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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
99073
|
How to make a good looking cake with a mountain like shape?
Generally speaking, and not specifying any particular recipe, why does my cake have a small dome on top, while the chef's recipe looks like this:
The dome on top looks like a mountain, with a good looking shape and shiny syrup glaze.
A local chef said that I should add a line of butter on top of the cake batter, so it will help explode in the middle and allow for even cooking.
But I still can't get the mountain shape.
My cake looks good but not as the original:
Is it an oven problem ?
Are you using the correct size loaf pan, as specified in the recipe?
@moscafj no of course. Should I fill the pan to the 3/4 of it so it can go more up ?
@alim1990 don't lose sight of the important variable of the pan that you are using to recreate a cake recipe. Size and shape are extremely important if you are looking to achieve the same results.
@Luciano : I'm wondering if there was something on the Great British Bake Off or similar that would make multiple people want to bake the same type of take
@Joe maybe, I haven't followed the show for a while.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.206211
| 2019-05-20T08:21:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99073",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Luciano",
"alim1990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79543
|
Is 1 cup of rice powder equal to 1 cup of uncooked rice?
Is 1 cup of rice powder equal to 1 cup of uncooked rice? The recipe I am following states, "1 cup rice." I want to use rice flour. Does the density and volume differ?
It's sort of difficult to answer this if we don't know what you're making and the recipe.
1 cup of rice flour is completely different from 1 cup of uncooked rice, they are very different products. I would suggest you specify the problem you are trying to solve.
I agree with your evident suspicion that 1 cup of whole rice will not be the same amount of rice as 1 cup of rice flour. There would be quite a bit of air in the cup with the whole rice, and not in the cup of rice flour. To get an equivalent amount of "rice-matter", you really need to use weight measurements.
But aha!... Look at this handy-dandy rice unit converter
http://www.traditionaloven.com/conversions_of_measures/rice_amounts_converter.html
(somebody had too much time on their hands)
Anyway, I tried it out, and according to them, 1 cup(USA) of rice => 185 g => 6.5 oz.
So if you want to get an amount of ground up rice equivalent to 1 cup whole kernels, try 6 and a half oz. ... But, as Catija & GdD point out in comments, the two rice products, even if materially equivalent, aren't going to act the same at all, so be very wary, ready to adjust your amounts empirically, and don't expect your first attempt at this dish to impress critical people.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.206337
| 2017-03-31T15:18:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79543",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81098
|
Sous vide pasteurization for pregnant wife
long time StackOverflow user (and home cook). My wife is now almost 5 months pregnant, and whilst initially I didn't want to serve her sous vide food (she didn't want any) 5 months of non sous vide meals has taken its toll on her!
After looking into sous vide pasteurization it would seem that as long as food is pasteurized, it is super safe (if not safer than any other method).
So am I right in thinking, that as long as food has reached its pasteurized temp for the right time, there are no food safety issues (regarding pregnant women etc).
So technically I could serve her a rare(ish) steak, cooked at 136F, if I slow cooked it over say 8 hours?
Likewise, the first meal I was going to attempt was sous vide ribs, 8 hours at 164F (to be safe).
Thanks!
Related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/19624/67 ... there are others on sous vide pasteurization, but they all link back to that same webpage & tables.
Pasteurization is the process of heating food to kill pathogenic bacteria, rendering it safe to eat. Pasteurization is a function of temperature and time. Using sous vide, one could easily have a pasteurized rare steak, or even a "raw" egg. So, yes...pasteurized food is able to be consumed more safely by people who are immunocompromised or pregnant. These guides will be helpful.
How many millions, or billions of healthy babies have been born without the aid of sous vide?
Some researchers think that babies develop tastes for foods eaten by the mother while in the womb. I'd say that's an argument in favor!
So that explains an entire generation of teenagers eating Mc Donalds (coal) does it? So, according to your thinking, babies born to curry eaters go onto demand curry?
@dougal3.0.0 and how many pregnant women have been craving for a rare steak or other forbidden food? But desisted for the sake of the child? And we are not even discussing the effects of low iron levels. Speaking of experience (gnawing on "well-done" myself back then): this daddy-to-be is doing something very nice for his wife.
As for the taste: taste, not demand. Both in the womb and via breastfeeding. And I can attest that at least the milk tastes different depending on what the mother eats. Including "hot" - there was the instance of Thai curry that made my baby refuse to nurse.
Ah, well, with 6 in total we have a few ideas on this. None have any strange cravings (well that they tell us about). All were breast fed, and not once did any complain about the 'origin' of the milk. But then we are all different.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.206482
| 2017-04-20T12:32:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81098",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Stephie",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"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
}
|
27690
|
What is an economic way to store/buy ingredients for salad?
Given that many ingredients in salad will go bad after several days, how can one store leftover salad so it is not wasted? Many vegetables, such as beans, lose their freshness after opening the can/package.
A head of lettuce, can of beans, or the prepackage stuff is too much. For example, I can only consume 1/3 a can of beans each time...and I might not want to eat salad everyday (even once a day ).
Will it help if I put the remaining beans in a sealed bottle? What about the vegetables? will they last for 2 weeks?
possible duplicate of Making Subway-like salads at home w/ zero work
Exactly what kind of salad are you going for here? Pasta salad, bean salad, lettuce salad....?
Beans can be frozen, and will keep for months that way. Portion them out before freezing, of course, because its too late once they're frozen. Vegetables (for salad), unfortunately can't be frozen.
@lemontwist lettuce salad, possibly with some salad beans in it.
@derobert By frozen do you mean to put it into the coldest partition?
@lamwaiman1988 Yes, frozen, as in below 0°C. Preferably at -17°C or lower. As in water turns to ice.
I myself love to eat salads, but can't ever seem to store them for more than a week. For me, I only buy salad when I want to eat it. However, there are some tricks for getting more miles out of your garden treats. Here are two:
Remove as much air as possible from your storage container
This is kind of a no-brainier, but I have had people in my household set an open plate of salad in the refrigerator, and wonder why it spoiled over night. Air and moisture are the enemy and make sure to protect your goods. You have probably seen on commercials special bags or containers that claim to remove air and keep vegetables fresh. Be wary of these products, I have tried some and usually don't get the features promised.
Don't cut salad with a metal knife
Perhaps a lesser know fact about lettuce is that cutting it with certain metals accelerates the oxidation process. This simply means that your lettuce will turn brown faster if you cut it. Try using a ceramic knife or rip your greens when preparing to slow down on browning.
To answer your questions about storing. I would recommend not keeping your greens for more that a week, and store them in within the designated bin marked in your refrigerator. This bin is designed to remove moisture and keep your veggies fresher longer.
Moisture is not the enemy, and the crisper drawer does not remove moisture. It maintains a higher humidity, by partially isolating the contents from the rest of the refrigerator. Leafy greens easily dry out, which is what leads to wilting and spoilage (especially when left open to the fridge); this is why sometimes a damp (but not wet) paper towel helps keep things fresh.
With respect to cutting lettuce, it doesn't make a difference unless you're doing it before storing it long-term. See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/24305/1672
@Jefromi - I would agree that this practice of keeping things moist is a good idea for the grocer when you buy it off the shelf, but the times my salads have gone bad have been because of excess moisture. And the question had to do with long term storage. Cutting lettuce with a knife that you intend to store for more than a few days should not be done (IMO).
Once again, too much moisture is definitely a problem - this can happen if you put it in a sealed bag, or if you wash it and don't let it dry sufficiently - but too little moisture is most definitely also a problem. Moist like you see at a grocery store (visible water) is too much. More humid than the rest of the fridge is good. The humidity really is higher in a crisper drawer, and it's for exactly this purpose. Lettuce really will wilt if it's too dry (and this is probably what you've seen happen with an open plate in the middle of the fridge). I'm not making this up.
Storing leftover salad is almost impossible. Once the tender vegetables have been cut, they will start to wilt and spoil even if you haven't added salad dresing. Make one serving of salad at a time, and store the uncut ingredients for next time. Some specifics:
take lettuce leaves off the plant one at a time and then cut or tear them, instead of say cutting off half or a quarter of the lettuce and then cutting or tearing that. A head of lettuce will keep for a week or two in your crisper drawer. Also look into buying smaller lettuces (eg Gem, butter lettuce) rather than a whole romaine or iceberg. You can buy them as you need them.
canned beans won't keep well, probably not until you next salad. Perhaps you could make chili the next day? (Leftover chili freezes well.) Or add the beans to a soup? Some kind of non-salad use.
consider using some longer-keeping veggies (shredded or grated) like cabbage or carrots. They keep for months.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.206733
| 2012-10-09T06:10:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27690",
"authors": [
"Ann",
"Annie Waterman",
"Cascabel",
"Jake Robinson",
"John Brantley",
"K G",
"TFD",
"atw",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7303",
"janick",
"lamwaiman1988",
"lemontwist"
],
"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
}
|
13827
|
A proper way to cook Mi Goreng noodles?
I've purchased a 30 pack box of these delicious noodles and I'd like advice on how to cook them properly. From past experiences, I've either used too much water which made them soggy and very soft which doesn't retain the Thai flavor. So any advice would be nice (how much water to use, drain the water out afterwards, cook for how long, temperature etc). Help?
It's not too much water that makes them soggy, it's cooking them for too long in the water. Thin noodles are virtually done as soon as they break out of their dry, tablet shape. As soon as this happens, take a noodle out and test it. Remember that cooking will continue even after you drain the noodles.
You should drain the noodles well in a colander. If you are planning on stir frying the noodles, you need to first wash the starch off them - run the cold water tap over them and circulate it through the noodles with your hand (carefully, they might still be hot in the middle). They then need to be dried as much possible - spread them out on a board, pat with paper towel, and leave for ten minutes or so before stir frying (preferably in an empty wok - cook the rest of the stir fry first, then empty it, cook the noodles, and re-add the meat etc.)
Thanks, what about the seasoning that they provide? When should I add them?
It should tell you on the packet.
@ElendilTheTall's answer would probably make some pretty badass Mi Goreng, but the whole point of packet Mi Goreng is to be a 2 minute meal in the least work possible.
The way I make Mi Goreng is to cook the noodles in a small pot until they're just cooked (a little firmer than you prefer to eat them).
Quickly drain them, throw them back in the same pot and add all the seasonings except the fried onion.
Put the pot back on the hot briefly (or just use the residual heat from the element) and stir the noodles all around. Basically stir frying them within the pot.
Tip them out into a bowl and add the fried onion sachet (or just eat from the pot).
This always works pretty well for me, I get a result that isn't too far in consistency from the real thing.
PS. Mi Goreng are Indonesian, not Thai :)
Oops, did I write Thai? I'd give you plus one but I don't have enough reputation... thanks for the seasoning tip!
I know this is quite an old thread, but Mi Goreng never gets old so here's my method:
Empty the seasonings (all of them) on to a plate, add the noodles to boiling water and about half way through cooking (about a minute or two) add a cracked egg. By the time the noodles are cooked (which is as soon as they lose their wriggly shape) the egg is also cooked with the yolk still nice and runny. Drain everything in a colander and transfer to the plate. Mix everything together, the egg will break and the yolk will coat everything, making it a bit saucier. It's sooooo yummy and easy :)
heres another technique I use: I use 6 or 7 mi goreng noodles for this :)
Boil water about half way, or you can boil the water in kettle then add in pot easier..
Then add all the seasonings to the pot, mixing the flavours every time you keep adding them so they won't stick to the bottom.
Immediately after you add the flavours and mix all together you add the noodles in so the flavour can sink into the noodles.
But make sure you don't over cook it let the water sink in with the noodles and mix all together once all the noodles are cooked turn off the cooking and its ready to be served and woolah you got nice hot migoreng noodles with abit of its delicious hot soup with it too...mmmmmmm...
This is his how my wife does it: use as little water as possible (just enough for the broken up noodles to swim in) and throw in the dry spices in with the noodles. Keep watching the pot. As soon as the noodles are done take them out quickly, you don't want them to overcook. Mix in the liquid ingredients and serve immediately.
Should I keep the heat on high the entire time? 4 packets on I still find myself slightly overcooking them, would turning the heat down to medium help?
I've never tried that actually. I believe the trick is taking them out just before they are done, since they will continue to cook with the residual heat.
Here's how I do it:
Put 1-2 (or however many you want) noodle bricks into a pot.
Put some boiling water from your kettle/hot water jug into the pot until it covers the noodles.
Cook them on high. Make sure you add all the seasonings, but you don't have to use the onion, oil or hot sauce.
When they look soft, crack 1 (or however many you want) eggs into the pot. Stir the eggs until they're scrambled/"broken."
Optional: Add vegetables, meat, etc.
(If you want, drain the water now) Put the noodles into your bowl, or just eat from the pot.
Also, the perfect pairing is a cup of miso soup! I use some that comes in a packet.
Put noodles in a bowl, cover with boiling water and cover bowl with lid or cling wrap. Stand for 3 mins. Drain and add seasoning. No “cooking” required and only uses one dish !
My favorite way (and I think the best way) to prepare these noodles is to first boil the noodles for just over a minute so they're about al dente. Then, I strain the noodles and toss them in a heated saute pan with about 2 tsp vegetable oil. I stir fry the noodles for around 30 seconds to lose any excess water. Then, I add in all the seasonings except for the fried onions and stir fry it into the noodle for another minute. Finally, I transfer my noodles to a bowl and garnish with the fried onions. The noodles are still chewy with some crispy bits so they really taste like a great fried noodle.
Its 3 minutes and you use no water (except for cooking the noodles) mix spices first except the dried onion then drain mix sprinkle serve :-)
"Use no water (except for cooking the noodles)" is not very helpful advice - the OP was trying to figure out how much water to use to cook the noodles.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.207422
| 2011-04-07T04:27:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13827",
"authors": [
"Avery",
"Cascabel",
"Denise",
"Don Acton",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Saiyed Naushaad Ali",
"System Down",
"UnMeilleurReve",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91620",
"meiryo",
"user28972"
],
"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
}
|
19566
|
Pickling without Sterilization - Is It Safe?
Is this recipe safe? The author is making pickles without sterilizing the jars first and I've ALWAYS read that you have to sterilize the jars first.
There's a difference between canning safety for long-term room temperature storage and safety for refrigerator storage. This recipe says to store in the fridge.
The recipe appears to be close to a standard Summer Pickle recipe.
It's about a 9% brine with 3.75% acetic acid, which should effectively discourage human pathogens.
It is not a fermented product.
They're meant to be refrigerated for at most a few months, not stored on some dusty basement shelf.
Refrigerated properly, I'd eat them without concern.
Ah, so the length of time is the concern.
@Robert: Length of time is always a concern but no, the real concern here is refrigeration, not time. High-acid foods last pretty much forever in the fridge, because both acid and refrigeration are hostile to most bacteria and together they eliminate almost any risk; if you don't refrigerate then the risk goes up considerably.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.207920
| 2011-12-10T23:31:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19566",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Beltran Espinosa",
"Cascabel",
"Omar",
"Robert",
"curious_cat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7018",
"mabelle"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17885
|
What cheeses work 'best' in melted cheese sandwich applications?
I enjoy both toasted and grilled cheese sandwiches, but I generally only alternate between havarti and muenster cheese. I would like to branch out but don't know where to start. These are the factors I think are important in melted cheese sandwiches:
Melt well and fairly quickly
Fairly mild taste and texture
Generally available
Be a natural, dairy cheese (aka not Cheeze Whiz or American cheese)
What cheeses fit these requirements? Are there other components that are vital to the cheese element of melted cheese sandwiches?
Confused about #4: I thought the whole point of Whiz and American cheese is that it melts without oily separation.
Yeah, good point. I've edited - I think those aren't good options because they taste chemically and bad to me.
That is the price we pay for neatly melting cheese. :-)
Relevant link: Episode 1 of The Sporkful podcast
I like a nice smoked gouda in my grilled cheese, and I'm only half only saying that to bug you.
I can't agree about #2. A strong cheddar makes for a wonderful cheese on toast.
Here's the rub; I agree that it's great on toast but once I add another piece of bread and turn it into a sandwich, I think milder cheeses work better - weird, I know.
I don't know what Abby's smoked gouda reference is ... but young to medium gouda makes great toasted cheese sandwiches; if you prefer something that melts more, look for a double cream gouda. For grilled cheese, I prefer a stronger cheese, so nothing younger than a medium gouda.
Make your own meltable cheese instead, using any kind of cheese you like.
The usual approach is fondue-like, but the newest Food Lab has this awesome idea of using gelatine and a bit of evaporated milk for creating the perfect meltable (and re-meltable) cheese from anything including an aged hard cheese. The article is a must-read. http://aht.seriouseats.com/archives/2011/09/the-burger-lab-how-to-make-super-melty-cheese-slices-like-american.html
@rumtscho - sounds like a good idea lol, to the point there's a whole answer about it hehe
@rfusca I didn't notice the answer when I posted the comment. I am surprised myself, given the fact that I have upvoted it before the comment, but then I'm a bit scatterbrained. We can ask a mod to delete the comment if you think it's worth the trouble.
@rumtscho lol, no need, just thought it was funny
This old question is of a type which would have been closed early after asking by modern rules. When I read the text, I thought that I could close an eye, seeing that the OP invested effort in setting up clear criteria, and doing her best to invite good answers. But then, looking at the answers, I see that this has not worked. What we have is the typical endless list of "My favorite is X", without explanations, with several repetitions, basically a chaos. If somebody reads it completely, he won't know more than he knew before. These are the typical problems when a list type question is (cont.)
(cont.) posed on a Stack Exchange site, and the reason why this type was banned network-wide (with a few notable exceptions). Even though I see the OP's problem as a valid concern, and wish her luck in finding the option which works best for her, I am closing the question, because our system cannot deal with this type of problem in a sensible way.
Gruyere is DELICIOUS. It melts without getting too gooey or soupy, and it is the traditional cheese component of a Croque Monsieur (if you're into that ham thing...). You could actually probably use any of the cheeses in that "variations" list, but I love Gruyere so that's my recommendation. It's widely available but tends to be kind of pricey here in the US.
Brie is also a good choice; since it is soft to begin with, it melts nicely. (Just make sure to cut off the rind before putting in the sandwich - that would be a weird texture combo.) It's great in grilled or toasted cheese sandwiches because of the richness and slightly buttery flavor.
As a local reference, check out Gorilla Cheese's menu for some tasty ideas; they do classic grilled cheeses with cheddar, American, gruyere or mozzarella, but they make others that have additions of other non-cheese components.
I grabbed a package of fontina last night, will report back.
+1 for Gruyere... Expensive (in the states) but delicious! Also, in the same vein of fondue cheeses is Ementhaller (spelling)
Cutting rind off Brie sounds like a terrible waste :(
I'm not sure if this counts as 'natural' - but you can transform nearly any cheese into a melting cheese transform nearly any cheese (a better version!) into a melting cheese. Wondra flour and a little cream go in with your crumbled/shredded cheese into the steamer and steam till its gooey - it forms a stable emulsion. Then you can pour and cool it into slice, a burger, or into a delicious toasted cheese sandwich.
Other natural good choices include Gruyere and Comte.
No matter what cheese you end up using (cheddar with a little mustard is my favorite), if it is semi-hard like cheddar or provolone, it will melt more evenly if it is grated.
Provolone and mozzarella fit your spec, although I find them frankly too mild for grilled cheese. Brie separates slightly, but is otherwise excellent in grilled cheese (particularly if you add sweet notes to the dish. I've not tried Camembert, but it should work about as well as Brie, I would think, and be slightly more flavorful.
You should try Provolone piccante then. Very tasty! ;)
If you don't want too mild, try a smoked provolone. Or add something like a little pesto on the inside.
colby cheese? Wisconsin cheddar? i always like pepperjack, but if you want a mild taste that may not work (its slightly zingy)
Mimolette is my favorite. It melts extremely well and has a nutty enough taste that it complements other flavors quite nicely, rather than just adding texture or fat/calories. :-)
It's also great on its own in a toasted cheese sandwich.
Of course, the appearance, the story about its appearance, and its history are all nice as well if you're in a pedagogical mood when presenting it.
It shouldn't be a surprise, but, the fattier the cheese, the better it melts. Cheddar is a good example.
My favorite combo is swiss and american. I know you said no processed cheeses but those two compliment each other really well. A lil pepper and mustard and hmmm thats damn good.
smoked Havarti and marbled cheddar are great for grilled cheese sandwiches
My kids love a take on aa sandwich they saw on food network. When you butter the bread dip it in some fresh grated parmasean. And in the sandwich. Lotsa cheese american swiss mozzerella monterey jack a slice of each! Enjoy
Manchego.
Went to a nice restaurant in San Diego, and as an appetizer they served grilled cheese sandwiches with (what I think was) creamy vodka sauce for dipping. The sandwiches used Manchego cheese on Sourdough bread. And they used truffle butter, but I haven't been able to find that at the store.
But in recreating it, the sourdough/manchego dipped in vodka marinara sauce is the best grilled cheese sandwich I've had, and it's wonderfully simple.
Gruyère/emmenthal (same cheese) is best. Cheddar is thick, gooey, and more difficult to digest. Gruyère/emmenthal is much lighter and so much tastier!
Hello and welcome! Please note Gruyère (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruy%C3%A8re_cheese) and Emmental (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmental_cheese) are definitively not the same cheese. Yes, they are both from Switzerland, but from different regions and taste significantly different. If you are still in doubt: E. has large holes, G. has none. Please edit you post accordingly. Also, health claims (being easier to digest) are off-topic here, unless you have scientific proof for this statement. As far as taste is concerned, I wholeheartedly agree.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.208132
| 2011-09-20T18:04:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17885",
"authors": [
"Benjol",
"Cheryl Hartley",
"Jill Mishima",
"Joe",
"Katey HW",
"Rikon",
"Stephie",
"Will Charlton",
"adrum",
"benzado",
"hairboat",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99735",
"nico",
"priyanka p",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho",
"slim"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4867
|
Why blanche vegetables before freezing?
I have a bumper crop of french beans, runners, and (earlier in the summer) peas. I know that we're supposed to blanche vegetables prior to freezing and my general purpose cookbooks tell me how long to give each vegetable.
I believe that blanching helps retain flavour, colour and vitamins. But I don't understand how or why. It seems counterintuitive that the best way to preserve the vegetable immediately prior to freezing, as close to its natural state as possible, is to apply heat via boiling water.
You would think that just picking the vegetable and bundling it into your freezer as fast as possible would be the best way to preserve colour, vitamins etc.
To prevent the vegetable from going 'off' in the freezer.
From answers.com:
Blanching is the scalding of
vegetables in boiling water or steam.
Blanching slows or stops the action of
enzymes. Up until harvest time,
enzymes cause vegetables to grow and
mature. If vegetables are not
blanched, or blanching is not long
enough, the enzymes continue to be
active during frozen storage causing
off-colours, off-flavours and
toughening. Blanching time is crucial
and varies with the vegetable and size
of the pieces to be frozen.
Under-blanching speeds up the activity
of enzymes and is worse than no
blanching. Over-blanching causes loss
of flavour, colour, vitamins and
minerals.
In some cases it also alters the vegetable's respiration helping it freeze better.
I believe you - the link doesn't make a connection between the respiration and it freezing better, though.
Thanks, that's a pretty clear answer. And the extra info about the importance of not under/over blanching is useful.
I'm not saying this is right or wrong (it sounds right to me). However, I would take answers from Answers.com and Yahoo! Answers with a grain (pile) of salt. I find the quality and accuracy to generally range from questionable to atrocious. Please don't interpret this as a comment on the quality of your answer, just a general advisement.
@hobodave - oh, very seconded!
Here is a published scientific paper that makes similar claims:
http://postharvest.ucdavis.edu/datastorefiles/234-376.pdf , an excellent list of vegetables with their appropriate blanching times: http://extension.missouri.edu/publications/DisplayPub.aspx?P=GH1503 , and the best FAQ out there on freezing foods: http://www.uga.edu/nchfp/questions/FAQ_freezing.html
We have cut off our corn & immediately frozen it for years with no blanching. Guest at our table ask how our corn taste so fresh. We tell them: immediately freezing the cut off corn stops the enzyme growth continuing. Zero degree freezer does the same thing. The color and taste even 2 yrs. later is perfect. Save yourself a lot of work - don't blanch. Many do it just because Grandma always did - Grandma didn't have a freezer, she canned!
We do the same for our green beans too. They come out of the freezer in the winter months just like garden fresh...with no blanching. Do the extra work of blanching if it makes you feel better, or try this once and you'll be amazed at the ease and good taste of unblanched frozen corn & greenbeans.
That doesn't make sense, and is easily tested by doing batches of blanched and un-blanched veges. The blanching is to break down enzymes. The enzymes in particular are chemical catalysts that make the cells grow. they work fine in the freezer, just a little slower. In some vegetable the results are quite spectacular even after just a month in the freeze, as the vegetable continues to grow without fresh nutrients, is sort of soft explodes! Not very appetising. Yes corn isn't top of the list for this effect, but as per OP, beans and peas are!
@TFD: How do you explain why David's green beans still look great out of the freezer then?
I would guess that pods react differently than separated beans/peas. I do not have the science to back this up however.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.208880
| 2010-08-11T12:50:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4867",
"authors": [
"Eris",
"Mahssa Mohegh",
"Micki",
"Naseer",
"TFD",
"Tea Drinker",
"TheBlueFool",
"Tobias Op Den Brouw",
"Tootsie Rolls",
"carpii",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9517",
"papin",
"prajakta kulkarni",
"seveves",
"user62370"
],
"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
}
|
5145
|
Why powdered eggs?
Powdered egg is emblematic of all that was was ghastly and difficult about cooking during WWII. At least in Britain, but perhaps also in other countries during that period.
Supposedly it was pretty vile stuff.
Since actual eggs are fairly easy and economical to produce, and store well, I'm wondering what it is about a powdered egg which makes it a better choice than an actual egg in a time of scarcity for a nation at war.
Did it transport better? Or was it just that actual eggs were bulked out (with what, cereals?) to produce the powdered egg, so as to make eggs go further?
From the Wikipedia article on Powdered eggs:
Powdered eggs are fully dehydrated eggs. They are made in a spray dryer in the same way that powdered milk is made. The major advantages of powdered eggs over fresh eggs are the price, reduced weight per volume of whole egg equivalent, and the shelf life (which, when properly sealed, can be 5 to 10 years). Other advantages include smaller usage of storage space, and lack of need for refrigeration. Powdered eggs also have fewer calories and more nutritional value than normal eggs, which suggests that powdered eggs could have been fortified. In powdered eggs, there are 13 different folates and essential vitamins. Powdered eggs can be used without rehydration when baking, and can be rehydrated to make dishes such as scrambled eggs and omelettes. Powdered eggs were used throughout the Second World War for rationing and were widely used during wartime shortages. Powdered Eggs are also known as Dried Eggs.
Powdered eggs lasted longer, were easier to transport and store, and packed a greater nutritional punch than whole eggs.
There's a wiki just on powdered eggs? I could see one just on eggs, but just on powdered eggs seems kinda narrowly focused to me.
I had the same thought. It's a Wikipedia article.
Since actual eggs are fairly easy and economical to produce and store well...
In wartime conditions? It took weeks (or months, in the Pacific) for supplies to reach the front lines, across bumpy or nonexistent roads and with no refrigeration capacity. You'd be mad to rely on perishable food - especially fragile ones! - in such conditions.
Talking about the home front.
Same issues probably apply - bombed out roads, power losses preventing refrigeration, transport more in a single truck. I imagine a lot of the powdered eggs in Britain came from the US via ship, which adds extra problems for fresh ones. Plus, imagine if you dropped your week's ration of real eggs on the way home.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.209236
| 2010-08-13T21:23:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5145",
"authors": [
"Deepak Swami",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"Jennifer Davis",
"Joe",
"McGarnagle",
"Percival M",
"Tea Drinker",
"Ye Liu",
"Zolani13",
"ceejayoz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8742
|
Is there a difference between Stew and Casserole?
Is there a proper distinction between a slow cooked meat dish labelled a casserole and one labelled stew?
And if there is a traditional distinction would it be fair to say that the distinction is no longer observed?
In today's modern culture and cooking style, the difference is likely unobserved.
I would consider a stew less constructed than a casserole, however.
While the stew would start with generally uncooked ingredients (perhaps except for browning the meat, and likely be mixed together while cooking to give a single-dish of meat, vegetables and sauce.
A casserole might include some cooked ingredients, often be more properly layered and probably not mixed while cooking.
I am torn by your comment. Although I agree with the latter three sentences, I think that your answer is wholly wrong. There may be some sloppiness, but I have never heard anyone refer to a tuna and macaroni casserole as stew.
again there could be a cultural difference ... here in the uk no one would talk about a tuna and maccaroni casserole either
Seeing this comment 11 years after it was posted...in the UK that sounds like a Tuna Pasta bake
Is there some dialectical thing going on here? I have always known stews as stovetop and casseroles as baked, just as Jared said in his comment. See for example on wikipedia: stew vs. casserole; or in Merriam-Webster: stew (click the verb form) vs. casserole. (Casserole refers to the dish as well as the food cooked in it; it's pretty definitely something you would only bake in.)
Now and then I see things get muddled when I'm reading recipes, but these are definitely the meanings I grew up with and see in the vast majority of what I read.
I agree, to me a stew is on the stove, casserole is in the oven. Because the casserole is put in the oven and left there its more "structured" or layered than a stew which is stirred during the cooking process.
As Jared mentioned, 'stewing' always involves a fair amount of liquid -- it's a slow, moist cooking process. It's not quite a braise, as with a braise, the item is only partially submerged, whereas with a stew, you have smaller chunks of things that might float, but for the most part are submerged. You can make really thick stews (I tend to grate a potato into the stew towards the end to get it to thicken up 'til it's thick like a good gravy), but they tend to be loose, not a single congealed mass. It might be an American thing, but 'stew' in general is always assumed to have meat in it (typically a red meat, eg. beef or venison)
Casseroles (might be called a 'bake' or a 'hotdish' depending on your region) are almost always baked and untouched during the baking process. They can be layered (as with a lasagne or a shepherd's pie) but can also be just a mixture put into a baking dish and tossed in the oven (eg, my mom's tuna noodle casserole ... but she might've topped it with some extra cheese or breadcrumbs, so I guess you can consider that a layer). Casseroles tend to be less 'soupy' than a stew -- some will hold their own shape when they're scooped, if let to cool down for a few minutes after they come out of the oven. (eg, lasagne, most macaroni & cheese casseroles)
... as it looks like you're from the UK, it's possible that these distinctions aren't made over there. If the terms are used differently outside the US, please add to the Translating Cooking Terms post.
yeah, this could be a UK v. Am Eng problem
in UK Eng a lasagne or shepherd's pie would never be called a casserole. perhaps then my Q makes no sense to Am Eng speakers. for me a casserole is very close to a stew; lots of liquid, long cook time
@Tea Drinker: Most people wouldn't use the term 'casserole' for them, even though they fit the criteria to be one, as 'casserole' in the US has a kind of negative connotation as something hastily thrown together and baked, which isn't always the case; I have a great 'enchilada casserole' recipe from an ex, where it's assembled like a lasagne, but we stick the 'casserole' on there to denote it's not the rolled and baked on a tray style.
This question almost belongs on http://english.stackexchange.com/ - there is definitely a difference in the English interpretation of these words. Casserole and stew have little difference here. Though I would say that I would expect a casserole to cook in the oven, stew may or may not.
In addition to Joe's great answer, in my childhood (where they were usually called 'bakes' (the food), but they came out of a 'casserole' (the vessel).) I learned two other important differences:
time. A 'stew' was never done in less than 2 hours. It wasn't uncommon for it to bubble away in the crock pot or a dutch oven for 4 or 5 hours. A 'bake' by comparison was usually well under an hour in the oven and then done. If the menu called for a stew, and it wasn't already bubbling along and the kitchen cleaned up when I got home from school, I made sure I got a decent snack for myself, 'cause dinner would be a tad later than normal. :)
meal vs entree. A 'stew' was traditionally an entire meal. It might be served with some bread or roles to dredge up the last bits from your bowl, but the stew was really the entire meal. A 'bake' always had supporting dishes of some sort. Chicken noodle casserole came to the table with green beans (sometimes in a casserole of their own.) and carrots on the side, lasagna arrived with a salad and garlic bread. etc.
As to your second question, I still see the distinction in my family, my wife's family, friends and many formally trained cooks. But largely I think because I'm in the midwest, where hotdish is king, and everyone here knows what hotdish is; I see more blurring of the line between 'soup' and 'stew' than I do 'stew' and 'casserole/bake/hotdish' to be honest.
One factor not mentioned in the other answers is that there is a class of cookware called a "casserole dish" -- ceramic or pyrex, somewhat shallow, often with a lid. I suppose it follows that a casserole is the kind of dish you prepare in such a vessel.
Good point -- I can't believe I didn't mention that part of it. It's my understanding that the cooking vessel was named first, and the food cooked in it took the name, but I'm not a food or language historian.
Go to France and ask to buy a "casserole" in a shop, somebody will try to sell you a saucepan. This is one of those cases where a "loan word" has acquired a specific meaning, which has then become further distorted with time.
In the UK casseroles and stews are pretty much interchangeable...both can be cooked in the oven. When I think about a dish in a 9 x 13 Pyrex dish with layers of goodies and a crunchy or otherwise top I think "bake". A "bake" would be accompanied with some kind of side dish...green beans, broccoli, salad. A casserole or stew would be accompanied by crusty bread or the like as it is considered an entire meal.
In Norfolk (UK) ‘stew & dumplings’ is a traditional dish. Mixed veg & meat (typically braising steak) cooked slowly on low heat, dumpling mix added towards the end of cooking. Our extended family always cooked on stove top, but quick look online sees a recipe for ‘stew & dumplings in a “large casserole” (goodhousekeeping.com).
I went to the dictionary for definitons of casserole and stew. As pointed out above, the main difference and the description, lies in the cooking vessel used. A casserole is a covered oven based dish whilst a stew is commonly stove-top, covered or not, using more liquid to cook the ingredients.
Slow cookers arrived on the market. I supposed these would be closer to the casserole definition?
When you say 'A casserole is a ... dish' ... are you referring to the bakeware, or the food made in it? Because I make many casseroles (food) in uncovered dishes, but typically when you buy a casserole (bakeware), it has a lid. And I make lots of things in slow cookers that would not be a casserole (soups, pulled pork, pot roast, stew, etc.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.209522
| 2010-11-01T22:18:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8742",
"authors": [
"Ilmo Euro",
"Imane Fateh",
"Joe",
"Juan A. Navarro",
"Manako",
"Orbling",
"Reg Mem",
"Susan Bowen",
"Tea Drinker",
"Venture2099",
"confused over carrots",
"coxley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/157241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"klypos",
"mfg",
"terribabe",
"Ηλεκτρολόγος Μηχανικός"
],
"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
}
|
4601
|
What vegetarian substitute for prosciutto could I use in Carbonara?
Instead of prosciutto, I used capers to try and maintain the salty aspect. It worked ok, but something about the capers and cheese didn't seem right. Any other suggestions?
Also, to round out the dish with a bit more substance, I also added some diced zucchini, sauteed with garlic and shallots.
I think you mean pancetta, not prosciutto.
@SamAlterman : You can use the prosciutto as well, but it's uncommon. Normally we do it when we run out of pancetta.
@SamAlterman: I regularly use prosciutto in Carbonara, I prefer it to the Pancetta. You can also substitute it with Speck (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speck)
Actually, it's neither prosciutto nor pancetta... it's guanciale :)
Well veggie/cheese wise, I would recommend either of:
Chickpeas drained in salt water and paprika and grilled in the oven for about 10 minutes
Portobello mushrooms cut into large chunks
Fried halloumi
Large chunks of celery sauteed in salt pepper, and chili
Good answer, but it also makes me think, "I sure am glad I eat meat." ;o)
+1 for fried halloumi, though the celery is a good idea
Yes, halloumi is really salty, and it can fry up and get crispy, that's probably the best choice.
I'd recommend thinly sliced and seared shiitake mushrooms for an umami boost and appropriate texture. Really get a nice brown crust on them.
I've not tried it, but to my mind sun-dried tomatoes, thinly sliced, should work. How about bell pepper, grilled until the skin goes black to give a nice smoky flavour?
I’ve tried this often, and it’s delicious. Generally, chopped sun-dried tomatoes are an excellent veggie substitute for chopped bacon. I’ve been a veggie almost all my life, so I’ve no idea how similar they actually taste; but they certainly work really well in all the same contexts where I’m told chopped bacon does :-) If you can find sun-dried bell peppers, they’re also good.
One vegan substitute would be some tempeh.
The texture of it can be augmented by frying it whole before slicing it to give you the chew, and the flavor can be made nice and smokey while doing so. Now I am speaking less to the ribboned style of prosciutto and more to the wedged chunks of the meat. But the delicate/toughness of the meat carries through nicely using tempeh in other foods like omelets as well. I am not sure you would get the taste from faking bacon; but the blocks of tempeh could be where it's at.
If you're after emulating a carbonara it's worth noting that it doesn't feature prosciutto anywhere between the ingredients, it uses bacon, and it's supposed to be soft (not crispy), fat and closer to small cubes (diced) than slices if you cut it yourself.
The closest thing in texture you will get are most likely mushrooms, salting them and working towards taking away any aftertaste is up to you.
I've seen carbonara recipes using proscuitto and bacon both. It seems like a word that gets used for a wide variety of recipes.
not to be picky, but the carbonara recipes that use prosciutto are not Italian recipes.
You don't really need a 1-1 substitute for bacon, but you do want something that goes well with the rich egg yolk + cheese flavor.
Zucchini has worked well for me in the past. Jamie Oliver has a Courgette carbonara recipe, just omit the meat. Make sure you brown the zucchini. (He tempers the flavor with a little cream, too.) If you can find the video, it's worth watching for his zucchini cutting technique: he quarters them lengthwise, trims off the inside corner and the cuts on the bias to yield pieces the same size and shape as penne.
Peas would also work – Mario Batali has a "Penne alla Papalina" recipe that is similar to a carbonara, but uses peas and prosciutto. (I substitute yolks for his whole eggs.)
Shiitake or another bold mushroom would likely work well, too, but I haven't tried it myself.
Also – be generous with the black pepper, and, if you use short pasta like penne, cut the veggies to the size of the pasta.
Absolutely dried tomatoes (South Italy ones if you can find them) - they have flavour, texture and crunchiness (after stirred in your frypan with EVO, minced garlic and chili) - you have to slightly burn them (as non-veg do with bacon) and, besides, a sauce of chopped tofu with soy milk, a dash of soy cream, and turmeric or saffron if you prefer. Join after the sun dried tomatoes and then stir spaghetti or penne into the sauce. A good sprinkling of freshly ground pepper and ready! The appearance will be the same as the carbonara "cruel" - and also the taste strikingly similar! - Note: Cut the tomatoes into strips or cubes as they do with the bacon!
There are a wide variety of vegetarian ham and bacon substitutes. None of these are exactly the same as bacon or prosciutto, but any of them would work, though you may want to add some more oil/fat to the party, since they are generally going to be low-fat.
Here's a detailed thread on vegetarian/vegan bacon substitutes.
Bacon substitution
To summarize, you can add smokey flavor to a variety of vegetarian proteins or vegetables with a chewy or crispy texture. These include tempeh bacon, tofu bacon and coconut bacon, all of which are relatively simple to make at home. Additionally there are commercially made substitutes including Lifelife's Smart Bacon, Morningstar farms veggie bacon, Lightlife tempeh bacon strips, smoked tofu as well as various brands of Baco's or Bacon Bits. You generally add smokey flavor one of three ways - liquid smoke (easy and potent), smoked paprika (more expensive, less potent), actually smoking the ingredient in a smoker. I've also seen recipes where people smoke mushrooms and use as a smoked meat replacer.
There are also a lot of vegetarian ham substitutes including Lightlife Smart Deli, Yve's Deli Slices and meatless Canadian Bacon, and others you can find at some Asian markets.
If you want a less smokey flavor, but a similar texture you could use baked tofu (maybe flavored with miso, soy sauce and/or seaweed for umami flavor), or seitan.
I would suggest bell peppers. Cut them in little cubes (about the same size of pancetta pieces), then saute' them in olive oil, after a couple of minutes add some wine, salt and if you believe some spices (maybe curry). Let them cook for some 5 minutes, leave them a bit crunchy.
After that mix everything as usual :)
I hate to answer my own question, but I just came across this "Vegetarian Bacon" idea. Think it would work here?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kentbrew/sets/72157624692331946/
It can't hurt to try and let us know how it goes.
this is exactly the recipe i was thinking of -- i read about this awhile back, but i haven't tried them yet, either. they look the part! i say try it.
That looks like bacon but it won't taste much like it.
After consultation with my mother, we agreed you could try with pine seeds.
Sure, that could work. I would up the flavour by roasting them first.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.210239
| 2010-08-09T02:49:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4601",
"authors": [
"Aniya",
"Chris Steinbach",
"JJOliger",
"Jan Lloyd",
"José Jakson Cardoso",
"Kate Gregory",
"Lynda David",
"Mary James",
"PLL",
"Rodd",
"Sam Stokes",
"SamAlterman",
"Spammer",
"Stefano Borini",
"Vex Mage",
"Walter A. Aprile",
"Winter",
"cmaduro",
"force of love",
"franko",
"hqrsie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9511",
"johnc",
"justkt",
"miguev",
"mschneider",
"nico",
"paul",
"victorz",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8659
|
Can I freeze Milk?
After a bit of miscommunication, my wife and I ended up buying 6 litres of milk between us. I don't really want to waste it, so I'm wondering if it's safe to freeze some of it and defrost and use it later?
The density of ice is around .92 g/mL, so you need to save an absolute minimum of 8% of the space in your container for expansion, 80 mL per liter. (For my fellow Americans coming across this, for a gallon, that's 1.3 cups. See why we should use metric?) Personally, I'd say better safe than sorry, and double that.
@Jefromi, you just need the container to have enough airspace and flexibility. No amount of airspace would be enough for me to put a glass bottle in the freezer, but paper cartons can go in straight from the store.
@RBerteig: I was just trying to quantify "enough airspace" by giving a clear upper bound.
@Jefromi, I didn't really intend to criticize the calculation. It is a good idea to have an upper bound in mind. I'd still be careful about glass bottles in freezers, though. Even though paper is usually fine, I'd inspect it for burst seams before thawing, as that saves a cleanup...
@RBerteig: No worries. The extra advice on material is good.
Worked fine for us; we used to cottage with people who didn't want to shop very often, had lots of kids and a big freezer out back. We would buy lots of milk and freeze it just fine.
Do let it defrost completely before trying to use it.
We never noticed any separation, nor problems with expansion - do be aware of the container the milk is actually in, and if there is room in there for freezing to occur.
FYI - this specific experience was in Canada, and milk up here comes in bags that we then place into a pitcher-like contraption to use. Your specific container may or may not have enough space.
Higher fat content milk can separate more, but homogenization seems to reduce the effect. If the milk does separate, it can be shaken or whipped (or used in baking if neither of those work).
@sdg, tickled by the first line in your answer. hope you don't mind. Cottaging has a different meaning here in the UK.
@Tea - ok, you have me intrigued... Care to share? Or can you on a family cooking site? :-)
@sdg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottaging
@Tea Drinker, That is a prime example of two cultures separated by a common language. ;-) As for frozen milk, I remember freezing it part way deliberately when I was a kid. Milk was good just at the point where crystals started to form. It also helped make low-fat milk taste better by removing some of the water.
@Tea Drinker - I wished you had put a warning on that link! I was not expecting that as the result! But it made me laugh that British actually have a term like this
@Tea Drinker - We North Americans always laugh hysterically when a Brit asks if he can "Bum a Fag."
Absolutely. We always buy twice as much as we need and freeze the extra.
Open the milk and pour out a couple cups to make sure it doesn't burst when it freezes.
Then just leave it in the fridge for a day to thaw before you need it.
The milk is translucent/yellow when it is frozen but after it is thawed I can't detect a difference in it.
I haven't tried using it for cheese making- I wonder if it would help or hinder the curd.
I buy 3-6 gallons of milk and freeze them. I usually get half whole and half 2%; the whole milk seems to separate a bit, but one or two firm shakes after it's defrosted seems to do the trick. The milk does acquire a strange transparent yellow color, but upon defrosting is just fine. I've never had to pour any milk out to make room for expansion, as long as the jug itself is not damaged. Paper cartons work just as well for freezing; I've never had one burst.
In the old days of the paper cartons for half gallons of milk (before they put the little plastic screw-on top on 'em), my mom would do it all the time ... I seem to recall almost a whole shelf of our stand-up freezer being dedicated to milk storage. She'd just put it in the freezer, in the carton ... but I can't remember how she thawed it ... likely overnight in the fridge, as I don't remember seeing it.
We typically got 2% milk ... I have no idea if that makes a difference or not.
I buy a gallon of milk (2%) at a time. Less shopping to do. Living alone, I can't use it all up at one time. For years I have been filling cleaned snapple size bottles about 80% full and standing them up to freeze on my freezer door. About 24-36 hours before I need milk, I take out a bottle and put it in the fridge. I've never had a broken bottle.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.210835
| 2010-10-29T13:10:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8659",
"authors": [
"Bruce Alderson",
"Camey",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Marsha",
"Peggy Waterhouse",
"RBerteig",
"Robbie Henry",
"Tea Drinker",
"Wayne",
"dasboot",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95183",
"luis.parravicini",
"sdg",
"violadaprile"
],
"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
}
|
4863
|
Can you freeze fruit pies after baking - Will this ruin them?
I was thinking about apple, but would apply to any fruit.
I've done this both ways and prefer to freeze my fruit pies before I bake them. You have to bake them longer (20 min to 1/2 hour) and will need to use foil to be sure the crust doesn't come out too dark. No soggy crust this way.
this has the advantage of not getting your kitchen hot in the summer. In the winter when you want the pie, a little electric heat will probably be more than welcome
You can certainly freeze them. You can also freeze component parts. I've frozen balls of pie crust and re-used later - my crust is butter based, so it is easier to work with when cold (just thawed, for example). I have 7 containers of peach filling (I don't like spices in most fruit pies, so it is just peaches, sugar, and some of the juices from the peaches) in my freezer. When I take it out, I will thaw, add instant tapioca pearls, and bake. If I have room in my freezer come apple season (which I probably won't), I'll probably freeze apple slices as well.
You could also, if you liked, par bake your crust to get it more ready for baking and freeze in a pie plate, then throw everything else in, add a top crust, and go when you are ready to eat.
You can certainly freeze them, I do it all the time.
Let them cool to room temperature on the counter.
Seal them well, I tend to use good plastic freezer bags and use a straw to suck the air out.
Don't stack them until they are frozen solid.
Nice to eat later in the winter, when there is snow around and have a little taste of summer/fall. (I tend to do several peach and several apple.)
How do you thaw them? I've had pies get soggy even when moving from fridge-counter. I imagine this would be worse when the pie is much colder. Any tips? I hate soggy pie crust.
@Adam - what about baking them from frozen using foil to keep the top crust from getting too brown. There are also a few tips when preparing a pie to help keep the bottom crust from getting soggy. Personally I brush my bottom crust with egg white before putting the filling in and move it into the oven as fast as possible after the filling touches crust.
I've frozen the raw crust, then lined the crust with plastic wrap, filled it with fruit, and frozen the whole thing in a tin. You can pop the fruit out, bake the crust in the oven and once the fruit thaws, add back into the shell and bake as usual.
@Adam - the bottom crust can get a little soggy. I tend to then re-heat the pie (I like warm pie...) and after some ice cream, could not tell the difference anyways.
some people hate the bottom crust being soggy, especially those of us who don't put ice cream on our pies. Rose Levy Branbaum hates soggy bottom crust so much she makes her pies with a top crust only.
I brown the lower crust put in my home grown apricot filling top the pie with unbaked crust then freeze. Later in the year I pull one out , let it thaw and bake as normal. Perfect, I am eating a hot pc. with ice cream right now!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.211337
| 2010-08-11T12:33:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4863",
"authors": [
"Adam Fineman",
"Adam Shiemke",
"Alexander",
"English Petal",
"Inverted Llama",
"Kate Gregory",
"Korinna",
"Prafulla",
"Wayne",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9443",
"justkt",
"rpierce",
"sdg"
],
"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
}
|
6260
|
From which culture did our North American meal progression (soup/salad/appetizer + meal + dessert) come from?
In North America (i.e. U.S. and Canada), a typical supper progression is as follows:
Appetizer (optional)
Salad or Soup
Main course (which is called "entree" -- in Europe, "entree" means starter)
Dessert (pies, ice cream, etc.)
My question: How did we end up this progression? Did we inherit this from the British? The French? Or the early settlers?
The reason I ask is because Italian meal progressions aren't like this at all. There go for the primi, secondi, but typically no dessert (well, if they do choose to have dessert, it's usually something light like fruit; never pies or cakes). Pastries/biscotti are eaten at tea-time.
The Italian progression makes a lot of sense to me. Tea time (around 4-5 pm) is just ideal for a little something before dinner. As for dessert, it doesn't make sense to eat something as heavy as cake or pies after a full meal. For me, eating sweets when one is stuffed takes away from the enjoyment of the sweets. In my own culture, we don't have tea-time, and we don't eat dessert. The main course is the prima donna at supper time, and we don't feel a need to supplement it with anything else.
This is an anthropology question, not a culinary one.
Meta on this type of question: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1701/anthropology-versus-culinary-questions
The basic principle of serving a dish at a time is called Russian Service by the French, who started using it in the early 1800s. The particular order of the dishes has changed with the times and with theories of how meals should be served. The book Arranging the Meal by Flandrin describes the history of these changing fashions.
There has been a debate since classic Greek times of when to have, or even whether to have, a salad course. The Greeks suggested eating after the meal to help with the ensuing drinking. The British were having it before the meal in the 1600s. By the 1800s French meals served à la russe placed the salad close to the end of the meal, a tradition kept up to today. I remember reading that the starter salad, common in the US, is a simplified antipasto, but have not been able to find the reference, so for now it is just a guess.
Notice I have only answered half the question (why separate courses). Why and when the starter salad became common I do not know. The habit is from the XX century.
Does this apply to Italians as well? I know my Wife's family is Italian descent and they insist on bringing things out in different courses. Would this be considered a la russe?
A la russe, what we are used to in restaurants, was in contrast to the French style of bringing many dishes at once. The style then got adopted as being "the way to do it." The order and what is brought has changed with time and place. Many families in the US still have the salad after the main course.
Right but is it still derived from A la russe if Italian-American families bring out a salad dish, then bread dish, and other dishes before getting to the main course of macaroni?
I have never heard of anybody eating salad after a main course in the U.S. Neither home cooking nor in a restaurant. /resident @papin
My mother has a story from her first experience dining in a US restaurant. Everybody else in the party already had their main course, but she was still sitting there with just her salad, which she was heroically holding off on eating, because she wanted to have it with her meal, as is proper. (Finally someone clued her in that in America, it is customary to eat your salad before your main course.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.211614
| 2010-08-28T20:32:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6260",
"authors": [
"Engineer2021",
"Marti",
"Preston",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"papin"
],
"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
}
|
125196
|
Why did my potatoes and bananas spoil to mush within a week?
I bought a bag of potatoes and a hand of bananas on Sunday (from Costco)
and just let them sit in the kitchen until Friday, when I noticed water
oozing out of a few of the bananas.
Then, the next day, I found that a few thumb-sized spots on the potatoes
had also become mushy and had a terrible smell. This ooze is pure white,
feeling and looking like mashed potatoes (but I never cooked them),
not the normal darkening I am used to in potato rot.
It's like something just spoiled these two produce products and cut short
the full aging/ripening process after one week.
Why?
So, I focused on the potatoes, since they had the strangest spoilage, and went
online to understand this. I could only find one match, which is also very recent (written just 1 month ago, but I believe the experience was 10 months ago) and even
has a video of this mush.
That match suspects either "freezing injury" or "rot bacteria". I wonder if this bacteria is known to spread to bananas.
Additionally, I wonder
if "water droplets" left on the potato could simply dissolve the potato if stored a little
on the warm side. Maybe the potatoes were somehow stored over the last few months or even the entire winter...maybe this year's hot summer is special...I'm sure that there are many other possible explanations here.
So, what is the most likely explanation?
More details:
The bananas were a ripe yellow even from purchase, and did get some brown
spots of ripening, but never seemed to go through the full blackening
spoiling process I am used to.
The banana fruit itself behind the peel had not darkened like normal
over-ripened bananas. It was standard "ripe yellow", just somehow decomposing
to liquid/mush throughout the bottom half of the banana. The peels had some
brown spots like normal ripening, but never developed black spots (black spots
are my usual indicator that I need to eat them within a few days or the interior
will start to get mushy, but these particular bananas never had this indicator).
I did not see any eyes/sprouts grow from the potatoes like I normally do
(and they had no green on them, these are huge perfectly-tan russet
potatoes).
For both, the unspoiled parts tasted good.
As for the kitchen temperature, it has been a bit hot (maybe as high as
80F inside) for the first few days and normal (about 72F) for the last
few days. As for the kitchen humidity, it has been normal always
(about 55%). The purchase and storage was in Minnesota.
If this ever happens again, I will make a video of the spoiling mush to
help explain this better.
How warm is it in your kitchen? Both of these prefer cool places. Potatoes also don’t like moisture. It’s also worth giving potatoes a slight squeeze and making sure they’re firm when you buy them. And bananas can turn mushy at warm temperatures even when only moderately spotted
Kitchen temperature is in the question already: It probably got as high as 80F in the afternoon the first few days, which I know is a bit warm, but other potatoes and bananas that I have purchased have not had this problem.
Oops, missed that. I’ve been keeping my thermostat at 80F this year, and I can confirm that bananas go from yellow to soft in just under a week. That seems fast for potatoes unless there’s already a problem with them (and I’ve bought bagged potatoes and found a bad one in there, so they might have had a head start)
Oh, but I didn’t have ‘water oozing out’. That seems past soft. Mine were still pale inside, well spotted outside. At 80F and today marks a week.
Find me a banana that lasts longer than a week, no mater what.... Potatoes shouldn't go bad in a week, unless you didn't bag them yourself. (?) pre bagged from Aldis go bad in a week; I stopped buying those. If half of them have a bad one in it, then the rest aren't far behind.
This sounds like soft rot on the potatoes. Soft rot tends to ooze "water" from the lesion and release a foul smell as it breaks down the potato. The potato will still look white and be mushy, like very loose mashed potato. This is caused by a few genera of bacteria, but commonly Pectobacterium carotovorum.
Freezing damage doesn't smell unless also infected with something, and usually is "glassy"/translucent looking rather than white.
Pectobacterium does infect bananas, but as far as I can tell, mainly manifests as infection of the plant itself, causing wilting and death of the whole plant overall, rather than just the fruit. If there was no smell from the fruit, it might not have been rotten with this genus of bacteria, though other genera are possible. "Water" leakage without the outside being blackened (if you've ever frozen a banana to store for later baking, you will know they go completely brown at the frozen area) indicates rot rather than freezing in this case too.
It is possible that one contaminated the other, but it equally likely that you have a coincidental infection of both.
Thanks, I think you're right, but suspect one contaminated the other since I did have the bananas on top of the potatoes on the car ride home (or maybe ethylene gas transfer is involved?). Strangely, my banana mush halves did not have a bad smell, at least I didn't notice, though the potatoes had a terrible smell. And, strangely, my bananas did not seem to have any symptoms of rot on the stems/peels, only the mush of the fruit itself. I will mark this as the answer if nothing more logical comes within the next few days.
By the way, I also had red onions nearby, which I have heard also releases ethylene gas and gets everything ripening quickly. Maybe this is "the perfect storm". The onions still have no problems (like mush or general rot or bad smell), though the outer few layers by the stem are a little "rubbery" (probably normal?).
When you mentioned bananas and potatoes I had a funny feeling already, but I was glad you didn't mention onions because that would have completed the trifecta. But here we are!
If you Google "foods you're not supposed to store together", most of the results discuss ethylene producers such as bananas, and the top result suggests keeping onions away from potatoes. Not saying any of this is obvious if you don't specifically search for it, but it does seem that you have found yourself in the unfortunate position of having happened to bring together some of the most problematic foods there are!
Costco does place the onions and potatoes along side each other, by the way. But, let me say again, whatever that "ethylene-multiplier" effect is, I think bacteria is also needed to cause this mush.
@bobuhito onions and bananas will cause the potatoes to sprout, but shouldn't cause rot. Short exposures to ethylene are fine (e.g. car trip home with them both in the same bag) - just don't store them together. Though I should add ripeness can result in faster decay from an infection. The lack of smell from the bananas indicates not the same contaminating organism, as a Pectobacterium infection generally smells quite strong.
I used to buy potatoes and keep them in a plastic bag and found they would sprout and get rotten shortly after. Then my mom said keep them in a paper bag and put them in a dark place. So that’s what I did and they last much longer. They can breathe, and no moisture accumulates. Check them frequently to make sure they’re not starting to sprout or get soft. If so, then break off the sprouts and put them in a refrigerator drawer until ready to cook.
This does not really answer the question. If you have a different question, you can ask it by clicking Ask Question. To get notified when this question gets new answers, you can follow this question. Once you have enough reputation, you can also add a bounty to draw more attention to this question. - From Review
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.211946
| 2023-09-09T23:52:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125196",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Mazura",
"ariola",
"bob1",
"bobuhito",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"matt_rule"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47816
|
How can I keep my buttercream from becomming grainy?
I am making buttercream icing, but the powdered sugar does not dissolve with the butter and shortening. The icing is grainy. How can I prevent this?
This can have different reasons.
How long did you mix it? The transition between grainy and creamy can come late and suddenly, but it should happen eventually.
Was the butter cold? I have been getting the best results with room-temperature butter.
Did you sieve the powdered sugar? If not, that may be the problem. Or did it perhaps get wet at some point and crystallize again?
If all these are NOT the problem, try adding some milk, or if you plan to use it anyway, vanilla essence, in small drops, while stirring.
I hope one of these will help :).
Just like when making fudge, Mother used to fold this by hand in a metal bowl on her lap. Honestly I think it's the slight impartation of body temperature which induces the sugar granules (microgranules) to break down a bit, you know, just this side of syrup. The smallest taste every once in awhile marks your progress. (It was really nice to be reminded of this.)
Thanks for your answer! I went ahead and removed the decorations from your answer; the site already puts lines between answers so there's not really any need, and keeping things compact makes them easier for people to read.
I will go through, Cascabel, and make sure none of my other answers are adorned in this way. Thanks.
Follow all of Layna's answer, and also sift the sugar, and keep everything at room temperature. If you use milk, only a half teaspoon. Remember you can't rush perfection. The trick with all cooking baking and even life is patience.
Grainy is a texture, not a flavor.
Start with room temperature butter. Beat it for 2 or 3 minutes. Put the splash cover over the mixer bowl. Start the mixer and then ... THIS IS THE KEY ... add the sieved icing sugar (powdered sugar) TABLESPOON BY TABLESPOON beating well between each addition. I searched the internet trying to find out how to lose the grainy texture & the above 'be very patient' method worked!
This was an issue I had that drove me crazy for such a long time! We're talking throwing-spatulas-across-the-kitchen-frustrated. The magic fix is to use ONLY PURE CANE SUGAR. I know it sounds too easy, but after reading labels on the sugar I was buying (store brand because, hello, it's cheaper and what's the difference, really?) I noticed that the ingredients only say "sugar". Which likely means that it comes from beets, rather than sugar cane. Yes, it's a thing. A very common thing, and after delving more into it it turns out that beet sugar also browns differently from cane sugar. Unless the ingredients label specifies "cane sugar" it's likely not made with sugar cane. I don't know the science behind it, but it has been a game changer for me. This, coupled with making sure the butter is (cool) room temp before creaming it and adding the vanilla very last thing have improved my buttercream more than I ever could have imagined.
Graininess is a matter of perspective. Unfortunately, the American buttercream you're going for is inherently on the grainier side. There are ways to adulterate it so that it's smoother, but in doing so, you'll get away from a pure American buttercream.
Contrary to what one commenter said, butter/powdered sugar as a frosting is purely an American invention, popularized by Wilton decorating. French buttercream is made by dissolving sugar in an egg yolk mixture over a Bain Marie and then beating room temperature butter into the cooled mixture. Swiss and Italian meringue buttercreams are similar in that they require dissolving the sugar crystals completely, leading to a perfectly smooth texture.
The other European option is German buttercream, which requires a pastry cream which you then beat butter into. The difference between German and french styles is the inclusion of cooked starch in the pastry cream.
The last semi(?) American version which is probably easiest (and does not include eggs) is ermine buttercream... I generally see this referred to in older recipes as trailer park frosting, so I wonder if it's German buttercream made without eggs because of poverty. This requires cooking a pudding with water or milk, sugar, and starch, which also dissolves the sugar completely, giving a perfectly smooth texture. However due to the increased moisture content, and relatively low sugar,you should refrigerate this frosting if you plan to keep it more than a few days.
If you seriously want to avoid cooking, you can experiment with using more shortening to replace part of the butter, and sugar syrup to replace part of the powdered sugar. However I don't have as much experience with those ingredients. Good luck!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.212562
| 2014-10-10T03:31:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47816",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Connie MacKinnon",
"Day Tripper",
"Dominik",
"Dorothy Rimmer",
"Humfrey Goldsmith",
"Laura Sinclair",
"Lynsey Branaugh",
"Marcus Peterli",
"Norris Haddo",
"Oliver Martin",
"Paul Phillips",
"Pavi Jayaram",
"Playground Panels LTD",
"Simon G'sson",
"Thomas Raywood",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28723",
"kacso annamaria"
],
"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
}
|
51911
|
What is the best sugar for sweet short crust pastry?
I am reading an American Pastry & Pies cookbook and they say the sugar granules in sweet short crust pastry stabilize it and recommend using granulated sugar. So does this mean the bigger the sugar grains the better? I assume there would be a limit to how big you want to use. I am half American and using my experience of sugar in both countries I will grade what is available here and the US in grain size to help answer the question.
powered sugar/ icing mix - white powder
confectioners sugar / castor sugar - like very fine white sand with tiny separate grains
brown sugar* not raw sugar - small sticky brown grains
granulated sugar - unified small individual white grains
white sugar - cane sugar, most similar to granulated sugar but grains can vary in size and shape depending on brand and processing - white
Raw sugar - large translucent brown individual grains (I have never seen this available in supermarkets in the US and when Australians say brown sugar in their tea/coffee they usually mean raw sugar*)
coffee sugar - big dark brown translucent 3-5mm cubes.
Thank you.
What book are you reading that made this statement? And what was the context of the statement - why did they choose to emphasize the importance of the type of sugar there? The word "stabilize" sounds odd to me in the pastry crust context. Different grain sizes of sugar will certainly produce different textures in a pastry dough - as you might expect, finer grains of sugar produce finer texture crusts than coarser sugars. For some heavier pastries it might be desirable to use a coarser sugar to make a crust that has more supportive texture (less break-y).
Confectioner's sugar is powdered sugar with a little added corn starch. Castor sugar is also known as superfine sugar. They are not the same thing.
A quick Google search showed lots of recipes that use powdered sugar. I didn't see anything that used a sugar with a bigger granule. So I would guess it would depend on the context of your recipe.
You forgot pearl sugar... ;-)
Granulated to caster ie: fine sugar is the most recommended. I use caster sugar to get a smooth transition in the pastry. Then chill at least 20 minutes before baking to relax the gluten so it is nice and flaky.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.212997
| 2014-12-23T23:38:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51911",
"authors": [
"Air",
"Aksel Hansen",
"Fabby",
"Jemmeh",
"Larriet Schweikhardt",
"Robin Cabaret",
"Scott Salyer",
"Stephen Eure",
"Sue Lee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"tammy crisp"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49990
|
How keep prepared courgette fresh?
I am making a pasta dish at school that has courgette in it. The recipe says grate the courgette and because I don't have much time at school to do it, I want to do it at home.
I do not know how to keep them fresh when they have already been prepared.I heard that if you keep grated courgette in water, it stays fresh. I am leaving the house at 7:50 and my lesson starts at 9.
You could totally just grate courgette (zucchini) the morning of your lesson. It will be fine, you don't even have to put it in water. Just put it in a baggie. It would be fine at room temperature for several hours, it's not even going to notice two. If you want to grate it the day before, just put the baggie in the refrigerator overnight.
Just to back this up, I have in the past had stir fry on my menus at work. Often the vegetables (including courgette) would be prepped and stored for 3 days in a tub with a lid no water, without any deterioration.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.213212
| 2014-11-22T19:19:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49990",
"authors": [
"Doug",
"Eric Fox",
"Hisham elGazzar",
"Paul Munro",
"Sharon Laytart",
"Solar Energy for Business Ltd",
"Teresa Reddington",
"Terry Marino",
"William Mejia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53429
|
Is it possible to churn butter in a food processor or blender?
I would really like to make some homemade butter. Can you make it with a food processor or blender?
I've done it accidentally (in a food processor), does that count?
Do you have an ice cream maker? It's so good at making butter it sometimes happens by accident when making ice cream. Try running cream through it without chilling the bowl and see if it works.
A food processor will work but a mixer will work better if you have one.
This question has been edited to such an extent that it does not resemble anything I have written.
@NeilMeyer It's your question. If you want, roll it back. Just hit edit under the butter tag. It will most likely be left alone if you do. I don't see a big difference, but I don't see it the "other" way either (in other words, I don't really see the point in the edits).
Sure, why not? It probably won't turn out quite like the stuff you get at the store, but all you need is cream, a way to churn air into it, and enough agitation that the milk fat molecules start to clump together.
It will require some manual work once you've got the butter and buttercream separated. But the food processor will get you most of the way there without too much of an arm workout.
Check out this PBS article on DIY butter with a food processor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.213787
| 2015-01-09T06:41:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53429",
"authors": [
"A Apte",
"Fred Heywood III",
"GdD",
"Jacqueline Roberts",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mary Snow",
"Neil Meyer",
"P Dianne Amour",
"Sherry Huber",
"Susan Thurman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"jan lockwood",
"mlena urquhart",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128941
|
Preparing bacon in stacks of multiple slices
I no longer have a cooker and I can't afford a new one for a long time. But my friend has an old, one person, George Foreman grill I can have.
Because of it's size I will have to stack my bacon slices (back bacon here in the UK) 4 slices thick (about an inch). Will this cook through properly?
Is there anywhere I can find a time chart for it?
no times but check this answer https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/4944/53013
While you could probably heat the stack through sufficiently, the exterior slices might be crispy, while the interior might be flabby.
Why not just cook in batches? I use a 4-serving Foreman grill for bacon all the time. At the very least, you'll want to rotate the slices every few minutes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.213968
| 2024-08-05T08:29:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128941",
"authors": [
"Luciano",
"The Chaz 2.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125276
|
How long can eggs that I washed at home last in England at room temperature?
Related to my previous question, a follow-on corollary: I rinsed off every one of my 2 dozen eggs and put them into a carton on the kitchen counter. How long now may they last?
If you've washed them, you should probably put them in the fridge. Unwashed eggs from a garden flock keep for many weeks, but I've never tested washing them
Bought the day before, laid perhaps two days before?
I don't think that your question is answerable. Washed eggs have to be stored in the refrigerator, so I don't believe that anybody has published a special rule for storing them at room temperature.
There’s also the question of if you washed them correctly— cold water is bad, as it can get bacteria to be pulled inside the shell, while warm water won’t.
@rumtscho : there used to be some guidance in the US that a day at room temperate took a week off the lifetime (that was calculated for fridge temps), but they don’t recommend it at all anymore with the problems from factory farmed eggs
Are there professionally-washed eggs?
@FuzzyChef in the U.S. all eggs are washed at the factory before packaging. I think that would qualify as professional washing.
When I read the information on egg storage, it doesn't appear as clear cut as some folks suggest. Washing or not....refrigerating or not...the Internet advice is mixed, with lots of folks conflating opinion, common practice, myth, and science.
Let's start with washing. In this study, the author's state:
Statistical analysis of the agar penetration experiment indicated that S. Typhimurium was able to penetrate washed eggs at a significantly higher rate when compared to unwashed eggs (p<0.05). When compared to unwashed eggs, washed eggs also had significantly damaged cuticles.
The implication is that washing increases the likelihood that pathogens (salmonella is the main pathogen of concern) from the shell surface can pass through the shell and contaminate the egg.
Those who suggest washing for the purpose of reducing potential pathogens on the surface, recommend wash water of at least 20ºF (~11ºC) higher than the temperature of the egg, to reduce the opportunity for inward capillary action. It is suggested that egg washing reduces risk, but must be done properly. If you dramatically reduce the pathogen from the surface, the risk of pathogens entering the egg is obviously dramatically reduced.
To refrigerate or not seems to be a separate, but related, question. In the US it is required that all eggs commercially produced be at or less than 45°F [7°C] soon after laying and throughout the distribution system. In Europe, however, this is not the case. It has less to do with washing than it does with a concern about condensation when eggs go from warm to cold environments. However, the linked document states there is no research to support the hypothesized risks associated with condensation.
In Europe the procedure is that eggs be kept "cool… 66.2°F [19°C] to 69.8°F [21°C] in the winter and 69.8° [21°C] to 73.4°F [23°C] in the summer," or slightly below room temperature. "...Possibly because Britain requires vaccination against salmonella enteritidis." So, the likelihood of salmonella contamination is considerably less in Europe than in the US, where this vaccination is not required.
Salmonella does not only exist on the exterior of the shell, as contaminated birds can pass along salmonella in their eggs. In this case, washing or not wouldn't matter because salmonella is already in the egg. For reference, in the US, the Centers for Disease Control estimate 1 in 20,000 eggs is contaminated with salmonella.
The bottom line is that, as least as far as I can tell, (a) there is no definitive science on the washing and refrigeration question, and (b) suggesting that washed eggs from backyard chickens, or washing eggs in general, now have a non-refrigerated shelf life of 2 hours seems incredibly conservative.
I suggest the 2 hours is conservative because if your chickens have salmonella and the eggs also contain salmonella, I can imagine them being in the chicken coop for much longer than 2 hours before they are even collected. So, washing wouldn't matter...and when would you start the clock? Plus, temperatures of 140F [60C] to 149F [65F] is sufficient to kill salmonella. So, cooking your eggs well manages this risk.
If there is salmonella on the exterior only, because some chicken excrement or debris got on the eggs, not washing them could be problematic because the likelihood the interior gets contaminated during cracking is probably higher. So, washing them correctly actually reduces the risk by dramatically reducing the potential for pathogens to move from the shell to the egg.
It seems like the most important factor is how likely salmonella is present in the flock (which something you may not be able to assess), and how well you cook your eggs (to kill potential salmonella).
The most conservative advice is to simply refrigerate your eggs, but it is unclear that unrefrigerated eggs, correctly washed or unwashed, are riskier than refrigerated eggs. However, regardless of pathogen risk, refrigeration significantly extends shelf life in terms of quality, making it advantageous if you keep eggs around for a while.
Unless somebody discovers a special-case regulation to the contrary, this defaults to the case of a "keep refrigerated" item stored at room temperatures. The storage time for washed eggs at room temperature is 2 hours.
I think this answer is empirically testably false.
@Seekinganswers If you think that, you might not be aware how food safety works. Consider reading https://cooking.stackexchange.com/tags/food-safety/info, especially the part "common misconceptions", to make sure we're on the same page.
Ok. . . . . . .
@rumtscho, I don't get this answer, unwashed eggs from the store last much longer than 2 hours, I don't see why washing them yourself would mean they have to be used within 2 hours.
@GdD washed eggs are a product that requires refrigeration (unlike unwashed ones, which don't). We have quite a few questions on this, old and new.
I see, @rumtscho what you're saying is the storage at room temperature is 2 hours, the way it reads looks to me like it says the storage in the fridge is 2 hours.
@GdD thanks, I have reformulated it. Should be unambiguous now.
If you’re not really going to answer the question and just go ‘food safety!’ You might as well merge it in with the other generic food safety question that everything gets flagged as a duplicate of
@Joe I was thinking of that. In this specific case, I could imagine there being an extra rule just for eggs somewhere, and leaving the question open gives people the opportunity to find it and write it up. If you find it unnecessary, you can always vote to close it as a duplicate.
I would think the guidance would be similar to mayonnaise since the part of mayonnaise that goes bad is the eggs.
@MarkRansom : except for mayonnaise there’s the suggestion to leave it out at room temperature when it’s fresh, so the acid can help to kill off anything that might be lurking in it. See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/33212/67
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.214113
| 2023-09-20T18:38:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125276",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Mark Ransom",
"TylerDurden",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"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
}
|
17599
|
Is it safe to remove the rings on jars for long-term storage of home-canned goods?
Is it okay to store the canned goods without the ring screwed on it? I know someone who removes the screwed rings off her jars once they're processed and then stores her jars with the seal lids only.
If the jars are properly sealed the vacuum in the jar and the waxed edge will hold the lid safely sealed. Undisturbed those jars will remain sealed until they are opened. The ring will reduce the risk of "unintentional" opening and that is really all the ring does. There are two real advantages to removing the ring once the seal is set.
If something spoils in the jar it is likely to pop the lid open. Spoilage would give off gasses that would increase the pressure inside the jar and break the seal. This is more obvious if the ring has been removed.
When it comes to juices, unintended fermentation is an issue. Even if raised to a temperature that is expected to kill yeast sometimes some of the little buggers get through and will ferment juices. Without the ring the fermentation breaks the seal. This prevents jars from exploding under pressure (yes, it can happen). I had a grandmother who would can grape juice, but did not want 'wine'. When the lids popped it identified the jars that had fermented, and which could be disposed (sometimes not the way grandma intended).
I prefer to leave the rings on as when the jars get stacked up in the pantry jars can get jostled and a lid may get accidentally opened, but there is nothing "wrong" with taking them off.
Note if you want to store it with the rings, you should take them off after the jar has cooled and let it dry out for a day or two. Keeping the ring on without doing so could lead to rust forming inside, and could compromise the seal. I prefer using the plastic caps one everything is dry. It serves the same purpose as the ring, but provides a nice cap when opening the jar. Makes for a good presentation when giving away canned goods as gifts, too.
On the other hand, you'll want the ring once you open the jar, so it's nice for it to just be there, especially if you're giving canned goods as gifts.
Yup, its perfectly fine. The seal protects the food, not the ring. At worst it makes them a little more susceptible to bumps that could break the seal (but it'd have to be a significant 'bump').
If the seal were to break and the ring were in place, the food still wouldn't be properly protected.
If the seal is broken the ring will keep the food from spilling everywhere- again not an issue if you are careful with your jars.
My grandmother always removed the rings because she said if there was any juice or moisture inside the ring, it would cause rust that could break the seal.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.214673
| 2011-09-09T03:09:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17599",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"JSM",
"Jason Depoure",
"Jon",
"Joyce Branson",
"Philosophy of Yum",
"Sobachatina",
"emanuele",
"hoppa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37914",
"mati"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17749
|
Why do my homemade chocolate bars start to melt as soon as I take them out of the fridge?
I used this recipe (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOIN-7zay6g) w/out corn syrup and honey comb bars to make a chocolate bar. The problem is that as soon as I take out a bar from fridge to eat the bar starts to melt within minute. This was my first attempt to make some thing out of chocolate bars. Is this normal/OK? Or do I need to reduce the amount of butter I used?
I made the bars as following
melted two Cadbury's Bournville dark chocolate bars, exactly these http://www.bournville.in/html/cocoa.html, with around 150 grams of butter
added 200 grams of classic salted peanuts
set in the freezer for 2-3 hours
That's it. The average temperature at place where I live is not more than 27 degrees Celsius.
What's your room temperature? Pure chocolate starts melting at around 27°C, and the butter does make them melt easier than a store-bought milk chocolate bar. But maybe you could post a short list of the ingredients you used, the video is almost 15 minutes long.
Related (and actually answers this question): What is the purpose of tempering chocolate? Also Make chocolate with a high melting point? This might be a dupe of the second one.
@Aaronut thanks for the link, I have been advised my dentist to go slow on chocolates :( otherwise was planning to make another bar. You can mention your comment as an answer so that I chose it and close the question or you can use your super user powers to close it. Thanks again :-)
I think the problem is that you don't have chocolate bars, but chocolate mixed with butter, which has a lower melting point (just like buttercream cake icing).
If it's your dentist who is advising you to go slow on chocolate, you might like to try switching away from high sugar 'candy bar' chocolate and onto higher quality chocolate with a cocoa content of 70% and over. The high-quality Swiss brand Lindt, for example, lists the sugar content of their milk chocolate as 23g per serving, but their 70% dark chocolate as 12g per serving and in their 85% super-dark as only 5g of sugar per serving.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.214964
| 2011-09-15T06:04:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17749",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Kumar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5272",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17955
|
How should block cheese be stored for maximum shelf life?
Just like it says in the title, how can I store blocks of cheese for max shelf life? I will be making a grilled cheese sandwich and shredding 3 varieties of cheese (cheddar, swiss, parm(?)) and I am afraid that I won't be able to use three whole blocks on one sandwich.
Come on, go for it. 3 whole blocks in a single sandwich. Sounds good to me :)
@Taste Five, Absolutely not. There is a balance to be achieved. I am using a heavier Ciabatta so I can be a bit more generous but the balance must be maintained.
Ha, I know, just making a joke.
Hard, aged cheeses like cheddar and Parmesan are fine to freeze, particularly if you're going to be melting them when you get around to using them anyway. Freezing causes ice particles to break up the molecules of the cheese, and when they thaw, they leave holes in what was (prior to freezing) a pretty smooth cheese. So you might notice if you freeze blocks of cheese, they are more crumbly when you unfreeze them than they were when you bought them. The cheeses you're working with should be fine if stored properly, but softer / creamier cheeses (brie, harvarti, etc.) might become somewhat unpleasant if you freeze them.
As far as storage is concerned, you can actually do one of two things:
Grate the cheese before you freeze it. All you need to do for this method is grate your cheese and put it in a ziploc freezer bag (thicker than a regular zip-top bag). Just make sure to squeeze the air out before sealing, and seal it well.
Freeze the cheese in blocks. Wrap them in plastic wrap and then put then in a ziploc bag, and you should be all set; it'll keep for 4-6 months. (source)
No matter which method you use, you may notice a slight change in texture. Make sure you thaw the cheese before using it. (Though I've put frozen shredded mozzarella on pizza and frozen shredded Mexican cheese blend - a blend of cheddar, monterey jack, queso blanco and asadero - on tacos and not had any trouble.)
I have been successful in freezing brie, but I wouldn't freeze Parmesan. Well I guess i can only speak for parmigiano, but freezing it leave it to crumbly to get what I am looking for grating it or trying to make sliver with a vegetable peeler. For the most part though, you can just keep it in the refrigerator. If it molds it is perfectly safe to just cut the mold off. And actually the added aging can benefit the cheese a little (I am saying a little not a ton, as you are only talking a few months here not years).
@Taste Five, I have always treated mold on anything as automatically up for tossing. Couldn't that make a person ill?
Sure mold can make a person ill, some mold is good for you. But I do not suggest eating the mold (unless you know what it is). But you can definitely remove the mold and be ok. I should note that if the cheese is something like cottage cheese or ricotta you'll need to toss that. http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/food-and-nutrition/AN01024 this site has a pretty decent chart to help.
@Bobnix Mold on cheese is a little different than mold on other food, especially with hard cheeses. Cheese rarely spoils all the way through, so usually (unless, as tastefive pointed out, it's cottage or ricotta cheese), you should be fine just cutting off the moldy bits. :)
Regarding cheese and mold - theres a whole question! http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1230/is-it-safe-to-eat-moldy-cheese-if-you-slice-off-the-edges
@rfusca well played :)
@bob Decent parmesan (or a similar hard cheese) bought in a block does last a long time, but definitely not always four months. I'm not sure what a vacuum container has to do with it; it's going to be opened.
The best way to keep cheese in the fridge ... and the way I've made semisoft cheeses like cheddar last 6-10 weeks, sometimes more:
Wrap the cheese in butcher paper, or baking parchment if you can't get butcher paper.
Enclose the wrapped cheese in a plastic grocery bag or plastic wrap.
Each time you slice off some of the cheese, change the paper.
The paper keeps the cheese dry, and the plastic keeps it moist. So the cheese doesn't dessicate, but doesn't get moldy either. Works a charm.
I use paper towel + a paper bag, and it works well. (I don't change the paper every time, but I probably should, as after two to three weeks, I can get mold)
I've had good luck simply storing the cheese tightly wrapped in plastic wrap in the refrigerator. If you use a good quality wrap material and wrap it tightly, the cheese will stay dry and also not lose moisture.
In the past I tried using ziploc bags, evacuating air before sealing, but the simple plastic wrap approach works better. I can keep 6-7 types of cheese fresh during the time it takes my family of four to eat it... up to several months depending on cheese type.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.215176
| 2011-09-23T17:43:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17955",
"authors": [
"Bob Roberts",
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"Laura",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808",
"jeffwllms",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17735
|
Does fresh mackerel have more omega-3 fatty acids than smoked mackerel?
Are there more omega-3 fatty acids in fresh than smoked mackerel?
Is there something in process of smoking that would cause the mackerel to lose some of the fatty acids?
In other words, does the quality or amount of the omega-3 fatty acids (or other 'healthy' oils) in fish decrease over time? Is fresh fish have more or better omega-3 / polyunsaturated fats?
Nice question, wouldn't venture an answer though.
Ooh, this is a very interesting question. I can't wait for an answer. My guess is that smoking breaks down the omega-3 fatty acids because it seems that heat tends break down the healthy stuff and leave us with delicious flavors. Smoke tends to deposit tasty chemicals that research has deemed 'less healthy' as well.
Theory is a good thing, but data is always better. Especially when somebody else does the whole work of gathering and evaluating it. Luckily, there is somebody who does it for food. Following data comes from the USDA. It is very verbose, so I had to cut off most of the screenshots. I left all the lipids in the first one just to show how much they measured, and only used the data for Omega 3 in the other ones.
The first data set is raw Atlantic mackarel. I picked Atlantic just because it was first in the list, they have several kinds.
Sadly, they didn't have data for smoked mackerel. But as Frankie points out, you can do a hot smoking process and a cold smoking process. I think that the cooking in both is very well approximated by cooking on dry heat, resp. salting. Of course, it is possible that the smoke itself destroys more fatty acids than just applying heat or brine, but these numbers give us an upper limit for the amount of omega 3 left after smoking.
Now we can start making conclusions.
First conclusion: there is something fishy about the data.
Zero standard deviation for all the values in the raw fish? Zero data points for the salted fish?! I can only assume that they just wrote a zero where the actual information is missing from the record. Still, I think we can trust the data (because the USDA has no interest to lie and because we don't have a better data set).
Before we start making further conclusions, we should remember that these are values per 100 gram of end product. 100 g of salted mackerel isn't made with 100 g of raw mackerel! Luckily, the source also gives the water percentage of the samples (not shown on the screenshots), which is 43% for salted mackerel, 53% for cooked mackerel and 63% for raw mackerel. So, we should in fact compare the numbers per 100 g of dry matter (we assume that the cooking process neither adds nor subtracts dry matter - not exactly true for salting, but we can assume that the difference is small). The numbers are:
Second conclusion: Heat (so presumably also hot smoking) destroys around 40% of the fatty acids in mackerel
This is straightforward, comes from the numbers in the table.
Third conclusion: The salted mackerel didn't come from the Atlantic
Unless I have made a big mistake in my reasoning about the comparison based on dry matter, a salted fish has more omega 3 than a raw fish of the same size. The difference in data is small enough to have been caused by the choice of a different kind of fish (note that the standard deviation within a sample of the same kind of fish is 10 to 15%).
Fourth conclusion: Cold smoking probably doesn't destroy a significant amount of omega 3 acids.
While the data comparison here has some problems (the assumed different kinds of fish, the fact that salting isn't the same as smoking), I think we can see the trend here. If the salted fish had lost too much of its omega 3 in the salting process, then it wouldn't have such high omega 3 values after the salting. We can assume that a cold smoked fish is also salted (my personal experience and Frankie's answer support that), so any possible preserving effect of salt should be present in cold smoking too. There is a risk that the smoke itself could destroy the fatty acids, but I doubt it. After all, the smoke doesn't penetrate the tissues very deep, so there shouldn't be much contact.
Of course, I am not 100% sure about the conclusions above, but I think it is reasonable to assume that they are true. I have tried to make clear any possible problems. So the short answer is: fresh mackerel and cold smoked mackerel have about the same amount of omega 3 fatty acids, but hot smoked mackerel has much less omega 3 than the original.
Rambling beginning to answer:
There are two (that I know of) ways to smoke food; cold smoke and hot smoke.
Part of each method is the brining of the food prior to smoking it (have seen aboriginal tribes use smoke only without brining to keep insects off the food while drying).
Cold smoke is called that because never during the smoking process is the temperature allowed to rise to the point where the fat in the meat liquefies. Apparently the liquefication of the fat increases the liklihood of bacterial invasion. Examples of this type of smoking are: Bacon; virginia ham, which in some instances are hung for years before being eaten; and indian jerky [sic], which is dried, smoked salmon, which can hold for months in a cool, dry place.
Hot smoke is a different process in that the meat is cooked, usually at a lower temperature than it would be if not being smoked, and smoked at the same time.
Am not a food chemist, so am not sure of the chemical reactions produced by the smoke.
It does seem sensible that heat is a greater catalyst for the breaking down of omega 3 stuff than smoke.
If the above postulate is correct, the generally lower heat used to hot smoke mackerel would seem to indicate that the smoked product would have more omega 3s.
Of course, how long it has been on the shelf would be another consideration, as our air is a source of oxidation, which probably breaks down the fatty acids.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.215555
| 2011-09-14T13:27:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17735",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Katey HW",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7082"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17308
|
What is the best material for a cooking spoon?
We use standard wooden spoons, but they soon pick up stains from the various dishes. What are the pros and cons of the various woods, e.g. olive, Cilio Toscana Olivewood, beechwood, maple, bamboo, etc? Is there a 'best', or is it just a matter of style or personal preference?
Instead of wood, try polyamide for high heat resistance.
Or if you want silicone.
Why are stains a concern? Aesthetics alone? Or, is flavor transfer detectable?
I think this is a good overview for considering alternative stirring spoons, both with respect to material as well as shape: http://www.seriouseats.com/2010/06/equipment-how-to-choose-a-wooden-spoon.html
Personally, I've switched almost entirely to heat resistant silicone for all types of stirring and scraping spoons. They don't stain, they are fine up to quite high temperatures, they clean up easily and can go in the dishwasher. They are also won't scratch the surface of non-stick cookware.
It is true that they don't feel quite so nice as a good wooden spoon, but the convenience is outstanding. (On the other hand, I stick with metal for the type of spatula one uses to flip a fritter, because silicone can't have a thin enough leading edge, it is too flexible.)
Spot on, Michael.
Silicone also won't scratch non-stick cookware no matter how rough you are with it.
@aaronut ah yes, forgot to mention that. editing my answer.
Anyone care to comment on downsides of silicone?
For example, does the material leach into food, especially at the high temperatures for which they are touted? Any environmental concerns with their production or disposal; I presume they are made from petroleum—not a renewable resource—and that they don't decompose and can't be recycled.
I just get relatively inexpensive wood spoons (maple, most of the time). When they get too chewed up, scorched, and stained, I replace them. Even with rough use, including the odd accidentally setting it down too close to a burner and charring the edges a bit, they last me several years.
I have one solid wooden straight-edged flat paddle that I bought my first year living off-campus in college, and it survived several years of being used by me and my roommates, followed by a few in my own kitchen. It shows no signs of failing yet. I think it is an Oxo model of some sort, very thick, heavy wood. The thinner, cheaper spoons haven't faired nearly as well.
Plastic spoons have never lasted as long as wood for me. I do have one fully-encased silicone spatula that I use quite a bit, but the edge isn't stiff enough to scrape up fond. I use it for gently folding stuff, and stirring delicate foods like custards and scrambled eggs, as well as for pushing back the edges of omlettes. I also have an Oxo plastic perforated spoon because it's just the right shape and has holes just the right size for everything I use a perforated spoon for.
My ladles are both metal, but other than them I don't use metal spoons for cooking much. I just don't like the sound they make when scraping against the bottom of my pans. Doesn't seem to hurt anything, it just bothers me like nails on a chalkboard. I do use metal spatulas; I have one very thin, gently-curved slotted spatula that's great for getting under fish and other delicate proteins, and a much thicker, heavy rectangular spatula that's great for less delicate jobs.
I think it is just a matter of style. I prefer the bamboo to all others for the fact that the grain and the resilience of the bamboo pretty much guarantees that the edges won't break off due to water expansion and the accompanying drying contraction after years of use. In wooden utensils, the grain direction is a weak point, which will crack and eventually fail more often than bamboo, which isn't a wood at all (bamboo is classed with grasses).
For high temperature cooking though, such as making roux or other cooking which expose the spoon to high heat for extended periods, use stainless steel.
Found this out the hard way several decades ago:
Used my favorite bamboo spoon (which I still have) to make a roux for an Irish stew. The stew was beautiful, smelled wonderful and tasted extremely bitter. The cause was that the bamboo charred at the end of the spoon as I scraped and stirred the roux, the charred bamboo became incorporated in the roux, and rendered it inedible. As I recall, the dog even turned it down after a couple of laps.
Any hardwood (and bamboo is effectively a hardwood) is going to be pretty much equivalent except from an aesthetic perspective. The only woods you should avoid are softwoods (pine etc.) and anything which is actually varnished or shellacked instead of being properly oil-sealed. This is because varnishes will eventually come off in your food.
In general, I'd recommend getting inexpensive wooden spoons rather than fancy olivewood ones. That way, if one gets chipped or discolored severely you can just toss and replace it.
I have no opinions about steel, silicone, or fiberglass, since I pretty much use wooden spoons all the time.
I picked up a pair of "synthetic wood" spoons from the local Job Lot a few years back, and they are excellent. They have the "feel" of wood - a somewhat rough texture and exemplary stiffness that makes them comfortable to hold and gives them "bite" when scraping fond from the bottom of the pan, but a softness that won't mar enamel or teflon. They're made of fiberglass and nylon, and are dishwasher safe and nigh invulnerable and so long as you don't stick them in the oven at 500º or leave them in an empty pan on a burner set to high, heat-resistant. (Don't do this with wooden spoons, either.)
They do stain, however - turmeric and tomato paste in particular left their mark. Otherwise, they last forever without much care or maintenance, are colorful and a joy to use.
I use bamboo for most things as they don't scratch, are hard to stain and are very resilient. Yes, you can char them, but this is the case with any wood and I find them much sturdier than other wooden spoons I've had. However, for very high temp things, I also recommend the silicon or stainless (with heat resistant handles).
You seem to just be responding to Frankie's answer. Why not make this answer into a comment instead?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.216051
| 2011-08-30T11:41:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17308",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BaffledCook",
"Bot",
"Curtis",
"Joshua",
"Michael Natkin",
"Mike Jacobson",
"NOTjust -- user4304",
"Nello Lucchesi",
"Ski",
"Spammer",
"WBT",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"noncom",
"readcooksillust"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16020
|
How to make kidney beans tender?
The way I currently cook kidney beans is to soak them overnight. But still they have to be cooked for a long time on gas before they get tender enough to be edible.
Anything that can be added or be done in a different way to reduce the time over heat?
Do you have a pressure cooker?
@JasonTrue Yes, Without pressure cooker, it won't take hours, it'll take days :)
I don't usually need more than 15 minutes at boil in a pressure cooker for any soaked beans, including kidney beans; usually much less. Is it possible your beans are unusually old?
@JasonTrue I purchase them in packets. BTW, have you tried "red small" kidney beans? They take nearly an hour to get tender! Pinto beans take some less time.
6-8 hours of pre-soaking in water, Though I wouldn't compromise on the cooking time, as some red kidney beans contains toxins if under-cooked.
Is the water you're using acidic?
as mentioned elsewhere, the toxins ("phytates") do not cook out well, especially in kidney beans. Toxins must soak out; the usual recommendation is overnight.
Adding a little bicarbonate of soda (baking soda) to the beans when soaking overnight should help soften them.
I understand that if there's too much it can break down nutrients. In all likelihood your beans take forever to cook because you have hard water, so you only need a little baking soda--just enough to neutralize it
@Ray Perhaps I should start another thread for "How to soften hard water?" :D
This other thread answer suggests that acid water will harden beans. A little soda will shift the pH to the alkali end.
I find that soaked kidney beans will become tender after about fifteen minutes at pressure in a pressure cooker. I sometimes add Kombu to a pot of beans while they are cooking. It is generally thought to reduce the gassiness of the beans, reduce foaming while cooking, shorten cooking time and tenderize the beans. It also seems more nutritious than adding baking soda(?)
Finally, you didn't mention it but if you are adding any salt or acids to the beans (like tomatoes), it would take much longer for your beans to become tender. I'd cook the beans until they are tender before adding salt or anything acidic.
You can reduce the overnight holding time, but I'm afraid you're stuck with the cooking time.
Start with good quality fresh dried beans - if they're old they'll take forever to soften.
Cover them by at least 2ins of water (softened if your water is hard with a little bicarbonate of soda, or use bottled water) to allow for absorption. Soak them overnight in water, or if you're in a hurry bring to the boil for 10 mins, turn off heat, and leave for 2 hours. It is important that they stay covered with water. Change water and boil hard for 15 mins (to destroy toxins) and then simmer until tender, adding salt, garlic or onion or other flavours if desired (this might take 30 mins to 1 hour or so or even more, depending on the beans - I normally expect 45 mins).
Kidney beans must be roiling boiled for at least 30 minutes per FDA guidance. I would dump and rinse the soaking water and the boiling water at least twice, and then let them slow cook.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.216715
| 2011-07-08T03:12:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16020",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"JasonTrue",
"Ray",
"Reno",
"Rincewind42",
"derobert",
"dhchdhd",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67258",
"mgooch",
"zanlok"
],
"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
}
|
18286
|
How can I correct this Brandy Snaps disaster?
I recently got a copy of the "Be-ro book of Home Recipes". Near the beginning is a recipe for 'brandy snaps'. This is a kind of cracker that is rolled after cooking to make tubes that are then filled with cream. However, my attempt to cook them failed and I want to know where I'm going wrong.
The first set was on parchment paper but not properly greased so they stuck to the paper.
The second set was greased but still tore when trying to lift off the paper. Also they have to be rolled when hot but they are far to hot to touch until they cool but then they are too stiff to roll.
The third set again just tore and couldn't be rolled.
On the plus side, the did taste nice but how can I stop them looking like something the dog should be eating.
When I first read the title, I thought "snaps" was referring to this and half expected the question to be about some alcohol-induced mayhem!
You will have to put on your asbestos chef's fingers and roll them while hot I'm afraid. You should leave them for about 15 seconds once they're out of the oven. If you leave them for too long to cool you can always pop them back in the oven for a few seconds to re-soften.
One thing that might help you is silicon baking sheets. Not only are these very 'non-stick', they also flexible, so you can use them as pseudo-oven gloves to roll the brandy snaps up.
I'd buy a wooden dowel from the hardware store that has the same diameter you want the finished tubes to be. Lay the dowel lightly on top of the freshly baked cookie and use a small, offset spatula to lift one side of the cookie up over the dowel. Roll the dowel to seal the tube and then slide the tube off the dowel.
Use a second dowel to help start the cookie rolling over the first = no burnt fingers! Sand smooth, and butter the dowels well, so cooling cookies do not stick to it
Check out Mary Berry's recipe. The only thing needed to get it right is to use 160c fan or 180c non and to simply watch them until they are just ready to come out.
http://maryberry.co.uk/recipes/great-british-bake-off-recipes/brandy-snaps
I wait until they are bubbling and light gold (yellow), take them out and wait until they stop bubbling. About a minute. Then, they should be cool enough to pickup. I've found that, even after 10 minutes, they can - if you're very slow and careful - be rolled into a tube shape. You just need to press with your thumb up to, but not beyond, the point of breaking.
Point of note: You'll notice that if placed on a tray, once rolled, they will actually flatten after an hour or so. This demonstrates that they can indeed be shaped well after cooling to be handled. Just be real careful.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.217016
| 2011-10-10T10:07:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18286",
"authors": [
"CrisD",
"ESultanik",
"Izzy",
"Jon Takagi",
"R.M.",
"TFD",
"Teresa Daniels",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600"
],
"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
}
|
5656
|
Help with a chili recipe: need help on fruit/sweet selection
Follow up to Bean Selection I am planning on making a new chili using grilled venison, Great Lakes Black Out Stout, and roasted corn. There was a sister thread to this about deciding on a bean. Thanks to @justkt 's suggestion i am keeping it simple with chili beans (the kidney beans in sauce). However, as i was thinking about the heat, i forgot the other crucial element: the sweet.
For me a good chili isnt just kinda hot: It should be perfectly good and hot, but kept in check with sweet. This in particular is why you see a decent habanero hot sauce with lime, lemon etc in it. Normally I add citrus fruits to my chili.
Since I am cooking Venison, stewed in Stout beer, and hoping for a dark woods moodiness to the food I am thinking of breaking away from the norm. What sweet would you bring to chili in this case?
I googled 'what fruit pairs well with venison' and cherry (for its acidity) was suggested. This is a really sexy idea to me, but i am unsure if thats just my brain overthinking it. if added, i suppose it should be as a salty puree, probably quite early in the staging (ie when the meat is prepared and added with the beer).
normally i add the components in this order (and it works well): garlic, onions, spices, beer reduction, tomatoes, meat, [fruit x?] beer reduction, beans... and typically have it simmer for 4-6 hours. Will this make a grilled venison steak tough or tender?
I chose three answers because i think i am going to be toying with this recipe for a while. I think I am going to add some black (rather than red to cut back the tartness since it is going with corn) currants (according to wikipedia they are added to guiness to heighten the flavor) and some brown sugar to the initial reduction to get a good base going. Also, I think I am going to try out some dark chili chocolate added once the stout is added to the second reduction.
Thanks to all of you!
It may be simpler to just stick to 2/3, or even 1/3 of these, so we will see where each gets us...
I know that you specifically mention fruits, but I must admit, I personally haven't used any sweet fruits (except basic citrus fruits) in chili so I favorited this question to see what the community has to say.
That said, I have made chili with a combination of sweet and spicy, and I used one of my new favorite things: Jaggery. 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. I do think that jaggery might add that "dark woods moodiness" element that you're looking for - in my opinion, it can take the simplest of dish and add a significant amount of depth and interest.
It's used to add a sweet element to a lot of hot curry dishes in India, which is why my mind immediately when to it the first time I thought of adding sweet to my chili.
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.
this actually might be a terrific idea considering the roasted maltiness of stout beer actually. i hadnt considered brown sugar, much less Jaggery.
Traditional Cincinatti chili calls for half a square of grated baker's chocolate. I don't know how set you are on fruit, but given the gaminess of venison, this might be less of a flavour clash than actual fruit.
Unsweetened chocolate is usually used in the former, but if you want something sweeter, then you could substitute bittersweet chocolate here.
If that idea doesn't turn you on, I would stick with a mild unrefined sugar (i.e. brown sugar) or maple syrup. The notion of chili peppers, beer, kidney beans, venison and a sweet fruit in the same stew sounds like a risky combination to me (but then again, I can't claim to have tried it). Personally, I'd have to recommend a subtler sweetener.
if you hadn't suggested chocolate, I would have. Also an option would be one of the trendy flavored chocolates. Chili or cherry, perhaps?
@justkt: They have chili flavoured chocolates? I'm trying to imagine the board meeting where somebody proposed that idea and the blank stares and apprehensive "ooo...kay"s that almost certainly followed... Anyway, personally, I'd still stay away from fruit flavours - even fruit-flavoured chocolates, unless it's a subtle citrus flavour. Maple or a similar flavour would definitely complement the ale, as long as it's decent quality and grate-able.
+1 for maple syrup (real stuff not aunt jamamia)
yeah, trader joe's has a dark chili chocolate that is terrific; good call mentioning cincinnati chili that might be a great angle to play
How about using dried apricots? I use them frequently with couscous and they give dishes a really nice rich sweetness. The beer/stock will rehydrate them to be lovely pockets of sweetness.
good idea. you have to chop them, right?
I'm assuming you're using stoneless dried apricots which will have a hole in so you don't have to. That said, I usually halve them.
will they be rather chewy when they reconstitute? Its actually a terrific idea, I am trying to imagine how they would merge with the whole of the chunks of venison and the beans...
I'd be tempted to try these fruits because they are acidic and tart and generally go well with gamey meats: red currants, blueberries, cherries, gooseberries could be really interesting or totally weird!
I could imagine roasting off really ripe peaches with a bit of sugar, salt, pepper and olive oil, then pureeing/mashing it into the chili during the middle stages of cooking. I honestly don't know if you'd really taste anything besides "acid" which you'll get from the tomatoes as well, so it might be a lot of work for nothing. Like some of the other commenters, I can't say I'd be super stoked about finding a cherry in my chili but who knows it could be really interesting! I do think any of the fruit used should probably be roasted off a bit before added so it will intensify in flavor.
With lean meat like venison, I'm not sure I would bother grilling it unless you have easy access to a grill. I would sear it in the bottom of the pan I wanted to make my chili in. Remove it once it is browned on all sides, then add my onions, garlic, etc. and saute that down. Then add beans, spices, tomatoes, and the meat back in. Venison is pretty lean, so the longer that can cook low and slow (a slow cooker would be ideal for this project), the more tender the result. If you had 8 to 10 hours that might even be ideal - if you have a dutch oven you could put that pot into your oven and let it go for most of the day.
I would probably add the beans in a little later to the mix depending on how much time I had to cook this thing and how hearty the bean you decide to use is. Let us know how it turns out!
the grilling was to get it nice and smokey while pre-cooking it before putting it in the chili to simmer; great suggestions all around though
I'm tempted to go with:
plum
date
fig
peach
Dried, in all cases except the peach.
I'd also definitely recommend the dark chocolate idea, including possibly some pre-browned butter melted with it. The flavor match is surprising, but undeniably good.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.217321
| 2010-08-20T16:33:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5656",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Bluebelle",
"David Chouinard",
"Ocaasi",
"Terini",
"Varun Sridharan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"justkt",
"mfg",
"mohlsen",
"roshni",
"sacredfaith",
"user1580320",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
120408
|
Is this beef rib ok?
I am cooking beef ribs for a chemo patient and don't want to take any chances. The fat on the ribs is bluish greenish. See the photo. Is it normal or rotten? The meat looks good.
Imgur pics
While visual cues are often helpful, there is no way for anyone to let you know whether or not this product is a safety risk from the photo. More important would be to know whether or not it has been handled and stored in a food-safe manner.
Good advice. There's nothing in the picture that suggests spoilage, but by the time visible signs appear, it's probably been bad for a while, so it's not safe to judge based solely on appearance.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.217943
| 2022-04-22T14:32:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/120408",
"authors": [
"barbecue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79052
|
Best knives that don't need regular sharpening
I'm looking for a knife that doesn't need to be regularly sharpened. The knife is for someone who has damaged wrists, and they find it difficult to have to continuously sharpen their knife.
Hello Joey, choosing knives that don't dull easily is a good question. Unfortunately, we don't do brand recommendations here, basically if we did, everyone voting would need direct knowledge about the relative quality of all mentioned brands, and that's not the case, so the voting tends to reflect how widespread a brand is rather than its quality. So the question will have to be about getting generic answers on which features to look for, but you will have to pick your own brand.
Ceramic knives will hold their edge 'forever', but are brittle. As long as they don't fall, they should be fine.
I googled "ergonomic ceramic knife" and a number of items popped up.
IF ceramic and/or serrated knives do not work as a solution, here are the points for choosing a steel knife that will need less frequent sharpening.
A good starting point is choosing a knife made from a relatively hard (60-62 HRC) AND high wear resistance steel - VG-10 (not bargain basement grade VG-10 though: there seems to be much that can go wrong in making a knife from that steel), or Aritsugu's A-type steel, are well known to be good choices for that purpose.
The key is who eventually sharpens it (can be another person, maybe a professional) has to sharpen it properly - no wire edge. no overheating. intelligent choice of sharpening angles to match knife and user. advising the user on what to do and do not do with it.
Also, sharpening it when it is new can be advisable: Very few knives come with an optimal edge when they are new.
Alternatively, a knife that integrates well with a sharpening aid made or endorsed by the same manufacturer (Wusthof and Global do offer such) could work - the sharpening by these devices is not ideal but acceptable for some.
Don't believe the marketing - any knife will dull after some use.
But... You don't need to sharpen knives every time! You don't need to shave with your cooking knives. For real cooking work to be done it's enough just to hone (to fine the cutting edge) with sharpening steel. Look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nd7r-3RGpJA
And best of all: 3-5 strokes is enough.
For the average knife and user, stay away from "high carbon steel," as they tend to need sharpening and "touching up" relatively more frequently. Standard stainless steel tends to be relatively more brittle. A blade made from what used to be called "chromalloy" (chromium/molybdenum/vanadium steel) is most likely your best option, holding an edge better than high carbon steel and being less brittle than stainless.
What will the knife be used for? Cooking/prep work? Self defense? Daily carry? Hunting? All need to factor into blade choice.
One parting observation: Use of a ceramic "steele" to touch up the blade might be a better choice if the user has limited mobility. Just use a lighter touch than with a steel Steele.
Just my $0.02
As others have pointed out, harder steels will be better at holding an edge, as will ceramic knives. May I suggest though: let the knive be sharpened by a professional? Most week markets or similar have a "knife guy" who will sharpen your knives for a few dollars/euros a piece. And you don't need to do this every month. Every quarter of half year is probably way more than a home cook would need. Inbetween, use a honing rod to keep the edge sharp.
For more than 30 years I have made forged stainless steel knives that hold an edge far longer than other stainless knives and will out-cut carbon steel knives forged or otherwise, and sharpen easily. Of course knife manufacturers and knife makers have tried to keep this information hidden, gee I wonder why? They're not cheap, not made in china. But in the words of many o my customers, "Worth every penny." I have published my edge testing results on my website- seanmcwilliamsforge.com and yes, I do make kitchen knives.
I'd hesitate to flag this as spam, as the affiliation is clearly stated, but it does feel a bit too much of an advert, especially as a first post from a new member.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.218084
| 2017-03-11T07:56:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79052",
"authors": [
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62395
|
Can I un-seal canned tomato sauce, and re-seal after further cooking?
If I canned tomato sauce and all the jars sealed perfectly, can I open them, cook the sauce a little more, and do the process over again?
I had some of the sauce today and I think it needed a little more cooking.
We make a lot of sauces every year. I wouldn't try to do it over. If you know what its lacking just add it to your sauce as you use it. Sometimes bland sauce can be a good thing and offers you an open door to add what you want. If you're missing some flavors you like or don't have enough of it just add it for now with seasonings. Make a mental or written note for next year to try and zero in on what exactly you want to produce.
My mom kept copious notes in her cookbooks -- when she first made it, what the family's opinion was, and any changes that were made over the years. I wouldn't recommend just trying to remember things.
I agree. If you're really going for a good recipe you have to write it down and make changes each year till you get it right. Even the type of tomato is important.
Basically, every time you open the jars you are exposing the food to the risk of contamination. If you are planning on storing the sauce for only a few weeks it doesn't really matter, but if you plan on storing it for several months its important to heat the sauce on a high heat to make sure nothing can live there.
Even more important is to clean and sterilize the jars before re-sealing them with the new sauce.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.218451
| 2015-10-08T21:44:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62395",
"authors": [
"Clarice Mason",
"Jerome Brown",
"Joe",
"John Dorricott",
"Larry Wise",
"Lydia Clark",
"Melinda Hope Johnson",
"Michala Cameron",
"NKY Homesteading",
"Roberta Hillebert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"noorung",
"rahim daredia"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
86973
|
Sourdough recipe with vinegar
I use a sourdough starter to bake my breads. I read somewhere that adding a touch of vinegar will help with the oven rise.
What are the implications of adding vinegar to my recipe?
There are several conversations about this on The Fresh Loaf, which you can search. Issues raised include (a) acetic acid used as a preservative in manufactured bread (lowering the pH), (b) yeast performing best in a neutral to slightly acid environment, suggesting vinegar might be helpful when using instant yeast, (c) vinegar helping the rise in gluten free situations, and (d) the idea of vinegar, not for help in fermentation, but to strengthen the dough, thus creating a better structure for capturing fermentation gasses. All of these use vinegar in small amounts (1 - 1.5% of flour).
My concern, in sourdough situations, would be too much acid. Starter is typically acidic to start with. When feeding, much of the starter is removed and replaced with fresh flour and water. In part, this keeps acidity in check. Too much acid inhibits yeast and bacterial activity.
If you bake often, why not try an experiment? Use the same recipe and baking conditions, except add 1% vinegar to one. Let us know what happens!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.218741
| 2018-01-09T06:02:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86973",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89025
|
Rigging equipment for steaming large amounts at once
I am making steamed BBQ pork buns for a work potluck. I have some steamer equipment, but small scale. I'm looking at making 60+ buns, and would really like to cook them as quickly as possible the morning before I go to work.
How can I create a large steamer setup? I thought my rice cooker and instant pot could be put to use as steamers. It is a standard large office setup, so not sure if the humidity from the steam would be a problem.
How much bigger than, e.g., two-tiered steamer in 12 qt stockpot are you trying to go? (And do you have the burner heat output for that?)
Well my only steaming options right now are a standard rice maker and an instant pot with a steamer rack. Mcguyverying something with the output of a 12 at two tier would be great and would more than double my output if I just used all three together. I was thinking heavy duty aluminum foil layers with holes laid into some large pots with a lid over them and placing parchment under the rolls. I would use a large pan and a grease guard, but I do not do enough frying to own a grease guard it seems. Thanks!
steamer inserts for pots are widely available and cheap... Then you should be able to use as many pots as you have burners, with one or two layers per pot. Search for a steamer basket, plate, or rack. Should be available locally at the store too. Important that you can get them in and out, like with a long pair of tongs.
Assuming that you're planning to do the steaming at home (your question is kind of confusing that way), the cheapest way to go is to create ad-hoc "steam ovens" using disposable aluminum foil pans.
Buy some disposable aluminum foil baking pans, as large/deep as possible, like a 20" x 12" x 3.5" pan.
line the bottom of these with cookie cooling racks (if you don't have these, use an appropriately-sized disposable rimmed cookie sheet and punch holes in it).
pour in a little bit of water, below the tops of the racks.
put in the buns (should hold a lot of them in each pan)
seal tightly with extra-wide, heavy-duty foil on top.
bake in your oven at 350F
Now, the catch to this is that the cooking time will be different than it would n a regular steamer, because you're getting some heat from the top, and I don't have a ready conversion for you; you'd have to test a bit.
If this is something you do a lot, I'd recommend buying a Thai/Vietnamese-style multi-level steamer, which would allow you to steam batches of 12 to 30 buns pretty rapidly. You can buy these steamers at Asian grocery stores a lot cheaper than you can find them online.
exactly what i was looking for. i'll play around with this this weekend. i broke down and just changed what i was going to cook though. i bet if i filled it with boiling water just before i threw the entire thing in the oven it would help with the temp difference from the oven top. thanks!!!
Yes, it probably would, good idea.
placed on bbq grill and topped with another pan the same size. worked pretty well. make sure to start with boiling water.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.218902
| 2018-04-10T20:20:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89025",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Ya Guy Godzilla",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"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
}
|
89251
|
What defines cooking wine?
What makes cooking wines and cooking sake considered only for cooking? My thoughts would be how cooking sake has more spices added to it but I'm not sure for wine.
The question asked is different, but I think the top answer here pretty much answers your question: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85518/can-i-use-cooking-sherry-instead-of-red-wine-in-my-stew
@Cascabel Possibly a dupe?
I don't know, I'd kind of prefer we end up with a clear answer about exactly what cooking wine is and isn't (realistically including a good bit of what was said in that answer), rather than depending on it being lumped in with the other question, which invited a lot of other information too.
I saw that question but it was asking about a substitute while I'm asking specifically what makes it cooking wine/sake?
@JadeSo Indeed, we're not saying the questions are identical, just that the top answer there does explain what makes it "cooking".
I recall a chef saying there is no such thing as a cooking wine/beer/spirit. They said to never cook with something you weren't willing to drink.
I understand that; I fallow Jacques Pépin's rule of if you won't drink it, don't cook with it. I was still curious as to why a specific "cooking" wine etc. existed.
As my answer is quite long, it was suggested to add a summary up front. Here are the main points along with a little more info.
In the US, commercial cooking wines found in the grocery store, usually on the aisle with vinegar products, contain salt and other preservatives. The main reason for this is stability, giving the products a longer shelf life after opening. Other reasons may include taxation and regulations. The same is true of cooking sake.
In the US, drinking wines that are usually cheap or of lesser quality may be considered cooking wines. Sources state that the difference between these wines and wines that one would prefer to drink is quality. Also, these wines may contain a higher amount of alcohol than those labeled as cooking wines. Due to a higher alcohol content, one may achieve more complex or deeper flavors.
Based on other answers and comments, salted wine doesn't seem to be common in many other countries.
Some wines that are considered to be cooking wines, such as Shaoxing (which is a Chinese cooking wine) seem to be quite easy to find with no salt.
As per my comments, I don't feel that there is just one definition or that one blanket statement gives a full and complete answer to this question. Thus, my quest to provide an answer that covers more ground.
Cooking wine, depending on location can mean several different things. As noted in the answer above, it is different in Germany than in the US. Even in the US, there is much conflicting information, as well as many different products considered to be cooking wine.
From Wine Folly, which is written by a certified sommelier:
Just so you know, the major difference between wines sold as cooking wines vs. regular drinking wines is quality. If anything, cooking with a regular drinking wine will give you a better tasting dish because the quality is much higher.
From leaf article: Differences Between Cooking Wine and Drinking Wine:
Although cooking wine and wine for drinking share some added ingredients, they differ in two main ways:
Cooking wine contains salt, which gives foods an overly salty or bitter flavor.
Drinking wine contains more alcohol, which reacts with both heat and certain foods to add complex, deep and new flavors to a dish.
As for why salt or other additives are used, taxes and regulations could be a factor, but the most important factor is that it lengthens the shelf life after the bottle has been opened. Also from leaf:
The added salt in cooking wine gives it a longer shelf life than drinking wine. Cooking wines come with "use by" dates, but are typically good at room temperature for 3 to 4 months. Drinking wine stays fresh for drinking for about 5 days in the refrigerator, but will still work for cooking for 2 months.
From Holland House, either the largest (or one of the largest) manufacturer of 'grocery store cooking wines' in the US:
Q: What is cooking wine?
A: Holland House Cooking Wine is wine MADE for cooking. Holland House uses premium quality wine stock and has a perfectly balanced taste and aroma. The salt that is added makes it stable in your pantry. This gives you a consistency of flavor you can depend on from the first time you open it to the last drop. Cooking wine is used as an ingredient; it is not meant to be consumed as a beverage.
(Emphasis mine.)
So, to sum up, there are many different products or 'wines' considered to be cooking wines. There is not just one single answer to the definition of a cooking wine. It totally depends on geographical location and which 'wine' is in question. Is it a commercial cooking wine? Is it a poor or lesser quality 'drinking wine' that is typically considered to be a cooking wine? There are too many variables to sum it up in one brief sentence.
Note that the "shelf life" you give is for opened bottles, an unopened bottle of wine keeps (much) longer.
@remco - indeed: one of the attractions for cooking wine is for people who don't drink wine, but wanted to cook typical meals that might just use half to one glass per serving, thus leaving four to five glasses in the open bottle that'll only last for a handful of days...
@remco You are absolutely correct. I should have noted that rather than assume that others would know that. I will edit. Great catch! Thanks!
I'd suggest summarizing up front: in the US, salt, alcohol content, can be sold more places. It's still probably nice to have the additional detail, but you can also make it easier on people who want the summary. (Also I'm not sure what conclusion we're many to draw from the Holland House quote - of course the manufacturer thinks it's great for cooking, seems like the only trustworthy information is that it's not drinkable?)
@Cascabel Good idea about summarizing up front. Re the HH quote, I added that as a 2nd source saying salt is added for stability.
Thanks, that seems a lot better! One way you might be able to stave off debate is if you don't try to assess the intent of the manufacturers ("the main reason"); you could just state that it improves shelf life and allows sale where actual wine couldn't be sold.
At least in germany "cooking wine" is more a reference to a cheap wine that just does not taste good if drunken (or is of a low percieved quality). For example a cheap lambrusco, which you get if you order a few pizzas at your local pizzaria, is considered "cooking wine" in germany.
+1. The top voted answer is US-centric. Maybe it applies to other countries, maybe it doesn't, I don't know. But it is important to recognize that the legal/marketing term "cooking wine" from the USA is not the same as the colloquial term "cooking wine" in other countries/languiages.
Is german "cooking wine" same as french "vin de table"(table wine). Or latin "vino de messa"(chruch wine)? or is it a lower win quality?
As a french "cooking wine" sound better quality than "vino de messa". but I could be biased. Wine table sound like wine stored in 5L plastic bag.
French 'table wine' is usually wine without a protected origin, not necessarily of inferior quality (but it used to be that some were pretty bad).
@DragandDrop In German, there is no special category for "cooking wine". The expression exists, but it is used as a label every time you cook with a given wine, as in "I have some Pinot Grigio which has been open for 2 weeks, now it's only good as cooking wine". It is not that some wines are produced and marketed as "cooking wine" and others as "non-cooking wine" or "drinking wine" or whatever. Any wine becomes automatically "cooking wine" the moment you use it for cooking, similar to how a tire becomes a "spare tire" when you put it in the trunk instead of mounting it on the axle.
So, this answer here should not be interpreted as "all cheap wines are automatically cooking wines", it is more of "when a German wants to designate a wine as a cooking wine, they usually try to find a cheaper wine", or "if a German told you of a concrete bottle 'this is cooking wine'", it implies "it is not good enough for me to drink, but I would cook with it".
This meaning definitely exists in the US as well.
@DragandDrop: vin de table is just a casual wine you would drink for a meal. It is supposed to be opposed to grand cru, which is a wine you could savour on its own with all associated ohs and achs (I am French, drink wine from time to time, and feel that the price does not correlate too much with the taste, starting from 5 or so euros). I would take a 1-3 or 5 € wine as "cooking wine" (the price being the reference)
Same in France.
Cooking wine has added salt so it is unpalatable to drink and legal to be sold in a store that doesn't have a liquor license in states requiring that.
This is an accurate answer. I would add that the salt also significantly increases shelf life.
Yes, it really is that simple. Cooking wine is not "wine for cooking" in the sense that it's been optimized for that. It's "cooking wine" in that you could conceivably cook with it but can't drink it, because it has been adulterated with too much salt for anybody but a concerted alcoholic. It isn't otherwise improved or otherwise made especially suitable for cooking.
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
Other answers have focussed on wine, I'll focus on sake.
"Cooking sake" is a rice alcohol. Sake doesn't have any spices added to it. Cooking sake is just a lower" quality sake. It will also likely have other additives like salt and anti-oxidants to stabilise the alcohol. Cooking sake is expected to last in a usable condition for longer than a quality drinking sake. I don't doubt that some cooking sake is made by diluting cheap sake with water and grain alcohol, to reach a certain price point.
There is another alcoholic product that may be labelled as "cooking sake". Mirin is a sweet alcohol exclusively for cooking. It has syrup added to it after fermentation. Its used for example in teriyaki sauces.
As noted in other answers, in the US "cooking wine" is nearly always salted, elsewhere it normally refers to a low-quality wine, for example, one made with sugar and grape concentrate.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.219242
| 2018-04-18T20:31:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89251",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Charles",
"Cindy",
"Drag and Drop",
"Jade So",
"Jon P",
"Joshua Engel",
"Jules",
"WoJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33351",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66642",
"moscafj",
"remco",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49606
|
How is Botan (the Japanese rice candy) made?
I was wondering if anyone might know how they make Botan Rice Candy? I have searched the web but no leads.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! One of our biggest rules is that we don't allow recipe requests, so I edited your question in the hope that it will be enough to allow it to stay open. I looked too, and could not find anything about how to make Botan. I did read that it is similar to Mochi, and there is a lot online about that. Google search for Mochi, and see if that helps. I actually plan to try it myself soon!
Specifically, you might find this Blog on Mochi of interest.
@jolenealaska thanks for the tip! The blog post was just what l was hoping for.
Do you mean this one?botan rice candy.
If so, in Japan it is actually known as Bontan Ame (meaning pomelo candy) as shown in this description.
Here is a link to how a similar milk version is made (I think you would use mandarin/pomelo (bontan) juice in there somewhere for what you want), but it is in Japanese...Perhaps the pictures will help but...sorry, I don't know if it's ok to translate this...but it says: milk 500ml, sweet glutinous rice 500g, sugar 500g, mizuame (maltose; could use corn syrup instead) 600g, potato starch 200g, and a tray 31cmx24cmx3.5cm. Briefly, it says to soak the rice for half a day, then drain, and blend with the milk for 2-3 mins. Transfer to a pot and simmer on medium heat for 20-30 mins. Add sugar in a few lots, mix until dissolved. Drop to low heat, add mizuame and stir/knead very well - the firmness of the final candy will depend on how long you do this. Dredge tray with a thick layer of potato starch then pour the mixture in. To harden, refrigerate when cool.
If you give the source, translating the recipe is absolutely fine. On the contrary, "link only" answers are discouraged, because links on the Internet have that notorious tendency to be not permanent ("link rot"), which would make the answer useless.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.220033
| 2014-11-08T02:26:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49606",
"authors": [
"BioFact QA2",
"Dorothy O'Brien",
"Erin Cartwright",
"Jolenealaska",
"SAMMY PSALMS",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29148",
"k6adams",
"张张张"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45120
|
can you make a mud cake using cooked quinoa instead of normal wheat flours
I have been told you can make a mud cake substituting cooked quinoa for normal wheat flours. Is this possible and do you need to add anything else?
Hi Naomi, welcome to Seasoned Advice. It looks to me like you want to use quinoa instead of wheat flour as opposed to the other way around. I edited your question because it seemed to read the other way. If I'm in error, feel free to click "edit" under the word "substitution" to change it back.
"Mud Cake" means different things to different people. Could you post a recipe so we can all be on the same page?
I'm with Jolene. What's a mud cake?
This isn't a cake, it's a mousse from Hurbert Keller. When I saw it I thought of this question.
Making substitutions to baking usually requires a bit of experimentation, so unless you're set on converting a particular recipe, your best option is to start with a recipe that is designed to use it. There are tons of chocolate quinoa cake recipes on the internet.
If you are hoping to convert a favourite recipe to gluten-free (the usual point of these cake recipes), then the proportions of the recipes I looked at are generally similar to flour cake recipes (2 cups cooked quinoa for a 2-layer cake), but the cake batters are mixed in a blender or food processor instead. I assume this is to make the quinoa finer, more similar in texture to flour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.220516
| 2014-06-25T00:26:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45120",
"authors": [
"Canberra Detox and Rehab",
"Case d'Mäkéna",
"Elizabeth Thorne",
"Jolenealaska",
"Preston",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"spammer",
"user13574"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4038
|
Why do some countries prefer UHT milk and cream?
My wife and I recently moved to Belgium. We were absolutely shocked by the fact that UHT (long life) milk and cream dominate supermarket shelves compared to pasteurized - by a factor of at least 10 to 1. The UHT products are sold in cardboard containers and taste poor compared to the refrigerated fresh stuff.
Considering Belgium is well known for it's rich tradition of dairy products, this struck us as rather odd.
I asked around and was told that France was also going UHT.
Anyone know how this came about? I can see how UHT makes sense when there is a poor distribution network, but surely it isn't by choice???
the stats for various countries are at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-temperature_processing
Keep in mind, pasteurized milk also has an "off" taste compared to fresh, unpasteurized milk. But it's safe to ship and can be sold long after and a long distance from its point of origin. Lots of money to be made trading convenience and a promise of safety for quality...
Okay, next time I'm in the supermarket, I'm going to stop someone and ask them. I'll post back what I learn.
In the meantime - check this out. I just found it while Googling "UHT adoption rate". "Sensational Discovery Shows UHT Milk Causes Brain Disease" :/
http://wledge.net/health-fitness/sensational-discovery-shows-uht-milk-causes-brain-disease.htm
Interestingly, you could ask the same question in the other direction about bread. In the UK, you can buy bread which lasts for weeks, whereas (mostly) on the continent bread is only good for a couple of days (and nice for fewer).
Funny I am not sure what you guys are talking about. We only have pasteurized milk in Canada, that I know of. Unless you are talking about milk in tetra pack style boxes. That stuff is only for camps, somewhere without reliable refrigeration. I'm sure when I tasted it I thought powdered milk was better.
My guess is that the Belgians (like the French) rarely eat milk cold and uncooked in the way that the British do. The Belgians will have their milk in hot chocolate, or cakes etc, whereas the Brits will have it cold in cereal (again, in France at least, cereal is eaten with warm milk).
I have found that the UHT milk in French supermarkets tastes a lot better than the UHT milk in British supermarkets.
That's an interesting theory. I had no idea about the warm milk on cereal thing.
You're right, the UHT milk is better than when I was growing up in the UK in the 70's. At that time UHT was pretty bad.
I have quite a lot of experience of the two cultures - I'm British and my wife is French, and we live in Calais, about as near as you can get to the UK without a boat! My father-in-law will never have a croissant without warm milk to dunk it in!
It's the same to eggs sold in the US and Japan. In Japan, a pack of eggs lasts just around a week because people often eat them raw.
@puri and how long do eggs last in the US?
around 2 weeks in the US.
My guess would be the convenience of storage for markets. Less refrigerated space is going to cost less in electrical expense. Consumers can also stock up without having as much dedicated space in refrigerators. European refrigerators in particular tend to be on the small side.
this can't be it. Refrigerator size (also electricity costs, transport culture, distribution network etc) in the UK are comparable to France & Belgium but fresh pasteurized milk is massively favoured over UHT in the UK.
As I said, it was just a guess on my part. Has anyone asked the grocery stores why the switch?
Gotta love the certainty one has in what "can't be it" when one doesn't know what it is.
@cinque: I used to do exactly the same. I'm not a milk drinker so it would often go to waste keeping it on hand for baking/cooking. I now mainly rely on heavy cream and just thin it down with water if I need milk in a recipe. Guess I stopped by the shelf-stable milk because the price went up in the store I started shopping in after moving a few years back.
@hobodave and @cinque: I am aware Americans have big fridges and those titchy European ones must seem mighty quaint. But something else culturally or politically must be going on to explain high UHT adoption in France & Belgium and low adoption in the UK & Greece. No, I don't know what it is but I don't think it's fridge size. I thought it was an interesting question though. I wondered the same thing as octonion when I lived in (continental) Europe a few years ago.
I wonder if it has to do with stricter food regulations under the European Union.
"I wonder if it has to do with stricter food regulations under the European Union". Ireland and the UK have exactly the same regulations, and we're fresh milk all the way here in Ireland.
I'm not so sure it's a space in the fridge problem - well not on the consumer end. I grew up in the UK and we had a tiny fridge, but we always had fresh milk.
Also my estimates were off. I made a quick trip to the store today and the ratio is more like 200 to 1 not 10 to 1.
@Octonion: While you were at the store, did you take the time to ask a manager why the greater allotment of space to UHT vs. Refrigerated???
These articles from the London Times (which include a list of countries and associated consumption of UHT Milk) confirms:
YES, it is more popular on the continent AND
YES, the change appears to be due to saving on refrigeration expense for retailers and the associated "green benefits" overall.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2658175.ece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7044693.stm
I think it's convenience topping taste. To be honest, I've got used to UHT now, and the convenience of never having to worry about milk going off (and not having to return to the shop every other day to buy more) is undeniable.
(I'm actually surprised by the percentage for Switzerland on that Wikipedia page, I don't think I've ever been offered pasteurised milk by anyone here - maybe it's all the milk going into cheese-making?)
I do not know about other European countries but in my country the shelf life for pasteurized milk is a mere 4 days. It was even less when I was a kid (like 2 days). So, it is very costly for producers and retailers to sell pasteurized milk as opposed to UHT.
I think this stems from the fact that milk consumption is not widespread and the industry does not invest in techniques and other means of improving shelf life (hygiene, cold-chain) when they can sell UHT instead.
Out of interest, what country are you in?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.220705
| 2010-08-02T23:46:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4038",
"authors": [
"Alex Larzelere",
"Beef",
"Benjol",
"Binary Worrier",
"Bluebelle",
"Darin Sehnert",
"Jay",
"Liam",
"Nina",
"Ocaasi",
"Renshia",
"Rich",
"Shog9",
"Tea Drinker",
"V9801",
"doctoraw",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92",
"octonion",
"puri",
"user21205"
],
"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
}
|
12343
|
Aprons for the home chef
What do I look for in a good high quality apron?
Where can I go to get one?
What sort of tasks are you looking to protect yourself from?
If it's really messy stuff, or to wear while doing the dishes, you might want something that's non-absorbant, like PVC. I've only really seen them at restaurant supply stores, but it's possible that you might be able to get them from chemistry supply places, also. (and in this case, pockets are not a good idea, as they collect stuff that you've then got to clean out).
For long hours of grilling, I like something that's more insulating, which in my case would be a leather welder's apron, which you can get from welding supply stores. I've looked around for something that might be more reflective of radiant heat, but haven't had any luck.
For just general practical use, something that cleans up easily is important. Restaurant supply stores are a good bet for those sorts of things, but you can sometimes find them in stores that sell grills when it's that season.
For the decorative ones, you basically have two styles -- printed ones with witty/obnoxious sayings on them. I typically find them online.
The other more frilly decorative ones ... you can find at most housewares stores, some department stores, and if you want something more one of a kind, try esty.
... as for features ... I'm not a fan of pockets, myself. I guess they're useful for thermometers and timers, but mine clip on, or sit up on a counter or next to the grill, so I don't care. What I do care about is that they cover the areas that you're trying to protect (an adjustable neck strap is so much better than tying a knot in the line around the neck so try to shorten it) and they don't have straps so long that they get snagged if I sit down for lean up against something.
And it should come on and off without too much difficulty ... which I've only really noticed is a problem with some designs of welder's aprons (it's hard to explain ... it doesn't just go over the neck, and attach in back) ... or if you have to tie off the top to shorten the neck opening.
The primary purpose of an apron is to keep you clean, because cooking gets you dirty. This is why I don't like the common cotton aprons you can get everywhere, they absorb dirt and keep stains. If you insist on cotton, get a white or natural colored one (not dyed, and certainly not printed) so you can wash it at 90° and use bleach and other stain removing chemicals.
What I prefer are treated aprons. They are made from the same material as some hiking jackets, and repel dirt and water. You cannot wash them at too high a setting, but you don't need that. Just remember to not use fabric softener on them, and renew the coating every month or two using an impregnating spray for outdoor clothing. The one I like is by Le Creuset, with an adjustable neck strap and a clean design which covers a lot of body area, and you can easily get it from Amazon. It also has pockets, which I find essential for stuffing a pair of pot holders - when I suddenly smell something burning, I have no time for searching for them somewhere else. But I imagine there are other brands which will do as well. If you insist on having a witty saying on your apron, it is probably better to get a high-quality coated apron and have it screen printed or stitched than buying a poorly functioning complete with a saying.
This is the Le Creuset apron:
I didn't know that you can get pure PVC aprons until I read Joe's answer. I can imagine they will be sweat-inducing, because they are not breathable, but as I know PVC, they will also be even easier to clean than coated cloth. He says they are hard to get, but I can tell you that aprons are one of the easiest things to sew, so if you want one badly, why not just buy some PVC table cloth and make one? (I am assuming here that you can get your hands on a sewing machine; you don't need much experience in sewing for making an apron, and cheap/free patterns for aprons are easy to come by).
For special needs, there are all kinds of aprons, but I don't think you need them as a hobby cook. You can get protection from extreme heat, acids/bases, shards flying through the air (as in hacking wood to kindling, or in smallish explosions), or even radiation, but I hope you have none of those in your kitchen. If you just want a high show off factor, take a look here. That's a butcher's apron from aluminum plates by De Buyer. If you get it complete with the chain mail glove (seriously), you are ready for the next ren faire. .
ooohh ... a metal apron ... I hadn't thought of that ... I might have to borrow some scale maille from a friend for my next long grilling session and see how it works out. And I found a chain apron, but I already have a chain haulberk, although it's not stainless.
gettings one is easy, check out pretty much any store that sells cooking stuff
I like mine to be made of cotton-it's easy to clean and is soft so it doesn't irritate your body. I like mine to have a strap for my neck and a tie around my waist. I also like having pockets to stash stuff like spoons.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.221243
| 2011-02-18T17:02:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12343",
"authors": [
"CailinP",
"Crake",
"Joe",
"Simon jones",
"eugene",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"thirdwilliam",
"user2280643",
"user2449231"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88482
|
Parcooking carrots and green beans for an already well-seasoned casserole
I will be heating an otherwise perfectly-seasoned casserole dish for an hour. (Time constraint non-negotiable! But temperature flexible.) I want to add fresh carrots and green beans but am wondering how long to parcook them (respectively) so they will be just right after an hour in a very moist dish of meat and veloute. Any suggestions?
1 hour at what temperature? Seems to me that carrots and beans in a casserole are usually cooked through. Why not put them in raw and heat the casserole until the veg is cooked? By that time the dish will be heated.
Totally read that title as ‘Cooking parrots’
In my experience, carrots at about 1.5-2cm thickness will be cooked through after an hour at a bare simmer. You might consider slightly browning, rather than boiling them before adding them to the mixture, for flavor, and to get them up to temperature. As for green beans, (depending on how you like them ) add them 10 -15 minutes before the end of your cooking time?
But if you really don't want to shift the flavor, why not cook them exactly to your liking and add them right at the end, just before service? More like a garnish than an ingredient. Plenty of traditional French stews do this with bacon, caramelized onions, mushrooms .. etc.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.221772
| 2018-03-21T15:39:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88482",
"authors": [
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79242
|
How long does it take garlic to germinate in the fridge?
If left in the fridge, how long does garlic take to germinate? I have experienced the green sprouts in the past, and was able to chop them off and eat the remaining garlic. I am curious add to how long that takes as I cannot remember.
This way I will know how much garlic to keep in the fridge at my friend's house, based on how much is used per week, since my friend insists that it must be kept in the fridge.
If I plant the garlic that has germinated in a pot, will it grow? How do you grow it?
there are quite a lot of questions about garlic at gardening.se, where that's more on-topic. I grow it from supermarket garlic but you can't always.
I also suggest that you ask at least one of your questions on gardening.se. As I see it, you have two other questions. I recommend that you break this question down to only ask one question per question posted, but, we may end up answering all of your questions 'cause we're squirrelly that way.
On your previous question asked yesterday http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79229/what-is-the-best-place-to-store-garlic-in-the-kitchen the answer was specifically and correctly stated as garlic should not be stored in the fridge. If you care about your garlic ( and it appears you do ) why would you ignore the excepted wisdom of not storing your garlic in the fridge?
The last line / paragraph is a question for Gardening SE, and it indeed is already answered there.
Germination of garlic is a gradual, slow process, and how long it takes depends a lot on how close to sprouting the garlic was when you originally bought it. Seems to me it would have to sprout faster at room temp, than refrigerated, anyway.
I routinely keep garlic in the fridge (shame on me!), and sometimes the garlic will keep in the fridge for at least a month without sprouting (That's about how fast I use it, so I don't have data past a month). On the other hand, I have seen nubby little green/purplish sprouts (abt. 3mm long?) on garlic which I had just purchased; cut them off; garlic was fine - just like your experience.
I guess the reason you want to keep the garlic in the fridge during your stay at your friend's house is to avoid unnecessary rancourous arguments - yes? So here's the thing: your friend may be wrong, but for the layman, it's not a huge deal to keep the garlic in or out of refrigerator, as he likes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.221932
| 2017-03-19T09:14:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79242",
"authors": [
"Alaska Man",
"Chris H",
"Jolenealaska",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54906"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53911
|
Cooking, freezing, recooking, and refreezing chicken
I boiled a whole chicken, then froze the cut up parts. I then cook different meals but want to know if I can refreeze the leftovers from the dinners.
possible duplicate of Rules for refreezing food
@ChrisSteinbach I'm going to disagree that this is a duplicate of that question. I think it could be if the answers addressed chicken specifically, but they don't. And poultry has its own weirdness as far as refreezing.
@Jolenealaska Do you mean that refreezing poultry is somehow different to freezing other types of meat? If so I'd be interested in the details.
@ChrisSteinbach Yes, I do mean that. The quality issue of refreezing poultry has (IMO) been much more heavily stressed, even though it probably is not all that much different. It's to the point that I could totally understand someone thinking it's a safety issue, when in fact it's only a quality issue.
@ChrisSteinbach I just talked to a mod in chat about it, and she agrees with you, that it is probably a dupe. So it probably will be closed. Oh well, I can be satisfied that I addressed the question in good faith.
@Jolenealaska Ok I see. Whether the question stays open or not I at least understand what you were driving at.
Yes, you can. You're not facing a food safety issue at all except possibly for violating the "time in the danger zone" rule, and then only if, in fact, the rule has been violated. Look at What do I need to know about temperature and food safety? for more on that. For what (admittedly little) it's worth, I find the strict interpretation of that rule (2 hours, cumulative) overly conservative in a home environment assuming healthy, non-pregnant, adult eaters, but that's not my call to make concerning your food.
What you may face is a quality issue. The texture of your chicken may be negatively effected by refreezing. The smaller your pieces of chicken, and the saucier the dish, the less likely it is that you will notice this negative affect on the chicken.
I was going to mention the texture issue but you beat me to it. (grin) Great reply! Great question too!!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.222155
| 2015-01-23T18:49:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53911",
"authors": [
"Amanda Fernandes",
"Chris Johnson",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Gringo Dave",
"Harry Porter",
"Jason Allen",
"Jennifer Oldham",
"Jolenealaska",
"Sabba Hussain",
"Youlin Qi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31229",
"user126773"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46083
|
Recommendations: Food with Minimal Stovetop Time, No Oven Available
I'm not sure if this will still be too broad or vague, but here's my attempt at a rewrite. Please feel free to close it if it is still too broad/vague.
Friends overseas have a very minimal kitchen, and where they are, electricity is expensive, and they have a minimal income.
Here is what they have - one single electric burner, a smaller-than-normal dorm fridge (which eats up most of their electric bill, evidently), a very sketchy 80s or 90s microwave that they are reluctant to use because of radiation leakage, one very small pot with a lid, two chef's knives and a couple of bowls. They have access to vegetables, a little meat and a few spices and sauces (salt, pepper, ginger, garlic, onions), but that's more or less it.
They do not have access or easy access to the following - gas-powered or coal-powered products or devices; equipment or devices that are considered safe by most standards at home (they tried to get a hot water heater for coffee and it blew up in a month); ovens; toaster ovens; convection ovens; toasters; waffle irons; grills; George Forman grills; blenders; food processors; salad spinners, zesters, and other things we take for granted. They also do not have access to processed foods like Oreos, soup mixes, canned broth, instant [fill-in-food-here] etc. Dairy and seafood are also out but those are due to allergies. They also do not have internet access, which is why I'm posting as I'm just learning to cook myself. I'm hoping to have answers for them next time I call.
I am looking for general food categories or formulas that they could make that have minimal time on the stovetop and will help with their bill. Examples include stir-frys (cut up veg, add sauce, swish around, eat) or tortillas (eggs, add veggies and flavors, wait till eggs set, eat).
Are there other "food formulas" like the two mentioned above - not specific recipes - that they could use? I used the following criteria
5-10 minutes on the stovetop
easily adaptable - e.g. for stir-frys, they can use whatever veg their market has available
imparts a lot of flavor in a short time
is forgiving
I really am looking for suggestions, not recipes. What can my friends do to make meals under those circumstances?
Thank you for your patience and help.
No microwave or toaster oven either?
I think they might have a microwave but it's the electricity that's the issue, so that might've been nixed. I know for sure, no toaster oven.
It's not my cup of tea, so it won't be me that does it. I'd like to see a comparison of electrical usage between a typical microwave and a typical electrical burner for basic cooking tasks. I'm not a big fan of microwaves in general, but my instincts suggest that they're probably pretty efficient as far as the use of electricity. They can also be acquired dirt cheaply.
I hear you, but they're overseas so who knows how things get calculated. Plus they're in the middle of nowhere so microwaves aren't the most efficient/available.
camping is a classic "we have one burner and nothing else" scenario, so you might ask on http://outdoors.stackexchange.com/ though make it clear you have refrigeration available to you.
@Jolenealaska : it might not be an electric stove; I've been in towns where the norm is having a bottle of gas (not what type ... I think the bottle was orange) under the stove, as they didn't even have gas lines.
What minimal time? Is 20 Minutes for boiling potatoes too much?
It generally goes without saying that any "fast" recipe is going to be either a stovetop or microwave recipe, since the oven is almost invariably a "slow cooking" method. Anyway, there are entire sites and cookbooks dedicated to this; just search for "15-minute recipes" or "15-minute cookbook". You can even replace the 15 with a 5, if you really have so little time.
if an electrical appliance dies quickly, it's often a sign that it's not rated for that power. (without a switching power supply, you can't just use an plug adaptor; you need a full transformer to switch from 110V to 220V)
You mention stir fries, and the stir-fry portion is fine for fast cooking, but the rice that it's typically served with is not. You can get around this issue by either using rice noodles or ramen as a starch:
rice noodles : Add water to your wok while pre-heating it; pour the hot water over the rice noodles, then finish heating your wok and cook the stir fry; drain the noodles and toss them in with the stir-fry to coat.
ramen : add a little water to the wok, drop in a brick of ramen, slap a lid on and steam for 3-5 minutes.
If you have leftover rice from another dish, then I'd use it to make fried rice ... but otherwise, I'd avoid rice entirely.
Pasta cooks fairly quickly, but most dishes require a second pan ... we can get around this by making a pasta primavera :
boil water (not too much, or it'll take a long time to heat up). Add the pasta. When there's about 3 minutes left, toss in broccoli florets, sliced zucchini or other summer squash, peas, grean beens, thinly sliced carrots, or whatever other vegetables you like. Finish cooking the pasta, drain, return to pan and toss with olive oil, and maybe some of the following : a clove of crushed garlic, grated cheese, julienned bell pepper, thinly sliced onion (or green onions/scallion), crushed red pepper.
Egg dishes are also good, but be aware that a fritata is typically finished in an oven; you may need to follow the cooking techniques of an omelette or a spanish tortilla to cook it stovetop.
If you were going to do a rice dish, I'd stick with one-pot meals : jambalaya, arroz con pollo, paella (well, one pan meal), beans and rice, or similar.
You can also forgo starches entirely (or stick with bread that you've purchased), and just cook some sort of a meat, put it to the side to rest, and then in the same pan sauté some vegetables. Deglaze with some flavorful liquid, reduce, and maybe stir in some butter, and pour on top.
From my own personal experience, the following are easily made with only a stove top and proper utensils:
Stir fried rice (you can boil the rice, and then fry). Boiling takes minimal time. I'm not sure if this is specifically what you meant with stir-fry, but I thought I would add it here.
Grilled meats (easily cooked on a pan with some olive oil or other garnish). Your time would be spent thawing (if its frozen), otherwise its seasoning + pan.
Stock-based soups and stews. The only problem you'll have is reducing it; but this varies from the specific stew stock you are using.
I would suggest the following, but I am just a "cook by necessity":
Breakfast:
French toast
Eggs
Lunch:
Stir-fried rice
Side of soup
Dinner:
Grilled steak fillet
Roast potatoes (you can roast them by cutting + covering the pan with foil)
Plus things like pasta dishes. Bolognaise, and carbonara. Cook pasta and set aside. Then cook meat/sauce and combine at end.
other way around - cook the sauce and set it aside (wrap it in a towel to keep it warm) for flavor-improving, then cook the pasta/rice/etc and top it with the warm sauce.
Pasta has significantly less cooking time than rice. (5-12 min vs. 20-30).
There are "instant" rice products on the market that cook in comparable times to pasta. I've seen 10-15 minute varieties, 5 minute varieties, and 3 minute (via microwave) varieties.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.222411
| 2014-08-04T06:53:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46083",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BaffledCook",
"Gebäudereinigung Augsburg spam",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kate Gregory",
"Mariella Esparza",
"Martin Jevon",
"Myhab",
"Ranjith Kumar",
"Sumi",
"The Golden Gate",
"Water Damage Repair Detroit",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"sunny",
"tungwong.chi",
"user21142"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17997
|
What are the culinary differences between Chinese Mitten Crabs and Blue Crabs?
I wonder why Chinese mitten crabs are a delicacy in Chinese food,
while most people in Europe and US don't eat them even though there are
many of them now in these two places? For example, in Germany, mitten crabs are only caught for exporting to China.
In US, why are blue crabs popular and valued while Chinese mitten
crabs are not? On the food safety side, are the two species both
safe to eat?
Thanks!
As a Chinese, who have had many mitten crabs in my life, I think I can provide 2 insights:
In Chinese culinary culture, it's not only meat that's the most appreciated, but rather the taste, texture and the freshness especially with seafood.
Mitten crabs during the autumn season contains a lot of eggs under the shell. The flavour of the eggs are what's appreciated as well.
Mitten crabs (not sure in the US) are safe to be consumed from food safety perspective as long as it's being cooked properly like any other seafood.
Aren't 1. and 2. also true of Blue Crabs, though? Taste, texture, and freshness are also important. Do mitten crabs have a different texture? Blue Crabs are also prized for their eggs in the US.
Yes, but I think the difference is Blue Crabs were not local in China, hence historically mitten crab was already an established delicacy. And one of the nature of the crab is its return to the sea to hatch eggs from upstream fresh water - in China they used to use gate to catch them on the downstream move.
As why Americans do not value them as much, I think again it's the focus of consuming the eggs more than the meat that makes it a bit more special to Chinese culinary
I'm not sure about the culinary differences, but I've heard that mitten crabs are a bit sweeter (although I think they may have less meat).
As for why they're not more popular, at least in the US mitten crabs are considered an invasive species (i.e., they take over the habitats of the native species, like blue crabs, thus lowering the native population). While controlled harvesting of the crabs could potentially help slow the spread of the species, it also creates a conflict of interest among the fishermen. For example, if fishing of mitten crabs becomes more profitable than fishing of blue crabs, the market could naturally tend to preserve the mitten crab population. Therefore, it is currently illegal to even own a mitten crab in the US:
(2) The importation, transportation, or acquisition of any of the
species listed in this paragraph is prohibited except as provided under
the terms and conditions set forth in Sec. 16.22:
(i) ...
(ii) Live mitten crabs, genus Eriocheir, or their viable eggs;
Section 16.22 simply states that you need a special permit in order to keep mitten crabs, along with a special containment facility to ensure that none of them escape into the wild.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.223016
| 2011-09-25T18:47:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17997",
"authors": [
"Darwn Ali",
"ESultanik",
"George",
"K2so",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7783"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17923
|
Can an American substitute for garam masala be made?
I love Indian food and have been experimenting with curry recipes, and many of them ask for 'garam masala'. I know it's a spice mix but I can't find it for sale anywhere around me. I've also read that the mix varies from region to region so I'm not even sure what I would order if I wanted to get it online.
I prefer yellow/sweet curries and Indian food (like korma), can anyone recommend a spice blend that is similar, or should I break down and order it on the internet?
McCormic makes one that I've managed to pick up at local supermarkets. Check the spice sections closely. Also check around for international markets. Wikipedia gives details of which spices are used, as do numerous recipe sites.
Agreed on derobert's suggestion of international markets. As for what recipe/blend to use, a lot of the variation is regional, so figure out what area the you like is from, and search for 'region garam masala recipe'
As an aside, garam masala is not used in most Korma recipes I know. In general, garam masala is a "accent spice mix", added at the end of cooking for a little zing, but is not the major spice mix for most curries. The only exception to this I can think of are some cauliflower dishes.
Often, even if your regular grocery store has the indian seasoning mixes, they will be in a different aisle with ethnic foods rather than in the main spice display. Indian or other international grocers are also a great place to find such mixes.
so I'm not even sure what I would order if I wanted to get it online. You can order this one: http://www.amazon.com/MDH-Garam-Masala-100g/dp/B000MLHP3C MDH is a "well known" brand in India for the nearly all kinds of spices.
You can check this out: http://www.food-india.com/ingredients/i001_i025/i003.htm
Garam masala is a catch-all term for an Indian spice blend. It has no fixed recipe but is likely to contain a combination of cloves, cardamom, cinnamon, bay, black pepper, star anise, dried chillies, coriander, cumin and maybe more or less. Blends vary according to family tradition and region. Spices are then dried out and possibly roasted, before being ground to dust.
The downside is that if you find garam masala hard to find you may well find the components equally tricky to source. In the UK we are spoiled by a wealth of Indian grocers who stock these ingredients in reasonably-priced quantities. These spices are also readily available in any supermarket due to our historic connection to India.
For a starting point that aims towards the curries that you have specified, I would combine 20g cloves, 50g cardamom seeds, 100g cinnamon sticks, 5 bay leaves, 75g black peppercorns, 100g coriander seeds and 100g cumin seeds. Some toast the seeds in a dry pan but to avoid scorching and to squeeze out all the moisture I use the Heston Blumenthal technique: dry-roast the spices in a very low oven (100C / 212F) for an hour and leave to cool. Blitz to powder in a coffee or spice grinder. I would recommend storing for up to 6 months in an airtight jar to preserve its punch.
Remember this is only a starting point and can be completely customised according to how you like your curries.
When searching for such things I always have had good luck with Amazon.com. 1500 + results for Garam Marsala in a wondrous variety of brands and quantities.
If there is a particular blend (from an Indian Restaurant) that you favor it never hurts to ask for their recipe (or brand recommendation).
The main constituents of Garam Marsala are cumin, coriander, black pepper, white pepper, chili pepper, paprika, turmeric, capsicum and mustard; roughly in that order. There is no single correct mix. Rather, try making up your own blend. You can always adjust it in the cooking pot by adding more cumin, more chili or something else. As you get more proficient at your curries, you'll build up a idea of how these spices work together and be able to adjust your blend to suit. It really will be a matter of trial and error for a while till you get a mix that works for you.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.223283
| 2011-09-21T21:16:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17923",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"FuzzyChef",
"Jessica Brown",
"Joe",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18003
|
What are the proper steps to add the vermicelli in making dessert shemai?
I am trying to make lachchha shemai. Should I put the vermicelli after taking the boiled milk away from the burner or should I put the vermicelli when the milk is being boiled over the burner?
Hello, @awailin sopan. I am not familiar with this dish, but I found this recipe online: http://www.virtualbangladesh.com/recipes/sweets_shemai.html Is this the dish you are referring to, or is it something else?
I have not made this dish but I will attempt an answer based on the recipe I found and linked to in my above comment.
Melt butter in a 4 qt pot. Break vermicelli into 3" pieces. Over low heat stir vermicelli into butter until it turns light brown. Pour in the milk and stir over medium heat until it boils. Put in the raisins, almonds and sugar.
Continue to cook under low heat for 10 minutes. Add whipping cream and continue to cook for a couple of minutes. Remove from heat and, when cool, chill in the refrigerator before serving
According to this recipe, the vermicelli is added before the milk (whipping cream), so it looks like it begins to cook with the butter at the start of the cooking process, and continues to cook with the heated milk portion of the recipe. Hopefully this answers your question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.223598
| 2011-09-26T04:42:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18003",
"authors": [
"Katey HW",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7082"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18322
|
What is the correct onion to tomato ratio for North Indian masala sauce?
What's the optimum — or, at least, the most widely used — tomato to onion ratio for making the tomato masala (sauce)? Masala is used as the base for a number of north Indian dishes. Onions are fried in oil and then tomatoes and spices are added and cooked down until the oil separates out.
I am not intimately familiar with the recipe but according to the recipes I have researched the ratio seems to run the gamut from 2-1 tomatoes to onions all the way to 1-1 tomatoes to onions. I would recommend starting at the 2-1 ration and adjusting according to taste.
Here are the recipes I reviewed:
http://www.food.com/recipe/onion-tomato-masala-194144
http://www.spiderkerala.com/kerala/recipes/ViewRecipe.aspx?RecipeId=162
http://nsushma.blogspot.com/2009/09/tomato-masala.html
I hope that helps! Ideally someone with more experience with this dish can eventually write a more comprehensive answer.
Thanks for your effort. I am in the middle of trying out different ratios right now, and will see what works the best.
Cool, report back with your results!
I usually start with a 1:1 ratio and adjust based on personal preference. Most recipes will say something like "one medium onion, diced"...but that's not helpful to me since "medium" is a totally subjective term. I also don't like huge pieces of slimy cooked onions, so I sometimes adjust the amount (sometimes I just chop 'em smaller). But in general, 2:1 - 1:1 should work for most sauces.
@LauraΨ: you are right that a lot of recipes call for a "medium" onion or a "large" tomato, measures that are totally useless. I will try different ratios by weight and report back. Thanks for your comment.
Gravy comes out to be too sweet when used gives a sweet taste which i don't like. I am currently using 1:1 Ratio for Onions & Tomatoes. I am not sure on
-> Should we light brown onions or dark brown them. Currently i do light brown is that wrong ?
-> Is my ration wrong as i am using Onion & Tomatoes in Equal Quantities. Which should be more ? How does varying each vary the flavor.
Ratio should be 1 onion and 2 tomatoes.reason is onion is naturally sweet in taste and when u caramelised it it's become more sweet so adding double quantity of tomato help to balance the sweet in ur gravy.
Are you referring to masalas where the onion is only lightly fried, or fried/caramelized as much as you can? I am aware both variations exist in various recipes.
The ratio basically depends upon ones taste and the dish in particular. 2:1 ratio is opted in cases where we would like to have a sweet taste of the tomato, in other cases we go for 1:1.
Often for spicy dishes 2:1 is preferred.
I would recommend to start from 1:1, and bring down the ratio depending upon whether you love the taste of tomato.
I basically stick to 2:1, as I am not a tomato fan.. B-)
I have a coworker from North India whose wife is a fantastic cook. I asked him and he asked her.
Her response was basically "it depends".
Her recipes are commonly 1:1 ratios. I commented that this was a lot of onion and my coworker said that's fine because he's the one that chops it.
Some recipes have even more onion and the onion is pureed. Others have a little more tomato.
She recommended starting with a 1:1 ratio by volume unless there is a specific type of masala recipe that requires a different ratio.
Thank you, Sobachatina. I started with a 1:1 ratio (by weight), and in the coming days will increase the ratio and see what happens. Stay tuned for a more scientific analysis.
An important factor is the type of tomatoes, and more specifically, how watery they are.
For example, roma tomatoes tend to be more fleshy, so I rarely go above 1:1 with those, while hothouse tomatoes can be very watery, so I may even go up to 3:1.
Depends upon Meat, On white meat it's 2 part onion to 1 part tomatoes and .5 pepper, carrot etc. However, On red meat, tomatoes can go equal portions to onions or even more.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.223861
| 2011-10-11T18:00:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18322",
"authors": [
"Aman",
"Andy Putman",
"Avinash Bhat",
"Katey HW",
"Laura",
"Rambalac",
"Robert Warren Gilmore",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7082",
"potica",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17896
|
What is the best way to bake potatoes in embers?
I have fond (and by now possibly largely inaccurate) memories of eating potatoes that had been wrapped in tin foil and baked outside in the embers of a fire.
I'd quite like to reproduce the experience for my kids, but preferably without my "tada!" being destroyed by a charred lump of organic matter, or a raw potato.
I expect it's mostly guesswork (and borderline 'cooking'), but do you have any tips or tricks for getting this right (or nearly so) first time?
It's actually pretty straight forward and fairly easy to do.
Build a fire. You are building a cooking fire, not a warm hands and look pretty fire. I use a log cabin style fire for this.
Wait for it to burn down so there are plenty of white coals. You don't want lots of "fire". Fire is pretty to look at, but more unpredictable to cook in then hot white coals.
While the fire is burning down, wash and prep your potatoes to bake as you would normally.
Wrap them tightly in tin foil.
Once the fire is burned down to hot, white coals, toss the potatoes directly onto the coals.
Wait until cooked (roughly 40 minutes for an average sized potato, on an average fire, adjust accordingly).
If you have a shovel or something, put some coals on to the actual potato as well, so you're completely surrounding it. It'll speed it up. If you don't have anything handy to handle coals, make sure you flip them half way.
Remove carefully and enjoy.
The moisture of a potato, will allow it to cook without burning. Just make sure you wrap them with no exposed areas, in order to trap the steam.
If not eating immediately, do not leave potatoes in foil wrapping. Unwrap and let surface dry. This is more of a concern when potatoes not washed well before cooking, or not fully cooked. see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15339/what-is-this-cooking-method-called/15356#15356
You can use a shovel to get some coal out of an active fire as well, and not wait for it to die all the way...I was the cook for an adventure trip down a river for several summer and there are times when you want cooking coals but still need your fire going.
We got more consistent results if we turned them once.
My family used to make these when car camping, it was fairly easy. We'd usually make the potatoes after the first day, this gave the advantage of controlling the heat of the earth somewhat due to the 1 day of camping prior to using the fire to bake stuff.
The main requisite is a mature fire, with lots of ash in a fairly thick layer and good coaling.
If using foil, we would coat the potatoes with oil or butter, thinly, wrap with foil tightly, and place in an area where coals were covered thickly with hot ash, then rake more ash over the top of the potatoes and cover that with coals. As the cooking progressed, the top coals would be renewed as needed, and all noses were on the lookout [err smellout?] for burned potato. For burning, potatoes were removed to a cooler spot, out of the coals, using only the radiant heat of the fire to finish cooking.
For potatoes au natural, the same procedure was followed, making sure the was no direct coal to potato contact. The results are mostly the same, the uncovered potatoes come out a bit dryer and the skin is not edible.
We would always cook lots and save the leftovers to make fried potatoes in the morning.
Another thing we would do, [this has nothing to do with your question, but is cool] especially when backpacking, was to take small plastic bags and put 1/2 cup/125 ml of Bisquick or some other self rising batter mix, a small box of raisins, and a square of foil, buttered on one side and folded up. At camp, we would take out the raisin box and foil, add water to the bag with the batter mix, squish it around until mixed, add in the raisins, squeeze the (thick) batter into the center of the foil, fold up the foil around the batter (leaving room for expansion) and bake the raisin muffin on the fire surround, using radiant heat to bake it.
You are welcome - have fun!
I'm thinking of a bonfire that has been burning all afternoon - lots of wood, perhaps you've been cutting back a big hedge or a tree. I do this in winter. It's dark by 4-4:30pm. The bonfire dies down, but is still a large mound of smouldering embers. Leave it. Get on with something else.
Then go out and check the fire is OK (do this more often on a windy day). If it is glowing nicely, then this is the time for baked potatoes, baked onions and roast chestnuts. (The chestnuts need to be part of the planning. Don't do much planning - bonfires are for when the weather is just right - so I don't usually have chestnuts in.)
If you have really big, coarse-looking potatoes, use those. I agree with other postings above about timing - 40-45 minutes, if you are lucky in placing the potatoes (nicely covered, but not in a part where the fire is still flaring from time to time. "The moisture of a potato, will allow it to cook without burning" - usually.
Do something else now, or you'll be checking the potatoes too soon and spoiling their warm spot. So you'll probably be a bit late getting them out. Usually this is good - less edible potato, but more taste. The onions will now either be sweet and delicious or charred and bitter, or just burned away. All part of the fun. Some salt and butter are all you need. If the onions are OK (less likely), you don't need anything extra.
There are special purpose stove-top waterless clay potato cookers (or bakers), often referred to as a Kartoffel Teufel (potato devil). The preparation is extremely simple - just place the potatoes in the pot (without water) and on the stove and cook until tender. The taste is very similar to campfire.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.224193
| 2011-09-20T20:15:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17896",
"authors": [
"Diann Wessel",
"Frankie",
"Patrick Halkyard",
"TFD",
"Tina Mallonen",
"Todd Nelson",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7092",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17864
|
Why is sauteing beneficial?
I've seen multiple recipes which say to saute onions, peppers, green beans, etc. Why not microwave the food to the temperature you want and then mix it (along with the oil previously used to saute) straight into everything else -- skipping the saute step?
In other words, what does the sauteing accomplish?
The flip answer is that sauteed food will taste good, and the microwaved version you're describing will not.
A more useful answer, however, would consider physics and chemistry. Microwaving excites molecules, resulting in heat, presuming an adequate supply of water molecules to excite. Sauteeing conducts heat from the heat source to the food by way of the pan.
Microwaving falls somewhere between radiant heating (like an oven) and steaming, though the results from conventional methods are generally superior. Sauteeing can transfer enough heat quickly enough that desirable effects like caramelization and similar effects like browning are effected with the help of fats and sugars (often referred to as a Maillard reaction), which produces volatile compounds that are very aromatic and contribute a lot to our perception of flavor. It's exceptionally hard to create the same effects with a microwave.
Not only will you be missing the browning, you're likely to get a mushier texture if you're not careful.
You can get "browning pans" for microwave ovens, some do a fairly decent job
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.224653
| 2011-09-20T00:58:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17864",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90393
|
Pectin vs Agar Agar vs Gelatin for Pate de Fruits
I was reading up on the difference between Pectin, Agar Agar and Gelatin.
From what I read for use in cooking as thickening or gellatinizing agents there isn't any real or significant difference.
So if I were to make Pate de Fruits or jam or anything that usually would require any one of those three, would it be OK to substitute it for any of the others?
Gelatin can be a problem for people on restrictive diets (vegans, jewish and muslim (unless using fish or beef gelatin, but beef can still counts as meat for mixing meat and dairy), etc.)
There are plenty of high-sugar-content sweets that use gelatine, so it would be a reasonable substitute, but won't match the texture that pectin would normally provide in a pate de fruit or jam.
I don't know of any recipes using agar-agar that are designed for long-term storage, it is more often used in desserts, and again has a very distinctive (slightly crunchy to me) texture
you can't use agar for anything long term because of https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/67411/67. (basically, it continues to solidify, squeezing out all of the liquid)
When making jam, fruit usually contains enough natural pectin to reach the desired thickness, but as a thickening agent, (or if you want to make thicker jam) the ones you mentioned will all work fine, as too would arrowroot, so long as you follow their instructions as some come in sheet form and some come in powdered form. But it's also worth noting that gelatin is an animal product and so anything you use it in, won't be suitable for vegetarians/vegans.
Thank you but that really doesn't answer what's the difference between them (apart from gelatin being an animal product).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.224809
| 2018-06-16T17:41:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90393",
"authors": [
"J. Doe",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92193
|
How to roast vegetables correctly?
I have heard that roasted vegetables are more tasty than steamed, but I have never been successful in roasting in small batches.
What is the best temperature to roast and for how long? Should I add olive oil? How much?
Which vegetables were you trying and how did you do it @HersheA? What specifically went wrong? What vegetables would you like to roast?
related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/18168/67
Preheat your oven to 425F (218 C). Squashes and root vegetables will take about 45 minutes at this temperature. Mushrooms, cauliflower, broccoli, and brussles sprouts will cook in about 25 minutes. Cut your vegetables into evenly sized pieces. Place in one layer on a baking sheet (parchment lined is good for browning and easier cleanup). Drizzle generously with olive oil. Season with salt and pepper. Roast. Turn the vegetables over halfway through the cook so that they brown evenly. This information, with pictures, can be found here.
Yes, roasting vegetables has more flavor than boiling or steaming, because the higher heat will cause browning, which creates additional flavorful compounds in the food. You also reduce the moisture in the vegetables, which will concentrate the flavors, and you don't risk washing away water-soluble flavors as happens with boiling/simmering.
But as this came from the parenting site, I don't know if you necessarily want this to be too flavorful, if you have picky eaters, or you're intending this to be pureed into baby food.
I don't know if there's a truly "best" way of roasting vegetables. If you're cooking from raw, you need to roast at a lower temperature, so that the inside is cooked through before the outside gets burned.
You can also adjust this by how you cut up for vegetables; the smaller they are, the faster they'll cook. But don't go for too small of a dice, or it's more finicky to cook. You're better off with thinner slabs to cook things quickly, although I'd also make it bite sized for the smallest mouth at the table.
I agreed with moscafj about oiling your vegetables, but I'd recommend that you mix the vegetables in a bowl before spreading it on a sheet pan. It's just easier to make sure that everything is well coated without making a mess. (and if you have children, this is a task that they can do). You can use a slotted spoon so you don't end up with an oil slick under the vegetables if you've added too much. I also take the opportunity to season the vegetables in the bowl; I typically add some herbs and a splash of vinegar along with the oil and a few pinches of salt.
Spread the vegetables out in a single layer, but you'll also want to make sure that they're not crowded -- there should be some space between then, not packed in tightly.
Because of the 'bite sized' issue, and firmer vegetables (carrots, winter squash, potatoes, sweet potatoes, etc.) take longer to cook, you may want to start some vegetables before others; start with them, then add peppers, onions, summer squash, etc. about half way through after you've flipped over the firmer vegetables. (exact time depends on how large they're cut up; check recipes online for a starting guideline).
...
And then there's another trick ... You can simmer potatoes and other firm starchy vegetables until they're just cooked through (but not soggy), drain them, put them in the bowl (or back in the pot), and knock them against each other before oiling and seasoning. This will rough up the outside, creating more surface area so it crisps up more. And they'll then cook in a similar time to the other vegetables.
You can also pre-heat the sheet pan, so you'll get a little bit of extra browning and possibly avoid needing to flip the vegetables when they're cut fairly small.
...
So, to summarize:
pre-heat oven (optionally, pre-heat the pan)
Cut up vegetables into bite-sized bits
(optional) simmer, drain, and rough up potatoes or other firm, starchy vegetables
Toss the vegetables together in oil, salt, and any other seasonings
Spread the vegetables out on the sheet pan in a single layer, with some space in between them
Roast
Flip the vegetables over (optionally, add softer vegetables now)
(optional) flip over the vegetables added later
Remove from oven once nicely browned and cooked through.
In addition to the great answers here, I would add some tricks I've learned experimenting with roasted veggies:
-pre-steam veggies before you roast them. this is especially helpful for thicker and denser veggies like some cruciferous (broccoli) and root (potatoes) veggies. this helps start the cooking process and reduce the roasting time so you can have thoroughly cooked veggies before they get too brown or burnt and lose all their moisture.
-mix your veggies with the oil and seasonings for better distribution, don't simply brush and sprinkle on top.
-use a baking sheet and rack combo like this one that allows warm air to flow around the veggies on all sides. this is not only more effective than straight on the pan, but it also removes the (annoying) extra step of flipping your veggies part way through!
-roasted veggies taste best right out of the oven, but we're all busy, so how can we speed up the process? prep a bunch of veggies ahead of time (washing, chopping, etc.), store in the fridge, then flavor and cook when you're ready to eat!
The best tool I've found is the Anova steam oven where you can set up a recipe workflow that will preheat pans, steam, and brown with a click of a button on your phone.
I personally find grilled vegetables to be more to my taste. I also like my vegetables more firm, so grilling on high heat for only a few minutes works well. If you prefer more thoroughly cooked veggies, you will definitely need to lower the heat and cook longer.
Here are my approximate time tables for a grill @ 550-650 degrees F (roughly 300-350 C):
Brussels sprouts 12-15m
Broccoli ~10m
Asparagus ~8-10 (depending on thickness)
Zucchini, other squash 8-10m
Bell peppers 8m
Onion 6-8m
Cherry or grape tomatoes (whole) 4-6m
Try frying in a pan on your stove, or on your grill if you have one.
Chop/Slice/Dice your vegetables into pieces that seem appealing to you, toss with a bit of olive oil, and fry over medium-high heat.
Let the pan heat up first, then add the olive oil, then the vegetables. Toss in some kosher salt and some fresh ground pepper, and stir. Stir every-so-often to ensure nothing burns, but you do want to develop some brownness which is where a lot of flavor comes from.
After the vegetables have developed a little brownness, or become a little soft, you're done! Usually takes about 10-15 minutes, depending on what you're cooking.
You can even try drizzling with balsamic vinaigrette, or other coatings for an extra tasty side.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.224987
| 2018-09-11T00:02:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92193",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90626
|
If I mix rum, gin, vodka and scotch whisky, put it in a water bottle, and leave it for a month will it be safe to drink?
I mixed gin, vodka, rum and scotch whisky together, put it into a water bottle, and left it for about 1 month, would it make me sick If I drank it?
There are two factors that will change any answer, one is about the shelf-stability of each ingredient, and one is about the shelf-stability of the bottle (preferably in regards to alcohol). Without this information, all anyone here can do is guess.
You will of course get sick if you drink the mixture like water, right now. Clearly mark the water bottle, draw an attention sign on it.
There is a drink like that Aunt Roberta. In Poland any drink that is mix of few alcohols and only them is called "Cad"
You'll definitely get sick, but it won't be because of bacteria.
Gin, vodka, rum and whisky are all distilled spirits, so you'd be essentially mixing up essentially four versions of same thing and get to a different version of the same thing. Individually the alcohol content in these spirits more than high enough to prevent microorganisms from growing when stored for years in a closed container, including the the plastic bottles they're sometimes sold in. When mixed together this will remain true and there's nothing about any normal water bottle that would change this.
Thr only caveat is that plastic water bottles are made of a thinner and different type of plastic than liquor bottles. It should still be fine after a month but extended storage (3+ months) isn't a great idea.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.225476
| 2018-06-28T03:32:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90626",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Johannes_B",
"Megha",
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92730
|
Shelf stable caramels
How can I make caramels at home that are shelf stable?
Most caramels (as in sweets) and some caramel sauces etc. are shelf-stable because of the very high sugar content/low water content. I suggest you post the recipe you're starting from
Welcome to the site @laura, unfortunately your question isn't clear. Are you asking about a sauce, or candies?
@laura, I edited your comment. I think this is what you are intending to ask. If not, please clarify. As the comment above suggests, adding a recipe might be helpful.
@moscafj Your edit makes this question read almost like a recipe request now -- however, I also think that without the recipe, it's going to be extremely difficult to suggest changes that can keep the caramels from spoiling too quickly.
@Erica I respectfully disagree. There are many questions on this site regarding shelf stability, and a recipe is not required to answer this question. However, the recipe used by Laura would be helpful in providing advice.
My research confirms the first comment by @Chris H; that is, homemade caramels are shelf stable. From a safety concern there is no problem. However, some home candy makers describe a graininess that occurs over time, making the candy less pleasurable. Some folks have experimented with different types of sugars to attempt to combat this effect. Moisture absorption over time is another problem impacting quality. Suggestions are to wrap individually, then place in an air tight container. There is actually quite a bit of discussion about caramels on the internets, if you want to compare your recipe to what others have tried.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.225644
| 2018-10-08T07:40:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92730",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Erica",
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
94392
|
How do I cook frozen fish in microwave?
I have no baking oven. How can I cook frozen fish in a microwave oven, and how long will it take to be ready?
Possible duplicate of How to tell when fish is done baking?
what kind of fish? full or filet ? what does google say about it ?
https://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/salmon-fillet-en-papillote-with-julienne-vegetable-recipe-1914616.amp
I don't think that is a duplicate. However, I do think it's too broad -- ushna, could you please [edit] to include details about what sort of fish, what preparation (sauce spices etc) you have in mind, and so on?
@Erica I flagged it prior to the edit, when it was in fact a duplicate of the linked question.
I frequently cook fish in the microwave, as I'm the only one who eats it in my house. Thaw filet in cold water and place on microwave safe dish. I turn fish over halfway through cooking. The kind of fish and the thickness will determine time. I recommend using partial power or your fish will be rubbery. I have a 1200 watt microwave and the following is just a guideline.
From completely thawed:
Salmon filet @2" thick - about 2 minutes each side at 70%
White fish or Tilapia filet (these are very thin @ 1/4") 1 minute on each side at 80%.
Please be aware that this is just from my personal experience.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.225816
| 2018-11-30T16:01:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94392",
"authors": [
"Allison C",
"Erica",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62114",
"mroll"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103676
|
How bad is it to freeze vegetables in glass for a maximum of 4 weeks?
How bad is it to freeze vegetables, like broccoli, spinach, or cauliflower in glass pots? I am using glass pots from IKEA that are airtight. I will be storing them for no more than 4 weeks. How does it compare to vacuumed zip lock type bags?
The main effect that reduces the quality of food that is stored in the freezer is freezer burn. This is basically dehydration, caused by the very dry air in the freezer. Any container that seals airtight prevents this from happening, so your vegetables should stay good.
With glass containers, you may have to be careful to prevent them from cracking. If there is a lot of liquid in the food you want to freeze, you have to take care to leave enough empty space in the container to allow the water to expand as it freezes. With containers that have a very rigid lid (like jars with a metal lid) it can be a good idea to freeze with the lid placed only loosely on top, and then tighten the lid as soon as everything is frozen, to avoid having a lot of pressure inside the jar from the expanded water.
What about nutrition? Does the airtight containers keep the nutrion value or will it decrease?
What Nutrients do you mean? As far as I know freezing doesn't destroy any nutrients. However, freezing can destroy cell walls (the reason leafy greens go limp after freezing and thawing) so this probably makes it easier for some vitamins to get lost (washed away) during cooking after thawing, but I don't know for sure.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.225956
| 2019-11-24T14:49:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103676",
"authors": [
"Raymond the Developer",
"Tinuviel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79671"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104064
|
Safety of cake in oven with faulty thermostat
My new apartment's electric oven has a faulty thermostat. I made a cake from scratch, which took two hours to bake. Yesterday, I made a box mix cake as a gift, which took well over an hour to bake. I'm now concerned for the safety of the recipient. Is it safe to eat a cake that took so long to bake? Are the eggs in it safe? Eventually the cake cooked through, and is not raw in the middle, but I'm worried about the eggs not cooking at the correct temperature. Should I throw it out and go buy one at the bakery, or is it safe to give it as a gift?
Oven thermostats are often wildly inaccurate. Purchase and use an accurate oven thermometer. That way you can adjust your oven's temperature dial or settings to the true temperature that the oven is reaching.
If it is a rental you should tell the landlord, maybe get it fixed. If it overheats it could start a fire.
Your question should be changed to "safety of cake" not "safety of eggs"; as pointed in rumtscho's answer, you're not cooking eggs but baking cake.
First, we have to clear up a common misconception here. The safety of a food product is not the same thing as the sum of the safety of the ingredients that went into it. Neither is it the same as their minimum, nor is there any easy-to-apply rule where you arrive at the safety of the product by looking at the safety of the ingredients. You always have to regard the product as a whole, period. In that sense, egg safety has nothing to do with your situation, because you are dealing with a cake, not with eggs.
From here, you have to apply standard food safety rules for any "cooked" food (and merely mixing ingredients before cooking them counts as cooking for that definition). This means that, before you ended up with a baked cake layer, you are allowed a total of 4 hours of unrefrigerated shelf life. So if the time from starting with making the batter to the time the cake left the danger zone (= it had an internal temperature of 60 C throughout), you are safe. If you didn't use a thermometer and clock to find out the exact time your cake passed the 60 C mark, you have to go with the first moment at which you were sure that it was passed, which is the time you took the baked cake out of the oven (since being baked proves that the cake has had an internal temperature of 96 C).
To bake a cake, I usually have a temperature of 180 °C (360 F). Even if your temperature is lower than that, or fluctuates, this is well above boiling (100 °C) and even more above 60 °C, which is the point of protein denaturation, i.e., everything above 60 °C kills bacteria etc. I'd say the cake is safe to eat, but you should get your oven checked nonetheless, because cooking with a faulty oven is a) inconvenient and b) potentially unsafe (fire hazard)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.226223
| 2019-12-12T10:22:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104064",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104319
|
Do I thaw frozen sea food before cooking?
Do I need to keep prepared frozen sea food frozen before cooking? I purchased cod, shrimp, and scallops.
It depends on the type of products you have. Can you please give us more details about the items? You say they are 'prepared' - how so?
If this is just raw seafood, and not already prepared, heat and serve meals, keep frozen until use. Thaw (ideally in the refrigerator), then cook. If they are meals already prepared (with other ingredients), simply follow the package directions. Many of these items are cooked from frozen.
I thaw frozen seafood in a bowl of hot tap water.
Some frozen stuff like Lean Cuisines are meant to go freezer to microwave. I don't mean those. I mean bags of frozen fish or shrimp, cooked or uncooked.
If it is in plastic, I leave it in plastic. If it is not, I put it in a plastic bag. If there is enough frozen seafood to cool the water down, I put in more. I like the hot water because the fish thaws fast and will not get overcooked, and we always have hot water.
Thawing it in the refrigerator is theoretically a good idea except I either don't think of it the day before, or I do and it is still not thawed and it goes into the hot water anyway.
Cooked cocktail shrimp for stirfry are an exception. I think the ice in those bags of cooked cocktail shrimp have shrimp flavor and so the whole thing goes in after the stirfry is done, and the hot vegetables thaw the shrimp and the shrimp cools down the vegetables and I don't have to wait as long to eat.
Scientifically, cooking any frozen food directly should waste some of its value and change the taste and seafood is not an exception.
Reference:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frozen_food#Quality
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5fa4/7b747878f686a658134760b7811b0e2172d1.pdf
http://www.adafsa.gov.ae/English/Awareness/topics/Pages/ThawingFrozenFood.aspx -Look at Cook it frozen method
What you mean by "waste some of its value" is not clear. Freezing, and cooking from frozen, are very common practices.
@moscafj I have said directly without thaw in the room temperature.
What do you mean by "waste some of its value"? For that matter, what do you mean by "scientifically"? Some explanation and documentation of your claim would improve your answer.
@Sneftel References are added.
@moscafj References are added.
@SaidbakR you still haven't defined the word "value". Your first link is about the thawing process, doesn't say anything about the cooking. The second one is about beef. The third one specifically mentions that the method is ideal for ready-to-eat frozen food. If this is what the OP bought, then your own link contradicts your suggestion, while the two others are irrelevant.
@rumtscho the third link clearly states that it is not suitable to cook some items including fish with that way: "This method is ideal for frozen vegetables, ready-to eat frozen food, small cuts of meat, chicken and fish. Large cuts of meat ,fish and chicken should not be cooked while frozen.
Yes, I read that part. The question is somewhat ambiguously formulated, but to me, "prepared frozen seafood" sounds like "ready-to-eat frozen food", not like a "large cut of [...] fish".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.226493
| 2019-12-24T15:36:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104319",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"SaidbakR",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93537
|
How can i convert all purpose flour to bread flour?
Sometime I want to cook something that requires bread flour, but bread flour is unavailable. I have all purpose flour. How can I convert it to bread flour?
The difference between bread flour and all purpose flour is that bread flour has a higher protein content. While bread flour has 12 to 14 percent protein, all purpose has 8 to 11 percent protein. The reality is that you probably won't notice the difference without a side by side comparison, so, if all you have is all purpose, just use that. If you want to increase the protein level of your flour, you can do that by adding vital wheat gluten. However, I am guessing that if you don't have access to bread flour, you will probably not have access to vital wheat gluten. In the event that you do, I found the following conversion: Measure out 1 cup all-purpose flour (4 1/2 ounces or 129 grams). Remove 1 1/2 teaspoons (1/8 ounce or 4 grams). Add 1 1/2 teaspoons vital wheat gluten (1/8 ounce or 5 grams). Whisk or sift to combine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.226744
| 2018-11-03T10:00:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93537",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
94277
|
Can I fry an egg in water?
I loved fried eggs, but I hate all the grease that come with them. I have been told this is like a poached egg. I don't want to fry my egg in oil or butter. How can I fry eggs in water?
Frying requires oil or fat, even if only a little. Water doesn't get hot enough before it boils. I'm sure this is a duplicate of an older question, but I haven't found it yet
Related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58573/culinary-term-for-frying-in-water-without-oil
Not being flippant here but "frying eggs in water" is commonly called poaching and gives you a completely different texture. Some people prefer eggs that way, matter of preference.
You can cook egg without oil but don't expect it to be fry. Because frying mean cooking something in oil. You can try these methods
1- Poached egg. To see method of making poach egg Click here
2- You can use aluminium foil. Completely cover your pan(Not non stick) with foil, make sure bottom of pan remains flat. heat up the pan and fry egg without any oil. Leave it until cooked.
3- You can also use ceramic plate or marble plate. Heat up plate in microwave oven about 1 minute. And crack egg on it immediately. If more time needed to cook, you can put plate into oven as per needed(Make sure you pierce the yolk with tip of the knife)
You can fry an egg on a non-stick pan without any oil or butter, however you will get a better result with some oil or butter. The reason you use oil or butter is to:
Seal the pores of the pan
Provide quick heat transfer from the pan to the egg
Water doesn't do either for you, all you'll do is cool off the pan. Your egg will still cook, it just won't add any benefit.
You don't need much oil, if you have greasy eggs you are simply using too much. A small amount of cooking spray is enough, you can also wipe a bit of oil on the cold pan.
I also use cooking spray and no additional fat to "fry" my eggs. I heat up the pan , then spray with cooking spray right before I crack the egg into it. If you heat up the pan with cooking spray in it, the spray can burn and give you an unpleasant taste.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.226858
| 2018-11-27T05:46:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94277",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Cindy",
"GloriaZ",
"Steve Chambers",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70830"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
106056
|
Why does no one sell pressed tofu?
After following recommendations found online for pressed tofu (as in tofu that was squeezed to pour out more water. Shrinking to about 40% in size), it seems to be a really good/simple meat alternative, rehology wise and taste wise (less of that... tofu taste.. allowing it to soak more of the gravies added to it!).
Yet, no one sells pressed tofu, and pressing tofu is a mess with home appliances.
More: the pressed tofu should provide higher protein content.
So, am I missing a point here? Why does no one sell it pressed instead of selling a presser? Seems like a product waiting to be discovered. Hence putting this here for anyone working in the industry to pick it.
Attaching a few links to videos describing it. After tasting it myself I must say it is the real deal, better then seitan and tofu / tvp...
https://youtu.be/LwDYQxdc5_Q
https://youtu.be/YUIDd7wRcg4
They do sell it. You didn't look hard enough. "Why" questions don't work on the stack exchange format, because, as in this case, the only people who could give an accurate answer would be the tofu companies who don't sell it.
Please bring an example if you can. And, well stackoverflow format ... yes. I put it here to be heard. Wont open a blog for it
Personally I find super-firm tofu rubbery and unpleasant.
When I've pressed tofu (I admit, only twice), it acted like a sponge and would soak up marinades just after you took off the pressure ... I suspect that pre-pressed tofu wouldn't do that.
I see it at most of the Asian groceries in my area. Based on the languages on the packaging, it's marketed to Vietnamese and Chinese-speaking customers.
The most logic answer is that water is cheap so it's easier to sell "more" tofu. It's like shelledn and unshelled pistacchios. The price for kg is the same but with shells you pay, well, for shells.
I think customers would be willing to pay more if some hard work would be spared from them.
@SZCZERZOKŁY perhaps it’s different where you live, but at my local supermarket pistachios without the shell are £14 per kilo and with the shell are £20. I still get your point of course, was just curious whether it was universally true.
The minute someone closes a question of you on stack overflow, you just know it was a good question :) The lifeless swarm of unpaid "moderators" here are a monument to the general stupidity of the most of mankind. And the problem is, the most they get bored of their life, the more they play moderators. Get a life! Stop closing questions...
Pressed (firm and extra firm) tofu is widely available, though perhaps not near you. You can also further press store bought tofu at home to remove excess moisture. Just put it between absorbent layers, and add weight to the top.
Extra firm is indeed sold online, but I fear it is not nearly as squeezed and elastic. Maybe it's the title: "firm" which doesn't ressemble (for me) pressed. Point is, tofu pressing is still a practice wildly used, and I suspect for a reason.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.227307
| 2020-03-26T12:52:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/106056",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Joe",
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"Spagirl",
"Tetsujin",
"The Photon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71756",
"rubmz"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100028
|
What is the setting for the strongest brew on my coffee maker?
My coffee maker has settings for strong, gourmet, and bold. Which would brew the strongest coffee?
What is the brand and model? Can you post a picture?
according to the 3 settings, i assume "strong" would make the strongest coffee ?
It just goes to show that the marketing department shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the UI labelling :\ It's like trying to order a small in McDonald's.
Interesting. From what I understand, you make stronger coffee by having a higher ratio of coffee to water. Without knowing what the different settings do, I don't think we can answer this question. I found a Farberware model with these settings. Page 11 of the manual explains the difference between them. PDF of manual
Related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/20196/33128
According to the PDF @Catija posted, bold and gourmet setting use the highest ratio of coffee to water. The difference between the two programs is less clear. IF this is your appliance, and I am reading the manual correctly, I would suggest that bold and gourmet are strongest, and you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the two.
In one machine I know, where the coffee is pre-measured, "strong" appears to be a synonym for "slow". The water is in contact with the grounds for longer in an attempt to extract more flavour.
Can't you make one of each and taste them? That'd be far easier than asking us
That depends on what you mean for strong.
Straing in flavor:
If you mean strong in flavor than you need to set the machine to a "fast" brew (Espresso in Italian).
The flavor gets extracted almost immediately from the grounds upon contact with water. You can visually judge how strong it is by the color: the darker the stronger. So the settings on your machine should be to use little water.
High in coffein:
If you mean high in coffein, than you need longer brew-time to extract this substance. As a rule of thumb the extraction is proportional to the time water stays in contact with coffee.
For coffee machines this means more water running through the grounds.
Note on "Fast Brew":
By "fast" I mean that it takes little time to make the coffee and not that the water runs faster through the grounds. The water runs always with same velocity, therefore if you use more water you'll wait more for your coffee. It takes less to make an espresso than to make an american coffee, obvioulsly.
Espresso vs American Coffee:
Italian Espresso: strong in flavor
Cup of american coffee: taste is deluted compared to Espresso but amount of coffein can be 8-10 times higher.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.227596
| 2019-07-07T12:58:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100028",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"Luciano",
"Max",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108155
|
Home sausage making
I have been attempting to make beef sausages.
I have done everything according to the playbook: Cure, spices salt, casing, etc. However due to climate I cannot dry them outside (I am close to equator and it is 30 degrees celcius year around). So, I hang them in the fridge. I reduce my fridge temperature to the lowest setting, inside is about 7 degrees Celsius.
What I notice is that the sausages are pushing out a lot of oil. I guess the fat is liquefying and coming out of casing. Is this normal?
Also the sausages didn’t dry. (So far it has been 2 weeks). They are still soft. No foul smell or anything but I am worried they are spoiled.
Does this answer your question? Making a sausage and letting it dry out in the fridge Drying a sausage in the fridge is not safe from a food safety perspective.
I wouldn't have thought there would be enough air-flow in the fridge to dry sausage out sufficiently, even modern ones which don't accumulate moisture take a few days to dry a spill (say 50 ml) of exposed liquid - sausage in casing would take much much longer.
@Johanna the other question specifically addresses a "make up your own sausage recipe" case and concludes it's not safe because there is no curing agent. The OP here says "according to the playbook" and mentions adding a cure. It would be interesting to answer separately if a sausage made from a proper recipe, but dried in a 7C fridge instead of a 15-20C cellar is safe, and if it is, how can the "didn't dry" problem be addressed. Even if the answer is "don't do that", I think the premisse is different enough to not view it as a duplicate.
@rumtscho thanks for clarification. Indeed, the question is not safety but environment.
A couple of questions: Are you grinding your own meat and fat? If so, what is your process? Your meat and fat (and grinder parts) should be partially frozen when grinding so that you avoid melting and emulsification. This may be contributing to fat leakage. Second, what is the "cure" you are using?
@moscafj I didn’t know this. I don’t grind my own meat. I bought it. I didn’t mix them when things were partially frozen. This could be the reason.
It certainly could be an issue. Even when mixing, everything should be extremely cold.
If you are in a dry not humid climate ? Would an evaporative cooler help get a suitable temperature even a homemade one such as: https://www.offgridweb.com/survival/zeer-pot-an-evaporative-cooler-to-keep-food-fresh/
Or could you go for a recipe that dries hot such as biltong https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biltong#Drying
The oil leaking from your sausages is likely due to the fat liquefying at 7°C, which is too warm for proper drying. Did you dry the sausages with airflow or humidity in the fridge?
Sausages can take longer to dry in warmer conditions. Lower the fridge temperature further, or use a fan for better circulation. If there’s no foul smell, they’re likely safe, but consider drying them for another week or two.
Is home-made (where you don't have a special drying refrigerator) sausage even a "thing" near the equator?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.227850
| 2020-05-06T03:49:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108155",
"authors": [
"John99",
"RonJohn",
"TGG",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87224",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115782
|
What doneness is this steak?
I just cooked a thin rib eye steak. I took its temperature 40 sec after removing it from the pan (all cooked outside) and it registered 135 degrees F. However, due to it being quite thin, it was hard to find the middle. I aimed for med-rare, but I think it may have been too rare. Here are some pictures.
Could anyone please indicate how done this stake was?
I am particularly concerned this last piece was too rare.
looks medium-rare-ish. what is your concern ?
Concerned that it was too rare for safety reasons, as the cut was quite thin. What about the first two photos. Thank you
that was my comment for the 1st photo
@Max I see. so what about the last two?
Steak can be rare and still safe to eat. If the outside is brown then you're generally good.
It's impossible to address your concern of whether or not your steak is "too rare." Steak is safely eaten in a range of raw to well done. Safety depends on product quality and safe handling procedures. I would say your pictures range from "looking" rare to medium rare. The only way to be more explicit is to know the exact temperature, as sometimes color is not an accurate indicator.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.228111
| 2021-05-24T00:10:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115782",
"authors": [
"Kat",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90969",
"user256872"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99139
|
How long do uncut, fresh strawberries last in the refrigerator?
How long do uncut organic strawberries last in the refrigerator when stored in the original packaging?
What's the mold spore count in the package?
...and how long had the berries been picked before you bought it? Very variable, indeed.
It's very variable. I've had them last well over a week especially the best of the small ones I grow (if they're a little overripe they get eaten immediately, if slightly damaged they get frozen to make jam when I have enough). On the other hand one soft one in the bottom of the pack can reduce it to a couple of days, and this can be due to damage in packing or transit. If you spot the soft ones straight away you can still eat them and the rest will keep, but left too long they'll go mouldy.
I haven't noticed a difference between the keeping properties of organic or cheap berries in the same type of packaging.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.228250
| 2019-05-24T03:01:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99139",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99868
|
On what temperature should I leave my sauce to cook?
I decided to cook a pizza sauce. I know that the longer you leave it on your stove, the better it might taste. I want to leave my sauce on the stove for an hour or so. At what temperature should I keep it?
There's no specific temperature ... such that you see the occasional bubble, but not so many bubbles that it's spitting tomato sauce everywhere
usually just under boiling point, or simmering: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19160/what-does-bring-to-a-simmer-mean
Often, pizza sauce is uncooked before topping a pizza.
Once it's reached a boil, then drop it to the lowest your burner will go.
With the lid on, the idea is to have just noticeable movement, with as few bubbles as you can get.
Many burners won't go that low; but a tomato sauce should be OK at a low simmer for an hour, so long as you stir it every 10 mins & make sure it doesn't start to stick. If you take the lid off the temperature will drop, but the sauce will reduce quicker.
Alternatively, get one of these simmer rings - a few $£€ on eBay from China. That will let you drop the temperature to lower than bubbling, almost slow-cooker style.
I use one on gas. I don't know what else it's compatible with.
I 2nd the recommendation of the simmer ring for a gas burner, they work wonderfully.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.228364
| 2019-06-30T16:14:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99868",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Max",
"Nicholas Pipitone",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72948",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
94000
|
why my brownies taste bitter?
I made brownies with the recipe of this:
egg : 2
coco powder : 1/2 cup
white flour : 1 cup
milk : 1 cup
baking powder : 1 tea spoon
oil : 1/2 cup
sugar : 1 cup
then i put oil, egg, and sugar in the bowl and beat it then i add coco powder and white flour and again beat them all for 5 minutes. Then i add milk and start beater. And then i spreading less oil in the dish and then add my ready brownies in the dish.Then i put brownies in microwave oven for 8 minutes for bake.
This is the recipe that i made but the brownies which i made is always bitter. Whenever i made it taste bitter a lot but why?
I don't know what step i done wrong can u please let me know what i can do that my brownies taste not bitter anymore.
How can it taste changes?
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. Maybe you need another recipe? (Unfortunately, recipe requests are off-topic here.)
thanks for welcome me and my question is why my brownies taste bitter?is this off topic?
Hello Aaisha and welcome! You're question is fine. And we appreciate the details you provided.
1 tsp is a very large amount of baking powder, but I'm not sure if the name "baking powder" refers to the same product all over the world.
Is your oil rancid?
no not at all @DouglasHeld
so can u tell me the quantity of baking powder ? which i add in brownies@ThePhoton
Does your baking powder fizz or foam in water? Because if it does not, you may be using baking soda instead. Happened to me once and it had a almost bitter taste to it.
it does not, as @ThePhoton said about the quantity so now i thought it taste bitter bcoz of quantity.. but fine i try baking soda instead of baking powder
I usually see 1/4 or 1/2 tsp baking powder, but also only 1/2 cup flour, so maybe your ratio isn't too far off. I did find one recipe with no baking powder at all.
Unsweetened Cocoa powder is a very bitter ingredient, and 1/2 a cup of it seems like a lot considering the ratios. If you want your brownies less bitter then you may want to reduce the cocoa some, or add more sugar, or do both. Try reducing your cocoa by 2 tbsp and adding 2 tbsp more sugar, adjust the ratios that way until you have the right balance.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.228521
| 2018-11-17T14:51:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94000",
"authors": [
"Aaisha Anum",
"Cindy",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Douglas Held",
"Netduke",
"The Photon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70643"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103003
|
microplastics from plastic pepper grinders?
I have a regular (steel) pepper grinder but I have defaulted to buying and using the 'all-in-one" bottles of peppercorn with the grinder top' from Trader Joe's.
I am hearing more and more about exposure to 'microplastics' from all sorts of sources. Last night while I was cooking and grinding some pepper into a roue for a cauliflower-cheddar casserole (it was delicious!), it occurred to me: am I adding microplastics along with the pepper?
I'm no engineer or physicist, but it seems likely that a plastic grinder working against hard peppercorns is going to cause wear on the grinder surface with the result getting added to food.
Is this a known "thing" (e.g. concern, myth, stoner speculation )? I've googled around but couldn't find anything.
Maybe you'll ingest more microplastic on fish or proteins in higher food chain than grinders.
If you drink tea you've got a lot more to worry about in terms of ingestion. If you're also worried about the environmental aspect, these prefilled grinders lead to a lot more (non-recyclable) waste than refilling, and they work out fairly expensive (but I get through a lot of pepper)
@ChrisH Most tea bags aren't made of plastic. There's no need to try and start a panic about all tea.
@Richard indeed, most are paper. But many of the fancy ones are plastic and release a lot more than previously thought - so if you're a tea drinker you may want to choose carefully.
I tried one of those plastic "pepper in a grinder" things. It wore out, refusing to grind well after a couple refills. There's no place for the plastic edges to go but down onto your food. Long-term, you want a metal grinder. I've yet to see ceramic ones, and there aren't any cheapish plastics that are much harder than seed or peppercorns.
Hi, I had to remove the "should I care" part from the question - answerers were of course thinking of a physiological angle first, and this is off topic.
@rumtscho Biological effects of eating non-digestible plastics would likely be a real horror story of a discussion anyway. I doubt there are more than a few studies on human ingestion of such to start from. Human trials are hard to get approved, and fish/dolphins are not the same thing.
@WayfaringStranger even if there were studies, 1) laypeople rarely refer to them, and 2) those who do tend to jump to conclusions. I have seen it happen countless times, and I'm really glad we have the policy of not having these discussions here. Usually, the whole field of epidemiology cannot agree on X being "good", "bad" or "neutral" for you, but every second person on the street has an opinion on the badness of X.
If you go small enough, you're always inhaling/ingesting something foreign.
Your concern, although logically valid, is nearly impossible to regulate or even measure. We're talking about amount that is, literally, microscopic.
You're definitely eating it, but discussion of the consequences (if any) is off topic on the site.
The environmental concerns are valid, because even though they're small, they do not decompose and collects.
Hi Nelson, discussion of whether ingesting something has health disadvantages is strictly off topic on the site. I removed it from your answer, and deleted the comments about it.
When you grind any material you are intentionally rubbing one surface against another, causing the grinding surfaces to wear. So yes, when you grind pepper (or coffee, spices, etc) very small parts of the grinder material will come off as you do it, and that's true whether the material is plastic or metal.
The difference in how much of the grinder ends up on your food depends on the material that the grinder elements are made of, those are the pieces that grind the food not the rest of the grinder's make-up. Plastic is softer than metal, so if you are using a plastic grinder you are likely eating much more microscopic plastic particles than you would metal particles from a metal grinder.
Should you care? Health concerns are off-topic here, and in any case there's no good data on micro-plastics and health so I will not touch on that. From an environmental impact perspective micro-plastics are being found in the environment and in animals, which many scientists think is a bad thing. The amount of micro-plastics is pretty small compared to other sources, however given that you have a reusable alternative sitting in your home (i.e. your metal grinder) it would be easy to eliminate that source, and it would reduce the amount of single-use plastics as well. It's also much cheaper to buy peppercorns to refill your metal grinder than to buy pepper grinders every time.
Unfortunately, it's not always cheaper to buy peppercorns to refill an existing grinder: in many stores these days, your choices are (1) a plastic grinder, (2) already-ground pepper, or (3) don't buy pepper. In Trader Joe's, in particular, your choices are (1) a plastic grinder, or (2) don't buy pepper. (In fairness to old Joe, they intentionally stock only a limited number of items - they're not making any attempt at providing a full range of spices.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.228841
| 2019-10-22T00:20:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103003",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Conifers",
"Marti",
"Richard",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76671",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6068
|
How do you season/prepare a wood plank for Plank Grilling?
I wanted to Plank Grill a Salmon, after hearing about how much Jarrod enjoyed it:
Besides salmon, what other meats can be grilled on a cedar plank?
How do I season a cedar plank in order to use it for grilling? After it's seasoned any tips on the actual grilling technique?
The main thing you need to do to prepare a plank for grilling is to soak it in water first. Otherwise, it can catch on fire and you'll have a mess.
For seasonings, you can use anything that you would use when roasting something. For salmon, you could put down some lemon slices and rosemary.
I don't season the wood at all. I buy the planks from the local grocery store or hardware store and soak in water for 8 hours. The planks often say 1 hour is enough, but I think this is just marketing, it never seems to be enough. Weighting the plank down to keep it fully submerged will help the process.
When you're ready to cook, put the plank on a hot grill and leave it for 3-5 minutes. Once the plank starts smoking, then it's ready for your food. Don't leave it too long or it will catch fire and not smoke well as the bottom gets charred.
You need to cook this with the lid down in order to keep the smoke contained around the food and also to keep the plank smoking rather than just catching fire. You might need to play with your airflow on a charcoal grill to get maximum smoke.
Depending on what you cook, you can sometimes use the plank a second time. Although this doesn't work with Salmon, as the skin often gets left on the plate.
Wanted to comment on yossarian's answer, but ran out of characters.
I have some planks that I always soak overnight, which work great and rarely catch on fire. Went to a friend's house this past weekend and soaked them for 2 hours, which is past the 1 hour "recommended" time. They flared up bad within 5 minutes, to the point where we couldn't even really salvage the plank with a sprayer. I highly recommend 8 hours minimum, preferably overnight as well.
Speaking of sprayer, you'll want to keep a small spray bottle of water nearby to deal with any flare-ups around the edges - with the lid closed, the flame will climb higher than when it's open, and the planks are likely to catch at least once or twice if you're not careful (or even if you are!). Keep an eye on it, nothing like going inside for 5 minutes and coming back to a charred mess.
I recommend making sure your plank is large enough that you have 1" of clearance around all sides of the fish, in case there is a flare-up, the edges of your fish don't burn. I've experimented with keeping one side of the grill turned on, and keeping the plank on the side that's turned off, but I've gotten much better results keeping the plank side lit, on low, and just keeping a close eye on it.
Once done soaking, I lightly pat dry (with a paper towel) the side that the fish will be on, then brush it with oil so the fish doesn't stick.
You definitely want to weigh them down as yossarian suggested. Some people recommend an aluminum can from your pantry, however, I've found that this leaves rust rings sometimes, especially when soaking overnight. What I usually do is take a large casserole dish, fill with water, put plank in, put a smaller casserole dish on top, and fill that one with as much water as necessary to hold the plank down.
The rule of thumb I've always read is to soak them for 1/2 hour per inch of length so if you are using a typical 12" plank 6 hours should suffice.
As far as preparing the plank I like to finish the soak in red wine and then add salt, pepper, roesmary and some lemon slices.
Great link I've referenced in the past for this type of stuff: http://backyardprovisions.com/blogs/our-grill/11362737-soaking-your-planks-with-creativity
Good luck!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.229247
| 2010-08-26T16:58:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6068",
"authors": [
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95599"
],
"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
}
|
4320
|
Why does Brining help food to retain water, but adding salt will draw the moisture out?
I saw a recipe that called for brining a Turkey in order to retain the moisture, but when you cook with salt it causes the foods to get less moist - Why and how does this happen?
For the brine, it's because of osmosis When you have a semi-permeable membrane, like a cucumber skin, water will tend to move from the higherlower solute mixture (the salt water) to the lower higher solute mixture (the water with organic material inside the cucumber). This will cause the cucumber to absorb water AND some salt, until the point where the water in the cucumber is as soluble as the surrounding brine.
When you add solid salt to an item, steak for example, Osmosis is no longer at work. Instead, you're dealing with absorption , a completely different chemical process.
By definition, osmosis is not the process of concern in brining. The solute, i.e. dissolved salt, would have to be too large to penetrate the meat's outer membrane. We know this is false because the interior of brined meat can obviously become salty.
If the salt was actually too big to to pass through the protein’s outer membrane, then the moisture within the object being brined would actually flow outward into the salt water solution, since in osmosis, water will flow through a semi-permeable membrane from an area of higher concentration to an area of lower concentration.
Actually, osmosis would work exactly the opposite way of how Mike Sherov suggests: it would draw water out of the cucumber (or the turkey) and into the brine. (Close reading of the Wikipedia article bears this out.)
(Sorry for posting this as an answer - apparently I can't reply to Mike's answer directly, yet. I don't know the actual answer.)
Erik, you're absolutely right, I mixed up the details, but my answer still arrives at the right conclusion. Amending now.
I think I understand now. I found a great explanation at http://www.cookingforengineers.com/article/70/Brining. What I failed to understand is that salt passes the semipermeable membrane fairly easily, and thus the osmotic pressure from salt itself (which would force water out of the cells) is fairly low. On the other hand, the salt entering the cells breaks down some proteins which can't pass the membrane. These guys cause osmotic pressure into the cell, which is what makes the meat juicy. I think that's what you said in your answer, but with more words :)
Your assertion that "when you cook with salt it causes the foods to get less moist" is a myth. Both brining and salting increase the moistness and flavor of meat.
"...even if there is no surrounding water to draw in, proteins are modified by the {salt} ions in ways that cause them to bind the water in the flesh more tightly -- as well as to resist the shrinking of muscle fibers that squeezes juices out during cooking. The flesh continues to swell and bind water more tightly until its salinity increases to 6%, and then it shrinks and begins to lose water." Modernist Cuisine, Volume 3, Page 154
Numerous recipes and articles from America's Test Kitchen have also demonstrated this principle as well. "Dry salting" may take more time to accomplish the same feat because water must first diffuse out of the meat to dissolve the salt before it can begin the absorption process.
Salting above a 6% salinity will draw out moisture, but meat is unpalatably salty around 1% salt by weight.
A thorough explanation with slideshows is available at:
https://stellaculinary.com/podcasts/video/the-science-behind-brining-resource-page
what mike says is correct. This process can be used to make meat more tender, if you put meat in saltwater for some hours it will absorb about 10% of its weight in water. So if you put a 100gr piece of meat in saltwater it will absorb about 10g of water. It will leave the meat salty, but more tender. Removing salt from the other components of the dish will hopefully balance things out.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.229577
| 2010-08-05T12:17:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4320",
"authors": [
"Anders R",
"Anna Lenau",
"Barum Rho",
"Dakkaron",
"Didgeridrew",
"Erik P.",
"John Assymptoth",
"Justin Thomas",
"Mike Sherov",
"Vimal",
"Vince Bowdren",
"Volker Siegel",
"cmbuckley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99",
"kristy",
"onlinegacorslot",
"peteretep",
"user100756"
],
"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
}
|
17378
|
Is it possible to overmarinade a steak?
I know it won't spoil; the spoil by date is next week. I'm cooking it in 48 hours (Friday Evening).
It'll rest in the lowest part of my fridge as well.
My marinade consists of vinegar and salt.
Thus the questions:
Is it possible to over marinade (New York Strip) steaks?
Is it possible for vinegar to chemically break down the steak too long?
What is the optimal amount of time for vinegar to breakdown the steak?
I know it doesn't apply here, but marinating too long in soy sauce can make the meat tough as it starts to become preserved in the salt...
Marinating a good steak for more than a microsecond is over-marinating.
Yes, the problem will be the vinegar.
Vinegar is acidic and you'll end up with mushy meat. 48 hours is almost certainly too long. For a vinegar base, I try not to push it over 8 hours and that's only if really necessary. A few hours is typically fine.
Right now, you've got to consider how to save the meat. I'd freeze the meat right now. Freeze the meat with the marinade (which seems like such a waste for 40'ish hours, but better that than mushy steak). When ready to cook, take it out and let the marinade do its business as it thaws. I'd thaw it in ziplock under running water (quicker than the fridge) and let it marinade a short time and go on the grill. If you let it sit in any unfrozen stage too long, you'll get mushy steak with a vinegar marinade.
You can go on line and read 1000 different opinions about marinating meat. Most read like this: "One of the simplest ways to flavor meat is to marinate it. That is, treat it like a sponge. All you have to do is pour sauce on the food, let it soak for a while and then cook it."
Personally, based upon over 30 years of experience in the kitchen, as well as in the BBQ pits, I don't believe that is true. In fact, even after hours of soaking, most marinades don't penetrate meats like beef, pork or lamb much more than 1/8". A side effect of marinade on meat is a wet surface, which impedes the ability to crisp or obtain a nice char. In short, 'soaking' marinades adversely affect the taste and texture of many meats.
On the other hand, meats such as chicken, turkey, and some pork cuts usually absorb a little more marinade (though not as much as we would like) and fish will literally absorb it like a sponge.
If the marinade contains a lot of salt or acid, they will affect the meat in a different way. Salt is important, as a flavor enhancer, and has good penetrating properties, as well as a conduit for pulling in other flavor components (like brine).
Acids can serve as a kind of marinade; fruit juices (i.e. lemon, apple, pineapple, orange and white grape juice), vinegars, and even sugar-free soft drinks can break down protein, which is a process known as 'denaturing'. However, too much acid, or even a small amount of acid over too long a time can make the surface of the meat mushy, which inhibits crispness or charring.
Promotional links are OK (a) if they go in your user profile or (b) if they are directly related to the question. Refer to the promotion help page for more details.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.229967
| 2011-09-01T02:16:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17378",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brad Miller",
"Dee Williams",
"Dora Pedrosa",
"Katai",
"Pete Becker",
"Rebekah Flowers",
"Sam Holder",
"Tor Langballe",
"ainlolcat",
"gina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73775
|
Texture problem with marinated chicken
I made a simple chicken marinade from a Nigel Slater recipe the other day: some olive oil, maple syrup, soy sauce, chilli flakes. I marinaded it (1 piece of boneless chicken breast) overnight. When I cooked it, it had tons of flavour but it was too soft.
How can I marinade a piece of boneless chicken breast so that I get tons of flavour but it isn't too soft?
The piece was frozen and then thawed in hot water. Not sure if that's relevant.
I believe the answer, which I will be happy to write, lies not in the marinade, but in the cooking method. How did you cook it? How much marinade did you leave on the chicken or in the cooking vessel? At what temperature, and for how long? Also, how much soy sauce did you use in the marinade recipe, and what was the final volume? Measurements included in the recipe would also work to answer that. With soy sauce, a marinade is also a brine. Did the chicken have an added salt solution? In the US, it would say on the label. Most individually quick frozen chicken breasts have that.
I agree with @Jolenealaska. None of the ingredients in your marinade are acidic enough to tenderize the chicken much, so it's much more likely to be something else.
@Jolenealaska Thank you for your reply. I cooked it at 400F for 30 minutes (maybe a bit longer). I'm afraid I did all the ingredients "by eye". I would say about quarter of a cup of soy sauce, a few table spoons of maple syrup and a few table spoons of olive oil. The chicken did not have any added salt.
You said thawed in hot water. That is the problem. Thaw in cold water or in the fridge overnight. Using hot starts cooking the meat. I would also suggest searing the meat on both sides and then cooking at 400 until it temps 155, then pull it and let rest for 10 min. The resting will allow the temp to hit 160.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.230248
| 2016-09-07T03:05:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73775",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Jolenealaska",
"Nigel Redding",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50397"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79240
|
When and how much flour do I add when mixing dough?
I am a rookie bread baker and I have been following some recipes that range in amounts of water and flour. I have a Kitchenaid artisan mixer that has been doing the hard work of kneading for me. My problem is knowing when to stop adding flour during mixing/kneading.
Some recipes say add flour until the dough is workable and then knead. My questions is, when they say use 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 cups of flour but no more. How do I know when to stop, I have ruined a few loaves as they came out heavy and dense.
How do I know when to stop adding flour and let the gluten take care of the stickiness? I often find myself adding flour until the dough balls up and pulls from the sides but by then it's too late.
On the other side, I have kneaded for 15 - 20 minutes waiting for the dough to pull sides of the bowl and it never happened.
When do I add flour and when do I just wait?
Any help or suggestions are greatly appreciated!
As my first head chef taught me. It's never to late to add a bit more flour, but you can't take it back out. This was for pasta but the same rule applies.
I agree wholeheartedly with Doug. If you're doing most of the kneading with your Kitchenaid, it shouldn't take much extra flour for your dough to ball up. If it seems like it has been too long, give your dough a half an hour rest before continuing.
Find recipes that use mass instead of volume. Invest in a kitchen scale.
I did buy a scale, I also watched a few videos on King Arthur's website. I guess I'm sure sure how shaggy the shaggy mass should be
A kitchen Aid mixer is a jack of all trades but it is not a great dough mixer. Because it is inefficient it takes to long to get good gluten formation and as a result heats the dough to much.( especially with wet dough's ) In mine i use the autolyse method first and then mix it for 5 or 6 minutes and then finish it by hand. I am saving my penny's for a spiral mixer. Because the friction factor of KA is so hi you need very cold water. there is formula for water temp with friction factor calculated in, if you want to get serious about it. a
I'll convert my comment into an answer, based on your request for help or suggestions. Bread formulas are created using the "Baker's Percentage Method". It is expressed in the amount of liquid in ratio to the amount of flour. This percentage varies according to the style of bread, but within each style produces accurate results when using weight measurement.
Using volumetric measurement, especially for flour, is highly inaccurate because many variables can influence how much flour fits into a measuring cup (grind, humidity, compaction...etc). That is why these kinds of recipes often suggest a range, and put the baker in the position of guessing.
Using a scale, and weighing your ingredients according to the baker's percentage of a recipe, removes the guess work.
+1. I will add that many recipes are not even created from volumetric measurements. They are the result of a baker learning to make dough until it feels right, and then trying to communicate their method as a recipe - which is a disaster. An experienced baker can make great bread by the "until it feels right" method, but this method is not teachable in writing.
So first I mix everything together, using the minimum amount of flour. Then I keep mixing, adding the remainder of by hand in small amounts until it balls up, then I knead?
@Drewdin a lot depends on the recipe, but in general when cooking by weight, I put the mixing bowl on the scale, add water...zero the scale...add the yeast..zero the scale..add the flour...etc...Then mix. When I make pizza dough, for example, everything goes into the bowl, then I throw it on the mixer and mix....remove from mixer bowl and knead by hand a few times to shape into a ball..and proof. The point is, when using a recipe that identifies ingredients in grams (or ounces) you don't have to guess about the amounts.
@moscafj thanks for the tip on adding to the bowl, that's a good idea. I still don't understand when enough is enough of the flour, I'm not sure why im so hard headed on this...
@Drewdin when baking by weight, add all of the flour.
so if the range is for say 200-270g of flour, add the 270? I thought it would be somewhere in the middle?
@Drewdin Until you get a feel for what you want to produce, find a recipe that specifies the amount of flour by weight. Some good on-line resources: The Fresh Loaf and The Perfect Loaf. You can google them.
A proper Bakers percentage formula would not say "in the range of". It deals in exact amounts. You would add specifically the exact amount by weight that the formula calls for. For a more detailed look at Bakers percentages see my answers to this question http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78275/my-overnight-sour-dough-went-slack-could-my-starter-have-eaten-too-much-glute/78956#78956
@moscafj can you explain "Until you get a feel for what you want to produce" do you mean leaving it stick or dry to produce a different type of bread?
@Drewdin Bread making is a complex task. For the home baker, there are many variables to manage and challenges to overcome. I would suggest finding a formula, based on weight measurements, that you like. Then make it many times. In time, you will begin to understand how the dough behaves. Over time, you will get a "feel for it" and will know when things are going right and when things are going wrong. That is what I meant.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.230434
| 2017-03-18T23:41:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79240",
"authors": [
"Alaska Man",
"Doug",
"Drewdin",
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54906",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128479
|
Didn't vent my pressure canner correctly
I didn't vent my pressure canner for 10 minutes. I thought it was 5. Can I reprocess my ground beef or will it ruin it? I have the new presto pressure canner.
Does this answer your question? Why let a pressure canner vent, before putting the weight on?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.230859
| 2024-06-05T04:16:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128479",
"authors": [
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129183
|
Bucatini splits when cooking
Every time I try to cook bucatini pasta it splitting like spaghetti with just a few that stay intact. Water is at a full boil, starts off fine then it splits.tried it several ways and it always ends up the same way. I want the nice thick pasta and I get spaghetti.could it be the pasta? It is Piancone /Roma
What do you mean by it's splitting "like spaghetti"? How much are you cooking the pasta? Could the issue be that you're overcooking the Bucatini to then point it's breaking into pieces?
Do you mean bucatini?
This is unusual. First, be sure you are cooking to the time on the package. I could see where overcooking might cause this. If you are cooking properly, this is more likely the sign of a product that is not well made. Try switching brands.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.230924
| 2024-09-08T16:05:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129183",
"authors": [
"Hollis Hurlbut",
"gidds",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68458"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100564
|
I would like a vanilla powder type to substitute for cocoa powder
I do not like chocolate. I have a recipe for chocolate energy bites. What can substitute for cocoa powder?
Welcome! If you could [edit] your post with the recipe, our community can come up with better ideas - it’s a huge difference if the cocoa is a main ingredient or just a minor detail. While you wait for an answer, I recommend you take the time for the [tour] and browse through our [help] to learn more about how the site works.
You can purchase vanilla powder. As @Stephie points out, if we know the recipe, we might be able to help you decide if it can work and how much to add.
To use as a substitute for cocoa powder in chocolate energy bites, I would suggest milk powder.
@BackyardChef no answers in comments, please...
We really need the whole recipe to be able to help. I'd suggest vanilla whey protein powder, but without knowing the rest of the ingredients (eggs, other moisture-retaining ingredients?), you could very well end up with an inedible brick, wasted time, and wasted money.
Proportions are crucial in baking, so please post the whole recipe so we can suggest an adequate substitute
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.231135
| 2019-08-04T05:01:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100564",
"authors": [
"Backyard Chef",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"NSGod",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54873",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
101107
|
Food safety after rodent issue
Can we still eat our corn if the rats just ate the silk part? Rats ate into some of the cobs. I do still have corn that they didn’t eat. Can I consume this corn? If so, what is the best way to proceed?
It is not just the food that the rat has eaten that is of concern, any cross-contamination on food due to rat urine or faeces is also a major health risk factor.
Leptospirosis and Listeriosis, while not generally fatal, do carry a wide range of risks from flu-like symptoms to meningitis and organ failure.
If you were a restaurant or cafe, most health inspectors in the UK or Europe would seriously consider closing down your operation until the rodent problem was properly dealt with. As an individual though, obviously you have more latitude and choice in the matter. Provided the outer layers are not damaged or stained I would inspect the remaining corn with an ultra-violet torch (to check for any protein staining from the rat urine) and then dispose of those cobs. I would also spray the remaining "clean" cobs (once the outer leaves are removed) in a undiluted vinegar solution followed by a 3% Hydrogen Peroxide solution, let sit for 10 minutes, then gently scrub under running water to remove the solution.
To be honest though, unless you have a large quantity of corn, I'd err on the side of caution and skip on the corn this once. I personally would not feel comfortable serving it to family or friends unless I was sure there was absolutely no risk of infection.
References:
http://www.grubstreet.com/2014/04/possible-effects-of-eating-rat-and-mouse-tainted-food.html
https://clearandwell.com/diy-fruit-vegetable-wash-remove-dirt-bacteria-pesticides/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.231262
| 2019-09-02T20:52:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/101107",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
101121
|
Do storms influence the souring of dishes?
The story/lore passed from generation to generation is about the influence of a storm on some dishes. Allegedly, they sour once the storm hits. This holds especially when the dish is kept in a metal bowl, jug, or pot. What I've heard is that it affects soups, broths and mayo-based salads the most, but I am not sure if that is because of their ingredients or just because they are mostly kept in those metal containers.
Is there any scientific proof of this phenomenon, and if so what is the mechanism? Is it due to rapid changes in the air pressure or maybe electrostatics?
If that would be true, how can one counteract it? Does keeping dishes in the fridge help?
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/26523/can-thunderstorms-curdle-milk and https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lightning-and-milk/
The short answer is no, storms don't cause souring. Souring occurs because of bacterial or yeast growth. Sometimes this is desirable, sometimes not, depending on your goals. If by "souring" you mean spoilage, proper sanitation and refrigeration are your best protections. Sometimes the composition of a food container can impact the flavor of foods (tin and acidic dishes, for example). That is why there are often instructions to use non-reactive containers. However, this has nothing to do with the weather. Of course, ambient conditions, such as extremes in humidity or temperature, can impact the cooking process, when baking, for example...but storms don't accelerate or influence spoilage.
It might be the link between storms and souring is more indirect... I could totally see "power went out, food warmed till the power was back" contributing to foods souring faster. Especially when the appliance would auto-restart when the power came back, leaving no explanation why things soured so much faster except "storm" if someone wasn't paying close enough attention. In earlier times, I dunno, maybe higher chance of cross-contamination as stuff was moved around, containers to catch leaks, cloth to dry, all could help spread lil spoilage beasites about?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.231426
| 2019-09-03T09:40:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/101121",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
109592
|
Chili beef fat substitutes
I'm working on a vegetarian version of a brisket chili recipe. It takes 20 hours to make, so effort involved is not an issue.
I need a substitute for brisket fat. I render the fat, strain out the proteins, and toast the seed-based spices, along with salt, in the rendered fat. I then char the aromatics, and use this mixture to make a stock that is the base for my chili. It lends a noticeable "cured" body to the finished chili.
What can I substitute for the beef fat to make this vegetarian?
Confused, what is the question ? you should edit your original question to include the additional information.
Not going to accept this, because a couple of professional cooks get primary credit, but here is the first draft for anybody interested. I am also still interested in any answers:
Coconut oil offers the saturated fat and body that I will be missing with a non-meat fat. Also palm oil, but I have several cups of cooking-grade coconut oil on hand already.
For nitrates, there are various seasoned salts that were suggested. I will be going with a mixture of sesame salt and a friend's line of umami salt.
For umami, powdered mushroom. I will be putting dehydrated shiitakes through a microplane, and sifting the results to remove any dirt.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.231609
| 2020-07-11T05:31:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/109592",
"authors": [
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121628
|
Do foamed eggs whites thicken liquid in a batter?
Do foamed eggs whites, folded into a batter including some liquid, contribute to the thickening of that liquid?
A class of English 'puddings' are those derived from 'lemon surprise pudding'. In these baked puddings a sponge forms on top and a flavored custard below.
Here's an archetype recipe demonstrating the general approach.
Butter is creamed with sugar, egg yolks beaten in and a liquid (normally dairy), a small amount of flour and then also flavored liquid, e.g. lemon juice, orange juice, puréed fruit etc. Finally, foamed eggs whites are folded in.
In deciding the quantity of eggs required to thicken the liquid, should I consider the egg whites, or do the egg whites solely provide leavening/rising potential? Should I just consider the thickening power of the yolks?
The egg white foam has an effect on holding the whole mass together. In a normal custard, you have a fine network of bound proteins, with an emulsion of fats in water being trapped in that network. In a custard with foamed egg whites folded in, you get a more complicated network of proteins, in which the egg whites participate too. So you cannot "just consider the thickening power of the yolks".
The egg foam will thicken the whole thing - but neither to the same degree, nor into the same kind of texture as a custard made with whole eggs. So there is no formula, you will have to finetune your recipe empirically.
Thanks for a super informative answer! I'll experiment with, say, a thickening ratio reduced by 50% and go from there. I'm assuming for a sauce rather than a set custard. I'm interested in how the texture will differ, typically because fruit is used it will be high in acidity and sugar too.
If you want a sauce, I would ditch the flour. In some custards (as opposed to your auto-layering cake) it acts an extra "insurance" that a filling will set thick enough, but introduces its own difficulties (basically, you have to boil it, which overcooks the egg proteins). And the sugar in fruit isn't enough to offset the extra acid, so the texture will be much less creamy even when made without curdling.
It's not just a sauce - it's a "layer pudding" with sponge on the top, custard below. Regarding the egg temperature - it's cooked in a bain marie. Here's the archetype - "lemon surprise pudding" https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/recipes/lemonsurprisepudding_82708 but it can be made with other fruit. Note that I've seen that if making a chocolate equivalent you probably don't need the flour because of the cocoa solids.
@DanGravell Oh, I see. I thought you were deriving a sauce recipe. If you keep the sponge layer, then yes, you will need the flour. Good luck, and enjoy your surprise pudding!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.231748
| 2022-09-11T20:17:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121628",
"authors": [
"Dan Gravell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7269",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29673
|
Infusing olive oil with herbs
I have some basil from my garden that I would like to infuse with olive oil to flavor it. I was going to pack the jar with the herbs and then pour the oil over it, keep it in a jar for about a week and then strain and store the oil for cooking. Are there any issues I should be aware of?
See this article from Colorado University Safe Food. The goal is to prevent growth of the botulism pathogen. Here are their key points:
Wash all soil-contaminated produce before adding it to an oil infusion,
Add an acidifying agent such as lemon juice or vinegar to the recipe at the rate of one tablespoon per cup of oil,
Keep oil infusions refrigerated in order to retard the growth of any microbes,
Discard infusions after one week, or sooner if apparent cloudiness, gas bubbles, or foul odor develop and,
When in doubt, throw it out.
Sorry the source article is not formatted prettily, but I was looking for something more authoritative than about.com or ehow.com.
They mention cloudiness, gas bubbles and foul odour. To my knowledge you can never know if food is contaminated with C. botulinum. "The bacteria and toxin that cause botulism are invisible to the naked eye and do not change the colour, odour or taste of food." Food Safety Tips for Home Canning – Health Canada
@citizen That is true. I don't think the warning about the visible symptoms was targeted at botulism, but at other types of spoilage. Nonetheless, the message from all sources to the orginal question is: if you do this at all, do it with great care, and don't hold the product for a long time.
@citizen The acidifying agent is to get the pH low enough to prevent botulism growth, especially in combination with refrigeration.
@derobert: Yes, but you can never determine for yourself by looking at the oil if there is a risk of botulism. And that they mention cloudiness is even more weird when they recommend storing it in the refrigerator – the fats will partially set because of the temperature and (harmless) cloudiness will appear.
@citizen indeed, you can't look at it to determine botulism risk. That's what the acid & refrigeration is for, to eliminate it. But there are pathogens other than bacteria, as well as spoilage bacteria. They're saying "it should be safe for a week if prepared like this, but if you notice signs of spoilage, throw it out."
Flavored oils are a low-acid anaerobic (no air) environment. Herbs add a moisture source and can allow botulism bacteria to grow. Even if herbs are removed from the oil after infusing for a brief period, they may have already contaminated the remaining oil with botulism toxin and/or allow small pieces of herbs to remain where the bacteria can grow. Commercial herbed oils rely on acidification to prevent spoilage, since botulism bacteria can't grow in a sufficiently acidic environment. Because the temperatures required to kill the bacteria spores (around 250F) will degrade the oil and/or herbs, acidification is the only practical way to ensure safety for long-term storage while maintaining quality and flavor.
As SAJ14SAJ's answer points out, a brief imprecise acidification step is sufficient to maintain quality of oil for a short time at cool temperatures. But even refrigerator temperatures are not sufficiently low to completely stop botulism bacteria from growing over long periods. Most food safety sources recommend that homemade herbed oils -- acidified or not -- be stored in the refrigerator and used within 2-4 days.
For commercial herb oil stored at room temperature, the processing depends on consistent procedures that can be tested and verified in a laboratory to ensure sufficient acidity. However, until recently, no consumer guidelines had been thoroughly tested to allow home acidification for long-term storage.
Following research conducted at the University of Idaho and published in 2014 in the journal Food Protection Trends, there are now consumer guidelines to process certain herbs and garlic safely through acidification before adding to oil.
Here is a summary of the procedure. Be sure to read the guidelines link thoroughly and to follow the instructions precisely. Note that the following procedure has ONLY been tested so far with basil, oregano, and rosemary, as well as (finely chopped) garlic. Other herbs may require different amounts of acidity during processing to achieve safe results.
Make a 3% solution of citric acid by combining 1 level Tablespoon of granular citric acid with 2 cups of water. (Note that other acids, lemon juice, vinegars, etc. have NOT been verified and tested for safe home use in this step.)
Combine fresh herbs with the 3% citric acid solution in a ratio of 1 part herb to 10 parts of the acid solution by weight. Weighing is recommended here, since the volume measurement of herbs is imprecise.
Place a weight on top of the herbs to ensure they are completely submerged in the solution.
Let herbs soak in the acid for 24 hours. (This is a minimum to ensure safety; a longer soak may degrade the flavor.)
Remove the acidified herbs, drain, and pat dry. Combine the acidified herbs with oil, and infuse. A ratio of 1 part herbs to 10 parts oil by weight is recommended, but the ratio can be varied from this to achieve appropriate flavor.
While the procedure recommends removing the herbs once appropriate flavor has been achieved (generally in 1 to 10 days), there is no food safety risk if the herbs are kept in the oil for longer.
Store in a clean, food-grade bottle in a cool place protected from light. The guidelines note that there are no food safety concerns about storing these oils at room temperature, though they recommend storing in the refrigerator or freezer to maintain flavor and quality for a longer period.
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: Food preservation is not to be taken lightly, particularly in situations that are known risks for botulism. People who are familiar with home canning recipes already know that one should only use approved recipes and procedures that have been thoroughly tested; this procedure is no exception. Botulism risks are generally low, but the consequences of deviating can be severe.
If you are not willing to go through this detailed procedure (or another one from an approved food safety and preservation organization), be sure to store any herbed oils in the refrigerator and use within 2-4 days or freeze.
I've had good luck with infusing olive oil, but I use a significantly different method:
Blanche and shock the basil. (dip in boiling water for a few seconds, then in ice water).
Put the basil into a pot, and cover with olive oil.
Warm the olive oil, and leave it warm on the stove for a while (maybe 60 minutes)
Strain the oil, and put in jars.
Store the jars in the fridge.
It might take me 6 months to use it all up depending on how much I made; I don't know what the recommended safe storage time is for it, but I keep good practices in making sure that it's well sealed, kept cold, and that I never allow a contaminated utensil into the oil. I also tend to use it for applications that get re-cooked (eg, making croutons) as it gets older, vs. just using it to flavor a parsley-based pesto.
update : right, so I didn't spell out specifically why this is better -- the blanching helps to kill any bacteria (although not spores) on the basil as well as breaking cell walls so that the infusion takes less time. The warm infusion means that it spends less time infusing so that anaerobic bacteria doesn't have as much of a chance to grow. Storing the oil in the fridge further inhibits bacteria growth.
I've heard of similar techniques for making hot-pepper oils, though they usually call for adding the peppers to the oil then heating the oil on the stove to whatever temperature you need to kill botulin bacteria (it's rather hot, as I recall) and leaving it there for an hour I think. I'm pretty sure I've seen answers on this site explaining the process in more detail. Also found this link: http://www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/foodnut/09340.html
Its the hold time of six months that forced me to downvote for safety--take that out, and I am happy to remove the downvote. After all, just because the scary dog hasn't bitten you yet doesn't mean it won't. We have to be very conservative on safety issue recommendations IMO.
National Center for Home Food Preservation
How do I can oil with herbs? Can I can pesto?
Herbs and oils are both low-acid and together could support the growth of the disease-causing Clostridium botulinum bacteria. Oils may be flavored with herbs if they are made up for fresh use, stored in the refrigerator and used within 2 to 3 days. There are no canning recommendations. Fresh herbs must be washed well and dried completely before storing in the oil. The very best sanitation and personal hygiene practices must be used. Pesto is an uncooked seasoning mixture of herbs, usually including fresh basil, and some oil. It may be frozen for long term storage; there are no home canning recommendations.
Just a couple of points in addition to those already mentioned:
Make sure you wash and dry your basil leaves before infusing.
Make sure you sterilize your container by scalding or immersing in boiling water.
Once made, keep in the fridge.
i have read in this artile that coconut oil medium chain ftty acids kill certain bacteria including botulism, although i would like more sources to confirm this so that i could make my garlic oil without worries
page 72
https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=tSGmnBeRpLkC&pg=PA72&lpg=PA72&dq=coconut+oil+botulism&source=bl&ots=HceH2FTblP&sig=7hkScj7lQabEoe9ZUSZD6jZqMPI&hl=es&sa=X&ei=lxsqVd3bMsKusAWN1YGwAw&ved=0CE4Q6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=coconut%20oil%20botulism&f=false
That link doesn't seem to take me to the book preview, maybe you could add a bit of a summary of what it says?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.232023
| 2013-01-03T01:13:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29673",
"authors": [
"Angela Cox",
"DonnaT",
"Eileen",
"FrustratedWithFormsDesigner",
"JoeDough",
"Joshua Michael Parreno",
"Kinder Pitseng",
"PeterJ",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sushila Chandra",
"citizen",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7501",
"pat",
"phazei",
"usa2elsewhere Von",
"user69043",
"victor",
"姚文瑰 mittiwat"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62934
|
Keep a frittata puffy
My frittatas always deflate. I've heard all kinds of differing advice: add flour, add tapioca flour/starch, add corn flour, add baking powder... I was once even told to add a little yoghurt! The base recipe I use calls for 6 eggs and 1/4 cup milk, and then some onions, garlic, and then a little of whatever vegetables are in the fridge chopped up fine... and then shredded cheese on top once it's already half done (but I don't think the cheese is so heavy that it's causing the whole thing to collapse and deflate - I really only use a sprinkling). What's the best way to keep a frittata from deflating?
Are you serving it hot or cold?
Ideally, hot. But sometimes the timing doesn't work out and people are late. ;)
You may want to see Serious Eats' coverage of scrambled eggs.
Getting them to puff initially requires a little higher heat. Adding extra liquid (water, milk, cream) will result in softer eggs, so you may want to reduce or eliminate it.
As for the cheese -- it really depends on how much you're adding. If it's so thick you can't see the eggs under them, I'd recommend either reducing it so it's a bare sprinkling, or mixing some in with the eggs and then only a small bit on top.
For a fritata specifically, you should be careful about not overcooking it -- it can cause it to deflate if the air bubbles over-expand and burst.
When dealing with serving frittatas at room temperature or chilled, make sure that you let it cool slowly -- you need to make sure that the proteins get a chance to set up before the air bubbles shrink significantly.
Ok, so tomorrow I'll try: higher heat but maybe for less time to avoid over-cooking, no added liquid, cool slowly, slightly less cheese. Nothing else special added!
A frittata is always going to deflate some after you take it out of the oven, you cannot prevent that. Air and the moisture in the egg expands as they heat, causing the frittata to grow. While it is grown in size the egg hardens, trapping the expanded gasses and stabilizing the structure. When removed from the oven the air cools and contracts, and as eggs have a slightly elastic nature when cooked the structure of the cooked frittata will shrink some. The same forces cause some of the rise in cakes, however flour and sugar form a more crystalline structure which holds shape better, so in general shrink less when cooled. I expect to lose maybe 1/3 of the height of the frittata after its cooled, it's just the nature of the beast.
As for additives I usually add some combination of of milk or cream, herbs, spices, meat, vegetables or cheese and as long as you keep the proportions reasonable it doesn't seem to impact the expansion of the egg much.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.232777
| 2015-10-29T02:41:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62934",
"authors": [
"Andrea Noronha",
"Barbara Thomas",
"Catherine Houston",
"FrustratedWithFormsDesigner",
"Joe",
"Mocakes",
"Vicki Velazquez",
"c p",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149736",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7501"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20839
|
What are the impacts of common pizza dough errors?
I'm diving into the world of making pizzas from scratch, and I'd like to take a systematic approach to the possible mistakes I could make with regards to the dough.
What impact do each of the following errors have on the final taste/texture of the pizza crust?
Using old yeast or too much/too little yeast (I assume that using old yeast is the same as using too little yeast?)
Too high or too low of a water to flour ratio
Overworking or underworking the dough
Too much or too little resting time of dough
See also the answers here: How can huge bubbles in pizza crust be prevented
You may be interested in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV4gegZ7JNU
I don't see anything in the question that is peculiar to pizza dough. Anything I answer will apply to any kind of yeast-risen, glutenous dough.
The goal with any such dough is a well hydrated protein matrix that has been arranged in sheets that will trap the gas produced by yeast.
If the yeast is dead it won't be able to produce gas and your bread will be somewhere between a cracker and shoe leather- depending on how thick you roll it out.
Using too little yeast is not the same as dead yeast. If you use too little yeast (within reason) they will take a long time to reproduce, eat, and blow up your stretchy proteins. They will be producing a lot of flavor during this period. This will generally taste good.
If you use too much yeast (within reason) the yeast will act very quickly. This is nice for speed but it will result in a much less developed flavor. Neither is a problem so you can choose for yourself.
Using too little water will result in not enough gluten development and a dry, or crumbly dough. The dough won't hold gases and there will also not be enough steam when baking so the dough will be more dense.
Too much water and you have a batter that can't be worked with.
Over working a dough isn't so much of a concern. It is possible to over knead but it is hard to do. See: Possible to over-knead dough?.
Under working the dough will result in less gluten development and very similar results as using too little water- basically you will have unleavened biscuit dough. The exception is if you are following a "no-knead" recipe. In this case the dough is allowed to rest for days which lets the protein sheets form on their own.
Resting the dough is necessary both to relax the protein mesh that you created as well as to allow the yeast a chance to blow it up with some CO2. Not long enough and you won't be able to roll out the dough because it will be too tight and it won't be risen because the yeast haven't eaten. Too long and the bubbles will coalesce into large open cavities. A good rule of thumb is "doubled in volume". Usually about an hour but this is highly dependent on how much yeast you use, how much water, and the ambient temperature.
The end result is that you don't need to worry about most of these things.
The biggest mistakes I see people make is making a dough too dry or simply not kneading enough. It is easier to add flour than water so put in less than the full amount of flour, knead for a while, if the dough stays too sticky then add a bit more flour and knead in.
As answers to other questions have said- you want a dough that is "smooth and elastic" it isn't sticky and looks homogeneous. After just a couple tries you will get a feel for how wet that means and you'll be an expert.
For pizza dough in particular- almost as important as the dough construction is the baking temperature. You want to cook it as hot as you can. 500F in an oven or on a grill. It will only take 5-10 minutes. The fast hot cooking will do a lot for your crust texture. It makes the difference between a crispy, chewy pizza crust and a soft, bready (and soggy under the toppings) crust.
Thank you for the in-depth answer. I also appreciate the bit about cooking it -- I'm sure I'll have many more questions about that step later!
I accidentally made pizza crust with 3x the yeast once (tablespoons instead of teaspoons) and holy cow it tasted fantastic! At that level the yeast was acting as a flavoring agent in its own right.
Using old yeast or too much/too little yeast (I assume that using old yeast is the same as using too little yeast?)
Instant yeast is pretty well preserved as it's encased in a starch binder, and I've never seen it go bad (6-12 months is the longest I've had a large container of it).
Cake yeast lasts only a few weeks (but most grocery stores don't sell it like this)
Too much yeast will smell and taste yeasty, and you'll end up with overly bubbly dough (huge air pockets)
Too little yeast will require more rise time, but otherwise is usually fine. Most recipes call for doubling in the first and second rises, and less yeast will just take longer to reproduce and expand the dough.
Over the years I've reduced the amount of yeast in my doughs in favour of a longer refrigerator rise stage (24-48 hours). My main pizza dough recipe used to be 3 tsp per 4 cups of flour and now is only 1.5 tsp.
Too high or too low of a water to flour ratio
Too much water will make for super sticky dough (super difficult to work with, huge bubbles when cooked)
Too little will make for tough dough (chewy, dense)
I find a slightly sticky dough works best, with a long (and cold) first proof.
Overworking or underworking the dough
I suggest underworking the dough and letting it rise the first time for 24-48 (or 72) hours in the fridge. This allows natural processes to soften the proteins and produce more amylase which makes for a better dough overall.
My current pizza dough recipe has about 5-10 minutes of mixing ingredients by hand, and 2-3 folds once dumped on a floured counter. I don't kneed it at all, though it is mixed very thoroughly with a spatula.
Overworking ends up in a very chewy dough
Underworking (and not proofing for long enough) results in dough that is difficult to stretch
For what it's worth, I stretch balled dough most of the time with a French style rolling pin. It results in a relatively thin but risen crust, not much different than when stretching by hand (but a bit simpler when doing a bunch quickly).
Too much or too little resting time of dough
Most breads (including pizza) follow a two step rise process. As I understand it:
The first rise is breeding the yeast culture and building the basic flavour. It can also improve the structure if it's a long rise (like the no-kneed fridge doughs).
The second rise is about defining the overall size/rise of the dough and pliability. For pizza, the second rise is enough to allow the dough to be workable (usually not more than doubling the size of the dough balls). Too long here ends up in a very bubbly dough, sometimes enough to push the toppings around.
I find that a good pizza dough will have a very particular feel after you ball it up after the first rise. A chef once showed this to me and described it as soft as a newborn's skin and a bit bubbly on the surface. You can feel a great pizza dough ball and it will be special. I tend to aim for a dough on the more plastic side of soft and bubbly now, which is a bit stickier and rises a bit better in a home oven.
Note that breads and buns are usually denser, more like plasticine (so less bubbly/soft). Some breads are even stickier (like brioche and sweet buns). Getting a feel for this seems to be critical in making great breads.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.233047
| 2012-01-27T17:59:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20839",
"authors": [
"Eloise23",
"Florent Bayle",
"Gloria Witte",
"Kenster",
"Tara",
"adam",
"anon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45858",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7518",
"zoey"
],
"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
}
|
4683
|
Suggestions for Brie + Bread + Preserves
I've now tried two different types of Brie cheese from my grocery store. The first was a triple cream version which was very mild and nice. The second was a "Rich and Buttery" (whatever that is supposed to really mean) version which was just a little bit stronger. I tended to like the first version more, at least in my preparation.
I ate both by spreading a thin layer of slightly toasted, light and airy bagguett and then topping with about half as much of either apricot or strawberry preserves. I like both the preserves and the bread is nice, but I'm not sure what kind to try next. There are double creams, store brands, international brands, etc...
Does anyone have suggestions for:
What types of Brie should I try? Any specific terminology that will help tell the difference between the 10 or 15 types I see in the store?
What else to eat the Brie with?
What types of bread would be good?
Any other flavor of preserves that would be nice?
Questions calling for a list of answers should be marked community wiki. You'll see a checkbox for it when editing/creating your question.
Actually, I don't see a checkbox when I clicked the edit button. Oh, did you mark it as a community wiki, already?
Contrasting flavors and textures will bring out more excitement on the palate.
The rich buttery flavor of brie works well with crisp acidic fruit like apples, or pears. Consider salty items like various cured meats such as various types of ham, salami, sausage. Smoke-flavored almonds and salty nuts (marcona almonds).
Other preserves: Fig preserves & mango chutney
Breads: Dark breads like pumpernickel, yeast breads containing dried fruit & nuts (especially when first toasted and then broiled to soften the brie and toppings of choice).
Apples sounds really good as does the mango chutney. I'll have to carefully explore the salty/cured meat angle as I'm not a big salami/sausage fan, but I can tell you're onto something there! Also, the idea for breads with fruits/nuts in them is another great idea. Thanks.
It's all about the chutney...Usually we're talking a spicy/fruity relish type thing. Excellent counterpoint to brie's regular smoothness, and comes in all flavors from sweet to spicy.
My personal favorite is baked brie in puff pastry. Talk about delicious. Serve it with fruit and sliced baguette.
As for types, the issue you're going to come up with is terminology. There are only two types of brie: Brie de Meaux and Brie de Melun. Meaux is the more common variety. Now brie-style cheese comes in vastly more varieties, and you're going to need to experiment to find ones you like best.
Wow! The baked Brie in pastry sounds amazing. I really like the chutney idea too. Thanks for the explanation of the types of Brie too!
Brie de Meaux (aka King's cheese)
Try it with honey
French Baguettes
Fig preserve
+1 for honey! I love honey and have only recently - in the last year or two - really started to love honey!
Quite a common combination in Britain is brie and redcurrant jelly.
I love the uniqueness. I'll have to try that. We used to make currant jelly at home (Ohio) and I bet my mom still does. I can imagine it now.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.233978
| 2010-08-09T20:42:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4683",
"authors": [
"Amy Patterson",
"Bob",
"Chad",
"Dave",
"Jill Jones",
"Lernkurve",
"SvenS",
"Tammy Jowers",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9034",
"iDontKnowBetter",
"mck",
"roens",
"triazotan"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24653
|
When cooking steak should the fat inside be cooked?
I think that I've undercooked my steak... There are little lumps of fat inside the steak. Should these be melted into the steak? Or is it OK if it's still white?
I use cast iron pan on a regular electric stove.
Sorry if my question is too basic - I don't know how good a cook you are. Are you sure you can distinguish between fat and connective tissue?
I am not sure, so probably not :-)
If there really is fat inside the steak, it is terribly undercooked. But this is unlikely to happen.
Animal fat is a saturated fat which melts somewhere around 35°C. If your steak hasn't reached 35°C internal temperature, it will be very visibly raw on the inside, with no apparent difference from the cold steak from the fridge. It will still be oozing blood-like liquid even after resting for over 10 minutes, and the liquid will be thicker than the juices of cooked steak. It will be deep red and slimy, and cold to the touch. Even the rarest steak you can buy is taken above 40°C.
But not everything white inside meat is fat. Connective tissue/fascia are white too. They are not really lump-shaped, but I don't know how precise your description is. Try cutting through one of the lumps. If it is tough and rubberlike, it is connective tissue (and if there is lots of it, your meat is not meant for roasting, but for a slow cooking method). If the knife goes easier through the lump than through the meat, it is fat, and your cooking method is seriously wrong.
In any case, the best way to know when steak is done is to use a meat thermometer. Stop when it shows around 61°C, the remaining heat transfer after removing from the heat will give you a medium steak.
Thanks, it was tougher (quite a bit, in fact) to cut through then meat. Also, some when cut, contain blood...
@drozzy steaks contain no blood. When raw, they leak a bit of reddish-colored plasma. But after you have cooked a steak, you have to let it rest, else its juices (said plasma, now cooked) will flow out and the steak will be dry. This doesn't mean the steak is not cooked enough.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.234279
| 2012-06-23T17:33:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24653",
"authors": [
"Andriy Drozdyuk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9471",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34938
|
How can I determine canning processing times?
I know safety is paramount with canning, and best answer is always to find a trusted recipe. But that's obviously not possible for every conceivable food one might want to can. Besides, trusted recipes came from somewhere (and work even though for example exact pH of fruit varies), and there are plenty of companies out there canning all kinds of things. So:
Given pH, jar/bottle size, and hot vs cold pack, can I determine whether boiling water or pressure canning is safe and what processing time is necessary? What if I err on the side of safety and assume pressure canning is required - then can I determine a time?
Is there some sufficiently long processing time of pressure canning that will make anything safe, or at least anything meeting some broad criteria? (The idea being not to have to measure pH.)
While not authoritative enough for me to make an answer, this thread among what seem like very knowledgeable people indicates in summary: you cannot do so at home, not without about $10-50K in lab fees and equipment. http://forums.gardenweb.com/forums/load/harvest/msg0113464331140.html
@SAJ14SAJ That's a partial answer to the first part of my question, sure. But perhaps there are upper bounds to how much pH can increase during storage (for example, a survey of basic canning recipes suggests that many fruits, no matter exactly how acidic your batch was, are safe). And then since pressure canning can be used for low-acid foods, presumably it's even less of an issue, and there are perhaps at least some things which could be determined to be safe without those extreme measures? I'll edit a bit...
I understand your logic and what you are asking, and short of the silly answer I posted in chat, I failed to find any good answer so far...
While it may not be exactly what you are looking for, you might be able to take some information from this: http://msuextension.org/publications/HomeHealthandFamily/MT198329HR.pdf It gives you the processing times of different types of canned goods based on your altitude.
@webtina The point of the question is that I find that sort of information inadequate - it's only useful if the thing you're canning happens to be on a list that someone made already. The idea is to be able to determine a processing method for something arbitrary.
In answer to your second part, no. If something is not acidic enough for water canning it seems it doesn't matter how long you process it, it isn't safe. This is the reasoning all the cookbooks I've read provide for adding a teaspoon of lemon juice to each pint of tomatoes.
I would therefore use this strategy:
get things to the right pH for water or pressure canning as a separate first step. (Fruit will generally be ok, tomatoes need lemon juice, pickles will be ok, etc)
check the processing time for pints and quarts of various things (jams, fruit, pickles etc) and look for the pattern: is it consistently 25% more time, or 5 extra minutes? Work out the pattern.
repeat for hot vs cold pack: do you halve the time, or subtract 10 minutes, or what?
Now armed with a hot-pack pints recipe, you can adjust it for cold-pack quarts or vice versa. You should also, in poring through these recipes and charts, have come to understand various categories (fruit, jam, pickles, nonpickled vegetables etc) and be familiar with what times they need. Then faced with a chutney, conserve, or pickle that isn't on anybody's list, you should be able to choose what category it most likely belongs to, and safely pick a time for it.
The second part is asking about pressure canning.
A simple rule of thumb I've used my whole life is you process for the time of the longest processing ingredient. For instance meat is longer than tomatoes. hope to help.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.234503
| 2013-06-25T18:00:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34938",
"authors": [
"Assosa Ethiopia",
"Cascabel",
"Graham",
"Jerry Collopy",
"John Russell",
"Laura L San Diego",
"Roy Gardnerra",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93257",
"webtina"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
61519
|
How to Cook St-Hubert À La King Sauce?
I have trouble cooking the St-Hubert à la King Sauce, though I was able to cook it right with another stove and saucepan.
The issue I have is that the sauce does not get thick enough. Moreover, the sauce is a bit burned at the bottom.
Sometimes, the sauce, at the end, is almost as light as milk.
Another issue is that the sauce will often "grow" when it is too hot (this was not happening with the other stove) and I have to move the saucepan away (so that it wont spill) and/or lower the temperature. (The sauce boils with my current stove, but it did not happen with the other stove.)
I almost constantly stir the sauce with a whisk and I progressively lower the temperature.
With the other stove, I kind of feel with the whisk when it is the right time to lower the temperature, but I don't know why I don't feel it with my current stove.
I tried with a saucepan with a thicker bottom, but it does not really help.
Sometimes, I add carrots and celeries with the other ingredients at the start.
So, what can I do to get a thick sauce without problem?
What kind of stove do you have now vs before?
It does not seem to be related to the kind of stove. Actually, I tried with three different kinds (steel spiral, glass-ceramic, electromagnetic induction). Both the before and now were glass-ceramic.
I found out that by removing half a cup of water, the sauce is thick enough.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.234816
| 2015-09-05T14:26:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61519",
"authors": [
"Brittany Sarni",
"Catija",
"Cheryll Blansit",
"Cipyc CIPYC",
"G Kilcup",
"Sylvia Leeson-Marquez",
"antoyo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33952",
"raymond jones"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62798
|
Microwave-safe cups becoming less safe
For a couple of years we have been using a microwave-safe cup to heat up milk. The milk is whipped until it's creamy, then we add coffee on top of it and we have a sort of cappuccino. Until recently this has worked well, but for the last few weeks we have found that the cup itself is heating up in the microwave. I burnt my fingers while taking out the mug by its handle this morning.
Is it possible that ceramic mugs take up more energy from microwaves over time? Or are there other explanations for our findings?
Whenever something gets hot in a microwave, it indicates the presence of water. If something that used to stay cool suddenly heats up, you have water present where previously there was none.
I assume you are using a glazed ceramic mug or jar, not one made of glass. Your glazing must have tiny cracks in it, that allow water to reach the clay underneath and collect there. Basically the wear and tear of long use. These cracks may be so tiny that, especially if no discoloration is present, they are virtually invisible. Each time you use the cup in the microwave again, the expanding water will actually aggravate the problem. The same is true for running the cup in a dishwasher, which in my experience allows for more water to seep through the cracks than a quick hand wash.
Time to get a new mug. Consider one made of glass or porcelain (china) this time.
Ceramic mugs generally don't have glaze on their bottoms, probably to keep them from sticking onto the kiln shelf. That's a place where water could get in over time (and dishwashing). Although I've never tried it, you might put the mug in a 350F oven and leave it there for a few hours; it might outgas the entrapped water and let you use it in the microwave again.
Porcelain tends to come with very much non microwave safe embellishments....
I've noticed this same problem for years. Some mugs work fine and then start to heat up. The other thing I noticed is that if you continue to use them the problem will come and go over time. I agree with the other comments that is it likely water gets under the glaze and into the ceramic. The process that allows the water to get it is probably somewhat specific, such as a certain positioning in the dishwasher which is why the heating waxes and wanes over time. I've learned to quickly touch the handle of any mug I put in the microwave to see if it is hot before grabbing on.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.234989
| 2015-10-25T08:47:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62798",
"authors": [
"Aaron Mcgready",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Dennis McGarry",
"Donna Cooper",
"Emilie Dyson",
"Ginny Harvey",
"Michael Breen",
"edward rochette",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"pierre chretien",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67887
|
Creme Brulee did not set, can I fix?
My Crème Brulee did not set.
Recipe:
2 cups heavy cream
6 egg yolks
1/2 cup granulated sugar
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
1/2 cup light brown sugar
Directions
Heat cream in heavy saucepan just until bubbles form around edge of pan.
In double boiler top, with electric mixer, beat yolks with granulated sugar until thick and light yellow. Gradually stir in cream.
Place over hot, not boiling water, cook, stirring constantly, until mixture coats metal spoon, about 15 minutes. Add vanilla.
Strain custard into shallow 1 quart baking dish. Refrigerate 8 hours or overnight.
Before serving, carefully sift brown sugar evenly over surface. Set dish in baking pan, surrounded with ice. Run under broiler just until sugar melts slightly & caramelizes.
Instead of a 1 quart dish, I used smaller serving dishes.
After three days they have not set. Can I save them?
I guess you are right after the "refrigerate 8h" step?
Make ice cream!
I see several problems here. First, the recipe only has 3 yolks per cup of liquid, that's the bare minimum for thickening and does not produce a really thick custard like the one expected in creme brulee. Second, it is a stirred custard, not a baked one, which is a method for producing pourable or at least creamy custards, not "spadeable" ones where you can take out a piece with your spoon without the sides slowly flowing to partially fill the hole. Third, it does not give you a temperature, but suggests you to use time and a visual clue ("coats metal spoon") and that clue is also consistent with a liquid custard like creme anglaise, not a thick one like creme brulee.
The best thing to do is to pick a different recipe for next time - one which uses more yolks and directs you to oven bake the custard in a water bath. Aim for 83-85 Celsius internal temperature (under 80 it will stay too soft, over 90 it will go grainy, so if you don't have a thermometer, it is very difficult to get it right). It will take several hours, that's normal.
For this batch, I wouldn't bother reprocessing it in any way. It is edible as it is, use it in whatever calls for a custard sauce. It's easiest and ensures that you won't run into additional trouble.
If you really insist on trying to make creme brulee out of this one batch, add more yolks and bake in the oven in a water bath until proper internal temperature.
Hm. A very cursory search gave me 4-6 yolks per 500 ml (2 cups) of cream or cream/milk mixture. The fail is probably more due to method (baked vs. stirred) and internal temperature.
Yes, you can fix Creme Brulee that did not set! You just have to be willing to put out the effort. Despite what the entire internet seems to say, it can be done & I have done it with resounding success!
Scrape off the skin that has form on top of the un-set custard in the oven.
Scrape custards out of ramekins into a fine metal strainer & work the custard through with a rubber spatula to ensure you have a smooth custard base, once again.
Slowly heat your custard, stirring constantly, over a double boiler, until the custard base is hot (but not cooked).
Redistribute into cleaned ramekins. Fill pans with a HOT water bath to reach the height of the custard.
Rebake in a 300-degree oven until the custard is set.
Voila!
My original recipe did not call for enough egg yolks (5 yolks for 500 ml liquid), and I used half and half instead of cream.On top of that, I didn't cook it long enough (only 35 minutes at 150 degrees), so -- of course I got soup after 24 hours in the fridge.But I had seasoned the half and half with rosemary, and made rosemary sugar, so I wasn't about to give up!
Given that I needed more egg yolks, I poured the liquid from the ramekins in the fridge (skimming off the skin on top) into a saucepan and carefully reheated the liquid (being careful not to bring it to boiling, as it now has eggs in it).
I then made another egg/sugar mixture with four more egg yolks a little of the rosemary sugar, and re-added the hot liquid to this mixture and re-cooked it fresh ramekins in a hot water bath for another 60 minutes at 150 degrees until it seemed set but not overcooked.
The new mixture only filled 4 ramekins, not 5, but they seemed to be more set, though still pretty jiggly the next day. So I went ahead and sugared the tops with the rosemary sugar, broiled for 4 minutes to get the tops carmelized, and let cool.
When I broke the sugar tops, the insides were still liquid. Delicious, but liquid. Undaunted, I put them in the oven at 200 degrees so as to cook the custard. 20 minutes later, I had delicious scrambled eggs with mushy sugar coating on top.
So, even though you (like me) desperately want to believe that your crème brulee can be fixed... NO. Start over.
I think in retrospect, reading all of the recipes out there, next time I would use caster sugar, and would beat it with the egg yolks rather than whisking. I might also go for a slightly higher temperature in the oven. But save yourself some heartache. Don’t try to save a failed crème brulee.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.235267
| 2016-03-30T15:05:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67887",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76511
|
Defrosting meat - broken freezer
I have had to buy a new freezer as mine broke last night, a new one will be delivered tomorrow morning, but I have to unplug it tonight. Will it be safe to put the meat in the new freezer possibly 10 hours after turning freezer off? Or should I just bin it all and go shopping? (I love to shop so that's fine...lol) I hope someone can help me. I am 37 yrs old, you would think I would have had to do this before but no! - lol
It depends on what temperature the meat gets to. See: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34670/how-do-i-know-if-food-left-at-room-temperature-is-still-safe-to-eat Also, check your home insurance policy, they often cover food lost through freezer malfunction.
Having food in a non-working freezer is indeed a question that crops up often, so I think it is fair to call it a duplicate regardless of whether the initial problem is a broken freezer or a power outatge.
Don't open it and put some blankets on it for more insulation. Maybe buy a laser thermometer and measure when you do transfer. Stuff in the middle will be more protected. Let the new cool down before you start the transfer.
You should be fine for 10 hours if the freezer was working fine (at the proper temperature) at the beginning of that 10 hour period. If you are past 10 hours when the new freezer is ready, you're still very unlikely to be over refrigeration temperatures.
Starting NOW, don't open the freezer until you're ready to transfer the food. If everything is still frozen when you go to transfer it, you're golden. If it's cold but has just started to thaw, you're still OK as far as for safety to just refreeze, but you may see some loss of quality. If your stuff is still cold to the touch but partially defrosted, pick the most expensive meat to cook that day, the rest of it is likely to face some quality issues if refrozen. If it's not cold anymore, consider it a lost cause, safety cannot be guaranteed.
Unopened vegetables aren't really a safety issue, but they might take a quality hit.
Also: you can add ice to help keep it cool (but won't keep it frozen) or probably dry ice to keep it frozen; and of course if it defrosts and meat drips on things, then even otherwise safe things must be thrown out.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.235647
| 2016-12-15T16:19:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76511",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"paparazzo",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117818
|
Can a beef and pork mix burger be served medium
I have seen many record state a burger can be served a little pink. Even 'medium'. I understand what this means.
My question is about food safety: Is this also safe if the patty was a mix of beef and pork?
I can use common sense and predict if there was only 1% pork, then it is probably safe, but assuming the meat comes from a supermarket and is a 50:50 mix, is it recommended to cook this well done?
Why would you think it wouldn't count if there was only a little bit of pork? How many parasites do you think you need to become infected with, in order to be infected with parasites?
Good safety about food is good.
@Sneftel well that logic works for covid. Higher viral load -> higher chance of infection. I’m surprised as to why it’s not the case for parasites?
If pork should not be served medium then how would adding ground beef make medium pork safe? Additionally, the ground beef touches the pork directly so the ground beef is no longer safe at medium.
@Sneftel, my assumption has been that you do need to have a sufficient load of pathogens/parasites before you get sick, or a higher load increases the chances. Maybe that's a good question on its own tho.
@JPhi1618 It might be a good question for [medicalsciences.se]; it's off-topic here. Briefly, though, there is the concept of an "infectious dose", and it is very different between viruses and parasites. ("Load" is a different thing.}
And a lower chance of getting sick is still a chance of getting sick. Are you happy with a 50% chance? A 5% chance? Even a 0.05% chance per meal would mean you get ill every 5 1/2 years.
In most developed countries trichinosis is extreme rare, this is due to changes in the way pigs are raised. In the US there were only 16 cases reported between 2011-2015, for example, and in Europe the rates are similar. This means that you could serve pork completely raw with extremely low risk from a trichinosis point of view.
In a 50/50 beef-pork burger you have an equal amount of risk from the beef as the pork due to e coli bacteria, the meat really doesn't matter. Safety guidelines are to cook ground meats of any kind to 70°C/160°F, which is well done. As to whether you follow that guideline is up to you, millions or people have their burgers pink in the middle and it's rare anyone gets sick so the risk is small, but it's still there. Whether you take that chance is personal choice.
And due to that, recommendations for pork have been adjusted in some western countries, pink can be acceptable.
There is a German dish (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mett) that is just raw ground pork.
@DanielDarabos And it kills people every year, and makes many more sick.
Uh, I didn't know that. Thanks. https://www.quarks.de/gesundheit/ernaehrung/darum-solltest-du-mit-mett-vorsichtig-sein/ says 32 people died in Germany from Listeria in 2018. (It's not clear to me whether they all got it from Mett.)
In germany raw pork is often eaten on bread, its called Mett
"As to whether you follow that guideline is up to you" Unless you're selling it to people, in which case it's not - and if you disregard the guidelines and someone gets ill, you'd be liable for their injuries.
@nick012000 uh, nope? Many Germany butchers sell Mettbrötchen and and that’s perfectly legal (if proper handling is ensured). Customers are assumed to know the risk.
At least in the US, it's become common to add a disclaimer about the risks of eating raw or undercooked foods to the menu regardless of what's on the menu.
Another point: in the US most trichinosis is actually from eating bear meat, meaning that the trichinella risk from pork is even lower than suggested.
@nick012000 Nope. you've never been to a restaurant that served steak rare or medium rare? It's quite common and also below the temp recommended by the FDA. There's plenty of other examples as well.
@eps Steak is allowed to be served that way because the contamination is limited to the surface of the meat, so that's all that needs to be cooked. Ground beef, however, has that protection breached by the grinding process, spreading bacterial contamination to the inside of the meat, so it needs to be cooked thoroughly. If you sell improperly cooked ground meat to a customer, you'd be legally liable for breaching the health codes forbidding that act.
@nick012000 It's very common for restaurants to serve medium rare burgers. Nobody's hiding this from the health inspectors, and restaurants are not losing their 'A' ratings from the public health department over this. And what about steak tartare?
@user37496 "It's very common for restaurants to serve medium rare burgers." Not in my neck of the woods, not unless they want to get shut down by the health inspectors. "what about steak tartare?" What about it? It's not safe, either, unless it's been properly cooked (or at least pasteurized).
@nick012000 where do you live? I've been able to get a medium burger from restaurants all across the USA. Somewhere like McDonald's won't do it, but most any sit down restaurant will.
@Kat Australia, where food businesses, including restaurants, are required by law to follow the practices of the Food Safety Code, and the government is actually serious about prosecuting cases where it causes illness. Maybe you'll find a restaurant that has a "she'll be right mate" attitude to safety, but once someone makes a complaint, or someone gets sick from eating there, the government regulators won't be laughing.
@nick012000 I suspect Australia is the exception here, and that most countries allow serving undercooked meat under some circumstances if a customer requests it. That's good to know for Australians, though!
Sure you can! I think you're conflating two aspects of cooking meat here:
Doneness: whether your meat turns out rare or well-done depends on the maximum temperature the meat is cooked at.
Food safety: this is a function of both cooking time and temperature.
To combine the two, you can have a food safe burger cooked rare if it's cooked at a low enough temperature for the meat to stay rare and at a high enough temperature (for enough time) to kill most bacteria.
GdD is right that a burger through at 70°C/160°F is food safe. Most of the bacteria will die within seconds at that temperature. Using the sous-vide technique, however, it's quite easy to get a food-safe medium doneness by cooking the burger at a lower temperature (say 57°C/135°F) for a little over an hour (see the time temperature chart for pasteurization on Serious Eats, for example).
Pasteurization times at lower temperatures might be inconvenient, but even then you can kill many bacteria in a few hours and still have a rare burger.
By rapidly cooling the burger after the sous vide step and reheating it in the pan (on the grill / under the broiler) you can have your desired doneness and a nice maillard reaction on the outside with minimal risk. In that example the cooling step ensure that you don't overcook the inside of the burger when you give the outside a good sear.
The general technique of gradual cooking and then searing the outside at the end for flavour is called the "reverse sear". (At least when applied to steak, where it was traditional to sear first, and then finish it.)
I wouldn't say it's a 'daft question'. Some markets do sell pre-mixed ground pork-and-beef mixtures intended primarily for meatballs or meatloaf, so it's reasonable to wonder if that mix can be used for burgers, too, but there are too many variables not accounted for.
The problem is that we have no way of knowing what standards the hypothetical market in the question meets. Is it located in a country where trichinosis is all but extinct, like the US or Germany, or a country where pigs are still raised in pits of mud and feces? Do the market's butchers practice safe meat-handling?
In the best of all worlds, you could eat both pork and beef completely raw and be perfectly safe. In our world, pigs raised in filth may well have parasites including trichinosis. Cattle do not normally harbor anything harmful to humans, though there was the "mad cow" outbreak a couple of decades ago, but people can be disgusting in their lack of hygiene, so there is still risk.
Then there are the definitions. What is 'medium'? The worst trichinosis infection will be neutralized once the meat reaches 155F, but that is essentially medium-well and the USDA, which only cares about safety and not edibility, recommends 160F for GROUND beef, pork, veal, and lamb. They recommend 165F for ground chicken/turkey.
It's worth noting that even the USDA no longer recommends cooking solid cuts of pork till it's petrified. While they don't give a recommendation for Rare, they do specify a temperature of 145F for Medium-Rare Pork (or beef, lamb, veal, etc.). Ground meat is always more risky than solid cuts, but that's a different question.
But, then you say "a Burger can be served a little pink. Even 'medium'. I understand what this means." I don't think you do. Medium is a little pink. Medium-Rare is pink-to-red, but warm in the center. Rare is red and cool in the center. They are ALL SAFE if prepared correctly.
The mania for warning people away from 'under-cooked' burgers is due to our lawsuit-crazed culture, not food safety. The safety risk is due to people not washing their hands properly and not keeping their cook stations clean, not due to inherent risks from the meat. Cooking burgers till they become hockey pucks does render them harmless, and employers know that they suck at enforcing safe practices in their kitchens, so they shift the risk/blame to the customers.
If you trim and grind your own meat at home, and practice safe standards, you're perfectly safe in cooking your pork-and-beef burger Medium-Rare, which is how all burgers are at their best. But I wouldn't recommend it with the store-bought mix. Save that for your meatballs.
It isn't uncommon for meat to be mechanically tenderized, which will pose a risk of contamination even if you trim the cut and grind it yourself. Of course it's a very small risk, but non-zero.
@eps - True, but nothing we do is literally zero-risk. It's 'perfectly safe' in the same sense as lying in bed is 'perfectly safe', ignoring the minuscule possibility that you may still be killed by a meteorite strike, earthquake, or building collapse, and so on. It's all about the risk:reward ratio.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.235907
| 2021-11-11T06:58:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117818",
"authors": [
"Daniel Darabos",
"DaveInAZ",
"JPhi1618",
"Jack Aidley",
"Kat",
"MonkeyZeus",
"Peter Cordes",
"Sneftel",
"Stephie",
"Stuart F",
"Tim",
"chepner",
"eps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52880",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96422",
"joachim",
"nick012000",
"user37496",
"user3760657",
"vasin1987"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104321
|
Cooking time for two identical pieces of beef
I am cooking two identical 2 pound pieces of beef. It calls for 25 minutes per pound. Do I figure the cooking time for 2 or for 4 pounds? The cooking time for 2 pounds would be 50 minutes and for 4 pounds it would be 1 hr and 40 minutes.
If they are generally the same shape and size, be sure there is room between them for air to circulate and base your initial cook time on one piece. Of course, time is not a very accurate measure when roasting in an oven. So, your best bet is to use a thermometer to achieve your desired level of doneness.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.236828
| 2019-12-24T18:35:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104321",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105491
|
Can I thaw frozen spinach that´s meant to be boiled frozen?
The frozen spinach package says to boil while frozen, but I never seem to manage to get it cooked the way I like it. Either the center stays frozen (the package says 3-5min with boiling water and I need to keep it over 10min), or a big percentage of the spinach is way too bland.
I thought maybe thawing before, and then boiling, or even cooking in the pan would solve this. I don´t use fresh spinach primarily because of the money and convenience.
Can anyone tell me if this is a good idea?
Have you tried buying brands of spinach which sell it not in one large frozen brick, but as separate balls? They thaw nicer in the pan.
@rumtscho they don't sell those in the shops I usually visit.. I'll try to look for them tho, it looks like a great solution. Thanks!
In my experience frozen spinach will never be close to fresh, so I guess it depends on what sort of consistency you are hoping to get. In any case boiling from frozen sounds like the world's worst way to prepare it! There is no reason you can't thaw it before you cook it, but I wouldn't boil it in any case. I'd that it and drain it well, maybe even squeezing excess water out of it before pan frying it. Season it well with salt and pepper, a bit of butter never hurts.
Thanks for the answer! I'm going to try your suggestion of squeezing the water and pan frying. Will update you on the outcome :)
So I just tried it, and it did end up way better. It was also very convenient to clean as I cooked it in the pan with some garlic. Accepting your answer!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.236927
| 2020-02-24T20:49:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105491",
"authors": [
"JuanjoC",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81313",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107247
|
Question about safety of eating cooked bread if it is over or under-proofed
Not sure if my dough was over or under proofed. I cooked it and it is quite dense. It did not rise as much as I thought it would. I cooked for the time in recipe, and then a little longer. Can we still eat it? It is rye bread. I know I cannot eat the raw dough, but just wanted to make sure we can eat the cooked loaf.
Under- or over-proofed bread will change the "crumb" of the bread but has nothing to do with food safety. If it is baked fully it will be safe even if it's a little dense or too airy.
The best way to tell if a loaf is fully baked is to measure the internal temperature. You are looking for 190 - 200F (88 - 93C). The higher end is for dough with egg and or milk. That said, a dense final product is likely to be caused by other factors (yeast or starter inactivity, lack of gluten development, proofing errors). A well made loaf that is under-cooked will still rise. I doubt your final loaf is a safety concern. If you like the flavor, make use of it. You can always slice and toast.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.237089
| 2020-04-02T20:32:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107247",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
114039
|
What is the point of mustard-frying burger patties?
I mean the type where mustard is placed on the hot griddle, and the patty is placed or smashed on top.
Mustard is actually mostly water (with some vinegar and mustard powder mixed in). The water inhibits browning of the patty and causes the patty to be steamed, so it does not seem like a great idea to put it below the patty.
There are other ways to add mustard flavor to the burger, like adding mustard or mustard powder to the sauce, or smearing mustard or mustard powder on the patty after it has been cooked. You could even season the patty with mustard powder before cooking it.
So, why place the patty on that mix of water, vinegar and mustard powder, which we know as mustard?
The point is, some people like it that way.
Mustard is not generally made with mustard powder, rather the seeds are mixed with a liquid (often vinegar), salt, and sometimes other spices.
@moscafj - whether from ground or whole or seed is regional. English mustard is always from ground seed, never whole (& never vinegar, just water, or it loses its 'hit'). Dijon, on the other hand, can be either, or both...
Does this answer your question? Mustard-fried burger patty
Hi @KateGregory. Thx for the link. I saw it before. It does just explain HOW it is done, but not WHY. Untypical for Kenji really...
true, but since part of the how is that it's only on one side, and the other side gets really crusty first, so the "it just steams it" argument seems less strong as a result.
You are right, at least one side gets a crust first. Still, why fry the second side on mustard, instead of applying the mustard to the grilled patty afterwards? As said, I'll do some testing myself.
I did various tries and ate a lot of smashed cheeseburgers lately. Here is what I found:
The best option is, in the case of smashed burgers, to fry the first side without mustard, and the second side very briefly with mustard. This tastes better than frying without mustard at all, frying both sides with mustard, frying just the first side with mustard, smeering mustard on the patty after frying or adding more mustard into the sauce or elsewhere on the burger.
I cannot say why, but I can say that at least for my palate and my wife's palate mustard frying only the second side very briefly is best.
You are right how it's not a great idea to put mustard below the patty.
If you saw this in a recipe or saw someone do this, the recipe is most likely by a person who personally likes the taste and/or texture of resulting patty, and there would always be other people in this world (be it few or many) who would agree.
In short, food critics (Gordon Ramsey's my favorite) might not go easy on encountering such a method. On the other hand, here is a post that might interest you: Mustard-fried burger patty
Thx Anastasia. I saw the link question before and actually I did get the entire idea of this post from Kenji recipe. Kenji does just explain HOW it is done, but not WHY. Untypical for Kenji really...
As others have said, there is no good reason to do this other than personal preference. Yes you will get more of a mustard flavor by just putting mustard on as a condiment. Ground mustard seed in the meat works better. If you want a steamed burger, just use a little bit of water under the party before tossing a steel basting done on top.
The places that are doing this are likely doing it for two real reasons. 1: Their customers expect it and 2: It's super quick and they are pumping out thousands of burgers a day.
Thx Drew. Why would you get more mustard flavor out of it by putting it below the burger? Could this be a case of "secret sauce", in the sense believing there is a great benefit for doing so makes it taste better and thats why customers want it? I think I might have to do some testing myself.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.237229
| 2021-01-31T13:56:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/114039",
"authors": [
"Kate Gregory",
"Tetsujin",
"Usal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84068",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59838
|
Is it possible to prepare store bought corn tortillas so they don't fall apart?
Is it possible to prepare store bought corn tortillas so they don't fall apart? I know they are healthier than flour and they taste fine, but mine frequently fall apart to the point that it isn't a tortilla anymore.
If it is not possible, then can I make them at home myself so that they don't fall apart?
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/23532/67
It sounds like you're just buying poorly-made tortillas, or old ones. A reasonably fresh corn tortilla is plenty sturdy for use in tacos or enchiladas. As they get older, they dry out and become more brittle. If you live in a place with a large Mexican population, you may be able to find a local tortilleria which makes fresh tortillas. Failing that, corn tortillas from the grocery store can be adequate as long as they're relatively fresh.
You can also make tortillas at home pretty easily using just corn flour (also known as masa, masa harina, or maseca), water, and a rolling pin. If you want to shape them more perfectly, or if you're going to be using lots of tortillas, you can get a tortilla press:
They are usually made of iron or wood and will let you press balls of masa dough into perfectly-flat tortillas.
Corn tortillas lose their pliability very quickly.
You can restore some of their pliability with heat.
Microwaving the tortillas briefly will make them temporarily pliable. They may still crack when they cool, however.
The traditional approach is to dip the tortillas in hot oil. It's a little messy for me but it works very well and produces enchiladas that have the right texture.
Of course, if your tortillas are very old they may be stale and reheating them won't let them be pliable for long. There's nothing left for those but slicing and frying for corn chips.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.237554
| 2015-08-12T17:50:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59838",
"authors": [
"Chrissy Wright",
"Donna kohn",
"Jackie Bright",
"Joe",
"Julia Santana",
"Justin Coombes",
"M C",
"Patrick Flores",
"Steve",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143096",
"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
}
|
46934
|
Food Safety Question - Refrigerator Temperature
The temperature in my refrigerator has suddenly increased and seems stuck at 55 degrees (12ºC) no matter how I set it. Clearly something is wrong but it's Sunday and I can't get anyone out to check it today. Do I need to toss the food inside? Freezer seems fine.
You just have use your common sense. Depending upon how long the refrigerator has been warm, you may need to throw some things away. Some things (produce and most condiments for example) will be fine until tomorrow. Milk may spoil (somewhat unlikely) but it won't become unsafe. Meats that are still salvageable should be put in the freezer. See: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34670/how-do-i-know-if-food-left-at-room-temperature-is-still-safe-to-eat
If you can purchase bags of ice @ your local beverage store or supermarket get a few and put them in the refrigerator. You may have to stick some stuff in the freezer to make room. Note: wrap the bags of ice in a good trash bag as they usually have small holes caused by handling. If you can get dry ice, all the better.
Agreed on the above comments. Be sure to check your freezer temp. As I have found in storms such as hurricanes and Nor'easters when we have a power outage, h freeze
Sorry for not finishing my comment in time. Just be sure to keep a constant check on your freezer temps. It would be rare to have a temp problem in the refrigerator that does not affect the freezer.
Most things you have in the fridge need to be refrigerated. 12ºC is a nice temperature for bacteria to flourish. After a couple of hours (2h, I believe), your food should be considered unsafe.
Check if your insurance company covers your losses.
Possible duplicate of How do I know if food left at room temperature is still safe to eat?
Dairy and meats should be tossed to be safe if they were at 55 degrees for more than a few hours in my opinion. When I have difficulty tossing questionable food, I mentally compare the potential cost of a trip to the ER, lost work, and pain/suffering compared to the cost of the food. The decision to toss or not to toss could be compared to the quandary of whether to purchase insurance or just hope there aren't any accidents or disasters.
Remember that cheese does not go bad and is better soft, so do not toss that. Cottage cheese is not really cheese and should be tossed, as well as mayo, salad dressings. Depending on source of your eggs, you may consider discarding. In the US there is high salmonella risk, so eggs should be tossed, unless from your own chickens. Do not toss the butter.
The source of cold for the refrigerator comes from the freezer; it just seems to still be cold since it will take longer to thaw. Rule #1 is do NOT open the doors unless absolutely necessary. You will lose tremendous amounts of cool air each time. If necessary, you may have to unload contents into coolers and pack in ice. If you do that right away with risky food items, may not need to toss a thing. Usually here when the power goes out, it's during a massive storm, so running to town to get bags of ice to pack perishables in is not really an option. But for a temporary mechanical problem, I would definitely run to the store and pack meat, dairy, perishables in ice in coolers, leave the less perishable, and keep the doors shut.
Definitely don't agree about the meat. You should get rid of any raw meat or fish in there no matter what. I would not even trust it after putting ice in there. Milk will likely be spoiled, or it will spoil much sooner than normal, but you can check that yourself. See the FDA's guidelines -"Temporarily" going over 40 degrees F is "okay" but above that, no: http://www.fda.gov/food/resourcesforyou/healtheducators/ucm082294.htm
If a fridge getting warm for any length of time automatically caused meats to become unsafe, it's a wonder that any of us can, you know, shop.
Yes, taking into account your common sense and also the fact that this is coming from a government document so there is liability to be taken into consideration. FWIW I've left out chicken and beef to thaw on the counter all day long and haven't ever been made sick by my own cooking - because I know that I cook everything thoroughly, and maybe also because I've been lucky. But I can't ethically advise anyone to do that, because common sense isn't so common, and situations vary. So you give the most cautious advice in practice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.237767
| 2014-09-07T12:37:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46934",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Cindy",
"Francisco Arrieta",
"Gary Cerreto",
"IconDaemon",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mandrake Button",
"Pat Grohe",
"Paul Watson",
"Road To Seoul",
"Susan Jones",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"moscafj"
],
"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
}
|
30454
|
Can I cook Meringue on tin foil rather than Baking paper?
I am making meringue's and don't have access to baking paper, would tin foil work or could I just grease the tin itself?
Joy of Baking actually recommends using parchment or foil:
... it is a good idea to use parchment paper or aluminum foil to line
your baking sheets, not wax paper, as the meringue will sometimes stick to wax paper.
According to Living Strong:
Next in line for substitutions similar to parchment paper comes
aluminum foil. The flexibility of the aluminum foil allows you to
easily lift the meringues off your baking sheet and gently peel them
away from the foil, individually rather than trying to scrape them off
the pan with a spatula or knife. Just like parchment paper and waxed
paper, aluminum foil cuts down cleaning time by eliminating
the need to scrub your baking sheet.
They also say that if you don't have foil, as a last alternative, you can try spraying the sheet with baking spray (the kind with flour in it), or spray with regular oil spray and then dust with sugar.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.238144
| 2013-01-27T14:32:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30454",
"authors": [
"Amy Lee",
"Empiromancer",
"Hunter Eidson",
"Jacob",
"Valentin Klinghammer",
"William Magyar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71142"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
56555
|
Keeping noodles from absorbing all the soup
I cook in the summer for a week for about 30 people,and we serve buffet-style over the course of about an hour. This summer, my plan is to make lemon chicken orzo soup for one of the meals. However, I've found that if you put the noodles in the soup, they do what noodles do and absorb all the moisture. Because it's buffet-style, though, I'm having difficulty imagining putting the noodles in a separate bowl (which is what I'd normally do) for people to serve themselves, because I suspect they would turn into a starchy, uniform Borg of noodle. Any solutions?
Use a lot of broth. A lot.
Says mikeTheLiar
If it were me, I'd cook the pasta seperately (possibly in some of the broth), and only combine them just before it was to go out in the buffet.
You might also want to take a look at How do canned soup companies keep their noodles from absorbing all the liquid in the can?
That "acid" thing is plain genius :) The more you know ...
Fairly impossible; noodles are thirsty. :)
Ever had a canned soup noodle that wasn't soggy?
Typically the closest you can get is what you mentioned;
Cook noodles VERY al dente with salt and olive oil; 1-2 mins under typical al dente. Then wash with butter and salt (or olive oil).
Serve on side with a light amount of butter and broth mixed in.
Try to use a pasta with durumn or semolina flour.
I like this answer, but it could use a back story or scientific evidence to why. For instance why use durumn wheat or semolina flour noodles; what is it about that type of flour that would help the situation?
Well a couple reactions are going on but the most apparent and simple is the proteins and starches are continually breaking down. Using a harder or higher protein flour will give your pasta a bit more time before becoming mushy. The trade off being the soup broth will get thicker and thicker.
I drain the pasta, then add one stick of butter to coat. Creates a barrier between the pasta and chicken broth.
Bake noodles in oven with butter until brown on a cookie sheet. Works good with a fine spaghetti noodle, does not swell when put in soup
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.238295
| 2015-04-10T13:01:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56555",
"authors": [
"Aidan Tormey",
"Ar3s",
"Beth Johnston",
"Bill Welk",
"Chef_Code",
"Chrystal Johnston",
"Ernie Rokos",
"Ethan Haynes",
"Mary Beshires",
"Moneeza Z Naqvi",
"T. Jefferson",
"User1000547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34845",
"zerobane"
],
"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
}
|
64289
|
How do I make soft caramel for homemade Caramel Apples?
I am making Caramel apples using, brown sugar, butter, vanilla, and condensed milk. The caramel is coming out very thick and sticky to the extreme. How can I make a nice caramel that is not hard to bite into?
Lower the temp you are cooking, you shouldn't be exceeding the softball stage. If you don't have a candy thermometer, you can check this with a glass of ice water. After cooking for 15 minutes, spoon out some caramel and drop the spoon in the ice water. The moment you can roll the caramel into a goopy ball (doesn't have to be perfect, just that you CAN shape it somewhat) then it's just reaches softball stage. If not, wait 5 more minutes and try again with a fresh spoon.
I am using a thermometer and taking caramel off at 230 degrees..soft ball stage. but it has a sugar daddy consistency --what can i add to make it lighter or not so sticky
Try my method, it doesnt use temp it uses behavior as an indicator.
So, how'd it work for you?
Yield: Approximately 1½ cups
Ingredients
Making Caramel - Method 1 (Wet Method)
1 cups (200 grams) granulated sugar
¼ cup (60 ml) water
Making Caramel - Method 2 (Dry Method)
1 cup (200 grams) granulated sugar
For the Caramel Sauce:
Caramel
¾ cup (178 ml) heavy whipping cream
2 tablespoons (28 grams) unsalted butter
½-1 teaspoon salt
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
1 vanilla bean, seeds removed from the pod (optional)
2 tablespoons whiskey (optional)
**
**Instructions**
**
Making Caramel - Method 1 (Wet Method):
Combine sugar and water in a medium saucepan over medium heat. Allow sugar to melt and bring to a boil. Let the mixture caramelize and wait for it to turn dark amber in color. Do not stir, swirl pan as needed to promote even caramelization.
Making Caramel - Method 2 (Dry Method):
Sprinkle sugar evenly on the bottom of a medium saucepan set over medium heat. Allow sugar to melt and caramelize, swirling as necessary to promote even caramelization. Do not stir.
To make the Caramel Sauce:
As soon as the caramel is dark amber in color, immediately remove it from the heat and slowly add the heavy cream while whisking constantly. Caramel will bubble violently.
Return mixture to medium heat and simmer until any clumps have dissolved and
mixture is smooth.
Remove from heat and stir in butter and salt. Add vanilla extract and if desired, vanilla bean and whiskey.
Your sauce uses as much cream as sugar! (And the name already calls it a sauce). Are you sure it is thick enough for caramel apples? I would expect it to be way too runny.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.238643
| 2015-12-10T21:14:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64289",
"authors": [
"Antonino Crincoli",
"Daniel Crossland",
"Escoce",
"Julie Gormley",
"Lety Gomez",
"Mel Dodding",
"Teresa Taylor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho",
"user153294",
"user2387778"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46113
|
Does cooking with solar cookers preserve the nutrients in food?
Reading on google I found that cooking with solar cookers preserves nutrients. But if the solar cooker reaches high temperatures, I don't know if that's true.
Also does solar cooking make the food more nutritious?
No cooking can add nutrients to food. However, cooking does make nutrients more readily available... independent of method. See the answer below.
If you're using solar cooking because you're concerned with radio waves touching your food (and don't see the irony that light is another form of EM radiation) I would recommend that you visit the Space Weather Prediction Center before using your solar cooker.
Also does it modify or make the food more nutritious with solar cooker.
Not more than any other kind of similar cooking by radiant heat, like baking. There is simply no mechanism by which that could happen. Let's examine some claims I found from Google:
from http://www.greenbuild.org/uncategorized/3-reasons-solar-cooking-is-good-for-you-and-the-environment/
Solar cooking doesn’t use smoke that can contain carcinogens or microwaves that expose your food to potentially dangerous radio waves.
An electric stove produces no smoke (if you don't burn the food), and natural gas produces very little smoke. Were there smoke emitted by the stove, the area around it would be covered in soot, and the flame would be yellow from the carbon (the main component of soot and smoke) heated to incandescence in the flame. Further, the biggest cancer risk from smoked foods is not the smoke, but the nitrates frequently used to cure them.
If microwaves emit dangerous radio waves, the sun emits far more. That's why it's so bright, and so hot. I suppose you could be harmed by the microwave's radio waves if you manage to turn it on without shutting the door. Then again, you can cook your hand in a solar cooker, too. Or a stove. Come to think of it, cooking involves potentially dangerous heat. Huh.
Also: Does microwaving destroy nutrients in food? (summary: no more than any other cooking)
Plus, when you cook in a solar appliance, the nutrients stay in the food and don’t leach out. That’s because you don’t use water in solar cooking. And, the temperatures in a solar oven are moderate – around 325 F – so nutrients aren’t destroyed during cooking at a high temperature like on a grill or over an open flame.
This is also true of many other methods of preparing foods: baking, grilling, microwaving, frying and, don't involve water. 325 F is not an unusual temperature for baking, and most other methods can be performed gently, if desired.
To summarize: there may be benefits of solar cooking (a big one: it requires no fuel), but nutrition is not one of them. There's no way sunlight can add more nutrition to food that wasn't there to begin. Any nutritional benefits are not as much from solar cooking specifically as they are from not cooking by some less nutritional method. For example, any cooking method that is not boiling will not have the possibility of dissolving some of the food's nutrition.
solar cooking requires fuel ... of course, it's 93 million miles away, and you don't have to add it yourself.
Uh... I have some issues with wording of some claims in this answer. You cannot answer this question (in my opinion) without discussing the concepts of bioavailabiliy and bioefficacy of nutrients. Heat processing can increase the nutritionally relevant forms of some select nutrients within the food, thus making the food "more accessibly nutritious" potentially. http://m.jn.nutrition.org/content/137/4/1097.long http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf0115589
@LittleWhiteLithe Yes, cooking (or "heat processing" as you call it) can alter the bioavailability of nutrients, and chemically alter food, for better or worse. However, there's nothing special about solar cookers that does this better than any similar method, like baking at similar temperatures.
You categorically state that there is no mechanism by which the solar heat processing could make the food more nutritious, which I feel is not accurate. Tangentially, being outside could(hopefully should) lead to a little endougenous vitamin D synthesis. Vit D status being important for calcium absorption from your food. http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/88/2/541S.full
@LittleWhiteLithe just edited.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.238892
| 2014-08-05T10:17:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46113",
"authors": [
"Anzac Biccy",
"BaffledCook",
"Chris Newman",
"JOHN Looper",
"Joe",
"Little White Lithe",
"Martin",
"Phil Frost",
"Spammer",
"Zafi Shah",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"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
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.