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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
89458
|
Reduce the hot taste in a Cambodian curry
I made a Cambodian curry, but it was too hot! They say dairy is good for cooling hot curries, but this one I made has coconut milk in it. Would it be ok to put cream in it? If so, single or double??
If it is about keeping authenticity, more coconut milk would be the answer. If you just want a toned down but well tasting curry, any emulsified fat - coconut milk, cream, yoghurt - will do, as long as you add it carefully in a way that doesn't make it split and become grainy (so whisk it, add it carefully with the heat turned off). Cream and/or yoghurt would be the authentic addition for a north indian curry.
This is the best answer, just be sure to evaporate the excess liquid from the milk (etc.) too.
I do wonder whether I should have added "...not mayonnaise, of course..." after "any emulsified fat" :)
Don't add anything to the curry itself.
Instead, serve it over steamed rice. The starchy rice will do more to dilute the hot pepper flavor than any liquid you would add to the curry.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.239254
| 2018-04-28T11:01:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89458",
"authors": [
"Jade So",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66642",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90321
|
Do I need the turntable in a combi microwave when using convection mode?
I have question. I bought a microwave oven that has a grill and convection oven function. It comes with a grill rack and turntable.
2 days ago, I tried to cook frozen pizza with the grill rack without the turntable and while it is cook, the center of the pizza is not really cooked. Yesterday I tried frozen fried calamari with the grill rack on the turntable and it doesn't brown as much. I read somewhere that convection oven cooks faster but in my case, it seems slower.
The question I need help with would be do I put the grill rack on top of the turntable while using the convection mode?
So I am not sure if I should cook with the grill rack on or off the turntable.
I hope the moderators will allow me to go off tangent and contribute my own notes of my personal experience. As per your observation,
"...the center of the pizza is not really cooked."
So will other foods you put in to bake in convection mode. It does not work as well as a industrial turntable oven.
So because the center of the cake will cook slower, you probably need to lower the temperature even further and hence a usual size cake may take up to 1-1/2 hours to bake.
Worse for cookies. Those that are lined near the rim of the round baking pan have their outer halves more baked than the inner halves. So at the half way mark of the baking time, I have to take them out and rotate each and every cookie 180º. Since I bake them on three levels, I also switch the bottom tray with the center one as the heat is not even for these two levels.
Lesson learned. I will get a normal oven for my kind of bakes. For anyone out there interested to get a turntable oven, make sure the one you are interested has a blast of heat directing at the center.
You're actually doing better than me with your multi-layer cooking. My top tier of two would be prone to browning too fast on top; the bottom would be only a little quicker than keeping hot. I do find a lot of heat escapes when opening the door so try to avoid doing so (and turn the real oven on for baking)
Mine requires the turntable in all modes. In grill or oven mode there's a metal baking sheet that goes on top, then the (optional) grill rack. Mine applies heat (grill or convection) simultaneously with the microwaves; some alternate the two, which is slower, and preheating is more important.
If you look carefully you'll probably find that the grill element doesn't cover the whole cooking area, so the food needs to keep moving to cook evenly. I find that preheating on convection only, then using a combination mode is very quick, but if the microwave part is set too high the food cooks before it browns. Some foods are best started on combination then finished with just convection to brown them. Convection alone is slower than microwave alone for almost all foods.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.239378
| 2018-06-13T06:46:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90321",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57699
|
What can I add to Splenda solution to prevent spoilage?
Trying to save some money on buying Splenda packets by buying sucralose powder and mixing with water. This works great and is waaaay cheaper - 10x cheaper than buying the packets!
However, after two weeks, I noticed my solution, which I keep in an eye-dropper bottle, developed fungus floaties and so I had to pour the contents of the bottle down the drain.
Can anyone recommend a method of preventing things from growing inside my solution? Is there something people use for this sort of issue? Some kind of available food preservative? Obviously, whatever the solution turns out to be, it has to be safe for human consumption.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Don't they sell liquid splenda or am I missing the point?
Yes, and the cost of the liquid Splenda isn't significantly cheaper than the packets. Bulk sucralose is significantly less expensive. The situation though is no longer about price for me though - I now have a bag of sucralose powder, and I would like to use it somehow - if I bought liquid splenda, I would have to throw away the powder.
Can you simply make smaller batches? If one batch lasts so long, perhaps you should make less at a time... Do you boil the water before you add the splenda? I'm just throwing ideas out there. And if it's that cheap and you're just trying to get rid of it, couldn't you just trash it after a week or so?
The batches I make are small to begin with - 30ml - that's about an ounce of water. I guess I could consider making them smaller, but that's already pretty tiny. I haven't boiled water but I did use distilled water from a bottle to make the batch. And no, I'm not trying to get rid of it - I'd like find a way to not have fungus grow if possible.
Instead of dissolving the powder in water, just invest in a teeny-tiny measuring spoon. Then you can use it just like you'd use sugar, only much less of it.
Good point, but this stuff is 300x sweeter than sugar - I'm not sure one can measure in those amounts. I'll take a look though...
The easiest and best solution for the problem is to not dissolve it into water in the first place. Powdered sweetener keeps indefinitely. Dissolved sweetener falls smack in the middle of FAT TOM, so you have converted a shelf stable food into an unstable one.
Assuming that you want to keep it at room temperature, there is not that much you can do. You can reduce the water, but I don't know enough about the solubility of sucralose, it is possible that it is still susceptible to mold at the saturation point, just like sugar.
You could try acidifying it sufficiently to stop the mold from growing. But then it will taste much less sweet, so you will have to add a much larger amount to your drink, several time the amount you normally use. Alternatively, you can acidify it less and use sodium benzoate as a preservative. It is normally used for industrially produced food, so I cannot suggest the correct ratios of acid to sucralose to sodium benzoate. But note that simply mixing them in any old way won't give you a safe product, you may need industrial recipes for correct usage.
If he uses so little (a drop or two), could he dissolve it in alcohol? For example, some high-alcohol vodka? It'd be similar to a flavorless extract?
That's an interesting thought Catija, thank you!
I had an off-line suggestion to add a little bit of silver to the bottle. Apparently silver has strong anti-microbial properties. I'm trying this now.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.239649
| 2015-05-22T18:04:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57699",
"authors": [
"Amy Stiven",
"Catija",
"Den",
"Eileen Crowley",
"Greg Sherman",
"Marti",
"Michael Farnsworth",
"Saroj Shah",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35667"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8463
|
How long is SPAM really good for?
I wanted to buy some SPAM for my zombie apocalypse survival kit, and I noticed that it had an expiration date in 2013. Should I be concerned? I've heard it will last more than 25 years.
I want a "zombie apocalypse" tag.
As with all can goods, as long as the can has no physical defects (meaning swollen or dented, ectera), the contents should still be good. The date on the outside is mainly a best by date, after which a company will no longer vouch for the contents contained therein.
Some might argue that the contents are already bad...
@Jefromi: I find canned food is often nicer than most other "ready-made" produce. It's been a long time since I had spam, but it's good frittered.
I was reading a book about creating a stockpile. The authors comment was that while older canned food might not be bad for you, the nutritional value is gone as well.
I would find that hard to believe as a canned good lacks the necessary bacteria or enzymes to break down the contents. What would break them down? Where would they go?
The content may not break down, but in many cases cans of food that are left past there shelf life can separate. Oil and Vinegar separate almost instantly, other foods like chili will also separate into different layers given enough time. It would not be surprising if this happens with spam.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.239943
| 2010-10-24T16:10:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8463",
"authors": [
"Beska",
"CaffeineAddiction",
"Cascabel",
"Chris",
"KansasKate",
"Oliver Holmberg",
"Orbling",
"Sobachatina",
"fpcMotif",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60436",
"sarge_smith"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16819
|
Pot selection for fudge
Is there a particular kind/size of pot recommended for making fudge?
Very fluffy indica.
Any kind of shake should do. 1/4 to 1/2 oz
You should use a large, heavy pan with a thick metal base, definitely not non-stick.
Why not non-stick?
@basilard99: Because at the temperature you need for fudge, the non-stick coating tends to break down, in my experience.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.240109
| 2011-08-12T00:51:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16819",
"authors": [
"Amateur Rice Cooker",
"Brh",
"Hey",
"Megan Frankie",
"Vicky",
"Zippy84",
"basilard99",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35911",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6260",
"kasperd",
"mfg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32839
|
Thai noodle dish with peanuts
When I lived in Thailand many years ago, I used to love a fried noodle dish with fresh peanuts on top that was called something that sounded like “goytio hang”. I never saw it spelled in English (or Thai) so I have no idea how to search for a recipe. Can anyone help with the name?
Kuai-tiao haeng ?
Perhaps you are referring to guay teow haeng sukhothai (ก๋วยเตี๋ยวแห้งสุโขทัย). It has peanuts on it and it's not pad thai (ผัดไท่ย). Unfortunately, a search using English does not yield a recipe. Lucky for you I can read Thai. Here is a translation of the ingredients list posted in Thai at Chompoo Kitchen.
snake beans, sliced diagonally
cabbage, trimmed
bean shoots
thin rice noodles
crispy fried garlic
fish sauce
salted white radish, finely chopped
roasted bird pepper powder
roasted peanuts, ground
white sugar
parsley, chopped
lime wedge
deep fried dumpling or pork rinds
Along with that they give a recipe for the braised pork
5 coriander roots, can substitute coriander seeds
30 cloves of asian garlic (small cloves)
1 teaspoon green peppercorns
(almost) 1 tablespoon hoisin sauce
(almost) 1 tablespoon fermented soybean sauce (not soy sauce)
5 cups water
500g pork sirloin, 2 inches thick, leave whole
300g pork skin
1/2 cup white sugar
3 teaspoons salt
light soy sauce as seasoning
Method for sliced pork
Roughly crush coriander root (or seeds), garlic, green peppercorns to form a paste then add it to a cooking pot
Pour in the water and add the pork and pork skin then put the pot on a medium heat
Bring it to the boil, reduce the heat to low, season with the white sugar, salt, hoisin sauce and soybean sauce
Adjust the seasoning with the light soy sauce and allow to simmer
When cooked and still soft remove the pork and pork skin from the pot and allow to cool
Slice the pork and pork skin, place in a container ready for serving time
Method for completing the dish
In a pot bring water to a boil then add the noodles, cook until al dente then remove them and put them aside
Combine the crispy fried garlic with a little vegetable oil and then combine that with all the pork
Blanch the snake beans, bean shoots and cabbage for a few seconds making sure they are still crispy.
Add the vegetables to the noodles followed by the pork, vegetables, bird pepper powder, peanuts, salted radish, parsley, lime wedge and fried dumpling wrappers
Enjoy
Serves 4 people
You'll find a stack of photos on the original recipe page to help you along.
I found a list on Wikipedia ... maybe this will help.
Thanks Joe and Diana. Joe, you hit the nail on the head. And Diana your list was terrific, though Kuai-tiao haeng was, unfortunately, not on it. but from the looks of it, it's a generic street food, so everyone probably makes it differently.
Just to answer to your speculation, people do make it differently. Kuai-tiao literally means noodle dish and Haeng means "dry" or without soup. The most common street food version with peanuts is probably egg noodle with bean sprouts, fish balls, roast pork, ground pork, and scallions. Enjoy the images at https://www.google.com/search?q=บะหมี่แห้ง&tbm=isch
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.240215
| 2013-03-19T22:40:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32839",
"authors": [
"Alastair Murray",
"Craig Faustus Buck",
"Joe",
"Nawajish",
"Terry",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75938",
"jerrygarciuh",
"puri",
"stevenl"
],
"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
}
|
27302
|
Toasting spices with and without oil
After heading to my trusty Indian market yesterday I was speaking with the owner about how awful fenugreek seeds are uncooked. He suggested (with black mustard seeds and cumin seeds) to throw them in the pan with a little bit of oil. I've read much about people extolling how good the dry heat is for the spices. Personal experience tells me that adding oil to the pan works better. Does cooking with oil change the flavor of a spice while toasting? Are there any spices that it is important to toast without oil?
Oil is dry heat. It contains no water.
why might you posit that some people advocate toasting with vs. without oil (if it makes any difference to you)
I think it is mostly preferential as you can toast either way. Using oil can be tricky though as there is a fine line between toasting with oil and frying your spices. An article I found boasts using no oil which I like. There is also a list of spices that benefit from Spice Toasting. I do believe toasting with oil can change or influence the flavor depending on the oil used.
this is along the lines of what i was getting at. of course there is no moisture in cooking oils, but outside of mustard seeds most things i read about seem to advocate using solely heat and no oil.
That article just says not to use oil, but doesn't say why - there are no claims that it has any effect on the resulting flavor. And I'm not sure why you say oil is tricky with respect to toasting vs frying; as Sobachatina says, generally all the oil does is distribute flavor and keep you from burning stuff. Finally, sure, if you use an oil with flavor, it'll contribute that flavor - but most Indian cooking uses ghee, with vegetable oil as a substitute, so I don't think that's a huge issue here.
Indian recipes seem to always call for oil.
Non Indian recipes seem to always call for dry (or don't toast at all- yuk).
In my personal experience (mostly mustard, cumin, fenugreek, coriander)- dry toasting calls for more of my attention. I have to have an appropriate temperature, agitate the seeds, and watch for the telltale aroma to know when they are done. If I don't pay enough attention to any of those then they will scorch and be horrible.
With oil I have more leeway. The seeds don't need to be agitated as much after they are coated with oil and they pop audibly when they are done. It may be my imagination but the oil itself seems to distribute the flavor of the seeds better as well.
I have scorched dry toasted seeds on occasion when I was distracted. I have never had oil toasted spices not turn out perfectly.
i don't think it's your imagine. since the essential oils of the plant are fat soluble it makes since that the normal convection of the heating oil would help to circulate the flavor more evenly. plus you get the added bonus of some of that flavor being imparted so you can use your oil as a base for a sauce. hm...i think i might make a fenugreek voloute which i get home tonight.
Oil also makes it a lot faster. The heat transfer is more efficient than it is with hot air, and it's more uniform, so you can quickly, evenly cook the spices.
For one of my spice mix recipes, I toast the spices on a pre-heated baking sheet in the oven to make sure they get toasted evenly and consistently.
Toasting spices with oil will make it a "Tadka" that is added to Dal or vegetable to make them spicy,on the other hand dry roating the spices is generally done to bring out the aroma, the spices agr generally powdered right after dry roasting them to use in small quantities
That's a good point -- if you're going to be grinding the spices, oil would be problematic.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.240828
| 2012-09-20T17:58:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27302",
"authors": [
"BugKiller",
"Cano64",
"Cascabel",
"I answer wrong - have fun",
"Iain Davey",
"Jerrilyn",
"Joe",
"Rajib",
"Rohit Borah",
"YinWai Tse",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"wootscootinboogie"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18941
|
In my new mixer, my bread dough gets wrapped around the kneading hook. What should I do?
I just got a new stand mixer - a nice, heavy 500W mixer with a 5-liter bowl.
Until now, I'd been making bread by hand and kneading it on the countertop.
So the first thing I tried was using the mixer with the kneading hook, but I find that the dough tends to get wrapped around the hook and just spins around along with it.
I guess I'm doing something wrong, but I'm not sure if it's my technique or my ingredients. I'm using the same bread recipes as I did before. Any ideas?
Edit:
Thanks for all the input, guys. Here's some more info:
The mixer is a Kenwood KMix KMX-50.
I've tried adjusting the height of the dough hook up and down, I'm not sure how far from the bowl's surface it should be. Any suggestions? I don't think
I doubt it's a volume/quantity issue - I'm using a kilo of flour, which is around the 1.3kg bread weight limit of the spec.
I mix at low speed.
I'll try Sobachatina's suggestion and try to add water. Let's see how it turns out. Thanks for all your suggestions!
Maybe it's too little dough for the bowl, so it's not catching on the sides enough to pull at it? Seems like the answer would then be smaller bowl or more dough. (I don't have a stand mixer.)
Do you have the C-hook dough hook or the spiral?
Does the dough hit the sides of the bowl at all?
I have a little rubber bung that goes where the attachment is inserted, this prevents the dough climbing the hook. Don't suppose it came with one of those?
@Gary - it doesn't climb as high as that, but there is a flat metal ring that blocks the attachment connector.
A kilo of flour produces much more than 1.3 kg dough. Standard, easy-to-work-with dough will use 600 ml of water per kg flour. So if you actually make 1.6 kg dough, you are overloading the mixer. If you use 1 kg flour and 300 ml water, your dough is way too hard.
Looks like @rumtscho's got a point there, otherwise I'd say that if the dough sticks to the pigtail, it's done. So, unless it's obviously not-done, it might actually be done :-)
Ah HA! That could be it! @rumtscho I'll definitely have to try that.
I HAVE only been using ~300ml water, since that's what my recipes have called for, and I've only been working them by hand until now.
@BaffledCook - the issue is that it climbs up the hook as the flour gets sucked into the mix. It never gets kneaded at any point.
I mix dough in my kitchenAide all the time, and this happens all the time, so through the process I check the consistency and dryness and I've developed a feel for the "just right formula", but being ADHD I don't go in with precise measurements each time, but that would be a good idea once perfection is found. So anywho, I take a strong spatula from time to time and cut it of the hook, to give it a nice restart with hook on outside of dough ball. but your dough needs to be dry enough that it is cleaning itself off the bowl and it will the hook too. It's designed to find that perfect balance so that it starts wet and sticky and then as the gluten starts to web it becomes self cleaning, and the kneading is drying it a little or maybe the material is absorbing the liquid, either way it goes from dry to wet. Another thing I do if the hook is wrapped in dough instead of working against the sides, I briefly turn up the speed and that will throw the dough to the sides and sometimes clean it.
I think I finally found a solution, which worked for me:
I started with @monte-hill's notes about how the dough is too wet, causing it to stick, and added something I learned elsewhere.
My mistake was that I was dumping all the liquids into the mixing bowl right at the start.
The best solution I found that works is to GRADUALLY add the liquids. I put a about half plus a bit extra in the bowl at the start, then start the mixer. Once all the fluid has been absorbed, I add the rest. I've tried this a couple of times already, and it's made a complete difference in the results and the process!
Good point. Reinhart (a known bread author) actually suggests using a paddle for mixing and only changing to a hook after the dough has come together.
@Rumtscho- that sounds like advice from someone who doesn't have to wash the dishes when he's done.
I have this same mixer (love it) and I do the oposite. I start with all the liquids in the bowl and gradually add the dry ingredients.
There are two main reasons that this will happen. Not enough dough and not enough water.
When making bread dough by hand you want drier dough so that it can be conveniently worked. You also don't want to be elbow deep in dough so it's nicer to make smaller batches.
On the other hand, when using a stand mixer the dough needs to be softer and deep enough to make good contact with the side of the bowl.
The dough in your mixer should be dry enough to pull away from the sides of the bowl and leave the sides relatively clean. It should remain wet enough to stay very soft and tacky to the touch. As a plus- the wetter dough will result in a much nicer consistency for your bread as well.
Play with your recipe until you find a consistency and volume that your mixer will handle well. Each time I have acquired a new mixer I have had to adjust my bread recipe for it.
I'm not sure it's a quantity issue. The spec for the mixer says 1.3kg of dough is the limit, and I use a kilo of flour, so it should be about right.
Did you mix using high speed?
Using a relative low speed will reduce the likelihood of the dough to wrap around the hook.
I only tried at low speeds.
You are not doing anything wrong. I had the dough climbing problem with my 25 year old Kitchen Aid. King Arthur sells KA mixers (and uses it) and they suggested kneading that particular batch by hand. I tried everything. I switched to Kitchen Aid approved bread recipes. I invested in the newer KA dough hook and I had the bowl balanced and I still had dough climbing the hook. Finally, after much research, I bought an Ankarsrum mixer.
With the Ankarsrum I have had zero problems with dough climbing the dough hook. The paddle works fine on highest hydration dough (and with lower hydration dough too) under 8 cups of flour. The hook takes over on the big batches. It is a pleasure to watch the dough stream off the end of the hook safely back into the bowl. The KA is better for creaming cold hard butter and making cookie dough. The Ankarsrum is better at kneading bread dough and the machines are matched doing everything else. You need another machine or to kneed by hand.
Bosch Universal has a strong fan base with bakers too but I have heard some complaints about dough climbing with that machine too.
I add all the water but only about 3/4 of the flour and let the hook do most of the kneading that way.
Then when I add the rest of the flour a little at a time the dough starts to climb.
But I'm okay with it then because stopping to pull it off the hook occasionally gives me a chance to feel the dough.
When the dough nearly falls off the hook by itself-- it's ready.
It seems like less strain on the motor too for the first part of the kneading action.
Start with the liquid ingredients first including yeast and sugars but leave out the salt.
Mix the salt with the flour.
Start the machine on low and add just enough flour/salt to create a thick batter.
Mix until smooth at least 3 minutes then add the remaining flour a little at a time until the dough climbs the hook. Your dough is done.
I think this is a problem of the mixer itself. I have never had a stand mixer, but my old no-name hand mixer had exactly the same problem. My new Bosch hand mixer is great for dough.
Before I bought the Bosch, I read not only test magazines, but also customer reviews at Amazon and others, and one thing they mentioned is that it has the "power" to knead the dough, so it doesn't climb up the hooks like with other mixers. From what I understand about mixers, it isn't only the power (although the 500W number probably doesn't mean the same thing across brands - is this input power, output power, is it under load, is it average or maximum power, etc.?) but mostly the torque. Two different motors can output the same power with different torque, and if the torque isn't enough, the hook won't be able to go through the dough.
The best way to recognize if that is what is happening is to listen at what happens with the dough. When you whip something easy, like cream, you hear an even humming from the motor. With dough, if the mixer can't handle it, the hooks rotate slower, and the humming is different. With a hand mixer, you can even hear the change in tone and feel the slowing if you press the hooks into the dough. I don't know how you can imitate it with the stand mixer, maybe use a non-fixed big bowl and try to move the bowl so the dough gets pressed against the hooks. If they slow and the motor growls, it is just not strong enough.
I too have found that adding liquid gradually eases problem, but does not eliminate it.
The dough does not get tossed around in bottom of bowl by the hook as it should, but clings to hook and only minimal kneading is happening.
The issue is the bowl not being wider, and so the hook also needs to be slim elongated and screw like, not wide and to side of bowl like professional mixers. I used Hobart mixers in school. Expensive and big, but never this problem regardless of dough consistency and amount.
This is a design issue, not a cost issue, I believe. Pro mixers cost a lot for build quality and longeivity of life. They do not cost a lot for having right bowl and hook design.
I have heard of people spraying the hook down with non-stick spray before using it. That might help.
This only works if you have an initial very wet dough that will start to hydrate as it mixes. I've tried it many a time and it never seems to help much past the first 30 seconds or so.
Nothing will stop dough sticking to the hook.You will have to stop the process regularly and "cut" off the dough witha wooden/plastic spatula. Let the mixer do the hard work but finish off by hand fora couple if minutes. I have done the experiments . I usually work to 1kg flour to 600ccs water. The yeast/oil/sugar/salt seems to matter very little to the stickiness.....what DOES matter is how fast the yeast works in the mixer and so I now leave out the yeast, I am using fresh, and crumble it in just before my 2 minutes hand kneading. If it works too quickly in the mixer the dough will always get too sticky. Fresh yeast needs a good long rise, even overnight, BUT ( purists will scream) I let it rise in its final baking repository and never knock it back.
Basically, single dough hooks on a single drive do not work. You just have to accept it!
Best,
tectak
There are other answers to the question that give tricks to avoid that stickiness. Can you explain why you sat nothing will stop sticking?
Yeasts will work faster depending on the quantity you add. Putting less yeast will make dough rise less quickly. 1 part of fresh yeast has the same effect as 1/3 of dry one.
I have this problem too and I did 2 things which solved this problem entirely.
First I adjusted the bowl height. You can find about how to do it in the instruction booklet that comes with the machine or find some youtube video. It's very easy and you only need a screwdriver.
Secondly, I used a higher speed when I knead, like a speed 3.
Hope this will help~
Jono,
If the mixer you have is a Kitchen Aid, I suspect that the issue is poor alighnment of the dough hook with the bowl. According to a Kitchen Aid sales rep I spoke to about this, if you get the exact right bowl height (by adjusting the screws) then this problem gets much better. However, I have tried this and not been successful; I suspect that the angle may need adjusting as well, and the KA doesn't give you any way to adjust that.
Swap the two hooks over. you have them the wrong way around. No joke, I can't believe nobody here has mentioned this.
Most stand mixers use a single hook. Still, it's a good thing to try if it's a handheld mixer. It won't help in all, or even most, cases, but sometimes it is indeed the reason.
Yeah, I've never met a stand mixer that had two hooks, and this question is pretty clearly about a stand mixer.
And note that not all mixers handle thtis switch well - you might damage your machine.
Your mixer is not good enough for bread. A good bread mixer has a sprial with a braker bar in the middle, but this is not cheap.
I've seen professional bread mixer and they actually have a breaker bar. Also, the bowl's bottom is less rounded, which helps keeping the dough away from the hook.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.241356
| 2011-11-14T07:00:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18941",
"authors": [
"Anaphory",
"Ashley Roush",
"BaffledCook",
"Cara",
"Cascabel",
"Claudia",
"Croves",
"Daniel E",
"David Perdue",
"David Phipps",
"Debra Wensauer",
"Gary",
"Ian",
"J.A.I.L.",
"James Bone",
"John",
"Jono",
"Kristen Lemon Olgren",
"Margaret McClean",
"Marti",
"Melissa Anderson",
"Sobachatina",
"Stephie",
"THE JOATMON",
"Tim Fletcher",
"aechchiki",
"algiogia",
"emmabee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41094",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79259",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho",
"user1040975"
],
"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
}
|
13180
|
What happened, when I boiled this pot dry?
I started boiling water in a small, stainless steel, copper-bottom pot. Old story: I forgot about it, the water boiled away, and the pot spent a couple hours on maximum heat from my electric stove.
I noticed it as I sat reading: a funny smell was coming from the pot, not unlike the smell of burning plastic. I opened the pot and saw the bottom covered with this dark grey matter that doesn't wash easily. What could it be?
Then, while washing the pot, the nice dark copper color seemed to wash away. Now I have this. What happened, here?
Lastly, now I have white spots on my cooktop where the pot sat. What could these be?
The first photo is of mineral deposits left behind when you boiled your water away. If you water is really hard (full of minerals) you may get these even in normal use. Barkeeper's Friend cleaner and some hard work can remove it.
The second photo is showing that you actually managed to clean the dark oxidation off some of the bottom, but not all of it. When copper is really clean (free of oxidation) it's quite bright and pinkish or orange. The way your pot was before, it had a fairly even layer of oxidation, which makes the copper brown. You could either clean it all the way--again, barkeeper's friend is a good bet--or leave it and it will soon be brown again.
The last one I'm just guessing about. I think it is probably mineral deposits too, if there was water underneath the pot, or if if boiled over. I do not know if something like Barkeeper's Friend would be appropriate for your cooker, though. It could also be oxidation or staining from the pot--something on the pot that burned off and left a residue or discolored the surface. It's also possible that the hot pot actually damaged the surface, in which case the discoloration may be permanent.
In any case, your pot is not damaged if the bottom is still flat (sometimes overheated pots warp). Cleaning it will make it look nicer, but none of the things you're seeing are likely to have an impact on how it cooks.
I mostly agree, though having a much darker spot on the bottom of the pan will tend to produce something of a hot spot, because it'll absorb more heat from the burner.
That spot on the inside may actually be from overheating the stainless, which does discolor at high enough temperatures. Also, vinegar will usually remove hard water deposits. Be glad it wasn't an aluminum bottom (or core), that may have melted.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.242389
| 2011-03-16T11:26:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13180",
"authors": [
"Andrew Grothe",
"Jennifer Bye-Holloway",
"Mark Bessey",
"Tenway Norsing",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27327",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5311",
"vg123"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125946
|
Butternut, spaghetti, or acorn squash, which is the best substitute for pumpkin in pumpkin pie?
I want to try making a pumpkin pie for Christmas (hopefully third time's the charm) but I might not find a pumpkin before then, so I might use a squash instead. Which squash is best for pie out of those listed?
Um…is this the wrong time to mention that pumpkin is a squash?
Spaghetti-squash pie might be good for Halloween - Go on, have a slice, you eat the pie, the "worms" eat you
The pumpkin that constitutes the majority of canned pumpkin purée is the Dickinson pumpkin. However, it’s not a staple in supermarkets during the year and unless you got your hands on it on a farmers market, you’ll probably have to grow them yourself.
There are two rather closely related alternatives that, like the Dickinson, stem from the Cucurbita moschata family, and both are very much appreciated in kitchens around the world and easier to get:
The butternut squash, which should be easy to get in stores both in the US and Europe, and the Musquée de Provence, more common in Europe than the US iirc., which would be my preferred choice.
Both give you a rather dry purée with plenty of sweetness and flavor. And if the fruit is ripe, the color is a deep orange.
This could also be a reason if your previous attempts failed due to a too wet filling: the carving pumpkins are significantly wetter and can potentially ruin your crust or don’t set enough with the standard amount of binding agent.
I know why the first two times failed (the first time was exactly the reason stated) second time it tasted sweet enough raw but after cooking it it lost its sweetness
Melissa Clark from the NYT claims that either Butternut or Acorn will work: https://archive.nytimes.com/dinersjournal.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/the-squash-you-should-use-in-pumpkin-pie/
Out of those listed, I would say butternut...but why not go sweet potato or yam?
Because then it wouldn't be a pumpkin pie? Probably still tasty but different food.
It's not going to be a pumpkin pie regardless.
@FuzzyChef Dickenson pumpkin, which is the variety used in Libby's canned pumpkin pie, is actually a squash, not a pumpkin, and it is closely related to butternut squash. Butternut squash is mostly indistinguishable from pumpkin in pies. I would still call that a pumpkin pie.
I'm not sure that the statement "a squash, not a pumpkin" makes any botanical sense. Or, for that matter, culinary. The definition of "pumpkin" is "a Cucurbitaceae that's round and orange".
@FuzzyChef I'd call a white pumpkin a pumpkin
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.242644
| 2023-11-28T00:58:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125946",
"authors": [
"Dave",
"Ecnerwal",
"Esther",
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"quarague"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124049
|
Why is my cake not rising
I have been cooking this cake for years. Recently, it rises, but not as high as it used to. It's about a half inch lower. I use 2 Duncan Hines butter golden cake mixes, 8 eggs, 1 cup of oil and 16 oz sour cream. I bake at 350 degrees for 30-35 minutes. I do put my cake higher in the oven because I don't want the bottom to be dark, could that be the problem?
Do you have an oven thermometer to verify that your oven is still producing good heat?
What has changed since you baked it successfully?
Could it be shrinkflation, i.e. has the quantity in the box been silently reduced?
Check the date on the mix. If its near expiry the raising agents could be losing strength. Or could be that Duncan Hines have changed their recipe?
Most ‘use by’ dates go well beyond when the food would actually have an issue. Getting near the date shouldn’t be an issue unless you’re in an extreme climate area. If it were years past the date, then you might have issues
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.242891
| 2023-04-29T18:12:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124049",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Marti",
"Pete Becker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"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
}
|
49468
|
Kebab cooking rules
What are rules about cooking lamb and chicken doner kebab? How many times can the spit be put in the fridge, then cooked again the next day? I have been to a kebab shop where the cook put a huge lamb vertical doner spit in front of the grill, totally frozen. He told me it would take about 20 mins till ready. I asked how many times he puts it back in the fridge. He replied, "Until it's all gone."
Kebab vans are known for being less hygienic than they could (should) be.
also in the food industry you can mimic, generate and cover the taste of pretty much whatever you want . Beef gets a lot of alterations in many many cases for all kinds of reasons .
ONCE ONLY
I am sure rules will vary depending on country etc and which jurisdiction and laws apply.
In England my country reheating a kebab would not be recommended *, although even as a customer it is possible to visit shops at opening time and observe that a part used Kebab has been loaded. Reheating it a second time is forbidden *.
Local Councils (District Councils etc.[D.C.]) enforce food safety, in accordance with National Regulations. Taking some random councils and their advice
Hambleton D.C. Good Practice
Keeping part used kebabs or leftover sliced
meat is not recommended. It is safer to use
fresh doner kebabs each day, and minimise
waste by selecting smaller sized blocks of
meat that suit the demands of your business. ...
When re-heating part used doner kebabs
make sure the vertical spit is on full heat and
the cooked meat is above +75 ̊C
Brighton & Hove City Council Prepare and cook doner kebabs safely
throw away any meat you’ve sliced or left on the doner kebab when you close, do not cook or reheat it
keep your doner kebabs as small as possible to avoid food waste
Ahfield D.C. Safe Preparation and cooking of Kebabs
Partly cooked meat which is left on the kebab must be thrown away as it [sic]food poisoning bacteria may be present
Raw meat on the spit must be cooled quickly within 1½ hours and put in the refrigerator away from other foods - stored in the bottom of the fridge so raw juices cannot drip onto cooked and ready to eat foods
* reheating a kebab would not be recommended
You can see Council advice may differ slightly. There are set rules on times and temperature and regulations saying these must be logged. In addition there is Health and Safety legislation requiring Risk Assessments. It appears some councils decide the safest method is to throw it all away at end of Service. Whereas others seem to accept all protocols will be rigorously followed, and there will be no cross contamination between batches of meats so uncooked meat may be frozen or chilled until the next day.
* Reheating it a second time is forbidden
No wiggle room on that one. Anyone with just the most basic hygiene training knows we are only allowed to reheat once.
[National] F.S.A https://www.food.gov.uk/business-guidance/cooking-safely-in-your-business?
Reheating food
It is very important to reheat food properly to kill harmful bacteria that may have grown since the food was cooked.
Reheating means cooking again, not just warming up. Always reheat food until it is steaming hot all the way through. You can only reheat your food once.
If you really want to be technical, your lamb, chicken or any type of meat on a skewer or spit, vertical or horizontal, should be cooked and served fresh. At that point in time it is nice and juicy. The more you play with the meat, meaning leaving it to sit out, either being warmed or not, for hours, then putting it back in the fridge, is not good for a persons health, the health department does have problems with it, people do get sick, and although it is a practice with food vendors, the meat is tough, dry and is served doctored up with sauces, salsas or dressings to hide the inferior quality and taste of the meat, which is now old and not fresh. Think of it like this. How long do you let your meat stay outside after you eat it, put it in the fridge, take it out, cook it, or warm it up, and let's say, do it for 5 or 7 days? Not too appealing. Eat fresh, and leftovers next day, garbage day after.
I don't think this is really a complete answer; the basic rule of food safety is time in the danger zone. If you hold food hot enough, it's not dangerous, and if it's something that can tolerate long slow cooking, it's not going to hurt it. Not everything gets tough and dry after long cooking.
Kebab or skewered lamb or chicken does not take that long to cook. It is not a long slow cook process. Even with meats that are piled up known as "swarma" are already cooked and recooked. The danger zone is that with the product of kebab, my experience is that we have not let it sit out but cooked it, served it, and stored it. In our business we never let any food stay out. We cooked, served and if the patrons wanted to take home, whether it was catering or restaurant, that was their choice.
Sorry, food gets old sitting out, that is the danger zone and one takes a risk leaving the food out, reheating it, cooling it, and so forth
Yes, reheating and cooling is risky. What I'm saying is that some things aren't cooled and reheated, they're kept hot continuously, and that's safe. There are simple rules to tell how much you can get away with before it's not safe, and you haven't really mentioned them in your answer. You've just said vague things like the health department having problems with it... eventually.
I agree with you completely regarding keeping food hot continuously like a chafing dish or a steamer. This could even mean kebab. What I was specifically speaking about was kebab meat that is continuously turning on a spit layered, the heat turned on and off, hot and cold, heated to order. That was how I interpreted the question and answered it. The question had to do with "kebab" lamb and chicken, and a spit. The nature of "kebab" is skewered meat, and just to make sure, I made calls to my family and friends to make sure and my uncle, who is in his 90's from the "old country", said yes.
If any meat is heated correctly then its fine to eat.
I would be less likely to trust a quiet shop however.
As the busy ones turn over 2-3 lamb donners a day min.
I never buy from a chippy that has a token spit.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.243045
| 2014-11-02T19:20:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49468",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Christopher Berilla",
"Evelyn MARSHALL",
"Ig Danyl",
"JULIANAH ODUKOYA",
"June Richards",
"Rosemary Greene",
"Sally Holmes",
"Tim",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33210",
"user2485710",
"user33210"
],
"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
}
|
60238
|
What temperature to scramble eggs?
We switched from an electric stove to a gas stove. The new stove doesn't seem to get hot enough to scramble eggs.
How hot should the pan surface be to scramble eggs? All the recipes I've found just say "heat until hot".
EDIT: I measured my pan with an IR thermometer, it never got above 260F, is that too cold for eggs?
I believe that this question may address some of your thoughts.
your stove might have a problem.
First off, measuring the temperature of an empty pan will only tell you so much. That temperature is a result of the balance of your stove putting heat into the pan and the pan transferring that heat to the surrounding air, which means it depends on the pan, and as soon as you put anything in the pan the temperature is going to change. (See also What temperatures do low-medium-high on the stove correspond to?.)
So, 260F is certainly hot enough to scramble eggs. They'll be fully cooked by around 160F, though at that point they might be a bit softer than you're used to. But the fact that the pan only reaches 260F really suggests that the stove isn't putting much heat into the pan, so once you add eggs to the pan, it might take an awfully long time for them to get hot enough to cook.
And a stove that can only heat an empty pan to 260F sounds like incredibly low power. Most stoves can easily get empty pans up to at least 400-500F. You might want to see if you can get the stove repaired or replaced.
I made some measurements with an IR probe:
At 135 to 140 Celsius (275-285 Fahrenheit) I get a decent result. However, it seems it would be even better with a slightly lower temperature. So 130 Centigrade or 265-270 Fahrenheit ought to give a good result.
There are two main types of scrambled egg: The omelet style and the cream/custard/hospital style
For the first see Better Scrambled Eggs , you can cook it at a bit below maximum stove heat, but that's not as flavoursome or fun in my book
For the cream/custard style, it's a medium stove top heat (no exact figure), but check with Mr Ramsay?
Temperature is only half the equation. Different kinds of metal will transfer heat at different rates. For example, a copper skillet will transfer heat differently than a cast iron skillet.
When water is drizzled on a skillet it should dance and spatter, but should not steam. If it bubbles, it is too cool. If it steams, it is too hot.
The key to making good scrambled eggs is to mix constantly and not let the egg dry out. As you mix the egg using a hard-edged spatula the mass should glisten slightly and appear moist, but not slimy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.243705
| 2015-08-25T03:15:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60238",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Gary Knutson",
"Jeff Coppola",
"Kevin S",
"Kris D",
"Max",
"Muammer Özgümüş",
"S W",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128"
],
"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
}
|
80748
|
What is the impact of opening the oven door?
I enjoy baking and really love the smell. When the cake is about halfway done, I like to open the door to let the scent waft out.
Does opening the door for a second have any impact on the cake itself?
(The cake is a basic Victoria sponge if it makes a difference.)
+1, I'd love to see some good answers on this too! I've always heard that "you shouldn't", but nobody could ever tell me why.
It makes a big difference what you are baking as to how much impact opening the door will have. A victoria sponge does not have any chemical leavening agents in it, all the lift you get comes from the expansion of air and moisture from the heat of the oven. When you open the oven door you let in cold air and lose some of your moist, hot air. Worst case is that the cold air could cause the cake to contract or possibly even collapse, best case is that you lose some of your lift and get a denser cake. The moisture loss makes a hard crust form sooner, constraining the lift of your cake and/or making the crust thicker and tougher. It works the same way for bread. Cakes/pastries which are chemically leavened are a bit less sensitive but they still get part of their leavening from the expansion of air.
Some things are much more sensitive to the door opening than others, opening the door too early with popovers and yorkshire puddings is a great way to ruin them, for example. Opening the door after yorkshire puddings stop rising helps them form a better crunch (that's possibly controversial, some say a crunchy yorkie is heresy). Cornbread is less sensitive, I've opened the oven plenty of times when I'm baking that in the oven with other things and it's always come out well because it's relatively dense to begin with.
There are a few cases where opening the oven door is beneficial early or mid-way through the process, one being bagels. Because bagels are boiled in water before being baked their structure is pretty fixed before they go into the oven, so opening the oven halfway through won't hurt, in fact I've found that a quick opening of the door can help form a better crust on them. When baking focaccia I often open the door and spray water into the oven to keep the crust from forming too quickly.
So in general it's good advice to keep the oven door closed as long as you can when baking most types of cakes, pastries, and bread. Once a crust forms and the rise stops it's safer to do, but limit it if possible to prevent uneven baking.
Great answer, but Yorkshires should be crunchy/crisp on the outside and fluffy on the inside.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.243949
| 2017-04-08T19:49:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/80748",
"authors": [
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79215
|
How long can uncooked brisket be refrigerated after defrosting?
I purchased a vac packed piece of brisket from Aldi a week ago. I froze it a day after buying, then thawed it in the fridge 2 days ago until it felt soft to touch. I opened the pack, washed it under faucet, patted it dry with paper towel and covered in rich crust of spices. I don`t really feel anymore like cooking it today, and would prefer to do it tomorrow. Am I running a risk here of having this piece of meat spoil or develop something nasty while it sits in the fridge (not vac packed anymore, but still) for the 3rd day in a row?
I believe 3-5 days is the basic guidance for keeping raw, defrosted whole cuts of meat in the refrigerator (See FoodSafety.gov). Packaging has nothing to do with this. Temperature is critical (below 40F...and colder is always better). I would say you are fine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.244164
| 2017-03-17T11:09:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79215",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115604
|
Aside from saving gas or electricity, why cover the pot?
There are some recipes that insist that you have to cover the pot when cooking. For example, in this video recipe for Bolognese sauce (at 7:36).
I understand that this might save gas or electricity by reducing heat loss. But does it serve any other purpose?
I do not consider it to be essential for the food not drying up, since you can leave the pot uncovered and just add a bit more water at the beginning, or add water at the end if you notice that too much has evaporated.
The only thing I can think about is that this might increase the humidity inside the pot, and perhaps the steam will help cook the food or change the flavor somehow. If this is true, what types of food would benefit from cooking with the lid on in terms of flavor?
PS: This is related to Why not cover the pot? but not the same.
Text version of above video, for those who prefer to read - https://www.vincenzosplate.com/recipe-items/bolognese-sauce/
@Tetsujin In the video, he mentions that it's important to cover the pot. That seems to be missing from the text version.
I'm afraid I can't be held responsible for inconsistencies ;) I also absolutely can never be bothered to watch a 15 minute video of something I can read & comprehend in little more than 30 seconds.
@Tetsujin It's not really an inconsistency. He just emphasizes covering the pot less in the text.
It retains heat & steam pressure, so you achieve a simmer or even a boil with less power input & less water loss.
Great for long-cook sauces. Not so good for starchy things which may boil over if you're not careful, or have the pan too full.
As with most things, familiarity with how your stove/pan/lid combination reacts to a slow simmer will determine how well this works for you. If your stove won't drop low enough, you'll burn things, or need to get a simmer ring to reduce the risk. If you tend top make things too wet, you need to adjust over time.
Making anything to an online recipe needs you to be fully aware of how your own kitchen responds to wet/dry/timings. I don't think I ever blindly follow a recipe, I modify to how it needs to turn out based on my own experience with similar ingredients/quantities.
If I guess wrong, then I'm reducing sauce in a flat panic over the last 10 mins… not a good feeling, but familiarity breeds content ;))
There was at one time folk wisdom that said, "if it grows above ground, lid off, if it grows below ground, lid on"… which I have pretty much ignored for most of my adult life.
Sure, potatoes boil best with the lid on, as you obviously retain the heat, but I'm pretty sure I've never boiled a leafy vegetable in 20 years, I steam them… incidentally using the 'spare' steam from my lid-on potatoes.
I was aware of less power input and less water loss. But I think that the less water loss is not an issue since you can just add water. So it's only about less power input, assuming that your kitchen can handle both and the food will not boil over?
It's about knowing before you start how much water you need, how your stove heats so you don't burn anything; so once you put the lid on you don't need to come back to it until it's ready. That recipe actually contains much uncertainty, much checking, re-evaluating. You don't need all that if you already know your kitchen.
So it's about efficiency and not the food turning out different if the lid is on or off.
Sure the food will turn out different, I'm pretty sure that's what I already said. It's all about familiarity with your own kitchen, so you can pre-judge your water levels at the end of a long cook without having to constantly stand over it or keep making adjustments.
It might turn out different, but if I understood you correctly, because of the water levels and kitchen specifics. Not because of anything else that covering the pot might be doing, like increasing humidity etc.
I'm reaching the point where there's nothing else I can add. "Humidity" in the space above the pan has absolutely no influence other than water-loss over time.
One concrete difference is that if you're coming something pungent, keeping the lid on will dramatically reduce the amount the smell disperses into your kitchen and beyond.
How about "folk wisdom"?
that'll do for me :)
It's not always a perfect replacement, but here I think it works. I've asked a question at English.se looking for alternatives
Supplementing Tetsujin's answer, here are a few factors I've noticed:
Many sauces get rather splashy; putting the lid on means you don't need to clean the stove so much afterwards (and the wall behind, and the nearest cupboards...). Tomato-based dishes are particularly prone to this as they thicken, and the red can stain some materials.
With some dishes, as the liquid level drops, a layer of dried sauce forms on the sides of the pan. You can usually stir it back in, but not at the last minute, as it takes time to incorporate back into the dish. From starch-thickened sauces this can form a sheet that's quite hard to re-incorporate, but if the dish is tomato-based the dried bit mixes back in more easily. I even use that to my advantage when reducing passata (+herbs etc) for pizza sauce, but if it's undesirable the lid limits the drying out.
The lower power input needed can be enough (with a thick-based pan) to stop the sauce catching on the bottom if you don't stir it.
This is basically a question of thermodynamics -- you have a system in which there is heat being applied from the bottom, while being cooled from the top.
If there's a lid on the system, then you retain moisture in the space above the sauce, which reduces the amount of evaporative cooling. This means that you need apply less heat to the system, and it results in less of a temperature gradient through the sauce.
It's this temperature gradient that gets you into trouble -- a thick tomato sauce doesn't convect the way that a thin stock might, and so you'll get scorching (burning) on the bottom of the pot ... which can ruin your sauce.
As such, it's much more maintenance to cook the sauce with the lid off -- you have to stir it much more frequently. You can also end up with a slightly more "roasted" flavor to the sauce, as the higher heat at the bottom of the pot can caramelize the tomatoes depending on how often you're stirring it.
And there are things lost besides moisture and energy.
Volatile oils will be released into the air above the sauce, and if you have the lid off, they will go into the kitchen. This might make the kitchen smell great, but it can reduce the flavors in the dish being prepared. (although for some things, like cabbages, you intentionally cook lid-off so that the sulfur compounds don't stay in the dish)
And there's the cleanliness issue. Tomato sauce is notorious for spattering as it simmers. If you have a very tall pot that's not filled to the brim, this might not be an issue, but if your sauce level is near the top of the pot, and you've got the sauce at a simmer, the bubbles will burst spreading droplets of sauce all over your stove.
That's interesting - I've never cooked cabbage with the lid off, mainly because I'd never boil it, I always steam it… which would rather negate the idea - but it does echo the 'folk wisdom from my answer.
@Tetsujin : it's possible it's outdated advice. Grocery stores tend to have just the inner heads of cabbage, which I think are less sulfurous. It's also possible that cabbages have been bred to reduce the amount of sulfur, (like they have with brussel sprouts). But I find that if you get the farmer's market cabbages (where it's no so tight of a head), and then boil the whole thing for a minute or two, it lets me peel the leaves off without breaking them for cabbage rolls. (grocery store heads you need to core, then boil longer)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.244297
| 2021-05-10T15:01:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115604",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Tetsujin",
"dbmag9",
"hb20007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55728",
"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
}
|
84758
|
Why does aluminum foil on a pizza stone ruin the pizza?
I have a pizza stone and I have a problem with burned dough sticking to it. So I tried to use aluminum foil on the stone for easy cleanup. I wrapped the stone as tightly as I could with the foil and then used it according to the instructions.
The foil ruined the pizzas, instead of getting a burned crispy bottom I got uncooked dough on the bottom with the top cooked. I first thought that this was because the foil wasn't perfectly tight and the air cushion between the stone and foil acted as an insulator. So I removed the wrapped foil, and used instead a loose sheet of foil to allow the air to escape. But this didn't help. When I then removed the foil entirely and used parchment paper instead everything worked fine (a loose sheet of parchment, like the loose sheet of foil from the 2nd attempt).
Why does the foil ruin the effect of the pizza stone, but works excellent in a press toaster?
For cleaning a stone, I found the easiest thing to be an old or rough knife (blade length at least half the diameter of the stone). A scraper would also work well. The stains remain but they don't affect the next pizza.
To understand what's happening here, we should first have a look at what a pizza stone does.
A pizza stone is made from a semi- permeable material with a high thermal capacity, or, plainly put, can store heat and soak up humidity. This means it ensures constant heat at the bottom, plus it buffers the wetness of the dough, giving your pizza a crisp, yet fluffy bottom.
This is why your foil causes the problem. Where the stone can absorb water (and steam), the foil is watertight. Which, as you noticed, can mean a soggy bottom - the humidity from the dough and sauce has nowhere to go on the underside.
Unlike the foil, the parchment is not completely watertight (especially not "steam-tight"), so the stone can still do its job.
If you have trouble with sticky pizza and like easier cleanup, parchment is the way to go. Alternatively, a generous dose of (coarse) flour, semolina or corn flour can help a lot. And don't worry if your stone gets a few stains, there is no need to scrub and clean it every time, just give it a quick wipe once it's dry again. From time to time, you can also burn off residue, if it bothers you.
A press toaster has a different working principle: Its plates are smooth and you are roasting your food only for a comparatively short time. And if you looked closely, you might have noticed a lot of steam either during toasting, but especially when opening it. So the foil has roughly the same properties as the toaster plates, hence you'll get the same result with or without it.
Is parchment paper as porous as the stone, or will going commando on the stone give better results than the parchment paper?
Depends. It's always the fine line between optimal results (bare) and ease of use / maneuvering / catching spills (parchment). For me, parchment is usually "good enough".
This is a very good, comprehensive answer. Coarse corn meal or even better, Semolina is your best bet as it acts like little ball bearings, letting your pizza roll and off the stone. Also worth mentioning it to make sure the stone is up to temperature before you start, I preheat mine for an hour.
Straight-up stone with cornmeal is always the best way to go for underside blistering/browning. However, parchment works pretty well, especially if you make sure to remove the parchment as soon as you take the pizza out of the oven, and cool it on a rack without the parchment.
Stephie's point about the stone's capability to disperse humidity from the dough is probably the most important. Additionally, I'd suspect that the foil prevents the stone from getting up to sufficient temperature during pre-heating: aluminium is a good reflector, not only of visible light but also of thermal radiation. So by wrapping the stone in foil, you lose much of the heat transfer from the top of the oven to the stone. The stone has a considerable heat capacity. It will still reach the temperature of the rest of the oven eventually, but only after you've left in in for a long time.
If it's permeability then baking steel will never work. I tried steel plates and they are awesome, with or without foil.
There are three types of heat transfer: conduction, convection and radiation. Between stone and dough there isn't enough air so the focus here should be conduction and radiation. The stone itself is not a good heat conductor so it cannot transfer the heat to the dough by conduction very well. With foil between dough and stone, radiation is almost gone. That's why the underside isn't cooked. There is no good heat transfer between stone and the bottom side of dough.
Parchment paper doesn't block radiation as much as foil, therefore the dough can be cooked by radiation heat from the stone.
Steel is excellent heat conductor compared to stone. Even with foils that block radiation it can still cook the dough by conduction.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.244940
| 2017-10-01T07:42:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84758",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"SIMEL",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58063",
"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
}
|
92276
|
Burn stains inside microwave
I heated a dish that my local fish store said was in a microwave-safe aluminum foil. Now I have a brown (chocolate looking) residue, mostly on the sides of the inside of my microwave. I have read that I can sprinkle baking soda, then add acetone (followed by liquid coffee) to remove these stains. Will this work on a white interior or is it just for stainless steel? I have white.
Acetone is not considered a carcinogen in the United States
The Material Safety Data Sheet can be found here.
It is the active ingredient in regular nail polish (varnish) remover.
It may remove the 'paint' from surfaces.
It is legally sold in the United States.
It is highly flammable and explosive in the right concentrations.
I would not recommend it to clean your microwave as it's hazardous to health if used improperly under a variety of conditions or used without proper safety equipment.
I would also advise against placing an aluminum foil pan in the microwave and turning it on.
Where did you get this misinformation, Connie?
I have read that I can sprinkle baking soda, then add acetone (followed by liquid coffee) to remove these stains.
The above is incorrect!
Back when I was a kid, it was considered carcinogenic. Reviewed and you're right: adapting my answer and +1 to you! :-)
No, please don't!
I would get a professional micro-wave cleaning liquid: Acetone is a prohibited product in some countries nowadays as it's highly flammable and slightly toxic whereas in some countries it's still readily available in cheap nail polish remover. As it's a strong solvent, it will damage most plastics including white plastic microwaves.
Fabby, acetone is nail polish remover - my question is, can it be used in a white microwave, or are the instructions given to me only for stainless steel
In some countries, cheap nail polish remover still contains acetone, but is not pure acetone. If the white microwave oven is made of plastic or has a plastic coating: No, sorry!
Please do not use Acetone or Nail Polish Remover!
Here's a generic Nail Polish Remover ingredient list:
(source: swatchandlearn.com)
That's not good stuff to have around food preparation products.
To clean your microwave safely and chemical free:
Buy a lemon or two
Cut into pieces
Place in a microwave-safe bowl and fill with water
Place the bowl in the microwave and turn on for 3-5 minutes
Let stand with the door closed for about 5 minutes
Carefully remove the bowl (it will be very hot!!!!) and wipe down the inside of the microwave with a cloth, towel, or paper towels until clean.
The water and lemon juice steam will help loosen and remove grease and other baked on substances, plus it will leave a nice smell in the microwave afterwards. Best part, it's 100% chemical free.
If you have really stuck stuff in the microwave - you can use a mild natural abrasive and some warm water on a towel to help remove it. I recommend using Kosher Salt, since it's natural and won't leave chemical residue in the microwave afterwards.
thanks all, with some 600 grit sandpaper, baking soda and (ahem) nail polish remover, the stains came out. I appreciate everyone's input!
@CorinneApostle In the future, skip the nail polish remover. It's a harsh chemical and should not be near anything you prepare food with. If anything, the baking soda provided an abrasive and you scrubbing removed the stain. If I were you, I'd thoroughly clean the microwave to remove any nail polish remover residue. There's more in there than just acetone, even if acetone were safe to be near food (I wouldn't).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.245383
| 2018-09-15T16:06:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92276",
"authors": [
"Corinne Apostle",
"Fabby",
"SnakeDoc",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36370",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69259"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92402
|
Bay used to crisp fermenting pickles
When bay leaves are specified in a recipe should they be fresh or dried ?
How many bay leaves per quart are required?
If you can find fresh, use them, especially if you like the aroma of bay. There is no comparison to dried.
Fresh cherry leaves also work for keeping pickles crisp.
You mention crisping in your title, but not in your text of your question. Can you clarify. The preferred answer below also does not specify that bay helps keep pickles crisp. Do we know for sure that bay leaves help in maintaining crispness?
@moscafj I think the mentioning of crisping was to identify the purpose of using bay in a ferment, to distinguish it as primarily a crisping agent vs a flavoring agent. It is a known and proven solution to maintaining a higher level of crispiness in pickles. It's supposed to have something to do with the tannins and flavanoids. You could probably use grape tannin just as effectively, but I think it would make the pickles astringent.
My dad uses fresh bay leaves because he has a bay plant in his yard but, in general, when a recipe calls for bay leaves, it means dried bay leaves. They're cheaper and much easier to find and - in general, considering how they're used - they provide the same results in the end.
To quote Cook's Illustrated:
Fresh vs. Dried Bay Leaves
Fresh bay leaves have become available in many supermarkets. In the test kitchen, we use fresh herbs more often than dried—bay leaves being an exception. To decide whether we should switch, we made two batches of a béchamel sauce, simmering dried bay leaves in one and fresh in the other.
Surprisingly, they finished in a dead heat. Here's why: The aromatic molecules in most herbs are more volatile than water. Herbs that grow in hot, arid environments—like bay leaves—are different: Their aromatic molecules are less volatile, retaining flavor even after water evaporates. Similarly, in long-cooked applications, we've found that rosemary, thyme, oregano, sage, and other herbs native to hot, arid environments do as well as their fresh counterparts. (And bay leaves are used only in long-cooked recipes.) Since they are cheaper and keep for months in the freezer, we'll continue to use dried bay leaves (about 10 cents per leaf), instead of springing for fresh, which cost twice as much.
So, while in many cases, fresh herbs are preferred, this doesn't hold true for bay leaves, so go with dried unless you see a recipe that specifically calls for fresh.
As to how many, I'd go with your recipe on that. What you're making and how strongly you want the bay flavor to be present will determine how many you need to use.
Am empirical confirmation of the volatility reasoning: I grow and dry (in a dehydrator) my own herbs. Most scent the room if not the house when drying, but bay doesn't.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.245681
| 2018-09-21T20:55:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92402",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Escoce",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90615
|
Cooking at, or below, the boil. Is there any impact that the actual boil has?
When cooking in water, is there any difference between 98°C or 100°C ? In the second case water is boiling, and in the first it isn't.
Is there anything in particular that you're talking about boiling? What it is (say a chicken vs pasta) may make a sizable difference.
Possible duplicate of https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27745/can-food-be-boiled-extra-fast-hard-in-water
The physical movement of the bubbles, agitation, might make a difference in some cases... for better or worse
Very similar, but about milk: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92464/why-should-milk-boil-to-the-rim
The usual difference comes because there are foods which have to reach certain temperature to get done. For example, the collagen in beef needs to be held at above 68C to transform. But I don't know of any food for which the turning point occurs between 98 and 100 C. So, in theory, if a recipe calls for boiling food for a prolonged time, you could also cook it at 98 C and nothing too terrible will happen. You might have to wait a little longer.
In practice, it is quite difficult to hold water at exactly 98 C for a long period of time. So, unless you have a reason to use a temperature controler at this exact temperature, you will just use your stove at a temperature which brings the water to a boil.
You have to make a difference between boiling and blanching though. Some recipes will direct you to put a small amount of vegetables in a large amount of boiling water and hold them there for a minute or less, or just use the word "blanch". There, you want the vegetable heat-shocked. It will still work at a lower temperature, but you will get the best quality at a roiling boil. Some starches like pasta are also important to mention here, they also profit from a quick heating. In principle, you could change them to another, colder pot after the surface has gelatinized - even 85-ish C will do - but there is no point to such acrobatics, so people boil it until ready.
There are more cases where the other direction is important, usually because 100 C is too high a temperature. In these cases, you want to simmer your food at 90ish. The only case where the fact of boiling itself is important is in stock. Boiling distributes the protein scum from the meat into the stock, so people don't let it boil if they want a clear stock.
movement: boiling creates a "stirring" motion. Which also makes more evaporation.
Not saying these are good or bad. That would depend on the situation
Some people say the stirring from boiling can damage delicate foods like gnocchi, or cause chicken stock to go cloudy. So there may be a legitimate reason to avoid it for certain recipes.
One time when this sort of temperature difference has an effect is when making jam or confectionary. In that case the boiling point of the sugar solution (with other ingredients) is critical to the texture obtained when cool.
However that's the difference between boiling and boiling a more concentrated solution, rather than between boiling and simmering.
On the other hand, at high altitude boiling point is lower, so your 98°C could actually be boiling.
From a heat transfer perspective the only difference is 2°C.
And it would not by 2% as you need to use absolute (K) so it is only like 0.5%.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.245960
| 2018-06-27T21:35:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90615",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Megha",
"Volker Siegel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"mrog",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92761
|
Why do we like some combinations of ingredients, and not others? Are there any general rules?
I would like to know how something will taste, before cooking and trying it.
Is it possible? Sometimes ingredients are too expensive for experimenting.
Not sure whether it’s the kind of answer you are looking for, but experience can be an important factor: after a few decades of cooking and experimenting I have now reached a stage where I can read a recipe and know how it’s going to taste or how changing something will taste.
You have two fairly different questions here: flavor pairing (what combinations taste good), and prediction of flavors.
Prediction
Eat as diversely as possible. Try things with different ingredients and combinations of ingredients. It's best if it's something you've cooked, so you know exactly what goes into it, but even eating in restaurants helps, especially if you look carefully at menus and at what you're eating. Eventually you'll learn your personal preferences better, and develop intuition for what everything tastes like.
There's really no substitute for this in the end, because everyone has different preferences, so ingredients and combinations that taste good to you might not quite line up with what others like. And besides, it's not really possible to describe flavors meaningfully, so even if someone tells you "you'll love strawberry and vanilla together", you ultimately have to just learn the flavors to be able to predict how it'll taste to you.
Pairing
Specifically on combinations, see this previous canonical question. The summary is that again, this can be pretty personal, but insofar as there are common preferences, it's difficult to generalize. Most useful resources end up being long lists of pairings you might like, just slightly more general than looking for recipes that contain one of the ingredients and seeing what else is in them.
This is a research topic, exactly studying what you asked. It's called food pairing, the theory behind foodpairing is that, the more common the flavor molecules of two ingredients are, they can be better combined.
Please note that, in average we're talking about 200+ volatile flavor molecules per ingredient.
My understanding is that this method can produce lists of ideas, but is not in general a good explanation of our preferences. Many things that seem very similar in their flavor compounds are disliked together, and many things that don't seem very similar turn out to be common, well-liked pairings.
Also, "Foodpairing" is a trademarked term (from a company trying to sell pairings/data based on this approach), and the Wikipedia article you linked oddly claims that "food pairing" means the same thing, when in fact it is the general concept of pairing foods by any method, which long predates this company. (Overall, this makes the article read a bit like advertising, though I'm sure it wasn't your intent to advertise for this company.)
@Cascabel Appreciation of flavor is definitely something subjective. As you said right now the theory is in the level of recommendations. Early results show a correlation of people liking a specific combination and flavor molecules; (mostly checking the dominant compounds). A weighted approach is maybe necessary, but unfortunately such flavor databases are not really open publicly.
@Cascabel you're right I should have used "food pairing"; edited it.
Sorry if I was unclear - one of the points is that "food pairing" is the general concept of finding foods that people think go well together, and it is definitely not just this flavor compound idea, which is just a method of pairing that some people think is a good idea.
I don't know of master list. You pretty much can't know how it will taste before cooking.
Follow recipes and develop a pallet.
If you would like to add something to a recipe next time you cook it pull a small amount to the side and add what you would like to try.
If it is a whole new recipe then just make a small amount.
Onion should not take over a dish unless it is the dish. Onion adds to many dishes but you need to adjust how much you used and how much you cook the onions.
Tomato is pretty powerful. I would not use it with light fish but some people do. I would not think the tomato and cucumber would work together but they do.
I use hot peppers with a lot of dishes including tomato sauce. But I would pretty much never use it with meat, fish, or poultry.
As you get along you can try some weird paring. At the high end you are expected to have some contrasting flavors. But this is more for high end cooks. On Master Chef the panel often says I don't know how they are going to make that work and it often does come out great.
Disagree with your second sentence. I definitely can and I suppose others can too.
@Stephie Good for you I can't. If it a modification to an existed recipe and a component I am familiar with I have a good idea. I have tried to tone a dish down with potato and it totally did not work. I recently tried kale with a soup and had no idea if it would work. A totally new recipe I don't know until I cook it. Often with hot peppers I don't now how hot they will be after cooking. Even master chefs taste as they go and adjust.
I think Stephie's point is that your second sentence is an exaggeration, not that it's easy to be perfect. It's not that you "pretty much can't know", it's that with enough experience you can have a pretty good idea in most cases, even if there are exceptions.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.246371
| 2018-10-09T13:10:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92761",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68275",
"paparazzo",
"zetaprime"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89305
|
Can I marinate chicken that has already been cooked?
I have some chicken that was grilled. I want to put it back on the grill and cook it some more. I marinated it in a bag. Is it OK to marinate cooked chicken?
Can you clarify and add more information? Cook...put back in bag...cook again? Is the marinade refrigerated during first cook? Is the chicken chilled after first cook and before second marinade? How long between first cook and second cook? Is it refrigerated during this time?
I don't think you will get the same effect by marinating chicken after it's cooked. It will not absorb much of the marinade.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.246823
| 2018-04-21T05:27:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89305",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
78587
|
How do olive oils differ, and what should they be used for?
Here is a question from a "pre intermediate" home cook who lives in Spain. What is the difference between exta virgin olive oil, virgin olive oil, and simply olive oil? I gather that the non-virgin one is used for cooking while the other kinds can be consumed raw, on bread or salad...What is the difference between the superior kinds though? what determines a great taste of the oil? Is splurging 11 euros on a bottle of olive oil worth it?
Possible duplicate of What do "virgin" and "extra virgin" mean in regards to olive oil?
Thank you. That partly answers my question. Now I´d just like to know if there is a difference between one extra virgin olive oil and another or is it just a matter of branding (i.e. label and appearance)
I don't know the difference but on the high end a bottle can be more than $100 US.
also related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/62817/67
@PaulinaMazur There is tremendous variability...country (or countries) of origin, location, production...think of extra virgin olive oil like one thinks of wine. You generally get what you pay for....though one needs to be careful. There is a lot of deception in the olive oil industry. If you want the best, look for single origin oil from a reputable producer.
@PaulinaMazur...by the way, in Spain, you have access to some of the best olive oil....and at a very good price compared to here in the US. Take advantage by trying many different oils until you find your preferences!
I don't know much about olive oil but I do know the brand I buy at the store near me (specifically, extra virgin, "normal", and extra light) has their intended purpose written on the bottom. Using these a lot I find that extra virgin -> normal -> extra light goes, respectively, along the scale from "tastes like olive oil" to "doesn't smoke as quickly". So I guess there's a balance of taste vs heat tolerance. Btw Google actually does have a ton of great descriptions here.
As for differences between brands like I said I don't know much but I assume in my inexperience that it's like any other oil, or, say, wine, whiskey, bread, cheese, beef, anything else with a finite number of types but a large range of sources. Different olives from different areas of the world, etc. I mean just consider the variety you see in olives themselves. I'm sure an experienced chef with a more refined palate than I can spot the differences no problem.
I can't really tell the difference between most of the big label suppliers of olive oil within the same grade of oil. The actual grade (virgin vs extra virgin) speaks to the processing of the oil and how many times the fruit is pressed.
I think the flavor is somewhat different between the grades with the extra virgin being somewhat more flavorful on its own.
In the US, there are also smaller boutique vendors of olive oil that basically treat olive oil like wine. You can go taste different oils with different olive varieties as their base. The flavor does vary quite a bit.
I think whether the cost is justified comes down to how you are using the oil and how much you care. The less you will process the oil through cooking or addition of other flavors, the more likely its worth using the best oil you can get. I wouldn't use an expensive oil to cook the potatoes of a tortilla española, but I may in a simple salad dressing or a dish where the oil is a major independent flavor.
As already said, there definitely is a lot of difference between olive oils. Some high-quality oils taste just amazing, and (unlike with wine, in fact) I never tasted a cheap oil that I liked when used in a prominent way in a raw dish. Hence, I absolutely would not consider it unreasonable to spend 11 € on a bottle. The one I liked best was I think ≈12 € for ½ litre, a Spanish “fruity” organic Extra Virgin. But even pricey oils aren't always good.
Normally I don't take such luxury but stay with something around 5 €. Some of these are perfectly ok even raw, and in cooked dishs with strong other tastes hardly make a difference from the best oils.
Either way, virgin olive oil should not be heated too much; for frying it's usually better to use neutral oils like refined rapeseed or coconut, or else butter. Except for garlic, which is magic when briefly sautéed in good olive oil; don't know why.
As for non-virgin, or “heat-tolerant” olive oil... there are some which don't taste like olive at all. Well, I don't see the point – might as well use rapeseed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.246922
| 2017-02-20T21:50:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78587",
"authors": [
"Jason C",
"Joe",
"Paulina Mazur",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"moscafj",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18923
|
How can I create a scotch egg with a runny yolk?
I ate a scotch egg at thebreslin.com in New York City.
The dish was clearly cooked fresh and the yolk of the egg was still runny when I cut into it. It was pretty amazing.
My question - how can I get the yolk to stay runny? Scotch eggs are pretty easy to make with hard-boiled eggs - but soft-boiled? Is it just a timing thing?
I believe this was done in episode 2 of How to cook like Heston. Starts at 12:18 here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gbgSCV9hbM
Timing and precision are key. First off, you need to boil your eggs for exactly 5 minutes, assuming they're large. They should be at room temperature before you start, and you should let them cool afterwards. This should result in a cooked white and a very runny yolk before you fry.
The oil you use to fry the Scotch eggs needs to be just the right temperature - too hot and the crust will brown before the sausage is cooked, too cool and the yolk will cook solid before the crust is browned. The oil needs to be 350F/180C; a cube of bread should take 1 minute to completely brown.
If the temperature is right the Scotch egg should take about 5 minutes to brown evenly, and you should have properly-cooked sausage and a yolk that's still runny.
Just a side question: do you need to cool the egg before wrapping meat around it and putting it in the deep-fryer?
Yes, you should. I'll edit my answer to reflect that
Or you could cook at a low temperature. According to McGee, the water should be at least 60ºC for 5' and less than 70ºC, or 70ºC for 1'.
So many great videos on YouTube on how to make these. Heston Blumenthal and Gordon Ramsay both have videos on there about Scotch eggs ;-)
The scotch egg with a runny yolk -- or other cooked eggs with yolks of various textures -- are a hallmark of some of the new molecular gastronomy chefs. Be warned, though, that it's probably more effort than you want to go to.
Here's a couple of links to online recipes:
https://www.vacmasterfresh.com/fresh-bites-blog/how-to-sous-vide-a-scotch-egg/ - cook at 68C for 15 minutes, in boiling water for 1-2, shock in ice water and chill 10-15 minutes, then peel
http://benstarr.com/recipes/sous-vide-scotch-eggs/ - cook at 64C for 60 minutes, cool in a cold water bath, freeze solid, then peel
http://thewhychef.com/2016/02/liquid-centre-scotch-eggs/ - soft-boil eggs (bring to a boil, remove from heat and let stand 6 minutes), shock with cold water, then peel
If you can find it, the first issue of Lucky Peach includes a whole long article on egg cookery which explains the various cooking times and techniques.
This doesn't actually answer the question. Telling someone where to get an answer is not the same as answering the question.
I tried to find this and couldn't (though I found various scotch egg recipes none are obviously a "molecular gastronomy" thing, they just say soft-boiled eggs), so I'm inclined to agree with Catija. Do you know something more specific to link to?
Added three links to my answer, above.
Thanks. I went ahead and added summaries of each, because even with up-to-date links, it is strongly preferred that answers include the relevant information. (Links can go dead, those descriptions don't.)
Jefromi: somehow this feels more like a wiki than like StackExchange ;-)
Everything you try, will require trial and error. Basically practice makes perfect, but here is a method I use:
Freeze the raw egg in its shell, de-shell the frozen raw egg and wrap the sausage meat around it whilst it is still frozen. This can be difficult as the egg's albumen defrosts quickly. Coat in flour, egg and breadcrumb. Fry till the scotch egg floats and the crumb is a deep golden brown.
It's the only way I know that gives a soft runny yolk every time.
Won't the yolk be tasting/feeling weird? And freezing in the shell, how do you do that so you're sure it won't break?
the yolk is fine, no matter what, try freezing a raw egg, the shell does split as the albumen expands whilst freezing but half a day or so in the freezer should be fine. they peel relatively easily when frozen, brown eggs seem to work best as they seem to have a more 'workable' membrane under the shell itself.
(This is more or less an addition to ElendilTheTall's answer, but it's too long to fit into a comment.)
My experience with eggs is that "let them cool afterwards" won't fully do the trick, since the egg yolk will simply continue to cook from the heat left in the egg. To prevent that, after boiling for five minutes, you need to cool them down quickly by putting them under running cold water. This stops the cooking process, and when deep-frying later on, they will just heat through, but the yolk will stay runny and not start to set anymore.
See also here in section "Cooling".
For a recipe, see here for an example. When this was broadcast (last month I think), there was a lot more emphasis in the programme on how important it was to cool the eggs than the sentence Drain and cool the eggs under cold running water suggests.
The easiest way to create a runny center is not to use a boiled egg, but a poached. Use cling film and a small bowl, place your egg and wrap it in the cling film and tie it off. Cook your poached egg for 2 minutes. let it cool and snip away the cling film. place the egg in the freezer and allow it to set. The egg is only half cooked at this stage. Wrap your egg in sausage meat and breadcrumbs and deep fry for around 4 minutes. You will have a perfect runny center and a treat!
I make them by the dozen myself. I gently put the egg into boiling water for 4 minutes then straight to an ice bath for about 10 minutes. once chilled gently crack the shell all the way around the center and put back into ice water or 5-10 minutes then peel. Wrap in thinly pressed sausage and directly into breading and refrigerate. I cook at 300 degrees for 5 and a half minutes. No complaints so far. Not really too hard or too time consuming once you get the hang of it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.247342
| 2011-11-13T04:00:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18923",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Charlie",
"Dianne",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Eric Novak",
"FuzzyChef",
"Jim Colegrove",
"Kevin Tidy",
"Larry McIntyre",
"Mien",
"Rifat Tabassam",
"cptloop",
"foodie",
"haakon.io",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9801",
"ronenfe",
"rukhsana",
"user41044"
],
"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
}
|
77650
|
How to grease a parchment paper for SugarVeil?
How can I grease a parchment paper, for making SugarVeil? Because I want to do my own SugarVeil design. I already tried it with butter for greasing, but after lace is dry, it stick on the parchment paper & can't roll out.
Is this like what you're doing? https://cakejournal.com/tutorials/using-sugarveil-icing/
If you want to use parchment paper, you'll need to use Crisco, not butter. The downside of Crisco is you may end up with a small amount of undesired flavor/texture on your SugarVeil.
Alternatively, you can purchase SugarVeil Mats, which are basically silicon mats with imprints of various designs on them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.248118
| 2017-01-21T08:11:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77650",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105337
|
Substitute Milk for Water in Bread
I want to substitute milk for the water called for in my recipe for bread. The recipe calls for 3 cups water. Home much milk should I use?
could you switch for a bread recipe that has milk as one of its ingredient ?à
Milk has different properties to water, so substituting in milk could cause an undesired outcome. It is better to follow Max's suggestion.
If you have cooked a recipe for a while you might be up for experimentation this time. Milk is often used in bread and so the option seems reasonable. We can’t really say how much you should use without knowing the ratios. If you are putting heaps of milk in your bread be aware that the extra sugars may mean the loaf browns more quickly than the same recipe made only with water.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.248209
| 2020-02-15T19:29:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105337",
"authors": [
"Daemon Beast",
"Max",
"Rasa Enak",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80791"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46365
|
How can I avoid getting swindled? How can I detect polyphosphates in fish fillets?
Fish fillets are treated with polyphosphates for several reasons, but mainly to increase their weight (and hence the profit).
According to this FAO paper:
The first and universal effect of all polyphosphate treatment is to
increase the weight of the fish by retaining water
Application of polyphosphate to ...(high quality fish) ... is generally
only of slight value
The dull surface of poor quality fillets from stale fish can also be
given a gloss by treatment with polyphosphate.
Excessive treatment of small products such as shellfish or thin
fillets can even result in undesirable flavour changes and sloppy
texture.
So ... is there a way to know if a fillet has been treated with polyphosphate without buying it first and lending it to your chemist cousin?
Put the fish under a blacklight and dab a bit of 4',6-diamidino-2-phenylindole stain on it. If it changes glow from blue to green, its been treated with polyphosphate.
You can purchase DAPI stain here: http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/product/sigma/d9542?lang=en®ion=US
I would suggest cutting a piece of the fish that you will not be eating, dabbing the stain on that piece and tossing it in the bin after.
Or lend it to your chemist cousin :)
My cousin is busy right now. Could you explain (or link to something that explains) how this works?
As I understand it, the DAPI reacts with the polyphosphate by binding to it and in the process of binding to it, it causes the wavelength that the DAPI fluoresces at to change from the low 400nm (blue) to the low to mid 500nm (green). I'm not 100% certain on whether there is a need for a catalyst to cause the excitation, or if just dabbing it topically would work (which to my understanding should be enough as the DAPI). Then again, my cousin too is busy.
Thanks a lot for the explanation. Not sure if I'll try it, but at least I could menace my monger with it.
@belisarius Why does "menace my monger" sound vaguely dirty??
@Jolenealaska If it sounds vague to you, it's because you never saw him working
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.248320
| 2014-08-13T17:25:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46365",
"authors": [
"Candy",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Jessica Mills",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lucaz HND",
"Maria F. Marin",
"NSB",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110711",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"jsanc623",
"sunil kumar j"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58104
|
Substitute ratio when using butter instead of shortening
How much butter should be used to use as a substitute for 1/2 cup of shortening for a banana nut bread recipe? I don't have any shortening on hand.
1/2 cup of shortening is 110 g, while 1/2 cup of butter is 114 g. Also, butter is only 82% fat. So if you want to be precise, use 134 g of butter: (100/82)*110 = 134. You may want to reduce the liquid by 24 g in this case.
If you don't care for precision, you can also substitute 1:1 and use 1/2 cup of butter. Most recipes for quickbreads are flexible enough for that, and you are changing the texture anyway by substituting a fat with a different melting profile.
Isn't the rest of the butter solids, rather than liquids (the 24g you're talking about)?
@data no, it's water or whey. Butter is an emulsion. A very small part of it is milk protein.
Here's a link for people wondering about moisture/fat/milk solid contents of butter, like me: http://www.sfgate.com/recipes/article/When-Put-to-the-Test-Here-s-How-Butter-Brands-3236719.php#photo-2380112
Thanks @rumtscho
Ratio: 1 cup of crisco = 1/2 cup of butter or margarine
So, in your recipe is 1/4 of butter.
The link where I originally found the ratio is in the edit history (removed because the site is now redirecting to spam).
Welcome to the site! Can you give sources for your claim? To me, this sounds way off, if deviating at all, I'd use more butter due to lesser fat content.
Not only is the information given dubious, but the supposed link redirects me to a site selling gift cards.
@Iain It's just that the blog's been hacked. If the owner is still active, it may get fixed. The author definitely didn't link to spam originally.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.248529
| 2015-06-08T19:15:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58104",
"authors": [
"404 User not found",
"Cascabel",
"Jack Laws",
"Jess Forrester",
"John Pradlik",
"Mark Robinson",
"MaryAnn Schumacher",
"Matt Bakowski",
"Stephie",
"Trudy Kelly",
"Xander",
"data",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35947",
"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
}
|
58556
|
How to make a firm loaf from pancake batter mix?
I have two questions. One specific. One general.
First:
I am a beginner at cooking. But, I have learned a few things. I try to experiment without going crazy. I have found that altering a recipe can be a good thing at times. Here is one thing that I have tried recently that I'd like a little bit of help with:
I have some boxed pancake batter mix. It is pretty good. (Sometimes you have to get out of the house quickly and early in the morning. Sometimes convenience is more important that making something from scratch. That is one of the trade-offs with cooking, right?)
I made a loaf with the box mix. It came out soft, like pancakes. No surprise. That result is fine. It tastes good when I pop a slice in the toaster oven in the morning. And, the toasted crust that forms is kind of nice.
Like I mentioned before: I am a bit new to cooking. I don't know all the nuances. What can I add to the batter mix to firm it up? I think it is eggs. But, I'm not sure.
Edit/Added: The loaf mixes and "from scratch" muffin batter loafs I have made in the past were denser. This loaf from the pancake mix was more cake-like. I want it a bit denser like the muffin batter loaves.
Secondly:
Where can I learn about things like this? I have what I think is a big good basic cookbook. It has instructions about all the different cookware and utensils. It has listings of cooking terms and what to expect with different herbs and spices. It also has a section at the end of each chapter about how to cook things like different cuts of meat and how to choose the right baking pan. But, I can't find out how to firm up batter.
I'm not sure what you are asking here. Do you want a loaf of bread in the end? Or do you want something cakey?
Simple answer is to just add more flour to the pancake mix. The pancake mixes typically have baking powder in it so if you add more flour, it'll change the ratio of flour to baking powder. This of course will also change the ratio of the powdered egg and milk which "dilutes" the flavor.
GdD: I would like it less cakey/soft.
Jay: Thanks. I really don't want less flavor. Maybe I will just leave it alone and add some nuts and blueberries since the local stores seem to have a lot of them at a good price right now.
Just use less liquid, that should work. Since you didn't mention the brand, you have to wing it at first. If you want to be a good cook, get am old cookbook and follow the directions, you can experiment after you've learned how.
Looking at cookbooks and cooking magazines in the library is a wonderful way to learn new things and get ideas. The problem is that, there are many books and magazines. I get overwhelmed. I want to try so many things. Unfortunately, I don't have the money to do a lot. But, I sat down and decided on a few recipes that I wanted to try. I also like baking. I really enjoyed the PBS show "The Great British Bake Off". And, a friend told me to get the CD set for the show: "Two Fat Ladies". The two cooks in this second show do some marvelous recipes in some cool places "across the pond". Thanks
I am currently using a Betty Crocker pancake mix which I used in the loaf. It is 1 cup mix and 3/4 cup water. But, I have used Aunt Jemima and some generic brand in the past, too. Thanks for your answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.248828
| 2015-06-26T14:17:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58556",
"authors": [
"Dorothy Trivett",
"GdD",
"George Dever",
"Jay",
"Jen .H",
"Junco",
"Linda Paun",
"Sandep Mudel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305"
],
"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
}
|
59508
|
How to bake low carb bread in a Zojirushi bread machine model #BBCC-x20
In a Zojirushi bread machine model BBCC-x20, what cycle would I bake a low carb recipe on as it does not have a low carb setting? Also, where would I find low carb recipes for low carb bread specifically for this machine? I have already checked the Zoji site and there are no low carb recipes.
Thanks!
I have a Zojirushi BB-PDC20_1.
I use the recipe mentioned in soggyspaetzle’s answer and make it for a 2 lb. capacity (doubling the ingredients) and use the white bread option, medium crust. Turns out grand!
According to comments I found on the internet about diabetics discussing this same question using this same model, one person recommended this:
I changed the crust selection to light and reduced the flour by a tablespoon and the problem was solved.
You don't really need a recipe specific for this exact model, here is a low carb bread recipe designed for bread machines, you can also try the above tip.
http://www.food.com/recipe/best-low-carb-bread-bread-machine-102631
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.249118
| 2015-08-01T11:22:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59508",
"authors": [
"Jules Gagne",
"Karen Henning",
"L Sherfey",
"Mary ann Chatters",
"Noel Ružić",
"Richard Weatherill",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142199"
],
"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
}
|
61575
|
I added yeast to a recipe calling for baking soda, what will happen?
I have added yeast to a recipe that also calls for baking soda and baking powder. I am curious what will happen to the bread?
I combined a bread maker recipe with a gluten free walnut cranberry rolls. I just took them out of the oven and although they look good they didn't rise much. I mixed the gluten free with yeast as instructed but was dry so I opened up recipe from my bread maker which called for baking soda and baking powder.
Can you give us a little more detail exactly what you did during the steps when you made the dough itself?
Baking soda and baking powder won't really help much with dryness. I find that most gluten-free flours seem to be very "thirsty" and the same recipe made with gluten-free v flour instead of wheat is often quite dry. If I'm expecting this, I sometimes start off with less flour, if it surprises me, I add more liquid (water, oil, egg, etc) to fix the texture. Gluten-free baked goods often don't rise as much as their wheat-based cousins either. If you include xanthan and/or guar gum it can help the texture to seen more like regular bread.
possible duplicate of Why are there no recipes combining both yeast and baking powder?
Yeast is a levening agent that needs some time to do its job. It eats sugar and makes CO2 gas to ride your bread.
Baking soda and baking powder are chemical levening agents. They'll make your bread rise while its baking.
If you out in yeast as well as BP and/or BS, and you bake it right away, probably nothin will happen and it will be a bit more nutritive, if you wait, you might find yourself with a handful of a mess when it rises way too much.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.249260
| 2015-09-08T14:08:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61575",
"authors": [
"Ching Chong",
"Dave Stacey",
"Jane Wilder",
"Jay",
"Ken Smith",
"Madonna Post",
"NadjaCS",
"Nicola Walmsley",
"Pam Nibbe",
"Steve Leigh",
"William Furlan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5357
|
What makes steel-cut oats different?
I've seen several people insist that steel-cut oats are better than regular oats. What makes them different?
Cool post on the difference: http://www.almightydad.com/fitness-nutrition/oatmeal-for-breakfast-rolled-or-steel-cut
'steel-cut oats' are also called 'pinhead oats', 'irish oats', or 'scotch oats', or 'porridge oats' for those in other countries.
It's up there with knife cut or hand torn lettuce .... sigh
Specifically, steel cut oats look like little pellets, whereas rolled oats have the familiar flat shape from going through a steel roller. The rolled ones expose more surface area and therefore cook faster, but produce a different final texture. I do like the steel-cut ones better, but they take upwards of half an hour to cook. You can make a large batch and reheat it for 2-3 days if you like. I think some folks also use a pressure cooker to speed them up.
Do you mean you like the steel cut ones better?
They're coarser, so they have a better texture when cooked. Rolled oats are mushy and bland, even if you get the non-instant variety. Groats are a pain in the butt to cook: like millet, they take forever.
Steel cut oats are a nice compromise (technically steel cut groats). Get some yummy groaty flavor, but the prep time is much lower (a mere half hour, instead of a week or two for whole groats).
Steel cut oats are also higher in fiber and some nutrients (the rollers remove some of the bran, where the fiber and some nutrients are).
@Adam Shiemke: Do you have a source for that? The link in @Michael Pryor's comment above claims that there is no difference (of course, it's lacking a source, too; the author just says "I looked it up").
Upon further research: http://www.bobsredmill.com/steel-cut-oats.html vs. http://www.bobsredmill.com/regular-rolled-oats.html Same. Quaker is a bit lower in fiber, although their quick oats are the same as rolled/steel cut, which is not the vase for bob's. Looks like I was wrong (I compared the bob's steel cut with the Quaker rolled I had at hand).
@Adam Shiemke: Thanks for checking on that. The serving size for the steel cut oats is 1/4 cup and the serving size on the rolled oats is 1/2 cup (and is 4 g larger), but perhaps they make the same amount of hot cereal?
@Rebekah Good catch, I didn't notice. If you compare the weights, the rolled are 4g more, so by weight, there might be more nutrient. The numbers aren't accurate enough to tell.
Whole oat groats will cook nicely in a (fuzzy) rice-cooker set on 'Brown rice/porridge'. You have to cycle the cooker twice (~2h tot) and add a little water before the second cycle, but the end result is reliably good.
Steel cut oats and rolled oats are the same initial product, and after processing they basically have the same nutritional profile. Only a low heat is used, and nutrients don't magically fly away
Both are steamed. This is done for shelf life. It quite hard to buy fresh, non steamed oats (steel cut or rolled)
Everything else is personal preference, taste, texture etc
Rolled oats cook quicker (and therefore use less energy :-) ), and can be used in many baking recipes
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.249455
| 2010-08-17T16:49:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5357",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Alison Cantrell",
"Bryan Fitts",
"Joe",
"Jonathan Thiele",
"Laura Nasiatka",
"Michael Pryor",
"Rebekah",
"TFD",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"cgvector",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/839",
"plumbing supplies",
"suff trek"
],
"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
}
|
26070
|
Reheating in the oven: why and how?
I recently made some pan-fried chicken breast halves. When I wanted to reheat the leftovers I tried to do it in the conventional oven instead of the microwave oven as usual. Following some instructions on the Internet, I preheated to 450 °F, put two chicken breast halves from the refrigerator on a baking sheet, covered with aluminum foil, and then put in the oven for 10 min. In the end, the chicken was pretty tepid. I resorted to putting them in the microwave oven under plastic wrap for 1 min and they were fine.
This raises two questions for me:
What did I miss out on by using the microwave in the end instead of sticking to the oven?
How should I have heated these up in the oven instead of what I did? I worry about overcooking or burning the food.
1. You miss out on nothing. You do risk overcooking in the Microwave, as all you need to do is reheat, so be careful with the timing
I use a glass bowl with lid, or reusable silicone lid instead of messy plastic wrap. Usually much nicer that way, as it can sweat in plastic wrap and go mushy
2. Re-heating in the oven is not ideal for delicate food. OK for Pizza, but for food that can go tough quickly is tricky. Either use the nukelator or a medium hot skillet. The skillet will only work if there is plenty of sauce or oil
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.249740
| 2012-09-09T02:07:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26070",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44250
|
Does placement of ingredients and condiments on a sandwich change the taste?
When making a cold deli meat sandwich or a burger, does layering the solid ingredients and condiments in a different order change the taste or mouth-feel? If so, how and why? Are there reasons to prefer one order to another?
Yes, it can change the taste quite significantly.
Here's an easy experiment that you can do:
Make a sandwich, but spread mustard on only one of the pieces of bread.
Take a bite of the sandwich, mustard-side up.
Take a bite of the sandwich, mustard-side down.
Mouth feel is affected as well, but not quite as dramatically.
To add to the discussion of why you would favor one placement over another -- getting things closer to the tongue means you can use less of it; so you can reduce the amount of fat, salt, sugar, or more expensive ingredients but maintain similar flavor with proper placement.
Great hamburgers often make careful use of mayo-ketchup-tomato layering. There's a magic umami dance that can happen between those slippery layers. Mmm.
Absolutely! I have had great results with tomatoes directly against the cheese. I can't quite put my finger on why, but no matter where else I've tried putting the tomato slice it just isn't quite as excellent as right up against the cheese (the cheese being right up against the bread in this example (separated only by your favorite choice of lipid =) ))
The timing of its production in relation to its intended time of consumption accentuates the difference that the ordering makes: For example, if keeping a sandwich in a sack for lunch later, I also have had great results putting the lettuce and/or spinach in between solid meat components instead of against the bread, a process which prevents the bread from getting soggy. (Of course segregating the lettuce in a separate plastic bag until lunch time is also an option.)
Aside from my experience, I suppose the fact that I rarely get strange looks from sandwich artists at delis or Subway in regards to any such special requests such as "could you please put the olives under the meat" can be a testament to their understanding that peculiarities such as this are part of the sandwich experience.
Also, if we really zoom in to the elemental level, and observe our food as the combinations of complex chemical compounds that they are, it would stand to reason that the interaction of any given ingredient with any other particular ingredient would vary at least slightly from its interaction with any of the other ingredients, and thus in all likelihood there would at least be some minuscule difference no matter how you changed the layering of your ingredients.
Good point -- I try to keep the moist things away from softer bread where it might cause it to sog, but I put them close to the bread if it's a firmer bread that might need to be softened up (especially if it's a roll).
I have always advocated that a, "toasted" Chicken-Cheese-Tomato sandwich is NOT the same as a toasted Chicken-Tomato-Cheese, or toasted Cheese-Chicken-Tomato sandwich. The reason being the heat melts the cheese. In the first one the cheese binds everything together where as with the rest, it stick one ingredient to the bread and the sandwich loses its integrity.
Order of ingredients IS important in a sandwich.
The order of a sandwich helps one to remember how to construct it. It impacts taste and mouthfeel, and it assists with the sandwich structure. It should also be remembered that sandwich ingredient order is also dramatically influenced by culture. For this reason a hamburger in Australia is a completely different beast to a hamburger in the US.
Similarly, butter was always the choice of bread spread (to help protect the bread from soggy ingredients) as I grew up in Australia, after which creamy condiments could then be spread or used as a dressing for salad ingredients.
Oh! ...and using mayo for anything other than binding eggs, or tuna, is down right criminal! :P
was told once to make burgers starting with the bottom of the bun. sauce, lettuce, tomato, onion, and pickles. then the meat and cheese. was told that is how our taste buds were built and let someone taste all the flavors
Hmm, so I should turn my Wendy's burger upside down when I eat it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.249890
| 2014-05-19T16:58:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44250",
"authors": [
"Amir reza Riahi",
"Brian Alexander",
"Joe",
"Pete Becker",
"Preston",
"Sam Taylor",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103979",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jerlich"
],
"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
}
|
23272
|
Benefits of vinaigrette vs. pouring oil and vinegar separately on salad?
I was reading Essentials of classic Italian cooking by Marcella Hazan where I noticed she first pours a lot of olive oil to "protect the salad" from the vinegar as it prevents the acid from doing its "cooking". So, that is one unproven benefit I know of.
I am also interested in taste differences. If it tastes about the same I would much rather not spend all that time making a vinaigrette. The consistency of the liquid would obviously be different - does that give a different mouthfeel perhaps?
Any experienced salad makers here with some insights?
The OO first is a dumb thing to do. You don't want to protect leaves from vinegar, you want to protect them from oil. See http://www.seriouseats.com/2010/04/salad-dressings-vinaigrettes-the-food-lab.html The "cooking" the vinegar does affects proteins, not cellulose. Oil wilts plants matter.
Damn lore! Thanks, just the type of stuff I'd like to know!
I notice that the emulsified vinaigrette clings to salad more than separate pouring. that can be a plus or minus
vinegar alone might be causing less wilting - is this still true of the vinegar in a complete dressing which will have all the salt and sugar dissolved in it?
A vinaigrette is not a stable emulsion so it will eventually separate- however it will stay together long enough for the salad to be immediately served and eaten.
I find that pouring the oil and acid separately creates a salad with a mouthful of olive oil coating the leaves and pool of vinegar at the bottom of the plate.
It's true that the oil in a vinaigrette will eventually wilt the salad but that is why it should be added at the last minute or even after the salads have been portioned.
So, first of all, pouring oil, then vinegar, directly onto the salad and tossing is a perfectly good way to dress a salad, especially if it's high quality oil and vinegar and that's all you're using. For some salads, like caprese, there's really no other way to dress them.
In addition to the problem Sobachatina mentions (that it's hard to get even distribution of oil and vinegar when applied separately), there's another reason to mix a vinaigrette before pouring: you may have additional ingredients in addition to oil and vinegar. Further, these ingredients might be added in such small quantities as to be impossible to add to the salad evenly on their own.
For example, a vinaigrette might include 1/2 tsp of mustard, salt and/or sugar. It might contain 1 tsp of pressed garlic or finely minced shallot It might also have citrus zest or dried herbs or spices which need to marinate in the dressing for a while. Or other ingredients. You get the idea. These need to be mixed in the base of vinegar and oil so that they can spread over the salad evenly, instead of ending up in one clump somewhere.
I have a tip for both taste and ease. The others are right, if O&V is added separately it is not as good.
Take your main bowl where you’re mixing the salad. Add your vinegar first and then spices. The vinegar penetrates the spices faster without the oil. Then start with a 1/2 tsp. of mustard, my fav Grey Poupon. (It does make a difference). I am not fond of mustard in cooking, but you won't be able to tell. At this point depending on my mood I will add a little sugar or honey. Wisk together breaking up the mustard, then start adding your oil. I don't use a lot of oil; it all comes down to personal preference. Once done, taste. Is it good? If it starts to separate, add another 1/2 tsp. of mustard or adjust your seasonings. Then proceed with the salad. Don't put the lettuce in first. Put in your Tomatoes, cucs, celery or whatever you like. Then put the lettuce on top. Now you can store the salad in the fridge for up to 2 hours until you’re ready. I have pushed it longer. Then toss well, sides to middle. Not just a few times, till you see everything covered. Now try the most amazing salad you ever made.
I like a green salad and have it several times a week. The green salad usually includes other cut up vegetables.
Many years ago a young woman of Italian background said the oil, always olive oil, goes on first to coat the leaves, then the cut up raw vegetables and then the vinegar (or lemon juice, which is what I prefer.) Leftover salad keeps well in the refrigerator for a day or two and does NOT WILT.
Not only my family, but guests often comment that they like the taste of my salads.
I never mix my salad dressing ahead.
I suspect that dressing salad has partly evolved as a mechanism to sterilize the salad. Oil may suffocate bacteria, but I would have to suspect that the acid in vinegar might be the most effective disinfectant... which might be an argument for using vinegar first. The oil may also serve to protect the stomach from the vinegar.
Does pouring the oil first provide more protection than pouring it at the same time as, or after, vinegar?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.250273
| 2012-04-23T13:18:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23272",
"authors": [
"CatinHiding",
"Chris Cordner",
"Cuul Rinzler",
"Erica",
"Kristy",
"Marj Colavitti",
"Pat Sommer",
"S Bainbridge",
"TheCodeNovice",
"ah2oman",
"cptloop",
"displacedtexan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7684",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
50300
|
Are there any differences between preparing/cooking a turkey that was labeled "basted with real butter" vs a regular turkey?
I've roasted numerous turkeys numerous ways, but never bought a turkey that was basted with butter. I've always just bought a regular turkey, usually I brine it, and then roast it. I've always had great results. As I've never thought to buy one, I've never given it any thought.
I got this turkey for free and am wondering any considerations I need to account for with this pre-basted turkey? What would happen if I brined it?
Edit:
Here's the actual product:
http://www.presidentschoice.ca/en_CA/products/productlisting/pc_young_turkey_basted_with_real_butter19732.html
Regarding the possibility of brining, see this question. The main question is whether the "pre-basted" also includes a salt solution injection. Most commercial pre-basted birds do. The ingredients list should give you some hints about what was added.
You can't serve it to someone who's keeping Kosher? (because you're mixing meat & dairy. But they'd have to not so strict that they wouldn't eat food from a kitchen that hasn't been blessed)
Whenever I see ad copy that blares "blah blah blah REAL BUTTER", the question that comes to mind is "as opposed to imaginary butter?" :p
It's not a big no-no, but it's a small no-no. Brining is not likely to make your turkey much more flavorful (at least not in a positive way), because it has most likely already been brined. We can be sure if you post label info. Additional brining is likely to make it over salty. Butterball brand is of this type, brining will do nothing but make it saltier.
That's not to say that pre-brined turkeys are equivalent to fresh turkeys you brine yourself. They aren't. The best birds are purchased untreated, and brined within a couple of days of cooking.
That's mostly what I thought. I got this turkey for free, so I'm trying to figure out what's the best solution for it.
@talon8 I'd say spatchcock it and baste it several times in the last hour with butter mixed with flavorings you like and a bit of chicken base (like better than bouillon, preferably reduced sodium.) It appears (from the reviews) that it's already brined by injection, so I wouldn't brine it.
Chances are most likely that it will be just fine. I suspect the brine process will "wash away" a lot of the butter stuff. I've worked in a meat shop before and the only concern I've ever heard expressed about them is dairy allergy, so do keep that in mind. Otherwise, I would (and have) just cook them as you are used to.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.250690
| 2014-12-03T17:46:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50300",
"authors": [
"April Wrench",
"Athanasius",
"FRANK NOVISKU",
"Jean Marie",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kevin Doherty Moscow Jack",
"Lisa Irvin",
"Marti",
"Vickie Sapsky",
"dean H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/121950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/121951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/121984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1717
|
Is it safe to use plastic wrap in boiling water?
While I've come across one or two recipes that call for using plastic wrap in pots of boiling water (for example, to cook eggs), I've always been a bit wary of putting the wrap in boiling water. Can someone confirm or deny whether it is safe (or a good idea) to put plastic wrap in boiling water?
Also note that there are two, possibly three things that plastic wrap may be made from: PVC, PE (polyethylene), and possibly PP (polypropylene). I believe most of the leaching concerns have been from PVC-based plastic wrap.
My question takes this a bit further but is relevant and hopefully useful https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/74244/10938
Official:
No definitive answer, there are different governing bodies and plastic wraps (cling films) in the US/Europe. There are also different plastic wraps for different purposes, microwave safe, safe for use with fatty foods, so on. Whether its safe or not will depend on the product used and most likely the time boiled for. The UKs Food Standard Agency said no (in 2012!) broken link - "Do not use cling films where they may melt into the food, such as in conventional ovens or with pots and pans on cooker hobs". The cling film industry are understandably much more positive.
Practical:
I've poached eggs using cling film for ages and I'm still here. Read the plastic wrap boxes for warnings and choose the plastic wrap that's most suited. Poach an egg as described here (as of 2016, link requires registration to read) and check if the wrap comes away cleanly, If so you're good. I'd revisit this advice if your recipe called for cooking like this for longer than 5-10 minutes, there are likely more suitable products/recipes for extensive boil-in-the-bag manoeuvres.
EDIT
Many meals have passed, I'm less gung-ho on heating cling film/plastics. It's amusingly still as contentious as ever and I certainly wouldn't brush the film with butter/oil/fat. My totally unscientific advice now would be learn how to poach an egg properly, It's fun, tasty, and significantly less boring than reading this answer. I like Ocaasi's answer, FWIW.
So if bits of the egg are clinging to the wrap after boiling, is this a good or a bad thing? I'm going to guess...bad?
You should brush the inside of the cling film with melted butter or oil prior to poaching. see the link in my post.
Sadly, that link no longer works... I wonder if this because they have just removed that page or if the advice is no longer valid?
@Dave thanks - I had a quick search and I've changed my own approach, see answer edit.
Agree with ceejayoz that melting isn't the issue. Melting is just the upper bound for problems. The common concern is about leaching, the diffusion of chemical toxins from the plastic into the food. It's known to be accelerated through fats and at heat, hence the concern. There seems to be consensus that "some" leaching occurs; the issue is that it's unclear how much, from which plastics, whether the body absorbs or excretes it, and if it matters.
Alarmists will tell you that the chemical run-off is toxic and causes everything from cancer to birth-defects.
Governments have looked into the issue but not come out with a hard no. Industry groups are fighting the issue, but losing public opinion on things like waterbottles (see nalgene, which removed Bisphenol A (BP-A)from their formula).
Chefs generally care more about results than fringe chances of non-lethal toxicity and they have been using plastic wrap for as long as it's been around.
What should you do? It depends. Weigh fear with convenience. Use good quality products if you do use it. Don't do it too often. Or just enjoy it.
Great rundown of the uncertainty... :)
Thanks. As a frequent cook, borderline news addict, and occasional health nut, I've seen this issue perking it's little plastic head up for a while.
Interestingly enough, BPA and PVC (the phthalates in PVC are great for scares) aren't in brand-name Saran Wrap or Ziploc products.
This article (1) says that plastic can release cancerous toxins, while this one (2) says this is a hoax.
I would be careful and do some more research before using the plastic in this situation.
(1): www.foodproductiondaily.com/Packaging/Research-suggests-cancer-link-to-plastic-packaging
(2): www.hoax-slayer.com/plastic-cancer-link-hoax.html
Water boils at 100c(212f). Good quality plastic wrap has a melting point between 120 and 140c(250 to 290f) So the answer is, it's ok, Just make sure you read the carton when buying the wrap, it should tell you the safe temperatures.
You can view my comments here How should I poach an egg? regarding the poaching of eggs in plastic wrap. It's something I do quite often.
Melting is not the only concern when it comes to plastic.
Agreed, there are concerns. The jury, however, stills seems undecided. I guess the bottom line is, if you have a concern, don't employ these methods.
+1 to "read the carton" - most branded food safe plastic products come with clear statements on what temperatures they are safe to use with or not. If there is nothing on it or you dont trust the brand... assume the lowest commonly found maximum temperature, around 80°C....
The UK Food Standards Agency says "Do not use cling films where they may melt into the food, such as in conventional ovens or with pots and pans on cooker hobs."
Here is the link, this is the first bullet point under the second Q&A list of answers.
This was from 2002, 13 years ago.
Any non food grade plastic (and even those) when heated to certain temperatures (unless through incineration, around 1000c) will leach toxins, specifically dibenzofurans/dioxins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dioxins_and_dioxin-like_compounds
So no, using cling wrap under any circumstance other than cold, is not recommended, period.
Clingfilm is safe for using cold and wrapping cold foods to store in the (cold) fridge, NOT wrap foods up and put in hot water. This is insane. Please people, don't do this.
Sorry to be five years late, but I was searching for the best ways to poach eggs and found this. This is NOT it.
This is an opinion, not an answer...perhaps you have some facts, information or research you want to present?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.251085
| 2010-07-18T10:41:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1717",
"authors": [
"Alison S",
"Blakomen",
"Chris Kehler",
"Dave",
"Dr TJ",
"DrAg FPV",
"GalacticCowboy",
"Jochen Ritzel",
"MNRC",
"MetaGuru",
"Ocaasi",
"Pulse",
"Rade",
"TerrorAustralis",
"Uday Kanth",
"brandy kaufman",
"ceejayoz",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132576",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/748",
"justkt",
"paprika",
"rackandboneman",
"stephen jousiffe"
],
"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
}
|
18975
|
Rendered pork fat vs lard vs bacon fat?
What is the difference between "rendered pork fat", lard, and bacon fat?
I've seen lots of references to rendered pork fat in the Momofuku cookbook, references to lard in one of my Schezuan cookbooks, and well everyone knows bacon fat... so what is the difference ? Can you substitute them ?
Not a lot, bacon is basically brined and smoked pork (the process/recipe depends on where you live)
Fat does not actually change in flavour as much as the flesh does when smoked
"Rendered fat" is just the fat that has run off when heating meat. It should be pure fat, with all the impurity left behind, or skimmed off
Depending on where you live, lard is either just pork fat, or a common word for animal fat
In Asian cooking if it specifies pork fat I would use that. Most Schezuan recipes are not smokey flavour based, so it may be noticeable, and appear unusual
Bacon pork cured by salting not smoke. It may or may not be smoked as well as salted. The salting will change the taste of the fat as moisture will be drawn out.
@Rincewind42 Salting and smoking meat effects the flesh (protein) of the meat, not the fat. Salt does not significantly change fat any more that adding some salt to the final dish would. Rendered fat should not have any moisture in it
Incorrect. Salting, as done for bacon or ham, requires leaving the meat in the salt for several days or even weeks. The salt causes an osmosis effect that draws water out of the cells, drying the meat. This has simlar effect on all cells, wither fat cells or meat cells.
Animal fat is 90%+ triglycerides, some other bits, and a few % water. When rendered the water is released. So as per OP this is equivalent
Dumb question - if lard and rendered pork fat are the same, how come the lard I bought is bone white and the rendered pork fat I saved (from cooking pork belly) is brownish?
@Marcus As stated in answer; Lard and rendered pork fat are not the same. Pork lard and rendered pork fat are the same. Most common lards are beef or mutton fat. Pork fat saved from cooking pork belly is not the same as rendering fat, which removes all impurities
I know I'm a bit late here, but that's an interesting definition of lard you're using. In the real world that the rest of us live in, "lard" is defined as rendered pork fat. Rendered beef or mutton fat is called tallow, not lard.
Yes, rendered beef fat is called tallow. I have not heard a name for rendered sheep fat, but perhaps one exists.
Bacon fat, rendered fat, lard or pork fat differ in purity but not basic chemical structure. Mutton and beef tallow is called suet. Back fats.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.251614
| 2011-11-16T02:08:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18975",
"authors": [
"Aijhana WIlliams",
"Laurie Quinn",
"Marcus Leon",
"Marti",
"Okello John",
"Rincewind42",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sweet tooth",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7986"
],
"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
}
|
20374
|
Substituting almond milk for evaporated
Can almond milk be substituted for evaporated milk in a custard pie recipe?
Almond milk is much, much thinner than evaporated milk. Do you specifically need to use almond milk, or are you just looking for a non-dairy option? I've used coconut milk for custards with some success; you might also be able to use a soy creamer (since you can get away with subbing cream for evaporated milk).
You can use almond milk to prepare a thick custard, but as I recall it has to be cooked for a long time ... and may need more almond solids in it than commercial almond milk has.
You would need to remove some of the liquid youself for this to work. I have successfully made pies by subsitituting soymilk that I had reduced to half its starting volume over low heat. Almond milk should work about the same, just needs to pour twice what your recipe calls for into a pot and simmer until it loses volume, wide surface area would speed up the process.
Using coconut milk is more efficient, as it is thick enough to work without being reduced.
I have used almond milk and raw goat's milk with pure maple syrup when substituting for evaporated milk in pumpkin pie. The pumpkin pies had to be cooked longer. Use a bit more spice if your family likes pumpkin spices. I would reduce the amount of almond milk by an 1/8 of a cup.
As you know almond milk is not really milk at all, but almonds soaked in milk overnight say then blitzed and strained, it has the protein of milk but not any of the sugars or fats. Evaporated milk is milk with about 60% of the liquid removed and sugar added.
If you wanted to use it in a pie recipe (lemon meringue or key lime by any chance?) you would have to add additional thickener like corn-starch. I would add take 2 tbs's and mix it with a tbs of almond milk to make a paste then mix it with the remaining almond milk. I would not cook it on the hob, I would just let it cook in the pie but then perhaps that is wrong.
In addition to the extra thickener, you would have to add extra sugar but I assume this won't actually change the result of the recipe so could be adapted to your taste.
Hope this helps!
No. Almond milk has nothing to do with almonds soaked in milk. It has nothing to do with mammary glands at all and does not include anywhere near the same protein profile. Its actually the proteins that would most need replacing. Some sugar addition for syruping may return it to the right consistency once proteins are at the right spot.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.251874
| 2012-01-11T19:23:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20374",
"authors": [
"Dave Butler",
"Devin",
"FuzzyChef",
"HelloWorld",
"Martin Tournoij",
"Phil Cook",
"ex0du5",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75850",
"nisavid"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25561
|
How to take canned beans out of jar?
Is there any method to take canned beans out of the jar without spoiling the beans, as they are kind of sticking on each other?
Are these in a can or in a jar, you have used both words?
@TFD, they are in the jar. I used "canned" by mean of process not material.
How are you going to use them? If you're going to be using them so that you don't want the starchy liquid, you can rinse them out. (add water, shake a bit, pour out, repeat)
Even though this question seems a little trivial, I have had the same problem.
Usually the beans will come out with just gentle shaking. They won't budge at first but after the suction is broken they will descend and can be shaken out.
Occasionally I have had to use a spoon. You are right that if you just scoop them out you will mash many of them. If you just work the utensil along the side of the jar you can break the suction and they should shake free.
If you do mash them you can always finish the job and make refried beans out of them.
I mashed most of them, so I will refer to your last sentence. Thank you for the advice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.252112
| 2012-08-09T09:40:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25561",
"authors": [
"Duane Whitaker",
"Griffin",
"Joe",
"MissesBrown",
"MoeChen",
"Shebnem",
"TFD",
"hassan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8120"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23582
|
How can you pre-bake coca (pizza)?
The Spanish coca is related to the pizza, so I guess the question can apply for both.
Normally I bake it in about 20 minute, should I take it out after 10 minute or later or sooner?
If I freeze it, can it be popped straight into the oven or should it be thawed first?
Edit: I've posted an answer below. Still wondering if you can take the pizza out of the freezer, put the filling on and pop it straight into the oven...
Can you clarify what you mean by "I bake it in about 20'..."? It sounds like you are talking about time but I am unfamiliar with ' used in the context of time. Are we talking about minutes? Or are we not talking about time at all?
@Jay My guess would be minutes, as in angle measurement ' is used to mark minutes (1/60 of a degree)
@Yamikuronue: Yea that makes sense. Thanks. BaffledCook, I made the edit to the question so there is no confusion. If you did mean something else, I guess edit it farther.
The ' is used in many contexts to indicate minutes Races are an example.
@Jay, sorry, yes ' stands for minutes.
Apparently, pizza's can be pre-baked up to 80% of the normal baking time. People recommend:
Baking without the filling (as this can make the base soggy).
The filling should be pre-baked (otherwise the base will burn when finishing).
I've pre-baked 10 individual coca's and they're frozen. I'll report back how they turn out of the oven.
Edit: I did two straight out of the freezer, fresh ingredients. It worked pretty well, but not perfect (a little bit soggy). I'm guessing this was because the coca's were only 50% pre-baked.
Did this for a lunch-rush special, prebaking individual pizzas (not thin-crust) in a slower oven with steam from a lg pan of water below.
Crusts were not at all brown nor crisp. Mushrooms cheese and other quick-cooking toppings needed no precooking.
A final assembled 5min high-heat crisping up was all that was needed.
I froze extra crusts but thawed them before use so no telling if freezer-to-oven is doable.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.252273
| 2012-05-04T13:55:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23582",
"authors": [
"A.Fieldhouse",
"BaffledCook",
"GoldieLocks",
"Jay",
"Kathleen ANNORENO",
"Megan Williams",
"Mike K",
"Rick Debby Sargent",
"Yamikuronue",
"clabacchio",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8556",
"punkrockbuddyholly"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14079
|
Can overcooked caramel be harmful?
Ok, here's the situation. I put a pan of water and sugar on a medium high flame and went away. Some time later I found a smoldering black mass overflowing the pan. It took some time to clean up (anybody know how to remove burnt caramel from stainless steel?).
I threw the burnt caramel away, but later started wondering. There is a sweet called 'carbon' and I have no idea how it's made, but it looks the same as what was in the pan... So there's the question. How is 'carbon' made?
Edit The question was whether the burnt sugar is edible. The answer of course is: no.
I just read that 'carbon' is made from a sugar/water mix (80/20) with black coloring mixed with a caramel.
My black smoldering mass has been adequately disposed of...
What exactly is the question? Your title doesn't seem to match the main content of your post, and you also partially answer one of your questions in your comments.
A method that could work when cleaning your pot is scrubbing it with a lump of sugar.
For the record, never, ever leave caramel unattended. It boils at high temperatures and if someone were to 'just dip their finger in it' or a kid were to come along and knock it off, they'd be very badly burnt.
Something burnt is never healthy.
not true, Mien. It'll taste bad, but isn't necessarily bad for your health (not sure about burnt sugar). Charcoal for example is burnt wood, and is used as a medicine to cure diarrhea :)
I think what your looking for is called poured sugar oil moulds(rings) that you want to use ant shape is okay then use 2 lbs sugar,1 lb water, 6.55 ounces of glucose and food colouring if you want.make a syrup with the three and then boil until it reaches 260F add food colouring continue to boil until temp. reaches 330F plunge the pot into a cold water bath to stop the cooking.remove from water and let stand 2-3 minutes to thicken. Pour mixture into moulds until 1/4 inch thick. Once edges have setenough remove the ring. Use a little reheated sugar to attached pieces together like a glue.this can be used as a base for any center piece you want to create with other sugar pieces
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.252493
| 2011-04-15T22:11:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14079",
"authors": [
"Anabelle Hangenson",
"BaffledCook",
"ElendilTheTall",
"I answer wrong - have fun",
"Mien",
"Parneix",
"Pixel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"johnny",
"jwenting",
"keithjgrant"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15273
|
What to look for in a mandoline?
I've bought two mandolines recently and I've returned the first and will return the second. The first was a stainless steel contraption that:
Broke my food instead of slicing it.
Was ever so hard to clean. At first I thought this was because the blade was perpendicular to the food and so wouldn't slice it correctly. But on closer examination, it was because the food would bump against the plastic casing of the knife.
The second mandoline has a V-shaped knife. The blades are not adjustable. My issues with this apparatus are:
The smallest blade will not cut straw potatoes.
The next blade will cut French fries but won't cut through so I have to waste time loosening the cuts.
On cleaning, the V-shaped knife will cut a slice of the sponge and it will stick there, and I don't want to find sponge in my next batch of cuts.
So, for my next mandoline, I'll be looking for a mandoline that's:
Easy to clean.
Has adjustable blades.
Made of dishwasher-proof plastic (as opposed to stainless steel?).
Safe.
Durable.
Economical in a sense that you don't end up with leftover cuts.
Extractable blades so they can be sharpened.
Size, I just got the Benriner and I should have bought the super. Three sizes, small = too small, medium (super) is good I hope.
...
What else should I be looking for?
Edit: Economical. The current mandoline doesn't cut the last slice so I end up throwing pieces of food away (recycle for other dishes, really).
Edit (update): Thanks for all the input. As only one answer can be accepted, I've accepted the Benriner, I bought it. Too small for me. I'll have to buy another one. :)
I sliced the end of my finger off with my mandolin slicer. You can have it.
Safety, that sure is a good thing to look for...
All mandolins will slice the sponge you clean them with if you do it wrong. The idea is to only wipe from one direction, i.e. the one that stops the blade cutting the sponge.
Unless you can dismount the blade... but you are correct of course :)
@c4h5as: Ha! My answer was going to be "Your thumb." I took a huge chunk out of mine the first time I used one. Buy some kevlar gardening gloves, and never worry about hacking off fingers again. That annoying plastic hockey puck is worthless.
A good mandolin should make pretty music. A good mandoline juliennes and thin-slices things. These are not the same thing.
I stand corrected. The spell checker does not accept mandoline...
I was going to say something like, "look for one that won't take the tip of your finger off", but @C4H5As beat me to it. I too took a major slice out of the tip of a finger with a mandoline. Make sure it comes with some sort of guard/food holder that stands between your fingers and the blade. And use it! Mine has one, but I neglected to use it on this occasion and caused quite a bloody mess.
Every professional kitchen I've been in uses the simple Japanese Benriner brand mandolines. They are sharp, efficient, and reasonably priced. It is indeed good advice to use a kevlar glove. Microplane sells this one: Microplane 34007 Kitchen Cut-Protection Glove, which I've found works fine.
I know a couple cooks too macho to follow "good advice." Their finger tips show it.
That looks similar to mine which works fine. Same sort of price. You don't want to spend too much since the blades can't be easily re-sharpened, and replacements are always hard to get
I have used a Benriner once and it's a marvel. The only 'issue' is that you need a screwdriver to fasten the blade.
@GUI Junkie - that must have been an older model; the current ones have thumbscrews for fastening the blade, no tool needed.
This is a super-late answer in an attempt to summarize desirable mandoline properties.
Dishwasher friendly. (For what it's worth, I've found the straight blade to be easy to clean by sponge.)
Included hand / finger guard. The food-holder design shown here: allows you push the food down down towards the blade as the food gets thinner and thinner; which I've found to be very effective at getting the last little bit of whatever I'm slicing.
Sturdy construction. (We had a cheap one break and then cut the cook.) This is probably difficult to judge based on packaging bullet points, but generally stick with a known brand, and avoid the cheapest ones.
Easy to set depth adjustment, so you can slice as thick or thin as the situation requires. I like a dial with the thickness measurement printed on it.
Changeable blades for plain, crinkle or waffle cuts.
Removable main blade for sharpening.
Appropriate size - it should be large enough for your squash, without being so large that you'll never be able to put it away.
Thanks for the well thought answer. I finally did buy the Super Benriner last month!
@BaffledCook how has it performed for you?
@wootscootinboogie it performs great, but I stopped using the "dicing" blades. They tear through the food instead of slicing. The adjustment scale is lacking, so it's eyeballing.
The Benriner is good, but you should get the wide version.
The standard one listed in the answer above isn't wide enough to handle large onions, large potatoes, most beets, and many other things that you will probably want to put through the mandoline.
I totally agree with you and this was already on the list.
The Benriner is really the only one that professional chefs go for. It's a combination of fantastic Japanese build quality and a very good price. The advice to go for the wide version is good advice, but the thin one out sells it by probably hundreds to one; get both. A good knife costs hundreds these machines cost around 30 bucks. And you can easily remove the blade for sharpening but you do need to know how to sharpen properly. There usefulness is only limited by your imagination. I wouldn't ever be without mine.
I have the 'normal' now, and I've had the Jumbo. The Jumbo was far too wide for me, and I want the 'Super'
As a minimalist chef myself, I have to ask: is a mandolin a requirement in your kitchen? Unless you need hundreds of crinkle cut fries on a regular basis, you might find it more FUN to get great at creating mountains of your own julienned veggies with lightning-fast knife skills.*
That having been said, my non-tested research says simple japanese mandolins are the most affordable and intuitive choice (The Elements of Cooking, page 162). A specific french-style option that Cooks Illustrated recommends, after putting 8 through the rigors of the scientific method, is Oxo Good Grips (standard blade is $69.99; v-blade is $39.99).
*NOTE: Build up speed gradually. Lauren Costello and Russell Reich: To save time, avoid injuries, and do better work, don't rush. No frantic action. First master your craft, then EARN speed as the external expression of internal fluency. (Notes on Cooking, page 10). Poetic thought.
I've got to say that I love my mandolin. It fast and everything comes out identical. I've talked to a couple of professional chefs who've said, "All I really need in a kitchen is my chef's knife and my mandolin." It surprised me to hear it, but it convinced me to get one.
Interesting! In your opinion is it primarily beneficial because you need high volumes of uniform food, or (regardless of amount) you want perfectly identical pieces? Which type / brand do you recommend -- based on what factors? Thanks for the input.
I think the advantages are a few. It certainly helps get a large volume uniform, however, with small quantities it helps keep everything identical for even cooking. It's also by far the easiest way to julienne veggies. You can also use it to provide a much thinner cut than I can reliably manage with a knife (think pickled ginger thin). Mine is orange and was a gift. That's not much help though...
And just like that, I found it: http://www.amazon.com/Swissmar-Borner-V-1001-V-Slicer-Mandoline/dp/B0000632QE
Great thoughts. I'm a knife skills geek, so i love the challenge of uniform, hand cut juliennes...but I've never mastered super-thin cuts. I'll have to check out recipes that call for thin pickled ginger...then I'll probably be sold on the thing. At $39.93, it's worth a try! (loved all the rave reviews on amazon). Thanks again for providing a contrasting perspective.
I am all gun ho for knife skills, but I can't get chips all uniform, or straws, or... and not to mention the speed you can achieve with a mandolin is amazing.
@GUI Junkie & Kati: Even executive chefs pull out the mandoline for scalloped potatoes and fine julienne carrots. I've seen them do it. Knife skills are wonderful, but a mandoline is several times as fast, and more consistent. If you do a lot of thin slices or juliennes, a mandoline is really the way to go. So, you're not alone in struggling with a couple really tricky cuts. Yes, you can learn to do the cuts by knife, but it really isn't worth the time doing it the hard way unless you have no choice.
bob, is there a volume factor to consider? i often am just cooking for 2 (a couple meals' worth at a time). as i have been chewing on this topic of late, i realize this may be what has created my bias.
Volume matters for some things, but the cut type matters more. Well, I have professional knife skills, and I'd say that julienne and fine julienne carrots are just too big of a pain by hand unless you're doing like one or two carrots worth. Scalloped potatoes aren't a big deal in small batches, but you'll want a mandoline for bigger ones. Shaving ginger and other paper-thin things... yeah, you pretty much have to have a mandoline for that. Yes, in theory it's possible with a razor-sharp knife. It's just way more trouble than it's worth.
@bob, I don't have sushi chef knife skills, so the mandoline will have to do!
My knife skills stink. Having a mandoline allows get to make better food in less time, which is a good thing. Also, it's about the only way I can get through more than one onion before the tears overcome me. (Sad, I know.)
Consumer search has a selection of mandolins. This is my outline of their review (which also come from reviews !) so it's a meta-meta-review.
In addition to your criterion:
Possibility to sharpen the blades
Waffle cut (I like this one, it's kind of hard --I'd say impossible-- to do it without a mandolin)
Julienne and crinkle
Dishwasher-safe
However, you end up with a 180 $ mandolin !
Waffle cut is great, how about dicing?
@BaffledCook Maybe julienne, but dicing is a three cut process, you'll have to finish with a knife. I'll add julienne though.
I would look for durability. I've personally gone through several mandolines that worked beautifully at first, but quickly and tragically dulled to the point of unusability. Like you mentioned, the food will simply break rather than slice, and my eggplant parmesan would be mush.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.252764
| 2011-06-06T08:20:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15273",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"BobMcGee",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Etienne Racine",
"Gino Mondino",
"Jean",
"Kati",
"KatieK",
"KevinTheChef",
"Mark McDonald",
"Michael Natkin",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Sweet_Cherry",
"TFD",
"gabra",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69151",
"raven",
"user3694428",
"vladiz",
"wootscootinboogie",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100562
|
U.S. Equivalent of French T80 for Sourdough Pain de Campagne
I'm a home sourdough baker in the U.S. and want to try a recipe that calls for the French T80 flour. Some questions:
- I have read T80 described as half whole wheat/half bread flour, and also as all bread flour (i.e., white flour). Can it really be one or the other?
- What is the equivalent of T80 in the U.S., if any?
- If there is no equivalent, what comes close, or what combination of flours would come close?
You would want to look for a high gluten bread flour, in the 14% protein area. I found this helpful for understanding different flours. In the Fresh Loaf Discussion Forum, a user suggests combining whole wheat and bread flour in a ratio of 80/20.
Here in the US, you probably have access to King Arthur flours. Their whole wheat is 14%, white whole wheat is 13%, and bread flour is 12.7% protein. I doubt you want to go 100% whole wheat flour, so you could use some of the information I provided to create a blend that would work well.
It looks like you could also order from French T80 here. Although, I should point out that this product description is a little confusing because it describes T45 flour below, and a protein content of 10%, but you might be able to contact them for the product you desire.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.253672
| 2019-08-03T22:33:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100562",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
84595
|
I need to keep blacks beans and rice warm.
In about an hour I need to leave with a pot of black beans and rice. I don't have a crock pot, but I do have a cast iron pot with lid. To keep it all warm can I put it in an iron pot, and put it in the oven at 375F. Am I going to burn it if I leave it there for an hour? Should I lower the temperature?
I would place cooked beans and rice in a warmed pot (cast iron is good) and then place it in your oven set at its lowest temperature...Maybe 175F, and certainly below 200F. At 375F your rice and beans will continue to cook.
And consider wrapping the pan in a towel or two after removing it from the oven.
I leave leftovers warm for a couple of hours (when serving) as warm either at 200 F in the oven, or on the lowest setting on the stove (if it is something with soup or liquid, put baked/drier dishes in the oven.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.253802
| 2017-09-24T20:40:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/84595",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"mrog"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85124
|
Can you mix oat and wheat flakes into bread mix?
When mixing wheat flour to make bread, can I add some wheat and oat flakes?
In general, opinion based questions are not accepted on this forum. You certainly can add flakes to bread, whether or not it is "nice" is a matter of preference.
You can, what effect are you looking for? What result do you want?
I mix all kinds of things into my bread, so yes, you can do it.
Things to note: if you add things that draw water, you may want to either soak them first (i.e. seeds) or add more water to your dough (i.e. oat flakes, which would loose their structure when soaked).
I don't know how you raise your bread, but in case let the dough raise, then knead again for a second rise:
You may want to put in your additions after the second knead (to make sure your yeast stays undisturbed for the first).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.254160
| 2017-10-20T10:36:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85124",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129571
|
Can spices, like cloves, be reused?
Which spices, like cloves, can be used more than once?
I think the answer that @GdB gave makes a very important point. Spices are dried to preserve them, and keep them edible. As soon as you use them in any way that stops them being dry, they will begin to spoil. I would ask though, what's your motivation for wanting to reuse spices? If it's cost, then I'd just point out that spices bought at supermarkets or large chains, are usually extremely overpriced.
One thing that's quite standard is to use vanilla to make vanilla sugar, then extract (with alcohol). The pods can finally be cut up and added to custard or ice cream.
This should work with many sweet spices, such as cinnamon sticks and cloves, that can be put whole in sugar to give up some flavour. The flavour of course reduces at each use, and not all will give up flavour to sugar very well. Star anise might be worth a try, as might cardamom (seeds not whole pods, remove by sieving) and juniper berries. Nutmeg probably not. Mace, black pepper, allspice - maybe, but I suspect the flavour won't be worth it.
Some of the same spices could be used, dried, and used once more in something similar, but both the first use and the drying cost you flavour, so you probably only get 2 uses before it's not worth it. Spices for mulled wine might make a few batches over the course of a day, but you'll need to top them up - or think in terms of one continuous batch.
Much of the flavor and aroma of spices come from volatile compounds. Once these compounds are released by heat, grinding, interactions with fats, etc....they are mostly given up to the product they are added to, and to the environment. Even without these physical and chemical disruptions, these volatiles dissipate over time. That is why it is recommended that cooks purchase whole spices, in small amounts. Having said that, there are some potential applications pointed out in other answers. One just has to expect that the impact of the re-used spice will be different...in some cases, quite dramatically, because of the loss of volatiles.
Think of spices like coffee. There's only so much flavor in a coffee ground, whole or ground clove that can be extracted, once it's gone that's it. Secondly, once you expose a dry spice to water it rehydrates, and spoiling sets in.
The only way I could see reusing whole spices would be if you used them briefly, then reused them very soon afterwards. Otherwise you're not getting the most out of them and then they'll go bad on you. I can't think of many cases where that would work.
Hot peppers can be reused for a long time. I just dip one in any sauce that will go into my food, wash it off if necessary, then put it back in the fridge.
It dries up gradually, but stays spicy. Anything over half a mil scoville should serve a regular person for a couple weeks.
Pepper is one spice I never thought of reusing, since I usually just eat them whenever I add them to a dish... But then I'm also not using peppers that hot.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.254282
| 2024-11-17T01:01:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129571",
"authors": [
"Hollis Hurlbut",
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63671"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76084
|
Is cereal a soup?
Just curious, no other answer seems to be specific. I'm not looking for a discussion here, just an answer and an explanation.
Cereal as in "cornflakes and milk"?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm asking
I would say no, cereal in milk is more simply comparable to a food in sauce - there's very little interaction between the cereal and the milk to make it a single dish, it is not a cohesive whole - and in fact it is considered the same dish (cereal) if eaten dry. It might work as a simple sweet pudding if allowed to soak and meld a bit, perhaps, instead of being eaten crunchy (which is where I was getting the food-in-sauce likeness).
Hot cereals might count a (sweet) soup, especially if there are other ingredients (like a gruel with grain and milk, and spices, dried fruits, and egg yolks to thicken) - though I think it would depend on consistency. Something thicker, like a gummy oatmeal, would probably be more closely related to a pudding, but a thin one might well be soup. Even cold cereal might work as a (sweet) soup if there was more going on with the milk, some other ingredients and flavorings - then it would be a cold, sweet milk soup with the cereal bits acting like dumplings.
The dictionary definition of soup is basically a savory definition, citing a combination of liquids, or meat and vegetables in broth or water (with other ingredients for flavor and texture), though there is a secondary definition that covers mixtures or substances resembling soup - which is how sweet soups, cold soups, and other more unusual sorts of soups earn the name.
I think (cold) cereal is just too far removed to earn that label, being cold instead of hot and sweet instead of savory and separable into its parts instead of married into a single dish and only having two ingredients, that is, not being a complex mixture or a greater-than-its-parts whole, and having other words which are better definition matches (cereals, puddings, foods with sauce, etc). A soup can still be a soup with a couple of these alterations, I think having all of them is too many for it to fit that category.
Cereal in milk is not soup. From Wikipedia :
Soup is a primarily liquid food, generally served warm or hot (but may be cool or cold), that is made by combining ingredients such as meat and vegetables with stock, juice, water, or another liquid. Hot soups are additionally characterized by boiling solid ingredients in liquids in a pot until the flavors are extracted, forming a broth.
Traditionally, soups are classified into two main groups: clear soups and thick soups. The established French classifications of clear soups are bouillon and consommé. Thick soups are classified depending upon the type of thickening agent used: purées are vegetable soups thickened with starch; bisques are made from puréed shellfish or vegetables thickened with cream; cream soups may be thickened with béchamel sauce; and veloutés are thickened with eggs, butter, and cream. Other ingredients commonly used to thicken soups and broths include egg,[1] rice, lentils, flour, and grains; many popular soups also include carrots and potatoes.
There is much more information on the linked page but I can't see any way that cereal in milk would be classed as a soup.
Thank you so much! It's a debate that's going on at work
What part of that indicates that it is not soup?
Milk is the broth and the cereal is the chunks, in what twisted world is that not TECHNICALLY a soup. I understand that most soups are boiled together, broth and chunks, however, I believe a soup is a dish that has chunks in a liquid and therefore cereal in milk is a soup.
This is an interesting take, however what about soups that do not contain chunks, like tomato soup?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.254563
| 2016-12-02T19:12:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76084",
"authors": [
"LucyMarieJ",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63906",
"nasch",
"senschen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103631
|
What is the proper way to use polysorbate to create an emulsion?
I am looking for an emulsifier that will bind my flavouring oil and syrup, but will not destroy the taste. I was told to try polysorbate 20 and 80. I have mixed the oil and water, and added some polysorbate 80. There is a layer still on top of the syrup that u can't see through, and the bottom 2/3 is cloudy. I can only feel that this hasn't worked. I also thought that polysorbate is supposed to be tasteless, but the stuff in front of me taste disgusting, even a pea sized drop. Am I using polysorbate correctly?
What is the syrup/oil/polysorbate ratio you're using?
Maybe polysorbate 20 or polysorbate 80 does not work well with a pure water and oil mixture?
From what I have read, the process is to mix polysorbate with the essential oil, in a 1:1 ratio, until a clear solution is achieved. Then, add that mixture to your water or flavor syrup. As I understand it, there are several variables, such at pH, temperature, and the other ingredients that might be part of your final product, which could impact the effectiveness of polysorbate.
You could also look into soy lecithin as a potential emulsifier for your situation.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.254880
| 2019-11-21T17:06:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103631",
"authors": [
"Max",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104306
|
Cake with ganache on top going to the freezer
I’ll pour the ganache over the cake, then freeze the cake with the ganache on top. Will it freeze ok together?
Freezing a cake with ganache should be fine.
You can read more about freezing a cake with ganache here:
https://www.cakecentral.com/forum/t/680186/can-i-freeze-a-cake-covered-in-ganache
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.254999
| 2019-12-24T01:06:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104306",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95042
|
Chicken and Dumplings soaked up all the broth
My dumplings soaked up all of the broth. What can I add to my chicken and dumplings without ruining the flavor?
which dumplings? what's the recipe? what's in the broth?
Add water? So long as you eat it all together, the flavor should still be there, just in the dumplings
Welcome! Can you [edit] to include your recipe for dumplings and broth? Without knowing what flavor you currently have, we don't know what will work with it :)
I'm sorry to be laughing, but I did the same thing years ago. Those dumplings really swell.
Add more broth. Use either water, balanced with spices, or add from a good brand.
Edit: You could always make more broth than you need and freeze the rest.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.255068
| 2018-12-21T15:37:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95042",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"Joe",
"Luciano",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"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
}
|
95769
|
Will unsealed fish in the freezer contaminate packaged food?
My step dad put 3 unsealed fishes from the lake in the freezer. I also have sealed waffles and sealed hotdog meat in the freezer. I want to make sure the package food is safe for my children to eat.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice SE. What do you mean by "unsealed"? Are the fish resting on something (like a cookie sheet), or are they just tossed into the freezer without anything?
In the freezer, things are relatively safe, as pathogens will not multiply given the cold temperature. So, as long as you remove the package with the waffles and toast, or remove the hotdog package and cook, you will be fine. There is a higher risk for pathogens to multiply on anything that the fish is resting on if you were to remove those items and warm them up slowly (thaw on the counter top, for example). There is also a risk of cross contamination if you have the handle the fish to move things about. However, the more significant problem with not wrapping the fish is (a) it will dehydrate/become "freezer burned" thus limiting shelf life, (b) it will be a source of off-flavors for other food stored in the refrigerator/freezer, and (c) it will pick up off-flavors from the rest of your refrigerator/freezer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.255169
| 2019-01-18T14:10:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95769",
"authors": [
"elbrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
97403
|
Is buttermilk preferred for sourdough starter?
Is buttermilk a preferred milk for sour dough starter?
Welcome! You don't necessarily need milk at all for a sourdough starter. Can you add some more details about what you hope to do, or what you want to learn?
Possible duplicate of Milk instead of water for sourdough?
This is the first I've ever heard of it so, no, it is not preferred.
Normal sourdough starter is usually just flour and water. However, there are less common alternatives such as using fruit yeast and other sources of yeast.
The main problem with using things like milk or buttermilk is the danger of causing spoilage.
As another commenter already added,
"Adding milk works because milk is mostly water. It might even work
better, as it also contains sugar (lactose) which will be eaten by
your starter's yeasts and bacteria.
But it also contains other stuff, such as fats. And fats, after some
time, get rancid. You probably won't want that taste in bread or
pancakes. I would stick to water (which quite probably you'll find
cheaper than milk).
Don't worry about rotten milk: your starter is already rotten. And
it's a hostile environment for most microbes. It's very very
improbable new microbes would survive there. But if they do, they'll
be quite similar to the already existing ones."
A great overview from this comment:
"A sourdough starter is just Flour + Water + Time
Some add catalysts such as pineapple juice or grape skins etc. But
what is fermenting is the flour! and this is the starter.
Once the starter is made, however you choose to make one, the finished
starter will be a flour + water. The added "catalysts" are just to
help make one. Once it is made then generally it is just fed flour +
water to be kept going indefinitely.
There is such a thing as Yeast Water which is made and kept going with
fruit but that is different.
When a starter is used in a sourdough it will be flour + water. The
temperature and feeding schedule will affect the starter either making
it more yeast or bacterial therefore making it more or less sour. But
what also effects the final bread is how the starter is used within
the dough, i.e. how much starter to use, how long the dough is
fermented and at what temperature.
So many factors involved here.
No two people have exactly the same starter. And one starter can bring
out different qualities in different breads depending on how it is
used. And a change in feeding can change your starter.
Welcome to sourdough."
Best practices from Colorado State University:
"Considerations for bread starter variations: Amish Friendship Bread:
Although rare, there have been incidents of foodborne illness
associated with friendship-style bread, which differs from traditional
sourdough by addition of milk and sugar, and thus provides an
environment which could support growth of harmful microorganisms. To
limit introductions of harmful bacteria in friendship bread starter,
use pasteurized milk or cultured (soured) dairy and ferment in a
refrigerator, not at room temperature."
Signs your starter may have gone wrong:
"Signs of Contamination A starter should be white, light gray or light
tan. It should smell like bread dough, of yeast or of its ingredients.
It should bubble subtly and occasionally burp. If the starter has
liquid on top of it -- this is called hooch, and it is the alcohol the
starter’s yeast produces from fermentation -- it should be clear,
white, light gray or light brown. If the starter or its hooch is pink,
green or dark brown, discard the starter. If it smells or looks moldy,
discard the starter. If the starter is fizzing or the starter has
spots or patches -- which are signs of foreign bacterial growth --
discard the starter."
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.255310
| 2019-04-10T23:12:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97403",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"Rob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99132
|
Will cooking tagliatelle in squid ink turn it black?
I am planning to make squid ink pasta, but I do not have pasta machine. Since I am lazy, I want to boil dried pasta in squid ink water. Will it turn black...or not black enough?
You can make hand rolled squid ink pasta. Then you wouldn't need a pasta machine and you could have black pasta.
Ok i am just lazy lol
In that case, you can certainly purchase squid ink pasta.
Not readily available here
Funny you editted my question lol
Boiling it in ink will give some flavor and color, but it won't be part of the pasta. Instead, you could make a squid ink-based sauce to toss it in afterwards. Here's an example recipe: https://www.thespruceeats.com/spaghetti-al-nero-di-seppia-2018653
I planned to mix it in hollandaise-carbonara situation which was a bad idea. Yours is better solution
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.255615
| 2019-05-23T17:32:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99132",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75709",
"moscafj",
"user23139"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99430
|
For slow cooker meal prep should I freeze the vegetables separately from the meat and sauce?
I have a new food saver vacuum sealer. I want to seal up all the ingredients for a slow cooker meal. Should I add the vegetables separately from the meat and sauce, or all in together? I was concerned some vegetables should not be frozen (such as onions).
If you're doing a one step cook in the slow cooker, you can freeze everything together. If you want to brown any ingredients first you'll need to keep them separate. I do tend to, so I'd have a bag for any meat, a bag for veg that wants browning or softening (onions, carrots, pepperd etc.) and a bag or other container for the liquid part, with any veg that doesn't need an initial step (beans, sweetcorn, potatoes...)
Most slow cooked dishes freeze very well after cooking, so an alternative is to cook several portions at once, divide and freeze, microwaving when you want to eat them. These approaches aren't mutually exclusive of course.
This is going to depend on how you want to use the items. If you are planning on combining several ingredients to put in a crockpot, then package them together (and move it to the fridge to thaw out the day before). If you are going to use (example) chicken in several recipes, then perhaps it would work better to package portions of meat separately (so you can take out what you need as you need it).
I'm sure there are things that do not respond well to freezing, but I cannot think of any off the top of my head. Just look at the varieties of vegetables in your grocer's freezer section. Onions freeze fine, btw. And most things do not require parboiling or any other pre-cooking methods.
I typically spread things out on a cookie sheet (cut, diced, or whole) and move it to zippered freezer bags after an hour (or so) in the freezer to prevent clumping. Corn on the cob doesn't even require that much work. Just pop them in the bags and stack them in the freezer. You can husk them and break them in half first, or if you prefer... put them in a freezer bag husks and all. Your choice.
Enjoy your new kitchen toy. I hope it saves you tons of time!
i have been regularly stewing and freezing for convenient meals for a few years. judging from the way you ask your question, I will guess that you are referring to freezing after the stew is cooked. your question is whether to separate the veg from the meat and sauce before freezing.
short answer is: there is no need to as there are no difference in the results you get. I tried both ways to reach this conclusion. like you I had concerns about what can freeze well.
tip: I figured out that I want to leave out root vegetables like stew favorites of potatoes and carrots, until the day you want to eat the stew. cooked potatoes and carrots do not freeze well, results in a lousy texture. So I only add in potatoes and carrots to cook on the day it is to be eaten.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.255714
| 2019-06-08T01:39:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99430",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99945
|
Dry rub duration
How long is too long to allow for a dry rub with small amounts of salt to sit on a pork shoulder and a brisket. I usually let it sit overnight, but am thinking of extending the time to 24 hours.
At 24 hours, assuming it is chilled, you will be more than fine.
Twenty four hours will be fine. Most recipes I see suggest 8 to 24 hours, but if you look around on the BBQ forums, you'll find people who rub and leave in the fridge for up to 3 or 4 days.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.256044
| 2019-07-03T13:56:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99945",
"authors": [
"J Crosby",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76237"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93741
|
How do I remove oil from soup?
Sometimes I want to avoid oil and oil-related food. How do I remove oil from soup?
related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93501/how-can-i-remove-excess-fat-oil-from-my-slow-cooker-dish?rq=1
I have a "bottom pouring" measuring cup - it lets you dump in a bunch of pan drippings from roasting a turkey, etc. and pours from underneath the oil/fat on top. Works well, but only holds about 1 cup. Have never seen anything bigger in kitchen use, but much larger for doing things like pouring molten metal in foundries, etc.
The easiest way, is to cool (fridge) it down and remove the hardened fat that should have floated to the top.
You could try doing while the soup is hot by using a shallow spoon and spoon the liquid fat from the top, or use absorbant paper to absorb the fat.
In both cases, it will never remove all of the fat, especially if the soup contains meat or is not a clear soup (like a consommé)
Regarding paper: I suggest non-bleached paper if possible. Even surface contact can sometimes transfer that bleach taste if it's not done carefully. Most paper towels I've encountered are bleached.
You could use an oil skimmer, such as this one from Amazon. It's essentially a sieve with a very fine mesh, it works as fats are much more viscous than water based liquids so stay on top of the skimmer while the water goes through.
I use one to remove meat-based fat and impurities from broths and soups, although vegetable based oils tend to be less viscous so I'm not sure if it would work as well, although cooling it down will make the fat more viscous.
Neat tool. Does it work well even on hot soups or do you need to cool it down so the fat is more congealed?
does it work well with "chunky" soups ?
When making soup, I usually pressure-cook it and let it cool in the pressure cooker overnight. Excess cooking oil floats to the top, and can be removed with a spoon, or a turkey baster. I do this as the first step before liquidising, reheating and seasoning.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.256131
| 2018-11-09T14:16:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93741",
"authors": [
"Booga Roo",
"Erica",
"Ess Kay",
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70481",
"ivanivan"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93768
|
How do I know that the quantity of salt is enough for a given amount of flour?
When making bread during Ramadan, I can't taste the flour. Is there a known ratio of salt to flour when making bread?
What about using a recipe? A good recipe should state the amount of flour and salt needed?
This is sort of a matter of taste, too -- I like saltier food than my daughter, so I need to bake bread with less than I would prefer and then add a salty condiment or topping to the pieces I eat.
By "quantum", do you mean "quantiy"? I'm sorry but I can't actually understand your question.
Yes I mean quantity. Can you help me?
There is no such way, because the amount you add is arbitrary. There is no special ratio, you just add so much that people will like the taste. The problem is, different people like different amounts of salt. For any reasonable amount of salt you choose to add, it will be too much for some people and too little for others.
If you are always baking for the same people (your immediate family, perhaps) you can find out by trial and error how much they like, or even get them accustomed to a certain amount over time, which will become their preferred amount. If you are baking for others, you just have to give up the idea that the salt will be right for everybody.
Most bread recipes calculated using a baker's percentage approach recommend 2% salt. That would be a good starting point. If you weigh 500 g flour, for example, 500 x .02 = 10. Add 10 grams of salt. You can then adjust from there based on personal preference.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.256315
| 2018-11-10T06:16:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93768",
"authors": [
"David Richerby",
"Erica",
"Marosh Fatima",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70402"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93751
|
What should I do when I add too much salt to rice?
I accidentally added extra salt to my rice. Is there anything I can do now?
Before or after cooking? Will you be serving the rice alone or as a side dish?
Add extra rice to your salt.
Cook another batch of rice, with no salt, then mix both batches.
Alternatively, you could attempt to make a fried rice dish from it where you add no more salt but plenty of vegetables, nuts, fruit, meat....
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.256461
| 2018-11-09T17:42:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93751",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
94818
|
Does it take longer to cook more pork ribs?
I have to cook 6 racks (about 16lbs) of baby back ribs (packs of 3 from Costco). I can't find anything on the internet about how to adjust for time when cooking. I plan on a cooking temperature of 225f in the oven and finishing on the grill.
Please don’t post answers in the comments section, thanks.
It's not entirely clear what you mean, but if you mean the difference between cooking 1 rack or 6, the answer is that there isn't one. The oven will heat up six racks just as quickly as one, unless you stack all of them directly on top of each other or something like that. The only thing you have to adjust is the seasoning. Otherwise, just make sure they have space and cook like it was one rack.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.256530
| 2018-12-14T16:13:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94818",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89535
|
New York style pizza dough
We have been open for two months. In this two months, I feel like the pizza dough is coming out different every time, even though we use the same ingredients and the same amounts. I have been worried lately because I see a gum line in my pizza dough and I don't know what to do to get rid of it. Usually, I use 25 grams pressed yeast, 330 grams sugar, 200 grams salt, 2QT corn oil, 4 QT water, and ten scoops of flour. I don't know if my dough mixer is not doing the job, if the oven is not hot enough, or if I am making a mistake somewhere in the process. Any suggestions?
What kind of mixer are you using? What oven temperature do you use? In what sequence do you add ingredients? And ... excuse me... do they really use corn oil for authentic NYC pizza?
Most mixers will not be able to properly homogenize ten flour scoups at once, especially if these are made of hard plastic or metal. Also, very few machines mix volume and weight measurements for ratio-critical ingredients well - as do very few people for that matter.
(previous comment was about the corrected "ten flour scoops" - SCNR. Could you weigh one scoop of flour?)
Hey Rackandboneman thanks for your reply so i m using this mixer Avantco MX20 20 Qt. Gear Driven Commercial Planetary Stand Mixer with Guard - 110V, 1 hp , one scoop of the flour is like 700 grams, and the order of the stuff that i put in is the yeast with the water first then the salt and the sugar then the oil and the flour last, and about the oil i belive with olive oil will come out better but i never tried that before and the temperature that i use is 500
What is a gum line?
@GdD see https://www.pizzatoday.com/departments/in-the-kitchen/dough-doctor-tom-lehmann-takes-a-look-at-what-causes-a-gum-line-and-how-to-prevent-it/ and https://www.canadianpizzamag.com/techniques/the-pizza-chef-how-to-reduce-the-gum-line-1317
My first thought says that "ten scoops of flour" is your problem. Without weighing the flour you can't possibly know that you're getting the same amount every time, as it will pack differently with every scoop.
First point I would not is that the mixer you mention (Avantco MX20 20 Qt.)is not recommended for pizza dough as stated here
Secondly this not withstanding the capacity of this mixer for bread dough is 16-18 lbs (7-8 KG approx). By my calculation you are trying to mix around 30 lbs (14 KG). Avantco MX20 20 Qt. specification
My recommendation as a short term measure is halve your batch size.
In addition as recommended by others, weigh ingredients. Measuring dry ingredients by volume will always be variable.
As a long term solution research in to getting a specialist mixer for pizza dough.
One reason you are getting variations in your dough is because you have variations in your amounts. Volume measurements are not accurate enough for consistent baking, you need to switch to weight measurements for all ingredients including the water and oil. A little more or less flour in each scoop makes a significant difference. Use your scale for everything including liquids and you eliminate measurements as a factor.
Once you eliminate measurements the rest is technique (equipment and its use) and environmental conditions like temperature and humidity. Working to results rather than times in a consistent way will get you more predictable outcomes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.256655
| 2018-05-01T19:44:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89535",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66906",
"ithan J",
"rackandboneman",
"senschen"
],
"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
}
|
93809
|
Preserving sauces
I am trying my best to be chemical free. We use vinegar to preserve tomato sauces and pizza sauces for few days/ weeks. How do we preserve other sauces? I was trying carrot sauce, pumpkin sauce and other varieties. With vinegar it doesn't taste good. Even when stored in refrigerator they don't stay long. So what else can I use to extend the shelf life without adding any chemicals?
You may want to look into canning your sauces at home. You could also freeze the sauces in portion sized amounts and only defrost what you will use that day. This would extend the shelf life, but they would still go bad as quickly once they're opened/defrosted.
Unfortunately, there is a reason we use 'chemicals' to preserve food for longer shelf life. The 'natural' options are simply not very good. If you desire a 'chemical-free' lifestyle, one of the drawbacks is that your food will not last as long.
Also....chemical does not necessarily mean unhealthy or unnatural. Acetic acid (vinegar), for example, is a chemical.
True . I was referring to sodium benzoate and others used. However I try to avoid vinegar as well when possible. For me, tomatoes based sauces without vinegar stays 1 week at room temperature and 10 days when refrigerated. While other veg sauces have 1-3 days even with refrigeration. That's why this question.
@moscafj I'm in complete agreement with you, but people have all sorts of strange dietary restrictions that I don't agree with. I try to answer in a nonjudgmental way.
@Johanna I am not criticizing your response, which is just fine. It is true that people have "all sorts of strange dietary restrictions". It is also true that many people assume, irrationally, that "chemical" = bad for you.
Have you tried freezing the sauces? Some fancy "emulsified" sauces with milk and egg, and etc. may separate on thawing...but you do mention tomato based sauces. A regular tomato based spaghetti sauce, with or without meat, freezes great. Thaws out to be just like it was when fresh, and it keeps a super-long time in the freezer. Of course if you make a giant batch, you will want to freeze it in reasonable sized containers so it will freeze quickly and you will be able to use the thawed portion without having to re-freeze, which would be a no-no.
I have tried freezing once but it went watery once thawed and tasted a bit different. So did not try again. It was the regular tomato sauce so I am not very sure what went wrong. Right now am making smaller batches as and when needed and refrigerate the bottles after use.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.256922
| 2018-11-11T14:39:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93809",
"authors": [
"Lorel C.",
"Newtocookingandbaking",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68978",
"moscafj",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93302
|
Tomato substitute in italian dishes?
I'm looking for some delicious Italian dishes,but have to avoid tomatoes. What can be used as an alternate to tomatoes?
Using Google, I found Red Pepper Pasta Sauce, and Cream Sauce.
I have also heard that yogurt is a good substitute for tomato. Can yogurt be a replacement in Italian dishes?
Questions about substitutions do a lot better if you link specific recipes.
Are you looking for tomato substitute in Italian dishes that use tomatoes, or just for Italian dishes without tomatoes?
Firstly, Italy is a country whose cuisine is defined regionally. It varies quite widely. While tomatoes are common throughout Italy, there are plenty of Italian dishes that do not use tomato. Any advice about substitutions would be better provided if you have a specific dish in mind. I can't see yogurt substituting for tomato. While yogurt might provide the acidity that a tomato has, it also as a lactic component that would probably alter most dishes that called for tomato. It could be delicious, but it would be different from the original intention.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.257132
| 2018-10-27T13:38:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93302",
"authors": [
"Andrea Shaitan",
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93718
|
How do you know if cookies are undercooked?
How can one tell if cookies are under baked?
Are you asking about a way to test if a cookie is fully baked?
Cookies are a kind of an informal treat. Tastes vary on the degree of done-ness that is best.
If your cookies won't hold together well enough to take them off the baking sheet with a spatula, or if parts of them are obviously still very gooey/runny, then they are undercooked. Otherwise, the best way to tell is to sample one (after it has cooled enough to eat). If you feel it is undercooked, then leave the next batch in a little longer.
Some people like their cookies "rare" (still a little soft and moist in the middle), and others prefer them well browned and fully cooked until they are firm all the way through. It's an individual judgement with no officially correct standard.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.257241
| 2018-11-08T07:55:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93718",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21137
|
How to prevent "sweating" chocolate covered strawberries?
Last year for Valentines day, I decided I was going to be romantic and make some chocolate covered strawberries for someone special. I melted and tempered some milk chocolate. Then dipped the washed and thoroughly dried strawberries into the chocolate and put them on a plate in the refrigerator to quickly "set" the chocolate.
Later that night as my special someone and I were eating the chocolate covered strawberries, we noticed that there was condensation both on the outside and in between the chocolate and strawberry. It was delicious nonetheless, but I was curious as to why it was "sweating" and if there is anything I can do to prevent this if I decide to ever be romantic again.
I'm wondering if the strawberries should be room temperature when dipped.
Very simple: don't store your chocolate in the fridge. The ideal temperature for setting chocolate is 20°C. You can store it at less or more than that, but not too much. Setting in the fridge results in bad chocolate. Remember, when you work with chocolate, exact temperatures are extremely important.
Here a loose translation from a good article on chocolate/couverture coating:
This is the usual case. You only want a temperature difference of 12° to 13° between the chocolate and its environment as well as between the chocolate and the confect interior.
If the interior is colder than the room, the setting will happen "inside out". The cocoa butter film which gives a confect its shine will build on the inside, leaving the outside looking dull.
This is a really good case for some types of confect, but you can't do it with most types of filling (definitely not with strawberries). Cooling from the outside gives you a beautiful shine.
If you want to achieve a good shine, it is possible to put the confects in the fridge for a short time, but only after they have cooled to 20°C at room temperature. Don't let them fall to fridge temperature, take them out at 15°C. The continued cooling from the outside is beneficial.
This shouldn't happen. The temperature difference is too small, and the confect doesn't set quick enough. In this case, cocoa butter pools on the surface and creates a yellowish layer after it hardens.
When you make your confect, you should time the first piece. The setting should need 10 minutes. If it is less, you don't get all the possible shine. If it needs more, it will get grey or whitish yellow.
So if your kitchen is at 10 degrees you're out of luck?
Looks like it, yes. Chocolate is very finicky when it comes to temperature. Unless you can live with dull, wet chocolate. I know people who don't mind that.
Valentine's day is around February which is still winter and it is still pretty cold here so it might be a problem. I guess i can always just make it some other time of the year. Like a picnic at the park during spring.
@Jay, I can't believe your kitchen is (in winter) only 10 degrees C (50 F).
@Mien, I live in a very old house with bad insulation with 4 other college students. If we want to keep the house above 50 degrees, we would need to each pay about $50-$75 more per month(on top of the already expensive gas bill).
Brrrr. Move! :P You could place the strawberries somewhere else? ;)
Chocolate will 'sweat' in the fridge if it cools too quickly, particularly if your fridge happens to be quite moist, which can quite often happen especially with lots of uncovered fruit and vegetables. Also if you think that a strawberry is around 90% percent water it is hardly surprising that water forms (possibly from condensation as it goes from a warm to cool temperature) on the strawberry.
The best place to store chocolate is somewhere cool and dry. I keep mine wrapped in foil, in a sandwich bag, in the 'larder'. In any case the best way to store chocolate dipped strawberries according to this website is by keeping them in the fridge then before serving while still cold, whips of the condensation as not to damage the chocolate.
Another website with tips on storing chocolate is http://candy.about.com/od/workingwithchocolate/a/storechocolate.htm.
Isn't the refrigerator suppose to have very dry air?
@Jay Supposedly but at the back of my fridge you can see beads of condensation running down!
@jay The refrigerator is filled with normal air from outside. But at the low temperatures, air can't hold much water vapor, so the humidity from the air in the refrigerator condenses on whatever surfaces there are in the refridgerator, including your chocolate, while the air itself gets drier.
Common Belgian wisdom: if you want to prevent chocolate from "sweating", you need to store it at around 15-19 °C, and certainly never ever store it in a fridge...
I suppose to some degree @rumtscho's explanation might explain why.
We served these at a fancy restaurant I worked in and we simply didn't cover them in the fridge. Leave them uncovered and they don't sweat.
I'm not sure that this actually works (someone suggested elsewhere that Jay's strawberries were actually uncovered anyway). Maybe it does with some kinds of chocolate, but in general, it's going to sweat in the fridge, faster than the dry air in the fridge can carry away moisture.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.257368
| 2012-02-07T20:43:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21137",
"authors": [
"Alan Parker",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Cudmore",
"France Langlois",
"Jay",
"Mickey Hammond",
"Mien",
"Peter Taylor",
"Sebiddychef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8920",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73584
|
Should Pickle Slices be Above or Below the Hamburger
When making hamburgers that will be eaten in a bun should the pickle slices be placed above the hamburger like this:
Or should they be placed below the hamburger like here:
Of course, there are ancillary issues concerning lettuce, onion, tomato, fried egg, ketchup, mustard and mayo but let us just consider this for a hamburger with pickles and maybe a little ketchup.
Is there an objective reason to choose one or the other?
Serve them on the side?
Stuff on the bottom hits more taste buds than stuff on the top. Of course, with a burger, you've got to get past the bun first.
As you might guess there is not hard and fast rule for this. It depends on when you want to have the flavor of the pickle hit your taste bud; before the savory or after the savory (meat). Additionally it could be complicated by other condiments you have mentioned above. However there is a bit of science you can employ here as well. Pickles (assuming you are using dill) activate the sour taste buds in our mouth. Savory (umami) is not as widely distributed as sour. So from that standpoint if you really like that savory flavor from a freshly grilled juicy burger, you would want to put the pickles underneath the meat. If you prefer the pickle taste to be front and center place them on top. I've included a reference for you as well. Happy eating! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0072592/
Some fast food hamburger chains may have preparation rules that they give to the workers that assemble the sandwiches. It would be interesting if someone with that experience were to comment.
If you have them on top and think you would prefer them on the bottom, turn the sandwich over and try it.
While I am a scientist by profession I put myself through college working at TGIFridays (7 years). Pickles don't usually come on their burgers but for those that do it has less to do with taste than it does ease of assembly and presentation. :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.257796
| 2016-08-31T09:08:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73584",
"authors": [
"Michael Karas",
"Optionparty",
"Sandi",
"Stephie",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455"
],
"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
}
|
40387
|
When (and how) do I add a pre-packaged japanese curry to a slow-cooker?
Opinions across the internet vary on the most effective time (and method) of adding the curry roux to the slow-cooker.
Is the most optimal means to melt the roux with a little hot water in a seperate saucepan and add it on top of the other ingredients, or is it better to simply break the block up and add it at the end?
Just break it up and add it after the vegetables and any meats are completely cooked. Do keep the curry on the heat, stirring constantly, until the blocks have become thoroughly incorporated but don't let it stay on the heat unattended after you add the curry blocks as the mixture thickens considerably and may burn (guess how I figured that out).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.258006
| 2013-12-19T06:16:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40387",
"authors": [
"Kim Rossitto",
"Mothy ",
"StanleyHODL",
"Tom V",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93907"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35466
|
How to grease a pan without shortening or butter
I need to grease a baking pan (which I don't have) for brownies. I also don't have butter or shortening. I do have one of those pyrex oven safe glass pans and something like a small dutch oven, but with a glass top instead. Could either of these substitute for baking pan instead? And in lieu of the butter, could I use vegetable oil and a paper towel to grease one of the pans that I do have (without affecting the final results of the brownies)?
Vegetable oil will be fine - that's what's in commercial nonstick spray oils anyway.
A pyrex oven safe glass pan is a baking pan. The baking time might be slightly different than with a metal pan, but it will work perfectly fine. Just make sure it's the same size pan the recipe called for, or scale the recipe to match the area - if you change the thickness, the results are going to change.
The dutch oven (uncovered) would also work, though it will take a lot longer to heat up, so it will probably affect the baking time substantially, and you may have to be careful not to overcook the top.
If you are particularly meticulous, you should be able to do it by lining the pan (or at the very least the bottom) with parchment paper...
Even if you line the bottom w/ parchment paper, you can use a knife to loosen the edges
Either of your pans should work - the issue that you're going to have is adjusting the amount of batter to account for a different pan size (possibly).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.258115
| 2013-07-22T01:08:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35466",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28825
|
Why isn't the beef fat in my chili melting?
I'm making some Texas-style chili ("beans optional" :) for the second time, and the fat on my brisket just does not want to melt. As the recipe instructs, the chili sits on the stove for 4+ hours at a simmer.
My somewhat-trusty instant-read thermometer says that the temperature is around 205 °F after about 3 hours of simmering. As far as I can tell, very little fat from the brisket has actually melted/rendered by now. I noticed a similar issue last time I made this chili as well: the final outcome had some rather large pieces of fat which were not a particularly nice texture. Here's what it looks like so far:
The brisket is already very tender, and there's very little fat floating on the surface, but there's significant layer of fat still on the beef chunks.
What's going on? I'd really think that multiple hours at 200+ °F would melt most or all of the beef fat in the pot. Is it too hot? Not hot enough? Do I have any hope of getting the fat to melt so I can either skim it off, or mix it in?
Are you sure that is fat on the piece being help up? It looks like silver skin which would have been better trimmed off prior to cooking. I can see a slick of fat across the top of your pot in the picture.
Have to agree with the above; fat melts at a very low temperature, you seem to be talking about gristle which is actually cartilage/connective tissue, which doesn't denature easily and doesn't melt at all.
Also agree, this is the gristly fat that should be trimmed off before cooking, though it does also pull away easily after cooking, especially if you shred the brisket.
Try this: get that thing out of there and cut a little bit and see how it tastes. I bet it is good. If you like it, get it and all its friends out and slice them into tiny little bits and put them back in. That will fix texture and you will keep good flavor! Serve over cold cornflakes. Yum!
@Willk this post is nearly 10 years old. I moved out of that kitchen 3 apartments ago. Let's just say: I don't have this particular batch of chili anymore.
@Matt Ball : We can rebuild it. We have the technology. We can make it better than it was. Better. Stronger. Fattier.
Not all the fat in beef (and generally, in any kind of meat) is the same.
Any piece of meat will have a certain amount of marbling fat, which is intramuscular and is hard to remove, intermuscular fat and subcutaneous fat, which can be trimmed off.
From your picture, it seems to me that the fat covering the outer layer of the beef chunks is gristle, which you can easily remove after having cooked your Chili. It is however hard to remove by increasing the temperature, as fat molecules are generally quite big and they are not soluble in aqueous solutions, which makes them kind of float on your sauce in an emulsion.
From my experience as a cook, the best tip I can give you when it comes to Chili or stews is to choose a lean piece of beef, with as little as possible of visible marbling fat and before cooking, to remove as much of the visible fat as you can possibly do. Cooking it gently for four hours will make sure that the meat remains as tender as you can wish. :)
I thought good marbling makes a cut of beef more desirable. I can understand removing the big pieces of gristle and fat around the edges of my cut, but why aim for an overall lean (not-marbled) cut here?
Lean cut does not need the fat to stay tender because the slow cook does the tenderization. Lean cut has loads of flavor and is cheap but high heat and lean cut = super tough meat. Good marbling is for a steak or a roast that you would not be slow cooking but doing on high heat in grill or on oven. Fat marbling will keep meat tender despite high heat cooking.
Your fat has, in fact, melted. It is what it does at these temperatures.
What you did was to put a piece of beef in the pot. Not a spoonfull of tallow, but a piece of animal tissue. It is made up of cells. What you identify as "fat" is adipose tissue, that is, normal cells full of fat droplets, stored away as an energy source and cold insulation for the body's use.
When you cooked the stew, each individual fat droplet melted - but it stayed where it was, secured in its vesicles. Sure, some of the cell walls got damaged during the cooking process - but in general, they don't disappear, or else cooking beef would result in a paste instead of chunks of meat! There is no doubt that some of the melted fat flowed out of some ruptured cells - and directly into the extracellular space, which is not especially open to the water outside of the stew. So while some of it rendered into the stew liquid, most of it stayed where it was. Together with the nonfat components of the adipose tissue, it creates a layer of cooked fat.
On your parallel with rendering: When you render fat, you will indeed start with simmering the fatty tissue in water. This will produce some very fine, low-odor tallow that can be separated from the water. But the remaining greaves will still have a very high fat content. You will then collect them and throw them in a pan without water, collecting a more smelly tallow, but getting much better yield. And what you are left with are cracklings, which are crispy, smell heavenly, and are still full of fat! So you only replicated the first step of the process, which is fully expected to be very inefficient. It is normal for most fat to stay in the tissue after simmering.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.258400
| 2012-12-02T21:10:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28825",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Lily",
"Matt Ball",
"Ryan B",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sarah",
"Willk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/680",
"robertmain"
],
"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
}
|
22581
|
Is extremely young meat indigestible?
Extensive rewrite:
Young meat is considered unfit for human consumption by the European Union:
"derives from animals which are dead before slaughter, stillborn, unborn or slaughtered under the age of seven days;" Chapter V, EC 854/2004 [PDF], page 22.
According to a photocopy I have: "The meat is pale, bland and gelatinous. The bones are bland. The fats are grey and filthy. These meats do not have nutritious value and provoke diarrhoea." I do not have a reference for this quote.
The question is whether there is objective evidence supporting this claim. What is the European legislation based on?
Added (note the 'may'):
decisions concerning meat. All meat which may constitute a danger to human health shall be declared unfit for human consumption. This includes meat from animals which have not undergone ante-mortem inspection (excluding wild game), meat from animals whose offal has not undergone post-mortem inspection, meat from animals which were dead before slaughter, stillborn, unborn or slaughtered under the age of seven days, meat from animals affected by a notifiable animal disease, meat not in conformity with the biological and radioactivity criteria, meat containing specified risk materials, chemical residues or veterinary medicinal products in excess of the permitted limits. In addition, the veterinarian may impose requirements concerning the use of meat derived from animals having undergone emergency slaughter outside the slaughterhouse.
If some cultures eat fetus, doesn't that answer the question? No culture prizes indigestible meat that causes diarrhea.
I can't say with determinism, but I highly doubt there is anything behind this. I can't conceive of anything that would make animal protein more stomach-friendly as the animal ages.
It doesn't get much younger than an egg, does it? Balyut is edible too. The high fat content of young animals might conceivably cause digestive upset, as with eating any rich food in bulk. I suspect that historically, prohibitions against eating infant animals is more of a wastefulness issue; the yield is very little meat for all the feed and time involved in them coming to term.
I agree with BobMcGee. When raising animals for food you need to have a point at which the investment of time, feed and amount of product pays off. Anything younger than traditional veal age is discouraged because you don't get enough meat to make it pay.
I'm rereading Bob's comment and wondering if that may in fact have something to do with the reported digestive upsets and the EU regulations. Possibly, in the past (and maybe the present), since the yield/profitability was so minuscule, the only animals that were actually being slaughtered/sold so young were sick ones, or unfit for consumption for other reasons. We might be looking at a set of laws and anecdotes that confuse correlation with causation.
I would suspect that even if there weren't a 'digestability' issue, the lack of developed muscles in a newly born animal would mean the meat has a much different texture than any of us would be used to ... likely this is the 'pale, bland and gelatinous' bit. It's also possible that there may be concerns with diseased young that might not survive 7 days ... but we also get into the tradition in some cultures to consume placenta (which I don't know if it'd count as 'young meat' or not)
I think that the regulation is there to prevent the marketing of meat from stillborn animals or aborted animals. The EU wants animals to be inspected before they are killed and after they have been killed, and it wants the killing process to be done under certain conditions.
Obviously a stillborn/aborted animal does not satisfy these requirements.
And an animal that has been killed while very young may be hard to tell from an aborted one.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.258853
| 2012-03-27T10:55:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22581",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ashlee Palka",
"BobMcGee",
"Chef Flambe",
"Cookie",
"Ed B",
"Joe",
"LCJ",
"Manuel Casillas",
"Sandra Conlin Zimmerman",
"Sean Hart",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53820",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8766",
"user57430"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19324
|
How do I make cumin and herb cheese at home?
I would like to make cumin and herb cheese at home without using any special cheese-making equipment.
At what stage should I add my cumin and herbs?
Which herbs should I use?
Should I use fresh or dried herbs?
A lot depends on what kind of cheese you are making.
I will assume that you are making a standard, medium-firm, rennet-set cheese.
I have had the most success adding seasonings and herbs with the salt. That is- after the curd has set, been cut, and drained but before it has been pressed at all. Work in the salt and any other flavors before placing the curd in the mold.
I imagine any herb or spice would work- it depends what flavor you want. I have used basil when I had a bumper crop. I have also used dried peppers.
As to dry or fresh- either would work. As with anything if you use dry then use a lot less. I prefer fresh because it is more tender.
Other cheeses might be a little different but as a rule of thumb adding with the salt should work. Mozzarella seems like it would be trickier because the kneading of the curd would change things.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.259184
| 2011-12-02T09:03:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19324",
"authors": [
"Bob M in NH",
"Criggie",
"L. Samson",
"Rosely",
"TechFanDan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42122",
"user1718481"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20481
|
Ice cream problems
I have a new ice cream machine, and I have been having some difficulties creating decent ice cream.
The latest recipe I have tried is:
http://www.food.com/recipe/white-chocolate-raspberry-ripple-ice-cream-91447
Step 7 states:
Cook over medium heat until the custard coats the back of a wooden
spoon, stirring constantly Remove the pan from the heat and stir in
the white chocolate until melted and smooth.
Apparently this is supposed to take 20 minutes or so, but as soon as I put the mixture in the pot, it already coats the back of a spoon, leaving a clear mark, dripless. Should I still cook it for 20 minutes?
The ice cream turned out more like mousse instead of ice cream, perhaps I didn't beat it enough in the mixer?
The raspberry 'ripple' ended up freezing solid, and is just icy.
I tried a simple vanilla recipe the other day which didn't involve cooking the custard, and that worked quite nicely. However this recipe and another chocolate recipe which required cooking the custard turned out the same - was more like frozen mousse than icecream (completely different from the vanilla)
Any suggestions?
I don't see it saying 20 minutes anywhere in the recipe - though it should take some time for the liquid to come up from cool or room temperature to the point where custard sets. But it is a little funny that your custard apparently coats your spoon before it's cooked. That'd tend to suggest a mistake in the recipe or your following of it, since if it's that thick before it sets, it's going to set really firm.
What makes it thick? The amount of cream, or eggs...? I am using jumbo sized eggs...
I read the recipe more thoroughly, and noticed something I think is the cause. Eggs might be an issue too though.
As for the ripple, it has almost no solids, you are creating water ice - no wonder that it froze. Try making a ripple from sugar syrup and/or add alcohol (a tbsp should be enough) or emulsifiers.
This one could just be the recipe's fault. I see now that it has you pour, basically, boiling milk onto eggs and sugar. That's pretty unusual; it could well result in you cooking some of the egg (bad!) before it's all incorporated. In your case, it sounds like it didn't quite go that far: you may have managed to cook the custard just right by accident. It's not helping you, though, and it might result in disasters eventually, especially with smaller ratio of egg to hot milk in another recipe. A more normal process would be:
heat but don't boil at least some of the the milk and cream with the sugar
stir some of the heated milk into the eggs to bring them partially up to temperature
stir the warmed eggs and milk back into the rest of the milk
continue heating and stirring until thickened (this might take some time, but not 20 minutes)
These steps, for example, are generally what David Lebovitz says to do in the recipes in The Perfect Scoop. He's a well-respected pastry chef who's also become a bit of an authority on ice cream; I've had success with every recipe I've tried from his book. As an example, this brown bread ice cream recipe from his blog follows those steps.
As for the texture of the final ice cream, that might be because of your eggs. Recipes are calibrated for large eggs; jumbo eggs are bigger, probably about 5/4 the size of large eggs, so 7 jumbo yolks might have been about 9 large yolks. The eggs are what give French-style ice cream its smooth, silky texture, so additional egg will accentuate that. I'd try it with 5 or 6 yolks (effectively 6.25 or 7.5).
It sounds like the texture you describe may have also lacked air, which could also be due to a few other common things. This could be due to insufficient egg-beating, but that's not the usual way to get light, fluffy ice cream, so I'd hesitate to blame it. Churning in the ice cream maker (this is not the same as the previous egg-beating) is normally the primary source of air. If you don't churn it long enough in the ice cream maker, it won't be as airy. Assuming you have the type of ice cream maker with the pre-frozen vessel, it's also important that the vessel be cold enough; if the custard doesn't freeze thoroughly in there, it won't be able to hold the air.
The ripple is a separate question. Generally, if you want something like that to stay soft when frozen, the way to do it is to load it up with sugar. The frozen raspberries I've seen aren't in syrup; if yours weren't either, you just didn't have nearly enough sugar. Otherwise, I'd again blame the recipe; you could probably fix it with more sugar. You could also try keeping it in a warmer place (the door) in your freezer. As some related reading, Lebovitz has a great blog post on making ice cream softer - note that sugar content is one of the methods. He also mentions use of stabilizers and anti-crystallization agents in ice cream; the same kinds of things are used in commercial versions of things like this ripple.
So, be wary of online recipes; they're not always the best, and sometimes they're not even well-tested, especially with something like ice cream that most people don't make. And once you get the basics down (e.g. learn the process from someone very trustworthy like Lebovitz), you can take a recipe online, keep the ingredient list, and prepare it the way you know works, ignoring some of the listed steps.
That's right, I just used plain frozen raspberries. Thanks for the concise help & recommendations, I'll give them a go and let you know how it turns out!
Use an instant read thermometer to check the temperature of your custard. It should be around 170°F / 76°C. The whole "coat the back of a spoon" thing is a little tricky since the thickness of the custard will depend on the ratio of milk vs cream, the amount of egg yolks, the size of the egg yolks etc. Of course, if you never change your recipe and always use the same size eggs you can learn what the custard should feel like. But if you are like me and use different recipes and buy different eggs a thermometer is much more reliable.
(There are much cheaper options available than the one I linked to, but that is the one I use and I highly recommend it.)
Why do recipes say to cook custard for 20mins? Surely it wouldn't take 20mins to reach 76 degrees? Or does it need 20mins at that temperature?
It definitely does not need 20 minutes at that temperature. When your custard reaches the prescribed temperature it is done. However, you should be aware that if you cook it in a bain-marie it will take longer than if you heat it in a saucepan directly on the stove top. But 20 minutes still seems excessive, even for a bain-marie.
@DavidLawson: Like I said above, the recipe doesn't say to cook it that long. I tend to agree with Henrik here: on very low heat, being careful not to overheat it, it might well take a while, but 20 minutes is a lot.
I've ordered one of those thermometers, will try making some ice cream with it when it arrives!
Another thing which I don't think anyone has touched on: especially with the pre-chilled container type of ice cream maker (as opposed to the $300+ ones with compressors), it is important that the liquid you put into them is cold. Not frozen, but as close as possible. Room temperature is too warm—at least refrigerate it.
If you want to really get it cold, you can freeze part of the custard (an eighth of it or so), refrigerate the rest, then mix the frozen part back in. Keep stirring until it melts; at that point your custard will be right at freezing.
Great trick (about freezing part of the custard), thank you for sharing it.
You can also just throw all of the custard in the freezer, and make sure to pull it out at a point at which it'll all be liquid after stirring. Another common method I've seen (more trouble) is to make an ice-water bath, put the bowl of custard in that, and put it all in the fridge.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.259341
| 2012-01-16T08:43:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20481",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"David Lawson",
"Faithful Jewel",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"Jesse W. Collins",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8738",
"johnc",
"murmble",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20563
|
Does an electric crepe maker require a hood and ventilation?
I have an electric crepe maker and was wondering whether it is required to have a hood with ventilation to the outside of the building?
Are we talking about a electric crepe maker that makes one crepe at a time? It might be helpful if you specify the exact model of the crepe maker or provide a link to it on the web. (Hurry before SOPA and PIPA ends it all...lol jk)
In general it's a pretty safe bet that something that's sold to normal consumers as a kitchen counter appliance doesn't need special ventilation.
Doubtful (assuming we're talking about something along the lines of this, if its some kind of commercial unit doing 10 at a time, get a hood).
Crepes don't typically output enough fumes or smoke of any kind in quantity and an electric crepe maker should be even better on that front. There may be a bit of steam, but nothing that should warrant an vent outside.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.259966
| 2012-01-18T15:03:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20563",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jay",
"Shannon Bryson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20038
|
What's the best way to learn what each seasoning is?
For example, Iike cayenne pepper is spicy and marjorum has a smoky flavor. I just want to learn the different flavors of each seasoning, so I can know exactly what seasonings to use for the different types of food. Trying to educate myself, I want to become a chef someday.
Also see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7346/how-can-i-train-myself-to-identify-flavors-better
I think this is a hard question to answer because describing base flavours and seasonings is almost as hard as describing smell. We just do not have that much vocabulary to describe taste and smell in the English language. We usually describe taste and smell by associating it with a noun that have similar taste or smell.
@Jay: The herbs and spices we use are the vocabulary. That is why, for example, wine makers might use phrases like "hints of nutmeg" to describe a particular batch. This isn't uncommon; we do the same thing with colours, having colours named "sienna", "cream", "cornflower", etc. For that reason, I'm not sure if this question is answerable because the majority of spices and seasonings aren't generally made up of more basic flavours, unless you're willing to start researching and classifying the chemical compounds that make them up.
@Aaronut: Yea that is pretty much what I was trying to get at. It's hard to decribe something that is already the base. If we were to try to describe what nutmeg tastes like, the only thing we can really do is say either what other spice taste closest to nutmeg or list food that has a distinct nutmeg flavor.
I don't think that's what Nicole is asking here. Not asking for a description of what a certain spice tastes like (because, as you noted, we can't describe it), but more a method: "How do I learn the tastes of seasonings by experimentation?" would be a better phrasing. For example, I've tried tasting oregano countless times, but for the life of me I can't remember what it tastes like, exactly. I don't know the flavor as well as if I had to identify 'banana', or 'basil' or 'bacon'. What method could I use for learning this for all the seasonings I try? Also, method to get the most flavor?
Spices can sometimes taste different when their context(other spices and foods) or preparation is altered. Other than trying known recipes, I occasionally taste an unfamiliar spice in several states over a period of time:
raw in cheek for a little while
Infused (like tea). Try some plain, some with salt, and some with sugar, (an acid like lemon juice or vinegar may be a third option).
Cooked and raw with a grain like brown rice. Try some plain, some with salt, and some with sugar.
Cooked and raw with meat.
Some spices have surprised me, such as turmeric, which was familiar to me with savory dishes, but which I had never previously tried with sugar. Some spices taste about the same everywhere raw or cooked but you'll find new uses, like cinnamon in broth, while others will only be useful cooked or uncooked.
Brown rice, or oat groats, are a wonderful place to test out new spices and spice combinations. The result is almost invariably edible.
I once read that mixing a bit of spice in an unflavored yogurt and allowing it to rest is the best way to learn its basic taste.
Great idea, yogurt tends to take well all kinds of aroma without changing it. And the dilution it provides, as well as the moisture, will let you discern the subtler tones of the aroma which are lost were you to sniff or lick a dried spice or herb.
Not to sound obvious, but the best way to learn what each spice tastes like is... to try them!
Smell them, taste them, and explore different combinations with different foods.
Start with the classics (for instance, taking recipes from a book) and start exploring variations of those.
Sometimes you will end up with awefully tasting things, that is a necessary part of the learning (and part of the fun too).
Don't restrain yourself to recipes. If you think cumin tastes good with xyz, there you go, put it in, even if it is not the classic spice to put in it does not mean you cannot use it.
Excellent question! I've wondered this myself many times, and I can't claim to know the best way. This is what's worked for me.
I browse through recipes, food blogs, and videos that I find interesting. I try making some of what I see and learn by taste. In other situations, I just get an idea by reading about the recipe. From there, I might associate cayenne with spiciness and try to remember that when I eat foods with cayenne in them. Overall, it just happens with time and experience.
One other thing that helps is to stick to making one or a few types of cuisine, at least for a few preparations. Cultures tend to have their own core spices. I find that if I've only tasted a spice once or twice, it's not easy to remember, so I need to have a few repeat encounters with it in a few-week span before I feel familiar with a it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.260104
| 2011-12-29T08:38:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20038",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alex G",
"Imaguest",
"Jay",
"Martha F.",
"Okoro Paschal",
"PStag",
"Susan Smith",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"bob joeson",
"emkays",
"hek2mgl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25227
|
Can salmonella show up in a raw-egg product once it has already been made?
I know raw eggs should be avoided, especially by sensitive people (children, pregnant women), as they may contain salmonella. Let's say I make a big tub of ice cream, with raw eggs, and several people have some with no ill effects - can I assume that this particular tub of ice cream is salmonella-free?
There is probably still some risk, so I wouldn't assume it was safe; however, ice-cream is frozen, so I wouldn't worry about ice-cream at all, unless the egg-mixture was left at room temperature for a significant time before freezing.
As far as I know, salmonella is in the faeces of the chicken, if present. Some faeces will often stick to the shell. In very rare circumstances, which I believe are negligible, the salmonella penetrates the shell and infects not only the white (less of a problem) but also the nutritious yolk, and then the whole egg is contaminated. But this chance is probably too small to encounter in one's average life time.
What has normally happened if the faeces are contaminated and people get sick, is that some of the salmonella present on the outside of the shell contaminates the egg when the shell is broken, or the extremely small number of bacteria present in the white get a chance to infect the whole egg (chance ca. 0.005 %, see below). (Note that in many countries the outside of the shell of supermarket eggs is supposedly sterilized.) At that very moment, however, the number of bacteria present in the egg white should still not be enough to make people sick. But if the egg is then left to sit outside the refrigerator for several hours, and enough faeces touched the egg white, the bacteria may have enough time to multiply and make you sick. If the egg is properly refrigerated, chances are much lower, but I do not know the exact numbers.
One often sees grey spots and smears on the outside of eggs; I believe this is normally chicken faeces. Even so, salmonella is quite rare, such that the healthy shouldn't be worried about making ice cream, mousse au chocolat, and such from unpasteurized eggs. But if a young child, an old person, a pregnant woman, or someone with health problems were to eat the ice cream, I would not take the chance and use pasteurized eggs. If the food is contaminated, the fact that people do not get sick who have eaten it immediately upon making it offers little evidence, because the bacteria haven't had the time to multiply yet. I believe you will normally not get sick from eating contaminated steak tartare, for example, because it is eaten immediately.
However that may be, ice-cream is frozen: as Derobert said below, salmonella probably cannot multiply below 5 °C, and certainly not below 0 °C, so ice-cream should be safe under all normal circumstances, that is, if it was frozen shortly after breaking the eggs. Normal temperatures in refrigerators slow down the growth of the bacteria as well: perhaps you shouldn't worry too much about anything that is kept at 7 °C anyway for a few days.
The inside of an egg was once considered almost sterile. But, over recent years, the bacterium Salmonella enteritidis (Se) has been found inside a small number of eggs. Scientists estimate that, on average across the U.S., only 1 of every 20,000 eggs might contain the bacteria. So, the likelihood that an egg might contain Se is extremely small – 0.005% (five one-thousandths of one percent). At this rate, if you’re an average consumer, you might encounter a contaminated egg once every 84 years. — The Incredible Egg, Medicine Net
Salmonella growth is halted at temperatures below 5°C, at least according to the abstract at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1968.tb09092.x/abstract
@derobert: Ah, good one! I was too lazy to look into it. I will add that to my answer, thanks!
Short answer:no, has to do with exponential growth and also individual sensitivities.
Long answer: You only need a few bacteria to make you sick. And bacteria grow exponentially.
Let's assume that eating up to N1 bacteria won't do anything, N2 bacteria will give you a light fever, and N3 bacteria will send you to hospital. And N3 is a very low number. This source claims that 6 bacteria per serving are enough, and while we don't know how many servings each sick person ate, we can conclude that 100 bacteria is probably more than enough (15 servings at once!). Also, the difference between N1, N2 and N3 must be tiny: under perfect conditions (= in your intestines, at 37°C and surrounded by food), Salmonella numbers double every 20 minutes, which means that very small differences in the starting numbers will make the difference between one million or one billion bacteria a few hours later. And salmonella has an incubation period of up to 72 hours.
Imagine that person A eats a dish containing raw eggs, waits 72 hours (no symptoms in that time), and then person B eats the same dish. There are several scenarios in which person B might get sick.
A has a stronger immune system. The difference between N1, N2 and N3 is so small, that a number of bacteria which is below N1 for somebody with a strong immune system can easily be above N3 for somebody with a weak immune system. There isn't a big puffer zone of N2 where A would have had weak symptoms.
A has more stomach acid production than B. Stomach acid kills salmonella, they start multiplying in the intestines where the pH is friendlier for them. Again, remember that 4-5 bacteria killed by ingestion may make the difference between no symptoms at all and hospital.
The bacteria grew within the 72 hours. I agree, this is highly unlikely in ice cream, as long as you held the tub frozen all the time. But if you have e.g. mayonnaise, and your fridge is warmer than you think (remember, appliance thermometers are not always exact, and temperature varies within a fridge a lot depending on where you place something!). They grow slowly at low temperatures, but a single division cycle is enough to take their number from N1 to N3 (completely jumping over N2!).
Person B eats more ice cream than person A. At the small differences between the numbers, eating two scoops instead of one can already be enough to send you into the danger zone.
Even if you have several people tasting first, their showing no symptoms can not be taken as a guarantee, especially if you know that person B is at higher risk (e.g. a small child). Also, I am sure that there must be more possible scenarios in which B gets sick, I just listed a few I could think of.
Instead of taking risks, I would advise that you prevent salmonella contamination and growth in the first place. You can kill salmonella with acid and heat, or you can make food without the eggs.
using no eggs. This is not an option for everything, sure. But homemade ice cream is easy without them. Use a Philadelphia recipe (milk, cream + sugar). If your ice cream machine is not good enough and makes crystals, add the fat and lecithine from other sources: increase the cream:milk ratio, and use soy lecithine. You can also add small amounts of alcohol, propylene glycol (some fake extracts like Dr Oetker Buttervanille use it), or xanthan gum to prevent crystals. For emulsions, use lecithine instead of yolk.
using acid. Not an option for ice cream, but for mayonnaise-based sauces, as long as you don't mind them very sour (pH 3.5).
pasteurize the eggs. For yolk emulsions and yolk foams, temperatures about 70°C to 75°C work well. For custards, it depends on what ingredients you use beside eggs, but you can generally heat them above 80°C. Always use a thermometer for this, the difference between "enough heat" and "curdled" is very small. For egg white foams, you could try making Italian meringue and if necessary, gently heating it some more. Reaching 72°C should kill salmonella with some headroom; if you find that this draws the meringue too much, you can hold it at slightly lower temperatures for several minutes, that will kill them too (for the extreme case, I think Baldwin has time vs temperature charts meant for sous vide), but then make sure that every part of the meringue reaches the temperature (there is a very strong temperature gradient in foams).
IMO Leaving the eggs out of ice cream is never a reasonable option.
What is the source for those 6 bacteria, as mentioned on the page of the municipality of Houston? This number seems wildly incorrect or at least meaningless without proper context. From Wikipedia: The organism enters through the digestive tract and must be ingested in large numbers to cause disease in healthy adults. ... The infection usually occurs as a result of massive ingestion of foods in which the bacteria are highly concentrated similarly to a culture medium. I rather think it must be millions.
Your source probably meant the number of bacteria that landed on each serving before multiplying.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.260542
| 2012-07-24T07:10:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25227",
"authors": [
"Burt_Harris",
"Carol Roth",
"Cerberus",
"Corbin Norwood",
"Fred Chapman",
"Hannah Akino",
"Moz Empire",
"Mymum",
"Sobachatina",
"Suer",
"Tayfun Pay",
"derobert",
"grandmas cookie jar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57903"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20489
|
When making risotto, why fry the rice?
When making risotto one of the first steps is to saute the rice in some oil for a few minutes (or until the rice is translucent).
What is happening when the rice is fried? What effect does this have, and what would happen if this step was omitted?
As I understand it, it's down to the flavour you get from frying the rice. However, it does also break down some of the starch which reduces the thickening it can do when the risotto cooks, which might cause a problem. I can attest to the flavour, but I've not done experiments about thickening.
Serious Eats had a good article on the topic though, in which such experiments were described. The solution in that was to wash the rice in the stock, then fry the rice, then add the stock containing all that undamaged free rice starch during cooking, thus giving you toasty flavour and creamy risotto with no questions asked. I haven't tried that, but it seems like a fairly sound idea to me.
http://www.seriouseats.com/2011/10/the-food-lab-the-science-of-risotto.html
Great article, I love the food lab stuff but hadn't seen that one!
Many rice recipes include this step- it seems to be standard with Indian rice recipes as well.
Frying the rice definitely adds a nutty, toasted, flavor. It would be unfortunate to give that up just for convenience.
I have been told that frying the rice produces more individualized grains of rice in the finished product. This makes sense to me as some of the starch would gelatinize and preserve the grain's shape. Obviously for risotto you want plenty of free starch to thicken the sauce but you don't want to end up with rice pudding.
I have not done any independent experiments to see if this is the case and it does sound like it could be an old wives tale (simmering pasta or searing steak, etc.)
The purpose is to add flavour and to coat the grains with oil which will give you better texture in your finished dish. The slow stove top method with constant stirring is what gives you the best cream factor as the stirring helps to release the starches.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.261579
| 2012-01-16T12:46:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20489",
"authors": [
"Albert Hendriks",
"Daniel Cassidy",
"chuckdub",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8620",
"stark"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20592
|
Can I mince garlic in advance?
I really hate mincing garlic in tiny batches for each dish. Is there any way to mince many bulbs in advance and store them for a week or more?
Mince fine a large quantity of garlic in the food processor and freeze it in ice cube trays. When solid move the cubes to a freezer bag.
My Indian friends mince garlic and ginger together and freeze it this way.
This was a really big thing to do a few years back. Problem was that people would mince it and then store it in oil which is an oxygen free environment. You'd think that was a good thing until we realized that garlic seems to have a higher chance of botulism and botulism loves oxygen free environments. Very nasty!
Best thing to do is just peel your cloves and store them in an air tight container so they don't dry out too much. When you need garlic use a garlic press or mince them then. It'll taste better too.
My small Korean family goes through what can only be measured as pounds of garlic in a week. Most Korean foods that require garlic (hah, more like most korean foods require garlic!) want the garlic to be chopped up rather than in cloves. So my mother tends to buy 10-15lb bags of cloves, trims the ends, and blends the cloves in a food processor until they resemble coarsely chopped garlic. She would err on the side of almost pureed garlic, but I personally like my big pieces of garlic :)
If she didn't save a lot of money by buying garlic cloves in bulk, she'd buy the local Korean market's freshly minced garlic in containers like http://www.koreanhomefood.com/?p=573.
If you are planning to go this route, you can easily store minced garlic in an airtight container for a week, no oil required.
This says no oil "required", but you shouldn't use oil for the reasons in Chef Flambe's answer - the risk of botulism. To really be on the safe side, use a sealed but not quite airtight container; garlic takes a pretty long time to dry out.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.261798
| 2012-01-19T03:25:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20592",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Bill Bllson",
"Elezar",
"Rohit Kumar",
"Sonia Davis",
"elle28",
"gary",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45299",
"neil"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40792
|
Can I make panna cotta using a flavored, non-gelatin "Jell Dessert"?
I'd like to make panna cotta, but all of the recipes I've seen call for unflavored gelatin, and the closest thing I have on hand is a product (Gefen brand Strawberry Jell Dessert) that is neither gelatin nor unflavored:
It is a kosher-certified product that replaces gelatin with maltodextrin, adipic acid, and carrageenan.
In addition to these gelling agents, it contains a great deal of sugar as well as flavorings (similar to the more famous Jell-O).
Can I make a [strawberry-flavored, naturally] panna cotta using this product, somehow?
(I keep kosher, and my local supermarket doesn't carry a kosher-certified, unflavored, gelatin-type agent. I know that such products exist, but I want to make panna cotta right now, while the inspiration is fresh in my head.)
Yes! I was able to make a panna cotta using this product in a standard recipe with some minor changes. Just incorporate the Jell Dessert powder where the gelatin is called for and subtract 1/4-cup from the prescribed sugar.
I started with this recipe on JoyofBaking.com.
The recipe, like most I've seen, calls for one standard 1/4-ounce packet of gelatin. From what I've read (e.g. here) this amount is used to gel 2 cups of water in standard application. The preparation directions for the Jell Dessert also call for 2 cups of water, so it probably contains an equivalent amount of gelling power to a standard packet of gelatin.
The main ingredient in the Jell Dessert powder that isn't a gelling agent is sugar. As sugar is also a major ingredient in panna cotta, I figured that I could try cutting the sugar by the sugar content of the Jell Dessert. I estimated this amount by observing that the Jell Dessert is two thirds sugar by weight (14 g of each 21 g serving, according to the Nutrition Facts), measuring the total volume of the powder at a bit more than 1/3-cup, and assuming that all of its ingredients are of similar density. A little more than two thirds of 1/3-cup is 1/4-cup.
So, I made the following substitutions to the standard recipe:
When the recipe calls for sprinkling the gelatin onto cold milk, I instead mixed the Jell Dessert powder with the milk. I mixed instead of just sprinkling because I was afraid that the additional ingredients would clump around the gelling agents and prevent them from getting properly wet, otherwise.
I cut the powdered sugar to cook with the cream from 1/2-cup to 1/4-cup.
The result was, as far as I could tell, a successful, strawberry-flavored panna cotta. I'd never tasted panna cotta before, so I didn't have a basis for comparison, but it set nicely, was pleasantly creamy, didn't taste too sweet to me (at least, as served with semi-sweet chocolate sauce), and was, in my opinion, delicious.
I expect that the same substitutions would work for this product in other panna cotta recipes. I'm not as sure whether other prepared Jell Desserts (including Jell-O) would work the same way or not.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.261996
| 2014-01-02T05:51:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40792",
"authors": [
"Claudio",
"Tom",
"Walter",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94974",
"kuti",
"radocaw",
"swashbuckler"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93157
|
How can I maximize the cheese flavor in my pizza?
I am using the best cheese that I can buy, but my pizzas still don't have much of a cheese flavor. Is it something that I'm doing wrong, or has the cheese changed?
What cheese or cheese are you using on top? Are you using other toppings, or just crust, sauce, cheese?
Make sure you've enough salt, I've had melted mozz taste pretty bland to even kinda sweet, but after adding salt it tastes properly "cheesy".
Top your pizza with 2 cheeses: whole milk mozzerella and skim milk mozzerella. (Pizza restaurant secret)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.262254
| 2018-10-23T11:16:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93157",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93496
|
How do I keep cookies from burning on the bottom?
Every time I make cookies they burn on the bottom. Is there a way to prevent this?
Can you add information about your oven, the temperature you are using and the pan you are using to bake your cookies?
@moscafj i am using conventional oven at 375 degrees F temperature with a flat baking pan.
I would first get a thermometer that you can keep in your oven so that you can measure the temperature accurately. Home ovens are notoriously inaccurate. Secondly, I would try to use a good quality baking sheet. One that has some heft to it, as it will better conduct the heat. Finally, I would bake the cookies at 350 F.
is it necessary to use baking sheet?
What is the "flat baking pan" that you describe above? Possible to show a picture in your post?
kind of thin aluminium pan....
A thin aluminum pan would certainly allow burning to happen more readily.
See my answer above. This is also known as a "cookie sheet" or a "sheet pan".
It's always helpful when cooking to think about the different ways that the heat is being transferred to your food. In the case of baking we have (primarily) conducted heat from the pan to the bottom of your cookies, convection taking place from the hot air circulating to the top of your cookies, and radiative heat from the heating element in the oven. It's more than likely the heating element in your oven is on the bottom, which is causing the pan to transfer the heat to the pan faster than ideal, causing the bottoms to burn.
One way to mitigate this is to adjust the distance between the heating elements and the pan by moving it to a higher rack or adjusting the rack height. If, on the highest rack, you're still getting burnt bottoms, you might try putting an empty sheet pan, casserole dish, pizza stone, etc. to try and block some of that direct heat.
Alternatively, you might also try, as moscafj suggests, bumping the temp down to 350F. Depending on how well-done you like your cookies, you might have to extend the baking time a minute or two to compensate.
Invest in a cooling rack. When you remove the cookies from the oven transfer them to the cooling rack so the bottoms can cool. Otherwise the risidual heat from your cookie sheet can burn your cookies. (They also make cookie sheets that are designed to cool quicker but a cooling rack is still ideal)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.262353
| 2018-11-02T10:36:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93496",
"authors": [
"ASIM",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69882",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
95299
|
Where can I find nut-free chocolate in the EU?
I'm looking to make homemade chocolate bars but I'm having a hard time finding any sort of chocolate (chips or otherwise) that are nut-free.
Where can I look for these types of chocolate? Are there any companies known for selling nut-free chocolate?
Schogetten and Lindt milk chocolates don't contain nuts. Check your country specific sites that composition of products.
What precisely do you mean by 'nut-free?' A large proportion (most?) of the chocolate sold in the UK doesn't have nuts in it but isn't guaranteed to be absolutely nut-free. There'll be a disclaimer somewhere with words to the effect of 'produced in a factory where nuts are used.' To all intents and purposes the chocolate is nut-free but people with severe allergies may wish to avoid that particular product. Chocolate that is guaranteed to be nut-free is likely to be a bit more specialised.
Somewhat related, for people who have allergies: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/78927/where-can-i-buy-dark-chocolate-which-was-not-produced-in-a-factory-that-handles
People with treenut and peanut allergies sometimes can react violently to even trace amounts, so you'll see them avoid options which can be contaminated in the production process. In this case, by nut-free I mean products which do not contain the usual warnings aside from obviously not containing any nut ingredients.
So you mean 'guaranteed nut-free and no chance of cross-contamination?' Next question, where in the EU are you\ do you intend to buy from? It's a big place and we can give you a better answer if you can tell us what country you're in.
@BWFC For example in Poland (also EU :)) a lot of chocolates are made with hazelnut paste. And it's part of "milk chocolates" so normally you wouldn't expect the need to put hazelnut in there.
@BWFC Yes, so I'd expect them to be made somewhere that does not handle any tree nuts or peanuts in the same factory. I'd love to see some options for Portugal, but I can also buy from other countries and pay extra shipping for it. It's been hard to find so far.
@SZCZERZO KLY But I guess in that case it must be listed in the ingredients :)
@goncalotomas Yes indeed. If you are looking for chocolates made in totally nut-free factory to make chocolate bars I think it would be easier if you bought some chocolate ingredient and made it from scratch. It's much easier to buy them separately without chance of nut and you gonna melt it anyway.
What should I buy then? I can't reverse engineer the chocolate I see in the supermarket just yet :)
@goncalotomas, understood. I've found somewhere that might help, answer below.
@SZCZERZOKŁY actually has half an idea. There's a long list of companies started because people couldn't find the product they wanted. You could be Portugal's first nut-free chocolate millionaire.
There is company in UK called Vantage House that supplies cocoa products and cocoa accessories :).
Making your own chocolate is very easy as basic one can be made with just cocoa powder, oil and sweetener (sugar, maple syrup honey anything you want).
If you like taste of some store-bought chocolate you can just use the same ingredients that are listed on the package. In EU you have % content of certain parts so it's very easy to figure out what should go in.
This company will send nut free chocolate worldwide. They appear to be a small family firm that make some pretty robust claims about their nut-free credentials. I'm not connected with them in any way and I can't vouch for how their product tastes either. They're actually called the Nut Free Chocolate People so I'd hope they're true to their word.
I wish I could have accepted your answer and SZCZERZO KŁY's. In the end, since I wanted to make my own bars I opted for his answer, but this sounds like it will bring smiles to some special people in my life. Thank you so much.
Unless it specifically mentions on the packaging that something contains nuts, it isn't supposed to, at least in the EU.
That doesn't mean there can't be traces of something in it left over from a previous production batch, and many products will warn for that in the case of nuts, but that's it.
That's nothing specific to chocolate btw, the same is true for pretty much all food stuff sold packaged in the EU, it MUST have a list of ingredients.
But if you seriously need to avoid an allergen, best shop only in specialty stores where they know the product better than would a supermarket clerk or someone manning say a gas station.
I am indeed looking for options that avoid those allergens, thus I was looking to see if I could be introduced to some of those specialty shops you mention :)
@goncalotomas that'd be extremely local knowledge of small shops, many of which won't have an internet presence. If you have specific cities in mind, list those and maybe people can point you to certain addresses.
I didn't want to turn this into a local business search as that would then turn into something specific for myself. I'd like to get some online options as I feel those would better help the rest of the community as well.
@goncalotomas you really think every mom&pop candy shop worldwide is going to be on some website? Because that's what it'd take. I know the one in the town I live in doesn't even show on google maps...
Not at all, sorry if I wasn't clear. I'd like this question to be useful for other people: if I had knowledge of small shops with this kind of chocolate I would not have asked the question. By preferring companies with Internet presence I am indeed leaving out some options, but gaining convenience in return. I don't mind paying shipping if I can order it and get it to my door in a matter of days opposite to having to drive somewhere and get it. Your approach has its merit of course, but not so much for smaller villages. In my case I've run out of places to look :(
If you can't find anything in the shops, try online. A Google search for chocolate sin alergenos (without allergens -- or the accent, but that's a minor issue) from Spain gives me various shopping results on the main page: use the local language for the country you're in and I expect you'd get similar results.
Well, I've been looking and I come across some products such as chocolate drops, tablets and cookies that could be safe, but I have had a hard time finding chocolate chips (or just chocolate). I regret to say that for my language (Portuguese) your Google query does not return any useful results. Perhaps it is time to look in other countries of the EU.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.262605
| 2019-01-02T22:31:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95299",
"authors": [
"BWFC",
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"goncalotomas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71818",
"jwenting",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129731
|
How much nutrient does yeast need?
I am experimenting with adding yeast nutrients to my bread. I have been using an egg, but to substitute for that I have tried lemon juice and marmite. However I have no idea how much is likely to be enough.
What sorts of amounts of yeast nutrient that are commonly found in the kitchen are enough such that adding additional will not result in significantly more yeast activity?
I'm confused... you're trying to NOT increase yeast activity?
No, I want to add enough that the yeast are not slowed down by lack of nutrients, ie. when adding more will not make them metabolise faster.
but if you add nutrients to give them the right conditions they need, wouldn't they work faster? I really don't understand what you're trying to do
Marmite is a yeast extract with added salt. It's basically the left-overs from brewing beer, which are then autolysed by addition of salt and cooked. There won't be much usable nutrients for your yeast in there other than some free amino-acids.
@bob1 and the salt will slow the yeast, I suspect
@Ecnerwal this should be an answer, not a comment!
Wheat flour all by itself provides plenty for yeast to grow on. "Yeast nutrient" (so-described) is almost exclusively associated with brewing; but it's not needed in either context, as the yeast will find plenty to grow on with flour or malt extract/wort. Straight sugar will wind them up, (though past a certain point it may actually retard them somewhat) but is not "yeast nutrient" in the common terminology.
In a broader view, most things that "speed up" fermentation are regarded as making worse-tasting bread than slow fermentation. i.e. warming the dough .vs. room temperature .vs. refrigerated.
Yeast nutrients are not widely used in beer brewing. They are considerably more important for wine and especially for mead, the substrates for which are deficient in nutrients.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.263096
| 2024-12-08T14:48:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129731",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Sneftel",
"User65535",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97169",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79450
|
Chicken wrapper torn, meat is a little dry
I was thawing chicken thighs in the refrigerator and noticed the plastic wrap had torn some, probably when I dug it out of the deep freeze! Some of the chicken dried out. Is it still safe to fry?
Possible duplicate of How long can I store a food in the pantry, refrigerator, or freezer?
This isn't exactly a storage life question, since it deals with the storage covering (plastic wrap) being torn.
You might have better luck searching for "freezer burn" - for example http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1646/what-is-freezer-burn.
@Erica true, but the question there does say that meat is safe in the freezer indefinitely... only quality degrades... which is the same thing here. With freezing (if it remains frozen), it's never a matter of safety, only quality.
@Catija It does cover it, but a bit indirectly, so it seems okay to have something specifically about freezer burn. (I'm surprised I didn't find a good dup though, might've missed something.)
Should be fine to eat, might be a little drier section of the meat if you go straight to cooking without like marinading.
It's happened to me before and I simply took sharp kitchen scissors and cut off the dried out part. It was easier to cut the uneven shape with scissors than a knife. My mom gave me some meat from her freezer as she's older and has trouble eating meat. Most had some freezer burn on it as she doesn't re-wrap her meat properly. I noticed that only the meat with a small amount of freezer burn was decent. I don't mean the rest was unsafe but it must've picked up some of the odors from the freezer and smelled old so was tossed out. Check that yours still smells good. Or as good as raw meat smells!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.263382
| 2017-03-27T22:02:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79450",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Erica",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"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
}
|
101258
|
How to neutralize candied glacé strawberry and kiwi
I have 200 gm of candied glacé strawberry and 200 gm of candied glacé kiwi. I cannot eat it, as it has too much sugar for me. Is there a way to neutralize the candied strawberry and kiwi?
...don't eat them?
Glacé, or candied fruit, is basically fruit preserved with sugar. So, yes, it can be very sweet. Even for sugar lovers, it is hard to eat much. I would suggest using it in cake or cookies. Italians have a tradition of such cakes and cookies that call for the addition of chopped candied fruit. I am sure other cultures do as well. I would suggest using them as an ingredient, rather than attempting to somehow remove or reduce the sugar content.
Strawberries and kiwi generally pair well with lemon or other citrus.
If the problem is just 'too sweet' and not truly a health concern (eg, diabetic), you might consider making a lemon tart (holding back some of the sugar), and topping it with the fruit.
... then sharing it with friends so you don't eat it all yourself.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.263538
| 2019-09-10T13:00:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/101258",
"authors": [
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91622
|
Does using a heavy based cook pot stop things from burning on the bottom?
I cook things in a pan on the hob, sometimes for an hour or two, and end up with a thick black layer on the bottom. If I used a cast iron pot, would that still happen?
For example what are you cooking?
Sometimes it can make it worse -- as once it's up to heat, it won't cool off as quickly as a thinner pot
The situation you describe is burnt material all over the base of the pan. That is caused by using too high heat and would not be helped by using a heavier pan.
The point of a heavier pan is to spread the heat more evenly across the base. A very thin pan would effectively transfer the heat of the burner directly to the food. It would be very hot where the burner was, and noticeably cooler away from it, and food would be likely to burn at the hot spots. With a thicker base, the burner heats parts of the base but the heat spreads throughout it before reaching the food. That means there are no hot spots, so the food won't burn unless the whole pan is hot enough to cause burning, which it sounds like yours was.
One way to think about it is that a thick or thin pan doesn't significantly affect the average temperature but the whole of the thick pan will be at the average temperature, whereas the thin pan will have hot areas and cool areas.
In your case, it sounds like you need a lower heat, more frequent stirring and possibly more liquid, if that would be appropriate to your dish. (Liquid can convect and disperse the heat through the food.)
Trouble is my hob just does not go lower
If it's a gas hob, you could use something to lift the pan farther above the flame. Otherwise, more stirring!
Sometimes you can turn the dial of a gas hob the wrong way to get a lower flame. If yours starts from 'off', then moves through 'high' to 'low', which is typical, try turning it back past 'high' towards 'off'...
Also on gas you can add a diffuser. While the main purpose is to diffuse the heat, i.e. make it more even, it also reduces the overall amount of heat getting through. Example: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Metaltex-only-Diffuser-Stainless-Steel/dp/B003LXFGSY Another way to use them is to use a smaller ring, that would normally burn in the middle, but has a lower power output. With the diffuser on top the heat spreads evenly
A heavy based pot will not prevent burning, but it help a great deal as more mass retains and distributes heat evenly, allowing more flexibility with temperature. Depending on what you are cooking, stirring will also help.
There is also the issue of cooking technique. It would be beneficial to know what you are preparing. If, for example, you begin a stew by browning meat and aromatics, the fond that forms at the bottom of the pot needs to be released to help form/flavor the sauce. Normally this is done with the addition of a small amount of liquid and scraping the fond free with a wooden spoon. If you don't do this, you will be both losing a lot of flavor, and creating conditions for the fond to burn at the bottom of your pot later during the rest of the cooking process. A heavy bottom pan has advantages in the creation of this fond.
I would suggest enameled cast iron rather than non-enameled. Maintenance is a bit easier and you can usually avoid a black colored surface, which will help you more easily see browning. Even a stainless pot with a copper layer, or a heavy aluminum pot can work. Mass of the cooking vessel does make a difference in your ability to produce consistent results.
No, a heavy-based pot will not prevent burned food. You should reduce the heat and stir more frequectly; especially stir the bottom of the pot
You can replicate the thermal mass of a very heavy pot by using a heat diffuser plate. They are widely available online and in kitchen stores. The extra thermal mass does a great job of evening the temperature and raises the pan away from the heat source. Some of the burner energy is also radiated out to the room (if the plate is larger than the bottom of the pan) which may help address your inability to fine tune the gas burner.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.263662
| 2018-08-12T08:56:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91622",
"authors": [
"Charles Bryant",
"Chris H",
"David Richerby",
"Joe",
"cooperised",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68676",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
88064
|
How long does doughnut dough need to chill? What is meant by "chill over night?"
In the recipe it says chill over night, but how many hours would that mean?
Welcome to the site @Chloe, unfortunately your question cannot be answered as is because there's no context. If you could post the recipe and method you'll get better answers.
In general, terms like overnight are fudge numbers with no exact meaning and indicate the recipe has some level of flexibility, similar to terms like a pinch of salt. Overnight is, roughly, put it in the fridge, go to bed, get up in the morning and it should be good to go. Figure 6-10 hours. But, as GdD states, more details, including the recipe might earn you a more accurate answer.
"Overnight" is just a word, not a precise cooking term, so it would mean "during the time that typical people have retired for the night". I.e. 5 or 6 hours should do it. In cases where it is possible to over-do it (like yeast dough rising), I think the upper limit would be 10 or 12 hours.
"Overnight" is a pretty lax instruction. If the recipe requires something more precise than what laymen would assume from the word, then the time would have been specified in hours.
I've always assumed that most people aren't baking up until they go to sleep, then immediately when they get up. (I only do that once a year). So I've always assumed it's 12 to 24 hours. Really, it's either to let it chill all the way through, or wait for something to change (yeast to grow, gluten to develop, moisture to even out, enzymes to work, etc.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.264024
| 2018-03-01T14:50:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/88064",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Joe",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"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
}
|
107366
|
Substituting sweetened condensed milk for evaporated milk
I am making caramel. The recipe calls for 2 - 12oz. cans of evaporated milk. I want to use sweetened condensed milk. Do I use the same amount?
What's the recipe you're using? (Edit your post to add the recipe to it, rather than just adding a link.) And why do you want to change the recipe... do you not have evaporated milk, or are you trying to get different results?
The main difference between the two products is that sweetened condensed milk has added sugar. This could be a problem for your recipe. Evaporated milk, since it is concentrated (about 60% of the water is removed) is already a bit sweeter. When sweetened condensed milk is made, more sugar is added to evaporated milk, leaving the final product in the 40 - 45% sugar range. So, the answer to your question will, in large part, depend on your recipe. There are caramel recipes online that make use of sweetened condensed milk. You might just start off with one of those.
There are online recipes that use sweetened condensed milk as the only ingredient to make caramel. Some recipes even suggest making the caramel in the sealed can of sweetened condensed milk which seems foolish to me.
@MaxW you can safely cook a sealed can of sweetened condensed milk in a pressure cooker to create dulce de leche. See: https://www.hippressurecooking.com/dulce-de-leche-pressure-cooked-condensed-milk/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.264172
| 2020-04-07T10:38:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107366",
"authors": [
"MaxW",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108102
|
How long do breadcrumbs last?
I'm currently trying to make a dish that calls for breadcrumbs, but the only ones I have expired on October 22 of 2019. They are unopened and were kept in a cool dry place. It sounds stupid but are these still usable?
If they're the dried bought type, they keep almost indefinitely so long as they stay dry (even open; I use them very slowly) . The date is about quality not safety.
As always, if there seems to be anything wrong, such as signs of dampness on the container (at least here they're packed in cardboard), be more cautious
Perhaps, but I can get two types here, fully well-known, branded from the supermarket in a posh carton, or 'fresh in a sealed bag', from the local 'deli' [but still a proper commercial product, not in any way home-made]. The former has a year on it to start with, the latter only a month. the former looks like 'breadcrumbs', the latter like actual crumbs of bread.
@Tetsujin they may be bought, but I reckon the second type aren't dried, and therefore aren't what I'm talking about. They could be partially dried to get a month's shelf life but I haven't seen those myself. I normally freeze home made crumbs, but have tried drying them. If further crumbled (food processor) after drying in a cool oven they look a lot like the supermarket ones, and keep just as well
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.264308
| 2020-05-04T17:48:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108102",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110064
|
Why stirring an over-fermented sourdough starter caused it to rise a second time to about double the original size?
After feeding my sourdough starter, I let it rise to about 2.5x the original height. It eventually collapsed. 24 hours later, after it was well over fermented, I stirred the starter with a spoon. It then suddenly grew back to 2x in about 1 to 2 hours, without adding any water or flour. Can anyone explain this phenomenon?
You actually kneaded the dough. This puts some of the flour and water into contact with yeast that didn't have access to food cause it already ate all its sources within their grasp. Feeding these yeast cells this way caused the second rise, a common method in bread making.
I'm not sure this is what the OP is describing. He fed his starter. After it consumed the "food", he stirred without adding more flour. I assume that means it was well mixed to begin with. @Pat should clarify this point.
So if I understand, even after mixing the starer well, there will still be portion of flour that haven't been consumed by the yeast in the starter even hours later and by agitating it again, it allows the yeast to get in contact with unconsumed flour that was already there but for some reason was inaccessible to the yeast in the first rise?
@Pat Yes.......
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.264450
| 2020-08-07T01:17:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110064",
"authors": [
"Pat",
"Rob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87037",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
80756
|
Is there a specific thermometer to check soup temperature?
I'm currently struggling with overcooking small fish so trying to use a thermometer to check water temperature.
The thermometer I currently use
However it says 'meat thermometer' not sure if it can be used to check soup water. I tried it today(dipped it in soup water) and it seemed to reflect correctly.
1.Is this thermometer ok or is there one I specifically need to get for soup water?
2. If it makes contact with bottom of pot might it be that it reflects a higher temperature due to pot surface conducting more heat and so are you meant to dip in water but not make contact with bottom of pot?
3. Even if linked thermometer is ok, is there something which is more appropriate/easy to use when checking soup temperature e.g. something perhaps i could just hang on the pot without having to handle at intervals like the linked one?
Sorry if this is a stupid question.
This is fine, albeit inconvenient
Don't make contact with the bottom of the pot, for the reasons described. Stirring can help make the temperature more uniform.
You could try a candy thermometer. But most soups aren't sensitive enough that you need to be super careful -- just poking it with a Thermapen or something similar every few minutes is probably more than enough. You can also get an oven-safe dial type thermometer and thread it through a binder clip or similar clamped to the pot, or an oven probe type thermometer (the kind with the probe on a cord).
For an overview of different thermometer types, see this USDA link.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.264597
| 2017-04-09T11:33:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/80756",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34159
|
Cause of foam in fried chicken pan?
I made chicken katsu tonight following this recipe. I added peanut oil to the pan, let it get hot, then threw in my semi-frozen breaded chicken thighs. As you can see, I cooked them longer than called for because they hadn't totally defrosted yet. Surprisingly, they came out very moist and delicious!
Anyway, I noticed a foam forming in the pan about midway through cooking. I took the picture below at the very end when I was taking out the chicken, and the foam was still there. What's the cause of this?
As an aside, if this is japanese torikatsu, then I think more oil is needed for immersive deep frying, just like tonkatsu
Further editing about other causes of oil foaming
It never occurred to me to add reasons other than lecithin leaching into oil as a cause of foaming. I hope most people don't re-use their oil for frying more than a few times since it's harmful to a person's health which I'll explain a little. Since this site isn't about health but cooking, it'll be brief.
Frying, in itself, chemically changes oil. Water, plus other components in the food (what they are isn't listed), can cause 'soaps' to form, which causes foaming.
A second effect is oxidation leading to saponification. From Surfactant Science and Technology, page 261
...polyunsaturated acids such as linoleic and linolenic acids are particularly susceptible to oxidation, introducing peroxide and hydroxyl groups that enhance the amphiphilic character of the materials with the observed results.
(Amphiphilic means a molecule having one end that can attach to water and the other end to fats like soap does.)
Another contributing factor is oil polymerization. When fats are subjected to frying temperatures, they'll become polymerized. (Good for seasoning cast irons pans but but for our health.) Fats that at present high in polyunsaturated fatty acids are more prone to this. Polymerized fats are thicker (more viscous) and will tend to form more stable foams during frying. The more the same fat's been used for frying, the more polymerized it will be and therefore foam more.
I remember reading why food particles can also increase foaming but can't find it now. (Doesn't help I've had a headache for 2 days.)
While the saponification of frying oil (formation of 'soaps' though it's not the same type as soaps used in cleaning) might seem unpalatable, what's important is that using old oil that's been subjected to frying temperatures repeatedly causes free radicals to form. Most people understand their harmful effects. I'd suggest if your oil starts foaming and you didn't add lecithin to your oil, by intention or through leaching from egg-containing batter, discard it or recycle it at an appropriate depot.
Personal experience
I didn't think to include this but it may be of some value. I use liquid sunflower lecithin in baking and mix a small amount into regular oil specifically for greasing baking pans to allow baked goods to lift easily without sticking. I've occasionally added a little of this oil to a frying pan with regular oil for frying when I want a crispy exterior but absolutely no sticking of food to pan. At such times, the oil will foam if I add a bit too much. It's how I first learned of this. The more lecithin there was, the more the oil foamed. It's easily tested in your own kitchen.
Edited to include links
I actually thought it was fairly well known that foaming when frying was caused by lecithin in the oil but it seems it isn't. Here are some links about this.
...frying a comestible in a frying medium which comprises an oil or fat and an amount of an emulsifier effective to foam the fat or oil during frying. The amount of fat or oil and emulsifier need be present in an amount effective to foam the fat or oil at a level sufficient to cook the comestible in the foaming frying medium. The emulsifier may be incorporated into the frying medium as part of a dry coating mix which is coated onto the comestible prior to frying.
Appropriate emulsifiers include citric acid esters of mono and diglycerides, phosphated mono and diglycerides, sodium stearyl fumarate and sodium sulfo-acetate derivatives of mono and diglycerides. However, the preferred emulsifier is lecithin (a phospholipid). Lecithin is preferred due to its ability to sustain a desired level of foam for relatively long periods of time while preventing sticking and burning, as well as foaming without substantial splattering.
From Foam frying US 4188410 A
The leaching of lecithin from egg yolk batters and/or doughnut mixes will cause foaming. Moreover phospholipids (lecithins) may cause darkening of the oil at higher frying temperature.
From the book Frying of Food: Oxidation, Nutrient and Non-Nutrient Antioxidants page 255
I'm also including the link that user110084 listed as it was one of the links I'd previously seen.
During egg-frying, phospholipids of the egg migrated to the frying oil. As the results an increase of foaming tendency of the oils were observed. The higher the migration of phospholipids was, the higher the foaming tendency of the oil was. Added soya lecithin or egg yolk lecithin promoted the foaming tendency of oil during heating, ...
From Science of Cookery: Foaming Tendency of Frying Oil by Egg-frying
The foaming action is caused by two reactions working together - lecithin from the batter (containing a whole egg) migrating into the oil during frying and the vigorous bubbling of the oil as moisture present in the food is vaporized.
If you fry a piece of potato in oil, the oil also bubbles vigorously but the bubbles break when they reach the surface. Lecithin, found only in the yolk, not the white, serves to stabilize the bubbles of water vapour for a short while although they will break down after you've finished frying.
Vegetable oils all contain a certain amount of lecithin naturally. The amounts vary and I don't know how much. Lecithin helps prevent splattering when frying but very little is needed. I don't do deep-frying but I'd imagine if one were to fry something that contained water in pure mineral oil (not that it would be edible), it would splatter a lot.
Next time, if you were to use egg white only, you wouldn't find it foaming. If you save and strain your oil for frying again, it would still have enough the lecithin from the batter to foam again.
This is very interesting. There is at least one piece of academic research here (https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/cookeryscience1968/20/4/20_384/_pdf), the abstract is in English but the rest is in Japanese.
I can get back with a number of links tomorrow. Today is the day I go to mY elderly mom and care for her (bath her, etc). It's exhausting and I won't be back till the evening. Will edit to list links. Lecithin causing foaming in oil is a well known phenomena.
hope all goes well. I never knew about Lecithin foaming in oil. Truely fascinating. Wish I could click the +1 more times!
In 2 words: Water vapour.
Remember that the water boils at 100C while oil boils at much higher temperature. Therefore a (close-to) boiling oil cannot contain a liquid water and it's evaporated instantly as it leaks out of the stuff you fry.
This should start shortly after the oil gets to 100C, and it ends as soon as there's no more water to leak out of the stuff.
(Side note: Low quality meat can quite often be injected by water, the sellers increase the weight hence the price in this very nasty way. My experience is that if you buy a fresh meat from butchers', this effect is much lower and you can make more portions of the meal of the same weight of meat.)
The water causes the bubbles, but if it's actually foaming, I suspect it's proteins that have leached into the water from the chicken. (similar to the scum that forms when making stock)
@Joe That's quite possible, But as well, in a "dirty" oil the water bubbles needn't be so large as in a boiling water...
ahh interesting. I read that if peanut oil is heated past the smoke point (about 320F), it'll foam. Not sure if that is true or not. My coworker also mentioned that the oil could be bad- but I think that's unlikely since I just bought it a week ago.
@mdegges Peanut Oil has a smoke point of 450°F/230°C, not 320°F. If it was as low as you suggest it would be useless in woks all over the world.
I presume you are using fresh peanut oil and not already used for frying previously.
When you have half frozen meat going into hot oil, the first thing that would happen is that the ice would melt. The centre would stay at freezing point until all the ice turns into water. While that is happening, the melt water would carry water soluble proteins with it and leach into the oil. Meanwhile, that cold water would travel through the outer parts of the meat to cool down the heating from the hot oil and at the same time carry more proteins out into the oil.
What you see as foam is actually denatured protein leached out from the half frozen meat and acting as a surfactant. Think detergent in water and soap suds. This kind of foam can happen in water and with vegetables too.
This is quite a useful read. Interestingly there is no mention of proteins.
Main causes of foaming from this article:
Excess salt forming soap (I am unconvinced about the chemistry - you
need an alkali not salt and fatty acid) [Edit - amines from decomposition of proteins and maillard products could act as a base for soap formation]
Prolonged high temperature causing cracking and polymerisation of cracked products
Dripping back of volatile components condensed on extractor filter
Used oil with polymerised cracking products
Overheating causing cracking and polymerisation of cracked products
Chemistry of deep-fat frying is a very interesting read but too much to summarise here.
I just tried frying coconut needed shrimp. I made 2 different recipes. One with egg white and one with regular egg. Regular egg batter foamed. Egg white batter did not.
Most probably, the peanut oil experienced over-heat* too high temperature, making the volatile compounds of oil breakdown. In that fact of the foaming is due to the formation of polymerised oil. According to Dr. Udo Erasmus, all good oils are sensitive to heat, light and oxygen.
I don't think oil foams when it polymerizes.
The eggs cause the oil to foam and can cause an overflow. I noticed the difference when I deep fried chicken katsu and spicy hawaiian chicken. The katsu would foam up every time (eggs in the batter). The hawaiian chicken would never foam up or over flow (no eggs in the batter).
I have had this problem too. After searching a bit, I found out that manufacturers are no longer adding defoamers such as silicone to their oil. If fact I only found one oil sold by the American Walmart that has a defoamer in it. I live in Canada so no luck for me. The same chemical is in Pepto Bismol. I assume that vegetable oil companies are making much more money now that we have to throw large amounts of oil away after one use. Also, I found that the lower the temp gets when adding food to the fryer the faster it starts foaming until a point where you have to stop frying because the oil will literally boil over the side of the pot which could cause a huge oil fire. Look up commercial lard with defoamers for deep fat fryers.
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. I find it hard to believe that supermarket vegetable oils had defoaming agents added to them. Perhaps you're thinking of commercial fry oil?
Its not water vapour..if it was, it would be spitting out viciously. Similarly, if it was the oil overheating, you would see it smoking. It's egg foam :D
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.264797
| 2013-05-16T01:06:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34159",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Daniel Griscom",
"HungryFoodi",
"Joe",
"Jude",
"MJ Schlosser",
"Melissa Miller",
"Numeri",
"Paul Cox",
"Raj",
"Steven Van",
"Terry Howells",
"Vijayalakshmi ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79485",
"mdegges",
"user110084",
"user3510969",
"yo'"
],
"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
}
|
49627
|
Half and half bread, too salty and no salt?
In putting the ingredients into my bread machine the top came off of the salt. I scooped out as much as could but it still has too much salt. I started another batch with no salt.
Do I thoroughly mix them together or make a half salty and half sweet loaf?
@Jolenealaska and that was after I read it for typos!
Happens to the best us! :)
Thoroughly mix them! If you mix them, you may end up with a completely palatable (even tasty) loaf; if you have half salt and half no salt, you'll likely end up with two unapalatable loaves.
Split both in half and tried both. Completely mixed was the best result.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.265789
| 2014-11-08T21:51:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49627",
"authors": [
"CW Holeman II",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kieron MK",
"Kowshika Velayutham",
"Stanley Szymczak",
"Stephanie Fallo",
"david smith",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4935"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59074
|
How to make the marshmallow swirl for Chocolate Marshmallow Ice cream from scratch?
My wife loves chocolate marshmallow swirl ice cream, but she doesn't like store-bought marshmallows. I would like to surprise her with homemade chocolate marshmallow swirl ice cream, but I am unsure how to make the marshmallow swirl.
Here are some of the options I have considered:
make homemade marshmallow creme (eg Fluff)
melt homemade marshmallows
both of these seem experimental.
Does anyone have a tried and true technique?
Thanks for changing recipe to technique. That's what I was after.
I have made marshmallows using Alton Brown's method; it works and is a lot of fun. If you don't form the individual marshmallows, but just swirl it into the ice cream while it's still a sticky mess, that should work for your swirl.
There is even a video in that link.
As ElendilTheTall mentioned in comments, you probably should reduce the amount of gelatin in Alton's recipe, perhaps by a third, to get a good swirl.
I would say reducing the amount of gelatin in a standard recipe would give softer, more swirlable results.
@ElendilTheTall I'll buy that.
Made this tonite with 3 packets at 13 minutes on high. came out very well. Put into a pastry bag with a wide tip and mixed with the ice cream that came out of the machine into a glass container, and it's now in the freezer. the rest went into a baking pan, just like Alton's video.
@rbp Great! Glad we could help.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.265901
| 2015-07-14T13:42:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59074",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jolenealaska",
"Jovy Esteban",
"LISA BYERS",
"Lars Petter Hermansen",
"Neil Bloor",
"Spencer Day",
"Susen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5373",
"jo ellen hargus",
"rbp"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64463
|
How do I know when my avocado has gone bad, and how can I keep it fresh?
I am a big fan of avocados but I usually don't eat a full one in one sitting. I usually cut them in half, leave the pit in the side I don't eat, and use the other half. In a day or two, when I come back to the uneaten portion of avocado - it is usually black and doesn't look good.
How can I recognize whether my avocado has gone bad or not? (besides blatant mold)
I usually put whats left of the avocado in a bag in the fridge and keep the pit in. Are these best practices to extend the life of my avocado?
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/46494/23376
An avocado will keep a few days in the refrigerator after it has been cut. The cut portion will turn brown/black due to oxidation, you can just cut that off, it is not harmful.
From California Avocado Commission to keep the avocado from discoloring sprinkle it with lemon/lime juice or vinegar and wrap tightly in plastic wrap or place in an airtight container.
From thekitchn storing a cut avocado with a piece of cut onion in an airtight container will stop the oxidation.
I don't know why this is, but I suspect that it has to do with the sulfur compounds that the onion releases. This is the same sulfur that makes you cry when you chop onions, but it is also used as a preservative. The onion's smell and taste don't seem to transfer to the avocado, as far as I can tell. But I'm not overly sensitive to onions, so you may want to check this out first if you are.
When not to use, from WebMD
if your avocado's flesh has become very dark or the flesh has become stringy you should avoid eating it, particularly if there is any sign of mold. Avocados have a very high fat content, so they oxidize and become rancid very quickly at room temperature and will need to be thrown away.
I tested adding acid (lemon/lime juice and vinegar), and surprisingly found that acid of that nature actually makes browning worse. Ascorbic acid (vitamin C) helps tremendously. See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46494/browning-avocados-what-helps/46495#46495
Brush the exposed avocado flesh with vitamin C, a tablet dissolved in water works fine as long as it's reasonably pure. Store the avocado in a sealed Tupperware container in the refrigerator.
Browning is caused by harmless oxidation, it's fine to eat or to cut any darkened flesh away. Black, moldy or stringy avocado should be tossed.
For a write up of experiments on the subject, see Browning Avocado Experimentation.
I've found that the best way to extend the life of a ripe avocado is:
mash it up,
put it in a plastic container,
flatten it out a bit,
cover it with an inch of water,
and finally put the lid on the container and put it in the fridge.
It will keep for a few days like this. The water will seal the air out. After a couple days you may have to scrape off the top layer of avocado.
Someone may know a better way but besides seeing that the avocado is bad (which should suffice for most cases) you have to feel it. If there is very little resistance then it's probably bad. Cut it open and see.
For less surface area to go black, try cutting in half (equal mass-wise) vertically; a bit of stone will peak out. I blot dry with paper towel and that seems to prevent blackening; goes leathery instead.
If you must bag, keep a dry paper towel in too; condensation is unkind to ripe avocados, cut or uncut.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.266083
| 2015-12-16T14:49:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64463",
"authors": [
"Belinda Frost",
"Ching Chong",
"Donna Campbell",
"Hannah BUI",
"Jerry L",
"Joe Kalinowski",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lisa Barajas",
"Seben",
"Vicki Shehan-Fisgus",
"Wendy Cornish",
"bernard jaccarini",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20083
|
What is the rule of thumb for mixing doughs?
Without delving too deeply into specialty doughs, but addressing more than just cakes and bread, what concerns can I evaluate when calculating the technique for approaching a dough?
For instance, some recipes say not to mix too much, others would imply that beating every bit of air out of the dough is the best thing for it.
What I am looking for is a set of criteria, maybe a flowchart, that outlines how to deal with having a well-reasoned technique (as opposed to just following a recipe).
Crumble, cream, or melt the fat first? Paddle or hook? Beat, fold or whisk? Knead once and rest or knead three times and throw? I would assume that to some extent getting air in or out, activating and mixing ingredients, distributing fats more or less evenly, and so forth play a factor in any decision. However, I have no idea what those different things do, or the food science behind them.
What general principles would help me understand what each factor does, so that I can have more confidence when staring down the ingredients, whether for some cookies or pizza crusts or muffins?
Once you start thinking in terms of techniques, it shouldn't be that hard. The book Ratio has an excellent overview of different methods for cakes. The blog pastrychefonline.com does as well. You can see an overview of the:
Creaming method in which softened but not melted butter and sugar are whipped together first to create a network of air bubbles for structure, then eggs, if called for, and other liquid ingredients added, then (or alternated with) solid ingredients. Overmixing after a certain point destroys the air bubble network, but you need to build it up well first. An alternative is the Two-Stage Mixing Method in which eggs and flavoring go in with some of the liquid, then softened fat and solids all get added in, then the rest of the liquid in parts with little mixing.
Foaming method, or sponge cake in which egg yolks and whites and sugar are whipped together to form the air bubbles, then dry ingredients are added, then melted butter is added at the end if called for. I believe in Ratio butter is added before dry ingredients, but I don't remember if that is the case. Again, you don't want to start popping your air bubbles.
Biscuit Method or pastry method for pie crusts and biscuits, in which it is important to keep your fat very cold and leave some larger pieces of it for flakiness and usually over mixing after liquid has been added causes a dense biscuit or crust because it activates the gluten.
Muffin Method or quick cake/bread method in which all the dry ingredients are added to all the wet ingredients and the fat is melted or liquid as opposed to softened or cold. In this case leavening comes from commercial leaveners instead of mixing so at no point do you want to overmix and activate the gluten.
There is an exception for batters like crepe batter where there is simply so much liquid that the gluten will never be activated. You can mix a high liquid content batter all day if you want.
And not covered on that blog are:
Yet another technique uses whipped egg whites only for structure, much like making a meringue. I have a waffle recipe that uses whipped egg whites at the end for additional structure after using the muffin method for the rest of the batter.
For bread I personally love the explanations in Peter Reinhart's books, both that on regular bread and also whole grain bread. You WANT to activate the gluten, so that's why you knead it after mixing (or in the case of the no-knead bread movement let the yeast activate it over a very long time), which is basically more mixing. The structure of bread is a combination of the bubbles from the yeast and the gluten that is partially activated by kneading. After rising you want to handle even bread gently, though, so as not to degas the yeast bubbles.
There may be more and different recipes use different variations, but these are the ones that spring to mind. The key is to figure out:
How is leavening happening - from chemical leaveners, a mixing method, steam during baking, yeast, or a combination of these?
How much do I want to activate the gluten?
The answers to these two questions largely determine the temperature of your fats and eggs and how much you mix.
Great listing and concise explanations; I am fighting the urge to take a highlighter to my screen
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.266385
| 2011-12-30T16:55:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20083",
"authors": [
"Riet",
"Tamie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43895",
"mfg",
"user42972"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21882
|
Can the broiler replicate a regular gas oven?
My oven has been broken about a month, and I am getting a new one delivered Saturday. But in the wake of a failed pilot on the bottom, I was curious about whether the broiler could replicate the baking conditions of standard use. I set up my pizza stone as a heat shield/sink, and ran the broiler for about thirty minutes. By the end of that time it had reached a pretty stable 350'F.
For the purposes of generic casseroles, or roasting vegetables, would the heat produced by the broiler via the pizza stone work the same as the lower heating element? Would I need to include some water to evaporate or anything else to make adjustments?
Did you try moving the thermometer to see how much the temperature varied from top to bottom?
@Jefromi good question, I did not. I am hoping to try this again tonight and will do so. I can see the heat shield creating a radiating effect, is it possible that it would have a cyclical effect?
Is the broiler on continuously? If yes, then you'll approach steady state as the stone heats. If it cycles, then you'll have temperature cycles of the same frequency with their amplitude damped by the stone. And you would of course expect temperature to depend on height - I'm just not sure how much.
This is a solid idea. I would recommend another heat sink below your cooking area as well, perhaps on the bottom of the oven. That should hopefully provide a suitable oven-like environment. You also may want to consider foiling the top of your top heat sink, if you are still getting uneven temperatures at the top.
Neat idea. I hope it works out for you.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.266766
| 2012-03-01T17:53:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21882",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"mfg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18860
|
How can I make a vegan turkey-skin substitute?
I recently tried to practice making a Seitan based vegan turkey tube using this recipe. To test results for different cooking methods, I split the final dough in half before baking, made one that was just turkey-dough and one that was a turkey-dough and stuffing roulade.
Both turkey loaves came out well. However, the recipe gives instructions on fabricating a kind of "turkey skin." Basically, once the turkey is done baking, remove from oven, place on a pan, wrap with yuba (bean-curd skin from making soy milk, similar to spring roll pastry), brush with sesame oil, and bake until browned (about 45-60 minutes, brushing on more oil occasionally). The results were basically a distracting pastry shell wrapped around a seitan loaf; it did not appear to adhere to the surface of the loaf at any point. It was difficult to cut and had a difficult texture compared to the ease of the seitan.
To give an idea of the results, here is a picture of some scraps from the plate:
The instructions did not give a specific detail as to what to expect, or really how to qualify the results of the "turkey skin." As such, I am at a loss as to how to improve the results.
So:
Have you made or had a yuba wrapped item, where the method above was somehow applied but with a more successful result (as in, the yuba adhered to the surface of the loaf, the yuba cut easily, or had a more delicate texture that didn't contrast as much)?
Of the three fails (adherence, cutting, texture), what methods would work to improve them? (E.G. Would brushing oil on the loaf before help or hinder yuba sticking to the loaf, would it help soften the yuba?)
Is there any method of softening the yuba and making it more delicate before applying it? Would this be beneficial to the desired result? Why?
Could tweaking the temp:time of baking with the yuba wrap help? (i.e. Lower-slower breaks down fats, connective tissues in animals... is there a similar compound I am shooting for in yuba?)
Can yuba be prepared to mimic the soft-toughness of turkey skin? How?
While I can appreciate the effort you are going through here, and the amount of skill that is involved, I'm wondering why, if you are preparing a vegan meal, you are trying so hard to make something that is like something completely un-vegan? Seems like a lot of effort for not much.
@JenniferS because it is there
You can either get fresh or dried yuba, the dried one has to be soaked.
When I made a tofu turkey I soaked the yuba sheat for about 10 minutes in warm water before wrapping it around the "meat". The tofu turkey had already been baking in the oven for around 1 hour when I added the skin. After applying the yuba I rosted the whole thing in the oven until the skin was brown (maybe 30 minutes), brushing occationally with marinade. Skin came out perfect and had a nice crispyness without coming apart from the tofu or being too brittle.
Oh, yeah, I brushed the tofu alternatively with marinade and with melted vegan butter every 15 minutes or so before adding the yuba. It might have made a difference but I really think soaking the sheats is key.
Good luck!
I made a video guide to making a vegan "tofurkey" from tofu.
Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKIrgls-WCw
Thanks for the feedback, I was hoping someone would have experience with this. What was the temperature that you were baking at? Also, were you using Earth Balance margarine, or something else?
I was baking it at around 200°C. I live in Germany and I was using a german brand of margarine. I'm sure Earth Balance will work fine!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.266935
| 2011-11-09T17:38:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18860",
"authors": [
"Jennifer S",
"Olga",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8091",
"jane bowden",
"matt lallo",
"mfg",
"nlambert",
"slowride"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110093
|
Why is corn nixtamalized?
I am somewhat confused about the difference between masa harina flour vs. cornmeal. Wikipedia says the process of nixtamalization needs to be done in order for the corn to be nutritional, kill toxins and make it more palatable. Basically they use burnt ash or lye to break up the hull of the corn when they are making masa. I always use cornmeal and I don't die from toxins and I assume it is just as nutritional as eating tortillas.
I've edited the question. I think it is worth reopening.
I thought the tag nutrition and food science covered the topic. Sorry If I am mistaken. The topic was closed because it says nutrition is off-topic.
Asking for nutritional advice is off topic. However, understanding why corn is nixtamalized, and the nutritional reasons for that process is not only valid, but would be a helpful addition to the site. Unless I am mistaken, this has not be asked and answered on Seasoned Advice.
I use pickling lime, CaOH, myself. Wood ash is messy and lye, NaOH, is overkill.
Nixtamalization is a culinary process that begins with dried corn kernels (maize), and uses alkalinity to alter the chemistry of the corn. The process is thousands of years old, first recorded by the the Aztecs, but probably older and more wide spread.
This guide is very informative. Here the author describes the result of the nixtimalization process:
This practice accomplishes several things: soaking dried maize kernels in an alkaline solution makes it easier to remove the thin outer seed coat, or pericarp, that encases the kernel, either through grinding or by rubbing. Next, both alkalinity and heat treatment help to not only soften the kernel, but also chemically alter the endosperm and germ of cooked maize [...] (Bressani et al. 1958; Bressani and Scrimshaw 1958). Finally, nixtamalization flavors maize, altering the taste profile of the kernels, giving them a slightly bitter and earthy flavor (Briggs 2015).
...and of course, the added bonus is that it makes corn (masa) delicious!
[email protected] interesting topic indeed., thank you. I would then assume pound per pound masa contains more nutrients overall then corn meal or whole kernal corn fresh from the stalk....and thank you for including the "guide" The post is pretty much what I was looking for indeed.
Hi moscafj, the nutritional part is off topic here. I had to remove it.
@rumtscho I disagree completely with your edit. Nutritional ADVICE is off topic. The science about what nixtamalization does to make the nutritional elements of corn accessible to the human body (and thus why it is an important process) absolutely on topic. Please roll back your edit.
@moscafj I know this is very confusing and counterintuitive. Listing elements which are accessible to the human body is also off topic, with the only exception being made when the OP already named elements in the question (and then the answer has to restrict itself to only these).
I'm not confused at all, and don't find this counterintuitive. I am the first person to close posts asking for nutritional advice... I re-wrote this original question because that is what it sounded like. However, one cannot understand the importance of the nixtamalization process without realizing that it allowed the survival of millions of people because the process itself allows humans to access the nutrients (amino acids, B vitamins, and niacin) that they would otherwise not have available. This is scientific fact, not advice or conjecture. I disagree with your edit.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.267260
| 2020-08-08T17:54:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110093",
"authors": [
"Sedumjoy",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84278",
"moscafj",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117037
|
What is table cream? I live in US and have never heard term
I have a new recipe that says I need table cream, sour cream and grated cheese. I have never heard of table cream and don't know what I can use instead. This is for a topping that goes over fish in the oven.
It’s not going to be possible to answer this question without knowing what the origin of the recipe is.
‘Table cream’ is a dairy product that’s put on the table for people to add as they deem fit. But there are at least three cultures that have products with this name:
In the UK and Canada, it’s a 15-18% fat cream, for you to add to your coffee. Half-and-half might work in a pinch for Americans (about 12% fat), or you can try to mix heavy cream with other dairy to try to approximate the correct balance
In Mexico, there are two forms of ‘crema’ one of which translates to ‘table cream’. This is a soured milk product. (The other being a thicker product used in cooking). Crema is higher in fat than American cultured buttermilk (about 30% vs 20%), salted, and may have a little bit of lime juice added. The higher fat means that it’s less likely to curdle when added to hot foods.
Correct, in Canada you can get cartons of "heavy cream" 18% fat. Half-and-half refers to mixing it with 2% milk to get a 10% product. That's what goes in coffee. Table cream can't be whipped (that needs 35%) but is good in sauces. I guess you could mix whipping cream with 1% or 2% 50-50 to get something close to what you need. (If, in fact, it's the Canadian table cream you need.)
Table cream appears to be an ingredient from Mexican cuisine, also known as media crema. Nestle offers cans of it in the US.
This is what the website of Target says about it:
Nestle Media Crema Table Cream adds a special touch to all your sweet and savory recipes. Use it to cook, bake or top your favorite recipes and dishes. It has a neutral flavor that will allow you to enhance the flavor of all your creamy recipes. Nestle Media Crema offers you a double consistency: liquid at room temperature or thicker if you refrigerate it. Add Mexican crema in your pasta, tacos, stews, soups and sauces, or top fruits and desserts with the light cream for a tasty treat. Each can contains 7.6 ounces of shelf stable cream. Refrigerate after opening.
The BCDC has a comparison of various milk products that includes table cream:
Coffee cream, or table cream - contains 18% milk fat.
A more extensive description of the product and it’s use cases can be found at Nestle’s website.
For your recipe, you are probably fine if you
mix half and half with regular cream in roughly equal amounts or
add about a quarter of milk to regular cream.
I don’t think Mexican table cream and Canadian table cream are the same thing. Mexican crema is a thick, sour product, more like crème fraîche
I don’t know either but I bought some and the description does NOT match what is being said of it. It seems more like butter than cream. I am still confused. The stuff I bought is a soft paste or gel, a bit like artist’s oil paint in the fridge, but at room temperature it isn’t much lighter. Some, but it doesn’t flow and it forms peaks. A bit like cheap acrylic artists paint. Still more “something that should come out of a tube” than what I think of as cream. It seems heavier than heavy whipping cream, and tastes like unsalted butter. I have no idea what to do with it. I bought it out of curiosity, and the assumption that it would be lighter than what I am familiar with for fat reduction. This seems like it has MORE fat not less fat. If it DOES have less fat it wins. It seems to make a fair butter substitute on bread. It does not seem like it would go well in coffee. Too thick. You can actually spread the stuff with a knife, which I have never seen heavy whipping cream do.
That sounds more like condensed milk!
Do you know what origin of the recipe was? Canada and the UK both have something called ‘table cream’ which is the cream that you’d have on the table for adding to coffee… which is about 15-18% fat (heavier than half-and-half, but not as high fat as heavy cream). If you’re ever dealing with recipes that might be foreign, see https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/784/67
To those flagging as not an answer: the author may not know exactly what it is, but they did buy some and describe it, so I'd call this an answer.
@Cascabel agreed. It as much an answer as when people ask how to do something and people respond that there’s no way to do it
Doesn't the package tell the fat content? Might be good for comparison to know the nonfat solids (ie. mainly protein) content too.
It lists as being only 5% total fat which strikes me as extremely low. The totals are nowhere near 100% though which leaves me confused. The ingredients seem to be more or less light cream, carrageenan, and sodium alginate. So light cream with thickeners to make it seem like soft butter?
As far as thickness goes It seems to go half and half, evaporated milk, whipping cream, condensed milk, this stuff, and then butter. It acts a lot like whipped butter. If the stuff is really only 5% fat, salting and coloring it would make a kicking butter substitute for toast.
@Matt it seems you bought some imitation product, probably intended as a low-calorie substitute. The totals don't have to be 100%, not everything in food is a digestible carb, fat or protein (although most of the rest is likely water). The sodium alginate is what makes the gel-like texture. The carrageenan is a good emulsifier for dairy, but doesn't thicken it much on its own, although it does make for a stabler foam after whipping.
If I did buy a fake nestle will be pissed because it looks EXACTLY like the pic and I bought it at a grocery store chain
Ooh I forgot buttermilk. That would go between whipping cream and this stuff. It’s thicker than that too. I don’t think it’s a sour milk thing though because it doesn’t have that buttermilk tang.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.267594
| 2021-08-31T03:01:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117037",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Kate Gregory",
"Matt",
"ariola",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112750
|
I need to substitute fresh yams for canned, but I want the sweetness
I have always used Bruce's canned Yams for My Sweet Potato Casserole. Unfortunately, this year with the pandemic, I cannot find any available. I still want to make the casserole and want it to taste the same. I know to boil the yams, but what else do I need to do in order to get that sweet taste?
A metric ton of sugar and probably some vanilla. We don't really do recipe recommendations here, but simply googling for "sweet potato casserole with fresh yams" yields lots of recipes.
Corn syrup would be a quick substitute. Water it down until it's the same consistency as the syrup that comes with the canned sweet potatoes, and use as much of the watered-down syrup as you would normally use from the can.
If you want to devote the time to get the maximum sweetness, you can take advantage of natural enzymes to accomplish your goal. If you can hold your yams between 135 and 170°F (57 and 77°C) for a couple of hours, you can dramatically increase the sweetness. They will still be hard at this point, so will need roasting to soften. A sous vide device will be the best way to do this, but you can do a decent job of improving sweetness by roasting, wrapped in foil, in a 300 F (149 C) oven for about 2 hours. The science and process is explained in detail here.
From Bruce's Yam's:
Bruce’s canned yams (sweet potatoes) use only the tender most part of the sweet potato called the sweetheart. As the number one selling canned sweet potato in the U. S. it has been referred to as America’s favorite – sweetheart. Certified by the American Heart Association.
From McCALL FARMS:
Ingredients: Sweet Potatoes, Water, Corn Syrup, Sugar.
So basically, only use the sweetheart (center) of the sweet potato, and add a good amount of sugar and/or syrup.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.268480
| 2020-11-20T19:31:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112750",
"authors": [
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.