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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
42597
|
Why do they put sulphites in vinegar when vinegar is a preservative?
If vinegar is a preservative, how come they put sulphites (also a preservative) in it?
What kind of vinegar are you referring to? Sulfites occur naturally in some vinegar (balsamic, wine vinegars) because of what they are made out of, and thus nobody "put" them there. If there are sulfites in your distilled white vinegar, then they were added.
Sulfites will often be added during the wine making process. Mostly to kill bacteria before fermentation starts. The bacteria would impart odd flavors to the wine.
Vinegar is made of wine, so the added sulfites are still present and must be labeled.
Fermentation naturally causes sulfites, sulfites are a by-product of the yeast activity . Sugars, particularly beet sugar is often bleached with sulfites. Even common table salt (iodized) contains sulfites, the list goes on and on.
Per the Wiki Article: "In the U.S., labeling regulations do not require products to indicate the presence of sulfites in foods unless it is added specifically as a preservative; however, many companies voluntarily label sulfite-containing foods. Sulfites used in food processing, but not specifically added as a preservative, are only required to be listed if there are more than 10 parts per million (ppm) in the finished product."
It is not hard to find sulfite-free vinegar, it will often be labeled organic.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.139861
| 2014-03-08T01:31:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42597",
"authors": [
"Codi",
"Jessica",
"Mary W. Brown",
"MechanicalPhallicGod",
"Sandi",
"Todd D",
"djmadscribbler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99527"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40867
|
Is unopened mascarpone cheese still good if not refrigerated?
I bought a new unopened package of mascarpone cheese yesterday and forgot to put it in the refrigerator overnight. Is it still good to use?
Mascarpone cheese is NOT made with a culture. It therefore needs refrigeration, sealed or unsealed. You really should throw it out.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice, Klaas!
Any dairy product not specifically labeled as safe for room temperature storage (processed cheese, UHT milk) must be kept refrigerated. If it spends more than 4 hours in the "danger zone" (40-140F), it should be discarded.
That's not entirely correct. Dairy products inoculated with cultures actually need to be held at room temperature to achieve the purpose of the inoculation (yogurt, creme fraiche). Welcome to Seasoned Advice BTW, I see that you have been busy!
True; they should only be refrigerated once the culture process is complete. I stand corrected. (It is worth noting that the beneficial bacteria in such cultured dairy products usually are replicating fast enough to prevent pathogenic bacteria from growing alongside.)
That depends on how it was packaged; check the label. If it does not say something like "refrigerate after opening" or give a shelf life, assume that it must be refrigerated at all times and discard.
Note that this advise is very conservative, and you will have to evaluate your own tolerance for risk.
See also:
How do I know if food left at room temperature is still safe to eat?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.140023
| 2014-01-05T15:10:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40867",
"authors": [
"Chris Curran Chrispo1972",
"Dana Good",
"DrRandy",
"Jolenealaska",
"King Brown",
"Preston",
"Process spam",
"chefaf",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99529",
"jadawad",
"preety chaudhary",
"tips android spam"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42502
|
Difference between Organic Bread and Fresh Bread
Please, what is the difference organic bread and fresh bread. People are getting me confused.
Hello, and welcome to the site! I had to remove the "merit" part of your question, as it is basically a question of health/nutrition, and this is off topic (see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/dont-ask for the rules). The rest is a good question, so I left it as it is.
@rumtscho, I think 'merit' can also be seen as in flavour difference, or texture, quality etc., wouldn't you agree?
@Mien your interpretation is possible, but I don't think there is advantage if left in the question body. Somebody who wants to explain this type of difference in a non-judging way will probably do it under the current wording too. The one thing which is likely to be omited when the word "merit" is missing is a subjective opinion on which type is better in these criteria, and we are not losing much if this is not added. On the other hand, adding it will most likely result in the health interpretation too, and my gut feeling tells me that in this case, this will be the more frequent one.
Fresh just implies that the bread was never frozen (or canned, irradiated, salted, pickled or otherwise preserved, but those almost never apply to bread).
Organic, at least in the US implies following a set of FDA guidelines regarding prohibited methods or techniques or ingredients in producing the product.
From the USDA's Labeling Organic Products Fact Sheet:
Organic products have strict production and labeling requirements. Unless noted below, organic products must meet the following requirements:
Produced without excluded methods (e.g., genetic engineering), ionizing radiation, or sewage sludge.
Produced per the National List of Allowed and Prohibited Substances (National List).
Overseen by a USDA National Organic Program authorized certifying agent, following all USDA organic regulations.
In most instances people use the term "fresh" to imply that the bread has minimal preservatives, emulsifiers, stabilizers, or other additives. This may not be the FDA or USDA definition of fresh, but it's likely what is implied by many people using the term in forum discussions or elsewhere online.
FDA 'fresh link'
@Didgeridrew Maybe, maybe not. I know a lot of consumers use it to mean that, but someone selling fresh bread is probably just mainly saying that it's, well, fresh. It likely means that it doesn't have a lot of preservatives (why bother?), but the main point is just that you get to eat it while it's good. And while it might also mean there aren't other additives, there are plenty of reasons to add things, and I doubt bakeries are refraining just because people think "fresh" means something else.
@Jefromi I agree with your points. My comment was meant as an addition to SAJ14SAJ's answer. Since the OP's confusion originated with "people" it may be important to clarify what people might mean ,as opposed to what a government agency or commercial producer might mean.
These terms are not mutually exclusive. A given loaf of bread could be both organic and fresh, organic and not fresh, fresh but not organic, or neither fresh nor organic. The term "fresh" also has both technical definitions used by government agencies and commercial producers as well as a variety of non-technical definitions used commonly.
Technical Definitions
Fresh: Suggests or implies that the food is unprocessed, means that the food is in its raw state and has not been frozen or subjected to any form of thermal processing or any other form of preservation (US FDA Fresh Definition). From the FDA definition, there can be no such item as "fresh" bread, but it might be reasonable to claim that an item is "freshly baked".
Organic: Implies that a particular food has been produced with specific restrictions on methods, techniques, or ingredients. The particular restrictions vary depending on the certifying agency or country of origin. Common restriction might include the use of pesticides, genetically modified organisms, fertilizers, or antibiotics. (USDA Organic Program)
Common Use
In common use, a fresh loaf of bread is one that has been baked recently (usually within a day). "Fresh" may also imply that the bread doesn't contain preservatives, emulsifiers, stabilizers, or other additives because many of these ingredients are not necessary for bread that is meant to be eaten within a few days. Though this may be an implication of websites or individuals extolling the merits or virtues of eating "fresh" bread, there is no guarantee that bread purchased as "Fresh" or "Fresh baked" will not include these ingredients.
Effects on Bread Quality
Most people would agree that, with a few exceptions, fresh bread has better flavor and texture than non-fresh bread. Some sourdough breads do not reach their flavor peak until 24-48 hours after baking.
Whether breads made with organic or non-organic ingredients are better in terms of flavor and texture is much less certain for a number of reasons. First, an organic designation does not guarantee that ingredients are high quality. There are high quality ingredients that do not meet the organic standards. Second, baking technique has an incredible amount of influence on both flavor and texture.
Fresh bread should have been baked that morning, or in the wee hours of the morning (middle of the night), but certainly not more than 24 hours ago. "Fresh" in terms of bread, is no indication of its contents. It may or may not be organic. It may or may not contain preservatives. Fresh in the context of bread indicates only its age, not its contents. (I think some of the other answers are confusing that word with the way it's used in connection with meats and vegetables.)
Organic bread means that it doesn't contain artificial ingredients, or ingredients that were irradiated, etc. Organic bread may contain natural preservatives. It also means that the wheat did not come from a GMO.
There is no GMO wheat for sale, so the did not come from a GMO is irrelevant
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.140201
| 2014-03-04T12:32:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42502",
"authors": [
"Abigail Myers",
"ArgyleMonster",
"Bob",
"Boris Johnson",
"Cascabel",
"Didgeridrew",
"Farah Wahidah",
"Lisa Crawford",
"Mercedes Gilbert",
"Mien",
"Nazmus Sayad",
"Spammer",
"Wavy Crab",
"anil gokhale",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99554",
"must die",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho",
"teagangirl "
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27915
|
Is there enough pectin in Apples to make jam
I have some surplus cooking apples which I will be trying to make jam with. I can't find pectin in my local supermarket, but they do have "jam sugar", which contains pectin, but is twice the price of regular sugar.
From what I've read, apples are a natural source of pectin. So do I need to add extra pectin to my jam in order for it to set?
FYI: I don't have any crab apples, which people have suggested adding to jam to hep it set.
But, is this a duplicate of http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25392/can-most-sour-fruits-be-jelled-by-cooking-with-sugar?
@thursdaysgeek hmm, searched for apple and pectin, that one didn't come up...
I know, sometimes a search doesn't find what is clearly there. I searched on just pectin, since asking the question, I knew how best to find it.
I used something like http://allrecipes.com/recipe/mary-wynnes-crabapple-jelly/ with apples instead of crab apples, paying attention to the temperature goal.
While you can make jam with pectin-rich fruit, you have to cook it for a very long time, because the ratio of pectin to water is not optimal and you have to wait until much of the water has evaporated. It works, but the taste of the jam is not as good as the taste of short-cooked jam with added pectin. I would go with the premixed pectin sugar.
You could always just make apple butter!
Yes. See the accepted answer for Can most sour fruits be jelled by cooking with sugar?. After getting that answer, I have successfully made apple jelly with fresh cooked and strained apple juice and sugar, and nothing else. You can search for apple jelly recipes and find directions.
Yes, you can.
I have recently successfully cooked a batch of apple jam with only apples, sugar and water. The trick to extract enough pectin in order for the jam to solidify is either to cook them for a very long time or let the fruits sit for a night or so.
I just added the diced apples to a boiling sugar-water mixture (about 1:1), cooked them briefly and put them in the fridge for about a day. Afterwards I continued cooking until the mixture solidified, which happened after about 20 minutes in the process (depending on the pectin content of the apples as well as the size of the diced apples I imagine). In fact the jam got quite solid and can be cut with a knife now.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.140786
| 2012-10-20T23:11:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27915",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Ginny May",
"Gordon",
"Ken",
"Kul4Sap",
"Leonhard Euler",
"Man",
"Mark",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6512",
"rumtscho",
"rye girl ",
"thursdaysgeek",
"user52499"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27566
|
What is sourdough bread?
I'm intrigued by all the questions about creating and 'feeding' sourdough starter. But I am unfamiliar with the bread itself.
What is sourdough bread? how is it different than 'regular' bread. Is it sour? Why is it worth all the hassle of maintaining a starter?
Sourdough bread is bread that has been all or partially risen with the help of wild yeast. It is made sour because of wild lactobacilli that are picked up with the wild yeast. Where the yeast eat sugar and produce CO2 for rising- the bacteria create acid and other compounds that make the bread sour and distinctly flavored.
Because of the wild nature of the microbes, the bread will taste a little different in every place that it is made. The lactobacillus that gives San Fransisco sourdough bread its characteristic flavor is actually named Lactobacillus sanfranciscensis.
The starter can be a hassle to make and to keep. It requires almost daily attention to feed it and can waste a fair amount of flour unless you bake bread frequently. You can freeze the starter but it will require a few days of feeding before it can be used again. Many baked recipes besides bread are also delicious with sourdough starter. Sourdough waffles or coffeecake are fantastic.
Whether it is worth the effort is a personal decision. Many people don't like the flavor and you would have to love the flavor enough to make almost every bread with that flavor to justify the starter upkeep. Personally- I used to keep a starter but my kids don't like the flavor and I got tired of all my bread tasting the same. I just buy a loaf for the 2-3 times a year that I am craving a Reuben sandwich.
The tanginess is not only Lactobacilii-caused. There are other harmles bacteria in a sourdough starter, and both lactic acid (smells like yogurt) and acetic acid (smells like vinegar) are created. I hope this helps to better imagine the taste of the bread - but of course, the best thing to do before deciding whether to create a starter is to eat some store-bought sourdough bread.
Sourdough starters aren't difficult to maintain at all and you don't have to freeze it between uses. During a busy 6-month period, I forgot all about feeding mine but a little flour and water for a few days and it was good as new. Keep it in the fridge and you don't have to feed it every day but it does need a feeding boost when you do start using it.
@Rob- I've had many starters die because I was inattentive. I'm sure it's possible to get a workable process down. For me it always felt like I was slave to the starter instead of the other way around. I'll try again eventually.
@Sobachatina: I like your slave metaphors.
Isn't dry sourdough commonly available where you live? Here in Germany you get small packs of dry sourdough (similar to dry yeast) in quantities suitable for a loaf or two of bread.
@Tor-Einar Jarnbjo I've never seen dry sourdough yeast here in Ireland. But then, I've never actually sought it out. Also, I've never seen sourdough bread in the small town bakeries where I live. They may well have it in the bigger city bakeries.
Bakeries definitely have sourdough bread here in Dublin but I've never seen the packs of sourdough starters Tor-Einar is describing.
@Tor-EinarJarnbjo so you can bake with them? I have seen the packs, but always assumed that they are a seeding culture for a real starter, not an addition to a loaf. If they are the dried wild yeasts only, what makes them different from yeast bread beside the fact that it is a different strain? I thought that the point of sourdough is that everything in it has been fermenting for ages, creating tastes impossible to achieve in a short 4 to 24 hours rising procedure.
@rumtscho: Yes, you can add the dried sourdough directly to the flour when setting a bread dough, just as you would use dry yeast. At least the packs here in Germany contain exactly what they say, dried, granulated sourdough. The packs are usually 75 or 100 g and you can also mix them 1:1 with water to get the equivalent of fresh sour dough or use one pack directly for 1 kg flour. I usually add a small amount of baker's yeast as well, as the leavening characteristics of the dried sour dough are usually not as good as with fresh sour dough.
I found sourdough bread at the local farmers' market (Carlow). I enjoyed the bread, but I don't thinkI will be bothering to grow a starter any time soon. It wasn't THAT good.
@Tor-Einar Jarnbjo I've only heard of selling sauerteig (sourdough) in bakeries in Germany or northern european countries. Other countries bakers seem to be affraid of giving "their secret", or have lost the habit of using it for baking and simply don't have any.
If you go to Russia and want to buy local sourdough bread, look for "yeast-less" (sic!) bread.
Sourdough bread is basically a french/artisan bread (so it has a firm outer crust, unlike sandwich bread) with a bit of sour/tanginess to it. This added flavor is caused by the starter; using shortcuts doesn't produce as developed a flavor as keeping a starter on hand. Luckily, sourdough starters aren't too difficult to produce, especially if you keep them in the fridge (meaning you only have to feed them once every week or so).
Sourdough breads are not necessarily french (they are common in many other countries) nor artisan (sourdough is also used in industrial bread). They can be sandwich and pan bread, of course. And the use of a sourdough starter is not incompatible with soft crust.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.141012
| 2012-10-03T18:57:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27566",
"authors": [
"Cerberus",
"Glenda Matt",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Ken",
"Rob",
"Sobachatina",
"Stefano",
"Tamara Grimes",
"Tor-Einar Jarnbjo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"jmilloy",
"rumtscho",
"ruslaniv",
"user62182",
"user62224"
],
"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
}
|
11063
|
Homemade pizza left out overnight
We made homemade pizza last night. We made extra, uncooked, pies, and accidentally left them out overnight. As soon as I noticed, I put them into the freezer just in case they were still good.
What do you think? Will they kill us?
TIA!
EDIT: There are yogurt cheese, peppers, and onions as toppings.
Could you please tell us what toppings are on them?
Well, we ate it Saturday night, and I'm still here to tell of it. Thanks so much everyone!
I'd say it depends. If you are dead-set on observing all food safety rules, the pizzas are probably unsafe to eat. But in the real world, it is possible to bend some of those rules and get by unscathed. But you have to be smart about it--not all rules safely bend as far as others.
What was on the pizzas? Shrimp? Chicken? Raw sausage? Those things have a pretty short safety window. Cured meats like pepperoni are safer longer (that's why they're cured in the first place).
How hot was your kitchen?
How long did they sit out?
And then of course it comes down also to how long and how hot you're cooking things. You might well be able to kill off germs in things that aren't outright spoiled. Pizza isn't that long-cooking, so there's risk there.
Ultimately, you have to be the arbiter of safety. Check the USDA website about food safety and follow every rule if you want to feel certain.
Shellfish are the quickest to cause a problem as a rule, most other things will survive an overnight without issue. Poultry starts to be a risk much longer than that.
For most cooked and uncooked meats I've heard 4 hours is the max at room temperature.
When in doubt, throw it out. (anon)
12+ hours is an eternity for microbial life—who need only food, water, and amicable temperatures to multiply quickly. Most guidelines suggest throwing cooked food that's been held at room temperature after 2 hours (1 hour if the ambient temperature is over 90F).
Note that the risk is in both the pathogens shipped with the food, and the ones introduced by anyone handling it during and after cooking it (cross contamination is the greater risk here). The risk after 24 hours is significant, and could result in severe infection. Do not eat this food.
You will not always get sick after eating pizza left out for 12+ hours, but when the food happens to be cross-contaminated that amount of time is enough to brew a large colony of nasties, enough time that heat will not necessarily kill the entire colony. So the times that you do get sick, you run the risk of getting very sick. No fun at all!
Further reading:
US food safety guidelines
Canadian safety guidelines
Wikipedia on Food Safety
If there is no raw meat on them, I'd imagine they'd still be safe (the crust will have over-proofed, though). I would not eat them if there is any raw/uncured meat on it. I can't think of any other ingredient that would spoil dangerously overnight.
No raw meat. The dough was baked already. We just didn't bake it again with the toppings.
Also, all of these rules are designed to absolutely avoid hazards, and much of it has to do with how hearty your immune systems are. In a deli or restaurant it is not unusual for these type of ingredients to sit out for many hours, and not5 cause problems, particularly after being cooked.
With no raw meats, I would say that you are safe unless members of your family are prone to food-borne illness, probably would be susceptible if your family is very cautious about germs and 'over-sanitizes.' If not, you should be OK.
I'm not sure about this, but I think that there are requirements for changing out salad bar or sandwich line ingredients on a schedule. Also, aren't those things usually below room temperature?
This may depend a lot on where you live, and the atmosphere of your kitchen. In general, I would agree with other commenters that the risk is probably minimal. However, there was a flat I lived in once where in warm humid weather, most cooked food would go visibly mouldy within 24 hours if left out (so was probably not good to eat after about 6–8 hours). So, if you have some past experience of how quickly food goes mouldy in your kitchen, that could also be worth taking into account.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.141453
| 2011-01-14T17:31:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11063",
"authors": [
"Dan Melks",
"Mann",
"Nick",
"Nomad-eater",
"Orbling",
"Rex Lones",
"Vikas Arora",
"bitcyber",
"chama",
"hbost",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4198",
"justkt",
"philosodad",
"user22682"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11026
|
Breakfast vegetable
Culture exchange Dinner party tomorrow night with Japanese exchange students. I have been asked to bring a vegetable dish to this "Breakfast For Dinner" theme. Outside of potatoes, I cannot think of a thing. I don't need a recipe, I need a category suggestion.
What is a breakfast vegetable? Help.
The closest thing I can think of in western culture might be a fritata with lots of vegetables ... but I wouldn't think of it as a vegetable dish, per se.
Do they mean vegetable, or vegetarian? That would open up a lot of egg dishes and bakery goods.
Thank you slim for your suggestion. I do not believe the criteria was vegetarian or vegan. I didn't want to struggle with keeping eggs hot in a potluck scenario, or risk that the other participants had done egg and potato bakes. I was trying to be a bit more creative. Were I entertaining in my home Joe, I would certainly try the fritata idea.
Grilled mushrooms.
While not technically a vegetable, or even a plant for that matter, it's certainly appropriate for the occasion.
A full English breakfast, as eaten in Notting Hill last year, is bacon/sausage and fried egg with baked beans and grilled mushrooms. It also has toast with butter and jam, and a grilled tomato.
The baked beans will also count as a vegetable.
Carmi, I hadn't even thought of mushrooms. I think that is a good choice for transport and rounding out what other participants may bring to this potluck event. I am going to sauté mushrooms with bacon bits, and marinate some as well to serve at room temp. Thank you for helping think outside the box.
@Carmi: For the sake of accuracy, Full English Breakfasts tend to vary a fair bit in composition. Usually a selection from the following (the closer to the beginning, the more common, mostly fried): bacon (not like American bacon), eggs (fried, scrambled or sometimes poached), sausages, mushrooms, tomatoes, baked beans, fried bread, hash browns, black pudding, bubble & squeak. Bacon is occasionally grilled. Also, technically the term also refers to the other courses, which are juice and cereal before, and toast afterwards.
@Carmi: Mushrooms are usually fried in butter in my experience, usually chopped up - but for a more prominent role, certainly if on their own, then portabellos whole.
@Orbling: You're absolutely right about the varying composition of breakfast. I was specifically describing a breakfast I had that struck me as being "typical". As for the mushrooms, they were very definitely whole and grilled, as they had grill "char lines" on them. They do fry them a lot though.
@Carmi: Yes, I have seen then grilled on occasion, I would say that was uncommon within a breakfast mind. Grilled mushrooms are quite a different beast to those fried in butter. Your specific breakfast was quite a reasonable example of a typical breakfast, yes. Just the phrasing could have led to someone thinking it was definitive, so just in case later readers came by, I thought I would expand on the definition.
A tomato comes to mind as a classic breakfast vegetable (even if science says it's a fruit :) As a fried side or sliced garnish, either is tasty.
Pat, I like this idea a great deal, but it is a bad time of year of 'good' tomatoes. I appreciate you help.
Or halved and broiled
When I was a kid we would have stewed tomatoes with our bacon and eggs, was definitely my favorite. We'd also have rhubarb compote which is technically a vegetable.
Well, we often have asparagus for breakfast. They make really good soldiers to go with poached eggs.
Another suggestion is baked beans. In the region where I grew up (Ottawa valley) a lot of restaurants serve them with eggs and bacon for breakfast.
It's not typical breakfast in the regions I've lived in the US, but I've seen it on brunch menus ... usually with a runny poached egg on top, to make a sort of sauce for 'em. (or with hollandaise) ... unfortunately, it's a bad time of year around here to get asparagus.
Fantastic idea. I may use this for a Mother's Day brunch menu come spring when I can get fresh asparagus again. Good thinking.
As another option, not everyone eats hot food for breakfast.
In warmer parts of the world, we tend to prefer salads for breakfast.
Perhaps a Greek salad (tomatoes, black olives, feta cheese, olive oil), or an Israeli salad (finely chopped cucumber, tomato, red pepper, oil, lemon juice) would work.
If the dinner weren't so 'AMERICAN' in it's theme, this would be my runner up choice. I am going to make it for my own family dinner next week though. You really teased my taste buds with this idea.
Few ideas (the ones further down tend more to be dishes with vegetables than vegetable dishes)
Eggs: Not sure if you consider this cheating... but you start with eggs, and you have a whole lot of choices... Leafy Greens like Kale and Spinach go great with eggs. As a matter of fact, it's what I just ate today. Cook the Kale, add in scrambled eggs, paprika, salt, Pepper, done. Other choices, poached egg or fried egg on a bed of sauteed greens, omelet,
Salad: There are numerous choices for a salad, but you can add some fruit to a some greens to make a light salad.
Beans: Also sorts of bean dishes work great for a nice hearty breakfast. Baked Beans, etc...
Smoothie: Also not sure if this would appealing or appropriate, but often people put vegetables in their smoothies.
Savoury Oatmeal: Oatmeal can be made savoury by adding vegetables. Not a fan of oatmeal, but I've heard it done. Not sure if you'd call this a vegetable dish though.
A couple useful links:
FoodNetork search for Vegetables as the main dish & Breakfast
thekitchn.com: Greens & breakfast
Talon8, Thank you so much for your through answers and suggestions. I think the most 'breakfast ideas
KEYBOARD ERROR. I sent the last note before finished. I think the most 'breakfast' like ideas for a typical AMERICAN breakfast seem to rule these ideas out, but frankly they sound delicious to me. I don't know that my choice of sauteed onion, bacon and mushrooms could be called typical either having said that. As Americans, we just don't do veggies in the morning outside of potatos where I come from. Maybe southern dishes that include corn fritters or grits is about al
Though I am Canadian... Those are American websites. Does that count? :-)
+1 for smoothies. We've started eating a lot of veggie + fruit smoothies for b'fast since getting a vitamix (well, we were when it was warm). Things like melon and spinach or fruit and lettuce turn out really well.
+1. Green smoothies (smoothies with greens like spinach, kale, or lettuce) are delicious. For the savory oatmeal suggestion, I find adding pumpkin works great. And subbing in sweet potatoes wherever you would use regular white potatoes (e.g., a sweet potato hash) is another option.
Hmmmm... Japanese breakfasts are a lot different, but it sounds like this is a "western" breakfast for dinner, like eggs, bacon, and pancakes? I'd say you can't go wrong with potatoes. I have a book of recipes of Japanese pub food, which borrows from a lot of different cultures. One of them basically has you peel and cut a couple russet potatoes into ½ x 2 inch sticks, deep fry them and then mix them with sauteed onion and two strips worth of sauteed bacon and just a little bit (½ tsp) of soy sauce. If you wanted, you could easily add some bell pepper and mushroom to the onion and bacon. It'd be like a Denver omlette minus the omlette with the home fries mixed in. That'd be a good, easy western breakfast appropriate vegetable dish.
If you're looking for something appropriate to a Japanese breakfast, I'd recommend Japanese-style pickles, but it doesn't sound like that's what you're looking for.
I like your suggestion and if I were not trying to stay away from the obvious answer of 'potato' for the side dish, I would go this route. Sounds like a great brunch/dinner for the weekend. I am interested in finding out more about Japanese-style pickles. That might just be a good conversation starter with the students. Thanks for the idea.
Definitely ask them about tsukemono (soo-kay-moh-no). They're different from the western notion of pickles and a fascinating part of Japanese cuisine.
Darn Cold Oatmeal, I forgot to ask tonight. I will see a couple of these students again and make it a point to explore that with them. Thanks again for the conversation starter and the helpful pronunciation guide.
It might be too late, but to expand on the fritatta comment --
It doesn't have to be served warm. It can be served like a spanish tortilla or a quiche -- either warm, or at room temperature. If you make it the day before (doubtful in this case), you can chill it in the fridge, then bring it out before serving to warm back up to room temperature.
Common vegetable ingredients include:
bell peppers
onion, leeks or similar
mushrooms
asparagus
broccoli
potato
spinich or other dark greens
zucchini or other summer squash
pumpkin or winter squash
tomato (diced or sliced, no need to pre-cook)
sun-dried tomatoes
artichoke hearts
peas
Joe, that was an insightful and helpful answer. I must admit I have been cooking for years and NEVER thought once of room temp eggs being not only acceptable, but good. I might add to the list a crisply tangy and mild goat cheese. You have given me a new freedom I am going to happily explore. I am right with you on your yummy ideas for ingredients. Thank you for taking the time and effort to expand my horizons.
@Plain Ol'Common Sense : I was just listing vegetables ... almost any cheese works (blue cheeses might be a bit strong in large amounts, though), and of course meats like ham, salami, sausages, etc, if you want to hit almost all food groups at once ... then just serve with some good bread.
I love corn cakes. I make mine with lots of fresh (or frozen) kernels and onion - mixed into corn bread batter and fried on a griddle. I often serve with pureed red pepper sauce.
You could also do a corn casserole - would be a bit more "brunchy" than breakfast.
For the sake of all the helpful folks who gave me fantastic idea for this event I want to share the results. I cooked up 5 pounds of sliced mushrooms 3 onions and a 1/2 pound of peppered bacon. As they all crip up nicely in the pan I threw some Merlot in the pan to deglaze it and add a little tang, cut the heaviness of the bacon and add richness. Out of a full over sized 12" pie plate, not one mushroom was left, and I think I would have had the same results had I doubled the recipe. Thank you all so much. I now have several new dishes to try out and learn new techniques.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.141839
| 2011-01-14T00:41:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11026",
"authors": [
"Anna",
"Brian",
"Carmi",
"Carole",
"Cold Oatmeal",
"Joe",
"Julian",
"Manako",
"Orbling",
"Plain Ol'Common Sense",
"RolandTumble",
"diane",
"grautur",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7738",
"monkeySeeMonkeyDo",
"slim",
"talon8",
"telecasterrok",
"user22599",
"user22602",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11088
|
How can I make granola that clumps?
I am trying to make granola that holds together in small clumps. I have had limited success. Any hints or suggestions?
I have used rolled oats, but had better luck with instant or cut oats along with some whole wheat flour mixed through it. I use butter, half honey and half brown sugar, some flax seed and bits of pecans. I bake the mix in an over-sized metal roasting pan as I make a very large batch at once (turkey sized roaster) in a slow 300* oven stirring every 30 minutes until golden brown and moister has left the batch. Dried fruit is added after baking.
Please excuse my editing of your title into a boring one; most of our visitors actually come from Google searches, so it's more important for titles to tell people what the question is about than it is for them to be interesting.
Aaronut I value your experienced input. Thank you for your help.
Contrary to what some people seem to be saying, fat will reduce the clumping effect, same way it does in almost every other baking recipe. The clumping behaviour comes mainly from sugar (syrup) and protein content.
In other baking recipes, gluten does a lot of the "clumping"; oats are naturally gluten-free, but the instant oats you buy are probably processed in the same plants as other wheat products and are therefore contaminated with gluten, which may explain why they clump more in your granola.
So I'd recommend any or all of the following for you:
If your recipe contains any oil or other fat, reduce or eliminate it; the primary purpose of that ingredient is to reduce the natural clumping.
Increase the quantity of flour or starch. More gluten means more clumping and a generally chewier texture.
Increase the quantity of sugar or honey. A denser syrup is going to be "stickier" and therefore clump more. Note that this can interfere with gluten development so you might want to do this in addition to increasing the starch.
Substitute the oil/fat with applesauce. This is a common substitution in low-fat baking, although its applications are limited. It's perfect in your case though, because it not only lowers the fat content, it also adds natural sugar and pectin, the latter of which is a gelling agent (albeit a weak one).
Add an egg white. That's very good at binding ingredients and is common in granola recipes.
As a last resort, use an actual gelling agent such as pectin crystals, gelatin, or agar. You shouldn't have to do this, but if you have a recipe you really adore except for its texture, then that's the best way to change the texture without altering the flavour at all.
You might consider just barely stirring the granola while it bakes and then breaking it into clumps when it's done.
Or, stir it as you do now, but when it finishes, press it into a thin layer on a baking pan and allow it to cool. Once it is cool, then break it into clumps.
You can also try adding an egg white: http://www.thekitchn.com/thekitchn/how-to/how-to-make-clumpy-chunky-granola-111316
All in all, you probably just need more binder. So, you're looking at egg white and/or sugar (more honey, syrups).
Chad, thank you for the link and your thoughts. I was hoping to stay away from egg in the recipe, but this is an excellent source if I decide to go that direction. I have tried not breaking it up until after it cools, but I find that with the regular scooping and natural stirring that comes with serving it, it breaks down into loose granola quickly.
funny this question should come up today. i've had a similar conundrum in my house, and i recently ran across this recipe, which we tried today with great results. it uses a fruit puree as part of the binder, instead of oil, so it a bit sweet, not oily, and still crunchy: http://gourmandeinthekitchen.com/?p=953
Franko, this is a recipe revision I am excited to try. If nothing else I like being able to reduce the fat intake in the granola, and or maybe trade it for 1/2 and 1/2 in my coffee. :) Thank you so much for sharing your recent find with me and your opinion of the resulting recipe.
you're welcome! it really is a delicious recipe. i hope it works for you, too! : )
My base recipe comes from the ABC's Cook and the Chef http://www.abc.net.au/tv/cookandchef/txt/s2225651.htm I've read the other recipes posted. I don't know much about granola but I notice that I am baking at 80C (176F) for a coupe of hours while the other recipes say 300F for 20-30mins.
My granola clumps...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.142712
| 2011-01-15T22:31:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11088",
"authors": [
"Aaron J Lang",
"Aaronut",
"Anne",
"Matt",
"Plain Ol'Common Sense",
"TLL",
"abi",
"franko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4237",
"user22731",
"user22760"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11221
|
Perfect Hollandaise every time using a blender/food processor?
I was a cook at a cafe recently that was buying in Hollandaise. I started making the sauce from scratch following the same basic procedure each time but got varying results. sometimes the Hollandaise would be too thick; more like a butter spread than a sauce. Then, for a real long stretch right up til I got my current office gig, the stuff wouldn't thicken at all and just stayed runny.
This is the procedure i followed every time:
Melt half a pound of butter in the microwave
Carefully separate 2 eggs
Add egg yolks to blender and blend until aerated
Add capful of white vinegar
Add pinch of salt
Slowly add melted butter
What changes should I make to this procedure so my Hollandaise will come out perfect every time? What factors were likely for causing the failed (too thick or not thick at all) batches? And how does the temperature of the liquid butter factor in?
No offense intended to any food purists, but I'm not interested in answers that feature whisks and/or double boilers. Answers featuring blenders/food processors only please. Thank you!
When you say liquideous, do you mean that the sauce never emulsified, or that it did in fact emulsify but that the resulting emulsion was too thin?
it just never emulsified. sorry for my incorrect, inexact terminology.
I rather doubt that perfect Hollandaise is actually possible using a blender, given that you need to to heat it while mixing in order to make it perfect without a blender. Maybe an immersion blender with emulsifying blade could do it, if you were making a large quantity.
considering i made perfect hollandaise more than once (consistency, flavour, the works) i reckon it ought to be a duplicable process, unless hollandaise is somehow outside the realm of science. from what you're saying aaronut, sounds like the temperature of the butter must be the key.
I'd try adding a few tsp water to the eggs before blending/processing. You may just not have enough water.
If you have access to an Immersion Circulator, you can precondition the yolks by pasteurizing the egss in shell at 135F for 75 minutes. The yolks thicken and the eggs can be returned to the refridgerator until needed. See my answer for more details.
I have used the exact same procedure that you describe on a number of occasions, and the result has always been a thick butter-like consistency, and I think that this is pretty much unavoidable when using a food processor. Maybe you can get a thinner consistency if you use the whole egg like ElendilTheTall suggested.
Anyway, since the sauce never emulsified, I think you have been pouring in your butter too quickly. It is important to just add a few drops at a time until the sauce has started emulsifying. After that you can go faster, but it should still only be a thin stream.
Also, something that I have noticed is that when using a food processor with only a small amount of egg yolks (or any ingredient, for that matter) is that the rotating knives will actually rotate above the ingredients and not actually mix them. When making hollandaise/mayonnaise, that will be fatal since you will just be pouring butter on top of a thin layer of egg yolks. So you might want to check your food processor and see if it works similar to mine.
While I realise that you use this recipe because it is easier than making hollandaise by hand in a bain-marie, I would suggest that you at least try making it "for real" once before settling on this method. The consistency is so much nicer. I think the flavour is better too but that may only be my imagination.
+1 for both noting the position of the rotating knives (it's bitten me) and for pouring in the butter too fast
i did have a problem with the knives until i figured out the vitally important technique of tipping the blender. if you're mixing a small quantity and the volume just isn't enough to reach the knives, hold the blender steady in two hands so it doesn't slip and spill, (i've done that too) and pull the top towards you. the angle should help the small volume meet the blades and there you go.
That is clever. So simple, and yet it would never have occured to me.
no worries. and Henrik, i definitely have made hollandaise by hand, and will again, but when i'm the lone cook in a cafe with 20 tables, stopping everything and getting out the whisk just isn't an option.
A tip on blenders: stick blenders (immersion blenders) are great for ensuring that blades hit the ingredients. Simply change the size of your container to raise the level of ingredients. I use a plastic milk shake/drink container as my stick blender fits neatly into the diameter of it. No 'tipping' involved! This helps immersion. With stick blending: The wider the diameter the container - the lower the level of your ingredients will be.
I'm still trying to work out my blender recipe - I'm having a hard time with emulsion as well but I was impatient and added too much butter too quickly I think! I love the idea of blending - too little time and too much to do to use the double boiler method HOWEVER I will be making it this way for the experience at least once.
I have a recipe for blender Hollandaise that calls for whole eggs, not separated. Simply blend them until frothy, then drizzle in the hot butter while the blender is running. Add lemon juice/vinegar and seasoning and stir well.
The same recipe made by hand just uses egg yolks, so perhaps the whites help the consistency somehow.
my knowledge of food science is limited, but i thought adding any whites at all would make the hollandaise fail to thicken. you've made them and it came out fine??? i'll have to try this just as an experiment!
I've never tried it as I detest Hollandaise, but the description says it's foolproof. You would normally cook Hollandaise over a double-boiler I believe, but this one doesn't have any cooking at all other than the use of hot butter. Perhaps that's a factor. The ratio is 2 eggs to 1/2 pound butter.
This comes from Ron Silver at Bubby's in NYC. He seems to know what he's talking about in general. There's only one way to find out in this case though!
I make mayonnaise in this way, only instead of hot butter I use oil.
If you have an Immersion Circulator and you pre-pasteurize eggs at 135F for 75 min, this blender recipe for Hollandaise Sauce works perfectly easy. The egg yolks of pasteurized eggs are slightly firmer and have already had some minor colloidal changes which make them hold just right in a light and creamy, almost fluffy hollandaise sauce. Also, the pasteurization process makes it 100% safe to eat the raw egg yolks without fear of salmonella. You can make the eggs ahead of time and use them directly from the fridge as well which means you can make this sauce in a couple minutes.
I've made the recipe as follows.
Ingredients:
4 egg yolks from eggs pasteurized at 135F for 75 minutes in an Immersion Circulator
2 Tablespoons of Lemon Juice
A Pinch of Salt
A Pinch of Cayenne Pepper (or Tabasco and/or other spices of choice)
Two Tablespoons of Water
Half a stick of butter
Directions:
Put all the ingredients except the Water and Butter in a blender and pulse once.
Put the water and butter in a pan and gently melt the butter until completely melted but do not allow to bubble.
Add the warm melted butter and water to blender and blend for 20-30 seconds.
Serve immediately.
This basically makes perfect tasting and SAFE Hollandaise Sauce.
I know you say you don't want any answers that involve a whisk but there's a very easy way to make hollandaise pretty much a la minute if you use Harold McGee's method of putting all your ingredients (do not melt the butter, if anything it should be cubed and chilled) in a cold pan and setting them over your hob on a low heat and just continuously whisking. I've made a Bearnaise sauce in the the time it's taken my steak to rest using this method so I think it is practical for your situation in the cafe; it certainly feels like it would be easier than having to drip individual drops of melted butter into a tilted food processor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.143098
| 2011-01-19T07:23:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11221",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adisak",
"Chicken Pie",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"Ivo Coumans",
"Jake",
"JeopardyTempest",
"K. Joyce",
"Romeo Nchai",
"Steve",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7332",
"kdgregory",
"kmarsh",
"user3052",
"user52771",
"w00t"
],
"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
}
|
12180
|
difference between pan-cooking with and without oil
So lately I've been pan-cooking single chicken thigh fillets as a snack of sorts. Heat the non-stick pan, and toss a chicken fillet in there, turn around a few times while making cuts to make them even etc..
I haven't been using oil, and usually the chicken thigh fillet isn't very oily. I mean, the only seasoning I use is a mixed garlic salt with some herbs. However, the thigh fillet still puts out plenty of oil, as the pan is sizzling with them by the end of the cooking time usually.
Now, just yesterday, the thigh fillets I've bought were quite a bit larger than average, and a lot oilier with more fat. The pan was sizzling with oils. I didn't use any timer, but I'm wodering.. does more oil cause the cooking to get more even? That is, would the oil have helped seep the heat into the parts of the chicken that doesn't touch the pan?
Sure. Oil gets quite hot, and it'll cook areas that aren't in direct contact with the bottom of the pan, which will certainly speed cooking time. The technical term for cooking with a small amount of oil is Sautéing. Without oil, you might call it grilling or searing? With more oil, frying.
sauté is more than just cooking in a small amount of oil -- it's specifically high heat, with a little oil, and the food is kept moving while cooking (an occassional toss or stir; not as much movement as a stir fry, but just dropping in a slab of something and flipping it once isn't a sauté)
In order to get meat cooked, you have to heat it. As you probably remember from physics, and experience in everyday life, heat exchange is only present where two surfaces touch (this is why vacuum is at absolute zero, there is nothing to touch there). You can actually heat things without touching, but you need radiation for that. Your microwave is capable of it, but not a kitchen stove or an open fire, and I'll assume that you don't fry chicken filets in the microwave. So we are talking heat exchange between two mediums here.
In a case where a piece of food is laid in heated oil, all the oil has roughly the same temperature. The portion of the food which is submerged in the oil exchanges heat evenly everywhere (note that the food does not directly touch the pan when there is oil in it, so there is no direct heat exchange between pan metal and food). The temperature of any point of the meat is only dependent on its distance from the meat surface. This is known as frying.
Of course, if you are frying at a high temperature in a shallow puddle of oil (like in a pan), the oil trapped between pan and food is hotter than the oil on the side of the food. So the food gets hotter quickly on the bottom than on the sides. This is still suitable for either flat items (your filets) or small items which are turned often in order to let all sides of the food spend some time at the bottom (stir-frying them). Still, the stuff doesn't get fried as evenly as it would be in a deep fryer (where the food is swimming in the oil, and the oil is heated from all sides).
When you have an item which doesn't contain any significant amount of fat (very lean meat or a slice of a vegetable), you don't have heat transfer between oil and food. What happens depends on the temperature.
If you use low temperature and no fat, the juice from the food flows out, but does not evaporate quickly. It forms a puddle. This puddle acts in the same way as the oil in the previous example, so you have a heat transfer between the submerged parts of the food item and the juice (mostly water), which is as even as in the case with oil. When you are using this method, you are simmering the food in its own juice. This is quite tasty for some veggies, e. g. zucchini. With meat, it is another thing. When you bring the stove temperature up, the juice doesn't get hotter, it just evaporates quicker, but it stays at evaporation temperature, which should be slightly above 100° for salted water. So your heat exchange is between the cold medium (food) and warm medium (juice at ~100°C). This temperature is quite enough to denaturate the proteins on the meat surface, but not enough to produce Maillard reactions, which happen at about 150°C. The inside of the meat is heated by the surface heat propagating to the center (heat conduction on the microscopic level). As meat is not such a good heat conductor, this takes quite some time at the relatively low temperature of 100°C. So you can only use this method for very thin meats. When they are thick, you'll have to either pull them from the stovetop too early, leaving them well done on the outside and underdone on the inside, or let them stay until they have cooked well on the inside. While the temperature is not high enough to sear them badly on the surface, they lose too much juice during the long cooking time, leading to unappetizing dry meat. (The reason why this is not a problem with the zucchini is that 1. Zucchini are sliced thin, and 2. Zucchini don't taste too bad if they are undercooked on the inside, meaning that you can pull them off while still juicy).
So what happens if you have a very lean meat and turn the temperature up? You don't have a fluid for heat exchange any more, as there is no fat available, and juice evaporates quickly. Your heat exchange happens between pan and meat on the bottom, and then there is secondary heat exchange when the pan heats the air around the meat and the air heats the meat. This effect is relatively weak, because air is a fairly good heat insulator, and the heat from the pan will char the bottom of the meat badly before the air cooks the sides.
In this high-temperature no-fat scenario (usually known as grilling), heat transfer to the (bottom) surface of the meat is very rapid, more so than cooking and pan-frying. The rest of the meat is again heated by conduction, but the proportion of the heated area is smaller than when frying, and besides, metal-to-meat heat conduction is much quicker than outer-meat-layer-to-inner-meat-layer, so you get a much bigger heat difference between meat surface and meat center than when frying. Besides, the surface temperature of the meat is hotter than when frying at the same stove setting, because no heat is absorbed and dissipated by oil. So you get a much bigger temperature gradient in your meat, with the surface very hot and the inside quite cold. If your meat is thick, the surface will turn to coal long before the first protein in the center denaturates.
So where does all this physics leave you when all you want is a tasty supper? I'd say that tradition has it best here.
Grilled meat can be tasty, but a pan on a kitchen stove is not the best technique. If you make it hot enough, you'll end up with undercooked, charred meat, and if you reduce the temperature, it may be still OK, but it won't taste great, because it will be too dry. So don't use a hot stove without fat. If you want grilled meat, use a grill.
Cooked meat (in a soup) tastes OK (but better if you braise it first), but cooking meat in its own sauce does not. It gets hard and dry. So the verdict on no oil and low temperature: just don't.
Which leaves you with the fat options. Of course, you don't need to submerge the meat completely. Half the height is enough because you'll turn it, and somewhat lower is also OK, because the conduction is still enough. If there is enough fat present in the meat, don't add any. But if you want to fry a lean meat, add fat. The temperature you use should be high enough to quickly warm the surface, at least enough for a Maillard reaction (this is when meat turns brown and crispy, produces most of the aroma associated with high heat treatment of meat and carbs) and low enough to allow for the center to be cooked before the surface is burnt. So the more well-done you like your meat, the lower the temperature you should use and vice versa.
Don't worry about the calories when frying, unlike some veggies (eggplant, mushrooms), meat does not soak up frying oil. The surface will be greasy of course. But, fat is still a macronutrient, which our body needs. It also enhances the flavours of the meal, and promotes a sated feeling. If you want to keep the calories at a reasonable level, use a leaner meat (e. g. chicken breasts without the skin), fry in vegetable oil (not frying fat like palm oil & co) and put the fried meat on a cake cooling rack to let excess fat drip off.
vacuum is not at absolute zero (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03305.htm). A stove and open fire do emit radiation, especially they emit infra-red or heat radiation (although you are right that this is different to how Microwaves use radiation to heat things).
I know, I am leaving out a lot of other side effects too, because they don't matter. About vacuum, I saw your link - it says that the temperature of a thermometer in a vacuum is not zero. I agree with that, but in a thought experiment, you don't need a thermometer. As for the stove and fire, I should have said "they emit radiation, but their radiation does not contain enough energy to cook the meat in time for supper, so we can disregard it in the following discussion". But I think I got the explanation long enough as it is.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.143746
| 2011-02-15T14:57:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12180",
"authors": [
"JG sd",
"Joe",
"cookiecookie22",
"emsoff",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"kate stones",
"rumtscho",
"user2215"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5477
|
How to thaw a bottle of beer that got frozen accidentally without exploding the bottle
Recently I had occasion to put @Kevin Selker 's answer to the test in terms of rapidly chilling beer. However, we uncovered a problem the next morning where people had taken beer and thrown it in the freezer only to forget about it.
I will flip this question around now, what is the best way (is it possible) to take beer from your freezer and safely thaw it for drinking? Is it actually worth drinking if you freeze it solid, then thaw it then chill it again? will the glass be compromised? anyway, i guess this is some regular event at my parents and i would like for this to stop happening.
[as an aside: we wrapped up the two bottles in towels and put them in the basement (which was relatively cool. we came back awhile later and the one bottle had exploded, the other on had a crack around the neck. we had to throw both out. so either this method is fail, or needed augmented.]
Reading Kevin's post, wasn't he saying to use the "bucket of ice, water, and salt" method, instead of throwing it in the freezer? That should minimize the issue with forgetting it's in the freezer - worst case scenario, you come down the next morning to a few beers sitting in a bucket of room temperature water. I know that doesn't answer your question, but wanted to throw it out there as a way to avoid needing an answer to it. :)
yeah, which i did for the keg and it worked wonders; some idiots put bottles of beer in the freezer and forgot about them
Ha! I know that feeling. In the Hawaiian Punch case in my answer, that was a family member who was visiting one Sunday and didn't tell me. What a great thing to wake up to the next morning, which of course was a work day.
@stephenmcdonald : actually, a worse scenario is someone did it on top of your dining room table, and the condensation on the outside of the container results in bad water staining and you have to refinish the table. So do it in the kitchen or the bath tub where you don't have to worry about things getting wet.
I've made this mistake enough times that I now always set a timer when I put a bottle in the freezer.
I would put it in a bowl in the refigerator
I would suggest the best way is slow cold running water over the bottle in a bowl that covers it. Reason being any rapid temperature increase is going to break the glass. You may lose carbonation but really that is how beers starts so I wouldn't worry to much. For taste, it might taste a little bit different. I have frozen wine on accident and it actually didn't turn out bad. When I bought the same wine and didn't freeze it I got the same flavors. I think it should be alright.
good call. sounds like the collective is saying run it under cold water.
@mfg I know this is really old, but it's not actually the change in temperature that causes the glass to break, but the temperature gradient across the glass. if you run the outside under hot water, then the outside of the bottle will get hot, but the inside of the bottle is still ice. The result is that the glass expands on the outside and shrinks on the inside.
I've had the same experience as you, with beer and other liquids frozen in glass bottles. Whenever I try to rapidly thaw them, it seems the structure of the glass is compromised in some way and it either explodes or cracks - this even has happened to me when trying to slow thaw, like you did.
Beer bottles, and especially cans, can explode in the freezer and will make an ungodly mess. Beer bottles exploding in the freezer are rare, but I've heard anecdotal stories from people I trust who said it has happened to them, perhaps with improper bottling and not enough room for expansion in the neck.
Since a few bad experiences with forgetting things in the freezer (I had an aluminum can of Hawaiian Punch literally explode all over the freezer one night, that was a MESS) I now only use the salted ice bath method!
I have tasted beer that was frozen and thawed without any glass shards in it, specifically a can of beer that partially exploded (I guess I didn't learn my lesson from the Hawaiian Punch that quickly). It had enough left frozen in the bottom of the can that I figured I should thaw what was left, and give it a taste. It wasn't bad, but it tasted a little...flatter than normal, I guess? It just wasn't as full flavored as I expected. Definitely a noticeable difference to me.
good to know that the taste will be affected, at least in that case
Frozen sodas are a mess -- I think it was a cherry coke that I had to clean out of a soda machine once. Ick.
If you can figure a way to thaw them safely, I'd use frozen beer in beer bread. That should be more forgiving than drinking it.
Generally when you thaw a frozen carbonated beverage the resultant liquid is un-carbonated (the CO2 will boil off before the ice melts). Interestingly, under pressure a carbonated beverage will stay liquid to all appearances, but when the pressure is released it solidifies almost instantly. Cool to watch.
good idea for (what appears to be the result of even successful thawing) flat beer.
Another use for flat beer is in making chili.
This answer addresses: Frozen root beer / glass bottle / verified method of thawing without glass breakage / leaving the bottle UNOPENED, for future consumption.
There has been some helpful speculation, but only one of the answers here, so far, has described successfully preventing breakage while thawing UNOPENED frozen glass bottles of beer. It was a little light on details.
So I'll share my experience, and in a little more detail. But I won't be addressing the part of the question dealing with flavor. Note that my experience is only with root beer (non-alcoholic / soda pop / soft drink / similar to cola).
I had a frozen glass bottle of root beer that froze outside overnight last night, when the temperature dropped to 4 degrees Fahrenheit (-16 degrees Celsius). Before the bottle could warm up very much, I submerged it in 1.5 gallons (6 liters) of 49 degrees Fahrenheit (9 degrees Celsius) tap water. When I checked on it two hours later, the root beer had thawed completely, and the bottle hadn't broken or cracked.
I would suggest removing the bottle cap before thawing the beer. Of course you'll want to put it someplace that won't be harmed if it makes a mess.
As for the resulting flat beer, maybe you could use it in chili, beer brats, beer can chicken, or childish pranks. :P I've also heard that beer can be good for plants. Here is a listing of several other uses for beer, most/all of which work well with flat beer.
I don't believe it would work well in beer bread though since the carbonation helps the bread to rise.
Just submerge it in some cold water. I would do it for about 30 minutes at least. It should equalise to the temperature of the water in that time. It's always worked fine for me and you'll have nice cold fizzy beer to drink at the end of it. If you try it warmer water you are risking increasing the pressure beyond what the bottle or cap will take. It my experience it's the cap that goes first.
If you are really impatient leave it submerged with cold water running over it. This will speed up the heat transfer a lot.
I've seen a microwave used to quickly thaw a bottle of Newcastle that had frozen. Take the cap off, and run it under cold water until there's liquid surrounding a frozen core, then microwave in short bursts until thawed.
Fair warning: it tasted awful. You'll want to have consumed every other bottle in the pack before bothering with this...
good advice on consuming the rest of the 6 pack. since i am concerned about the safety of it though, is this a safe method?
@mfg: well, I wouldn't go straight from the freezer to the microwave - this isn't tempered glass, and it doesn't take much to crack it. That said, once you've brought the bottle and outer liquid up to room temperature, it should be fairly safe - just don't let it boil, or you'll have a mess on your hands.
good call. sounds like the collective is saying run it under cold water.
I submerge can or bottle in cold water to minimze rapid temp increase as this changes the drink, I froze it already so try to minimize my error, and I cringe and drink my beer, its a bit different tasting but does the trick
I know this thread is ancient, but I just left a Modelo in the freezer for about 7:20hrs, and I got some help here.
Being careful not to jostle it, I slowly uncapped the bottle in the sink, then I upended it over an empty glass. Once the beer stopped foaming, (still over the sink) I took a room temp bottle of Modelo and poured it bit by bit into the frozen one. Taking breaks to allow the foaming to settle, I caught the fizzing foam in the glass and repeated until the ice turned to slush (which I could finally swish about) and eventually dissolved. This took about 20-30 minutes with clean-up. It results in drinking two beers instead of one, but it resolves the lost carbonation and the taste.
Use a plastic bag... It's good for thawing and slow freezing. Just keep your bottles in the bag.
I don't think this is enough information to qualify as an actual answer... use the bag how? What does the bag do to prevent explosions?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.144791
| 2010-08-18T17:50:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5477",
"authors": [
"Aru Ray",
"Bobby Mann",
"Catija",
"Cindy",
"DEVOPS",
"Gail Hattygailhatty",
"George Hutton",
"Joe",
"Jonas Schäfer",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Shog9",
"ZKe",
"androide",
"fallen23",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10854",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"keithjgrant",
"mfg",
"nanofarad",
"paparazzo",
"stephennmcdonald",
"sue watkins"
],
"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
}
|
9923
|
Is there a technique for making larger batches of roux?
Following along the approach of freezing roux, I would like to make some in bulk. I am also trying to do more batch cooking for freezing and making 8 quarts of mac and cheese ends up taking a lot of roux for the starter.
As such, is there a technique for creating quite a few cups of roux (ie. 6 cups) at a time?
Currently the most I have created per batch is about 4 tablespoons butter to 4 tablespoons flour (~1/2 cup), mixing with a fork (pretty tiring as I have no whisk). Obviously a whisk could just be necessary, but is there a thresh-hold where moving to an electric or mechanical tool might be more efficient?
There is no problem at all doing this. At a restaurant where I worked, we would make up a couple pounds of butter worth of roux at a time. The main thing you want to do is use a pan with a lot of surface area, so it cooks evenly. A whisk will work fine. You don't have to stir constantly, just frequently.
Sounds good, so basically just using a whisk at higher quantities will still work just fine? There's no point after which something mechanical/electric basically becomes necessary?
@mfg: I wouldn't think you'd need mechanical tools even for a really big one--it's not like any stage of roux is even as stiff as your average muffin batter.
Hooray for not needing to buy random equipment. I guess I should replace that whisk I got rid of :)
Certainly up to any reasonable quantity you'd want to make at home. You know, if you want to make 1000 pounds of it, you might want a sterile cement mixer mounted over a set of blowtorches, but otherwise I think you'll be fine.
There's two issues here -- the initial roux, and then cooking the roux to the required color (eg, if you're trying to get to a dark roux for gumbo or similar)
Personally, for the initial combining, I like a wooden spatula, not a whisk. I can basically smush everything together into a paste, then sort of chop it up into smaller bits to spread it across the bottom of the pan to cook more evenly. (and I can get into the corners of my pans more easily when making sure I don't scorch it)
For cooking past a blonde state, I'd defer to Alton Brown, who on the gumbo episode of Good Eats recommended doing it in the oven, rather than the stovetop, so it'd cook more evenly, and not require the frequent stirring to make sure you didn't burn it.
Thanks, I didn't know you could bake roux but in one search I found a method using a cookie sheet or roasting pan to make 2-3 cups of flour and [variable amounts of oil] into roux. Perfect
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.145707
| 2010-12-09T18:33:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9923",
"authors": [
"Jacky",
"Michael Natkin",
"Mr. Code",
"Terri",
"bikeboy389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"lisa",
"mfg",
"user20337"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17158
|
What kind of cooling garnish is like ice cream but doesn't melt?
In a related question, I asked about plating with bread for sampling chili. Here I need to find a cooling, as in take the heat off the capsaicin with fats, garnish.
For this question I would like to know how to garnish. I am making a bacon and pulled pork chili, and need a smooth, subtle garnish to take the edge off the peppers. First off, I will be dusting the top with a mixture of nutritional yeast and a smidge of dround coffee and ground, dried orange rind.
Initially I was inspired by the idea of a bacon flavored ice cream, served to the side of the bread with a hal strip of maple-smoked bacon candied in the oven with light brown sugar. The idea of being able to have a whole spoon of chili and then a nibble of the garnish is very appealing.
I pitched the idea at a friend and added, "but I don't want it to be frozen, or to melt." The cold would be impossible with the heavy texture of the chili, and melting would disturb the dusted topping.
We came up with a mixture of sour cream and cream cheese, with a bit of arrow root as a coagulant (since it will be semi-cold, I want it to retain some stiffness on the surface of the chili). Basically, blend it all up with some of the bits of candied bacon and some spices, then chill it over night in the fridge to marry the flavors until competition time.
What ratio would the above mixture need to be relative to arrow root (I haven't used it before)? By the teaspoon, tablespoon, fraction of a cup per cup of dairy?
Is there a better coagulant for the purpose
Are there any flavor/textural issues with arrow root that I should be aware of to begin with, and specifically in the context of sour cream / cream cheese?
Is there a better solution to fit the problem; that is, what other kind of ice cream like garnish could I use that would resist melting for a bit of time and would have a smooth texture and be able to nibble on with little scoops from the spoon?
Is this going to be put on the plate, put in some kind of contestant box, and then given to a judge to eat sometime in the next 20 minutes - or like served to (semi-)personally and judged almost immediately?
@rfu I wish I knew, hopefully plated within 3-5 minutes of consuming
I'd avoid a coagulant if you can, it will likely keep this dense on whats already a rather dense sounding dish.
Personally, I'd beat loads of air into your sour cream/cream cheese mixture and serve a small whipped dollop of it. It will keep it light and still offset your spiciness a little. If the pork chili is the star, keep it complimented but not complicated.
Basically, you are 100% right with, "If the pork chili is the star, keep it complimented but not complicated."
I saw something on TV on Coldstone Creamery, and their secret was that their mix was actually frozen pudding ... so as it melts, it goes to pudding, not to cream.
I don't know if they were using starch for their pudding, or if it was more custard-like with eggs, though. I'd also agree with rfusca about whipping air into it, but not to keep it light -- the air should act as an insulator to slow down the melting.
Intriguing but im thinking it would go to pudding a bit too quick
I have a favorite snack that might fit the bill. It is a mixture of Cream Cheese, Butter, Sugar, Pumpkin Pie Spice, Cinnamon and All Spice, served on a graham cracker. Whip the CC & Butter and then add the spices and continue to whip until well blended. Refrigerate over night and spread over the graham crackers. It is best served cool, and will have a cooling effect but will not 'melt down'. I might add some chocolate chips to complement the coffee and orange.
Will it melt down if there's sour cream in it?
Sour Cream is a "more loose" dairy, so I would think the risk is higher, but not an 'absolute'. What kind of temp is it going to be exposed to, for how long... maybe if you sub some sour cream for some of the butter. A lot of variables there.
A dollop of the mix on chili hot; small bowls maybe five minutes?
When you said "garnish" I thought "side". To go on top I would ease back on the sweet and blend the cream cheese with butter and maybe some of @rikons goat cheese with a little cinnamon sugar.
It might break some sort of unwritten rule of chili, but mascarpone may do the trick. It will melt (really, spread) eventually, but not too quickly. The dairy will provide a cooling effect (to mitigate capsaicin). It's a similar texture to ice cream in some respects.
You can add embedded flavors as well in the style of a compound butter; I've used candied ginger in dessert applications; bits of crisped bacon might work well, too.
Im sure to try that some other time, but im just not familiar enough with the stuff to experiment this late. Any third opinions on mascarpone?
So I tried some mascarpone and I think it would have the same issue as sour cream but I think the texture might also work with a less thick chili really well. This stuff makes it feel initially like someone poured concrete in your skull
The answer that struck me once I had gotten to the competition was that I should have blended bacon fat into the mixture.
One contestant was talking about having used it in his bread, and I upcycled mine into every other component; I just didn't think to beat it into submission into the fats of cream cheese and sour cream.
(Did I mention this was a Bacon Recipe Creation competition? Stupid me)
Did you want it to be sweet? I LOVE spreading goat cheese on crispy flat bread and using it to scoop the chili. The goat cheese is thick and creamy and gives that protection against the heat. If you wanted sweet though, you could potentially take plain goat cheese and add flavors.
I like the idea but if I go sweet it would need to be a very dense sugar. Based on the other sweet elements, honey and brown sugar especially, I think it would need to be a very sharp spike rather than a dispersed one
What about panna cotta?
It's not something frozen, but it's best cold and it won't melt (rapidly). It is smooth and you can nibble on with little bits.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.145961
| 2011-08-26T18:59:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17158",
"authors": [
"Aymar Fisherman",
"ChillerObscuro",
"Cos Callis",
"MZW",
"hmj6jmh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"mfg",
"rfusca",
"sheikh1906"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
26077
|
How long should I cook boned shoulder of Lamb?
I have 794g of lamb shoulder. It is boned (can you buy it with a bone in??). How long should I cook it?
I have Delia's Complete Cooking Course, which suggests cooking for 30 minutes at 230C plus 30 degrees at 180C per pound (450G); about 1hr 20 minutes.
Delia Online just says 30 minutes per pound at 190C.
Which would people recommend?
Usually, unless you're slow cooking it, the best way to cook meat is with a thermometer. Do you have one?
Unfortunately not; I've gone with 52 minutes at 190C... We'll see how it turns out!
Shoulder is a tough cut. I think you will probably find it a bit chewy if you've cooked it at 190ºC for 52 minutes. In future, preheat the oven to maximum, place the lamb in a roasting tin, cover the tin with foil, put the tin in the oven, then immediately turn the oven down to 150ºC, and leave it for 4 hours. After that time, take it out of the oven and let it rest for 30 minutes or so. The lamb will melt in your mouth.
And yes, you can buy a bone-in shoulder at just about any supermarket, and they are usually tastier. Cook it as above and you will just be able to pull the bone out of the meat.
150ºC is a bit too low and slow for modern lamb, as it has so much fat trimmed off. Try around 160ºC at 1.5 to 2 hours per kg. Either way make sure you baste the surface with the drippings regularly. Go with the bone in too! See http://www.beeflambnz.co.nz/
No it isn't, I do it all the time. New Zealand lamb may have the fat trimmed off, but here in the UK shoulder is still a fatty cut. If you cover the pan with foil you don't need to baste as it prevents the surface from drying out too much.
I'd also recommend a marinade and a short spell of grilling in some rosemary, garlic and honey for example. Golden brown on the outside, slow cooked gorgeous on the inside :). I've also tried 6-8 hours of 120 degrees on a barbecue. I think the slower, the better.
The high heat blast at the beginning performs the same task as grilling would, but grilling would impart a great flavour. I would put it in the oven at 150 rather than doing the whole high heat/turn down thing.
If boned ensure the joint is tied tightly with cooking twine, trim the fat so that it is uniform all around and lightly score. Brown all external surfaces on a hot pan/skillet. Remove and season as desired. Place on a rack in a roasting tray in 160c preheated oven for 2-3 hours, basting occassionally. Check internal temperature of joint, 60c is juicy! Remove and rest for 20 mins before carving.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.146550
| 2012-09-09T14:56:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26077",
"authors": [
"Alex Chamberlain",
"Cascabel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/905",
"iwein"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84291
|
What causes steamed fish to become mushy?
I went to a Chinese seafood restaurant for dinner and ordered steamed grouper. I repeatedly confirmed that the fish must be live "swimming fish".
The fish came out and the flesh was mushy.
Guests who are experienced (self-proclaimed) insisted the fish was dead for quite some time already, hence the protein became mushy, instead of having a succulent texture. However, the manager insisted the fish was live the whole day, until they cooked it for us.
If the manager was not lying, what could have caused the mushy texture?
This may not be possible to answer, as there are too many unknown variables....Fish texture varies greatly depending on species. "Grouper" can mean a lot of things in the restaurant world...so, was it actually grouper? Also species dependent, fish texture is influenced by the way the fish is killed. In fact, immediately killed might not yield the best texture. Beyond that, marination and/or method of cooking clearly could impact the final texture.
Assuming that the fish is fresh to begin with...the answer is quite simple, overcooking! Fish cooks far faster than beef, chicken or pork. A great way to steam your fish is to wrap it in parchment paper
cut and paste the following web address to see how EASY it is to get perfectly steamed fish every time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52wYn99cL2I
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. Unfortunately, links like that are considered spam here. Please see our help pages for more info.
@DanielGriscom I see no indication that this is spam, just a potentially helpful link for more information. Please see https://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/promotion.
@Cascabel A link that doesn't address the original question ("what could make fish mushy?"), and was posted months after the original question, doesn't feel helpful to me. Perhaps "spam" was too strong a word, though.
@DanielGriscom Yes, that's what I'm saying: it appears to be an unfounded accusation. If you just don't think it's a useful answer, you can downvote.
Grouper is one of my favorite fish. It already has a mushy texture, as do lots of other fish. But with this fish, it tend to become very mushy if you add too much water. It has to be slow cooked.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.146820
| 2017-09-11T05:24:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84291",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Daniel Griscom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29532
|
How do I write a recipe so others (or Google) can translate it well?
Many recipes online are correct, but they are very difficult to translate from one language to another.
Google Translate, for example, does not translate recipes very well.
How do I write a recipe so others (or Google Translate) can translate it well?
possibly related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/49043/67
A. Use simple sentences so Google can translate them well.
Yes. Mix sugar and butter.
No. Mix the sugar and the butter together until completely incorporated.
B. Use grams for all weights. Spell out "grams".
Yes. 100 grams sugar. 200 grams milk.
No. 100 g sugar. 200 g milk.
C. Avoid imperial measures like cups and tablespoons.
No. About 10 tablespoons of sugar and a cup of milk.
Yes. 191 grams sugar. 245 grams milk.
D. Google will have problems translating ingredient names. I don't think there's much you can do to help with this. Link to a picture of the ingredient (or to an ingredient's Wikipedia page) instead.
Simple sentences and vocabulary, sure, but leaving out detail? Only do that if it's not necessary for the recipe, in which case maybe it shouldn't be there whether or not you want your recipe translated.
There's actually a markup schema for recipes, which Google and others use to decide if something's a recipe, so they can present it differently in search results. (and can present it differently for each language, although they still need to translate the ingredients, amounts, and instruments)
For an example of usage, see https://developers.google.com/structured-data/rich-snippets/recipes .
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.147040
| 2012-12-29T04:10:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29532",
"authors": [
"Barbara Morris",
"Cascabel",
"David Stentiford",
"Dronir",
"Gene Liebenau",
"Joe",
"Kathy",
"Mahla Ansari",
"Tzara",
"Yagan Govender",
"busyasel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68705",
"user68705"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24797
|
Can I use this dutch oven on a grill or camp fire?
I have a six quart cast iron, enameled dutch oven from Lodge and a power outage likely to last a few days. The dutch oven looks like this and has one of the oven safe knobs on top:
The black out looks like this:
Can I use an enameled cast iron dutch oven on either a charcoal grill, or better, a camp fire without worrying that the grates on the grill or the wood of the fire will scratch, crack, or otherwise damage the enamel?
A heavy stainless steel cake pan is what I use on our campfire. We've also used cast iron, with no coating however. You'll get soot film but a good cleaner should take it off.
@tam welcome to Seasoned advice. I find it very nice that you decided to share your knowledge with us, and have already upvoted your appropriate answers. Please note that we insist that answers are really relevant to the exact question stated, not just be tangentially related. For example, I converted this answer to a comment, because it doesn't answer whether the enamelled pot will suffer damage or not.
If you get an enameled cast iron pot too hot, you can soften the enamel enough to damage it. My brother ruined one when we were younger on an electric stove, set on high (was making ramen, forgot about it, turned off the stove after the water had boiled off, when it cooled it fused to the burner)
The thing about camp fires is that they burn at different temperatures depending on the fuel and how much air's getting into it.
As you're using a dutch oven, I assume that you're doing something that requires low and slow cooking ... so you should be okay. If I were doing this, I'd try to pay attention to the fire (put the palm of your hand near the coals -- if you can't keep it there for a few seconds, it's too hot; move it somewhere else). And make sure that you have enough liquid in there that it won't risk going dry. If necessary, you can make a flour & water dough to use to seal the lip of the pan shut, so steam can't escape.
I'd also soap the bottom of the pot -- take a liquid dish soap, and rub the bottom and lower edges of the outside, so that when soot starts to deposit, it's depositing on the layer of soap, and not the pot itself. (it makes cleaning so much easier).
I'd also beware of grills for another reason -- many manufacturers are making lighter weight grill parts to save materials (so it costs them less to make). Many are so thin that I doubt they'd take the weight of a heavy cast iron pot. (I've broken one using a cast iron griddle)
It's also worth mentioning that what you have isn't quite ideal for campfire cooking, as it doesn't have the little legs to stand if off the ground a little bit, or the lip on top so that you can put coals on top, but be able to lift the lid without the ashes falling in your food. You can get around problem #1 with the grate, and might able to do something about #2 with some creative use of aluminum foil.
+1 on this not being for campfire cooking. There are ovens designed specifically for this (namely not enameled) purpose. They last forever and might be a good investment here: http://www.lodgemfg.com/Logic-camp-dutch-ovens.asp
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.147219
| 2012-07-02T14:25:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24797",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5776",
"paul",
"rumtscho",
"tam"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13557
|
Scratched Stainless Steel
I have a set of stainless steel pans that I absolutely love, and my 12" frying pan has received LOTS of use since I bought it. This is my first ever stainless steel pan and I'm pretty aware of all the ways to clean it (deglazing, barkeeps friend, etc). Recently, my wife purchased some scotch-bright heavy duty sponges with good intentions but I didn't realize exactly how "heavy duty" they were. I was washing my frying pan one night and used the scouring side of the sponge to get some stuck on grease and I noticed that I actually scratched my pan. The scratches don't look very deep, but I'm a little concerned.
Will these scratches damage the pan and reduce it's life? Should I stop using the scouring side of the sponges on my stainless steel?
If you look closely, you'll notice that barkeeper's friend actually puts tiny scratches in it, too. Doesn't seem to be a big deal.
This is quite common and pretty harmless. The scratches you see don't go very deep, nor are they very wide. My All-Clad saute pan is nearing 10 years old and has a ton of micro-scratches on the interior. It still performs beautifully.
That said, the scratches can grab onto proteins and cause sticking. However, this is simple to prevent with both oil and proper pan preheating.
When a pan is preheated properly the metal expands, essentially closing all of the micro-scratches. This prevents the proteins from grabbing onto them and getting stuck. You obviously need oil/fat to assist with this as well.
To properly heat a pan to the appropriate temperature I suggest using the water drop method. If you put a cold pan on heat and drip a drop of water onto it, the water will sit there for several seconds then boil away. As the pan gets warmer this will happen more quickly, fizzling away in a second or so. Once the scratches start to close something weird happens.
First, the drop of water will break into a few mini drops which scoot around the pan as they evaporate. This is a sign that you are almost there. When the drop of water stays whole (mostly) and scoots around the pan like a mercury ball, this is the perfect temperature. I the water instantly vaporizes on contact, you've gone way too far and need to let the pan cool down. At this point you should add your oil/fat, swirl it around, and immediately add your food. (Make sure the mercury ball of water is gone before adding oil).
Also note that the mercury-ball phase is definitely too hot for unclarified butter, and may be too hot for some extra-virgin olive oils. They may instantly smoke upon adding.
Again, it's important to have your oil and ingredients in place (mise en place) before you start. It's quite easy to skyrocket past the mercury-ball phase if you have to open your oil, pour, and then season your ingredients.
I have the exact same pan :). Great information, thanks!
The droplets skitter around because of the Leidenfrost effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leidenfrost_effect
I know I sound like a broken record but I love to point people to the videos on this page about the Leidenfrost effect and how to "properly" heat your pan as hobodave says (he's dead on).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.147494
| 2011-03-29T14:05:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13557",
"authors": [
"Jduv",
"Ward - Trying Codidact",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5280",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13893
|
Doner kebab aroma
Doner kebab is a kind of food which draws every person who is passing by just with the aroma coming from the place where they make them. In a place where I live they make doner kebabs using pork or even chicken instead of mutton and the aroma is still the same so I guess it's not the meat but the spices and/or the way they prepare it.
Now the question is what is the source of the aroma and whether it can be reproduced at home. If so, how?
How exactly is this distinct from a recipe request? Are you looking for something that smells like doner kebab but is somehow different? What kind of differences are acceptable?
I don't ask about recipe itself, as it takes meat, vegetables and pita (or however the bread is called). The thing which interests me here is just aroma. I've tried to prepare something like doner kebab at home and the taste was, say, close enough but there was nothing close to the aroma I know from boots at the street and I wish to know what the secret is.
Okay, but that still sounds like you're looking for a recipe for the meat. Perhaps your real question is more along the lines of "how do I cook meat like this without having a rotating spit and vertical grill"? Or do you think that the recipe that you used didn't have the necessary spices?
I don't look for a recipe. I don't look for alternative way to cook the meat without vertical grill. I look for a way to reproduce aroma and I don't know whether it takes specific spices or the way the meet is cooked or whatever. I thought it was clearly stated in the question.
A kebab is the final bad decision in an evening full of bad decisions.
I think that most of the trick with the doner kebab places is simply the time and the amount of meat. The way the gyro is set up, there's always meat cooking on the outside (near the grill heat), which sends out the aroma. Since the spit is usually a metre high, that's a lot of meat, giving off a lot of aroma. Also, remember that the shop has meat grilling form early morning to late evening, so the aroma has plenty of time to start up and get around. When cooking at home, you won't be actually cooking for more than a few minutes, so it hardly has time to get started.
A minor thing, which may be related (and may not), is that in doner kebab places, there's usually a chunk of mutton fat at the top of the spit, which slowly drips down on all the meat. This could be responsible for some of the smell at least.
So... we might be looking for an alternative way to cook the meat without the slow exposed grilling, then. I wonder what the OP tried. Slow roast in the oven?
I think it's more a quick grilling, as the meat is not long next to the flame, just long enough to cook the outer edge, which is then carved off. So the meat is continuously getting that chargrilling smell going on the whole time. Like a concentrated barbecue.
Also related: The human nose quickly gets accustomed to strong smells. If you are in the same place as a strong smell for a long time, eventually your brain starts ignoring the smell. If you are cooking at home, chances are you are constantly around the cooking meat and your brain will start to filter it out. Try walking out of the kitchen (or, better yet, outside), wait five or ten minutes, and then walk back in.
Spices AND cooking process are truly what you are asking about. Using spices for such a pronounced and popular food is probably very necessary when it comes to what is usually lamb and veal. Especially the Turkish culture. They use many spices through out the majority of their foods. Without a doubt: dripping fat and vertical spit are important. However these flavors can be replicated in a standard oven with a bit of thought. Just make sure the fat stays close to the cooking meat. :)
Now I do not claim to know the exact spices nor the exact amounts. But through much research and cooking trials I have come to lean towards a certain set of spices for Döner Kebabs which will render a similar, extreme, wonderful smell and taste as your typical Döner.
I've gathered my conclusion through an extremely simple method. You simply need a preliminary understanding of the people and the area to know what spices were used. They obviously used the spices that were most readily available to them to create their recipes. SIMPLE! Of course different combinations for different dishes, but at least it'd you'd be much closer to an authentic dish this way.
Onions, Rosemary, Marjoram. Maybe some small amount of oregano, garlic, cumin, and pepper etc. TYPICAL and SIMPLY mediterranean spices. don't forget the salt! :)
Carmi wasn't claiming there weren't any spices, just that the really distinctive thing was the cooking process. If you use the same spices and braise the meat slowly, you won't get the same flavor. (Also your method is reasonable, but a dish doesn't necessarily use all of the easily available spices, nor does it tell you proportions, and further, cuisines always have some dishes that are considered delicacies - and that can be because the flavors aren't as easy to come by.)
updated my comment to be less contradiction and more additive to the chosen answer.
Agreed! :) I suppose I'm just trying to point out that one should use, at least, some spices and one also shouldn't use spices uncommon to the area. I've seen it done, oh so many times. Thank you for clarifying, much appreciated.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.147882
| 2011-04-08T21:32:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13893",
"authors": [
"Bimal",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Cudmore",
"ESultanik",
"Jack O'Neill",
"OSE",
"Orbling",
"Theorian",
"Tim M",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59111",
"pawelbrodzinski"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13804
|
Tricks to ensure Mailliard/Browning reaction?
Seems like a question that would've been asked before, but I couldn't find a pre-existing question. Sorry if this is a duplicate.
Anyway, I do a lot of stir-fry, usually with chicken. My usual method -- I cube the chicken, then brinerate it in soy sauce, brown sugar, a bit of oil, and ginger. Then I dry it off with paper towels, heat a cast-iron to 400-500*F, then add a little peanut oil and put a small amount of the chicken in at one time. I wait for that to cook, pull it out, make sure the pan's reheated, then add another small amount of the chicken. Repeat until all the chicken is cooked.
I've run into a couple problems though.
1) It takes a very long time to follow those steps. Drying the chicken is slow and messy, and seems overly pedantic. The amount of chicken I can cook at one time and still get a maillard reaction is very little.
2) The browning reaction is very inconsistent. Sometimes it's perfect, sometimes it doesn't work at all. Usually if I follow these steps to the extreme (like, 4-5 small cubes of chicken at one time) I can always get a reaction, but that just takes waaaaay too long.
So, what tricks can I use to help ensure that a Maillard reaction occurs? Are there any ways I can speed up the whole process?
I've added some baking soda (specifically to onions while making French Onion Soup) to accelerate the Maillard reaction in the past and it seems to work rather well.
A few more general steps can be taken to encourage this reaction:
add protein (egg, milk), reducing sugar (glucose, fructose or lactose), remove water,
increase temperature/pH
I read this article a while back on accelerating the Maillard Reaction and found it very interesting; I think it may be helpful to you as well! http://blog.khymos.org/2008/09/26/speeding-up-the-maillard-reaction/
While a higher pH does enhance Maillard, it also changes the taste. Usually towards soapy. If you use very small amounts, it can go undetected, but it doesn't change the result that much. So I avoid using this trick.
In my opinion the Maillard reaction isn't all that essential in Eastern cooking because of the myriad of other strong flavours going on. I don't think I've ever had browned chicken in a Chinese takeout.
I always use a method called velveting when cooking chicken for stir fries. Take a couple of egg whites and add a tablespoon of cornstarch and 2 teaspoons salt. Whisk together, and add your chicken. Marinade for as long as is convenient. Get a saucepan of water on the boil. Add the chicken all in one go, return to the boil, and cook for 5 minutes or so - until the chicken is all white.
Drain well in a colander and let it steam for a bit to dry it out. Give it a quick stir fry with soy and rice wine (mainly for a little color), and it's ready to go. It gives the most wonderful, tender result, without the odd jelly-like consistency that meat tenderiser can cause.
I disagree with the statement that "the Maillard reaction isn't all that essential in Eastern cooking". The Maillard reaction is essential in the production of Wok Hei, which is the cornerstone of many (most?) stir fries.
That's more a product of repeated charring of fragments onto the wok which 'rub off' onto the food though isn't it? The velveting method actually helps to build wok hei as quite of a bit of cornstarchy chicken sticks to the wok and caramelizes.
If the wok is properly seasoned and hot enough, nothing should stick to it. Furthermore, many traditional recipes like beef chow fun don't even call for any starch on the proteins, yet they rely on wok hei for their distinctive flavor. For example, check out this video. With that said, bits of the food and particularly the oil will instantaneously combust on the surface of the wok creating these distinctive flavors, but I don't know if that's what you mean by 'rub off'.
I use the exact same process that you have described. Without resorting to Vecta's approach of increasing the pH, the only thing I can think of is to bump up your heat. Short of buying a professional wok burner (which would likely require expensive ventilation upgrades for use indoors), Alton Brown recommends using an inexpensive turkey fryer burner outside. That should be able to get you in the Wok Hei zone, a feat of which most residential ranges/cooktops are incapable. Just make sure to cut your chicken relatively thin to avoid burning the outside before the inside is cooked.
Vecta's answer points to the key as I see it to ensure Maillard reactions: reduce water.
Since Maillard reactions require higher temperatures than is possible in the presence of water (over boiling point) it may be the soy sauce that's causing some of your problems. Have you considered eliminating the soy sauce from your marinade and then adding it later?
Particularly if the chicken is going to rest a bit while you prepare the other parts of the stir fry, you could add the soy sauce later in in the process. The flavor will be different, but it will be much easier to get the nice browning you're looking for, and will eliminate the drying step.
You could either create a sort of dry rub for the chicken, or use oil as the liquid in the marinade.
Good idea, I'll definitely try eliminating the soy sauce next time. If nothing else it'd make it a lot easier to dry.
In Asian stir fry dishes, if the protein components are stir fried from raw they do not undergo large Maillard reactions
Many stir fry dishes actual call for pre-cooked protein, such as roast Chicken/Duck or deep fried Tofu. These have already undergone significant Maillard reactions, and are just stirred in to heat up and combine with the sauces
There is of course still plenty of overall Maillard reactions happening to the entire stir fry. If this is not happening you may need a more powerful gas burner and a proper Asian style wok?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.148341
| 2011-04-06T15:42:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13804",
"authors": [
"Alexander Pozdneev",
"Ashley",
"ESultanik",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Xepo",
"daveythechef",
"geotheory",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/722",
"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
}
|
5531
|
What can I do with a lot of sage?
We have this sage plant and it's grown into gigantic monster which is consuming my herb patch.
I'm going to attack it with gusto and will have lots of sage to do something with. Last year we made a sage jelly but this year i want to do something else.
What are my options?
By the way, considering this is a list question rather than one with a definitive answer, I'd suggest marking as community wiki. That tends to be the precedent I've seen.
Why is there one vote to close as 'belongs on meta'?
@Adam, sounds like someone clicked the wrong "vote to close" option
One of the most popular things I've seen sage used for is tea. You just dry the leaves, steep as you would regular tea leaves (personally I like it with ginger root if I have some handy), and then maybe a little honey or lemon. Sage is anti-bacterial, which is a nice bonus.
Meat-wise, I like to use sage with pork chops, either as part of a marinade or just chopped and rubbed onto the pork and then grilled. Sage also goes great with chicken. Roll the sage in your hands to release the oils, then either chop very finely or mash with a mortar and pestle. Mix with a little salt and rub onto chicken breasts, and sautee in oil or butter (or grill it).
Veggie-wise, I think it pairs very well with sliced, sauteed carrots. It goes very well with potatoes, try sweating some onion in a pan with a little oil or butter, adding some potato slices, and right before they're ready add fresh chopped sage. It's also a great ingredient in stuffing, dried or fresh.
I had sage-laced cornbread once, it was pretty delicious. Wasn't there for the making of, so not sure if there was any special preparation needed, but the end result was nice. In fact, a friend of mine a while back who was a baker loved using sage in various breads, but baking is one of my weak spots so I can't really give you any specifics other than "this combination works, check Google for recipes" :)
At one point, I heard someone refer to what they called "sage fritters", which were basically sage dredged in seasoned flour and egg, then quickly fried in oil. I did a quick search to find the source, and didn't see it, but did come across a very interesting idea: Sage and Apple Fritters (these are much more of a true fritter than what I first mentioned).
If you get tired of it while it's fresh and you're running around like a lunatic trying to find uses for it, there's always freezing. I freeze or dry any large quantities of herbs at the end of the summer, there are a few methods available. You can reference this question, I feel like there's a better one about specifically freezing herbs on this site but I can't find it right now. The short of it is, some people have good luck freezing whole leaves as they are, some people prefer to chop them or put them in the food processor with some oil or stock, and freeze into cubes. Both methods have advantages and disadvantages.
Alton Brown has a great method for drying described in this episode (text transcript). Essentially, you layer an air filter (like you'd use in your central air unit) with an herb. Place another filter on top, layer it again. Continue as much as you want, then strap them all to a box fan. Instead of weeks to months, you should have dried herbs in a couple days, max. You can watch the video here, skip to about 2:30 in. Bonus: the same episode describes his method of freezing herbs, that's about 1:00 in on the same link.
Speaking of Alton Brown, he recommends herb vinegar - you'll find how he makes it on the (text transcript) link in this paragraph.
There are also a TON of medicinal uses and has been used for thousands of years for various remedies. Since this is a cooking site I'm hesitant to list them all (there are a lot), but you can read more about the most popular ones here, here and here.
This is non-culinary, but you can use it to "smudge", which is often tied to cleansing rites, but can also be considered just a simple incense/potpourri. I had a hippie friend once whose house always smelled like smoldering sage. More details can be found here.
Can you tell I grow sage and generally have an abundance at the end of the season?
Can't top that. I'll add one thing, which is to put make an herb-infused olive oil (http://homecookingrocks.com/herb-infused-olive-oil-make-your-own/). Just keep an eye on the shelf-life, since fresh herbs can spoil in oil in a few weeks.
Great call - I completely forgot about that. I actually made a sage/rosemary olive oil once and it was delicious, but I left it a little too close to our kitchen window and it went rancid pretty quickly, so you're dead on about shelf life!
Thanks, really opened my mind to bewildering array of all things sagey.
My pleasure, glad I could help! I enjoy gardening almost as much as I love cooking, but I always wonder what to do with the abundance of herbs I have at the end of the season. The year before last, I had way too much sage and went on a research spree. This year it's looking like it's going to be basil :)
Make a sage and lemon butter for putting on steaks and other meats. Blanch the sage leaves for 20 seconds, chop them finely and mix them into some butter along with some lemon zest. Roll into a sausage shape in some cling-film and freeze.
Now whenever you have a steak, or a pork chop, or anything else you think a sagey, lemony butter would suit, remove it from the freezer, roll back the cling-film and slice a few rounds off.
I love herbed butter on steak!
Sage butter on steak is a great idea, I can't believe I've never tried it. Sounds delicious!
sage + fine chopped fresh rosemary + tarragon + chicken Breasts = <3
@stephennmcdonald, there was a fantastic one on a UK cooking show recently for a tarragon and balsamic vinegar butter (http://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/rumpsteakwithtarrago_93124), which I've tried and was fantastic. Give that a go too! =)
@Rob, thanks for sharing that link - I'm putting it on my meal plan for next week without telling my wife, should be a very nice surprise for her!
@stephennmcdonald, no problemo. If you have, or can get hold of the slightly thicker, sweeter "balsamic glaze", I've found that makes for a better butter than just plain balsamic vinegar =)
I took whole sage branches and put them alongside the coals so they smoked slowly while I grilled porkchops. Pork and sage are awesome together and it added a great sagey flavor without being TOO sagey.
Wow, using sage like wood chips - what a great idea. Adding this to my repertoire, thanks for the tip!
Yeah you just have to be careful that they don't burst into flames, but it's a good use for the woody older stems that aren't as tender.
When making mashed potatoes this weekend, my other half looked at me and said "do we have any sage?" The sad answer was no, but sage goes well in mashed potatoes.
Mmmm...great advice. Mashed potatoes, sage, a little caramelized onion, some chopped bacon, and I'm in heaven!
Not really a use for a lot of it, but fried sage leaves are a traditional accompaniment for a chicken galantine. They're pretty fun to make, if you're into cooking classical French food, or just like a challenge.
Sage pudding for something more "out there". Steep the sage in hot water to make a sage tea. Pull out the leaves and add gelatin. Let set in the fridge. Then stick it in the blender. You'll end up with a nice pudding. Serve it on the side of some meat. Note it may melt if you put it on the meat. Try a less heat sensative gelling agent if you want it in contact with something warm.
I also like the leaves pan fried in some oil. They'll get really crispy and develop a lovely flavor. Serve on salad or with scallops. No need to add all the flour or deep fry them as already suggested.
I dried about 1/3 of my sage plant earlier this year when it first got out of control and crumbled the dried leaves into a airtight container. I now have enough dried sage for a year.
Use as much of it as you can while it's fresh. This recipe for Sweet Potato and Sage Gratin is great.
Dry the remaining sage. Here's how to dry sage and other herbs.
I have a large bouquet of fresh sage drying in my kitchen window, with the intended use of drying, pulsing the dried leaves in the food processor and bottling in a couple of weeks. A favourite recipe with my family (and friends, for that matter) is for Sage and Asiago Scalloped Potatoes. It is a rich but mouth-watering dish redolent of fragrant sage, onion and delicate Asiago cheese. The recipe can be found here: http://www.food.com/recipe/asiago-and-sage-scalloped-potatoes-105027. It's also a beautiful dish, and looks lovely on a Thanksgiving table. Do try - I know you'll love it!
Sage, plantain (the long pointed type as opposed to the broad leaves) and thyme tea.
Ground powdered sage leaves are good for colouring homemade soap.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.148862
| 2010-08-19T11:33:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5531",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Christofer Eliasson",
"Christy",
"Cocopuffs",
"Dallas Homes For Sale",
"Daniel Platon",
"Darryl E. Clarke",
"Hath",
"Hello88",
"Joel P.",
"Laura Thomas",
"Maria Gabriela Salvarrey",
"MatronSaint",
"Murph",
"Ocaasi",
"Richard Senior",
"Rob",
"Ross Jonas",
"Scrool",
"Seth J",
"Spammer",
"Terry Gardner",
"Thomas",
"Tracy Smith",
"dassouki",
"elaine",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/940",
"justkt",
"m-rod",
"spaghetticowboy",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8879
|
Add gelatin to soup as a replacement for stock?
My wife made some chicken soup last night, but we didn't have any stock to start it with, so we used water.
Flavor-wise, the soup was fine - it was just lacking the mouth-feel associated with good soup. There was plenty of oil floating on top of the soup, so it wasn't lacking in fat.
I was thinking it was probably because we'd started with water instead of stock.
We're planning on making our own stock soon (so many good tips here!) but we didn't have any on hand last night, nor were we prepared to run to the grocery store.
However, we realized after we'd eaten the soup that we had a couple of packets of powdered gelatin in the cupboard.
Would powdered gelatin have given the same mouth feel as stock?
How exactly did you make the soup? My best guess from what you say is that you very nearly made stock - chicken and other ingredients, cooked for a while in water. No bones/necks/backs in the chicken, and not cooked as long as it takes to make good stock?
Correct - we used vegetables and chopped chicken breast, boiled together for maybe a half hour.
Boneless chicken breast - no bones anywhere in this recipe.
I'm looking for the online reference, but I remember reading in Cook's Illustrated that they were able to substitute a bit of gelatin to mimic the mouth-feel of homemade stock. I did find a beef stew recipe that used gelatin.
Based on how you described your recipe, I would say that the long cooking of chicken bones is indeed what's missing. You might get a better result if you roast your chicken breasts and vegetables before cooking them in the broth.
Making stock from bones extracts gelatin out of the bones. Homemade stock often has a gel like consistancy when put in the fridge and that provides much of the mouth-feel. Dissolving a bit of gelatin in cold water and adding to the broth will give it that lips smacking Unctuousness, as long as the flavor is good.
I think there are a few components to a good stock mouthfeel + flavour. You may be able to approximate these without actual stock with a bit of hackery:
Use flavourless, commercial gelatine and a small amount of saturated fat (bacon grease). This would simulate both the fat from the dark meat, and the gelatine from the bone.
Brown up some starches and proteins. The resulting hydrocarbons and altered amino acids are the fundamental flavour in a stock.
If you use the fat above to do the browning, less will float on the top (some is absorbed in the yummy browned food bits)
Dried mushrooms or seaweed can work (as can leftover rice or potatoes).
And while this isn't mouthfeel, it's critical to feeling like soup as it triggers the savoury part of our taste.
Cheat with extra spices and dried vegetables. One of the flavours in many stocks is the onion/carrot/celery (or other trinity of goodness). Dried spices and bits are a great hack to get that base of flavour.
In the years since this question was originally asked I've run across two references to using gelatin in sauces:
Serious Eats' Food Lab featured an article talking about adding gelatin to store-bought stock to make it more similar to restaurant stock:
http://www.seriouseats.com/2015/04/the-food-lab-why-chicken-pan-sauce-better-at-restaurants-make-at-home.html
And another Serious Eats article about adding gelatin as a thickener to beef stew, rather than more flour, specifically to keep the stew's flavor from becoming dull and paste-like:
http://www.seriouseats.com/2016/10/excellent-beef-stew-on-a-weeknight-pressure-cooker-food-lab.html
So yes, gelatin can add/enhance a thicker mouthfeel, especially for short-notice cooking that doesn't use bones.
I found this "recipe" for thickening soup with gelatin some time ago. I'm trying it today--hope it works.
It calls for one standard packet (two teaspoons) of gelatin for 4-6 cups of broth, or 8 if it was almost rich enough.
http://oureverydaylife.com/thicken-soup-gelatin-40133.html
Welcome to the site! I hope you'll edit your answer to let us know what the results were -- "I tried X and the result was Y" is much more helpful than "I'm going to try X."
The flavor of stock comes mainly from the bones, not the fat. Fat should be skimmed off the surface when making stock. Boiling chopped chicken breast will not give the same flavor, and your powdered gelatin is also unflavored. There's really no substitute for a good stock. The closest you can come to instant would be instant stock/bullion.
The flavor was actually fine for what we were looking for - it's just that the texture was a bit thin. I only mentioned the fat because of its texture contribution.
If you wanted to just thicken the soup, I would use a cornstarch slurry or a roux before I would use powdered gelatin.
Depending on your stock method, the fat is important early on for browning goodness (later the excess is removed). Those savoury flavours are difficult to replace with spices alone, unless you cheat with MSG or similar.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.149637
| 2010-11-05T16:45:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8879",
"authors": [
"Bob",
"Bruce Alderson",
"Cascabel",
"David Richerby",
"FoodTasted",
"Jason",
"John McIntosh",
"Karen Peterson",
"ManInMoon",
"Paul Fleming",
"Sam Svenbjorgchristiensensen",
"argentwolf",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3234",
"mskfisher"
],
"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
}
|
25511
|
My sous vide chicken is tough and stringy - did I cook it too long, or too little?
So far I've attempted it twice. The first time I cooked legs and thighs at 60C for an hour and a half; the second time I cooked two breasts at 60C for about 45 minutes. Both times the chicken came out really tough, and the muscle was really stringy. I assume this means I didn't cook the chicken long enough, am I correct? If so, how long should I be cooking the chicken, and at what temperature?
EDIT: I meant stringy, not sinewy as I had said previously.
how did you package the chicken? I find that when vacuum packaging chicken for sous-vide you can get "too" tight and it can create a texture like your describing above. I ease up on the vacuum a bit, basically just remove enough air so that the bag won't float and you should be good to go. Give that a try and see if that makes a difference for you.
You cooked it at too low a temperature.
Sous vide is intended for meat where you want the protein to remain tender. It shouldn't have any sinews. Think chicken breasts, or the long filet along the spine of a pig. This meat gets nicely cooked at 60-65°C (depends on the animal), and tough and dry above that.
Meat marbled with sinews has to be cooked at a temperature where the sinews (collagen) melt into gelatin. This happens at about 70°C at least, and takes hours. Since the muscle fibres are already toughened at that temperature, there is no reason to hold it low; you can put it at full boil in a normal pot and cook it there, you just have to wait long enough. In theory, you could do it in a sous vide bath too, but you won't get any of the benefits sous vide gives to tender meat.
Sorry, I used the wrong term: by sinewy, I meant stringy. Does the "too low a temperature" issue still hold?
Yes, for chicken thighs, it holds. I can't currently think of an online ressource with a list of meats meant for sous vide, but the rule of thumb is, if you can throw it into a pan for 3-4 minutes and have it ready, it is good for sous vide. If you normally stew it, it is not.
...I always throw my chicken thighs into a pan for a few minutes. Granted, I chop them into smaller chunks first, but even whole I never have to stew them.
There's plenty of recipes for cooking stewing cuts sous vide at temperatures far below 70°C but it is generally done to cook these cuts medium rare whilst still being very tender: for a meat like beef it involves cooking for 48-72 hours because at such low temperatures it takes far longer for collagen to convert to gelatin.
Sous Vide is good for all meats - Even chicken tigh.
Go for 65 C for 70 min and sear 2-3 min in a hot pan.
Sous Vide works great for tender meat - But it works even better for tougher meats!
While I don't have much experience cooking thigh meat sous-vide, I have been doing chicken breast a lot for the last 18 months...
I find 58C (136F) for 2.5+ hours to give the best results. I experimented with 60 and 62C for a little while but found that there is considerable moisture loss once you get above 60. Longer cooking times don't matter much; I've forgotten about the meat on more than one occasion and left it overnight (8-9 hours?) with no adverse impact on the final product. I personally found chicken breast after 24 hours unappealing, but my partner liked it - I would describe the texture as 70% meat, 30% cake? I would avoid shorter times though - 2.5 hours is usually well inside the safe margins according to Doug Baldwin's models.
However the biggest (positive) difference in the result has been from switching meat suppliers, and in a literally eye-opening way too: Organic chicken breast makes for a significantly nicer result every single time!
We actually did blind testing across multiple batches of meat and across several weeks, and found we could pick the organic chicken with 100% accuracy. There are differences between even organic suppliers, but in general the stringiness was gone, the meat cut in straight lines without tearing or shredding along muscle fibres, and it was noticeably more moist and juicy.
I suspect that the difference comes largely from better quality feed and the fact that the animals tend to be (at least in Australia) slower-growing breeds and ~50% older when slaughtered, thus have more time to develop more flavourful muscles.
I think 60c works fine for chicken breast, however the quality of meat has an impact. chicken breast from my local butcher is never stringy, from the supermarket it is. I would go for higher temp on the thighs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.150078
| 2012-08-06T15:18:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25511",
"authors": [
"Brendan",
"Frandude",
"Jacob LaChance",
"Jenna Sloan",
"Lynn Escajeda",
"Mariela",
"Peggy",
"Stefano",
"TSL",
"Yamikuronue",
"ano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"rumtscho",
"user132992",
"user68792"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
69032
|
How to soft and hard boil eggs in the same pot so they are ready at the same time?
The method I usually follow is to place the eggs in cold water, then take the pot off heat once the water starts boiling and let the eggs sit in the water for X minutes. I usually do 4-5 min for soft boiled and 10-12 min for hard boiled.
This is fine when boiling all the eggs either soft or hard but not when I want them to be ready to eat at the same time. Do you know of method that allows both types to be ready at the same time?
You can do that by using a different method which puts eggs in boiling water.
Bring water to a boil in a large enough pot for all eggs.
Add those eggs that are to be hard-boiled, start timer.
Add the eggs that should be soft when the remaining time fits.
Remove all eggs together.
(Hope that you can tell soft and hardboiled eggs apart because you marked them prior to cooking. Else you have an egg lottery at the table.)
I personally cook them in two pots or keep hard boiled eggs warm until a second batch of soft boiled eggs is done for the reasons stated in the last bullet point. Or those prefering hard boiled eggs have to wait a few minutes longer.
For how long do you usually boil them with this method?
@benregn Hard 8-10 minutes to avoid dry yolks, time for soft depends on your definition of softness, I usually aim for 6 minutes for a mostly firm white and runny, but warm yolk. Add 30 seconds for eggs straight from the fridge and for large instead of medium eggs.
using both white and brown eggs might be simpler than marking them in some way.
@DanNeely In theory, yes. But only if you have them... Sometimes this will be impractical for various reasons.
Definitely the most practical way is just making hard boiled wait a little longer. Just as if you were cooking medium and we'll done steaks you'd just rest the medium while the well continues cooking. Plus by the time you've played up the soft boiled the Hard's will probably be ready.
You can also boil eggs by adding them to boiling water and starting the timer at that point. We usually do about 6 minutes for soft boiled eggs and 11 or 12 for hard boiled eggs. Remove them from the heat and rinse with cold water immediately to stop residual cooking.
But you'd need to tell the eggs apart, soft from hard. You could separate them by color (hard boil brown eggs, soft boil white ones) or you could mark them, like draw a face on the hard boiled ones. The Eggland's Best eggs are stamped with a little insignia, which fades after boiling but is still visible.
Here is an article all about hard boiled eggs, complete with lots of pictures and tips: http://www.seriouseats.com/2014/05/the-secrets-to-peeling-hard-boiled-eggs.html
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.150572
| 2016-05-16T10:14:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69032",
"authors": [
"Dan Is Fiddling By Firelight",
"Doug",
"Stephie",
"benregn",
"dogwoodtree-dot-net",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9036"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
26059
|
How can I avoid cakes to turn into jelly?
I am making cakes, and mostly chocolate cakes. But under certain conditions, instead of taking a nice bread texture (soft and with air bubbles), it turns into a kind of jelly (compact, a little bit translucent and without air bubbles). Needless to say, I dont want my cakes to turn into jelly because it is not good at all.
So I am interested to know under what circumstances the cakes turns into jelly.
Quick information about how I proceed : (I don't think this has a big impact, tough I am not sure)
The basic ingredients I use are:
Eggs
Butter
Wheat
Sugar
Sometimes, I replace wheat with olive oil and I may add hazel powder, almond powder, vanilla sugar and/or chocolate, etc...
Most of the time, I start by fixing the eggs, uping egg whites and mixing the yellows and sugar.
The majority of the time, my cakes are fine. There have been two cases where I had "jelly problems":
The first was where I tried to make a cake in a glass dish, into an oven with both pulsed heat and microwaves. No baking paper. This one was 100% jelly and non-eatable.
The second was into a normal oven, with a dish with a somewhat plastic bottom and baking paper. This one had about 20% of the bottom turned into jelly and its eatable but not very good.
So my theory is that the cakes turns into jelly if:
Air cannot flow into the cake, from the bottom, while baking. (The texture of the bottom of the dish matters)
You use a non-thermal oven
Do you have the same issue ? Am I correct and how do you fix the problem ?
You meant replace the butter with olive oil, right? Because if you're replacing the wheat, there's your problem!
It could either be a problem of heat transfer or leavening.
Heat Transfer
Probably the bottom "jelly" potion of the cake is not getting enough heat. I can imagine some possibile causes.
Ovens that are not fan assisted are generally warmer at the top than at the bottom. Generally you should have the cake in the middle of the oven, but for some ovens you may need to move the cake higher.
Plastic bakeware (or silicone if that's what you have) typically conducts heat less efficiently than glass. And glass has poorer heat transfer than metal, so try using a metal cake form.
The oven temperature might be wrong; oven dials are often wrong by a few degrees (I once had an oven that was out by ten degrees C). Get an oven thermometer and put it on the same shelf as the cake.
Another possibility is that you just need to leave the cake in longer, but from what you say it sounds like the upper portion of the cake would then be overcooked and dry.
Leavening
In your ingredient list you didn't mention a leavening agent. That could be a problem in itself if you are expecting air bubbles. Typically you would use baking soda or baking powder, or a combination of those two (depending on the acidity of the batter) to introduce air.
It is possible to introduce air without a chemical leavening agent by, for example, folding whipped egg whites carefully into the batter.
In either case, air does not "flow into the cake". It needs to be introduced either before baking or by a leavening agent during baking.
I'm afraid that I haven't said anything specifically about the failed microwaved cake since I don't have any experience making cakes that way.
I'd go one farther and suggest that maybe the oven actually just turned off for a while. Probably takes more than a few degrees too low a temperature to get the bottom to exhaust its leavening before it sets. (It seems like the OP must be using some kind of leavening, or the cakes wouldn't be fine.)
@Jefromi It could be that the batter was sitting around for too long before being baked. I guess that would have the same affect as the oven being turned off (except for double acting baking powder).
The cakes that I make at home are fine (oven is fan assisted + heat coming from top and bottom + metal dish). So I don't think baking soda or powder is required. I think the right hypothesis is that the bottom of the cake should be receiving enough heat: in both cases of failure, the oven was not fan assisted and the heat was coming from the top.
@pinouchon there are indeed egg-leavened cakes, which don't need baking powder, but the recipes for them usually don't use fat. Also, they are much more finicky than the common sponge cakes which use creamed fat and baking powder. I would recommend getting some better recipes depending on your taste (either sponge or egg-leavened types). Also, trying to bake cake in an oven with top-only heating is murderous, you actually want a bit stronger heating from below than from the top.
@rumtscho Tanks for the advice. I just went in a new flatshare, and I got the oven that I got... I will have to deal with that. Hopefully I will come up with inovative ways of getting around it :)
if it is a little jelly type thing then you should:
before putting it in the oven, you should stir the mixture well.
make sure that there are no bubbles.
then heat it till 3 minutes and 50 seconds.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.150825
| 2012-09-08T17:38:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26059",
"authors": [
"Alan Shutko",
"Benjamin Crouzier",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Terry Whaley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18104",
"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
}
|
37571
|
Is tea that has been out on air for long dangerous to drink?
Suppose you made a cup of tea (the real tea, not bagged, and not a fruit drink) with no additions, but you forgot about it while doing other things (house stuff, homework, your job) and it has now been 2 hours since you made it. The tea is cold, possibly bitter, and a significant portion of its flavor is gone (this has been the usual result for me with all real teas). It's not so good any more, but is it safe to drink now?
As the saying goes, a cup of tea left overnight is poison. How true is that in terms of actual hazards?
with milk in it, or not?
@KateGregory black ;)
What??? I make my huge cuppa double-bagged tea with milk in the morning and finish it in the evening. Then I recycle the bags the next morning by adding another bag. I'm still alive, except that I have problems putting on weight - stale tea must be pushing up my metabolism. In Israel, I could buy Russian fermented tea in bottles, btw. Initially, I thought they were root beer. Russians there say they can't stand root-beer "tastes like medicine" - yet they have no problems drinking fermented tea. Beats me.
@BlessedGeek I think you're referring to Kvass. I'm a Russian and I prefer Japanese and Chinese teas, like sencha, oolong, gyokuro, darjeeling and such to any national fermented dubious stuff. Anyway, I'm not talking about bagged tea, it's too low quality to make good tea from it.
As long as you haven't added something that will dramatically increase the spoilage time (milk, or sugar), it should follow roughly the same rules as coffee. Most citations I've seen say the taste begins to go off at around 8 hours, which is a good indicator of spoilage. It's going to taste yucky if you forget and leave the teabag in it as well, but that's just over-steeping.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.151477
| 2013-10-13T23:05:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37571",
"authors": [
"Cynthia",
"Kate Gregory",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"user1306322"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6545
|
What factors do I need to consider to figure out if a particular set of toppings will work well on risotto?
Sometimes, I like to experiment with the ingredients to use as toppings for risotto.
In order to avoid bad results, what should I consider when I choose the ingredients to use as toppings for risotto?
just look to see if you have chorizo in the list of ingredients. if you do, it will work :).
@Sam: I will try that the next time I grab some chorizo. :-)
So risotto is pretty much a blank canvas, much like say rice or pasta.
So your first concern is simply to pick ingredients that go with each other. For example: tomato & corn risotto, good. Tomato and chocolate risotto: bad.
Second, you may want to choose a broth, cheese, and optional wine that goes well with your choice of main ingredients.
Third, because risotto is Italian in origin, the most certain combinations will be those classic Mediterranean flavors. You aren't going to go wrong with say asparagus and olives, or artichokes, peas and lemon. When you start making Thai risottos, you are farther out on a limb.
Finally, much of the pleasure of a risotto is in the rice itself, when properly prepared. That pleasure is fairly delicate in nature, so for maximum enjoyment you should choose reasonably delicate ingredients and/or use them in relatively small quantities.
Do you actually mean "toppings" as in, things to put on top of a plain risotto? I usually think of things to add to (mix in) a risotto. In that case (probably not answering your question), the important thing is to make sure your other ingredients are already cooked and then add them once the risotto is done. Otherwise, your risotto will not cook well.
Like Michael said, risotto is a blank canvas. It can just be a side on the plate (a tastier/fancy substitute for plain rice), or it can be the star, or even the entire dish, depending on what is mixed in it. An excellent side of risotto could contain savory vegetables like grilled asparagus and mushrooms, and you could accompany it with a chunk of protein of your choice. I've also had a seafood risotto as a main dish (containing various cooked shellfish) which had vegetables as an accompaniment. Whatever role you want the risotto to play in your dish will help determine what to put it, or accompany with, your risotto.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.151659
| 2010-09-01T23:33:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6545",
"authors": [
"Sam Holder",
"avpaderno",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210"
],
"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
}
|
1850
|
What's wrong with my technique in this Belgian Liège Waffle recipe?
I've been using this awesome recipe to make Belgian Liège waffles, but my results are never consistent. Could you guys help me reverse engineer the recipe a bit?
During the butter-adding phase in step 5, my dough typically balls up on the paddle very early on, even before the second mixing. What could be the most likely culprit? It drives me crazy that I can never get this step right!
What's the point of resting the dough for 1 minute between mixings in step 5?
What's the point of letting the batter bubble up in step 3?
Why refrigerate the dough overnight? Couldn't it be used to make waffles right after the 4-hour rising?
Thank you!
That's a very appealing recipe by the way. Do you have a cast iron waffle iron? What are you using to cook them?
the amount of flour is likely the culprit. Flour is very sensitive to moisture and can change volume a surprising amount so that the two cups may not be two cups. Also make sure you are not scooping the flour out with your measuring cup, but filling it with another implement before leveling off the top with a straight edge.
As you are after a not-quite-bread-like consistency, even though you are using high-gluten flour (in the bread flour called for) you don't want a full bread-like texture
Letting the yeast rise
Many sweet breads do something similar. Cinnamon buns for example. It again affects the crumb and texture of the final product. It also slows down the yeast as it notes in the recipe when you refrigerate for just a little bit. The rise the next morning should give you nice small bubbles.
Regarding #4: it also gives time for the flavor to develop, as the yeast slowly works its way through the dough. Sweet rolls are best baked after two days in the fridge, IMHO...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.151854
| 2010-07-18T21:53:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1850",
"authors": [
"Ecyrb",
"Gert",
"Miguelón",
"Peter V",
"Shog9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/982",
"user3338"
],
"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
}
|
6155
|
What does to deglaze a pan mean?
A friend of mine described a recipe to me, and she said she deglazed the pan (I think I understood correctly). What does that mean?
Deglazing removes caramelized bits (the "browned" bits) from the bottom of your pan or skillet after cooking meats or vegetables.
It is usually accomplished by putting stock, sauce, wine, or even water (or really any liquid) in the pan over heat after the pan has been emptied of whatever was cooked into it and any rendered fat and scraping the browned bits into that sauce with a spatula. The browned bits dissolve into your liquid to create an excellent sauce for whatever you just cooked in the pan.
I would add: it is also useful for easily cleaning the pan.
Deglazing with something alcoholic is more fun because you can light it on fire (careful--the flames can get very large). Brandy is my favorite.
@Adam - you know, the only thing I've ever managed to (intentionally) set on fire was Bacardi 151. It comes with a label "warning, do not set on fire" because it is so flammable. I fail at flambes.
It is easier to set moderate proof alcohols on fire before you add them to the pot. High proof stuff like the 151 is more tolerant.
+1. I would add that the pan needs to be quite hot before you add the liquid and you generally add a fairly small amount of liquid so that the pan heats the liquid rather than the liquid cooling the pan.
Deglazing is a technique for making sauces and gravies. It occurs after you've accumulated cooked on meats and other deposits. First remove your meat and any excess liquid fat. Second crank the heat up high and get your pan nice and hot. Next add a cool liquid (water/wine/stock). The liquid will boil rapidly and lift the browned deposits to create a flavorful sauce.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.152037
| 2010-08-27T14:28:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6155",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Geoff Turnet",
"Sobachatina",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66914",
"justkt",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6181
|
What substitutes are available for sugar?
I am told that I use too much sugar, and I am trying to use it less.
What should I use instead of the sugar to cook, preparing desserts?
What are you hoping to cut down on? Sweetness? Calories?
I guess that the problem is with the calories. I should ask to whom tells me to use less sugar why she thinks so. :-)
I can say desserts do not taste the same and changing a recipe from using sugar to a substitute takes trial and error to get the quantity/sweetness correct.
The following are sugar substitutes that are not considered "artificial sweetners." The links provide interesting information that should be pondered before using any of them.
Agave nectar
Stevia
Honey
Maple syrup
For actual unrefined cane syrup or sugar (considered healthier than sugar by those who consider less refined to equal more healthy), look to
Rapadura
Sucanat
For artificial sweeteners, you could consider:
Splenda (you can get this in quantities suitable for baking at most grocery stores)
If you're looking to lower your sugar, before going to artificial sweeteners don't discount just teaching yourself a lower sugar diet by eating smaller portions of sweets and making your own sweets with a lower sugar content.
Artificial sweeteners will not work if you need the sugar to feed yeast or bacteria, have a preservative effect, retain moisture, or react chemically (ie: caramelize). If it is just there to be sweet, go for it.
I am a big fan of Jaggery when I want natural, unrefined sugar. The answer below is the same answer I gave for a question about how to add sweetness to sugar:
This unrefined sugar can be considered similar to brown sugar in use (I substitute equal amounts jaggery when a recipe calls for brown sugar), but not in composition - there are a lot of mineral salts left in it, because of the lack of refining and absence of chemicals that are usually used to process sugars. It's made similar to maple sugar; essentially it's boiled down to a syrup and dried.
I've used it in sweet and savory dishes, and it adds a depth of flavor that I find can't be matched with any other sugars I've used. I have a hard time describing it, because it's new to me, but it tastes very...complex, for lack of a better word. Its taste is kind of between brown sugar and molasses. It is sweeter than table sugar, but less sweet than honey. In my opinion, it can take the simplest of dish and add a significant amount of depth and interest.
If you're interested in using it you can find it at your local Indian grocer, or purchase it online, I first got it through Amazon just to try, but have since sought out local ethnic grocers because it's significantly cheaper that way.
You can also try reducing the amount of sugar in a recipe. Combine this with adding a "filler" like applesauce. The amount this can be done really depends upon the recipe. Some recipes you can replace almost all the sugar, others need to be exact!
I have make a chocolate zucchini cake and tried many different variations, from stevia to almost no sweetener. All of them have turned out edible. The taste was different, so then it is up to experimentation to find what variations you prefer.
I've heard of using applesauce to replace oil in baked goods but not to replace sugar. It sounds interesting. Have you had success with this?
Well, I usually use Stevia, so the applesauce is more of a filler. I do find I can use less Stevia this way, which avoids the bitter aftertaste.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.152223
| 2010-08-27T15:24:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6181",
"authors": [
"Chris",
"Matthew Scouten",
"Ruz",
"Sobachatina",
"avpaderno",
"awithrow",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/944"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2871
|
What vegetables hold up well for making vegetarian pot pie?
I am trying to make a vegetarian pot pie, but so far I was not successful. I tried with carrots, peas, and cauliflower, but the pot pie was not that good.
If you'd like to make something with cauliflower and/or broccoli, try this: trim and wash the florets (keep the stems for something else if you like). Blanch them in boiling salted water for 3 or 4 minutes (a little longer maybe for cauliflower). Drain them and dump them into some cold water, then drain them.
Now (or before now): get a heavy roasting pan (like a big earthenware or cast iron lasagna pan, or something like that - the heavier the better) hot in a 375 degree (F) oven. That should take about 15 or 20 minutes - we want it hot. Pull it out of the oven carefully, and then add some oil. Spread the oil around with a silicone brush or by tilting the pan (carefully please; don't burn yourself and sue me) and then add the drained broccoli/cauliflower. Sort-of toss those around (if you've got some spray olive oil, you can squirt them with that) and then add kosher/sea salt and black pepper.
Roast those in the oven for about 20 minutes, possibly tossing them around halfway through.
Now what you've got is the best tasting cauliflower/broccoli in the world. You can add those roasted florettes to a quiche or to a pot pie or to anything like that. I add thusly roasted cauliflower to Indian "dal" preparations and it's awesome.
Here's another tip: if you want to add cubed potatoes but you don't want them to turn to mush, try this. Cube the raw potatoes. Get some water warming on the stove, but when it's still just warm (less than 130 degrees F) add the potatoes. Keep the fire on, but monitor the temperature very carefully. When the water gets up to 138 degrees F, drop the fire a lot and try to keep it at that temperature for about 10 minutes. After that, raise the fire and let the potatoes boil as you normally would.
That trick will allow a natural enzyme in the potatoes to "firm up" the starch, and they'll end up cooked but not mushy. You can then add them to your pot pie with the confidence that they'll more-or-less hold together. (Beets do this kind-of automatically; it's really hard to cook a beet until it's mush.)
That sounds like one yummy cauliflower preparation. :)
Roasted cauliflower is seriously a revelation. I have 3 kids and they love it, and their friends tell stories about it. And the best part is that (aside from the mess) it's not hard at all.
"best tasting cauliflower/broccoli in the world" - rather like the taller than Mickey Rooney award?
I have to say: I do the same thing but with butter instead of oil. And that is the bestest tasting couliflower in the world. :D
What do you mean by hold up well? Structurally? Carrots and peas are rather common in a traditional chicken pot pie. Cauliflower is probably way too delicate to hold up well, also it's too mildly flavored to serve as a primary flavor.
I would suggest trying some heartier root vegetables or starches. Potatoes, squash, zucchini are some good possibilities. I'd also add some onion and celery for a better flavor punch.
The flavor balance in a traditional pot pie going to be hard to replicate using just vegtables but the inclusion of mushrooms to add some meatiness and adding some tofu to the base along with enough starches to thicken up the base should do it. Corn, rutabagas, carrots and garlic should be added to hobodave's list of vegtables that will remain reconizable after cooking.
Big +1 for mushrooms.
I'm assuming you're talking about flavour here - in which case I'd fry up some leeks/onions, garlic and mushrooms in butter and put them in a white sauce, which should give a nice savoury base for whatever other vegies you fancy putting in.
I made a pie which contained shallots, button mushrooms, chestnut mushrooms and whole chestnuts. I sauteed the shallots whole along with the mushrooms. Then I added a goodly amount of red wine, some bay leaves plus some rosemary. I simmered it for a while to reduce, then added the chestnuts, then seasoned further. Into a casserole dish, then covered with pastry. After cooking, all the filling ingredients had held their shape.
My wife and I have been making the vegetable pot pie with dill-Havarti sauce from the Moosewood Restaurant Celebrates cookbook for years. The only modifications that we make are to leave out the celery and green beans and add in some peas and asparagus.
We've even successfully made a vegan version by making our own dill Havarti cashew cheese.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.152509
| 2010-07-22T20:19:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2871",
"authors": [
"GSM",
"Martin Beckett",
"Pointy",
"Scott Pack",
"Y.H Wong",
"ceejayoz",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"merl",
"mikera",
"nico",
"tkone",
"yurymik",
"zvone"
],
"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
}
|
7218
|
Does chopping steak negate the benefit of using better meat?
A sub shop I liked to go to in college offered two kinds of cheesesteak: the "'regular' cheese steak sub" and the "Filet Mignon steak sub." The only difference between the two was the cut of meat used, with the filet being both better and more expensive.
I once went there for lunch with a friend and tried to order the filet sub. My friend stopped me, saying that there was no reason to spend the extra few bucks and that I should just get the regular. I don't remember his exact explanation why anymore, but it had to do with the cheesesteak preparation process, which involves chopping the meat up into very small pieces. I think he said that the breakup of connective tissue negated the advantage of using the filet.
Was my friend right? If so, why?
If it's a properly done cheese steak, and it's not sliced in the same direction as the grain of the meat, he's probably right.
It's quite possible that a cheaper cut of meat would have a "beefier" flavor, just because many of the tougher cuts of meat tend to be more flavorful, partially because of the fat content.
All of that being said, it's really a matter of personal preference. Some of of the places near me use the equivalent of "steak-ums" and not everyone's a fan of the texture. If you want to find out if it's worth it for you, get a few friends together, order two subs with the same toppings, one with the upgraded meat, one without, and do a taste test. (and if you can, get one person to order it and label the packages, then hand off to someone else to portion it out, so it's at least closer to double blind, particularly if they use two different labeling schemes)
update : Unlike chicken, beef doesn't have the obvious distinctions between light & dark meat; the normal rule is that the further from the hoof and horn it is, the less that muscle group has worked, and thus the more tender it is ... but as with chicken meat, it's the working muscles that tend to be more flavorful (although tougher cuts). And as with chicken, it's the fattier meat that has more flavor.
Some cuts of beef have the grain run in one direction -- because of this, we can cut the meat across the grain, which tenderizes it. It can be done before cooking, as with philly cheesesteaks, or afterwards, as is done with fajitas. Common cuts used for this sort of treatment are flank steak and skirt steak, which may be difficult to find in all grocery stores as so much seems to be diverted for restaurants.
Besides cutting, other aspects of processing (eg, aging) can affect how 'beefy' the meat is.
Thanks for your effort, @Joe. I don't care about those subs in particular; they were just a convenient example. My intent with the question was to find out more about what factors affect the flavor of beef, which you mention in your second paragraph; could you expand on that?
I think this is purely a matter of taste. Different cuts of meat do have different flavors and textures. Filet generally has very little fat or connective tissue in it, so it's very tender but loses some of the beefier flavors that you'll find in other cuts. A strip steak has a lot of fat around the outside and picks up more flavor. Short ribs are a very tough piece of meat that need to be cooked for long enough to break down the connective tissue running through the meat so that they are soft enough to eat (why they're usually braised), but are very flavorful.
So the question is two fold, what texture do you want and how do you like your flavor. I would think that for a Philly Cheese Steak, it would make little difference as the thin slicing makes both meats tender, and the cheaper meat may actually have a stronger flavor. However, for a steak sandwich, with large chunks of meat, the filet may be easier to eat as you can more easily bite through the meat. On the other hand, you're masking the flavor of the meat with the rest of the sandwich, so you might want a beefier flavor.
Cooking method will also have some effect on this. If the steak is cooked well done, then I think the cheaper piece of meat is ok. Filet or other nicer steaks lose a lot of their flavor and nice texture when cooked well done. Cheaper meat is sliced thin and cooked well done to break down any connective tissue quickly and make a more tender piece of meat. If the meat comes out pink though, this really shouldn't make much difference.
Additionally, as food is fairly subjective, some people do or don't like the different flavors and textures. One cut may be too beefy or too grisly or vice versa. If you think it tastes better, who cares what your friends think!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.152989
| 2010-09-13T02:39:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7218",
"authors": [
"Li1t",
"Nishith",
"Pops",
"Stockholder",
"chris Frisina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14751",
"ytw"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10041
|
Chopping fresh cranberries
Are there any good ways to chop fresh cranberries? It tends to end up a bit tedious for me, not catching too many at a time with the knife, and chasing after the ones that roll away. (And I don't have any machines that'd do this for me.)
You might consider trying slicing them in half first, so at the very least, they're not a round sphere that's liable to roll away. Here's the typical procedure for cherry tomatoes, grapes, pitted olives, etc:
Place a few of them on your cutting surface (as many as would fit comfortably in the palm of your hand
place the palm of your non-knife hand on top of the items.
arc your fingers up as best you can
slice horizontally with a very sharp knife, parallel to your hand and the cutting surface.
If that's small enough, stop, otherwise pile up a bunch of halves, and run your knife through like anything else.
If you don't mind losing some of the juice, try breaking them before cutting them. Use a potato masher or meat tenderizer or something like that to break them into pieces. That way they won't roll around when you're trying to cut them up. Once they are in pieces, you can lay them out on a cutting board and chop away. You can also put several on a cutting board and mash them down with another cutting board on top. That will make them less spherical.
Or using the broad side of a Chef's knife; which I find is the most expedient way for taking the outside off garlic cloves
If you don't need them to be highly uniform a few pulses in a food processor works wonders.
//I rarely use the thing---it the SO's from before we were married---'cause I'm a "I can do everything with three knives" type (that and I hate cleaning it), but this is one of my exceptions...
I figured this would probably do it, but unfortunately I don't have one. Thanks for confirming, though!
Depending on the sharpness of your knife and your comfort level using it, I would chop these the same as I do other hard things like nuts. Basically, I hold them in place by cupping my thumb and the base of my palm on the cutting board and use a chef's knife or santoku to cut at about a 45 degree angle toward the 1/4" in front of my palm's base (which pushes the berries into the palm of your hand).
You don't actually move the knife's landing mark, but make slow deliberate cuts into the same place (you can also cradle the top of the point using your pinky for eztra stability). The chopped fruit should work its way back and the un-chopped will settle. With the cranberries you can also crush them a bit more than nuts so they wont flip out everywhere.
If you don't trust your knife skills enough to do this with your hand, you can achieve a similar effect using two knives - one in your off hand to act as a "dam", and the other actively chopping. You do get more escapees top and bottom than if you used your hand, though.
To do this, I use one of my favorite tools from Pampered Chef, the "food chopper".
There's a similar product called the slap chop (for corny humor, look that one up on YouTube). Other cheap models exist, as well. Like most Pampered Chef products, though it costs more, there are advantages. For this one, primarily in the blade durability and that it can open up for easy rinsing/cleaning. I use this type of product most for dicing olives, onions, and even nuts. Sometimes tomatoes, but only if you want them really mutilated. It doesn't hold a lot, and your hand can hurt if you're going to do more than ten or so rounds, but it does get the job done when you don't want all the hassle/cleanup of the processor, as @dmckee mentioned.
I find that these food-chopper things are more of a pain to clean than food processors, personally...
have you tried the Pampered Chef one? opening clamshell/sides and rinsing everything under hot water is about all that's needed - then toss in the dishwasher.
@TJ Ellis same issue with cleaning (yes, experience with one of the rip-offs); and the choppers are more like crushers frequently and cause a lot of liquid loss
I could see how a dull blade would have that effect. Also, getting it exactly right as far as consistency is a bit of an art. I do find mine way easier to clean than our all the parts to (large) food processor, though.
I know that with cherry tomatoes you can put them on an upside down lid that way they stay put, but I don't know how well it would work with cranberries since they are smaller.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.153401
| 2010-12-12T20:05:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10041",
"authors": [
"Bobbi Croke",
"Cascabel",
"Marti",
"Meghan N",
"Mike Brown",
"Tara",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"jeanette",
"kevinarpe",
"markus",
"mfg",
"simonalpha",
"symbol",
"zanlok",
"zoran mihajlovic"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7424
|
What is the traditional accompaniment for Duck Confit?
I have a few duck legs that I made a confit from earlier this week. I'm thinking of serving them with Parmesan Dauphinoise and some beans from the garden tonight. I was wonderring though, what would be the traditional accompaniment for duck confit?
In southwest of France, we serve confit with "pommes sarladaises", which are more or less fries cooked in duck fat in a pan. There is also garlic and parsley.
You can use confit in "cassoulet" as well. This is something like chili con carne with white beans instead of red ones, onion, carrot, tomato, garlic (and many other secrets which change from home to home).
EDIT: A variant of "pommes de terre sarladaises" includes mushrooms, in particular "cèpes" (Boletus edulis) together with potatoes.
I saw on the wikipedia entry that pommes de terre à la sarladaise was the traditional accompaniment, but having never been to France I couldn't be sure. It's good to have it confirmed by an actual Frenchman.
A complement of duck is apple sauce, or sage and onion.
When I've eaten it in south west France it's almost always with parboiled potatoes 'roughed up' by shaking in a pan with the lid on with some crushed garlic, then roast in the oven in the duck fat from the tin and served with French beans.
So I'd say you are not a million miles away from it, especially as the other times have been with douphinoise.
Purple Cabbage.
I fry it with onions, balsamic, and something to sweeten it a bit. (Maple Syrup, Honey, Red Currant Jam). Goes nicely with duck.
also consider an Onion Marmalade.
Duck does of course have a traditional (albeit perhaps no longer mainstream) place in European cuisine, for which there are many different ways of severing it. However, if you're a fan of Chinese cuisine I highly recommend trying plum sauce as an accompaniment. This is a traditional and common way of serving (crispy) duck Chinese-style - not least in take-aways! If you're feeling bold, you may even want to try making it yourself.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.153801
| 2010-09-18T11:32:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7424",
"authors": [
"Jan Corson",
"Kricket",
"Marysol",
"Mike Miller",
"Nate",
"Rachel",
"Ron Goldsmith",
"UnadulteratedImagination",
"Waleed Almadanat",
"ar31",
"diegohb",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"phatskat",
"user15242",
"user58901",
"voodoochild"
],
"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
}
|
42923
|
Preserved lime is browning and fading inside the brine
I read a lot about preserved lemons (TLDR: quarter them, and keep them in a mix of lemon juice and salted/brined water for 10-30 days), and I'm trying it with limes. But...
Two things concern me about my current mixture:
The lime skin, which was a nice vibrant green, is turning a dark greenish (almost brown) colour
In some places, the colour leeched off entirely and it's white (like the inside of the rind
Am I doing this right, or is this starting to rot?
I brined them in a combination of salt, water, and lemon juice for about three or four days prior to noticing this. Now (another four days later), they're even more dull-coloured.
(I don't have a picture, sorry. On closer inspection, the dark green/brown looks like it's fading.)
Can you tell us a little bit more? What does your brine consist of and what method are you using exactly? How many days in are the limes?
I have since sliced them open, and they seem to be doing okay.
Its normal for the skin of the lemons to turn brown. I have never made this with anything other than lemons and hawaiian salt. These are left in the sun for a bit, 5 months are so. Often times the jar is turned on its side and rotated every so often. You can Google "Kitchen Craig, Recipes from my kitchen" for a very good recipe and explanation of the process. He also has a photo of his preserved lemons so you can compare.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.154044
| 2014-03-22T19:16:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42923",
"authors": [
"Deirdra Strangio",
"Gemma Savage",
"Jonathan Homer",
"Rammah Alensari",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18696",
"spammer"
],
"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
}
|
36295
|
Black tea water: Does boiling water first make a difference?
When I make black tea, I usually put the leaves (or tea bags) into cold or room-temperature water before I start boiling it. I've noticed that certain cultures always insist on first boiling the water, and only putting in tea leaves once it reaches a full, rolling boil.
Does boiling the water before putting in the leaves make a difference? I tried both ways and couldn't find a difference in taste. It seems like boiling for more than a few minutes means both would have similar levels of oxygen (not sure why that would make a difference).
To clarify: I personally *boil my tea leaves (or bag) for several minutes, as in 10-20 minutes or more. It seems like the other popular way to make tea is to steep in boiling water for several minutes.
I would like clarity on whether putting the leaves/bags in cold water makes a difference, especially given the time-scale of boiling (should it be shortened).
You don't need to go to anything wacky like oxygen for there to be a difference; the steeping temperatures (and probably times) of the two methods are totally different.
@Jefromi my question is not about steeping; it's about boiling. Yes, some of us boil our tea leaves to death.
Could you clarify how you're making your tea then? I assumed that this was about the difference between "boil, drop tea bag in, wait a couple minutes, take it out" and "put tea bag in, bring to a boil". If you're instead boiling for a long time either way, that's a bit different.
@Jefromi clarified. The process is "put the bag in cold/boiling water, wait 10-20 minutes, and take it out." That's the question: cold or boiling water, what's the difference?
Possible duplicate of: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10721/does-boiling-water-instead-of-warm-water-hurt-the-flavor-of-tea-hot-chocolate?rq=1
Are you actually holding it at a boil for 10-20 minutes? If so, I'm not sure this is exactly a duplicate; it's just that the boiling water extracts so much more than the cooler water as you're bringing it to a boil, so those few minutes don't change anything.
As you boil your tea for so long I can't see any differences. Boiling water before maybe useful in some country where you are not sure of water quality. Most teas recommend brewing temperature under boiling water some as low as 70°C. Fun part there is an ISO for brewing tea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3103
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/41873/67
In Turkey, we have a two-pot system (çaydanlık) for making black tea.
Lower pot is used to boil the water, while upper pot contains the loose tea. This helps the tea leaves to get somewhat conditioned before steeping. Boiled water is poured over the loose tea, then steeped for about 15 mins. The lower pot keeps the upper pot warm enough to help release all the flavors. Then, the tea is diluted with the boiling water when served. Glass is preferred for serving, to see the color mostly.
It is told that boiling the tea leaves or even adding boiling water could burn them and make the taste bitter.
This way tea tastes awesome.
As you're heating the temperature of the water will rise at different rates, depending on the amount of heat, on the quantity of water, and on whether the pan is covered or not. With the tea in the pan, this would create an infusion gradient, as the temperature rose over a varying number of minutes.
If you boil the water first, then infuse, you've fewer variables: the quantity of tea and the quantity of water. So you'll have less to adjust to get the brew perfect.
I don't see how you could brew even the finest black tea for 10-20 minutes without over-extracting it, producing a stewed, bitter flavour that dries the tongue.
It does impart a lot of flavour as well. If I cut down the brewing time, how else can I extract so much flavour without over-extracting?
I've never tried your way, but I'm satisfied with the flavour I can get with boiling-water steeping. If it is possible to brew tea for such a long time without stewing it (sun-tea?), then it's something I'd like to try. Might try it this weekend. What's your recipe please?
From my brief experience, I put my tea bag in the pot, pour a cup of tap water (room temperature) and heat until the boiling point - this gets me a better tasting tea from cheap tea bags (English Breakfast, Earl Grey - or so said in the box).
When I got loose tea leaves (Twinings Earl Grey and English Breakfast caddies) I tried the same and the result wasn't as spectacular as I hoped. For loose tea leaves it works best if the leaves are poured boiling water rather than getting boiled along with it
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.154223
| 2013-08-25T13:17:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36295",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"ColdCat",
"CoolRekterizer",
"Joe",
"Julie Crook",
"Lisa Richards",
"Markus Waas",
"Nobody",
"Shashwata Samanta",
"Sondra Alvarado",
"ashes999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9109",
"silves89",
"user85155"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36537
|
Panko-breaded tilapia, medium fried, non-stick pan, absorbed oil
I just cooked some breaded tilapia. The breading consists mostly of panko. As per my "chef" training, to bread it, I did the usual:
Dusted the fish in flour first
Dipped it in egg next
Dredged it in panko last
I fried about 4-5 pieces with maybe 1/4" of oil in a non-stick frying pan -- gas stove (medium burner, medium heat). I'm surprised that by the time I finished the fourth piece of fish, I had to put more oil.
I thought the addition of flour, and the fairly high heat, should have prevented the fish from absorbing oil. I don't think the oil was too cold, because after I flipped the fish (two minutes on one side), the panko looked golden brown and a touch burned.
What did I do wrong?
I don't think that you made something wrong, the panko will absorbe oil
@Dr.Molle that's not what I learned. According to my classes, the right combination of hot oil and flour before egg/crumbs should prevent the food from absorbing much oil.
preventing the food from absorbing much oil doesn't mean that it didn't absorbe any oil. furthermore there will be oil on the surface(put the fish on a towel and you will see it)
There will always be some oil absorption, but it is minimized with good temperature control. You need 1) an infrared thermometer (or lots of experience) to keep the oil at 185 celsius, and 2) lots of oil (so it won't cool down the moment the cold fish hits it and get absorbed while slowly getting to optimal temperature).
@rumtscho please convert your comment into an answer.
It's not the fish absorbing most of the oil, it's the breading. When you cook something starchy in oil, it's going to absorb SOME of the oil. Using high heat minimizes the amount of oil that it will absorb, but it's always going to absorb some. Furthermore, panko has a lot of surface area. Some of the oil is just going to get carried out of the pan on the surface of the breading, which will probably drip or be blotted off later.
That much oil? Really?
No lie. Did you put the fish on a draining rack or paper after cooking it? You'd be amazed at how much oil can just stick to the surface of things.
I did pat the fish down, but very little oil came out of the first few pieces. The latter ones, though ...
The oil will cool down when you put the fish into the pan. Wait a minute before you fry the next pieces to give the oil time to reheat and evaporate fluid.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.154647
| 2013-09-05T00:44:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36537",
"authors": [
"24aplus",
"Dr.Molle",
"JDS",
"Nima",
"Rexcirus",
"SourDoh",
"ashes999",
"howard",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85748",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85795",
"qfwfq",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18000
|
How to recook a roast?
I bought a chunk of vacuum packed beef from the discounter. The label said "roast meat", and didn't indicate which cut of beef it was. It was lean meat (4% fat), but that's normal in Europe.
I roasted the meat with some glaze, at 175°C, until the probe showed 63°C. Then I seared the crust on a 320°C iron pan. It turned out somewhat rare (I suspect the probe isn't good enough), but still looked like a perfectly good roast. But when I started eating, I discovered that the meat has enough connective tissue to be practically unchewable in this state.
Now I want to recook the meat and eat it. My first idea was to make goulash, in chat I got the advice to make a stew. The point is, while I know that theoretically it should work, I've never recooked meat, and I don't know if there are some details I'm overlooking. Also, is there a special kind of stew particularly well suited to my case?
Is there something special about making a stew or a goulash with precooked meat, different from using raw meat? Am I forgetting something here? How long should I cook the meat? (Assume that I start measuring after the center of the meat pieces - whatever size - has reached 68°C). I have roughly 20% to 25% connective tissue, the thickest fascia are maybe 3 mm. The meat is already roasted, seared, rested and cooled (and will be refrigerated when I start recooking).
You don't have to explain the food safety implications, I am aware of them. Just assume that in this case, I am willing to take the risk of eating the recooked meat.
Edit I am not all that interested in recipe suggestions, I guess a common stew will do. What I want is to know how the usual technique of slow cooking changes when the meat is precooked, and if somebody has already done this and can confirm that it works. By the way, the meat is now cut in chunks and marinating in the fridge.
So, overall - how'd it turn out?
I'll often do what my mom referred to as 'planned overs', and make too large of a roast for us to eat, then turn the rest into a stew or something else in the following nights.
The only comment I really have is that if you like the 'fall apart tender', I find it more difficult to get the second time around. I recall that Alton Brown specifically cooked the meat ahead of making a stew in an episode of Good Eats, and in checking the transcript of the episode, he said it's due to the behavior of gelatin:
You can see that the meat is very, very soft. It’s almost like pulled pork in there. We’ve had complete collagen to gelatin conversion. But when this cools for an hour, and if we refrigerate it after that, we’ll see that this is going to change. More on that later.
...
Now, what’s really interesting, though, is that once gelatin has reached the gel state, it takes more heat to re-dissolve it than it did to render it from collagen in the first place. And, believe it or not, that is a good thing
...
Ahh, the meat is perfectly heated through, but it’s not falling apart. That’s because we let it cool down before reheating, and that is why stews, braises, fricassees, and blanquettes are always better the second day.
Based on the fact that there is still a lot of connective tissue - I don't think much of it made it to gelatin in the first place.
@rfusca : good point. It'd likely still need to be cooked for longer than you'd stew from raw for, as you'll need to re-disolve the gelatin so that liquid can get to the collagen so it can render. I'd personally cut it into chunks and let it braise when I can give it a few hours without being in a rush to get it on the table at a fixed time. (and I have turned a rare/med.rare 'london broil' cut of bottom round into stew many times ... it came out fine, but odds are, you've already cooked the center more than I had in my case.)
Even though the answer didn't uncover anything very special about recooking meat, the mentioning of a source made me reasonably secure that there isn't an important thing I have overlooked (I like to think that if there was one, AB would have mentioned it). And the info about remelting gelatin is interesting, even though it didn't apply in the case of my rawish roast. So I accept this answer and not the recipe focused ones - although I think I'll try some of the recipes in the future.
Stewing tough or thoroughly connective-tissued meats is, by design, something you do for a long time at pretty decent temperatures. Since your meat has already been cooked once, if anything you are going to be cooking it slightly less than what is described in whatever stew you decide on. Your food safety concern is admirable, but as long as you observe good food handling safety and cook the meat thoroughly, you should be good to go.
I will reiterate the chat's suggestion for a stew as a good one. However, a stroganoff (which is an American version of an Eastern European dish, I believe) would also be a good option. Basically any beef dish where the beef is diced up evenly in size and stewed in a sauce for a long while will work in helping you to use up this meat.
A stroganoff (in the European sense of the word) is not a stew, it's usually made with fillet steak fried very quickly.
I will try to find an example of the type of recipe I am referring to -- we always made it with onions, mushrooms and stock that cooks down with the cubed meat for at least 20 minutes, but longer if you had used a 'worse' cut of meat.
@Elendil : Although no, it's not a stew in some regards, slicing it up and then cooking in that style might be a reasonable way to try to loosen up the connective tissue.
I'd imagine that's the American version. Hereabouts it's a sauteed dish: fry the onions until soft, add mushrooms and soften, add fillet steak (coated in paprika), add brandy and flambe, add mustard, add sour cream.
@ElendilTheTall - I'm american and thats (your version) how I've always had it.
I'd suggest a chilli. Most people make it with ground/minced beef, but it's fantastic with chunks of 'stewing' beef. I usually use beef brisket, cut into large chunks (say 5cm) and simmer it for 3 hours before using 2 forks to pull the meat into shreds. Then bring back to the simmer for another half hour so the sauce reduces a little.
I've never made it with pre-cooked meat, but as it will be sitting in sauce for some time there should be no problems with dryness.
Make shredded beef enchiladas.
The cut of meat was probably better targeted for this use in the first place. Slow-cook it for 3 hours or so in a covered pot with your favorite salsa for moisture and flavor. Be sure it cooks long enough that it practically shreds itself. Also, consider throwing in an diced onion, diced green chiles, and some hot sauce or hot chile peppers. When the meat is done and shredded, roll it in four tortillas, pour over a can of enchilada sauce, and top with cheese. Garnish with sliced olives, sliced green onions, and maybe cilantro. Bake for a half an hour and everyone will love it.
I guess that to all intents and purposes your meat after roasting would be in a similar condition to pieces of meat after frying off to get a good surface colour and start flavour reactions before stewing. So I can't see any reason why it should behave any differently. What you now need to do is to trim off any thick sinew, put the meat in a stewing liquid of your choice, bring to a simmer and cook gently for about 3 hours on the stove or a gentle oven (130 deg C). I have occasionally used left-over roast meat for, say, curries, and they have come out fine.
A short report from the battlefield ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H kitchen. I marinated the meat, then cooked the pieces for 2.5 hours in a dutch oven. Added potatoes, parsnip and carrots, together with some dried herbs and then cooked for another half an hour. It went really well, resulting in a very tasty stew.
A side result: I took the slightly-too-runny homemade mayo which was intended as a sauce to the roast, and mixed it into the stew. It tasted unexpectedly good, giving a creamy consistency to the stew liquid.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.154914
| 2011-09-25T22:44:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18000",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Joe",
"Katey HW",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7082",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53988
|
How to make sugar glass without corn syrup or cream of tartar?
I'm trying to make a relief sculpture copy out of sugar glass. I don't live in the US, so the corn syrup is not easily available. I read in multiple recipes that cream of tartar can be substituted with any edible acid, like citric acid.
I'd like to know more about the chemistry behind the ingredients, and find edible substitutes. Additionally, how can I make sure that it doesn't lose transparency and go brown? And what about preventing it from cracking too soon?
Could you clarify a few things? Then I can answer most appropriately. 1- I've heard the term sugar glass used in the sense of a sheet of transparent sugar, to simulate a sheet of plate glass. It sounds like you're trying to cast sugar in a mold; correct? 2- If you are willing to consider other not-exactly-sugar but still generally edible, consider using isomalt. 3- Have you done much sugarwork? If not, I'll give some more basics. 4- The [tag:glass] tag is for actual glass; I recommend removing it.
@hoc_age I'm not at all set on sugar, it can be anything I can get and not poison anyone. The "mold" is probably gonna be several layers of aluminum foil on top of some clay (inverse imprint). I have never done anything like that before, but I thought it might be fun. I also like sciences, so I would very much like to know about the processes.
I was composing as @Melissa was responding... here's some more detail to append to my comment above.
Sucrose is a disaccharide consisting of fructose and glucose. When boiled with water, it forms a syrup. When this syrup cools, depending on the relative concentrations of sugar and water, different properties will result (e.g., liquid, thread, firmball, soft crack, ...). However, sucrose by itself has impurities; these impurities will tend to cause (or help to form) small grainy crystals (think granulated sugar) instead of a smooth, transparent, uniform, glass-like candy. This potential for crystal formation is why, e.g, ...
stirring or disruption of cooling sugar syrup is not recommended;
other things are added (fats, other sugars, etc.) for things like taffee or hard candy;
As noted by @Melissa, other sugars (such as fructose and glucose are found in corn syrup), are added that help to reduce the likelihood of "bad" (undesired) crystal formation. You should be able to find corn syrup or other alternatives by mail order. Other options include pure glucose syrup.
You may be able to find golden syrup, which has basically similar properties to corn syrup, but it probably has too many other impurities to make it suitable for candy making. I don't know about maple syrup, honey, or agave syrup.
Your question about acid is an excellent one: Acids aid in the formation of invert sugar. Invert sugar is sucrose ("table sugar") that has been (partially or completely) chemically broken down into its constituent monosaccharides: glucose and fructose. Heating alone will start this "inversion" of sucrose into glucose and fructose; acids will help speed this reaction.
Other possible acids include citric acid, but I wouldn't recommend lemon juice; again, it's got too many other impurities. Powdered, purified citric acid can often be found at Indian grocers; it's useful for cheese-making also.
Basically, the addition of corn syrup and the addition of acid fill a similar purpose: providing monosaccharides to prevent the formation of undesirable sucrose crystals in your cooling sugar syrup. Strictly speaking, you don't need to add anything to get a glass-like candy; however, it's difficult. Adding invert sugar or catalyzing invert sugar formation with an acid will help improve the margin for error.
Also, as I said in comment above, you might consider using isomalt instead of sugar (i.e., only isomalt in place of all the other sugar; no sucrose, no corn syrup, no acid). It's basically edible in small quantities, but I wouldn't eat a lot of it (of course, I wouldn't eat much sugar, either...:). Please look up information on the edibility and safety for more information on the quantities you're discussing. That said, sugar sculptures aren't often intended for actual consumption...? Isomalt melts directly (no water needed) and doesn't crystallize as quickly as sucrose. It's more expensive but easier to work with in some ways. It's less hygroscopic (water absorption) than sucrose, and won't caramelize (browning) as sucrose.
HTH; respond to comments and I could provide more detail if helpful. Good luck with your sugarwork!
When you make sugar glass, the role of the corn syrup is to halt crystallization.
This is needed because otherwise the sucrose molecules will form around any impurity in your sugar mixture.
If you do not have access to corn syrup I would suggest finding other ways of halting the crystallization process such as: lemon juice, maple syrup,honey and agave syrup.
Good luck!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.155687
| 2015-01-25T22:16:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53988",
"authors": [
"AirRelief Services",
"Ivo Osborn",
"Ivy Cronk",
"Kathy Bradford",
"Ora Schaffer",
"Trebor Davis",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"user1306322"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71856
|
Is there a way to tell the grit coarseness of an unmarked sharpening stone?
I've received a few sharpening stones with different coarseness and even one double-sided two-colored stone. Is there any way to tell how coarse each stone is and which stage of sharpening it would be appropriate for? I'm not experienced in sharpening and I'd like to learn.
I was suggested to mark the edge of something made of metal (not necessarily a knife I'd like to sharpen) with a black marker and slide it once across each of the stones, make a macro photo of the removed black paint and compare the scratched areas. Is this a viable method? I don't have a macro-capable camera so I can't try it myself.
problem is my stones are not radically different from each other, and I can not tell apart 3 of them :/
A fine stone could feel coarse if the surface got roughed up, a coarse one could feel very fine if it got glazed over or polished. Good medium and fine stones often all feel rather smooth to the touch anyway...
BTW, good sharpening tutorials on YT: Anything by Jon Broida, anything on the channel of Korin Knives, anything by Murray Carter, anything by Mino Tsuchida. Yes, these are done by people that are in the knife business. Professionals.
With some experience you can tell by running a finger over the surface.
As a general guide:
grinding stones used for serious repair of knives form damage of long ngelect; will feel disticly rough, not as rough as sand paper but you can definitely feel an abrasive surface.
sharpening stones : these will have a smooth surface but will have a definite 'drag' or friction to them, a bit like rough paper. These are used for normal sharpening of knives.
Polishing/finishing stones : these will feel very smooth with just a hint of texture, a bit like magazine pages. Used for refinement and polishing of a cutting edge .
There’s more to it than just grit size and there are complexities that won't show up in your marker test.
What kind of material are they made from? Are they intended as water stones or oil? The waterstone is the hard mineral mixed with weak clay so it comes off and makes a slurry when you work it. On the opposite end are ceramic or metal stones that don’t wear at all but are meant as a permanent surface holding the hard grit (typically diamond).
Of the non-permanent type the amount it’s supposed to wear will vary, and the resulting slurry may be more or less friable, meaning the actual effective grit size changes as you use it!
So, unless they are all the same type meant to be used as a set, you can’t tell anything.
You just have to know the technique appropriate to that kind of stone (oil or water? Work up a slurry or keep it clean?) and get a feel for what that particular stone does for you.
If you don't already know sharpening I think you should get rid of those unknown stones, or ignore them until you do know more. Get instructions and stones to match that have known characteristics. You'll also need secondary materials like little stones used to prime the water stones, strops and compounds to use on them, guides and gauges for getting the angle just right, a way to dress and flatten your stones, stuff to get gunk out of oil stones, etc.
Unknown, cheap stones are usually great for flattening the better ones :)
Use caution: I’ve had the coarse grit contaminate the fresh surface of the flattened stone.
Valid point. Most cheap coarse grit stones (and that is what i would assume an unbranded, unmarked stone to be if it comes that way new) are hard as bricks though and lose very little of their material.
So not waterstones. I know the one you mean: $2 at the restaurant supply company.
Yep :) But honestly, whenever somebody says "oh, I got some whetstone...", it is very likely to be exactly that :)
Completely agreed. I have a stone that's two-sided, 3000/6000, and the only way I found out which side is which was to email the manufacturer. The 3000 side actually "seems" smoother.
I had a similar issue, oke I am a little seasoned but not very much.
Never the less I found for myself a solution that might work for you or others.
First though I will mention my personal issue:
I have about 10 wetstones of different courseness running from 120 to 2000.
Some had markings still, some not.
Some were knowingly of the same courseness (so twice)
Some were of different (coloured) materials (orangie/white) both probably corundum.
The easiest way to compare the coarseness was by listing to the difference in tone of the material grinding over the wetstone (I took an old knive) the finer the grit, the higher the tone I believe. This gave me an easy comparisment and get me sorted out. Of course it does not give you a value! is only compares..
I need to mention that I am pretty tone deaf, so if I can hear the difference anyone should be able too.
The way to do some more determination besides "feeling" with your fingertips might be, to scratch your nail across the surface of the stone.
Your fingertips (at least mine) will have difficulty determining if you're actually handling a 2000 grid or 4000 grid...with your nails the difference is easily made...just my 5 pence...
First try cleaning the oil off the stone with some kerosene and a stiff brush. You can soak it for a little while. Then try a flattening technique by taking some wet-dry sandpaper (Gator Power Red Resin 120 or 220 grit works well) on a sheet of glass with some kerosene on it. Rub the stone on the sanding sheet soaked in kerosene in a circular motion to clean and flatten, rinsing with kerosene as you go. I use a small pan to dip the sandpaper in to clean it as I go. After a while it will be clean and flat, exposing the grains of the stone, which need to be exposed anyway to sharpen your tool. With the nice clean stone, use a jeweler's loupe (hand-held lens) of 16x, 20x or 30x to look closely at the grain size. If you could measure the grain size, you could consult a grit-size chart to gauge what you have. But since you will probably not have a way to measure the grain size, you could at least compare it to a stone of known size and get an idea of it. Knowing that natural stones rarely go over 1200 grit, you could at least estimate what you have. If nothing else, you will have learned a lot and had a good time doing it.
Simple suggestion: take the stones to your nearest knife shop, and ask them. That's really the only way that's likely to work.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.156058
| 2016-08-03T17:31:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71856",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"JDługosz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"rackandboneman",
"user1306322"
],
"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
}
|
73152
|
Can I selectively breed my sourdough starter?
I have a nice bowl of sourdough starter sitting in my kitchen, and I love making my bread as sour as possible.
Right now I let my loaves rise for a little longer, but is there a way I can alter my starter's environment to select for a sourer mix of microorganisms ("selective breading" would probably be the appropriate phrase)?
You could leave out some of the starter for longer to get the appropriate level of sourness (split off from the fed batch), and then if more leavening is required near the end of the bread-making process add some commercial crack yeast to speed things up. Also try more water in the starter, as that might favor LAB over yeast.
see also http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64979/how-to-get-more-lactic-acid-vs-acetic-acid-in-sourdough
Yes, but it might have other effects that make it less effective as a leaven.
When I was experimenting with sourdough in the past year or so after a long hiatus, I had a pretty good batch going and parked half in the fridge, then had some life events that caused the part that was out to be left 24 or more, not 12 hours between feedings, and it turned very, very sour - but it also didn't do much for raising the bread.
Unless you are fixated on getting there via sourdough, I'd suggest picking up some citric acid if you like your bread "as sour as possible" - though even that might do in your yeast if you use too much - of course, there's always really sour flatbread, I suppose, by either method.
Thanks! After doing a bit more research, I also found this article gave me some additional guidance. But adding some citric acid seems very feasible, especially considering any starter will end up drifting back to the locally prevalent microorganisms.
Or yogurt. Home made stuff gets pretty sour, and lactobacillus in bread type things add flavour.
Given that you are working with a combination of bacteria and yeasts in a "wild yeast" culture, it's going to be very difficult to specifically engineer that. Indeed, the tendency is that, eventually, whatever wild yeast combination is native to your area eventually infiltrates or even takes over most cultures.
If your just looking for a little bit more "sour" you could try "sour salt," which is pure citric acid. Some view that as cheating, but as an enhancement to a natural sourdough culture, as opposed to trying to fabricate it, entirely, it comes out not tasting forced.
When I set out on my quest to find citric acid at a reasonable price in reasonable quantities (100 lbs was pretty cheap per pound, but far too much for casual use) I learned of the sour salt name and looked for that. Have never yet found it. Eventually found citric acid (sold as citric acid) in the mostly Indian spice aisle at the Asian food market. This will vary by locale, presumably.
I've found it in the canning ingredients and materials section of the grocery store (you can use it as a prep for drying or canning foods to keep the foods from oxydizing/browning). I think they sold it in a plastic jar, kind of like the ones they use for store brand garlic or chili powder. Not cheap, but since you use fractions of a teaspoon per loaf, it goes a long way. Here's a baking supply company - King Arthur's (I highly recommend their live sourdough starter culture as well - very sour, very strong raising action): http://www.kingarthurflour.com/shop/items/citric-acid-sour-salt
The idea that "native" wild yeast combinations would take over is wrong. The environment in your starter jar is the single most important factor for establishing a culture. Even if the yeasts were so different in different parts of the world, you couldn't breed yours at an arbitrary combination of pH, temperature, etc. In reality, the theory of "local strains" has been disproved as myth, the large differences in starters are due to different starter methods plus local temperature.
Nonsense. Unless your kitchen is sealed like a biolab at safety level 4, when you open your starter to use it, when you feed your starter, any organisms in the air are going to mix in. It make take a very long time, and it may not entirely take over, but it is going to eventually change your starter. The idea that the combination of flour and water in a jar would magically favor one combination of yeast and bacteria significantly over another one is kind of silly. How do local strains even exist, under that scenario? If it has been proven a myth, please link to sources.
From what I read in Flour Water Salt Yeast, if you let your starter ferment at lower temperatures it should encourage the production of acetic acid, which is more "sour" than lactic acid normally produced by your lactobacilli.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.156587
| 2016-08-15T02:06:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73152",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Journeyman Geek",
"Kupyn",
"PoloHoleSet",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"rumtscho",
"thrig"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55641
|
What does "de-bearding" mussels mean?
Have come across this in quite a few recipes, that mussels need to be cleaned and de-bearded. First time cooking shellfish so just want to be sure I know what they're talking about. Thanks.
The beard is also known as byssus threads. They are the filaments that the mussel uses to secure itself to hard surfaces. They are usually brownish and may appear somewhat like seaweed. Most mussels commercially available have been farm-raised so often the beards have already been removed during processing. If you have beards, grasp them firmly and pull towards the shell hinge until it comes out. You may need to use a dry paper towel to increase your grip as they can be slippery.
Firmly is right; it's important to pull slowly. Yanking will sometimes pull flesh out along with the beard.
Pliers can also work if you can't get a good grip : grab the beard with the pliers, then rotate the pliers so you slowly pull the beard away from the shell.
De-bearding simply means removing the seaweed-like fibers found sticking out of the shell. Usually you can just pull it off/out with your fingers. This is less of an issue with farm raised mussels. I usually rinse and quickly take a look at each one, discarding broken mussels and de-bearding the ones that need it.
My edits should sufficiently answer the original question, since the OP did not ask for a definition of the beard, rather he or she wanted to know what the process meant.
I agree that the question doesn't ask explicitly what the beard is but I still don't think it's a good thing to have factually incorrect answers. I also agree that your edit has fixed the problem so I've undone my downvote and removed my comment.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.156956
| 2015-03-12T18:54:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55641",
"authors": [
"David Richerby",
"Debbie Kelley",
"Holly Leadbetter",
"Joe",
"Laura Hatcher",
"Lily Stewart",
"Michelle Sweeny",
"Skip Wamel",
"Susan Jones",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jscs",
"laura gerber",
"moscafj",
"victoria alexander"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73277
|
Do products derived from coconut need to be kept cool?
I have something that's a mix of coconut oil and butter gee. How should I store it? It turned brick hard when I put it in the refrigerator. Here is a picture. UPDATE: I tried keeping it in the cupboard and it completely separated and liquefied :(
I also have something called coconut manna and am not sure if it should be refrigerated?
Hi Celeritas, your post ended with a separate question unrelated to the rest. We can only answer one question per page, so if you want that answered, you should write up a new question about it. Also, it would need some explanation to understand what exactly you want answered. It is a beginner question, which is not a problem in itself, but if you want to hear more than "it is self evident" or "this doesn't make sense", you can explain what your knowledge of the situation is, why you think the products are "unrelated", so people can tell you how they are related.
@rumtscho understood.
Coconut oil solidifies around 80°F (27°C). It's not surprising that happened in the fridge.
No need of refrigerating. We routinely use various forms of coconut oil for cooking and traditionally even for use as hair oil. Same applies to coconut manna. I'm speaking from experience. If you need more proof, there's this and this.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.157157
| 2016-08-20T10:51:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73277",
"authors": [
"Celeritas",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14149",
"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
}
|
64499
|
Whenever I put breadcrumbs on chicken breast, they turn out soggy and moist
Whenever I make chicken strips with bread crumbs it comes out rather moist and soggy and not crisp and crunchy. I cut the boneless skinless chicken breast into strips, mix them with some egg and oil, add some salt and pepper, then roll them around in the bread crumbs. I then use my George Foreman Grill and even on maximum temperature they're too moist. Why does this happen and how do I fix it?
This doesn't happen when I'm cooking chicken without the breadcrumbs so I think it has something to do with them. I am using Panko bread crumbs.
The classic method of breading ("Wiener Schnitzel") is a three-step process:
flour
Only a thin layer: you can add salt or spices to the flour instead of or in addition to seasoning the meat.
egg
Lightly beaten (not foamy); let excess drip off well.
breadcrumbs
Either fresh or dried, the egg helps the crumbs to adhere. Lightly pressing the crumbs to the meat is optional.
But there is a fourth component that will ensure your success: fat
Yes, we are all trying to "eat healthy" and monitor our fat intake, but unfortunately fat plays an crucial role in good breaded food. Whether it's deep- or shallow-fried, the hot fat ensures a good heat transmission and quick setting of the breaded crust, thus locking moisture inside.
Your GF grill is an excellent kitchen tool, but defeats the purpose: Your crust can't bake quick enough in the dry heat and touching the hot surface only partially. Combined with the heat from the grill and a significantly longer cooking time, the moisture that steams out of the meat will literally be drawn into the crust - leaving you with sub par results.
Save your GF for other uses and use a pan with some oil to fry your chicken.
Side note:
Some recipes for fried chicken recommend baking the floured chicken pieces in an oven to save fat. Note that a fried chicken is typically a two-step coating with an outer layer of flour, so slightly other rules apply.
Nevertheless, this method might be an option for you and worth a try, but don't expect the golden crust you get from traditional frying. I have used an oven with breaded meat, but typically with partially fried food, so that the breading already contained fat / oil from the first round of frying.
One thing worth a shot is to dredge the chicken in flour before dipping in the egg.
Thoroughly dry the chicken first with paper towels, then dredge in flour. Dip the chicken in egg and let the excess drip off. It's possible that the moisture in the egg is contributing to the sogginess, so next time you could try a few nuggets waiting for a few minutes to let the egg dry a bit to get tacky before applying the breadcrumbs.
Another thing that might work well for you is to use panko (Japanese breadcrumbs) instead of regular crumbs.
@Stephie I suggest letting it dry a bit because it might ameliorate the sogginess. I'll edit the answer to suggest doing it both ways to see.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.157290
| 2015-12-17T03:09:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64499",
"authors": [
"Amandeep Singh",
"Anthony Murphy",
"Cherolyn Kunda",
"Diane Poole",
"Indira Emrith",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lani Myron",
"PEB",
"Simon Olai",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66707
|
How is sushi supposed to be eaten?
Yesterday I was at a banquet that was serving sushi rolls. Some had rice on the outside and others had seaweed on the outside. I wasn't able to find chopsticks. In terms of etiquette is it alright to eat sushi by hand? If relevant I'm in North America.
Also, I heard it's a North American thing to mix the wasabi with the soy sauce before dipping the sushi in. How is the soy sauce and wasabi intended to be used?
It's my understanding the ginger is to reset the taste pallet so you should eat a little before switching to a different roll.
EDIT: but if you're provided with chopsticks, you should use them, right?
Obligatory funny video
The funniest thing about that video is that it is mostly absolutely correct :)
"I heard it's a North American thing to mix the wasabi with the soy sauce before dipping the sushi in" - for what it's worth, Chinese people in Germany seem to consider this the natural way to use the wasabi and soy sauce in all of the many Chinese-run sushi restaurants over here. It might not be the Japanese way, but it certainly is not specifically the American way.
Relevant comic about over-adhering to etiquette.
@O.R.Mapper it's an interesting point, I guess one's probably best off following the etiquette for where they're at: when in Rome, do as the Romans do.
Honestly @Celeritas, I see making a small effort as simply being respectful, but Japanese and North American cultures are very different. The bottom line is have fun with the atmosphere and enjoy the food. Use your hands or use chopsticks; use wasabi and ginger in the way that most pleases you. The etiquette 'rules' here are just hints that might help keep you from a moment of feeling awkward.
@Celeritas As my friend always says, "When in Rome... eat Chinese."
Clean your hands before you eat. Often, you will be given a hot towel for the purpose. Return the towel to the server neatly folded.
It is fine to eat sushi with your hand, as long as there is rice with each piece of fish. Sashimi (sliced fish not prepared with rice) should only be eaten with chopsticks.
If you sit at the sushi bar, feel free to converse with the itamae (sushi chef) if he's not too busy, and to order sushi from him. Do not order anything but sushi from him, order non-sushi items from your server. It is classy to ask the itamae to recommend a sushi item or even to ask him to surprise you. If there is something you know you don't like (uni is mine), let him know because it is very rude to not clean your plate. By that I mean don't even leave a grain of rice.
Mixing wasabi with the soy sauce is so common that you can get away with it, but it is considered kind of tacky, at least in a fine restaurant. So is eating ginger with a bite of sushi. You're correct that it is intended as a palate cleanser between sushi 'courses'. Again, if you want to, you're not going to get kicked out for it. In fine sushi restaurants, sushi is often not served with wasabi on the side. After all, the chef is an expert, he knows more about sushi than you! And presumably he knows how much wasabi should go on each piece of sushi. If you really want more, go ahead and add it if it's there, or let the itamae know your preferences in the matter.
Regarding dipping into the soy, try not to soak the rice of nigiri-zushi (shaped rice with a slice of fish on top). Just lightly dip the fish. Ideally, place the bite into your mouth fish down. Try to eat the whole piece in one bite. If you must, bite it in half but don't put the second half back on the plate. It's funny, but the video in @Mel's comment to the question shows tossing a big piece of sushi down pretty well :) Just know that the dunking it in soy sauce is a joke!
If you are in a part of the word where tipping is expected, tip the server and itamae separately. Often there will be a jar on the bar for tipping the chef. He would rather not touch money while he is working.
You can offer the itamae a sake if you're so inclined.
Finally, leave your chopsticks laying across the soya bowl between uses, or on the holder if there is one. Never leave them on your plate or (heaven forbid) sticking out of your rice.
Regarding your edit, not necessarily. It is completely optional to use chopsticks to eat rolls or nigiri. It is entirely up to you. It's like using the provided spoon to eat the usually provided miso soup. Drinking it from the bowl is totally acceptable.
If you do want to use the wasabi, should you mix it with the soy sauce or apply a little bit to the part of the sushi you first bite into, or what?
In the US, so many people mix wasabi into the soy sauce that I wouldn't worry about it if that's the way you prefer it. After all, in the US, the wasabi is usually there to do with what you want. If you want to mix it into soy sauce, do it. I'd only worry about that if you're worried about appearances like if you're interviewing for a job (or maybe on a first date with a sushi expert :) If you want to look like an expert, ignore the wasabi. Otherwise, eat it the way you want to.
BTW, very few sushi places in the US use 'real' wasabi, but it can often be found in grocery stores and you might find it in sushi bars if you call around and ask. I actually prefer the usual colored horseradish to the real stuff, probably because I got used to it first. It's worth checking out just to learn the difference.
@Jolenealaska - I'm imagining the conversation the next day "yes, the date went well, mostly. I have a tough time thinking about this guy, long term. He mixed wasabi into the soy sauce at dinner. What a clod."
If you want more (or less) wasabi in traditional Japanese sushi, just ask the chef. Then he'll put more (or less) on. (If I'm given wasabi on the side and not in the nigiri, I'll usually just insert the amount I want on my own, rather than mixing it in the soy sauce.)
I am living in Japan now and I am surprised that I have already internalized all of this advice without even realizing of it.
Re: "it is very rude to not clean your plate. By that I mean don't even leave a grain of rice": A friend of mine once told me that it's considered rude in Japan to completely clean your plate, because it implies that they didn't feed you enough. Was she mistaken, or this a difference between restaurants vs. homes, or . . . ?
Never had sushi the proper way, very enlightening, one up.
@ruakh The idea that leaving anything (including a grain of rice) on your plate at a sushi bar is rude is pretty ubiquitous on the web (I did a quick check just now to confirm). I learned sushi etiquette from an experienced sushi chef, so I am pretty confident on that point. It may be totally different in a home. The basis for it seems to be that it is wasteful, so it may very well be different in a home, especially when leftovers get eaten.
The great majority of sushi served in the USA is barely better than completely tasteless, at least compared to sushi in Japan. Federal regulations require fish be frozen and thawed before being served raw in the USA, which seems to be part of the problem. Many places in Japan do not even offer soy sauce, wasabi, or ginger with sushi, and you don't need it. In most places in the USA (i.e., anyplace that has no Michelin stars), I have no shame about using tons of wasabi, soy sauce, and ginger, because that's necessary for me to enjoy the sushi. I'd say eat it how you like it in America.
@ToddWilcox That requirement seems strange, unless it's simply a matter of preservation (as just freezing seems unlikely to get rid of any bacteria/whatever that would be likely to cause harm).
@JAB It is true that for most fish to be sold raw in a US restaurant, it must be sushi grade, "the FDA provides guidance under their Parasite Destruction Guarantee. This states in part that fish intended to be consumed raw must be 'frozen and stored at a temperature of -20°C (-4°F) or below for a minimum of 168 hours (7 days)'." http://www.pbs.org/food/fresh-tastes/myth-sushi-grade/. However, I don't find any noticeable difference in quality between freshly caught wild Alaskan salmon and premium sushi grade Alaskan salmon. It's about parasites, not bacteria.
@Jolenealaska I see, so it's specifically for fish known to (potentially) have parasites that can be killed by subzero temperatures.
@JAB Yes, but that is most fish. It certainly includes salmon. I'll look up what if any fish can be sold as sushi in the US without being frozen. EDIT: It's a bit hazy, but apparently farm raised salmon (ick), yellowfin and bluefin tuna are exempt. I was not able to find any other exemptions to the rule in a quick look.
@ruakh I often heard that phrase from my friends who follow Chinese culture, but never heard of it from Japanese one. Probably it's kind of localized East Asian culture... or the way they're eating (eating calmly until clean vs wildly)
@AndrewT. I think that's exactly right.
+1 on the video! Also, watch Jiro Dreams of Sushi!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1UDS2kgqY8
I can't wait to tell my Japanese wife to stop mixing wasabi into her soy sauce.
I studied abroad in Japan for two semesters, and stayed with two different host families. Every single member of each family mixed their wasabi into their soy sauce. I gather the advice not to do that really only applies in really nice restaurants/sushi bars, or in settings where you want to impress someone. As far as eating every single grain of rice, they told us that at orientation when we arrived in Japan. It was stressed that if your chopstick skills allowed it, you should eat every single bite of food, down to the last grain of rice.
Enough people have commented that even Japanese mix wasabi with their soy sauce, at least in casual settings, that I have edited the answer a bit to reflect that.
It sounds like you were served sushi rolls as finger food, and if chopsticks are not provided, then you are expected to eat it like the other finger food, with your fingers. There isn't really etiquette involved as this isn't a restaurant setting. If you are having a sit-down meal, and there are no chopsticks provided, you could always ask for a pair.
Typically in Japan's fine dining sushi restaurants, sushi maki (the rolls) are not served, only sushi nigiri (individual portions,) and neither wasabi nor soy sauce is provided to its patrons. The chef will add the wasabi he/she believes is the correct amount for the piece of sushi, usually placing it between the bed of rice and the piece of fish/squid/scallop/etc. The chef will also brush down the fish/squid/scallop/etc. with the appropriate soy sauce mixture (it's a blend of soy sauce and other stuff) he/she believes is the correct amount. So all you really have to do is pop it in your mouth. Chopsticks or hands are actually fine, just make sure you pop the entire thing in your mouth, don't bite it in half.
Wasabi is also only good when grated fresh. The chef will use a special wasabi grater as he/she is serving your sushi. Most likely, you are thinking of green-dyed horseradish. My recommendation isn't to eat it, but feel free to try it however you like.
The pickled ginger is used as a palate cleanser, yes, it's between fish. Your sushi should be served in a particular order, but failing that, it should still be eaten in a particular order. You start from the lightest, and work your way to the heaviest items, in terms of flavour. This order is something like: scallop -> squid -> white fish (e.g. ヒラマサ, hiramasa, kingfish) -> red fish (e.g. マグロ, maguro, tuna) -> fatty red fish (e.g. マグロ大トロ, maguro ootoro, the fatty belly of the tuna.)
If you are in a restaurant that provides soy sauce, dip your chopsticks into the soy sauce and brush it onto the fish/squid/scallop side (don't dip the rice side into the sauce, it soaks up way too much and it just tastes like soy sauce.) If you are eating sushi maki, brush it onto the cut side of the piece.
If you're provided with chopsticks, would it be considered bad manors not to use them?
No it isn't, and you can see that in @Jolenealaska's answer too :)
@setek well, if everyone else in the group is using chop sticks it's probably wisest to follow along :)
Never had sushi the proper way, very enlightening, one up.
@Celeritas would be worth learning how, it should only take a little while to get comfortable enough :)
@Celeritas It does make you just a little extra suave when you're in situations that call for them. Or you could just one-up critics by pointing out that traditionally it's acceptable to eat sushi with your hands :)
Don't get me wrong, I normally DO use chopsticks, I'm more curious if it's ok not to...
@setek I've been to some fairly high end Japanese restaurants and I've never seen them grate the wasabi at the table...
Hi @Celeritas sorry I should've been more clear, they grate it as the sushi is ready, which I can see as I dine at the counter, however if you're at a table, you probably won't see it happening?
An info-graphic I found on the topic a little while ago that I believe answers your question quite well:
Source: iLoveCoffee.JP
In terms of etiquette is it alright to eat sushi by hand? If relevant I'm in North America.
According to the info-graphic there is no wrong way to eat sushi as long as it makes it into your belly. I would agree with this however I would recommend at least attempting to use the chopsticks.
It's my understanding the ginger is to reset the taste pallet so you should eat a little before switching to a different roll.
That's it!
but if you're provided with chopsticks, you should use them, right?
Again you should at least attempt to. It's not a bad thing to learn :)
This is a fun graphic and it does answer the question well. To make it a better answer consider adding a link to the original site and also adding some text in your own words.
Do you have permission to reproduce this image? The page it's from has a copyright notice and I see no indication that it's okay to reproduce in its entirety, even with attribution, so for now I'm going to remove it. If I'm mistaken and this is permissible, feel free to roll back the edit (but Jolene's point still stands).
From the site on the contact page **Using my images** Please credit and link my site when featuring my images, then it's all yours! (Please don't steal.)
Works for me as far as the permission, and the graphic is really fun. I still recommend adding some of yourself to the answer.
With the changes - very good. I wish I could send this infographic to my in-laws, who eat mostly deep fried rolls covered in mayonnaise...
The wasabi-nose recommendation is just SO WRONG!! Or it's not real wasabi...
I always take issue with the bit about rubbing your chopsticks together -- if doing so is necessary, the utensils are cheap. Giving your guests splinters is rude, avoiding them is not. Great graphic though.
How would you feel about including a cropped version of the infographic, and linking to the full one? It's kind of huge, so people have to scroll an awful lot to see any other answers, and a lot of the information in it isn't directly answering the question.
I have never seen anyone eat sushi with their hands in the U.S., and I basically live on a sushi diet. That said, if everyone else were doing it and if the sushi tasted good enough, I would totally eat sushi with my hands.
Re: wasabi. Put it in the soy sauce. Eat ginger between pieces if you want to.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.158039
| 2016-02-22T02:50:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66707",
"authors": [
"Adrian George",
"Andrew T.",
"Ann Strehle",
"Bob",
"Cascabel",
"Celeritas",
"Francisco Presencia",
"G FRANCOIS",
"JAB",
"JTP - Apologise to Monica",
"Jackie Dale",
"James Flattery",
"Jeff Bowman",
"Joe M",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kimball",
"Kirsty louise",
"Kurt Faulkner",
"Margaret Foster",
"Mary Hay",
"Matthew Read",
"Mel",
"Michael Phillips",
"Ming",
"Morley Biggs",
"O. R. Mapper",
"Rowena Caulfield",
"Sammy Hall",
"Sara Leiste",
"Tanya Rich",
"Tashina Tupai",
"Todd Wilcox",
"Wendy campbell",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"coburne",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8672",
"malix",
"pamela withey",
"ruakh",
"sally barton",
"senschen",
"stephen nicholson",
"thanby"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7617
|
What is unique about veal and how can I take advantage of this in my preparation?
First off, I'm talking about what they call Rose Veal here, not the crate Veal which has given the meat such a bad name.
So, I've tried a few recipes: a roast, a stew and some breadcrumbed escalopes. The escalopes were fantastic, but I can't honestly say any of it was better than the equivalent dish made with beef, or pork where a milder flavour was desired.
But, the veal wasn't exactly cheap, so am I missing something? I'd sort of expected something a bit more special if I'm paying a premium for it.
Are there some specific preparation methods and/or pairings which show the meat off better? What is it people enjoy so much about veal and how can I accentuate that quality?
Hey robin, recipe requests are considered off-topic here but I think the question you are trying to ask is how to bring out veals flavor which would probably be better as a community wiki anyway. You can see some examples of these here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/search?q=community+wiki . You can also see what is considered on or off topic in the faq at the top of the page.
Veal is naturally tender, with a mild flavor.
I'm currently living in an area where I don't know where to even get veal easily, but we'd have it for special occassions at my great-grandmother's house growing up.
Think if it like the cow equivalent of lamb. Anything that comes out well in lamb (shank, rib chops, shish-kabab, etc) works well. My mom would also get a 'meatloaf mix' of beef, veal and pork growing up to use in meatballs and meatloaf, which I've since learned that the fats melt at different temperatures, which makes for a more juicy meatloaf.
I don't know that I've had enough veal to comment on what people enjoy so much about it. (Although, I love osso bucco, and I don't know how a grown-cow equivalent would come out).
I also don't know that veal was always considered the "delicacy" that it is today -- male cows (bulls) can get agressive when get older, so they were culled at a younger age. As I don't see veal for sale, and I don't see fields full of bulls, I can only assume it's either exported to other countries, or that it's used in products like dog food or processed products where people won't get obsessed with ethical issues so much. (and if that's the case, it's not being sold for high value).
thanks, I've seen a few references to Osso Bucco so will maybe make that my next experiment. I was starting to think the historic place for Veal might have been as a relatively cheap meat seen as a side line to milk producion but hadn't got as far as looking at any old recipes yet to try and confirm/deny this. Some more investigation to be done I think. Thanks again.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.159246
| 2010-09-26T09:17:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7617",
"authors": [
"Chipsgoumerde",
"Ellie",
"KatInNM",
"Kirsteen",
"Notre1",
"Robin",
"ak112358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"linda",
"sarge_smith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7343
|
What does "crowding mushrooms" mean?
I heard on a film the other day that you shouldn't crowd mushrooms when cooking them? What does this mean and how do you avoid doing it?
Someone watched Julie & Julia recently. :)
Indeed I did. :)
It's not the mushrooms that are important, it's the "crowding" -- basically, you don't want so much food in the pan at once that the bits are packed tightly, or in more than one layer.
This is especially important for items that give off a lot of water as they cook (like mushrooms), or that you're trying to get to crisp up, as you want to leave space for the moisture to evaporate and escape without causing the food to steam.
Yep. I find this is one of the mistakes that beginners (or generally poor cooks) make the most. The result is mushy, bland, unbrowned food and they aren't sure why. Another cause of this is fear of turning up the heat sufficiently.
Bingo. Applies to much more than mushrooms - pan searing meats, veggies, etc.
This is old-school advice, and mostly wrong. When sauteeing vegetables, it's important not to crowd the pan, or many of the vegetables will steam, and become soft, without getting the benefit of browning from direct contact with the pan.
But mushrooms aren't vegetables: their structural protein is lignin, not cellulose, so they react differently. You can crowd mushrooms, and they will release a lot of water and steam themselves, but they won't become soft like steamed vegetables. As long as they make contact with the pan after all the water has been driven off, you can crowd them as much as you like and it will make no difference.
The difference it will make is that if you crowd your mushrooms, then by the time the water has boiled off and they have gotten a chance to brown, they will be much more heavily cooked (because they steamed for the time it took for the water to boil off, and then browned after that). In a sparser pan, you can brown them quickly without cooking them for as long (because what little water is released quickly boils off due to high surface area). Maybe you like heavily cooked mushrooms, but it's not "no difference."
It takes 10 times as long to steam-cook a mushroom to the equivalent level of, say, cauliflower, and they're almost impossible to overcook. It is true that in an uncrowded pan you will drive the water off more quickly, and the mushrooms will therefore steam for less time. But I doubt you would be able to tell the difference in a blind test.
If you think mushrooms are nearly impossible to overcook, then it suggests you are targeting a much higher degree of doneness than I am talking about. Using a sparse (and hot!) pan is important if you are trying to get surface browning while the mushrooms still retain some of the "brittle" texture of raw mushrooms. I agree that if the texture you are targeting is "standard cooked mushroom texture," crowding makes no difference
@A_S00 : we don't know why the recipe said not to crowd the mushrooms, but Lee makes a valid point -- there have been a lot of "mythbusting" type reports out there, and people have shown that if you're trying to fully cook mushrooms, it's actually faster to steam them at the beginning to start the process of getting them to give off their moisture. But we don't know why the recipe said not to crowd, and so it's impossible to say if the recipe was based on bad science, or if the lack of steaming is important.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.159491
| 2010-09-15T20:43:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7343",
"authors": [
"A_S00",
"Bluebelle",
"Csharp",
"IceCold",
"Joe",
"JustRightMenus",
"Lee Daniel Crocker",
"Michael Natkin",
"Mr. Rabbit",
"SeanLi",
"ceejayoz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8764
|
Why should I wrap a cake tin in newspaper?
I have a Christmas Cake recipe which instructs me to "wrap the outside of the [cake] tin with a few sheets of newspaper, securing with staples or string". What is the reason for doing this, and is it really necessary?
my recipe calls for cardboard ... i guess the same thing as you ... as long as you use plenty of newspaper
As @Joe suggested below, turn the heat down a little and let it bake longer.
A Christmas cake is a large cake and you're cooking it for a long time. Insulating and padding the tin helps prevent the outside of the cake from scorching before the inside is properly cooked.
Would it be the same if you used a silicon pad?
@dassouki : probably not, as the pad would just insulate the bottom, not the sides; if the sides bake too quickly, you'll get a domed top as the center continues to rise while the sides have already firmed up.
@joe : I agree, I guess I meant including a bottom and a side one as well, in essence it'll be a silicon "pan" inserted in a classic one
@dassouki it's not something i've tried
@Tea Dinker Something like the blue one http://homecookingrocks.com/silicone-baking-pans/
@dassouki : you could probably just use the silicon pan, no other pan needed. (unless it's a light colored, shiny pan, in which case it'd help to reflect radiant heat), or just turn the temp down about 25F / 15C and cook for a longer time.
You can also just use brown paper and string if newspaper appears to be 'dirty'. My mother would always wrap the tin with brown paper to twice the height of the tin (partly because that was her mother did).
Worked too - never burned or too crispy on the top. She'd do the same with certain other fruitcake recipes as well.
As an alternate, depending on your recipe, is to use an angel food cake tin; i.e. one with a central hole.
It allows for heat to better hit the batter as the cake is not so thick at any one place.
My recipe, from my grandmother, from an old Toronto newspaper "The Telegraph", actually calls for such a pan.
No padding required, just foil over the top to stop it from browning too quickly. But remember to poke a hole in the foil to match the hole in the pan, or you will defeat the natural convection created through such a pan.
Bluebelle When I was a child my mother made a Xmas cake. This was a recipe unknown to her at the time. The inside of the tin was lined with the accepted brown paper stuck to the tin with fat. The outside of the tin was covered with 4 layers of newspaper and the cooking time was over an hour longer (about four and a half hours). I also remember her saying that the oven temperature would not be cool enough and doing both linings would allow a longer time in the oven at the higher temperature. The outside paper acted in the same way that we now use aluminium foil while cooking in the microwave. It was also known the brown paper was least 3 time the cost of a newspaper in the early 1960s.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.159828
| 2010-11-02T09:20:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8764",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Chuck Dee",
"Franz Kafka",
"Ginger",
"Joe",
"Renan",
"Tea Drinker",
"Ylisar",
"dassouki",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9511
|
Why use chopped tomatoes and tomato paste/puree?
I have seen a number of recipes that call for a tin of chopped tomatoes and some quantity (usually a tablespoon or two) of tomato puree (USA: tomato paste). What is the reasoning behind using tomato puree as well? Does it give a different texture or flavour?
Do you mean "puree" or "paste"? They're quite different products, and a tablespoon or two of paste is pretty common, while a tablespoon or two of puree is not. Also, I note that you're using a British English spelling of flavor/flavour. Perhaps that's the distinction? In the US, "paste" comes in either a small can or a tube, like toothpaste. "Puree" usually comes in a larger can.
I am in the UK and the puree I am using comes in a tube like toothpaste. It is probably the same as what you are calling paste.
@Harlan In the UK tomato puree is the US tomato paste. What I believe you are calling puree we tend to use the Italian word for passata (di pomodoro).
Tomato puree is concentrated tomato. So where it is called for in conjunction with other tomato products, be they fresh or tinned, it is an attempt to increase the tomato flavour/presence in the dish without increasing the bulk or water inherent in less concentrated products.
Additionally the flavour of puree, having gone through a reduction process is somewhat different, more intense and rich than straight tomatoes.
Indeed, canned tomatoes tend to be surrounded with juice that is more reduced than would occur naturally. Which is part of why they are used against fresh tomatoes.
Yes, and also, tomato paste adds a bright red color that can be hard to get with whole tomatoes, and you can saute it, which caramelizes the sugars in a way you couldn't do with whole tomatoes.
@Harlan Unless you reduced the whole tomatoes first, which is time consuming and equivalent to using puree in the first place.
Now knowing that you're referring to what is known in America as tomato paste and not actually crushed/puréed tomatoes, the reason is very simple: It's a thickener.
Tomato paste (or purée or concentrate in the UK) has been reduced to remove almost all of the water. When you introduce it into a sauce, it will soak up all of the excess water and make the end result far less watery.
It's not a "thickener" in the same sense as starch; there's no chemical reaction taking place. But when added to a sauce it will give you a creamier texture at the end.
Many homemade tomato sauces I've tried that other people have made are extremely watery and some people seem to prefer this (I know a few Italians who insist that it is more "authentic") and other people claim that using tomato paste is "cheating" somehow. I've never understood that; good cooking uses whatever ingredients are available to produce the highest-quality food. If you're not using crushed tomatoes as a base, then it's often wise to add some tomato paste so that you don't have a big pool of water collecting at the bottom of your pasta as you eat it.
I don't think that's correct. My understanding is that tomato paste is used for color and to add umami (glutamate) flavors, without all of the bulk of whole tomatoes (as you note). It might mean you don't have to use a watery product, but I don't think it "soaks up" water... If you have a citation to the contrary, please provide it, though!
Well I've marked it up, because it certainly does result in a thicker consistency than using straight tomatoes. Whether or not this is why people use it is a matter of debate, but the fact is true.
@Harlan: It can be used for that too (I've used it in stock), but that use is irrelevant in the context of this question; any recipe that also calls for chopped tomatoes is clearly not trying to avoid the bulk.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.160214
| 2010-11-27T11:19:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9511",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Bluebelle",
"Chaitanya Bilgikar",
"Harlan",
"Loie Benedicte",
"Mic",
"Nims",
"Orbling",
"WilderSoul",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45",
"vclaw"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8968
|
What is the best way to clean a roasting tray/baking tray that has sauce burned on to it?
I made this recipe last week - chicken wings roasted in a marinade of soy sauce, brown sugar and white wine vinegar. It was delicious but lots of the marinade has burned onto my baking tray, and I'm struggling to get it clean.
I put it in to soak immediately, scrubbed and then tried washing powder, but it is still very firmly stuck on. Does anyone have any cleaning ideas that might help me in this case?
What is the pan made of? It makes a huge difference to cleaning methods.
When you say washing powder, are you talking about supermarket stuff like Ajax or a specialty product like Barkeeper's Friend?
@Aaronut, I actually thought "washing powder" = laundry detergent, so I was mightily confused. Thanks for the alternate interpretation. :-)
No - I think you may have had it right Marti - I mean powder we put in our washing machine to clean clothes.
I have no idea what Ajax or Barkeeper's Friend are I'm afraid!
Half fill it with water, then put in on the stove top over a medium heat. Work the burnt-on bits with a wooden spoon or spatula as the water starts to boil. You should be able to soften it up and be able to get it off then.
I do this with vinegar instead, just a little bit and it pulls everything up.
@Bluebelle, great! did you go for just water or vinegar too?
There is a special tool that I use for tough pot cleaning jobs. It is a small hard nylon square, with three curved corners and one more pointed corner. The edges are slightly beveled. I have several that came with my order of pampered chef bakeware. I think you might be able to buy them retail or online also.
Ammonia does a really nice job on pans with a lot of burn on black debris that won't come off with scrubbing.
Remove the bulk of the debris on the
pan,(you're already there)
Then place the pan, and a container
with some 1/2c(120ml) of household
ammonia in a plastic bag.
Close up the bag (doesn't have to be totally air
tight).
Leave it sit for several hours to
a couple days.The burned
on stuff will come off pretty easily.
Then wash the pan normally.
I strongly advocate letting the pan/bag combination sit outside or in a garage or very well ventilated room during the soaking phase.
This works great on broiler pans, but I have used it on other pans as well.
Do NOT use this technique on aluminum pans.
what happens if you use the technique on aluminum pans?
And what happens on copper pans?
I managed to clean a roasting tray with some icky sticky grease solidified on it that simply wouldn't come off.
I put it under the grill for 10-15mins at 220degC, then took it out and placed it in my steel sink then (carefully and with one hand in an oven glove!) I put a small amount of washing up liquid on and scrubbed it with a steel wire scourer.
The grease, which now seemed to have been burnt by the heat came off very quickly.
Obviously this comes under the "don't try this at home kids" but I didn't need any potent cleaning products.
There's not much to say about this: The only thing you can try is to use fat-resolving detergents. The rest that is really burnt to coal has to be removed physically by hand. No way around this, unfortunately.
Baking Soda and vinegar made to a paste, use paste to buff pot or pan with a soft cloth. Works like magic.
Works like water, which is exactly what you get when you mix those two. Separately, they work OK as cleaners; together, they make water. I guess if it's still pasty then you've got a little extra baking soda, which is equivalent to just a baking soda paste - the vinegar has been entirely neutralized before it hits the tray.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.160564
| 2010-11-09T09:27:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8968",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Auli Saarepuu",
"Bluebelle",
"Gabriel",
"Manako",
"Marti",
"Menachem",
"Rageesh Geetha Raman",
"Rick",
"Sam Holder",
"erik",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9460",
"manavo"
],
"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
}
|
10220
|
How do I adjust the cooking time for two joints as opposed to one?
I have a recipe for roasting sirloin of beef. It calls for a 1.5-2kg piece of meat. I couldn't find a piece this large, so have two half sized joints - one about 950g, one about 700g. My recipe tells me to:
Roast for 30 mins at 200 degrees C.
Turn heat down to 180 degrees C and cook for 10-15 mins per 450g, depending on how rare you like it.
Rest for 30 mins in a warm place, wrapped in foil.
How do I adjust this for two separate pieces of meat? I am aware that they have a larger surface area and don't want to overcook them, or dry them out. Can anyone help me?
Cooking times ought to be very similar because the oven radiates (a lot of) heat. Surface area doesn't generally enter into it unless you're cooking stovetop, in the oven it's volume that matters. But as talon8 says, you should always use a thermometer to check doneness.
Cooking by time isn't always the most reliable way to judge done-ness. I would just use the times (as is), as a guidline, but insert a thermometer and aim for 135-140 F for medium rare.
The thermometer is the best guide. As there are many, many factors that can affect actual cooking time.
talon8 is absolutely right: the best way to go about this is to use a thermometer. However, it is still an interesting question how the expected cooking time varies with the weight of a roast.
It is such an interesting question that in 1961, SIAM Review published a scholarly article entitled "On Cooking a Roast". To be a bit more precise, the question that the authors answer is this: Suppose we have two roasts with exactly the same combination of identical tissues, and the same shape except that the one is a scaled (blown up) version of the other. Let's weigh both roasts and compute the ratio between the two weights; let's call that ratio r. Suppose furthermore that the roasts have the same starting temperature, and we will cook both until they have both reached some given (higher) temperature at their centre. What can we say about the times that both roasts need to cook for?
The answer is that under these assumptions, the bigger roast will need r^(2/3) times as long as the smaller one.
So, assuming each small roast (700 and 950 grams) has the same shape as the big one that the recipe writers used (let's say 1750 grams), for the 950 gram roast you'd expect to use (950 / 1750)^(2/3) = 0.665 or about two-thirds of the cooking time, and for the 700 gram one you'd expect to use (700 / 1750)^(2/3) = 0.543 or just over half of the cooking time. In particular, for the 950 gram roast, you should expect to roast it at 200C for 20 minutes, then turn down to 180 and roast for around 0.665 * 1750 / 450 * 12.5 = 32 minutes more. (1750 / 450 * 12.5 = 49 minutes is the average time they would recommend for the 1750 gram roast, and we're using that as the base for comparing our 950 gram roast against.) Then check with your thermometer!
Finally, I think for the resting time, you might as well use the original 30 minutes, because that's not (only) about getting the internal temperature to a certain level (although it does contribute to that - the heat will spread out through the meat), but also about things like the muscle fibers relaxing and the like, which are not covered by the article.
Your roasting time is going to be as if for a smaller roast. The time that it takes to roast something is based on the time it takes to get the internal temperature to "cooked" depending on how you like it. The bigger the roast, the longer it takes for the internal temperature to reach the correct temperature. It is based on the distance from the outside to the inside on a roast, so two 3 pound roasts will take a good bit less time than one 6 pound roast. By contrast, if you have a very flat thin 6 pound piece of meat, it will take less time to cook than the 3 pounders.
In your example, base your time on the smaller of the two roasts. THEN use an instant read thermometer (or get a probe thermometer that stays in the roast with the beeper outside the oven...you won't regret the purchase).
When your 700g roast is "done" pull it and cover it. When the larger roast is done (thermometer again) pull it and cover it. Or, alternatively, if you have people who like their roasts at different levels of doneness, finish the larger roast to the lower level of doneness, knowing the smaller roast will be done more.
I am no chief or expert, but I do enjoy cooking. So I have always used the method, 2 three pound roasts = 6 pounds! Okay, one 3 pound roast beef would be about 45min for medium rare, this would not be long enough for 2 of them, but it would be too long if you cooked it for 90min, (adding 3+3=6). So I do 45+23(half of 45) and cook for 68 min. It seems to work for me, always perfect ( I don't know why) but if you try this method, please let me know how it turns out. Thank You, Deb
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.160918
| 2010-12-16T20:30:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10220",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Barend Venter",
"Dirk Star",
"Genia",
"Kimberly",
"antass",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"senthil"
],
"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
}
|
12676
|
Can wine gone bad be bad for you?
Unfortunately, wine will eventually go bad. The time this takes can vary from a few years to many decades, but most wines eventually will get there; and things can always be sped up by improper storage. The result of this is mostly associated with loss of good taste and / or development of bad taste.
My question is if that's all, or if wine can also develop properties that can be bad for your health (apart from the health risks already associated with normal wine)? E.g. is it possible that wine gone bad can give you food poisoning or similar?
Wine will eventually turn into vinegar. So, other than having a really icky taste by itself (unless you like drinking vinegar :)), it isn't bad for your health and you can cook with it.
This is not vinegar-like, this is plain vinegar. Very good one indeed.
We've about a cup left from half a bottle of a red wine that went to a particularly pleasing vinegar on us a couple of year ago. It's served in salad dressing and soups of every description since then. Yum!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.161314
| 2011-03-01T00:41:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12676",
"authors": [
"Ben Grant",
"Grofit",
"Kyle Sletten",
"Mary",
"Matt Lyons-Wood",
"cookedupbyron",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26159",
"lynn99",
"mouviciel",
"user19987",
"vsync"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84248
|
Peanut Butter Cookie Dough Like Gravel
I made peanut butter cookie dough twice. I got the recipe from searching online, so I'm fairly sure it's a good recipe (one of the to search results).
The first time, I put half a cup of peanut butter instead of butter (as instructed), refrigerated the dough overnight, and it became really gravel-like and crumbly; difficult to form into cookies.
Thinking it was a lack of peanut butter, I made it again with a full cup of peanut butter the second time; same results.
Thinking more, it's probable that the peanut butter is hardening in the fridge, which is where I'm storing the dough. Is there anything I can do about this? How do I make the dough more malleable?
There's not really any such thing as a "standard recipe for cookies"... find an actual recipe for peanut butter cookies.
Do you really mean gravel, as in a bunch of small hard pebbles? Hard and crumbly, maybe? But yeah, unless there's some specific reason you want this recipe for peanut butter cookies, Catija's second point is probably right: you effectively have a bad recipe, and the answer is to find a good one, not try to repair the bad one.
@Catija it is an actual recipe for peanut butter cookies. I'll remove that point, since that seems to be a distraction from the real issue: crumbly, dry after refrigeration.
@Jefromi I'm pretty sure it's a good recipe (one of the top results when searching). It's small dry pebbles, but crumbly, not hard.
Could you please link to the recipe? Your question says "half a cup of peanut butter instead of butter (as instructed)" which strongly suggests you are modifying a recipe, possibly in a way that makes it not work well, even if it was part of some instructions. (But if it's a peanut butter cookie recipe, you shouldn't have to replace butter with peanut butter, so we're confused.)
@Jefromi it looks like this is the original recipe from Food.com
Okay, thanks. Where did the instruction to replace butter with peanut butter come from?
Looks like a fairly standard PB cookie recipe, but I too am confused. Are your really saying you removed the butter from the recipe? That is not going to work. Also, what style of PB did you use? Not brand, but style, chunky, smooth, etc. That could effect but not make inedible. Refrigerating might also effect it a little, but should not be drastic.
@dlb yes, I removed the butter; I think this was my mistake. I used Kraft (I think) smooth peanut butter.
So I'm glad you got an answer eventually, but for what it's worth, I think we could've gotten you there a lot faster if it'd been easier for us to discover that the "as instructed" in your question wasn't quite real - there was never a trustworthy recipe that said to do that.
@Jefromi I'm not going to argue. I disagree.
@ashes999 It wasn't really meant to be an invitation to argue, just a statement of fact: I would have immediately written an answer like dlb's if I had known that replacing butter with peanut butter was not in fact an instruction that was part of a trusted recipe ("as instructed" in your question), and I imagine the same is true for others like Catija as well.
Experimenting with recipes is great, but on the first pass it is usually best to stay with exactly what the recipe says unless you are adjusting for altitude or another standard substitutions. In truth, it is why we usually look up recipes to begin with, to start with something others have found to be tried and true.
I experiment and substitute all the time myself, but try to keep it like items with similar qualities, but maybe a taste a little more to my liking. PB and butter have very different qualities and a straight one for one swap in a recipe where they are major ingredients are like to not be the results you want.
Call it a lesson learned and try it as written would be my suggestion. If you want more PB punch, add a bit extra, but keep the butter in. I have seen recipes without an additional fat, but typically they would call for a much shorter cook time and likely would produce a cookie that is drier and crumbly even then. Most PB cookies I have made or had tend to me to have a dry taste, even when visibly not dry, and this increases quickly when even slightly over-cooked, and that is without removing a key ingredient.
This is actually the correct answer. My hand-written notes mistakenly suggest substituting butter with chocolate (I tried PB after the first batch was similarly dry). Adding 0.5c butter to the dry dough did wonders. Thanks for posting this.
I've made a ton of peanut butter cookies. I use the Cook's Illustrated recipe (behind a paywall, sorry) which is amazing. It's designed to enhance the peanut flavor by adding additional salt and using chopped peanuts in addition to extra chunky peanut butter (they specifically recommend Jif brand).
Your recipe, based on mine, is all wrong. Mine uses twice that amount of butter (two sticks, salted) and sugar (one cup each of white and light brown) for the same amount of flour and eggs. It uses a cup of extra crunchy peanut butter in addition to the butter.
I don't think you can blame the peanut butter alone for the grainy texture, though. It's likely a lack of moisture content because a half cup or even a full cup of fat really isn't a lot when it comes to 2.5 cups of flour. When you refrigerate dough, it loses moisture - fridges dry things out - so whatever small amount of moisture you had is reduced even further.
Chilling cookie dough is certainly a good way to restrict the cookie's spread but overnight is probably a bit of overkill. This article from King Arthur Flour states that as little as 30-60 minutes is more than enough time to combat spread and chill the dough.
The longer you chill cookie dough, the smaller the changes become.
Call it the law of diminishing returns. The major difference is between no chilling at all vs. chilling for 30 minutes. After that, the baked cookie continues to evolve – though very gradually.
The longer it sits, the more grainy it will get, so you need to allow for that:
That’s fresh dough, at left; three-day-old dough, at right. The longer the dough chills, the drier it becomes.
As a note, the recipe used for the test above (for chocolate chip cookies) is here. It uses 2 c flour, 1 egg, 1-1/3 c sugar (half and half white and light brown), and a full cup of fat (half butter, half shortening).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.161459
| 2017-09-08T20:38:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84248",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"ashes999",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5714"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15667
|
How to make bubble tea - the "real" (tea-less) version? Is there a way to create the powdered flavoring?
I've been unsuccessful thus far in recreating Khmer bubble tea, or the pastel-colored bubble tea one can find at many small cafes and stands.
The specific kind of bubble tea I'm looking to make uses the following:
flavored sugar powder/creamer
ice
water
tapioca pearls in syrup
Can anyone lead me to the proper way to make the flavored powder/creamer? I'm NOT looking for any varieties with fresh fruit, tea, honey, or anything else. This is an original variety of bubble tea (obviously with no real tea!) from Southeast Asia, and I can't seem to recreate it. My combinations of creamer, extracts, and sugar have failed thus far, resulting in a sugar water with little actual flavor. I'm looking for what might be a place to find the actual powders, or a possible makeup of the ingredients used. The result should be a bright color, a more creamy than watery texture, and full-bodied flavor.
A photo of the bubble tea (bright colors, hand mixed, not sealed by a machine) can be found here.
There are ways to order giant packs of the flavored powder/creamer online, but I really don't want to pay $15 for a pound of one flavor if I can create a version of it myself. Any ideas?
Can you please explain (in the question) how your attempts have failed? What was wrong with them? We don't do recipes here but if you can describe a specific problem then someone can likely help.
Sure thing. I know we don't do recipes, but I'm hoping someone might know the place to buy, the makeup of the actual ingredient, or something that will lead me to the right answer. When I've tried in the past, my drink is not sweet enough, it has no flavor, and it really tastes like nothing in general (except for the taste of sugar syrup from the pearl solution). The real drinks have a colorful, milky, and creamy look, and are bursting with flavor, leading me to believe that the main ingredient is a very strong flavoring.
My versions taste like sugar water instead of something more full-bodied. Does this help? I'll try to post a photo here if I can find one.
Yes, that's useful information and I would suggest that you edit your question to include it (a lot of people don't read comments).
You can try finding the powder at an Asian grocery store. The one I frequent has a section of powders that seem like they might be geared more toward a consumer than a restaurant. I just checked: it's a one pound bag. I was able to buy just the one bag, but it was a while ago, so I don't recall the price. According to the bag, the ingredients are Non-dairy creamer, (whatever flavor - I have strawberry and almond) powder, glucose, and coloring. Even though it says it has glucose, you're still supposed to add sugar according to the directions (and it definitely needs it).
As for creaminess, you might consider trying milk/soy milk/almond milk, etc. instead of water. When ever I've made it, it turned out much better like that. The directions call for extra non-dairy creamer, but the recommended amount didn't seem to be enough, so the next batch, I just made it with soy milk (no particular reason for soy over regular: I just don't have regular on hand).
I'll definitely try this if only I can find the powder! I've looked in many Asian groceries for it but have never been able to find it. Was it on the East Coast?
Nope, Southwest, at a mega Asian supermarket. They had all the supplies, including the really wide straws for sucking up the tapioca. Hope you're able to find something. Interestingly, though - using some powder for strawberry milk works pretty well, too. The strawberry bubble tea powder I bought tasted almost like bubblegum, so I tried that instead. With the tapioca balls at the bottom, it's actually quite similar. Which isn't too surprising given the apparently limited ingredients of the original. The only downside is that the only flavor is strawberry! No almond, mango, etc...
As for powders: I'm from FL (east coast) and I have found it in asian markets, although not in many flavors, but you can get consistent results from other powdered drinks found in your supermarket. I'd suggest strawberry or chocolate Nesquik, or instant coffee, or even slimfast powders come in a few flavors, or chocolate, caramel, strawberry, raspberry or other flavored syrups found in the deserts aisle to mix in with the milk/creamer and tea of your choice. You can also check out vitamin and fitness or health food stores for flavored powder drinks.
Also, since it's a cold drink, a simple syrup will mix in easier than sugar granules. A simple syrup recipe is made by just boiling water, then stirring in sugar until it dissolves. I prefer using brown sugar for my syrup for tapioca pearl drinks. (The black pearls are made with brown sugar)
Traditionally, Boba tea was made from tea, creamer, sweetener with pearls added. (Tip: Herbals like Rooibos you can steep forever, but tea shouldn't be steeped more than 4min as it becomes bitter tasting)
Now, often the whole tapioca drink concoctions are made from powders: powdered flavoring (Taro, coconut, lychee, mango, strawberry, orange), with or w/o powdered green or black tea for a base, with sugar, and powdered creamer, shaken with ice, and then poured over the pearls.
In summary, for most bubble tea drinks use tea, not water, to mix in your powders. Don't oversteep your tea. Don't under cook your pearls. For your quest, I'd say vitamin or health food stores are most likely to have your flavored powders (I suggest Vega Health Optimizer- Vanilla Chai is very yummy) Otherwise flavored powders specifically for bubble tea can be found online. Enjoy the journey!
If you're willing to go the molecular gastronomy route, tapioca maltodextrin will turn just about any fat-based substance into a powder. WillPowder sells some for $10/pound or a few bucks an ounce, and they sell on Amazon too.
Otherwise, I'd say you ought to be able to use coffee nondairy creamer or powdered milk to create your own blend. Add dry flavorings to taste, and liquids should be able to mix straight in.
A third route would be to use a freeze-drying machine or very slow stove/oven evaporation to produce your own dry mix.
I've tried several times to use nondairy creamer, powdered milk, sugar, and flavorings, but I'm not even close to the real deal. I could try the more scientific route, but I'm hoping someone knows the actual ingredients that will at least come close. I'm fairly sure that the original formula calls doesn't call for highly unique ingredients. Perhaps someone knows a place to order or locally (Northeast) purchase such ingredients/powders in smaller volume.
@c3peat Maltodextrin doesn't count as a "unique" ingredient. It is commonly used in industrial food production, so it is very possible that the powder you buy at the store has it.
I'm not sure if you still need help on creating the bubble tea, however, what I have learned is that in order to create the bubble tea, you use approximately 1 tsp of the flavored powder for one serving (adjustable to your taste) and some water, about 2 tbsp, to blend the powder (hot water is recommended to better break down the powder). Most people use a cocktail shaker, but as I don't have one, I use any closed cup as an alternative for the next step.
Now that you have the powder mixed with the water, add milk and ice as well, THEN MIX! Afterwards, you pour the drink into the cup with the boba/tapioca pearls, and you're set.
If you wanted a smoothie version, you would make it in a blender using ice, milk, water, and powder.
You are also able to add an additional ingredient to act as an sweetener!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.161974
| 2011-06-21T14:12:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15667",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BARBARA KENNEDY",
"BrownRedHawk",
"Bruce Wetter",
"GeneratorHalf",
"Mag",
"Yaru",
"c3peat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6461",
"rumtscho",
"tinamarie",
"user33210"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34859
|
Is there anything special about fugu meat?
I know that fugu is fairly well known both inside and outside Japan, and wild versions of the fish contains a toxin 1200 times more potent than cyanide. (Fun fact: one species is also the second vertebrate to have its genome sequenced after humans)
What I don't know is whether the fish is famous (and considered a "delicacy") solely because of its potential toxicity, or whether there is something else unique about its meat.
Is there anything unique about fugu meat, such as its flavour or texture?
@hippietrail I think "food-unsafety" would be a better tag than "food-safety"!
According to an article about Fugu at Maldova Welcome:
Some people who’ve tried puffer dishes describe it as one of the most
sublime flavors in the world. Others, apparently less enthusiastic, or
simply more objective, describe fugu meat as a cross between crunchy
and chewy, said by the Japanese to go “shiko-shiko” in one’s mouth
when absolutely fresh. That’s what some consider the main attraction
of the risky meal. But taste isn’t everything. Many say that fugu is
simply addictive!
According to YQ Travelling: "Long answer: like rubber when raw but like silk when cooked."
At New York Food (in an indepth article), Adam Platt says:
Hashimoto’s fugu indeed has a certain clean sashimi quality to it, and
a resilient chewiness, but otherwise it’s a letdown. It tastes
flavorless and gummy, like a cross between Reichl’s fluke and day-old
squid.
[ ... ]
And then the tingling sensation begins. It starts on my lips and seems to be quickly tracking
down the back of my throat. I put down my chopsticks and shift my legs
under the table. I bring the tips of my fingers to my mouth and begin
touching my lips in a tender, slightly agitated way, like a d
dental patient shot full of Novocain.
[ ... ]
our next course, which is a little helping of deep-fried fugu ribs. The bony ribs (“These look
like hamster ribs,” I tell Shinji) are hacked in little pieces, tossed
in flour, and seasoned with sea salt and a sprinkling of the dried
kelp called kombu. The ribs have the nice meaty texture of monkfish,
they’re perfectly fried, and they’re delicious. (This may simply prove
that anything tastes good fried, including bony, potentially fatal
fish ribs.)
However, I suspect the popularity of fugu, especially in Japan is a complex amalgam of factors including:
Pride in cultural heritage, since this is a uniquely Japanese practice, although it is spreading
The enjoyment of the feeling of numbness that properly prepared fugu leaves in the mouth, from just the tiniest traces of the toxin
Popularity of extremely expensive items, which therefore must be special
The art of the presentation, which (as the dish is very expensive) is at its highest levels
Some people are crazy :-)
I was waiting for the last one :)
I think fugu is a specialty served in particular regions in Japan, and so it's one of those things that people like to try on 'regional food travels'.
I have tried fugu sashimi several times, and it is served in a way peculiar to fugu only: sliced paper-thin, and with a special vinegar/soy sauce and condiments. The texture and flavour is a bit similar to extremely fresh snapper - ie. pretty flavourless, and firm/crunchy/rubbery in texture.
So, this is mainly my opinion, but I think in terms of flavour, a certain amount of appeal does exist in the unique way that it is eaten as sashimi (and Japanese love travelling to try unique dishes particular to different areas). I also imagine that until relatively recently it would have been rare, expensive and thus exclusive - though nowadays you can even get it at some regional supermarkets - and a sense of it being a desirable gourmet food is still very present.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.162659
| 2013-06-22T12:48:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34859",
"authors": [
"Dr. belisarius",
"Golden Cuy",
"IceCreamToucan",
"John McGowan",
"VanGogh66",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81317",
"prolific_plus",
"the Ben B"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6867
|
What are other uses for Vegemite or Marmite besides as a spread?
My Australian friend introduced toast with butter and vegemite to me. Recently I saw an episode of "Chopped" on the food network and one of the ingredients in the basket was Marmite. One of the chefs used it to flavor ground beef to make a burger or meatloaf.
I want to know what have you guys used Vegemite or Marmite for...other than as a spread. :)
good question; please mark Community Wiki since it is a list request
@Michael: Your vigilance is appreciated; in the future, please use the "Flag for moderator attention" link, as we can convert the entire thread including answers (and it doesn't require the author to do anything extra). Thanks!
Having tasted both, is answering "an industrial lubricant" reasonable? :)
One good use for it is to amp up the flavor of vegetarian gravy. If you are making say biscuits and gravy, a tablespoon of marmite will add some umami without tasting like soy sauce. Same for a vegetarian pot pie or stew.
I came here basically to say this. I use it any time I need some beef-stockesque base.
It can be used in a similar way to Worcestershire sauce; to add a deeper richer flavour (and salt) so goes well in cheese sandwiches for instance.
The only time you'll see it in a recipe book is as "Yeast Extract" in, for instance, french onion soup.
I use a teaspoonful (marmite - not the vegemite imposter) it in a cheese sauce to beef it up a bit.
Flame War! http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6867/what-are-other-uses-for-vegemite-or-marmite-besides-as-a-spread/7044#7044
In Scotland we made it into a hot drink, when I was a child. I still do that when I find a jar to buy.
I thought Bovril was used for the drink not Marmite?
put some cooked and drained noodles in a bowl, add a generous knob of butter, moisten with warmed cream, and stir in Lea & Perrins Worcester sauce to taste, Marmite to taste, and grated Parmesan to taste.
My Marmite soup, with browned butter and canned pumpkin, is easy and delicious. You can see from the commenters that some people have had different results. If you try it, do let me know how it turns out.
I regularly use Marmite in place of chicken stock, but only when the surrounding flavors are going to be strong enough to mask the distinct yeastiness a bit. One place it works particularly well is in vegetarian orrecchiette with broccoli rabe.
When I first tasted Vegemite, I described it as tasting like vegetable bouillon cubes. :)
Yup, and Marmite is basically the same thing, but with boiled down autolyzed beer yeast.
It's good in french onion soup.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.162986
| 2010-09-07T00:32:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6867",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alexander Rossa",
"Amelioration",
"Anthony Greco",
"Charmaine",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Georgia Dwane",
"Henning Klevjer",
"Ivan Aguilar",
"Joel Tan",
"Jon Snyder",
"KAction",
"Master Blaster",
"Michael Natkin",
"Neil Meyer",
"Ole Nielson",
"Queen Bee",
"Randy",
"Rich Armstrong",
"Shital Shah",
"Tara",
"drewfrisk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13934",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/835",
"milesmeow",
"rebeccaroisin",
"sdg",
"user1187008",
"vinni_f"
],
"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
}
|
16936
|
What is fat tripe?
I was just in Santiago, Chile and had a mixed grill. One of the tasty items was "Tripa gorda" or fat tripe. But, I wasn't able to get a clear answer about exactly what fat tripe is.
Does anyone know what fat tripe is specifically?
Have you seen http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripa_gorda? It seems it was a bull's rectum. BTW, there are also other languages which have a name for the rectum which is a literal translation from "fat bowel", e. g. the German word Mastdarm. And before you think of being squeamish, remember what sausage casing is made of.
I love organ meats, and that makes me squeamish. Rectum is just somehow more disgusting than intestines.
In the US the closest thing you could (easily) get would be "Chitterlings" though this isn't quite correct since chitterlings are the small intestine, and tripa gorda is the large intestine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.163279
| 2011-08-17T19:03:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16936",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"DAGreer",
"Eoin",
"Eugene Petrov",
"Mce128",
"Richard Manns",
"Troy Adams",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43212
|
Is it a problem that the same flipper that touched raw blood touches the finished meat?
I noticed that when I was cooking stir fry, I used the same flipper throughout. This means when I put the meat in, the flipper came in contact with the uncooked meat and got some blood on it. Is this a problem considering it touches vegetables that go in much later? Should a different flipper be used half way through the cooking process?
I thought this post was written by a dolphin at first. I was super impressed.
@Preston Me too. I've proposed an edit to spatula.
@starsplusplus a flipper is different than a spatula
@Celeritas In the US at least, people call these spatulas, along with the completely different utensil for mixing/scraping in a bowl.
@Jefromi interesting, I think in Canada there is a distinction and I think there is some confusion. A long time ago I worked at Home Hardware and a lady asked for a spatula and I took her and pointed out what I thought was it but then noticed the label above was "flipper" and a spatula was something different.
Depends on how paranoid you are.
Technically: Yes, you should be using a different utensil once the meat is cooked. Any contact with raw meat carries a contamination risk, and you can't guarantee the utensil will be heated enough to "cook" it.
If you want to be as safe as possible, reverse the cooking order you're using - stir-fry the veggies first, set them off to the side, then cook the meat, then mix the veggies in again and use a fresh utensil to finish (or wash the current one.) This ensures that the veggies and second utensil only have contact with cooked meat.
Personally? I don't worry about it beyond the obvious - I make sure I rinse the utensil off somewhere in there with some hot (and usually soapy) water, immerse it in the cooking liquid for a bit if applicable, etc. It's not the safest way of going about things, but it strikes a good balance (for me) between risk and convenience. YMMV, obviously.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.163402
| 2014-04-02T04:13:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43212",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Celeritas",
"Hugues",
"Jane Sadleir",
"Joymall",
"Marcus Müller",
"Poloxio Market",
"Preston",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22662",
"infinitezero",
"kirogasa",
"ogjano",
"starsplusplus"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78246
|
Difference between saucepan, frying pan and skillet
What, if anything, is difference between a saucepan, frying pan and skillet? I am heating up some frozen vegetables and the directions said to boil 1/4 in a saucepan. This doesn't really work as 1/4 cup is not much and the pan I used is so large it barely covers the whole surface.
To be complete, the word "pan" in general means any flat metal surface I take it? For example you could also have a baking pan.
1/4 of what measurement? When heating frozen vegetables the amount of water you use won't make that much difference.
Skillet and frying pan are fairly interchangeable - generally a broad (usually around 30cm), circular pan with slightly sloped raised sides around 2-4cm high.
Saucepans are much deeper in relation to their base width, however. Saucepans come in a variety of sizes, with small pans generally being about 15cm across and around 10cm high, all the way up to big stock pots that can hold 3 or 4 litres of liquid that will be a good 30cm tall if not more. Saucepans almost always come with a lid.
Frying pans, as the name suggests, are made for shallow frying food. Saucepans are made for making sauces and cooking things in liquid. They are better suited to this as the higher sides and narrower base, along with the lid, serves to give better control of evaporation.
Boiling vegetables in a frying pan, with a large surface area to evaporate off and no lid to keep the liquid in, will mean you will either burn your vegetables or constantly be topping off the pan with hot water.
If you are going to be cooking small amounts of vegetables regularly I would suggest you invest in a smaller saucepan, or a set of three different sizes to give you some options.
A frypan or skillet typically has sloping sides and is fairly shallow, so you can easily pour off fat or slide off something you are frying onto a plate. I have saucepans that have the same overall diameter and are only slightly deeper, but the sides are vertical. Much more suitable for stirring a liquid in without splashing it over a side, and less surface area in relation to volume than the frypans. More bottom diameter in contact with the heat supply too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.163620
| 2017-02-09T09:16:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78246",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34378
|
Blender vs food processor vs juicer
When should a blender be used instead of a food processor or instead of a juicer? I'm planning on investing in one of them. I would use if for making smoothies and beverages. I've got a Magic Bullet which I put frozen berries in, but find the consistency is too thick to drink.
You have a great number of differing questions here. I would suggest separating the one on specific types of juicers.
The three types of appliances you have listed have different primary uses, and best purposes, although they have some overlap in their capabilities.
Blenders. Good at, well, blending: making smoothies, pureeing soup, grinding nuts to butter, and at the high end, making frozen ice drinks.
By far the best device for this purpose, but not very versatile.
Immersion Blender also known as a stick blender. You didn't ask, but this device is very good at most basic blending tasks, although far less powerful than a full sized blender, especially the top of the line ones. They are very effective at pureeing soup in the pot, or doing a quick puree on a tomato sauce, for example. They are also good for small quantities of smoothies (at least the kinds without ice) where you can blend them directly the glass.
Convenient and often less hassle than a blender for small blending tasks, although not as powerful overall.
Juicers Good for extracting juice. The main difference from a blender, which simply purees everything, is that juicers attempt to separate the solids from the juice.
I have never heard of a juicer that operates on frozen produce.
I won't comment on specific types of juicers as I am not expert in that area, and that really should be a question of its own.
Food processors Very versatile, depending on the blade or disk. Can do almost everything a blender can do except frozen drinks, although perhaps not quite as well. Can also slice (much like you would on a mandoline), shred, and chop. Also useful in some bread and pastry making for working the dough.
Note that if your frozen berry puree is too thick for your liking, a different appliance is unlikely to change that. Instead, you will want to either add some other liquids (like water or apple juice or yogurt) or let the berries thaw a bit.
You will have to decide which appliance will best suit your needs. Based on your comments on what you will use it for, a blender might be your preference, although you might prefer the convenience of an immersion blender if you are not blending frozen drinks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.163807
| 2013-05-28T20:28:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34378",
"authors": [
"Jim",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Shafia Baig",
"Susan M Lee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80074",
"paulvs"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
50331
|
How to get cheese melted without burning grilled cheese
I've been using a George Foreman like grill for grilled cheese sandwiches. The problem is the bread seems to burn before the cheese is thoroughly melted. How can I fix this? Do I just need to add more butter because I've been trying that.
EDIT: I keep my cheese in the refrigerator so maybe leaving it on the counter to come to room temperature would help.
Lower the heat.
Do it in a pan, then you don't end up with grilled cheese melba toast, and the bread doesn't burn.
Do you have a model that allows you to change the temperature? If so, lower the heat. I prefer medium to medium low heat for grilled cheese. It gives time for the cheese to melt, and the slow cooking means the bread toasts through more without burning the surface touching the pan.
Here is a list of temperatures. I am not sure what the lowest setting on a FG is (assuming it is adjustable), but I would guess it is in the medium and up range.
If not, you may want to just use a pan. I love my Forman Grill (got it for xmas over a decade ago and use it often), but it is good for specific things. A great grilled cheese is not one of them. Also, you are cooking it on both sides at once. Normally you have n * 2 minutes to melt the cheese as the bread toasts; you only get n or somewhere around that when using the FG.
No it doesn't have a temperature control. I'm beginning to find the Foreman isn't well suited for many things, what do you find it works well with?
Pretty much just uniform hunks of carcass. Pork loin steaks, beef steaks, chicken breasts, burgers, fish, etc. I have cooked mushrooms in it before. If you have the space for a gas grill it will work better, but living in the PNW, there are enough rainy days that it is easier to just use the FG. I have made Moose-burgers in it a couple times; probably the most unique thing I cooked with it.
Try using a different cheese that melts better; try Gouda, Gruyère, Jalsberg or similar. Most Swiss cheese melts well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.164025
| 2014-12-05T02:16:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50331",
"authors": [
"Celeritas",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Hermina Herman",
"JSM",
"Louise Jackson",
"Nia Smith",
"Pete Knight",
"Preston",
"Steven Simpson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"malin kraemer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28465
|
What is the "idea" behind thawing out meat?
Is it some how better to thaw out meat in a refrigerator versus on the counter versus running hot water over it versus in the microwave? Is it the longer the time meat has to thaw out the more taste is retained? If I'm pressed for time, could combinations be used: for example leaving meat on the counter for 1 hour and then microwaving it until completed thawed?
Are you asking in the context of flavor vs. speed/convenience alone, or weighing the factors of speed/convenience with flavor and with food safety?
Everything, I have no idea why or if it's preferable to thaw meat out in the refrigerator vs a microwave (obviously microwave's faster but is it healtheir or tastier or anything else when using the refrigerator).
We all hate meetings, but I expect you meant "thaw out meat" rather than "thaw out meet" in the first sentence. :)
I would think that USDA would err on the side of conservative when it comes to safety, especially with no financial interests in the equation
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheets/Big_Thaw/
Perishable foods should never be thawed on the counter, or in hot
water and must not be left at room temperature for more than two
hours.
Even though the center of the package may still be frozen as it thaws
on the counter, the outer layer of the food could be in the "Danger
Zone," between 40 and 140 °F — temperatures where bacteria multiply
rapidly.
When thawing frozen food, it's best to plan ahead and thaw in the
refrigerator where it will remain at a safe, constant temperature — at
40 °F or below.
There are three safe ways to thaw food: in the refrigerator, in cold
water, and in the microwave.
They're all covered in the above link, but here's the fastest one since it best meets your requirement of reasonably quick results:
Microwave thawing
When thawing food in a microwave, plan to cook it
immediately after thawing because some areas of the food may become
warm and begin to cook during the thawing process (bringing the food
to "Danger Zone" temperatures). Holding partially cooked food is not
recommended because any bacteria present wouldn't have been destroyed
and, indeed, the food may have reached optimal temperatures for
bacteria to grow.
After thawing in the microwave, always cook immediately after, whether
microwave cooking, by conventional oven, or grilling.
Foods thawed in the microwave should be cooked before refreezing.
And when all else fails:
Cooking without thawing
When there is not enough time to thaw frozen
foods, or you're simply in a hurry, just remember: it is safe to cook
foods from the frozen state. The cooking will take approximately 50%
longer than the recommended time for fully thawed or fresh meat and
poultry.
From personal experience, I prefer the cold water method to microwave for fast thawing, but I rarely if ever use a microwave anyway so others on here might have techniques that minimize the flavor/quality downside of it.
The factors that make the microwave method less safe are what also lower the quality, taste and texture of the food – the unevenly thawed parts, over-cooking some of it while undercooking other areas, etc.
I agree completely, but I'd note two other things: thawing in water has the occasional disadvantage of losing flavor, if the food was not packaged in a water-tight container, or the container was damaged, which is why I prefer refrigerator thawing if time allows, and cooking from frozen should usually be done at a significantly lower temperature, as otherwise the inside will be undercooked when the outside is done (or, in some cases, may even remain frozen).
@TheodoreMurdock: Excellent points, thanks for adding! I prefer the long way also, just putting out the quickest for the OP and anyone else occasionally forced to compromise taste with a fast thaw. The extremely rare times I even freeze meat it's already wrapped almost enough to survive a nuclear attack, but I should have clarified the importance of thorough wrapping when exposing to excessive amounts of water.
The good thing about thawing in the fridge too is that if you change your mind about cooking the item you can refreeze it whereas you can't do that if you used the microwave.
@Stefano: that seems like it would negatively impact the taste/mouthfeel, if not the safety. Maybe someone will weigh in who's tried that with various types of meat?
Freezing in general will negatively impact the quality of the meat but if the choice is between slightly impaired texture caused by refreezing or the food waste caused by throwing perfectly good meat out there really is only one choice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.164483
| 2012-11-17T00:45:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28465",
"authors": [
"Alan Shamblin",
"Celeritas",
"JYelton",
"Judy Wilson",
"Kaya Ondra",
"MargeGunderson",
"Marilyn",
"Stefano",
"Theodore Murdock",
"Tyler Connell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91",
"user65700"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28440
|
Can one get sick from drinking too much home made Water Kefir?
Using well water and some Odwalla orange juice.. What is the maximum amount that is safe for consumption daily?
Your question title doesn't at all match the question body. Which are you asking "Can I get sick" or "is my culture alive"?
This strikes me as the kind of thing you'd post on a forum to initiate a conversation - "Hey, I've just started making Water Kefir!"
This sounds like a health question, not a cooking question. Knowing if a normally-edible food is still safe and/or how to make it safe is the domain of food safety. Asking how much is safe is fundamentally about diet and nutrition, which is off-topic here. See the tag wiki for more info on which questions are on topic.
Like most fermented beverages made at home, water kefir is safe to drink as long as you take proper sanitation precautions. If mold is growing, don't drink it, throw it out, and sanitize your vessels. Learn to look for signs of mold.
Fermented beverages like kefir and kombucha can become quite acidic and leech minerals from their container. Store them in glass.
I doubt there is any safety hazard from drinking too much if it is properly prepared. I suppose if it's acidic enough and you drink too much you could get a stomach ache.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.164979
| 2012-11-15T20:15:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28440",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BadAtNamingStuff",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jim Hart",
"Julie Marcel",
"Peter stewart",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65717",
"paul",
"truyentk xuan"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29042
|
Why would pumpkin pie form a clear custard layer?
My PA Dutch grandma's pumpkin pie always had a thin layer of custard on the bottom. We have her recipe but none of us has been able to get the filling to separate... Anyone have any idea what might cause this? We've experimented with cooking temps, ingredient temps, amount of mixing, beating the eggs more or less etc.... Any ideas????
Erm... pumpkin pie is a custard pie. The whole filling is pumpkin flavored custard. You might want to describe what you are hoping for more clearly, and provide the base recipe.
Sorry- the pie develops a thin, milky white to clear layer - it was sometimes in the center, sometimes at the bottom of the pie. Her recipe was pretty standard- 2 1/2 cups of neck pumpkin purée, 1/3 c brown sugar, 1/3 c sugar, 12 oz. evaporated milk, 3 eggs,, 1/2 tsp salt, cinnamon, ginger, cloves & mace to taste - bake at 450 for 15 minutes, reduce heat to 350 for about 50 more minutes.
Oh- and my one aunt swears she saw grandma add cornstarch, although it is not on her handwritten recipe
A deleted 'answer' that might hold a clue to help others. (from Belinda) : My husbands grandma made the pie that would separate. No one here can get it to do it. She used the pie mix, eggs and then poured in a can of evaporated milk. She insisted she followed the recipe - I think not! Has anyone figured it out yet?
I believe that your aunt is right and Grandma added cornstarch. Quite a few times in the past when I've made sauces using cornstarch in a saucepan, bubbles of clear gel have formed when I've neglected to stir constantly. It seems quite possible to me that a thin layer of this gel would form when making a pie, rather than the bubbles that I have seen.
I understand that you want to come as close to Grandma's recipe as possible and keep this layer. Bearing in mind that I've not tried this, I would mix 1 to 2 tablespoons of cornstarch with just enough milk to make a pourable, non-lumpy paste and whisk it gently into the custard . If the recipe involves any heating of the custard before baking, be sure to incorporate the cornstarch mixture only after heating.
With the kind of oven time described in the comment to the question, I don't think any precooking of the filling is involved.
Thanks for the suggestion- I tried what you suggested with no luck, though....
@AMeyers Sorry it didn't help. I hope you get some more suggestions.
Related-ish: my mom always puts a layer of corn starch or flour and sugar all over the bottom of a pie crust if she doesn't prebake it. It supposedly helps keep the bottom crust from getting as soggy, but it does form a distinct pudding layer sometimes. So maybe don't mix cornstarch with the filling, but just sprinkle it in before adding the filling.
This just happened to one of my pies. It happened
because I poured the filling into the crust and let it sit for an hour before baking giving it time to seperate.
Mine always separates (I was wondering how to make it homogeneous).
I am wondering if it is in the puree process. I do not run my pumpkin through a blender because my mom never had one growing up. Instead, I bake my pumpkin till soft, scoop it out into a bowl, and mash. I then freeze it in 2 cup quantities for later use.
Because the pumpkin isn't pureed, it doesn't mix in with all the other ingredients, and tends to float to the top. The pie is delicious and using fresh pumpkin makes it so much better than store bought pie.
I have the opposite problem, I want my pie filling to be homogeneous but it always separates and forms a thin clear or white custard (without the pumpkin and spice) layer at the bottom topped by the normal pumpkin and spice custard layer. I have tried mixing it different ways and for varying times with the same end result. Any suggestions? The proportions are 1c. of pumpkin, 3 eggs to 1 1/4 c. whipping cream with sugar and spices.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! This is really a new question, not an answer to this question, so you might want to try posting it as a question - there’s an Ask Question button at the top right. (We're a Q&A site, not a discussion forum, and we stick to that format - see the [about] page.) Be sure to include your exact recipe! (editing the exact recipe into this answer might also provide an answer to this question, though- bonus!)
For the record: I'm leaving this here as an answer purely because it might contain a hint as to what's causing this. It sounds like mixing is not related, and perhaps the ingredient proportions are relevant.
This just happened to me. I didn't let the filling sit. Some differences to the "normal" receipe I used (Betty Crocker's cookbook) were (1) using our own, homegrown pumpkin, and (2) making evaporated milk substitute from powdered milk.
Bottom line is that I wouldn't worry about it if your doesn't separate. :-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.165138
| 2012-12-09T06:21:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29042",
"authors": [
"A Meyers",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Jesse",
"Joe",
"Nira",
"Nodcah",
"Peter Karpiuk",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"carelvg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91727",
"kitukwfyer",
"user67286"
],
"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
}
|
129528
|
What difference does cooling stuffing make, before roasting a bird?
I have a recipe for a stuffed roast pheasant, and it explicitly says to cook the stuffing first then:
Cool. When cold, stuff into the cavity of the pheasants.
What difference does that make?
I assume these are instructions for before you cook the bird?
To really determine the reason I would need the rest of the instructions. The problem with roasting pheasant is usually that they are very lean, making them very easy to dry out. I have ways around it, but all would be impeded by stuffing.
The cooling step is to mitigate the incubation of pathogens inside the bird. It takes a long time for the center of a stuffed bird to reach the temperatures where pathogens cannot grow. You don't want stuffing that is warm (the perfect temperature for pathogen growth) to be sitting inside your bird (a hospitable environment for pathogens), as it passes through the danger zone on the way to being cooked. If the stuffing is cold, and the bird is cold, everything passes through the danger zone at relatively the same rate. The result is a safely cooked product.
I've never cooked a stuffed pheasant, but this is the reason I do not stuff a turkey. By the time the center of the bird and stuffing is at a safe temperature, the white meat is dried out...well-over cooked.
But wouldn't starting from cold mean that your stuffing spends even longer in the 'danger zone' than if it's already closer to the edge to get back into safe territory? If it starts cold and you're cooking a larger bird, you're more likely to never have the stuffing reach the safe temperature
See Kenji: https://www.seriouseats.com/herb-rubbed-roast-turkey-with-stuffing#mntl-sc-block_23-0
@Joe I think there are 2 more factors. One is that if you stuff by hand you don't want to burn yourself, so there's a temptation to handle it warm rather than hot, i.e. in the danger zone already. The second is that the stuffing gives up some heat to the meat, but not much because it hasn't got much. So the meat nearest the cavity gets warmed initially, long before oven heat can reach it
I've also stopped stuffing a bird for the same reason @moscafj, a turkey also cooks much faster if it isn't stuffed.
For what it's worth, my usual amateur practice is to just shove a few onions in the body cavity and call it good. Baked onions are a fine thing, they add flavor to the bird, and a whole onion is less likely to get contaminated than chopped/mixed stuffing. Turkey is a lot easier to cook if you ignore all the complications, given a modern oven that can hold temperature properly.
Sorry, but this 'everything passes through the danger zone at relatively the same rate' is just wrong, even for a relatively small bird like a pheasant. There is always a big temperature gradient from hot outside to much colder center of the bird+stuffing. The most at risk part for pathogens would be the inside of the meat. If you want that part to be in a warm temperature range for a short time, starting with warm stuffing would actually help you, not hinder you.
@quarague The inside of the meat isn't that at risk for pathogens, because it's on the inside. Unless the bird had an infection while it was alive, there's not a way for the pathogens to get there.
@wizzwizz4 OTOH the inside of the cavity is another surface - which is exposed to hot air if unstuffed
I quickly and mistakenly (I think) upvoted two comments saying the 'everything passes through the danger zone at relatively the same rate' part is wrong, and now can't undo it :-( Thinking about it more carefully, I do think the answer's claim is correct... but it's subtle and seems to be attracting objections. I wonder if more explanation could be added to make it clearer that it's correct.
I do not buy this. Pheasants are so quick to roast as they tend to weigh only between 0.7 - 1.1 kg I find it hard to believe there is time for bacterial action to be significant during cooking. If the instructions included stuffing the night before it would make sense.
@User65535 I'm guessing the instructions don't make any assumption about how long the wait is between stuffing and cooking? In which case, yeah, we could say the instructions implicitly include the possibility of stuffing the night before.
@wizzwizz4 Considering what was inside the cavity (which, as ChrisH pointed out, is the bit to be concerned about), then the interior of the bird is definitely a potential point of contamination. Gut contents can contain a lot of pathogens, and yes, any skillful butcher should have done it cleanly, but mistakes happen.
@quarague A temperature gradient certainly means that things won't pass through the danger zone at the same time, but (beyond the outermost centimetre or so) doesn't mean particularly much variance in how long they spend in the danger zone… if your oven is properly hot. Yes, if your oven temp is too close to the danger zone, then there will be notable variance, since temperature transfer is non-linear across the differential. But this is also why things heat up faster if they start colder — e.g. hot water freezing faster than room-temperature water — and pass through the danger zone faster
It is hard to tell for sure, but there are a few possible explanations that come to my mind:
colder stuffing is easier to handle, as it can get "denser" as some of its compounds will be more solid/less liquid at lower temperatures
giving the stuffing time to cool, perhaps even a full night, helps with flavour blending/diffusion
it can also just be some mindless copy paste from a recipe that said that you can let it cool, e.g. prepare the stuffing in advance then preserve it in the fridge for up to x days, just for logistical reasons
At the end of the day, the best way to find out probably is try. I do not think this has much to do with food safety, as most normal people will let the stuffing cool to room temp, then refrigerate it, going slowly through the danger zone, then again through it after stuffing, during cooking of the bird. Time in the danger zone is cumulative, and stuffing the bird with hot stuffing will reduce the total time for any given part of the stuffing & the meat.
To be a bit more precise, thermal cycling the stuffing is less of a concern, as it usually is less "bad stuff" prone than the meat itself - still I would not leave it at room temperature for a prolonged period of time.
Starting the cooking process with hot stuffing is better than lukewarm stuffing, as with a bit of luck it will stay out of the danger zone 100% of the time, plus the bird will be ready earlier and it will be way more moist.
Note: a couple of commenters provided this useful link:
Easy Stuffed Roast Turkey With Giblet Gravy Recipe
In case it rots, I am including the key image:
[image credit: Serious Eats / J. Kenji Lopez-Alt]
The gist is that the higher you start, the more likely you are to never get into the danger zone. I believe that the data for the plot above was gathered with a single thermometer in the center of the stuffing; I expect the stuffing directly in contact with the fridge temperature bird to quickly cool down and possibly hit the danger zone (or below it!) depending on a number of factors/conditions.
"I do not think this has much to do with food safety, as most normal people will let the stuffing cool to room temp, then refrigerate it, going slowly through the danger zone, then again through it after stuffing," I'm not completely sure, but it sounds like you're talking about temperature of only the stuffing over time? My understanding is that's not really a concern, since the stuffing itself doesn't tend to cultivate dangerous pathogens. And then "stuffing the bird with hot stuffing will reduce the total time for any given part of the stuffing& the meat." Are you sure? (about the meat)
Yep I am referring to stuffing temperature only. Starting temperature of the stuffing is significant, as inside the bird it will be basted with bird juices, which are unsafe - admittedly I am imprecise about that. Regarding the third question - I am guessing a bit here, it is possible that depending on starting temperatures of all the food, thermal conductivity and son and so forth this might not be true. I expect it to be true in most if not all reasonable conditions. If you start with lukewarm stuffing it is most probably the worst possible condition.
"inside the bird it will be basted with bird juices, which are unsafe" -- ah, good point, thank you. "If you start with lukewarm stuffing it is most probably the worst possible condition." I think I agree with this.. however, if you put hot stuffing into the bird and then immediately put it all in the oven (or not), won't the hot stuffing, next to the cold turkey interior, almost immediately turn lukewarm, during the long period while the oven temperature more slowly heats the meat from the outside? So that seems to fall into the case of "worst possible condition", not best, doesn't it?
(admittedly I'm thinking of turkey here, rather than pheasant)
@DonHatch Apparently fully hot stuffing doesn't ever go below the danger zone if stuffed into a turkey and immediately roasted, according to Kenji Lopez-Alt
The problem here is that the reality of things depends on a big number of factors, difficult to control and/or measure. I am including the link in the answer as it is pretty informative.
"Stuffing" can also cover a lot of things - for example some is made with sausagemeat, i.e. pork
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.165550
| 2024-11-09T20:32:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129528",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Chronocidal",
"Don Hatch",
"Esther",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"User65535",
"Vladimir Cravero",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97169",
"keshlam",
"quarague",
"sq33G",
"wizzwizz4"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120321
|
Efficient way to make good mashed potatoes at a restaurant with questionable gear?
I am newly working as a prep cook at a restaurant, and one of my tasks is to make mashed potatoes. Right now we don't sell that much (rice is WAY more popular), so I just fill a third every couple days. However, tourism season is going to be starting very soon, and everything the prep kitchen does is going to be quadrupled (at least). So I'm going to need a better way to make mash.
Here's the problem - the kitchen isn't really that well equipped. The previous chef almost scuppered the restaurant due to terrible management (despite it being one of the most profitable ones in the city), so all the gear I have to work with that might sort-of do the job are:
a single generic low-quality long-handled masher. Just about adequate to the task of doing one batch in a lumpy mediocre manner with a lot of effort kinda slowly.
2 big 'ol immersion blenders. The internet tells me this will result in gummy gluey mash, but would be faster and more even.
My own personal potato ricer from home. This does not scale to restaurant quantity very well, but is probably about as fast as the masher, and would be much higher quality.
China caps I could ostensibly use like a tamis? This seems like it would be laborious and difficult, though.
Given all this, despite my knowledge of solid home-cooked mash, I don't know how to make decent mash at high volumes at a poorly-equipped restaurant. If anyone has any advice, it would be highly appreciated.
Thanks for the responses! To respond to some questions:
Quantities currently are a deep third insert needed every day, i.e. a fairly large, but reasonable for a family (with leftovers), home pot of mash. This will be quadrupled within a month when tourist season properly hits.
Stand mixer = no.
They're profitable, but don't seem keen to actually spend any money. This restaurant is owned by a corp that also owns 2 of the other most profitable restaurants in the city. For an example of how shit they are re: money-spending: we have a tomato dicer that's needed a part for multiple months, and we have to make bruschetta in large batches basically every day. Also the prep kitchen sinks don't work now despite them knowing about a problem months ago. I literally collect water in a bus pan and dump it in the toilet, and wash my hands in a bucket I fill with hot sanitizer. It's a mess.
The chef at this restaurant is my actual friend (part of why I got the job with no experience - he just knows I have a breadth of knowledge), and he hates many things about how the restaurant/company is run. He's also basically saving the restaurant and consistently trying to make better/more efficient dishes. I don't think he can make them spend money. He also technically isn't the chef despite having all the duties and being paid the same as a "chef" would be.
I've only been working at the place for a month, and I've had minimal dealing with the GM, so I am just now starting to get comfortable with questioning things. My de facto superior has been working at the place for 3 months. The actual experienced people got poached by the chef who nearly got the place shut down, and was literally stealing from the company. I still don't understand why people left to go with him, but that's apparently the case.
I will ask the chef about dried flakes, but based on him trying to actually improve the restaurant top to bottom, I'm not sure he'll be down with them.
Welcome. What quantities are we talking about?
do you have any sort of a stand mixer? A paddle attachment will get you a consistency like a hand masher (ie, might have a few lumps), which might be acceptable if you’re okay with ‘rustic’ vs ‘fancy’.
How much would a food mill or restaurant-scale ricer cost? If the restaurant is one of the most profitable in the city, they should be able to front up for a tool that'll result in higher quality product for less labour; is there a reason you don't want to ask whoever's in charge?
The chef is a manager whose job it is to make sure you have what you need. Talk to your chef, there's no point in suffering or making an inferior product.
Consider instant mashed potatoes.
Mashed potatoes from dried potato flakes are a lot better than most people given them credit for, and would probably be superior to "real" mashed potatoes made with poor tools in a hurry. More importantly for you, the process of cooking them scales up to any reasonable quantity; you just add the correct ratio of flakes, butter, and milk on the stove and you can make up to 8 liters at a time.
If the chef isn't OK with that, then he should buy you the equipment to do better.
The cost of powder and or flake mash is more than just getting regular potatoes, plus I worked in nursing homes on top of working in kitchens, there is a noticeable difference in instant mash and made from scratch, plus as a customer I wouldn't pay for a mark up like that.
The restaurant is already compromising quality to avoid spending money; they just have to pick which compromise they're going to make. The choice isn't between instant and well-made real mashed potatoes; the choice is between instant and badly-made mash from potatoes.
What I'm saying is if they have immersion blenders as long as they wash enough starch off of the potatoes they can make cheaper good quality mash, the issue isn't the mashing method it's thickening and hydration, I was saying I personally wouldn't want to pay for boxed mashed potatoes at a restaurant at a mark up price for me and the restaurant, it's a lose lose situation for both the restaurant and myself.
Yeah, I saw your answer; you might enhance it with a bit more step-by-step.
He didn't provide quantities so I really can't.
How about buying your own catering-grade potato ricer?
I'm not a professional cook, but I use one of these at home, cooking for just two people. Even for this small quantity, the difference it makes is enormous; I would never go back again to an ordinary masher and I would be grumpy about using an inferior smaller/lighter ricer.
The immersion blender will work, the key is washing enough starch off of your potatoes before cooking them, also light amounts of Parsley, and few heads of roast garlic is a good option to make your potatoes taste better, also salt and pepper seasoning is a must. I did this working prep at my dad's restaurant. The key to consistency is starch not the mashing method also added fats like heavy cream, butter, and milk can go a long way. If you think your potatoes are too dry adding plain water can rehydrate them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.166299
| 2022-04-13T00:46:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120321",
"authors": [
"Blargant",
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Johannes_B",
"elias altenberg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112652
|
pickled cucumbers seemingly lasting "forever"
My girlfriend's grandma has made pickled cucumbers for decades and distributed them to her whole family.
They are delicious, despite the jars looking like swamp water.
On one occasion, we got her some new jars and she later said that the older jars were better because they are not as tight as the new ones. Apparently they produce some gas and need to vent and I noticed that the sides of the jars show some dried liquid, so it is clear they all leak somewhat.
So, I'm wondering how can food which is not airtight and not refrigerated can last for months without spoiling? She's been doing that for 50+ years so somehow the technique works, but I'm curious about it.
Edit:
Today I had the opportunity to question grandma about her method :)
She's 85 so she just knows what's she's always done :) the pickling is not using any heat, it's cucumbers, vinegar, salt, tons of spices and herbs.
she puts everything in jars that will 'gas out' and leak for a few days, and then after that another process seems to take place where the jar seals itself, doesn't leak anymore and becomes harder to open, so I guess the air inside is somehow consumed.
Hello, I think one important thing we need to know is how these cukes were pickled. From your description I don't know if they're fermented or pressure canned. Both methods occasionally cause leakage.
@kitukwfyer, I asked more info today and edited the question
Could the liquid and ‘positive pressure’ from the gas be acting as a seal or a one-way valve?
not sure, it's like positive pressure for a few days, then I guess it lubricates the seal, then there is clearly negative pressure after that because they're not easy to open
I have to admit I am speculating a bit here. Your pickles are fermented, which itself is a form of preservation. The type of fermentation taking place is likely acetic, since the added vinegar could work as a starter, but it's also possible that you have a lacto component. It depends on the proportions of salt and vinegar used.
That said, as whatever bacteria and natural yeast get to work, they convert sugars naturally present in your vegetables to various acids, alcohol, and carbon dioxide. The production of carbon dioxide will indeed cause an increase in pressure and make a sealed jar leak.
As the fermentation settles down what will often happen is the lid will glue itself shut with a combination of partially digested sugars and salt that dry out. This doesn't really indicate negative pressure, but can make a jar a major pain to open.
As for how it works - the short version is comprised of two parts. Part one is that the good bacteria and yeast go through and eat everything, making it harder for bad bacteria to get a foothold. Part 2 is that as a result of the fermentation, the brine in the pickle jar is very acidic (not to mention salted) and therefore very unfriendly to most bacteria even if there was sugar to be had.
That's an extremely simplified version, obviously. But fermentation has a long, long history as food preservation. It's an absolute classic from a cultural perspective, and is biologically complex. I would make sure that grandma's recipe is written down (if you can), since it can be dangerous to fool around with an untested fermentation procedure. (I personally consider 50+ years to be "tested" enough...)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.166849
| 2020-11-14T23:04:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112652",
"authors": [
"Lawrence",
"Thomas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85456",
"kitukwfyer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29950
|
How to save a dish with an onion paste base which tastes like raw onion paste?
I was making a dish that requires the use of onion paste. Usually I'd fry the paste, but I had a bunch of other stuff that needed to be fried too, so I put that in first, and I guess by the time I added the onion paste there wasn't much oil left and it didn't get fried. Now the dish tastes too oniony, and is almost unpalatable. I thought I could fix it by boiling the hell out of it, as onion turns sweet when you boil it - it was a long shot, but I was desperate. That didn't help.
This is what I did -
Fried some ginger garlic paste, and then put in one chopped tomato. After the tomatoes softened I added the onion paste, and then some cashew paste. Maybe I put in the cashew paste too early. Anyway, that is the base of the dish. After a while I added some water and seasoned it. When I tasted it, it tasted only of onions. Nothing really helped - added more water, cooked the hell outta it.
Is there any way I can save the dish? Maybe heat up some oil in another wok and upturn the dish into it?
can you give us more details on what the dish is and what it contains? that might help us to give you a good answer..
@DhariniChandrasekaran edited the question.
How many onions did you use?
3 or 4 medium sized ones. Don't think that was the issue though, as I have used these many before
Secondly, can name the dish which you were making?
A variation of Shahi Paneer, but don't think that matters
It matters because people here can suggest you how to save "Shahi Paneer" by maybe adding or subtracting something.
Don't want to start an argument here, but since I have described what I have done in making the base/gravy, and that is all I have done, don't think naming the dish would do much, other than attract attention of people who know the dish, which, while helpful in getting more people to open the question, doesn't change much functionally. I could just as easily make Dum Aloo with the same base.
I'd throw it out and start again. It's only a few onions.
Guess my first instinct to heat some oil and fry it off was correct.
Had the base in the fridge and instead of throwing it away thought I'd try it out, and it worked.
Though there was still a hint of raw onion paste, it wasn't as bad as earlier, and could taste the other ingredients too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.167250
| 2013-01-10T14:49:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29950",
"authors": [
"Allan Pinkerton",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Brett G",
"Claverhouse",
"Dharini Chandrasekaran",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Fez Vrasta",
"KSW",
"PRINCESS",
"Victoria Manville Karr",
"Xenopus",
"elssar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9262"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100996
|
Marinating beef with lime juice for someone with dietary restrictions
A little background - I am cooking for a person who has a specific diet after gallbladder removal. Lots of spices are a no-go, as is onion, any type of hot pepper, tomatoes, etc. Any citrus also causes this person pain.
If I marinate beef in something like an olive oil and lime juice mix, will any of the citrus / acidity remain once the meat has been cooked (assuming it has been marinated for 24 hours)?
Is there some reason that you couldn't use some other acid (eg, red wine vinegar, if you wanted to add some flavor)
This post is about Lemon Juice (couldn't find a specific Lime Juice one) http://www.theculinaryexchange.com/blog/lemon-juice-substitute/ because of their health issues I would personally stay clear of what ever falls on the "no-go" list.
As a general rule when cooking for other people, if an ingredient is not allowed, or off the list, it should simply not be used. There should be no consideration given to whether or not the impact of the ingredient remains after preparation. It should just be avoided. Taken to the extreme, the potential is death to the consumer. I emphasize the extreme simply to make the point. There are plenty of ways to overcome the restriction of ingredients. In fact, these restrictions often provide the motivation for new and interesting techniques and flavors. So, skip the citrus, and any other ingredient your guest can't consumer, and find a work-around.
I think for the average person the amount of acidity that remains in a dish like al pastor ,which is marinated in orange juice, would be noticed but not a problem at all. In this case though I would avoid it. I once worked in a nice retirement facility and when it came to dietary needs we took them very serious because people who were recovering from surgery/injuries were prone to complications. Maybe try marinating in soda instead if it meets the requirements.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.167505
| 2019-08-27T21:16:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100996",
"authors": [
"J Crosby",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76237"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100203
|
Why should I cook the flour first when making bechamel sauce?
Why should I cook the flour first with butter, instead of just combining all the ingredients until I get the desired consistency when making a bechamel sauce?
It's not the reason that it's been done for centuries, but these days raw flour is a known vector for food poisoning in the US. (so those 'safe to eat raw cookie dough' recipes you see online aren't actually safe just because they left out eggs). So at least in the US, you really want to cook your flour
The raw cookie dough recipes are safer if they include a step for pasteurizing the flour.
@JamesMcLeod yeah i know the flour its baked to remove rawness...
This link explains the science behind what is known as "the mother sauce", béchamel. Essentially, the steps of first creating a roux, then adding cold milk, are about manipulating the glucose chains in the flour. Done correctly, the sauce is smooth and flavorful. Done incorrectly and you have a grainy mixture that tastes of raw flour.
@David Richerby's comment below prompted me to investigate further. So, I turned to Harold McGee's classic, On Food and Cooking. He writes, on page 617, that:
in addition to coating flour particles with fat, making them easier to disperse in a hot liquid, roux making has three other useful effects on flour....it cooks out the raw cereal flavor, and develops a round, toasty flavor...second, the color itself...and third, heat causes some of the starch chains to split, and then to form new bonds with each other.
He goes on to explain the importance of this step, but it generally achieves the desired texture and means the sauce is less likely to congeal on the plate.
From Wikipedia's page on starch:
Starch or amylum is a polymeric carbohydrate consisting of a large number of glucose units joined by glycosidic bonds.
...and, yes, this correlates with gelatinization.
Hmm. I'm not at all convinced by the explanation in the article you link: it seems to claim that it's about hydrolysing starch molecules into shorter chains whereas I think the actual science is starch gelatinization. I'm also disinclined to trust somebody who thinks that adding a couple of tablespoons of cornstarch slurry will catastrophically dilute a gravy.
Flour has to be cooked in any kind of fat, butter or oil to remove the rawness of the flour. If you don't roast and put all the ingredients straightway and cook for longer time, it would still work, but in that case you'll have to cook for bit longer and reduce the ratio of flour. Otherwise the sauce will thicken up and it would taste raw as it wasn't cooked.
It's very difficult to just mix flour with a liquid. It will set to the bottom of the sauce pan and clump when heated, unless you stir constantly.
This is why you make a roux first, combining the flour with some kind of fat. You could just mix flour with cold butter until well combined and add it to hot liquid such as milk and it would thicken just fine (I use this technique when I want to thicken a sauce when it's almost done and i find it a bit too runny.)
However, by first heating the oil and flour you take the raw edge of the flour as well, or even give it a nice toasted flavor profile, which is desired in many cases.
Butter and flour combined cold is known as beurre manié.
It is important that after "frying" the flour and fat you turn off the heat and add the first liquid (water, stock, milk) slowly while stirring. Later you can add liquid more quickly and turn the heat back on. In common with the other answers: this avoids clumps.
I sometimes make a roux from peanut butter, flour, spices, milk, water. Yummie. Without the extra flour there would be too much peanut oil. Mixing hot oil / fat / butter with the flour first gives you an idea of the right proportions, it has to form an almost-dry ball.
It's not important at all. You can make bechamel by cooking the roux and then dumping all the milk in at once with the heat still on. As long as you whisk it, you won't get any lumps. I don't wonder that you have problems getting a lump-free sauce if your roux is "an almost-dry ball" -- that doesn't sound like anything I'd recognize as a roux.
Also, I don't understand what you mean by "Without the extra flour, there would be too much peanut oil." The flour is an integral part of the roux: it's not there to mop up oil but, rather, it's the starch from the flour that thickens the sauce. As far as I'm aware, the oil doesn't really do anything except allow you to cook the starches.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.167724
| 2019-07-15T03:09:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100203",
"authors": [
"David Richerby",
"James McLeod",
"Joe",
"Michael_Ben_David",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72584"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99887
|
Why is syrup added to a cake before frosting?
Why is syrup added to the inside of a cake before frosting? Maybe the cream sticks better with each layer of cake?
Just wanted to mention, I'm from the UK and we very rarely add syrup to a cake as standard (apart from a drizzle cake), so it must be something to do with specific recipes!
@Bee it's standard in home baking to use thinned down Apricot Jam as a "syrup" to stick on marzipan or other icing eg when making a fruit cake or Battenburg cake.
Those are specific types of cake though, both topped with royal icing or marzipan, the op is talking about topping with frosting and I'd never add syrup under that
Syruped cakes are the norm in Eastern cuisine (the geographical separation starts around Turkey, I suspect the origin of the practice is India). People in countries with syruped cakes are surprised at the idea of eating a cake which has not been soaked in syrup, just as people with countries are surprised at the idea of soaking it. But we are still talking about a standard, widespread practice, not about something rarely used in specialized recipes.
Brushing a cake with simple syrup before frosting is done to prevent the cake from drying out too quickly, and sometimes to add flavour (if a flavoured syrup is used instead of just water+sugar).
It also would be harder to add syrup after frosting. You'd either "flush" off the frosting, dilute it or end up with a puddle of syrup around the cake.
The syrup is added to the cake before frosting so that is remains moist throughout. Also you can add flavours to your simple syrup to enhance the flavour like cinammon or star anise in banana cake and orange cake. For mango cake, you can simply add cardamom to syrup.
Avoid using simple syrup if it is already moist and delicate. It would destroy the cake.
"It would destroy the cake." Destroy how? Structurally?
@RoddyoftheFrozenPeas : the cake can't absorb the moisture and maintain structural integrity. It either seeps out the bottom and makes a mess, or the cake starts breaking down and has a texture more like wet crumbs than cake.
@RoddyoftheFrozenPeas If the cake is already moist or too soft and you'll add simple syrup, it would make it soggy and heavy and it might collapse as it won't be able to hold that liquid for too long.
Simple syrup add a great taste, but be careful not to add too much syrup. The frosty will collapse. Just add 1/4 cup to each layer of your cake prior of frosting. Wait for an 1 hour to absorb the syrup prior of frosting. This happened to me for adding to much syrup.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.168134
| 2019-07-01T06:24:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99887",
"authors": [
"Gamora",
"Joe",
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"aashii",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76316",
"pbhj",
"rumtscho",
"yetanothercoder"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125748
|
For what culinary reason, if any, would a product list wildly different "use by dates" in different languages?
This black bean sauce lists a different "use by" dates depending on whether you read the French or Dutch section, with the French section reading 4 weeks and the Dutch version only 2 weeks. Could there be a culinary reason for this wildly different "use within X weeks after opening" shelf life? Or is this merely a printing error?
Different local laws. It's not actually going to go off faster in the Netherlands than France. That looks like Lee Kum Kee. UK instructions also give it two weeks. In practise it's good for two months so long as you don't put a contaminated spoon in it… lawyer CYA in action.
@Tetsujin From what I understand this is a product specifically for the Belgian market, and I don't think Wallonia and Flanders have different food safety laws because that's handled by a federal agency.
@Nzall they might still have cut & pasted from the Dutch and French versions of the label. Or determined that Flemish people are more sensitive to off flavors than Wallonians. Or just did sloppy work...
I mentioned this in a Dutch/Belgian tech discord, and one of the members just so happened to be meeting with the Belgian "Federal Agency for Food Safety" today (Tuesday 7th of November). I'll post an update when I hear back from him.
Not a native speaker but the French seems grammatically very akward to me, so maybe a very low quality translation transformed 'twee' into a 4.
Oddly, though my google images search found a UK label with 2 weeks… an actual jar in the supermarket says 4 weeks. So, I'm still really no wiser.
As promised in a comment, I have an update that I'm posting as an answer for formatting and length reasons.
Someone in a Discord I frequent had an unrelated meeting with the Belgian FAVV, the Federal Agency for Food Safety today, and he mentioned the product. I'm sharing a Dutch screencap below of what he shared about the meeting:
Loose translation:
The initial expectation is that the label was also made in China and the error occurred there, but it has generated a lot of laughter in people from the FAVV, the Department of Health, Sciensano (Belgian institution researching various health and safety situations) and a number of people from the corporate world ;-).
The FAVV has both a phone number and an email address where this can be reported
And then it mentions the locations where this can be reported.
Did they say which expiration date is the correct one?
@fyrepenguin I don't think so. Those dates are heavily dependent on the product, the ingredients and the preparation process. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to put down the right dates on the product.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.168387
| 2023-11-06T18:59:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125748",
"authors": [
"Nzall",
"Tetsujin",
"The Photon",
"fyrepenguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"quarague"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30743
|
Why does tomato sauce spatter more than other sauces?
Of all the (thick) sauces and creams I prepare in a hot pot, tomato sauce is the most jumpy.
When it's hot, it's impossible to cook properly without having it jump everywhere and repaint the walls, and in general the surroundings.
Of course, using a lid helps to solve the problem, but I'm curious:
Why is a hot tomato sauce so prone to jump out of the pot and repaint everything around?
Short answer: tomato sauce is a non-Newtonian fluid. Another interesting link can be found here.
Tomato sauce is an interesting creature. Think about ketchup. You try to shake some out and nothing happens. So you tap the bottle a little bit, still nothing. Tap it a little harder, and a little harder, and suddenly boom: a flood of ketchup. The "jumpiness" of tomato sauce is caused by the same physics.
Basically, tomato sauce has two things in it that contribute to this characteristic: water and tomato pulp. At first, the tomato pulp is just lying around every which way, which makes the sauce act a lot thicker. But when the strands of pulp are aligned, it makes the sauce act a lot more like water. Heating up the sauce increases the pressure on the sauce, allowing areas of the sauce to become much more fluid, resulting in bubbling, popping, and the flinging of tomato sauce all over your clean white shirt. The same effect is what makes ketchup come flying out of the bottle - when you whack it hard enough, the pressure changes the state of the ketchup, and the ketchup literally flows like water.
Edit: updated with relevant information
Unfortunately, when I managed to get a hold of Mr. Steingarten's lovely book, The Man Who Ate Everything,* I discovered that the passage regarding tomato sauce as a non-Newtonian fluid was exclusively regarding ketchup, and not general tomato sauce as I thought I remembered. However, this description is still a valuable one, and it does help explain this particular characteristic of tomato-based sauces (after all, ketchup is a tomato based sauce) [p 96]:
It was only after I had send a stream of ketchup streaking across my
wife's favorite tablecloth, a lovely hand-printed Indian cotton from a
shop on the rue Jacob, that I telephoned Professor Malcolm Bourne at
Cornell for a lesson in non-Newtonian fluids. Sir Isaac Newton wrote
the laws governing liquids that flow like water: the more force you
exert on them, the faster they flow. But ketchup is different.
Composed of tangled red tomato fibers suspended in a sweet and acidic
colorless serum, ketchup behaves like a solid both at rest and under
low levels of pressure: but then, at some higher threshold, it
suddenly begins flowing like an ordinary fluid. That's why the
frustrated ketchup lover who loses patience with gentle taps on the
bottle's bottom and prematurely shifts to a powerful wallop ends up
with a gush of ketchup over everything. Ketchup and mayonnaise are
known as Bingham fluids, named after the scientist who characterized
them early [last] century.
*Personally, I think that The Man Who Ate Everything is a must-read for anyone interested in culinary science, and a should-read for anyone interested in food.
Second Edit:
Due to a handful of downvotes that I received while I slept last night, I guess some clarification is needed:
I just want to be absolutely clear here, I am in no way implying that ketchup == tomato sauce. I offer this information as an example of how tomato pulp suspended in liquid acts.
The fact that "tomato sauce is thick" doesn't really hold up. The question even clearly states: "Of all the sauces and creams I prepare in a hot pot, tomato sauce is the most jumpy", which presumably includes thick ones. If thickness was the only factor (and I'm not saying that it isn't a factor), we would see similar actions from cheese sauces, bechamels, gravies, and a variety of soups. While these sauces/soups do splatter, tomato sauce is significantly more "splattery." Put a pot of tomato sauce next to any other sauce/soup, take your pick, and heat them to the same temperature. I can pretty much guarantee that given similar conditions, you're going to be wiping up a lot more tomato sauce than the other one.
One last edit:
This article on Slate indicates that it's a combination of the above (being a "plastic liquid"), the viscosity, and pectin, as pointed out by Brendan in a comment below.
ketchup is what is known as a fluid gel in the culinary world. With force it behaves like a fluid but left alone it behaves like a gel.
@Brendan Hmm. I've never heard that before, and I was a professional cook for years. Learn something new every day. I guess I'm just too much of a physics nerd, I always refer to it as a "Non-Newtonian fluid."
@Gnoupi No problem. If you're into food science, you should definitely read that book. My former chef bought me a copy for my first competition, and it really changed the way I look at food. And it's entertaining as well.
I will give it a look, indeed, seems interesting
I like that book a lot too. Definitely makes you think about him in a different way instead of the curmudgeon on tv. @Mong134 you may be right in it's most scientific of terms though. They have a nice write up about fluid gels in the modernist cuisine books. I made one the other day for a dinner, they're very cool!
He's on TV? I had no idea.
Is it actually necessary for a fluid to be non-newtonian to be really splattery, or just sufficiently viscous but without much surface tension to pull things back when they try to break away from the surface?
@Jefromi I don't think it's a required characteristic for a fluid to be splattery. It just makes it significantly more so. Put a pan of alfredo sauce and a pan of tomato sauce on the stove. You'll see a significant difference.
I don't think that comparison really demonstrates this - alfredo sauce has much more surface tension than tomato sauce, doesn't it?
@Jefromi you're right, I didn't read that comment closely enough. Replace alfredo sauce with veal demi glace. Or a sauce thickened with roux versus a sauce thickened with a cornstarch slurry.
'non-Newtonian' is a huge category. Both sheer thinning (ketchup) and sheer thickening (thick starch mixtures) fluids qualify, as do other fluids & gels that behave abormally such as Bingham plastics (toothpaste).
@Joe that's why it's the short answer. :-)
-1 this answer is incorrect. The main reason is due to the thickness of the sauce; the fact that the sauce is non-newtonian has little to do with it (we could easily have a non-newtonian fluid that didn't spatter this much; or a newtonian fluid that did). See @Jefromi's and my answers.
@BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft if that were the case, then cheese based sauces, bechamels, and gravies would splatter everywhere. And tomato sauce is significantly "splashier" than other sauces.
@Mong134 I think you're underestimating how low the effective surface tension of something like tomato sauce is. With all the little particles of tomato in there, it can't even form bubbles at the surface - when steam reaches the surface it just goes straight out. With all the examples you gave, there's enough resistance to have a big effect. All that aside, tomato sauce doesn't even exhibit the same behavior as ketchup. You can pour it straight out of a jar or pot. There's no sudden transition from solid-ish to flowing.
You might want to clean up your answer so that it says what it means at the top, rather than reading like a list of corrections to your first version. That said, despite the Slate article and your further edits, I still am unsure how much a factor this "plastic fluid" thing can be - the simple fact is that tomato sauce pours and flows pretty well. If there is some initial resistance to motion, it's very small.
I even heard some tomato sauces have thixotropy ... sounds sciencey enough :)
This is generally true of thick sauces, particularly ones with low surface tension. When thick sauces boil, there's plenty of resistance to the bubbles rising, so they get bigger before they leave the bottom of the pot. When the bubbles do reach the surface and burst, they're big enough to throw sauce everywhere.
Since there's basically no surface tension (force along the surface, resisting perturbation), the rising bubble just goes straight through and throws stuff everywhere. If on the other hand you were boiling a very thick sugar syrup, you wouldn't get much splatter at all - it sticks to itself, and doesn't let bits fly off when the bubbles break the surface. Other sauces this thick have far more surface tension - for example, a thick gravy or cheese sauce, or even a sugar syrup.
Also, since the sauce is thick, the droplets don't disintegrate as much in the air, and they travel farther, so they less frequently fall back into the pot. It's especially noticeable with something as colored as tomato sauce.
Often it's better to simmer sauces than to boil them anyway, so you can avoid it even without a lid.
Yes, but compared to other thick sauces even, tomato seems to behave particularly worse, like exploding more, and sending much more things around.
I also think we're dealing with the fact that tomatoes, being fruit, are going to have a lot of pectin released when cooked and this is going to be a more goopy mess than say a cheese sauce where your maybe only dealing with the viscosity of the sauce.
@Brendan I'm not sure I follow - you say it's not just viscous but also "goopy". What does goopy mean besides viscosity? Tomato sauce definitely doesn't have enough pectin to start gelling or anything.
I mean goopy as in tomato sauce tends to bubble in many small spots where the tomatoes almost congeal like little volcanos where the overall viscosity of a cheese sauce tends to bubble slower but in bigger bubbles because it acts more elastic.
I'm not sure how much it being a fruit has to do with it: when I had blender that wasn't very good I used to have to make purees with a lot of liquid added and them reduce them down on the stove, I remember celeriac in particular being particularly violent in giving off splatters.
If it was just pectin, you could see this behavior with jam. Instead I see it mostly with root vegetables, e.g. celeriac as per @Stefano. I personally suspect soluble fiber, but I have no evidence.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.168652
| 2013-02-06T18:52:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30743",
"authors": [
"Barbara Sollitt",
"BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft",
"Brendan",
"Cascabel",
"Dina Bushrod",
"Eve ",
"Gnoupi",
"Joe",
"MissNY",
"PatriciaRN",
"Paul D",
"Paul ortiz",
"Paul92",
"Phillip Senn",
"Sandra Sberna",
"Stefano",
"User1000547",
"Yk Cheese",
"frank303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71899",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71900",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"rackandboneman",
"shadowtalker",
"swissarmysam"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6550
|
What makes carrot bits turn green in carrot pineapple bread? (And are they safe?)
Sometimes, a couple of days after its cooked, the carrot bits inside a carrot pineapple bread turn green.
Normally, I'd assume that a food that doesn't start green and winds up that way is moldy, but, A) it's only happening to the carrots, and B) it's happening inside the loaf, not on the outside, and it doesn't look like mold- more like the carrots themselves are changing color.
What's causing this, and is it still ok to eat?
In case it matters, the other ingredients are vegetable oil, cinnamon, salt, eggs, sugar, baking soda, baking powder, flour, and vanilla.
Did you peel the carrots first? I just saw someone claim it won't happen if you peel them, but no supporting evidence.
Here is a super in-depth analysis of what may cause the carrot to turn green:
http://www.carrotmuseum.co.uk/turngreen.html
Unfortunately, it doesn't come to any hard conclusions. It does make it clear that it's not simply pH though, as a carrot will remain green even in a 0.1 M solution of sodium hydroxide.
It does provide an anecdote about a baker that had a similar issue, and how they solved it:
[they overcame] it with a change in formula of baking powder and a good clean out of equipment.
Perhaps this could apply in your case? It might be a reaction from your cookware in combination with other factors? What if you remove the pineapple? Does it still happen? Perhaps trying a different brand of baking powder may work.
One thing is for sure, it's definitely not mold, and I'm very confident that it's harmless.
I agree that it is harmless.
This can commonly happen with carrots, blueberries and sunflower seeds. It's due to having a batter that's too alkaline or not having the baking soda evenly mixed throughout the batter. Anthocyanin and other food color pigments are sensitive to pH level. When they are in contact with more alkaline surroundings they will change color. While maybe a bit unappetizing in color, it's still safe to eat.
Either make sure your baking soda is completely mixed with the dry ingredients and evenly moistened, or try decreasing the soda slightly.
That's what I would have guessed too, but aren't (orange) carrots mainly colored with carotene, which isn't pH sensitive?
@Michael: You are correct. This article at the Carrot Museum (wtf?) indicates that it is not the pH at all. However, it also doesn't know why either. http://www.carrotmuseum.co.uk/turngreen.html
I made scones two days in a row with the exact same ingredients minus the lemon juice on day 2. The carrots turned green. Also, the first day, I mixed ingredients with the kitchen aid mixer and on the second day I hand mixed. I'm thinking lemon juice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.169480
| 2010-09-02T00:47:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6550",
"authors": [
"Michael Natkin",
"PonyEars",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60"
],
"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
}
|
153
|
Is it generally better to cut chicken breast with or against the grain?
I realize it may depend on what you're doing, but as a general rule, which is preferred and why?
Alton Brown talked about this on an episode of Good Eats, and here's what I remember:
If you cut with the grain, you'll end up with long strands of protein, like this:
------------------------
------------------------
------------------------
From what I understand, this means that it'll be pretty chewy. Your mouth has to work harder to break the strands up into smaller pieces to be more easily swallowed.
If you cut against the grain, you get strands like this:
||||||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||||||
You can see that the strands are much shorter, which means the meat will fall apart more easily (each strand doesn't have as much surface area to connect to adjacent strands) and will therefore be more tender.
Yes, it's chewier, but's less likely to come apart on you when you're cooking (see @Aaronut's response). If I'm grilling, I butterfly it along the grain or it'd make a complete mess. Also if you're going to need to pound it out, along the grain (or at most, diagonal to the grain), so it doesn't come out like it's been pre-chewed.
I almost always cut against the grain, as it tends to make the meat softer when cooked. Also, since cutting against the grain can be difficult to do without shredding, I partly freeze the chicken first by leaving it in the freezer for a half hour - much easier to slice that way.
One exception is if it's going into a stir fry. Then, I tend to cut along the grain, because really thin slices cut against the grain have a way of falling apart in the wok (at least, they do for me).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.169848
| 2010-07-09T20:08:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/153",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Lkeg",
"Scivitri",
"Vecta",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89186",
"mouche",
"roufamatic",
"shameed"
],
"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
}
|
14047
|
What kind of cheese does Pizza Hut or Domino's use?
I have been experimenting with Pizza and cakes. I can easily purchase mozzarella in India and have been using it for pizza, but it doesn't come close to the cheese Pizza Hut or Domino's use. Do they use some special cheese? I would like to experiment with cheese. I normally sprinkle oregano on cheese but I think there could be more to it.
Do you want to add a little detail on what aspects the mozzarella you're buying is missing when compared to Pizza Hut or Dominos?
I question the source of your mozzarella. Can good mozzarella be purchased in India? It can't in 99% of Canada, so I doubt it.
@Doug, you may be correct. I use Amul Cheese, its a well known brand in India.
You want to get a good buffalo mozzarella. Though personally, I think to get a good pizza cheese flavour and texture going on, you need to combine the mozzarella with a hard cheese like a strong cheddar or montrey jack.
@Doug: do you really think Domino's uses "good mozarella"? I doubt really good mozarella exists in the quantities they require :) Most likely they use a mix of a bit of mass produced mozarella with mostly gouda or cheddar, which are cheaper and produced in far higher bulk.
Pizza hut uses skim milk mozzarella on it's pizza, at least in the USA. Not sure what they use in other countries, but I would imagine it is still the same. Skim milk mozzarella is extremely stretchy, but loses a little on the flavor end. More expensive pizzerias normally spring for the full fat mozzarella cheese.
Dominos uses a mix of cheese, made up of mozzarella, Pecarino, Parmesan, and asiago cheeses. I think in their most recent reboot they switched to part skim mozzarella but I am not one hundred percent on that.
"Skim milk mozzarella" sounds very technical, I will try to find pecarino and aisago chees, parmesan is readily availble :) thanks
Most grated mozzarella you can buy in stores (in the US, at least) is skim milk mozzarella.
I concur with @sarge_smith We used skim milk mozzarella for the standard pizzas and whole milk cheddar for the "Pizza Mias". Mind that I haven't worked at Pizza Hut in 3 years so they may have changed cheeses.
grated mozerella???? doesnt mozerella come in blobs soaked in water?
Good mozzarella, yes. Cheap mozzarella, no.
@Midhat: you are right. The main problem is that should NOT even be called mozzarella. It is rather some generic pasta filata (spun paste) cheese, while mozzarella is a fresh, soft cheese. PS: it is called "Pec o rino" (meaning sheep cheese)
One thing that's important to note when discussing American-style pizza cheese is that it's important that it be a very dry mozzarella.
There are two very different cheeses named "mozzarella": in Europe, the predominant variety is what, under US law, is called "fresh mozzarella", which comes in a ball, either shrink-wrapped or packed in water. In the US, it's allowed to be between 52% and 60% water. That type of mozzarella is not appropriate for use in making American style pizza, as its moisture is much too high. The result of making American-style pizza from grated fresh mozzarella can be a soggy mess, as the water leaks out of the cheese as it melts.
Note that very good pizza can be made from this type of cheese, it's just not appropriate for trying to make American-style pizza.
In the US, most mozzarella is "low-moisture" (45-52% water): dried, aged, and sold in blocks instead of balls, with a much longer shelf-life than "fresh" mozzarella.
I can't seem to a good reference again (all I find now are cheese snobs thumbing their nose at low-moisture mozzarella, or gourmands insisting that only full-fat cheese is acceptable), but I remember some years ago finding a site put up by a restauranteer discussing pizza cheese, that helped me solve the pizza woes I was having at the time.
The site noted that cheeses on the high end of "low-moisture" would result in exactly what I was getting to come out of the oven from my 50% moisture brand: an unappetizing translucent gray cheese, with a slight bitter flavor.
As I remember, they recommended a moisture level below 48%. I went and found a harder block of mozzarella than the brand I'd been using, and my pizza started coming out much better.
Domino's (in the UK) claims to use 100% mozzarella. It's full fat, since they do offer a reduced fat cheese option (Which I've never ordered, since I'm pretty sure that reducing the fat will compromise the taste)
Source: Domino's UK site, personal experience
The cheese that Domino's uses is a mixture of mozzarella, monterey Jack and white cheddar in equal proportions. I used to work there way back in the day when we were required to be trained on all of the aspects of making the pizzas even right down to what went into the ingredients.
They have changed their mixture with the pizza reboot that they did in 2009-2010. That is the old mixture that they rocked before.
All of the chains use a "pizza cheese", it is made by Leprino Foods. It is not "real" mozzarella and is loaded with modified food starch.
When you talk about full fat I think you are refering to whole milk. It is a preference, there is no right or wrong when it comes to choosing a cheese. The new cheese domino's uses has a Provolone flavoring in it. The best pizza shops in the USA use a cheese made by Grande Cheese Co.
If anyone can find one, I'd love to see a citation regarding the specific producers of "pizza cheese" used by larger chains.
This definitely needs a link to a source. And perhaps an explanation of what should be considered real mozzarella?
Go ahead and use a full fat cheese if you want. It won't taste anything like the big pizza chains. They all use a low cost "pizza cheese" that retains its chewiness after heating. Using a better quality cheese will not give you the desired results because it will release all the oils and become too greasy.
I always use whole milk mozzarella on pizza and have never had a problem with it being greasy. It simply tastes better than skim milk mozzarella.
@CareyGregory are you specific to better taste/aroma or also better texture? Also, oily/greasy cheese is not always a bad thing on pizza ... but I guess american tasty prefers "stretchy-stodgy" to "stretchy-firm with a lot of aromatic oil" :)
I know for a fact that Dominos uses a blend of mozzerella cheese mixed with modified starch, flavors, and preservatives. That's not real cheese. Says so on their website. "Cheese made with %100 real Mozzerella," until you actually check the ingredients list on the "Nutrition" tab.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.170041
| 2011-04-14T18:25:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14047",
"authors": [
"Adele- Nexus of Potlucks",
"Berkan",
"Carey Gregory",
"Craig",
"DMan",
"Doug",
"Eduardo Chongkan",
"Evyne ",
"Jini D",
"Kumar",
"Midhat",
"Orbling",
"Queens Choice",
"Sliq",
"Tal Weiss",
"Wulfhart",
"bornfromanegg",
"chthon",
"dslake",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9210",
"jwenting",
"logophobe",
"mfg",
"nico",
"rackandboneman",
"sarge_smith",
"tim",
"user59088"
],
"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
}
|
13241
|
Difference between chicken and duck eggs?
Our local Korean grocery store carries duck eggs in addition to chicken and quail eggs (both of which I've eaten). What differences should I expect if I buy the duck eggs and use them in egg dishes such as scrambled eggs?
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7571/in-general-can-i-substitute-egg-species-for-either-egg-only-or-egg-centric-dishe
Also: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/5969/2569
I ran across a good resource while looking into duck eggs. I'll let it speak for itself:
The higher protein in Duck Eggs means
they mustn't be overcooked, or the
whites will go tough and rubbery. Some
people say they will be too tough if
you completely fry them: they advise
to rather partially fry them then add
a few tablespoons of water to the pan,
cover and let the steam moderate the
heat and finish cooking them. Most
people, though, seem to say they don't
notice a difference between fried
chicken and Duck Eggs.
Swapping Duck Eggs interchangeably in
recipes for chicken eggs: some people
say you can't; others who substitute
all the time say nonsense, it's fine.
When the Duck Egg whites are beaten
they will come up a bit higher owing
to the protein. They take a minute or
so longer to start frothing up, but
then make up for lost time.
There's a great deal more information on the page as well:
http://www.practicallyedible.com/duck-eggs
Hehe when I first read the title of your question I thought 'erm chicken eggs are from chickens and duck eggs are from ducks'.
Duck eggs taste pretty similar to chicken eggs but they are likely to have a larger yolk. Some people say they have a stronger flavour but I haven't personally noticed this.
I've only ever baked with chicken eggs but I've heard several people say they prefer to bake with duck eggs (possibly because the larger yolks create a richer cake). Duck eggs can produce a slightly gooier scrambled egg mixture.
Something to remember is that chicken eggs can vary in taste (such as a fresh organic chicken egg compared to an older battery chicken egg) in the same way that duck eggs will vary as well. Although some people don't notice any difference between how eggs are produced, you might do and if you don't like duck eggs the first time to taste them it might be worth trying them again from a different source as you might write them off when actually you just like better quality duck eggs.
This just showed up on my news feed. It's about everything there is to know.
Chicken eggs (large egg, 50g):
Calories: 71
Total Fat: 5g
Cholesterol: 211mg
Sodium: 70mg
Total Carbohydrate: 0g
Protein: 6g
Caloric ratio: 2% Carbs, 63% Fats, 35% protein
Duck eggs (70g):
Calories: 130
Total Fat: 10g
Cholesterol: 619mg
Sodium: 102mg
Total Carbohydrate: 1g
Protein: 9g
Caloric ratio: 3% Carbs, 63% Fats, 35% protein
Duck eggs have three times the cholesterol of a chicken egg.
What are the benefits to eating duck eggs?
Duck eggs stay fresher longer, due to their thicker shell.
Duck eggs are richer, with more albumen, which makes cakes and other pastries fluffier.
Duck eggs have more Omega-3 fatty acids.
People who cannot eat chicken eggs, due to allergies, can often eat duck eggs.
How does a duck egg taste?
Most fans of duck eggs describe them as richer and creamier. Some say the flavor is stronger, some say it’s lighter. Strength of flavor can often depend on the duck’s diet.
How do I cook duck eggs?
You cook them the same way you would cook a chicken egg. Because they have a lower water content than chicken eggs, you should be careful when frying them, as overcooking can lead to a rubbery egg. Because duck eggs do cook up fluffier, some recommended ways to use duck eggs are:
Cakes and pastries
Breads
Omelets
Custards and flans
Quiches
SOURCE: http://www.backyardpoultrymag.com/duck-eggs-vs-chicken-eggs/?blogger=mames
I've used them in dishes which contain both the whites and yolks (eg: scrambled eggs, quiches etc). Tasted great, no real difference except that the duck eggs are bigger and therefore you may have to compensate in the dry ingredients of your recipe.
I have also used duck eggs in dishes where only the whites were used (eg: pavlova and also a hard meringue). I found the taste VERY strong and bordering on unpleasant, although that might also have been because in both cases the duck eggs were fresh from the barn outside.
I haven't tried recipes with only duck egg yolks so can't give any advice here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.170597
| 2011-03-17T16:02:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13241",
"authors": [
"Gwen Irvine",
"Hassan",
"JonnyRaa",
"Let A Pro Do IT",
"Marie-Claire Oman",
"Marti",
"Vernita Rajpersad Salligram",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89075",
"user27461"
],
"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
}
|
5287
|
How do you source meat that will be minimally cooked?
I was recently asked where one could find meat that could be prepared "blue to blue-rare". What kinds of meat (other than fish) can be prepared this way and how would one go about finding a reliable source?
I imagine chicken and pork are out due to salmonella and trichina, but what about (non ground) beef? Are any other land animals typically prepared this way?
The thing to remember, vis a vis bacterial contamination, is that it's almost always the OUTSIDE of the meat that's contaminated, not the inside. With pork and chicken you're worried about an internal parasite/bacteria, which is why they're not cooked rare.
With beef, if it's grade A, it's good to go, and most everything you buy in the grocery store is fine. With tuna (which is another one people like super-rare) the story is mostly the same, though the chance of getting a parasite from fish is higher. In both cases, do a hot sear on the outside, and it'll take care of any bacteria that may be hanging around.
The reason ground beef is considered a higher threat is because the "outside" is pretty much the whole thing after the grinding process.
Also, ask the butcher at your local market.
Yep, as long as the outside of the beef is cooked, it's good to go...think beef carpaccio.
You should really clarify grocer. If by grocer you mean "average supermarket" then (at least in my part of the world), I wouldn't be buying meat from them at all -- its always cheap, and low quality.
Nowadays it's also safe to eat medium rare pork, which is delicious. https://www.seriouseats.com/2016/05/case-for-raw-rare-pink-pork-food-safety.html
If you're in an area with a large enough Ethiopian population, ask around where they shop. There's are Ethiopian dishes such as kitfo and gored gored that feature raw beef, and they take the preparation very seriously. If you have a specifically ethiopian butcher in your area, it's a good bet.
Other than that, I'd go with a busy butcher -- the busier they are, not only is it a sign that people aren't getting food poisioning there, but they're also turning their product over faster, so it's likely to be fresher.
You might also see if there are any places that will sell you a whole primal in a cryovac packaging (even some grocery stores will)-- this would mean that it was sealed at the slaughterhouse, and I would hope it's had less chance for contamination.
You could cook most beef blue and black -- what that means is seared on the outside and pretty much raw on the inside. These days it's seen most often on Tuna -- seared on the outside and still cool on the inside. I think that's what Satanicpuppy was talking about.
Find a butcher who knows what they are talking about, can tell you where the meat comes from, and most importantly cares about the meat they sell. Ideally, they buy direct from local farms and can tell you where everything came from.
The biggest problems from supermarket ground beef is that they combine meat bits many different farms, allowing one bad cow to ruin the bunch. Grinding your own beef or finding a place that grinds their own on site is the safest way to enjoy a burger at anything less than well done.
In Finland I've eaten reindeer rare, even made tartar out of it - totally raw. I didn't even need tenderloin for it, even haunch was tender enough, actually I liked it better then the more expensive tenderloin.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.171209
| 2010-08-16T12:58:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5287",
"authors": [
"Adam Fabicki",
"Angie M",
"Ben",
"Dawood ibn Kareem",
"Frames Catherine White",
"GalacticCowboy",
"Hannes",
"Hari Pachuveetil",
"Himanshu",
"Luciano",
"Mr Lou",
"Scott",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"smoore"
],
"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
}
|
12195
|
Shelf life of a caramel apple?
How long will the apple in a caramel apple stay crisp once it's been dipped in warm caramel?
Are there any tricks to extend its shelf life?
Let's assume we're starting with a large fresh Granny Smith apple that's been partially impaled on a wooden skewer. Let's also assume that none of the apple is exposed - it's just caramel and stick.
Oddly I have a coworker who bought a caramel apple and then left it in its plastic on his desk for about 4 years. We didn't photo document its decline but I should be able to recall.
After about a week the impalement point became quite unappealing. The area around the stick darkened and softened (it seemed, I didn't touch it). The rest of the skin looked fine.
After several years the caramel looked perfectly fine but misshapen and the apple had dried and shriveled inside of it.
Based on that, and my own experience, I would conclude that a refrigerated caramel apple would have about the same life as an uncarameled apple except for the core which would need to be avoided.
As for extending the life? Perhaps pour wax around the stick entry point to buy yourself a couple days?
you might be able to use caramel, chocolate or something else you're already using to seal around the stick's entry point.
@Joe - good idea.
Lol, that reminds me of a coworker that left some oranges on his desk for a year. Fortunately we have a dry climate so we watched them slowly shrivel into small rocks. OH, and the caramel apples I'm curious about are completely covered in caramel (no exposed apple at all).
Don't use a stick, keep the stem of the apple and use that and a spoon to dip the apple in the carmel and chocolate. The apple will have a longer shelf life.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.171531
| 2011-02-15T16:56:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12195",
"authors": [
"Carol Grimm",
"Joe",
"Jontas",
"Nick M",
"Ryan Elkins",
"Sobachatina",
"alexwlchan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user25132"
],
"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
}
|
83576
|
what is a 10 cent package of instant potatoes and biscuit mix
I am converting my mother's recipes in a book for our family. The recipe calls for a 10 cent package of instant potatoes and biscuit mix. does anyone have any idea of what that would equal out to be. Not sure how old the recipe is. My mother passed in 2000 and she collected recipes for years.
Welcome to the site @chris. I've been down this road more than once, trying to convert my grandmother's recipes into something that made sense. It would help if we had the entire recipe, could you edit it in as text or a picture? What is it a recipe for?
@JanDoggen : in the case of my great-grandmother, she kept handwritten 'receipts' (more like 'grocery list') for every time that she entertained ... so many of them were decades before she died. (and sometimes it was by weight / volume ... and sometimes by cost or packaging unit, like this). Luckily, she would have notes on some like 'Christmas 1952', and we assumed that they were in chronological order, so we had some basis for estimating sizes. Some items in the family cookbook are 'Ang's version of Josephine's ...' (sometimes multiple people's versions), as we didn't know exactly.
@Joe: makes sense considering this:
http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-rec1.htm
@SomeInterwebDev : I agree. I just explained it as most people assume a different meaning for 'receipt'. (but let me go link that to https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/784/67 ) And related to the original question : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/54543/67
The R.T. French Co. (French's) introduced instant potatoes in America in the early 1950's. From early ads, the boxes in the 50's & 60's contained either 8 or 10 servings. A serving is probably the same as later years, which would be 1/4 cup dry or 1/2 cup prepared.
Biscuit mix has been around since around 1930.
If the recipe has both instant mashed potatoes and biscuit mix, it would have to be from the 1950's or later. Because of the 10¢ reference,
it was more than likely the 50's.
During this time frame, it was most likely the 8 or 10 serving box of mashed potatoes, 2 - 2.5 cups dry. Jiffy baking mixes in 8 oz boxes sold for 10¢ in the mid to late 1950's.
True, in 50's an even larger package than those envelopes may well have been 10 cents so full recipe may help narrow it down.
A 10 cent box of Jiffy Mix was 8oz in 1957-58. I remember those well.
Without a good timeline to reference I don't know if we could directly answer your question. I will offer you an alternative, there is an excellent book Ratio: The Simple Codes Behind the Craft of Everyday Cooking which describes how many recipes can be analyzed as a ratio of A:B (for instance instant potatoes-to-biscuit mix). In this case you would need to figure out a good reference point, a third (or forth) ingredients (say, butter or water) which has a known value and reverse the math. From there you may need to experiment to find that balance that reminds you of 'how Mom used to make it' but this can get you on the right track.
Historically, they may have come in more sizes, but back in the 60's and 70's there were a lot of recipes written this way that were written for Idahoan instant potatoes which came in envelopes. I recall there being some rivals at the time, but most were in the same size pack. Have seen them listed as 10 cent, 15 cent envelopes, maybe even 25 cent, but I really only recall one size being common and I think they are still available at about 2 oz.
If a book like Cos mentions does not have it, you may need to experiment, but with the full recipe it may be a lot easier to eyeball and say, yeah or nay that it seems about the correct size. It can be quite to mystery experience to break the codes of some of these old family recipes. I think my Mom's favorite was "one pink scoop, not the red one", because, of course, everyone had the same color coded measuring scoops she had. ;)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.171714
| 2017-08-08T13:53:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/83576",
"authors": [
"ChefAndy",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60392",
"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
}
|
100401
|
How can I determine how powerful certain herbs and spices are? Is there a list?
I am trying to determine the relative strength or potency of flavour that comes from different spices and herbs. I often find myself lost when trying to blend recipes since certain spices can be quite potent and it is easy to ruin a recipe with a powerful spice from another recipe. The best solution is to divide the weight of the spices by the total weight of the recipe in order to apply a similar ratio in my own recipe, but this is extremely cumbersome.
A simple way to address this issue would be to add spices based on their relative potency. For example: if I have 10g of dried thyme and I want to add nutmeg to the recipe, and I know that nutmeg is roughly 10x more potent (just a guess!), then I can add 1g of nutmeg and I can be assured I haven't ruined the recipe.
I know spices vary in their flavourfulness based on their age, different parts of the world, how they're processed, etc., but there's also no doubt that some are far more potent than others. I know the relative potency of certain herbs and spices offhand, but there are many others I am ignorant about.
Is there a list or resource that ranks the potency of herbs or spices? Some numerical indices would be fantastic, but even just categorization (e.g., very strong, strong, moderate, weak, very weak) would be helpful.
I doubt you could even do this for different brands of hot chilli powder (for example). Never mind trying to come up with an equivalent between things that aren't equivalent. Fresh chillies are even more variable. Strong flavours like herbs and spices interact with the other flavours in a dish, so something you find equivalent in one dish won't be right in another. Example: cumin can overpower a mild curry if you're not careful, but a large batch of my slow cooked chilli could handle a huge amount, while too much cinnamon in either wouldn't taste right, and the curry could take a decent bit of ginger while the chilli would cease to taste like chilli.
Ginger, mustard and chilli are all hot spices, but the difference is one of kind, not just degree. You even feel the heat in different places (chilli more in the throat, mustard in the nose). Further, one person's perception of these different kinds of heat will be very different to another's - I could say that a sample of mustard is hotter than a sample of chilli sauce. You could say the opposite, and we could both be right.
The solution, to a large extent, is to test when making an unfamiliar dish or using unfamiliar ingredients. Accepting some variability is also necessary. Most herbs and many spices can be adjusted towards the end of cooking, sometimes by using a different form. Of course you need a rough idea of how much to start with, but you won't get that by replacing some amount of thyme with basil.
I agree with what you're saying, but on the other hand it is a fact that some spices and herbs are objectively far stronger than others. If you want to include every spice in the world this becomes an impossible challenge, but it would not be insurmountable to make a list of the top 30 more commonly used spices and herbs in North America for example.
I think the point is that they are not objectively stronger, they are subjectively stronger. They also serve different functions; so replacing 1 teaspoon of mint with 4 tablespoons of basil won't really tell you anything useful about the substitution.
@Tetsujin even if we forget objective vs. subjective, there is no denying that some herbs and spices are far more powerful than others. It would be useful to have this information, so I would know how much to inject in a recipe even if I have not used it before. I'm also not talking about substitution here at all.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.172017
| 2019-07-27T18:02:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100401",
"authors": [
"Behacad",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61080"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
97079
|
Can the shelf life of sugar syrup be extended
I prepare natural flavoured sugar syrups, I add glucose (10% of sugar quantity) to covert this sugar into invert sugar so that the syrup doesn’t crystallise. However the shelf life is too short, 2-4 weeks and I see bacteria developing. How to increase the shelf life without using chemical compounds? If I need to add anything as preservative I have decided to add only natural things. Can anyone suggest how to increase the shelf life without changing the taste?
How do you "see bacteria growing?"
Do you refrigerate your syrups, or store at room temperature?
If you see bacteria then it's been unsafe for a lot longer.
Here is how you can extend its life.
Pour the syrup into a freezer bag.
The syrup can last in the freezer for as long as a year.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.172411
| 2019-03-24T16:26:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97079",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99602
|
How to tell if a vegetable steamer contains titanium
How do I find out why steamers sometimes have titanium, and which ones, if so? Also, why is it there in the first place?
The question already asks why steamers can have titanium. I would like to remind users who have ideas about the reason to post them in an answer, instead of commenting.
If you mean metallic titanium - very unlikely. If you mean titanium compounds like the oxides - it is very likely. Titanium oxides are used in nearly all modern paints. I expect a fused ceramic coating is equally likely to contain titanium compounds. The people that write the info on the products are liberal arts majors and would not know titanium if it bit them. Metallic titanium would be easy enough to identify ; First is it magnetic ? If " yes" - not Ti. Does it feel "cold" ( assuming it is around 75 F), if "yes" - not Ti ( aluminum feels cold because of high conductivity) . Does it feel "heavy/dense ? If "yes" - not Ti ( stainless is about 50 % more dense than Ti). As these are relatively subjective tests ,it would be good to practice on known aluminum and stainless equipment first. If necessary, grinding wheel spark test; aluminum - no spark . stainless - limited orange/red sparks, Ti -bright white sparks.
As with all internet information, take this article with healthy skepticism, but it gives a summary:
https://healthy-cookware.com/what-is-titanium-cookware-really-made-of/
To cherry pick, Titanium is used particularly in some current non-stick applications because it is strong, very strong, light, readily available (titanium is a fairly common element on earth. For durability is classified as self-healing because it forms a titanium-oxide surface that mostly prevents further degrading and when scratched will simply reform this film over time. It is considered non-toxic, mostly non-reactive to acids and does not flavor foods.
Note, that some applications that use titanium only as a coating or reinforcement, thought the titanium is considered safe by authorities, not all the bonding agents and media are equally safe so it is generally recommended to purchase such items through reputable and known sources of reasonable quality.
You will find sources that dispute all of the safety claims of course and are free to believe the sources you wish. In general, we do not debate such issues, rather we quote authorities that are responsible for testing and evaluation such as the USDA and equivalents in other jurisdictions, and they have apporoved titanium as safe.
There's no way to to know for sure whether a steamer contains titanium without sending a piece of the steamer to an analysis lab for testing. There is a method you can try at home using a rotary tool and cutting wheel, but that's not 100% sure and it also will damage the steamer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.172506
| 2019-06-18T19:49:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99602",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93407
|
Is there any other substitute of papaya paste to tenderize the mutton or beef?
To tenderize mutton for BBQ I use fresh papaya paste, but it is not available in some areas. Are there any alternatives to papaya paste that could be easily found?
related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89212/chemical-meat-tenderizers
Possible duplicate of Chemical meat tenderizers
Not an exact duplicate, though, so I'll post an answer with a link to that question.
Your closest substitute will be pineapple, either juice or puree, which is much more widely available worldwide than green papaya.
Papaya contains a natural tenderizer called papain; pineapple contains a different one called bromelain. While the actions of the two fruit-based tenderizers won't be exactly the same, they will be very similar. Plus both will impart a tropical-fruit-flavor.
Your other alternative is to find dried paypaya powder. While still hard to find in many places, you could order it over the internet, and it would keep for a long time. The enzyme Papain survives drying*, and thus can still be used in powder form, although you'd have to experiment with quantities.
If none of that suits, see this answer for other ideas.
(* there are multiple references to this but they're all spammy, so no links included)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.172724
| 2018-10-30T15:29:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93407",
"authors": [
"Ess Kay",
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93384
|
Is there any advantage to cooking beans in a pressure cooker, besides saving time?
I cook beans quite frequently, and typically soak them overnight then cook them the next day. I don't find that particularly laborious, so I've always wondered why people use pressure cookers. Are there any other advantages besides the time they save?
Hi everybody, the OP asked about beans, they just didn't note it in the title. I put it in the title, since asking it about any possible use is on the broad side. Please consider this when posting answers.
Besides what Layne mentioned :
If you're at extreme altitudes, you may not be able to get things hot enough to cook. A friend in Boulder, Colorado once mentioned that she can't cook beans without one. (I don't know if that's technically "too long to be practical" or "completely impossible", though)
Also, for pressure cookers that don't release steam as they're cooking, you prevent the aromatic compounds from leaving, resulting in more flavorful food.
Wikipedia is your friend.
Pressure cooking requires much less water than conventional boiling,
so food can be ready sooner. Less energy is required than that of
boiling, steaming, or oven cooking.
...
Because of this, vitamins and minerals are not leached (dissolved)
away by water, as they would be if food were boiled in large amounts
of water. Due to the shorter cooking time, vitamins are preserved
relatively well during pressure cooking.
SOURCES:
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
...
Not only is this steam energy transmitted quickly to food, it is also
transmitted rapidly to any micro-organisms that are present, easily
killing even the deadliest types that are able to survive at the
boiling point. Because of this enhanced germ killing ability, a
pressure cooker can be used as an effective sterilizer for jam pots,
glass baby bottles, or for water while camping.
Sources:
[1]
[2]
[3]
This is a typical example of the problematic quality of Wikipedia content. The second paragraph promises that there is better nutrient retention, but it has only one source. That source checked only two vitamins, no minerals, (vit. C and provit. A) in two foods (spinach and amaranth), and found that these two vitamins are preserved better after 10 minutes in the pressure cooker than after 30 minutes in the pan, but worse than after 10 minutes of "blanching". First, who cooks spinach for 30 minutes in a pan? Second, the generalization from two foods and two vitamins to a sweeping...
... "are not leached" (seriously, leached?) has no reason to be correct. Then there is the third paragraph, which again makes little sense. Home canning authorities consider jam pot sterilization superfluous, discussing it leads to confusion and either extra work (sterilizing before a proper canning process) or to dangerous practices like hot-packing without processing, or processing in a pressure cooker. Taking a pressure cooker to a camp site seems cumbersome and difficult, maybe even dangerous if you try to use it on open fire. And somehow it leaves...
... the impression that pressure cooking is better suited for sterilizing baby bottles and untreated water than simple boiling, which is not the case, both are equally effective and doing it without the pressure is frequently easier.
@rumtscho You can do independent research. These are not the only two vitamins that have been studied, and some of the studies linked are on entire classes of nutrients and anti-nutrients. They tested blanching for 5, 10, and 15 minutes, not just 10. Nowhere does it mention how long the spinach was cooking the pan for, so I have no idea where you got 30 minutes as the full article text is not available online. It has been cited nearly 100 times by other scientists.
Pre-sterilizing jam jars is only unnecessary if your product will be processed for at least 10 minutes, and at a specified altitude. An example given by the NCHP of an item which is recommended to be jarred in pre-sterilized jars is... wait for it.. most jams. Maybe you're thinking of electric pressure cookers, but stovetop pressure cookers are no more difficult to transport than a normal lidded pot and are perfectly safe on a campfire. Spores which may not be killed by boiling are not relevant when using bottles immediately, but can be an issue if you pre-sterilize bottles and store them.
@LayneBernardo Respectfully: if someone makes a claim, and someone else points out the claim is weak ("only 2 nutrients studied") it's the claimant's responsibility to "do more research", not the person pointing out the claim is weak). I.e., it's the claimant's responsibility to defend the claim, not the critic's.
@Clay Nichols If you're going to say that a claim is weak, you should have a good basis on which to say so. He did not. If you're going to say that someone is wrong you should have some actual evidence. In this case, he just posted a list of nonsense, some of which is (as far as I can tell) literally just made up. I did defend my claims and added additional backing sources. But it is still the responsibility of anyone with intellectual integrity to do some research into a claim before just saying that it's wrong without any real reason. And you definitely shouldn't just make up fake reasons.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.172850
| 2018-10-29T21:41:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93384",
"authors": [
"Clay Nichols",
"Layne B",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70228",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100397
|
How long can home dried herbs be stored?
I am growing the "heal-all herb", Prunella Vulgaris, and am planning to dry the leaves and flowers in order to make a medicinal tea. How long is it safe to keep the herb once dried? I would prefer to do a large a batch as possible.
For dried herbs to conserve well, it should be dried properly to reduce the water content to below 5%. Afterwards, you store it in airtight jars, to protect it from humidity and sunlight. Especially avoiding humidity is important, dry herbs can easily absorb humidity from the air and this will allow the herbs to start to oxidize and become stale sooner.
If you plan to harvest a lot, I also recommend to portion and store the herbs in separate jars. Keep one jar for daily use, and store the others away in a dark cabinet. The reason is that every time you open and close the jar, some humidity will go in, and some aroma of the herbs will be lost. The storage of herbs is in fact not much different from storing dry tea leaves. Thus, you may have a look at this guide which I published on linked in: Tea Storage for Business. It's maybe too much, but it will be useful for you.
If properly dried and kept airtight, it will keep safely indefinitely. If it spoils it wasn't dried enough. Active drying should of course be started promptly after picking. But safety of dried herbs is rarely the issue. Loss of flavour is more likely to be the limiting factor.
Many herbs lose flavour just from the drying process, others stay tasty for a long time, and some are in between - they can handle drying but not for long. I've seen attempts to categorise herbs to predict how well they'll taste good after drying, but haven't found them convincing. Mint and some related species keep fairly well, but basil (for example) isn't really worth drying.
I'd recommend drying for oregano and thyme, in particular.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.173231
| 2019-07-27T12:50:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100397",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55431",
"kingledion"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55289
|
Can I put chicken marinade on chicken after it was almost cooked?
Can I put uncooked chicken marinade back on chicken after it is almost finished on the BBQ or roasted?
If it's the same marinade you marinated the chicken in, I would be very careful. If it's not cooked to a high enough temperature, it is not safe to eat, as it has been in contact with raw chicken. It would probably be safe, but I would just mix up a new similar batch and use that to finish off the chicken. It's not worth risking salmonella to save the cost of making a little more marinade.
Or split the marinade before you put the chicken in it ... save some for slathering on towards the end of the cooking process.
@Joe Which is a good idea, but to clarify for the OP, save some from BEFORE marinading, not some of the marinade that has been with the raw chicken.
It's unwise to do that as it could carry salmonella or other foodborne illnesses from the uncooked chicken. Although mopping some on in the last minutes of cooking will be ok most of the time there's always a possibility some will not get cooked enough.
The simple answer to this is for you to cook your marinade for a bit before you use it as a baste. All you need to do is heat it to 160F (70C) for a minute and it will be safe. It will impact the flavor a bit but I'd take the trade-off any day.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.173401
| 2015-03-02T12:46:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55289",
"authors": [
"Debra Pangallo",
"Francisco Rivera",
"GoldfishBW",
"Ian Morrison",
"Joanne Stroming",
"Joe",
"Marlene Skinner",
"Matt Harris",
"Myrna Cotto",
"Zibbobz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91771
|
Is cocoa powder chocolate?
My daughter says cocoa is not chocolate. I've always believed that cocoa is chocolate, or part of chocolate, or whatever makes chocolate. I'm confused.
So, if I make brownies with cocoa powder only, are they still chocolate brownies?
Cocoa is a powder made from roasted and ground cacao beans. The beans are harvested, fermented, dried, roasted, cracked into nibs and then pressed to remove much of their butter. The remaining cocoa liquor is dried and ground into unsweetened cocoa powder. This results in what is known as natural cocoa powder.
Dutch process cocoa powder begins with beans that have been washed in potassium carbonate, which neutralizes their acidity. This makes the powder darker, it alters the flavor, and increases solubility.
Chocolate is made using the same process, but the cocoa butter remains. This results in unsweetened chocolate. Of course, sugar is added to the sweetened varieties. The percentage of cocoa bean indicates the bitterness level of the chocolate. Chocolate can also have dairy added (milk chocolate).
So, cocoa is a raw product. It is use to make cocoa powder and chocolate. There are brownie recipes that include chocolate, recipes that only use cocoa powder, and those that use both. You'll have to determine into which category your brownies fall.
So what are the benefits (or uses) of cocoa powder over chocolate powders?
Hi. It's better to search the site, then post a new question, rather than add questions to your original query. See this, for example: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25139/cocoa-vs-chocolate?rq=1
Chocolate is made with cocoa solids (with the exception of white chocolate) cocoa butter, sugar and vanilla, often (but not always) with milk as well.
Cocoa powder is the cocoa solids in powdered form.
Cocoa butter gives chocolate its melt in the mouth texture, but it also creates a fatty substance floating on top of drinking chocolate if it's there. The Dutch Press was invented to resolve that as well as paving the way to the chocolate bar coming about.
The two are certainly not interchangeable, because recipes that call for chocolate have been formulated with typical sugar and fat content of chocolate in mind. Beyond that, I'd say it's up to personal interpretation. I find cakes made with just cocoa powder are not as luxurious as cakes made with melted chocolate personally.
Can you make hot cocoa (like chocolate milk) with it, or will something be missing?
I can't give a comparison from experience there, as I've always had instant hot chocolate.
@user3169 you can definitely make a hot, chocolatey drink with cocoa powder, but it will not be the same as one made with chocolate because of the lack of the fats such as cocoa butter. That does not mean that it can't be delicious though. My parents have certainly drunk a lot of it over the years!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.173566
| 2018-08-18T23:40:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91771",
"authors": [
"Matthew Walton",
"Sam Lee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68779",
"moscafj",
"user3169"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91927
|
Canning salsa without a hot water bath
I just started canning hot peppers last year. This year I am canning salsa. I boil the jars, lids, and rings just before I seal the jar. I make 3 pints at at time. I combine all my ingredients and add 1 cup of 5 percent vinegar with 3 tablespoons of lemon juice, and bring to a hard boil for about 10 minutes. Then I turn it down to a mild boil and hot pack into the jars that I took out of boiling water. I fill the jar, place lid on top and hand tighten the ring. Is this good?
Hi and welcome. Are you working from a known recipe here, and if so what is the source? I would not generally regard this as safe for long-term storage unless it came from an authoritative source like the Blue Book, and most of those recipes should include a water-bath step for salsa.
This is not safe. Lids "pop" from any temperature change. You could "can" anything this way but that would not make it safe. What you did/want to do is called "open kettle canning" and is not a safe canning method.
Why is open kettle canning not recommended?
In open kettle canning, food is cooked in an ordinary kettle, then packed into hot jars and sealed without processing. The temperatures obtained in open kettle canning are not high enough to destroy all spoilage and food poisoning organisms that may be in the food. Also, microorganisms can enter the food when it is transferred from the kettle to jar and cause spoilage.
Also, when canning properly (including a waterbath step of 10 minutes or more) sterilizing jars is an unnecessary step in the process as the processing step essentially sterilizes them along with everything inside them. (see below, same source as above)
Is it necessary to sterilize jars before canning?
Jars do not need to be sterilized before canning if they will be filled with food and processed in a boiling water bath canner for 10 minutes or more or if they will be processed in a pressure canner. Jars that will be processed in a boiling water bath canner for less than 10 minutes, once filled, need to be sterilized first by boiling them in hot water for 10 minutes before they're filled.
And lastly, canning is a science, not an art as cooking often is. It is not safe to just use any recipe off the internet/cookbook/granny. The ratio of low acid ingredients (peppers, onions, etc) to high acid ingredients (vinegar, citrus juice) to tomatoes (almost acidic to can on their own in a waterbath) is incredibly important to yield a safe product and is not something that should be guessed at. (See below, also same source as above)
Can I can my own salsa recipe?
Salsas are usually mixtures of acid and low-acid ingredients; they are an example of an acidified food. The specific recipe, and sometimes preparation method, will determine if a salsa can be processed in a boiling water canner or a pressure canner. A process must be scientifically determined for each recipe. To can salsa at home, use our recipes for Hot Chile Salsa or Mexican Tomato Sauce. Your county Extension agent may have additional tested recipes for salsas.
Of note and directly related to salsa is the requirement for added acid even when canning tomatoes plain. They are "borderline" acidic enough to can on their own in a waterbath, so additional acid must be added to push them into "definitely safe to waterbath". Many "pressure canner" times can be found for tomatoes and tomato products. For tomatoes this is a process that mimics the waterbath process under 5lb of pressure and is not a "true" pressure canning process. The tomatoes must still be properly acidified even if following the pressure canning directions for canning them.
Acidification: To ensure safe acidity in whole, crushed, or juiced tomatoes, add two tablespoons of bottled lemon juice or 1/2 teaspoon of citric acid per quart of tomatoes. For pints, use one tablespoon bottled lemon juice or 1/4 teaspoon citric acid. Acid can be added directly to the jars before filling with product. Add sugar to offset acid taste, if desired. Four tablespoons of a 5 percent acidity vinegar per quart may be used instead of lemon juice or citric acid. However, vinegar may cause undesirable flavor changes.
I highly advise reading through this website to learn the basics of safe canning, it also has MANY fantastic and safe recipes designed for canning:
https://nchfp.uga.edu/how/can_home.html
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.173788
| 2018-08-27T12:09:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91927",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
82887
|
What can I substitute for flour in pancakes?
I don't have flour to make pancakes. Are there ingredients I use as a substitute, or is there a way to make pancakes without flour?
I have seen a few "weight loss" pancake recipes around that use mashed bananas instead of flour, mixed with eggs for consistency.
Have you considered french toast?
Oats can be a good substitute, just blend them and use as normal flower.
250-300g oats, two medium sized eggs, 300 ml milk and 1/2 portion bag of baking soda.
Normally I use a mix of flour and oats, so I have never tried it with oats alone but I guess if you do not have flour you can try.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.174104
| 2017-07-09T13:57:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82887",
"authors": [
"Duarte Farrajota Ramos",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59106",
"wumpus D'00m"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87504
|
Bacon/pork fat to replace shortening in rolls?
I don't have shortening and was wondering what pork fat would do to the texture of my crusty rolls? Can pork or bacon fat be used to replace shortening in rolls?
What ratios are we talking about? Please [edit] your post to include the recipe.
Absolutely, it make give it a smokey but pleasant after taste but I in some ways prefer it to commercial lard. All bacon fat is, is a type of lard anyways done with typical dry heat such as a skillet or pan. It is arguably the best replacement you can use when making such dishes.
Yes, animal fats such as lard or rendered bacon fat may be substituted for shortening. Really, shortening is a substitute for animal fats in the first place!
Lard and bacon fat do have a lower melting temperature than shortening, but for a kneaded dough, rather than a pastry dough, which is what I'm assuming you mean when you say "rolls," this difference is immaterial.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.174182
| 2018-02-03T21:10:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87504",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"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
}
|
92047
|
How do I reduce the heat in my white bean chicken chile
How do I tone down the heat in a white bean chicken chile with corn that is made from the Omaha Steak side meal kit?
Does the recipe call for cream?
Possible duplicate of How to reduce the heat from peppers in my tomato soup?
Possible duplicate of How can you make a sauce less spicy/hot?
Dairy products have the impeccable ability to dampen heat from peppers, hot sauce and other spicy items. This includes milk (often drunk along with very spicy foods and peppers), sour cream, and cheese, among others.
I find Sour Cream not only adds to the complexity of flavors in most chili's (a great thing!), but also quells the heat quite a bit.
I'd leave your chili how it is, and then as you serve it, allow the individual to add sour cream to taste.
You can also top your chili with a healthy dose of your favorite cheese. This will help tame the heat a bit too. For white chili, jack or pepper jack cheese would be a good fit.
Add a can of beans and a can of corn?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.174378
| 2018-09-02T15:40:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92047",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37950",
"moscafj",
"wearashirt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92052
|
How accurate should a thermometer be?
One week ago I sent an inquiry about why a digital
thermometer seems to have a bigger temperature difference,
as compared to a previous, more accurate, thermometer.
However one of their support staff replied: "We have an overall 4 degree tolerance so that is considered accurate."
I then replied by giving an example of forecast.
"If the forecast says the highest temperature will be 20°C
tomorrow but it turns out to be 24°C, then would that be
considered as accurate?"
(I did not mention anything about back yard or if the forecast
must be very accurate close to where I live.)
Then the staff replied as below.
"If the temperature reading is within 4 degrees of one of our
products, or a mercury thermometer, it would be considered
accurate. Please keep in mind, your local forecast is not
always going to be what the temperature is in your back yard.
That could be taken miles from your house. For example, I live
a mile away from the air port and my temperature is always
about 7-10 degrees different than what they have."
If that is the case, I am wondering if anyone would want to
watch such a forecast that has 7-10 degree difference than
where they live.
If I place the thermometer in the refrigerator and it
measures 4°C, but it is actually 4°C less than the actual
temperature, then would the foods not become rotten when
the actual temperature is 8°C?
Please provide some opinions about how accurate a thermometer should be, and also about the example of forecast.
Not sure this is a cooking question
@paparazzo Agreed.
Why not? We have several thermometer questions. This question appears to be asking about the precision that is necessary...It might be helpful if the OP specifies cooking...which is the context I used below.
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because it is not a cooking question. Forecast is clearly weather forecast. I gave OP an hour to clarify and they have not been back.
I also agree that what the OP wants to know (how accurate a weather thermometer should be) is not necessarily going to be answered in a cooking context (how accurate an oven thermometer, or candy thermometer, etc. should be). Maybe Engineering.SE?
The more accurate the thermometer needs to be, the more likely there's some way to calibrate it. Usually, it's by putting it in ice water or boiling water and comparing (depending on the temp range of the thermometer), and hitting a reset button. (although boiling is a problem if you're not at sea level; if so, you want one with a a dial to turn to adjust it up or down, so you can adjust to your boiling point). For analog thermometers, you slid the markings relative to the part that moved)
I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this is not a cooking question.
If they provide the tolerance, and the product measures within that tolerance, it is an accurate tool according to the manufacturer. There is always some error...or potential error... in any type of measurement. To me, the most important thing here is that the manufacturer has provided you with the tolerance of their product; that is, + or - 4C. For most cooking purposes (perhaps with the exception of sous vide cooking, more on that in a minute), this type of variability is probably not that problematic. You could, of course, calibrate it with boiling water to see where your particular unit falls. Then, proceed from there. Having the tolerance allows you to decide to be ok with a product, or search for one that is more precise. Back to sous vide, and by way of example...my immersion circulator has a tolerance of + or - 0.1C. In this case, however, precision is much more critical. On the other hand, my oven fluctuates by 25 to 50 degrees F. In the end, you will have to decide if the tolerance is appropriate for your use. That is, how precise of a tool do you actually need? The weather example is not really helpful, as it is more about prediction than measurement.
Sugarwork also comes to mind as something which requires high precision and accuracy.
Regarding to moscafj's answer, I am wondering why the
last few sentences are exactly the same as the answer
of Regin Asylvia on answersmode.com website.
The sentences that are exactly the same are as shown below.
"however, precision is much more critical. On the other hand, my oven fluctuates by 25 to 50 degrees F. In the end, you will have to decide if the tolerance is appropriate for your use. That is, how precise of a tool do you actually need? The weather example is not really helpful, as it is more about prediction than measurement."
@user69039 you'll have to ask Regin Asylvia, since my answer was posted on September 2nd, and that answer was posted two days ago (September 4th), it was clearly copied from this site.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.174486
| 2018-09-02T17:44:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92052",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Erica",
"Fabby",
"Joe",
"Peter Taylor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69039",
"moscafj",
"paparazzo",
"user69039"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92217
|
Managing oven temperature
I know that the temperature inside an oven fluctuates, but I'm just curious. Won't the temperature inside continue to rise?
How do I manage, or control, the temperature inside the oven after removing the thermometer so that whatever it is I'm baking won't be over or under cooked?
Why would you remove the thermometer?
That doesn't make any sense. If you want to control the temperature with a thermometer, keep it there... What kind of oven are you asking about? Is your thermostat broken?
Did you remove the oven thermometer or its thermostat?
Most home ovens are not insulated well, and are not all that precise. They maintain temperature by cycling on and off relative to your temperature setting and a thermostat. It is quite common for the actual temperature in home ovens to be upwards of 50 degrees F more or less than the temperature you set on the dial..and that temperature fluctuates as your oven's heating element cycles on and off. So, many people use an oven thermometer to determine the actual temperature inside their oven. Once you know the difference between your actual temperature and the dial setting, you can compensate by raising or lowering the setting. You should also note, that the difference between the setting and the actual temperature might be different in a low oven, as compared to one set at a higher temperature. That is why it is good to keep a thermometer in there, and take a peek at it once in a while. After some time, you will be able to reliably gauge how your oven behaves. For the most part, there is no need for an oven to be all that precise because the kind of cooking we do in there allows for a great deal of temperature variance.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.174845
| 2018-09-12T09:26:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92217",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"Luciano",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"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
}
|
76348
|
Waxed cheese oozing oil
I have waxed cheddar and Gruyere, using black cheese wax, for about 4 months. When I turned it, I notice oil oozing. The Gruyere was from Bavaria. How and why does this happen through the wax?
The cheese is or has been too warm.
Cheese must be kept cool to cold.
Incidentally you cannot get Gruyere from Bavaria.
Gruyere is an address in yes but from no.
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. Your first and fourth sentences aren't really sentences; you should edit this to clarify what you mean.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.175007
| 2016-12-11T18:55:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76348",
"authors": [
"Daniel Griscom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49155
|
Käsespätzle like the ones in Bavaria
I'm really impressed how here in Bavaria people can cook some delicious things... Well I fell in love with Käsespätzle. I keep having trouble making them just like at the restaurant, where no matter what, the chef doesn't want to tell me his secrets.
I basically buy the Spätzle at the supermarket, let them cook 1 minute in salted and boiling water, then put them (without water of course) in a wok with some olive oil.
Meanwhile I "fry" onions chopped into small rings in a bit of oil until they become brown, and I prepare some grated Gouda cheese.
I put onions and cheese on the Spätzle and I stir until the cheese melts.
Easy.
The difference between mine and the restaurant's are the following:
The Röstzwibeln ("fried onions") are not totally crunchy
The consistency of the Spätzle is somehow different
The entirety doesn't seem to develop crunchy sides after the last steps
While I'm ok with the fact that the supermarket-Spätzle cannot be super-good, I don't get how to cook the onion and I feel that I'm using a wrong cheese (beware: I don't want CREAMY stuff, I want the CRUNCHY one!).
Can anybody help?
In order to get crispy-crunchy fried onions, you need to deep-fry them at a high temperature. Pan frying just won't get them crunchy, they'll just get softer and softer as they get browner and browner. I don't know where you are from, but we have a product in the US that is ubiquitous in late fall, particularly on the Thanksgiving table. Perhaps something like this could give an effect more like what you want?
Here's an Amazon search that shows similar products from all over the world.
You say you know that supermarket-spatzle can't be super good, so I am not even going to go there. I'm sure you could find highly rated recipes yourself.
As far as cheese having crunch, the key there is to not stir it while it is getting a bit brown, either under the broiler or on the stovetop (or both, to get crunchy surfaces on both the top and bottom). Also consider using aged Gouda instead of young. That will reach a crunchiness faster, and the flavor will be more intense, allowing you to use less, which will also make it easier to get crunchy.
EDIT: Another thing you can do to get crunchy cheese is to bake it into crisps first, then crunch them up and sprinkle them onto (and into) your completed, or nearly completed, dish. That way you can get melty (with the same cheese baked in) and crunchy if you'd like. That will work with any hard, aged cheese like Parmesan or aged Gouda.
That picture is from Giada De Laurentiis's recipe for Parmesan Crisps.
I live in Bavaria, but since I'm a stranger here I'm not used to the German cooking... So, we have too those Röstzwibeln.
But these I'd prefer not to use and fry my own thing. So you basically say only to put the onion in a deep pan with hot oil... Is it enough?
Also could you give me some advice on the Gouda cheese?What do you mean for "seasoned"?The one I buy is always 3 to 6 months seasoned, but I have no clue of that means young or anything else.Some recipes also include Emmentaler. Which is best?
I have read that red onions crisp up better than other types of onions. Also, you probably want oil temperature at about 190C or even higher. Keep the onions moving while in the oil, and be ready to quickly drain them well, first on a rack, then on paper bags.
@Noldor130884 The aged cheese is more flavorful. Gouda can be found aged for as long as 5 years, although I have never had it aged that long. At 18 months, the flavor is powerful, and the cheese is much harder than Gouda that has not been aged. I'm not a huge fan of Emmentaler anyway, but it seems to me that it would melt too creamy for what you are looking for. The aged cheese (and I very much like aged Gouda) is going to be a lot easier to get crispy.
So I managed to prepare them yesterday: even though if the aged gouda wasn't that good (I will eventually try another brand), it melted exactly to the point it began to go crunchy. About the onions: I sliced them, CAREFULLY rinsed and added salt and sugar. Then I basically fried them like you would with french fries. I'm happy to say: IT WORKED!
I don't have much to add on the subject of onions and cheese, but making your own Spätzle is not that difficult and totally worth the trouble. I use this recipe from The Galley Gourmet, and have found it to be very similar to what I've eaten in Bavaria.
Thanks Marie-Claire. My aim is to obtain the best similarity to the ones I eat in the restaurant here, but also to keep it a "fast-to-serve" dish.
They can become fast to serve if you have a potato-press like this one: http://www.chefline.co.uk/images/Potato-Press.jpg! The dough is really whipped up quickly, and you can shape the Spätzle with the press. I have yet to find store-bought Spätzle that match the home-made ones. Also.. I may eat Spätzle today!
About the onions:
I have not made them this way for a while, but:
Prepare them by covering them in sugar and some salt (I never had any measurements... sugar/salt ratio tended do depend on what I was planning to do with them) and leaving them standing like that for a bit while your oil/fat heats up.
When frying-time comes, the onions should be quiet moist on the outside. Cover your onions in flour, and fry in lots of fat. Place them on a paper towel to get rid of the excess fat you will have.
If anyone has a hint on sugar/salt ratios or frying-times, please comment, my only possible advice is: mix to taste, and fry till crispy.
I heard about the sugar trick more than once in order to make them brownish... But it doesn't work making them crunchier. I think flour and deep pan is the way. I'll try again this weekend
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.175087
| 2014-10-22T14:34:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49155",
"authors": [
"Armstrong m05",
"Ben Sharpley",
"Brandon Malnar",
"Christine Hunter",
"Clare Keijer",
"Jolenealaska",
"KEVIN BLOOMFIELD",
"Larry Kasper",
"Layna",
"Noldor130884",
"Spammer",
"Tapes To Digital Clyde",
"Tina Miller",
"emmett charlton",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28824"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89255
|
What is the difference between rock sugar and raw sugar?
What's the difference between rock sugar & raw sugar? I'm looking for the general difference as well as calories, usage, and taste.
By rock sugar do you mean "rock candy"? If possible please send a picture.
Rock sugar would be chemically the same as regular granulated sugar, but in the form of huge crystals. Some people call it "rock candy", and you can make it, slowly, at home by growing crystals in a syrup made of granulated sugar and water. How it is made at large scale, commercially, I have no idea.
See wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_candy. They have a picture:
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.175588
| 2018-04-18T22:58:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89255",
"authors": [
"Jade So",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66642"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89894
|
Dry chicken breast in slow cooker
I like to use the slow cooker during the week. I usually leave at about 6am, and don't sit down and eat until around 6pm. I have a crock pot with a timer mechanism that automatically turns to warm after the specified cooking time elapses. The last recipe I made with chicken breast (i think it was some type of pineapple chicken) had a recommended cook time of 6 to 8 hours on low. I think I chose to cook it for 7 hours. Honestly, this is the first time I dried out chicken. It was so bad I ended up throwing it out.
The dish had plenty of liquid (actually probably a little to much), and I added some butter. Do you think my dry chicken problem was linked to the length of time I cooked the chicken, or the amount of time the dish sat in the crockpot at the warm setting? Ever since then, I've been avoiding recipes with chicken breast, which are a favorite.
So do I need to avoid recipes crockpot recipes with chicken?
Yes. You overcooked your chicken breast. It is not the best ingredient for a crock pot.
@moscafj but what overcooked it? 7 hours i the slow cooker or hours on the warm setting?
At approximately 200F in a crock pot on low setting, your chicken breast was probably cooked in about an hour...give or take, depending on thickness and exact temp.
In my experience, poaching a medium, room-temperature chicken breast at a low simmer, to fully cooked, but not over cooked, takes 15 - 18 minutes. Much longer than that, and it will start to go rubbery and dry.
If you're willing to upgrade your slow cooker, there are ones that have a probe thermometer that you can stick in the meat, and the cooker will switch to warm when it gets to a preset temperature. Or you could go whole hog, and get a 'multicooker' which lets you pressure cook and you can control the cooking time in minutes. Or just switch to thighs
Try thighs.
Chicken breast is super lean. It is easy to dry out. Thighs have more fat on them and more flavor - and are cheaper than breast. Also chicken breasts come boneless. You can get thighs with skin and bone on (cheaper yet!) and skin and bone will both retain moisture in the meat.
6-8 hours in the slow cooker does seem like a long time for chicken. Idea 2: try that pineapple recipe with pork chops.
A very common technique for maintaining moisture in meat is to dry brine it. That is, shake salt on both sides of the raw breast to the same degree you would to serve it. Wrap and let it rest for at least an hour. I like to add the salt the day before. Before cooking you can add other rubs or seasoning but be careful with store bought seasoning that is normally high in salt. Search on dry brining and you will find a lot of info.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.175664
| 2018-05-19T16:05:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89894",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Robin Betts",
"coding4fun",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67231",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9158
|
Ingredients or techniques to a more solid lasagna
What are the crucial ingredients or cooking techniques to a more solid, or "brick" like lasagna? Most lasagna I've seen tends to get a bit sloppy in the pan as it's being dished out but I have seen lasagna that comes out very firm and solid. Is this due to a certain combination of ingredients, a cooking technique, or both?
For example, I've seen recipes that use cream cheese and eggs instead of ricotta, and various combinations of tomato paste, sauce, and crushed tomatoes. I've also seen various (relatively close - usually 350-375 for 45 minutes to an hour) cooking times.
One quick idea ( and maybe obvious so I'm just including it here) is to make more layers. You might be surprised as to what one layer can do. Five layers (rather than four) in a pan will make a more compact and solid lasagna. Good luck!
I have the same preference. Three things that work for me:
(1) If you are using any vegetables, saute them to get as much liquid out as possible in advance. For spinach or other greens, actually squeeze the water out using a tea towel or potato ricer.
(2) Use less sauce or make the sauce thicker. You can accomplish the latter by starting with thicker ingredients (tomato puree vs. chopped tomatoes), or by reducing it on the stovetop somewhat first.
(3) For ricotta fillings, indeed add a couple of eggs to help them setup.
Here is my spinach and ricotta lasagna recipe, which as you can see from the picture, sets up very firm and sliceable. And I've also got a summer squash and portabello mushroom lasagna which illustrates points 1 and 2.
I think the key is to let the lasagne sit for a while after it comes out of the oven. This allows it to cool and to absorb some of the liquid. It makes it easier to eat as well, as it doesn't scald you.
If you're doing a lasagna that starts with cooked noodles, you can try cooking the pasta less. It'll help soak up some of the excess liquid, and in the process become more flavorful, so it's a double win. It's a balancing act, though. If you do a bunch of things to make your lasagna drier, and then also start with raw or barely cooked pasta, you might find you don't have enough free liquid to cook your pasta through in a reasonable amount of time.
If you put the ricotta cheese on top of cheese cloth for a few days over a bowl, it'll help get some of the moisture out. This is recommended by Lidia in "Lidia's Italiian-American Kitchen" cookbook.
Here is my share -> http://angsarap.wordpress.com/2010/10/17/lasagne-al-forno/
When I remove it from the oven I let it stand for 10 mins to cool down before cutting. The picture in that post is 10 minutes after it was removed from oven not so firm but not sloppy as well
The solidness is simply a result of how much liquid is in your recipe. There are a number of ways to take liquid out, but I find the using the no-bake noodles works great, even when using a wet sauce, vegetables, etc.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.175917
| 2010-11-16T03:50:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9158",
"authors": [
"John Volk",
"Mitch P",
"Patrick B.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64319",
"jocooks",
"suse",
"user18739",
"user18783"
],
"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
}
|
15781
|
Is there grade/quality for spaghetti selection?
Just as the topic.
One of my friends brought me some spaghetti from Italy. What is the difference between spaghetti from Italy and spaghetti from outside of Italy?
There is a legal difference: according to Italian law, pasta (which includes spaghetti) is made only with durum wheat. Other countries also accept soft wheat. The difference is in the amount of protein (mostly gluten): durum wheat has more, which in turn gives the pasta a somewhat snappier bite. Also, the cooked pasta stays eatable (as in, non-mushy) for a longer time.
Moreover, some Italian pastas are extruded through traditional bronze dies that leave a slightly rougher surface that makes for better sauce adhesion.
Avoid by all means all stupid Italian pastas made for tourists. Avoid stupid novelty shapes and (most) colored pastas. Some good brands with global distribution that will not let you down: Barilla, Agnesi, Garofalo, De Cecco (thanks for the tip).
I've also found good pasta (e.g. Barilla) is much harder to overcook.
He just said "the spaghetti have colour!"......OMG
As far as "bronze extruded" pasta, I would definitely add Voiello. Harder to find compared to Barilla, and a tad more expensive, but you can definitely feel the difference.
I also slightly prefer De Cecco to Barilla.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.176182
| 2011-06-26T14:43:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15781",
"authors": [
"ESultanik",
"Himanshu",
"Johnny",
"Mark Hosang",
"cracked_machine",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"jwernerny",
"lamwaiman1988",
"nico",
"user33538"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.