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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
110106
|
Are there any particular type of corn chips that are made from masa flour?
I am wondering if the type "Mexican Style" or "Restauant Style" or "Tortilla" corn chips also means they are made from masa flour? I cannot tell from the ingredients list. It does not say what process was used to make the corn flour.
Tortillas are made from masa. So, if the chip is truly a "tortilla chip", then it was made with masa. Corn chips, like the brand Fritos, are made from corn meal, I believe. Masa is made from nixtamalized corn. Corn meal or corn flour is simply ground corn.
@moscafj...I must confess I have an ulterior motive for wanting to know. I need lutein for my eyes and nih website says mesa flower may be high and since the ingredient list on "tortilla" chips does not say what process was used then I was at a loss. I will assume it was mesa flower. Your answer clears it up. Thank you
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.268647
| 2020-08-10T02:26:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110106",
"authors": [
"Sedumjoy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84278"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125495
|
Spreading out super thin pan cake batter
I am using store bought pan cake mix to make pancakes, and one problem I have is that the batter is super thin after prepping. This makes it difficult to pour it onto the skillet when cooking. When I try, it's quite inconsistent the size of my pancakes, and sometimes by mistake I end up filling the pan.
Any tips to improve my pancake batter pouring skills?
What do you mean by "pancakes" - American style thick pancakes, or something thinner like crêpes?
Have you checked the preparation? Store-bought mixed shouldn’t be super thin for American style and for the other kind you’d be filling the entire pan anyway?
It's french pancakes @rumtscho
Use a ladle.
See Best Ladles for Pancakes – Essential Guide - which, to be honest, is more a way of giving you affiliate links to ladles than helping you choose, but there's some worth in the article.
Really, all you need is one the right size to make your idea of a standard pancake; then you get the same amount every time.
This one is just a shopping listing, but it does tell you the size Delia Smith uses in her cookery school, for pancakes - 35ml - https://www.deliaonline.com/equipment/pancake-ladle
Or a measuring cup - my ready-made mix says slightly less than 1/4 cup. Or an ice cream scoop, I use mine mostly for batter.
true - I don't actually have any real measuring cups that small. I have 500ml to 2l, nothing smaller. My one & only ladle serves me for many functions, including some slight guesswork when I don't need a full ladle. I get by ;)) A ladle can also do the spreading part too.
There is some technique to making crepes or very thin pancakes. It starts with pouring the correct amount (usually less than you think). Then, if I am not misunderstanding, I think you may need a crepe spreading tool to help make the batter even across the pan. Something like this (there are slightly different versions, but same idea):
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.268758
| 2023-10-08T13:01:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125495",
"authors": [
"Brian",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96288",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129188
|
Asparagus in the fall
It's September 9th 2024 and I am working on a job in an asparagus field. Some of the asparagus they cut off to ground level and yet it's still growing spears. Can I break these spears off and eat them or wouldn't that be good.
It depends. If you are asking whether or not this is safe for you, it is. There is no reason that this asparagus is any different from the rest. On the other hand, this might not be good for the asparagus plant itself and for the farm. The spears are the stem of the plant. Harvesting too many or too many times in a season can damage the health of the plant. Here is some good information on the topic. There might be an economic reason for these spears to be left in place.
Yeah, we grew asparagus when I was young, and the key was that you had to stop harvesting to let the plant go to seed for it to come back happy and healthy the next year. I suspect if someone was being paid to work in an asparagus field and they kept harvesting after the season for personal use, the employer would be fairly unhappy since that is likely to directly affect the next season a growth (and since asparagus comes back year after year, that could be quite significant in the long run).
usually you stop harvesting it way before now... I'm surprised they cut it unless it was someone who didn't know what they were doing. (maybe if they were trying to rid it of pests or some disease?) It's like flower bulbs where it needs to put reserves into the ground so it can come back strong next year
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.268942
| 2024-09-09T15:43:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129188",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"fyrepenguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48468",
"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
}
|
121230
|
Flavored liquid butter
A local Chinese restaurant has a Mongolian bar where they cook the food you choose in flavored sauces of your choice. I enjoy the butter garlic sauce. It is liquid & looks like oil, and is stored in pans that don’t seem to be heated.
I want to make some different flavored butters to keep in squeeze bottles at home for use with my griddle. I know there is no way to keep butter in a liquid form. I would love to experiment with different flavor ideas, but definitely want a butter garlic flavor. Can I order something like this? I wish there was a true butter flavored oil(not the spray butter) that I could just add different flavoring to.
One of the decent vegan butter substitutes (as distinct from margarine - they usually cost more, and taste better) would probably serve (don't use the "light" ones, they are half water.) Unrefrigerated, they return to oil...
From your description it sounds to me like they're using clarified butter, or ghee. It's butter with the milk solids removed which gives it the consistency of oil. Not at all hard to do, just heat the butter to a low simmer and continually skim it until all of the milk solids are removed. You can buy it already clarified, but I find that just doesn't taste as good. Keeps for 6 months or so in the fridge.
How to Clarify Butter
First, to answer Danielle's question and to expand on Raydot's answer. Clarified butter and Ghee can both be stored at room temperature, at which temperature they are usually liquid. But whilst ghee can be stored at room temperature for a considerable length of time, clarified butter cannot because unlike ghee it still contains water which will make it spoil at room temperature. You can extend their shelf life by refrigerating them but they will solidify as they get colder. The garlicky oil at the restaurant may well be some form of infused, clarified butter or it may be Yak butter (depending on how authentic the restaurant is). Yak butter is a traditional ingredient in Mongolian cuisine and I've heard it has quite a distinct flavour.
When the subject of infused oils come up, I always feel the need to talk about safety. So I'll add a word of caution to anyone who may stumble upon this question with the intent of making their own clarified butter or ghee, or oil, that will be infused with something like garlic.
There is a fairly widely known risk of Botulism forming in garlic infused oils but there also seams to be a perception that the risk is somehow limited to just garlic. In reality, pretty much everything is a potential vector for C. Botulinum contamination. This is because C. Bot is widely found in soil. So anything grown in, or that comes into contact with soil, has the potential to be contaminated with C. Bot. Garlic just happens to have certain properties that make it a more likely vector for Botulinum.
In order to prevent issues with C. Botulinum in infused oils, you either have to properly acidify what you're infusing the oil with, so that it's pH is low enough to prevent the C. Bot from being able to grow, or you have to heat it to a high enough temperature to kill the C. Bot. But the temperatures required to kill the C. Bot and destroy it's spores are so high, and the "hold time" so long that you'll burn garlic and possibly your oil too... or at the very least, change the flavour of the oil. You can also use dried garlic but honestly, your best bet is to make the oil, keep it in the fridge, and use it within a week.
Butter flavored olive oil would be a good option for you. I've bought the brand I linked to, and it has a very convincing butter flavor.
There is a product called Chef's Quality liquid butter alternative, along with other companies butter substitutes. Just do an online search for butter sauce and you will find a few ideas. I bought the Chef's Quality liquid butter alternative it is a oil-based liquid that comes in a gallon jug to make butter sauce for corn, it's pretty good, I found it on Amazon
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.269124
| 2022-08-03T02:08:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121230",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122877
|
Best way to bake a breakfast casserole and reheat a ham in the same oven
I’d like to bake my breakfast casserole & reheat ham chunks at the same time in the same oven. I fear the breakfast casserole may taste like ham. If I cover the ham will that help?
Covering your ham (with a lid or foil) will not only mitigate the mingling of aromas, but will also allow you to reheat the ham in a shorter amount of time. You could add a small amount (1/4 - 1/2 cup) of boiling water to the pan with the ham to generate some steam.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.269435
| 2022-12-31T14:52:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122877",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20241
|
How long can I soak dried beans before they are considered inedible?
How long (days/weeks) can beans that have only been soaked in the refrigerator last before they are considered inedible/spoiled? I found black beans in the fridge that had been soaking for approx 3 weeks. They look and smell fine. Considering that they are dried beans soaking, toss or eat?
That's probably all of $1 of food—if that. Please keep that in mind when deciding if you want to eat food you're unsure of the safety of.
@derobert: True, but it's the principle of the matter! :-)
If you cook to 180 and there is no smell of rotting at all when you drain them (before the cook) you should be good. There aren't very many bacteria that rock out on dried beans and the few that do don't leave toxins behind, and the cold temp should have inhibited the rot. If they do smell after the drain, I would pitch them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.269516
| 2012-01-08T05:05:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20241",
"authors": [
"Chance Heath",
"Jan Warchoł",
"MonkeyBonkey",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44342",
"jvriesem"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24812
|
Spaghetti sauce consistency / coating noodles
I made my home made spaghetti sauce this weekend, which I've been making for several years. As always, the flavor turned out great, so I don't want to change my recipe too much. However, I do have one concern.
Whenever I use store bought sauce, it always coast the noodles completely, or near completely, as well as anything I may add to the dish, meatballs in this case. The noodles end up with a thick red coating of sauce on them.
When I use my own sauce, it just runs off the noodles. It leaves enough on them to have a good flavor, but does not have the same visual appeal to me that I get with store bought sauce.
I used to use cans of whole tomatoes, but lately, I've been starting with fresh tomatoes.
Is the quality of sticking to the noodles something artificial and a result of the mass production / preservatives? Or is it something to be desired in a sauce?
Should I be doing something different? Would more tomato paste or less water help? Or is there something else I should be adding?
Do you rinse your noodles after cooking them?
@Cos No, I do not.
The quality of pasta has a major bearing on how much sauce sticks. Good pasta is rough, because its surface is porous, and so it absorbs sauce much better. Moral of the story: try your sauce with decent pasta!
@ElendilTheTall That still doesn't explain the difference between home made vs store bought sauce. I buy the same noodles regardless and I don't buy the cheap ones.
Oil content might be a factor, and the thickness, as Jennifer S suggests, in that case.
modified food starch is in most commercial brands: I'd take have less coating over additives.
@PatSommer - along those lines, a lot of chefs use some of the pasta water (water left in the pot after removing the noodles from the pot used to boil them) to add some starch/body/silkiness to their sauces. Also, I like to have my sauce in a really wide skillet, and toss the noodles in the skillet using tongs, to help get them coated better.
Adding a bit of the pasta water that you cooked it in helps sauce stick to your noodles. Have you tried that?
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Can you try to be a little more specific.
The pasta cooking water ends up containing a lot of starch from the pasta. Daniel suggests this since starch is generally sticky. Pasta cooking water is often used to help sauce or get thicker (assuming you give some time for the extra liquid to evaporate).
It may have to do with the thickness of the sauce. Is your fresh tomato sauce thinner than the storebought sauce? I'm guessing that the storebought sauce has been reduced further than your homemade sauce, and thus better sticks to the noodles.
Try reducing your sauce further, simmering it for a longer time.
How long do you typically let your sauce simmer? I had mine going for 5-6 hours this weekend.
Hmmm... well, that's a long time, and depending on how much volume you had to start with, this might be quite reduced. I guess I'd have to see the recipe to understand the volumes better.
I know exactly what you are talking about and I had some frustrating batches myself. I now make sauce from the skins and add it to the recipe.. The skins are very high in pectin and you need that pectin to coat the noodles.. I save all my skins and cores during the season and then at the end when I make my large batch of sauce, I simmer the skins for about 30 minutes, puree the skins in batches and then push it through a screen. It really makes the most beautiful sauce you've ever seen! I've also seen that you can dehydrate the skins and then blend them into a powder.
Skins and cores of what? Tomatoes?
I suspect that the commercially made pasta sauces are adjusted to specifically give that look that we're used to as Americans.
I'm guessing that part of the issue may be ripeness of the tomatoes, as most available on the market are picked green ('vine ripened' translates to 'wasn't full green when picked'), so they can be handled and transported without significant loss. Another possibilitity is the type of tomatoes, as some are just more watery than others.
So, I'd recomemend trying one or all of the following:
Roast your tomatoes first, to help to dry them out. (split them open, lay cut side up in a shallow dish or sheet tray, then bake at maybe 400F 'til they've lost some of the liquid.)
Add tomato paste to help thicken the sauce.
Finish cooking the pasta in the sauce. Take the pasta out of the water a couple minutes before it's done to your taste, and transfer it to the sauce to finish cooking. The starches from the pasta should help thicken it a little.
Drain the pasta well before adding to the sauce. (taking it out a bit early in #3 means you're not going to have the massive sticking problem as if you fully cooked it and let it to sit)
Change the pasta. Besides what Chris Steinbach mentioned about brass dies, you can also look for 'rigate' pastas, which are extruded with ridges (in part to make up for the lack of a brass die), but you can also go for completely different shapes of pasta. If it's a chunky sauce, try penne, shells or rotini; if it's really hearty try a rigatoni. If it's particularly light and thin, go with capellini / angel hair. I generally go with linguini or linguini fini for the sauces I make. (not as delicate as capellini, but better surface/mass ratio than spaghetti).
The pasta itself could be the problem. If you have a reasonable selection of pasta at your store, look closely and you will see that some makes have an almost polished surface and others have a kind of fine sandpaper look about them. Sauce will stick better to pasta that has a slightly rough surface texture.
I was once told by an Italian friend that the best pasta for keeping sauce is made with brass dies, so keep a look out for brass-extruded pasta.
stir in a light dash of flour with your pasta after draining and the sauce will stick nicely and give a nice consistency. simple but works awesome.
This is a very interesting suggestion. Can you share more information? How did you learn about it? Does it work as well for white based sauces (like Alfredo) as it does with the red sauce in this question?
Interesting ... does it have the raw flour taste, or does the hot pasta take care of it?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.269676
| 2012-07-02T23:42:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24812",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Cos Callis",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jennifer S",
"Joe",
"Pat Sommer",
"PoloHoleSet",
"cadrell0",
"elbrant",
"ggg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7060",
"scotchi"
],
"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
}
|
2782
|
How can I keep hot food hot when transporting it?
How can I keep hot food hot when transporting it, e.g. to a friend's house or a potluck? I usually just give up and take cold food, but I'd like to have more options.
Whatever the suggestions, you might want to read http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2642/what-do-i-need-to-know-about-temperature-and-food-safety to make sure you have a safe plan in place.
This answer may also be helpful: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19984/suggestions-for-convenient-and-safe-methods-of-transporting-a-few-meals-without/19986#19986
Sidenote: if you have (very) good thermal insulation then keep in mind that food will slowly keep cooking (if it's about preserving heat, not cold), therefore it makes sense to stop cooking it earlier if you don't want the dish to be overcooked.
Depending on what it is I am transporting I use different methods, and I use the same methods for both hot and cold transport.
The easiest is the towels in a box; lay four towels down in a shallow box, hanging the other ends of the towels out each side of the box, then put your dish or bread or pot or whatever in the box and fold each of the four towels over the food. If you have hot food, lay some more insulation material over the top, as heat rises. If you have cold food, put the box on the seat, not the floor, as the floor will conduct heat from your vehicle up into your food.
I always have a sleeping bag in my rig and I will sometimes wrap food well with towels and then open the sleeping bag and shove the food into it, wrapping the rest of the sleeping bag over the top if hot food and under the bottom if cold. This has worked a lot for frozen foods when I go bulk shopping in the city, holding food frozen food for 4 hours and more.
Good point about the placement within the car ... and the sleeping bag reminded me -- I also have a set of soft-sided coolers that I use for transport (from the local hardware store); I keep the larger one in my car for stuff from the farmer's market, but the mid-sized one holds most casserole dishes, the larger one can fit lots of dishes, and the insides wipe clean; I also have a couple of insulated bags from Trader Joe's that I can slip smaller items into, as well. ... and for bulk shopping, I have a huge insulated bag from Restaurant Depot.
First things first, to keep the food hot you need to take into account two factors: thermal mass and heat conduction.
Thermal mass is how much heat your food or its pot can retain. Generally, heavier pots & pans(cast iron or clay) will be hot for a longer time than thin-walled ones made of steel or aluminum.
Rule of thumb: the heavier the pot, the better its heat retention. Bringing more food also helps!
Heat conduction is how well does a material let heat pass through it. Metals and water give heat away very easily, and aren't good for insulation. Thick fabrics, wool, cotton or just layers of air in between sheets of newspaper are good at keeping heat in.
Rule of thumb: if it'll keep you warm in the winter, it can keep your food warm.
My personal favourite is just wrap the pot in a woolen blanket. Just make sure you don't get the blanket greasy!
I have been able to make a passable insulator using items from around the house:
Put wadded-up newspaper in the bottom of a cardboard box.
The next layer is Styrofoam, if you have any (I save leftover packaging).
Layer on a few kitchen towels.
Place your covered dish in the box next.
Finish with more kitchen towels, and get going!
Be sure you have the food coming out of the oven at the time when you're about to walk out the door.
Have your packaging ready, so you're not giving the food time to cool down while you hunt for a box.
I've transported many pies this way, and it's worked great.
Using ceramic cookware provides good thermal mass, and isn't a conductor so won't cool off as quickly as metal will. I just wrap them in two or three bath towels (at least two -- one wrapped in one direction, the other wrapped at 90 degrees, so I don't have a large hole in the end for air to come in).
If you're doing this often enough, or just happen to need the dishes anyway, there are insulated carrying cases sold for various standard casserole dish sizes. But look when you're ordering online -- some come with a dish, lid, insulating bag, and hot & cold packs ... some are just an insulating bag. The hot packs you can either warm up in hot water or a microwave to add extra thermal mass when transporting.
I have two of the Pyrex Portables line that I got when some store was having a good sale, and I also have a slow cooker with clamps to secure the lid, but I don't know that I'd recommend it due what I consider to be a serious design flaw. (and for longer trips, I still wrap the pyrex things in towels, although that means I can't use the carrying handles)
+1 for the last paragraph's suggestions. The portables can be great, and our crock pot is stable enough to sit on the floor for short trips even without clamps (I won't attempt it for long trips).
A good cooler does very well to insulate food and keep it warm. When I make pulled pork, I wrap the pork butts in foil, then towels, and keep them in a cooler. Upwards of four hours later, the butts are still hot, not just warm.
you can also wrap whatever it is in towels. They tend to be big and thick and are good insulators, keeping stuff warm.
I transport hot foods in a crockpot with the top held in place with bungy cord(s) or heavy rubber bands or knotted lengths of elastic. What I use depends on the design of the handles of the crockpot. Using towels, blankets,etc. for insulation is effective. I usually put the wrapped container into a non-flexible plastic laundry basket and put it in the trunk--just in case there is any leakage. Even if there is nowhere to plug the crockpot in at the destination, the food usually stays fairly warm in the ceramic part alone (at indoor temperature).
Wrap bricks in foil (one at a time, not together), place and heat in oven for about 30 minutes at 350 deg. Place on bottom of cardboard box, place a heated up moist towel (in microwave) on top of the hot bricks, securely place your pot on top, making sure you wrap towels around the pot so they don't shift around during transport; place more towels on top (at least about four layers); put a used pillow on top and secure the box if it has a flap, otherwise, the pillow on top should suffice. This way method should keep your potluck dish warm for at least an hour.
I wrap a large river rock (heated in my oven) inside of old towels, place it on top of plastic containers that have the food inside, inside a LARGE Costco insulated bag.
heating plastic can make your food contaminated with bisphenol — even if it's certified BPA free it still contains other types of bisphenol which have not been studied as extensively as BPA and therefore are still considered 'safe'.
Sorry to boast about my crockpot, but I just can't help it. It features a lid that locks down to completely prevent spillage, thermal mass to stay warm for a long time, can plug into any outlet if it needs to be kept in warm mode once there, a thermometer to measure temp of the food inside, and a serving spoon that clips right to the lid. All it all, it's pretty much perfect for potlucks.
If you have the same one I do, which has all of those features -- it also has an oversized lip on top which makes it absolutely impossible to fit into a dishwasher. And it'll turn completely off, rather than stay on warm if you leave it for too long. (not sure exactly how long -- got stuck working late, and when I came home, food was in the danger zone, and I had to pitch it)
It's a hamilton beach. Not sure what lip you're talking about, but I wash it by hand anyway. I think it's set to turn off after 12 hours as a safety feature.
We use our crockpot for potlucks regularly, but it doesn't have a locking lid--I'm envious! Also, I get a bit tired of having to make only things that keep nicely in a crockpot for such events.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.270258
| 2010-07-22T14:21:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2782",
"authors": [
"Asja Amižić",
"Czechnology",
"Fidelma Fearon",
"Jessica",
"Joe",
"MissesBrown",
"Peter V",
"Rafael Rivera",
"Rebekah",
"Stéphane",
"Tim Gilbert",
"Utku Zihnioglu",
"Valpitt",
"acrosman",
"ccpizza",
"deb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/982",
"marilyn murphy",
"nancy darling",
"o0'."
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20422
|
How should a washed rind cheese be stored in the refrigerator?
There's a dispute about whether to use plastic wrap, wax paper, aluminum foil, zip-loc bags and so on. Also, I've heard that its a good idea to take the cheese out and let it breath from time to time.
Any washed rind cheese care advice?
Your best bet is probably a specialty product intended to wrap chese—that is, cheese paper.
Cook's Illustrated tested and found that (for cheese in general), wrapping the cheese first in wax or parchment paper, then over-wrapped loosely with aluminum foil performs better than either alone, and almost as well as cheese paper.
They report that the wax paper-aluminum foil wrap kept brie and cheddar almost as good as new for over a month.
They also found that plastic (either bags or wrap) developed mold before any of the other methods.
(Unfortunately, unless you have a Cook's Illustrated online subscription, you won't be able to see that link.)
Sadly, nothing anyone can say will end that dispute.
Some things to keep in mind when storing most cheeses (other than, perhaps, fresh cheeses like ricotta):
(1) Cheese is alive with the yeasts, lactobacilli, and/or other wee beasties that helped to make the cheese, and they are a big part of your cheese's defenses against bacterial invaders. They need oxygen to survive. If the cheese goes anaerobic, the cheese will get funky in a not-so-pleasant way (likely sulfur, perhaps ammonia). It is therefore a good idea to store the cheese in a way that it can get a little oxygen. Just taking it out once in a while probably won't be enough.
(2) Wee beasies other than those that made the cheese (the molds, mildews, and other bacteria in your fridge) would love to munch on the cheese, given the chance. They are helped if the cheese is kept in a moist environment, or in a place where condensation will collect next to the cheese. Plastic bags and wrap are probably the worst for this, but that doesn't mean you should never wrap cheese in plastic, just be careful not to let water collect.
(3) Fats are like velcro for odors. If you keep your cheese on just any old shelf, then the cheese will quickly begin to resemble last night's salmon mixed with Tuesday night's Chinese take-out. Better to use a cheese drawer or, if your refrigerator does not have one, then get a plastic box and punch a couple holes in its lid.
(4) Finally, cheeses with a rind will deteriorate faster once the rind is cut, so get only as much as you expect will be eaten in a couple weeks.
The OP asked specifically about washed rind cheeses. Are your points 1 - 3 specific to washed rind varieties, or are you talking cheese in general? Do you have any sources you can include to back up your points?
I make artisan cheeses and here is my answer:
If it is a hard cheese (parmesan or cheddar like) just keep it dry, cool and not exposed to the elements..a plastic container of ANY kind is fine.
If it is a fresh cheese or soft cheese it needs some space to breathe and not get "wetter" than it already is. Keep it in a plastic container with a paper towel in the bottom.
Really...storing cheese (unless you mean for months) is pretty much just simple common sense.
If you are storing it for months than do some research on aging conditions (affinage) for the particular type of cheese you want to store.
Cheese papers are for bries and camemberts primarily. The average consumer had no need for them. Period
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.271082
| 2012-01-13T16:47:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20422",
"authors": [
"Andrea",
"Laura",
"Rita Soo",
"Rubie Abney",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44827",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44857",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808",
"jewelsea",
"labarga",
"n00b"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19969
|
Use of pizza stone in gas oven
I have a new gas kitchen stove. The oven seems to burn so easily. I have a thermometer in there and it is registering the temp that I have the oven set on. I have seen where people have used a pizza stone to even out the heat. I want to know if you place a rectangle pizza stone directly on the bottom of the oven or should it be placed on a rack on the lowest setting? I would appreciate replies from anyone who has used this and if it had helped the problem
Is the thermometer in the same place that you're having food burn easily?
We had an older (1950's) gas oven for a decade which had very uneven heating and used a large pizza stone ( 13" by 16" ) to even out the heat. We did this by putting the stone on an oven rack in the lowest position, and making sure to give the oven at least 25min of heat-up time so the stone would be as hot as the oven. This did, indeed, help even out hot spots in the oven and decrease its tendency to burn delicate foods like cookies. It also eliminated the requirement to remember to take the pizza stone in and out of the oven.
You do not want to put the pizza stone directly on the oven floor. Three reasons:
It could block hot air vents from the flame into the oven chamber;
The oven floor is generally not designed to support weight and could
be damaged;
The pizza stone is liable to crack or even explode from thermal
shock due to rapid heating if it's in direct contact with the metal over the burner.
Also, do be aware that your pizza stone will accumulate crud from food dripping/dropping in the oven, which burns into a black carbon powder. We turned the stone upside down every few weeks limit accumulation.
For years, I have used an unglazed natural-stone tile that I picked up from the local home-improvement store (avoid manufactured stone products, as you don't know what chemicals might get transferred into food). I do keep it on the bottom of my electric oven, but I know it can go there because there are no air vents for it to block. Moreover, the instructions for my oven say that doing so is safe. In a gas oven, which has air vents in the bottom of the oven, I would not dare put a stone directly on the bottom because it would substantially decrease heating and could pose a safety hazard.
A baker friend of mine told me that one can purchase a set of stones to line your oven to mimic a traditional wood oven. I don't have exact references, however.
It's possible you also could arrange a few small, solid stone pavers, but again, I would not do it in a gas oven if there was a reasonable chance it would interfere with airflow. Simply not worth the risk.
There's actually a product for this which allows you to construct a tiny stoneware oven inside of your regular oven. Think of it as a pizza stone with sides and a top. Not particularly useful, but it does exist.
@FuzzyChef, you reminded me of an episode of Good Eats in which Alton shows how to cook a beef rib roast in a nasty, crusted old oven by putting the roast underneath a large terra cotta plant pot. Clever, but also not exactly practical. Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmfaeWEjGpM
I did buy a 14" X 16"rectangle pizza stone from Amazon. It fits nicely in my oven. I have used my oven several times since I have had it. It does take the oven longer to preheat but the payoff of it not burning is worth it to me. I placed it on the lowest rack setting which is about 1.5" from the bottom of the oven. It does not obstruct any of the vents in the oven floor. I am very pleased with the results and I thank those who answered my question and I hope this answer might help someone else.
I have an electric oven.I heat my stone on the floor and the bottom is perfect in 5 minutes,I then transfer the pizza to the broiler to finish the top for about 2 minutes. With perfect results.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.271395
| 2011-12-26T00:57:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19969",
"authors": [
"Bruce Goldstein",
"Cascabel",
"David Ziegler",
"Francisco Presencia",
"FuzzyChef",
"Martha F.",
"Mary",
"SE is Evil - Support Monica",
"Sai",
"Stuart Mcewen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8463"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25411
|
Cleaning bacon in new cast iron
I have a new cast iron skillet. It came unseasoned, but I seasoned it using the flaxseed oil method that seems the new (recent?) hotness. When I then cook bacon in it some of the bacon is nailed to the surface. I could scrub it out but it will take the seasoning with it (that is, I tried this once, removed the seasoning, then had to re-season the pan. For my second attempt I used electrolysis to completely reset the skillet.)
Should I just leave some of residue, including the brown bits of bacon that are stuck on, add a thin layer of oil and toss it back in the oven
EDIT: My thought on tossing it in the oven again with a new layer is that what bits are on the pan from bacon are just going to carbonize, which I've read is part of the idea of seasoning.
related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/261/how-do-you-clean-a-cast-iron-skillet
All my attempts to "clean and repair" a sticky-seasoning layer have ended badly as well. I know who already snickers in the background, but my opinion is: start clean. Give the pan a lye bath and a good scrub, then reseason with a better seasoning.
"The new hotness" of flaxseed oil goes back to the fact that it doesn't go rancid easily, without heat it just dries out making a film which can protect things like wood. I bought into it, and seasoned a pan with it, and wondered why all my seasoning tries were unsucessful (I stripped and reseasoned 3 times, I think). I came to blame it on the smooth forged iron.
Then I got Cookwise and read the chapter on fats. And surprise, what does it say? That PUFA stick to everything around. (Makes sense, if you stop to think about it - those unsaturated bonds are unstable, they itch to break apart). So, when I got my next iron pan, I seasoned it with three (very thin) layers of flaxseed oil (for a solid base which will stick to the pan and the finishing layer) and then two layers of lard. After the oven, I heated it from brown to almost-black on the stove (empty).
This seasoning turned out perfect. I made crepes on it, re-oiling once every 7-8 crepes only (no fat in the batter). The pan released them like a charm. The old flaxseed-seasoned pan still sits around with some carbonized matter burnt onto the seasoning, and waits for a lye-flaxseed-lard session.
Of course, I would still take some caution with new seasoning and oil well the first few applications (I only tried the crepes after I noticed that less problematic items work great). And if you tend to often fry with the fashinably-healthy nonsaturated vegetable oils, don't heat them too much, else they could bake in a sticky-seasoning layer onto the pan. In the worst case, if you do get sticky-oil (but not carbon) buildup, try adding a new lard layer before you strip-and-reseason.
Based on this I'm tempted to make a bunch of bacon grease (such a delicious process), then use that to season the pan again. I have an electrolysis setup that strips a pan CLEAN, so I'm up for experimentation.
The unsaturated oils work well for most of us. I think this is just an effect of the @rumtscho Cast-Iron Weird Zone. When its sticky in most of the world, it just means it needs to go back in the oven to bake longer, the seasoning isn't fully cured. In the Cast-Iron Weird Zone, it calls for NaOH or similar.
@MichaelConlen this electrolysis sounds interesting - I have some black rust on the old pan (below the seasoning) which laughs at lye.
@derobert I suspect that most vegetable oils won't be that bad, especially monousaturated. Flaxseed has lots of unsaturated bonds waiting to open at the slightest shake from outside.
@rumtscho Except flaxseed works well for most everyone who has tried it. E.g., Cooks Illustrated tested it, and it worked really well for them (it even survived a trip through the commercial dishwasher with a degreaser added). I use soy (much cheaper and easier to find), and that works well too (but I don't think it'd survive the dishwasher).
@rumtscho, it's the mad scientist way to go as far as rust goes. I used two rubber bins (with only one the bin had trouble holding that much water) and a plastic dish rack to separate the pan from a piece of sheet metal. I have bench top variable power supply from other mad scientist experiments that worked well.
So one thing I'm seeing with Flaxseed oil (I'm guessing it's a procedural error) is that the seasoning flakes off pretty easily. Does that sound like a symptom of something gone wrong?
@MichaelConlen yes, seasoning does not flake off. Well, or at least, its not supposed to. My guess is that your pan either wasn't completely clean before seasoning or you put on far too thick layers. Maybe having your pan polished to NASA mirror standards would do it too. I suppose if you very overheat the seasoning, it'll flake off too. But we're talking something north of 700F/370C.
You don't just season a cast iron pan once. It is a cumulative process that requires many applications, and cooking in it will usually undo some of that work. You want to get all the food bits out of the pan, and season it again. Don't think you have to strip all the seasoning and start again. And turn the heat down when you're cooking your bacon.
I did use about six (might have been five, might have been seven) layers. Nice long heating process (two layers per day).
As for bacon temp, I'm working pretty low. Thinking about it part of the problem might have been how much bacon I was cooking. Even though the temp was low I was cooking several batches, so there was a lot of bits that just sat in there forever.
Also, start bacon in a cold pan. I think bacon may be the only thing cooked starting with a cold pan...
@derobert, that's something I haven't heard. I start my first slices cold (relatively), but I usually make way more than a single pan will handle at a time.
@MichaelConlen Its probably not as important on the second batch (when there will already be tons of rendered bacon fat), but you may also consider doing your bacon in the oven.
I'm definitely not in favor of starting over. As Sean Hart mentioned, seasoning is a cumulative process. You should get it clean, and continue to season the pan.
What I would do is put a little water in the pan (maybe 1/4 inch) and bring that to a boil. Make sure the whole bottom of the pan is bubbling (add water if you need to--don't boil it dry).
Once you've got it all boiling, remove from heat and immediately scrub. I recommend a stiff natural bristle brush so you don't risk melting, but any brush that won't melt should do (don't resort to scrubbing with metal). The boiling should have loosened things enough to scrub off the burned on material.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.271768
| 2012-08-01T14:23:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25411",
"authors": [
"Arvind Prebagar",
"Joe",
"Max",
"Melanie Moccia",
"Michael Conlen",
"Need help",
"Pensilac",
"Srinivas Nangana",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58155",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"lynn warren",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4495
|
How can I make a silky smooth, rich mash?
What are the key factors in making silky smooth (non gluey) mashed potatoes.
What technique has the best results?
But having little chunks of potato in mash potato with bits of skin is delicious :(
Here's how I make mine, which I like and got my wife eating mashed potatoes for the first time since childhood.
I steam the potatoes rather than boil them, which results in something that tastes more like potatoes than the boiling version and avoids the waterlogged problem that mis-timing the boiling can bring.
Peeled and cut into chunks, I steam until tender.
I either just use a masher and enjoy the few leftover chunks or I use a ricer to mash them into the large bowl.
Then I add just a bit of butter, a few dollops of fat-free sour cream and then start adding milk. I keep adding milk and mixing by hand until they're creamy, which, based on what I've seen in other recipes, etc. is quite a bit more milk than is typical.
They even reheat fairly well.
Of course, I could just be deluding myself and mine are among the worst, most gluey around.
Tried the steaming idea last night with red potatoes, skin on but halved (I like skin in my mash). Delicious, and super-creamy! Plus steaming can be done in a rice cooker to free up space on the stove.
Many chefs swear by using a potato ricer instead of a mixer; it is said to be less likely to rupture the cell walls and produce glueyness. I just bought one, so I'll let you know how it works.
I've only used one once and got the most fantastic texture potato, but almost stone cold. Working fast and maybe into a warm bowl might have helped, let me know how it goes, I might be brave and try again.
Do let us know how it went.
I find using Yukon gold potatoes work best, be sure to boil until tender all the way through. Don't over beat with a mixer, use medium speed, and add softened butter. Milk, cream, or sour cream will also increase the creaminess without making mashed potatoes sticky.
here's what I do, and I make mine different than most people here:
Boil skin on
when slightly over done
run under cold water and deskin
pan fry the existing pealed potatoes
season with salt pepper, and whatever else you like ( i like cayenne and usually infused the oil with garlic then take it out)
when the potatoes are hot mash slightly and add a bit of cream
stir like crazy (off heat)
add a bit of olive oil
put back on heat
repeat process until you got it silky enough for your liking
The kosher version:
I slice the potatoes as thinly as possible then add them to a pot with boiling water and a little salt. When the water begins to boil, I cover the pot and lower the heat (to prevent the water from boiling over). Then I slice, dice and fry an onion. When the onion has reached a nice brown colour, I stop frying and put the onions (and any remaining oil) into a mixing dish. I then take the potatoes off the heat and strain them, washing them to remove excess starch. I add the potatoes to the mixing bowl, add two spoonfuls of mayonnaise (normally 5% fat) and about 1/4 cup olive oil. Then I mash and mix. On top of the potatoes I scatter paprika. If it were up to me, I would also add some sliced parsley, but the family doesn't like that.
I prefer to put the mashed potatoes (uncovered) into the oven for about half an hour at 75 centigrade, which dries them out and then use the oven's grill for a further ten minutes.
I can't say this is the best way, but it is different...
I use a slow cooker to make supper, anyway, so I wrap some potatoes in aluminum foil and stick them on top of the chicken (or whatever) that's in the stoneware. When it's time to eat, I take the potatoes out, peel them, and mash with a fork into a bowl. Then I stir in some hot water and a little salt, or some of the gravy from whatever was cooking in the crockpot. It comes out really good, and it's very simple :) I don't think it's gluey at all...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.272338
| 2010-08-06T23:44:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4495",
"authors": [
"Alex Coplan",
"BaffledCook",
"Divya",
"Fabián Heredia Montiel",
"Jay",
"Jay Straw",
"Michael",
"Pixie",
"Yamikuronue",
"foocraft",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8625",
"jdd",
"romanofski",
"user8474",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2299
|
Reheating Spinach
I have heard that one shouldn't reheat a meal with spinach in it. Is there any truth in this and what is the reason?
Reheating spinach can cause nitrite to be produced. Quote from eufic.org
Spinach and other leafy vegetables contain high concentrations of nitrate. The amount depends on the variety, season, and the soil and water conditions where the vegetable was grown. Nitrate itself is totally harmless, but it can be converted to nitrites, and then to nitrosamines, some of which are known to be carcinogenic. Enzymes present in bacteria convert nitrate to nitrite. This happens especially when spinach is heated, stored and then later reheated. Nitrite itself is a harmless compound, but it should be avoided by infants of up to 6 months. It can affect the ability of the blood to transport oxygen by transforming haemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood, into methaemoglobin, a form of the protein which is unable to carry oxygen. This can be dangerous for babies and is commonly known as “Blue Baby Syndrome”. However, in view of the fact that acidic conditions favour the formation of nitrosamines from nitrite, coupled with the facts that nearly all foods contain some protein and are exposed to acid in the stomach nitrosamine production cannot completely be prevented. Hence the recommendation to avoid reheating spinach.
Great answer. I'd love to see numbers attached - I suspect that's a case of the EU being massively overcautious.
Probably true...
Even so, this would only apply if the spinach dish had a significant bacterial presence. If it is refrigerated after it is cooked, there shouldn't be significant bacterial growth. Seems far fetched.
EUFIC changed their recommendation a few years ago, since it was based on outdated and inadequate numbers. Their website seems no longer to contain any of these recommendations at all, but the Independent article describing the reason behind the removal of this recommendation is still available.
"It is also safe to eat leftover leafy greens like spinach as long as they are thoroughly reheated." – https://www.eufic.org/en/food-safety/article/food-hygiene-at-home-how-to-avoid-foodborne-illness
More information: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-fear-reheated-spinach-seems-unfounded-2009sep23-story.html and https://www.wolfstad.com/2009/05/reheating-spinach-dangerous-in-holland-fine-in-rest-of-world/
Source
"There was a rash of cases of blue baby syndrome in Germany in the 1960s, and all of the victims had been fed reheated spinach purée. I imagine that this is why Germans are so wary of leftover spinach. So it's not exactly a myth, but it has been distorted and exaggerated: the problem is not the reheating (if I understand correctly, improperly stored cooked spinach is already dangerous at room temperature), and it's not really dangerous for adults."
More information, see page 3 (in German) https://www.axelheider.de/downloads/quarksernaehrung.pdf
As others have said, reheated spinach may contain small amounts of nitrites. These are harmless to adults and children over 6 months, but dangerous for young infants. The upshot is: if you're not serving it to young infants, it should be fine.
This is what I read too, in a newspaper reporting current research. It added that you still should heat it a lot of times, and you shouldn't do it every day, but that the average person shouldn't worry about it.
I can think of no reason other than taste.
I've reheated numerous spinach dishes in the past, with no apparent detrimental effects to my health.
Spinach doesn't have any special properties that other greens like beet greens, collards, mustard greens, etc. don't have, so I don't see any reason why spinach would be special in this respect.
Like most greens, it doesn't react well to being overcooked, so when reheating, stir often, and you should be fine.
"with no apparent detrimental effects to my health" Just because my grandpa smoked like a chimney and is still going strong at 80 years old...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.272737
| 2010-07-20T09:06:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2299",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Cerberus",
"Chuck",
"Dirk Stoop",
"Janus Bahs Jacquet",
"Luc",
"StuperUser",
"Tobias Furuholm",
"adebaumann",
"ceejayoz",
"ebacklund",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98068",
"martijn_himself",
"pilau"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1398
|
Can mushrooms be re-heated safely?
What happens inside mushrooms when you reheat them?
Is it always unsafe to reheat them or is there something you can do to safely reheat them?
What's a champion? I can't find any mention on Wikipedia of a food item called a champion.
Voting to close as too localized, because nobody seems to know what this is about and there's been no response to comments for close to 4 hours.
Oh, sorry for getting the English term wrong.
In France, white button mushrooms are called champignons. Before refrigeration was common, books suggested not to keep cooked mushrooms or reheat them, because undercooked mushrooms would quickly spoil. If you cooked them and later keep them in the refrigerator, it is safe to reheat mushrooms. Treat mushrooms as you would treat meat.
Mushrooms are mainly water, so they reheat well in the microwave. Do it on low power. Depending on the cooking technique, the texture may change by using high power.
Small detail: In France, all mushrooms can be called “champignons”. If you need to be specific, white button mushrooms are called “champignons de Paris”. It's in Germany that white button mushrooms are called simply “champignons”.
It depends very much on which mushrooms. For button mushrooms, see papin's answer; this does not however hold for wild mushrooms.
In particular, some wild mushrooms (in particular those called "le champignon bleu" in French, I never found out what they were in English) may cause serious poisoning if eaten 24 hours after cooking. Believe me, I know. Apparently they contain a protein which changes after cooking, and one day is enough for it to become poisonous.
I know this is a long shot since your answer is over a decade old at this point, but do you have any more supporting information for this? It would be quite helpful to advance the advice beyond conventional "wives' tale" wisdom.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.273111
| 2010-07-17T12:21:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1398",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brian Yarger",
"Christian",
"Dan",
"DeveloperDan",
"Relaxed",
"SpashHit",
"ceejayoz",
"herzmeister der welten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58545",
"lusk",
"nik",
"nithins",
"user2793"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
918
|
How to keep fruits and vegetables fresh
I enjoy fresh fruits and vegetables, but the problem is that they seem to go back extremely quickly. It isn't realistic for me to go shopping multiple times a week. Are there any tricks to keeping fruits and vegetables fresh for a longer period of time?
Also see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4993/how-should-i-organize-my-fruits-for-storage/5005#5005 and http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16134/hints-on-storage-of-vegetables-and-fruit
As for fruits (including, for example, tomatoes), ethylene gas is released by fruits and causes them to ripen. You can buy "produce bags" that absorb ethylene gas, and slow the process of ripening. (Some fridges have drawers that absorb ethylene gas, but I doubt you feel like buying a new fridge.)
Update: See Vicky's answer and my comment for a couple links to examples of the "produce bags." In addition to removing the ethylene, the bags claim to also work by "breathing" and "reducing moisture formation."
For vegetables, it sort of depends. If you have root vegetables like carrots and beets, put them in water in the fridge (with the stems cut off), changing the water regularly. The roots will absorb the water (as they do in the ground) and thus stay quite turgid.
If you're in the UK Lakeland sell Stayfresh Longer bags:
http://www.lakeland.co.uk/stayfresh-longer-bags/F/keyword/vegtable+bags/product/1932_1094_1092
which really work extremely well. I'm sure there are similar products available elsewhere.
I have no idea how they work, though!
These bags seem to be similar to what I have found before called "produce bags", which absorb the ethylene gas. For example: http://www.peakfreshusa.com/english/index.php?p=homebag
Normally, all sorts of vegetable remain fresh for a longer period if you keep them in large earthen wares.chiilies, capsicum and some leafy veg when kept in glass jars with lid on remain fresh for 10 to 15 days. You must see to it that these are properly wiped to remove water particles before storing them the way I suggested.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.273423
| 2010-07-14T03:46:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/918",
"authors": [
"Fernando Briano",
"Gordon Bell",
"Jean-Christophe Meillaud",
"Martha F.",
"Mike Caron",
"Sean Vieira",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58544",
"kevins",
"stack",
"user3579",
"خلدون الحجايا"
],
"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
}
|
20407
|
How do you tell if a cheese rind is edible?
When I buy a cheese from a type I don't know, I usually discard the rind, just because I'm not sure it is edible. Is there a way to tell if it is edible, other than researching the cheese type?
Make someone else eat it. If they don't fall over. It's safe.
So this link and this link suggest that there are 3 kinds of rinds. Summary below:
Bloomy: Appears white, soft, maybe fuzzy. Can also be reddish/brownish. Comes on softer cheeses that have a more custard-like flavor. Formed by a spray of penicillium candidum before aging. Edible, but the flavor changes and may taste ammoniated over time (consume so long as it's palatable)
Washed: Color ranges from pinkish red to orange or brown. Caused by bathing the cheese in some kind of solution, be it a salty brine, beer, brandy, wine or some other alcohol. Contributes to the flavor in some cheeses, and tastes unpleasant in others.
Natural: Formed by letting the cheese age on its own, drying out and growing whatever molds might be present in the cheese or air. Tends to have a concentrated flavor of the cheese, but may not be palatable. Examples: Stilton, Montgomery Cheddar, Parmigiano-Reggiano. Sometimes comes under a cloth cover. Should be edible, minus the cloth.
Additionally, there are two other possibilities
No Rind: There should be no guessing here. You've probably had cheeses with no rind...because they might come in a container. Ricotta, fresh mozzarella, and creme fraiche come to mind.
Wax/Twig/Cloth: Inedible. Should be discarded
My personal takeaway from this quick research is that I should learn to distinguish artificial covers (cloth/wax) from rinds. It seems like those that separate from the cheese will either be an artificial cover or an old rind, both of which are undesirable.
If it's indeed a rind, then I'd taste it, both alone and with the cheese, to determine if it's palatable. For Parmigiano-Reggiano specifically, I've read that it goes well in soup. Perhaps this is because it's unpalatable-y hard, but still contains the concentrated flavor.
TLDR: look for cloth/wax. If none, is it tasty? Does it feel good in the mouth?
FYI: Parmesan cheese rind has lots of MSG and fat, but because it's so dried out doesn't melt completely when you simmer it in soup. That's why you use the rind. Cheese which has dried out completely also works.
Should be edible, minus the cloth. You forgot to also mention the box and the label, while we are at it. The answer is really good (+1), I just laughed at that detail.
Is it always completely obvious when a cheese rind is wax, or does some wax rind resemble the other types of rind in some circumstances?
@hippietrail It's not always completely obvious. One thing I'll do from time to time is dig my fingernail into the rind and see if I can pull/pry it away from the rest of the cheese. Sometimes it just crumbles and sometimes it pulls away as a sort of coarse, waxy cloth.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.273643
| 2012-01-12T20:37:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20407",
"authors": [
"Brady Lee",
"Eric Hu",
"Felines are superior",
"FuzzyChef",
"Jay",
"WoJ",
"brooke",
"hippietrail",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"karoll"
],
"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
}
|
19959
|
How long can I leave a freshly baked cheesecake out before it goes in the refrigerator?
We just baked a cheesecake and are heading over to family's house for the rest of the evening. Is it ok to leave the cheesecake out for 6 hours or so before being refrigerated?
Referring to the quotes from the below links;
• “Baked cheesecake should be refrigerated as soon as it is cool or it
may develop harmful bacteria from heat resistant spores.”
http://www.canfightbac.org/cpcfse/en/cookwell/ask/dairy/#2085
• “Foods made with eggs and milk such as pumpkin pie, custard pie and
cheesecake, must first be safely baked to a safe minimum internal
temperature of 160 °F. Then, they must be refrigerated after baking.
Eggs and milk have high protein and moisture content and when these
baked products are left at room temperature, conditions are ripe for
bacteria to multiply. It's not necessary to refrigerate most other
cakes, cookies or breads unless they have a perishable filling or
frosting.”
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/Hotline_Answers_Panic_Button_Questions/index.asp
When to throw it out; a quote from the link below;
“Refrigerator Foods When to Save and When to Throw It Out
FOOD..................... Held above 40 °F for over 2 hours
Cheesecake............ Discard
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/keeping_food_safe_during_an_emergency/index.asp
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.273896
| 2011-12-24T22:57:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19959",
"authors": [
"cybernet2u",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43556"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25797
|
How do you tell if pickles/cucumbers have gone bad
We're in the process of making 4-day sweet gerkins and after the second day of soaking overnight the brine solution was foamy and has an unpleasant odor. Does this mean the pickles have gone bad?
When I no longer like the taste or the smell. Especially when my baby daughter expresses concern about putting it in my mouth.
It certainly sounds like they have gone bad yes. A bad smell is a dead give away. As with any such situation, a few cucumbers (or whatever you're unsure about the safety of eating) are not worth getting food poisoning over: if in doubt, throw it out.
Whenever you see froth in a bottle or jar that has not been shaken it indicates that some fermentation process is happening. If there is also a bad smell, you have bacteria doing the fermentation that is causing the froth.
Throw them away - lord only knows what bug is causing the problem, and it is not worth the trouble of finding out.
OTOH it may be time to sanitize the surfaces of your kitchen. People forget to wipe the undersides of cupboards, then put things like jars of pickle underneath the overhanging cupboard - under the false impression that because it looks clean there can't be anything stuck there which might fall into the jars.
I just threw out a bottle of blackcurrant cordial because it had "unnatural" froth in it ...
The froth or scum on the top of a container is not inherently problematic, and neither is a bacterial colony growing in the pickles. Pickles cannot exist without bacterial fermentation. However, the unpleasant smell is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that there are unwanted bacteria.
Pickles exist to avoid microbial contamination. Some things, like sauerkraut, may incorporate inoculation with benign organisms that induce a natural fermentation, but to say that "Pickles cannot exist without bacterial fermentation" is twaddle.
"Pickling, also known as brining or corning, is the process of preserving food by anaerobic fermentation in brine (a solution of salt in water) to produce lactic acid, or marinating and storing it in an acid solution, usually vinegar (acetic acid). The resulting food is called a pickle." from "Pickling". If you are making a quick pickle with acetic acid where does it come from? Bacterial conversion of ethanol (CH3-CH2OH) into acetic acid (CH3-COOH). Therefore I stand by my statement. Bacteria are not all bad, but good bacteria are not always so.
Bacterial conversion of ethanol to acetic acid? Dream on. If you want to rely on an article written by someone who refers to "ploughman's pickle" as English (it's a Heinz brand), go ahead. A lot of the article is twaddle, and I gave up writing Wiki stuf because there's so much twaddle in wikipedia.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.274047
| 2012-08-23T00:56:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25797",
"authors": [
"Bennett Yeo",
"Cynthia",
"JEL",
"R. Duryea ",
"RudyB",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59187",
"klypos",
"pixelngrain",
"sam_g_steel",
"stacy",
"unkownspecimen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15716
|
How is apple syrup made?
I've been making dutch apple pastries for a couple of weeks now, and I've noticed that the apple filling that spills from the pastries turns dark brown like apple syrup (or apple butter, apple paste or apple cheese) The taste is similar, as well. But the texture is off.
The question is how to make a real batch of apple syrup? Apple, sugar & heat for some amount of time? Or are some other ingredients needed?
If you're looking for stroop, it's so much thicker than anything most people would call a syrup ... it's typically thicker than even apple butter.
Yes, I'm looking for stroop :)
I admit, I've never attempted making stroop (apple or otherwise) on my own ... but some discussion on a forum post regarding Dutch cooking mentioned that there's something called 'apple cheese' which sounds like it might be quite similar, based on the description of the end consistency and the amount of sugar used.
apple butter or apple cheese or apple paste, so many names for good old 'stroop'.
When I make apple syrup, I use apples (2 cut, peeled, sliced, and cored), sugar (1/2c), and two tablespoons of water. Combine everything, let the sugar dissolve, and then bring to a boil. Let it simmer for 10 minutes until the apples have become nice and soft and the syrup thickens. I usually do it for a bit longer just to be on the safe side. I have also found that adding a bit of cinnamon gives it just a bit extra!
Sounds good, but does it turn dark brown or black?
When I have made it, it turns dark brown. What color does it turn when you try?
I've never tried. I've noticed a similarity with 'stroop' as @Joe mentioned. Stroop is very thick and very dark.
How does that differ from applesauce?
I will sometimes make a different sort of Apple Syrup that is more like maple syrup in consistency.
The process starts with making Apple Sauce. Once the apples have been boiled and sent to be mashed, I take the water that was used, strain out large particles, and then start boiling it down until I get a syrup like consistency out of it. I almost never have to add anything to sweeten it, but that will really depend on the mix of apples you started with.
That sounds promising. I'll give it a try someday.
Apples go brown when the air hits the flesh - if they are cooked quickly or kept away from air until cooked, they don't go brown. Lemon juice can delay the browning. Cooking without stirring can result in lessened browning, because the top layer in the pot protects the mass from the air.
It can be hard to resist stirring, but you have to remember that stirring will also introduce air.
With a lot of things, I microwave apples in a covered dish, cut in large chunks. After that, they can sit around for a while before I get around to using them.
I suspect that the reason that BaffledCook asked about it turning brown is because Stroop is brown ... it's darker than most toffee, because they boil it down 'til it caramelizes. If you follow the "apple syrup" link in the question, there's a picture of bread with stroop -- the stroop is the molasses looking stuff (but it's not quite like molasses ... maybe when warmed ... at room temperature, it's more spreadable, like a jam)
Apple molasses is made from fresh apple cider. I made it once in a crock pot. You have to cook it for a long time to reduce 7 litres down to 1. Unfortunately the apples I used were too tart and the apple molasses turned out quite sour. I have since learned you need to use low acid apples, like Tolman Sweet, or Pound Sweet. These are old heritage varieties. If you use a low acid apple, there is no need to add sugar.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.274309
| 2011-06-23T13:07:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15716",
"authors": [
"AtlasRN",
"BaffledCook",
"Bonnie",
"Connor",
"Dan",
"Joe",
"JuliaBalbilla",
"Pat",
"Tad Ghostal",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"notrombones",
"pudge"
],
"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
}
|
15244
|
Frying - Straw potatoes in fryer
I've stopped frying my straw potatoes in the fryer as the straws sink to the bottom and get stuck below the heating element. After a while, some of these raw straws float to the top and mix with the already fried potatoes. I now fry in a pan on the stove.
Is there a way to prevent the straws from sinking to the bottom in the electric fryer?
Edit: I stopped using the mesh basket as the straw potatoes float right through the holes. With the mesh basket, they don't sink to the bottom though.
I thought that all electric fryers came with a mesh basket for the fries. If yours didn't, or if the mesh is coarse enough for the fries to fall through it, you could try to find another basket (I don't know if they are sold separately, but it is worth a try) or make some DIY solution by either suspending a big sieve in the fryer or lining the big-holed basket with fine steel mesh.
I'm guessing the OP means the straws are small enough to escape the basket?
Thanks, but... I've quit using the mesh basket because the straw potatoes get stuck in the mesh and it becomes messy (pun intended).
@Michael, that's what I meant by "if the mesh is coarse enough for the fries to fall through it". My point is that if a "straw fry" is 3-4 mm wide, using a big sieve with 1-2 mm holes instead of the original basket should help.
You're starting with the fat too cold. You need it screaming hot, before you start.
Put the basket in the fryer and let the oil heat up. When you think it is getting close to working temperature, add ONE chip to the fat, sideways so it will stay in the basket - not pointing downwards.
If it doesn't come straight back up to the surface, fish it out with the basket and wait a bit longer. Take another chip and try again - repeat until the chip comes straight back up. Then add the chips quickly, a handful at a time (a spatter guard and gloves are good ideas).
Don't put the chips in the basket, then lower them into the fat - they will stick to the basket. Keep the basket in the fryer and throw the chips into the fat - sideways, so they don't go through the holes in the basket.
LOL you've seen those stupid looking kids in MacDonalds doing this routinely, now you have to give them some kudos - they always put the basket into the oil, then throw the fries in.
I'll give that a try. I knew I should have worked at McDonalds'
A good answer, except for the gloves and spatter guard. Real men wear their hot-oil burn scars with pride... or at least that's what my chef said. :D
Try switching from a fry basked to a bird's nest fryer or using a "spider" (restaurant lingo for a flat mesh scoop used in frying and skimming).
You can find a sample bird's nest fryer here and also a spider. The spider looks exactly like the one we use at work. You can also use blanching basket, which is I think what we use for pre-cooking our fries in the restaurant I work at.
I don't think that works. A bird's nest will produce a bird's nest (methinks) and I already have a spider and don't use it to drop the potatoes in the oil.
A spider works if the oil is hot enough... see James Barrie's post. The bubbles from evaporating water will buoy the fries to the surface
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.274869
| 2011-06-05T08:59:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15244",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"BobMcGee",
"Michael Natkin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17458
|
How should I manage my fridge?
I try to be careful, I really do, but I found a week old cod smelling 'fishy' in my fridge. Normally, I put the date on the package, so at least I know how long things 'last' in there (lost and forgotten).
So, I made a roster. On the first column is the name of the product/preparation, the first row is the day of the month. I'm putting the number of rations in the cells, and draw a line till the best before date.
I'm thinking about marking prepared foods like:
In a container (two days)
In a vacuum (seven days)
Cooked sous-vide (twenty-one days).
For the freezer, I'm thinking about ninety days.
Do you think this is a workable system? How do restaurants keep track of their inventory? Is it too complicated? Am I too harsh with the # of days (for instance, should these be depending on the food item?)
I think the time frame will depend on the type of food and how long it stayed in the Danger Zone more than the storage vessel. So, custards might be good for at most 5 days, but that will be constant whether than are under vacuum or not. Plain pasta might be fine or a week or more, and salad dressing can keep up to a month if acidic enough and free of egg yolks. Food may be safely frozen forever, although the taste and texture will degrade.
You may very well be able to make that system work for you, but in the two fine-dining restaurants I've worked, the system is less paperwork-intensive and more common-sense. It is based on organized storage, adding new product where it will be used after the old, and labeling. This lets you see at a glance what you have and how old it is, rather than having to constantly maintain an up-to-date inventory list. It also makes it easy to find what you want.
The system works like so:
Organize your storage so food goes in the same spot every day. This way you can see at a glance what you have and what you need. It also makes it easier to find things.
New food of the same type goes behind the old stuff, and isn't opened until the old product is used up. This prevents you from discovering the dreaded Green Milk lurking at the back of the fridge.
ALWAYS label prepared food with the date, using masking tape and a permanent marker. Make sure the label (or container's expiration date) is toward the front. You don't want to have to sniff-test old food. Trust me.
Store in clear containers, so you see how much is left.
Inventory perishable foods before purchasing more.
Toss spoiled or questionable food promptly. This prevents "unpleasant surprises," and avoids contaminating nearby stuff.
Cool food as fast as possible, to prevent bacterial growth. Hot water holds a lot of heat, so it gets pre-chilled in an ice water bath; otherwise it can stay warm and breed bacteria for HOURS. Containers can be left open for an hour or two in the fridge to cool contents faster.
At home, I use a very similar system, with a few modifications:
Pre-packaged containers get labelled with an opened-on date, because usually this determines when they spoil more than the expiration date.
Expiration dates are just rough estimates. StillTasty provides more detailed information, but I don't refrigerate any kind of leftover more than a week. High-protein foods, or things with egg in them get less time.
If it smells even a little off, it's probably unsafe, with the exception of milk and produce. They will only make you WISH they could kill you.
Only buy produce you can use before the next grocery run... unless it's really cheap and can be used up easily. Yes, fresh tomatoes are amazing to cook with. They're slightly less awesome when half of your 5 pounds spoil, unused.
Don't buy fresh meat or fish without a specific meal plan, or at least a schedule for use. This prevents these expensive, perishable foods from sitting in the fridge and spoiling. This doesn't have to be a detailed day-by-day meal plan, but the minute you take to think before buying prevents impulse buys and helps make sure you'll have the time and ingredients to cook the food before it goes bad.
I know the last point can be difficult, but remember that a meal plan might be no more than "make myself a nice steak over the weekend." The idea is to avoid buying meat on Sunday that you won't have time to cook until next Friday. If you have to, buy meat right before cooking a nice meal; at least then it will be fresh. Freezing is also a good backup plan, but only if done fairly early.
This sounds 'simple' enough, I'll give it a try.
@BaffledCook: Ah, yes, looking over it, it doesn't sound 'simple', but I assure you it's really, really straightforward in practice. Once you organize your fridge it takes basically no time and just becomes habit. You scan the shelves to see what's low or about to spoil before shopping for the week, rotate/label stuff when storing it, and mark stuff on a grocery list when it runs out. Because things are organized, you know when you've used up the last container of something.
"meal plan" is the key, but how many people do that?
@TFD - Me. I plan out every day of the week, each meal. I know exactly what I'm having for lunch next Tuesday. :)
@TFD: It doesn't have to be a detailed plan, just an idea for when you'll have time to cook the perishable item you're buying. The plan isn't actually as important as the minute of consideration it demands before purchase. This time is enough to prevent impulse buys, and allow you to remember that steak in the fridge which needs cooking... before you buy a salmon fillet that must be cooked in the next day or two.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.275134
| 2011-09-04T08:26:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17458",
"authors": [
"Aaron Stainback",
"BaffledCook",
"BobMcGee",
"Dang Khoa",
"JoZe Moreyra",
"Marky Mark",
"TFD",
"Vii",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124967
|
Is it safe to eat old ice-cream?
I have an non-opened I ice-cream in the freezer that is older that one year.is it save to eat it?
Agree that this is a dupe. Also, can we stop down voting questions? It only serves to discourage. We have plenty of mechanisms for dealing with questions without needing to down vote.
@moscafj I don't see them having any downvotes on this question (was it retracted?), but the tooltip says "This question does not show any research effort; it is unclear or not useful", and while I didn't downvote, I can see this falling under the criteria in some people's opinions.
@fyrepenguin because I upvoted. Why discourage any question at all? Why make a judgement on effort? What happens when someone whose first language is not English asks a question that is misinterpreted as low effort, when the issue could be one of translation? We have the ability to close questions, edit questions, and revise questions. I don't think we should be discouraging questions with a down vote.
@moscafj ah, I'd looked at their rep and didn't see and (-2), didn't realize it applies those sequentially and not in aggregate.
@fyrepenguin the language issue was an example. I don't know if that was the case here. Point is, it is better to encourage participation in this forum, rather than turn folks away. Reputation is, of course, always low for new participants.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.275539
| 2023-08-13T12:44:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124967",
"authors": [
"fyrepenguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48468",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
126386
|
My new stove has white spots
I recently moved and I have a new cooktop. White spots have appeared as single wick stains or white bubbles. Does anyone know how I can remove them or make it look better.
It is worth mentioning that Weiman used to clean it just
This is a glass cooktop? And did the spots appear after cooking or cleaning?
I think after cooking yes it’s a glass cooktop
Tap water always contains some dissolved minerals, and those minerals create a visible deposit upon water's evaporation. Those spots look exactly like they were caused by that. Use a bit of white vinegar and apply a bit of gentle scrubbing action and they will go away at instant. Do not use cleaners based on citric acid, as citric acid (unlike the acetic acid within vinegar) is a solid at room temperature, and could leave similar-looking spots.
Hi, I tried with white vinegar and they didn't take off☹️
First, carefully determine whether the spots are on the surface of the cooktop or a lower level of the cooktop material. It may be possible to do this using standard cleaning products, a fingernail, or a plastic pan scraper, or even just by inspection under different lighting conditions.
If all else fails, one can in principle determine if the spots are superficial by using an abrasive such as a Magic Eraser, Bar Keepers Friend, or Meguiar's liquid micro-abrasive products (compounds, swirl removers, etc.). However this route risks introducing fine scratches, so proceed with caution! In general, rub only very gently and test in an inconspicuous area first. Additionally, do not rub across the lines and circles on the cooktop or you may very well remove them.
If none of the above affects the spots, then they are probably within the cooktop material itself, which would need to be removed and treated or replaced to eliminate them.
Do you live in an area with hard water? This could be calcium spots left over from boiling off water droplets on the stove top. They are harmless.
Regular soap meant to remove grease will not remove them, you need something specific for that, usually based on citric acid. I don't know what the Weiman cleaner you used contains so check that.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.275691
| 2024-01-16T02:01:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126386",
"authors": [
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"Selma Martinez",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
126454
|
Discovered 2 eggs cracked in late stage of brining
One more week to go brining my salted chicken eggs. I just saw 2 eggs with cracks that were not there earlier. Do I need to take them out or will it be ok? I have 5 days left.
Can you share the general brining procedure you're using? Or a recipe, if it's linkable.
As FuzzyChef suggested, it would help to know what your brine solution is (%salinity) and any other details about how you're doing the brining process. What temp are you keeping the eggs at? Is there anything aside from salt in your brine solution? How long have they been brining before you noticed the cracks and how often do you check?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.275987
| 2024-01-23T22:08:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126454",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81730",
"myklbykl"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105351
|
How does the food industry know the expiration date?
I always have this question in mind whenever I see the EXP date on different products. I wonder how they can know a chocolate bar will spoil after 1 year or 6 months, and why they have such longer shelf life time compared to homemade chocolate bars, for example.
Something I used to hear a lot growing up was that a Best before date was actually an 'interesting from' date - In other words consuming before the date was when it would be 'as expected' but if you ate/drank the product after the best before date you may have a 'more interesting' experience
Just to clarify:
"Expiration dates" (or sometimes "Best if used by" dates) are the dates when a product may no longer be of high quality. It is not a safety indicator. It is a quality indicator, and it is just a guideline.
Companies determine expiration dates during storage studies or stability tests. More detail can be found here.
The reason why manufactured food items often last longer than home-prepared items is that companies add ingredients to prolong shelf life. This is simply for economic reasons. You could add the same ingredients, but it is often not necessary because of the scale of home cooking.
Industrial processes also include protective atmospheres. These usually help with quality but can also slow actual spoilage. Also "will no longer be of high quality" is too strong "may no longer..." would be more accurate. The process is more that before the date specified the manufacturer expects the product to be consistent; after the date they don't care, which is why even tinned goods often have only a year; testing for longer would be too expensive for no real benefit
Fair distinction between "will" and "may"....edited.
There are few expressions that are not interchangeable:
Best before - It's about quality not safety. After that date the food is still good for consumption but the taste and/or texture might change. It's used for example in chocolate with "creamy stuffing". After B date the inside might not be creamy.
Use by - A "final" date for a product to be eaten OR used in other dish (than it then prolong it's life if it was thermically changed). So a product can be opened (and stored in fridge) for two weekes before it's "use by" date and it will act the same as same product with same date but opened two days prior.
Expiration - date after which food (or medicine) decline in quality in a way it can be harmful to consume. (This is for EU legislation. In USA this might be interchangeable with best before).
Those dates are established by studies and by calculations. There are preservatives, that added in A quantity to B quantity product extend it XXXX life by YYY amount of time.
It's also calculated with "worst case scenario" in mind. So with the assumption that on delivery line some quality might be loss (for example you buy food from fridge and carry it to home in 20ºC/70ºF for an our home).
There is also time when content start reacting with it container. An EXP/ best before date on plastic bottle of water don't mean the water goes bad but the reaction inside might change the water taste or values (if it's mineralized for example).
I assume they are doing lot of laboratory analysis and testing and experiment whilst preparing the industrial recipes.
They will test the product a different dates to see how well it behaves, check if there are molds, pathogens ... ie. if it is safe to eat.
Depending on what they want, they will either change the recipes to get a required expiration date ( I want my cookies to last 3 months) or change the expiration date (those cookies last 1 month)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.276083
| 2020-02-16T16:12:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105351",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"EdHunter",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27362",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113834
|
How long can flour dough sit on counter?
I'm making flour tortillas with all purpose flour, butter, water, and baking powder. How long can the dough sit on counter?
It looks like you have 2 accounts, you should ask a mod to join them https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/18232/how-can-one-link-merge-combine-associate-two-accounts-users-anonymous
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.276373
| 2021-01-19T20:22:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113834",
"authors": [
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119657
|
How does freeze-drying ice cream work?
How do they make freeze dried ice cream (like for astronauts)? How does freeze-drying work?
It just seems like we should be able to make it at home, or at least buy it in the supermarket or a specialty market.
Well, they freeze dry it. Are you asking how freeze dryers work?
Pretty much what you just said
From the Wikipedia article on freeze-dried ice cream:
Freeze drying (or lyophilization) removes water from the ice cream by lowering the air pressure to a point where ice sublimates from a solid to a gas. The ice cream is placed in a vacuum chamber and frozen until the water crystallizes. The air pressure is lowered, creating a partial vacuum, forcing air out of the chamber; next heat is applied, sublimating the ice; finally a freezing coil traps the vaporized water. This process continues for hours, resulting in a freeze-dried ice cream slice.
Summarizing without the technical language: by using a vacuum chamber and controlling the temperature carefully, you can get the water out of the ice cream without it melting (the water goes straight from ice to vapour) and ruining the structure.
Unless you have access to specialist equipment you will not be able to make it at home. You can buy it online pretty easily but it's mostly interesting as a novelty; it's not actually that great as food (certainly much less enjoyable than regular ice cream), so I doubt demand is high enough to sell outside science museum gift shops.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.276439
| 2022-01-27T19:02:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119657",
"authors": [
"Abraham Ray",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49982",
"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
}
|
127849
|
Rotten apple taste in unspoiled fruits
I had several apples stored in a plastic container for several days. Two apples spoiled and had to be thrown away, the rest still look fresh and firm.
I rinsed the remaining apples under cold water, then dried them and placed them in a cupboard.
I tasted one a day later and despite looking perfect inside, it has a moldy, unpleasant taste.
Is there anything I can do to save those apples, or do I have to throw them away?
I think you've encountered the reason for the old saying “One rotten apple spoils the whole barrel”…
Apples often spoil due to fungal or bacterial infections. The microorganisms responsible can produce a range of metabolites as they break down the tissues in the apple, including alcohols, acids, and gases — all of which can impart off odors (and therefore flavors) to nearby, healthy fruits.
Some fungi produce mycotoxins (toxic compounds that can be harmful if ingested and potentially affect the quality of adjacent produce).
Apples (and other fruits) also emit volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which can affect flavor and aroma. As an apple spoils, the profile of these compounds changes, and these changes can impact the sensory qualities of nearby fruits.
If you have apples that have been affected by some rotten apples, washing them as you did is a good first step. You may need to peel the skins and also perhaps cut away some of the affected areas. You'll have to go by sight and taste to determine how much has been affected. Some of the compounds created can be unhealthful, so I don't recommend eating the apples if they smell or taste bad.
You know what they say about one bad apple....
when you can "see" mould, you are actually just seeing the tip of the iceberg so to speak, just the fruiting bodies. Most of the mould will be invisible.
Mycotoxins are relased by the mould colonies and this is harmful.
Over centuries our taste buds developed to alert us to potentially dangerous substances. If it tastes bad - don;t eat it is what i am getting at.
Farmers store apples over the winter, but they do so in carefully climate controlled environments.
From my own personal experience the following may be helpful to you in future storing of apples;
1: wash them with warm soapy water when you get them home ( yes the wax coating is designed to prolong the life of the apple, but that is also a great breeding ground if it is already contaminated). Rinse well, dry well.
2: remove the remainder of the flower ( the crunchy frilly bit inside the dip at the top / bottom of the apple). This also can speed up the decay if left on. I also remove the stalk.
3: carefully, without bruising - and do check for bruising before storing, do not store bruised fruit, use it immediately, removing the bruise and this is where fungi and bacteria can enter the fruit, wrap each apple completely with a double layer of paper towels. This protects them from light, it also protects them from damage, and it also helps regulate the moisture.
4: buy paper lunch bags and store these somewhere clean. Use the paper lunch bags to put the wrapped apples in a single layer.
5: Store these now in your crisper or lower shelf in the fridge - in a single layer, do not put anything else underneath them or on top of them.
yes it is a faff, I only do this once a year when i am getting ready to make preserves , however if you are only buying a few apples a week this should be less of a faff than when i gather my 40 most favourite apples ready to start cooking which can take weeks.
it is a lot.
i hope i have at least explained a little all the things i have learned from apple farmers, cider makers, and my own experiences and what little i remember from the entry level part of my bio-tech post grad, we really did not focus on fruit, that might be helpful to you.
I admit that I don't know enough about the lifecycle of mold to know whether you're tasting a mold colony inside a nice-looking apple, or just smelling the residue of the other apples' mold.
But here is a practical solution for you: peel the apples. Maybe even give a quick rinse to the peeled slices, under running water, to wash away whatever got transferred through your hands.
If you can no longer taste any mold, I'd assume it was a surface contamination. If even the peeled apple has a moldy taste, then that must come from mold particles inside the apple flesh, so I'd declare that a bad apple.
Apples should be stored in the fridge in the crisper drawer set to low humidity, in a bag. Storing in the cupboard at room temperature will invite mold/rot and will make the apples lose their crispness and become mealy.
I've noticed a lot of times the moldy taste can come from invisible mold being on the skin itself. "cold water rinse" isn't really enough. Wash the outside of the apple well and quickly with warm sudsy water and a cloth. This also helps get rid of the wax and pesticide residue on the skin.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.276587
| 2024-03-10T08:56:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/127849",
"authors": [
"gidds",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68458"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128519
|
Donut oil absorption standards
What are the factors that affect the oil absorption during donut frying? We are frying donuts daily and using too much shortening, so we need advice for reducing it. Are there general factors we should consider to reduce oil or shortening use?
If your goal is to consume less oil or shortening then I would eat fried doughnuts less often, rather than trying to reduce the amount of oil in the doughnuts.
@dbmag9 my interpretation is that this is a question about donut production, perhaps the OP can clarify.
@moscafj I agree, the question is a fine one about making doughnuts, it's just that what the question asks isn't really the best way to achieve what the OP wants.
I'll take a stab at an edit. If my edit is not what you intend, please say so.
A few things here: https://ifst.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1745-4549.2011.00611.x
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.277015
| 2024-06-09T08:01:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128519",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129627
|
What kind of alcohol should I use to infuse garnish for an old fashion?
My son loves the Old Fashion drink he gets at his favorite restaurant. They marinate the blackberries in some kind of alcohol and I want to make some of alcohol infused blackberries as a surprise for his birthday. Can you tell me what to do? Thank you!
An Old Fashioned doesn’t have blackberries in it. Were they a garnish, or muddled in, or what? And are you planning to make blackberries with alcohol soaked into them, or more like a blackberry liqueur with blackberries in it?
When it comes to steeping the berries in alcohol, I think that broadly speaking, you have three main options. A flavorless spirit such as vodka, a spirit that will accentuate the berry flavour, and the same or a similar whisky to which your son likes in his Old Fashioned. Each approach has its advantages and its drawbacks though.
Vodka
The advantages of using Vodka is that it's a more neutrally flavoured spirit. So it shouldn't bring its own strong flavours. You and your son should also be able to used the berries in other, non-whisky based cocktails, or in baking for example. There's also the added advantage that a decent, neutral flavoured Vodka is likely to be cheaper than a decent whisky.
Accentuate the Positive / Blackberries
Blackberry Liqueur, Blackberry Schnapps, or Crème de Mûre as it is known to cocktail nerds, is a blackberry infused, brandy or vodka based Liqueur. If your aim was to get the maximum level of blackberry flavour into the marinated blackberries, then using a blackberry Liqueur may be worth considering... the downside is though, that Crème de Mûre may be more difficult to get hold of, and it's probably gonna be a one trick pony, the remnants of which will end up in the back of a cupboard until you or your son has a hankering for blackberry Schnapps. It could also (and I am just theorizing here rather than talking from experience) be overpowering or maybe it could detract from the unique flavour and freshness of the blackberries you'll use... Having said that though, it could also be great.
Whisky
When you steep things in alcohol, it takes time for the flavours to really mingle and integrate into one another. So perhaps steeping them in your son's whisky of choice may mean that the berries can really have time to mix with the whisky. Which could result in a more balanced cocktail. The other advantage of this is that you wouldn't have to worry about the flavour you steep the berries in clashing with the whisky in the Old Fashioned, because they'll be the same. I don't think that would be too much of an issue with a decent, neutral vodka though, as good Vodka is meant to provide the alcohol content without imparting its own flavours. If you were to steep them in the Crème de Mûre though, as it's Brandy based, *perhaps" it could be an issue.
The downside of using your son's whisky of choice is that it too could clash with the whisky in the event that your son tries another type of whisky in his cocktail. Again, it's not likely to be a major problem unless your son prefers a very distinctly flavoured whisky, such as something that is heavily peated or very smokey.
Personally, if I were in your position, I'd be inclined toward using Vodka. Something unflavoured and something that has been triple filtered (or more) as it should mean the flavour will be neutral.
As Vodka is less likely to bring any flavours of its own, it'll probably be more versatile, and Vodka itself can be used in numerous different ways. So if you have leftovers, you can drink it, cook with it... heck, some people even clean with it!
Good luck, and Happy Birthday to your son!
[EDIT] One thing I forgot to mention is that if the restaurant where your son drinks the Old Fashioned is fairly popular, especially if it's part of a chain, then it might be worth looking to see if anyone has recreated the recipe.
Question was about Blackberries, not blue, but advice still applies.
@bob1 that was a total brain fart on my part. I was typing in a bit of a hurry. I'll further edit my answer to reflect the different berry.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.277133
| 2024-11-23T17:12:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129627",
"authors": [
"Hollis Hurlbut",
"Sneftel",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63999
|
Is there a bread you can mix in the evening, leave overnight, and bake in morning?
I'm afraid I know little about breadmaking.
Is there a bread where you could:
-- mix it and I guess knead it in the evening (say around 9pm),
-- leaving it out overnight (perhaps to rise (?) etc.?)
-- then about 8? hours later (say around 7am?) you could put it in an oven
-- and indeed then bake the loaf (or perhaps rolls) at 7am (I assume that takes roughly 1/2 hour? but I know nothing).
Thanks for your expertise.
Thanks to all for the amazing answers here!
With thanks to JSM below. This link was hugely useful - merry Christmas!
http://www.simplysogood.com/2013/03/artisan-no-knead-bread.html
Does "out" mean "on the counter" or would "in the fridge" be ok, too?
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/14184/67
hi @Stephie ... I hate refrigerators! :) (The only thing I hate more than fridges is microwaves!) But sure, any solution, involving a refrigerator, would be hugely appreciated. thanks!
If you hate refrigerators(!?), you're probably not going to like this suggestion, but most bread makers have a timer that you can use to bake bread overnight. Just dump the ingredients in, set the timer and wake up to freshly cooked bread.
Hi Ross! that is actually a practical suggestion - interesting. A vague question: can you use "real" ingredients (flour, yeast, water) in "bread machine" bread?? or do you have to have odd additives to make 'em work??
@JoeBlow Bread machines make normal bread with normal ingredients. If you search for "bread machine recipes" you'll find plenty demonstrating this.
It seems the main thing you're trying to do is avoid any work in the morning before bake. As suggested in comments, the easiest way to do that is to get a mechanical bread-maker. Since you say you're inexperienced in bread-making, you can dump everything in the night before, program it with a time, and voila -- fresh bread in the morning. (I don't tend to like the loaf quality that comes out of most home bread-makers, though; but if you find one that makes good bread, this is the best solution.)
That said, if you actually want to make the bread yourself, you can do what you want. It's just going to require a lot of work the evening before. Many recipes can be adapted to do this, though it tends to work best with sourdough loaves. Basically, the technique works like this:
Mix dough
Knead
First fermentation (1-3 hours, depending on yeast quantity and bread type)
Shape tightly, preferably with a pre-shaping and bench rest (another 15 minutes)
Second fermentation, generally takes place entirely in fridge
Place in fridge overnight
Remove and bake immediately
Jeffrey Hamelman suggests this for a number of sourdough recipes in his book Bread: A Baker's Book of Techniques and Recipes. He also notes that it's not necessary to let the dough come to room temperature before baking: assuming it has risen enough, you can remove it directly from the fridge and bake with little consequence.
(Also, just to reply to one notion in comments -- it is possible to bake bread starting from a cold oven. Many people prefer to do it that way, though the results tend to be a little less consistent and oven spring is generally a little less. If you do so, it might be easier to bake in a pot. But it would be possible to get up in the morning, turn your oven on, throw the bread in immediately, and have it baked maybe 30-45 minutes later, depending on the size of the loaf. For those who don't believe me, here's someone who did a comparison of cold oven start vs. preheated and found little difference.)
My experience trying shaping before overnight retarding long ago is that it can work well for sourdough (see method #2 here for more details), since the yeast tends to rise much more slowly in the fridge. The danger with normal baker's yeast is that most recipes use too much yeast to make this method work -- what will happen is that your bread won't cool fast enough in the fridge, then the dough will overproof and collapse a bit in the oven, often with poor crust formation.
Normally, when professional bakers retard pre-shaped dough in the fridge, they do so for only a couple hours, which tends to add flavor. For detailed instructions with illustrations and a recipe showing this, see here.
Basically, what you want to do is a similar thing to that recipe, but with less yeast, so you can refrigerate overnight. Unfortunately, that will tend to make your bulk rise go slower, which means a longer wait in the evening between steps.
For more information and recipes online, I'd try instead searching for something like "retarding after shaping," which is the kind of recipe you're looking for. You just need to find one that allows retarding for 8 hours or more, rather than just a couple hours.
The other option is obtain sourdough cultures and try those recipes. Usually with them the pace of the yeast rise is appropriate for an overnight final proof in the fridge. Still, the results will be a little more finicky (i.e., harder to get a "perfect" loaf every time) than using a more standard method.
Also, I just noticed you mentioned rolls in your question. Those would be a lot easier than trying to do this with an entire loaf, and it's pretty standard to refrigerate overnight before baking. If the recipe is one that depends on removing from the oven for a while before baking, then just delay putting the dough in the fridge for maybe 1/3 to 1/2 of that time (varies by recipe) the night before. Then you should be able to bake straight from the fridge to the oven the next morning. Again, it may take a bit of experimentation with a specific recipe to get this perfect.
I bake bread commonly and often prefer the method you're describing. However, I do not bake the bread "immediately" after taking it out of the fridge. I allow it a half hour or so on the counter to allow it to warm up slightly. I find I geta better bake that way. I do this with standard recipes. True, on occasion I've had an overproofed loaf, but not to the point that it's ruined. I simply make a point to reduce the yeast in that recipe slightly in the next go-round.
I always want to TICK ALL THE ANSWERS! :) For the record I'll tick this one since it seems to be the most popular and is a great help. Thanks to all, I wish I could tick all the answers! :)
If you’re going to do a “cold rise” overnight, once you’ve kneaded the dough place it in an oiled ziplock bag, make sure it’s tightly closed, and douse the dough in an ice water bath before refrigerating it. The dough won’t cool quickly enough if you just pop it in the fridge after kneading, and it will over-proof. I know this because I’ve got some dead pizza dough in my fridge right now! I don’t even know if it’s good for paté fermentee.
The main problem with your method is the fact that leaving bread out to rise at room temperature for 8+ hours almost always leads to overproofing.
Overproofing usually means the gluten formation has been stretched to its very limits and will usually result in the dough collapsing.
Most breads dough made the night before will have a retarded(slowed) fermentation overnight in the refrigerator and then a ~1hr proofing at room temperature in the morning before its baked.
For a beginner bread baker, I recommend Bread Bakers Apprentice by Peter Reinhart if you have the means to purchase this book.
You might prefer Reinhart's simpler book, Artisan Breads Every Day, if you're not looking to get in too deep. Pretty much the whole book is focused on things you can (or have to) leave in the fridge.
@JoeBlow The book "Artisan Bread in 5 Minutes a Day" also has an easy method for this, similar to Bittman's in JSM's answer. I usually make the book's basic dough recipe, leave it on the counter for an hour or two to give it a head start fermenting, then put it in the fridge overnight and bake the next day.
@DanC - when you say "and baek the next day" does it go "straight in the oven" the next day? Or do you mean, the next day you first need a couple hours (for rising/kneading/whatever) and then in the oven?? That's kind of the crux of the matter here... :O
@JoeBlow You do need to form it into a loaf and then let it rise for a while (45-60 minutes) before baking.
There are many bread recipes that can be made up ahead and put into the refrigerator to rise slowly for several hours or overnight. Some standard recipes can be adapted to this method, but you may need to adjust ingredients to prevent over-proofing. You can find plenty of this thing by searching for "easy overnight bread recipes" or similar queries.
This is a technique I use for cinnamon rolls that I want fresh baked in the morning (but don't want to get up in the wee hours to start the process).
I've really not found an approach that ALLOWS YOU TO SPEND LITTLE TIME IN THE MORNING ... even the all-nite recipes I have found, call for (say) 1 hr of resting, etc, in the morning.... :O
@JoeBlow But note that you will have to pre-heat your oven (yes, you do!) and during that time you can get your bread "to temperature". So you are not "loosing" time.
Sadly I really couldn't find anthing in the "overnight" --- "less time in the morning" vein!!!
Try this (no-knead bread).
I have done it a few times, and it is great. One thing to note though is that I used parchment paper inside the dutch oven as per instructions on a different site, and it discolored the enamel. You may not actually need to do anything to the pan itself.
I don't think this will fit the OP's needs since it requires additional kneading and 2hr proofing after the overnight fermentation.
You can google No-knead recipes. Here are a couple that skip the kneading and second proofing: http://www.instructables.com/id/4-Hour-No-Knead-bread/?ALLSTEPS or http://www.simplysogood.com/2013/03/artisan-no-knead-bread.html
I would go with the second of these links. Easy and seems exactly what the OP needs (tried and tested as well..)
Quite right Giorgos, thanks for that @JSM ! http://www.simplysogood.com/2013/03/artisan-no-knead-bread.html
Yes, this is the oldest way to make bread for the morning - you just need to use less yeast to avoid "over proving". My recipe below is for an enriched loaf but for a "traditional" more sourdough-tasting bread just leave out the sugar/oil. I make a batch of this every week so it's tried and tested. I use 3/4 wholemeal to white bread flour but it works just as well with all white.
To make 2 800g loaves I use 1kg flour, 40g sugar, 10g salt and half a level teaspoon of dried yeast. To this add 670 ml water and 50ml oil, mix thoroughly (no need to knead), cover the bowl and leave at room temperature overnight. In the morning flour and shape it (I use 2 800g loaf tins). Second prove and bake as usual (I give it 45 mins to 1 hour to rise over the oven while it's warming up, 20 minutes at 220C then turn down to 170C for 25 minutes).
Bagels are supposed to be left in the refrigerator over night to "cold ferment". The only catch is that you have to dunk them in boiling malt water then bake them. And bagels are a bit more intensive than regular bread. But, the payoff is worth the work! You'll never want a grocery store bagel again :)
If you are just wanting to throw together a loaf of bread in the morning without having to deal with the timing on rising, etc. try a beer bread (example). I bake one that takes about 45 minutes, and experiment with different craft brews to alter the flavor. I made one the other night with a citrus IPA and threw together a honey butter with some orange peel. All of that took an hour start to finish :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.277554
| 2015-12-01T17:35:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63999",
"authors": [
"Alan Collins",
"Cascabel",
"Dan C",
"Eileen Fallon",
"Evistooxford",
"Fattie",
"Giorgos",
"JSM",
"Jay",
"Jeff the Chf",
"Joe",
"Jonathan Johansson",
"Just Joel",
"Kevin Wallace",
"Nina Kement",
"Peter Nielsen",
"Phil Maddison",
"Ross Ridge",
"Seppo Halme",
"Stephie",
"Susan McEachern",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/38062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"robert spencerlish"
],
"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
}
|
124246
|
Do tealight holding dishes keep food at a safe temperature?
I have a couple of lidded ceramic dishes with an electric element that are designed for hot holding food. While they are very effective, the major downside is that I need to have a trailing power cable running to my dining table.
Professional chafing dishes seem like a good equivalent, but these are expensive to buy and the fuel canisters are an added cost.
These tealight food warmers seem an ideal compromise, but how effective are they? Will they keep food above 63C or are they just a sop towards hot holding best practice?
Hi, we already have a general "how do I keep it hot" question, https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45865/keeping-food-hot-delicious?rq=1. As your question body seems to concentrate on tealight-fueled solutions, I changed the title to be specifically about them, instead of closing as a duplicate
A lot depends on how much food they have to heat, and for how long.
maybe try to find some "party" chafing dishes, where I live you can get those for a few dollars, and fuel for a few more.
somthing like these from WebstaurantStore. Even the ones that say "disposable" can be reused.
@Esther they look very similar to the foil roasting tins I've got, which are a bit flimsy. Are they sufficiently robust to (for example) fill with stew
@ChrisH I've never put stew in there, only pasta and similar items, but I imagine it would be fine. The chafing dish is definitely strong enough, so the question is if the foil tins are strong enough when being supported on all sides. And this does require a water bath, with a full-size tin of water underneath some half-size tins
They work quite will for my tea pot :-)
Why not test it (with food you don't mind throwing away, or a simulated load of whatever slop with a suitably high water content)?
In the context of serving things domestically, those candle-heated food warmers can be good. But they might not keep the temperature uniformly high enough for long enough.
It depends on too many things:
The size of dish (per tealight)
How insulating the walls of the dish are. Wrapping an oven cloth/tea towel around the sides only is a good idea not just to keep some heat in but to protect people's hands from the hot dish, especially if they might need to steady it.
Whether you leave a lid on
The start temperature
And of course the time
If you're worried, you'd need to stir every so often (even though taking the lid off to do so lets out heat) and use a probe thermometer to check. In catering situations even with many of their heated serving solutions, monitoring is also required.
Note that an electric chafing dish (of a similar size to a pan that would cover that 3-candle warmer) would draw a few hundred Watts - but that's a maximum and they have a thermostat. Tealights give around 40W of heat each.
There are a couple of downsides:
I've had trouble with localised burning over the candle.
While you shouldn't be keeping food hot for long enough to burn out a candle, if you do have to change them, it's a hassle dealing with them, finding somewhere else to put the hot dishes, etc.
another big one is the 'insulation' of the food itself. mostly liquid dishes will transfer heat around much better than a lasagna, for example.
@eps good point. I assumed something stirrable, which would include some small solids (new potatoes for example) but convection will also play a part
... Lasagne would be pretty much guaranteed to burn on the bottom unless you rigged a water bath
The professional chafing dishes don’t directly deal with the localized burning issue. They typically heat a pan of water, and then have the food suspended above the water, so the food is only heated indirectly.
You can do this with the candle burners, but they’re typically sized for 9x13 pan, so you might need to find appropriate sized dishes that can nest with a gap in between to hold the water.
All of the candle burners that I’ve seen held two candles. Often, it was because there was a device that let you control a flap from the side that could be used to snuff out the candles. I think I’ve put 4 or 6 inside them (its been a few years). The larger issue is that for really long events, you have to remove the food to open them up and replace and relight the candles. Chafing dishes are wide open on the bottom, so you can easily get in there to replace the alcohol or gel fuel.
Some other options that you may want to consider:
butane or propane powered hotplates, which take bottles of gas. (Easily controllable, but some of the expense issues of chafing dishes; can also be used for camping / when the power goes out to cook)
place some towels, trivots, or other insulation down, then hot bricks or cast iron griddle, then your food to keep warm. (Can’t control as well, or refresh easily)
Electric devices (warmers, griddle, crockpots, etc), but tape down the electrical cords. Plug in the cord to the wall, leave a little bit of an extra loop at the wall, then tape it down. Run it as straight as you can across the floor to the table, then take 2” or 3” gaffers tape (5cm / 7.5cm?), and run it straight over the cord, then press it down on each side to secure it to the floor. Gaffers tape holds well (even to short carpet), but doesn’t leave sticky residue like duck tape. Wrap up the rest of the loop leaving your enough to plug in your devices, and tape it to a table leg. (Always leave the extra loop on the table side, in case you need to reposition the table)
If you’re not going too far with the electrical cord, you can also get rubber devices to run cables under/through (search for “extension cord cover” or “extension cord protector”), but they’re a little more of a tripping hazard as they can be an inch (2.5cm) or so high. They’re less flexible than tape as they’re of a fixed length, but reusable and relatively inexpensive ($10-15 for 6foot (~180cm) sections
There are also companies that sell integrated extension cords with protectors (such as Electriduct brand’s “Low Profile Electrical Power Extension Cord Cover”). They’re more expensive and even less flexible, but they’re very convenient.
A note of caution on traditional alcohol-fuelled chafing dishes - the flame can be hard to see, and topping them up can lead to a flashback if they're not out and cold. That's why replaceable burner cans are often preferred. Otherwise, snuff, wait until cool, then refill.
@ChrisH Indeed - here around cheese fondue is popular in winter and people regularly get bad burns or even die because they tried to refill a hot alcohol burner (even if the flame is out, if it's still too hot it can ignite). In the last decade or so gel packages have taken over that aren't so much of a fire hasard.
Agreed on the ‘can’t see the flame’ problem. If you’re using chafing dishes with the various ‘canned heat’, there are two things to look for: wick vs. not (alcohol vs alcohol gel), and the burn time (anywhere from 1 to 6 hours; the gel ones are usually rated for 2 hrs, but last a little longer). It’s bad when you don’t pay attention at the store and get 2hr assuming they’re always 4 or 6 hour. The pre-measured cans are convenient (relatively), but generate a lot of waste, also note that you can extinguish and re-cap the wick ones, but you risk evaporation over time
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.278603
| 2023-05-22T11:54:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124246",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Esther",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Karl Knechtel",
"Marianne013",
"Nobody",
"eps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
123999
|
Adding a crust to sous vide pork
I had considerable success at Christmas dinner coating a sous vide joint of beef with whipped egg white, rolling in ground yellow mustard seed, salt and pepper and baking in a really hot (240c) oven for 15 minutes or so until it baked hard.
Will the same procedure work on pork with ground sesame seeds, fennel and salt? I'm concerned that the sesame seeds or fennel will turn out bitter.
You could do a test by just baking them, possibly on a bed of whipped egg whites, and see if they’re okay at that time and temperature.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.279212
| 2023-04-20T21:15:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123999",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"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
}
|
123669
|
What additional uses are there for a food dehydrator?
Recently browsing a certain online website I've discovered the cost of food dehydrators has fallen considerably since they first came to market. Realising that I may incur the wrath of my other half if I purchase yet another "White elephant" kitchen appliance, what are they most useful for in the domestic kitchen? It is clear that they can be used to produce dried fruit, which is then eaten all by itself. Are there any uses beyond that, which may make them more versatile?
They're great for restoring 1980's Ampex 456 magnetic recording tape. I charge £70 a reel for "tape baking" & can get 4 reels at once in my dehydrator ;) [sorry, joke answer, but true scenario, you can google it.]
Some air fryers say that they can also work as food dehydrators. I don’t know if you need to get alternate trays or such to use them that way … you might want to check reviews to see how well they can do it, as that might be an alternative to not have an appliance that can only do one thing
I've got one, and I don't use it much.
Dehydrating food is worth it if you have a surplus of suitable homegrown or cheap local produce, or if you particularly want dehydrated food for some reason (portable snack probably). If your oven goes cool enough you can dehydrate in that, except the fumes from dehydrating chillies make it worthwhile to do that outside.
Dehydrators are rather bulky, so mine ends up stored in the attic, which is partly why I don't use it often.
We now have the Airfryer/toaster oven/dehydrator.
The dehydrator function is used most often to get the zucchini slices dry enough to make keto lasagna that won't be soupy without having to salt it and deal with the mess and extra work that involves. We have also made some really delicious beef jerky. Sadly it was too tasty and disappeared very quickly.
For Christmas I dried a large amount of thyme, sage and rosemary that was then blended to a nice powder and mixed with 5lbs of salt for a lovely herb salt. It is perfect with chicken soup. We are needing to do this again as it went over so well.
We are loving the Airfryer/toaster/dehydrator and use it daily. Ours sits on top of the microwave so it doesn't use anymore counter space. I was successful in talking my boss (nanny/cook) into getting one of these instead of a regular air fryer and he has been very happy.
I hope any of this is helpful.
slow, mostly unsupervised liquid reduction with no risk of burning and a big loss of aromas
I use mine in patisserie, for making concentrated food puree. I use this concentrate for flavoring different creamy substances such as buttercream, pudding, pannacotta, etc.
The reason I do it is that, if you want your buttercream to have a fruit taste, you cannot simply put the raw fruit in, it has too much water. Jam and other preserves are an option, but they bring in too much sugar, and don't taste like the original. Similarly, cooking out the water at high heat also produces a taste very different from raw. Ideally, one can use freeze-dried fruit powder, but it's difficult to source and very expensive.
The solution I use is to start a fruit leather process, but to inspect it every hour or so and mix-and-spread the fruit mass with a spatula so it doesn't make a skin. I stop when the result is at the desired thickness - still miscible, but with as little water left as possible - and fold it in in my buttercream. This produces lovely aromatic results, and "I used real fruit" bragging rights.
i use ours for drying excess herbs and fruit mainly, however a tasty thing you can do is dry veggies to add to casseroles or other slow cooked dishes, as they then absorb the flavours of any stock in said casserole or soup or whatever. we have also made jerky a few times.
Long term storage is one reason to dehydrate. There are others…jerky…fruit leather, dried fruit and tomatoes…all not necessarily long term situations. There are other creative culinary applications…dehydrated olives…working with methocel, for example. Is it worthwhile? Only you can answer the question. I use mine 6-8 times a year. Have had it for many years. Just another tool in the toolbox.
You can make black garlic in a food dehydrator, here's as video from Bon Appetit on it. While it's delicious, it's also really pricey if you buy it from a specialty store - while garlic itself is often dirt cheap. Maybe you can convince your other half that you can finance the purchase by selling black garlic? :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.279313
| 2023-03-18T17:12:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/123669",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"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
}
|
90734
|
Fix for Greasy Pulled Pork?
The Problem: Recently, I've been on a pulled pork kick. My go-to method has quickly become pressure cooking, since it's relatively quick and it allows me to set the timer and forget about cooking for a while. The problem is that my meat frequently ends up being greasy, occasionally up to the point that it's nearly inedible.
The Info: I'm using bone-in boston butt roasts, between 3 and 5 pounds. I typically cut it into three or four pieces, and brown them before cooking. I pressure cook (using an 8 quart InstantPot) for 110 minutes, then let the pressure release naturally for about 20 minutes before opening the pot and shredding the meat. I shred it in the juices at the bottom of the pot (usually just a few tablespoons of broth/liquid smoke is left after cooking, along with a bit of rendered fat).
The meat is always super tender and shreds easily, and I have no complaints as far as taste or texture. It's just so damn greasy! I can't eat more than a few bites before feeling sick.
I'm looking for;
1.) How do I correct this BEFORE cooking? Different cut of meat? Should I trim it more? Cook it with some other ingredient?
2.) How do I correct this AFTER cooking? Is there something I can add to either remove, or mask the greasy flavor?
So far I've been liberally using a vinegar-based bbq sauce to cut the greasiness, and keeping my dryest red wine handy to wash the flavor out of my mouth. Can you think of any better options?
When you say you "feel sick" is that physical, like a burning sensation, or is that more like queasiness? If you don't have a physical reaction, albeit the psychological and physical can be hard to distinguish, perhaps just eating a small portion, fatty as it is, would be as satisfying as a large portion of lean meat.
I doubt that your meat is really greasy. If it is really overly fat, you will notice it when buying it, your meat will be marbled through and through. But it is difficult to get such meat nowadays at all, since it is rather expensive to produce.
The mouthfeel you describe is more likely to come from the gelatine. When you make pulled pork in the pressure cooker, you are converting the connective tissue to gelatine, leaving the overcooked muscle fibers swimming in it. When warm, it is really slippery, and the meat slides around in it - this is exacthly what makes for proper pulled pork that shreds. And making gelatine from collagen is not that easy. Traditionally people tried to convert as much as possible by very long cooking times, but using high pressure is much more efficient. So it is likely that you are ending up with more gelatine, or better hydrated gelatine, than with traditional cooking.
The first thing you can try to do is to just learn to like it. There is nothing inherent in greasiness which makes people sick eating it, that's a learned aversive reaction, which can be unlearned. With the knowledge that it isn't actual fat, that reaction can subside or disappear. You can try some mindfulness meditation on some bites of the meat to get accustomed to the mouthfeel too.
If you insist on reducing the sliperiness, you might have to make your process less efficient. This means going to a more traditional stovetop recipe without pressure. I don't know if your exact InstantPot model can cook in slowcooker mode without pressure, but if it can, you can keep the convenience of set-and-forget. You will probably have to live with other changes in texture though, not getting such a nice separation.
Gelatine loses its gelling strength with low pH. So you are on the right way with sour sauces. You can try to marinate it with them, and keep a sour sauce in the pot while cooking it, not just adding it at the end. But then you will end with more of a braised meat, which you might not like.
In general, it is difficult to give more advice, because this is exactly what makes your pulled pork good pulled pork. Anything you do to disrupt it will lower the quality of the texture you get.
Pork butt is high in fat.
This is a fantastic answer. I would upvote it twice if I could.
The pressure cooker will always be somewhat braised-like because you have to add some fluid to build pressure. I always add some vinegar (as do many recipes), mostly apple or balsamic vinegar. Another option (which I haven't tried) could be fruit juices like pineapple or orange juice. The first contains Bromelain which breaks down the connective tissues (and as such is mentioned in many pulled pork recipes).
You can trim/remove some of the fat or use a leaner cut like a loin to achieve this before-hand
After cooking pull the pieces of meat out before you shred them and set them aside. Then strain your juice and remove as much of the rendered fat as you can. It should have separated. Also chilling will cause the rendered fat to coagulate making it easier to discard. Then reincorporate the juices.
I will say many people prefer the boston butt because of its fattiness. Even if you want to eliminate some of the intense fattiness I would do so after cooking because the rendered fat cooking through the meat helps keep it moist through the cooking process. Also vinegar is a common solution. I usually do a cider vinegar and brown sugar solution (the sweetness also helps cut the fattiness)
There is a certain point where the finished product can be too oily but if you make it a few times you will learn how much fat to trim off to suit your needs.
When you roast or barbecue fat can drip out, however when pressure cooking or braising there's nowhere for fat to go. Your meat is sitting in a pool of it, so option 1 seems the way to go.
I always strain the fat off of the cooking liquid on pulled pork when I’ve pressure cooked it. Never had a problem with it being greasy. A fat separator is my favorite Instant Pot accessory!
Refrigerate after you cook and then scoop the fat. Or use a fat separator.
Im not familiar with a fat separator. I dont remove the fat myself.
I would go for option 3): correct it DURING cooking. Have you already tried cooking it shorter? 110 minutes seems extremely long in a pressure cooker, especially considering that you add another 20 minutes of cooking time after that for the pressure relief.
The temperatures in a pressure cooker are exactly right for converting connective tissue into gelatine, which has a very greasy mouthfeel (even though arguably it's a protein, not fat). While this is exactly the reason why you use a pressure cooker (connective tissue is tough), you want some connective tissue to still hold the meat together to get the correct chewiness of the pork.
Most pressure cooker pulled pork recipes I can find on the internet are approximately 45-70 minutes depending on the size of the cut. I would go for about 55, although this may depend on personal taste, equipment and pressure relief time. This should be plenty to pull the meat apart easily, but not so long that you get a fatty, gelatinous dish.
This should get more upvotes, as it's the easiest solution to try! Even dialing it down to 70-80 minutes (plus pressure relief time) should make a difference, and then go in increments from there.
You picked a high fat cut of meat and you are cooking it in the fat. It is actually from pork shoulder.
There is not a substitute for pulled pork so look for a less fatty pork butt and trim the fat. But it is hard to trim the fat as it is marbled in.
Cooking in the fat you are absorbing much of the fat back into the meat.
Long cook but smoking will let some of fat drip out and still tender. The smoke will mask some of the grease flavor.
Maybe go with a spicy dry rub and smaller portions.
A lot of meats have less fat but that would be another dish. I cannot think of a lower fat meat that has a similar taste.
Not sure about under pressure, but a nice lean pork loin in 1" cubes in a crock pot will end up being able to shred nicely, not too greasy at all, in fact can end up a little dry. Acceptable solution for true pulled pork bbq replacement, assuming you don't have 15 hours to kill...
@ivanivan You are free to post an answer.
I cook bone-in pork butt on a very regular basis and haven't had the problem you're describing. Here's what I do:
Prep: I don't pre-brown the meat. I rub with a small amount of kosher salt or Hawaiian sea salt and cut it into 2-3 pieces to fit into the IP. Sometimes I add a bit of liquid smoke, but usually I don't.
Cooking: I pressure cook for 90 minutes with 1-2 cups of water added to the IP (1 cup for my 6qt IP and 2 cups for my 10qt IP). This leaves me with a large amount of broth when cooked. I allow for a complete natural pressure release before opening the pot.
After cooking: I remove the meat to a plate for shredding. I remove all pieces of fat by hand and keep only the shredded meat. It's easy, I promise! I then add a little bit of the broth back to the meat for moisture. Sometimes I will strain the broth into a mason jar and store in the fridge. This allows the fat to harden so I can remove it before using the remaining broth to cook rice, soups, etc.
My family loves this meat. We use it for bbq pulled pork, enchiladas, tacos, sandwiches, etc. I hope this helps!
Following on from @GdD's comment and @Kirstin Moran's answer on separating the fat:
If your pressure cooker has enough space, you could raise the pork butt out of the braising liquid entirely with a metal or silicone rack. I have a Norpro silicone rack from Winners/Marshalls exactly for this.
Norpro rack, fits both Instant Pot sizes.
You can use a very small amount of liquid to start steaming and pressure cooking, and once it's finished you can remove the meat first without having it soaking in both expelled juices and fat. Separate the fat from the liquid by skimming or decanting, or if you have time, chilling as @Daron suggests.
You can then pull the meat and add just the warmed juices back, or if the gelatin was causing the heaviness, a lighter stock or liquid or even go without any juices.
With this method you're relying completely on the hot pressurized steam for cooking with almost no thermal conduction from the bottom, so you may need to adjust cooking times longer.
Since the seasonings and salt tend to collect at the bottom with the juices, you may need to season/dry-rub and dry-brine more heavily if you choose not to re-add the juices.
If the grease is floating around on top, you can probably soak it up into a slice of bread, that you later throw away.
One thing you can do with pulled pork that contains a high amount of integral fat/grease is to spread it out in a single layer on a sheet pan -- a few larger chunks are OK, but aim for 1/2" or smaller -- and place it under a high broiler for a few minutes until the edges start to brown and turn crispy.
This is one way carnitas can be finished for serving. Carnitas is pork shoulder that has been slow-cooked in fat.
Aside from adding flavor (Maillard reaction), frying or broiling the pork this way produces a firmer texture that goes better with the fattiness. Cooking it further also dries out the meat a little more, but not in a bad way (pulled pork is already "overcooked" in a sense). What most of us think of as "greasiness" is not just about fat content, but also remaining water that combines with the fat to create that heavy, greasy feeling. This is why deep fried food that wasn't fried in hot enough oil can come out feeling greasy -- the oil wasn't hot enough to drive out the surface moisture properly.
So far I've been liberally using a vinegar-based bbq sauce to cut the greasiness
You're on the right track here. You want to add some kind of acid after cooking to cut through the greasy, gelatin-y mouthfeel. With BBQ pork, you'd commonly use vinegar (preferably cider vinegar) as the acid. You could use it plain if you want the meat to be unsauced. Or you could make a "finishing sauce" which also includes typical BBQ sauce ingredients like brown sugar, molasses, and spices. Actual BBQ sauces, particularly the Carolina styles which are heavy on vinegar, are just extreme examples of a finishing sauce.
For something like carnitas, you might use citrus juice as the basis instead. The pressure-cooker carnitas recipes that I've seen usually call for orange and lime juice, for example.
When a slow cooked stew is allowed to cool, the fat solidifies on the top layer and there is a layer of gelatin below that. Your situation is the same. I suggest you cook the pork in a larger amount of liquid so it is still covered after the cooking time. Then let the mix cool before removing the layer of gelatin (and fat if desired). Then cook more until the liquid reduces. I would put the liquid in a pan and reduce to a thick sauce on high heat for about ten minutes.
Brown after, not before.
Slow cook your raw port roast. Then pull it apart and brown it in a pan. That is how carnitas is made and carnitas rule. I spoon some grease off the top of the slow cooking pot and use that to fry the pulled apart meat. You can set the brown fried bits on a paper towel to drain further if you want. If you can keep people from eating them immediately from the pan.
The high heat on browning will drive off some grease and juice that has accumulated during the slow cook. The brown crust will be crispy and hot, not blunted and soggy from time in the pressure cooker.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.279728
| 2018-07-02T02:44:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90734",
"authors": [
"Doktor J",
"GdD",
"H2ONaCl",
"JJJ",
"Raydot",
"Summer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6889",
"ivanivan",
"lspare",
"paparazzo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15993
|
Cooked or Raw - Shrimp peeling
I'm not very good at peeling shrimp, but I've been practicing lately with raw shrimp. I have the theory that raw shrimp are peeled more easily than cooked.
Every time I try to peel a cooked shrimp, the flesh sticks to the skin. Is there a way to peel cooked shrimp easily?
As for method, I guess it's the same for cooked as for raw.
Take the head off.
Take the tail between thumb and index finger and peel the legs off.
Take the tail and the first section and 'break' the next section lose.
Take the tail off.
Take the first section of the body between the palm and little finger and with the index finger peel the back off the shrimp.
Done.
Do you use the same method as I? Should I apply another method for cooked shrimp?
Edit I've had no luck with another batch of shrimp. This time no method of mine worked, as the skin would stick to the flesh. Is this a problem of freshness (too fresh or not fresh enough)? (Should I post this edit in another question?)
I was always taught to take the head and tail between your fingers of each hand, pull it out straight, push together slightly, then pull apart. That should pull the whole carapace back off the body. Then you can pull off the head (and legs if they're still there) and you're done.
However, I've seldom gotten it to work when raw, and less so when cooked.
I agree, cooked shrimp are harder to peel, and just add an unwanted challenge to the diner when included in most dishes.
Wow, that does seem to be far more efficient. Next time I'll try.
It drives me crazy when cooks leave the tails on shrimp in dishes, especially in stews or soups. It means to ingest the morsel, it must first be fished boiling hot out of the liquid then peeled with unprotected fingers. Apparently the tails are left on for presentation purposes.
@Doug That's what chopsticks are for. :-)
@talon8 I defy you to locate chopsticks in a portugese seafood restaurant!
@Doug Always be prepared? http://amzn.to/niaAbF
No luck so far. Maybe it's because these shrimp are extra fresh the skin sticks to the flesh in such a way neither my own nor your method worked.
Youtube
I just discovered that there's a precious bit of meat at the tail that everyone ends up wasting. I humbly present a way to preserve that meat: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pQBJf3p8lsE
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.280867
| 2011-07-06T22:59:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15993",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Berit Larsen",
"Brad P.",
"Doug",
"Megh Gandhi",
"Nav",
"Ryker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7812",
"talon8"
],
"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
}
|
49599
|
Where can I find food-grade beeswax to make Canelé?
I am looking for food-grade beeswax to make Canelé. On Amazon, all I can seem to find is "cosmetic grade" which is not necessarily meant for food usage.
Does it have to be beeswax specifically? I know it has a higher melting point than some waxes but it's surely going to melt either way.
It doesn't actually all melt away, beeswax are used to coat the tins you cook canele in and there is a thin layer of beeswax left on the cakes as you eat them. It has to be an edible wax and beeswax is traditional.
I didn't say it melted away, just that it would fully melt (before ultimately resolidifying). Beeswax melts around 145F (63C), and given that we're talking about baked goods I assume it's going to be way over that temperature, and the exact melting point of the wax would seem to not be critical. So any other food-grade wax would be a potential substitute even if not as traditional.
@Adisak I was able to find one source , although there may be many more.
I also found food grade paraffin wax, but it seems that it has a much lower melting point.
After a little reading it seems that making canelés can be a quite tricky and meticulous process, so you probably want to stick with the beeswax. They do sound delicious!
Try finding a small regional beekeeper, or a beekeeper selling over the Internet. Especially one of those who produce high-quality organic honey. He will probably have a range of other bee products. Even if he doesn't list or display wax for sale, he might have some, just ask.
I've mostly seen this type of beekeeper present at farmer's markets and similar places, but they are probably not so hard to find on the Internet.
I agree with rumtscho that a beekeeper would be the best place to go. In the event that you don't know any beekeepers, try the bulk section at a health food store or coop. They frequently have either small blocks or pellets that are sold by weight.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.281126
| 2014-11-08T00:24:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49599",
"authors": [
"Adisak",
"Cascabel",
"Formosan Rex",
"Lord Jair",
"Marisol Rodriguez",
"Pedro Barreto",
"Truck Mounted Cherry",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4873",
"一聽可樂"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32038
|
Can I use brown sugar instead of white sugar in making fruitcake?
Can I substitute light or dark brown sugar instead of white sugar in making fruitcake?
Almost certainly, yes. The problem is, you will end up with a fruit cake :-) Sorry, I had to. You will have slightly more of a molasses edge, and more tendency to retain moisture, but that is probably in the noise. Especially if large amounts of rum or bourbon are involved at any point. If you want a precise answer, you will want to post your recipe as there are a broad range of fruit cake styles and recipes. But no matter which one, you still end up with a fruit cake. Arghhh! Can't stop!
Why so much hatred for fruit cake? I love fruit cake :)
All the fruit cakes I've ever made had brown sugar in the recipe anyway! And frequently black treacle as well. I like the dark ones.
When substituting brown sugar for white sugar, be mindful if you are measuring by volume. Brown sugar packs down a lot and you may end up using more (by mass) sugar than you intended.
Your cake will be tasty. You may notice a slight texture difference, but it should be fine.
Alas, it will still be a fruitcake.
It'll be fine as long as you're cool with the molasses flavor.
In addition to the slightly "darker" flavor, you should expect the result to be more moist than with ordinary sugar. You may find you'll need to reduce the moisture in the recipe, or cook it longer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.281334
| 2013-02-19T02:37:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32038",
"authors": [
"Danny N Bradley",
"Dharini Chandrasekaran",
"Elizabeth Ann Collado",
"Matthew Walton",
"Nicolas Dufour",
"Nsr",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sian Hindle",
"Vico",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9262",
"regdoug"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66612
|
How do I convert stove top pressure cooker recipes into electric pressure cooker recipes?
Many of the pressure cooker recipes I see online seem to be using a stove top cooker, and some say cook on low heat or high heat, or start on high heat and then reduce to low heat while maintaining pressure, etc. I have an electric pressure cooker, and it allows you to choose low or high pressure and a pressurized cook time, but does not allow for adjusting the heat. How can I use these stovetop recipes with my electric pressure cooker?
I edited original asker's question to remove recipe request - that way we can explain to them how to use the stovetop recipes they already found.
It seems like there are several good questions that could come out of this: How to change existing recipes. Resources or search terms for finding good recipes. What factors make a recipe well suited for the cooker. etc.
The biggest difference I know between stovetop and electric pressure cookers is that the electric ones take much longer to release pressure after cooking. The ones I've seen/compared take roughly twice as long (10-15 minutes for stovetop, 20-25 for electric). Biggest reason I can think of is that you can move the normal pressure cooker away from the hot stove, but you can't move the electric one away from its heating element.
As a result, I would adjust the cooking times down by 10 minutes or so to compensate.
In regards to the high/low heat, the main advantage of electric pressure cookers is that they are more energy efficient, and are designed to distribute heat well. You shouldn't need to worry about heat variance--get it up to the pressure you need and start the timer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.281754
| 2016-02-17T18:44:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66612",
"authors": [
"Cindy Tetreault",
"Janice White",
"Jewell Schultheis",
"Joanne Knott",
"Karen Johnson",
"Laura P.",
"Melanie Pykiet",
"Patricia Fogle",
"Richard Lynett",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42623",
"jason lappan"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17497
|
What to look for in a Stand Mixer?
I want to buy a stand mixer, a good one. Mainly for mixing dough, but also for mincing meat. I've seen that the KitchenAid has a mincing attachment. So, I've made a list of what to look for, and would like your input about what's missing.
Steel bowl.
Power, is that a factor?
Pigtail, whisks.
Possibility to attach a mincer.
Bowl size (is bigger better?).
Weight. As the table space is limited, it should be portable (for me at least).
Optional: Ice cream bowl.
Mount for:
Slicer (meats, vegetables, etc.)
Meat grinder
Grater (cheese, etc.)
Sausage stuffer
Pasta maker
Orbital movement.
Apart from these elements, what am I forgetting?
Apart from these uses, are there any other interesting ones?
While I have one of these and plan to contribute an answer to this question, I've been "griped at" on other SE sites for name dropping. Is cooking.SE ok w/ name dropping?
@Rikon: It's not that mentioning brands is inherently a bad thing, it's just that it's important for questions and answers of this sort to stay focused on the selection process itself in order to stay informative and avoid degenerating into popularity contests. This is exactly the format in which we prefer questions to be asked; it's best if answers avoid "name-dropping" unless there's something objectively notable about a brand (e.g. being the only one to have a particular feature or set of features).
I used the brand name for clarity as I'm not sure 'stand mixer' is the usual expression.
Well, we call it a stand mixer here, and Kitchen-Aid themselves call them stand mixers. If there are other regionally-specific terms, would be a good term to add to our translation list.
@Aaronut, I'm translating from Spanish. It's sometimes called Kitchen Robot here, but also Mixer. I think robot is the preferred term here.
The Kitchen Aid folks also make a Pyrex bowl, with measuring marks on the side and a pour spout, which could be very useful if you're using the mixer often.
But what will you do when you get real kitchen robots?
@Jefromi, I'm waiting for that to happen!
I've got one of the professional series Kitchen Aids (and my parents have the traditional version to compare and contrast). If money isn't a huge deal, then getting the professional series comes with a more powerful motor and a heavier base that will stop the mixer from "walking" around the counter if you put dough or something dense in the mixer.
One odd thing that I didn't expect is that the mixer is really inconvenient for small things. It can whip up like a triple batch of whipped potatoes, but it has the darnest time whipping up a little bit of whip cream or a little merangue.
Kitchen Aide's attachments are pretty rock solid... One of our more "fun" attachments that we have is the ice cream bowl. Freeze the bowl, dump the ingredients and set the paddle on low. Again, with the professional model, the motor is strong enough to churn a bit longer than traditional other ice cream churns...
IMO, if you're a big dough cook, go w/ the stronger model, otherwise the smaller models should be great.
EDIT
In an interesting note, my sister has one of the smaller models and it did infact "walk" off the counter a few weeks ago... The whole machine went crashing to the ground... She picked it up, dusted it off, but the only damage was a small piece of plastic broke off... Gotta give it to Kitchen Aide
+1 - The pro model is definitely geared toward larger recipes. We've adapted most of what we make (freezing the rest), which works well for almost everything ... except for things like meringues and such (where you don't often need 20 egg whites worth).
Yes, I have the same issue with my pro and small batches. I don't even get it out unless I'm making a double batch of something. On the other hand, it is a terrific pasta maker.
Do the home grade mixers always 'walk' or does that depend on the amount of dough?
I have the artisan Kitchenaid and it suits me just fine, it does hop a little when doing breads, but no "walking." I haven't had issues with smaller quantities, it also comes in a myriad of colors if that is worthwhile to you :)
If you check out Sam's club or BJ's you might be able to get a Pro for the same price as the Artisan, my sister was able to get one that way.
@Manako, I'm way out of Sam's or BJ's orbit, or the other way around, but it's probably a good tip for US residents.
@Manako - Costco definitely sells the Pro for the same price as the Artisan. The only reason I went with the Artisan instead of the Pro is that the Pro can be a little tight with standard counter/cabinet heights. Since the Artistan has plastic gears to the Pro's metal gears, I regret it.
@BaffledCook - If you're a bread dough person, another big difference is the actual dough kneading 'hook'. I believe the Artisan comes with the C hook and most Pro with the spiral. I have one of the few models KB26G1 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000LSIPH6) that can take either - so I've personally tested both, and the spiral is so much better.
@rfusca, thanks, I've called that the 'pigtail'.
@BaffledCook ah, that makes sense, well the pigtail is definitely much better
One factor not on your list is orbital motion.
I have a kitchen aid and a bosch. The kitchen aid is orbital and the bosch isn't. The orbital motion makes a huge difference when kneading bread doughs.
The size of the bowl matters a great deal. It should be big enough to do what you need it to and not bigger. A big bowl will struggle to beat a single egg white and a small bowl obviously won't make a batch of 6 loaves of bread. I keep both mixers around for this reason.
I really like the pasta maker and meat grinder attachments. The pasta maker and sausage stuffers in particular save a hand from cranking and make those processes a lot easier.
I haven't read anything good about the ice cream maker bowls (except for Rikon's answer here). Because of bad reviews I didn't buy one so I can't speak to them specifically but for the price you could buy several nicer ice cream makers with better reviews.
I've added orbital, but I'm a little bit lost. Could you expand on that?
@BaffledCook I think what it means is that the whisk is not in a static position relative to the bowl. The socket you place the whisk in is itself on a rotating element, so effectively the whisk turns while rotating (orbiting) around the bowl. Mechanically, you could also have a static whisk placed out of center of the bowl, and then have the bowl itself rotate. I think I've seen both, but the rotating bowl seems less common to me.
I've owned three different stand mixers ... well, the first one, I don't know if it really counts --- it was a hand mixer that had a stand so you could use it as a hand or stand mixer.
I've had both a KitchenAid 'Ultra Power' (4.5qt, tilt-head) and a 'Pro' (6qt, bowl-lift).
If it weren't for the increased capacity, I'd switch back to the Ultra Power (or maybe the Artisan, which is slightly larger). The main problem is the bowl-lift vs. the tilt-head. It's much less convenient to add ingredients or to get in there to scrape the bowl with the bowl-lift mechanism vs. the tilt-head.
The bowl-lift models also seem to be more temperamental about the bowl clipping in ... the tilt-head bowls have a threaded bowl, where you set the bowl down with the handle facing to one side, then you turn the bowl to lock it in place ... the bowl-lift models have two pegs that you set the bowl on, then tilt the bowl 'til it clips in. I've had a couple of incidents where I thought the bowl was attached right, but it wasn't. (I don't remember the exact situation .. it might've been that I had put the bowl away for storage, and hadn't clipped it in before using the next time)
Also of note is the 'pouring shield' that you can get. I think it comes automatically with the Pro series -- and you need it, because it's obnoxious trying to add ingredients in the first place. Unfortunately, the one it comes with is a single piece model, not the two-piece like for the tilt-head models. The one piece has a large gap in it so that you can slide it on and off ... which means that if you do something that's actually going to make a mess, it won't be contained ... and most likely, it'll be the mixer that gets sprayed and has to be cleaned up.
The only advantage for the 'Pro' is the size -- I can double most recipes without worrying about stuff trying to crawl out the bowl as it's mixing. But be warned that there's 3 sizes of 'Pro' -- the 450 (4.5qt), 500 (5qt) and 600 (6qt). I'd personally go for the Ultra Power over the Pro 450, and the Artisan over the Pro 500 if given the option. The Ultra Power has a more powerful motor than the Pro 450 ... that's not the case with the Artisan, unfortunately, but unless you're going to be running it for 30-40 min without resting at a time, you should be fine. (there's a thermal cut-off, so if it heats up too much, it'll shut down with no indication that it's done so ... but will work again once you let it cool off)
Many professional grade stand mixers come with an attachment mount, including Kitchen Aid, Hobart, and others. This mount can fit various tools, including:
Slicer (meats, vegetables, etc.)
Meat grinder
Grater (cheese, etc.)
Sausage stuffer
Pasta maker
I've found these stand mixers much more useful, as the powerful motor serves several purposes. I have a smaller unit (semi-pro) at home and have used pro units in a number of restaurants. The largest units can even slice full size frozen sausages (a few a minute), a feature that's handy when prepping for service.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.281954
| 2011-09-05T18:35:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17497",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BaffledCook",
"Bruce Alderson",
"Cascabel",
"FuzzyChef",
"Hades",
"Jen",
"Lars",
"Manako",
"Martha F.",
"PLeBlanc",
"Rikon",
"Xiaoqin Zhu",
"coffee friend",
"gkiely",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"justkt",
"mactoshb",
"rfusca",
"takrl",
"user37777"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10855
|
How to make a good homemade Croquette
I've been working on Croquettes and I still don't get it. There are a good number of things too keep in mind for making them right. However, my last batch was a mess, again.
I'd like to pose a wiki like question on how to make the most awesome Meat-Velouté-Croquettes.
1- Broth. Take a knee-bone, knuckle meat, carrots, leek, celery, laurel, ... cover with cold water, bring to a soft boil and simmer for about two hours.
2- Make a Roux. Melt butter, stir in flour, let the mix simmer for a couple of minutes.
3- Mix the broth in with the roux and let that simmer for some time.
4- Taste. Cool.
5- Make Croquette rolls, pass them through flour, egg and breadcrumbs.
6- Cool or freeze.
7- Fry.
My problem was that I mixed too much broth with the roux. So, I mixed more roux and put that in with the Croquette mix. Then I mixed some more roux... After the cooling, it was impossible to make the croquette rolls. The mass would not roll, but kind of tear apart. Like the structure was too strong to establish new connections.
My wife thinks I should have left the mix simmer for longer than I did. Any suggestions?
Edit - I think the problem is in step 3. Now I just let it simmer until the mass gets 'cohesive'. After the cooling, shaping is not a problem any more.
@Aaronut this is not a question about frying (I think)
I'm sorry, I thought croquettes were normally fried (it's in step 7 of your preparation). Feel free to change it if you like, but please don't use the [cooking-techniques] tag, because it's far too broad and essentially meaningless. Your question doesn't necessarily have to be about the frying itself for the tag to be useful; the point of a tag is that people interested/knowledgeable in frying and fried foods would likely be able to weigh in.
How did you cool it?
Once it's reached room temperature, you should be able to put it in some cling film, parchment, or similar, and roll the whole thing into a log; from there, freeze it or at the very least put it in the fridge to chill.
You can then cut into the sized bits you want and bread them, then either chill or freeze for later, or fry after a couple of minutes rest for the breading to adhere well.
... and could you further describe the 'tearing' ? The only similar thing I can think of is if you add too much cornstarch to a soluton, it's possible to 'tear' it, but it'll immediately ooze again once you let it sit still.
Thanks for the tip to roll the whole thing into a log. What I always do is to pour it into a dish and let it sit. First a room temp. then in the fridge. With tearing I mean the mix fell apart when I tried to form the log out of the chilled mixture.
Similar to the way cornstarch reacts, yes.
@GUI Junkie : Ah ... right ... once it's completely set, you can cut it into cubes, but you won't be able to shape like a dough any longer. I've never tried warming it ... it works for mashed potatoes, so it might work for this.
Don’t make a roux!
Make a very strong beef broth with blade steak leek celery onion spices cooked until you can shred the beef & return it to the strong tasting broth.
Next, while broth is simmering, slowly add plain flour (all purpose flour) in approx 3 batches stirring well to blend & cook through.
Once mixture is ‘firm’ enough, remove from heat to cool then refrigerate till next day when you start the flour, egg & crumb then roll procedure!
Remember to roll a second time in just eggwash then final crumb. Then you can freeze them or cook some up! Enjoy! Maggie
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.282749
| 2011-01-08T12:56:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10855",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BaffledCook",
"Dustin Simpson",
"E Bedford",
"Jan Ladislav Dussek",
"Jason P Sallinger",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6323
|
What is the storage life for whey?
I've recently begun making cheese at home. In this answer it was suggested to reserve the whey to be used in curries. I've done this, and I have about 3 cups of whey sitting in my refrigerator for two weeks now. It's appearance and odor have not changed.
How long can I expect to keep this stuff around? Does it go bad? I couldn't find anything on StillTasty, my usual resource.
Great link provided in your answer, looking forward to checking this site out!
I suspect it depends what kind of cheese the whey came from. Whey has all of the water soluble components of the milk. It loses the casein and fat. How much of the albumin and lactose it loses depends on the cheese. If the milk was heated enough (190F I believe) then the albumin will denature and not be in the whey. If the cheese was acidified with a bacterial inoculation then the bacteria will have converted some of the lactose into lactic acid which will both be in the whey. Riboflavin is water soluble and is what gives the whey that greenish tint.
Either way- most of the nutrients that bacteria like are not in the whey and it is always highly acidic. I have personally kept whey for a couple weeks with no ill effect.
I usually use my whey soon by making ricotta. If the cheese it came from didn't denature the albumin in the milk then you can gently heat the whey until the the albumin precipitates out. A gallon of whole milk makes almost a pound of mozzarella and then a little less than a cup of ricotta. That's a lasagna right there.
This source suggests that you can keep it for six months in the fridge!
I made paneer yesterday and read somewhere else (can't remember where) that whey will keep for a couple of days. You can freeze whey so that's what I did. And now I read that you can reduce it which will help if you are making lots of cheese.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.283078
| 2010-08-30T02:38:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6323",
"authors": [
"AlexLordThorsen",
"Bruce",
"Chris",
"JesseB",
"Optionparty",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1511"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129866
|
I forgot the dry milk in my bread maker recipe
I forgot the dry milk in my 2 lb loaf; it completed the first kneed cycle, do I start over?
There is a lot of context missing from your question, which makes it quite hard to answer. Including your recipe would likely help---I'm not very familiar with the use of dry milk in a bread recipe, so it would be helpful to know where you are starting from. It would also help to know precisely what you have done---are you using a bread maker (having finished a "knead cycle" seems to imply this, but one cannot be sure)?
Since self-answering is encouraged at stack exchange sites (take the [tour]) please take some pictures of your loaf and post an answer with your resulting bread, as well as [edit]ing your question to include the recipe.
@XanderHenderson it's fairly common in bread machine recipe books (from a few brands).
Neither panic nor start over.
It will be different, but it will be bread.
Milk is entirely optional in making bread. The differences between bread made with it and without it are relatively small, on the whole. The crust may brown somewhat less due to not having the lactose, and the crumb may be somewhat coarser. But it will be fairly similar to your normal result.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.283280
| 2024-12-27T23:10:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129866",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Ecnerwal",
"Xander Henderson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89259"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32725
|
Pepper mill - which color and length?
I've decided to get myself a pepper mill and it'll be a manual Zassenhaus but I'm not sure about the length and color. I'm thinking about 18 or 24 cm but I guess it simply comes down to what you feel the most comfortable with and how much space you've got in your kitchen.
Is there a general "rule" such as white for salt, light wood for white pepper, black for black pepper, etc. or do you just go with the one that looks best in your kitchen? I'm considering light wood, dark wood and black gloss.
I'm wondering if there's any thinking behind the color choice of the mill or if you simply go with the one that looks best in your kitchen.
I'm a little confused - are you asking whether there are conventions for putting different kinds of pepper in different kinds of pepper mills?
There is only black pepper for grinders. Other "colours" are just wasted marketing gimicks
Exactly @Jefromi. I'm wondering if there are any conventions that a specific mill color represent a specific kind of pepper. Eg, a black mill represents black pepper.
@TFD how do you suggest handling white pepper then (unless you prefer using a mortar and pestle) - which is one of the spices that you really do NOT want to buy pre-ground given how badly it keeps....
Executive summary
Buy the shortest pepper mill you can comfortably use and only fill it with two or three weeks worth of peppercorns. The colour should be light and if you buy more than one similarly shaped mill, be sure to buy contrasting colours if they are not otherwise easily distinguishable from one another. You should not chose a transparent mill for pepper unless the mill will be kept in the dark.
Length
With regards to convenience it is tempting to choose a pepper mill that is as large as you have space for to avoid having to refill. But pepper mills are not the best way to store your peppercorns. According to McGee's On Food and Cooking,
Even whole peppercorns lose much of their aroma after a month in a
grinder. (p. 428)
So if you care more about the quality of your pepper than the convenience of having a combined grinding/storage device, it's worth considering how much pepper you use per month.
One grind of pepper from my own pepper mill weighs about 90mg. This will obviously change from mill to mill, but I'll assume for simplicity that people use roughly the same amount of pepper regardless of how efficiently their mill grinds.
I estimate that I use, on average, about 5 grinds of black pepper per day. That brings me to about 13.5g (roughly half and ounce) of pepper per month.
The shortest pepper mill I've seen on the market is 3.5" (~9cm) and has a capacity of 0.4oz (11g). The next largest at 5" (13cm) holds about 1.7oz (48g), or more than three months worth of pepper for my own usage.
For me a 3.5" mill is a bit awkward to operate and a 5.5" mill feels about right. I suggest you buy the shortest mill that feels right for you and fill it only with enough peppercorns to last you two to three weeks.
Color
I have three mills, one for black pepper, one for salt and one for white pepper. The salt and black pepper mills are near enough identical except for the letters P and S printed on the top. Consequently I reach for the wrong mill about 50% of the time. I would certainly recommend choosing different colours if you purchase more than one mill.
One answer here suggests choosing a mill with a transparent casing to solve this problem. This may not be a good idea unless you keep your pepper mill in a closed cupboard. To quote the peerless McGee once more,
Pepper is best stored tightly sealed in the cold and dark. If exposed
to light during storage, it loses its pungency because the light
energy rearranges piperine to form a nearly tasteless molecule
(isochavicine).
I would also recommend light colours. I'm often guilty of reaching for the pepper mill with my hands dirty from some food-preparation stage. It would be good, when this happens, to later have a visual reminder that the pepper mill is now also dirty. With a dark coloured mill this is difficult to see.
Only thing I would add is that for salt make sure the grinding parts are not metallic. Even stainless steel I've found rusted. Quite a few sets have one with plastic grinder for salt another for pepper. Plus the fact that the long ones are only really for showing off or where you'd have to refill any other length 10 times a night.
There is no "rule". You just select what looks good in your kitchen according to your tastes.
I personally don't grind rock salt and use a normal shaker for that.
some pepper mills have a clear (see-through) casing which makes it easy to find out what's inside.
I have seen some "clear" mills with black peppercorn, pink peppercorn, and a mix (black, pink, salt).
you could have someone engrave with fancy calligraphy.
you could always use a label.
This is one situation where size really doesn't matter (with respect to flavour anyway!)
Presentation and humour are another story entirely
ELECTRIC is the way to go!
I was given an electric pepper mill for Christmas one year and it ROCKED my world!! ; )
Things to go for:
Make sure the grinding parts are ceramic.
Make sure the operating parts are metal.
Make sure there is a way to adjust the jaw width of the grinder!
The one I was bough wasn't very good quality and when it broke I was, ultimately, heart broken!!
It was a sad sad day! : (
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.283531
| 2013-03-16T00:15:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32725",
"authors": [
"Aaron N. Tubbs",
"Cascabel",
"Corvinus",
"Daniel Neville",
"Linda W",
"Mackenzie",
"Rajjali Hindiyi",
"Stefan",
"TFD",
"etkenny",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75703",
"matt",
"rackandboneman",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9301
|
How to reheat a Croquette without it getting soggy
Yesterday, I had to prepare some croquettes and transport them. I thought there would be no problem to reheat them in a toaster oven. However, the croquettes turned out soggy. The flavor was alright, but the texture was off.
I thought that would happen in the microwave, not in a toaster.
Any suggestions on how to reheat a fried food item?
Cheers.
Edit: Such a lot of questions, and good ones. I guess the problem really was that the toaster was closed so moist couldn't escape.
What time & temp did you reheat at? Also, did you crowd them while reheating and/or on a wire rack to allow good air circulation (to allow any moisture to evaporate)?
And also ... what was the starting temp. Was the food cold, or ambient temp when you started reheating?
And a third question... did you transport the croquettes warm or cold? If cold, how did you let them cool down? I would think that if you let them cool down on a wire rack, they're much less likely to get soggy in the first place than, say, if you put them in a container while they're still warm and steaming.
I'm more concerned about what the croquette actually was, since the term can mean so many different things. Would help a lot with tagging too.
@Joe, I reheated them during 3' in a small toaster oven (I don't know the temperature). I didn't crowd them, and they were placed on a wire rack. @Eric, @Belisarius, I transported them on tissue paper, but in an open glass container immediately after frying, all in all I reheated them maybe 30' afterwards.
@Aaronut, I'm talking about the dutch croquette whee the crunch is extra important. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croquette#Netherlands
@belisarius -- answer the question, as I think you likely had the correct problem -- immediately moving the hot items into a container would've caused them to steam as they cooled down, losing the crunch, even with it being open. (and GUI Junkie -- I've never seen a toaster oven with a tight seal, so although it might've contributed slightly, it probably wasn't the main culprit.)
@Joe Lost contact with the thread, sorry. You already did a wonderful job. Congrats! Just as a side comment, Sometimes heating slowly (starting with low temp, and gradually rising it) helps with the thing getting crisp again, but the results mostly depends on the porosity. The most "solid", the worst results.
Anyway, the best thing to do, as @Erik already commented is using a rack. That solves most humidity-related problems.
Just a side note, this toaster has only one dial: timer, so there's no way of slowly heating.
As this basically got answered through questions in the comments, I'll collect up all of the various problems that might help prevent the sogginess:
After frying, allow the croquettes to cool on a wire rack, so they don't get moist as they give off steam.
Reheat first at a lower temperature to heat through, then turn it up the temperature to regain the crunch & get any extra browning.
Make sure when reheating that they aren't packed too tightly, and if possible, heat on a wire rack rather than a pan.
If reheating in a small but tightly-sealing oven, try cracking the door slightly so as to prevent humidity buildup.
(anyone who has any other suggestions, feel free to add 'em)
Very clear and to the point!
You can just refry them. Keep a close look on them, since they can become too dark quite easily because they were already fully fried once. Time and temperature obviously depend on the size of the item, but usually something around 180° C (350° F) will do for 2-3 minutes.
However, in your case, I wouldn't have fried them in the first place in advance. But perhaps there wasn't a fryer available.
The available heater was a small grill oven. Everybody survived :-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.283964
| 2010-11-20T09:09:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9301",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Amy",
"BaffledCook",
"Dianne Tewksbury",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Erik P.",
"Joe",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91787"
],
"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
}
|
19990
|
At what temperature should monkfish be prepared?
At what internal temperature should you aim for monkfish to be properly cooked? According to this recipe, it should be at 145F (63ºC). Does anybody know a temperature chart for fish in general?
FYI I just found this and this reference.
To be perfectly honest with you, in all my years of cooking in kitchens I never took the temp of the fish. It was always by feel and look. Yes, I know that the gov't has guidelines that say 145F for fish but really when it comes down to it, if you have an 8oz cut of salmon/cod/monk in the pan, sticking an instant read into the middle won't do you much good. (Caveat: If it was a salmon Wellington I would shoot for 130F as it's a fully enclosed package that you can't feel for doneness)
The thickness of the cut will make a huge difference in when you should pull it out as you get post-oven cooking during resting in which the heat continues to heat the core of the flesh up to a final cooked temperature. That's why most chefs will take the roast out at a rare measured temp when they are shooting for a med rare serving state.
If your question is what state should monk fish be served, IE med rare (like salmon) or rare ( like tuna) then I would say med-rare is your best bet. Over cooking is a bad thing for monk fish and it goes from a lovely moist state to dry nastiness really quick. A nice way to cook it that helps to give you a little move wiggle room when cooking it is to wrap it in Parma ham (prosciutto). The little extra wrapping tastes great but also gives you a little bit of buffer as you get close to that magical temperature of doneness.
Hope it helps.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.284299
| 2011-12-26T22:58:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19990",
"authors": [
"Bob",
"RT.",
"Shilpa Soni",
"Silent-Bob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45500",
"removed"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17695
|
Freshly ground coffee, how fresh should it be?
I 'know' that freshly ground coffee is the best there is (within the quality of the beans, that is).
The question is whether this is true. Freshly ground coffee smells great, but does that affect the flavor after brewing? How long do these volatile flavors or smells last before the coffee goes 'stale'.
Can anybody (experts) taste the difference between freshly ground and brewed or not so freshly ground coffee? If so, what differences can be observed?
Edit as per talon8's link:
Freshly ground: brighter acidity, richest flavor.
9 hours: very similar to the freshly-ground coffee, although a bit mellower; less “bright” notes.
24 hours: some of the fruity flavors have faded; a bit less flavor in general.
7 days: duller, significantly less flavor overall.
To the people that notice the difference in taste, do you agree with these observations?
The fresh smell is aroma that is leaving the coffee, that is a hint. Prepare that cup quickly before more can get away :D
@daramarak, very good point, but do these aromas get trapped by the scalding hot water? Can you actually taste them?
I do not know for certain. Most flavors are water soluble or oils, both of these will be extracted by hot water that is for sure.
@Baffled if you are interested in the chemical properties, I would refer you to another question on how to manually brew coffee. The answer has a bevy of info on both the how and the why different methods are preferred, including leeching of oils and the temperature of water (basically, too cold not enough oil, too hot too much protein resulting in bitterness)
Posted as answer by request of @BaffledCook:
Here's an slightly informal blog post outlining changes in taste between varying degrees of freshness in the grind of a coffee.
http://investigationsblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/do-i-really-have-to-grind-coffee-right-before-brewing-it/
The short version is that the coffee starts losing freshness as soon as it is ROASTED. The longer it sits the faster it goes stale. The more surface area it has (ie: you've ground it up; also, the finer the grind), the faster it goes stale. The more you expose it to air, the faster it goes stale. So, seal your coffee in an air tight container at room temperature. And grind as close to the time you add water to it as possible.
How much of a difference detected depends on the the actual coffee been, the roast, the taster's taste buds. If you buy a bean that's been sitting on the shelf for 3 months already, you will probably notice less of a difference than a bean that was roasted last week. I buy beans that are roasted and sold within a week, and I DO notice a difference if I leave the grounds for a day or two before drinking.
+1 For my espresso machine i through out grounds that are more than an hour old. Old grounds have less oils and less aroma, and I won't risk my coffee.
For me, that informal blog post was not quite on target. I think it significantly underestimates the effects of delay in using the ground coffee. The major problem here is that they used 15 day old coffee beans. I roast my own beans to use for drip coffee, and it normally reaches a flavor peak at 3-4 days. The coffee has much less flavor after 8 days, and WAY less after 15 days.
Coffee begins to lose its flavour and freshness as soon as the roasting procedure is complete. Whole beans are best used within a month of roasting. The best way at looking at ground coffee is that it is similar to the whole bean, only with a whole lot more (pardon the poor english) surface area. That means that any of the breakdown that occurs to the bean will occur exponentially faster with a grind. You should always grind beans for each use, if you wish to have maximum flavour.
I am no expert, but I can tell the difference between freshly ground beans (like my wife and I do), or not so freshly ground (like my in-laws do). I am no scientist, but the older the grind, the 'flatter' the flavour. It is definitely noticeable.
Ah, in-laws and their crappy coffee. Mine drink weakly-brewed, store-bought Maxwell House. I think we can both agree that waking up to a bland cuppa' joe just makes visiting all the more... interesting.
My in-laws also microwave last night's leftover java.
If you roast up some beans and cup samples everyday after roasting, you'll find that the coffee tastes best ('peaks') a few days after roasting. Some may take as long as a week.
I commonly drink espresso, french press, and stove-top (Moka-pot) coffee. Here's my personal experience:
Freshness
There are (at least) three different stages during which to measure freshness, and the length of time before the coffee goes stale changes at each stage.
Green Coffee
After the coffee cherry has been processed, but before roasting. Coffee in this stage will last months.
Roasted Whole Bean
There is some contention about how long coffee in this stage can be considered fresh, so your mileage may vary. I find that roasted beans last 1-2 weeks. I notice the change in flavor starting at about 1 week after roasting, and I'm ready to throw out old beans after 2 weeks.
Ground Coffee
Freshness lasts minutes (at best). Espresso will demonstrate this the most dramatically, but other coffee drinks will benefit from grinding immediately before brewing.
Flavor Differences
Flavor differences will depend on the specific coffee and the brew method, but in general fresh coffee is rich and tastes more like dark chocolate, while stale coffee is bland and tastes more like dirt. In my experience the ability to distinguish is learned, and it's hard to unlearn.
I don't think coffee goes stale very quickly if stored in an airtight container. The beans are very dry, there is not much to go off
Some people like the aroma of freshly roasted coffee, some people just like it fresh ground. Some people just like coffee made from grounds in a French press
This is all personal and a subjective thing. There is certainly a difference between fresh ground and stored ground, but ground coffee does not go off
To me fresh roasted and fresh ground is great. But once it's an old roast, fresh or old ground makes little difference as far as I can taste in a cup of coffee
I agree with the subjective part, but I don't agree at all with the idea that there is no difference. There certainly is a difference between freshly ground and stored ground. Just because you can't taste it, does not mean it doesn't change. http://investigationsblog.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/do-i-really-have-to-grind-coffee-right-before-brewing-it/
@talon8, put the link in an answer and I'll accept it as the article explains the flavor differences which is what the question is about.
@BaffledCOok - seems upon a reread that the question is about whether fresh ground coffee is best "I 'know' that freshly ground coffee is the best there is (within the quality of the beans, that is).
The question is whether this is true". You ask a few other questions as well, it is hard to tell that you were actually asking for the flavor differences between fresh and store.
@mrwienerdog, true, maybe I should (have) post(ed) a number of questions. My goal was to establish whether the difference can be tasted and if so, what kind of differences can be noticed. The 'true' part was meant to refer to that.
Ah. Sorry my answer was not more specific vis a vis the answer you were searching for.
I disagree strongly - ground coffee definitely does "go off". I spend a lot of time on the CoffeeGeek forums link. Some of the folks there spend WAY too much time doing various coffee experiments. The generally accepted wisdom follows Babbie's Rule of Fifteens link. This says that roasted coffee beans should be used with 15 days, ground coffee should be used within 15 minutes, and brewed espresso should be served in 15 seconds.
@Rick_G Maybe where you live, but out here you are lucky if it the beans are not 15 weeks old, and this is coffee central!
@TFD, that is true just about everywhere, including here in Atlanta. I started roasting my own coffee beans in 2010.
Yes, there are noticeable differences with storage, as others have noted. The coffee after roasting is pretty sterile and too dry to support microbiological growth, and the flavour changes are linked with chemical reactions with oxygen in the air. These are basically loss of flavour at first becoming flat and dull, followed by development of off flavours, becoming rancid and unpleasant, and may be less obvious with milked coffee. Roasted coffee beans are protected from oxygen by carbon dioxide evolved during roasting and probably last some weeks if transferred rapidly to an airtight container. After grinding the carbon dioxide is quickly released and the coffee is more vulnerable to oxidation - a good taster can detect flavour differences within hours. If the ground coffee is protected from oxygen, by vac-packing, valved packaging or flushing with an inert gas in air-tight packaging, it will still last some weeks, but deteriorate once the pack is opened. At any stage after roasting they benefit from protection from light and preferably storage in the fridge or even frozen. How soon all these changes are detectable or unacceptable, depends on many factors, especially the sensitivity of the taster - I've known people who happily drink coffee that makes me almost sick.
Yes, I will also add to the above comment. As soon as you grind coffee (when it is reasonably fresh) it starts to oxidize and loose the gases trapped within the whole bean. The finer the grind, the more surface area present, and the faster this happens. For an espresso grind, the window you have to work with is around 30 seconds to a minute. When you are referring to "grocery store" coffee it is likely up to a year old and has long lost most of these gases so I'm sure the effect of grinding would make less of a noticeable difference. (However it's been years since I've experimented with less than great specialty coffee).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.284506
| 2011-09-13T10:24:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17695",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"BobMcGee",
"Jami Gaddy",
"Megasaur",
"Rick G",
"TFD",
"daramarak",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"mfg",
"mrwienerdog",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6295
|
Could you describe the Soufflé technique?
Could you describe the Soufflé technique? What pitfalls should you avoid?
Welcome, Gui Junkie. Your question is a little general. Can you tighten it up a bit? I assume you mean "how do you cook them" and not more general experiences like "I fell in love over one in Paris" or "I found out about the affair while making a chocolate soufflé." ;o)
Community wiki about souffle?
@GUI: I suggest splitting those questions up into multiple questions. The "what ingredients should be used" one is off-topic though, due to it being a recipe request.
May I recommend Hello World Souffle http://www.dangermouse.net/esoteric/chef_hello.html
Hello World Souffle?
The key to any Soufflé is the egg whites. The air bubbles trapped inside of them is what causes the mixture to rise. (As daniel mentions McGee puts it at somewhere like 25% due to the air expanding from the heat and 75% from the steam interacting with the bubbles.)
Problems occur because the Soufflé is so reliant on steam and the egg whites setting. If the base dilutes the egg whites then they can't set properly and the bubbles trapped inside of them can't do their job of making it rise. If the whites are just mixed into the base thoughtlessly most of the foam will be destroyed.
Most recipes agree that stiff but moist and glossy peaks are how the egg whites should be beaten.
Souffle technique? Basically, make a bechamel sauce, whisk in egg yolks, stir in seasonings, flavors or foods, fold in stiff beaten egg whites. Put into a prepared souffle dish (greased and coated with any number of different items... depending if you are making savory or sweet souffle). Bake in the center of the oven.
Sounds easy enough. Oven temp?
Length of baking time depends a lot on souffle size. My cheese souffle, which serves 6, cooks for 30 minutes.
Wikipedia
About 15min in a 190ºC (375°F) oven. I'll ask a separate question about the convection oven.
Follow your recipe. Sweet souffles tend to be more "gooey" and creamy in the center (and cook for less time), and savory tend to be a bit "drier" (and cook a bit longer).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.285238
| 2010-08-29T15:17:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6295",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Chris",
"Daniel Ristic",
"John",
"Juju",
"LindaW",
"Matt Huggins",
"Midhat",
"MightyHops",
"RIJO R V",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7416
|
Can hollandaise be made with frozen lemon juice?
In my other question -- Are there any reasonable substitutes for lemon juice? -- I learned a cool technique to preserve lemon juice by freezing it in an ice tray. I'm considering making a hollandaise, and the only lemon juice I have available is frozen. Will this affect my hollandaise? Could it increase the chances of splitting?
That will be absolutely fine, whether you make the sauce in the classic way by cooking the yolks with the lemon juice, or with one of the variations where the lemon juice is added only at the end. I would, of course, defrost it first, rather than add a whole ice cube of lemon juice to the pan.
Yep, it worked just fine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.285440
| 2010-09-18T04:23:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7416",
"authors": [
"Daniele B",
"Matt B.",
"genjosanzo",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"user15231"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33110
|
Why can't I get that grilled taste from my outdoor grill?
We purchased a gas grill years ago. We have caste iron grates and high to low flames adjustment. It has this metal plate that covers the flames. I guess it's there to prevent grease from hitting the flames.
Whenever we grill burgers, chicken or steak, they don't have that characteristic grilled taste you get from a restaurant. The grilled taste I am looking for is that charred taste, which is the same taste you get from a good steakhouse or shish kabob. It's the same charred taste you get from the Whopper or a really good burger cooked over open flames. It's not smokey as in BBQ using wood chips.
I'm not using lava rocks, could that be an explanation?
You need to describe how you are grilling things, and what kind of outcome you were hoping for in more detail, in order to get a good answer. I suggest picking just one item and using it as an example. Tell us exactly how you prepare and grill it, and where the gap between your outcome and your expectation is. This might get you a better answer.
Is your grill a gas grill? Please describe your setup and describe what you're looking for. Is it a "smoky" flavor you're looking for? Additional info will help.
It's likely a gas grill, as user17571 suggests -- the clue is 'lava rocks', which they used to place in the bottom of grills decades ago. Most of today's manufacturers have gotten cheaper, and just use a metal plate to prevent drippings hitting the flame, but the result is that the heat radiates much differently. It's more responsive now, but we have to resort to things like the high priced 'infrared' grills to get similar effects from gas grills.
Based on your updated question, the major factor is that your fire simply is not hot enough to produce the charring and browning reactions you desire.
A steakhouse salamander (think of a broiler—grill in British parlance—which has flames on both the top and the bottom, to cook both sides at once) can be up to to 1000°F and the elements are mere inches from the steak on both sides.
Gas grills have a maximum amount of heat they can produce. The only thing you (may) be able to adjust is the distance to the flame. The major cooking modality in a grill is infrared thermal radiation. This decreases per the square of the distance, so the closer your food is to the burner, the faster it will cook (within reasonable limits).
Other than that, you may need new equipment if this is in fact the root cause of your issue.
The key to getting good flavor out of a gas grill is very thorough preheating. You want your grill to reach temperatures upwards of 500-600 degrees Fahrenheit, at least. Your grates don't need to be glowing, per se, but they should be very, very hot.
If you're cooking burgers or steak, you shouldn't need to turn the heat down below medium. In fact, if you cook your burgers uncovered, then you can leave the temperature at the highest it'll go the whole time. This does use more gas, though, which is why most people put the meat on the very hot grate, then turn down the heat and close the cover.
Chicken, especially bone-in chicken1, is a different matter; you will have to turn down the heat, and/or use indirect heat (turn on a heating element on the opposite side from where your meat is), otherwise you'll end up with raw chicken coated in cinders.
1 Personally I don't cook bone-in chicken on the grill, because it's just so hard to get it cooked through properly, and there are so many better ways to cook it. (It's like, yeah, you can use your grill to cook pasta, but why would you? Unless of course there's a power outage or something...)
If you have a very low-end grill, it may not be capable of putting out enough heat to achieve the preheating temperature you want. Check out some grilling cookbooks, they will usually have guidelines on BTU's and such.
Wait, how would one go about cooking pasta on the grill?
@Jay: in a pot of water, of course. Just be prepared to sacrifice the pot, because you'll never get the soot off.
Hmm. I purchased a $300 Kenmore Grill. I guess it's not hot enough even with cast iron grates.
@user148298 Strange, because I have a cheaper Kenmore gas grill (4 burner) that I can get plenty hot enough. If your grill only has 2 burners though, for example, you may only be hitting the 400-500 degree mark.
Well if its a gas grill it won't get that same taste. Charcoal grills are really good for achieving that smokey taste. But if you already have a gas grill this may help. http://bbq.about.com/od/grillingfaq/f/f070104d.htm
I clarified my question. I am not looking for smokey, but charbroiled.
In case the food requires more energy to burn, you may need to worry about the quantity of food to cook at any particular moment in gas grill. In infrared grill it has the capability of cooking anything. It also sees that food can be cooked at different temperatures without adding more fuel in case the food requires more energy to burn. This also makes it the best in searing meat. But they are quiet expensive and helps in cutting down the cost of energy being consumed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.285568
| 2013-03-29T16:31:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33110",
"authors": [
"Alan Cooke",
"BrainDrop",
"C. Wagner",
"Danielle Argente",
"Elvis S. Indala",
"George Jenkins ",
"ImpPatience",
"Jay",
"Joe",
"Kathie Baxter",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Marti",
"Mike",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"hari prasad",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"user148298"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29490
|
What Garlic to use for Garlic Bagels
I have had great success making seeded bagels; I boil the bagels in water with baking soda and a little sugar, and any kind of seed sticks to the outside and bakes to perfection. My problem is trying to replicate garlic bagels. Fresh garlic doesn't stick, and doesn't get dried out like I want. Dehydrated "garlic granules" burn by the time the bagels are done. So:
What type of garlic works best for bagels?
I am really looking for someone with actual experience making garlic bagels.
Edited to respond to a comment: I can see the following problems with adding the garlic partway through baking.
(The main reason) The garlic will not stick to the outside of the bagel, since the bagel will be dry. One would have to re-wet the bagel somehow, or maybe wet the garlic?
Interrupting the baking process of bread is not good in my experience. Since I cook bagels in six-bagel batches, the bagels would be out for a reasonable amount of time to add the garlic. And re-moistening the surface would further cool them.
It seems absolutely absurd to have to manipulate piping-hot bagels mid-bake just to add the topping. I am positive that this is not how the bagels I have in mind are made.
However, if anyone has done it this way, let me know what your results were.
I'm a bit confused by this question. What makes you think garlic is stuck to the outside of a bagel? Usually garlic bagels have garlic inside the flour mixture - that's where the garlic flavour comes from.
The ones I am talking about are plain bagels with garlic on the outside. The garlic should be crispy but not burnt. Like this picture: http://www.gourmetmeatman.com/siteimages/garlic%20bagel.jpg
Fair enough I'm not familiar with those. Possible suggestion - add the garlic part way through cooking?
Took the words right out of my mouth.
I've never seen the kind of garlic bagels spiceyokooko is talking about, but I am familiar with garlic bagels of the variety you're referring to. I don't usually make garlic bagels at home because I'm happier with simpler ones, but I have made some ages ago.
I've usually found most things stick just fine to recently boiled bagels, but for fresh garlic, you may find it more reliable to brush an egg wash (roughly equal amounts beaten egg/water) on the top of the bagels before sprinkling on the chopped garlic. That'll work almost like cement to keep most of the garlic in place after baking.
There's some possibility that the level of moisture in fresh garlic may make it harder to just press the egg-washed bagels into a bowl of chopped garlic, as you would likely do with seeds.
Also, I wouldn't expect that all of the garlic will stay stuck. But with the egg wash, most of it will.
As for the texture of the garlic, there's a pretty wide range of common results at the variety of bagel shops I've tried in my life; some are golden brown and some are near burnt. That's a matter of cooking time, mostly, but also the starting moisture content of the garlic.
I would expect that most bagel shops use bulk, pre-minced garlic so that they can save on a little labor. This is typically a bit drier than if you fresh chopped the garlic at home. Consider buying the prefab stuff and see if that gets you closer to what you want. If it does, and you prefer to do the heavy lifting on your own, mince the garlic and let it sit on the counter to dry a bit.
Another strategy altogether is to mince garlic and mix it with some oil, and smear it atop the boiled bagels with your hands. I think this should stick reasonably well, and will affect the texture of your result.
Since I'm not 100% sure what your platonic ideal is for the garlic texture, I can't say whether the oil-mixture or egg wash route is going to be a better choice, or some hybrid, but those are some options to explore that I think will get you closer to your target.
I tried again with fresh garlic. I didn't use an egg wash since I don't eat eggs, but I was able to get enough stuck to have a reasonable product. And the garlic that did stick turned out really good. Thanks for the advice!
A real bagel would never be "washed" with anything. Bagels are boiled prior to baking,( it is what makes a bagel different then baked bread). When they come out of the boil they are dipped in seeds or the topping of choice while they are still wet. I have never seed garlic on the outside of a bagel. Roasted garlic on the inside, mmmm heaven.
I understand both types of garlic bagels:
The garlic on the outside is the fast food version and the garlic on the inside is roasted garlic that dissolves into the dough (the later being the original garlic bagels that were in the deli's before bagels became mainstream).
To make the fast food version use the dried granulated garlic - and you need bagel boards so it will not dry out.
To make a bagel board use just a piece of 2x4 that will fit onto you baking sheet. The board is then covered with what looks like a strip of burlap called a Jute webbing, you can use a stapler to attach it to the bagel board.
The jute webbing should be wet when you but your boiled bagels on it, and they should be upside down / seed side down.
To make sure your garlic does not burn, bake your bagels at 500 degrees and usually you will flip the boards over and remove the bagel boards after 7 minutes - in the case of garlic leave them a little longer on the bagel board. Remove when your garlic is getting toasty. Or to the color that you like them.
Personally I always enjoyed the deli version that looks just like a plain bagel or, as we called them, a water bagel, but it was a garlic bagel. I was very surprised when I first saw a garlic bagel at the shop I was a baker at that just sprinkled the garlic on the top. To many like me, that is not a real garlic bagel. Try the real kind: Roast a head of garlic in the oven for 40 min. It will now make a wonderful roasted paste. Experiemnt with the amount of garlic that you like. Add it in the last 2 minutes of kneading the dough, don't add it to the water, this is the same way with any added favor.
Well to make the bagels like the one in the top picture first you have to dice/mince fresh garlic..you can buy the jar but need to place them in between paper towels and place in fridge or elsewhere to dry out some. You want all visible liquid gone and the towels should be dry. Then you boil your bagels like normal when the come out and are on the pan for the oven you brush them with an egg wash (scrambled egg and salt). i found it easier to place the bagel upside down onto the garlic and then back on the pan. Bake as normal..Enjoy !!
You can't make garlic topping bagels without the specialized revolving gas ovens you find in NYC bagel shops. These are needed to upturn the bagels from a peel while it is baking. The garlic is applied after they are turned upside down.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! I proposed an edit to your answer that might make it a little easier to read. Please let me know if I unintentionally changed the meaning of what you were trying to say. I wasn't completely sure and I'm not personally familiar with this process.
Try dry, minced garlic on both sides of the bagel before baking. Flavor to die for:)
How is "dry, minced garlic" different from the dehydrated garlic granules the OP is having difficulty with?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.286153
| 2012-12-27T15:16:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29490",
"authors": [
"Alaska Man",
"Beth Allman",
"Bob Williams",
"Cheezz",
"Chris Steinbach",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jennie",
"Lahdeedah555",
"Marcy",
"Nancy Arnold",
"Olivia Coar",
"Preston",
"Ron Beyer",
"Terry",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68918",
"kevins",
"matan129",
"paraglow cream canada",
"spiceyokooko"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9598
|
Replacement for alliums?
I am going to be cooking for someone who, because of Crohn's disease, is unable to eat pretty much anything from the allium family (ie. onions, garlic, shallots, chives, scallions and leeks; this includes garlic and onion powder), as well as spicy food (so that excludes chilis and piquant spices). I have seen Substitute for onions and garlic but because the suggestions there are pretty much other alliums, it is not very helpful for my purposes.
Because onions tends to be in a lot of things (if nothing else, as half of a mirepoix, which tends to appear in many recipes, and is also the base of stocks, which makes things complicated -- I am not 100% sure if the two degrees of separation from onion to stock to whatever the stock is used for is enough to make it "safe", and unfortunately I won't have time to make an onion-less stock), I am not really sure what I can use instead.
I realize that it might be hard to substitute onions and garlic with other similar tasting ingredients without using other alliums, so instead, I am looking for suggestions to replace onions and garlic with things that will still let me cook flavourful food (that doesn't necessarily need to taste the same as it would with alliums, though).
For example, I was thinking about roasting a chicken and making a couscous dressing, but the chicken would sit on mirepoix (can I replace the onions in it with something else?) which would be used as a base for the sauce as well; and my couscous dressing recipe uses shallots (as well as sage, thyme, oregano and pine nuts). General suggestions would be useful as well, though.
Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!
I know this is unhelpful, but the allium component of most cooked meals is such a primary and definite aspect that replacing it will substantially alter the dish away from what you are aiming at. My advice would be to steer clear of all dishes that involve onions, plenty of decent dishes that do not include them. My mother can not bare onions to be cooked in her vicinity, nor could her father, so I know there are decent savoury dishes without them.
Here is a good list of choices for substitutions: http://foodallergies.about.com/od/cooking/p/cookingwoonions.htm.
The thing I found interesting though, is what it says about Garlic and Onion powder:
Garlic powder and garlic salt are made from dehydrated, finely ground garlic. Onion powder and salt, likewise, are made from onions. These products are not suitable for anyone with a true allergy to either of these foods. However, some people who do not have true allergies to these foods and avoid garlic and onions due to gastrointestinal upset find that these products do not aggravate their symptoms, especially if used in small amounts.
So the question becomes, is it an actual allergy? You may want to check with the doctor on that one.
Here's their list of substitutions:
Fennel has a licorice-like taste but onion-like texture. Try it with chicken or fish.
Celery is among the most common aromatics.
Bell peppers are often used in Cajun cooking. Green peppers and celery are a good base for rice dishes or savory stews.
Carrots are used as an aromatic in French cooking in combination with celery.
Celeriac, or celery root, is the knobby root of one variety of celery. Peeled and diced, it can be used as an aromatic in sauces or
stews.
Peppercorns: white, pink, or Szechuan pepper can add different flavors to your cooking.
Cumin's distinctive taste that may work well in some recipes, especially where garlic is used raw.
Horseradish, freshly grated, can add some of the pungent notes you might otherwise lack.
Ginger and galangal have distinctive flavors but may be useful in stir-fries as aromatics.
Sorry I meant to include it in the question, but she is unable to eat garlic or onion powders either. It's not an allergy, but because of her Crohn's, she'll get a bad stomach reaction, so I want to avoid that! :)
There are some varieties of Hindu cooking (especially as practiced by Hare Krishna / ISKCON folks) that don't use onion and garlic for religious reasons. They always use asafoetida powder (a spice), which has a taste similar to aged garlic, and supposedly good for the digestion. Use it in very small quantities, like 1/4 teaspoon in a curry for 4, to get started. The Indian name for this spice is hing. Don't be put off by the smell when raw, it gets milder when cooked.
I use hing a lot in Indian cookery and it is a very potent and decent addition, I would not say it adds a particularly "allium" like flavour however. As you say, must be used sparingly.
My wife has a severe allergy to Onions. I also try to do as much cooking as I can and vary what we eat. Omitting alliums is possible.
If I'm working with Asian cuisine (It's what I'm more familiar with), I end up using a lot of ginger (combined with other spices/flavours to give it a "heat" without the spiciness). For "other" flavours, I commonly use combinations of soy, fish sauce, oyster sauce, black bean sauce, varieties of sugars (in small quantities), stocks (homemade or store bought, both can be done without onions or garlic).
In other cuisines, I also find myself increasing the presence of fresh herbs (cilantro, parsley, rosemary) and acids (various vinegars, citrus).
I have a severe Allium allergy (imagine eating poison ivy) and am an avid cook. I have found that the function of the allium in the recipe is crucial in determining the substitution. Alliums can add heat, sweetness, tang, and often also give depth to the flavor of a complex sauce. Celery is always the base from which I start, adding some combination of carrots, sweet peppers, hot peppers, soy, anchovies, horseradish, ginger, cumin, sweet paprika, vinegar and even (rarely)a tiny bit of sun-dried tomatoes. I also sometimes smoke the ingredients. Please do not use any purchased spice mixes( like chili or curry), sauces, stocks or broths as they almost ALWAYS contain alliums. It is far better to serve your guest a simple piece of broiled meat or steamed vegetable than to make them sick!
This is really late but our company, Casa de Sante has just launched onion and garlic substitute spice mixes (Mexican, BBQ Rub, Tuscan Herb, Lemon Herb, Indian Spicy Hot) and vegetable stock powder. Our seasoning mixes contain no onion or garlic, we use hing instead, and we are FODMAP Friendly Certified. We are available at casadesante.com and on Amazon.
Thanks!
Hello, and welcome to Stack Exchange. We're generally pretty intolerant of spam, but this is a clear, useful and property attributed answer that is also self-promoting. Good work.
As you mention in a comment a 'bad stomach reaction', for the Low FODMAP diet (which is intended for dealing with lower GI issues), alliums are on the 'avoid' list ... however, you can infuse garlic or onion flavor into oil, then strain & use the flavored oil.
The goal is to eliminate the fermentable carbohydrates, so you extract the flavor but avoid the rest. I've seen similar things done in some Italian cooking -- large slices of garlic cooked in oil for a few minutes, then removed before continuing the dish.
Something else that might be of interest is the spice asafoetida aka. hing. I'm still playing with it to determine the proper amounts to use, so can't give a specific replacement amount, but be warned that it absolutely stinks. (I found a bulk spice store that had it when I was traveling last year, and they double bagged it, but I made the mistake of putting it in a zip-top bag in my luggage, and even with three layers of plastic, the scent still permeated everything)
I realize this is way past due, however I thought I would she some light considering I am personally allergic to the allium cepa family. Perhaps this information will help you/others in the future.
As far as making a roast chicken goes, I find that it's best to just nix the onion from the mirepoix. The celery and carrots will stand up just swell.
As a starting point, here are tried and true recipes that I personally use to get around my allergy:
Chicken Stock
5 lbs Chicken Bones/parts
3-4 Lg Carrots
3-4 Celery Stalks
1 Tbl Rosemary
1 Tbl Parsley
1 Tbl Oregano
1 Tbl Basil
2 tsp Thyme
4 Tbl salt and pepper
(rule of thumb, for every qt of water I use 1/2 Tbl of salt)
Add 7 qts water. Bring to Boil on Med-High heat. Stir. Reduce to low heat and cover. Let simmer (the longer it brews, the my flavourful it will be); remember to stir occasionally. Once brewed to satisfaction, strain the meat parts out.
Once it's strained, I tend to let it simmer for a few more hours. However that is purely optional. Put aside what you need, and freeze the rest. It's good in the fridge up to 3 days and good in the freezer for about 6 months or so.
Stuffing
I tend to not use the ends of my bread loaves, so as I finish the loaves I cut the ends into cubes. Then, I properly store them (to protect from freezer burn) and freeze the bits. I continue to add to them as time goes on until I have enough saved up for stuffing. Note: stale, but not moldy bread works too.
I know my Mom just buys a loaf from the store freezes it for about an hour and then cubes it. So depending on how much time you have to prep can depict your method.
Bread Cubes
1/4 Stick Butter
3-4 Stalks of Celery
1-2 Cups of Chicken Stock
1 Tbl Basil
1 Tbl Oregano
1 Tbl Rosemary
1 Tbl Parsley
1/2 tsp Sage
1 1/2 tsp Thyme
1/4 tsp salt and pepper
Optional: I add 1/8 tsp of Tumeric (it helps with inflammation/swelling - for all those who have arthritis or are recovering from an injury)
Place Bread cubes on a cookie sheet (in a single layer). Bake at 250 F for about 20 minutes. Turn oven off and let stand in the over for an additional 30 minutes. (This allows it to get crispy but not burn).
While waiting for bread to toast up, chop celery into little bits and saute them in butter until tender.
Mix all ingredients (spices, stock - begin with 1 cup; if too dry, slowly add more, bread cubes, and celery/butter) into lg mixing bowl. *Note you do not want your stuffing to be too moist.
Use your hands to coming ingredients together (similar to the way one would mix ingredients when making meatballs). Once combined, the stuffing is ready for the bird!
Chicken Rub
I personally just use the tried and true sage-thyme-marjoram combo. It's simple but great for chicken and turkey.
When it comes to cous-cous though, all I can suggest is what I do. I use this exact recipe but nix the garlic cloves (no substitution - although some people substitute with fennel on this step). I also make sure to use actual chili's or peppers NOT powders.
http://veggienumnum.com/2011/09/12/piri-piri-pumpkin-halloumi-w-sweet-couscous-salad/
Or I use Israeli cous-cous:
1 Tbl Tumeric
1 Tbl Extra Virgin Olive-Oil
1 Zucchini
1 Lg Peeled, Parsnip
Unsalted Butter
2 Tbl Brown Sugar
1 Lemon (Juice and Zest)
1 tsp Thyme
2 Tbl pomegranate seeds
salt and pepper
I boil the couscous per the directions to al dente in tumeric water. Drain it, and run cool water over it to cool it a bit. I pour the couscous into a lg bowl with the olive oil. Stir and set it aside.
Melt 1/4 tsp of butter and 1 Tbl of Brown sugar together (maple syrup is a good substitute). Set aside.
Fry the parsnips in butter. Adding thyme, salt, and pepper. As the parsnips begin to golden, toss in the zucchini. Saute for 2 minutes. Add brown sugar mixture. Saute for a minute or so longer, until it begins to be sticky. Add lemon juice and remove from heat.
Add your parsnips and zucchini to the Israeli couscous. Stir in pomegranate.
Serve Hot, warm, or chilled. All are lovely.
best of luck!
There's really not a substitute that will taste exactly the same, but there are some things that would still taste nice. You could try turnip, parsnip or fennel. You could try potato, which would basically just be "filler," or you could just do half carrot-half celery and omit the alliums. Again, it won't be identical, but I'll bet it would be tasty, just in a slightly different way. Maybe add a bit of finely chopped Italian parsley, too, just for a bit of extra flavor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.286804
| 2010-11-30T02:57:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9598",
"authors": [
"AaronSzy",
"Andrew Ogbebor",
"Ben",
"Daniel Griscom",
"Daniel Vandersluis",
"Darth Android",
"Milind Anantwar",
"Nikki",
"Orbling",
"Vivek Gavit",
"Wayne Koorts",
"arnold oag",
"cinico",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/950",
"mahmoud shokouhi",
"sachin10",
"user2483352"
],
"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
}
|
23706
|
Is there a difference between coca, focaccia and pizza?
I've made a number of pizza's and coca's lately and I thought about making a focaccia... When reading about coca, focaccia was mentioned, and when reading about focaccia, pizza was mentioned.
I have an excellent book on Italian cooking, it explains that focaccia is unleavened (no yeast) because of the climate. However, the wikipedia states that it does contain yeast...
The pizza I make has yeast and some olive oil. The coca has baking powder and lots of oil, and the focaccia also has lots of oil, but no yeast nor baking powder.
But I've seen recipes with coca's with yeast and less oil (=pizza recipe)...
So, is there a clear definition or is it just the name you care to use?
It seems that nothing is set in stone when it comes to bread names. Certainly most foccacia recipes I've seen contain yeast.
Your book says foccacias have no added yeast. May it add "lievito naturale" or sourdough?
@J.A.I.L. I think, from the answers, that it really doesn't matter much. But, my book says no yeast in any form.
As you know, focaccia and pizza are Italian dishes, and coca is Catalonian (a region at Spain's northeast). They all have toppings, and similar doughs (with wheat flour and yeast).
Classical focaccias:
Are thicker than [Italian] pizzas (about 3˜4 cm (1.2˜1.6 in) thick)
Have rectangular shape
Have herbs, salt and olive oil as topping
Are baked for about 20 minutes.
Italian pizzas:
Are thin (less than 5 mm (0.2 in)) except their outer part
Are round (see notes below)
Have many different toppings, almost always including cheese, and most of the times tomato sauce or whole tomato
Are baked for about 90 seconds (this is very important for italian pizzas)
Cocas:
Can be as thick as focaccias or as pizzas, usually depending on the topping.
Are either rectangular like focaccias, or really long shaped like these ones from Barcelona.
Can be either sweet or salty.
Sweet ones are usually thin as pizzas, always having sugar as topping and maybe pinnions, candied/confited fruit and/or anis (it might remind you to a Spanish Roscón de Reyes).
Salty are just a bit thicker than pizzas, and may have many ingrediets, but never cheese or any sauce: usually onions, green/red pepper, eggplant, cooking chorizo, blackpudding, butifarra, olives, hardboiled eggs, etc.
Are baked for 30 to 45 minutes (aprox) (which is, in my opinion, their biggest distinction with pizzas)
Notes: I know there are some pizzas in America that do not fit in the description I gave. But I understand your question is focusing on Italian pizzas.
Also, sure there are pizza al taglio in italy, but despite having different shapes and cooking time than pizza pizza, they share the same Italian spirit, and can be noticed different different to cocas.
You can make the three of them with natural yeasts, like sourdough/lievito naturale/massa mare, but certainly not with chemical rising agents.
First of all is coca a Spanish dish with huge variety. A coca can just as well be made of thin yeast dough with savory topping (similar to an Italian pizza but not necessarily with cheese) as well as sponge-cake-like (leavened just with the beaten eggs or with baking soda) with sweet topping.
Foccacia also comes in many varieties, but typical foccacia is made of yeast dough, about one inch thick, which is sprinkled with olive oil and herbs before baking. Foccacia can also be made thinner and without yeast, but that makes a much crispier bread. It may be topped with other ingredients, but does not have to and if it is topped, it is mostly only a simple topping like olives, onions or cheese. It is usually not eaten alone, but as a side dish. Here is a typical foccacia, topped with black olives.
Pizza dough is very similar to foccacia, but in Italy, a pizza is always much thinner. The thick American style pizza is not common in Italy. Except for the thickness, the difference between foccacia and pizza is much more in the topping. A pizza is almost always topped with at least tomatoes or tomato sauce and cheese and mostly with other savory ingredients.
Interesting answer. The dough can be the same for the three types?
@BaffledCook: Yes, more or less.
Yes, let's let the Italians decide what a pizza is and the Spanish, a coca. 'American' should preface anything that doesn't pass -then I would be pleased!
Two other major differences between focaccia and pizza is that focaccia is made with much more oil (always extra virgin olive oil) than pizza; also, since focaccia have to grow thicker, a stronger flour is used or manitoba can be added.
In some regions, focaccia is referred to as pizza, and vice versa.
Then focaccia comes in several forms. There's the traditional focaccia, which is a yeast dough, there is focaccia di recco (or al formaggio) which consists of a non yeast dough but is rolled out very flat and filled with prescinseûa, a ligurian fresh cheese) and there is a double baked focaccia, which is a baking powder dough.
I would advise the books of Fred Plotkin, and especially this one: http://www.amazon.com/Recipes-Paradise-Life-Italian-Riviera/dp/0316710717/ref=la_B0034P0YQI_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1351975671&sr=1-10 for more information and classic recipies
A line that I like between pizza and focaccia is the following. Have a bulk fermentation, make the pieces, let them rest and spread them on your favorite surface (dish, pizza peel etc...).
Now, add some topping or not. If you bake it right away call it pizza. If you let it rest more call it focaccia.
No matter the shape, the presence of tomato or mozzarella, etc.
Examples: in Rome a "pizza bianca" is done exactly like this. Spread, dimpled, dressed with oil and baked right away either in a dish or on the oven surface directly. Many examples of focaccia rest some more time before baking.
Non-example: The "focaccia barese", that some bake right after topping, should be a pizza. But this recipe is not codified in the first place so good luck trying to explain this to an old granma in Bari Vecchia :)
In general, the naming in Italian cuisine is not consistent at all and there are plenty of situations like this or like the Boston cream pie that should be technically a cake.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.287747
| 2012-05-11T07:51:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23706",
"authors": [
"AM316",
"Arnab Biswas",
"BaffledCook",
"Bart Popowski",
"Christie Canlas",
"ElendilTheTall",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Pat Sommer",
"StatsScared",
"Sybille",
"Tor-Einar Jarnbjo",
"ccalboni",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8847",
"user53731"
],
"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
}
|
99404
|
Bone broth has green tint; is this normal?
Is it normal for bone broth to have a green tint? I skimmed a bit off and it looked like sautéed spinach. The broth itself had a slight green tint. I'm not sure whether that's okay or a sign of something being amiss. Could it be caused by the bone marrow, fats, etc?
What type of bones? How was the meat to which the bones originally belonged cooked?
And did you add anything at all apart from bones and water?
Please [edit] your question to add more details: what other ingredients you used, what kind of pot, meat, method, etc.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.288581
| 2019-06-06T17:41:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99404",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55431",
"kingledion"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102795
|
How to stop mint flavor dying when cooking?
I notice albondigas recipes involve adding chopped mint leaves to the meatballs. Whenever I do this the minty smell is amazing coming from the freshly rolled uncooked balls however after cooking I cant taste the mint at all, I have used a LOT of mint but even so I still cant taste it. Having read that the mint flavor fades when exposed to heat, how would the meatballs be cooked whilst retaining the flavor?
At the moment I brown them in the pan with a bit of oil then add them to the sauce and cook them for about 20 minutes.
Thanks
While it is true that the mint flavor will fade with cooking, it is still there to some degree. I bet you would be able to identify the difference if you left it out. However, whenever you want to highlight a fresh herb, such a mint, it is good practice to chop some of that herb at the last possible moment before serving, and garnish your finished product. That will greatly enhance the flavor and the aroma.
I agree, this is also true for basil. While if you need to use rosemary or other aromatic herbs with little water it's better to just cook them (they will release more flavor this way).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.288671
| 2019-10-09T15:57:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102795",
"authors": [
"LiefLayer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72179"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
103415
|
Should I add baking soda if the yeast in bread dough is not working?
So I’m trying to make Hawaii bread rolls, I already know my yeast is probably dead and so far the dough hasn’t risen the question is : is it a bad idea to add baking soda?
Welcome to the site! It's hard to say without seeing the recipe, could you please edit and include it?
Only if you love crappy bread and rolls. Flour is cheap. Buy fresh yeast (also cheap). Start over.
Adding baking soda won't help you at this point, for a variety of reasons.
First, it won't have any acid to react with. Technically, baking powder clears that bar, but since it fails at the next ones, it is not a reasonable alternative.
Second, you won't be able to mix in the powder properly in already-kneaded dough. If you really attempted to use it, you would have had to mix it in wiht the flour from the beginning, now you will get an irregular sprinkling of crystals (which may not even dissolve, seeing that the water is already bound by the flour).
Third, you won't be able to create the physical structure for a chemical leavening agent to create its work. Chemical leavening requires a very soft dough (actually it is meant for batters, I don't even know if it can work in doughs), and ideally also some amount of pre-existing bubbles which it can expand (that's why, for optimal chemical leavening, you either use a creaming process, or combine it with a physical leavening such as whipped eggwhites). The action of your baking powder will be minimal in a bread dough meant for yeast leavening.
Fourth, if you manage to get any chemical leavening going on somehow (which is almost impossible to do ad-hoc, I guess you would get some if you add baking powder instead of yeast in the beginning and overhydrate), it might just be enough for the inside of the rolls to bake through instead of remaining a wet clump, but it will be nowhere near a yeast bread in texture. It won't even be like a properly designed soda bread.
Fifth, maybe your yeast is not as dead as you think. If you give it time to work more (and this can mean a whole day), you may be able to scavenge the batch and get something edible, even if it's not great - but if you muck with the pH of the recipe by adding chemical leavening, the little action you may otherwise get from your underactive yeast will not happen.
So, bottom line, either leave the dough alone for a day and see if it does get a bit of rise instead of getting moldy, or throw it out. You can't revive it with baking soda or other chemical leaveners.
If your dough hasn't risen at all, I would expect no further rise. But I've had rye sourdough spend one day in a fridge with only a small rise, and come close to doubling on the second day. The usual way to rescue dough like this to make another batch (equal quantity or more) and then knead the two together. Of course you should check your yeast.
Another option: make some sort of flatbread. This has the advantage of providing food at about the right time, and you can test the first one before putting in too much effort
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.288828
| 2019-11-11T23:33:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103415",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"Mark Wildon",
"Rob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124610
|
How to distinguish starchy/ woody okra or lady fingers in the grocery store?
I recently bought some Okra and after I stewed it it still contained a lot of very starchy woody parts that were not edible. After chewing each chunk was reduced to a bunch of fibres that look like tiny wood splinters. I observed this occasionally in previous batches of okra but never to this extent.
It is my understanding that this is not a question of cooking time or freshness but rather of the degree of ripeness during harvest. Essentially the okra I bought stayed on the plants for too long and was harvested too late.
Question: what should I look for in okra in the grocery store to avoid that experience?
Size is somewhat helpful, smaller okra tends to be harvested younger but different varieties can come in very different sizes so this is no sufficient criteria (see this related question). What else can I look out for?
Try bending the tip of the okra pod. Younger, tender okra should bend easily without snapping, while older or starchy ones may break or feel rigid.
Also, choose ones that have fewer visual defects / blemishes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.289095
| 2023-06-29T12:46:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124610",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21187
|
What are the optimal conditions in making wild yeast starter?
I recently learned that I don't need to buy packets of yeast to make bread. I can create a sour dough starter by utilizing the wild yeast floating around in the air. Take a look at this article for more information:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/edible-innovations/sourdough2.htm
What are the optimal conditions for creating a sour dough starter:
Are there optimal locations that has a higher concentration of wild yeast? (such as a cold/warm place or a place with alot/little light)
What type of flour would work best?
I also read somewhere to use acidic fruit juice to help accelerate the process. Is this true? And if so, why?
Some starters call for sugar and milk. What would these additions do?
Some answers to your questions, based on my experience with wild sourdough starter in San Francisco:
70-80F is the ideal temperature range. Below that the yeast incubates very slowly; above it, the starter will tend to ferment alcoholically.
Do not leave the starter in direct sun. UV light is a powerful sterilizing agent.
An organic, cold-processed (i.e. stone milled) flour works best, because it will retain the maximum amount of its own wild yeast on it. Cheeseboard: Collective Works likes to start with rye flour and gradually add bread flour, but they don't give a tested reason for this.
I have never heard of using fruit juice in a sourdough starter. I would be dubious about it; you'd be likely to end up with vinegar.
Sugar is unnecessary for sourdough starters.
Use purified water; chlorine/chloramine/ozone in tap water can kill your starter.
Finally, starters incorporating milk are fridge-only starters (as opposed to flour-and-water starters, which can be kept at room temperature if split frequently) which depend on the bacteria and lactic acid from the fermenting milk for part of their sourness. They can be effective, and actually a good choice if you live somewhere with weak/poor wild yeast. Note that you cannot transform a milk sourdough into a water sourdough, and using up 2 cups of milk every 2 weeks is more expensive than 2 cups of filtered water.
I don't feel its worth its own answer, so maybe you could edit yours. I've read that using pineapple juice is good since 1) acidity promotes yeast growth over other microbes, except for lacto b of course. 2) some enzymatic benefit, don't remember exactly though. Also, purified water is worse than 'clean' tap water, as many countries have.
Max, do you have a link for that? I've never seen that advice (fruit juice) before this question, and would be interested. The caution about tap water is based on the water here in San Francisco, which contains Chloramine, which can and does kill sourdough starters.
I have used pineapple juice with great success. Reinhart recommends it in The Baker's Apprentice, but the method is widely documented and recommended online.
According to Reinhart's "Whole Grain Breads" and others (http://www.thefreshloaf.com/node/10901/pineapple-juice-solution-part-2) the pineapple juice is primarily used to prevent growth of leuconostoc bacteria, which spoils sourdough starter cultures and inhibits growth of the "good" lactobacilli bacteria.
Also, there are some examples of fruit yeast starter doughs available on thefreshloaf.com, search for "yeast water" or "fruit starter"; basic instructions can be found at: http://originalyeast.blogspot.com/2008/02/how-to-make-yeast-water.html
Same here. When I first tried making my own starter, fruit or their juices was suggested. Particularly grapes with the haze on them from being outdoors. Never worked for me though I may have been doing it wrong. Also, here in St. Louis, I always use tap water for my starter without issue.
(1) One critical element that hasn't been emphasized in answers so far is that the microorganisms that establish your starter mostly come from the flour not the air. The idea that the creation of a starter involves "catching wild yeast from the air" is commonly repeated in many, many books and resources, but I'd be interested if anyone has ever seen a scientific paper that actually verified that airborne yeast is a significant source for establishing sourdough cultures. (I've looked a bit, and I haven't seen that. On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence for a variety of microorganisms, including local ones, in established cultures. But the primary establishing microorganisms come from mainly from the flour.)
A number of people have reported experiments to test the conditions necessary for establishing a successful starter, including ones where they tried their best to kill all starters. Sterilized containers and mixing equipment, sealed containers, and sterilized water have little impact. But sterilized flour will almost always fail to produce a viable starter. (It also makes sense that yeasts and bacteria that would like to eat grain would be likely to be found living on it at a higher concentration that floating around in the air....)
In any case, now that we've established the primary source of the microorganisms, the main goal in a new starter is to provide them with adequate food and a growth environment that will weed out other undesirable organisms. Personally, I've had the best results in beginning with a starter regime that somewhat simulates the life cycle I ultimately want for my starter. Since I generally raise dough at room temperature and expect to feed a room temperature starter roughly every 12 hours to keep it healthy, I do the same when beginning my starter.
But that's just my preference. You can get a starter going with temperatures anywhere from about 55F to 85F -- below that, and the yeast will grow way too slowly, and above that, and you're likely to grow bad stuff in the first week of a new starter. As others have said, 70-80 degrees is probably optimal for quickly establishing a starter. On the other hand, lower temperatures will tend to produce an acidic environment more quickly, which will weed out the first batch of bad bacteria. So, take your pick. As for feeding schedule, it really depends on your preferences, temperature, and hydration level. I wouldn't wait more than about 24 hours between initial feedings, but extra ones don't seem to hurt.
In terms of other conditions, you mainly just want to avoid contamination from other bad stuff, since you're encouraging growth from the flour. Thus, keep the container covered (though not sealed tight -- it can explode, which I know from experience), and out of sunlight (which encourages mold growth). Trying to "catch the yeast from the air" by placing it near an open window or something is more likely than not to contaminate the starter and cause it to fail. I haven't been overly fussy about sterilizing containers or stirring utensils, as long as they are reasonably clean. I also haven't personally had any problem using tap water from a number of different municipalities -- I know some people have said it kills starters, but it never killed mine. To be safe, use water without chemical treatments. But if you plan to use tap water in your doughs, I do believe that you want to start selecting microorganisms that won't be killed from it at the start.
Hydration varies a lot, and I've seen successes with all types of starters. Most people seem to go with about 100% hydration (equal weights of flour and water). That starts out as a thick paste and will become a little "goupy" as the days go by. Others go with higher hydration (like pancake batter), while others make a very dry dough, kneading as much flour as possible into the water, and then bury the dough in a container of flour to ferment. I haven't really seen anyone compare success rates of these various approaches, since everyone seems to have their preferred starter type, but I've found that all of them can work. If anything, the most problematic for me seems to be high hydration: they tend to grow weird stuff in the first week unless fed frequently. With a dry ball starter buried in flour and kept at a cellar temperature, you could probably feed it only a couple times a week and still be successful in getting a starter going.
That covers a lot of the "conditions" question. In sum, a wide range of conditions can work -- just avoid contamination and keep out of the sun. Feed on a regular basis. Don't throw any random stuff in your starter (milk, sugar, grapes, potatoes, beer, whatever) -- in most cases, it is more likely to hurt through contamination rather than help. (See the note about acids below, however...)
Moving on to the other questions:
(2) Whole grain flours work best, since they have a greater number of microorganisms than white flours. I've had greater success with rye, which has different sugars than wheat, but I know other people who swear by whole wheat. I've had a few starters with white flour fail, though, so I've given up trying to start that way. I'd suggest if you want a white flour starter, establish it with whole grains first, and then transition it to feedings with white flour after a couple weeks.
(3) Acidic ingredients can help a starter in the first 3 days or so. Basically, most starters go through a phase after about 2-3 days where you'll see very rapid growth. Don't get hopeful -- that is rarely due to good yeast. Instead, experiments have shown that it is due to a bad bacteria, and unless it is weeded out of your starter, it can prevent the good yeasts and bacteria from getting established.
Luckily, the bad bacteria produce waste products that tend to acidify the starter anyway, and eventually they will acidify it enough so that they can't grow anymore. Sourdough yeast and bacteria are selected to live in acidic conditions (hence, "sour" dough), so they will eventually take over.
Nevertheless, you can help out this weeding out process by giving an acidic boost early on. The simplest way to do this is built into many recipes. Instead of doing a typical sourdough feeding where you double or triple the weight of the starter, many recipes suggest only feeding the same amount for the first 3-4 days of a new starter. So, if you start with 10 units of flour and 10 units of water, you just keeping adding 10 units of each at each feeding. By the fourth or fifth feeding, you're only going to be adding a small amount of new food compared to the overall size of the starter. That will still help the yeast grow, but it will concentrate the acid produced in the starter so far and stop the bad bacteria from establishing itself.
(Note: You don't need a lot of flour to get things going. Even a small amount has a huge amount of microorganisms ready to grow. I usually start with a tiny amount, say 10 grams each of flour and water, and then feed 10 grams each with each feeding. Don't throw any away. After a few days to a week, you'll often be ready to bake your first loaf, and you don't end up wasting any ingredients.)
A number of online experimenters have tried using other acidic components at the outset, and the easiest option does seem to be pineapple juice used in place of water in at least the initial feeding. Orange juice and apple cider can also work if used in the feedings for the first few days. Other acids (e.g., vinegar, lemon juice) can work, but it's harder to get the "dose" right. The most effective seems to be a dose of ascorbic acid powder added at the outset, but most people don't have that on hand. (Don't try crushing vitamin C tablets -- they usually have buffers that will negate the acid effect.)
Personally, I find feeding once every 12 hours for the first few days (as opposed to every 24 as recommended by many recipes) and keeping the feeding amount the same, but not throwing any away for the beginning is sufficient to overcome the bad bacteria. The fruit juice can also add contaminants, so I don't usually use it, but it appears to improve your chances significantly if you use widely spaced feeding schedules or higher hydrations.
By the way -- note that the acid will only get you over the first hump. In most cases, it will take a week or two before you've really weeded out most of the bad stuff from your starter for good. Keep up the regular feedings.
(4) Milk and sugar. Just don't do it. Milk can provide a slight acidity as it sours, but it's more likely to bring in bad bacteria or grow mold than the fruit juice option mentioned above. Sugar helps a lot of microorganisms grow, but at the beginning of a starter, it's more likely to grow bad bacteria than good yeast. I know some people add sugar to a mature starter with each feeding, but it's not necessary. I don't have a lot of experience with this, but anecdotally I've heard that it can throw off the "rhythm" of yeast and bacteria growth even in a mature starter, effectively reducing the rising potential of your starter.
Sometimes with a mature starter, you should add milk and/or sugar as part of the recipe to build the final dough. That will depend on the type of bread. But I never use either in regular feedings.
This is a really good treatise. I wish I'd read this more carefully when I came across it years ago. :)
If your hypothesis is a more acidic environment is better for initial starter formation, why feed every 12 hours initially? Wouldn't letting it sit for several days create a more acidic environment?
@event_jr - It's not just "my hypothesis." Search for the "pineapple juice solution" for discussion of people who have had their starters tested in a lab as they grow. An acidic environment helps select the "right" microorganisms. The problem with letting a starter sit for several days is that it's very easy to grow things you don't want. Lots of bacteria and such have slower growth and don't need as much food, but they can take over in a young starter before the "good" stuff is established. Frequent feedings ensure a food supply that will encourage the "right" stuff when it starts to grow.
Although there are ideal conditions for sourdough, it colonises the yeast very easily so many of these measures may be unnecessary. Likewise, if you live in an area with just a low volume of yeast spores in the air then these measures may not even help, although they will make it a much friendlier environment for yeast to grow in.
In its most basic form a sourdough starter is made of flour and water (warm, not hot or cold). Technically this is enough, as all the yeast needs to do is convert the complex sugars (ie starch) into simple sugars with there naturally occurring enzyme amylase, they can then 'eat' the sugars and produce CO2. It takes time for the yeast to produce the amylase and convert the complex sugars into simple sugars so sometimes regular caster sugar is added to speed up the process. That's why I think the milk and juices might be added as they contain additional sugars, however as mentioned in the previous answer it will be a lot more expensive than if you use water.
Until the yeast has been colonized you should keep the starter in a warm place, no warmer than blood temperature. Once it is clearly fermenting there is no need to keep it warm as it will respire to quickly and so it's best to keep it at room temperature, but not somewhere cold and draughty.
The yeast in the starter dough do not contain chloroplasts so cannot photosynthesise, this means it won't make any difference whether its in the dark or light. Unless it is in too much light as the UV will damage the cells, don't fret if you've done this as it won't work immediately especially with the flour acting as a kind of barrier, but it isn't good.
Unbleached, organic flours work best as they haven't any pesticides used that could stifle growth. Whole wheat is best as it has the husk left so it's more likely to contain yeast. I don't often use these organic flours so I don't have any and I always use normal flours and it works fine, do its not necessary but I can imagine it certainly helps.
at what state of the process do the nasty beasties die off? Sourdoughhome.com for ex, shows the 3 step process.
For years I have made my starter out of store bought all purpose flour and yeast. I then wait until it quits bubbling and store it in household refrigerator.
Generally I do not have to make new starter after using a bit for pancakes or sourdough bread.
All that is necessary is to add a tablespoon of sugar, stir and refrigerate.
To replenish the supply, I add 1c flour, 2T. sugar, & 1c warm water. Stir and let stand in warm kitchen until bubbly action stops and then refrigerate.
This has been quite successful enjoying the praise of all that consume my bread.
You shouldn't need the sugar at all. I never do.
AFAIK, yeast can't metabolize table sugar anyway - it's too complex a sugar. It can eat glucose and, with some difficulty, fructose. That's it, so adding sugar is not going to do anything for your starter.
I believe we are talking about wild yeast starter: that means capturing the beasties that are freely floating in air not rehydrating a pure starter.
Here is where it gets to be work: there are alot of unwanted beasties tagging along in your chosen medium. They will die off thru any of a number of protocols for DIY sourdough starter.
Usually, reckon on three days of taking a bit of the older batch and creating a new one until the PH and food source and enzymes all crowd out the baddies.
Did this in school years ago and now am grateful for properly cultured starters!
Oh, and if your kitchen is sterile then wine-grapes are a trove of yeastiness. Though their natural inclination is to become wine, France has some lovely breads that borrow beasties from these fine fruits.
since didn't really answer the question: optimal conditions would be a kitchen that has had sourdough prepared,a stable temp, and plenty of patience
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.289280
| 2012-02-08T22:01:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21187",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Didgeridrew",
"ElendilTheTall",
"FuzzyChef",
"Kim Hurst",
"Lyall",
"Max",
"Pat Sommer",
"Rob",
"event_jr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"jmarkel"
],
"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
}
|
24365
|
Are there any yeast-less breads that can be used as sandwich bread?
My son cannot eat anything that contains yeast. Are there any types of yeast-less bread that can be used as a sandwich bread?
Welcome louie to Seasoned Advice! I made some slight modifications to your question to better fit our question format. If you feel I have changed your question in any way, you may edit the question farther by clicking the edit button under the question tags.
Yes, there are plenty. If you search for them under the name "quickbread" you'll find them.
@derobert I've actually never used quick bread as sandwich bread. I find they generally do not "hold together" as well as yeast bread. But I'm sure there are ingredients that can be added to make it stay together better. Maybe adding some xanthan gum?
While there are lots of bread types traditionally made without yeast, I would not trust any bread of these types to be yeast-free, because the producer may not have used a conventional recipe, or because contamination with yeast is possible at a big bakery. If yeast causes an adverse reaction in small amounts, the best way is to make the bread yourself, or at least write to the manufacturer of a brand you have found and ask them if you can trust their bread to be yeast-free.
Large Tortilla to make a wrap?
There are roughly four types of bread by leavening: yeast breads, chemically leavened breads, sourdough breads and unleavened breads.
Yeast breads are obviously out of question. Chemically leavened breads are made with baking soda or baking powder, and are also often called "quickbreads". They are less common as pure breads, and mostly available as special recipes which are somewhere between cake and bread, such as banana bread or zucchini bread. I don't know if you can buy any of them easily, but they are extremely easy to make at home (about as easy as muffins).
Edit per the commenters' suggestion, this is probably your best solution. While most recipes for quickbreads in use today are indeed for banana bread and such, there are older recipes (especially from wartime) where normal, non-flavored bread is made with soda. Using them is probably the best you can do. Caveat: the more breadlike you want the texture to be, the more dense will you have to make the bread, because developing the texture takes time, and baking soda and baking powder lose their leavening properties with time.
I would advise you to stay away from sourdough breads. They don't contain commercial yeast, but during fermentation they catch wild yeasts. The wild yeasts are closely related to commercial yeast, and likely to trigger the same allergies as commercial yeast does.
The last variety, unleavened breads, are flatbreads. They are dense due to lack of leavening, so if they were made thick, the center would not bake. This means that you can't cut them into slices to make a traditional sandwich. But if you relax your definition of what a sandwich should be like, you can use unleavened breads like tortillas or matzo layered with the ingredients, or make actual wraps instead of sandwiches. Pay attention though, not every flatbread is unleavened, naan for example contains yeast. Knäckebröd is a flatbread which can be leavened or unleavened depending on brand, and it makes excellent sandwiches.
You can also try making sandwiches with non-bread substances. A jibarito is a sandwich where the filling is packed in fried plantain slices instead in bread. Other vegetable slices like zucchini or oven-dried eggplant should work too. Puffed rice wafers are also a good sandwich packaging, as well as savoury waffles (make your own or read the packaging, because there are yeast-leavened waffles).
Other types of leavening are not used in breads (such as meringue leavening which is used for cakes only), but if you like baking and want to make your son's diet more varied, you can try adapting cake recipes to savoury, breadlike results. Adapting recipes is more for advanced bakers though, because the sugar in cakes plays important roles besides giving them flavor.
It is important to note that most of my suggestions are pretty different from the everyday yeast breads most people use for sandwiches. You probably won't get anything too similar to them (quickbreads will be the closest). Don't try to imitate them as close as possible, you will be frustrated. Teach your son (and why not yourself?) to appreciate the substitutes which make for very tasty non-traditional sandwiches with their own charm.
In the unleavened flat bread category, Indian chapati is tasty and easy to make.
There is also the odd category of quick breads that soda bread falls in. Chemically leavened, but with developed gluten. If you made it in a pan, you could probably get a decent sandwich out of it.
Indeed, soda bread and flatbreads are probably the best answer here - perhaps add some emphasis under chemical leavening?
I'm sensitive to yeast also and I find Irish soda bread my answer. It is made with;
1lb plain flour.
1 tsp baking soda (soda bicarbonate),
1 tsp salt,
1tsp sugar.
11/2 - 2 cups buttermilk.
Sieve these ingredients together. Make a well in the middle, add the buttermilk and mix into a soft dough. Draw it all together into a circle about 1" thick, cut a cross in it, to aid cooking and cook on a flat cookie tin at 200 for 45 mins.
When base sounds hollow on tapping it's cooked.
Enjoy
It's delicious.
Helen
Here's a good-looking recipe: http://www.deliciousasitlooks.com/2013/03/gluten-free-low-fructose-irish-soda.html
Also, it seems the brand Kinnikinnick has a good Yeast Free Tapioca Bread that may be up your alley, according to this blogger: http://cook-aunaturel.blogspot.com/2009/03/yeast-free-gluten-free-portobello.html
Cheers!
I found a gluten free, yeast free bread which is excellent for sandwiches. It is called black ruby and is made in Melbourne but also available in some gluten free shops. Fiona.
For those of us who can't get it, could you give us the list of ingredients?
First of all, "sourdough's" are yeast fermented breads, as has been stated above. If your son is allergic to all forms of yeast, stay away from this.
I'm Irish and my Mom makes Irish Soda bread all the time. I hate it. Won't eat it. But the rest of my family and plenty of other people like it and eat it. It's plenty firm and you can definitely make sandwiches from it. You can give it a try.
You could also try Salt Rising bread. It's a very regional bread and has a very unique flavor and smell. In its genuine form it's not yeast based. Don't buy it though unless you personally know the baker and can talk to them. Many "Salt Rising" breads available for sale are actually yeast based. Make it yourself or know your beaker. It's a very nice bread.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.290552
| 2012-06-11T17:21:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24365",
"authors": [
"Binya",
"Bohemian",
"Brian Simerly",
"Cascabel",
"JMTyler",
"Jay",
"Jolenealaska",
"Katherine wirebaugh",
"Linda",
"Pete101",
"Sara Matlock",
"Sobachatina",
"SourDoh",
"Trudy Kimbrough",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97946",
"jackson",
"rumtscho",
"talon8",
"tehDorf"
],
"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
}
|
24952
|
Can I pasteurize milk using a microwave?
In our country, we get fresh milk from the milkman and it is usually boiled in a pan over a fire to pasteurize it before we consume the milk. In my office, we do not have gas connection, so I can't use that method.
Can I use the microwave as an alternate source of heat to boil the milk? Will the milk become pasteurized during the heating process in the microwave?
Welcome Irfan to Seasoned Advice. I made several edits to your post to make your question a bit easier to understand. If you feel like I have changed the meaning of your question in anyway, feel free to edit it farther by using the edit link under the question tags.
The process of pasteurizing milk is to treat it with heat to kill microorganisms such as Brucella, Campylobacter, E. coli O157:H7, Listeria, Mycobacterium bovis, Salmonella, and Yersinia that may or may not be in the milk. This is a precautionary step that is taken when you are not 100% sure whether your source of milk is disease free.
Pasteurization can occur at different temperature for a different amount of time but the easiest temperature to pasteurize milk in the microwave is to bring it to 161 F for at least 15 seconds.
Pasteurizing the milk in the microwave is a bit tricky because overheating it make cause it to boil over and it also heats the milk very unevenly. In the worse case scenario it can curdle if you overheat it. You will need to buy a thermometer for this method.
You first want to microwave the milk for a minute.
Then you want to stir the milk and take a temperature reading from the stirred milk.
Now you want to continue to put the milk in the microwave in short 15-30 second intervals(decreasing as it gets closer to 161 F) and stirring and taking the temperature reading each time.
When it has finally reach 161 F, you want to heat it for 15 extra seconds in the microwave and at that point it should be pasteurized.
Another thing you can do is to just pasteurize it at home using your usual stove method and store the milk for later use. Once it has been pasteurized, as long as you refrigerate the milk, it will be good for a while. Just remember to quickly chill the milk(using a ice water bath) after you pasteurize it before you put it into the refrigerator.
The answer is very help and the method is easy!
why cooling quickly? I've seen this everywhere, but no reason is given about the necessity of this step.
@All the main reason is it's not a good idea to put hot food into the refrigerator because it will bring up the temperature of the refrigerator. This will put all of the food in your refrigerator in the "danger zone". It isn't a big issue if you are only making a small amount. But if you pasteurize a large amount of milk, it will keep the temperature of your refrigerator warm enough for long enough time to spoil the other food in your refrigerator.
@Jay no, I mean why not letting the milk cool down naturally, then putting it into the fridge.
@All Because if you are making are larger batch, in the time it takes to cool down to room temperature, it will be in the "danger zone" for more than two hours. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danger_zone_(food_safety)
Pasteurisation is about using heat to kill (harmful) bacteria in raw products. The short answer is 'Yes, you can'. The question is how, or how long should you heat the milk.
A quick look at the Wikipedia provides some answers.
In the HTST process, milk is forced between metal plates or through pipes heated on the outside by hot water, and is heated to 71.7°C (161°F) for 15–20 seconds.
...
A less conventional but US FDA-legal alternative (typically for home pasteurization) is to heat milk at 145 °F (63 °C) for 30 minutes.
So, with a digital thermometer and a clock, you should be able to heat the milk to a temperature between 63ºC and 72ºC and keep it there for some time.
I guess that, at the office, you'll be consuming your milk instantly, so it's best to apply high heat for a short time. Jay already answers the method of heating in the microwave.
I'm curious why you need a clock lol
:-) Just in case your microwave isn't digital...
Haha I didnt realize those still exist.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.291214
| 2012-07-10T06:27:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24952",
"authors": [
"A_S00",
"Alex Griffin",
"BaffledCook",
"Benzle",
"Dana Datson Monroe Roth",
"David Crawshaw",
"Francesc Rosas",
"Googlebot",
"Irfan",
"Jay",
"Jigish Parikh",
"KarlP",
"Marc",
"PreMedHopeful",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9300"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29585
|
Is it possible to fry vegetables in cream?
Cream A: The fat that gathers on the top of boiled milk.
Cream B: The cream available in packets: http://www.amul.com/products/amul-freshcream-info.php
Can vegetables be actually "fried" in these types of cream? Any precautions need to be taken in this case?
"A" and "B" are the same thing. Only in your own top-floating cream, you can't control the fat content, while the one you buy in the supermarket is controlled exactly.
Short answer: cream is far from ideal as a frying medium.
In the US at least, heavy cream is about 35% milkfat. Recently, I have learned the UK has a product called double cream which is closer to 50% milkfat.
So what is the rest of the cream, if it is only 50% milkfat at the high end? It is water, with dissolved milk solids and minerals.
Even butter is only about 80% milkfat--the rest is an emulsion of water and milk solids in the main milkfat phase. When butter is made, one by product is buttermilk (the old fashioned kind, as opposed to the modern cultured milk product) which is the remainder of the liquid components in the cream after the butter precipitates. The essence of making ghee is separating the milkfat from the other components.
What does all of this mean? Cream would be far from an ideal medium for frying, as the water would have to evaporate before the temperature could rise to frying levels.
It may be possible in some way by reducing the cream until only essentially the fat is left, and then frying in that, but it doesn't seem very practical. I am not sure how you would do it without introducing many off flavors from scorching or burning the milk solids. I could not find any references to such a thing when googling, although the results for fried ice cream did tend to predominate.
If you want to fry in cream--use ghee. It is highly concentrated milkfat.
Question: Are the both types of creams listed above "same"?
According to the link you have given, that product is 68% "moisture" which I assume means water, so yes, it is almost certainly the same. My best guess is that it is simply an ultrapasturized, shelf stable cream product, even though the web site doesn't say.
No, you cannot fry in cream. But you can cook your vegetables in it.
There are three types of "real" frying: deep frying (you submerge food in a very hot oil bath), shallow frying - you put a thin layer of fat on a very hot pan and sear a big piece of food on the pan, e.g. a steak, and stir-frying - you have an even hotter pan/wok and keep moving small pieces of food in it, with only a bit of oil. None of these can be done with cream (or with pure butter for that matter) because the milk solids will scorch and the water will splatter.
But many people tend to call any technique involving a shallow pan on a hob "frying". This is technically not correct, but you can still hear things like "mushrooms fried in cream". Normally, it involves first sweating the vegetables a bit so they get a bit of color, and then covering them in cream and cooking until softened. The temperature is much lower than in frying, and the result are tasty, soft vegetables swimming in tasty reduced cream which has absorbed the vegetables and herb flavors. Alternatively, you can use cream for braising. Both give good results, and both are sometimes called "frying". So if you find a recipe for "frying" vegetables in cream, and it looks like one of those, give it a try. Just pay attention that the temperature stays mid-range, not as high as for real frying.
Maybe you could poach them in a sort of double-boiler arrangement. The problem is that the cream will begin to separate as it starts to boil. It'll hold together for a while, but probably not long enough to fully cook a vegetable, or to get a browning.
The fat that collects on boiled milk is, as was pointed out, closer to ghee than to cream. Try frying the vegetables in butter, ghee, or oil, and then adding heavy cream near the end of cooking to form a sauce.
You absolutely can fry in cream, and it has several advantages over oil. Food52 and Ideas In Food have plenty of recipes that all work great. https://food52.com/recipes/81961-caramelized-cream-eggs-from-ideas-in-food
I woldn't call that frying, there's too much water in the cream to reach proper frying temperatures, this is more like steaming
I agree with Tinuviel. Even in the recipe you linked, step 4 states "When the egg whites are almost set and the cream has mostly become butter and butter solids, remove the pan from the heat and cover it for a minute to finish setting the whites", implying that by the time the cream is reduced down to its fats (which would be frying at that point), the eggs are pretty much already cooked.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.291606
| 2012-12-30T13:33:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29585",
"authors": [
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Damitha Hemachandra",
"Don Clark",
"Jon Fournier",
"Kathie",
"Leonora Parker",
"Nathan Brown",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Soulis",
"Tinuviel",
"Trong Dinh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79240",
"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
}
|
9986
|
What are these spots on my butternut squash?
I just roasted a bunch of butternut squash for dinner and am getting to puree, but am noticing that some of the pieces have weird glue-looking spots. It sort of looks like when water weeps out of the pores on the squash, only it's white and the consistency of silly putty. They're very small spots (like the size of a straight pin head), and close to the skin on the flesh, on the cross-section. I feel like I'm describing this poorly. Here's a picture:
My question: Is this stuff safe to eat, or do I need to compost it and find something else for dinner? I'd rather not give my whole family food poisoning!
I have seen those before when I have cooked squash; they seem more common when I microwave it. I suspect they are just starchy deposits. I have always just wiped them off and eaten it anyway.
Thanks, Dave. I think we'll give it a go. We were mostly curious because they are firm--almost seed-like.
I don't know if that's what it was but we ate it and it was delicious.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.292044
| 2010-12-10T22:52:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9986",
"authors": [
"Michael Haren",
"Pat Mustard",
"Suzy Winkel",
"enderland",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/263"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27514
|
How do you add ingredients to fudge without stiring it?
There have been a couple of questions recently about making fudge, and a comment which came up twice in answers has got me wondering about something. (I'll admit, both answers are by Sobachatina, but I think my question could be answered by anyone.) Both the recipe for fudge I grew up with, and another recipe I found online instruct ingredients to be added as the fudge is taken off the heat (butter and vanilla, in the linked recipe). But Sobachatina seems very adamant about this being a BAD time to disturb the fudge, as it will cause crystal formation. So, if I'm not supposed to stir the fudge, how do I add the butter and vanilla?
Butter is typically added when the fudge is first taken off the heat- but it isn't mixed in. The butter is allowed to melt across the surface to keep it from forming a skin on top.
Vanilla, nuts, and all other additions are mixed in at the end of the cooling period when the fudge is stirred.
Alton Brown, with some help from Shirley Corriher, explained the process well.
I see. I was suspicious the vanilla should be added later, but using butter that way is interesting. Thank you for the insight!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.292176
| 2012-10-01T21:56:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27514",
"authors": [
"CodeNewbie",
"Maxim",
"Scivitri",
"Timely",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62040",
"kot"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
39785
|
How to go about reducing sugar in a butter cake recipe?
Recently I made some cupcakes that turned out mostly great. However, even other people than me – I have an aversion towards overly "sugary" desserts – said they were fairly sweet, and for me it seemed to obscure the other flavors.
(The other flavours being vanilla or rose in the batter. You could certainly smell them so I don't think it was just that they evaporated while baking, and I use a fairly heavy hand with those ingredients for baked goods.)
Is there any rule-of-thumb on what the "correct" ratio of sugar to other ingredients in a cake recipe is so I could tell if the recipe was using too much? (The recipe was: cream butter and sugar, add flour and baking powder, add eggs, add milk, stir until just combined, bake.) Or how far I could reduce sugar from the standard recipe without negatively affecting texture / moisture? And is it necessary to adjust any of the other ingredient amounts along with the sugar?
I have On Food and Cooking at home, so I'll check when I get back tonight.
According to Shirley Corriher, as reported in Fine Cooking, the sugar should weigh slightly more than the flour:
The sugar should weigh the same as, or slightly more than, the flour.
Remember that this is weight, not volume. A cup of sugar weighs about
7 ounces, and a cup of all-purpose flour weighs about 4-1/2 ounces.
So, if we're building a recipe with 1 cup sugar, we'll need about
1-1/2 cups flour (about 6-3/4 ounces).
Sugar plays a very important role in creating the structure and bite of cakes, and also helps to retain moisture and inhibit spoiling, so you cannot simply reduce the quantity without limit to control the sweetness.
That being said, most recipes have a certain amount of tolerance. You can probably reduce the sugar by about 20 to 25% without completely altering the nature of the recipe, although the crumb may suffer a little.
Vanilla and rose are delicate flavors. If you are making a yellow cake with butter, and egg yolks, they may be competing and masking the flavor.
Using a white cake base may allow these flavors to show through more clearly.
Hm, the weight seems to fit, and I did use a cups-to-grams converter and a scale. I suppose I could have stumbled on more people who dislike sugary sweetness. I guess another option could be that the amount of liquid or baking powder was off and the crumb ended up being too dense.
Right, so if I read the linked article right, the equivalency between "structure" and "tenderness" is the "eggs = butter" relationship. This implies that what you can increase the ratio of butter to sugar, add egg, reduce flour and adjust liquid accordingly, and still have things come out right-ish. (I might be misinterpreting things but it's too late to do the actual maths right now.) Anyway, turns out the whole of the linked article is the approach I was asking for so I'll accept this.
(Bah: the above is a no-go or at least nontrivial. It would require actually using negative liquid in the recipe. I suppose a plain reduction, while weighing out everything else, is the only simple solution here.)
It's a bit late but I hope it helps.
According to PJ Hamel, from King Authur's flour, and my own experience (I'm also Asian, if it helps), You CAN reduce the amount of sugar to about 50-65gr for every 100gr of flour (in cupcakes and muffins) WITHOUT making it less yummy!
For example, if the recipes call for 1 cup (120gr) of flour, you can chose to just add 75-80gr sugar, or more if you like sweeter stuff, but for me this is a safe start.
In conclusion, reduce the sugar, it won't hurt, plus it's healthier and the sugar won't overpower the more delicious and expensive ingredients in your recipe.
I made a lemon drizzle cake (based on this recipe) and reduced the sugar from 225g to 70g (roughly 30%) and it turned out great. For the drizzle I removed the sugar completely and only used lemon juice. The cake was obviously not as sweet and was unusual at first in appearance and texture, but overall it was tasty and I will make it again.
I have reduced the sugar in a lot of cake recipes by 50% without any adverse effect. I have spoken to a number of chefs who say the same thing.
You can replace sugar completely with fruit puree, syrups (ie: honey, maple, rice) spices, even veggies. If a recipe calls for 1 Cup of sugar, use half a cup. My brother in law can't stand sweets, so I've taken out sugar and replaced it so many differant ways and times... especially since my mom's a diabetic. i hope its helpful.
This seems unlikely considering the chemical and physical properties of sucrose called for. A less sweet-tasting sugar would be an option, but I'm not sure what that would be. Honey and HFCS are more or less equally sweet, fructose is actually sweeter. Maybe pure sorbitol but that one digests badly.
This may work in some recipes (I am doubtful that many of those are cakes), but will definitely NOT work in all recipes. A cake that requires a creaming step, for instance, will not work with fruit puree or syrup. Spices and veggies will not replace sugar in a cake either.
I've had remarkable luck following protocols similar to those described by F Greenleaf. If not making Wedding, Angelfood or the like, the sugar can take a pretty big hit before disaster ensues.
If reducing the sugar, add a 1/2-teaspoon of salt and 1 tablespoon of flour. The flour will help balance the change in the dry-to-wet ingredient ratio, and the added salt will help to bring out the flavors of the butter cake.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.292341
| 2013-11-27T01:34:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39785",
"authors": [
"Alan Brain",
"Bud Olver",
"SourDoh",
"Tatiana Racheva",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"martin8768",
"millimoose"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36270
|
How can you speed up a genoise cake mixing?
I usually make a chocolate Swiss roll.
The first step is to beat 4 eggs together with 115g sugar on a double boiler with warm (tap) water. I use a hand mixer for this, and it takes a long time, plus the machine gets really hot in the end.
My question is if there's a way to speed up the process? I haven't timed it (next time). I don't put the double boiler on a stove, it's just filled with warm water. My mixing bowl is plastic.
I think some more details might help. What's the recipe and method? Are you beating whole eggs, just whites, or just yolks? What is the result you are trying to achieve with the eggs?
@GdD As stated, 4 eggs with 115g sugar. Those are whole eggs. I try to achieve a 'ribbon' like described here
Does the recipe call for heating the water bath?
I suspect that the purpose of the double boiler is to bring the eggs up to room temperature, which isn't going to make that much of a difference. Most recipes would say that the process will take 10 minutes, but you may be able to speed things up marginally:
Use a bowl that concentrates the eggs in as small an area as possible so your beater blades contact as much eggs as possible per rotation. A narrow, tall bowl is better than a wide, shallow one. If you don't have that then tip the bowl you do have so it all concentrates in one area
Use fresh eggs, I've found that fresher eggs take air better. It's true for egg whites at least, so I suspect it will be for whole eggs as well
Let the eggs come up to room temperature before using them, that way you don't need the double boiler setup, which will give you more flexibility when it comes to bowls. If you don't have 20-30 minutes to let the eggs warm naturally then 5 minutes submerged in tepid water will do the same thing
Other than that the only thing I can recommend is to buy a stand mixer or cultivate patience. Preferably both.
I suspect this is actually a genoise, in which the eggs and sugar are cooked together....
If it calls for a genoise it's not really a swiss roll, but a genoise roll. Swiss rolls don't use a genoise.
So many other terms are used loosely, that wouldn't surprise me. And genoise is well suited for rolled applications.
+10 for getting the eggs to room temperature before you start.
Remember, that when you use a double boiler, you don't need to use a full pan of water... is waiting for your water below the double boiler to get hot part of the time lag?
@SAJ14SAJ, yes, I've changed the title of the question accordingly. Thanks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.292893
| 2013-08-24T14:36:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36270",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"GdD",
"Jennifer S",
"Jonathan",
"Ryan Shillington",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"X10D",
"a3nm",
"cizer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85292",
"jisoo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64932
|
Help translating an older Recipe
I have an old recipe handed down from my great great grandmother in law, for what she called brown bread. Unfortunately it has a few ingredients that I don't recognise. I did some searching on google and I thing I have figured out what different things are but I want to make sure.
The Recipe calls for:
Sour Milk : Is this butter milk?
Sweet Milk : Is this whole milk?
Graham Flour : This seems to be hard to find, but is still Graham flour.
Then baking is to be done in 4 metal vegetable cans. Can this be done in a loaf pan?
As Requested
1 Cup Sour Milk
1 Cup Sweet Milk
3 Cups Graham Flour
1/4 Cup sugar
1/4 Cup Molasses
1/2 Cup butter
1 tsp Salt
1 tsp soda (I am assuming Baking soda)
1 tsp BP (I am assuming baking powder)
Bake at 325 in 4 metal vegetable cans for one hour
I would assume it mixes like a cake, and to add the wet and dry ingredients seperatly, finally combining them. But this is all the recipe I have to go on. So I expect to have to experiment a bit.
I think for the sake of completeness, you should add the full recipe on here. Unless its a super secret "I'll have to kill you if I tell you" recipe. The context of the full recipe will often times illuminate answers that might otherwise be impossible to find.
Relate: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/43360/8305
@jay, Yeah, I think it's whole milk too but it could be condensed milk. https://jet.com/product/detail/1df7d6139627496b91591e10839d8658?jcmp=pla:ggl:tailjd_food_beverages_tobacco_a3:All_Products:na:na:na:na:na:2&code=PLA15&k_clickid=51dc79fe-efa6-4a23-8691-f550610603d7&gclid=Cj0KEQiAno60BRDt89rAh7qt-4wBEiQASes2tcwuObRwyGVoODkM3jthyMReb50ZdlWQ7uksNA4FTJkaAoN98P8HAQ
With the amount of sugar and molasses already in the recipe, its highly doubtful its calling for sweetened condensed milk. Especially since its such an old recipe.
As a note, a substitute for buttermilk in many recipes is "soured milk"... which is whole milk with a small amount of acid in it... but I don't know that it's the same thing in this recipe.
You can get graham flour from Amazon
"Sweet milk" is indeed standard fresh milk. It is just how people used to talk about it, to distinguish it from "sour milk".
"Sour milk" is also "buttermilk". It seems that over the years, people stopped selling actual buttermilk (which is the whey left after removing the fat from the sour milk) and started using the name "buttermilk" for what used to be known as "sour milk".
If you can't find graham flour, whole flour of mid-coarse grind will be a good approximation.
Baking soda and baking powder are good guesses. You could go with the original amounts, but if the first batch comes out overleavened, try reducing it. In the decades since the recipe, producers have found out how to make baking powder which does not go stale too quickly, does not lose much of its action on touching the liquid, and so on. So maybe the amounts are better suited to weaker leavening. No way to know without trying.
The cans are not a good idea. I don't know about cans then, but the new ones could be lined with plastic (which will melt), or be rusty. The recipe is very obviously a cheap recipe from times of limitations, maybe Depression or WWII. Just use a baking pan. If you are afraid of bad leavening, using a wide one or two small ones is better than a single deep one.
Also, don't trust the "one hour" suggestion, not only because you're changing pans and because the ingredients might have changed in subtle ways over the years, but also because baking by time is always unreliable. Test them for doneness with a thermometer, or in the worst case with a toothpick.
Muffins might also be a good alternative, especially jumbo ones.
From a great-great grandmother, I'd guess this predates even the Great Depression. But more topically, quite right about substituting the cans as well -- straight-sided canning jars would get that cylindrical shape!
@erica I'm not sure I get the "that cylindrical shape" comment - is this a desirable thing when making old recipes, or something which was laughed at even then as "she can't afford a real pan"?
Boston brown bread is usually served in a cylinder -- see blog post with one variant recipe, and you can even buy it pre-baked in a can. (The New England region historically prided itself on frugality, so cooking in the can could be considered clever and resourceful rather than poor -- I doubt well-off families would be eating coarse brown bread anyway!)
Brown bread is a canned bread, that's why it's cylindrical. I am also not sure about the cans being lined with plastic. That plastic like coating is probably zein which is a corn product.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.293317
| 2015-12-30T17:54:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64932",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Charles Schuh",
"Denise Johnson",
"Erica",
"Escoce",
"Gill Murray",
"Jay",
"coteyr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"rumtscho",
"sergio mendoca",
"susansmallwoodbtopenworldcom"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110413
|
How to make ice cream base using evaporated milk easier to work with?
I sometimes try to make “chewy” ice cream using evaporated milk or dulce de leche made using the “boil a can of sweetened condensed milk” method in the base.
For the batch I’m wrangling now, I used a 14oz can of dulce de leche, 3 cups of heavy cream, a uhh... lot(?) of cocoa powder (I just added more until the dairy looked like it’s not getting darker anymore) and a 4oz bar of dark chocolate. (The dulce de leche adding around 220g of sugar.)
When chilled, this thickened into a puddingy paste that barely flows without coaxing, and my (cheap) ice cream machine started being unable to move it in about 10-15 minutes. (Although a thermometer registered the mixture as below freezing near the middle-ish.)
I usually just pry this out of the machine and into the freezer because what else am I going to do, and end up with fairly tough, albeit not icy icecream.
Is there anything that would make this base easier to work with without significantly changing the ingredients? Recipes for this style of ice cream usually have even more evaporated milk compared to the rest in them, sometimes even adding egg yolks which would likely thicken this even more. (Based on my experiences making chocolate+caramel icecream, replacing sugar in the recipe with caramel made out of it seems to make it so that using egg yolks is the difference between having the base churnable or not.)
I’ve been debating whipping the liquid up (or maybe just tossing it into a blender) before and after chilling to aerate it before it goes into the churn - after all it’s mostly cream and should be around 25% butterfat, but I have no idea if this would be helpful, and maybe there’s better tricks.
Are you happy with the end product and just want to improve the process, or is there something about the end product that you want to change as well?
@Onyz The end product is... okay? But I have a hunch the only reason it’s not icy on the tongue is it’s so loaded with fat and milk protein it would end the same if I just froze it without churning. I’d like to improve the process because it’s frankly annoying - yesterday I lost too much time having to race to the kitchen hearing the churn make ugly creaking noises, cleaning out the bowl, and re-melting hoping I can do something that will let me rechurn and put the icecream away that evening.
@Onyz I hope that fixing the process so that the ice cream is churned thoroughly and evenly will improve the texture of the final product and like… let me spoon it out of the container without prying chunks of it out, but I wouldn’t know whether there will be any difference until I figure out how to get there.
Okay, thank you. Have you used "a lot" of cocoa powder + 4oz chocolate every time you've attempted this recipe? Were the results and recipe generally the same each time you attempted it?
The problem seems to occur to some extent when using evaporated milk (EM) or sweetened condensed milk(SCM); adding bar chocolate, egg yolks, or using say EM + caramel instead of SCM/dulce makes it worse in that the machine starts being unable to churn earlier. (Ten minutes in vs. 20-25, whereas a quart of sorbet base churns fully after 40 minutes and a bit.)
Now it’s possible that a mixture with so much fat simply does freeze faster since I assume the fat doesn’t crystallize; but when I removed the last batch, there was a fairly thick layer of very frozen ice cream around the inside of the bowl. So my suspicion is the viscosity caused the base to freeze unevenly as it wasn’t removed by the paddle efficiently.
Hi millimoose,
I`m working on a small tool that should help to balance the right proportions of ingredients for ice cream mixtures. Find it on GitHub if you are intrested: https://github.com/JoernMueller/Ice-Ed
@J.Mueller I’ll take a look, thanks! I usually use a messy Calca document that mostly does “add X sugar to get Y% of total weight.”
From the clarification in your comments, it sounds like the amount of solids that you are introducing to your recipe is effectively absorbing almost all of the liquid ingredients that are typically added.
If you want the mixture to be easier to manipulate for the churn, I think your best options are to either introduce more liquid (and thus dilute the other solid ingredients) or to reduce the quantity of solid ingredients that you are using in the first place.
Note that as far as I can tell, for the purposes of this recipe with regards to ease of churning, I consider the cocoa powder, dark chocolate, and to a lesser extent egg yolk and evaporated milk as "solids". These are all things that will cause the liquid in your recipe to solidify faster when chilled vs. the usual liquid ingredients.
Hope this is helpful. Good luck!
this is entirely possible, and I am personally leaning towards just not using SCM/EM with a base this chocolatey; this is a good answer, but I’d still be interested in a way to salvage what I have without spending forever to make the diluted stuff flavorful again
like I maybe mentioned, usually I just use caramel+dairy+cocoa+chocolate because that’s thick enough without egg or extra milk protein; but I have a roomie that really likes the EM/SCM icecreams despite my protestations they’re invariably a frustrating nightmare so here I am :D
@millimoose In that case, I think you'd either need to drop the EM or drop the quantity of caramel/cocoa/chocolate (or add more other liquid), but I think either approach would work. :)
a longshot idea I had was churning just cream+chocolate+cocoa, then drizzling in the dulce at the end with a piping bag; but I’m not sure if an almost sugar-free base would churn right, even though the high fat and solids content could help. (I tried it before for a sweetened base and it half disperses and half leaves in bits of fudge which isn’t at all unwelcome, but the result was cloying; the friends loved it, I uhh graciously let them eat most lf the batch. I should stay away from the US South, I’d probably mortally insult somebody’s grandma over banoffee or shoofly pie.)
I agree with Onyz approach. Otherwise your last option probably is to go for a stronger (semi-)professional machine that can handle such a sturdy mass.
I don't think you can use this recipe with a standard machine.
Ice cream machines are supposed to only freeze ice cream to a certain temperature (the "draw" temperature) and the rest happens in the freezer. To ensure that you don't overchurn, modern cheap home machines have some kind of sensor for the resistance of the mass, and professional machines have a special type of bearing such that the dasher stops moving at a certain viscosity even though the motor continues turning. Machines in between those two classes (such as home compressor machines in the 200-2000 Euro range) are notorious for having short lifetimes if not stopped before the ice cream has frozen too hard.
I am pretty sure that the sticky mass you are describing has higher viscosity than your machine has been designed for, so you won't be able to continue with this machine.
You could try a manual method (either entirely with your hands or with a hand cranked machine) or go some kind of DIY route and build something to churn for you, using some kind of motor adapted to the task (high torque, low speed). This may not be sufficient though, since a normal dasher design won't be able to exchange the just-frozen mass from the wall with the warm mass in the middle when the viscosity is too high. In the end, you might be looking at either direct freezing (which will still produce something scoopable with this kind of recipe, just not too similar to what we usually regard as ice cream) or high-tech tomfoolery with liquid nitrogen and the like.
Bummer. I’m pretty sure mine has a sensor since it changes direction when it snags on something presumably to see if that dislodges, what I mean by it acting up is it starts going back and forth. Since yesterday I’d remelted the base then threw it into the blender and it’s significantly less viscous even after chilling so I’ll give it another whizz and try again; if that doesn’t work I’ll settle on dilution.
When creating ice cream you always have to balance a couple of parameters of the product. The two of most importance of them are the desired sweetness and the freezing point depression that directly affects the hardness at the serving temperature. This is usually gained by choosing a mixture of different sugars that differ in their sweetness and anti-freezing properties. As I nowhere read "sugar" in the ingredients you list, I assume you just rely on the sugars already contained in the other ingredients, which are some sucrose from the choclate and some lactose from the dairy. They are both disaccharides and both have a medium freezing point depression. In general I would recommend to replace some of the sugar in your mixture with dextrose/d-glucose, that lowers the freezing point much more effectively than sucrose. Adding more milk powder also would have a similar effect, as it is high in lactose content that has the same anti-freezing effect as sucrose but a much lower sweetness, but you should also aim to not exceed the amount of it over ~10% of the total mixture as it then could affect the texture in a negative way.
If nothing of this is an option adding some alcohol, ideally some sort supporting the taste, also could serve this purpose.
My bad, I didn’t exactly specify that I’m using sweetened evaporated milk. (Boiled-can dulce always starts with that to the best of my knowledge.)
If I remember the label correctly, the sweetened EM starts at north of 55g total sugars per 100g; the chocolate bar has 27g sugar in it; so (give or take the thermal decomposition that occurs) the base will contain around 247g sugar in 1275g of base for 20% sugar content. To the best of my knowledge that’s more than enough for icecream with this much fat.
And my problem isn’t necessarily that it freezes too hard due to the composition; but that the base before it’s churned is so thick and viscous my machine fails to churn it fully, and it only really freezes up in the freezer. Given the thickening power of milk solids, adding milk powder would only make this problem worse.
The exchange with Onyx and your guess, and having done a vanilla+dulce base with even more dulce piped in at the end that ended up super cloying gave me a longshot idea though that you might have an input on: could a base with just the dairy+cocoa+chocolate, give or take some yolks churn acceptably? (Being over 30% butterfat and cocoa butter, and over 15% sugar from the chocolate bar, and some lecithin from the same.) I could then swirl in the dulce and bypass the viscosity problem completely.
I don´t know for sure, but making a dense premium ice cream on the edge of what is possible and then mix in the caramel or dulce at the end of the churning as a variegato sounds like a step in the right direction to me.
Might try splitting the difference by using only part of the dulce to see if it will make the icecream “chewy” at lower concentrations and then mix in the rest; that way I won’t end up with an awkward half empty can of dulce in the fridge.
This is very anecdotal, but I finally finished fiddling with this batch. Throwing the mixture into a blender made it flow a lot easier - wildly guessing long protein chains got broken up, it didn’t gain much in volume for aeration to explain this. (I might try whipping up in a future experiment but my stand mixer is close to falling apart.)Still very thick, but less paste-like.
It also churned without messing up the machine for 40-50 minutes; but moving between containers made me lose a significant amount of the base so that could have contributed.
As far as the final texture goes: marginal improvement if any. Still not easily scoopable, and very “chewy.” (To each his own, but my teeth are acting up this week and really don’t like biting into anything cold.)
Tooth sensitivity is frequently fun in the summer this way too. I’d def had exchanges about watermelon with ppl commenting on me slicing it like 1/4” thin because “it’s less juicy that way” and me having to point out that not wincing from pain makes up for that handily.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.293773
| 2020-08-25T18:09:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110413",
"authors": [
"J. Mueller",
"Onyz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85345",
"millimoose"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90374
|
Induction compatible pans not working on induction stove-top
I just purchased a set of "induction ready" pans from All-Clad. Found here.
However, to my dismay when I got them home, they wouldn't work! My stove makes a kind of clicking noise when I try to use cookware that's too small or not quite placed inside the cooking zone, and that's what I heard with these, although according to my range's manual they are the correct size.
I have a Samsung Range, NE599N1PBSR/AC
I can return them so it's not a huge deal, but I'd like to know why they don't work. Is it because their bottoms aren't flat? They have kind of grooves going towards the center, maybe to help distribute heat?
One of the comments on the product page suggests that there are embedded plated to make them ‘induction-ready’ but that they are undersized.
Most likely there isn't enough ferromagnetic material in the base of the pan or it's of an incorrect dimension.
If your range is very sensitive it won't detect the pan and thus won't activate.
I myself had a very sensitive induction range which would already deactivate if the pan was lifted a millimetre off the plate or if the pan size was mismatched. (Try using an induction wok on that.)
The only advice I can give is: if buying pots and pans, to be used on an induction range, in the shops take a magnet with you. Place the magnet on the base of the pot/pan and make sure it has a strong magnetic pull. If there isn't any or it's very weak I'd skip the pot/pan and try a different kind. This won't necessarily help with mismatched dimensions of the ferromagnetic material but at least it will give you an idea, you can also try the magnet on different spots on the base to attempt to check the dimensions.
It's not a fool-proof method but at least it will give you a better idea of what will work and what won't.
Also I'd go for high-quality pots and pans (I don't know/have any experience with the All-Clad brand so I couldn't say if they aren't good quality pans) with a thick base as this will usually mean there is more ferromagnetic material in the based and will also help distribute the heat better in the pan.
You should probably check the edges as well as the centre when using your magnet
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.295098
| 2018-06-15T18:43:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90374",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32966
|
How would you make a roux efficiently?
Making a big batch of roux is a hassle, so I'm investigating how to make my life a bit easier.
According to 'Ideas in food', you can make roux in a jar in a pressure cooker. Nice, but the quantity is too little for my needs.
In the Cajun cuisine you can make roux for gumbo in the oven. That won't work for me as I need it to work as a thickening agent. Maybe it would work at a lower temperature.
The problem is to lose the raw flour taste. I'm thinking of mixing the butter-flour as always, on the stove-top. Then transfer the batter to a sous vide bag and let it bathe for 12 h at 85ºC (at which point the starches should be gelatinized).
What do you think? Is 12h too long or too short? Is 85ºC high enough to lose the raw flavour?
I'm a little perplexed by the roux-in-oven thing. The point of roux in gumbo is to use it as a thickener, and the link you provided indeed says it's for that. The only problem seems to be that it doesn't have oil in it, so I'm guessing it might clump more. But you can definitely do roux (with oil) in the oven; see for example this gumbo recipe. Is your question "how do I make a lot of roux efficiently" or do you really want to do it sous vide?
@Jefromi, according to SAJ14SAJ in this answer, dark roux for gumbo does not have thickening power.
You are right, I want to make roux efficiently. So, that's a better title.
350F is 175C. That makes for heavy Maillard reaction.
Roux is fast and easy to make stove top or in the oven, even in large batches. Not sure why you want to go to the trouble of trying to do it sous-vide.
Maillard takes time as well as temperature, but for a blond roux I would do it stove top.
@SAJ14SAJ, I'm using 1kg of butter and 1,5kg of flour and it takes me forever on the stove-top. Maybe I should put it on a higher flame?
Don't be afraid to crank it up as long as you have a good conductive pan, and are monitoring it. You don't want local burning.
@BaffledCook : the reason for putting it in the oven is for more eaven cooking; you just stop it when you're at the desired darkness you want. But for a typical blond / straw colored roux, it shouldn't take much time on the stovetop, just use a wide enough pan. And if you're willing to stir more regularly, just turn up the heat.
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32966/how-would-you-make-a-roux-efficiently/32968
In a roux, the starches are not normally gelatinized during the production of the roux--in fact, if you make your roux with oil rather than butter, there is no water present (other than latent moisture from the flour) to do so.
Roux thickened sauces must normally be brought to the boil; this is when the actual gelatinization takes place.
. . .
Roux is easy to prepare in larger batches, stove top. Simple use a larger pan, such as a six quart dutch oven.
Melt your butter or add your oil, then whisk in the flour. Cook for a couple of minutes (after the bubbling subsides if using butter), and you are good to go. Don't be afraid to turn the heat up as long as you are standing by, watching and stirring to prevent burning from hot spots.
Butter can foam up considerably, so use a large pot in comparison to the quantity of roux.
For dark roux, I would start stove top, and finish in the oven to reduce the likelihood of taking the browning too far, and reduce the labor of stirring required.
The roux can be refrigerated. You can scoop it with a spoon and add it to sauce at the simmer and whisk, and it will thicken almost instantly.
See also: Is there a technique for making larger batches of roux?
The mysteries of roux remain mysterious. Thanks, next time I'll crank up the heat.
My easiest and most precise method isn't to roast the flour, but to "fry the flour" instead. This method provides much better control and ensures the roux is precisely as dark as you like.
--- Put one cup of flour in a non-stick pan.
--- Turn the heat high as if you were using the conventional method.
--- Using a non-stick spatula, continue to keep turning the flour.
Within a minute or so, it will start to smelling like popcorn. Watch it with a bright light, and you will see it turn very light brown. The flour will also start to clump a little.
--- "Fry" for about 5 minutes or so, until evenly as light brown as you'd like.
--- Turn heat off or down
--- Add a stick of butter, and finish the roux without adding any more heat.
You will notice that once you add butter, it immediately becomes much darker than you thought it would. The oil in the pan to conducts heat much better, and it now will cook extremely fast, so make sure that the heat is not too high.
If I'm using the roux right then, I start adding my liquid after the butter is mixed in.
I've found that I can control the heat perfectly this way and it won't be over or under cooked. Using the standard method with my electric stove either over or under cooks it. The only way to cool it fast enough when too hot is to put it on granite, which is not the best.
Thanks for validating this method @Barry, (and helping me discover that my method was not unique ).
Questions
-- How does the gluten in my bread flour affect it?
-- If you use another oil, do you need add liquid to make sure it thickens, or just wait until you use it in a sauce later?
A trick I learned in culinary school, is to pre"toast" the flour in the oven (on a sheet pan); prior to mixing in with your fat of choice. This cooks out the raw starchy taste. As far as sous vide is concerned; I actually came upon this link in an attempt to see if / how others have had any success with roux at sub-boiling temperatures (outside of a pressure cooker; which obviously allows you to raise the boiling point). I guess I'll just have to experiment a bit to see if I can get decent results.
Hello @Barry and welcome to Seasoned Advice! Good info re pre-toasting the flour. Can you please add the link mentioned in the answer?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.295357
| 2013-03-24T15:37:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32966",
"authors": [
"Ali",
"BaffledCook",
"Cascabel",
"Christopher",
"Cindy",
"Joe",
"Naruhodo Wakarimashita",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sherry Swanson",
"Steve Gill",
"Susan Bogni",
"andersoj",
"hovnatan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76256",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76264"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62
|
What are some good resources for learning Knife Skills?
What are some good resources for learning knife skills? Specifically, is there anywhere that I can see video demonstration of different slicing techniques and when those techniques are appropriate?
@DanielMoura, always wear a helmet, when drinking heavily. Also: How should I care for my knives.
discussion of possible closure: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3289/should-this-general-knife-skills-question-be-closed
Closed as too broad since it's probably the best of the canned reasons, but note that in general requests for resources are not a great fit for stackexchange either. It's better to ask about specific problems, so that we can curate the answers and knowledge here. And indeed, more specific questions on knife skills (specific techniques, handling a specific kind of knife, etc) are most welcome!
Why bother paying for instruction or books. The best way to learn is watching a video and practicing.
Youtube
Youtube has a great wealth of videos on knife skills. I'm more a visual learner. I like to see a video. A book are not going to help me squat.
Knife Skills: Julliene with Ann Burrell
Knife Skills: Chiffonade with Ann Burrell
Knife SKills: Slicing with Ann Burelle and Beau
Knife Skills: Bias Cuts with Ann Burrelle and Beau
Honing a knife with Gordon Ramsey (video is labeled as sharpening although he is showing a knife being honed)
Rick Theory, well respected on knife forums for good technique
Sundry old Martin Yan episodes across youtube. Cleaver centric technique that requires paying attention to do safely, but can achieve a lot.
Chowhound
Chowhound has a great wealth of knife skill videos.
How to make a chiffonade cut
How to chop
How to dice
How to hone a knife
Roll Cuts
Know your Knife Cuts
How to make julienne and batonnet cuts
How to cut with a chef's knife:
5 Simply knife safety tips
How to hold a knife
Not totally related but - Should i buy a knife set
Knife Skills troubleshooting
How to make a bias cut
Other
Wusthof Knife Skills Series
Unfortunately, the Food Network videos are not available outside of the US - at least not in Denmark.
The first four videos are all unavailable now (set to private). The Chowhound vidoes are decent, but how does anyone expect to learn a skill like this in videos 30 seconds in length? There is simply more to it.
I really like the book "Knife skills Illustrated"; it is a bit annoying that it has left and right handed versions of everything, though.
Being a lefty, that would be right up my alley :)
The Good Eats episode American Slicer was devoted entirely to knife usage.
Unfortunately, finding old good eats videos is hard. They never did a cohesive box set or anything.
The absolute best way to pick this up is to do it with the help of an in-person instructor. It is a motor skill that is best learned by trial, error, and the emulation of experts.
Your local culinary institutes might offer courses or one-day workshops on various topics for the general public and cooking enthusiasts.
For instance, here's a place in Maryland that offers classes: L'Academie de Cuisine. I once gave my wife a gift certificate for their "knife skills" workshop. She can now chop circles around anyone who isn't a chef!
The advantage to having someone watching you is that they can identify mistakes that you might be making, and offer corrections.
Epicurious have some useful videos on knife skills, they can be found at:
http://www.epicurious.com/video/technique-videos/technique-videos-knife-skills/1915458779/knife-skills-how-to-sharpen-a-knife/1915433332
Another interesting source is Rouxbe, they have a large number of cooking lesson videos online, which include knife skills. This site, however, requires a subscription:
http://rouxbe.com/
Serious Eats has some videos and what not in their Knife Skills section.
The basic skills are covered in this article (slice, chop, rock chop). Other things to note include how to carve meats, how to cut herbs and tomatoes.
America's Test Kitchen is pretty good as well, since they go slow and show things visually though they often don't narrate their knife skills verbally.
I've also seen good material in Gordon Ramsay's Ultimate Cookery Course and Home Cooking, though he's a bit faster and less detailed. Some of the stuff is on his youtube channel.
Finally, I'd like to recommend Jaques Pepin's New Complete Techniques (though the original complete techniques is fine, the new one is in color). He's very careful in explaining how to do things.
Mastering Knife Skills: The Essential Guide to the Most Important Tools in Your Kitchen by Norman Weinstein is a great picture book demonstrating technique for specific fruits, vegetables, and meats.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.295917
| 2010-07-09T19:31:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62",
"authors": [
"Arthur So",
"Batman",
"Cascabel",
"Dan Bradbury",
"Jacob Bundgaard",
"Joe",
"Lula M.",
"Magic Lasso",
"Michael Mior",
"Ryan Elkins",
"Stefan Rusek",
"TML",
"Tara",
"Vorac",
"dpollitt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99011",
"jessecurry",
"jumoel"
],
"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
}
|
20330
|
What determines how well cheese melts
I have had my fair share of eating cheese and experimenting with them. Sometimes they come out heavenly while other times, it turn out to be a huge flop. Usually when it flops, it's because I am expecting the cheese to melt and it doesn't.
So my question is, what properties of cheese determines how well the cheese melts? This way I can determine in the future whether a cheese I am about to experiment with is meltable. Are there physical indicators that I can see and feel that can help me determine a cheese's meltability?
Is there a special way to increase how well cheese melts? I have noticed that some cheese melt slightly on the outside but the inside turn rubbery and doesn't melt.
Three factors influence how well cheese melts:
The amount of moisture,
The amount of fat,
How it was set.
The meltiest cheeses have a lot of moisture and fat and were set with rennet and not acid.
Both moisture and fat leave space between the casein proteins that allows them to move. Otherwise they are packed together and don't flow as well.
Aged cheeses have lost more of their moisture to evaporation. This means that they have to been heated to a much higher temperature before they will melt.
To quote Harold Mcgee:
"Melting behavior is largely determined by water content. Low-moisture hard cheeses require more heat to melt because their protein molecules are more concentrated and so more intimately bonded to each other." (On food and Cooking, 64).
Aged cheeses with a high fat content will often leak some fat when they finally do melt- making an oily mess. J. Kenji Lopez-Alt had some good suggestions for dealing with this problem.
Acid set cheeses, such as Indian paneer and latin Queso Blanco, don't melt much when heated dry because the acid denatures the casein in such a way as to cause it to bind more tightly.(although they will dissolve into hot liquids sometimes.)
I'll also add that high-salt cheeses, even when set with rennet (e.g. Pecorino Romano) do not melt well.
@FuzzyChef: Do you have a reference for that? Feta is a high-salt cheese yet it melts easily. And your example Pecrino Romano doesn't melt well probably because it has very low moisture.
Of these factors, the moisture level is the most readily tweakable, practically speaking - soaking shreds of drier or more aged cheeses can encourage them to melt rather than dry out or seize.
Acidity level determines whether it will melt. Has nothing to do with moisture levels, fat etc. If your cheese wont melt it is either a very low acid fresh type cheese, or something went horribly wrong when it was made (cheddar for example, should always melt...if it doesnt, then something is wrong with the cheese when it was made).
Thanks for adding that real cheese makers secret. Many people here would love a reference on the pH to casein stretchability balance. Can you find a good one?
The pH things isn't really obscure. See e.g. http://www.milkfacts.info/Milk%20Composition/Protein.htm. However, this answer misses the point. During cheese production, fat & water is separated from the protein solids - squeezed out, you could say. Acidity influences to which degree this happens. So, whether cheese melts is a result of the acidity when formed, but a function of fat & water content.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.296445
| 2012-01-10T19:47:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20330",
"authors": [
"B T",
"Darklantern",
"FuzzyChef",
"Jay",
"Jenny G.",
"Kleptonite",
"MSalters",
"Megha",
"Ryan",
"TFD",
"artybug",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"meta"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3328
|
What's the difference between bacon and gammon?
What is the difference between Gammon and Bacon? Would it be generally reasonable to substitute the two as required?
Please clarify your definition of bacon. Perhaps with a picture?
@hobodave Bacon joint: http://www.flickr.com/photos/21309047@N00/2426000884
@hobodave And for completeness, Gammon: http://www.flickr.com/photos/raps_uk_ltd/359391671/
According to my local friendly butcher, Gammon is a type of bacon that is specifically from the hind quarters.
Bacon is defined as any pork that has been cured through a process of salting, either as a dry-cure or a wet-cure where the meat is either packed in salts or brine respectively. With wet curing, other ingredients can be added to impart other flavours, such as beer or sugars.
Typically, rashers are made from the body of the pig with streaky bacon coming from the belly, and back bacon coming from, well, the back (so the same cut as a pork loin chop). Bacon joints are typically made by combining cuts of bacon from the shoulder and collar, whilst the hind quarters are sold as gammon with a premium on price.
Traditionally ham referred to cooked gammon, although in modern uses, it is often extended to include other cooked bacon joints, which include moulded meats made from combining cuts together with other additives to help bind them.
I did my internship for culinary school in London, and if I recall correctly from what I saw in the markets there, what you call Gammon would be equivalent to our Ham - both coming from the pig's rear leg.
What we call bacon is what you'd call "streaky" or "streaky bacon" which is made from the pork belly.
Streaky would be the best substitute in recipes calling for bacon.
According to Wikipedia "bacon" in the UK may refer to what we call canadian bacon. Not yet sure which Rowland is referring to since he's in the UK. Was this your experience there as well?
@hobodave: I don't recall seeing our equivalent of "Canadian Bacon" (made from the loin). This was 16 years ago too so it's been awhile. The terms streaky and gammon I do recall and they were the english equivalent of "bacon" and "ham" respectively.
@Hobodave & Rowland: After referencing some of my English cookbooks and specifically "Traditional FarmHouse Fare: A Collection of Country Recipes from Farmer's Weekly" they are using the terms mentioned above with "back bacon" as the English term for American "Canadian Bacon".
@Hobodave & Rowland: I just checked out "Anton Edelmann Creative Cuisine - Chefs secrets from the Savoy Hotel" and where he lists "streaky bacon" in two recipes he notes "US Canadian Bacon" in parenthetical notes. However the photo of his bacon-wrapped scallops shows something closer to a dry cured ham such as prosciutto.
Here's my final suggestion on substitution: If you're cooking it and the recipe says to cook something else (such as onions) in the rendered fat, then use Streaky Bacon. If it's in the recipe as more of a meaty element, then back bacon or gammon should be fine.
As per:
"Both ham and gammon are cut from the leg of a pig. The meat is the same but the preparation and treatment is different. Ham and gammon are both cured meats. This means that they are treated with salt, known as brining, and other substances before being eaten.
Ham is meat that is cut from the carcass and then treated.
Gammon is meat that is cut from the carcass after the brining treatment.
Both gammons and hams might also be smoked.
Traditionally, regional variants in the process and the ingredients used would bring different flavours to the cured meats. This explains the origin of distinctive varieties such as York ham, Bayonne ham and Prague ham.
Air dried hams are also cured first but then usually eaten raw whereas brined hams are baked or boiled before serving."
For me, ham is cooked, cured pork, which can be cooked on the bone (most supermarket delis tend to stock some on the bone for hand-carved ham)
@Rowland Shaw: before it's cooked and sliced I'd still say ham. If you were to say "We cooked a whole ham last weekend", or "I've got the ham for christmas" I would have a picture in my head that involves starting with a raw leg on a bone and ending up with slices of ham as you would understand it.
Well bacon is a very generic term. You might want to clarify which you're referring to.
In America 'bacon' comes from the belly of the pig. Whereas, according to Wikipedia bacon in the UK typically comes from the back of the pig (we call this canadian bacon). Either way these are usually dry-cured.
Gammon cuts come from the hind legs of the pig. It is typically wet-cured.
Update: Based on your images above, yes gammon can be used as a substitute for back bacon.
Bacon
In England good bacon is dry salted, (without sugar) and is mostly cut from the back and side of the pig and has a 'pork chop' appearance, with an eye (tenderloin), and muscle streaks and fat attached to the tail end (side of the ribs).
It is called a rasher, often has the skin attached, and can be either 'green' (unsmoked) or smoked (never hot smoked like in N. America).
It may be cooked to a crisp, or just till it turns opaque. Depends on taste.
There are many regional varieties, with Wiltshire and Danish being premium varieties. In Scotland, Ayrshire bacon is excellent and the rasher is rolled so the bacon rasher has a round appearance. Good bacon and gammon does not ooze white stuff, nor does it shrink much when it is fried.
Gammon
Gammon is always cut thicker and is composed mostly of meat like a ham slice. It also tastes different. From my understanding it is usually made from salted leg meat.
You can find photos of 'English bacon rasher' and 'gammon rasher' on the web if you include UK in the search. If you haven't tasted this kind of bacon you can get an idea of the British bacon taste by salting a piece of pork belly in the fridge (it really needs fat to be delicious). Just leave out the sugar and spice. There are recipes on the web. You may never go back to the water soaked meat in a plastic bag that is sold as bacon in supermarkets.
Peameal Bacon is commonly known as Canadian Bacon, it comes from the loin is cured and rolled in cornmeal. Streaky Bacon is also often referred to as Canadian Bacon, comes from the belly, cured and then smoked.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.296764
| 2010-07-26T17:56:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3328",
"authors": [
"Cryst",
"Darin Sehnert",
"Denis Baluev",
"Doreen",
"Jordan S. Jones",
"RavenclawPrefect",
"Rowland Shaw",
"Scott",
"Suzy Bowler",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93724",
"hydrogen",
"user61879",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2860
|
Should you add some salt to flour when baking?
I was always taught to add a pinch of salt to flour when baking (mainly cakes / muffins and puddings).
I have recipes that specifically mention adding salt and others that don't.
Is there a scientific reason to add salt?
baking what? bread? pastry? There are important reasons to add salt, both chemical and taste, but they depend on what you're cooking! Please rephrase to be more specific.
I don't think it needs more specificity. The roles salt plays in baking anything are rather well defined.
Salt serves two primary purposes in baking:
To regulate yeast
Salt kills yeast. The addition of salt to a yeast leavened dough prevents the little beasties from growing completely out of control.
To enhance and mask specific flavors
Salt is almost a universal flavor enhancer. Virtually anything that tastes good, will taste better with salt. What typically comes as a surprise to people is that this holds true with sweet things too, particularly chocolate. The addition of even a tiny bit of salt can make a sweet dish significantly sweeter. It also serves to mask the taste of raw flour.
Update
Also according to Progressive Baker salt affects the strength and shelf life of baked goods.
Yup - masking the taste of raw flour was what I understood to be the main reason. Which begs the question of why it's not standard in all recipes?
Dunno. Off the top of my head I can't think of a single instance of not using salt when baking.
Salt should usually be included. Self-rising flour contains a small amount of salt in addition to baking powder so recipes that use self-rising flour may not specifically include additional salt. However if it's a savory item using self-rising flour I most typically would add more.
@Darin: Under what circumstances does a chef use self-rising flour? I've always dismissed it as something unnecessary.
@Darin: I answered it myself by stumbling across your blog! http://www.chefdarin.com/2009/08/flour-power/
@hobodave: Glad to see you found the article on the blog. You're right..most chefs wouldn't be using self-rising flour, at least not in the commercial operation. However obviously it is used in consumer recipes and here in the south most particularly. Since my classes are targeted to the consumer market and helping people better understand, enhance, and improve their cooking and entertaining, it is something that I use. As you probably noted in my blog post, you can easily make your own version of self-rising flour if you don't normally use it.
@hobodave: "I can't think of a single instance of not using salt when baking" - two that spring immediately to mind are cheesecake and flourless hazelnut torte (or really anything that combines chocolate and hazelnuts). Granted, cream cheese contains salt already, but you don't actually add any salt yourself.
@hobodave Would you happen to have some sources to back up your reasons for adding salt? I find it hard to believe that a tiny bit of it actually makes a difference :-\
I was wondering if baking powder reacts with salt as a catalyst to produce more CO2 bubbles that make the flour self-rising. It also can react with baking soda added to some recipes for the same effect. Salt lowers the pH of any solution it is added to. This is because salt dissolves in water and releases hydrogen ions into the solution. Hydrogen ions decrease the pH of the solution. For instance, adding 1 teaspoon of table salt sodium chloride to 2 cups of water decreases the pH from 8.4 to 7.6. The Hydrogen release may work with the baking powder to promote the creation of carbon dioxide gas as a catalyst.
Your supposition there, and your numbers, don’t agree with mainstream understanding of chemistry, which is that sodium chloride has no significant effect on pH of a solution. Pure water, and pure water with table salt added, would each have a pH of 7. Salt does not contain carbon or oxygen, and does not act as a catalyst for acid/base reactions (which don’t need a catalyst).
I believe salt cuts the gluten in the flour and makes it more supple and less elastic, especially when baking breads.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice, and thanks for your answer! Unfortunately, I think the reality is a bit of the opposite of what you claim: salt is known to strengthen and tighten the gluten structure in bread dough.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.297302
| 2010-07-22T19:45:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2860",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Chris Dowdeswell",
"Darin Sehnert",
"Dave Forgac",
"Harlan",
"Marti",
"Sneftel",
"floele",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/812",
"rbrayb"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3644
|
In baking, can yoghurt replace butter?
By baking, I mean cakes / muffins / biscuits.
This is mainly to cut down on fat.
I've tried replacing butter with yoghurt in all of these and the results were OK.
Are there any cases where it's not a good idea?
I generally replace with equal ratios e.g 100 ml butter = 100 ml yoghurt.
Is this the best ratio?
"I've tried replacing butter with yoghurt in all of these and the results ere OK." - Didn't you just answer your own question?
Not really - wondering if anyone else has tried this with excellent results and also interested in the ratio.
For another option, I sometimes use sour cream instead of yogurt for butter replacement in muffins/quick breads (still with a direct substitution).
The day you manage replacing butter/margarine with yoghurt in puff or danish pastry, or even in ice or hot water pie crust, please post a recipe :)
I guess it depends on what the substitution is for.
Certainly if the butter is just for flavour, it's a reasonable substitute (I think I'd use slightly more yogurt). But 9 times out of 10, fat is the main reason the recipe is calling for butter! Yogurt cannot substitute for a fat (butter) because it has very little fat.
If you lower the fat content of a baked good then you'll generally end up with a product much denser and less flakey. So if you feel you must do this for some reason, then I would increase the sugar in the recipe to compensate (sugar inhibits gluten formation and will help to make the result less chewy).
The other thing you'd better keep in mind is that yogurt is naturally sour and will become even sourer when baked at a high temperature. The longer you bake, the more sour it will become, so you might need to amp up the sugar significantly to maintain the proper flavour.
So for the most part, no, yogurt is really not a substitute for butter or any other fat. Obviously this is partly a matter of personal taste, and if you're happy with the result, then continue doing what you're doing - but I think I'd definitely hesitate to eat a cake that was baked with yogurt instead of butter.
I'll admit, I'd never tried it, but for muffins, I'll often replace 1/2 to 2/3 of the oil in a recipe with some sort of liquid-like fruit (either applesauce or mashed previously frozen banana), so I don't see why yogurt wouldn't work.
In those case, the oil went in as a liquid; if you had a baked good that required creaming the butter, or cutting it in, I would not try replacing it.
I would also be concerned with the increased acid; it's possible that you might want to experiment with cutting some of the baking powder and replacing it with 1/2 as much baking soda as you removed, so you're more pH neutral, but I have no idea how baking soda is needed to balance out yogurt.
As you're from NZ, I'm going to assume 'biscuits' in this case is what Americans call cookies -- I would not try replacing butter in what Americans call biscuits, as you add the fat solid (sometimes cold), to make the them flaky.
I do it all the time. Usually I swap out half the butter for half as much yogurt, either plain or vanilla, usually low fat. Sometimes I do Greek yogurt. I'm working on adjusting certain recipes so that it's ALL yogurt and I've had the best luck with banana bread and muffins. They are delicious and nobody knows the difference. If a recipe has more than 1/4 cup of butter, I definitely start swapping. I do the same for oil but it's closer to an even swap.
I substituted equal parts of yogurt for butter in my chocolate chip cookies and the structure of my cookie was completely flat like a pancake (possibly flatter with holes in the edges). But when you use your spatula to remove the cookie you can only remove the inside of the cookie so it created a sort of cookie dough ball look.
I was terrified but when compared to my normal cookies (made with the butter) they were ranked the exact same in my food science experiment in my college class. So taste wise my cookies were still delicious but appearance wise they were a little hideous.
P.S. I used the chocolate chip cookie recipe from smitten kitchen (I love them!).
Creating air bubbles when creaming butter and sugar is an important part of most cookies - the bubbles add structure to the finished cookie.
It works awesome in banana bread, especially if you use vanilla yogurt.
Today I baked chocolate chip muffins with bananas and vanilla yogurt and were delicious! I didn't use any butter!
You can replace it just fine - I read that the moisture butter provides simply acts to keep flour from forming long protein strands, and keeping baked goods from turning into rubber. So apple sauce or yogurt can replace butter any time! It just makes you bakes goods softer, so don't use that on crispy goods such as cookies.
The butter doesn't provide moisture to prevent the long protein strands, it provides fat to do this. These strands do just great in the presence of moisture, for example in bread, where they are desirable, because they make the bread chewy. Also, the fat provides other changes to the texture, not really attainable with moisture.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.297694
| 2010-07-28T21:44:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3644",
"authors": [
"Adam",
"Ando",
"Charles Ricard",
"J. C. Salomon",
"Juliet",
"KatieK",
"Matthew Snape",
"Prof. K",
"Rebekah",
"Russell Poirier",
"Vanessa Balmut",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/839",
"rackandboneman",
"rbrayb",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7625
|
How do you score pork skin?
We cooked some pork belly over the weekend and part of the recipe is to "score the skin".
We have some sharp knives but nothing really worked well. It was really a battle to cut the skin. We even tried out some sharp scissors!
If you don't score the skin, you don't really get decent crackling.
Is there some technique to doing this?
I recommend (and use) a utility knife.
Not only are they fairly tough and sharp, you can adjust the blade to the depth you need (you don't want to cut too deep). And the blades are cheap to replace...
As others have noted in the comments, be careful with this as you would with any knife: the blades may be small, but they're quite sharp.
This is uniformly the answer I've received from asking Butchers this question (along caveat's do it very carefully).
+1 on being careful, one butcher I talked to warned me to hold the knife as you would normally as opposed to how you might hold one to stab (something). The reason being that holding it in a stabbing hold and pulling towards you can risk slipping and hitting the main artery in your thigh running from your heart down your leg. You can lose a significant amount of blood very quickly that way, and would probably miss out any crackling which resulted from your efforts.
Agreed @Robin. Always cut away from your body with a knife like this when possible. Outward, slashing motions.
Blimey, do we really need to be told to be careful with knives, I thought we are all adults.... to me this beggars belief!
AKA "Stanley Knife"
I tried a utility knife in the past but that was no good. I also used a long knife [see image] which was sharpened on a grinder but that did not help either. It had a jagged or rough edge which made the same mess as micro-serrations.The fatty meat clogs up the cutting edge and makes it in effect blunt.
Then I took the same knife and buffed the edge with a buffing wheel on a grinder, until it was shiny smooth and would hack on its own weight at 25 degrees into my thumbnail, and that did the trick!
A tip: Semi-freeze the belly in order for the skin to be hard and it will be much easier to cut. The alternative is ask your butcher to cut small squares as they usually cut a few big squares, which is not what you want.
The utility knife that Knives mentioned work fine, and they're pretty cheap at the hardware store, but I tend to have roofing tar or the like on any of the ones I have (and the snap blade knives I don't want to disassemble to clean after using for food)
I've only done it for ham, so I don't know if other parts are worse to cut through, but I just use a paring knife. As I don't put them against a cutting board very often, they keep their edge. I even use one of my less expensive knifes (Wustof Silverpoint), because it's got a thinner blade). I don't hold it by the handle, though -- I pinch either side of the blade, and let just enough of the tip be exposed to cut to the depth I want.
Don't use a "micro-serated" blade for this, it grabs too much and will make a mess. I don't even know that you'd want a serated blade, just a good, sharp, small knife.
You need a utility knife which only gets used for cooking!
Freeze the belly. Set skin side up in a bowl. As soon as skin thaws cut with very sharp long knife. 18 inch blade. Your pig sticker for going into the heart when you butcher. Long cuts mild pressure May have to cut more than once down grove made.
Completely random, but use a scalpel like the ones Surgeons use. you would be blown away how clean and controlled you can score, and you don't even need to semi-freeze as some have suggested.
mmm crackling.. I had a recipe that called for using a hairdryer. Made the best crackling ever with that.
This doesn't make sense to me.
I've always used my 10" Henkels carving knife. I just hone it really well, and drag it over the skin with mild pressure.
It takes a couple of passes, but it does work.
use a pork scorer - 3 bladed cutter designed for scoring pork
Can you add a link to similar devices and a little more information about where to find them? What are the advantages of using such a scorer over tools recommended in other answers?
This is why you need a good sharp knife in your kitchen. I moved on to good japanese knives and sharpening/honing wet stones (Naniwa super stones) to give it a rasor edge, literally.
Japanese knives needen't be expensive, they are available from €50,- onwards, you just need to know what to buy; look for blue steel and use sharpening wet stones only! no steel like the butcher does, this steel is too hard, and can chip, so also no bone or frozen food chopping, Enjoy and look where you cut! I have been to the hospital just once, steep learning curve.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.298149
| 2010-09-26T18:21:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7625",
"authors": [
"Aequitas",
"Chris",
"Chris Fleming",
"Chuck Baggett",
"Ian G",
"Kelly Flores",
"PattMauler",
"Pauly",
"Preston",
"Robin",
"Suzanne Chan",
"Tommaso Thea",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"logophobe",
"tamla powers",
"user15681",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10345
|
How well do frozen oranges peel after frozen?
I was wondering if freezing an orange would make it easier to peal and remove most/all the pith.
I want to make an orange smoothie, so having it frozen would be a good thing, but I have no idea if it would make it easier or harder to peel.
The white stuff is called "pith".
Well, it wouldn't cost much to figure it out! I'll try a guess, though, and say that it will make peeling MORE difficult. The peel will be stiffer, and I think the pith might be even more likely to stick to the orange flesh, and maybe less likely to stick to the outer peel. But I'd like to know what your results are if you test it.
I'd say if you're having a lot of trouble peeling your orange, I've heard that giving it a good squeeze before starting can help, and there are also some easy-peel varieties out there now.
And of course the pith won't hurt you and unless you leave almost all of it, you're not likely to notice it after you run it through a blender with the rest of the orange!
I'll have to try freezing it when I get home. I haven't simply ignoring most of the pith and maybe taking off the large easy pieces. I'll try that out. And it's not like I make the smoothies very thin either, I do make them very thick but still drinkable without a straw or spoon.
+1 for truth. plus, your fingers will go numb in the 20 minutes it takes to peel the stupid thing (experience :p)
I generally don't mind a little pith, but for dishes where I need it all removed or when I'm presenting slices to friends, I generally use my knife to peel. There's a good video example available here, basically you cut off the end, stand the orange up, and make downward cuts to remove the peel.
Once you get the hang of it it's a fast process, which will probably be very helpful if you're buying in bulk and want to freeze them (peeled) them all at once.
As bikeboy389 mentioned, I've been told that you can roll the orange (or lemon or lime) with some slight pressure on the counter, to loosen up the peel from the fruit.
I was also told that microwaving it for 15-45 seconds first helps as well (as discussed in this Instructables), but I haven't tried this and can't speak to its effectiveness. I did see a comment on the page that said to poke it first so it doesn't explode...I think I'll stick with the knife technique!
Oh, one more thing, I did try freezing bananas in their peel before, and had a heck of a time peeling them. Since they're easier to peel fresh than oranges are, I'd assume a frozen orange would be very difficult.
It's not easier to peel. There just isn't much of a good easy way to peel oranges. If you freeze them, they will be harder because they are frozen. If you heat them up, perhaps they might be easier, but heating fruits up after freezing them doesn't make for the best fruit. If you freeze a fruit that has a peel, your best bet to peel it is to hold it with a cloth and use a good knife to cut the peel, then pull it away with your fingers. It's not easier than peeling an unfrozen orange but if you need frozen oranges for smoothies or to store for later use, it can be done. You can also peel and slice the oranges before freezing them too.
I freeze..take them out cut them into wedges as they defrost and run my knife under the skin and this makes for nice clean portions..the pith won't kill you so it's okay to leave a bit on.
I serve the oranges with toasted cumin and a drizzle of honey. ..magic! !
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.298702
| 2010-12-20T16:25:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10345",
"authors": [
"Amanda Cramer",
"Charles A",
"Echo says Reinstate Monica",
"Mrs. Garden",
"Spammer",
"bobwah",
"dani",
"dnf0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99990"
],
"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
}
|
8575
|
Is it safe to eat pumpkins grown specifically for carving?
As it is coming up to Halloween, there is an abundance of cheap pumpkins in the shops now. I quite like to eat pumpkin rather than carve them. Are the large round orange pumpkins good to eat are are they just grown (with lots of nasty chemicals/fertilizer) to only be used as carved lanterns? From the outside, the shell seems very hard so maybe they will be quite tough. I would more than likely roast the flesh and use it for soup.
UPDATE
From the two other related questions highlighted by @Jefromi, one referenced this article that states:
"All pumpkins may be eaten, but there is a big difference among varieties. Decorative pumpkins, which American children and patient parents carve just before Halloween, are grown with color, structural strength, a flat bottom, and a sturdy stem as their main attributes. The flesh tends to be bland, watery, and fibrous. No one cares because they're going to be carved and smashed in the street (or disposed of properly)."
So from that I would assume that the decorative pumpkins are not very good to eat.
See Is there a way to tell if a pumpkin is going to be good for cooking? and Can I use any sort of pumpkin for pumpkin pie?
@Jefromi - thanks for those, don't know how I missed them when searching before posting my question :)
I can see how they'd get lost in the surge of pumpkin questions over the last few weeks! I do find that sometimes the related questions (which appear while you're typing your question, and on the side after you post it) are more what you're looking for than when you search.
Safe? Or good to eat? Pesticides usually don't penetrate thick-skinned produce (oranges, etc), so as long as you're not using the skin, there's not a lot to worry about.
They're not the best pumpkins to use for other reasons (linked in comments). In summary, the smaller "sugar" pumpkin is better for cooking, if you have the option.
+1: Exactly. A carving pumpkin is bigger, tougher, and not as tasty. Otherwise it's fine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.299007
| 2010-10-27T13:42:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8575",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Piers Myers",
"Rafael",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Scott Goodgame",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/837"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5325
|
Will steel cut oats work for oatmeal cookies?
I usually use rolled oats or quick cooking (but not instant) oats for oatmeal cookies. Can they be made with steel cut oats?
'steel-cut oats' are also known as 'pinhead oats', 'irish oats', 'scotch oats', 'coarse oats', 'porriage oats', and maybe other names, as the names might be regional. (no idea what they're called in other countries).
Steel cut oats take a lot longer to cook than rolled or quick oats. It's unlikely they will completely cook before the cookie is done. You could try it, but I'd recommend presoaking them in hot water for an hour, or maybe even parboiling them for a few minutes. You'd need to adjust your wet ingredients accordingly as well.
I have been considering trying toasted steel cut oats as an ingredient in or as a garnish on cookies. I haven't tried it yet, but I plan on spreading a thin layer of the oats on a sheet pan and toasting lightly in a low oven then allowing them to cool. I'd probably try them with my usual oatmeal raisin cookie recipe, or one that usually calls for some cereal flakes as an ingredient. If I try the garnish idea I might use a shortbread cookie recipe and roll the dough balls in the toasted oats or just dip the tops.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.299206
| 2010-08-17T05:50:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5325",
"authors": [
"Carolina",
"Jean",
"Joe",
"VisioN",
"codesparkle",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54315
|
Why is my quiche weeping?
A quiche that I've made for years with no problems is now seeping a ridiculous amount of liquid. The ingredients include bacon, shredded swiss, onion (small amount, finely diced), eggs, half and half, salt, pepper and cayenne. I've made it the same way for ages so the fact that it is now so wet is a puzzle. I blind bake the crust but with the amount of liquid that is seeping, it isn't helping. Just to get an idea of the amount of liquid that I'm dealing with, I made a small version in an 8" oval baker and did not use a crust. After taking out a small portion (about 1/4), I let the dish sit and within 20 minutes I had 2-3 tablespoons of liquid pooling on the bottom of the dish.
What on earth am I doing wrong?
Have you changed oven recently?
If you cook an egg dish for too long the proteins will over coagulate and excessive moisture loss is the result.
Even if you've been making it the same for years, it's possible that the termostat in your oven is failing, and keeping things a little too hot (leading to overcooking, as mentioned above)
That was my thought as well. Or I also wondered if you have moved and perhaps live in a different elevation or climate that could require you to adjust your measurements a bit.
That must be the issue. I will try taking it out earlier and see if that fixes the problem.
Did you overcook it? Overcooking will often cause eggs to weep not-insignificant amounts of liquid.
You can see this trivially if you overcook scrambled eggs - you'll get essentially "egg curds in soup".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.299362
| 2015-02-02T20:43:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54315",
"authors": [
"BobAndSue Reed",
"Cheryl Sue",
"Dawn Iehle",
"Harts",
"Joe",
"Liz Kent",
"Love Horoscope Psychic Reading",
"Melissa Bernard Roy",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"barbas0trellas",
"geoffmpm",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33044",
"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
}
|
40638
|
What ratio of rice is needed for lentils to be a "complete protein"?
From what I understand Lentil needs Rice for the maximum benefit of its high protein quantity, of course that will then increase the carbs. What is the minimum ratio of rice to lentils to maximize protein to carb ratio while making the protein complete?
Incomplete vs. Complete Protein
Complete proteins contain all nine essential amino acids. The main sources of complete proteins are from animal based food, such as meat, seafood, eggs and dairy. Soy and quinoa are also complete proteins. Although incomplete proteins sounds like they are lacking and not as nutritious, they just need to be paired with another type of protein. For instance, adding peanut butter to bread creates a complete protein. According to Columbia University, the proteins do not need to be eaten together to receive the health benefits but any time within 24 hours will suffice.
Lentils and Protein
Lentils are rich in amino acids and high in protein. However, regular lentils are lacking in two essential amino acids. Because lentils do not have enough of these nutrients, the healthy legumes are an incomplete protein. However, lentils can be sprouted which changes their nutritional components. Sprouted lentils have an increase in all nine amino acids, although the exact increase is variable. To sprout your lentils, soak the seeds in cool water for eight to 12 hours. Rinse the lentils and store in a jar in a cool place for a few days, rinsing every eight hours.
Source: http://www.livestrong.com/article/527529-myth-of-lentils-as-an-incomplete-protein/
Grains
Grains, such as rice, oats, wheat, rye and corn, can act as complementary proteins for legumes such as lentils. They contain the cysteine and methionine that lentils lack, and lentils provide the lysine that grains do not contain enough of. Whole grains are a more nutritious option than refined grains. Legumes and grains are one of the most common pairings for complementary protein. Indian daal with rice is an example of a lentil and grain dish.
Source: http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/foods-mixed-lentils-provide-complete-source-amino-acids-1195.html
I don't know what a complete protein is, but I think this may be a health/nutrition question that's outside the scope of this site.
I edited the question to explain what a complete protein is. As far as Health/Nutrition I think it more is Ingredient selection and use which is on topic since I'm asking about a specific ingredient ratio not if its healthy. Guess thats up to the community though.
You can look up the different amino acids in the USDA NDB. E.g., http://ndb.nal.usda.gov/ndb/foods/show/4791?fg=&man=&lfacet=&count=&max=&sort=&qlookup=&offset=&format=Full&new=&measureby= and click the + on amino acids.
I am really unsure what to do with this question. The problem is that we accept questions about the nutritional value of food (how much of X does a food contain), but not any questions asking what is healthy, or what food does to the body physiologically. On the first glance, the question looked like it is of the first kind. But then I started answering it and noted that my answer is of the second kind. The problem is that there is no such ratio, or rather, there is a ratio you can calculate, but it is not the ratio you should eat. But the explanation is of the second kind, so off topic.
Protein combining has been out of favor for at least 10 years. As long as you get the correct amino acids in roughly a 24 hour period, you'll be fine. WikiPedia
Preamble
I will act in the interest of the OP and not close the question. I assume that my premise that the ratio doesn't matter (explained in the answer proper) is an established fact (at least I don't know of any source claiming the opposite). If we find a claim to the contrary, we will have to close the whole question, because it means that there is no undisputed answer even at that very general level, and the question falls completely in the field of "unverifiable" nutrition.
Answer
There is no such ratio, as complete proteins are not about ratios. They are about minimum intake of essential amino acids. This means that, if you would only eat rice and lentils and nothing else (or at least no other sources of protein), there is a minimal amount of rice you have to eat per day to not get deficiency symptoms. If this amount of rice is X gram, then it doesn't matter if you eat X gram of rice and 2X gram of lentils, or X gram of rice and 10X gram of lentils. The ratio of rice to lentils is irrelevant.
The more interesting question for you is probably what is the minimal amount of rice you have to eat per day. There are freely available nutrition value databases such as the one derobert linked. Once you have determined that you want to eat at least Y mg of a given amino acid per day (supposedly it will be an amino acid not contained in lentils), you can use a simple rule of three calculation to find out how much rice you need to eat in order to get Y mg of the amino acid in question.
But how do you decide how much you want to eat? There are government approved RDAs, as well as thousands of sources at all levels of credibility which recommend their own intake levels, usually pointing out that RDAs are intentionally conservative. We cannot help you with that decision. It is completely off topic for us, and it is up to you to find such sources and decide which one to believe. Consulting a nutrition professional is a very good option if you are going on a highly restricted diet; they will probably be able to give you such a value. Personally, I wouldn't trust a number given to me by a stranger on the Internet, and would try to keep in mind that the minimal amount (under which you get deficiency symptoms) and the optimal amount are most likely not the same, but many sources conflate them.
I am converting this post to community wiki, not because I think that it needs expansion through other users, but because I want to visibly prevent any conflict of interest between my decision to not close the question (which I might yet change, pending any new information on the matter) and the fact that I answered it and the answer is netting upvotes for me.
50-50 or 55-45. It doesn't really matter per se, since it depends on the side dish/dishes accompanying, and what one feels(!)
Answers like this are the reason why we don't like this kind of question. A number thrown in, lots of ambiguity, no sources... just a naked claim to know what is best for you. I am protecting the question and leaving the answer here as a negative example, please don't add similar ones.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.299571
| 2013-12-28T04:52:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40638",
"authors": [
"Arthur Castro",
"DashHound",
"Kaitlyn",
"Marianne",
"Preston",
"Ryan",
"SASS_Shooter",
"SourDoh",
"Ted Conner",
"ToTamire",
"Victor Solis",
"asdf3",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94588",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
50262
|
How to stuff and/or spice the chicken BELOW the skin?
Recently watch a cooking show, and in one of the recipes (before cooking the chicken) the instruction was to put the spice below the skin of the chicken.
How to do it? Does it have some special methods to preserve the quality?
This Video explains it all (change chicken for turkey)
Question: Before or after?
@BaffledCook Before the cooking, if it is the question.
Ok, just edited your entry to reflect that.
It's a tradeoff: salting (and using herbs or spices) a chicken under the skin, rather than on the surface of the skin, will result in a better-seasoned bird but it will make the presentation of the whole bird a bit less attractive, since the skin is no longer exactly where it should be. I've also noticed that the skin gets crispier when you salt it between the skin and the meat.
You can use a spatula as BaffledCook says but I find it easier to just use my hands. Just find a spot on the bird's breast where the skin and meat are a little separated, like the chest cavity opening, where it's been cut during butchering. Slowly slide your fingertips in between the skin and the meat, separating the two, and work your way all over the breasts with both hands. Go slow so you don't tear the skin. If possible, leave the skin attached at the breastbone and near the wings, that will keep the skin relatively in-place for presentation and there isn't much meat that needs seasoning in those spots anyway.
You can work your way over to the thighs and drumsticks this way too, though if you do, the skin will be quite separated from the carcass and your presentation will suffer more. Also, thighs and drumsticks aren't quite as thick as the breast, so salting them on the surface of the skin is more effective.
I use my hands, too ... it's easier to get into strange places around the legs, etc. People with long fingernails might have issues with this technique, though.
You must loosen the skin of the chicken with a dull object, like a spatula, then you can add the spices as you see fit.
This video shows how to do it and adds some fat to keep the (turkey) chicken breast moist.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.300101
| 2014-12-02T13:08:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/50262",
"authors": [
"Andrew Toon",
"BaffledCook",
"Joe",
"Lynn Williams",
"Sohail Younus",
"Spammer",
"Thabile Precious Ngobese",
"Zoltán Schmidt",
"anita",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25947
|
Why did my Tiramisu Cake become dry?
I followed Dorie Greenspan's recipe http://clclt.com/eatmycharlotte/archives/2010/04/09/dorie-greenspans-tiramisu-cake for making the sponge cake. The cake was very soft when it cooled down.
However, after sitting in the fridge overnight, it was quite tough. It was left uncovered in the fridge. Not sure if this caused it - if yes, what is the best way to keep it in the fridge while the flavours blend?
Welcome to the site AGS. Did you use cake flour as prescribed?
I would say the refrigeration is the culprit. Fridges suck the moisture out of anything that isn't tightly covered.
I would either wrap the cake in plastic wrap or put in an airtight tub or cake tin before refrigerating.
This will also prevent the cake from absorbing any smells in the fridge: chocolate is very prone to this.
Thanks for the response. Will follow these tips the next time round.
At least with tiramisu you're soaking it in something afterward, so it might not be as big a deal if it's dried out as with a normal cake.
This isn't tiramisu though, it's a normal sponge cake with tiramisu flavours.
Oops, didn't click through. Well... turn it into tiramisu I guess!
I make tiramisu from time to time, tough my recipe is much simpler (I use sponge finger instead of cake).
If have noticed that you can separate the ingredients into two categories:
Ingredients that make the tiramisu more liquid:
Eggs
Cofee
Ingredients that make the tiramisu more dry:
Mascarpone
Sugar
sponge fingers
So you have to adjust the relative quantities in order to have the texture that you want. How much cofee you put into the sponge fingers or the cake matters a lot too.
If your problem is that the tiramisu becomes dry after cooling down, then I have to suggestions:
Wrap it up into an impervious container (as mentioned in the other response, to avoid frige smell and evaporation)
The colder the cake, the dryer it will be. So if your cake is too liquid, you might consider putting it into the freezer a few minutes before serving; and if it's too dry you might want to let it warm up a little bit.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.300347
| 2012-09-02T11:50:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25947",
"authors": [
"AGS",
"BaffledCook",
"Cascabel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37457
|
Which part of the coffee brew is best?
At work we have a coffee machine that makes 10 cups of coffee in about 3 minutes. Sometimes, 3 minutes is too long to wait for coffee :P So I will poach it as it comes out of the dispenser and then quickly replace the coffee pot so the rest is caught. However, I am not sure if I am getting the short end of the stick.
Should I wait for the entire process to finish before getting coffee? Is the coffee that is first dispensed from the machine the same quality as the coffee which is dispensed in the middle or end of the process?
It is not simply a matter of strong versus weak. Rather, different qualities are extracted from the coffee over different parts of the brewing process. The most volatile components are extracted early in the brew, and the less volatile components come out over the length of the brew.
So the distribution of flavors varies over the brew. Total brew time is carefully calibrated in quality coffee makers to extract the most desirable flavors possible, and minimize the least desirable.
By taking some out early, you are guaranteed a bad first cup, and are consigning the remainder of the pot to be less than it could be.
For best quality, you should wait for the entire brew, so that the flavors are balanced from the entire brew time.
Of course waiting for the entire brew will be superior, but that's not what was asked. Waiting for the entire brew renders the question irrelevant.
@CareyGregory I also answered the specific question: the mixture of extracted solubles is different at the beginning than the end of the brew. It is the reason one should wait for the entire brew; to get a balanced cup.
Well, sure it is, but the question was how to sneak the best cup during the brew without waiting for the end result. If I thought the question was how to get the best cup, I'd have answered the same.
@CareyGregory I don't know how on earth you get that it is about sneaking the best cup, even upon re-reading it. And there is no good way to sneak a good cup, for the reasons I have explained. I realize you disagree from reading your answer, but I cannot agree with either your premise or your conclusion. The OP must have felt I answered their question.
Well, not worth arguing about, but he begins his question by saying he poaches during the dispensing, as many people do. Without the poaching part, it's not even a question, or at least it's almost certainly an already answered one. I guess I just thought he was looking for how to poach best, rather than the obvious question of -- duh -- is it better to wait for the end result.
Espresso machines (not your machine, I know) are balanced to extract the full flavour in about 30'. When extracting longer, more bitter flavour is extracted. Read more here
According to McGee, stronger coffee is not better coffee.
Getting the first cup will get you the strongest most flavourful cup, but will leave your cow-workers with a lousy drab. Not that strongest is best.
Your best trade-off between quality and strength, is probably to wait until the last minute before 'stealing' your cup. It's also more solitary with your colleagues.
Lastly, the best possible coffee is probably the most recently brewed. Coffee that's let to sit (on the heater) loses quality fast.
You can tell when someone knows what he is doing is wrong when he says he poaches the first cup, and doesn't want to make it obvious to everyone else. In my experience the first part of the brew is the strongest, and if you take it the rest is noticeably inferior. It doesn't even have a pleasant smell or flavor anymore. All I can say is let it finish brewing because you are cheating anyone who takes a cup after you.
The description of the consequences for the next cup are exactly the kind of answer we are looking for, so this might have been a really good answer. But I see no reason for going into a rant or labelling strangers "selfish greedy person" based on a small example of behavior. So, -1 for being unnecessary rude.
@sourd'oh thanks for editing. I'm removing my downvote.
In my opinion (this is subjective) you should wait. I've noticed that the first cup is usually the best (strongest) and if you swipe it the rest of the pot is weaker by comparison.
The first coffee produced is very strong and the last coffee produced is very weak, so I would go for the middle. This is also the only way to be fair to others. If you take the first, the pot will be weaker than normal, and if you take the last, the pot will be stronger than normal.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.300568
| 2013-10-09T17:23:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37457",
"authors": [
"Carey Gregory",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
74960
|
Why aren't my macarons as soft as professional ones?
I recently bought some macarons made by professional bakeries. When I got home, I threw them into the freezer and, days later, I checked on them. When I took a bite, it was still nice and soft. The cold temperature seemed to have had no effect whatsoever on the product. It was as tasty and supple as if it had been left out at room temperature.
The macarons that I make don't do this though. When they come out of the freezer, they're just crunchy. If I leave them out to thaw at room temperature, then they do soften up, but the store-bought ones don't need to thaw at all. I'd like for mine to do this as well. How can I keep my macarons soft while they're also being frozen?
Have you tried replacing half of the sugar with fructose-glucose syrup? (If you mean by "professional", "industrial" then that might be the trick.) I wouldn't because fructose-glucose syrup gives you a much quicker sugar-high then normal sugar so your body craves for more far quicker, eventually leading to overconsumption...
Is the fructose-glucose syrup replacing half the granulated sugar, or the powdered sugar, or half of each? What's the science behind the syrup making the macaron softer?
Sorry, half of the total amount of sugar, so half of each. Fructose and glucose doe not crystallise like saccharose, so the end-product will be softer.
How long after baking did you wait before putting them in the freezer?
That's interesting that they don't crystalize. I'll keep that in mind. I usually wait a varied amount of time, sometimes it's right away, sometimes it's a day or two.
Also, what type of oil/lard does the "professional" use? Using lard instead of oil makes a big difference.
Out of curiosity, are you using the French or Italian method? Do you know which the bakery is using? The Italian method has been more reliable and stable for me, but the final product always seems a little drier/more marshmallow-y as well. If you're using a different method, that could account for some of the difference.
I believe this has more to do with different ingredients in the "professional" category. Modern professional bakeries(whether industrial sized or not) often have access to a wide variety of additives, some of which are not even required to be listed on the "ingredients" list specifically. This varies widely by country; common euphimistic examples of such ingredients in a very general sense include words like "spices", "emulsifiers", "softeners", "stabilizers", "anti-caking agents", or "preservatives".
I would suspect a hydrophilic substance first. Commonly used "softeners" are various plant based gums and fiber. Think guar gum, xanthan gum, inulin, cellulose, or psyllium husk. A cookie which I know to be very high in one or more of these softeners is known across the U.S.A. as "Chips A'hoy Chewy". These cookies tend to stay softer in almost any condition, from frozen to relatively dried out/stale, than home made cookies.
All of these potential ingredients are available for the home chef today(including many I have not mentioned), but would not be typically found in your kitchen or at your local grocer. You would want to look at a shop or online vendor specializing in "molecular gastronomy".
One of the things I do with cookies in general(which would not work very well with anything frozen, but I feel the need to mention anyway) is to place a slice of bread into an airtight storage container with fresh cookies after the cookies have cooled to room temperature. This will keep almost any kind of cookie softer than other storage methods, while the slice of bread will seem to have dried out significantly by comparison. This precludes the use of additives entirely. I suspect this probably also carries a higher spoilage risk, due to the addition of humidity, although I've not had any issues with cookies spoiling this way before they are eaten(usually within about 5 days). Refrigeration would help tremendously if there was a desire to keep them far longer, although I would not recommend freezing.
All that said, I have little experience with macaroons, specifically, so your experience may vary.
The problem is that macarons are extremely unusual in that they actually need to age and get "stale"... you will often hear that they taste better 3-4 days after baking than the day of. My dad kept a batch of my macarons int he freezer for a month and they were still lovely when we ate them after that time and I didn't use any sorts of additives... and a quality bakery won't... they're a finicky cookie at best.
Macarons are dough you have to follow the recipe exactly. If it says room temperature eggs use room temperature. If it says to sift the almond flour 3 times do that. Also, make sure not to over fold or stir the mixture.
How does this address the question of his macarons being crunchy coming out of the freezer...?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.301071
| 2016-10-23T22:14:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74960",
"authors": [
"Agos",
"BunnyKnitter",
"Catija",
"Fabby",
"Sensii Miller",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"kitukwfyer",
"user2323030"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
61617
|
Is it possible to "ripen" mushrooms after it's picked?
Quite recently my world was shaken when I learned that the common button mushroom and the much larger portabello mushroom are both the exact same species, Agaricus Bisporus, but at different stages of maturity.
I've tasted both portabello mushroom and button mushroom and can noticeably taste that the portebello have a much fuller and developed flavor compared to the much milder button mushroom.
Because the price of portabello are much higher than the button mushrooms, I was wondering if there was any way to ripen/mature these button mushrooms? I'm not expecting a tiny button mushroom to grow to palm size portabellos but is there any way to mature the button mushrooms so that it has a fuller flavor?
Note that the mushrooms marketed as baby portabello mushrooms (button mushroom with a light brown hue) are the same as the button mushrooms. In fact they are the original button mushrooms. The common white button mushroom is a mutated variety that has been propagated due to its desirable white coloring. So baby portabello mushrooms are not "ripen" white button mushrooms.
EDIT: In reponse to the comments, I would like to clarify that I want to know if there is a way to "ripen" the flavor of the mushroom similar to how fruits can ripen after its already been picked. The color is irrelevant. The only reason I mentioned "baby portabello" is to make it clear that I know it exist and that isn't the answer I am looking for.
Are you sure the difference you're perceiving is due to ripening, and not due to varietals? As in, have you compared the taste of baby portabello mushrooms and white button mushrooms?
The mutation that caused the loss of brown coloring also caused a lot of loss of flavor. Do try the brown button mushrooms (by whatever name) -- in our area, they're the same price as the white ones. (Sorry, I know nothing about propagating or maturing mushrooms.)
To anyone who isn't sure, the Wikipedia article clearly agrees with this... they are not varieties, they are the same exact fungi at different stages of growth: "It has two color states while immature—white and brown—both of which have various names. When mature, it is known as Portobello mushroom."
The intro paragraph in the Wikipedia page needs expert attention. The main text is clear that these are different individuals, not stages thatba sinhke individual goes through.
What are sold as "baby bella" mushrooms used to be sold as "crimini" or "cremini" years before they started the marketing push on "portabella".
You can not ripen mushrooms after they've been picked because once they are removed they are disconnected from the mycelium which acts as the mushrooms "brain". Once picked they soon die off. You can only slow that process by cleaning them and keeping them at cool temperatures.
What do you mean by "act as the mushrooms brain"? I'm not really sure how to interpret the analogy.
Mushrooms don't grow by cell division like other plants. The mycelia must connect with the spores of the mushroom to make it grow. The mycelia in this way acts to feed the mushrooms and along with that it also controls the behavior of the mushrooms growth. No mycelium/no mushrooms.
I see - so perhaps as much like body as brain. I take it you're saying the flavor also doesn't change (which was the question), not just that they don't grow?
No, it won't improve in flavor or mature. It will eventually turn back into mycelia. This is what you see in very old mushrooms. I pile of white fluffy strands and sometimes mold with it.
White button mushrooms are not the same as "baby bella", which look similar but are nut brown. See this Answer
You seen to know that in the question. So what do you mean "ripen"? The white mushrooms are different and will not turn into the brown ones the way fruit changes color to ripen.
The best way to cope with white mushrooms, once you know what you're missing, is to cook in a sauce whose flavor it can absorb.
Are white hot-house mushrooms the same species? Maybe they are. Just like lettuce, broccli, couliflour, and cabbage are the same species. The cultivar can make a substantial difference, as can the growing medium.
The Wikipedia article seems to confirm that they are, in fact, the same exact fungi, at different phases in their growth.
No it doesn't. "In strains with darker flesh,..." the same species, not the exact same variety. Look up Broccoli for comparison, "Broccoli resembles cauliflower, which is a different cultivar group of the same species.". Can you turn coliflour into broccoli? Same thing: white mushroom didn't grow the colored stuff inside it.
Link to http://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/38692/white-and-brown-mushrooms-same-species-but
I was surprised to see that you interpret the "ripening" request as a request for them getting a different color. I see the question as being about taste, as with many fruits. You cannot turn a green colored pear into a yellow one by holding it, but you can certainly make it sweeter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.301493
| 2015-09-09T19:35:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/61617",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Clarasu Mullen",
"Commercial Laundry",
"Ian Moore",
"JDługosz",
"JPmiaou",
"Joe",
"Larry Harris",
"Lynda Baran",
"Marti",
"NKY Homesteading",
"Nikolaos Chivikas",
"Obozuwa Janet",
"Suresh Gumaste",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34948
|
Can you make latte-art with a panarello wand?
I have a deLonghi Icona coffe machine. It contains a steaming wand of the panarello kind (with a hole in the top that automatically injects air). I tried to steam the milk to create a microfoam that would behave correctly when pouring into coffee. No success though.
My question is - is it possible to make a correct foam that would create latte-art on pouring with this kind of wand? Or do I need a machine with other wand type?
Yes, you can. And it is not too easy.
Microfoam has small bubbles by definition and the panarello wand will draw a 'certain' amount of air and you can't really control that part. The notes below might help you get there. I have successfully done this with the panarello wands of automatic Saeco machines which aren't too different from deLonghi.
Run your steam wand in a cup water first until it's fully producing steam and not spuddering hot water mixed with steam.
Use a small Stainless Steel Milk Frothing Pitcher. If the wand is trying to blow steam and air in for a long time, you'll end up with big bubbles. That wand is not as powerful as a commercial espresso machine with a proper boiler.
'Stretch' the froth only for a few seconds in the beginning.
Keep the wand off-center in the pitcher to encourage circulation (see next point).
Most important: make sure you create a whirlpool to circulate the milk (helps to gently move the pitcher in a circular motion to encourage the start of the whirlpool).
I use the fattiest milk I can find.
The trick is to move the milk in a circulation such that big bubbles
break and only microbubbles survive. Some microfoam creation also
happens at the vortex of the whirlpool.
Finally, before pouring the foamed milk, knock the pitcher on the counter a couple of times (presumably to remove the large bubbles) and swirl it around a bit (while the bottom remains firm on the counter).
I solved the problem by removing the outer "Panarello" wand and using the inner steam wand to stretch my milk, it gives you much more control and with a little practice it works a treat and produces nice glossy stretched milk perfect for latte art.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.302197
| 2013-06-26T08:49:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34948",
"authors": [
"AlpG",
"Geoff Roe",
"Itamar",
"Janet Kruser",
"Joe Costner",
"Pramuda Liyanage",
"Ruta Tuua",
"Tom Sol",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81523",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81541"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107545
|
Any fix for a warped carbon steel fry pan?
I bought a De Buyer 14" Mineral B Round carbon steel fry pan approximately five years ago. I've used it a fair bit, but recently I think I warped it in the oven when I put it under a broiler for a bit. Now it wobbles when I put it down on a flat surface.
Is there any remedy for this? Or should I recycle it?
@rumtscho I thought carbon steel and stainless are different beasts. My stainless pans are much thicker and have layers on their thick bottoms, so some of the suggestions seemed inappropriate for carbon steel, which is much thinner. My question does not seem like a duplicate to me, but I defer to your seasoned judgement here.
There is a difference between the materials, it just doesn't matter in the things you can try. Basically, you can expose your pan to different kinds of stress, and it either improves, gets damaged, or stays the same. It is up to you what risk you want to take. Thinness is not even a problem here - I would say that the more extreme methods are more dangerous for sandwich bottom steel than for a relatively plastic thin carbon steel. In the end, all you can do is be violent and hope for the best :)
I found this suggestion. Let us know if this works for you.
cut yourself a piece of 2x4 about 1/2" shorter than diameter of the pan's bottom, i.e., just short en
ough to fit flat in the pan if the bottom weren't warped.
Heat the pan.
Set the pan on a flat piece of concrete (a thick steel plate would be
better, but how many people have those sitting around?).
Put the 2-by in the pan and start whacking the heck out of it with a
hammer. Turn the board so every part of the pan gets flattened, but
concentrate in the center.
Let the pan cool, reheat and repeat.
If the crown is on the bottom, you have to find something big enough
to support the pan's rim, but which allows the handle to extend beyond
the surface -- so the pan sits flat; and of course, you'll want a 2-by
a few inches longer than the pan is wide.
If you're very thorough, you'll flatten both sides each time you
flatten.
I will give this a whirl when the quarantine is over and everyone is at work and let you know how it turns out.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.302425
| 2020-04-13T19:29:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107545",
"authors": [
"dimitriy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19068",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
51996
|
Slightly bitter potatoes or onion
I have got the same annoying result a few times now, when making potato gratin, and something known as "french potato cake" in my country (grated potato in frying pan).
I believe that it's the potato which has a slightly off taste; bitter/metallic/raw. Some googling leads to solanine as an explanation, but I'm not completely satisfied.
Things that might be related:
I rarely peel them (yet, I think that the same batch of potatoes, used a few days apart did taste fine the first time).
I think that it's worse when any piece of potato isn't in direct contact with heat (i e the center of a thick potato cake or gratin)
I almost always add raw, finely grated onions.
Sometimes raw garlic - my impression is that it makes it worse.
The potatoes are not green, at all, in any of these circumstances.
So my guesses are:
Solanine, in that case solution is to peel them?
Something related to oxidation, either in garlic/onion or perhaps catalysed by it. Solution, in that case?
Rawness - can potatoes be soft and still be "raw"?
For solanine, you'll see a layer of green under the skin. You want to remove all of the green bits. You also want to remove the areas around sprouted eyes, not just the sprout itelf.
Oh, they're not green and don't have sprouts (updated question).
Did you grow these potatoes yourself? If so, were they well-watered throughout the growing season? I've found that if I under-water my potatoes, they turn out somewhat bitter. I started growing my own because I ran across too many potatoes with a bitter, musty or chemical smell/taste, so if you have commercial potatoes, any of dozens of contaminants or additives could cause the problem.
My gut tells me that they are either under-done or need to be rinsed. Have you tried par boiling the potato? I would try slicing the raw potato, boiling for a few minutes to draw out some of the starch - then rinsing them before adding to your recipe. Worth a try I think.
Good luck!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.302638
| 2014-12-26T23:05:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51996",
"authors": [
"Dana Blichmann",
"Halee Nicole",
"Joe",
"NiklasJ",
"Pamela",
"Riana Meyer",
"Roger Sutton",
"Shalryn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43782",
"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
}
|
87363
|
Isn't moisture a problem when measuring flour by weight?
In this thread:
Is it okay to measure flour by weight by converting from volume?
The choice of measuring by volume and weight is discussed. I've always preferred weight, but have a lingering feeling of an additional error that is more prevalent when measuring by weight, namely any amount of moisture content in the flour.
Say, perfectly dry flour has a certain density d.
The flour that has a "maximum moisture content", have certain percentage flour, and a new density d_2. These two numbers conspire to change both the volume and weight measurments.
"Maximum moisture content" means "not obvious", I guess.
Are there any known results of this kind? How much more/less moisture may exist in the flour without being noticable?
To further complicate matters, I guess it also means that any added water should take that extra moisture into account?
I'm thinking of the similar discussion of mushrooms; weight vs volume, which always claims weight is better - to which I disagree; just think of dried mushrooms, at a fraction of the initial weight. Of course a powder isn't the same as a mushroom with cell walls, but I guess as single flour particle could absorb moisture anyway?
I'm having a hard time figuring out what your question actually is @NiklasJ. Are you asking how much moisture is typically present in flour? Or how much water flour may absorb over time? It's just not clear.
I don't have any citations to give so I'm not making this an answer, but I would assume that the variation in the weight of flour through moisture content, below a level where flour would appear damp and you would probably opt not to use it,would be minimal. I certainly can't imagine that the variation would be greater than the margin of accuracy of most kitchen scales for domestic baking amounts.
@GdD I've updated the question, perhaps clearer now?
You could test the hypothesis yourself by weighing out two equal quantities of flour and placing one in the oven for 4 or 5 hours at about 103° C. Then weigh the oven-dried sample again and see if it is significantly lighter. (that is broadly the method used by The American Association of Cereal Chemists, apparently. https://archive.org/stream/cu31924003565326/cu31924003565326_djvu.txt my own guess is that domestic kitchen scales are unlikely to be sensitive enough to detect a difference.
So you're asking whether absorbed moisture changes weight or volume measurements more?
@Spagirl Yeah but i guess i would need a "maximally wet" flour to begin with then...
@GdD Well, yes. Or rather; measuring dry and wet flour using both methods, what is the final actual flour amount?
@NiklasJ Under what circumstances do you think flour would get 'maximally wet'? Anyway, my point stands that I don't think the difference is going to be within range of most domestic scales to detect over a few hundred grams of flour. I certainly don't think it would exceed the tolerance range of most recipes which are rounded to convenient measures. I mean, Heston Blumenthal may have recipes which measure by the microgram for the perfect result, but most recipes are not sensitive to that degree.
@Spagirl Humid condititons, basically. The problem with your guess is just that there are very many examples where drying leads to enourmous differences. When making bread, I'm measuring about 500g of flour to 1g precision, at least according to my scale. And I think I notice a difference in the summer vs the winter.
@NiklasJ So what I was suggesting was a method which would tell you if there was a difference in your kitchen in the range of humidities you experience, which is surely what you need to know? What is the difference you notice, is it in the apparent volume of the flour or in other behaviour of the loaf?
@Spagirl Yes, I think I will make some experiments. The difference is that my pizza dough gets dry and cracks, despite using the same recipe and measuring everything to the same weight by grams.
Very related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75802/how-does-ambient-humidity-of-flour-storage-influence-dough - there are effects from humidity besides those on measurement.
The point is that making a cake can be more difficult than conduct a chemical reaction in a lab but none of the tools used are of the precision you are looking at. Forget.
Here is a post on the subject I found interesting. http://www.genuineideas.com/ArticlesIndex/flour.html
The findings may not be definitive, but seem logical enough to be at least close. Basically, my paraphrasing, they find the difference between completely dry flour and very humid conditions for most of us to be real but much less than that from volume measure. They get more technical on some of their justifications than some might prefer, but generally claim that weight should not vary by more than 3% for most of us, and that given most home scales are accurate to about 1% and we classify that as precise measuring, 3% is not huge.
Guessing here, but I would suggest that other ingredients may also be effected at least in this same range by humidity and this effect is less than altitude variations, and that volume measures are likely effected by humidity which would allow increases in compaction as much, maybe ore than weight. Given 3% as a rough guide, I think this fits into feel and experience areas and normal variations in cooking. For those outside the "normal" band, desert and high humidity coastal type areas, having lived in both, yes, it is one more curse of trying to get consistent results there.
Interesting post. I noticed this when making pizza dough. I've had very consistent results before but now they usually turns out too dry. Perhaps the thin dough amplifies the difference.
Having lived in Arizona (VERY low moisture - often 3-5 %, I was born there) and now in the Philippines (High 90s humidity always), the difference is VERY small, not usually noticeable. It is within "normal tolerances". Each brand can be a little different too, but most are nearly the same.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.302886
| 2018-01-29T13:28:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87363",
"authors": [
"Alchimista",
"Cascabel",
"GdD",
"NiklasJ",
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
70761
|
Is the grey stuff the thing we make fond out of
When cooking minced meat in particular (and most meat as far as I know), some grey, gooey stuff usually turn up on one side.
Its also apparent when doing certain sous vide things and chicken (in that case white).
As I've understood it, that's denatured proteins that are forced out of the meat. But in that case - shouldn't it always be like that, just that we often don't see it because we brown it immediately?
So my hypothesis is that the good brown stuff in the bottom of the pan that we use when deglazing, really just is browned "grey stuff". And not to any large extent "parts of the meat that gets stuck", since when it happens, it is very annoying, and i cant imagine how it can get stuck "a little".
Is this correct?
EDIT:
I'll rephrase it:
What approximate proportions are between
browned protein scum
browned small stuck pieces of meat
In the bottom of the pan right before deglazing?
And could I scrape off the grey stuff from say a meatloaf and fry it separately to get an awesome sauce?
I have trouble understanding the question. First, what is the difference between "protein scum" and "small stuck pieces of meat"? The meat itself is made out of the same protein, plus some others.
@rumtscho That's kind of part of the question - do the stuck bits actually happen, and if they do, how much and are they different or important in any way? (Note that quantity is a potential difference, not just protein composition, as is the way it browns in the pan.)
Fond isn't just browned protein scum. There really are small bits of meat/fat that get stuck on the pan, and you should be able to see them before they're thoroughly browned/burned if you pay close attention.
That kind of sticking isn't the same as when meat sticks really obviously and badly. When that happens, you'll naturally notice when you try to move the meat, and be aware of what's sticking to the pan. But even without that kind of awful sticking, you can have tiny little pieces that stick, then tear away from the bulk of the meat when you turn it. You won't notice nearly as easily, because most of the meat isn't stuck.
The exact details depend on the type and cut of meat, I suppose, but in general it's quite easy for this to happen.
As for the additional questions... proportions probably vary a lot, but I'm guessing in terms of protein and fat (i.e. without the water that you're just going to cook off) there may actually be a lot more in the stuck bits than in the juices and protein scum. I know that the really good fonds come from pans that have a lot of obvious stuck bits, not just an even coating of cooked-down liquid across the pan. I'm sure you could make something without any stuck bits, but you probably won't be able to make nearly as much as you'd get from the normal process.
Thanks for your reply. You did answer my original question, but I have updated the post to better reflect what I actually was wondering.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.303390
| 2016-06-16T17:03:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/70761",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"NiklasJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32021
|
Pulled pork cooking time
I have always made pulled pork with the shoulder, but this time I want to make it with the leg of pork.
Will turn out dry, does it need less cooking time?
Pork leg (fresh ham) is quite amenable to the low and slow techniques used to make pulled pork, such as braising, slow roasting, or barbecuing, just like pork shoulder (butt).
The final product may have a slightly different texture, as the ham is a little leaner than the shoulder.
Questions of cooking time are very difficult to answer, as they depend on the specific temperature, shape of the cut being cooked, method, and the individual characteristics of the individual cut. You are looking for an outcome, which is that the connective collagen is fully gelatinized. This means holding at internal temperatures of around 180 F for some time. You will know that it is done when it pulls apart easily with a fork. Fortunately, low and slow techniques tend to be very forgiving, and while possible, it is difficult to overcook using them.
I would recommend checking the fresh ham about the same time you would check a pork butt of the same thickness in your recipe or technique. Pulled pork also holds and reheats exceptionally well.
Keep in mind, a lot of that texture and the reason for the "low and slow" approach is because all the connective tissues (which make for tough and less pleasant eating when cooked other ways) break down under those conditions. A leg isn't going to have as much, so you might want to ask yourself why cook a more expensive cut this way? Or, if you have the cut and want to use it, is this the best use for that? I say "ask yourself" because I'm not saying it is, one way or the other. I'm certainly not above experimentation.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.303736
| 2013-02-18T09:37:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32021",
"authors": [
"Jan Howes",
"John Murphy",
"Leanne MRW",
"Lorraine Federoff Tversky",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Suruchi Oswal",
"aronisstav",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73655",
"swimfar"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
73442
|
Conversion rate in volume of freshly picked beans as opposed to dried beans
I wish to use fresh beans instead of dried ones.For a kg of dried beans as per the recipe how much of fresh beans should I use?
What do you mean by "fresh beans"? Beans are eaten either green or ripe, and ripe beans are already dry before picking. If your recipe specifies ripe dry beans, you cannot substitute green beans.
if by "fresh" you mean as in cooked canned beans, the general rule of thumb is one part dried beans equals three parts cooked beans, so you should be looking to use 3kg of canned beans. This is, of course, after draining.
If the question is about canned beans, it is a duplicate. But I have a hard time imagining anybody using "fresh" as a synonym for "canned"
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.303913
| 2016-08-25T21:03:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/73442",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71352
|
Can rasam, a South Indian recipe, be boiled at high temperatures?
One of my friends said "rasam" should not be boiled at high temperatures but he hasn't given any reason for that statement.
Is it true? If so, could you give me the reason?
Yea, you should not. The principle behind Rasam is the same as the principle behind the soup. You want the liquid to be infused with the optimum flavour from the masala, tomatoes, pepper etc. Beyond that it begins to lose its characteristic taste. Even rasam that has been heated repeatedly, tastes much worse than one that has been heated just once. If you make Rasam with whole peppers like in my place, the spiciness become unbearable if you boil it too much.
The reason is rasam is a liquid thing with necessary ingredients added to it which doesn't need to actually be 'cooked'
But we need to boil so as to remove the raw flavor of tamarind or tomato used in it. So if the rasam just starts boiling its enough heat to remove the raw smell and incorporate all the essential flavors to the rasam. It 'need not ' be heated beyond that as a matter of fact.
My question is whether it can be boiled at high temperature. Your answer is related whether we can cook rasam or not.
My answer is that , we can boil but just a few seconds would do. I always do that. But it need not be done for a long time like other curries or gravies. That's my point. I ve given just the explanation for that. The few seconds of boiling is needed to remove the raw smell of the ingredients. That's my understanding.
My understanding is either we can boil at high temperature for short time or we can boil at low temperature for long time. Am i right?
No. That's not it. You either keep in low flame or high flame. It should start boiling in either case at some point in time. Just keep it for few seconds and switch off. And rasam specifically does not require high temperature boiling as it just needed to remove the raw flavor as mentioned.
never boil rasam. it becomes bland, just heat it till the fragrance comes out and it is about to simmer. if you dont believe, why not go ahead and boil at high temperature and drink it yourself. :)
Is this true across all of the numerous varieties of rasam?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.304018
| 2016-07-11T15:52:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71352",
"authors": [
"Vanpram P",
"Vinoth Energetic",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50803",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81078
|
Cast Iron and Smoke
I've had my cast iron for several weeks now and have been able to cook with it about 10 times. The problem is, the amount of smoke, and timing of it, have me thinking I'm doing something wrong...
I seasoned it 3 times with canola oil (put in oven at 500 degrees for 1 hour), and only cook with avocado oil (because of its high smoke point).
After letting the pan pre-heat on the "4" setting on the stove (medium heat basically), the smoke appears right when I place the oil in the pan. Now, avocado oil is suppose to have one of the highest smoke points, and for the pan to start smoking at medium heat has me very very confused.
Here are photos of the pan and oil I use
While there is no indication on the oil of it being refined, it advertises on multiple sections of the container that it is intended for high-heat cooking. As for the pan, while there are uneven patches, the surface is smooth and undetectable if you run your finger over the sections.
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
A cast iron pan would heat past 520F if you let it preheat long enough. What makes you think it's a problem with the pan?
High smoke point isn't necessarily the best stuff to use if you haven't yet seasoned the pan. You typically want higher iodine content for that. See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/13555/67
You might want to state how long you have been preheating the pan. Also, are you using a glass-top stove or gas? I'm assuming the latter (from my experience, gas usually manages to heat things up a tidbit quicker).
That being said/asked, I doubt the pan is the problem (without detailed photos, nobody here can judge on that, but I assume you would have observed something unusual about the pan), it's probably your timing.
You can experiment with the timing this way: Put oil in the pan, preferrably not too early, but early enough for it not to smoke right away (there surely is such a point in time).
You will be able to observe different stages:
The oil becomes more 'runny' due to absorbing more heat.
The oil will start to run in streaks and actually become less runny again, increasing viscosity. This is not too long/shortly before it will smoke.
The oil starts smoking.
Now, once at 2., you can reduce the flame (gas stove). If you're on a glass top, be quick to maybe even temporarily switch off the stove (the top will stay hot, anyways) and be quick about it, because glass tops retain heat and will keep heating your pan.
Either way, stage 2. is where you want to saute/stir fry stuff. For merely frying pancakes, this might be too hot, unless the pancakes are really thin.
You can also try this test, if you don't feel like putting the oil into the pan too early (I like to put in the oil as late as possible, so it isn't heated unnecessarily much). I have tried it with a cast iron pan, and it worked alright there, as well, as far as I can remember.
Last but not least, just to double-check: Is your Avocado oil refined? Because if it isn't, I doubt it has a high smoke point.
Greatly appreciate that video! And to answer your question, I'm actually using a glass top stove. Here are photos of the pan and oil I use: https://goo.gl/photos/Vh64o5yuUtot3LeVA. While there is no indication on the oil of it being refined, it advertises on multiple sections of the container that it is intended for high-heat cooking. As for the pan, while there are uneven patches, the surface is smooth and undetectable if you run your finger over the sections.
@AdrianSadoogh Dear Adrian, here on the Stackoverflow network, it's best if you consider (helpful) improvement remarks like those I made by editing your question. That way, the additional information is instantly visible to anyone looking up this question :) P.s.: That video rocked my world on discovery :D
Thank you. Do you have any thoughts on the pictures and comments I made?
No, because they confirm my assumptions. You still haven't posted how long you have been preheating, though ;) I'd also say you can safely go for peanut oil, because the oil you bought looks like it's very marketing-heavy and hence overpriced.
Sorry about that! I watched the video you suggested and just implemented it tonight while attempting to make my chicken. I repeated the water-drop process all the way until the water actually formed the "mercury ball", meaning I stopped one step before the video had recommended. As I poured the avocado oil, the smoke instantly appeared again.... And now I am more confused than ever.
Oh that happened to me as well. Uhm I don't see why you're saying "one step before". forget, your glass top stove will keep making the pan hotter, so you have to consider that, as well, but see my answer above about that. Might be possible that you have to add the oil earlier than suggested in the video, too.
Just found a video which perfectly shows what I'm experiencing. He goes through the process acting as if it is normal, but I am still hesitant about the amount and timing of smoke. Could you please share your thoughts? https://youtu.be/6tMu2IvcDjk?t=2m34s
I pretty much have written down everything you need to know here. If it smokes, it's too hot. So adjust your timing/add it earlier, keeping in mind what I wrote above. And add the ingredients as soon as the oil vecomes viscuous (see above) to cool down the oil and pan. Also, gently "sway" the oil in the pan a little from time to time by gently tilting the pan a little, in order to dostribute the heat, if you're sauteing something like a piece of chicken. Last but not least, make sure it's not steam you're talkong about (they sometimes look the same, but smoking oil smells, of course).
"Medium heat" is not a stove setting. "Medium heat" is the heat at which you cook the average dish. I would even argue that it is not a temperature, but a rate of heat transfer. For each combination of stove, pan, heating time and dish, you will achieve medium heat at a different setting of the knob.
There are foods which need high heat, and then your oil will always smoke, no matter which you choose. But if you are making a food which needs medium heat, just use a lower setting than the one you are currently using.
To mirror off what rumtscho mentions about heat, I frequently cook with both cast iron and regular non-stick. I use a much lower setting for cast iron then I do with non-stick. For example, on my stove, if I'm doing something like pancakes, I'll have the setting at 3 or 4 on non-stick pans but only at 1 for cast iron. I think simply your pan is too hot.
Thank you for getting back! Yesterday I made some chicken at a relatively low temperature and had no problems. I'm still concerned what may happen if I decide to cook something like steak-- which will require a much greater temperature for searing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.304220
| 2017-04-19T20:44:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81078",
"authors": [
"Adrian Sadoogh",
"Joe",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"polynomial_donut"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47197
|
Gas grill compared to regular (high end) oven
I've always been a charcoal guy, but as I'm thinking about buying a new grill I've looked at gas grills, with the convenience of cleaning, speed etc.
But I still can't help to think a modern oven would be able to fulfill a lot of what a gas grill can do (oven broiler plus convection at maximum temperature).
There is no flame, and the heat is from below - but how much does matter?
Disregarding any non-food aspects (pollution, being outdoor, having a beer while grilling), how big are the differences?
Edit: Commenter moscafj below wanted some things clarified, he was spot on.
My initial thought was to buy a charcoal grill, and for most other stuff use oven. I've had some thoughts about gas, but I always feel that it's just an "outdoor oven with an open flame".
Thus, I'm now comparing a standard outdoor gas grill to a new indoor domestic oven (with all the bells and whistles I can get).
The "drippings landing on hot bars" I've heard about, but that's basically the only thing.
Please clarify, are you talking about the merits of an indoor oven vs. an outdoor gas BBQ grill? If so, there is a pretty large difference between roasting and grilling. For the latter, you need for the meat drippings to fall on coals (or, in the case of gas) hot bars or fake coals, in order to impart that grilled flavor.
I think your "outdoor oven with an open flame" is spot-on. Since it's freestanding the grill can get a bit hotter; other than that, the differences are pretty minimal from a culinary perspective. For that reason, I tend to also favor charcoal.
While you are correct about the basics - both a grill and an oven can roast and sear, and it doesn't really matter if the heat comes from above or below.
However, there's some subtle details:
An oven will have fine temperature control (via a thermostat).
With an outdoor grill you can impart smoke-flavors (either via
smoldering hardwood, or by burning drippings). While that's possible
with an oven, unless you have one SERIOUSLY good ventilation-system,
you shouldn't even try it.
Grills also have the advantage of being outside - cookouts are much
less fun when you and your friends are standing in your kitchen,
staring at your oven.
grills can also get much hotter than your standard oven (unless the grill completely sucks). Also, I'm assuming we're comparing gas oven to gas grills ... electric ovens are dryer than a gas oven or grill (as the combustion of the hydrocarbon results in water)
Okay, as I pointed out "being outside" is not the answer I'm looking for. So I guess I have three points; smoke flavours from burning drippings on hot bars or burning wood chips, possibly higher temperature, and more moisture. I'm trying to decide if charcoal + oven is a better choice than gas, so far gas is pretty much equal to charcoal...
@NiklasJ - I'd like to emphasize that ovens have WAY better temperature control than most gas-grills. It's hard to set a grill to 425 and leave it for 3 hours to roast a turkey.
...Which is actually another point in the oven's favor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.304744
| 2014-09-17T08:43:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47197",
"authors": [
"Deborah Vella",
"Joe",
"Kelly Murphree",
"NiklasJ",
"Peter Mellin",
"Rebecca Bennett",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"john3103",
"logophobe",
"moscafj",
"zahra nasseri"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36548
|
Dealing with a hank of natural sausage casings
The hog casings I purchased came packaged in a large amount of salt, and I was not able to pull them apart. So, I removed the casings from the salt and put them all in soaking water.
That leads me to question 1: is this the normal practice? Soaking the entire hank even if you aren't planning to use all of it? Should they be easier to pull apart when salted?
After soaking all of them, based on what I've read, I should be able to take any that are not used when making sausage this evening, pat them dry, and put them back on salt and safely store them.
So this brings me to question 2: Can anyone verify if this is true - you can safely re-salt the rehydrated hog casings that haven't been used? Or did I just waste 10$ of pig gut for a relatively small amount of sausage.
Hanks of casing aren't generally that big (of course, this is relative - if you're only making one pound of sausage it's gigantic!) so I've always soaked the whole thing. They should be slightly easier to pull apart, but it helps a lot if you soak them in slightly warm water and then after they've soaked for a bit, find the end and run warm water through the hole (so it goes into the casing), then pull the end out of the hank so the water runs down and through the inside of the remainder of the casing. The water will bulge out the casings and help to make them easier to remove and also wash out the inside (which also contains some salt) - once you have the casings separated as you want them, you should wash them out using this method again.
I have saved the leftovers in the past, but how you do it depends on how long it will be before they're used. In any case, you should rinse them in warm salt water as when you're making sausage, bits of meat tend to find their way where you don't want them.
If you're going to use them soon, just make a more heavily salted brine than what you rinsed them in, make sure the brine covers them completely and there's no air inside, and put them in the fridge (ideally in a dark container) If it will be longer than a week, you can brine and then freeze them - but this is a bit of a controversial issue. Some say this weakens the casings, but I've done it in the past for up to a month with no problems. Your milage may vary. In the future, if possible, only buy what you need.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.305008
| 2013-09-05T17:48:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36548",
"authors": [
"Michael",
"bakingfanatic",
"dmachiavello",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85825",
"jaredkwright",
"sayed bustamam"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46494
|
Browning Avocados - What Helps?
Years ago Koobz asked "Oxidized Avocado: What's Going on & How to Prevent It?" That question has been merged with this one because it's dealing with the same issue.
Recently, we had this question: Are limes and lime juice more acidic than lemons and lemon juice?. Now I'm just curious, I want an answer.
After Logophobe's answer to the acidity question, and my own research backing up that answer, I feel like I know less than I did before!
Lemon contains more ascorbic acid (Vitamin C) and citric acid than limes, yet limes are more acidic overall. Distilled vinegar is more acidic than lemons and almost as acidic as limes, Fruit Fresh is an extremely highly concentrated mixture of ascorbic acid and citric acid specifically developed to prevent browning in fruits.
So what works to keep avocados pretty and green?
Perhaps some experimentation is in order. I think I'll start with acids, since the common wisdom is that acid helps keep avocados green.
EDIT As of 1/8/15, I have added a new answer, as the highly upvoted one really only says what doesn't help. The accepted answer HERE shows the results of further experimentation, and what does help.
If you cover with plastic wrap touching the surface and clinging to it (not just over it), this will prevent oxidation.
The sour cream trick works because it's a fat, and fat is an almost airtight seal against oxygen. It's the same reason why you can keep stock or drippings in the fridge for a week or two with the layer of congealed fat on top, but once you skim the fat, it only lasts a few days.
Concentrated sulphuric acid is extremely effective against the oxidation of avocados and will prevent them ever turning brown. On the other hand, it's not so good for the "pretty and green" aspect of your question...
@DavidRicherby That doesn't sound particularly tasty either.
Taste was never mentioned in the question - stop moving the goalpoasts! :-D
I'd be interested in the acid + plastic wrap ... as I would suspect that if the top dries out it'd start oxidizing again. Personally, I don't tend to keep 1/2 avacados (I use 'em immediately), but for sliced apples, I use carbonic acid (in the form of lemon-lime soda) as it's not so strong that I can basically soak 'em.
@Joe I plan to use little 2X2 ziplocs, for a completely air-tight seal.
@DavidRicherby Can you show us a picture?
Submerge the sliced avocado under water in a bowl. Change the water occasionally. That prevents oxidation.
@SimonKuang It would go something like this. (Replacement link, since the first one I posted turned out not to be very good.)
@DavidRicherby That's awesome! (more fun than my avocados) :)
TL; DR
Vitamin C (ascorbic acid) works to slow, even halt the browning of avocados, even in the face of salt, vinegar (in salsa), and lime juice, all of which have been shown (or will be shown) to speed browning. At a concentration of 100mg per 50 grams of avocado, it is also virtually tasteless.
You can buy pure ascorbic acid powder, which I did and then promptly lost, or you can use a spice grinder to grind very pure tablets, which I also did. My tablets weighed .59 grams per 500mg tablet, so close enough. I also tasted the powder and it really had no unpleasant chemical flavor, just a bit of acid effervescence feeling. You don't need to dissolve the powder, you can just stir it into mashed avocado. To keep sliced or diced avocados green, mix 1/2 tsp of the powder in 1 TBS of water (it will take some effort to get it mixed, but it will mix) and paint it on the surface or dunk in chunks, let them dry and refrigerate, covered.
As shown in earlier experimentation, cutting off all air significantly slows browning. That means not just a lid on Tupperware, but vacuum sealing, a sealed Ziploc bag with the air removed, or at least Saran Wrap* actually on the surface of the avocado. The same principle applies to adding a layer of water, sour cream, or salsa over the surface of the avocado.
Enclosing the avocado with diced red onion significantly slows browning as long as the container stays closed.
*I specify the brand name of the plastic wrap because I have learned that permeability of plastic wrap varies, and Saran Wrap is the brand I’ve tested.
As Ogrecon’s answer says, diced red onions slow down browning significantly, as long as the container that holds the onions and avocado remains closed and airtight. The onions release propanethiol S-oxide gas (that's what causes tearing), and as long as that gas doesn’t dissipate, that gas prevents the avocado from browning.
This picture is of otherwise untreated avocado after nine hours in the refrigerator, tightly covered in tupperware containers. Even the containers are identical. One side has the onions, the other doesn’t.
I removed the lids to snap the picture. I replaced the lids, and within thirty minutes, I could see the avocado starting to brown on the side with the onion. By morning it was all over.
So, if you want to make guacamole in advance, one option to keep it fresh looking is to enclose it with diced red onion. Don’t remove the lid until time to serve. I specifically say red onion because that is the only onion type I tested. Stored like this you can taste the onion, but I find that flavor complimentary in guacamole. Nine hours isn't necessarily the limit; the onion experiment gets even better; I’ll cover it more in the section that covers Vitamin C.
I had read that salt speeds browning, and I knew from earlier experimentation that lime juice and vinegar speed browning. I looked at Vitamin C as possibly being effective against browning.
I added the factors of salt and Vitamin C to the testing of scoops of avocado left uncovered at room temperature.
At 2 hours the results are evident. Lime juice and salt both speed browning. Uncovered and unrefrigerated the Vitamin C doesn’t seem to make much of a difference.
Per each 50 grams of avocado (as indicated), I used 100mg of Vitamin C powder, 250mg salt or 1/4 tsp freshly squeezed lime juice.
Refrigerated and covered, Vitamin C is a whole different ball of wax.
I made guacamole using my favorite method. Into mashed avocado I mixed salt, lime juice, fresh cilantro and drained Pace Brand Hot Salsa. (Per 100 grams of avocado I added .5 grams of salt, 1/2 tsp of freshly squeezed lime juice, about a TBS of chopped cilantro and 2 TBS drained salsa).
I treated half the guacamole with 100mg of Vitamin C powder (ascorbic acid) to each 50 grams of guacamole.
Tightly enclosed in little Ziplocs, with no air exposure at all, both samples are still acceptable at 4 full days (96 hours). The Vitamin C treated sample shows no browning at all:
Since the layer of red onion kept avocados from turning brown for 9 hours if the lid wasn’t removed, I kept the lid on guacamole samples enclosed with red onion for the same 4 days. Again, both samples are acceptable, but the sample with added Vitamin C shows no browning at all:
Vitamin C so effectively stops avocados from browning that refrigerated just in a regular Tupperware container (just with the lid on, nothing on the surface) that even in the face of salt, salsa and lime, the guacamole is still perfectly fresh at four full days.
So, the bottom line is this: Add Vitamin C to guacamole to keep it fresh and green for a full four days. With the addition of Vitamin C, it actually stays green for even longer, but I suspect that other freshness issues would start to come into play at that point. Use a baggie, a Ziploc bag, Saran Wrap, Tupperware, whatever, as long as it’s covered.
OK, I don't necessarily advocate eating week old, homemade guacamole, but it's late and I'm hungry. I ate this. It's a full week old, it's green (not perfect, but pretty close), and it's yummy. Hey! I've got chips getting stale, don't judge me!
The second best option is to keep the guacamole tightly sealed with freshly diced red onion (other onion varieties may work, but I only tested red). The guacamole will stay perfectly green for at least 9 hours, and acceptable for 4 days, even without the addition of Vitamin C as long as you don’t open the container. So this would be fine if you want to serve guacamole at a party and want to make it in advance.
As a third option, vacuum pack the guacamole or use a Ziploc bag with all of the air removed. Even without Vitamin C or diced onions, the guacamole will stay marginally fresh and green for four days. The above options give better results, but giving the guacamole no air at all will keep it from browning unacceptably.
Note: I found Wayfaring Stranger’s answer very compelling. I had wanted to include sodium bisulfite in this experiment, but I had difficulty getting it, there are strict shipping rules regarding it. Why? Well, because it’s dangerous. I tried different shipping companies, different sources and obscure local chemical firms. There came a point when I realized I was being silly, no one here is going to buy a compound labeled, “May be fatal if swallowed” to keep their guacamole green. Yes, it is used commercially for that purpose, the results of that experiment might be interesting, but those results are unlikely to have practical value to anyone who would read them here. Since the Vitamin C is both safe and efficacious without the sodium bisulfite, I’m quitting while I am ahead.
+2 Thanks for the scientific approach. Pictures and result are great.
I would upvote twice if I could! Great work on both the experiment and documentation, not to mention quite surprising results. This blows conventional wisdom out of the water!
I really appreciate the attention to detail and the process. This is fantastic.
We recently made guac and I put way too much lime juice in it. It subsequently didn't brown...at all. It was around for 4 or 5 days before being finished and still looked as green as the day we made it. Based on your two posts, the only thing I can think of (because I was assuming the lime juice was what had done it) is it had cilantro, which has a little bit of Vitamin C in it, or the onions, though there was not much onion, and it was white, not red. I still don't know why it stayed green so long.
@tubedogg My lime juice as way of slowing browning experiments only used one concentration (1/4 teaspoon per 50 grams of avocado). Was your lime juice bottled or fresh? I have some bottled lime juice that contains sodium metasulfate, which I think can be efficacious, much like the sodium bisulfite in Wayfaring Stranger's answer.
See the improved answer here: What DOES Help?
Which acid works best to keep avocados from browning?
Answer: None (of the acids tested)
It's not that acid doesn't do much to help.
ALL OF THE ACIDS TESTED CAUSED AVOCADOS TO BECOME MORE BROWN AND TO BECOME BROWN FASTER THAN NO TREATMENT AT ALL
I am not kidding.
Method
For acid, I used freshly squeezed lemon juice, freshly squeezed lime juice, distilled white vinegar (diluted to 5% acidity), and Ball brand Fruit Fresh mixed per package instructions, 2 tsp powder to 3 TBS water. Fruit Fresh contains dextrose, ascorbic acid, citric acid and silicon dioxide. According to the label, 1/4 tsp of the powder contains 230% of the US RDA of Vitamin C (ascorbic acid). That roughly translates to the solution I used having 100X the concentration of Vitamin C of lemon juice. I was not able find anything to give me a basis for comparison of citric acid concentration.
I diced 1 avocado and shuffled up the chunks so that no 1 pile had chunks from only 1 part of the fruit. I dropped the chunks into small bowls of the acids, removed the chunks, and allowed to air dry. They remained at room temperature for 24 hours.
I mashed 2 avocados together and put 50 grams of the mash into each of 5 small bowls. I added 1/4 tsp of each individual acid to each bowl, leaving 1 bowl plain. I mixed thoroughly and scooped the mash onto 2 plates, 1 to be refrigerated, and 1 to be left at room temperature. I washed and dried the scoop between changes in acid.
Results
The diced avocados just gradually became darker over 24 hours, with the vinegar treated fruit the first to show signs of browning, and ultimately the vinegar treated fruit became the darkest. The untreated fruit resisted browning the longest and ultimately browned the least. The lemon juice and lime juice were about tied, they both significantly sped darkening and ultimately became significantly darker than the untreated fruit. The Fruit Fresh barely made any difference, but the slight difference there was, was negative. Fruit Fresh also caused the avocado to become darker and to brown faster, but just barely.
At 24 hours all of the mashed, unrefrigerated avocado had become equally brown and unappetizing, it just happened faster to the treated avocado. The difference was most dramatic at 6 hours:
It's not clearly visible in the photo, but the Fruit Fresh treated avocado was ever-so-slightly more brown than the untreated avocado.
At 6 hours none of the refrigerated, mashed avocado was significantly browning.
At 24 hours all of the mashed avocado was the worse for wear. On the non-refrigerated side, it looks on this photo like the vinegar treated avocado ultimately fared the best. It actually didn't. I didn't think to snap a picture, but the vinegar treated avocado was the only one to discolor all the way through. The others were still green on the inside, the vinegar treated scoop was slightly browned even on the inside.
There came a point about 12 hours in that the refrigerated side just stopped browning. It had dried out, leaving it more green than the non-refrigerated side, but no more pleasant. All of the samples browned and dried out fairly equally.
At 48 hours I had one scoop of mashed avocado left that I cared to eat.
By adding nothing, keeping it refrigerated and covered in plastic wrap clinging to the surface, so that it had no air at all, this avocado is still fresh, green and ready to eat.
I'll add lime now for flavor, and some cilantro and cumin. Pass the chips.
Note:
I am honored that this answer has been so generously received, but the fact is, it really doesn't answer the question very well. This answer shows what doesn't help. As of 1/8/15 I have added and accepted a new answer based on new experiments that show what does help, it's HERE next to the checkmark.
I wish I could upvote this more. Great experiment and great reporting of results. I imagine that oxidation is the key here; keeping air away from the surface would do more to preserve freshness. Perhaps next time you make guac, take a sample with acid (lime juice?) and without, and wrap both tightly to see what happens. I'm guessing from what little chemistry I remember that the acid acts as a catalyst for oxidation.
You have made a mistake somewhere. This is counter to my general observations. What avocado type did you use?
How odd! Did you wrap all of the refrigerated samples, or just the "control" in the final photo? I wonder if that's a more significant factor than the acid used.
@TFD There is no mistake, the results are surprising, yes, but valid. The acid treated avocado (both mashed and diced) did brown faster and darker than the untreated when left uncovered at room temperature. The avocados were just of the normal, Florida variety, like this: http://www.activelivingzoomers.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/avocado-and-leaves.jpg. Barely ripe.
With my local common varieties of avocados I always store cut or processed parts in the fridge. Without lemon juice I get one day max, with I can get two. Covered, but not surface covered. How ripe where your avos?
@TFD Barely ripe. For perfect guacamole, I'd have left them for 1 more day.
I always heard that the best way to preserve guac is to compress it down a bit and cover the whole dish with a layer of water (and then cover it with plastic wrap or something). This does result in a bit of waste since a little of the guac gets soggy, but it also completely prevents air from reaching it and seems to do a good job keeping it fresher.
@matt5784 Another version is using sour cream instead of water. Either way, it seems that lack of oxygen does far more good than acidity.
is it possible that the process for adding your various acids also exposed the avocado to O2 for longer?
@ccsdg no, not really because only the last control avocado was covered. The others were exposed all 24 hours.
+1 for the great answer, everybody loves pictures :). I'd like to reinforce the Ascorbic Acid argument though. When ever we make Guacamole or peel apple's etc at work, we use a teaspoon of Ascorbic (Either in the Guacamole or toss the apple's in it.) Honestly we can make Guacamole and it'll stay bright green for 3+ days without any exaggeration.
@Doug I bought pure ascorbic acid powder especially for this experiment, and I can't find it! I have avocados getting overly ripe, so these are getting eaten. Hopefully I'll find the powder soon. If not, I'll dissolve tablets. The follow-up experiment is way overdue, especially since I anticipate the ascorbic acid is going to be of benefit.
@Jolenealaska - Definitely looking forward to the pictures ;)
After all this time I have finally confirmed the avocado variety. The original experiment (in the pictures above) used Lamb Hass. I'm currently experimenting with Hass.
WOW - well done!!!! I have two methods that have worked for me for years. To keep slices from browning, I drop them in some cold water and leave them in the fridge (not for too long, just so I can mise en place other ingredients). For guacamole, I use plastic wrap like you mentioned. It's the air that causes browning.
@Doug Ascorbic acid (Vitimin C) does work, as does a bed of diced onions in sealed container (see OGrecon's answer). I'm working on the updated answer now.
Nice experiment. Oddly enough food scientists in Florida have looked into the same problem, and achieved results similar to yours:
THE RETARDATION OF ENZYMATIC BROWNING IN AVOCADO PUREE AND GUACAMOLE
Enzymatic browning in avocado puree and guacamole was evaluated by reflectance measurements for several varieties of avocado with varying amounts of chemical additives. Paste from Booth 8 had a greater tendency to brown than that from Lula. Browning at 75°F was effectively retarded without flavor change by 30 mg percent of sodium bisulfite or 200 mg percent ascorbic acid. Lemon juice or citric and hydrochloric acid adjustment of the puree from pH 6.6 to 5.1 accelerated browning of Booth 8. Combination of sodium bisulfite and ascorbic acid were particularly effective in preventing browning in all avocado preparations under all handling conditions - refrigerated, frozen and thawed, or freeze-dried and reconstituted.
(Booth 8 and lula are different varieties of avocado. You probably used Hass.)
Looks like it's an enzymatic reaction that produces the browning:
The efficacy of sulfur dioxide in retarding browning is thought to be due to the formation of addition products with the polyphenolase enzyme, thus interfering with the catalytic activity.
So a little bisulfite might be called for if you must prep the stuff long in advance.
How bout that! +1 It's always nice to get some indication that I'm not nuts! Now I have to do a whole new experiment.
It does say ascorbic acid helps, though! Maybe not all acid is bad.
@Jefromi That meshes with the fact that the Fruit Fresh only minimally contributed to browning. At 100X the ascorbic acid concentration of the citrus, perhaps it was nearly able to overcome the pitfalls of the citric acid. When I experiment again, I'll include a sample with just ascorbic acid.
Nothing odd at all about getting the same results! That's the scientific method at work.
Seconding the sodium metabisulfate reccomendation. I've seen it used in conjunction with ascorbic acid to the best effect.
@buttlord I've got the sodium bisulfate on order for the next round of experiments (and little 2X2 Ziplocs). :)
mg percent is milligrams per 100ml http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milligram_per_cent
Ascorbic acid is a natural anti-oxidant, which makes it a strange acid: high acidity due to being a reductone, yet it's not oxidation catalyst. So while I would bet it helped, I'm not quite surprised :)
Whenever you cut into the avocado, you activate an enzyme, polyphenol oxidase, which causes the monophenols in the avocado to hydroxylate to polyphenols. This results in the browning you see.
You can stop this reaction dead in it's tracks by introducing an acid. Which acid depends on what you're making, but I usually use citric acid, in the form of some lime juice. You can however use whichever acid you'd like.
Covering your guacamole with sour cream certainly work as well, the lactic acid within might help (although seeing as sour cream isn't really all that acidic, it's probably a pretty minor role), but this effect comes mostly from the fact that you're covering it, so that it isn't exposed to air.
You can do the same thing with plastic wrap, just make sure that you don't leave any air pockets between the plastic wrap and the guacamole.
According to this link - http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/46495 , Jolenealaska finds that refrigeration and preventing exposure of avacados to air was the only way to prevent oxidization. Adding acid to avacado did not help in the prevention of oxidization.
@neowulf33 Lime juice absolutely did more harm than good in my testing. Ascorbic acid (alone, without citric acid) was not one of the acids tested and another answer on that question suggested that I might get good results with ascorbic acid (vitamin C). So I'll be experimenting again soon, acid (of the Vitamin C type) may yet be of benefit.
Propanethiol S-oxide gas will stop the browning affect on the surface of avocados. This sulfur oxide is found in the gas formed from cutting bitter/sharp onions.
When storing guacamole in a bowl, place a half an onion chopped inside a smaller bowl, then place the smaller bowl in the center on top of the guacamole. Then cover with saran wrap as to not remove the accumulated gases from the surface of the guacamole.
Take chopped, minced, or diced onion you might be using for the dish and place it directly on top of the avocado dish, with an airtight cover. Mix it in just prior to serving.
Another example would be to place a sliced onion in a zip-lock with a half cut avocado. This provides oxygen displacement and enzyme reaction reduction using onion gases.
I realize this is not a combination/mixture solution but it is cost effective and can be found in any grocery store...
I'd really like to see any references that you might have for this effect, especially if it's been demonstrated as separate from simple isolation from oxygen.
@logophobe Guess what? It works it works! As does Vitamin C. I'm writing up avocado experiment #2 right now. The diced onion works a treat.
I have only tried saving the leftover of an avocado, never guacamole or pureed. The only thing that worked was sucking out ALL the air from a 'ZIPLOCK'brand plastic bag, using a straw. Next time I'm trying a "SEAL A MEAL", though the size of bags I have will be overkill for the small leftover fruit.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! The above is already mentioned in the existing acceptedanswer. For the future: please don't post "This worked for me" and "thank you" answers! ;-)
Never any spare guac around here! For a cut avocado, skin on, pit left in, I blot flesh with a paper towel before refridgerating uncovered. Forms a thin leather skin easily removed. Adds 3 days or so before too much mumification.
I am missing mention of the conventional wisdom trick to keep avocados from discoloring: keep the kernel in. That does not really help with readily prepared dishes but it does help with partially used avocados.
That works at the site of the pit only because the pit creates an airtight seal right there. It's the same principle as tight plastic wrap. Since without the pit there is a big depression there, keeping the pit in a partial avocado helps, but there is no special chemistry involved. It just blocks air.
See here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24601/does-an-avocado-seed-help-guacamole-stay-green?lq=1
@Jolenealaska : when I've seen my neighbor do it, it seemed to help the whole thing (as it makes it harder to get an airtight seal around the rest of the flesh w/ it in, but it was still green even where the plastic film wasn't.) There might be something else going on besides just an air seal.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.305355
| 2014-08-18T21:32:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46494",
"authors": [
"A VISAGIE Visagie",
"Aaronut",
"Adam Durdel",
"Amanda",
"Angela Fortune",
"Anita Raymond Tam",
"Berinyuy Sylvester",
"Cascabel",
"Chloe",
"Cindy",
"Cynthia Clinton",
"Cynthia Smith",
"D H",
"Dan E",
"Dan Harden",
"Danielle Shaw",
"Danny Filichia",
"David Richerby",
"David Smathers",
"Doug",
"Douglas Donaldson",
"Ehtesh Choudhury",
"Eric Perkins",
"Fabby",
"Gordon Ray",
"Gringo Dave",
"Harrychink",
"Heather Jones",
"JSM",
"Jacqui Medway justbecause",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Justin Richards",
"Kathy Lundgren",
"Lee",
"Lezlee Villaverde",
"Lyn Blaker",
"MAAB AHMED",
"Mariana DaVe",
"Mary Lapara",
"Matt Pedler",
"Mollie Smith",
"Nathan Wrzesinski",
"Nazmuz Zaman",
"P C",
"Pat Sommer",
"Paul Tough",
"Psychiatrist Fort Lauderdale",
"Robert Hill",
"Ruby Michael's",
"Sandra Backes",
"Simon Kuang",
"Spammer",
"Spectrum",
"Stefan Bischof",
"TFD",
"Tiffany Shaver",
"Veronica Novock",
"Warwick Sneider",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Whitney",
"buttlord",
"ccsdg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112071",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112340",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"ian m",
"justkt",
"logophobe",
"matt5784",
"neowulf33",
"njmwas",
"susan moran",
"tubedogg",
"yo'"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66208
|
How do I lessen the effects of thickening caused by roux?
I recently made slow roasted pork shoulder in the oven. I cooked the pork at 225F for 12 hours and after it was done roasting, I took the juices at the bottom of the pan and made gravy with it.
I did this by chilling the juices for a little while, and skimming the fat off the top. I got about 1.5 tbsp of fat out of that. I combined an additional 1 tbsp of butter and 2.5 tbsp of flour into it and cooked it until it was a dark brown. Then I added the juices into the roux along with some stock.
At first I tried the gravy and it tasted magnificent. Great mouth feel and concentrated meat flavor. But I noticed that it got thicker and thicker. So I added more stock into the gravy to thin it down. Eventually I got it to the thickness I liked by adding more stock. But tasting the gravy again, it had nowhere near the glory it had before the addition of stock.
Note that I don't really want answers that focuses on the pork roast or gravy making aspect. I only added that information as background information. I'm not too interested in fixing the already diluted gravy I have. I'm more interested in knowing if I could have done something else originally to lessen the thickening caused by the roux in my gravy.
I'd start with less your than you think you need to thicken it as you can always add more but can't take it away. That is the way I do it when making gravy or thickening with corn starch. Happy cooking!
I believe that rather than "diluting" your gravy with stock, you could instead use less roux (fat and flour) with the same amount of juices (and perhaps a bit of stock).
The extra tablespoon of butter, for example, meant you were "bumping up" the thickness of your final gravy to the next level. Here's some typical ratios from an earlier Question I had about what makes a white sauce "medium":
Medium refers to the thickness level of the final sauce, and is
controlled by the ratio of roux (butter/flour) to [liquid]. For 1 cup of
[liquid]:
thin = 1 tablespoon each flour/butter
medium = 2 tablespoons each flour/butter
thick = 3 tablespoons each flour/butter
So instead of using 2.5 tablespoons of fat and 2.5 tablespoons of flour, you could leave out the butter; a 1.5/1.5 tablespoon roux with the same volume of liquid might give you a texture closer to what you're hoping for.
+1 - This is the first answer that really addresses the revised question, which is mostly interested in decreasing thickening power of roux. And frankly the easiest way of doing it is to simply use less next time. I'd also note that roux proportions aren't set in stone, so if the butter flavor was important, it's OK to make a roux with a bit more butter than flour (that is, just decrease the flour). It will still work, but the thickening power would be lessened significantly.
Good clarification; it is really the flour that is the thickener here :)
the question is: how can you diminish the binding power of roux once you used it, so "using less" is not an option, nor an answer I guess.
I guess,yes saliva would work, or any amylas, but would the fat be a problem? And the high temp?
@MarcLuxen The OP asked "I'm more interested in knowing if I could have done something else originally to lessen the thickening caused by the roux" -- changing the proportions in advance next time is certainly an option. You're of course welcome to flag it as "not an answer".
Starch is easily digested by many enzymes. Since you probably don't want to spit into your gravy, try mixing in a raw yolk and storing it for 2-3 days. I am not 100% sure it will work, but I think it's the best thing to try.
And then the yolk will thicken it a bit when you reheat it?
Waiting 2-3 days doesnt sound very practical. Perhaps there's a faster acting enzyme?
@Jay I don't know. I've never done it on purpose, I've just ruined pies with a combined yollk-starch filling by not cooking the egg sufficiently.
Flavor intensity can be very dependent on thickness/mouthfeel itself, so the fact that it got thinned could be the problem. Or, aromas got overdiluted - not much to fix that unless you have something (eg a second batch of too-intense gravy) that can add more of them. Or, it just got diluted out of balance on a five-basic-tastes level, in which case you just have to re-season it - salt or light soy sauce if it is missing salt, sugar or honey if not sweet enough, vinegar/lemon/tamarind... if missing acidity, soy sauce/maggi/marmite/nooch/MSG... if missing umami, caramel or dried herbs if you really are missing a bitter component ...
As the gravy cooked more, it became too thick. I thinned it with stock down to what it originally was when i first tasted it. So thickness is not the issue.
I'm less interested about fixing my current gravy and more interested in knowing about how to thin out my original gravy(the gravy that i haven't thinned with stock) without diluting its flavor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.307412
| 2016-02-04T19:41:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66208",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Carla Donati",
"Cascabel",
"Donald Payne",
"Elizabeth Cohen",
"Erica",
"Hinsan Li",
"Jay",
"Lori Burkette",
"Marc Luxen",
"Matthew Bellman",
"Repairs Bay",
"Sally Welch",
"Tina Allen",
"haakon.io",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158493",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"lavanya",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62988
|
Do Ice Wands have an advantage over a homemade solution?
It's recently come to my attention that I've been flirting with disaster by regularly cooling large pots of stock (~2 or 3 quarts at a time) by moving them straight from high temperature (>180F) to the fridge to cool overnight. This apparently leaves the stock in the danger zone for bacteria growth for several hours. The most efficient and effective alternative I've heard mentioned is an "Ice Wand" or "Ice Paddle"; essentially a plastic container that can be filled with water and frozen, then used to stir hot liquid and quickly cool it.
However, there is a price difference between the specialized Ice Wands and other food-safe and temperature-resistant plastic containers. As just one example, Nalgene sells a variety of types of plastic water bottles that are food-safe and have temperature ranges below freezing and at or above boiling temperatures, and those bottles normally retail for $12 or less for a 48oz container, while the cheapest Ice Wand I could find listed was $25 for a 64oz container.
Is there anything different about the construction, materials, or function of these Ice Wands that's different? Will another frozen container work too? Are there any gotchas if I use something else for this purpose?
Hello bgottfried91, you probably noticed that I edited the question and changed its meaning. The problem: this is a cooking site. Price determination has very little to do with the qualities of a product or its suitability for its purpose (in this case, cooking). "Why are they expensive" is off topic here and we can't answer it. But it seems that you're facing a decision which is quite pertinent for a cook, so I changed the quesiton's direction to deliver information to support this decision. You can re-edit it, of course. I am sure we can find a version which is about cooking, not economy.
Putting it simply, the nalgene ones are probably only more expensive than regular water bottles because they are more specialized and there is a smaller market for them. That makes it easier for the companies to justify a higher price, especially if they think it will mostly be used for commercial purposes.
For efficacy, you simply want something that will transfer and remove the heat quickly, like a heat sink on computer components. Part of the effectiveness comes from the material used (and its thickness), part of it is the surface area that is exposed, and how much of the cool material (in your nalgene ones, the water capacity) is there to pick up the extra heat before the temperatures have equalized.
I think the actual difference between a plastic water bottle and a plastic water-filled ice paddle/wand is mostly in the shape (and possibly in the thickness of the walls). Probably, using several frozen food-safe water bottles would be fine, but you might need to agitate them a bit more to get the same effect due to a cylinder having less surface area than the paddles.
In homebrewing, I use an immersion chiller, a copper coil that gets hooked up to the sink faucet with food-grade tubing. You run cold water through the coil and it spirals through the hot soon-to-be-beer (wort) and copper, being an effective conductor, transfers heat into the cold water which comes out hot at the other end into the sink (or into your garden). It works very well, but it's also pricey because it's copper, and it uses a lot of water (which in the California drought means I need to try to recapture it).
As the comments note, an ice-water bath in the sink also works well. Fill the sink with cold water, add ice, add your pot. Stir a lot in the pot for maximum heat transfer and use a separate spoon or your hand to stir the water in the sink. Replace ice cubes as they melt.
Another option for quick cooling is to transfer it into shallower containers with more surface area and put those in the fridge. More dirty dishes and more chance for spills, but it will let it cool faster in the fridge than in your stock pot (if you have room on your shelves for a bunch of shallow trays).
Your last paragraph will work: I have often put the pot into the kitchen sink, then filled the sink with cold water from the tap. Drain and refill if necessary. Not sure if it uses more or less water than the immersion chiller.
I forgot about that. :-) Before I had the immersion chiller I used that method. Fill the sink with ice-water, stir like crazy in the brew/stock pot. Add more ice as it melts until it cooled enough.
There is a difference between the ice paddles and a standard bottle -- shape and surface area.
Paddles aren't round, so they'll disturb more of the liquid as you're moving through it, which should lead to more evaporative cooling. They're often either a rectangular or even vaguely X-shaped cross-section, which will have more surface area for a given volume, meaning that it can conduct heat more quickly and cool faster.
Of course, the solution to this is to use more than one round bottle, and then stir with a regular paddle or large spoon.
Oh ... and one recommendation that I've been given for whatever you're using -- bag your container before you put it in the freezer, so you don't have to clean the outside before you put it into your soup. (and based on that, you could probably also put a standard ice pack in a ziplock container and stir with that ... but if it ruptures, you'd likely have to throw the batch away.)
Many hard liquor bottles are square and narrow, but they're often made out of glass. If you could find some plastic ones, that might work. (glass can break due to thermal shock)
The big difference is sales volume - the mold for the plastic water bottle is moving millions of bottles, the mold for the "Ice paddle" is probably moving 10s or perhaps 100s of thousands of paddles in the same time period. Lower sales volume means higher price per each, nothing magical to it.
Other answers have already covered many good alternate methods - transferring into "hotel pans" on ice is one very effective cooling method. A stainless steel immersion cooler is slightly less effective than a copper one, but also less reactive with a wider variety of foods, so it might be a better choice if going that route; stirring still helps (I also use one for beer wort.) Foodsafe bag(s) or bottle(s) of ice and stirring should work fine, though the bags have some risk of rupture. Immersing in an icebath and stirring also works.
2 or 3 quarts is not what I'd call "large" in this sense - with the beer wort, we're talking 20 quarts so specialized cooling equipment makes sense. Putting your pot with 3 quarts of stock in a larger pot or bowl full of ice, and stirring the stock should do - as would dropping in a smaller metal (for faster/better heat transfer) pot or bowl (clean on the outside) full of ice. Given the "home scale" of that much (or little) stock, rather than seeking out "hotel pans" at a restaurant supply you should be able to fit it in a standard 13x9 baking dish if going for the "spread it out and make it easier to cool" approach. You'd want one with a good tight cover so it wouldn't slosh out - or you can use a "type 5" (polypropylene) flat plastic container (or several as needed for volume) which might be easier to find with a tight seal. The "type 5" plastic takes heat relatively well, so filling with hot stock won't make it warp into uselessness. 2 or 3 smaller pans/containers might be easier to fit in the fridge than one big one, but don't stack them until they are cooled.
Leaching is an issue, even in 'off the shelf food grade packaging' chemicals can leach from the plastic over time, especially when exposed to hot and cold extremes. That's part of the difference in the commercial wands, they're made for exposure to hot and cold temps without leaching. The other mentions as to 'why pro ice wands' are already here, surface area, volume. One other item I do want to address is placing large containers of hot liquids into a cold home fridge. There's not enough air circulation to cool it fast enough, and properly bring down the temperature, but in addition did you realize you're raising the temperature of your entire refrigerator? Other items in your fridge can go out of temp if you're not properly cooling your soup before placing it into a fridge, meats, cheese, eggs and other items are at risk, even those unopened, can go out of temp and start to grow all kinds of bacteria, so just be careful. Not only is your soup at risk of not cooling fast enough, you're putting all your other foods in your fridge at risk as well. In addition, if your soup is thick, and in a large container, even as the outside layers on the side and top cool, they start to insulate from rapid heat transfer, and so the center of your soups will stay warm even longer if not cooled with an ice wand. I would bet that even temping your soup several hours later you'd find it's not down to temp.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.307874
| 2015-10-30T20:51:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62988",
"authors": [
"Arron May",
"Etienne Muscat",
"FrustratedWithFormsDesigner",
"Janeske Henley",
"JeanPaul BRAECKMAN Papy Popol",
"Joe",
"Joel Hagan",
"Kathleen Salois",
"Lynne Newlin",
"NadjaCS",
"Stephenie Nickelson",
"bjorn krols",
"dan monlux",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149891",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149892",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149929",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149930",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7501",
"iamthamos",
"lesley griffiths",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63586
|
To par-boil or not to par-boil root vegetables before roasting?
I'm looking at some recipes for roasted root vegetables and there appears to be a split between those that par boil then roast for ~30 minutes versus those that just roast for ~45 minutes
Excluding potatoes - where there appears to be a consensus that par boiling is necessary, what are the pros and cons of each approach? and is it more important for particular types of root veg?
Parboil if you like your moist (boiled) veg to have a bit of color and chewiness.
No parboil if you like veg flavor concentrated and texture to be more leathery.
So I decided not to par boil - carrots - and found the result quite good. Certainly a little chewier than a steamed or boiled carrot, but in a good way
I think this depends on how big the pieces are, and of course which ingredients. Some veg cook faster than others.
If you are using 1 inch or smaller pieces, you may not need to parboil, but if you are using larger pieces you may wish to par boil for longer as the pieces get bigger.
This lets you cook the interior without burning the exterior when you roast.
Of course if you add things like squash or broccoli to the veg roast, add those last and they don't need par boiling.
How your oven retains moisture, how much steam some other ingredients in the dish give off, and how oil etc will interfere with moisture, will also influence the result...
Yes, that's about knowing your tools. Every stove and oven is different.
Parboil potatoes, carrots, turnips and celeriac and the like because they are very dense. Don't parboil onions or other less dense roots.
Parboil is faster and useful if you can't vary the heat of your oven e.g roasting a bird.
However I find cooking root veg whole at a lower heat for longer keeps root veg moist inside. Carrots and parsnips at
160 Cecius/140 fan for 1.5 hours.
I tend to cook my carrots Vichy style. Put single layer in pan with butter, a wee but of sugar and maybe some star anise which is lovely. Once they are soft you can fish out and pan fry briefly for a crispy coating. The real bonus is that adding a little stock to the carrot cooking juice and reducing gives you a magnificent sauce with the added bonus of carrot vitamins and minerals which may be lost to the water when parboiling.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.308955
| 2015-11-18T13:52:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63586",
"authors": [
"Allen Davis",
"Dean Bali",
"Elise Nightingale",
"Eric Brewer",
"Escoce",
"Gerard Edimo",
"James Hughes PhD",
"Margaret Linkowski",
"Pam Coley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151990",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40883",
"rackandboneman",
"sakeenah roberts",
"user2637453"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.