make a mint simple syrup by "steeping mint leaves in hot water for about 5 minutes, and then mixing the strained liquid with equal parts of sugar for a simple syrup" or, alternately, cold-steeping mint in simple syrup for a few days
or
Make mint burbon in an iSi whipped cream canister using what they call the Dave Arnold method:
We use 35 grams of mint leaves in 1 L bottle of bourbon. Charge the canister twice with nitrous oxide and allow it to sit for 5 minutes. This ensures that the nitrous travels through the canister into the mint leaves. The infusion actually happens when you vent (release the nitrous gas) the canister. The nitrous rushes out into the bourbon, bringing all of the sweet aromatic compounds in the mint, and infusing it into the bourbon. The great thing is that using this technique eliminates any bitter, muddy, or tannic flavors that you may get from muddling or over extracting mint."
Actually the right way to make a mojito is bruising the mint.
A lot of bartenders just use a couple of stalks of mint and slap it. Mint (as some other herbs) have microscopic hair, which releases the aromas as soon as they are bruised. Muddling as correctly said will release rather woody flavors (I probably would not call it dirty flavors, but well...).
The stirring with sugar - will further draw more aroma out of the leaves (the sugar cristals act like "sandpaper"). It is important to understand, that a Mojito should not be an insanely minty drink, but just supposed to have some fresh (slightly minty) facets.
I also would not make a syrup out of mint, as warm water (or long steeping) completely changes the flavor of mint as well - then it would taste like mint tisane (and a mojito shouldn't taste like peppermint tea)!
For a mint julep, mint leaves can be very carefully muddled (as you don't usually take the full sprigs but the leaves, you cannot really slap the mint in your hands). Again - no "mint juice" should be created, just the microscopic hair should be bruised.
I also made a contemporary mint julep, by freezing the mint leaves in liquid nitrogen, then infuse them in bourbon - then fine strain everything into crushed ice (which you could also "powder" with LN2). You have got a more intense, but still fresh minty flavor without woodiness (as the enzyme which creates the off-flavor is first "fixed" with the deep temperature, and then deactivated with the high proof alcohol.
ok, that last thing is unexpected - sounds like you're managing to make an extract without the chlorophyll / "herbal tea" flavors. How much exposure to bourbon does this require?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.139419
| 2010-07-14T19:44:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/978",
"authors": [
"Anna Marie",
"Grandma",
"JanC",
"Paul McMillan",
"Paul Wheatley",
"Shog9",
"Slackliner",
"franko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"svick"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.