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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
65362
|
Does commercial sour cream still contain live bacteria?
Does commercial sour cream still contain live bacteria? A family member cannot consume them, so I am looking for a way to recognize sour cream without live cultures.
Hello Mia, please no health discussions here. It is OK to ask about the contents of a food, as you did. But saying that they are healthy, or asking whether they are healthy, or saying that they are good for people with a certain condition, or generally making any health claim is off topic. I edited that part out, the rest of the question is good.
@rumtscho : sometimes giving the reason why you're asking is important ... eg, asking about gluten. Answers might be different for someone with non-celiac gluten sensitivity vs. celiac's disease. Someone might have questions about dairy for a number of reasons (kosher, vegan, dairy allergy, lactose intolerant, casein intolerant, etc.) and without being able to tell people about their specific case means we can't give them a good answer. I'm not going to claim that their phrasing was the best, but removing all mention of motivations/conditions is a problem.
I totally agree with Joe. These are well known benefits that are undisputed in the medical industry. Knowing that the poster is looking for a particular type of bacteria is relevant to the question otherwise mold could be an answer.
I made a suggested edit with some additional information as to why it's relevant (in immunodeficient individuals, one may need to avoid L&A cultures). I think it's important to have this information - since for many sour creams the answer is "maybe", that's a very different decision if you're searching for vs. searching for not.
The problem with this line of thinking is that people start answering with what they believe to be good advice about some condition, and others start upvoting it when it feels authoritative enough. If they are wrong, we end up with terribly misleading answers which can hurt someone. So really, the point here is that the OP should find out on their own, from medical professionals, what they should and shouldn't consume. If "searching for" vs. "searching to avoid" is important for this question, then the OP should clarify which one it is. But we cannot make recommendations what they should eat.
I also rejected the edit, first because of the reasons I listed above, and second because it isn't even clear if the interpretation is correct. There are tons of fermented products which claim to boost immunity, the original wording could have referred to this and meant that the OP wants to look for live cultures, not look to avoid them. I know that we all have an understandable wish to help people, but when it comes to nutrition, it's better to close one question too much and tell the people to find the answer out from a specialist, than to answer one question too much.
I'm not intending it as a health comment. I love yoghurt and believe it is good for me. However, my mother has lowered immunity due to myeloma and cannot have cultured products. (The haematologist nearly had a fit when I suggested giving her yoghurt.) So I think it's a fair question. Sorry if I offended you.
@Mia nobody is offended. We have our rules, and they can seem strange to new people at first. We know it's not easy, and that nobody reads pages of "how to post" before posting. So when somebody posts something which doesn't work well here, we try to change his post to conform to the rules, while keeping their original meaning intact as much as possible. If we knew how to make the process easier for new users without compromising the rules and leaving open the kind of question we cannot answer well, we would. Also, thank you for the clarification. The process is basically 1) you post, (cont.)
(cont.) 2) we look at it and see if it is OK by our rules. If it is not, it has to be corrected - but we know that it is hard for you to find a formulation which fits our rules, so 3) we do our best to remove the problematic parts. If the user is nice enough to come back and clarify, like you did, we can 4) add even more information, while wording it in a way which does not invite well intended but possibly misleading answers. When you spend some more time around, you will get a better feel for the site, read the help, and your questions will probably be a better fit from the beginning.
Joe M.'s answer is correct that it's difficult to get this information, though you can always try contacting the manufacturer directly. But in general I would assume that commercial sour cream still contains at least some live bacteria.
In the U.S., food packaging laws require sour cream produced with bacterial cultures to be labeled either "sour cream" or "cultured sour cream." Sour cream produced without bacteria by law must be explicitly labeled "acidified sour cream." ("Acidified sour cream" usually has an inferior flavor and generally tends to show up as ingredients in other things or occasionally in low-fat or non-fat varieties. In any case, "acidified" here only means that acids were used at some point to help the process along, so it doesn't guarantee that cultures were NOT used.)
To my knowledge, sour cream is generally NOT heat treated after culturing (unlike some yogurt), which means that active cultures are probably still present in significant numbers in most "cultured" sour cream.
And even if it is "heat treated" as some yogurts are, I don't think sour cream could actually be "re-pasteurized" without ruining the texture, so it's very unlikely to find a "cultured" sour cream that has no live bacteria in it. Products explicitly labeled with a "live and active cultures" designation have to meet a standard for a minimum of bacterial concentration, but other products that are "cultured" without that designation likely still have residual live bacteria unless proven otherwise.
Another thought to make a determination is to try to culture with the cream yourself. Put a tablespoon or two of the sour cream in a few ounces of fresh pasteurized milk (or some fresh cream), and let it sit out at room temperature. If the sour cream has active cultures, it will likely start to thicken significantly in 12-18 hours. If the milk hasn't noticeably thickened within a day or so, it's less likely that it contains a significant number of active cultures (though not certain).
This is not a definitive test to rule out bacteria, but if the milk thickens noticeably, it's pretty likely the sour cream has some active cultures.
It's hard to get a straight answer online, unfortunately, as most sour cream manufacturers don't mention either way. Daisy brand, for example (one of the mass-market brands that is relatively unprocessed) doesn't mention it on their website, nor do they on their containers, though some people have said they do contain live active cultures - but nothing reliable that I see indicates that. Breakstone's mentions that their cottage cheese has prebiotics, but nothing about sour cream, leading me to think they probably don't.
A few brands pasteurize and then add back in the L. Acidophilus and Bifidus Regularis (or similar) cultures afterwards, presumably to improve taste as they continue to break down the lactose (similar to how some mass-market yogurts do so); for example, Organic Valley mentions on their website:
Our sour cream is a cultured blend of nutrient-packed organic cream and skim milk. When the sour cream is pasteurized and homogenized, active cultures acidophilus and bifidus are added to boost the tangy flavor and create a consistently dense cream. The active cultures also serve as probiotics to improve the microbial balance of your digestive tract.
If you're looking for a brand that specifically does contain live active cultures, you should look for a mention on the label. Any brand that does not mention it on the label may or may not contain them. The indication of live and active cultures is not mandatory, as far as I can tell; the National Yogurt Association has a voluntary compliance process involving a seal that indicates live and active cultures, for example, but it is strictly voluntary.
However, searching for a brand that does not contain live active cultures, your best bet would be to contact the manufacturers directly. I don't think there's a reliable way to prove they don't contain them. Fat-free sour cream is also unlikely to contain live and active cultures (as it's not really sour cream, it's a flavored gelatin product more or less). Alternatively, you can cook the sour cream yourself (or only use it in cooked applications) to ensure the bacteria are not live, though in this case you should talk to your doctor to find out in what applications this may be safe.
Most do not because they have been pasteurized. You would need to look for an all natural "raw" product for it to contain beneficial probiotic bacteria. You may also find "contains live cultures" on the label. This goes for yogurts as well. You may want to try looking in a grocery store that has a good sized natural food section or a health food store.
You certainly don't need "raw" (or non-pasteurized) in order to have live bacteria; said another way, a pasteurized product can have live bacterial cultures. As in @JoeM's answer, pasteurization can happen before or after culturing/inoculation. If cultured after pasteurization (as is most yogurt) you'll be left with the (desirable) "live and active" bacteria even in a (previously) pasteurized product.
They usually do, but those are probiotics generally.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.309227
| 2016-01-13T08:41:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65362",
"authors": [
"Dee Ped",
"Essex Heating Engineers",
"Ilona Kakuk",
"Jim Petersen",
"Joe",
"Joe M",
"Mary Ellen Evans",
"Mia",
"NKY Homesteading",
"Said",
"Shawn Denton",
"Steve Johnson",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jacquie bryce",
"mary wilson",
"rumtscho",
"ruth gardner"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
90400
|
Is the hairy skin below a chestnut’s tough skin poisonous?
Disclaimer: As I live in a tropical country, I have never seen chestnuts before.
I was experimenting with chestnuts, after i roasted and peeled them, I read that you’re not supposed to eat the hairy skin of the chestnut. Is it poisonous?
There are two reasons chestnuts are usually eaten fully peeled:
The thin fuzzy membrane can be bitter, especially in raw nuts. Cooking and roasting mellows it a bit.
The membrane is hard, fibrous and unpleasant, especially compared with the soft interior.
Note that the skin is not poisonous, but depending on the intended use1 of the chestnuts, it’s probably a good idea to really take the time to clean the nuts properly. If prepared right and still hot, the skin should come off easily.
1 Think purée, desserts or marrons glacés. If I buy roasted chestnuts on the street, I just peel as good as I can and don’t bother with tiny pieces of skin.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.309905
| 2018-06-17T09:55:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90400",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
107578
|
Why this cooking pot not working on my Induction?
I just bought this Induction compatible Kadai (kind of wok) but surprised to know it's not working.
When I place it over my Induction cooker, it doesn't show any error (generally if a pot is not compatible or not placed properly shows error E0 in red text with a continuous beeping sound of delay 1-2 seconds) but heating starts and stops for 1 second alternatively. Also when it starts and stops next second, the display board of temperature blinks. For example, if the reading is 1000, it will show 1000 then next second it blinks with a cracking/glitch sound and it keeps on like that. It seems like it wants to heat but something is not working.
Here is the image of Prestige induction I'm using:
One thing I noticed with this wok is the base is slightly concave from bottom. I mean when you place a straight scale on base, it touches the edges only, not the central part. Same when I place it on induction. But outer ring touches it completely.
Can this concave thing be the reason for its not working?
Another possible problem can be because of size? I measured the following area of my wok:
It almost superimposes the circular mark made on Induction stove. If it is slightly bigger (which I may have not noticed), can this be the reason for it not working?
EDIT: I noticed a strange thing today. I ordered another Wok (bit smaller) today from a reputed brand in India. Sadly, same problem happened with it. But with this wok, I tried to boil water. And once water started heating (due to partial working it got heated), the error which wanted to show disappeared. Why would it happen? And once it is cold, the problem started again.
Here is the image of the same:
Here are two pots that work without any problem:
(Their base is plain/flat). Not patterns like the ones on Wok bottoms)
One of the pots' base is concave but still works. The other one is very flat.
Can you tell us about the other wok you just bought? Is the size similar? Does it also have a concave bottom? How are the two pans which don't work different from other pans which have worked in the past?
@Kat please check my edit.
@Kat I bought this today https://drive.google.com/open?id=1MCEcmWGhdlSTcHOdY_2kO47XGt18TZU7 and it works. Not a wok but bottom is similar. Major difference in bottom is it is flat, not concave. Is that the reason?
An induction pan must be flat to work properly, if it is bowed up in the middle even if it does work you aren't going to have the right efficiency. Many pans say induction ready, some say it because they are made of steel or iron, but not all of them have been tested so you won't always know before you try it.
I noticed a strange thing today. I ordered another Wok today from a reputed brand in India. Sadly, same problem happened with it. I tried to boil water. But once water started heating (due to partial working it got heated), the error which wanted to show disappeared. Why would it happen? And once it is cold, the problem started again.
Is it a steel pan ? Test with a magnet. (I think my cheap induction hob came with a cheap magnet thingy to test my pans)
"Cast iron, enameled cast iron, and many types of stainless-steel cookware are all induction compatible. There are exceptions, though. For instance, All-Clad's MC2 line, which is made of aluminum and stainless steel, is not induction compatible. Stainless steel poses the most confusion because it can be made with a great variety of metals; a high nickel content will block the magnetic field."
"Aluminum, all-copper, or glass cookware will not work unless they have a layer on the bottom with magnetic properties."
https://www.thespruceeats.com/what-is-the-best-cookware-for-induction-cooktops-908920
Isn't it necessary for the entire base area to touch the induction surface?
also I just use a small magnet near it. It is sticking. I compared the magnetic strength with other pot which is working fine, and both seems equal. I guess the contact area is bigger then the circle made on Induction cooker?
No, I can use my warped carbon steel pan on my cheap hub; maybe less efficient, but it works.
I noticed a strange thing today. I ordered another Wok today from a reputed brand in India. Sadly, same problem happened with it. I tried to boil water. But once water started heating (due to partial working it got heated), the error which wanted to show disappeared. Why would it happen? And once it is cold, the problem started again.
I am a bit surprised by your description of the error state - all induction stoves start and stop heating all the time, beyond the 50 Hertz cycle of the electricity they also use time modulation on a more noticeable frequency to control their energy output. But you speak as if you have had been using the stove for a while, so it must be different from the normal heat/no neat cycle - maybe you can describe in more detail what is happening.
Having a rim is not necessarily a problem, but maybe it contributes to it in this case, I can't say for sure.
I used to cook on induction, and I had a small American cast iron with a rim on the bottom. It always worked great - in induction, you don't need the pan to touch the cooking surface. But induction cookers have a "pan detection" mechanism, and maybe your pan is constructed in such a way that your stove has trouble detecting it properly.
In the end, if a given pan doesn't work with a given stove, there is nothing to do but retire the pan.
Kindly check the edit.
I noticed a strange thing today. I ordered another Wok today from a reputed brand in India. Sadly, same problem happened with it. I tried to boil water. But once water started heating (due to partial working it got heated), the error which wanted to show disappeared. Why would it happen? And once it is cold, the problem started again.
I cannot say for sure why it happened. Three possible reasons are 1) that the sensor in your cooktop is not very well implemented and for some reason doesn't recognize the pan properly, 2) that the pan is not actually well suited for induction (e.g. they lied when saying that they have built in a steel layer, or they have made it so small that it doesn't actually work), or 3) that there is a defect in your induction unit. The third one is unlikely, since you are saying that other pots still work. I would suggest that you buy a normal wok, and test it with a magnet.
Another strange thing today @rumtscho I bought another cookware for another need. Here's the picture. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1MCEcmWGhdlSTcHOdY_2kO47XGt18TZU7
But this works without any problem. The brand is same, but the base is not concave like Wok. So that can be the reason? Flat things work better than concave?
An induction hob works by heating only the base of a pan - the heat doesn’t go on up the sides of a pan. So a wok with wide spreading sides is not very practical. I use a cast iron deep sided pan when I do stir fry menus.
Okay but why would a reputed company manufacture it then for induction?
https://www.amazon.in/gp/product/B00QWQ1V86/ref=ask_ql_qh_dp_hza
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.310080
| 2020-04-14T18:06:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107578",
"authors": [
"Kat",
"Max",
"Vikas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75413",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37039
|
Substituting hazelnuts for almonds, baking
I simply prefer hazelnuts to almonds, especially in sweet applications. I've been recently gifted with a pound of very nice bittersweet chocolate so I've decided to do America's Test Kitchen's Sacher Torte, but I'm going to fill with some kind of Frangelico cream cheese or buttercream mixture instead of raspberries or apricots. That I'll just tweak until I like the results, but the cake itself (almost but not quite flourless) really needs to be right the first time. Here is the relevant portion of the recipe:
"Process remaining cup almonds until very finely ground, about 45 seconds. Add flour and salt and continue to process until combined, about 15 seconds. Transfer almond-flour mixture to medium bowl. Process eggs in now-empty food processor until lightened in color and almost doubled in volume, about 3 minutes. With processor running, slowly add sugar until thoroughly combined, about 15 seconds. Using whisk, gently fold egg mixture into chocolate mixture until some streaks of egg remain. Sprinkle half almond-flour mixture over chocolate-egg mixture and gently whisk until just combined. Sprinkle in remaining almond-flour mixture and gently whisk until just combined.
Divide batter between cake pans and smooth with rubber spatula. Bake until center is firm and toothpick inserted into center comes out with few moist crumbs attached, 14 to 16 minutes. Transfer cakes to wire rack and cool completely in pan, about 30 minutes."
Is there anything I should know about hazelnuts and almonds before I start? Perhaps a difference in the fat content? Is there anything I need to know about peeling the hazelnuts (I understand that task to be a bit notorious)? I'll buy the hazelnuts raw in the bulk aisle of the grocery. I would think that I should peel and lightly toast them. Can you anticipate any other way that this substitution could be problematic?
One thing to note, is that hazelnuts are far more likely to spark allergic reactions than almonds, and that is a consideration you may want to make.
According to the Mayo Clinic, hazelnuts are somewhat more fatty than almonds, per ounce by weight (the range is for whether they are roasted or not):
Almonds - 14 - 15 g
Hazelnuts - 17 - 17.7 g
As might be expected, hazelnuts are slightly lower in starch. These is unlikely to make any practical difference in the recipe, as both are fairly close.
You should be able to use them close to interchangeably in recipes, although their flavors will be deliciously different, of course.
As for peeling hazelnuts, there are many methods. One of the more effective techniques, which will work if you are going to toast them lightly afterwards is to blanch them in a baking soda solution. See, for example, this article from My Baking Addiction with a video of Alice Medrich and Julia Child embedded demonstrating the technique.
What he said, plus I would omit the salt. There's just something about the hazelnut + chocolate combination that gets totally ruined with salt.
Marti: That is your opinion, not an objective fact. I know that my wife loves the combination of hazelnut and seasalt in chocolate. I haven't tried it myself due to allergies.
I knew I had seen some kind of peeling trick! I'm getting more and more excited about this torte! That clip answered my toasting question too. I'll prep the hazelnuts just like that.
macadamia nuts should work out just fine
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.310620
| 2013-09-24T06:25:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37039",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"Lynn Kempen",
"Marti",
"Moriyah Simone",
"Naluwenda Ireen",
"Pleep Ploop",
"RawSteak0",
"dcannistraro",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87004",
"ocean800",
"pablointower",
"razumny"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
77965
|
Butter melt inside the toaster
My toaster is smoking and activating the fire alarm. I tried to clean the tray and the dust from the inside. I shook it pretty much and many black "things" came out. Although, it's still smoking.
I believe that the butter melted inside it and has gone to particulars places that I can't clean by shaking or taking the tray off.
Does anyone have a suggestion on how to clean it?
Did you put buttered toast inside a toaster?
Welcome to the site. If you are putting buttered bread into a toaster then please stop it, the fat could start a fire! Bread should be buttered after being toasted, not before.
@baffledcook are you sure about this edit? Some kinds of sandwich are called "a melt" in English, it is possible that the OP meant one of those.
If for some strange reason you want to butter something before putting it in the toaster, you can get reusable bags to put it in. They work well for toasted sandwiches for example.
@rumtscho, I think this is grammatically better, but the OP can decide.
Vertical toaster, or horizontal?
A "toaster oven" (United States terminology)(https://www.hamiltonbeach.com/media/products/images/31334.jpg), or a "toaster"(http://kitchen-electronics.weebly.com/uploads/2/7/1/1/27118291/6608936_orig.jpg)
?
The vertical one. I didn't know we were not supposed to put buttered bread inside it. I tried to let it on until it finishes burning the butter, but the smoke never ended, and the smell is awful, so I turned it off. And if I turn it on, it's still smoking.
By toaster I am assuming you mean the type that has slots that you pop the bread into from the top. Normally they also have a removable tray at the bottom, which you say you have taken out and cleaned. Shaking does normally work, but this can also lead to breakage... so maybe not quite so vigorously would be a good idea. I don't understand why you have butter inside your toaster, but that is irrelevant now - so how to clean it. I would suggest opening some windows, and getting the toaster as close to an open window as possible, and putting it on repeatedly until it stops smoking, you are basically just burning off what is left in the machine. Just as a side note, every time you use your toaster, after it has cooled down, turn it upside down and give it a little shake, and try not to put anything other than bread in it. If you want to make toasted sandwiches or anything with butter/cheese, get a toasted sandwich maker.
I'd suggest just doing the burning off outside. It might work out next to a window with a fan blowing the smoke out, but in general if you have something pumping out smoke indoors it's just going to go everywhere.
Let the grease and crumbs burn all the way.
At some point it will stop smoking and just shake the toaster upside down to remove all the crumbs and other particles (some toasters have a small hatch underneath to clean up the crumbs)
Tell your neighbours not to call the emergency sevices/fire department .
If possible, do that outside.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.311029
| 2017-02-01T04:17:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77965",
"authors": [
"Angélica C Brandão Marcolino",
"BaffledCook",
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"Joe M",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54200",
"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
}
|
59552
|
Can you use cooking oil to make "African Drop Doughnuts"?
Do you have to use deep-fry oil or corn oil to make "African Drop Doughnuts" or can you use cooking oil?
I don't know them, but going by the pictures I found, any (vegetable) oil suitable for deep frying (i.e. canola, sunflower, peanut, etc.) will do.
Thankyou so much, I've made it and it looks like it worked
Dee7, as you are new to the site, please visit our help center, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help. to learn the best ways to ask and answer questions. I am flagging your answer below as that should not have been entered as an answer, but instead as a comment. Hope to see you around more!
@WillemvanRumpt Since the OP has tried your suggestion and it worked, I would suggest that you expand on your comment a little and enter it as an answer. :)
For some values of "cooking oil", "corn oil" and "cooking oil" are exact synonyms. In other words, there's no one oil type that is called "cooking oil". Ditto for "deep-fry oil", for that matter: you can certainly deep-fry in corn oil, which would then make those two terms synonymous.
It's hard to give a specific answer since I don't know what temperature you need. I looked at a couple recipes for African Drop Donuts and the temperatures were pretty far apart: 340F and 375F. I also don't know what you mean by cooking oil!
But you can use any oil suitable for deep-frying at the temperature specified in the recipe. Depending on what kind of cooking oil you have it may be fine, or it might have too low a smoke point.
Things like canola, sunflower, peanut, corn, and safflower would most likely be fine, since they all have smoke points of 400F or higher and are pretty neutral. You can look at a table of smoke points to get an idea beyond that.
The one thing you probably want to be careful about is oil labeled as generic vegetable oil; without knowing what kind of oil it actually is, it's hard to know what its smoke point is. It might also be more strongly flavored.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.311304
| 2015-08-03T11:49:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59552",
"authors": [
"Barbara J Eggers",
"Brenda Loh",
"Cindy",
"David Lyon",
"Dee7",
"Elizabeth Cunningham",
"Frank Astry",
"Marti",
"Ruth Lee",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37252"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
69005
|
How to make Meatloaf bond?
I just made meatloaf by mixing 90% ground beef with shredded cheddar cheese, milk, an egg, and oats. I cooked it on 350 degrees for 50 minutes. It tastes fine but the mixture is kind of mushy and losses its shape. How do I make the meatloaf bond together better?
1lb ground beef
2/3 cup cup milk
1 egg
1 cup cheese
1/2 cup oats
Can you give us a at least a rough idea of the amounts of all the ingredients?
post updated with details
I've never used oats as a binder -- did they actually absorb all of the milk? Typically when you use bread, you soak it and then squeeze it out so you're not adding more liquid than the bread can hold.
By oats, you mean cooked and pressed oat flakes, oatmeal, not oat groats? I use dried bread crumbs. Have never added milk.
There are several factors, but the texture of meatloaf primarily depends on the ratio of binder, filler and meat.
In this case, your binder is the egg. Specifically, the protein in the egg white helps hold the meat proteins together.
The filler is the mixture of milk and oats. I've heard that toasted panko is more effective at absorbing milk, and also that cooking it can help. I haven't tried these options though, so I can't recommend them.
One thing I've done is replacing a portion of the beef with ground veal, which contains more collagen. This breaks down into gelatin in the oven, and gives the meat a silky texture without loosening it - allowing me to use less filler.
You can simulate this effect by using a small amount of powdered gelatin in your filler directly.
Corn starch or potato starch work well binding ground mixtures. Don't use too much or you'll end up altering the texture
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.311504
| 2016-05-15T02:51:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69005",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"appleLover",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58378
|
What are the reasons for sauteeing with fat?
I know it's a basic question and of course it's what I do every time I cook. But I'd like to know in depth what the reasons are and the detail of how it affects heat transfer and chemical changes in food.
Do you possibly mean sauteeing, like in your other question? (Frying, whether shallow or deep frying, suggests using enough oil that food is at least partially submerged, and that's a bit different.)
Yes, that's probably a more accurate term
Related, to the point that the answers might answer your question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/53585/1672 http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/21467/1672
Do you mean saute as in cook terminology saute (super high temperatures, food jumps up and down all the time) or as in sweating (leave food with very little fat in the lowish temp pan to release juices and eventually brown)? The answers are different.
Is this about using room-temperature solid/saturated "fats" vs room-temperature liquid "oils"?
When you're sauteing something, you want it to heat up quickly, so you put it in contact with a hot piece of metal. However, the food is not perfectly flat, so there will be a few contact spots and lots of pockets of air in between. This air acts as a very good insulator, so you will end up with a piece of food that is very unevenly heated.
If, on the other hand, you add some fat, this will 'fill in the cracks' and provide a more even heating of the foodstuff. (Fat does not conduct heat as well as metal, but much, much better than air.)
Also - fat tastes good.
Lubrication and flavor is your answer. I learned a steam sauté technique working at a French spa restaurant which was just like sautéing in butter, but with stock instead.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.311695
| 2015-06-19T21:41:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58378",
"authors": [
"Andy West",
"Cascabel",
"Claudie Pritchard",
"Diana Crews",
"Meg Vanderlaan",
"Rachel Shull",
"Robert Root",
"Tom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/759",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100690
|
Sous vide egg white falling apart on cracking
I've been reading the sous vide guide on serious eats where eggs are supposed to come out like this where after sous viding, you poach it briefly to fully set the white. However when cracking my egg, the white simply falls apart completely, leaving the yolk exposed and an impossible to poach egg!
This egg is cooked at 66C for 1.5 hours, which in the guide has a 'fudgy' yolk (how mine comes out).
some of the question went missing while posting - I've readded the detail
At 66ºC it's possible that the white gets too "crumbly" like yours. I always follow Dave Arnold's guide for egg temperatures and get good results around 64-65ºC.
You should try lowering the temperature to 65 or 65.5ºC, and make sure your eggs are not too old - the older the egg the more "loose whites" (the watery part of the whites) you'll get. It also affects the texture of the rest of the egg.
Thanks - I was wondering if it might be an issue of older eggs. I notice in the pictures on serious eats that the small amount of loose white falls apart in the same way that all of mine does. I had reasonable results before but I switched supplier (now using free range organic eggs) which I would expect to be superior, but seems like they might have been hanging around a bit.
There's a number of variables that could make a difference - maybe the eggs are fresh, but the composition is a bit different (water / protein), so you could also try just reducing the time to around 1h and see what happens. Eggs are cheap and 1h is not much time to lose :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.311877
| 2019-08-12T07:24:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100690",
"authors": [
"Luciano",
"Tom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/759"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
89136
|
Apple cider vinegar in roasting pan
I am smoking a turkey and don’t have broth to use in the base of the roasting pan. The turkey was brined over night.
I was thinking of putting the turkey on a bed of celery and carrots with 3 cups of water and 1 cup of apple cider vinegar. Is this a good idea or is this too much vinegar?
I've never used vinegar like this personally, but that sounds like a high proportion of vinegar. The moisture below poultry during smoking is mostly there just to keep high humidity anyway, and some people just use plain water. Again, I'm not posting as an answer because I haven't done this myself so I don't feel like I know for certain, but that much vinegar seems like it would (1) leave the celery and carrots with a somewhat "pickled" flavor and (2) might create a slightly sour taste in the outer layers of the turkey itself during smoking (which may or may not be desirable).
If you're smoking the turkey, i wouldn't bother putting anything but water in a pan. Just seems like a waste.
If you don't have any turkey, chicken, or vegetable stock or bouillon on hand, I would recommend using all water. That said, without stock or dissolved bouillon, your vegetables will not get the added extra flavor.
I would recommend adding a small amount of salt and/or other seasonings to the water so the vegetables won't be bland. E.g. of others, white or black pepper, poultry seasoning, garlic powder, or a spice blend like Mrs. Dash. Go light, as you can always add more later.
As others have commented, one cup is a huge amount of vinegar. And even a small amount of vinegar is likely to give the turkey an off taste and definitely will hurt the taste of the vegetables.
Use purchased or homemade chicken stock in lieu of what liquids (water and or turkey stock) the recipe calls for.
Cider and other vinegars are likely to give the turkey an undesireable taste/flavor.
I agree that I would typically use homemade chicken stock (or even water), but why is the vinegar likely to give an undesirable flavor?
I understand using chicken stock rather than water. But why would you use chicken stock if a recipe calls for turkey stock and you have it on hand? I always use turkey stock with turkey.
The question clearly states the cook does NOT have turkey broth! - Cynetta
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.312045
| 2018-04-15T16:35:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/89136",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Batman",
"Cindy",
"Cynetta",
"ahsteele",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/809"
],
"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
}
|
46803
|
Is a steak OK to eat if it fell down, but I cooked it afterwards?
If I am cooking steaks at a grill and one of them accidentally falls down on the floor/ground, is it safe for me to wipe it and cook it for a certain amount of time (till it is pretty well done) and then eat it? Or should I throw it away?
Are you asking if it fell through the grill grate onto coals or a gas burner, or if it fell onto the ground?
On the floor. Sorry, forgot to add it
At home??? Hell, I'd still eat it if was already cooked! And I'm a slob! My floors are a mess!
On this note, it's good to run the hose over the deck before barbecuing, at least to get rid of the stuff most like to stick to a piece of meat. Pollen, dust, little chipmunk turds....
@JoeTaxpayer usually what I do is: light the fire, then put the grill on top of the wood, live it there for some minutes and then scrub it with a (hard) brush
I woud feed it to my cat/cats and/or dog/dogs. They'll be very happy.
I'd be more worried about any bits of sand or grit that will still be there (albeit sterile) after cooking.
Five second rule?
Sure it's safe. You are about to char the outside at very high temperatures, nothing's going to survive that, so cleaning it is more about flavor than safety. I wouldn't just wipe it though, clean it with water or you might get a dirtier steak flavor than you'd like.
Burninating something kills the bad living things, but it doesn't remove bad other stuff. I doubt you'd be in trouble anyway so the objection is more of a principle than that I think your answer is wrong. But still: there are more things that can cause trouble (compare to leaving meat out in the sun, then burning it. while there is still nothing surviving this, it's still a bad idea).
@Nanne There is the Brazilian "Carne de Sol", meat seasoned and dried in sunlight.
Surely you see the exception in your Brazilian carne vs the point I was trying to make.
@Nanne Why is leaving meat out in the sun bad? I really did not get your point through. Could you add more detail?
@Mindwin In this part of the internet we would prefer that people are polite when possible. And carne de sol is heavily salted and cured in the sun, which is completely different from simply leaving meat out in the sun. It has nothing to do with the point that Nanne was making. To be very specific: meat left in temperatures from 40F to 140F (the danger zone) for long periods of time is unsafe.
To answer more exactly: raw meat left for substantial periods of time in temperatures from 40F to 140F is susceptible to bacterial growth. Bacteria can turn parts of the meat into poison, and that poison remains even after cooking -- although the bacteria themselves are killed and cannot reproduce in your stomach, the poisons they left behind remain.
Viruses can survive high temperatures. Isn't this a concern?
@OregonTrail Temperature equivalent to boiling kills viruses: http://www.cdc.gov/healthywater/drinking/travel/backcountry_water_treatment.html#virus
@Nanne Burninating is a technical cooking term?
If you are using vermin poison and it may have contaminated your meat, washing and cooking it would not be sufficient to make it edible. I can't think about other bad stuff that could be worthy to worry about in common household - cooked dirt, from which pots are made, is actually less harmful than the burnt bit you usually have in barbecued meat.
Why wouldn't washing get vermin poison off?
You have an immune system and a liver for a reason. We aren't fragile unless we never expose ourselves to dirt. Let your kids play in dirt and eat dirt. Dropping your steak on the ground/deck is fine. Wipe it off you don't like dirt on your steak. Then season with Kosher/Sea Salt and Coarse Ground Pepper. You won't know the dirt is there. Vermin poison, fertilizer, etc isn't really an issue (if rinsed) unless you drop your steak in a pile of it. And only then if you drop it and stare it for 10 minutes (so the poison and permeate beyond the surface of the steak).
@gabe: or drop it, wonder what to do, ask about it on Stack Exchange, read a few answers, go and pick up the steak and wipe it off...
This depends completely on the context.
Are you at a grill in let's say.. Outback Steakhouse? If so, please throw it away.
Are you at a social event or home cooking for yourself/others? clean it off with water and you're good, maybe even feed it to someone you don't like afterwards (unless it's the biggest and best steak, then you gotta eat it.)
Why would a restaurant throw out perfectly good food? So it's been dropped on the floor, wash it off well and cook it! If it's been dropped on the floor after cooking that's a different story.
@GdD: if you are preparing food professionally as a business, you had to follow the local regulations regarding food safety, which can be quite strict depending on where you live. Some of these regulations might seem silly/overcautious compared to what home chefs do all the time, but many restaurants would rather discard a few pieces of meat than risk it.
Have you seen how dirty the kitchen floors are at some restaurants? I'd rather eat a steak the fell on my toilet than off the floor of some restaurants.
@GdD You're not a food inspector, are you?
@GdD I would normally agree but the floor of a restaurant (having worked in a few) is much dirtier than you home floor. Even dirtier than your bathroom floor. There is a lot of foot traffic in a commercial kitchen. And where have those feet been? Everywhere, including multiple bathrooms. Including pissing on your own shoes for the slobs in the kitchen. Your toilet seat at home is probably cleaner than most restaurant kitchen floors 2 hrs after the cooks arrived... That said, cooking the meat after dropping it should kills anything on the surface so the 5 second rule may apply.
It depends on what it is likely to pick up.
If it's an interior floor surface that is usually kept clean, you're unlikely to suffer any ill effects.
If it's outside on the ground next to the gas grill and you regularly fertilize/pesticide/herbicide the lawn, or sealed/stained your deck/concrete recently, or have a number of animals that use the space as a restroom and play area, I'd suggest throwing it away and being more careful with your food.
I don't believe one could safely answer, "Yes, it's generally ok regardless of other factors."
That said, washing it off after contamination, and ensuring it reaches safe cooking temperatures after washing it will probably prevent most significant opportunities for poisoning or illness.
Whether it's worth the risk depends entirely on how risky it is, and how risk averse you are.
5 seconds under the tap, then back on the grill. If you have any organisms on the floor / ground etc. capable of surviving proper cooking of meat within 30 seconds of being exposed to said meat, your guests are doomed. ("The Salmon Mousse!") They won't be on warm meat long enough - E.Coli (the bad one) needs 20 minutes to divide, and that's after a zero-growth lag period.
To take this to a logical extreme, rubbing your raw, wild rabbit medallions (that you shot out of season and butchered 30 minutes ago) on a nearly-dead ebola victim's face and then cooking it medium-well will still produce edible food. Wash your hands before sitting down at the table, please.
However, as others have mentioned, inorganic chemicals will not be affected so you could have taste or toxicity issues. I would hope that your kitchen floor has not been dusted with arsenic powder, nor that you are barbecuing outside mere hours after the people in moon suits sprayed your yard (and hopefully removed the ebola victim).
If a steak hits my deck, I rinse it with the garden hose and return it to the grill. That's if no one is looking. If people are watching it goes into the kitchen, gets rinsed there, trimmed so it looks different, and then the "replacement" goes back on the grill.
If you work in the open grill at Outback, make a big show of the meat's disposal and floor cleaning.
@StaceyAnne To be fair, symptoms of late stage Ebola include bleeding from the eyes and nose — that's the point paul was making.
What ghoppe said. StacyAnne: you don't want to know any more details. And for anyone who doesn't know, fresh out-of-season rabbit meat will be crawling with all sorts of unpleasantness. That's why they have a rabbit season (and a duck season). And why we don't eat sick wildlife.
A caveat to the washing off suggested by others, I would add:
Do not wash so thoroughly that the flavor is lost - you may as well throw it away then. Just pour water for 3-4 seconds. After that, if you feel it is still dirty, then take a serrated knife and thinly scrape off the part that touched the ground.
Even if you don't cook the steak afterwards (that is, assuming it was properly cooked when it hit the floor), keep in mind that the human immune system is more capable than we give it credit for. Moreover, pathogens that do make us ill, such as E. Coli and Streptococcus, prefer moist areas with an easy supply of nutrients; our floors and counter-tops aren't typically their first choice for an abode.
The YouTube video 5 Second Rule by the amusing yet educational What You Ought to Know covers this topic, and includes references: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsYOGM7wyns
As already mentioned, I would probably rinse it off to get rid of the worst, as well as remove anything that may affect the final taste, but as my Swedish father always says, "Lite skit rensar magen."
It is safe if you take some measures to clean the dust and other particles that might have sticked to the meat.
Rinse the meat with lots of water, no soap. If you have some sauce to spare, after rinsing the meat, set apart some sauce (throw away that sauce afterwards) and use it to season the meat throughly. This will remove almost all the particles and substances that the meat picked up, and re-add the spices the meat lost.
After that, grill the meat again. According to the Fodsafety.gov, temperatures above 165F are enough to kill the germs. And this link shows that most grills have a surface temperature over 300F anyway.
So your steak will be safe to eat, and if you season it well, nobody will tell the difference.
However it's proven false, i still would like to mention the following:
In our country we apply the 5 Second Rule, which is very populair.
It basicly comes down to this: Whatever kind of food you drop on the floor, if you pick it up in 5 seconds, it's ready to go!
Never had any complaints ;-)
And it is absolutely wrong. Whatever the food picks up, it picks it up the moment it touches the floor. It doesn't matter if you pick it up at once, after 5 seconds, or after 5 minutes. You can decide if you want to eat the dirty food or not, but you shouldn't tell yourself that it's somehow safe if it didn't spend 5 seconds on the floor.
Ok so it is wrong, but i do think it's worth mentioning it here (just because it's a funny rule)
I find myself in a strange situation here. I agree with the argument that it's worth mentioning, especially when saying that it's wrong. At the same time, I believe that wrong answers should be downvoted, just to show the next person coming along that it's a bad idea. But if you are not recommending it, I feel bad for reducing your reputation with a downvote... argh.
YouTube: What You Ought to Know: 5 Second Rule
Unfortunately, whether the rule is funny or popular has no bearing at all on its accuracy. Other questions here are focused specifically on evaluating or disproving commonly held ideas about food like this one.
Related reading: Researchers prove the five second rule is real
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.312317
| 2014-09-02T10:16:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46803",
"authors": [
"Asha Govender",
"Blanca Hernandez",
"Cascabel",
"Cindy",
"Claire Skurka Mysliwy",
"Forest Decor",
"Gabe Spradlin",
"GdD",
"Golden Cuy",
"IQAndreas",
"JTP - Apologise to Monica",
"Jennifer Abney",
"Jeroen1984",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lie Ryan",
"Louise Ellis",
"Maureen Josephs",
"Meph",
"Mindwin Remember Monica",
"Nanne",
"Nick T",
"OregonTrail",
"Pamela Palley",
"Ross Presser",
"Sheila Adamson",
"Shevliaskovic",
"Spammer",
"Walid Shams",
"Zahoor Ahmad",
"blahdiblah",
"ghoppe",
"goldilocks",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112875",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112876",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112881",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112906",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112920",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23478",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26902",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26963",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26964",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9863",
"j08691",
"logophobe",
"paul",
"pqnet",
"rumtscho",
"sir loin",
"thomas hopkins",
"tobyink",
"user281336"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46802
|
How long can I keep a dessert out of the fridge?
Recently an uncle of mine taught me how to make Γαλακτομπούρεκο, which contains eggs and milk. When I asked him how many hours after it is baked should I put it the fridge, he said that it is Ok for a couple of days out of fridge.
But I'm not really sure, since it contains milk and eggs, like I said. So, how long is a dessert like this good for out of fridge without it getting bad?
Since it is a custard, you should probably refrigerate it as soon as it is cool.
A very sugary or acidic custard may be able to resist bacteria for a couple days (see Bismark donuts), but unless the recipe was specifically developed to be stable at room temperature, then there is some risk of it going bad.
If you have a fridge, there's no reason not to use it. It may make the dough a little soggy, so you will want to find a way to store it to reduce condensation.
Better yet, make just as much as you are going to eat/serve at one time, and don't worry about this problem.
Link 1 (search for custard on page)
Link 2 (about pies, see portion on Custard pies)
The short and clear answer is: it is absolutely not safe. As with any cooked food, the official safe period is 4 hours outside of the fridge. That's it, no matter if you have eggs, or anything else inside.
I'm aware that many people don't care for the official guidelines, and go by feeling and food type, and that's their right. But there is no way to give an answer for how long it will be "good" by these criteria, it is a subjective gut feeling. If you want to take the risk, take it. Nobody can tell you how large it really is, only that you are risking food poisoning if you do it.
I'm pretty sure cooked hard tack is safe left out indefinitely.
@Joshua there are foods which are intended to be shelf-stable, and we tend to call the process of their creation "cooking", so yes, "all cooked food" is technically incorrect here. There are exceptions. My point was that, when you cook a standard meal (as opposed to preparing a specific shelf-stable product), you have to take the danger zone into account. If you know a better way to word it, I'm open to suggestions.
I think different prepared foods inherently have different counter safety times.
@Joshua then you are incorrect. Prepared are either shelf-stable, or they aren't. If they are not shelf-stable, the danger zone of 4 hours (2 if you bought it) applies.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.313439
| 2014-09-02T10:11:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46802",
"authors": [
"Berda Karaca",
"Elam Mpiyane",
"Joshua",
"Mark Pepelea",
"Narelle Thomson",
"Rick Montney III",
"Tina Kwong",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112877",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37278",
"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
}
|
42953
|
Making espresso correctly - rerunning hot water several times through an espresso puck to fill an Americano
I just bought a Delonghi espresso machine from Target. It came with a "single-shot" filter and a "double-shot" filter. The double-shot filter holds 11 grams of tampered grounds.
I read somewhere that coffee shops typically use 20 grams of grounds for a single shot - how accurate is this?
Last question - when I make a Caffe Americano (a Starbucks drink - where you take 2, 3, or 4 espresso shots, pour them into a cup and fill the remaining difference with hot water), sometimes when I make my espresso shots, I just keep running the hot water through the grounds (instead of using plain, hot water to fill the difference in my cup). I find when I do this, my drink tastes stronger (obviously, right?) rather than making a "true" Americano drink, where it tastes a little watered down. Is it okay that I reuse the coffee grounds like I've been doing when I'm making my espresso shots, even though subsequent shots are obviously a lot clearer (but darker than plain old water)? Or will I get maybe unwanted flavor if I reuse my grounds a few times instead of using just water to fill the rest of my cup?
Most coffee shops use about 20 grams (18-24 grams in my experience) for a double shot of coffee, and 12-16 grams for a single shot. If you see a cafe using 20 grams for a single shot, its only because they are using double ristrettos (2 half-shots of espresso) instead of a single shot. Some people prefer the flavor profile of a double ristretto.
As you pull hot water through your shots, you extract different compounds from the coffee. Most people stop their shots when they've extracted all the tasty compounds, and I'll usually try to stop my shots before the coffee starts to taste bitter.
If you prefer your coffee a bit more bitter and full-bodied, as well as with whatever other flavors you're extracting at the end feel free to pull extra shots from the same coffee, however I would normally reccomend just adding extra shots to the americano instead.
All that being said, Barista Champion Matt Perger reccomended during his world barista run a process similar to what you're doing. He reccomended using a coarser grind and running the shots for way longer to achieve a coffee similar to a filter coffee or americano. However he also has the benefit of expensive professional machines that are highly tuned, so your experience may vary.
Summary
My reccomendation if you are going to pull the shots more than once is to use a coarser grind for your coffee. Otherwise feel free to pull the shots as long as you like until you dont like the taste. You could also try pulling the separate shots into separate cups to taste them before mixing them together.
Wow thanks!! When you say bitter - coffee by nature is a little bitter, no?
Coffee is by nature bitter, but I prefer lighter roasts and slightly under-extracted coffee, which brings out more floral notes and less bitterness. If you over-extract your coffee you're going to get a lot more bitterness which is going to make the coffee taste burnt.
I have a question for you that I asked the person who posted the other answer... Making the grind coarse will result in "larger" sized grounds. Don't we get more out of the coffee grinds if we make the grind fine? I mean, I think of a large, coarse sized grind and I would imagine that if that large coarse ground was further broken up into a finer grind, that would result in flavor that I otherwise wouldn't get with a coarse grind, no matter the length of time I run hot water through a coarse grind, right?
When you make the grind finer, you only change the speed at which the you extract compounds from the coffee, you're not changing (at least not significantly) the types or percentages of the compounds you extract, so the only result in flavor change would come from having more compounds extracted in your cup.
Expanding upon leon's answer:
I learned to make espresso over about six months working at a bakery/coffee shop that used a massive Italian machine with a gigantic brass (or at least, brass-coated) pressure tank. I couldn't tell you for sure how much coffee or water we used because I don't remember, but we always pulled double-shots and the goal was a 23 second pull, plus or minus 2 or 3 seconds. After that point, we had a further 30 seconds to mix in everything else (steamed milk, mostly, but we made the odd Americano) before the espresso went bitter; I don't recall being told why. It has been a few years, but here's what I infer from that experience.
The speed of your progression through the compounds extracted from your coffee (from light and floral at the beginning to bitter and acidic at the end) is a function of the time your coffee spends immersed in water roughly divided by the coarseness of your grind. So a finer grind is likely to become bitter fairly quickly, but will be strong after mere seconds of immersion. This is part of what makes espresso different from pot coffee -- finer grind and shorter immersion times.
If you can control the volume of water used, then the amount of time your espresso is immersed in hot water is a function of water pressure roughly divided by tamp. If you tamp really hard, your shot will run really long and come out looking and tasting roughly like tar. If you don't tamp at all, it takes 5 or 10 seconds and is fairly watery. Note that even if you're using a machine that doesn't pressurize, your water pressure isn't zero, but whatever the surrounding atmospheric pressure and gravity provide; usually this isn't much.
Therefore, if you're planning to immerse your coffee for a long time, in this case by continuing to run water through it to fill your Americano, there are two things you can adjust to get the flavor the way you want it. One is by making your grind coarse, and the other is by reducing the weight of your tamp; the results of each of these actions will be slightly different, but both seem worth testing.
Something else that may be worth considering is that coffee will still extract in room-temperature or even cold water; this is the principle behind cold-brew coffee. I've done it, and liked it, but my understanding is that it changes slightly the order of extraction, and even eliminates some compounds from the process. This, coupled with the temperature difference, may change the taste and mouth-feel beyond what you're comfortable with.
To find more modern resources, I googled "Tamping Espresso". Mostly what I found were pages encouraging a 30lb tamp, which is way more than we ever did, and whether it was proper or not, people did tend to like our espresso. Maybe we ground extra fine.
Anyway, hope that helps explain a little. Let us know if you arrive at a final process that you like.
I've noticed here on seasoned advice, people give EXTREMELY thorough answers! I really appreciate the information. I'm looking to learn as much about coffee as I can.
I do have a question though for you... Making the grind coarse will result in "larger" sized grounds. Don't we get more out of the coffee grinds if we make the grind fine? I mean, I think of a large, coarse sized grind and I would imagine that if that large coarse ground was further broken up into a finer grind, that would result in flavor that I otherwise wouldn't get with a coarse grind, no matter the length of time I run hot water through a coarse grind, right?
That's outside what I can speak to from experience; here's what I will say, with the caveat that it's mostly based on speculation: a coffee ground, unlike, say, a salt grain, is not a solid (impenetrable) crystal structure, but a semi-porous organic one. This means that water molecules can still penetrate the vast majority of the ground, no matter what size it is; nearly everything organic is sponge-like to a greater or lesser extent. However, extraction happens much more efficiently on the surface of the ground, so coarse grounds take longer to extract. Above a certain size, too long.
@DruidGreeneyes Its better to try to keep the same tamp pressure and only adjust the grind of the coffee if you want consistency.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.313700
| 2014-03-23T20:57:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42953",
"authors": [
"DruidGreeneyes",
"Felicia McGee",
"Mike Marks",
"Mike UK mad man",
"Only Video Marketing spam",
"Spammer",
"Tony Sam",
"alex-e-leon",
"alextgordon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22157"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24331
|
Is it normal for potatoes to look like they are 'shedding'?
I bought potatoes today in a different store then I normally do. When I came home I saw that the potatoes look like they are 'shedding', and I can peel of pieces of skin. Is this normal for some kind of potatoes? I'm not familiar with this with the potatoes I normally buy.
They feel and smell normal. Also they have normal color, no 'bad' spots and when cutting one in half it also looks fine.
Are this potatoes just an other kind then I'm used to, or is there something wrong with it?
I bought 'regular' waxy potatoes from some supermarket.
Thanks!
This is perfectly normal for waxy potatoes; their skins are soft and easily scraped off, especially if freshly harvested and handled roughly. I saw it just the other day with a batch of new potatoes fresh from the CSA. The potatoes were just fine.
If you see this with thick-skinned, starchy potatoes it may be a sign of fungus, especially if accompanied by dried out or roughened patches. Green colors in the peel are also a problem, because they indicate exposure to light and an elevated level of the toxin solanine. Solanine can cause upset digestion and headaches if consumed in quantity. Don't eat potatoes that are very green.
Does that mean that I normally have less fresh potatoes?
No, it means yours were handled gently when freshly harvested, or that they're varieties with thicker skins.
BobMcGee indicates that the thickness of the skin is determined by the handling or the variety. Although variety can determine the thickness, handling cannot make the skin thicker or thinner. Handling may cause the thin skin to come off, but it won't cause it to be thin in the first place.
The thickness of the skin within a variety of potato is determined by how long the potatoes were left in the ground after the plant dies. If the potatoes are harvested while the plant is still alive, they will have an exceptionally thin skin that will peel off easily. You can peel them by rubbing the surface with your fingers. This is almost always the case with "new" potatoes and is true across varieties from reds and pontiac to yellow yukon and russet.
Thicker skins result from leaving the potatoes in the ground after the plant dies (from a frost for example) for days to weeks. The potatoes stop getting nutrient from the plant and thicken their skins to insulate themselves from the elements. Producers allow the potatoes' skin to thicken because it improves their lifespan.
Thick or thin skins with a scaly texture have been infected with a fungus and should be peeled a little more deeply than usual. It is typically the result of the soil having too high a pH.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.314276
| 2012-06-09T16:19:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24331",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Greem666",
"Jill Sandwich",
"Lotte Laat",
"Lucia",
"Marco Rodriguez",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"leslie",
"sbdchd"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24238
|
How do I replicate the unique crispiness of Korean fried chicken?
I recently tasted Korean fried chicken and I was surprised at the crispiness and texture. It's unlike anything that I have had before. I looked up some recipes online and it seems that there's more cornstarch in the recipe than flour. Some recipes, like this one, uses potato starch and sweet rice flour with some regular flour.
What is it about these other dry ingredients that give the chicken this other kind of light crunchiness?
It's not so much the dry ingredients as it is the cooking technique, which involves double frying the chicken.
You'll notice that the recipe you link instructs you to double fry the chicken, and so do others like this one: http://www.seriouseats.com/recipes/2010/04/dinner-tonight-korean-fried-chicken-recipe.html
I'm familiar with double frying to get added crispiness...but there's still something different/special about the batter/dry ingredients, perhaps.
Well I haven't experimented with different batters, but the K(orean)FC I make seems to have a thinner batter overall. The key may be both the batter and the double frying. But I really love the double frying technique. Chicken not double fried definitely doesn't have the same texture.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.314521
| 2012-06-06T07:40:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24238",
"authors": [
"Eileen Cigala",
"John Creed",
"Nathan",
"Pablo Canseco",
"Railwood",
"hapbo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55108",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55109",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55110",
"janeylicious",
"milesmeow"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22487
|
How can I spice up ground beef without using pepper?
I cooked up some good-quality minced beef yesterday with salt, onion, and breadcrumbs. (I wrapped it around hardboiled eggs and baked it.) I didn't use any pepper because I have allergies, and I didn't like the way it came out - it was bland and had a faint meaty "off" taste even though I knew it was fresh enough.
I don't insist on it being hot and spicy, but what could I use to give it flavour? What is a good replacement that will flavor meat the way pepper would? Or at the very least, what spice or combination of spices would cover up the faint off taste? I know that medieval cooks used to use spices to cover "off" flavours in meat, but I think they were ones we use in sweet dishes now.
Tomato is not an option for me sadly but onion and garlic are fine.
I hope you can help, I'm finding this really intriguing. I'm learning a lot about what pepper does just by going without.
Mustard, horseradish, wasabi, and ginger are all standard things to combine with beef in at least some cultures.
Grains of Paradise might be an option.
Ground allspice berries and rosemary can add that piquant taste that you may otherwise be missing from the pepper.
Just to be clear, you're talking about black peppercorns (Piper nigrum) not chili peppers, correct?
If so, are you also allergic to pink "pepper" (Schinus molle or Schinus terebinthifolius)? If not, those would probably be your closest substitutes.
Depending again on what exactly you're allergic to, piperine (the primary "hot" alkaloid in black pepper) may be an option, though that won't have any of the flavor complexity of black pepper—mainly just the heat. Of course, if you want heat, chili peppers will work for that too (and add flavor besides heat).
You can also buy pepper extract or pepper essential oil; assuming you can find food-grade, you might want to inquire with your doctor if those are safe (I don't know).
Thank you, I think I will be able to have black pepper in a few years, but not the nightshade family which includes chillies. So at the moment I only have mustard, ginger and wasabi.
@Nomato Black pepper isn't part of the nightshade family (or even that closely related). I'm not a health expert—and this isn't a health site—but you're allergic to both? Just want to make sure that's the case, and its not just the similar names causing confusion.
I wouldn't say that pink pepper is a close substitute. It is a very tasty spice in its own right, but its flavor is very different from black pepper. Still, experimenting with it to get a good (even though different) spicy taste is a good idea.
Since you mentioned it tasted 'bland', I think you just didn't add enough salt.
To give it a bit extra flavour, you could mix in some nutmeg.
As for herbs, you could use finely chopped parsley or cilantro.
No it was salty enough but I wonder if perhaps the meat should have been a bit more fatty? They say fat carries the flavour.....
Ha, that could be a factor as well. But I'd think fat helps more to keep the meat together (we often use pork for that what you made) than to add flavour.
Cumin, Paprika, Chili Powder are all seasonings that work well with ground beef.
You may also enjoy a bit of red wine, soy sauce or even working in some barbecue sauce before, during and/or after cooking. You may also try sweating (or caramelizing) some yellow onion (with or without garlic) and then cooking the beef with the onions and serving them together.
Rather than a hard boiled egg, mix an uncooked egg into the ground beef before cooking.
There are a variety of ways to incorporate bacon that would add great flavor to the beef as well. (If bacon is not in your diet, I apologize)
I don't have bacon but we have this "chicken bacon" here and I could use that. I guess I would use the cumin along with onion and garlic? Just mixed in raw? Thank you Cos Callis :)
You could either apply the cumin directly to the ground beef or use it to season the onions & garlic and apply that to the ground beef. While there will likely be subtle differences, either way will get you a savory result.
Thesse are some options you use:
1- As for me I prefer to add Garlic and Lemon juice (the quantity should be proportional to the beef quantity), and let them be cooked with the beef, they add a special taste.
2- try to add fresh peppers (green, yellow, and red pepper slices) they add a strong flavour.
3- try to make mushroom sauce, or onion sauce to be delivered next to the beef upon serving, this helps too.
I think lemon juice would be good thank you Zeina (allergic to mushrooms and peppers though).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.314708
| 2012-03-22T06:39:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22487",
"authors": [
"Chris Curtis",
"Cos Callis",
"Jani",
"Mien",
"Nomato",
"Pablo S. Ocal",
"Peter Taylor",
"Rican7",
"Tamim Addari",
"Tim Fletcher",
"baka",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9616",
"jsnbrs",
"rumtscho",
"user50591"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23488
|
How can I prepare left over Stir Fry for the fridge?
I like making Stir Fry and I've tried several times to make two meal's worth so I can refrigerate half and take it to work, but so far every attempt has been sub-bar. It's veggie stir fry and I use a variety of sauces (most of which involve soy sauce) and a little vegetable oil.
The problem is mostly the sauce; I can't seem to drain it out, so it builds up at the bottom and gets nasty, or at the least it smells very strongly by the next day. I can't strain out the liquid from the bottom of my Wok very well and even after separating out the portion to be refrigerated I can't quite strain it; the sauce is there but just thick enough to not drain off.
Is there anything I can do to properly drain out the excess sauce or is there some method I can use to make sure the extra portion is edible, at least for a day? I know it's not going to be half as good, but it's completely inedible after a night in the fridge.
"or at the least it smells very strongly by the next day."
That shouldn't happen unless you let the sauce ferment for WEEKS in the fridge. Either you are leaving it at room temperature for far too long before refrigerating, or the problem is with the container (plastic containers could react badly to pouring hot oily sauce in them, but usually they are fine - reheating oily sauce in a plastic container, even one designated microwave safe, often causes problems).
I make stir fry all the time and do the same thing as you. I would make extra, enough for 2 - 3 meals.
The thing I do to prevent the vegetables from getting too mushy in the refrigerator is by cooking the stirfry about 75%(I make sure if I am doing this that the meat is fully cooked first) and then take out the portion that I intend to refrigerate. This allows me to either finish cooking it in the microwave if I am taking it to work or reheat it up in the stove if I am staying home.
Also since I am taking the portions from the upper part of the stirfry, there is less sauce that the vegetables will be steeping in so that should solve your problem of too much sauce.
Another thing you should remember is that the types of vegetables you use makes a big difference. If you choose all vegetables that turns really soft when cooked(onion, squash, peppers) then reheated stirfry using those vegetables will be not as unpalatable. The trick is to use a variety of textured vegetables.
Also I dont want to state the obvious but if your problem is your sauce, have you ever tried using a different(lighter) sauce recipe?
salt in the sauce is what pulls moister out of the veg. As above, remove almost-done upper portion and save a bit of finished sauce on the side. Perhaps also layer noodle'rice under the veg for storage sponge.
That's a good idea, taking it out before it's fully cooked. I use mostly crunchy veggies rather than soft. I don't make my own sauce (yet) but I'll keep an eye out for other sauces as well.
The answer likely depends on how you're going to be reheating the stir-fry.
In a 'take to work' situation, odds are, it's going to be a microwave. For that case, I just put down a bed of rice in the container first, then the stir-fry on top of it.
The sauce will soak into the rice, helping to dry out the vegetables some, which in turn slows down their heating in the microwave.
I'm beginning to use a Wok for cooking and also notice excess moisture after the first cooking. It's possible you're adding to much oil and Soy sauce at the beginning. Also, if you have cooked rice that hasn't been added to the Wok during the initial cooking, you could try adding the cooked rice to the to-go dish the morning of. The rice will absorb some of the excess moisture and flavor (as long as the flavor is still desirable the next day).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.315373
| 2012-05-01T01:02:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23488",
"authors": [
"Ayamous",
"Ezekiel Bread sucks",
"Imogene Dubose",
"Marlene Reilly",
"Pat Sommer",
"Zelda",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7778",
"jean",
"rackandboneman",
"user53166"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59844
|
How do you defrost frozen chili peppers without them turning soggy?
How do you defrost frozen chilli peppers without them going soggy? (I suppose this applies to other frozen fruit and vegetables with a high water content.)
I'm afraid this is impossible. It's the freezing, not the thawing, that causes this. Remember, water expands when freezing, so the freezing process breaks the cell walls, so when the pepper thaws, it has lost its crispness.
This doesn't matter if you're going to mince it finely or cook it, though! I freeze peppers regularly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.315705
| 2015-08-12T18:50:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59844",
"authors": [
"Brandy Benjamin",
"Deja McCray",
"Gareth Terrier",
"Karen Athawes",
"Olu Anjorin",
"Thai Vu",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143094"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
98851
|
Aleppo Pepper + Heat
I'm testing out a meatball recipe with aleppo pepper flakes, and although it's good, I want a little more heat. Do you think adding a touch of cayenne would do the trick? Would it pair well with the aleppo or could it possibly overtake the aleppo's unique flavor?
Try it & see ;)
Aleppo isn't particularly hot; I haven't checked it on the Scoville scale, but just from experience, though it's got a little kick to it, & that kick can be quite variable depending on your source of the pepper, to me, aleppo is used for its flavour rather than its kick.
Cayenne, on the other hand, I always consider to be "free heat". Its largest contribution is to add the 'burn', it doesn't really have much flavour, it's mainly heat.
I always think that by the time you can actually taste cayenne, you have other concerns ;)
On an anecdotal note - I always put a little cayenne in meatballs & most tomato sauces that would go with them. It's just a family 'thing' - we like it that way.
In your precise situation, where you want to add only heat while leaving the current flavors of the meal unchanged, you will be looking for the chili pepper with the highest heat-to-flavor ratio. This generally means that you will want to go with the hottest chili pepper as possible.
This will allow you to add very smaller quantities of the chili pepper than you would have with jalapeno-level peppers to reach the desired level of heat.
Superhot pepper powders are great for this application. Micro-dosing it is easy, and it won't be enough to change any of the taste. Add very small quantities at a time, taste it, and add more if needed.
Typical superhots used for this are:
Ghost pepper (Bhut Jolokia)
Trinidad Moruga Scorpion
Carolina reaper
There are 100s of superhots that could all do the job, but the 3 listed are most likely the easiest to find.
Alternatively you could use capsaicin extract. That is most likely the highest heat-to-flavor product you can find.
However the taste of it is generally less popular, although in very small quantities you won't be able to notice it.
I'd avoid extracts -- they're so hot that a single drop dramatically changes the amount of heat. (2-3 drops in a large pot of chili can be too much for some people).
Those are not practical products for adding "a little bit of heat".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.315910
| 2019-05-07T02:30:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/98851",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"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
}
|
94327
|
Convert pressure cooker recipes for 8 psi
I have a new electric multi cooker, it works at 8PSI and I am having difficulty at finding out how to convert stove top pressure cooker times at 15PSI down to 8PSI, hoping for your help.
Regards
Joan
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.316096
| 2018-11-28T15:47:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94327",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
96592
|
Storing matcha tea in a thermos?
lately i started to drink matcha tea, as an experiment instead of coffee, and i have read many descriptions about it.
I want to drink matcha tea to work, but i dont want to make it every time here,but instead to have it in a thermos.I have an 1L stainless still thermos and the quantity is quite enough for 3~4 cups of tea.
So, is it ok to make the tea in the morning and having it till the end of working day or this process is not good for the tea?
Will it change the color of it also?
Regards
Hello LePanz, and welcome! We have a stricter moderation than typical forums, and we are quite firm about sticking to our scope. We don't discuss anything about the possible benefits of eating a food, so I had to remove that part of the question, sorry. The other part - is it safe, does it change the taste, the color, etc. - is certainly on topic, so no change there, I even gave you an upvote for the nice question.
I would expect the tea to get more bitter as time pass; and cooler.
@rumtscho thanks for the notes & the upvote :) Next time i will be more careful!
It might be worth trying coldbrew matcha for what you're trying to do. If you have a thermos already, try it at home over a weekend and see if it keeps well enough for your tastes. Matcha may settle if you leave it long enough, and many people enjoy the froth the most, so it really benefits from being made and drunk fresh.
I will try to make it like this too :) I was just thinking that is better to drink it warm!
I am new to the matcha tea culture and i'm discovering now the options that i have :)
If the thermos is good, it will store very well through the day. I can only speak from my experience, but I prepare a thermos of matcha almost daily and it tastes nice by the end of the day. I have tried this with pure water + match and also with added milk (plant-based) and did not notice any problems.
Thank you for your reply. What i have noticed , however, is that its getting more braun as time pass. I mean, i prepare my thermos at 7:30 and at 13:00 it has lost its fresh green color ... thats what i have noticed.
This might depend on the brand of matcha powder used because I have never encountered such a color change. Usually, prepared in the morning it has the same color in the evening.
Interesting.... can you propose me some brand ? or even better the brand you use !!! Being new to the matcha tea world . i have to taste 3-4 brands to stay after. I hope its not against the rules of the site!
@LePanz it may just be that the matcha is settling. Try getting the wire balls from one of those blender bottles or something similar and just giving it a nice shake before you pour.
@PatrickSchomburg believe i have test it too :) Knowing that matcha is powder it was my first thought! Thank you anyway :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.316168
| 2019-02-27T12:12:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/96592",
"authors": [
"Enivid",
"LePanz",
"Max",
"Patrick",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73124",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4564
|
What foods/preparations demonstrate the flavor difference between sea salt and table salt?
Related to What is the difference between sea salt and regular table salt?
What can I prepare that will work really well for a side-by-side comparison to demonstrate the difference between sea salt and regular table salt? Obviously, tasting the salts directly might work, but I'm looking for something that highlights the difference and is tasty at the same time.
Edit:
I'm looking for things that highlight the differences in the flavors of the salts or that the salts affect the flavor significantly due to the trace minerals. Why are the things you suggest ideal for this? I'm not looking for a list of foods you can add salt to - that list is endless.
Why should I use sea salt?
Here's a hypothetical example answer:
Adding sea salt to X makes it taste salty in the same way as table salt does. However if you use Y, the A will be B and the C will be D. You will notice a distinct difference.
Too open-ended and is really a recipe question...vote to close
@AttilaNYC: Please explain. And why are some of your questions not "open-ended" and "really a recipe question"?
Pretty much anything salty is going to demonstrate the difference. So IMO, this essentially does equate to a request for salty recipes, which without any further criteria is wide open to anyone. At the very least, it's a "list of X" question and should be community wiki.
This is a great experimental question, with a focus on learning about and showcasing the different qualities of ingredients. It's brilliant. It is what makes great chefs and enlightened eaters. It's not a recipe question because it's just asking for serving ideas.
I don't see this as a recipe question at all. the OP wants to know how to best judge the difference in flavour of various salts. this is a great question I believe, and one where the answer is almost certainly not a dish.
@cinque @Sam Holder. I support keeping plenty of questions open provided they are improved, but this one really should be. Hope you'll add your reopen votes as your comments suggested.
meta discussion started: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/566/should-this-question-have-been-closed
Much agreed with Krister that simple is best. Also, to really emphasize the difference, I'd aim for larger flakes of both the 'regular' salt and the sea-salt. Here are some serving ideas.
Just the salt. Side by side, on a dark plate with some small divider. A pinch of each. That's it.
Broth. A very simple vegetable broth, made with a little butter (unsalted of course) and fresh tomato, and perhaps a sprig of fresh thyme or rosemary, warmed to about 160 degrees, and strained through cheesecloth. I'd add about 2/3 the salt during cooking and a few 'fresh' flakes at service.
Fish. Preferably raw. A piece of sushi-grade salmon would be delicious. Add a few flakes of salt.
Meat. Take one very good, very fatty, very juicy piece of meat. Sear it on all sides to about medium rare. Salt.
Chocolate. Salt is a wonderful accompaniment to dark chocolate. And dark chocolate with caramel. Make or purchase such a confection, and serve two side by side with a few flakes of each salt on top.
Fruit. I recommend a piece of watermelon. Possibly grilled. With salt.
Tea. Find a good recipe for salt tea, popular in parts of Asia. Serve in two small Japanese style tea cups.
You have lots of options. Small portions will be key. Not overcooking anything will be key. Interesting options whether or not to tell your guests ahead of a dish which preparation is which, or let them to identify the difference with their palettes. Perhaps a combination, letting them try to guess at first, then with instruction, and finishing with guessing again. I'd add in some history, possibly from the highly recommended book Salt. Or just Wikipedia. Tell them all of the functions salt serves in our bodies, but especially in the transmissions of flavor on the tongue. Great idea...!
I think something very basic like a slice of ripe tomato or some avacado will help showcase the flavour difference between salts. Tomato would be my choice as it responds well to salting, really bringing out the tomato flavour. You can tell the difference between the 'harsh' salting of table salt vs the mellow flavour enhancement of something like Maldon, the king of salt.
Anything elaborate makes it hard to do comparisons. You could make your own butter with different types of salt and serve with some good bread. Another option could be drinks with a salted glass rim like margaritas.
Focaccia topped with salt.
Make real bavarian Brezes. I know that pretzel is used in English to mean basically any baked good which has the distinct shape, but in Bavaria, it is always made from soft yeast dough, pre-boiled in lye, covered with big salt flakes and baked. At home, it is acceptable to cook them in a strong baking soda solution instead of lye.
When you eat a bavarian Breze, you can distinctly taste the salt used on it. The dough softens/dilutes the salt concentration, so you don't have the sensory overload likely to be caused by eating a pinch of pure salt (which will keep you from noticing the fine notes of difference between the two salts), but it does not add to much of an own taste, so it doesn't mask the difference. Thus it should be very well suited for comparing the two salt types.
A recipe in English shouldn't be too hard to find. If you want an original German recipe, you can try this one. The translation rendered by Chromium is funny at some places, but generally well understandable, you shouldn't have trouble following it.
It is probably a good idea to use the different salt on separately baked batches, as the flakes get everywhere while baking and would mix if used on the same baking sheet.
When you have finished the taste test, you can eat the rest of the batch with cooked wieners and mustard (as per tradition), or just use it instead of bread.
"walk in the warmth" indeed! It's Google, rather than Chromium that's doing the translating, by the way. Chrome (and I presume Chromium) simply has a feature that offers to initiate the translation. In American English, "wieners" means "hot dog meat" (aka "frankfurters" - or at least what we think of them as) and "vienna sausages" (as translated in the recipe) means a small canned product that's a little bit similar to American hot dogs. I know those terms have different meanings in Germany.
Pure iodized salt is almost too salty whereas sea salt and other salts made with minerals are tempers it just a bit. Put a pinch a salad with a little olive oil (no vinegar). Sea salt enhances and complements the flavor trio but traditional table salt is just too strong and overwhelms. I enjoy the flavored salts---like smoked or Merlot salt.
Incidentally, salt on the salad is an old Roman tradition. Roman soldiers used to receive bags of salt as part of their payment. Hence the origin of the term "salary." Kinda cool!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.316454
| 2010-08-08T13:59:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4564",
"authors": [
"AMIC MING",
"Aaronut",
"AttilaNYC",
"Ben Criger",
"Bob",
"Brian DeWitt",
"Daniel",
"Dennis Williamson",
"EvilAmarant7x",
"Francesco",
"Gary Hughes",
"Jeff",
"Joel Burget",
"KIAaze",
"Lulu Cheng",
"Mary",
"Ocaasi",
"Rahul",
"Sam Holder",
"Scotts",
"Stephen Sgro",
"Tunes",
"Vijay Varadan",
"bobek",
"cockroachbill",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9591",
"ptamzz",
"the",
"user8759"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41332
|
Crispy Lembas Bread Recipe
I've been taking a crack at a few variations of the Elven Lembas bread recipe from Lord of the Rings, because I'm a nerd and like to make random things. A common recipe I see linked in various blogs is this: http://www.geekychef.com/2008/12/elven-lembas-bread.html
I've modified the recipe a little bit (ie: swapped out macadamia nuts for almonds, and I ground up about 50 raisins and added them in too. Also, I used coconut oil in place of melted butter, and added a banana instead of the kumquats). So, the final recipe would be:
3 eggs
1 c. honey
1 banana
3 oz. chopped almonds
¼ c. melted coconut oil
2 ¼ c. whole wheat flour
½ tsp. salt
½ c. chopped raisins
I don't have access to a pizelle iron or a krumcake iron, so I tried baking these in the over. I ended up having to use more like 3½ cups of flour instead of the 2¼ the recipe calls for, just so it didn't have the consistency of runny semi-cooked eggs. The taste is good, but even after baking at 350 degrees (F) for 20 minutes, it comes out as a semi-soft, heavy lump and tasty doughy/undercooked inside. It also gives me some cramps, so I'm attributing that (hopefully correctly) to it being undercooked.
In the movie, these treats looked very solid in shape, kind of like a lemon bar (very flat top and bottom and clear-cut edges), and they looked flaky and crispy when eaten, kind of like a really thick cracker.
Are there any suggestions on preparation or the recipe in general that would allow me to have these more thoroughly cooked AND have a crispy texture rather than a heavy doughy one? I'm currently making them 4"x4"½x" in size each.
EDIT
I've since revisited the recipe, and now have something closer to what I wanted. It's not dry like a cracker or thick cookie, but it tastes good, texture is palatable, and after calculating the nutrition profile by hand (fat, vitamin, fibre, protein, etc), I'm quite please with the result. The modified ingredient list is now:
3 eggs
1 cup honey
1 banana
1 puréed mandarin orange (thoroughly washed, seedless, entire orange plus skin and pith included)
1 cup chopped almonds (ground to small pieces, almost a flour)
¼ c. melted coconut oil
1 ½ cup whole wheat flour
2 cups corn meal
½ tsp. salt
½ c. chopped raisins
2 ½ teaspoons active dry yeast in ½ cup of warm water, let to dissolve for five minutes
The whole thing basically gets a trip in the food processor, except the flour, which is added after in a separate bowl. I bought some small 3" x 6" individual cake pans. I scoop a ½" thick layer into a pre-buttered/greased pan, and let it cook for about 20-25 minutes at 350 deg. F. The texture is roughly like that of a very heavy banana bread, and tastes good, just off sweet. The only thing I might modify is the amount of coconut oil.
Hello Dogbert, making food "healthy" is offtopic on our site, mostly because it ends up in flamewars between people with different understanding of "healthy". So I removed this part of the question. We have had some discussion on the existence of the nutrition tag, because it is confusing to new users, so if you want to give us the point of view of one who has experienced the negative side of it, you can do so here: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1854/can-we-rename-nutrition-to-nutritional-content.
Just to add, by getting rid of kumquats you're changing pH a lot. I'd also suggest using oat flour instead of pure whole wheat, unless you want it to be a brick. And to be more realistic towards the setting, I'd use lard over coconut oil (relax, it's not as bad for you as people think, and is significantly healthier than butter). It also tastes a hell of a lot better.
I don't remember what the Lembas are supposed to be like in the original text, but whatever Tolkien intended them to be, the recipe is not for a bread-like item in the sense modern US Americans understand it. It is more comparable to waffles.
This is why it got wrong when you tried to treat it like bread. It is a batter, not a dough. The slow indirect heat of an oven is wrong for it, and it is not supposed to be able to hold its shape as a loaf. If you don't have a pizzelle iron, use a waffle iron for making them. If you don't have a waffle iron either, use a griddle or a hot pan and form and bake the lembas like pancakes, turning them during the process to get both sides baked.
Although I am saying "pancake" here, it refers to the cooking process, not to the final texture. If the chef who made the recipe knew what he was doing, the result can be crispy and flaky, similar to a dried tortilla. It will indeed be calorie-dense and durable, just like the fictional lemba.
As I don't think Tolkien gives anything closely usable as a culinary recipe, I guess that the chef just baked anything with these two qualities and called it "lemba". You can probably take any other kind of durable bread and use it as your recipe if you don't like this one. Knaeckebrod is probably a good starting point, considering that it has similar properties, and it is probably appropriate, seeing how much Tolkien was influenced by Nordic mythology.
Oh I agree that no useable recipe was provided. We just have hints (ie: contained honey), and in the movie, we see it is crunchy like a cookie/cracker, but thicker. I also thought that waybread, in general, in fantasy novels and movies generally keeps someone full a long time. So, this motivated the inclusion of extra protein, fat, sugar, and fiber.
Using this batter on a waffle iron may do very well, but I suspect (but don't know for certain...) that preparing them like English Muffins maybe better. There is a geometry to waffles that may not suit this batter well, the surface area to volume ratio may leave this batter too dry.
Tolkien, among a very many other things, was a student of Native American culture. Here in Rhode Island, the Narragansetts would make a variety of cornmeal that they could pack with them on their trip from the coastal camps in summer to those further up the bay come autumn, and make cakes from it on a hot stone at a campfire. These were called journey cakes, a name which should be identifiable to any Tolkien fan. (Tho Tolkien missed that it was the cornmeal, and not the cakes themselves, that traveled so well.)
Here in Rhode Island, they're still on the menu as Johnny Cakes - think about the New England accent a moment - and they come in thick and soft and thin and crispy varieties (the thin and crispy kind are Newport Style johnny cakes, which is a good point of departure for future research.)
Here is a page on Johnny Cakes by a manufacturer of cornmeal that describes them, a bit of their history, and offers some example recipes of the various styles popular with its customers.
Do you have a source for the Native American assertion? I've never heard of such a thing...
@ElendilTheTall - In his own words, (well, mostly, he used a rather unflattering term which I have replaced with the modern substitute) "...[Native Americans] were better: there were bows and arrows (I had and have a wholly unsatisfied desire to shoot well with a bow), and strange languages, and glimpses of an archaic mode of life, and, above all, forests in such stories..." - http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/448579-i-had-no-desire-to-have-either-dreams-or-adventures
That sounds more like a reminiscence of childhood games of cowboys and Indians than being a 'student'. I would have thought his Catholicism would be a far greater influence: the life giving wafer and all that. Another name for the Eucharistic wafer is_viaticum_ meaning 'for the way'. Lembas is also referred to as way bread. Etc etc.
If it does refer to a communion wafer, most unleavened breads (including any matzoh) would work, and there are a lot of very simple unleavened bread recipes. These are to be served quite white, however, and do not meet Tolkien's description of brown on the outside and creamy white on the inside, which makes it somewhat problematic.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.317064
| 2014-01-21T20:10:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41332",
"authors": [
"Carl H",
"Chris David",
"Cloud",
"Cos Callis",
"Darlene Dittmer",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Mary Ellen",
"Matthew",
"Milan",
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"Spammer",
"Spammert",
"elizabeth jess",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97018",
"rumtscho",
"spam"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41459
|
Adapting a large crock pot recipe to a smaller crock pot
I've found similar questions, but they have all be very generic. I'm curious about a specific recipe, http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/sandra-lee/smothered-meatloaf-recipe.html
It calls for a 5-qt slow cooker, but mine is 2.5 quarts. I want to know if
1.) can I just half the ingredients?
2.) do I also need to half the cooking time?
The old question has an answer which says that scaling works for all recipes besides jellies. So I don't see a point in making a question for a specific recipe, as it is clearly covered in the existing question and answer.
I still maintain that the answer to the linked question is to generic, and leaves too much up in the air "If you are doing this, then maybe, but if you are doing that, then maybe not" but whatever... I cut back the cooking time per the other post, got food poisoning due to undercooked meat, and died.
Also, the first comment on the linked post: "That will depend on the total volume of the ingredients, and the type of ingredients. ... Can you tell us more about the recipe?" - Based on that, I made a post which told more about the recipe.
@chasepeeler Looking at that recipe, the general answer is fine. Your main thing in scaling the recipe will be to make it fit. If you're at all concerned that something hasn't fully cooked, use a thermometer to check.
@chasepeeler The concerns in the comment are practical: if you're making something prone to boiling over (you aren't), be careful. The other answer says that the only cases you might not just scale are jelly, or generally, things using pectin to set (you aren't doing that), and that you might have to reduce the cooking time (which applies to you). Beyond that, it doesn't really depend on the recipe, so it certainly seems like the other question and answer should suffice. Is there anything you're trying to ask that didn't get answered?
As someone without much experience with using a slow cooker, everything that may be obvious to you, isn't to me. The answer provided by @Jefromi, though, does answer my question. Thank you.
And since my comment only summarized what was on the other question and answer, this is indeed a duplicate.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.317708
| 2014-01-26T04:45:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41459",
"authors": [
"Aaron Miller",
"Cascabel",
"STOI",
"Tien Thi Thanh Nguyen",
"chasepeeler",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96634",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96673",
"rumtscho",
"tom kanji",
"user7264"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41727
|
Failed chocolate sponge
I'm new to bakery and I can bake chiffon and angel food cake alright, but everytime(3 times) I bake chocolate sponge, I always end up with something with good moisture but super stiff. What could I have done wrong and how can I make the cake more tender in texture? Thanks!
My recipe: 3 eggs, 40g butter, 40g(in egg white)+20g(in yolk) sugar, 60g flour, 20g cocoa powder for a 8-inch square baking pan. 170°C, 10min.
And what I did:
Separate the egg white and yolk, whip the white until there's a curly spike when I pick up the wisk. During the whipping process, pour in the 40g of sugar.
Add 20g sugar to the yolk and stir until the mixture gets a bit pale.
Add 40g of melted butter into the mixture and stir until the mixture is smooth. Pour 1/3 of the egg white foam into the yolk-butter mixture. Mix carefully as not to deflate the egg white. When mixed well, pour in the other 2/3 of egg white and mix.
Add in the flour & cocoa powder. Bake in preheated oven.
Did you forget to mention the leavening in the recipe only, or did you forget to add it to the cake too?
Also, what method are you using to make the cake. Method is as important as ingredients.
@rumtscho the recipe says the beaten egg whites will act as the sole leavening in sponge cake. Should I add some baking soda(because I've never used baking soda except for pound cake)?
@GdD added above...I'm kind of worried that I'm stirring the flour mixture wrong but my other cakes are all fine xD
@AlexSu I haven't seen a sponge cake leavened solely on eggs. The fat deflates the protein foam of the egg whites. What is your recipe source? If a recipe fails consistently, it is much easier to find another, working, recipe, than to try to troubleshoot the bad one. The Internet is full of great recipes for free.
@rumtscho will do
@rumtscho Made another sponge today with a few adjustments: added 1/4 tsp baking soda, replaced cocoa powder with 20g extra flour, whipped the yolk. And the result is good.
OK, it seems that my initial hunch was good. Made it an answer.
Sponge and pound cakes contain fat. Therefore, they are not usually made with pure egg leavening. Egg leavening relies on a protein-based foam (whipped eggwhites), and fat deflates protein-based foams and/or prevents them from "curing" at high temperatures.
If you found a sponge cake recipe without chemical leavening, this is a sign for a bad recipe. The best would be to search for a better recipe, especially if you are a beginner baker. Troubleshooting baking recipes is an advanced skill which requires both experience and theoretical knowledge - certainly attainable for the average home baker, but unnecessarily hard for beginners. With the tons of recipes available at your fingertips for free, it makes more sense to search for a better one. It will give you correct ratios and temperatures and save you failures and frustration.
And a small pedantic part: what you are making here is not a sponge cake, but a pound cake. They have the same ingredients, but sponge cakes are made using the creaming method, while pound cakes use melted butter. The upside: both of them are tasty :)
seems that there's some serious problem with the recipe I'm using now. got to find a better one
My mother (a retired Irish Home Economics teacher!) says that a true sponge cake contains no fat (ie. no butter - butter in the recipe makes a 'butter sandwich cake', not a sponge). For her sponge, she separates the egg whites and yolks, beats them separately, and uses only the egg whites as the raising agent - and her sponges are beautiful!
try using a recipe without flour. or you could be over mixing the batter activating the gluten. or try another recipe!
I wouldn't suggest a recipe without flour, they are much trickier than the ones with flour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.317958
| 2014-02-03T14:52:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41727",
"authors": [
"Alison",
"GdD",
"NEW ZEALAND ETA VISA Spam",
"Spammer",
"arax",
"bpaul",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97399",
"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
}
|
97222
|
Accidentally used high heat on Teflon pan!
I accidentally left a Teflon pan on high heat to the point where oil was smoking a lot. Is the Teflon pan still good to use? I'm afraid I destroyed the protective coating. I visually inspected the coating and it seems to be intact and in good shape.
What does the surface of the pan look like now? Damaged teflon won't be smooth any more
Hi, health related questions are off topic here. I had to remove that part. We can only answer the aspect of the pan being difficult to cook with or not.
Smoking oil generally isn't hot enough to damage teflon. Generally, Teflon gets damaged at 260C/500F, which is above the smoke point of most cooking oils (though not all of them). So as long as you didn't let it go to the point where you burned most of the oil off, it should be OK.
Hm.. thanks for the link. I was actually using avocado oil which your reference says burns at 271 °C.
Um ... no? The linked article says that avocado oil burns at 205C.
"there are at least two cooking oils (refined safflower oil at 265 °C (509 °F) and avocado oil at 271 °C (520 °F)) that have a higher smoke point."
Ah, interesting, that's not in the chart. So were you using refined or virgin avocado oil?
Of course, a visual inspection of the surface is probably your best bet now.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.318420
| 2019-04-01T21:34:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97222",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"burnt1ce",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73824",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
97464
|
Is there a trick to getting spices to fix to raw almonds?
I am trying to make a hot / spicy almonds using raw almonds and cayenne pepper. Is there a simple non-messy way to get the cayenne pepper to stick to the almonds?
I imagine I could mix the almonds with olive oil before spreading it or similar but was hoping there is a better "hack" that is not as messy.
Very related, https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22822/getting-flavor-powders-to-stick-to-nuts
That's the trick to getting spices to adhere to nuts. If you are worried about the messiness perhaps your method can be improved. Put your nuts into a tossing bowl and slowly drizzle the oil over them. If tossing is a technique you are skilled with you can do that, but I'm guessing it's not, in which case you can stir with a spoon. It won't take much oil, maybe two tablespoons per pound. Maybe less. Then toss nuts again while sprinkling with cayenne. Or spread on a tray and sprinkle with cayenne there.
Lastly, if you are still struggling with the oily mess. Try enclosing in a sealable container and shaking. The oil will distribute and the mess will be contained.
If you toss nuts in oil then roast them alone, the oil will get tacky as the lighter fractions come off in the heat or are absorbed by the nut. That tacky oil will get the spices to adhere.
@bruglesco - I thought maybe that was just the starting point.
ohh maybe, I didn't read it that way but now that you mention it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.318570
| 2019-04-14T02:28:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97464",
"authors": [
"Summer",
"Willk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65929",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65461
|
How does the choice of vegetable ratio and processing steps influence the taste of mirepoix?
There are sources on the internet, but each one touches only one or two areas and some contradict each other. For example they say "two parts onions for other veggies" but videos always show equal parts onion to carrot and celery ratio.
I believe that simply explaining the process behind making a flavor base (how the veggies interact with each other, the role of fat, how dicing size affects the end result etc) will help us all make better informed decisions for our own preferences in whatever flavor base we choose to make.
Hi Bar Akiva, I'm afraid your question is unanswerable. Your second paragraph is basically a definition of "recipe". And the first one illustrates nicely why we don't take recipe requests: because there are tons of them and it is impossible to say that one is better than the other. "Perfect" is the one which tastes best to you personally, and that's, well, a matter of taste.
Hello rumtscho. Thank you for the helpful comment. I will edit my question and see if I can make it more concise.
Thank you for your edit! The edit bumped the question up, so I saw it was changed. "How do I upgrade the flavor base" is still not answerable (it depends on what you're doing already, what you prefer tastewise, etc.) but the rest of it will hopefully get good answers, so I edited it again, keeping the spirit of your newer version. Also, a technical matter: you get notifications for all comments posted on your question or answer. Other people only get notified if you place an @ sign before their handle in the comment. If you want somebody to note something you said, using @ makes it easier.
I think whatever becomes of that question would be helped by defining "two parts, one part..." by weight or volume ... this is only one part (by weight) irony to three parts trying to make the best of it - this question is about tuning stuff with some precision...
A bit late to the party but ....
Onion and celery have similar effect in the mirepoix, the leeks will have a similar effect but with more depth on the sweet side & carrot will bring some sweetness.
Based on that, depending on what you want to cook, there are some guidelines.
For stews, keep in mind that some of the next ingredients might add some sweetness to the meal, so it's ok to equal the onion and celery parts to the other veggies.
For broth you might want to reduce the onion and celery part to 1/2 part of other vegetables (carrot, mushrooms, tomato paste, etc.) knowing it will eventually reduce into a demi-glace and that you will season it with spices and aromates. Reducing mean the flavor will concentrate.
For soup / potage you should adjust to the main ingredient to balance it out, usually I go with onion and celery in equal part and no carrots unless you want the soup / potage to have a sweet taste, which is ok for pea soup, tomato, carrot, etc.
Hope it helps,
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.318746
| 2016-01-15T16:34:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65461",
"authors": [
"Amber Huelsenbeck",
"Annie Kohlen",
"Bar Akiva",
"Clint Barber",
"Danny Mccallin",
"Derek Cridland",
"Rachelle Rachelle",
"Rebecca Langston",
"Rick van apeldoorn",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"vickie kinek"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67450
|
using potato starch to thicken jam
So here is my plan. Instead of buying sugar free artificially sweetened jam or reduced sugar jelly made with extra water and thickeners, I want to take really good full-of-fruit preserves, heat it up and add my own water and thickener. I was thinking of using potato starch. Any thoughts?
Update
My goal is to reduce sugar consumption without buying artificially sweetened preserves or expensive commercially diluted preparations. My thought was to buy some really good preserves and do the dilution myself. I tried it with corn starch but it didn't thicken.
I don't understand your question (which is about thickening jam), because in your explanation, you suggest thickening fruit preserves. Why do you want to thicken fruit preserves? Isn't it already pretty thick...jam-like?
I also don't understand what you are trying to make here. Are you looking for something shelf-stable, or a perishable food? Is your goal to have as high as fruit content as possible, and if yes, why are you considering diluting the preserves? Or what is it you are trying to achieve?
I suspect that they're trying to reduce the sugar in existing preserves by thinning it, but they want to maintain a jam-like consistency.
@Joe, that is what i am trying to achieve
It's nice that you came back to clarify! The edit function does not make it necessary to delete everything, it's better to keep the old information in, because many other people won't have seen it. Just add the new stuff, or improve the old so that it still makes sense for somebody who sees the whole thing for the first time. I combined your two versions as an example.
I'm confused - you're not just going to dilute the sugar, you're going to dilute the fruit flavor.
OK, to clear up some things here. The first thing: whatever you do, you will not have a shelf-stable product you can keep in the pantry. If you want to make that, you will have to follow a known-safe recipe with sufficient acid and sufficient sugar and proper canning procedures. It will still have lots of sugar though.
Let's assume that you don't need something shelf-stable, just a fruit preparation with little sugar in it. The expensive commercial "low sugar" jams are not diluted at all. They simply contain much more fruit than the others. So there is no way you can replicate them by starting with high sugar commercial jam.
So your options are:
Cook jam from scratch to the consistency you want. High-sugar recipes are shelf stable, mid-sugar ones need refrigeration once opened, low-sugar ones only hold for a few days in the fridge. Here you have to use the thickener suggested in your recipe.
Don't make jam from the fruit. If you want very little sugar and have to give up the convenience of preserving the whole thing, just use fresh fruit puree.
Eat commercial low-sugar jam with something else. OK, you can in principle cook a water-based pudding (that's what starch+water makes) and add the jam, but it is probably tastier to add it to pudding made with milk, or to yoghurt.
You cannot really reprocess commercial jam well. It is thickened with pectin, which cannot be re-thickened after heating. It is also sensitive to the amount of sugar and acid, so adding more pectin and water will probably produce something weird. And in the end, if you find some thickener which produces a texture you like, the product will neither be as shelf stable as proper jam, nor as sweet as proper jam, which for most people would not be worth the effort. If you really want to try, pectin should be the thickener to go.
I would suggest you use Agar as your thickener. Finding the right proportion will take some experimenting, as too much will create a jell-o like consistency.
Food grade agar can be purchased online or in an Asian grocery store.
Potato starch would probably give it a consistency more like a sauce & would make it taste & feel starchy.
Note that I do agree with the comments made previously; I'm not sure why you need a thickener to begin with, but if you do, I'd suggest agar.
Agar doesn't work as well wtih acidic foods : "Agar does not hydrate well in acidic liquids, making gelling difficult. To get around this issue, first hydrate the agar in a neutral liquid and then add it to the acidic liquid." ; "The gelling ability of agar is affected by the acidity or alkalinity of the ingredients it is mixed with. More acidic foods, such as citrus fruits, kiwi and strawberries, may require higher amounts of agar."
Yeah, I've done it before with a pineapple based 'energy gel'. Joe is right, if you decide to go this route, it may take more than the packages recommended amounts.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.319084
| 2016-03-15T16:36:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67450",
"authors": [
"1800 Emergency",
"Amy Nerio",
"Benny Guajardo",
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"Mc G",
"Sandra",
"Tyshea White",
"bracha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"moscafj",
"renesis",
"rumtscho",
"song yinghua"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7791
|
How to substitute eggs in homemade pasta?
I am looking to make pasta at home, but all the classical pasta dough recipes I know of are egg-based. While I have no problem with eating meat and animal products from time to time, I would like to avoid eggs here.
Could somebody guide me to good vegetable-based substitutions to eggs (Oil?) that might work just as well in this context?
I would also like to experiment with adding vegetables to the dough (e.g. Spinach or carrots) - I'm not sure whether there may be additional issues with the dough's stability when not using eggs.
Here is a complete flax seed pasta dough recipe for you (on allergickid.blogspot.com).
It uses the only egg substitute I've used: ground flax seeds and water. I've used it in several breads and cookies, but not pasta. I've found several different ratios online, you so may need to play with them, depending on the flax you use, but basically:
To replace one egg: In a blender, blend 1 Tbsp flax seeds with 3 Tbsp water until thick and creamy.
You want the flax to be freshly ground, and it will add a nutty flavor.
Sounds great, I've never heard of this! I will try it out and leave feedback. Thanks!
The eggs are not strictly needed for the home made pasta.
It has to be underlined however that the taste, the colour and texture of the food will be different.
About the taste
Nothing to say or to do about it, with eggs and without eggs simply are two different things.
About the texture
I can suggest to try the durum wheat semolina (in original [1,2] the "farina di gran duro rimacinata").
It will give a different sensation when you will eat (different texture); moreover it will facilitate the task to obtain a better coloured pasta.
Around 70 g of semolina and 40 g of water (plus salt of course) per person, meanwhile the proportion for the egg version is of 100g of wheat flour for each egg...
About the colours
There are many choices that will enrich the original flavour, and that almost always have to be related with the sauce you intend to use with.
red: tomato concentrate, 1 tbsp each 100g of flour. It's a classic, almost neutral. Good with everything.
orange: 50g of carrots (boiled and pureed) or 100g of pumpkin for each 100g of flour. Note the result will be sweeten. Not so classic or trivial to pair.
yellow: saffron (around 0.6g) for 100g. Or, if you prefer, one coffee spoon (a little less then a teaspoon) of Curcuma. It will mark the taste.
green: 10g of boiled spinach, (or of basil leaves, Urtica dioica, Borage...) for 100g of flour. But even lettuce [3] or broccoli.
Another classic, almost neutral.
blue It's possible to try to boil the Red cabbage for some minutes and to add one teaspoon of sodium bicarbonate to make it blue: it's used for cakes [3], you can try with pasta too.
Two spoons of liqueur similar to the blue Curaçao is a quick solution, but the blue comes from a food colouring (usually E133).
Nice the match with white sauces as the ones based on cooking cream, bechamel or mild cheeses.
violet to pink: beet, 30g for 100g of flour for the violet, less for a colour more close to pink. Again nice the coupling with white sauces.
black: squid ink. It gives a dark black colour. I report since it is another classic and you said to have no problem to eat meat and animal products from time to time... Strictly for fish sauce of course.
brown: 1 teaspoon of cocoa (with no sugar!) each 100g of flour. It is suggested with (hunting) game, for the colour and the stronger taste that can cover the cocoa aftertaste.
Dried Porcini Mushrooms 25g for 100g of flour, rehydrate in hot water [4], strain and blend.
It will mark the final taste.
Often in cooking when you mix more colours together it comes out brown: give it a try.
Interesting lectures:
"Pasta fresca fatta in casa senza uova" in Italian.
The original link [see post history] is not anymore available, but I found a new one without the need of eggs.
"Italian flour: types and terminology" in English.
"Coloranti alimentari" in Italian.
I have had great results just leaving the eggs out of the recipe, which seems to be common, see here, for example. Keep in mind that most commercial pasta is just water and flour, so it's not too surprising that you don't need eggs.
That said, I don't doubt that flax meal would be good in the dough also, it's just not necessary in my experience.
my pasta recipe is just eggs and flour. If I left out the eggs it would be just flour. Surely at the very least you need to increase the amount of water (possibly from zero) which is another way of saying you can use water in place of the egg?
@Kate Gregory, great point! Some "egg pasta" is indeed just eggs+flour. As you said, it's more like you're substituting water for egg, but certainly not in the same weight, and in some cases (if the recipe calls for very little egg) you may be able to get away with no extra water; indeed, with no egg to help bind, it may be advantageous to have a stiffer mixture. Perhaps the most accurate would be to say that we replace egg with some proportion of water + flour.
Not all fresh pasta has to have eggs, for instance, orrechiette, pici or umbricelli are made with durum wheat flour and water alone.
Here in China, I have had gorgeous little ravioli -called jiaozi (jyow dzuh)- that are just a flour-and-water dough. One great variation is to add spinach or carrot juice for color.
Advantage is knowing what lurks inside by the color-code!
Eggy rubbery fettucine is hard to replicate; perhaps softer flour? For anything else that can be a bit bite-ier: good 00, basta.
If mocha color belongs on your palate, a small amount of buckwheat flour makes a tender springy noodle. Look up Northern Italian recipes for this.
There are several things you can use for substitution.
yoghurt - 2 tbsp yoghurt for one egg
tofu - cut it, use 2 tbsp per egg, blend it well [I assume this means you have to make the dough in the food processor - ed.]
vegetable oil
buttermilk
pure water
gelatine. Dissolve 1/2 tbsp gelatine in 2 tbsp water and put in the dough.
I edited these suggestions, preserving the author's original meaning, but I must say that I don't agree with most of them. Oil or yoghurt will produce a very different noodle from an egg noodle. But I am curious what would happen if you use gelatine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.319498
| 2010-10-03T12:23:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7791",
"authors": [
"A J",
"Beverly",
"Evangeline Burkhardt",
"Frank Hilden",
"Kate Gregory",
"Mirco Guglielminetti",
"Pekka",
"Sebastian Hahn",
"Sunflower Daisy",
"Valeria Briseno",
"colini",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150473",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53136",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53226",
"huseyinadiguzel",
"kevins",
"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/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22609
|
Is it safe to freeze soup that uses previously frozen stock?
I have a lot of frozen stock. I would like to use that stock to make a tomato, leek and basil soup which will be eaten one or two days later.
Is it safe to re-freeze the soup that contains the previously frozen stock?
Am I better off not freezing the soup that I will be consuming in just one or two days?
possible duplicate of Is refreezing a meal safe?
Welcome to Seasoned Advice Janet! I had made several edits to your post. Mainly because you used relative time terms such as "today or tomorrow" and then followed up with a specific day "Friday." This will be relevant now but in the future it is hard to tell exactly the length of time before you consume the soup unless someone takes the time to look at date of the post, check the calendar to see which day it is and then calculate from there. If however you feel I had change the meaning of your question in anyway, please feel free to edit further by clicking on the edit link under the tags.
Soup (and any food) is safe to freeze and re-use as long as you keep in mind these things:
The time the food has been 'out' does not reset when you freeze it. You are putting any harmful microbes on pause, not killing them. Be aware of the total time since your food has been cooked both before and after freezing. Remember that putting something in the freezer does not result in 'instant' freezing unless you have Carbon freezing equipment.
Soup is often fully re-heated to boiling. This does reset the clock on safety, and is one thing that makes soup easier to freeze and re-use than other foods.
Stock also often changes less with re-cooking than something like meat or vegetables, so you damage the end result less (if at all) with frozen soup than with other re-frozen ingredients.
Supporting your reheating response- reheating food to 165 usually does the job. http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Factsheets/How_Temperatures_Affect_Food/index.asp
If you are going to be consuming the soup within a couple of days, don't bother freezing. However, there is no issue with refreezing previously frozen stock. Professionally, it is done ALL of the time. We always refroze frozen (and I worked at a high end hotel, not a dump). It's really no big deal (although I'm sure some people will come on here and claim there is a degredation of flavor blah, blah, blah). If you put two bowls of soup from the same batch on the table (one which had been refrozen and one which hadn't), few people could tell the difference (they only think they can)...
It's generally safe to refreeze food that was never above 40 degrees. The rule of thumb about not refreezing things is largely due to changes in flavor and texture. With vegetables or meat, freezing, thawing, and freezing again can cause cell walls to degrade, redistribute fluids, etc. With a stock this is not a problem.
In general when you want to refreeze anything you should thaw it in your fridge rather than on a countertop or in open air. With a soup, assuming you thaw the stock below 40 degrees, then cook, then handle properly, you should have no problem doing this.
I make and freeze my own stocks all the time, then make soups from them and freeze leftovers. I've never noticed a quality issue in doing so.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.319998
| 2012-03-28T11:07:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22609",
"authors": [
"A.J. Ruckman",
"Derrick",
"Jay",
"Mien",
"carlossierra",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50932",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9165",
"spock74"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24458
|
Is it possible to create this low calorie high fiber brownies?
I have been looking at some of the low calorie brownie options online and have not found one I can sink my teeth into, without worrying about my hips. So I decided to think up a whole new recipe of my own:
Ingredients for your average Brownie
Soft Butter, for greasing the pan
Flour, for dusting the buttered pan
4 large eggs
1 cup sugar , sifted
1 cup brown sugar, sifted
8 ounces melted butter
1.25 cups cocoa sifted
2 teaspoons vanilla extract
1/2 cup flour, sifted
1/2 teaspoon Kosher salt
Ingredients for my low calorie high fiber Brownie
Peanut vegetable oil for greasing the pan
Flour for dusting the buttered pan
4 large eggs
1/4 cup No Calorie sugar
1/4 cup wild honey
2 ounces melted I Can't believe it is not butter
1 ounce Peanut vegetable oil
1.25 cups cocoa, sifted
1/4 cup flour, sifted
1/4 cup Oatmeal, finely blended, and sifted/
1/2 teaspoon kosher salt
I also thought of adding blended Cabbage(high fibre) to make more brownies and increase the fiber.
Please tell me what you think. Is this possible to make brownies with all the substitutions I made or will any of these substitutions adversely affect the results of what one would refer to as a normal brownie?
I made several edits to the question to make it answerable. Your initially formatting was too open and would have invoke a discussion about what people thought in general of your recipe. If you feel I have adversely changed your question, feel free to edit it farther after taking a quick look at the FAQ.
If your end is to reduce calories and raise fiber, you can minimize fat as well by substituting the eggs for flax eggs (adds fiber); I have had very good experiences using milled flax seed in cookies, brownies, and cakes
cool. I am trying to get on a diet without really being on a "diet". lol
personally, I'd advise you to just make a really rich, really good brownie and eat only a small piece. I'd rather have a small quantity of something really good than a large quantity of something adequate any day.
Have you thought of Black Bean Brownies? Lower calorie, higher fiber, but still delicious! http://kneadtocook.com/?p=1357
My secret weapons for healthful deserts are cottage cheese, Greek yogurt and egg whites. You'd be shocked at what you can do with these.
It depends a lot on what you expect. I wouldn't call it a mess. The result will be edible, and will have a similar flavor to a brownie. The texture will be very different from a brownie. It will be dry and dense. Personally, I wouldn't eat it.
First, the fat plays important roles in baked goods besides taste. I am surprised to see a recipe which uses melted fat (so no creaming) and no baking powder. This thing (the original one) is going to be denser than chewy cookies - maybe OK for you. If you reduce the fat from the original recipe, you will get a very dry result. An airy cake which is dry is not too good, but can be eaten when combined with e.g. yogurt or other wet things. Something which is both dense and dry will taste like chicken food mix run through a dehydrator. If you have a recipe for baking, don't reduce the fat. Also, never use spreads or margarines or anything else which is not real fat. It does not act like real fat, so it doesn't work the way it should. It is likely to contain lots of water and gums, and melt into them when baked. For baking, always use butter, lard or shortening. (It is OK to use vegetable oils for dense recipes which direct you to melt the butter). You will need your full share of fat. Some people replace part of the butter with applesauce, but you can't replace all of it. Also, I don't know how it will act in a non-leavened recipe.
Second, you need the sugar the same way you need the fat. It retains moisture and makes the brownies soft. Honey is already a risky proposition, but partial replacement will work. But do not reduce the sugar by half, it will make dry, unpleasant brownies. Also, I don't know what "no calorie sugar" is, but it sounds like some artificial sweetener dispersed in a filler. I don't know what the filler is made from, but it may not be good for baking.
You can't always replace wheat flour with other flours, but finelly milled oats should work for brownies and cakes.
Using a vegetable or fruit puree in place of the liquid is normally a good substitution, but your recipe doesn't have liquid. Just adding cabbage will destroy the liquid balance. You could theoretically replace part of the eggs with an equal amount of cabbage puree by weight, but because eggs also have important roles in baking (they lubricate and set the dough), you shouldn't nomrally replace them.
So, the replacement will bake into something you can bite and chew and swallow, but I wouldn't call it brownie. It also wouldn't be a tasty non-brownie, at least not in my eyes. Also, if you go ahead and make the stuff, you don't even win much in calories. Your original recipe is about 2950 kcal, and you get 820 g of brownies, resulting in 359 kcal/100 g. Your replacement recipe is 1610 kcal but only 530 g of brownies, which makes it 302 kcal/100 g (still a very caloriedense food) - and that if you use these substitution products, which are bad for baking. So, you only lose 15% of the calories overall, but you get something which tastes nowhere near the original. It will have cocoa flavor, but it won't be moist and creamy. I would rather eat 100 g of real brownies than 115 g of brownies made with your recipe.
Good brownie recipes always call for melted fat and no creaming. You want to minimize the air to get a thick, fudgy brownie.
I am a newbie in the baking kitchen. So since it requires melted fat, why won't oil(which is fat) do? I mean since it is in the oven at high temp, it stays melted all that time. And some of the boxes of brownies(store bought) do suggest using oils of this kind.
@Kobojunkie Oil is OK if it requires melted fat, see my parenthesis: "It is OK to use vegetable oils for dense recipes which direct you to melt the butter". Fat-imitates such as I can't believe it's not butter aren't. If you are a novice in baking, don't try to make your own recipes, it is rather hard getting them right.
What I have to make what I can eat. On the sugar, I mean artificial sweeteners like Splenda.
Eating "normal" sounds great, but the most important thing in baking is texture. Replacement products which mimic the taste of sugar and butter don't have their physical properties, and baking is all about the physical properties of the end result. I understand your decision to eat tasty food while on a diet, but most baked and fried foods can't be made low-calorie, you have to either restrict their amount a lot, or look around for alternatives which are low-calorie by nature and still tasty.
If you make the proposed recipe it will taste nothing like a brownie, will probably taste pretty awful and dry. It won't save many calories either. Mixing in cabbage will also not work.
I know the above recipe won't work, because I've made similar attempts myself.
Sugar substitutes like Splenda usually produce a yucky result in brownie recipes. You need to use actual sugar to get a tasty result, but you can usually use 2/3 of the amount called for. And it can be a natural unrefined sugar such as maple sugar, Sucanat, palm sugar, etc. Or you could use dates, which are high in natural unrefined sugar.
You can replace some of the fat in the recipe with applesauce and/or black beans, this also increases the fiber content of the recipe.
You can replace some or all of the eggs with ground flax seeds or ground chia seeds. This increases the fiber content of the recipe and reduces the fat content slightly.
See this high fiber, reduced calorie, brownie recipe which uses dates instead of sugar and almond butter instead of butter:
http://www.doctoroz.com/recipe/fudgy-black-bean-brownies
Hello C Kjos, this is quite a good answer! But we have some very specific (and somewhat confusing for new users) guidelines about health topics. Basically, we don't tell people what is healthy eating and what isn't. If they have their own ideas of what is healthy ("I want to eat less butter"), we tell them how to achieve their own goals. But we don't prescribe them goals ("eat butter, not margarine, because it's healthier"). So I removed that part of your answer. +1 for the rest of it.
Hi rumtscho, can you please give me a link to these guidelines which say we cannot tell people what foods are healthier to eat than others? I would like to see the exact guidelines myself, if possible. Personally it seems odd to me that if someone asks a question indicating they are trying to eat healthier, we cannot write a reply that clarifies which foods are actually healthier. From a standpoint of what is taught these days in college nutrition, research has shown that butter is much healthier than margarine. So I wonder why these kinds of facts are off topic in here.
The guidelines are in the on-topic list, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic. All health and nutrition advice is completely off topic here, we only do cooking techniques. When someone posts a question about a cooking method and also explains that "it is because I eat healthy", we make an exception and don't close the question, instead answering the cooking part and ignoring the health part. The alternative would be to completely turn these people away.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.320312
| 2012-06-14T17:06:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24458",
"authors": [
"Betty Mae Ordonez",
"C Kjos",
"Darcie Fehler",
"David Bruce Borenstein",
"FuzzyChef",
"Jay",
"Julie Stembridge",
"Kobojunkie",
"Lashes77",
"NELSON",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55693",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"ljlp360",
"mfg",
"rumtscho",
"scientifics",
"shaiful mdalimon",
"word20"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32058
|
Is it safe to "salt bake" using ice cream rock salt?
Salt baking requires a lot of salt. I want to use ice cream rock salt for salt baking because it normally comes in bulk size. But I've been told that the rock salt used for ice cream is not fit for consumption. However, is it safe to use it to salt bake other foods? I.e. Shrimp. The salt isn't being consumed on the shrimp, so I'm curious whether this is safe or not.
Reading through the transcript on that episode of Good Eats it seems that he intended for the recipe to be done with the ice cream type rock salt:
I also like plain old rock salt. Not only is it good for de-snowing, de-icing your, your front stoop, it's good for, of course, making ice cream, and believe it or not, for baking stuff.
That being said, I would personally feel fine using the rock salt since it doesn't come in direct contact with the edible portion of the shrimp. But if I were buying bulk salt specifically to salt bake I'd err on the side of caution and purchase pretzel salt which has very coarse grains and is safe for consumption.
I think you could be right, but it's really not clear from the transcript if he's actually saying that you can use the same rock salt for all those things. I'd be happier with a slightly more direct reference.
I went and found a video of the episode on YouTube, and the rock salt shown at this point isn't in a package, so it's hard to say what kind of salt it was, but for what it's worth, it looks a lot brighter and clearer (more pure, presumably) than the stuff I've gotten in boxes for ice cream.
Okay, and I don't want to edit your post to change the meaning, but there's another section in the transcript: "KB: ...that isn't a very good example of what we would select for food grade.
AB: Why? KB: ... This, this example right here has too high a concentration [of trace minerals] in it. AB: So some trace minerals taste good, and too much gets just bad. So what would you use this for? KB: This would go for de-icing or livestock." This definitely suggests that the stuff you use for de-icing is not what you want anywhere near your food.
FYI, I've edited in the direct link to the transcript. You can get that by right-clicking the transcript link and hitting 'copy link location'. Or several other ways.
The fact that the same stuff used for sidewalks is used for livestock indicates to me that it is a taste factor, not a personal safety one when kept in reasonable quantities, and ice cream salt is not treated with the additonal chemicals found in road salt. Regardless, I'll stand behind my pretzel salt suggestion as an alternative to trying to find rock salt sold as edible.
There are some kinds of rock salt that are meant for consumption ("food-grade"), and recipes like that salt-baked shrimp intend you to use that sort. While you're not directly eating the salt, it does come into contact with the shrimp, and there's water there to spread things around, so really, you are eating a bit of it. Even if there's not a safety issue (some things could conceivably be toxic) it might well taste bad, and some of the flavor does get into your food. You wouldn't be able to count on this being reliably the same from box to box, either; if it's not food grade, there could be plenty of variety in what the extra minerals are. Sometimes it might be fine, and sometimes it might taste awful.
It can be hard to find food-grade rock salt, though, so if that's an issue, you might consider switching to other salt-crusted recipes that use kosher salt. Especially with shrimp, this should be manageable, because it'll be on the outside of the shells, so though the salt will dissolve more easily, once you peel them it shouldn't be horribly salty.
The salt baking doesn't leave a layer of salt around the outside. However, I am using shell on shrimp. Also kosher salt is way too fine for salt baking.
@monksy I'm aware of how it works with rock salt, and it doesn't leave visible chunks of salt stuck to the food, but it does transfer some salt nonetheless. It could well be little enough that unsafe rock salt wouldn't hurt you, but since there's no telling what might be in it, you don't really want to chance it. Kosher salt works for a different kind of salt baking, but it accomplishes some of the same goals.
My food-grade bulk inexpensive salt is water softener salt - the granular stuff that's similar to rock salt, in shape and size, but clean - not the "pelleted" stuff. This would match @Cascabel's description in a comment above. You do need to buy 40 lbs at a time but it keeps well if you keep it sealed and dry, you can share with friends, etc
Oddly enough, it's often cheaper than rock salt (and melts ice just fine if you need that.) It can be ground down for additive free pickling salt, too. Since I have it, and it's often cheaper, it's also what I use for ice cream salt when using that ice cream maker.
To the question: I would not personally "salt bake" anything in common rock salt. Most of what's not salt in that is literal dirt, from what I have seen when I used to use it, and I'm not fond of having to get dirt off my food after cooking. Then again, what got me looking for info on salt baking was my inherent doubt that it did anything to speak of (other than looking showy and making it more complicated) for roasting vegetables, and I found an article that claims Harold McGee concurs for that case.
I was wondering about dishwasher salt (which of course is doing the same job of softening water). That touches things that touch food so should be food safe. It's probably the same stuff as water softener salt, but comes in smaller packs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.321089
| 2013-02-19T23:40:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32058",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Emily Anne",
"Epiccat",
"Gnanam",
"MD IRFAN ALI",
"Michael Connor",
"Ping Zhong",
"Stilez",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73767",
"klaar",
"monksy",
"robbat2",
"user4715"
],
"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
}
|
42157
|
What kinds of metals are good for a salt shaker?
What kinds of kinds metals are good for a salt shaker? Are there metals which will react with the salt in them to cause either the shaker to corrode or ruin the salt (eg. cause caking etc.)
Stainless steel is usually best, as it won't react with salt or salty water. It's best to avoid other steels, although you may have some luck with aluminium as long as the shaker remains dry.
High-end salt grinders use ceramic grinding elements rather than steel ones to minimise the erosion caused by the salt.
Stainless steel will pit and form stress cracks when exposed to chloride salts (including table salt) for a long time. Plastic or ceramic is really the only way to go.
No metal is perfect for continuous exposure to every kind of food, end of story; however the original question asked about metals specifically.
I was agreeing with your post, but clarifying that stainless will still react over time. And that ceramic was a better choice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.321886
| 2014-02-19T08:46:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42157",
"authors": [
"Peter",
"Riot",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"ellison",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99637",
"vercingetorixthegaul",
"whizboy"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42696
|
Is it okay to throw the food, collected in the mesh in the sink, down the drain, if it doesn't contain plastic?
We know all food is organic (made of carbon). So if we throw organic stuff down the drain, it should get decomposed by bacteria and shrink. So why should we be worried about blockages if all the food will get decomposed and the drain will open up? I understand oil and grease is bad because it deposits and narrows the lumen of the drains. Plastics, are non-biodegradable hence will not decompose and should not be put down the drain.
So isn't it okay to throw food down the drain, because it'll never cause a blockage?
This question appears to be off-topic because it is about a non-culinary issue, to wit sewer management.
Decomposition is not instant. If you add grease faster than it breaks down...
@SAJ14SAJ : I consider questions about proper disposing of waste to be on topic ... like the questions about fats down the drain.
I think it is in topic because it principles like "clean as you go" while cooking
It has nothing at all to do with "clean as you go".
@SAJ14SAJ It implies that?
How is this question off topic, while http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/3734/1672 is on topic? This seems to be about cleanup and equipment, both of which are fine here.
Further discussion: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/q/1885/1672
No one has mentioned septic systems. If you're on a septic system rather than a municipal sewer system, putting food down your drains is a very bad idea, particularly oil. A garbage disposal is an even worse idea because it creates particles small enough to make their way into the drainage field and clog it. The resulting repairs can cost 10s of thousands of dollars.
Some septic systems like to be well fed! Or drain field is three processors away. Nothing that goes down sink is going to get to it in one piece
Question has been reworded
It's not safe to assume that food won't cause a blockage if there are other processes at work.
I've known multiple people who have had tree roots manage to break into their sewer pipes. (odds are, there was a leak of water, the roots went towards it, and then opened the pipe up further). If the drain is already restricted, larger particles can make the situation problematic.
In my case, when the state highway was installing sidewalks and curbs on my street, their contractors ended up crushing sewer lines along our side of the street. I know that at least four of us were affected, as we started having issues with blockages and basements getting flooded by sewage ... but it took a couple of weeks for other matter to start filling in the crevices until we reached a complete blockage.
Even in the case where you don't already have an obstruction in your pipes, garbage disposals are quite inefficient as a way of disposal; you're wasting clean water in the process, and you're putting extra work on the sewage treatment plants.
Sewage treatment plant are designed to handle a specific volume of water and waste, and in cases of periods above their capacity, they may have to divert untreated water and hope that dilution will be sufficient. This means increased nutrient loads in your waterways, which can cause algae blooms and kill fish populations. (although the unprocessed food isn't as bad as the other stuff that's typically in wastewater).
Most carbon digestion is an aerobic process, with the result of the breakdown of food in the wastewater using up the oxygen in the water. Discharging this low-ox water can also lead to deadzones.
You also have to look at what a treatment facilities does with their extracted solids. In some newer facilities, there is biogas extraction, and the decomposition of the materials is used to power the facility. (sometimes, with excess capacity sold off). In others, they have to truck it away ... sometimes it's spread on fields as ferilizer. Other times it goes through a 'de-watering' process ... either pumped to the bottom of a lagoon to digest or spread out into troughs to air-dry, then hauled to a landfill for disposal.
Garbage disposals are convenient, and they're useful for the occassional scraps ... but if you can, compost your food scraps. As for normal garbage vs. garbage disposal, there too many local factors -- if you're in a water restricted area that doesn't have a biogas system or sufficient capacity at the water treatment facility, normal trash is likely your best yet. If you're in an area with lots of water, sufficient treatment capactiy and a biogas system, garbage disposal may be better.
For more reading on some of the hidden costs of garbage disposals, see:
http://www2.buildinggreen.com/blogs/garbage-disposals-and-worms-face-over-environmental-food-waste-disposal
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/the_green_lantern/2008/09/should_we_dispose_of_disposals.html
http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/trash-talking-the-garbage-disposal-examination-of-a-not-so-green-us-export.html
Quite simply: it's not going to decompose and unclog itself. Decomposition is a slow process. Maybe the clog will eventually decompose enough to wash through, but even if it "only" takes a few days, that's a few days you'll be spending with a sink that's at best useless and at worst stinking up your kitchen.
And it'll likely be a lot slower than that. And your pipes aren't good conditions. The bacteria doing the decomposing need oxygen, and since your sink is clogged, there'll probably be water on top of the clog, not air. Unlike a large natural body of water with plenty of circulation to keep the dissolved oxygen coming back in, the clog is in a narrow pipe with a very limited amount of oxygen. The decomposition won't be efficient - more like weeks or months.
So sure, you can certainly put tiny scraps down the sink - crumbs, or larger things that've been pulverized by your garbage disposal - but anything that might clog the sink, you should dispose of another way. The things that can clog your sink, besides obviously larger particles, are generally heavy things (they'll sink in water) like egg shells. For all this stuff, while it's best to compost anyway, even if all you have is trash, it's still better to have a bit more trash than to clog your sink all the time.
Really, anything put down the sink should also be pulverized to a fine slurry by your garbage disposal, or be a pure non-fat liquid (like flat soda or spoiled orange juice). You should never, never put chunky solids down the drain.
@SAJ14SAJ Clarified, definitely didn't mean to suggest putting a potato down there.
If it sinks in water, it's going to sink in your sewer line. Making a fine slurry will help, but some things, such as lime water (CaO/CaCO3) from nixtamalizing corn do NOT belong down the drain. You'd just as well pour sand down there.
Depends on your plumbing system. Out our way pipes are big, and septic system are biodigestors so they cope with anything that fits down the sink filter, say 5 x 5 mm profile
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.322076
| 2014-03-12T14:17:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42696",
"authors": [
"Carey Gregory",
"Cascabel",
"Gift Adagboyi",
"Greg Fedor",
"Joe",
"Ozsmartthings Spam",
"Pranay Aryal",
"Richard Jones",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Stsqa",
"TFD",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"aluxian",
"derobert",
"eva",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99818",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99820",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99876",
"imma concepcion sagrada",
"indri Nuraini",
"skm",
"solomon ayele",
"the-baby-is-you"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5323
|
Is there a way to make compressed watermelon without a vacuum machine?
I've got in mind to make a dish with compressed watermelon, but I don't have access to a vacuum machine. I've tried once using weight, but it just cracks because the pressure is all from one side. Thoughts? If not, can it be done with a home vacuum food-saver type device instead of a restaurant quality vacuum machine? What about denser foods such as canteloupe or cucumber?
Can you expand the question to see if a home vacuum machine is sufficient or if you really need a chamber vacuum? I've been wondering the same thing and was about to ask the same question.
I'd also be interested in the more general case. I've had compressed cucumbers which were also really nice.
I've made the question more general for both of yossarian's comments.
Thanks! I sure hope my answer below is wrong. I also added the sous-vide tag, since that's how Thomas Keller categorizes these dishes.
Haven't tried it but here:
http://newmountaincookery.typepad.com/a_new_mountain_cookery/2008/06/compressed-wate.html
The link suggests the following technique:
Vacuum seal pieces of watermelon (if
you don't have one, just put it in a
ziploc bag and take out as much as
the air as possible)
Freeze it overnight
Take it out and thaw
Good tip! I'll wait and see if there are any other equally brilliant suggestions but this could easily be the best answer, and I bet it would work just as well with cucumber etc.
@Michael - It was amusing synchronicity since I was going through my things_to_try tags on delicious and ran across the mtncookery tip and your question at almost the same time. I'll also have to give it a shot since it's prime Hermiston watermelon season here in Oregon.
So this totally worked, at least with cucumber. It came out of the freezer limp but not mushy in any way, very much like the compressed melon I've had at restaurants. You can slice it thin and it is translucent, and you can practically wring water out of it. And it is flexible. Very, very cool. Thank you!
I know this is an old answer, but any chance you could take a few minutes to summarize the main points in your link? Links aren't all that helpful without context, and if that blog ever dies, then this answer dies with it.
FWIW, freezing vs compression does yield different results and textures. Freezing breaks cell walls and has a "mushier" result. Compression removes air spaces between walls. Also, it's possible to combine compression with flavors that you can't do as well with this freezing technique. The compression actually pushes flavored liquid in the air gaps between cell walls - for example compressed pineapple spears with Malibu rum taste like Pina Colada Bites.
@Michael: you can wring water out of frozen/thawed food (i.e. the cucmber you mentioned) but you should not be able to do so as easily as with compressed food. The cell walls are more likely to be destroyed in the freezing process but remain intact for compression. Compressed fruit and vegetables shouldn't be "drippy".
I've wanted to do this at home for some time, but am concerned that nothing but a vacuum chamber will really work. Thomas Keller in Under Pressure says "Compression, which requires a great deal of pressure..." Additionally, my understanding was that compression does not rupture the cell walls, but rather evacuates the space between the cells making a dense, crisp texture with an enhanced flavor (same amount of flavor in less space). That is certainly how it's described by Mark Hopper of Bouchon Las Vegas who is credited with coming up with the technique. I would think that methods that didn't use a vacuum (weight, freezing) would tend to rupture the cell walls rather than just pull the cells in to a more dense packing.
My guess is that a home vacuum sealer is not strong enough to create the vacuum necessary, but I've never tested it. The Thomas Keller quote and the lack of this technique on popular sous vide at home blogs makes me a little skeptical that it's feasible with the cheaper home models. Sous Vide Cooking lists two issues with the home style vacuum machines, liquid extracted from the fruit can clog the machine and the vacuum isn't strong enough.
A little further reading shows a more fundamental issue with a home vacuum sealer. Reading the sous vide thread over at egullet, I found a post from dougal that gets at the more fundamental difference between a chamber and home vacuum sealer.
A bag has almost no rigidity - if there's a pressure difference between one side of the plastic film and the other side, the film will just flex and stretch to relieve the pressure difference.
The only way a pressure difference between inside and outside the containment can exist is if the containment can resist the force resulting from the pressure difference. A bag simply can't. However, a "rigid" container can.
Inside a flexy bag, the pressure is going to end up at atmospheric - regardless of the pump.
So the more fundamental issue with a home sealer is the pressure outside the bag rather than in. A home sealer with a bag (rather than cannister), can expel air but not create a strong vacuum. The chamber sealer gets around this by creating the same vacuum on both sides of the bag.
I sure hope I'm wrong though, because i'd love to make Thomas Keller's Steak Tartar with Egg Yolk (aka Watermelon with Mango).
As the cell walls are rigid, I wouldn't think there is any way to compress them together without rupturing at least some of them.
@Kevin, I really don't know. None of the sources I can find talk about the cell walls rupturing, they all just discuss evacuating the air between cells. That's how it's explained by Mark Hopper, the chef credited with coming up with the idea to vacuum compress fruit: http://www.starchefs.com/events/studio/techniques/Mark_Hopper/index.shtml
Very helpful answer! I was conflicted as to whether to give the star to this one or the freezing technique. I opted for freezing just because I'm an optimist so I chose the answer that said I had hope :).
@michael, obvious answer is: try first, stars later. ;o)
Indeed, I'll change the star if I try it and it doesn't work.
@Michael, I certainly hope I'm wrong. Let us know either way.
I just remembered about this and threw a cuke in the freezer, so I'll let you know soon.
Both the chamber and simple vacuum sealer produces the same pressure once the process is complete. That would be 15 pounds per square inch. The chamber process has an extra step, and it's important. When the vacuum is being drawn in the chamber, the food is exposed directly to the vacuum, and air from inside the food is free to diffuse out. You can see this as the "boiling" effect in the videos. Then, when the seal is made and the chamber is purged, the food is compressed. This is much more effective because liquid can get forced into the the part of the food that used to contain air. With a simple sealer, the plastic bag gets forced against the food right away, and this prevents air from diffusing out of the food.
This technique described in the link below works well with watermelon.
http://www.cookingissues.com/2013/08/03/new-technique-pressure-pickle-and-the-cucumber-martini/
You need a ISI whipper, but that is a heck of a lot less expensive than a chamber vac.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.322667
| 2010-08-17T03:15:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5323",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adisak",
"Chris",
"Dave Hillier",
"Leo Mav",
"Michael Natkin",
"Mjay",
"Nofi",
"Pardis",
"Spammer",
"almostflan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26619",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95191",
"kevins",
"rotorb",
"tom",
"user456584",
"wdypdx22",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6409
|
Hot Smoked Salmon on Big Green Egg
What is the best process/technique to use for hot smoking salmon on a smoker like the Big Green Egg?
I would like to see this tagged with biggreenegg.
Hello JPrescottSanders. Your question looks good to me and I hope you get good answers, but - given the FAQ - you'll not get recipes. http://cooking.stackexchange.com/faq
Welcome to the site @JPrescottSanders. As @Tobiasopdenbrouw has stated we do not allow recipe requests on this site. I have edited your question to remove this part, there is a discussion about this here.
I appreciate the info on the "No recipes" stance and thinking about it sort of agree with how recipes might make finding good technical information sort of crunchy. Thanks.
Also thanks for adding the big-green-egg tag, I could see that being a popular one.
oops. removed the big-green-egg tag. I think this is too specific and I think the smoking tag should cover it. I could maybe see a smoker tag for the equipment, but I think smoking probably covers it. Perhaps a meta discussion to see what the community think...
I think a meta discussion may be warranted as cooking in the big-green-egg may require some additional information. Some responses to this question may be more generic, and might apply to all smoking equipment, but I would also like to see if there are any egg heads in the forum that might have some specific advice. I guess we'll see where the answers take us. if we get some BGE specific answers then that might be a sign as well.
It's pretty easy:
Soak wood chunks or chips over night in water.
Start hard lump charcoal in BGE (or any smoker)
Scatter wood over the coals
Let salmon sit out for 15 - 20 mins to come to room temp
Get BGE smoking and adjust temperature to 180F to 200F
Put salmon on grill
Smoke till finished. About 35-45 mins for 1 1/2 lbs fillet. It wants to be cooked through and flakey.
I'll often do this while smoking a Boston Butt, which is an all day affair. If I've got room, I throw a salmon fillet on in the middle of the day for lunch.
If you're just getting in to smoking with the BGE, I highly recommend the book Smoke and Spice.
I'll have to check that book out.
I get good results smoking salmon on the Big Green Egg at 150-180'F (200 is too high), with indirect heat. Smoke for AT LEAST 6 hours spraying every hour with apple juice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.323363
| 2010-08-31T12:26:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6409",
"authors": [
"JPrescottSanders",
"Louis",
"Lynne F",
"Matthew",
"Sam Holder",
"Sean",
"Tobias Op Den Brouw",
"c.p.",
"geocar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8457"
],
"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
}
|
15534
|
What is the proper way to bake meat balls in the oven?
I tried baking meat balls with various temperatures and meat mixtures (regular to extra lean); however, every time, I end up with lots of water oozing out of the meat ball.
How can I cook them with minimum lost deliciousness?
One technique I have used is to support the meatballs with toothpicks over a muffin tin. This allows the liquid to run off and collect. I forget which food network show I learned this from, but it has been a good technique for me.
I'm trying to minimize the outbound
loss of fluids
As fat is rendered to liquid it has to go somewhere. It is either going to be absorbed into something (like dry bread crumbs) or it will leave in the form of 'juices' oozing out of the meatball. I have to disagree with @Bruce's "breadcrumb slurry" as that adds an additional saturated element that leaves no place for fluids to go (other than to leave). Dry breadcrumbs will absorb those juices before they escape. One way to put that juicy goodness back into your dish is collect those juices, mix with some butter and an equal (total) amount of flour to create a rue and then either add milk to that to create a cream gravy to serve over the meatballs or add it to a tomato sauce to thicken the sauce in infuse the meaty/juicy goodness to the sauce and so it will stick to the pasta :o).
Excellent technique, especially if let's say you have a bread crumb filling i find. however, I'm trying to minimize the outbound loss of fluids
Techniques I use for tender meatballs:
Breadcrumb slurry - mix breadcrumbs and milk (or cream) into something that's almost a paste. Mix this into your meatballs with the egg and spices. I use a small bowl per butcher's package of ground.
Low and slow - cook the meatballs in sauce in the oven or slow cooker at a low temperature (making sure to hit the minimum internal temperature required for the grind you're using).
Add fat - sneak a few spoonfuls of bacon fat (or duck fat) into the grind, in addition to the breadcrumbs. Alternatively, mix in a fattier cut of meat (or hand grind good, tender cuts). Cheese can add flavour and fats too.
Fast fry - if you have a tender grind, a fast fry (or broil) can minimize the loss of moisture.
Some old(ish) bread soaked in milk and then roughly chopped does the job too
Good point - any gluten transport for water and fat would do.
I normally only make small batches so pan frying is my primary technique.
My sister-in-law has two since she regularly makes larger batches. Both rely on a fast fry to firm the surface. Then she either cooks them in sauce for a longer period at a low temp. For naked meatballs she bakes them low and long with a cookie rack in a casserole or cookie pan. I don't think it matters which because I have seen her do both.
In either technique the meatballs are ready to serve or freeze when done and fit nicely into OAMC.
Ya, I had to make 60 meat balls today, hence my question :) I pan fried them on the grill set to max pretty much on 4 sides, then slapped them in the oven for 20 minutes. They lost some liquid, but not as much as I'm used too
@Das Basically, any good maillard sizzle beforehand should, regardless of composition, ensure that your meatballs stay maximally dry. Some recipes will ooze more than others, but browning is key to taste and texture.
I like to add Panko bread crumbs to my wet mix then mix well with the ground beef then I put them on a broiler pan that is likely sprayed with olive oil then I bake them at 300 degrees for 30 minutes and then I put them in a large Dutch oven with sauce in it already and once they are all in I cover with sauce and put in the oven 200 degrees for 3 hours they come out tender I make gravy or sauce you come from has the rich meat flavor and it's thickened my mother who is Italian and it's an excellent cook mine are the best she's ever had
I just tried this new recipe for meatballs that has you bake them and I lost very little liquid from them. The new ingredient in this recipe was plain Greek yogurt. My boyfriend absolutely loved them! I don't mind sharing the recipe if you would like to try something new!
I'm assuming you made kafteji (spelling?). I've used that technique before and added sour cream instead, and it worked. Thanks for reminding me of it.
Not a problem. The recipe itself called for just plain yogurt, but I prefer the Greek yogurt for the extra protein.
I wouldn't worry about the liquid. If you pan-fried the meatballs, I bet that the same water that oozes out just evaporates from the pan surface instead.
If you've ever cooked wild game like venison that has not been deliberately brined to pump as much moisture into the meat as possible so it can be weighed, labeled, and sold at a higher price, then you will notice quite a difference.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.323600
| 2011-06-16T17:15:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15534",
"authors": [
"AtlasRN",
"Bruce Alderson",
"Mike",
"Nathan",
"Necronet",
"Remi.b",
"dassouki",
"ezra-g",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32918",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32933",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87",
"mfg",
"nico",
"user32933"
],
"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
}
|
6574
|
Is it safe to eat Raw Corn?
I saw a recipe for a Summer Salad that said to sprinkle raw corn on top for a "crunch" effect - I've never eaten raw corn and was wondering if it was safe. I'm guessing hard to digest at the least....
Raw corn is delicious straight off the cob! That crunch from the corn your recipe mentions will come with a burst of sweetness that is superior to that of cooked corn. In my family, we call raw corn the "gateway vegetable" because it's usually the first one to be embraced by the kids, and it makes them curious about other ones.
Kids love corn and carrots because of their ludicrous sugar content. I wonder if you could get them to eat sugar beets.
Fresh corn is delicious (and safe as any raw produce) as long as it's not #2 field corn. #2 field corn tastes like cardboard and is grown for animal feed and chemical products such as HFCS.
As a kid we used to eat corn straight out of the freezer on hot days, and I have always wondered whether that was good or not.
When I first read the title of this question, I assumed you were talking about eating the raw ingredients to the corn-shaped candy that is popular in the US during Halloween!
I'm a little confused by the title, but I don't know much about corn varieties. I know candy corn as this sweet confection; is there a variety of corn that is grown that's commonly referred to as candy corn?
Note that the sugar in corn begins to convert to starch once the corn is picked, so the sooner after the corn is picked, the sweeter it will be.
Unless you have an allergy to corn, raw corn is safe to eat; it might pass through you with vigor (especially if you don't chew it thoroughly before swallowing it), but it won't hurt you.
+1 .. and delicious too; even when I do cook corn, I cook it much less than most folks (except when roasting, then the attraction is the browned kernels).
@Michael Roasted corn is love!
But... isn't corn super hard? I mean, hard like a brick? Or is that just how regular grocery corn is?
@CamiloMartin, we're talking about sweet corn, which is eaten fresh. It's the only kind of corn I've ever seen in a grocery store. The other kind, which is used for cornmeal and animal feed, is usually left to dry on the stalk before harvesting, and is not sold in grocery stores. (Well, except as fall decorations or something.)
I like tucking into a cob when I pick mine out of the garden. There is nothing better than a cob of silvequeen for a light snack when you are out in the garden picking veggies.
Yes! You can even eat feed corn (ie. the stuff grown to feed cattle), it is just more starchy than the 'sweet' corn we humans seem to prefer.
If your area has an issue with wild pigs or a large number of deer wandering through croplands and gardens, uncooked vegetables may be unsafe. Otherwise, it should be fine, and depending on the variety of sweet corn, downright delicious.
Corn is normally processed by soaking it in alkali-water, a process called Nixtamalization
The known benefits of this process are increased nutritional value and drastic reduction of mycotoxins if these are present.
I personally would discourage eating raw corn just to be safe. But there are currently no other known factors than the ones mentioned above.
To cite the article you linked: "Maize subjected to the nixtamalization process has several benefits over unprocessed grain for food preparation: it is more easily ground; its nutritional value is increased; flavor and aroma are improved; and mycotoxins are reduced." Nowhere does it say that it prevents something dangerous present in raw corn. Also, cooked corn is not nixtamalized, so if nixtamalization was a safety measure, cooked corn would be just as unsafe as raw.
You're forgetting the mycotoxins.
Today's food is regulated. Farmers can't sell corn which has an unsafe amount of mycotoxins. And I hope that people who eat corn from their own garden don't eat it if it is diseased. See www.ipic.iastate.edu/publications/IPIC12.pdf, although this concerns pig food, but I hope that human food is similarly regulated. Note that we are talking in parts per billion here. And cooking (as opposed to nixtamalization) doesn't affect eventually present mycotoxins, so this is no argument for raw corn vs. cooked corn.
Well you got me there on mycotoxins I completely forgot about them being heat resistant xD
Still there's the fact that science hasn't been able to research and document everything yet. Let me explain.
I'll give an example as to why soaking is important. Let's take white beans for instance. These contain phytic acid, apart from being the reason why you fart after eating beans, phytic acid absorbs zinc and iron in your digestive tract, often causing micronutrient deficits. Then there are lectins. Soaking extracts good amounts of phytic acid and heating takes care of the lectins.
What I'm trying to say is, people have been washing their hands with soap for thousands of years now (earliest recorded evidence 2800 BC) and we only know what germs are since 1675.
Likewise people have been preparing corn for thousands of years in certain ways, and these traditions have been molded by natural selection and evolution.
Pellagra would be the disease Nixtamalization counters, by freeing dietary niacin in the corn. This is an issue if corn is a staple of your diet, but not an issue at all if it's an occasional treat.
Corn on the cob, canned corn, fresh-frozen corn, etc. are not processed this way. It's used for some cooked corn products and corn meal processed into tortillas, but your corn on the cob is not manipulated in any way.
Of course it's safe to eat, in fact it tastes a whole lot better than cooked!!!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.324047
| 2010-09-02T12:30:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6574",
"authors": [
"AEP",
"Ansari",
"Camilo Martin",
"David LeBauer",
"ESultanik",
"Ebrahim Byagowi",
"Faye Burke",
"Ferne Young",
"Happy",
"Iuls",
"Jim Stewart",
"Ksec",
"Mafalda Hopkirk",
"Manako",
"Marti",
"Michael Natkin",
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"Sobachatina",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8658",
"rumtscho",
"stephennmcdonald",
"wdypdx22"
],
"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
}
|
6365
|
Good (cheaper) alternative to Vitamix Blender
I've just got back from a department store where they happened to be doing a demonstration of the Vitamix TNC Blender. Obviously, now I want one. Is anyone able to recommend a good alternative, thats not quite as pricey (this thing was £430 / €500). Basically, the features I'm interested would be:
Ability to heat for soups, etc.
Ability to blend ice.
Really, really fast.
Durable
Is there anything out there that can compete? Or are the vitamix blenders pretty unique in that respect?
Cheers guys,
Alex
I sure hope you get a good answer. I was about to bite the bullet and buy a vitamix. If anyone out there could save me a couple hundred dollars, I'd appreciate it too.
Please see this meta discussion: http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/678/is-this-equipment-question-off-topic
I don't think it's possible. You are talking about restaurant / bar quality blender (like Vitamix, Waring, or Blend-tec). Cheaper units will not have the horsepower or quality of construction to do things like smooth blends of ice in a drink, generate enough friction to heat a soup from scratch, or grind flour from nuts and grains.
Even if your blender will handle some of these things initially (like blend ice, I'm skeptical any cheap mixer will provide enough heat for a soup), I think your blade / motor will quickly take enough abuse that it won't be able to continue to perform.
Update: Since initially posting this answer, I've actually bought a Vita-Mix (I'd been lusting for quite some time). I now feel more strongly that my answer is right. I've used it three times in the first 12 hours of ownership:
Nut Butter - I made a pistachio nut butter that required nothing more than 2 cups of pistachios and a tablespoon of oil. It came together really quickly and has a lovely velvety texture.
Pureed halved peaches - these ended up complete liquid with no texture / fiber left from the fruit. Exactly like Looza Nectar, but fresh.
A smoothie. The smoothie had zero ice chunks in it and was professional quality.
I have never seen a cheaper blender capable of the quality of any of the first three things I've tried. I'm afraid you're out of luck.
Thanks mate, was holding out for a definitive answer. Personally, I went and bought a £30 blender. Smoothies have little specks of skins left, particularly tougher skins like kiwi, and soups still have a little texture (not a bad thing). Doubt any attempt at making nut butter would work, but don't think I can justify a blender 15 times as expensive right now. Maybe (hopefully) when this one breaks, I'll consider it again. Will be interesting to see how the blades hold up.
Well, you can always try Ebay, or Craigslist. I have a friend that got a barely used Green Star Juicer (a super expensive juicer) for about 1/3rd the cost of new. I just peeked on Ebay, and there are a lot of results, of varying quality/usefulness.
Jtc has an alternative with its omniblend blenders at a very attractive price. Speed is up to 38000 rpm with 3ph. you can even use the vitamix jar on it
Food and drink places go bankrupt all the time. You could check asset liquidation web-sites to get your hands on a second hand one.
I was researching this and there are a lot of Vitamix knockoffs now but they don't hold up(they literally look exactly like a Vitamix). It is hard to beat a Vitamix for horsepower intensive tasks(high friction) like making Nut butters or Milling flour especially with their generous warranty. I did learn about a couple options that work almost as well as a Vitamix for much less and would be fine for most users. The Oster Versa Pro and Cleanblend performed well in multiple independent tests that included high end blenders like Vitamix and Blendtec.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.324563
| 2010-08-30T16:02:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6365",
"authors": [
"AlexC",
"Aria Phillips",
"Dez Udezue",
"Prabhu Prabhakaran",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"siddharth",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5832
|
how to get powerful flavours when spherifying
Whenever I try to create something delicious using spherification I find that whatever has gone in comes out quite bland (I've tried using fruit juices (non-citric), liquers, soups).
When I taste the food before it goes into the salts, it usually packs quite a punch; so, it's quite disappointing when it comes out and has the lovely texture of caviar but no flavour!
Any suggestions / ideas gratefully received!
Are you doing regular spherification, where the alginate goes inside the sphere and the calcium on the outside? If so, try doing reverse spherification instead, so the goopy alginate doesn't dilute the flavor.
I am doing regular spherification (using sodium alginate I think?) - will reverse spherification give me the 'shell' that you get from regular spherification? If so, what's the benefit of doing regular spherification (if there is one) - thanks :)
Yes, reverse will give you the same kind of shell. Almost everyone prefers it. The other option is agar spherification, but that gives you solid little gel sphere, not a liquid interior.
For anyone who doesn't know what spherification is, here's the Wikipedia article.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.324871
| 2010-08-23T15:15:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5832",
"authors": [
"Dibstar",
"Erwin",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"Michael Natkin",
"Paul",
"Sergio Tulentsev",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26477",
"tausun"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66043
|
Why is my cake crumbly?
I used a new cupcake recipe. It has raving reviews about how moist it is. Mine turned out moist but it's very crumbly. Any suggestions?
Ingredients
1 1/2 cups semisweet chocolate morsels
1/2 cup butter, softened
1 (16-oz.) package light brown sugar
3 large eggs
2 cups all-purpose flour
1 teaspoon baking soda
1/2 teaspoon salt
1 (8-oz.) container sour cream
1 cup hot water
2 teaspoons vanilla extract
Directions
Beat butter and sugar at medium speed with an electric mixer until well blended (about 5 minutes).
Add eggs, 1 at a time, beating just until blended after each addition. Add melted chocolate; beat until blended.
Sift together flour, baking soda, and salt. Gradually add to chocolate mixture alternately with sour cream, beginning and ending with flour mixture. Beat at low speed just until blended after each addition.
Gradually add hot water in a slow, steady stream, beating at low speed just until blended. Stir in vanilla.
We can't answer your question unless you post the recipe and method. Please edit your question to include this information.
Hi, Catija is right. I put the question on hold, but if you come back and add the recipe, we can reopen.
Oh boy, sorry about that! Here are the ingredients:
1 1/2 cups semisweet chocolate morsels
1/2 cup butter, softened
1 (16-oz.) package light brown sugar
3 large eggs
2 cups all-purpose flour
1 teaspoon baking soda
1/2 teaspoon salt
1 (8-oz.) container sour cream
1 cup hot water
2 teaspoons vanilla extract.
And directions Beat butter and sugar at medium speed with an electric mixer until well blended (about 5 minutes). Add eggs, 1 at a time, beating just until blended after each addition. Add melted chocolate; beat until blended.
Sift together flour, baking soda, and salt. Gradually add to chocolate mixture alternately with sour cream, beginning and ending with flour mixture. Beat at low speed just until blended after each addition. Gradually add hot water in a slow, steady stream, beating at low speed just until blended. Stir in vanilla.
Thank you for coming back and editing! I reopened it, hopefully somebody will know a good answer.
This looks very similar to a recipe that I make for chocolate cake. Mine was always a bit crumbly until I changed my measuring technique for the flour. Instead of scooping and leveling I spooned the flour in to the cup and then I leveled it. That made a huge difference. Of course, weighing is even better.
It could also be an issue of slightly over baking. You could try testing them 5 minutes earlier.
Those two things tend to be the crumbly culprits in cake.
I can see a few potential sources of error, in a way they all have to do with regional differences, so it might be good to know where you are :)
-Temperature - How softened was the butter? And what temperature were the rest of the ingredients at?
-Egg size - "large egg" is very subjective
-Flour type - is it really the same cake flour you used as the recipe writer did, or maybe a different style/standard of cake flour, or maybe even 405/Maida?
-Hot water - this could subjectively be 60°C to boiling. And both extremes will do different things to gluten formation (or absence thereof), could denature other ingredients differently, and will mess with the speed of leavening.
-Brown sugar - regional differences, danger of confusion between molasses-rich "brown sugar", ground rock candy, and unbleached raw cane sugar.
-Teaspoons of soda, cups of butter ... same measuring cups/spoons as AB?
I'd check if AB has made video footage of that recipe, and watch closely what he uses...
Thank you for your help! When I "grow up" I seriously want to know as much as you people do! I never realized just how scientific baking is until I really became interested in breaking down ingredients and understanding their purpose. I know that sounds pretty naive of a 55 year old woman ;-) I've since changed recipes for my chocolate cupcakes and they are fabulous, if I do say so myself! I've also made adjustments for high altitude and it's made a world of difference. Thanks again!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.325027
| 2016-01-30T23:59:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66043",
"authors": [
"Brad Bute",
"Catherine Mcgrow",
"Catija",
"Charles McFarlane",
"Frank Riccardi",
"Kristina Valantinaitė",
"Pernille Thede Jakobsen",
"Rene Lai",
"Tamzin Goddard",
"debwiddi",
"heather hegarty",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158165",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158166",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43006",
"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
}
|
66410
|
What does it mean when a jar lid pops?
When opening a glass jar of prepared spaghetti sauce, (with the seal flat), and it makes a loud sound when opened, is that bad or good?
Hello Chris, your title and your body were two different questions. I would have suggested to choose one of them and edit the other to fit, but with having three answers answering the body, I changed the title. You can still open a second question, but it might be a duplicate.
When being canned (or jarred as in this case) the ingredients are put into the jar hot before a lid is put on. When the ingredients cool it creates a suction that pulls the lid down. When you open the lid and hear a pop what is happening is that air is coming in to fill the low pressure inside, which indicates that there was a good seal. This is definitely a good thing.
If there is no pop that means that there is no longer low pressure in the jar, this could be because it was never sealed properly, or the contents have gone off despite the seal and created gas inside the jar. Either way it means that it's not safe to eat.
There was a pop. The seal was flat. Therefore it is safe to eat.
That is what my answer says @MarcLuxen.
The if there was no pop bit is irrelevant for the question and possibly confusing
@MarcLuxen I couldn't disagree more. It's perfectly acceptable to expand on a scenario by offering the inverse. I found the answer interesting, in its entirety. +1
@MarcLuxen shennan's right, of course, but really this isn't even expanding. It's just explaining - why is it good if it pops? Because of what it indicates didn't happen.
I guess you could add the detail that many jar lids are made with a deliberate indentation that's concave when the contents are under a relative vacuum, and convex when it's released... that makes a noise, too.
The popping is used to indicate 1 of 2 different things have NOT occurred.
1) has it be opened previously or didn't have a good seal.
2) spoilage, even if the seal was perfect, if spoilage occurs it will create gasses that will increase the pressure inside the jar.
Caveat: we had one question in the past where someone opened a jar of sauce, used a small portion and within an hour or two fizz started pouring out of the jar from the unused portion, so spoilage can still occur without indicators. I think that was a 1:1,000,000 occurrence, but it can still happen.
A loud sound (like a pop) is the sound you get when the Jar has not previously been opened.
I define that as "good". The quality of the sauce, however, depends entirely on the brand and the ingredients.
Taking advantage of auto-migration to chat to clean up without deletion. (ping me there if you have further concerns.)
The pop is vacuum sealed for freshness through heating, steaming, homogenizing, pasturizing. It pops when you break the seal like popping a can of coke or pepsi. No pop, no seal, not fresh (probably spoiled). There are pops for both vacuum seals and pressure seals.
Vacuum seals suck the air out. A pressure seal is hot food, sealed, then placed in cold bath.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.325354
| 2016-02-11T02:10:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66410",
"authors": [
"Brian Shimko",
"Cascabel",
"David Pittman",
"GdD",
"Joe Barry",
"Kathryn Weaver",
"Kelly Soares",
"Marc Luxen",
"Mary Cefalu",
"McKenzie",
"Robin Betts",
"Sandra McLin",
"chris Hawkins",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328",
"rumtscho",
"shennan"
],
"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
}
|
66764
|
Microwave Surface Temperatures too hot
I have a stainless cavity Microwave. Most all microwaves I have ever used are cool to the touch after use.
This was gets extremely hot. I have measured over 80C, 179F on the front center of microwave. This is only after a 2 minute and 20 second popcorn. If I turn on with nothing it might be hotter.
If you touch the area when retrieving the bag of popcorn you can easily burn yourself.
This seems unsafe and not normal. How hot should it get? Is there a maximum for surfaces by an agency allowed?
It's a bad idea to run your microwave empty.
Microwave energy excites water molecules, a microwave oven heats food by heating the water inside it. If there's no water to excite then the energy ends up heating the components of the microwave instead, which is why it heats up when you run it empty, doing this can damage your microwave.
Popcorn is one of the tougher things you can cook in a microwave because it is very dry, so the microwaves again have little to work with and can end up heating the microwave instead. A popcorn kernel pops when the pressure of the expansion of the small amount of water in the kernel exceeds the ability of the skin to contain it, and when it fails the inside explosively expands, releasing some super-heated steam. The heat of the kernels and the steam released from the popping can heat up your microwave quite a bit, especially if you put too much in. 1/4 to 1/2 cup of popcorn is the maximum I've seen recommended.
Try heating up a full bowl of water for a 2-3 minutes and see if your door heats up until it's dangerous to touch. If it does then your microwave is faulty, if not then your microwave is probably fine and you need to understand its limitations better.
The complete microwave does not heat up with a low load in the microwave. It's only a hot spot on the surface of the front frame. Not inside the oven where you would expect. The plate of course gets warmer, but I am talking one location in the center front that you could fry an egg on. Microwaves reflect radio waves off of stainless surfaces so they should not get hot in only one location and cool to touch inside the oven.
If that spot heats up whenever you use the microwave then there's definitely an issue. Maybe the shielding on the door is faulty, it's hard to say. Replacing the door to see if that fixes it is a possibility, but given how much these things cost repairs don't usually make sense.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.325766
| 2016-02-23T19:16:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66764",
"authors": [
"Gary",
"GdD",
"Jackie Andreson",
"Jessica Pinker",
"Lorraine O Connor",
"Maura Gatensby",
"Robert Grace",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160021",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43659"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20273
|
Why do you slice whole ducks in half when roasting but not for other poultry?
Last time I made a roast, I used a recipe from BBC good food. Since I have had luck with those recipes, I decided to go for their roast duck recipe.
That recipe involves cutting the whole duck in half and roasting the halves with the skin pointing up. I have never roasted a bird like that before, and I am wondering why someone would do it. Does it have to do with the flavor of the meat? Proportion of fat? I don't think I'd ever do that to a chicken because I'd be afraid the meat would go dry. But obviously the flavor of duck is different, and maybe if I know why people do that, I can use it intelligently in my cooking.
The main reason why you want to cut the duck in half and roast them with the skin side pointing upwards is so the skin of the duck is nice and crispy. Unlike most roasted poultry where you don't eat the skin, the duck's skin is considered a huge delicacy if it is crispy.
thanks. i'am just about to put it in the oven, so i'm glad i checked here.
Who doesn't eat chicken skin? It's awesome!
@Chris: For the most part, people don't eat chicken skin. Where as some people specifically order duck skin. Think Peking Duck, where it is mostly duck skin with a little bit of duck meat attached.
...which brings back fond memories of my meal at this place: http://www.china.org.cn/english/features/beijing/31300.htm
KFC has made an entire industry out of Chicken Skin. I've never know anyone who wasn't on fat-reduction kick leave the skin off. And those same people who won't eat chicken skin for fat reasons are certainly not eating duck skin.
@Chris: True, but that is a completely different preparation. We are talking about roasted poultry skin. But then again I am not a frequent eater(or ever actually) at KFC so maybe they do have roasted chicken with its skin.
No, they don't, and yes, it is a completely different preparation. I'm just taking issue with the "Unlike chicken where you don't eat the skin..." part of the answer. I actually agree with everything else- i.e. Crispy duck skin is awesome!, but in my experience, it's only dieters who avoid chicken skin.
@Chris: Haha alright alright. You win. I changed my answer hopefully to your satisfaction. :P
I just have to say, Peking Duck is so awesome...
I'm not much of a fried-chicken eater but I have never discarded the skin from any roasted bird. I think the people who do that for non-health reasons must not be roasting it properly, i.e. they're saucing it before the oven and it comes out all soggy.
As far as I know the not-eating-chicken-skin thing is a calorie and fat saving measure. It used to be rare in the circles I eat in and most lamented by those who felt they had to practice it. These days it seems pretty common. I split the difference by only eating the skin if it's just right. An instance of Fuzzy Pink Niven's Law.
@Jay - everyone eats chicken skin apart from those on fat-restricted diets.
I agree with Jay's answer that one of the reasons is because of keeping the skin crispy, but I don't agree about the difference with other types of poultry and have a bit more background info.
The root difference between duck and other poultry is that duck is much fattier, and most of that fat is stored under the skin. If you don't do anything about the fat, you'll get a bird that will be too greasy to enjoy; and also the skin won't crisp as nicely as, say, chicken skin would with similar preparation, because the skin will be soggy with the fat that's rendering underneath. There are more ways than one to get rid of the fat; a popular one is to steam the duck before you roast it, usually after sticking a fork into the skin a few times so that the rendered fat can get out easily. This seems to be a different solution to the same problem: if you cut the duck in half and put the cut side down (which is the same as putting the skin side up), the fat will have a much easier way out than if you cooked the duck whole.
Very valid point. My answer was coming from someone who likes to eat the duck and your answer comes from someone who obviously prepared a duck in the past. Haha I fully support switching to this as the accepted answer.
This is definitely the right answer. There's nothing magical about duck skin compared to other poultry skin; the distinguishing characteristic of duck compared to other birds is the amount of fat!
I routinely butterfly most poultry before roasting, not just duck. The biggest reason I have is the bird cooks faster and more evenly without the cavity. Since it cooks faster, there is less moisture loss. I also get the backbone to save for stock.
One of the reasons for cutting poultry in half (butterfly, spattlecock or spatchcock) is to allow it to roast faster and even. All parts of the poultry will cook to the same level (making the breast to be more juicy), and more of the skin is exposed.
There are two techniques to spatchcock or butterfly poultry:
Removing the backbone and laying the poultry with skin up, breaking the sternum (breastbone) pressing with the palm of the hand.
Removing the backbone and the sternum and splitting the poultry in halves (or in quarters).
It may be used with all kinds of poultry, no matter the size.
Cut the beast in half and slow roast on a broiling pan, skin side up. You Do it for two reasons. Second is to help make the skin crispy. Firstly is because most of that abundant fat is under the skin. This way the fat oozes out from under the skin and it has somewhere to go. One bird can give you two cups of fat easy. With an uncut bird the fat cannot escape so easily.
Cheers.
Duck is reasonably high in fat. Cutting it in half will allow more of the fat to drip out.
Another possible reason would be that certain kinds of fat will drip out more than others; I found this study does showing such an effect in beef.
This answer contained very little that actually addressed the question; most of it was iffy health claims. I've edited it down to the portion that's a real answer, and left the potential nutrition differences as a possibility without making any claims. I've also cleaned up all the now obsolete comments.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.326040
| 2012-01-09T13:32:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20273",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Caroline Aldridge",
"Cascabel",
"Chef Boyardee",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Christian H",
"Christine ",
"Jay",
"Juan Osorio",
"Max",
"Northwest Passages",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94698",
"immutabl",
"ixtmixilix",
"jonesofcam",
"m4n0",
"onmyway133"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32129
|
What kind of food should be stored in a refrigerator's "snack pan" drawer?
(This may be a silly question, but I'll ask anyway since I am curious about this.)
We have an older fridge and it has a drawer labeled "snack pan." I'm not sure how to understand "snack" here.
What is a snack pan refrigerator drawer intended to hold? Is it primarily for deli meats? Or else should deli meats go in the "chilled meat compartment"? What else goes in a snack pan?
Is the benefit of a snack pan drawer to simply provide a place for smaller/shorter items to keep the shelves free for other things, or does food being in snack pan affect the food differently (such as how the chilled meat compartment is colder?)
I tried searching Google already, but all I ended up with were pages of replacement parts, repair instructions, and a few spammy links. Sadly, there was nothing truly informative. So here I am.
I assume you either don't have the manual or its not useful. Could you post a picture?
Suggest you stick a refrigerator thermometer in there. If it is radically different from the main refrigerator temperature you will know; if it is not, you can just use it for convenience.
Humidity varies too, so even if it's the same temperature, it might not be as good for vegetables if it's more open. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if it's not much different from the rest of the fridge, though, and is just a gimmick/convenience for small stuff.
I believe that "snack drawers" tend to be the same temperature as the rest of the refrigerator and really just exist as a place for you to corral small items/kid-friendly foods. I know some people that put pudding, cheese sticks, etc. in their snack drawer without issue.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.326600
| 2013-02-22T14:25:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32129",
"authors": [
"Benjamin Murray",
"Bohren",
"Cascabel",
"Gee",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Yuugi",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73922",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73962",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76914",
"vishva8kumara"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21894
|
Does reheating a roux based sauce thin it out?
I made a sauce that was thickened with a roux, and refrigerated it to be used again for another day. When I reheated the sauce it seemed to be thinner than it was previously. I added more roux to the sauce but that made it too thick, so I needed to add more base.
Was this all in my head and it probably wasn't any thinner or is there a reason this happened?
Did the sauce change in any other way? Clumps?
No clumps, and it seems otherwise unaffected.
Did the sauce contain egg yolks (or whole eggs?)
I would think that if there were a change, that the sauce would be thicker, due to water vaporizing and the fridge that tend to dry things out.
So, I think it's in your head, but of course I could be wrong.
The one reason why it might appeared so, is because the sauce will become thinner if you reheat it, compared to the consistency it had when it was in the fridge or at room temperature.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.326772
| 2012-03-01T21:33:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21894",
"authors": [
"MStodd",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6755",
"jeffwllms",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
60297
|
How can I prevent the top layer of sauces from discolouring?
We also make home made sauces especially chillie. And I noticed that the top of the sauce tend to turn a darker colour when it stands on the shelf too long. How can I stop the discolouring?
This discoloration is primarily oxidation. If you cover it with plastic wrap/cling-film such that the wrap is directly touching the top of the sauce (spread a piece over the bowl, then press down in the center and let the wrap rest on top of the sauce), the discoloration should be minimized. Just keep the plastic wrap on it until right before serving. (If you don't like plastic wrap, you can cut or fold a circle of parchment paper or waxed paper the size of the dish, but plastic wrap is easier.)
I'm not sure how long you're letting it sit on the shelf, or if that is a shelf inside or outside a refrigerator, but you may want to also consider food safety if you are leaving things at room temperature for an extended period.
You are describing a Cartouche
:-) might make googling a little easier for those who don't know.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.326894
| 2015-08-28T07:36:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/60297",
"authors": [
"Augustine Ravi",
"Brandon Keenum",
"Dawn Marie Wolden",
"Doug",
"Gary Bouchard",
"James Gleason",
"Marcie Centers",
"Ray Ellis",
"craigwriter2comcastnet",
"heather cerra",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19727
|
Is it possible to thicken frozen cream?
I know you can use frozen cream for cooking applications such as in gratin, but can I thicken the cream?
By thicken, I mean making it into something like a bechamel sauce. Would I pour the cream in a hot pan, add in flour and stir a lot? Or is there anything I need to watch out for when working with a frozen cream?
Can you elaborate on what you mean here? How would you be "thickening" the cream if it were fresh? Or do you mean that it's "thinner" (more like milk than cream?) after defrosting and you want to get it more like fresh cream?
To thicken anything 'like a bechamel sauce' you would use a roux.You could just add flour to the cream, or any other liquid, but it should be added to a small amount of the liquid and form it into paste. Then return the 'paste' to the rest of the liquid and heat until thickened (it will have to boil).
A roux, however, is a richer base for a sauce. Start with equal amounts of a fat (butter, olive oil, sausage drippings...) and flour. Get the fat hot and then whisk in the flour until it has absorbed all of the fat into the flour. Then add your cream and heat, still whisking, until thickened.
If this is not what you are after, please be more specific. Perhaps describe what your end goal is. This can be used to create anything from sawmill gravy to nacho cheese sauce, depending on what you add to the cream or milk afterwards.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.327054
| 2011-12-17T17:10:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19727",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Kimber",
"My Lovely Sock",
"Tom Schwieger",
"Yoshanuikabundi",
"cindy",
"debwiddi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64065",
"tntwo"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7523
|
Storing knives in knife sheaths
Currently there is a question about magnetic stripes vs wood blocks, but I was wondering what the general concensus is regarding knife sheaths (like this one) They seem great if you only have a couple knives -- they don't require counter space and aren't at risk of causing accidental harm by falling off a wall. What are the pros and cons of using these instead?
I use these and love them. They really do simplify storage since you can just use any drawer. If you ever needed to travel with your knives (I haven't) they are a great benefit there as well. It's also nice to have your knife in one of these if it's just sitting on your counter while you get everything in place. If you're clumsy and you knock this off the counter you'll only end up with a bruise instead of a trip to the hospital.
The only cons I've found are rather insignificant. You have to occasionally clean them, and you have to go through that one extra step to get to your knife.
+1 for travel. I prefer my block in the kitchen but I can't stand my relatives' "knives" and always take one of my own in the sheath when we visit.
I move every 6-9 months so being good for travel is a major plus.
I've used that style of case for years (mine are LamsonSharp ... which look the exact same, so I don't know if Victorinox bought them) ... but either for travel, or for storing the knives I don't use much (long slicers, which I keep in a drawer).
If the issue is lack of counter space, and keeping knives in a drawer, I'd throw out yet another alternative -- a drawer knife tray. They also make under-cabinet knife blocks, but they always seem to store the knives horizontally.
My mom and aunt (a caterer) just store the knives in cardboard sheaths in a drawer, so you really don't need to go to too much trouble ... I just don't like the sheaths for every-day knives, personally. The paper ones are better as I can get to 'em one-handed. The paring knife size one like what you linked to I can pop with my thumb while holding the handle, but the larger ones I need two hands for.
Another +1 for the under-counter suggestion. I've seen a LOT of knife storage solutions - most of them for commercial kitchens; but I've never seen that type of storage. I prefer stainless wall mounted storage, but these wood blocks are tempting since they don't take up counter or wall space. Thanks @Joe!
@TMarshall, @Doreene : blah ... I mis-typed ... I meant "under cabinet" not "under counter". oops.
no problem! I looked at the product on Amazon (using your link) before I wrote my comment. Somehow I fell into the same trance you were in, and wrote "under-counter" but I meant under-cabinet. It's a good option, and a good suggestion - still +1. :-)
For a long time I just made a sheath for each of my knives from folded cardboard. Worked fine. That is not as secure as the ones you shown, but still allows you to keep the knives in any drawer without dinging them up or presenting a major cut hazard.
But...I like the immediacy of a block or a magnetic mount (used both and don't have a big preference).
Sheaths are great, especially when transporting knives.
Just remember to COMPLETELY dry your blades before putting them in a sheath- otherwise they may rust. And yes, i've even had a four star heckle, made from stainless steel, get a few rust spots from moisture.
that's because the word is stain less, and not stain free :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.327247
| 2010-09-22T14:51:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7523",
"authors": [
"Deboprity Das",
"Dhara",
"Dorrene",
"JBar",
"Joe",
"Leigh",
"NearlyReady",
"Saguaro",
"Sobachatina",
"TMarshall",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25825",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user15453",
"user25825",
"warren"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29809
|
What dishes are paired with agnolini in Mantuan cuisine?
I am preparing agnolini alla mantovana and I would like to pair the dish with a second course and side in classic Mantuan style.
source
Mantuan cuisine is famous for its "set meals".
What are the classic pairings, in the sense of pairing tastes but also of reuse of resources, for example if I pair it with boiled meat, I can use the stock with the agnolini? I'd rather avoid the boiled meat in this instance.
The Google translation of this article was a bit rough, so I went through it for you and added some links to recipes and such. I hope this helps. I learned a bit myself. That Torta Sbrisolona shall be mine!
The recipe for Agnolini doesn't call for stock, but I bet you could use it in that preparation as long as you reduce it enough. You don't want a runny filling.
Source. http://www.ristorantimantova.info/piatti-tipici-mantovani
The Mantuan kitchen is closely linked with the history and traditions of its neighboring cities. The
geographical location of Mantua, squeezed between Venice and Emilia
Romagna, characterizes the kitchen. The ruling Gonzaga dynasty heavily
influenced the culinary traditions of Mantua. The Mantuan kitchen is
often referred to as "Of the Princes and the People" because it
combines the refinement of Gonzaga kitchen with dishes typical of the
peasant folk.
Among the typical dishes of Mantua, the real backbones are the first
courses.
Among the dishes are the very Mantuan "Miller's
Risotto",
the
Agnolini (picture)
and Tortelli di
Zucca,
a true symbol of the delicious local cuisine.
As for the main courses, the Mantuan cuisine offers both fish dishes,
such as catfish, trout, pike and saltarei the famous Sauced
Pike
and meat dishes, such as roast beef, poultry and game, stews, pot
roasts and boiled him.
Another highlight of the delicious local cuisine are the cold cuts and
sausages. In addition to the famous Mantuan salami, one must not skip
a tasting of Ciccioli, the
Gras
Pistàs,
the sausages used for Risotto alla
Mantovana
and, especially in winter,
Cotechino.
Equally famous are the DOP (“Denominazione di Origine Protetta” or
"Protected Designation of Origin") Mantuan cheeses Grana Padano,
Parmigiano Reggiano and Provolone and the condiment Mustard
Mantovana.
As for fruits and vegetables, country kitchens are famous for their
cultivation of melons and pears.
Desserts, along with the first course, are the real highlight of the
Mantuan cuisine, such as La Torta
Sbrisolona,
La Torta delle
Rose,
and La Torta
Elvezia
We must also say a few words about Mantuan wines: Denominazione di
Origine Controllata Lambrusco Mantovano red
wine, Colli
Morenici white wines, and Garda Colli Mantovani
wines.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.327548
| 2013-01-06T23:17:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29809",
"authors": [
"David Elm",
"Joyfulparadise",
"Richard Hunich",
"Trenton",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69410",
"suriv"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42966
|
Oat Flour for pasta not rolling well?
I experimented by substituting all purpose flour with oat flour that I ground up myself from organic oatmeal for pasta intended for ravioli.
I used roughly 3 cups of oat flour : 4 eggs ratio,
Kneeded it into dough, let it rest for 30 minutes before attempting to roll it in my pasta roller.
The problem is I couldn't get the texture right, plus the oat flour kept absorbing all the moisture and became dry, brittle and unrollable.
Adding more water made it too moist and sticky that I know it would get stuck in my pasta roller. Kneeding water or more flour into the dough made it eventually dry and brittle again.
The oat flour dough is like a weird sponge! I can't get the texture right.
What am I doing wrong?
I've made pasta from all purpose flour before and have not had this problem.
EDIT: Just experimenting because I had extra Oatmeal on hand. I don't have Gluten sensitivity.
Pasta relies on gluten development for its strength and structure. Only wheat and its close relatives have the necessary precursor proteins, glutenin and gliadin, from which gluten is formed.
You simply will not be able to make pasta from 100% oat flour using a recipe designed for wheat flour, as oats do not contain gluten (well, technically, its precursors).
If you desire a gluten free pasta, you should search for recipes specifically for that purpose. They are often bound together with xantham gum or other hydrocolloids.
If you are just looking for an interesting pasta as an alternative to the more traditional ones, you need to make sure you have enough gluten available to support the structure (and overcome the weakening that will come from using oat flour, which will physically interrupt the gluten strands). I would suggest making sure you are using high protein wheat flour (such as bread flour), and only substituting a portion (no more than say 25%, and you might want to start with smaller amounts to see how it works) with oat flour. I haven't tried this, so you will need to experiment to find a good balance between oat flavor, and the ability for the pasta to hold its shape and structure.
If gluten sensitivity is not a problem, it should be possible to make a 100% oat flour pasta and add vital wheat gluten until it is 10 to 15% of the mixture. At least it works well enough for breads, so I assume that it will be good for pasta too.
@rumtscho Ah, I never think of gluten as an ingredient in itself...
http://blog.khymos.org/recipe-collection/ is a fun starting point, but nothing oatmeal-ish there!
I made oat flour pasta today and I had the same struggles in the past but found using very little water and xanthan gum works. I used about 3/4 cups homemade oats flour, pinch of salt, about 1/4 tsp Xanthan gum, 1 egg, few drops olive oil and about 3 tsp chilled water. This is very important for the texture. I started with half a cup of oats flour, mixed the wet ingredients to the dry and used the last 1/4 cup of flour to add while mixing and kneading.Once the dough came together, I used a few drops of olive oil to coat the dough and the table. Once rolled out to 2mm thickness, cliced it up and laid out to dry. Really no problem this time.
I would recommend not leaving the dough to rest. Roll it right away as it will harden if left.
As per the above comment, your answer could benefit of an edit to have more information and be more constructive to the question. Full answering guidelines are posted here
@JCrosby I agree that the answer can be improved. However, the advice to write it as a comment goes against the site rules. A post that attempts to provide the information requested in the question should not be written as a comment, but has to be posted as an answer. Other users can then downvote it for whatever reasons they find pertinent, including "I hate short answers". But posting it as a comment instead is not an option.
Pasta does not need glutein. In fact in east plenty of gluten free flours (rice, bean flours) have been used for making noodles without wheat. Oat is one of them, which is traditional for Inner Mongolia (part of China).
What I recommend is using enough water - and not necessary eggs att all. Oat has plenty of protein itself and like durum it does not need eggs to make pasta. On the other hand it tends to absorb more fluid than wheat, so if it seems to dry, just add water.
I second SAJ14SAJ but have my disagreement on oat flour vs all purpose.
Oats do have gluten and in fact 14% gluten so unless you are using a gluten free oat flour you should use similar amounts as you would whole wheat flour because of similar percentages.
That is incorrect. Oats do not contain gluten except as incidental contamination from using the same equipment used to process wheat, barley or rye.
They might be around 14% protein, maybe that's what you're thinking of? But unlike wheat, the protein isn't gluten.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.327919
| 2014-03-24T12:09:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42966",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Christopher Whitaker",
"Edu Admin",
"Edu Neves",
"Jolenealaska",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"Max",
"Pomodoro Technique Game",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100461",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"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
}
|
76548
|
What is the driest, brownest bread that I can make for a stuffing?
I once had someone's Wonderbread stuffing (not good), and I decided that when it came time for me to make my own stuffing, I would go the exact opposite route.
I am going to make a loaf of bread in my bread machine with the intent to turn it into a stuffing. Thus I want an extremely brown, super multi-whole-grain, and dry bread that will not crumble apart. I do not care if the bread has a strong taste, but it should go well with Rosemary-Sage and Sausage.
My German Cousin tells me that German Pumpernickel tends to crumble, so I am going to exclude that before hand. Russian Black bread was also suggested; does that hold its form well?
It doesn't get much darker than Russian black bread: http://allrecipes.com/recipe/7034/russian-black-bread/ you can dry it yourself in a low oven. I wouldn't use it entirely, another bread with nuts and seeds and whole grains would be good with it.
Cube it first, and then put it in a ~175F oven until it is good and dry, but not toasted. Do the same with your companion whole-grain but lighter in color bread.
I think a stuffing made just of the black bread would be too dark and too dense. I would go no more than one third of that, and two thirds of something else. The something else could be chock-full of nuts and seeds and whole grains. They would complement each other quite well I think. Once you acknowledge this comment, I'm going to delete them all. Join us in chat anytime. This is just the kind of thing we love to help with.
You could also go with a proper German pumpernickel bread (or American knock-off). But I've got to agree with Jolenealaska, that's going to be a really assertive stuffing. The point is to soak up and complement the turkey flavor, not to overpower it entirely... (Also, much easier to cook stuffing not inside a turkey).
@derobert I might do the German Pumpernickel, because my family is German. Pumpernickel is not a sourdough though, is it? I want something that will absorb the turkey flavour, keep its form, without adding so much of its own flavour.
Almost all breads were originally sourdough, pumpernickel can be either nowadays. "extremely brown, super multi-whole-grain" is going to be flavorful (unless you pick some rather boring grains and make it brown with food coloring).
@Akiva if you don't want assertive flavor, you don't want Russian black bread or pumpernickel. Perhaps a marbled rye? http://redstaryeast.com/marbled-rye-bread/
Just because one recipe for stuffing made of Wonderbread was bad doesn't mean that all stuffings like this are. Not Wonderbread, but my dad uses Pepperidge Farm's thin-sliced white bread and it's a wonderful result... you have to know how to prepare it, though. It's also really not a good idea to actually stuff your raw turkey with raw stuffing and try to get it to bake properly, which is what you seem to be implying you're going to do.
"super multi-whole-grain", "dry" and "does not crumble" are a bit of antipodes in bread, actually. Whole grain crumbles much more than whiter breads. And it keeps moister.
Any bread can be dry - slice or cube and put it in the oven at 140F, or low, until it's as dry as you like.
Wonderbread is not even bread, in my opinion - it's certainly not anything like a yeast bread, even one made from all white flour. So it's not hard to be very different from it. As such you might want to heed the advice in comments to scale back your reaction a tad.
For a different approach to "very brown bread" look at Anadama recipies - much of the brown there can be from the molasses, but you can also whole-grain it up as much as you like - but 100% whole grain and some tendency to crumble go together in my experience, so I'd probably limit the whole grains to 25-50% of the flour bill, tops. I quite happily mix and match the whole grains as well as bean flours, potato flour, etc.
I'm thinking of trying Kartoffelbrot; it should go good with sausages and rosemary. That is good to know that I can just dry it out if I find it too moist.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.328581
| 2016-12-16T15:34:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76548",
"authors": [
"Anon",
"Catija",
"Jolenealaska",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"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
}
|
43304
|
Bread Proving Time in Warm Climates
I'm following one Paul Hollywood's recipe for the "Basic White Tin Bread" from his book "
How To Bake".
In the recipe it states to prove
for about 1 hour, until the dough is at least doubled in size and
springs back quickly if you prod it slightly with your finger.
I followed the recipe and all seemed to go well until baking. The rise in the oven was poor at best. The crumb appears okay but it's very dense as you get to the bottom of the loaf.
I've been googling and it appears the problem may be that I have over proven.
Paul Hollywood is located in the UK and his book is aimed at locals (evidenced by comments about ideal kitchen temp of 20C to 22C, 68f to 71.6f). I live in Brisbane, Queensland. The ambient temperature yesterday was 28.5C (83f). He also states in the recipe to use water that is cool (around 15C / 77f) so I use water from the fridge mixed with tap water.
So my questions are:
Does the ambient temperature of the kitchen affect the prove time? If so how?
Does the water temperature have an impact on just the rise or on the proving as well?
Should I shorten the prove time and if so how to I judge how much?
They really boil down to, how do I factor in the sub tropical climate when using a bread recipe written for the UK and north America?
Btw, I'm not keen on continually poking the dough while proving as I'm concerned that this may affect the prove.
The poke test is pretty important. It will tell you when the dough is ready. Professional bakers use it all the time. It does not affect the proofing of the dough as you're poking it and leaving an indentation, not poking a hole through the dough.
It could be the proving time or the oven temperature or both.
In hotter climates, bread dough will rise faster. Poking the dough will not harm the dough in any way, so don't be afraid to poke the dough. The best way to test if the bread dough has risen enough is by poking it.
As for the oven, if the temperature is too low, it can take longer to get additional rise in the oven. What I do, as do many other bread bakers, is to bake the bread at the hottest temperature it can reach for the first ten minutes, then turn it down to the regular temperature for the remainder of the time needed to bake the bread. The hotter temperature initially can result in more oven spring for the bread.
A higher water and ambient temperature definitely speed up proving and rising. The consequence is poorer flavour and dense bread. Generally the slower the rise the better the bread.
If you don't have somewhere cool in the house, try proving at room temperature for, say, 20 mins to get the yeast going, then finishing in the fridge. Or if you can wait, just put it straight in the fridge and wait overnight. Take it out an hour or two before baking to take the chill off.
A higher ambient temperature, up to the point of killing the yeast, will definitely accelerate the proofing process. The temperature of the water, similarly, will speed up the process, unless the water is hot enough to kill the yeast.
The size of expansion is your best clue; when the dough has doubled, however long that takes, that's when you proceed. Many bread recipes benefit from a slower rise, which allows the yeast to produce more flavorful compounds. You can always refrigerate your dough overnight to get your proofing done.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.328900
| 2014-04-06T01:00:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43304",
"authors": [
"Andy Sinclair",
"Beth Meyers",
"Claire love food",
"Kraig",
"Spammer",
"derivative",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11556",
"ludog"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67418
|
Can I use a flavored liqueur to make vanilla extract?
Is it possible to make the extract with Crème De Cacao instead of vodka? I ask because I have some Crème De Cacao that I used in making a Grasshopper pie, but it is only "17.5"% (35 proof)" I don't know if this will be strong enough to do a good job, or should I half it with vodka?
Hello Jo, and welcome! That's a nice question you have. I edited the title so people will know what's about even before clicking to read the full text. Also, we prefer to not have greetings, signatures, etc. here - our questions are more of a "reference text" and less of a "personal correspondence" kind (comments like the one I'm writing now are seen more loosely). I hope somebody here will know if that works, and write you a nice answer!
One of the first things you'll need to consider is that the creme de cacao is already chocolate-flavored. Vodka is very clean and neutrally flavored, so if you use it to make an extract you'll get a very pure flavor extraction from whatever you're infusing. If you use something that's flavored already, the end result will obviously contain those flavors too. Basically, extracting vanilla flavor with creme de cacao will not give you a straight "vanilla" extract - it will be "chocolate-vanilla". That's not necessarily a problem, just be sure that you have the right expectation going in.
I do a fair amount of infusion at home (usually for cocktail use rather than baking, but the principles are similar) and have found that flavors tend to be best extracted in spirits that are at least 100 proof (50% alcohol by volume or ABV). Additionally, sugar can inhibit the flavor extraction. This makes your creme de cacao problematic because it's both not strong enough and contains quite a bit of sugar. I don't think you'd get a good extraction by using it on its own.
Simply blending with vodka might help, but only marginally. Most vodka is sold at around 80 proof (40% ABV) so if you did a half-and-half mix, you'd wind up with a solution at around 55 proof (the calculation of ABV isn't purely additive, so calculating the exact ABV would take some math that I'll attempt to add in later once I can track down the formulas). That's not enough of an increase in proof to make much of a difference - might as well just use the vodka at that point.
You could do better by using a stronger spirit. Some brands sell 100-proof vodka which would bring your half-and-half blend up to around 65 proof. It's possible to find some rums and grain spirits sold at 151 proof; blending with those would get you up to around 90 proof. You may even be able to find 190-proof grain alcohol under the Everclear label (though this is illegal in many jurisdictions) which if blended would bring you all the way up to 110 proof, which should be enough for a good extraction even given the sugar content in the mixture.
Of course, if you're going to seek out these specialty products, you could just use them on their own and get a much better, cleaner extract. If you're dead set on using the creme de cacao (or in the general case, any liqueur) you could probably find a way to make it work, but on balance I'd recommend finding a different use for it.
If you're trying to make vanilla extract, I wouldn't use a flavored alcohol... Even if it's feasibly possible in the lower-alcohol liquor (which I'm not certain of), you won't have the flavor you need... you'll have chocolate vanilla and, considering how strong the flavor is in most Creme de Cacao, I'd be surprised if you noted a change in the flavor at all.
The reason vodka is such a good option is that it's very high in alcohol and (assuming it's a good-quality vodka) it has a neutral flavor, so all you get is the vanilla in the end.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.329211
| 2016-03-14T12:50:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67418",
"authors": [
"Bil Rez",
"Debra Wiggin",
"Denzil",
"Jessica Crane",
"Louise Koch",
"Prestige Point",
"Stacey Carter",
"Steve Ridge",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161775",
"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
}
|
23477
|
Dipping Cakepops in Callebaut Callets
I just received my Revolation machine and will be tempering my Callebaut callets in them tonight.
I will be using it mostly for dipping cakepops. I roll them and stick them in the freezer for just a few minutes and then dip them in the chocolate.
I had previously tempered the chocolate in the microwave without using a thermometer and the chocolate came out dull and definitely soft and pliable.
I am using Callebaut Belgian White and Dark Chocolate Callets. Did I get the right chocolate for this kind of confection?
Will the chocolate eventually harden after dipping and become less tacky? (I place my pops in cello bags)?
Can you explain exactly what you did when you said, you tempered the chocolate by hand? Typically the chocolate dip should be melted to a specific temperature(depending on how dark the chocolate is) and when you dip whatever in, the chocolate should be tempered when it cools down. You shouldn't need to do anything to it with your hands after you dip it.
Hi Jay,I meant I did not use a tempering machine. I just basically used the microwave method (without thermometer) and went from there. What I'm scared of is that I may have bought the wrong type of chocolate for what I intend to use it for :(
Also, Jay, I bought the "Callebaut Belgian White and Dark Chocolate Callets."
Liz, I had made several edits to your question to add the additional information you provided in the comments and format it for easier readability. If I changed the meaning of your question in any way, you may edit it farther by clicking on the edit link under the tags.
Based on your comments, you probably didn't temper the chocolate correctly the first time. Tempering chocolate can be a really delicate thing and being off by several degrees can affect whether the chocolate is tempered well.
Because your chocolate wasn't tempered correctly, it would not have harden completely. The chocolate's cocoa butter is composed of glycerides of fatty acids that needs to solidify at a certain temperature to ensure a stable formation. It is this stable formation that makes the chocolate firm(non-tacky) and shiny.
Here is a guide to tempering chocolate using a microwave and a thermometer: http://chocomap.com/chocolate-making-tempering.php
I have taken a look at the chocolate you have bought and there should be no reason why it shouldn't temper correctly. Your new Revolation will melt your chocolate at a very precise temperature so your chocolate should come out tempered. It will be shiny and firm.
Hi Jay, thank you so much for answering back. So, it sounds like I have the right chocolate for what I intend to use it for. Now, I am excited to start using my Revolation. Thanks again!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.329504
| 2012-04-30T17:33:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23477",
"authors": [
"Arthur",
"Carol",
"Dennis Benson",
"Jay",
"Liz",
"RLKershaw",
"Stacey Murphy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"leeroy",
"Øyvind Snibsøer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63245
|
Requirements for a Good Chef
I'm an amateur cook and an aspiring Culinary Manager. I'm almost done with my program and I'll be opening my restaurant soon. I'll be hiring soon so I wanted to know what are the certain requirements that make a chef great. What differentiates a great chef from the mediocre chefs in the field. Please Note: I'm not fishing for resumes I'm just a curious manager looking for a good chef.
I'm about 90% sure this is probably going down as off-topic or primarily opinion based. I'll grant you a pass on the incorrect word usage on the guess that english is not your first language (an armature is the central part of an electric motor, and aspiring is a bit different than inspiring.) But mainly, I would suggest that you spend sometime between being a non-professional and graduating from school and "opening your restaurant" actually working as a professional chef in someone else's successful restaurant. It would increase the odds of your's succeeding many-fold.
@Ecnerwal It's not clear that the program he's currently is training him to cook food professionally or manage restaurants. Either way though, as you suggest, obtaining practical experience as an employee in the field he's training for would be a very good idea.
It also might help him to learn to recognize what qualities he would value most in an employee and in a chef.
@Ecnerwal If you see word usage mistakes, please just edit - it takes less time than it does to point out the problem, and it's more helpful.
Quality control of food
A good chef should be able to explain what his/her methods are for controlling food quality and determining whether the price is appropriate for the quality delivered.
Inventory control
A good chef should have an understanding of the inventory required to serve the expected guests. He/she should be able to talk about methods how to make sure that you don't run out of items you need or throw too much food away.
Menu price
A good chef should be able to calculate the price for a menu.
Composition
A good chef has a thorough understanding that the eye is as important as the tongue, when serving meals.
Food safety
A good chef knows that food safety comes before profit. You could try this with a trick question like:"You have made the last four Kobe beef steaks for four guests, but the waiter dropped the plates just before leaving the kitchen. How do you save the situation?"
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.329757
| 2015-11-06T19:12:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63245",
"authors": [
"AgeraCcX",
"Alfie Bolingbroke",
"Cascabel",
"Ecnerwal",
"Jeannene Hill",
"Linda Hubbard",
"MIKAYLA ELBERTI",
"NadjaCS",
"Ross Ridge",
"Tanya Mason",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37179"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24022
|
What is the shelf life of Ultra Clear rice protein powder?
I have some Ultra Clear rice protein powder that is a few years old that has never been opened and has been constantly refrigerated. Is it still safe to use? I am nervous about using it, but the current cost of the product is over $60, so I am also not happy about throwing it out. If there is a danger - then I will throw it out, and forget the cost. Otherwise, maybe I can use just a teeny bit - to test it out. I don't want to end up in the ER though. Can you please advise.
Although I can't really help you with this answer, perhaps you can be a little clearer exactly how old "a few years old" is. Years is a huge time unit. 2 years is a few years and 3 years is a few years but the 1 year difference is a lot of time.
I actually decided to throw it out, especially, since on opening up and smelling the product, it did smell a bit funny. And, to answer your question it was several years old (more than 5, I think) - and I was probably crazy to even consider it. I did find some sites that sell Ultra Clear for considerably less than $60 (like about $32) - and so I will try it again, if I feel it is a good thing. Thanks for your response.
I suggest that you contact the manufacturer of the powder and ask them. You will get an answer that is specific to your product and possibly an explanation as to why the product is safe to use or not. Doing so will also help avoid any online speculation by others that may result in you becoming unnecessarily ill.
As for contacting the manufacturer, I believe that UltraClear is produced by Metagenics and you can contact them online here. If that doesn't work, you can call them toll-free (more information about calling them can be found at the online contact form).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.329985
| 2012-05-26T17:44:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24022",
"authors": [
"Diana",
"Jay",
"Maria Geenzier",
"Mike M. Lin",
"PumpkinPatch",
"Wanda Torruella",
"hajar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"user54534"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34120
|
What are the authentic traditional ingredients for Naan bread?
I would like to know what the authentic and traditional ingredients for Naan bread are. There are many recipes that use some ingredients but not others and the cooking method are not always the same. These are the ingredients which usually differ from what I have seen:
Milk
Yogurt
Water
Baking Powder
Yeast
Eggs
This recipe here does not use yogurt, this one here uses no baking powder or milk or yogurt, this one here uses no baking powder or yogurt. I can understand substitutions and variations, but I would like to know how it is originally made and what the ingredients are.
Also the cooking method varies. Some use a pan to fry the Naans prepared, some use only the oven, and some use the oven and then are grilled at the end for a short time.
Naan traditionally is plain flat bread made using bread flour, Yeast, salt and water. Its cooked in tandoor.
Salt could be optional if you are having naan with a curry. (Cause curry usually has salt and the bread might not need it).
Variations like milk or yogurt is used instead of water to make dough soft and fluffy. This would change the texture and flavor of the bread.
It is possible to use baking powder instead of yeast, because they both act as a leavening agent. Don't use them together.
IMHO eggs are not part of the traditional naan ingredients.
could you also add something about variations of cooking the Naan? And could you tell me if you could use beer instead of yeast/baking powder?
The only cooking variation I can think of is cooking it on griddle. But that is not traditional. If you don't have a tandoor you can mimic it using this. Beer would work, but I don't recommend it. Use buttermilk incase you don't want to use yeast/baking powder.
Why should baking powder be used instead of yeast? Your answer only states that yeast is the traditional way and both yeast and baking powder are leavening agents. So why do you recommend baking powder instead?
@jay I edited to what I think OP meant - either baking powder or yeast, not both.
Eggs are mostly absent from India, it does not conform to the tenants of respect for life that most Indians hold to.
Naan is a catch-all term for flat, leavened bread throughout the asian subcontinent. There are many, many variations which have developed depending on what ingredients were typically to hand in the different regions. So there are many equally traditional and authentic variations. In other words the answer is that there is no answer, try a few and find out what works for you.
I fully agree with the spirit of this answer, and upvoted. However, I think a true Naan is always cooked in a tandoor -- there are other names for flatbreads cooked on a pan. Naan recipes that don't use a tandoor are a compromise.
That's a good point @slim, method of cooking is the only continuity. If you don't have a tandoor you can try and replicate the effect, but it isn't the same.
About the recipe:
Naan is traditionally made with yogurt to leaven it. It would have to sit for at least 4 hrs, or up to 12, depending on how warm it is. Yeast was not traditionally used in india (though is now), and baking soda is also a newer introduction.
Milk or water can be used interchangeably. Milk will make it a bit softer. This is just preference.
Egg is not necessary. Many people in India do not eat egg, so the default recipe would be without egg.
About how to cook them:
People at home rarely make naan -- it is something you would have out or at a wedding or somewhere with a tandoor. This is why there are so many variations -- it is just people adapting as best they can.
If you have a pizza or baking stone, you can get a really good naan by preheating the stone at your highest oven temperature, and just putting the naan onto it to cook -- this simulates a tandoor.
Otherwise, I have found the best thing is a griddle, again as hot as you can get it.
It works best if you keep the dough soft and roll it out with a little oil as thin as you can get it (it will "shrink back", so make it bigger than you actually want it).
General baking tips:
Baking soda will kill the yeast and yogurt bacteria. You can add it as "insurance", but do this at the end after fermentation. They also don't like salt (but salt will make your bread taste a LOT better), so also add that at the end.
I have not tried mixing yeast and yogurt, but it doesn't sound like a great idea. Maybe it is ok if you either reduce the amount of yogurt a lot, or add it again at the end after fermentation.
Breaking down the ingredients:
Flour: always use strong/bread > 12% protein if you want strong gluten network
Milk: always use whole milk: tenderizes the Naan + flavor
Yogurt similar effects as Milk but also contains bacteria which aids in fermentation
Water: water is water: either use powdered milk with water or just milk preferably whole
Baking Powder/Soda: never use unless you are in a rush, always use yeast for better taste, as Baking Powder does not contribute to fermentation only leavening
Yeast: leaven the dough and ferments the flour,it breaks down the sugars, thus removing the unpleasant taste of flour and adds a good taste to the dough, for best results ferment from 24 hours up to 3 days. or use a Poolish preferment ahead of time 8-18 hours depending on temperature and yeast added (50% Flour 50% Water 0.1% yeast)
Eggs : gives leavening, color, texture, and flavor
Salt: Taste and clolor
As many have said Naan has many variations, no size fits all.
after reading the break down of the ingredients above, I would recommend trying different combinations to get the taste you really like.
Pro Tip:
The Tandoor gets really hot about 900F/482C, when baking in a home oven it can reach up to 560F most oven at 500F, so the cooking time will be longer, to make the end result close, I would recommend adding more water (70-80% hydration), as more will be evaporated during the extra cooking time.
The more hydration the more sticky and harder to work with the dough would be.
Maida, awesome, I get it from this importer in town: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maida_flour
Its almost the worst flour for you, but Naan is a "fast-food", so you can forgive the lack of nutrition for the flavour.
The rest is covered in the accepted answer.
There are many ways to cook naan depending upon the region or area, all are authentic but as far as the addition of egg in naan is irrelevant. People use yogurt, ghee (clarified butter) as well as milk to make soft naan. Yeast and dough starter both are used interchangeably by most of the naan maker.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.330195
| 2013-05-14T11:02:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34120",
"authors": [
"Barb",
"Camille Taylor",
"Cooking enthusiast",
"Dapianoman",
"Doctor Reality",
"GdD",
"Jay",
"Jay Walker",
"Judith",
"Neil Meyer",
"Nevaeh Lawson",
"Profile Spam Account",
"Rhondalynn",
"Stuart Weissman",
"Vass",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79378",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79389",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79394",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8804",
"nana yaw kusi Agyemang",
"slim",
"tad swaryczewski",
"user1190992"
],
"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
}
|
37234
|
Safe to leave oven on at 180F while at work to cook ribs?
I'm currently at work and I'm having a little panic attack.
I followed a recipe that require the ribs to be wrapped in foil and cooked at 180F for 9hours. I left about 30 minutes ago and for who knows why I didn't think it could be a bad idea before, but now I'm feeling unsure and worried.
The ribs are wrapped in two layers of aluminium sitting on a baking sheet. The ribs were coated since last night in a dry rub and I've added sauce on them this morning before closing the wrapping again.
Please give me your thought.
Edit: I just wanted to give you guys an update. So by precaution I asked my boss if I could take the rest of the day off and he agreed to let me go around noon (4+ hours into cooking), a risk I had to live with.
When I got home, my house was still standing in one piece and when I opened the door the smell running through my nose was incredible. I left the ribs to cook in the oven for another 5 hours before attempting to put them on the grill of the BBQ at high setting.
The ribs were a bit too tender so I lost some in the process of grilling them, but the taste was amazing. It's the first time I manage to cook rib without boiling them first and I can honestly say I'm satisfied with the result, though I would probably cut down on the last hour in the oven.
As for the safety of this adventure, I think it would be safe to redo it unattended especially because of how low temperature is set, but as other people mentioned it is important to have a clean oven.
Happy safe cooking everyone.
EDIT 2: I have an electric oven.
One thing not mentioned so far is the risk of fire from a dirty oven. Some people never clean their ovens, and the floor of the oven collects a large amount of grease and fat, which are of course flammable. The fire department here (in the UK) specifically mentions this as a fire risk. If you keep your oven clean (or at least not too dirty), that risk is eliminated.
Just turn off the oven and leave the door closed and it will extinguish itself promptly by using up all the available oxygen. The danger comes when people open the door to try to extinguish it or to save their food, which is exactly the wrong thing to do. Opening the door just supplies it with a nice supply of oxygen, allowing it grow into a much larger fire.
@CareyGregory - Ovens are not air-tight, especially convection ovens (mine is certainly vented), and if the oven is unattended, how would the cook know there was a fire in the first place? You have made many unfounded or uncorroborated assertions on fire safety. Please back some of them up with documentation, and consider the real world consequences of your advice if you are actually incorrect.
Yes, there's a risk, but it's not significantly higher than having most other home appliances turned on (eg, a lamp, dehumidifier, dish washer or dryer).
Although it heats up, a full-sized oven is insulated, and you're not operating at a very high temperature. Provided it seals well, even if there's a fire, there would be little oxygen to sustain it. I would not trust a toaster oven or desktop oven. with this sort of thing, as they're not as well insulated, nor do they tend to seal well.
As ovens are based on temperature, and will cycle on an off, rather than just feed in a constant amount of power (such as a cook top) ... so it won't get so hot that it causes other issues.
Update: I made the (possibly incorrect) assumption that this was an electric oven. I don't know that I'd trust a gas oven the same way (as I would assume that it is not well sealed) ... although people leave their home heating systems and water heaters on without shutting them off when they leave each day, so it's probably not an issue.
I would eliminate dryer from that list. Clothes driers are frequent causes of fires because people don't clean lint from the lint trap and exhaust regularly. It's the one appliance I won't leave running when no one is home.
@CareyGregory : excellent point ... I knew some folks who moved into a shared apartment after college and couldn't figure out why their dryer no longer worked ... because they had been there for months and had never emptied it out. Dish washers are also a problem if you infrequently use them ... if it's your first time running it in 6 months, you might have dry-rotted gaskets.
....oh, and years ago, Whirlpool put out the 'Polara' fridge/oven, so you could put your food in there in the morning (on chill), then have it start cooking so it'd be ready for you when you got home.
The Polara sounds like one of those things that sounds good but in practice turns out to be a really bad idea.
what if you can't get home, or have to leave for a much longer period of time unexpectedly?
@njzk2 : personally? In the past, I had a housemate who could deal with it, and my neighbors had a key and could've dealt with it. (which likely meant them eating it, as we used to take turns cooking dinner ... but they moved away 2 years ago). I don't tend to do it much any more ... as I've mostly been working from home for about 4 years. If you don't have one of those backups, you'll likely end up overcooking the food ... but as most recipes that you'd leave for long times are slow cooking type stuff, it can usually be turned into a soup
There are three issues here:
The quality of the food
The safety of the food
The safety of your home
Food Quality
From a palatability perspective, you may or may not get a decent result, depending on how high the internal temperature of the ribs rises.
180 F is very close to the temperature that needs to be achieved to effectively convert gelatin into collagen and create the tender texture out of the tough ribs as any kind of reasonable rate. If the temperature inside the ribs doesn't rise that high--and air is a poor transmitter of heat, which is why you can stick your hand inside a 500 F oven--you may not get a great result.
Food Safety
The same issue--temperature--is key for safety.
You want the ribs above 140 F as quickly as reasonably possible to inhibit pathogen growth. It is not clear that the ribs will get that hot in such a low oven, or if they do so, if they will do it in a reasonable period of time (less than say, an hour) so you may have a potential food safety issue.
This is exacerbated by the fact that most ovens have a considerable margin of error between the set temperature and the actual temperature (which also varies above and below the set point).
Home Safety
RI Swamp Yankee has located a reference to the US Fire Administration which clearly recommends not leaving cooking appliances unattended when no one is home:
The leading cause of fires in the kitchen is unattended cooking.
Stay in the kitchen when you are frying, grilling, or broiling food. If you leave the kitchen for even a short period of time, turn off the
stove.
If you are simmering, baking, roasting, or boiling food, check it regularly, remain in the home while food is cooking, and use a timer
to remind you that you're cooking.
Stay alert! To prevent cooking fires, you have to be alert. You won't be if you are sleepy, have been drinking alcohol, or have taken
medicine that makes you drowsy.
Millions of people have been leaving gas and electric ovens on unattended for many decades without incident. I am unaware of a single instance of a fire being caused by an oven that was in proper working order and being used properly. As @Joe pointed out, there is insufficient oxygen in a closed oven to support much of a fire at all. Any oven fire, even a grease-fed fire, can be extinguished by simply not opening the door. Even if a fire did somehow manage to sustain itself, it's in a sealed metal box and has nowhere to go.
@CareyGregory I would like to believe that. But I am not recommending it in this litigious society. If there is a credible document from a fire department saying the practice is okay, I would love to reference it and change the advise. The risk, after all, is not from properly functioning or well cared for ovens, but from those that are not. Gas ovens also necessarily have an ongoing oxygen source.
180f ifor 9 hours is easy hot enough to reduce the gelatin down. Many recipes suggest similar timings and temps, there is no health risk
@NimChimpsky If the internal temperature of the ribs is in fact 180 F, yes. That is not likely in most ovens set to 180.
@SAJ14SAJ huh ? I have cooked many times like this, in a number of different ovens, without checkign the internal temp of the meat with my special meat thermometer;
@SAJ14SAJ - The UL seal (in the US) on the oven is the certification you're looking for. Ovens are designed to be left on for hours at a time. Yes, a gas oven necessarily has an oxygen source at the bottom of the oven in the burner area. Again, that area is a sealed metal box intended to contain fire. I spent 15 years in the fire department and have seen precisely zero oven fires that went anywhere at all unless the door was opened. And even then the most damage I've ever seen is some smoke.
@CareyGregory That is good to know. Since you are far more authoritative than I am on that part of the question, I suggest you answer it directly then.
I think you and Joe answered the question more than adequately. I just think home safety concerns should be reduced down to something like "as long as you have a modern gas or electric oven in working order, there should be no concern."
@CareyGregory - You've offered a lot of supposition, but little supporting evidence. What are the actual UL criteria? What do actual fire prevention experts say on the topic? Your intuition may be correct, but I'd be more comfortable with a citation or two to back it up.
@RISwampYankee I don't think UL's criteria are relevant here. UL is the certifying authority in the US and we're hardly in a position to debate or dispute their criteria. However, for a good overview of cooking appliance fire statistics, see this. As you can see from the chart at the bottom, ovens are a minor source of fires, and I can pretty much guarantee you that those that do occur involved the homeowner opening the door. It is simply impossible for a fire to sustain itself in a closed oven.
I have edited based on the US Fire Administration reference located by @RISwampYankee. Operating ovens while no one at home is not recommended by safety authorities. Carey Gregory, if you still disagree, I think the burden is now on you to provide some very credible references.
@CareyGregory even if the fire is extinguished, the smoke can trigger the detector and flood the place.
Slow cookers are generally recognized to be safe when used unattended - and there are a variety of slow-cooker rib recipes out there. I've made them to great success before - they're fine braising in their own juices , or with a little liquid, such as root beer or Dr. Pepper.
The problem with the oven is the lack of temperature control at low temperatures and the amount of electricity it uses - with a gas oven, carbon monoxide would be a worry leaving it on for 8 or 9 hours at a stretch, as well as steep gas bills. There would be a very low risk of fire, but enough of one where fire safety experts do not recommend leaving it unattended.
the link in your answer is broken
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.330874
| 2013-09-30T12:05:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37234",
"authors": [
"Auntie KK",
"Banba",
"Carey Gregory",
"Dave Cousineau",
"Edwin Kugler",
"Eurosquatter Joe",
"Herb",
"Joe",
"Michael Mantion",
"NimChimpsky",
"Paddy Landau",
"Peepeejohn",
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"Ravi H.N.",
"RobertS supports Monica Cellio",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87638",
"njzk2",
"steve"
],
"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
}
|
36809
|
Using toasted sesame oil in a cilantro "pesto"?
Pesto, chutney, whatever. I go on flavor profile "kicks", right now I am craving Asian - soups, stir fries, curries, you name it.
Here's my thought. I want a simple condiment that I can add to anything (chicken soup for example, homemade or Campbell's condensed, even 40 cent ramen) to give that "kick" that screams 'Asian'. I'm hoping that it will last 2 weeks in my fridge.
Here's my thinking: How about quickly sauteing minced garlic and grated fresh ginger in a tiny amount of neutral oil and letting it cool. Then I whip out the food processor and pretend I'm making classic pesto but with cilantro instead of basil, sesame oil instead of olive?? Maybe I'd add some Thai basil just for fun. Toasted sesame seeds instead of pine nuts? Perhaps roasted peanuts? The big question is the sesame oil. I find it strange that I can't find a single recipe by Googleing. Is there something about one of my favorite ingredients that I am missing?
Any advice would be appreciated, I'm too broke to experiment randomly.
sesame oil is a pretty intense flavor, maybe use a small amount of peanut oil and a small amount of sesame oil - and how about some fish sauce?
@dax Fish sauce could be a great addition. Speaking of moderation - I once had a bottle of Dr Pepper in the door of my fridge right next to my rarely used fish sauce. Unfortunately you can guess the rest....AARRGGHH!
I actually really like your idea, and will do some experiments next time I can.
Anyway, sesame oil is much too intense a flavor, and way too expensive to use as an oil base for this. Add some for flavor, certainly, but the main oil should be one of the neutral "yellow" oils. Canola/soy/peanut/corn/etc.
Coriander (Cilantro) is definitely the leafy base, but I think you should add some Kaffir Lime leaves too, as they are a part of the distinctive Thai flavor.
Also, if you can get Galangal, use that instead of ginger, as it is a similar flavor, but more authentic to Thai food.
I would use roast peanuts instead of pine nuts, but only about 2/3 of the amount, as their flavor is stronger.
The last thing would be lime juice, though you shouldn't add that to your condiment but rather add it separately when using the condiment. Adding it to the main jar will cause the whole thing to spoil more quickly, if I'm not mistaken.
I've never even seen a Kaffir Lime leaf. That's the price I pay for living in the boonies. What would that add? Do I just process it with my other herbs?
@Jolenealaska: I can't really explain what Kaffir Lime leaves add in words, except to say that it is a distinct Thai flavor. I can only get them dried, so I'd need to soak them for a while and then add to the other herbs for processing. They are not a critical part of the flavor profile, but they do add a very nice authentic twist.
I was just at our local way-too-expensive-but-fun "gourmet" grocery store. How 'bout that? I wasn't even looking for them, but there they were - fresh Kaffir lime leaves. So I bought a few. Interesting flavor. I think I'm getting close!
You will find multiple cilantro pesto recipes if you google, although many are not biased to the Asian flavor combinations.
If you simply want a condiment that adds Asian feel to dishes or soups, you might consider the following, all of which are common in various parts of Asia, and will last a long time in the refrigerator:
Soy sauce - the fundamental seasoning of the region
Fish sauce -- many regional variants, which provide richness and complexity; use in moderation
Hot chili oil
Sriracha sauce -- a hot chili sauce from Thailand
Fermented bean sauces, such as black bean sauce or brown bean sauce - give a rich, complex, very Chinese flavor
You could use any combination of the above, reserving your fresh cilantro leaves for garnish after the dish is cooked.
You can also make up a simple condiment from soy sauce (3 parts), red or rice wine vinegar (1 part), with a touch of garlic, ginger, and hot chili flakes, perhaps a touch of brown sugar. Let it sit for an hour to develop flavor. This will give a Chinese feel to almost any dish, as it contains all of the base flavors of the cuisine; it is also great for dipping dumplings in. It should hold a couple of days in the refrigerator.
I have looked, but I've never found a recipe that looks like it would achieve the effect I want. I have received some good advice here though. You bring up black bean sauce, that's something I hadn't considered. Hmm...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.331807
| 2013-09-15T06:52:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36809",
"authors": [
"Carmi",
"Jolenealaska",
"dax",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4767
|
Substitute for Parsley in South East Asia?
Possible Duplicate:
Parsley substitute
So I'm currently living in Thailand and I'd like to try and make some of the Italian-American dishes I grew up loving. Most of the necessary ingredients are present and accounted for, except parsley. I haven't seen parsley anywhere.
So what are some possible substitutes common to south east Asia that I can look for?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.332155
| 2010-08-10T13:19:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4767",
"authors": [
"Barrett Revis",
"BioGeek",
"Dimitris Tzortzis",
"Gabe",
"Mansour",
"Mat",
"Tim Stone",
"brttyking",
"debbie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9340",
"judith",
"shanzibar",
"surjit singh"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5207
|
Can I boil milk unattended (and still keep the pan clean)?
Many recipes call for first bringing milk up to boil.
I normally boil 1 quart (1 litre) of milk in a 3-quart stainless steel heavy bottomed pan:
use low heat
keep scraping the bottom of the pan every 1-2 minute
Milk comes to a boil in about 40-45 minutes
In spite of my carefully watching the milk, at the end, when I pour of the milk, I see a "crust" form on the pan. This makes cleaning up a pain.
Further, it is hard to constantly watch and scrape the milk every 1-2 minutes.
Is there a more convenient way to bring milk up to a boil?
Looking for:
Unattended, fool-proof method
Easy clean-up at the end.
Yes, I am aware of this other question:
Quickest, and safest way, to bring milk to boil?
However, my question is a bit different.
possible duplicate of Quickest, and safest way, to bring milk to boil
Suggest you put "unattended" in the title to distinguish it from the possible duplicate question.
Hi joyjit. I updated the title to reflect the duplicate concerns. As you indicated, I think it will help emphasize the specific scope of your question. If you don't like it, feel free to change it back, though there is some momentum towards this question being closed and merged as a duplicate, which is probably not your first choice.
There are automatic stirrer devices available these days -- but their effectiveness is disputed for the cheaper ones...
Boiling the milk in the microwave is the only way to do this "unattended", and that requires a lot of trial and error to get the time just right. It also won't work with many recipes that involve stirring anything into the milk while cooking.
Out of the microwave, I use a non-stick pan, but even that requires scraping the bottom from time to time a bit to prevent solids from forming. (I use a rubber spatula for this.) I usually boil the milk on its own and and combine it with the rest of the recipe later.
Yup. I use a 1 litre pyrex measuring cup, about half full. Then you have to experiment. 500ml takes between 2 and 3 minutes. You'll have to watch it the first couple of times to get it right, but once you have the time figured out, it's completely unattended.
Hard to believe, but this worked like a charm. In my microwave (approx 1300 watts I think), on HIGH setting, 1 qt (= 1 litre) of milk takes about 6m 30s. Thanks!
A good quality conventional oven (set to slightly above boiling temperature) might work well too. However that will be relatively slow, and while you can avoid burning the milk, some surface caramelization (yummy!) could happen :) Also, make sure you "tune" your setup to avoid keeping the milk in the danger zone too long.
I am not sure but check this ---- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUsI15W78lY
Never used one myself, but what you need, I believe, is a Milk Watcher; a ceramic, glass or metal disk placed in the bottom of the pan. This will keep the milk circulating in the pan and prevent sticking and boiling over. You will be alerted that the milk is boiling by the rattling made by the disk.
Wow, never heard of this before, very cool.
anyone tried one of those?
I had one many years ago and yes they do work - not sure where to get one from now though. Amazon might carry them.
To minimize the sticking and possible burning, first rinse your pan with cold water. Swirl the water around and pour out. Don't wipe the residual water from the pan. The thin layer of water that will remain is heavier in density than the milk and forms a thin film across the bottom of the pan making the casein (milk protein) less likely to stick and bond as easily with the bottom of the pan.
This doesn't make it fool-proof...if it boils and cooks too long it can still stick but if you're just scalding the milk it will minimize the amount of protein able to stick to the pan. As long as your just bringing it up to a simmer then you don't need to stir it during this process.
Does it work for heating the milk up to 80 °C (~175 °F)?
There is a device you can buy, known (here in the UK, at least) as a milk saver
It comes in glass, ceramic or metal.. I'm sure you could improvise your own if you can't find one. All it is, is a disk about 8cm in diameter, with a recess to collect small bubbles, and a vent on one side of the rim about 1/2 the depth of the recess, to release the accumulated vapor as one large bubble. The one in the illustration repeats the pattern on both sides, so it doesn't matter which way up it is, or if it flips.
It prevents foaming, breaks skin formation, and when the liquid is near boiling, it rattles in the pan, serving as an alarm.
It's designed to work in a pan on a stove. I've seen a lot of ashtrays, for example, which have similar features... it wouldn't surprise me if you could get hold of one of those, in stainless steel, or something like it, which is heat and food safe..
In a pinch, a saucer or metal jam jar lid works as a substitute. Just place it so that steam can collect underneath and make it rattle.
Traditionally we always used a milk boiler in India growing up. The milk boiler is double boiler. you remove the whistle and fill the outer container with water and put the whistle back. Pour the milk in the milk boiler. Then close the lid and walk away. when the water reaches its boiling temperature, milk also reaches its boiling temperature. you will hear a loud whistle almost like the kettle. Then just turn the stove off and you have your perfectly boiled milk that never burns or boils over. This was a daily morning routine for us before we went to school lol.
You can just keep the wooden stick on the vessel and carry on with
your work.
You can also prevent milk boiling over by applying some cooking oil
on edge of the vessel. more.....
According to thekitchn,
Here's what's happening in that little pot:
As milk heats, the water in its structure starts evaporating from the surface. This concentrates the remaining fat and proteins into a thicker layer at the top of the pot. This layer eventually becomes so thick that water vapor rising through the milk can't break through very easily and gets trapped.
The layer is so uniform that you can't necessarily see what's boiling up right underneath, except in little bubbles around the edges. You see where this is going?!
Sure enough, enough water vapor eventually collects that it raises the thickened layer above it and breaks violently through. And, voila! The milk boils over!
There are a few ways we can prevent this from happening. One is to be sure to stir the pot of milk every few minutes to break up the top layer, allow the steam to escape, and make sure it's heating evenly. We've also heard that you can leave a long-handled spoon in the pot and the handle will provide a conduit for the steam to escape.
Leaving a long wooden spatula either in the pot or resting on the top of the pot like a divider works for me, unless it is on maximum possible heat which will almost always cause a boil-over.
The most popular tried and tested way is to Watch it like a Hawk and Never turn your back on it.
Depending on the type of stove, a heat diffuser may help. Gas stove flames tend to concentrate heat on the parts of the pot directly above the flame, which can lead to issues with burning or overheating in those spots. A heat diffuser is a metal disk which will heat evenly to make sure that the pot doesn't have hot spots.
A bigger pot is absolutely possible.
I used to make paneer from 4.5 litres of milk in a 5l (actually about 5.2l) stock pot. Even the thermal expansion made it precarious. So I bought a bigger pan, 8 or 10l.
But you still have to keep an eye on it, unless you actually plan to boil it down, which is rare, and when then you'll want to reduce the heat significantly when you get near boiling point.
I can understand that you'll try to get other things done while it's coming to the boil - it's not quick. I found a thermometer helped, in that I could get a rough idea of how fast it was heating, and set a timer. For example measure how long it takes to get from fridge cold (e.g. 5°C) to about 15°C, and multiply up to get to the time it will take to reach about 80°C. Set a kitchen timer or use your phone to give you a reminder. This assumes a constant heating rate. In fact once it's well above room temperature the pan will lose heat to the room and heat more slowly, which gives you a built-in margin for error.
I remember in 1955 my mom had a device that looked like a big enameled upside down funnel. The funnel was placed up side down in the pan, then milk put in about half full. When start of boil the hotter milk inside the funnel would bubble out of the tip. Soon at full boil, as the milk cooled by cooler air once out of the spout. I think my mom came up with that, the funnel was not a match to anything, and I've not seen one since.
enamel pot - no stirring required.
milk from a farmer - boils and boils
Use milk from a farmer. It might taste weird after years of drinking milk from a box, but my family buys milk from farmers and it boils so easily. First you put it in the fridge for a few hours to settle, then get the cream off the surface. If there's no cream then look for a better farmer who doesn't process the milk before selling :)
When you boil this kind of milk in a good old enamel pot you don't have to stir anything and it boils instead of running away :)
I once forgot about my milk and came back a few minutes after it started boiling. Still everything was ok.
Put cream in the milk. This prevents the milk from sticking. Put a wooden spoon in the milk pot; this will break the foam and prevent boiling over. Use medium heat.
If you have one of the new electric pressure-multicookers, see if yours has a "yogurt" option, my IP Duo has it. Even if you don't intend to make yogurt, the first step includes boiling the milk, and the IP has a setting to do just that, unattended and with absolutely no spillage, and no burning on the bottom. Not even a skin forms on top. And of course, it turns itself off when it is ready. You could leave the kitchen or even go out shopping, and when you come back home, you will have hot, boiled milk.
One new option came on market. No need to keep watch on Milk, Tea etc:
http://www.abaxoenterprises.com/home.html
Just put on vessel and it remind you when it is ready.
Requires an 18 gauge flat steel plate?! Wouldn't an upturned steel pot lid do the trick? They are generally slightly curved. How flat does the steel plate have to be?
If the plate is required, they ought to sell it with the alarm. Who has an 18 gauge steel plate laying around?
@Jolenealaska : members of the Society for Creative Anacronisms. Unfortunately, it's in the shape of plate mail. (but not helms, those need to be at least 16ga).
You can boil milk unattended. Just keep it in low flame and then use a big spoon or stirrer and keep it over the vessel (like a divider). Milk will never overflow.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.332322
| 2010-08-15T00:03:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5207",
"authors": [
"Chris Cudmore",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"Hank",
"Harry Foreman",
"Ibis M",
"Iuls",
"J86",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kathy Dover",
"Kogitsune",
"Kristen Brady",
"Luke",
"Michele De Pascalis",
"Mike Graf",
"Mike Hamer",
"Mounika",
"Mr Lister",
"Ocaasi",
"Rick Donohoe",
"Robin Betts",
"Sam",
"Stephie",
"dougal 5.0.0",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"iesha",
"joyjit",
"munish",
"rackandboneman",
"rdavb",
"user15268"
],
"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
}
|
23446
|
What is club soda and how do I make it?
After many searches on the Google, I still can't find out how to make club soda. So, I have to ask the question - what is club soda exactly?
I bought a iSi Soda Siphon and have figured out how to make carbonated water (finally).
Now what do I have to do to make club soda? How about seltzer?
Seltzer and carbonated water are the same thing. Club soda is slightly different. "Seltzer" comes from German:
The term seltzer water is a genericized trademark that derives from
the German town Selters, which is renowned for its mineral springs.
Naturally carbonated water has been commercially bottled and shipped
from this town since the 18th century or earlier. Generally, seltzer
water has no added sodium salts, while club soda still retains the
sodium salts.
So, the primary difference is that seltzer has no added ingredients, but club soda does:
Sodium bicarbonate, sodium chloride, sodium phosphate and sodium
citrate are added to club soda…
Here's a decent review of the ingredients list and taste of various types of fizzy water.
So to answer your question directly, you can make seltzer just by carbonating regular tap water, and you can make club soda by adding potassium bicarbonate, potassium sulfate, or baking soda to water and carbonating it.
Nice work. That was very helpful.
2tsps of baking soda for 1 liter of tap water better if filtered.
1 liter =1.05 quart
Add squirt of lemon to help make the medicine go down
Good luck
What about the carbonation?
I carbonate both 33 oz and 20 oz bottles of water (the sizes of the bottles I bought club soda in at the Giant). I add a 1/16th of a teaspoon of potassium citrate powder and 1/32nd of a teaspoon of potassium bicarbonate to both sizes...just a little lighter on the citrate for the 20 oz. I carbonate the bottles for 45 seconds with a five pound CO2 cylinder.
I personally think that club soda and sparkling water are similar but not the same. You can make club soda by mixing baking soda and tap water together.
This answer could be better by adding proportions. Welcome to Seasoned Advice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.333374
| 2012-04-29T01:13:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23446",
"authors": [
"Adam Cox",
"Annie",
"Ashlea Ditterline",
"Cascabel",
"Claudia Currie",
"Eric",
"Erin Foster",
"Hugh",
"L Smith32",
"Leanna Krehbiel",
"NKY Homesteading",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159025",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8489",
"mikebmassey"
],
"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
}
|
68441
|
Should I throw away a jar of olives that fizzed and bubbled upon opening?
Like the title says, I opened a jar of locally produced olives and it started to bubble like seltzer. Is it unsafe to eat?
Note I made a minor change so that the main question in the title and the main question in the body will both be the same answer. Initially the answer in the title is yes while the answer in the body would be no. I wanted to eliminate that confusion.
Can you contact the people who produced them and ask if it's normal behavior? That's probably the easy way to find out and they're more likely to be correct... plus, if it's not normal, they'll likely offer you a replacement jar!
Short answer:
Yes, throw it away.
Long answer:
Bubbling, fizzing, pressure etc. indicates some kind of microbiological activity that is unwanted for properly canned food - canning should eliminate these organisms. Any behaviour like the one you described indicates that something went wrong, so you can not assume the contents of the jar or can to be safe.
But what about certain canned items such as Kim-chi? Store bought Kim-chi always bubbles/fizzes when I open the jar for the first time.
Well, the short answer is that kimchee is fermented, so that's normal. olives are pickled, which is a different thing. Olives shouldn't fizz and bubble!
Yeah, this answer is incomplete in not mentioning that bubbling is completely normal for fermented foods. And, lots of varieties of olives ARE traditionally fermented, not just pickled. Since the OP says they're locally produced (and presumably not mass-produced), it's entirely possible that the producer uses a traditional method of preparing them, and thus they are fermented. Still, without knowing for sure, I wouldn't take the chance.
In my experience, pickling can refer to any of several preservation processes that involve vinegar or a similar acid (either as an additive or as a byproduct of fermentation). For example, pickled cucumbers are sometimes fermented and sometimes not, but are always called pickles.
Not necessarily. It depends of whether it is expected or not. Some curing methods result in this. I was offered such olives once. They were kept in a big pressured plastic soda bottle.
They were delicious, I ate all of them and I was perfectly fine.
The person who gave them to me rightfully warned me to unscrew the cap slowly and vent the pressure gradually.
However I would be surprised to see any commercial (supermarket) products prepared in this manner.
You say locally produced, so your best bet is to ask the producer.
My family has preserved olives for years. Yes, perfectly good olives fizz. We preserved ours with salt and a small amount of vinegar, then filled the quart jar with water, covered the olives and allowed to rest for months. This causes fermentation and the olives will fizz. I have also had this happen with green olives I preserved in a brine (no vinegar), and this causes olives to fizz as green olives are also acidic. They are delicious and perfectly edible. Locally preserved olives are most likely fermented, but to be safe check with the producer.
Yes, the olives should be thrown out. They might look good and smell good but taste bad.
I neglected to mention on your other answer: please be sure to write clearly and be respectful. Another kind user has helped you out with that, but your answers will be better received if you do it yourself!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.333627
| 2016-04-21T17:05:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68441",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Elezar",
"Era",
"Jay",
"Programmer",
"franko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25971
|
What is the difference in flavor between a fermented pickle and a vinegar pickle?
I'm interested in experimenting with pickling, and I'm wondering what the difference in flavor is between a classically fermented pickle and one made using vinegar. I've search online, but can't find a clear description. Many people seem to prefer fermented, but no one ever says why. I know these thing are hard to put into words, but can anyone give it a go? I guess I wondering if its worth the extra effort to go the fermented route.
Perhaps it is because lactic acid does not have the strong taste and odor of vinegar, and other byproducts of fermentation make the overall flavor richer and more pleasant.
that's basically it. the other byproducts include free glutamates, msg-type yummy
I've been fermenting for quite a while (everything from sauerkraut and kimchi to Indian-spiced grated carrots and kohlrabi spears with dill), and my two cents is that the flavor of fermented pickles is vastly (vastly!) superior to that of vinegar pickles. Fermented pickles are indeed fruitier and more complex. When I have the first taste of something I've just fermented for the first time, I'm almost always surprised and pleased to the point of involuntary smiling and "mmm"-ing. It's just pure joy.
Most importantly for me, fermented vegetables taste more like vegetables than those pickled in vinegar. With vinegar pickles, I now find the vinegar totally overpowering, even just when opening the jar. I feel like I'm eating processed food. Fermented vegetables taste closer to fresh.
Another fun thing is that fermented pickles continue to mature with time. I usually keep my ferments at room temperature for one to two weeks, then move them to the fridge. The cold slows the fermentation way, way down, but it doesn't stop it completely. If you make 5 pounds of sauerkraut and consume it slowly over, say, two months, you can bet that your last serving of it will taste quite different from your first. But it's always good.
It is absolutely worth the extra effort to go the fermented route. It's an adventure in deliciousness. Here's a site with some great recipe ideas: http://www.picklemetoo.com/recipes/.
Pickled vegetables using vinegar brine contain vinegar as a main acid. It is somewhat sharper than the mixture of different acids produced by the fermentation method. Here you have vinegar, lactic acid and other chemical byproducts of happy life of your culture including a little amount of alcohol (though this process is done with air access, unlike making alcohol, where there must be no oxygen present, or your alcohol making turns into vinegar production).
1. vinegar brine method:
Vinegar is the main acid. The taste is sharper compared to fermented pickles thanks to acetic acid which is present in most white vinegars.It differs depending on the recipe and amount of salt, sugar water and spices. It is the more stable way to preserve and gives more reliable results with little expertise. Results vary mainly season to season from the vegetables' quality (flavours and texture) You can use different types of vinegars from different processes (apple cider vinegar, wine vinegar) and shift the flavour of your results. It's a very tasty way of preserving vegetables. There is some loss of vitamins due to heating, but your product lasts longer.
2. fermentation method:
The process requires better knowledge of precautions, methods, and combination of ingredients. The flavour is more fruity due to the combination of more different acids and a little alcohol and other products of the culture. It's less sharp, and also depends on the length of process, temperatures, and qualities of the ingredients. So generally this process is more "colorful" in result and more unpredictable. To get reliable results you have to master the process. Imagine it like master wine makers. This method preserves vitamins, but products are best kept in the fridge or cellar and the shelf life is shorter and depends on for how long your mix will stay alive. Otherwise you would have to sterilize it in later stages and destroy vitamins.
In summary: Flavour is different, because different chemicals are present. Vinegar pickles have vinegar; fermented pickles have vinegar and other flavours.
Thanks for the detailed answer. I went ahead and edited it for grammar, but also to remove the health claims - we're really about food and cooking here, so talking about whether something is "healthy" is off topic and we avoid it.
Thank you helping cleaning it. And making points about "healthy", I totally agree.
Fermentation, as a side effect, alters proteins releasing free glutamates: umami.
Monosodium glutamate (MSG) [...] is naturally occurring at high levels in some foods. The enantiomeric composition of free glutamate was examined. Foods to which MSG was added had a high total level of MSG but a lower relative percentage of the D-enantiomer (usually less than 0.8%). In comparison, fermented foods tend to have high relative levels of D-glutamate but a lower total amount of the amino acid. The relative percent of D-glutamate in nonfermented foods containing no added MSG was also found to be low compared to fermented foods.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7915127
Same as before: could you add details or sources, please?
Monosodium glutamate (MSG) is naturally occurring at high levels in some foods. The enantiomeric composition of free glutamate was examined. Foods to which MSG was added had a high total level of MSG but a lower relative percentage of the D-enantiomer (usually less than 0.8%). In comparison, fermented foods tend to have high relative levels of D-glutamate but a lower total amount of the amino acid. The relative percent of D-glutamate in nonfermented foods containing no added MSG was also found to be low compared to fermented foods. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7915127
Just tried them today, I dunno what these people are talking about but they are not pleasant off the bat.
The ones I got contained no sugar so had a slight acid (really mild compared to vinegar) and salty flavour, I mean I dunno what I expected since cucumbers don't have much flavour ether.
I always had this idea of pickle juice in my mind and burgers when I think of pickles, vinegar is the way to go for this type of experience, much better flavour.
It does pair well with some smoked vegan cheese, I could see me getting used to the flavour but it does not have anything drawing me back for more.
Another vote for lacto-fermented over vinegar! To me ferments have more complexity, especially in that lingering aftertaste. But I would say that since the lactobacillus is technically digesting the food before you do, the textures can be less crunchy which is an issue for some.
I've read if you use more salt, they'll be crunchier. My lacto-fermented pickles have been plenty crunchy (probably because of salt).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.333990
| 2012-09-03T20:27:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25971",
"authors": [
"Becky Ward",
"Brōtsyorfuzthrāx",
"Cascabel",
"Mischa Arefiev",
"Neerali Acharya",
"Pat Sommer",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8486",
"nghĩa Dương Văn",
"skriatok"
],
"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
}
|
23800
|
Should I delay adding barley when making vegetable barley soup?
When adding barley to a soup (usually with some combination of vegetables), should I add the barley later than the rest of the ingredients?
using pearl barley?
It depends on how long the soup cooks for and whether you soak the barley or not. If the soup is going to cook for a couple of hours, you can just add unsoaked barley with everything else. Or you can soak the barley and add it towards the end of cooking.
If the soup is going to be cooked relatively quickly, you should soak the barley and add it with everything else. Soaked barley (soaked for a couple of hours) needs to be cooked for about 30 minutes.
It also depends on how soft you like the barley to be. Some people like it to near-disintegrate, some prefer it a little al dente.
It also depends on whether you are using pearl barley which cooks a lot quicker than the version that still has its bran (it's called pot barley here in Ireland).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.334491
| 2012-05-17T08:30:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23800",
"authors": [
"Kirk O'neill",
"Nikki A",
"Pat Sommer",
"Ruth",
"Shyam",
"Stefano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53993",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53999",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"sethmlarson"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22215
|
Which method of preparation would produce a more tender and juicier steak, grilling or broiling?
I do not have an outdoor grill but would like to make steak. I just bought a grill pan, and I have an electric oven with a broiler setting. Between these two methods which would produce the more tender and juicier steak if I have an already tender steak like Filet Mignon?
Since people's taste is highly subjective and 'best' is a bit vague, you might want to lay out the particular characteristics of the end product you are looking to attain. Otherwise, this question is a bit open-ended.
As @mfg says - "best" for what? We don't know from the question text. There are many different cuts - what do you mean by "tender type"? This is far too vague as is, needs clarification to be reopened. It also seems to cover very similar ground as How do you properly cook a steak? and How do you cook a steak like those found in fine steakhouses?
@Aaronut, While I would agree that this question could be better worded a 'good question' is asked all the same. I also see this as clearly different from the two questions you present as similar (and they are similar, but not 'the same'). The difference in OP's question is he is trying to discern the 'best' (ok, sure that can be subjective...) technique given his limited tools (electric oven and 'grill' pan) A full range of available answers presented in both of the other questions are excluded by context.
@CosCallis: Of the 3 answers so far, one is somebody's "favourite way" and the other refers to a completely different method that is neither grilling nor broiling - neither actually answers the question. Clearly this isn't inspiring good answers. You made some good points in your answer, but a lot of it is speculation that wasn't inherent to the question. The word "best" here is next to meaningless, and there's really no other substance to make it work. This is really just inviting people's opinions.
If by 'grill pan' you mean something heavy (cast iron) like:
OR
then it would be your choice as to whether you want to heat them
on top of your stove or under your broiler. If your 'grill pan' is less heavy duty (say aluminum) then it is unlikely to be capable of with standing the heat required to 'best' cook a steak. When the weather here does not favor outdoor grilling I get great results out of placing my cast iron griddle/grill (similar to the second picture) inside of a half-sheet pan and under the broiler to preheat. Once the iron reaches 500F I will add the steak for about 3 minutes per side (for a med-rare) I would also suggest wiping the iron with a little oil first.
You can also slow-fry steak on your cooktop. This requires quite a bit less heat, but takes rather longer.
I use butter to fry it in and try to keep the heat just below where it will burn the butter (about half on my cheap electric cooktop). The meat probably gets turned a few times more than what most cooks recommend. It's fairly well done when the meat's juices pooling on the top are starting to go clear.
Whilst I would agree with @MFG that "best" is a bit subjective, I think "best" and "steak" precludes the use of the term 'Well Done"
I suspect the term 'well done' might be subjective, too. I simply don't like my meat at all red; I find it too tough to eat.
Too much Roo on your Barbie mate ;) With quality beef the red is nice and tender. Same holds true for lamb chops...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.334617
| 2012-03-12T02:50:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22215",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ballsweat",
"Brennan",
"Cos Callis",
"Eden",
"Katya S",
"Nik",
"Pragya",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49780",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"kevin martin",
"mfg",
"niko",
"staticsan"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23204
|
How to make whole bean blonde Starbucks without machine
So I just got Starbucks' Blonde Willow Blend (Whole Bean) and I am very excited to make it, but the problem is I have never done it before and I cannot find any online tutorial for beginners. I also don't have a coffee machine.
I will condense my questions:
Do I need to roast the beans? If so, how? Will a pan on the stove do?
How can I grind the coffee beans without a coffee grinder? Can a regular grinder work and how fine does it have to be(perhaps how long in seconds)?
Is it made into cold or hot coffee? If cold then how much ice? Can I make it in a regular mixer?
Does it include milk? If so, how much milk?
Can I brew the coffee in a regular pan on fire?
I really want to do it correctly but I can't figure out how. If you can help, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks! And I apologize if my questions don't make sense because I am completely new to coffee making.
Those beans do not need to be roasted.
@JacobG oh they don't? So i can directly grind them?
If you have a grinder and don't have a coffee pot, here's what I would do (I'm assuming you don't also have a coffee filter):
Step 1 - Grind the beans. If you have a grinder, grind your beans until you have a medium grind:
Step 2 - Punch a couple of holes into the bottom of a disposable, hot-beverage cup (or a tin can)
Step 3 - Line inside of cup or can from #2 with a handkerchief. Secure edges of handkerchief around lip of cup with binder clips or a rubberband.
Step 4 - Place grounds into cup. 2-3 tablespoons should be enough.
Step 5 - Place cup over top of empty mug (so coffee can flow into it)
Step 6 - Pour water (very slowly and over all the grounds) that is 5 minutes off the boil over coffee grounds.
You can view a similar tutorial here.
Hmmm I guess I'll rescind my comment. I like my coffee strong lol. I just googled and it sounds right for "regular" coffee.
For those countries that like salt in their coffee, no need for a clean handkerchief.
Thanks for a very through and informative answer. This is exactly what i was looking for. This solves my problem! Thanks a ton! D
@Jacob G Just one more question.. is there any way to make it cold?
@Achshar - The easiest way to make it cold is to brew it hot and pour it over ice. There are methods for brewing coffee with cold water, but I can't speak to them as I've never done them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.335188
| 2012-04-19T12:32:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23204",
"authors": [
"Achshar",
"Bob",
"Faraday",
"Goldwyn Yap",
"Jacob G",
"Jay",
"Lori Barron",
"Marlene Litton",
"Tracy Sharp",
"dan Emge",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9980",
"jontyc"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35304
|
What are the difference between outside and inside skirt steak?
Skirt steak comes in two cuts: outside and inside. While I am sure the difference in cut affects how the meat should be prepared and cooked I am not sure in what ways. A few things I've read about the outside skirt reference the need to trim the membrane, but I'm not sure what the posts are referring to. Leading to my questions about the cuts:
What are the differences between the inside and outside skirt steak cuts?
How do these differences affect preparation and cooking?
When should one cut be chosen over the other? Are the two cuts interchangeable in most recipes?
Per Kenji Alt's Food Lab article on fajitas:
[T]here are really two distinct cuts from the diaphragm of the steer.
The outside skirt steak is from the plate section, below the rib and
between the brisket and flank, and usually comes with the membrane
still attached, which needs to be trimmed before cooking.
Inside skirt comes from the flank—it's narrower and thinner than the
outside skirt, and comes with the membrane removed.
According to the Houston Press, outside skirt stake is extremely rare in the US, as much of it gets exported to Japan due to a quick in the tariffs. The outside cut is tougher, but extremely flavorful. Both are used in similar applications, if you can get them.
Given that any skirt you buy is probably inside skirt, the difference is likely to be moot. In making fajitas, Kenji Alt recommends grilling it over extremely high heat, to get browning flavors on the outside, and not overcook the center. He recommends not cooking it over medium rare.
A couple of pictures:
Actually, Kenji recommends not cooking it to "anything shy of medium-rare". He is correct and I would add that even medium-rare is too cool for skirt steak. It can take up to medium-well and still retain a moist & tender texture.
The inside or inner skirts are much tougher, cheaper & wider than outside or outer skirts!!
Whoever says the opposite is true is confused. You can drive a truck over inside skirts and they'll still be tough.
Every high end restaurant and steakhouse (Gibson's steakhouse in Chicago for example) uses outside skirts because they are more tender. Much more expensive than inner skirts for this reason and because many are exported by packers to the far east.
121D 4 Plate, Inside Skirt 411.15
121C 4 Plate, Outside Skirt (IM) 638.42
121E 6 Outside Skirt, peeled (IM) 943.69
Above are current box beef prices from packers - on Sept. 4, 2015. Notice the difference in price between whole (not portioned) inside & outside skirts.
Having been a meat cutter for 40 some odd years ALWAYS buy outside skirt steak inside is only tender if ground for burgers! Outide currently (2017) at Public is $11 a lb, but still a family favorite!
Outer skirt is much harder to find, and much of what's left in the US is sold to restaurant vendors, in particular, Hispanic restaurants that offer carne asada dishes. If you are able to grab it, it should be treated in the same way as inner, but has a much higher fat content. Outer would be the ribeye, inner would be a sirloin. I'm sure you can make your mind up from there.
They are similar in appearance, but have different tastes. In addition to the previous comment, I would like to add that tha outside skirt is a bit chewer, and fattier, than the inside. The inside skirt is pricier, but in my opinion, well worth the price difference. I can get outside skirt about $6 a pound, whereas inside is usually close to $10. You can cook them the same way. The best result I've experienced, is barbecued with only sea salt as a condiment. Once cooked, you are encouraged to put chimichurri sauce on it for added flavor. In my opinion, inside skirt is as, if not better, tasting that even filet mignon!
I buy outside skirt steaks for my restaurant and they are more flavorful, tender and expensive. They are more forgiving than inside skirts. If you over cook an inside skirt more than med rare it is leather. I have yet to find outside Skirt steaks in grocery stores. As of 6/29/15 21-28 day aged choice certified angus beef outside skirts are going for around $10.25lb cleaned and peeled
I have eaten skirt steak for over 80 years and the outside skirt steak is the best and the most expensive. You can buy it in high end grocery stores. When I was a child my mother soaked it in egg for a time, dipped it in bread crumbs and fryed it in bacon grease. I still make it this way. You can now buy organic skirt steak and in my area this is over
$20 a pound. You can sometimes pick up inside skirt steak that is of course cheaper but it should be as narrow as you can find as this seems to taste better
the inside skirt needs a stronger marinate because it taste more like the insides (liver, kidney, etc). it is cheaper.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.335545
| 2013-07-14T22:13:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35304",
"authors": [
"Colleen Gala",
"Colleen Grentz",
"Emma Blanco",
"Keith Payne",
"Lorraine Bryan",
"Mrs J Spooner",
"Peco Nogueira",
"Silvia Shueb",
"Verna Bezuidenhout",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145844",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/145850",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24298",
"mohansih23"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29680
|
Should I keep the meat boiled off of bones when making beef broth?
I am making a simple beef stock from the leftover bones from a New York cut roast beef. Beyond adding a mirepoix and boiling the bones for three hours I'm not doing anything special. When I make stock I typically throw out the leftover meat and vegetables, but do I have to throwout the leftover beef? Aside from the beef I have boiled off the bones I do not have a lot of leftover meat and do not want to potentially waste what could be useable meat.
Taste the meat and if it still seems edible to you then there is no reason to throw it out.
When I make stock, I keep it on a simmer for much longer than three hours and any meat is completely tasteless by the time I'm done. Three hours, however, is about how long you would cook meat to make a stew, so it's quite possible that you could eat it.
On the other hand, not all cuts of meat stew well and I'm not familiar with this cut. If the meat has plenty of connective tissues (i.e. collagen) to gelatinise it shouldn't dry out too much. But the proof is in the pudding: taste it.
Yoi were right. I tasted the meat, not a lot of flavor.
@ahsteele The point, of course, of putting bones (and meat and veg) in a stock is to transfer flavour to the liquid. The same happens when you make a stew, except then you consume the liquid together with whatever was cooked in it which makes up, to some extent, for any dryness and loss of flavour from stewing. I've never done it, but Sobachatina's answer suggests that you can salvage the meat from your stock and use it in dishes that already have a flavourful sauce. If you try this and it works for you, don't feel bad about re-awarding the answer :-)
I never throw it out. There are plenty of applications for mostly-tasteless meat shreds.
I mostly make chicken stock but I will use the meat shreds in soup, pot pie, casseroles, etc.
With a strongly-flavored sauce, you won't mind the meat not having much flavor. The protein value of the meat is still intact, so it is worth using it up to stretch the family food budget. Curries are a good use for soup meat, and as Sobachatina said, pot pie. I make a thick onion gravy as a pot pie base and that makes even the most tasteless soup meat go down very nicely. Enchiladas are a favorite use in our house for leftover meat from broth-making.
Here is a simple enchilada sauce you can make with ingredients from your pantry that is way better than canned sauce:
Put 1/4 cup of paprika, 1 tablespoon cumin and 1 teaspoon ground
cayenne in enough fat or oil to make a paste at the bottom of a
smallish pot (about 3 tablespoons fat).
It will be kind of stiff and crumbly. Us a whisk or spatula to
move it around a bit.
Cook it slowly on low heat until the spices begin to change color
and give off fragrance.
Add a jar of tomato puree or roasted garlic tomato sauce.
Correct for salt and consistency, adding water to thin if needed.
If the tomato sauce was chunky, use a stick blender to puree the
sauce.
Mix half the sauce with your leftover meat. Use 1/4 of the remaining sauce to wet the bottom of a casserole dish. Fill or layer warmed corn tortillas with the meat/sauce mix and use the last of the sauce to top the enchiladas. sprinkle grated cheese if desired. Warm in a 350* oven until the enchiladas are fragrant and just starting to color on top.
I don't use meaty bones for my bone broth, but divvy up the pot this way: I get the broth, the dog gets any meat shreads, and the compost pile gets the veggies.
Reminder - don't give your dog cooked bones! Bones splinter once cooked - they only get raw.
Nothing goes to waste in this house. All meat, poultry, etc is saved once the bones are removed and is mixed in with dog kibble for a great treat and a healthy treat for our dogs. No added salt which is deadly for pets is a bonus.
Reference for added salt being deadly to domestic pets?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.335954
| 2013-01-03T05:50:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29680",
"authors": [
"Bojan Hrnkas",
"Chefjannes",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Filippa",
"Ian",
"Jim",
"Joe Maisto",
"Jonathan Gwynne",
"Nat Bowman",
"Sue Benskin",
"ahsteele",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69065",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81913",
"user69056"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35641
|
Substitute for whipped topping?
I know that when a recipe calls for "whipped topping" it's code for Cool Whip. I am not a fan of Cool Whip, but want to make a recipe which calls for it. Is there a substitute that I can make or purchase that isn't totally artificial?
Trying to substitute Cool Whip in this recipe:
Banana-Berry Frozen Yogurt Bars
10-½ Honey Maid Honey Graham's, broken into quarters (42 rectangles)
½ cup sliced fresh strawberries
½ cup chopped bananas
¼ cup blueberries
1 cup vanilla nonfat Greek-style yogurt
1 cup thawed frozen reduced-fat whipped topping
Line 9-inch square pan with foil, with ends of foil extending over sides. Arrange half the graham pieces, in 3 rows of 7 pieces each, on bottom of pan.
Pulse fruits in blender just until blended. (Some chunks should remain.) Spoon fruit into medium bowl; stir in yogurt and whipped topping. Spread over graham pieces in pan; top with remaining graham pieces, aligning over graham pieces on bottom layer.
Freeze 4 hours. Use foil handles to lift dessert from pan; cut between grahams into 21 bars. Let stand 5 minutes before serving.
Could you please post the recipe, or a link to it? It's a lot easier to tell what kind of substitutes will work with a recipe.
@Jefromi added the recipe as requested.
You could whip your own cream. Use 1/3 of the amount of heavy cream as cool whip, and whip with a splash of vanilla extract and a pinch of sugar to taste, either by hand or with a mixer. If a recipe calls for 1 cup of "whipped topping", you would start with 1/3 cup of heavy cream which whips up to 1 cup.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.336318
| 2013-07-28T14:55:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35641",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Radu Stefan Popescu",
"Ruban",
"Shirley",
"TroySteven",
"WendyN",
"ahsteele",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83475"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
2901
|
How should I clean my propane grill?
My propane grill needs to be cleaned, how should I go about doing so?
When the grill has cooled completely (after dinner):
I take some kitchen paper or some newspaper and clean off as much as possible.
I use a wire brush with a scraper to brush the grill, and scrape off any bits that are stuck on.
I DO NOT re-oil, and the grill stays nice and greasy for the next usage.
Before the snow of winter rolls around, I take it all apart, clean the plates with a BBQ cleaning foam and water, and the cover that goes over the burners gets a good scraping, then I wash and clean the frame. This way, the grill will last years of good use.
scraping a cold grill is a waste of time.
The method I use is to leave on high for a few minutes to burn off the worst of the food residue.
Then I scrub it with a wire grill brush and , while still warm, I then re-oil with cooking oil.
There are proprietary products you can use and I've seen people using oven cleaner but I steer well away from those!
Also, any grease inside might combust during this process so stay close by and have a halon fire extinguisher handy in case it gets out of hand. But of course you should have the grill well away from everything else anyway...
@galactic cowboy: Heh, I had this happen to me at a grill at a rental place recently...There was a fricking LAKE of grease in the bottom of the thing...Burned for a good 15 minutes. But if you make a habit of preheating it this way every time you cook, then you tend not to have big flareups, and your cook surface stays nice and clean.
Here's my method.
Don't clean the grill from the previous cooking, just turn it off and leave it.
Next time you're grilling, turn the heat up to high until the grill smokes.
Dip a grill brush in a bowl of water and run it along the metal. It will steam clean the surfaces.
Before adding food, take an oiled paper towel and place it on the grill, using the grill brush to grease the grate. I do this twice, since the first run usually picks up a lot of residual char.
Grill away.
One benefit of this method is that you don't have to clean up afterward, and you take advantage of the heating-up of the grill that has to happen anyway, rather than keeping the grill on extra afterwards.
It depends in the quality of the grill and what parts you are looking to clean. I always take the grill grates, and the peices that go over the burners and power wash them. they are both high quality, and can take teh beating. The other internal parts I wipe down with rags and burn it off.
I bought a plastic box with lid, (suitable for under the bed), and I put the grills and plates of my BBQ in it with a large pitcher of cold tap water and some "degreaser" dish soap. I then boil a tea kettle of tap water and pour over the top of the cold water and everything in the box (so as not to melt my plastic box) and put the lid on so it will stay hot. in half and hour to 45 minutes everything comes right off with the BBQ wire brush and the stainless steel scrubbie. Wipe down the inside of the BBQ and put foil on the bottom and put back together. Wish there was an easier way, but it's the cleanest way for me.
As many have said, I like to turn the grill on high, close it, and let it burn off the bulk of the residue; then I use a grill brush to scrub all of the remaining residue and char off; after that I wipe down the grill with oil (usually olive oil).
Like you'd cook any other metal surface you cook on. You can use the grill to cook off some kinds of debris. You can scrape with a metal scrubby. You can buy abrasive pads and metal brushes. You can buy spray grill cleaner, but be sure to clean that off really well before cooking on it.
Agree with the above and add that I've even used a crumbled piece of foil.
Since there is only my husband and myself, there isn't much meat and/or veggies. But, after each use and once we have eaten the grill is cool enough once the dishes from the meal are washed (by hand) I then take both the grill and the burner cover into the kitchen and wash. When I see a lot of debris is sitting on the bottom I then clean it up with paper towels and discard. The grill is easy to clean with this method and we don't have to worry about eating charred whatever.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.336501
| 2010-07-22T23:38:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2901",
"authors": [
"GalacticCowboy",
"JNK",
"Luke Watson",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Spammer",
"avpaderno",
"dotjoe",
"eladmi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99731",
"iterationx",
"josh",
"user unknown"
],
"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
}
|
20102
|
How to adjust an oven to accommodate two items with different cook times and temperatures?
For dinner this evening we are cooking a roast beef and intend to serve a baked brie appetizer. Unfortunately, we only have one oven. To reach medium rare the roast needs 3 hours at 325° while the brie needs to be cooked at 400° for 20 minutes.
Is there a way to cook both of these items in the oven at the same time? Is it a matter of adjusting the length of time the brie needs to be in the oven?
Is the Brie in puff pastry?
yes it is in puff pastry
I would cook the Brie at that same temperature for 30-35 minutes and it should be okay.
Alternatively, you could cook the roast fully, remove it from the oven, tent it with foil and then cook the Brie. The meat can rest while the Brie is cooking and being eaten. Prior to slicing the roast, heat up the pan drippings to a sizzling temp and baste to ensure a crispy crust. But if the appetizer course happens to last for 20-30 minutes, then the roast will have been resting for 40-50 minutes and could lose too much internal heat.
Went with your first suggestion and things worked out perfectly!
Great to hear! Glad I could help.
@Jacob G is on the right track. It is better to roast your beef at a lower temperature for a longer time. Rather that relying on roasting for a fixed time and temperature you should go for an internal temperature of 122°F (Med Rare). If you reduce the oven temperature for the roast to below 300°F you will find that the internal temperature will not increase significantly during the resting period.
Testing has shown that when you roast beef at below 300°F it will only increase in internal temperature by 2-4°F during the resting period. If you roast meats at temperatures in excess of 300°F the internal temp will rise by 14-20°F during the resting period. This will cause a Medium Rare Roast to become shoe leather during the resting period.
By relying on lower temperatures and target internal temperatures you will be able to rest your roast and bake your brie during the rest period.
The testing referred to is on pp 408-9 of the "The New Best Recipe" book. A great book for anyone.
use the following formula to compute:
time of one item * the temperature of that item = the "degree-minutes" for that item.
divide that large number by the other temperature to get the time for the other item.
The main problem with this answer is that it is completely false.
@dennis that's a really interesting formula, is that based on anything in-particular?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.336903
| 2011-12-31T21:17:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20102",
"authors": [
"Jacob G",
"JavaLatte",
"Kieron",
"Ludovic C",
"Paul",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"ahsteele",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43943",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8499",
"khp",
"yang"
],
"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
}
|
25054
|
Do I need to baste an injected turkey?
This evening I intend to grill a 3 pound turkey breast over indirect heat. I've brined the turkey and am intending to inject it with a butter injection concoction. Does a brined and injected turkey breast need to be basted?
I generally find that basting while grilling is less about keeping the internal meat moist and more about preventing outside from scorching. If you've brined and injected the turkey breast, I'd say you are fine as long as the exterior isn't browning too quickly.
I agree with Jalbee, if the exterior is browning too quickly, you can lower the heat and cover the turkey with aluminium foil instead of basting.
A turkey breast of that size will cook fairly quickly. With a brine and injection, there is no need to baste it. Even without brining and injecting, I would still question the need.
However, you might want to brush it with butter near the end of cooking, when you're about 5-10f from your target temperature, as you may end up wanting more browning.
+1 Great idea on brushing it with butter towards the end of cooking for incrased browning!
Do it on an as-needed basis. You may or may not be happy with how it looks toward the end of cooking, so a little butter can fix that if necessary.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.337164
| 2012-07-15T19:14:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25054",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Downhillski",
"KirbySmasher48 48",
"Sean Hart",
"Views2",
"Vincent Fontanella",
"ahsteele",
"frederick herring",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/809"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27962
|
Why might a cake collapse after cooking
I have successfuly made a Lemon Drizzle cake (recipe at end) several times, but the last 3 attempts have all collapsed in the middle to some extent.
One of the attempts collapsed in such a way it almost ended up like a ring, with a 6 cm chasm in the middle.
The ingredients and techniques have mostly been consistent
mixer: kitchen aid
oven: Aga
fat: originally used butter, 2 of the failed cakes used soft margarine. The last used butter. Uncertain whether any of the butter was salted.
flour. last techniques have used a new brand of Self Raising flour
Ingredients
225g unsalted butter , softened
225g caster sugar
4 eggs
finely grated zest 1 lemon
225g self raising flour
topping (although it collapses before this)
juice 11⁄2 lemon
85g caster sugar
Recipe
Beat together the butter and sugar until pale and creamy, then add the eggs, one at a time, slowly mixing through. Sift in the flour, then add the lemon zest and mix until well combined. Line a loaf tin (8 x 21cm) with greaseproof paper, then spoon in the mixture and level the top.
Bake @ 180 c for 45-50 mins until a thin skewer inserted into the centre of the cake comes out clean. While the cake is cooling in its tin, mix together the lemon juice and sugar to make the drizzle. Prick the warm cake all over with a skewer or fork, then pour over the drizzle - the juice will sink in and the sugar will form a lovely, crisp topping. Leave in the tin until completely cool, then serve.
Note it collapses while cooling in its tin and isn't directly related to pricking the cake.
This sounds like a bad combining technique, especially if it was a pound cake. Does the recipe prescribe creaming the butter and sugar, or foaming the eggs and sugar? Also, do you happen to know how much leavening agent your self-rising flour contains? Too much baking powder is a common culprit in falling cakes.
Ah, interesting. It is a new brand of Self Raising flour. Is there a fix ?
Mixing should be OK. Same Kitchen Aid used throughout,
The mixer is probably not your culprit. I was asking what steps you follow in mixing the batter, for example if you are making a pound cake, you shouldn't foam the eggs.
Added steps to questions. Eggs aren't foamed. Mixed into butter/sugar mix fairly slowly.
No, it isn't connected to pricking. What you observe (most probably) is that for some reason your cake is rising to more than the flour's ability to hold the rise, then falling again when the warm gas (which has kept it risen) cools again. This is common in souffles but shouldn't be the case in a cake. If it doesn't overrise due to foamed eggs, then I would see the problem in the flour, but can't say nothing definitive without trying it myself.
It's possible that your new brand of self raising flower has more raising agent. This causes a initial raise to happen faster resulting in large 'bubbles' that are less stable. The cake rises higher and then is more prone to falls.
Fast changes in temperature or air pressure will cause the cake to collapse. That means every time you open the oven, or if your oven isn't very air tight every time you open an close the kitchen door. Loud slams of doors are especially bad.
Higher levels of raising agent are especially an issue if you live at a higher elevation or if there is low air pressure that day.
I looked into this a bit more yesterday as I wasn't happy this didn't have a test to see if it is the case. If this is indeed the issue at hand the sponge from around the edge of the cake (where it hasn't fallen) will have a "fragile crumb" where the bubbles were large and expanded quickly but set faster so didn't collapse.
A possibility is that it may be under-baked in the middle, if it isn't completely cooked the structure won't have the stability to hold the cake up. Try baking it longer.
Do you have an oven thermometer? It could be your oven isn't holding 180 as set.
As it's an Aga it doesn't strictly have set temperatures - but same oven used each time - so consistent temperature. Temperature more likely to be too high.
Agas are anything but consistent, their temperature depends on many factors and can vary significantly. That's why I asked about whether you have an oven thermometer, that way at least you can tell what temperature it is when you plan to bake and vary the baking time accordingly.
Bit of a diversion, but why do you find Aga's inconsistent ? We have a night storage version so temp is maintained by a fan when needed.
I had an oven thermometer. May be able to find it (last seen near dog)
Agas are cool, but every oven is inconsistent to some degree, even them. Just a 5 degree change can make a big difference.
OK, have checked AGA temps. Base of the shelf used for latest bakes is 170 (and has been stable whenever I have checked). The middle of the tin would be 180.
I think @rumtscho gave the answer to your problem when he stated "your cake is rising to more than the flour's ability to hold the rise".
If your cakes didn't fall when you didn't use that new brand of flour, and are consistently falling when you are using it, we can point to a guilty.
Why would it be the flour?
(and, if so, how to avoid it keeping falling)
Your recipe calls for a lot of fat and sugar. Fats affect gluten bonds, and sugar softens it. That's why strong flours are should be used in cakes having them.
If that new flour is not a strong one, it might not be able to hold itselft even if it doesn't rise too much.
Another point is the rising agent in that flour. First chemical raising agents were just plain baking soda. You had to add an acid to let them make a chemical reaction that would release gas. That's why most recipes call for lemmon or buttermilk as ingredients.
Modern chemical raising agents include salts that, when heated, release (or get transformed into) acid. It means that, once in the oven, the cake will rise more.
My guess is that your cake is rising more than normal due to the combination of self rasing agent + lemon zest. Also, the flour is probably a weak one, suitable for cookies, but not for this recipe of cake.
If you don't want to change the flour for a stronger one, you can try avoiding the lemmon in
your dough's recipe.
Self-rising flours are usually weaker than all-purpose flours, this is why Corriher advises to use them in situations where less gluten is needed. On the other hand, cake flour is supposed to be weaker than AP flour, going down to as few as 6% gluten. So, if the recipe specifies self-raising flour, it should be OK with weak flours (unless the recipe itself is bad, but it looks like a pretty standard sponge to me).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.337345
| 2012-10-23T17:41:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27962",
"authors": [
"Dhaval Asodariya",
"GdD",
"Him",
"Joel Balmer",
"Natalie Keller Chaput",
"Sharon",
"Vernon Reece",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64270",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65251",
"itj",
"rumtscho",
"suse",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37946
|
Do tea-like drinks typically require the plant material be dried or processed?
Many of the plants in my garden have leaves or flowers that are, in various places, described as being good for making a herbal tea. A couple of examples are lemon balm leaves (Melissa officinalis) and strawberry guava leaves (Psidium littorale). I also have a number of different varieties of mint.
When you buy herbal teas, the leaves or flowers (or bark) that the tea is made from are obviously dried. Is the drying process an essential aspect of the tea preparation, or is that simply for storage and preservation? If you have access to the raw ingredient, do you need to dry or process it in some way first or can the tea be made satisfactorily without any drying or processing?
Dried vegetation usually suffers cell wall degradation. So when rehydrated all the oils and flavours will easily leach out. This is very desirable for vegetation you want to extract oils and flavours from
Many "teas" are also partially fermented for additional flavour. This processes need to be stopped otherwise the whole plant will be consumed. Drying is the simplest way to stop fermentation, and make the product storable and transportable
Certainly you can make tea from fresh herbs! In most cases, the dried part of whatever you're using is preferable because of storage and preservation, as you mentioned, but fresh herbs tend to be weaker tasting than their dried counterparts. Unfortunately, I don't know why this is.
The way to combat this is to simply use more of whatever you're making tea from. If you find an herbal tea recipe and it calls for 5 grams of dried herb, use 10-15 grams of fresh herb (depending on your taste). But feel free to experiment and see what's good for you. Another thing to keep in mind is that short steeping times are often not enough to extract the beneficial nutrients from a given herb - again this depends on the specific plant and your taste, but 4 hours to overnight is usually what's recommended.
I think that the "weaker per gram" phenomenon is easily explained by the fact that plants are mostly water, so the same leaf will weigh much less dried than fresh, while keeping most of its oils (some of the taste components will evaporate while drying, of course).
good point, i think that makes a lot of sense
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.338006
| 2013-10-28T02:27:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37946",
"authors": [
"Carol",
"Carol Butcher",
"Charles Cartee",
"Lynn",
"dax",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89323",
"mic",
"rumtscho",
"thelawnet"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41393
|
Would pressure cooking stock create a different result?
I have always made bone stocks by simmering them for a long, long time, either on the stove or in a slow cooker. My new housemate insists this can be done in a pressure cooker. I'm sure this is true, but not sure whether the result would be different, other than that I wouldn't be able to skim it in a pressure cooker.
How does pressure cooking affect stock? Would a stock have different properties when slow-simmered vs. pressure cooked?
There are excellent descriptions of pressure cooking and collagen to gelatin conversion here and here. It looks like pressure cooking would create the exact same result in terms of gelatin conversion. What are other factors that might be affected?
The use of a pressure cooker to make stocks is highly recommended by very reputable sources such as Alton Brown and Cook's Illustrated.
Some great info here: http://www.cookingissues.com/2009/11/22/pressure-cooked-stocks-we-got-schooled/
I don't think the eventual result is that different, it is faster in a pressure cooker though.
If you read that article I posted you'll see there are differences, particularly a non-venting pressure cooker will retain more volatile compounds that can't escape into the air due to the sealed nature of the pressure cooker.
Looks like Stefano's link rotted. This one seems to be working : http://www.cookingissues.com/index.html%3Fp=2561.html
There are several advantages to using a pressure cooker other than speed, the first of which address your concerns about skimming. If operated correctly the water in a pressure cooker will never come to the boil resulting in a clearer stock than one made by convention means. From Modernist Cuisine (2-291):
The liquid inside the pressure cooker will not boil, despite the elevated temperature, unless you let the heat get out of hand. A liquid boils when its vapor pressure exceeds the ambient pressure around it. Inside a sealed pressure cooker, as liquid water vaporizes, it raises the ambient pressure, which in turn increases the boiling point. So long as water vapor is not escaping the pressure cooker, the pressure inside will stay high enough to keep liquid water from boiling. Never reaching a boil is important because it keeps the stock clear. Turbulence from boiling emulsifies oils and small food particles from the ingredients into a stock, thereby making it murky.
A telltale sign that the stock is at a rolling boil inside a pressure cooker is a jet of steam or fog from the overextended pressure valve. This jet means that the pressure cooker is overpressurized, and for safety's sake the valve is relieving the pressure.
You can further increase the clarity by adding some raw meat to your ingredients to act as a filtering agent. From Modernist Cuisine (2-295):
Dispersing a small amount of raw ground meat along with the other ingredients when making a pressure-cooked stock yields a stock with the clarity of a traditional consommé. This works because protein extracted from the uncooked ground meat acts just like protein in egg white: it sponges up tiny light scattering fat globules and other small particles.
Another benefit comes from the sealed nature of the cooking environment, which prevent volatile aromas from evaporating into the air. Heston Blumenthal cites this as one of the reasons why The Fat Duck began using pressure cookers for their stock in this article:
Now, this may seem obvious, but when you smell those wonderful odours while you're cooking, it's a sign that you're losing flavours through those volatile elements that disappear in the air. A pressure cooker, however, keeps the aromas and flavour molecules sealed in the pot...In a normal stockpot, by contrast, water evaporates at boiling point, taking flavour with it.
Modernist Cuisine (2-292) concurs:
When the the pressure-cooking step is done, you must let the cooker cool before removing the lid...Cooling first means that volatile aromas in the vapor above the liquid will condense back into the liquid rather than escape into the kitchen.
However, not all pressure cookers are created equal and some will release vapor to maintain pressure resulting in a poorer quality stock. Dave Arnold and Nils Norén from Cooking Issues have done extensive experiments into this phenomenon here: in blind tastings vented pressure cookers produced inferior results to both conventionally cooked stocks and those made with more advanced spring valved cookers; however, the non-vented vessels produced the best results out of all three methods.
Finally, the elevated temperature increases the rate of Maillard reactions resulting in a more flavourful stock. In the Cooking Issues article above the resulting browning was significant enough that it was easy to tell which stock was pressure cooked and which wasn't just by visual inspection:
The aroma of the pressure cooked stock was clearly superior. The color was deeper as well (because of this all future tests were done actually blind –with our eyes closed). Unfortunately the conventional stock tasted better. It had a stronger chicken flavor and was better balanced overall.
...
I took 4 liters of conventional chicken stock from the restaurant and pressure-cooked half while the other half simmered on the stove. This time, I didn’t use the school’s pressure cooker, I used my own. When I compared the two stocks side by side the pressure cooked one was far browner. I hadn’t thought the pressure cooker would change the color of a pre-made stock. When we tasted them the pressure-cooker won.
Wow, great info. Now I'm curious -- would reducing stock to concentrate it also release those same volatile compounds?
Pretty sure if you started to boil the pressure cooked stock after straining that you'd then lose all those volatile compounds.
Serious Eats just released an article about this; their conclusion?
Both the standard stock and the pressure cooker stock received high marks across the board, with the pressure cooked version taking a very slight lead over the standard version in the body department (flavor scores were within 1% of each other). The slow cooker broth fared considerably worse than either, with a paler color, thinner texture, and less flavor.
This is because:
Not only does the higher pressure achieved inside a pressure cooker allow you to heat water to a higher temperature (up to around 250°F, or 120°C), but it also prevents the water from boiling, leading to less agitation. The end result? Rapid body and flavor and great clarity.
A big +1 for the near-tie taste test, given the others saying that the pressure cooker is better for flavor because it retains more volatile compounds. (Unless maybe Serious Eats wasn't using the spring-type pressure cooker and they didn't get the benefits?)
The test is not comparing like to like, 1 hour in the pressure cooker is not equivalent to 5 hours on the stove, it's more like 3 hours. The Modernist Cuisine team will have done blind triangle tests with multiple tasters, I trust their findings more.
Pressure Cooker!
I've used a pressure cookers for over 20 yrs. Usually to make meat stew from tough cuts.
The advantage for using it for stock, I'm assuming you mean a stock that you will strain after making, is that 1) A pressure cooker extracts more flavor from the bones (assuming you want to extract from the marrow as well) as well as whatever else , including vegetables, you add to your stock 2) Its a lot faster, giving you more time to cool it down afterwards and then easily skim off the fat you don't want.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.338273
| 2014-01-23T17:23:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41393",
"authors": [
"Amit Patil",
"Anthm",
"Barbot",
"Bálint Kabók",
"Carol",
"Cascabel",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"L cerny",
"O.O",
"Stefano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96564",
"tomas g",
"wakjah"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45704
|
Should I use a base to offset the sour in overripe sourdough starter?
My starter is active and mature, but sometimes I don't have time to check and feed it at its optimal activity for my preferred sour (very slight). This means by the time I get to feeding it, it's getting too sour.
I don't like to discard (ie 'remove'). And I would like to bake bread every day, so it doesn't make sense to make something else while not being able to bake bread.
Should I use baking soda or another base to offset the lactic acid? (Is there a better way? Are there any caveats?)
you could add fruit to the bread, so the sugar balances out the sour ... might give better results than a base, but I don't know for sure.
I added baking soda to the final rise of my slightly-overmatured-starter baguettes today. The flavour was fine, not sure if that's because the starter wasn't that sour or because of the baking soda. It didn't seem to have many adverse effects on the flavour anyway, so I would encourage anyone considering this method to try it.
One thing:
Adding during the final rise meant I couldn't mix the baking soda in without kneading, so I just rubbed it over the dough and then did a stretch and fold. To my surprise this resulted in a marbled dark brown and white baguette, in the crumb as well as the crust! I attribute it to the raised pH causing a more intense Maillard reaction in some areas. In future unless I want marbled baguettes I'll add the baking soda dissolved in water during a dough build.
Baking soda can be added to bread that uses a starter in order to get a faster rise, and it will slightly offset the sourness. Usually this is done by mixing a fairly wet sponge with the starter, water, and flour, then adding the soda and salt to the final flour and mixing it in. The soda will begin to react pretty quickly, frequently allowing you to bake the bread sooner.
This method can also be used to make things like sourdough quickbreads (pancakes, muffins, etc). You would make the sponge and then add the eggs and other liquid to that, then mix that into the dry ingredients (including soda). The batter can then be used to make quickbreads with a more complex flavor than chemical leavening alone would allow.
Just remove 1/2 to 3/4 of the starter and feed the remaining starter as usual. The process of feeding should reduce the sour and normalize the ph level.
You don't need a lot of starter to keep it going. Sometimes I'll just keep a tablespoon and feed it 2 oz. water and 2 oz. of flour (100% hydration). If I know I won't tend to it for a while (e.g. 3 to 4 weeks), then I'll make the starter a bit stiffer by adding a bit more flour.
As far as what to do with the excess, if your not going to toss it...
I vote pancakes or English muffins. These are usually served with something that'll mask or lessen the sour taste (butter,syrup,jam).
Where do you keep your starter between baking?
I know I could just feed to reduce the sour but I have a specific loaf I wish to make (400g flour) and I don't wish to discard from the starter ('remove'). I only want to make bread, and I wish to use all the starter to make it.
Oh, and I keep my starter on the counter, or in my rice cooker on the fermentation setting. My starter is pate fermentee "old dough" and I cut off usually <1g of it, a relatively small inoculation in the first levain build (50g flour).
I don't have experience with using baking soda in my sourdough, though I've seen recommendations of its use to reduce "sourness". Other recommendations include a shorter rise time.
Have you thought about slowing down your starter by putting it in a cold/colder place (e.g. refrigerator)?
Thanks. I have in the past but I've discovered that generally refrigeration doesn't fit in with my bread making schedule (which is nearly every day). Shorter rise time as in higher temperature? or less proofing?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.338937
| 2014-07-19T00:19:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45704",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Michael E.",
"ccsdg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25221",
"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
}
|
39550
|
How important are eggs for a muffin recipe?
I have not actually read Michael Ruhlman's Ratio. I know that he describes a basic muffin as 2:2:1:1 of flour, liquid, egg and fat. Prior to discovering Ratio, I only ever thought of a muffin in terms of dry:wet ratios, fat as adding richness, and egg (depending on recipe) as adding richness or structure, so this is new to me.
I am asking because I have not had much success with muffins in the past and am wondering if it is because I have been using recipes without eggs for convenience (because we have usually been out of eggs in this house).
How essential a part do eggs play in a muffin recipe?
for what eggs do in cakes and muffins, read my answer here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/14035/4638
There's no simple answer to this other than "it depends". Ratios like the Ruhlman chart are a good jumping off point, but for a lot of chemically leavened things there's a lot more to it. I would highly recommend reading the section on balancing recipes from Cookwise by Shirley Corriher and using it in conjunction with this chart.
The amount of eggs needed will depend on the type of liquid and the type of flour used. The liquids and flour will also alter how important the eggs are. A good example would be things like banana and pumpkin. In banana or pumpkin muffins, the pureed fruit would be used in place of most of the liquid, but since both of those also contain a lot of pectin, they can also replace the eggs. If the liquid is something acidic like sour cream, yogurt, buttermilk, or cider vinegar, that can also reduce the amount of eggs needed. Some dry ingredients like buckwheat, flax, and chia will also replace eggs.
In short, the importance of eggs really depends on the specific recipe used. While there may be a good ratio for a plain muffin base, it will definitely need tweaking depending on other ingredients used.
"True" is a difficult concept here because I don't know of a "Muffin Certification Board."
It's not like Roquefort Cheese.. which must be aged in a cave in Roquefort FR.
But to address your concern: if you don't have eggs, try:
angel food cake mix and crushed pineapple (google it)
angel food cake mix alone with some water (I do that with success)
Hope that helps.
Excellent point - I've updated the wording of my question, and thanks for the suggestions. Most of the time the recipe I'm using simply doesn't contain eggs already, so I'm not so much needing a substitution as wanting to know what I'm missing out by not having eggs.
I think you may be missing something...I guess it affects the texture somehow. 300 years of bakers are probably on to something. I hope you get some good replies.
You can leave them out if you like but they won't taste the same. I don't know what your reasons are for this, but you can add spices to make up for this, like saffron.
Eggs are basically water, fat, and protein, so they give some structure and richness to the muffin, not a strong flavor. How would spices make up for the lack?
Just curious why you would suggest saffron. I've seen quite a lot of muffin recipes, but none of those contained saffron. Is there a reason for exactly this suggestion?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.339296
| 2013-11-18T20:28:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39550",
"authors": [
"Anmol Garg",
"Doragon",
"Hon Takalani Matibe",
"JLawrence",
"Judy",
"MC Emperor",
"Mien",
"Paulb",
"RoboJ1M",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"VPL",
"ccsdg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91810",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91873",
"lou",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41144
|
When should food colouring be added to part of a batch of bread dough?
I recently made coloured swirled bread, in which different colours of dough (in my case a coloured and an uncoloured piece) were rolled together and baked in the same loaf to give an interesting novelty appearance. When I put it into the oven the poke test on the uncoloured dough rose up slowly, but the uncoloured sprang back a bit more quickly. The finished bread rose acceptably, but not spectacularly, and the coloured dough was somewhat denser than the uncoloured. The whole thing was a sourdough loaf if that makes any difference.
When should the colouring for the coloured piece have been added?
after kneading? This is what I did. With liquid colouring, which seemed to colour individual strands of gluten, this required considerable kneading to distribute evenly. This amounted to nearly twice the amount of kneading as the uncoloured piece. Since the undivided full batch of dough had completed kneading (it was at windowpane) when I divided them, I might possibly have overkneaded the coloured piece. The uncoloured piece would also have undergone more fermentation than the coloured piece due to how long the extra kneading took (even in the fridge).
before kneading?* This would have allowed the colouring to be more easily mixed in, but would also have required each colour of dough to be separately kneaded to windowpane strength as well as separately proofed. Not only would I need to be sure each piece was equivalently kneaded but also equivalently proofed. As with the other option this would leave one piece fermenting longer than the other.
EDIT: *before kneading referring to the point when the flour and water and other ingredients have been barely incorporated together and the result is still just a "shaggy mess" as some describe it. I assume that "kneading" is a specific stage of breadmaking for the purpose of gluten development, not merely an act of kneading at any point in the process.
You may want to experiment with different types of food coloring. They might be toxic to yeast, for example I have propylene-glycol based food coloring and I don't know what it'd do to yeast, probably nothing good.
I baked 3 or 4 loaves of challah last January over a month period to try and perfect a rainbow loaf of bread for a dinner party (Wizard of Oz and over the rainbow themed).
Loaf 1 I mixed ingrediants and worked the dough and then prior to kneading I used cake decorating gelled (Wilton brand) coloring. This required substantial kneading to fully integrate the coloring and probably caused the loaf to not rise properly from over work or inconsistent gluten formation.
Subsequent loaves required making the water and yeast mixture and dripping in 5-35 drops of liquid food coloring into measured amounts of liquid by weight. Each liquid amount depending on rainbow location varied and the apparent strength of the drops did too. The liquid mixture then had a consistent bright color and adding in the sugar, salt and flour proved to make for a consistent color shading throughout. The minimal quantity of the alcohol/glycol based coloring didn't appear to affect the texture and the need to over work the dough was lessened since the color was consistent from the beginning.
Using up to 7 different colors in 1 large loaf (both rainbow shaped in a large baked bowl and in a braided roll) did require a bit more effort than making 1 batch of dough and separating briefly after kneading to add color. However the effort was well worth it!
I would love to see pictures of this. It sounds very cool.
If it requires kneading in the color to get it distributed, then whatever you end up doing, it's effectively 'before kneading' or at the very least 'in the middle of kneading'
So therefore, I'd add the color before or during the first kneading; if nothing else, it'd get better distribution. If you're making a double batch, I'd make the first one color-free, and the second colored (adding the dye to any liquid in the recipe).
You might also want to see the question on coloring fondant for suggestions on kneading in color faster.
I should probably have clarified that 'kneading' for me refers to a deliberate gluten development stage of breadmaking, not just the act of kneading. I ideally would not like to knead in colour, but that seemed to be the only option by the point the dough was developed to windowpane. "Before kneading" means when the dough is still a shaggy mess, with the ingredients barely incorporated together, a mix not a dough. Is this when you'd recommend splitting the parts and colouring them separately?
@ccsdg, as Joe said, it's best to add the liquid color to whatever other liquid your recipe calls for. I.e. add it to the water, mix thoroughly, then add the water to the flour.
@Marti, I managed to not understand that part of Joe's answer, thanks for pointing it out. So really I would have to make two completely separate batches of bread from scratch? Seeing as water is the first ingredient I add to the flour, and I don't want the entire loaf to be coloured. EDIT: I see that Joe mentioned a double batch. That is a solution, but it makes the overproofing issues even worse (now have to separately mix, knead AND proof the different parts of the bread).
@ccsdg : you see what powdered colors will do ... they'd be much easier to mix in later as compared to a liquid or gel color.
Go to youtube and check out the video on making rainbow bread here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9XDwTRE1dE
If I were to do it, I think I would make separate batches of dough and add the coloring to the liquid.
Color bread was all the rage in the late 50's 60's for bridal and baby showers and special party lunchs.
Hello and welcome! Please note: while links to the web may be nice, they have a tendency to disappear after a while, which would leave our site full of broken links :-(. We prefer information that lasts, so just write what you want to say. I left the link for now, but unless you think it's absolutely necessary for your answer, you might consider editing your post and removing it?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.339604
| 2014-01-14T01:35:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41144",
"authors": [
"Dadu emas88 spam",
"ForAGoodStart",
"Jafe",
"Jambi toto spam",
"Joe",
"Kebrina Walker",
"Marti",
"Preston",
"Stephie",
"Tom",
"ccsdg",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113702",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95882",
"rumtscho",
"user95882"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18806
|
How flavoursome is Roast Buffalo?
We're considering roasting a Buffalo Rib Roast for a bunch of friends but have no idea how it will turn out. How does this meat compare (assuming it's cooked medium rare) to something like a Beef Sirloin Roast? Are there other meats that are particularly similar? Will it be succulent or dry out? How does the flavor profile compare with beef? Is it particularly gamey?
I'm tempted to write "Very", but know I would be hugely downvoted. Bison is a delicious red meat. It is not too gamey, and is quite lean and healthy as far as red meats go. I love it. I would go with bison over beef any day if I had the option to do so.
This is subjective - VTC.
Whatever it is, don't serve your friends food you haven't tried yourself before (including a new recipe for an established dish).
@ElendilTheTall: If rephrased as "what is the flavor and texture of buffalo, in particular compared to beef?" without words like "succulent" or "flavorsome", I think it's a completely valid question. It's already managed to produce two answers with some good objective information.
Then it needs rephrasing...
Disagree with @rumtscho. Trying something new with friends is way more fun that by yourself.
I'll admit, my friends are often guinea pigs for new dishes for me.
I can't help but think this will be a winner. Buffalo tastes very similar to beef, but has a richer flavor, almost (but not exactly) like what you get when you dry age a steak.
Buffalo is much leaner, obviously, but I honestly don't think that will make much of a difference in a rib roast. If it were a Chuck or brisket cut, I might feel differently, but a rib roast should not give you any problems, given that you are only roasting it for 1.5-2 hours.
Take it for what it's worth (not much, because it's a totally different cut of meat) -- I had a braised buffalo short rib at Ted's Montana Grill, and it was surprisingly excellent. It was very tender, but was so much more flavorful than a beef short rib.
In general, buffalo meat tends to be leaner than beef. The lack of fat can make buffalo taste drier than beef. If you're using a slower cooking method, like roasting, you'll want to pay careful attention to the amount of fat to make sure the meat doesn't dry out.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.340143
| 2011-11-07T11:17:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18806",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Gregor Thomas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7893",
"mrwienerdog",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24466
|
Is ginger a good substitute for galangal in Thai green curry?
Is fresh ginger a good substitute for galangal in a Thai Green curry? (I cannot get fresh galangal here anywhere)
Would I use less or more ginger than galangal quantity?
Preserved or dried galangal no good? I've used preserved before, found it extremely hard to chop but the flavor was there.
nice idea I did not know you could get it in those forms, will try to find either of them and see how that goes, thanks.
Consider making yellow curry instead - there is supposed to be ginger in it anyway :)
Dried galangal powders nicely in a bladed coffee grinder. The flavor mostly keeps through drying, and powdering. It has a bit more kick to it than ginger, so it is worth the extra bother.
Scottish,
Use equal amounts of ginger to substitute for galangal. And yes, it is the best substitute available from your average non-Asian grocery store.
If you can get your hands on dried, powdered galangal, however, you can do better. Add about half the amount of ginger, and around midway through cooking add a teaspoon of powdered galangal for every tablespoon of fresh in the recipe. The combination of fresh ginger and powdered galangal will be very close to fresh galangal in flavor.
Also, if you make a field trip to an Asian market, peeled galangal cut into chunks freezes quite well.
It won't be quite the same in flavour, but it is near enough that the food will still taste good and the combinations of flavours will work well.
Unfortunately, I too have had only store-bought ginger since my galangal died...
I know it sounds strange, but when in Thailand, at a cooking course, I was told that the substitute for galangal was lemongrass.
Because of its flavor, I would say you need mostly ginger and a bit of lemongrass together to approximate the galangal flavor (in a pinch, a little lemon, or better yet, a kaffir lime leaf).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.340460
| 2012-06-15T02:22:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24466",
"authors": [
"Joseph Langdon",
"Krystal Dean",
"Pieter Geerkens",
"Suchitra Kumari Behera",
"Thetridento123",
"Todd Brooks",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Zefiro",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55723",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8315",
"jontyc",
"rackandboneman",
"schnappischnap",
"scottishpink"
],
"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
}
|
24465
|
How should I use lime leaves when making Thai green curry?
When making Thai green curry should the fresh lime leaves be torn in to big pieces and then taken out when ready or shredded so that they can be eaten ?
I have found that when I shred them they never quite break down enough to be enjoyable so I am wondering if they are like bay leaves and are only to be used to impart their flavor and not really to be eaten.
Although both of your questions are related to thai green curry, I believe they should be each their own separate question.
thanks for your observation , I shall make two separate questions.
Kaffir Lime Leaves are using in Thai and Indian cooking in two ways:
They may be added whole to a recipe (such as a soup) and behave like bay leaves; diners take them out and don't eat them.
They can be ground fine as part of a spice paste and make the flavoring base for the recipe.
There are a few recipes which use slivered kaffir lime leaves, but they are extremely fibrous and can't really be eaten unless ground down to a paste.
According to David Thompson's great recipe, kaffir lime leaves (ใบมะกรูด in Thai) are used as a finishing ingredient rather than simmered in the green curry (แกงเขียวหวาน). My experience living in Thailand concurs with this. There are odd occasions when the lime leaves are simmered and they depend on whether the dish is made in bulk or the other ingredients in the dish. E.g. using beef. (Thais don't eat roti with their curry as is suggested by their appearance in that video)
Whether to include them and in what form are entirely up to the chef. Simmered leaves produce an earthier, less pungent flavour throughout the entire curry. A chiffonade of leaves as a finishing ingredient gives the diner some bursts of strong lime flavour along with a textural pleasure. I suggest you try them in separate dishes to see which you prefer.
Personally, I prefer the chiffonade for it's intense flavour and textural contrast.
A little more detail about Kaffir lime leaves for the initiated reader. Kaffir lime leaves are eaten in many forms here in Thailand. These are the different forms I have seen:
In soups they are used as a herb in much the same way as bay leaves. Typical example of this is clear tom yum (ต้มยำ).
In dry curries they use a leaf chiffonade (i.e. sliced finely lengthwise into long, very thin strips) and added to the dish as a finishing garnish so they retain their pungency giving the dish a large contrast in flavour and texture. Typical examples of this are phad phrik khing (ผัดพริกขิง) and pad panaeng (ผัดพะแนง).
On deep fried whole fish and with roasted peanuts they add deep fried kaffir lime leaves (ใบมะกรูดทอด)
In Thai recipes, basil is thinly sliced or shredded and works well to integrate nicely with the thick stock of a curry or peanut sauce. However, although (kaffir) lime leaves are frequently shredded finely and used in Tod Mun, typically, lime leaf usage in simmering stocks is more akin to lemongrass and bay leaves than basil (typically I simmer then in the sauce with a tea bag). One tip I have seen repeated that does not apply to those two, however, is to bruise the leaf prior to immersion.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.340682
| 2012-06-15T01:48:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24465",
"authors": [
"Alok P",
"EldarGranulo",
"Elmer Case",
"Jay",
"Judy Jenkins",
"QuynhAnhhfox",
"hb20007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"jay bailey",
"joe Mercier",
"mt025",
"rancho",
"scottishpink"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32173
|
Amount of Brioche dough in a Brioche mould?
I have a 22 cm classic fluted Brioche mold (22 cm being the widest measurement on top). It's volume is extremely close to 1500ml. I'm wondering how much dough in total to put in it to make a "Brioche à tête".
More generalized question that would help anyone, since the tins are so varied in size:
What is the dough to mold volume ratio for making a "Brioche à tête" (e.g. grams of dough per ml of mold).
From this web discussion (very last post, at the time I read it), a poster named gcook17 shares:
Sherry Yard's book, "The Secrets of Baking" has a table on page 233
with how many brioche molds of different sizes you need for 2, 2.5,
and 3 lbs. of dough. She gives the mold size in inches which I take
to be the diameter of the top. That assumption has worked out for me
so far.
Here are the number of molds for 2 lbs. of lean brioche dough that she
gives for several sizes:
3" - 21, 3.5 - 16, 4" - 11, 5.5" - 8, 6.5" - 4, 7" - 3, 8" - 2
When I use these they work fine, but I find I could probably put more
dough in each mold (i.e. use fewer molds) than she recommends.
It sounds like you have essentially an 8" brioche mold (and they are not exact measurements anyway), so 2 lbs or approximately 0.9 kg of dough is indicated to fill two such molds, so about 1 lb or 0.45 kg of dough for a single mold.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.340996
| 2013-02-24T08:56:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32173",
"authors": [
"Louis Perge",
"Mindy",
"PRB",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74085",
"toyotasandwich",
"wec"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23471
|
Why does my oil cake drop in the centre
My cake initially rises perfectly, but after about 20 - 25 minutes, the cake starts to slightly droop with the cake also pulling away from the side of the pan.
I don't mind that too much, as the initial rising seemed to be a bit exaggerated anyway. But once I remove the cake from the oven, it droops further - in fact, it collapses.
I take great care preparing the batter by sifting dry ingredients, and using eggs at room temperature.
The procedure I used to prepare the cake batter is:
I first cream egg yolks and sugar for about 1 minute
Then I add flour/baking powder mixture, oil, water, beat again for about 1 minute
Then beat and fold in the egg whites.
Any ideas what I might be doing wrong?
Hello Clara! Welcome to Seasoned Advice! I edited your question to fix some wording and clarify your question a bit. If you feel I have change the meaning of your question in any way, you may edit the question farther by using the edit link under the question tags.
Also Clara can you add additional information such as the temperature you baked the cake at, the total time, and the type of flour you used?
Hi, Jay, sorry for taking so long to come back; could not find my question. When I clicked on "questions asked" the system told me that I have not asked any questions. Need to get used to the site....
There are couple of reasons that causes a cake to collapse. One reason could be flour/baking powder ratio. As far as I understand from your description this applies to your case. Because the procedure that you follow is fine.
I suggest to use this ratio:
1 cup plain flour
1 teaspoon baking powder
If it does not work then try to use less baking powder.
Thanks, huzeyfe. In that case I certainly used too much baking powder. I'll try again. Would that ratio also apply to butter cakes, not only oil cakes?
You're welcome Clara.. In butter cakes you may need to reduce baking powder a little bit i.e 3/4 teaspoon per 1 cup plain flour. Good luck ;)
Hi, Huzeyfe - have continued to cut baking powder (in my most recent attempt I used only 1 ml for 130 flour) but the cake still continues to raise - and then droop. (although not as severely as with the higher amount of baking powder). Have even had technicians from the oven company checking; they insist the temperature situation is correct. -Following are the ingredients I use. I have halfed the quantities, to test bake.
100 g flour, 30 g maizena, 1 ml baking powder, 120 g caster sugar, 100 ml oil, 100 ml water, 3 eggs, seperated, vanilla essence, a little salt.
How did it go for your last ingredients?
A quick Google search on recipes for oil cake (never made it, but it looks good) shows that most recipes call for 'creaming' the eggs and sugar, then creating an emulsion with the oil/water/fruit juice. After that, you either stir in the flour by hand, or mix slowly with a mixer. Finally, fold the eggs. It could be you are not getting the proper incorporation of all the ingredients before baking, leading to a weak structure and collapse. All of this assumes you added ingredients in the order of your post.
Although you say it's an oil cake, I'm not familar with ones that use whipped egg whites. This would make it similar to a chiffon cake.
The typical recommendation for chiffon is to treat them like an angel food cake : place the pan upside-down while it cools, as it doesn't have the same internal strength as a traditional cake. If you're not making it in an angel food pan, which is designed for this (it has little legs on it), make sure you're not filling the pan too far so it swells too much over the pan edge, and flip it over onto a cooling rack to allow air to get under it. This won't solve all of your problems, but should help with the sag after it comes out of the oven.
Based on it pulling away from the sides of the pans and an exaggerated rise, I would have expected your oven to be miscalibrated, as that would indicate it's too hot. (and then if you pull it when it's browned, the inside won't be cooked fully, so more likely to collapse ... basically, the same problems as a souffle.) .... but you said you had that checked. (I'm mentioning this, just in case someone else has a similar problem).
You can run into similar problems with an undercooked center if you over-fill the pan, or you cook a cake in a round pan that's intended for a bundt or tube pan.
It's also possible that you aren't creaming the eggs and sugar together long enough, meaning the air bubbles are underdeveloped. Try creaming them till they're aerated and fluffy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.341159
| 2012-04-30T11:08:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23471",
"authors": [
"Ana C. Maximini",
"Clara",
"Davidaferbark",
"JSM",
"Jay",
"Saimon Bigman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"huzeyfe",
"pythonhunter",
"user53124"
],
"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
}
|
13444
|
How do I use whole fresh tamarind?
On a whim I bought some tamarind at the grocery store this week. I'm most familiar with it from the dish Pad Thai. My idea at the time was that I would "do something" with it and a pork chop. Pork chops being my canvas of choice for much experimentation.
However I'm now stumped as to what I actually do with this thing. I cracked the flimsy shell/skin to expose the sticky fruit inside. I licked it; it tastes good. I'm not sure what to do next though.
I've looked at some recipes online, but they all work with tamarind paste. I'm assuming I need to process the meat somehow to turn it into a paste.
Questions
Do I have to turn this into paste?
How do I clean/prepare it? (besides obviously throwing the skin away)
Do I need to add oil, water, or other ingredients to make it a paste?
Are there seeds? Do they need to be removed?
Related: Where do I find tamarind?
1- Remove the hard shell,
2- simmer them in a little liquid until the meat can be easily removed from the seeds.
Tamarind is very sweet and very sour. Tamarind chutneys are delicious for a starting point. You can find recipes but not many other ingredients are required.
You asked if you have to make it into a paste- I suppose not but cooking them is required to get the seeds out and cooking turns the meat into a paste.
Carmi is correct that you can add them directly to liquid but you need to be able to get the large, hard seeds out.
So presumably the seeds are inedible, and need to be removed and discarded? Can anything be done with the seeds?
User56458- the seeds are beautiful. They're dark, smooth, glossy, and have weight to them. I use them for board game tokens.
I googled whether they are inedible. Apparently they are edible if prepared properly, and taste a little like peanuts, but the prep is a lot of work. http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42288/can-you-eat-the-seeds-of-tamarind-if-you-roast-them-or-boil-them
I just did this for the first time for a Pad Thai dish and it wasn't all that difficult. I removed and discarded the outer shell and veins. I covered the tamarind with hot water and let it sit for a little over an hour. I then removed the tamarind from the water (the water was a bit murky). A few remaining pieces of shell separated from the pieces during the hour soak as well. At this point, I had to use my hands (because I don't own a food mill). It was a bit messy, but not too difficult to get the pulp out of the tamarind. I added about a half a cup of water to what was originally 1.5 pounds of tamarind. Basically, you just continue to squeeze and try to separate out the seeds. I used a strainer to ensure that I was only getting pulp. In the end, you'll mostly be left with seeds and a bit of membrane as well.
The resources I found most useful were:
http://www.blogwelldone.com/2008/09/18/making-tamarind-paste/
http://www.shesimmers.com/2010/05/how-to-prepare-tamarind-pulp-for-thai.html
Best of luck!
Just wash and soak in hot water. It would get real soft,add little lukewarm water to bring down the temperature. Dip your hand and squeeze the tamarinds, this would separate the pulp from the seeds and shell. Drain through a sieve or colander. If you need a recipe for tamarind uses, I would gladly oblige. :)
Tamarind is used both ripe and unripe. The ripe tamarind is used to make pastes and such or is eaten raw, its what most people in the west are familiar with. The unripe, or green, tamarind is used much the same way a bay leaf is, you peel it and drop it in your curry and hope you don't bite into it. Be sure you know whether your recipe calls for the green or the ripe variety. If it calls for you to peel it and throw it in (typically a curry or soup) its calling for green tamarind.
Tamarind is used in a lot of Southeast and South Asian cooking. As you pointed out, most recipes call for paste, but according to Curry Cuisine, they can be used in a curry sauce: "Simply crack the shell and take out the pod." It doesn't say a whole lot more than that, though, so you may have to just experiment.
Tamarind is also used some in Mexico, but I've only seen recipes that call for paste. Here is a recipe for a tamarind beverage that uses the pods, though.
You just add them to the liquid in the dish, in much the same way you would use cardamom pods, star anise, mustard seeds, or vanilla pods for that matter.
The pods will partially dissolve, if I remember correctly.
Why not just remove hard outer shell and stalky veins, then pop the fruit in your mouth and gradually the stones parts from the flesh and simply remove the stone fom you mouth.
You can plant the seeds, best in summer; soakin in warm tapwater for an hour or so, then pat dry. Get detailed instructions on line and have a go at planting your own.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.341568
| 2011-03-26T02:30:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13444",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Doctorhighest2",
"Nelly Virginie",
"Paul Dady",
"Sobachatina",
"Zach",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99083",
"mguima",
"tdashroy",
"user56reinstatemonica8"
],
"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
}
|
39835
|
What am I doing wrong with my Kool-Aid pickles?
I'm trying to make Kool-Aid Pickles (koolickles). I've tried with quartered Ba-Tampte pickles and I seem to get it right, but I'm not seeing the results I expect with halved pickles. I want to go with halved because quartered seem to shrivel unappealingly.
I have a 2 quart jar of manually halved pickles (they were originally whole). Into the pickle brine I dissolved a cup of fruit punch Kool-Aid and a cup of white sugar. After 2 weeks, the coloring has only soaked half-way into the pickles. They look red on the outside, but are green on the interior. My intent was to get the full red all the way through. They taste almost right, but I think they could do with better penetration.
Am I going to be stuck using only quartered pickles? Should I have used more Kool-Aid, or maybe a different flavor? Should I consider a different pickle brand?
I apologize for judging your culinary choices. Koolickles? Ewwwww.
You're as bad as my wife. Don't judge till you've tried them. They've been the ball of the last three BBQs. She still refuses to even consider them. The kids love 'em.
This sounds extremely overly obvious, but you are being sure to used the unsweetened variety of Kool-Aid, right? If that is what's being called for? Or alternately, the sweetened version if that's what's being asked for?
It’s not one cup of Koolaid it’s supposed to be two packages of unsweetened Koolaid plus 1 and 1/2 cups sugar mixed in the pickle juice, shake until sugar dissolved. Pour over pickles until fully covered and put the lid on every day shake to stir sugar. At the two week mark they are perfect. Any type of Koolaid even mixed like lemon orange etc…
Hi Dena. I made a small edit, clarifying that you are referring to the unsweetened product. As always, feel free to edit further or revert. You'll probably get a well-deserved badge for resurrecting this question with a helpful answer! Welcome to Seasoned Advice.
From your link and some other sources, seems that lenghwise cutted pickles will give you more color penetration (and probably flavour too).
Since adding too much kool-aid for the color would also change the taste, I'd go with some food coloring product.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.342230
| 2013-11-28T07:10:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39835",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"JoshDM",
"KatieK",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21557"
],
"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
}
|
59141
|
What is the name of a drink made with iced tea and orange juice?
Iced tea and lemonade is known as an Arnold Palmer. I mix mine in 50/50 proportions.
Lacking lemonade, I mixed 50/50 iced tea and pulpy orange juice. I really kind of like the result and nicknamed it a "Hairy Palmer" (because the pulp normally suspended in the OJ floats to the top when diluted with tea, making the drink look "hairy").
Is there a legit name for this drink?
Why "hairy"...?
Because all the pulp congeals at the top and "fuzzy" seemed to be taken.
Is there an any more legit name?
Does it need a name?
Having a citrus juice in iced tea certainly isn't a new concept. However, there is no official name for half orange and half iced tea drinks. So you may call it whatever you wish.
It's called a sunrise, the sell it at roscos
Welcome to the site - remember its global, and not everyone knows who/what Rosco is. It may help to show where in the world this phrase is common, by using [edit] to extend your answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.342452
| 2015-07-18T03:47:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59141",
"authors": [
"Criggie",
"Elliot",
"Flour Tech",
"JoshDM",
"Kathy Jopp",
"Xander Henderson",
"gnicko",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141253",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141447",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89259",
"lorraine griffiths"
],
"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
}
|
12907
|
Making Beef Stock
I just purchased some nice beef marrow bones. What I'd like to do is make myself some beef stock for soups and whatever else. Now I'm planning on making a Mirepoix and then adding the bones and then the water. However, my question is this: do I just put the bones in how they are or do I cook them in the oven?
One warning. Marrow bones lead your stock to have a very fatty taste, since marrow is so rich. This is pleasant to those who like the taste, but it will be different from other beef stocks that are made with bones that are not cut to expose the marrow. I actually tend to use a combination of the two -- marrow bones and something like neck bones with some meat but mostly bones.
Both methods are acceptable.
A stock made with roasted bones is called a brown stock. A stock made from raw bones is a white stock (or sometimes just stock).
Practically, it's very difficult to get a true "white" stock with beef, as opposed to chicken, since all of the impurities will darken or cloud the colour - but that is semantics.
Brown stocks have a richer flavour, but that does not automatically make them better - it depends on what you'll be using it for. For soups, where the stock will give most of the flavour, brown is generally preferred; however, as a "flavourful liquid" to use in sauces, risottos, etc., a white stock may be more useful because you don't want it to overwhelm the other flavours.
One cautionary note: Beef bones tend to give off a lot of what looks like blood (actually myoglobin) when boiled. If you're trying to achieve a perfect clear stock (white or brown), then you may want to blanch them first; dump them in the pot, bring the water just to a boil, then dump out everything and start over. You really won't lose much; most of the proteins are deeper within the bones and requires several hours of simmering to extract and denature.
If making a brown stock (from roasted bones), do this after roasting, not before. It will also help you to get rid of any excess oil so you won't need to skim as much.
Before you make a beef stock, rub down the bones with tomato paste, then put your mirepoix on top, then roast your bones at 450 degrees for 30 minutes. Let the stock simmer for 24 hours. Beef stock simmers for a day, chicken stock for about 8 hours or so, fish stock for an hour.
A day??? That'll very quickly expend a lot of cooking gas just to make a bit of beef stock. It's like leaving a tap of water open for a day. How is this managed by most people? Is it a better option to use an induction cooker? At least losing that much electricity seems less worse than gas.
Not really sure how others do this... All I know is that I have an electric oven/stove top (unfortunately), and I always go 24 hours. In every commercial kitchen I ever worked in, beef was always left for 24 hours. Doesn't mean it has to stay on that long, mind you. It's really up to you.
Another option for beef stock, since the bones need to cook so long, is to cook the bones for several hours before adding the mirepoix. This allows the stock to gain a stronger beef flavor before you add the other seasoning.
One warning though -- stock does best if it cooks at a temperature that's barely a simmer -- a bubble or two every so often. According to this question, a simmer is about 180 F -- significantly lower than the 212 F of boiling.
All the answers above are all correct. I find that after you roast your bones , I then add my mirepoix with whole garlic and herbs. Once colored up, add tomato paste cook until darkens. Remove and deglaze pan with red wine , scraping the bottom to remove all the flavour.
I think beef is 8-10 hours, chicken is 3-4 hours and fish is 20 mins once come to the boil( skimmed and turned down).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.342609
| 2011-03-07T20:30:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12907",
"authors": [
"Carl",
"GreenGiant",
"Martha F.",
"Nav",
"PegDat",
"RAHUL SHARMA",
"Rick",
"Tara Tompson",
"Tom Gilmore",
"bhttoan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26696",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26697",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26699",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7812",
"mrwienerdog",
"ponadto"
],
"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
}
|
2231
|
Proper proportion of cream of tartar to baking soda for snickerdoodles
When I make snickerdoodles, they taste too "tangy" to me which I believe is due to the acidity of the tartaric acid. The recipe I have calls for a 2:1 ratio of cream of tartar to baking soda which is consistent with the proportions in How do I make a baking powder substitute? and What is the difference between baking soda and baking powder?
What can I do to reduce the tanginess?
Edit:
Here's the recipe from a 50 year old Betty Crocker cookbook (American measures):
1 C shortening
1 1/2 C sugar
2 eggs
2 3/4 C flour
2 tsp cream of tartar
1 tsp soda
1/4 tsp salt
Cream shortening and sugar. Beat in eggs. Sift together all dry ingredients
then add gradually to the shortening mixture. Roll into 1 1/2" balls and roll
in a mixture of 2 Tbsp sugar and 2 tsp cinnamon (you'll need more than this).
Place about 2" apart on an ungreased baking sheet (you can use Silpat or
parchment). Bake at 400°F for 8 - 10 minutes. They should be lightly browned
but still soft. If you prefer a crisp cookie, add a minute or two to the baking
time. They'll puff up then flatten with a cracked top.
Makes about 5 doz. 2" cookies.
I've slightly modernized the instructions, but there's really no changes.
I've used what we in the US call "cinnamon" which is actually Cassia (it's what
you get at the grocery store and what you grew up on if you're American). If you buy Vietnamese or
"Saigon" cinnamon that's what you're getting. I've also used true cinnamon
(Ceylon). To me, it made the cookies taste very "Christmasy" and was a nice variation.
Could you share the recipe? What you typically see in recipes like these is a ratio of soda to powder, not soda to tartar
@yock: old-style powder is soda+tartar, so the is the same as 3tsp of powder (which seems like a lot).
If they're tangier than you'd like that would be due to the acidity of the cream of tartar. While most recipes for Snickerdoodles do in fact us cream of tartar and baking soda for a homemade form of baking powder (most likely due to the fact that snickerdoodles are fairly "old"-style cookie), a few I looked at are using baking powder and no cream of tartar.
Here are a few things to know and a suggestion:
Acidic doughs do not spread easily and do not brown easily. Using the combination of cream of tartar in the 2:1 ratio w/ baking soda for leavening not only causes them to puff but with the higher acidic ratio it is also likely to help in keeping them more "cakey" and prevent them from browning as much.
You could try cutting back the cream of tartar slightly and seeing if that helps (possible drawback could be the soda making a more pronounced bitter soapy taste if there isn't enough acidity).
Or
Replace the cream of tartar and baking soda with baking powder. Baking powder by volume isn't as powerful as baking soda because of the fact it contains soda, two dry acids, and cornstarch. 1 teaspoon of baking powder will leaven 1 cup of flour (vs. 1/4 teaspoon of baking soda to leaven a cup of flour). If your recipe calls for 2 cups of flour then use 2 teaspoons of baking powder and cut out the cream of tartar and baking soda.
You are correct, it's from 50 year old Betty Crocker cookbook and it appears in an almost identical form in a 60 year old edition. I'll try the baking powder version and the reduced cream of tartar version the next chance I get.
Why not post results here, so everyone benefits? I'm also curious.
@Scivitri: will do.
Cook's Illustrated also calls for 2:1 cream of tartar to baking soda in its Snickerdoodle recipe.
I think you're using twice as much soda/tartar as you should. I use a rule in all of my baking to use 2% weight of flour as leavener (that goes for yeast and baking powder). I do everything by weight and in the metric system to make my life a whole lot easier. But for your recipe it should ½tsp baking soda, 1tsp cream of tartar. I bet your snickerdoodles didn't turn out as bad as mine when I didn't have any cream of tartar or baking powder left, and I used sodium diacetate instead. (That's vinegar powder, btw)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.343058
| 2010-07-20T01:57:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2231",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Dennis Williamson",
"GeneratorHalf",
"Mike Yockey",
"Scivitri",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/990",
"jrc",
"user4053"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117253
|
Can I roast a chicken over 2 time periods?
I currently work in home office but in the late afternoon I pick up my kids from school, we spend some time on the playground and usually only come home half an hour before dinner time. For soups I used the strategy to set them up during my lunch break and then let them cook for half an hour. Then turn the stove off and put it back on when we come home. The soup is ready just at dinner time. I was wondering whether I can do the same with a roast chicken in the oven. That is I put in the oven around noon, roast for half an hour and then turn the oven off, leaving the chicken in. Turn the oven back on when we get home. Have ready roast chicken at dinner time.
I was mostly wondering whether there is something that could go wrong here? Will this turn out any different from just roasting a chicken for 1 hour without breaks in between?
Have you heard about the “danger zone” in the context of food safety, i.e. about leaving perishable food at room temperature for a certain time?
How long are you away?
if you don't have time to cook your chicken yourself, you can get it roasted from a chicken roaster.
My parents do a Sunday lunch. Prior to church they schedule the oven to turn on at a certain time, and adjust the temperature at further times. When they get back from church, the meat is about 45 minutes away from ready. Is scheduling like this an option on your oven?
@Tim Yes, that's what I always do; I partly cook the roast potatoes the night before, then put the cold chicken in the oven and program it before I leave for church. When I get back, the chicken is halfway to being cooked, so I slam in the half-cooked roast potatoes and start peeling carrots. In fact I normally try to plan things so that the chicken will be done ~15min before the potatoes and carrots are ready, so I have time to make gravy while the chicken is kept warm under foil.
Can it be done? yes.
Is there a higher risk of food poisoning? yes.
The way to get around that is almost more of a pain -- you cook it in a low oven until it's just barely cooked through (which is a different temperature for the legs vs. the breast meat), then chill it, and then return it to a hot oven to warm it and crisp the skin up.
You're often better off fully cooking it, chilling it, and then warming it back up, and serving with a hot gravy that you can pour over it.
Another alternative would be spatchcocking the chicken (cutting the backbone out and flattening it, so it cooks quicker; see https://www.seriouseats.com/butterflied-roasted-chicken-with-quick-jus-recipe ). You could prep it in advance, so you just had to throw it in the oven when you got home ... but you have to cook it under the broiler for a chance at the 30 minute window: https://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/broiled-butterflied-chicken-recipe-1951266 )
There's also a technique where you quarter the chicken, start it on the stovetop (starting the leg quarters first), then move it to the oven that's been pre-heating ... and if you had the chicken prepped might take 30 minutes ... but I'm having difficulty finding the recipe. (I thought it had been on Good Eats, but I'm not having luck searching the Food Network website).
When I have wanted to cook a chicken but I will not be home, I have used a slow cooker. You won't end up with a really crispy skin, but it makes for some wonderfully moist and juicy chicken.
Most slow cookers can be set for anywhere from 4 to 10 hours, so you should be able to find something that fits your schedule.
Agreed; save the crispy-skin meals for the weekends :)
Or slow cook it for the bulk of the time, and then chuck it in a hot oven to crisp up the outside.
not exactly a roasted chicken, then
As others have elaborated, cooking in two steps will lead to food safety issues if you don’t make sure that your food is cooled down properly in between. And yes, that also has the side effect of likely running into issues with drying out and overcooking at least in some parts.
Let me offer an alternative idea to combine your timing constraints with a properly cooked chicken: slow roasting.
If you put your bird in a ~300° F oven, you have about three hours until it’s done. That should be enough for a visit to the playground plus finishing the sides when you get home. Timing etc. will of course depend on size of the bird etc., but I recommend you do a bit of research into that method. A meat thermometer will help you determine when it’s done to a safe core temperature.
And as that will likely trigger discussions about leaving your oven on when you're not home ... see https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/37234/67 and https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/42567/67 . (I debated mentioning leaving it in the oven to stay warm vs. chilling it, but didn't want to get into that discussion all over again)
@Joe as an owner of a (reasonably clean, reasonably new) electric oven, I am comfortable leaving mine on even when I am not at home. I may feel differently if I had a gas oven.
I have an old electric oven, and I've left it on while not hom (even accidentally on occasion), but I've noticed that people with gas ovens often feel differently ... even though gas ovens had pilot lights for a long, long time
what if you can't get home, or have to leave for a much longer period of time unexpectedly?
@njzk2 You call your neighbor and ask them to take whatever is in the oven out.
@njzj2 Oops. Thought I had replied, but Polygnome had it right— back when I tended to do this, I had both housemates and neighbors with a key. (We took turns cooking, as my neighbor was the sister of one of my housemates). I’m mostly working from home these days, so it’s not as big of a deal now. (And I did have the type of job where I might have to spend the night doing cleanup tasks with no warning; even kept a change of clothes in my car because of it)
Reasonably new ovens often have "Cook time" options to stop cooking after a fixed amount of time. I use mine all the time, even when I'm home the whole time because I'm forgetful, but this would ensure that even if there were an emergency that keeps you away longer than expected things wouldn't burn beyond recognition. The "Delay start" option would also be relevant here, as long as the chicken isn't sitting in a room-temp oven for much more than 1 hour.
How about cooking it sous vide?
This method involves some prep work, but gives you the timing you want. Essentially, it consists of sealing the chicken pieces in plastic, and immersing them in water with apparatus that heats the water to a safe temperature for cooking without drying it out. You can then finish on a hot pan or in a hot oven to get crispy skin.
You can chill the chicken after the sous vide phase, allowing you to do that part of the cooking on a different day from the finishing.
Serious Eats suggests roasting the skin separately as a garnish. https://www.seriouseats.com/sous-vide-turkey-breast-crispy-skin-recipe-thanksgiving
+1 Sous vide is really the magic weapon for people with time constraints. Also it just is so easy to get it right every. single. time. Granted, chicken is probably one of the more complicated ones since you need great heat to brown the skin and that's not easy on a pan - maybe one of those flamethrowers would be good, or if OP has an oven with a grill feature that may work as well.
Nice thing about sous vide is that you can have the juiciest most tender chicken by setting it to 145 degrees and just letting it chill for 4 hours. Then when you get home pull it out to rest and toss it on a super hot grill for a minute or 2 per side.
not roasted. Also heating plastic repeatedly can't be too good, no matter what they tell you about that plastic
@njzk2 [citation needed] — or, put differently, please don't rely on hunches when it comes to heath information, and don't create your own facts.
@KonradRudolph I'm just being cautious. For example, it took a long time to acknowledge just how bad BPA actually is. Or, put differently, please don't just trust any industrial group telling you that "your dentist recommends Camel".
@njzk2 I don’t trust industry groups, but I do trust modern scientific consensus and, unless you’re an expert in a relevant field, you should do the same: mistrusting the science isn’t “being cautious”. On the contrary, it’s dangerous (in this case, because it undermines expert consensus in general, and might lead you/others to seek less safe alternatives). BPA (very weakly toxic!) notwithstanding, there’s simply no rational reason to think food-grade plastic, which has been around for a long time in an increasingly strict food safety framework and is well researched, is in any way unsafe.
(@njzk2 In fact, if anything, BPA demonstrates just how well modern regulations in Western countries work, since it got withdrawn from the market out of an overabundance of precaution, not because any actual harm was demonstrated.)
@KonradRudolph but the same notion applies to asbestos, cigarettes, glyphosate, ... I don't mistrust the science, quite the contrary, but I'm wary of lobbies. It takes a long time for the scientific consensus to be established, and even longer for it to be followed by regulations. In the meantime being skeptical doesn't hurt.
@njzk2 Glyphosate is another excellent example, since glyphosate is almost certainly completely safe in its regular application: the so-called “evidence” to the contrary is largely (at least party intentionally) flawed, financed by industry lobby groups. The anti-scientific scare-mongering surrounding glyphosate are a prime example why you should listen to the scientific consensus rather than to uneducated peer juries. Ironically the demonisation of glyphosate has the effect of making vastly more toxic and harmful, or alternatively less effective, chemicals be used instead.
@njzk2 Let us continue this discussion in chat.
As said it can be done, but i wouldn't do it. Especially on chicken is it important that it is 'well done', if you put it in the oven it needs time to get warm inside. So if you stop heating it, you will heat the outside 'twice' but you still need a lot of time to heat the inside on the necessary temperature. So cooking don't get much faster, but the chicken gets dry outside.
You should considering it to put it in the oven with a fitting temperature, so that it is finished when you are back (low temperature) or finish the chicken and then just heating it when you want to eat.
Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please [edit] to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.343433
| 2021-09-20T10:48:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117253",
"authors": [
"AnoE",
"Community",
"Eos Pengwern",
"Graham",
"Joe",
"Joe M",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"Mike",
"Polygnome",
"Stephie",
"Tim",
"ceejayoz",
"chepner",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/-1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95674",
"njzk2",
"seroki"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122756
|
Pancakes and Waffles
Is it possible to make pancakes and waffles using the rich flavor of coffee creamer or half-and-half? I want to make pancakes and waffles using out of the box dairy ingredients.
Can you add some details to your question, to explain better what you're looking to do? Like, what do you mean "out of the box"? By "creamer" do you mean non-dairy creamer? Are you looking to substitute these into an existing recipe?
So you are basically trying to increase the fat content? Yeah, possible, but it will alter the texture. Can you elaborate a bit more on your plans, so that we can come up with a more qualified answer?
This seems like one of those things it would be quicker to try than to wait for answers to.
I just want to make pancakes and waffles using coffee creamer instead of milk.
Sure!
I had some powdered milk a while ago. Pandemic supplies. It all went into pancakes. A lot of bread machine recipes call for powdered milk. It is shelf stable and handy if there are not milk drinkers in the house.
Go ahead and use your creamer or powdered milk or whatever it is. You will need to add water to make the batter pourable. Maybe you could use your leftover coffee. The creamer will be happy to see its buddy.
Creamer is not powdered milk. It's a non-dairy, carbohydrate based product.
@FuzzyChef: very true. Neither is coffee. Or applesauce; applesauce makes a dynamite pancake.
Powdered orange drink, however, does not.
/Powdered orange drink, however, does not/ ...really. . To the kitchen, Fuzzy! We will determine the truth soon enough!
Anyway, I know that non-dairy creamer does not work in baked goods because of a prior question on another forum. Someone tried to make a pie with it.
@FuzzyChef - I can see how that might be true. But in a role as flavorful liquid to thin the batter it seems like it would be ok. Some people make pancakes with water.
@Willk I substitute half of the milk in my pancake recipe for orange juice, and it's great. Pancakes are not so finicky that liquid substitutions are likely to ruin them.
@Willk see my answer for why it does not work.
I have used coconut milk as well as non-dairy milk, (I think it was soya but not sure as someone else bought it,) in pancakes and those all worked out great. You can even used plain water and oil, egg and one of the many different kinds of flour in a pinch.
You will have to experiment and the resulting pancakes may be more bread like in some cases.
Based on that I am sure your milk replacements will work.
I doubt however that you will get a creamy result, as you will have to dilute till almost milk consistency to get a working pancake batter.
I am not as familiar with making waffles but seeing the very wide range of recipes and resulting waffles I am sure it can be done. Select a recipe that uses milk or a replacement to start with and use your cream or creamer instead. Diluting if needed if pooring is part of the process.
You cannot use non-dairy coffee creamer in place of dairy products in baking. Creamer is made from a combination of sugar, starches, oil, and thickeners. It does not behave like, or taste like, milk. Further, if you heat it above boiling temperature, it separates into carbohydrates and oil, resulting in a greasy mess.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.344273
| 2022-12-23T03:23:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122756",
"authors": [
"Esther",
"FuzzyChef",
"Kangaroo Funo",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"Willk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81837"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13987
|
Is there a way to speed up the process of making preserved lemons?
I really like preserved lemons, but I often find that I don't plan properly and don't time the month long wait properly. Is there a way to speed this process up?
Preserved Lemons
Quarter lemons Cover completely
with kosher salt Refridgerate one
month To serve, remove pith,
leaving just the rind. Chop and
include in sauces, etc.
Based on the first two answers, it's worth noting that the end result here is not dry. Since the lemons still have their juice, they soak / cure / marinate in a wet medium. They soften a bit and the flavor mellows significantly, but they do not dry.
It might be possible to Sulphur them, as with apricots or strawberries. I'm not sure what the 'preserved lemon' looks like at the end of how you've had them (dried, semi-dried, wet, etc); sulfuring results in semi-dried out fruit.
However Sulphur dioxide is not always considered an exmplar of healthy preservation.
Once preserved, they tend to end up in salty lemonade. The rinds are softened but still retain their original texture. They're certainly not dried.
@Yoss for that application I'm sure Sulphured is not ideal. Sulphured stuff is semi-dried more toward the totally dried end of the spectrum; so unless you just like chewy bits in your lemonade... XP For other applications, a soak and a quick run through a coffee grinder can get them usable again along the lines of sun-dried tomatoes
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.344543
| 2011-04-12T13:46:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13987",
"authors": [
"Aditya M P",
"FranciscoD",
"Matthew Bingham",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29349",
"mfg",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
122806
|
What does salt do in bread dough?
I'm making a bare-bones bread recipe, but I was wondering what the salt does. It looks like it helps it rise, but how does it compare to sugar? How do they interact with each other?
Salt has three functions in bread.
It changes the flavor, making it more savory.
It inhibits the yeast. In fact, it makes it more difficult to rise, not easier - as you see, the effect is not that pronounced, to the point where it was easy for you to mistake its direction from casual observation.
It makes a somewhat firmer gluten structure.
It doesn't really interact with sugar at the amounts used in bread recipes (and in a barebones recipe, there is no sugar anyway). Also, it has different effects from sugar, so there is no common dimension on which to compare them.
The salt effect can be quite pronounced if you add too much. I had mixed up the dry ingredients for no-knead bread but didn’t end up making it. Two weeks later I couldn’t remember if it was just flour or everything, so added more sugar, salt, and yeast. Doubled the sugar and yeast, but only added 1/2 the salt the second time just in case …. It barely rose.
Also, the effect is pretty pronounced without salt too. The bread tastes "flat" and almost metallic (at least to me). Same thing with oatmeal and eggs; like something is missing, but hard to say exactly what until you add a little salt.
@coblr I can vouch for the salt-in-oatmeal thing, at least; I was baffled why my oatmeal tasted hollow and grey, I'd added a bunch of sugar and raisins. My dad told me to add some salt - bingo!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.344695
| 2022-12-26T18:30:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/122806",
"authors": [
"Erhannis",
"Joe",
"coblr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45587",
"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
}
|
13608
|
What should I look out for when creating my own beef jerky marinades?
I have had some success with making beef jerky at home in my food dehydrator. I would like to try and start experimenting with some original recipes. A whole host of questions:
What sorts of ingredients can I use in my marinades?
Does it matter how thick / thin the marinade is?
Can I use fresh ingredients (chopped ginger for instance) or should I start with dry?
Can I use maple syrup / molasses instead of sugar?
Is salt (or soy sauce) an important part of the process or can I leave it out?
I'm not looking for specific recipes, but rather the basic attributes of a jerky marinade so that I can be inventive without throwing too many batches out (or being unsafe if salt is required for the drying process).
I've also recently started delving into jerky and began with Alton Brown's method/recipe (which turned out great btw) - although his recipe is heavy on soy sauce, it's got no salt whatsoever, and actually doesn't even use a food dehydrator (just a box fan) so I thought I'd throw that out there as a partial answer for your last bullet. I trust Alton not to kill me - I ate half a batch last week and my buddy ate the other half and we're both fine FWIW.
@stephen, yeah, I meant to lump soy in with salt as it seems more common. I've also used the AB recipe, although I used my dehydrator. It was excellent, and I'm planning on more. But I was thinking about a ginger, maple, soy, bourbon marinade and wasn't sure which aspects of it might work.
I have to admit that I haven't tried a lot of free-form jerky experiments so take what I say with a grain of salt. (see what I did there?)
Jerky is a double action meat preservation method. You soak the meat with way too much salt and then dehydrate it. Bacteria don't stand a chance. As Alton says in that episode "Club med becomes club dead". Not one of his best puns but it gets the point across.
Salt (or soy sauce, same thing) isn't required for the drying process but it is important for long term preservation. I have seen recipes that try to reduce it but I would never leave it out altogether. I would expect a reduced salt recipe to not have the longevity that most jerky has- If stored in an air tight container it will last nearly forever.
The non-salt ingredients don't really matter as long as they won't oxidize or pick up bad flavors during dehydration. The type of sugar also doesn't matter- although the recipes I prefer don't include any.
I honestly don't know about viscosity- I would expect it to need enough liquid to carry the salt into the meat. That would take some experimenting.
It is very important that there be as little fat as possible. The leaner the meat the better and don't add any to the marinade. Fats will go rancid quite quickly when exposed to so much air.
Lastly- I think I've posted this recipe before as the answer to some other question but it bears repeating. This family recipe is my favorite by far and I use it as a starting point for any experimenting:
Auntie Fern's Beef Jerky
3 lbs. deer meat or beef, sliced thin
1 T salt
1 tsp garlic powder
1 tsp onion powder
1 T pepper (I like coarse ground)
1/4 c. soy sauce
1/3 c. Worcestershire sauce
1/3 c. liquid smoke (hickory flavor)
Combine and marinade 12 hours. Drain. Dry.
In my research of making jerky, I found a few tips that helped. 1. reserve a small portion of your batch for experimentation, for example, marinade 80-90% of the meat in a tried and true recipe like the one above and for the remaining 10-20%, alter the recipe, add something remove something or try something totally different and see how it goes, this way you are not committing the whole batch on something you may not like. 2. keep notes on every batch, what you used what you did, did you like the results what could be done different next time. how did the 10% experiment come out? good enough to make a whole batch?
If you plan to omit the salt, keep the jerky in the fridge. My basic venison jerky recipes both call for a lot of kosher salt. I do a soy and brown sugar marinade with garlic powder and black pepper. The other one I do is a apple cider vinegar venison jerky.
You can play with all sorts of flavorings, but if you lessen or omit the salt, keep it in the fridge.
Also, I have a dehydrater and hate it. I line cookie sheets with foil, set the oven heat at the lowest it will go, and prop open the oven door with a cookie cutter to let the air circulate. It takes about 2 hours for me to dry out a batch of jerky that way.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.344862
| 2011-03-30T18:48:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13608",
"authors": [
"Chris Jackson",
"Linda Yorkman-Spurrier",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156865",
"stephennmcdonald",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9303
|
How do I make a foam?
I'm making Lobster Sous Vide with Pain Perdu and Tomato Marmalade tonight. I wanted to serve it with a lobster bisque(y) foam. I was planning on mixing lobster broth, cream, and some of the butter used in cooking the lobster, heat it up. Use an emulsifying agent and throw it in my vita mix. But I've never made a foam before.
So some questions:
I have Lecithin and Mono/diglyceride from a set. It says they're both emulsifying agents. Which should I use? What's the difference?
What's the appropriate ratio of emulsifying agent to liquid? How does changing the ratio affect the foam?
Does temperature effect how the foam forms?
What consistency should my bisque be to make a good foam? Does it need to be thin, or will it work thick?
What else should I know before trying to make this?
Update:
I really hoped that I could answer my own question today, but the foam was a complete failure. My Lecithin may be "off", it was kinda of sticky, not powdery at all. No idea what went wrong.
Disclaimer: I am not an expert on foams. I've made a couple before, successfully, but never anything like a lobster bisque foam. So I would advise any casual readers to do their own fact-checking and try this on a small scale - at least until somebody can verify it.
Now, onto the questions:
I have Lecithin and Mono/diglyceride from a set. It says they're both emulsifying agents. Which should I use? What's the difference?
First of all, what you want for a foam is a stabilizer, and emulsifiers and stabilizers are not the same thing. Personally, I have never heard of mono/diglyceride being used for a culinary foam. Some research suggests that it is actually an anti-foaming agent! Stick to the lecithin.
Note: For the sake of completeness, lecithin is also considered a foaming agent, which means it facilitates the foaming itself in addition to stabilizing it. This is especially important when making foams out of things that don't naturally foam, like teas or juices.
What's the appropriate ratio of emulsifying agent to liquid? How does changing the ratio affect the foam?
This page on culinary foam suggests starting with a 0.6% ratio, but most people (myself included) use a ratio of 1% - in other words, 1 g of lecithin for every 100 mL of liquid. See here, here, and here. The ratio is not quite as sensitive as some other hydrocolloids where you need to measure out sub-grams, but it is still important; too little and your foam won't hold at all (seems to be what happened to you), too much and you'll end up with soy-flavoured soap.
Note: When making a foam out of something that does not naturally foam, such as juice, you may need to up the ratio as high as 2%. Milk-based foams rely partially on the foaming ability of milk itself.
Does temperature effect how the foam forms?
Sort of. Actually, if you're making a milk-based foam then it's pretty much the same as just frothing the milk - i.e. for a cappuccino. The only difference is that you've added a stabilizing agent, so it will stay foamy. So basically you just need to keep it under 80° C or 175° F, otherwise it will burn. Lecithin can dissolve in cold water, so you really don't need to be very precise, but anecdotally, it's best if it's slightly warmed, say around 40° C (104° F).
What consistency should my bisque be to make a good foam? Does it need to be thin, or will it work thick?
You want a very thin consistency, close to the consistency of water, for the same reason that it's better to use skim milk for frothing and egg whites for meringue. Generally speaking, it's the proteins that are most active in creating culinary foams; large amounts of fat (such as in cream) can interfere with the foaming action and also add weight, which is not at all what you want in a foam.
I haven't made lobster bisque, but I believe it's very thick and made with cream - not a good candidate for foams. I looked at this Epicurious recipe which involves tomato paste, corn starch, and cream; if making a foam I think I would substitute a thin tomato sauce or juice, reduce or eliminate the corn starch, and use skim milk instead of cream. Remember that you're not trying to serve this bisque, you're using it in a foam.
What else should I know before trying to make this?
I don't have a Vitamix, and maybe it can do a lot of cool things that one can't do with an ordinary blender, but nevertheless, I've never heard of a culinary foam being made in an actual blender. A stick blender (AKA hand blender, immersion blender) is much more reliable for foaming.
Impressive answer!
+1. Good answer. A previous question suggested that the vita-mix would work fine. It's definitely not a normal blender, and water with a little soap in it will turn to 100% foam quickly. But it didn't seem to work here. The fat content and thickness may well have been the issue.
Interesting, @yossarian: Did you also follow Michael's suggestions on how to incorporate more air? That could be part of the problem too.
I didn't do that, but you should see what a vita-mix does to small amounts of liquid i think there's plenty of air being introduced. Based on your answer, I think the cream and butter may have been much more of a problem. I'll have to try an actual recipe next time rather than getting over confident and shooting from the hip on a first try at a new technique.
Haha @yossarian, always a good idea to keep it simple on the first try! I'd still suggest trying some of his suggestions if you run into trouble next time.
Thanks, @Aaronut. I'll definitely have another go soon. And I'll learn from my errors (for a while....then I'll make silly mistakes again). Given that this was the only error in a 5 courses, it ended up being ok.
So watching a video about wasabi foam, they specifically said that lecithin only works on cold liquids. It will not stabilize a warm / hot liquid. So that looks like it may have been a primary issue.
@yossarian: That's news to me. Hollandaise sauce basically takes advantage of the natural lecithin in egg yolks, and it emulsifies when warm. Grant Achatz agrees that you get better aeration from a warm (not hot) liquid. If it was hot then that might have caused problems, but otherwise I think the fat-protein ratio is a more likely explanation (as well as possibly the fact that stand blenders don't have emulsifying blades and hence aren't that great at this).
Hmmmm. Maybe the intrawebs were mistaken! Gasp!
@yossarian: Well, I'm not sure which video you were watching; it's certainly conceivable that under certain circumstances cold would be best, but even just think of lathering up a soap - it's easier with warm water, isn't it? Same principle.
Well, this was the video. http://www.5min.com/Video/Lab-Coat-Cooking-Wasabi-Foam-78844208
@yossarian: Oh, those guys. That was the same site where I watched the video on the mozzarella balloons that failed so miserably the other day. :P
A few weeks ago, I tried this for the first time with a friend. We were making kiwi foam and it seemed to be a disaster even after adding >2% of lecithin. There was a little bit of foam and it was thicker than the liquid we started out with, but it wouldn't stick. We finally gave up and said "it tastes good, so we'll serve it as is and call it something else".
We put the bowl in the fridge.
A couple of hours later, when it was time to serve dessert, lo and behold, there was perfect separation of the foam and the liquid. The foam was really good. We just needed to wait a few hours for the liquid to separate out.
There are several ways to make foams, depending upon whether you want a hot or cold application. XANTHAN GUM can be used to replicate the binding effect usually provided by the fat of whipping cream so that it is now possible to create an incredibly tasty low-fat whipped cream. By adding 1 gr XANTHAN GUM to 1 cup of half-n-half and 1 cup of low fat milk and blending in a mixer, then pour into a whipper; charge with N2O gas; shake well and pipe out a low-fat whipped cream; add any flavors; strain particles and fibers.
AGAR AGAR will allow you to be able to serve warm or cold mousses as appetizers or side dishes. Make 2 cups warm sauce or 2 cups cold puree; add to a blender and slowly add the 2 gr AGAR AGAR; strain any particles and fibers. Place in sauce pot bring to a boil and gradually add cream, mix until homogeneous; for warm foams place into whipper; charge with N2O gas; shake well and pipe; for cold foams refrigerate until sauce congeals; re-blend; pour into culinary whipper; charge with N2O gas; shake well and pipe out. COLD SOLUBLE GELATIN will allow you to add an exquisite melt-in-the-mouth effect to your desserts! Place 2 cups warm or cold liquid in a blender and gradually incorporate 4 gr GELATIN; put in a pan on low heat, simmer do not boil; cool for cold sauce or keep warm for warm sauce; pour into culinary whipper; charge with N2O; shake well and pipe out.
Hi Iv been a professional chef for close to 15 years so hopefully I can shed some light here
Soya lecithin will only create a stable foam in water based liquids if you have any dairy present it won't create the desired effect for best results using soy lecithin I use a 1 teaspoon of lecithin powder per 100ml of liquid and make sure it's completely combined using an electric whisk or a blender once it's combined properly you'll know as it will begin to create foam
If your wanting to create a cold dairy based foam such as for a mousse you'll need either an espuma powder or an espessant for cold or hot respectively, both of which can be easily bought online, both of these work best using a cream charger and no2 (nitrous oxide) cartridges
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.345345
| 2010-11-20T14:08:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9303",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Amy Shropshire",
"BaffledCook",
"DeShay",
"Rob Hullar",
"Shaun",
"anthonyeleven",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24245
|
How can I improve the texture of my home-made sausages?
I am experimenting with home made sausages. Grinding chuck to make the sausage.
Typically I pass it through the grinder 2-3 times (kitchenaid grinder, small die).
I've gotten the flavor nice, but when cooked the sausages are mealy and soft. When I reduce the number of grinds I get a sausage that is grainy and feels like hamburger in the mouth.
No matter what cooking technique I use (steaming, simmering, sloooow grilling, fast grilling) I get a sausage that is so flimsy it falls apart on the way to the plate.
What am I missing?
Could you include the ratio of ingredients that you are using (meats:fats, other dry ingredients), and perhaps a description of the coarseness of the grind that you are stuffing (2-3 passes sounds like it might be really fine depending on the meat)?
1 kilo Beef Chuck. Good amount of connective tissue, and fat. (i'm guessing 15%, that's the normal number for chuck)
1 cup of bread crumbs
1/2 a cup of canola oil
2 tbsp table salt
1 tbsp each garlic, sweet paprika, cumin
At the restaurant I used to manage we always made our own sausage. The grinder we used had holes that were about 3/16 of inch. If I remember correctly the KA grinder attachment comes with two discs, a coarse and a fine. Have you tried the larger plate? One pass would probably be more "hamburger" like but perhaps two passes would be less like hamburger but not as fine as what your getting now.
Chuck? As in beef chuck? Not that it won't work, but it'll be slightly different taste and texture wise than the more common pork sausage.
I don't think the # of grinds is the issue. I'd be looking more at:
temperature. Do you put the meat in the freezer for an hour or so before grinding, and are your bowls/grinder/etc cold? If your meat gets too warm, it'll separate from the fat, resulting in a mealy sausage.
are you beating the ground meat & spices with the paddle blade and a bit of liquid at the end? You want to do that to produce a bind and end up with a tight (not crumbly) sausage.
Amazing. You named everything I'm doing wrong. Thankyou so much!!!
Pinhead rusk in the right quantities makes a huge difference as does keeping the meat virtually frozen while preparing it. It took a long time for me to get it right but I would say 10% of the weight needs to be proper sausage rusk. Also, when I grind my meat up I throw in some ice cubes, but I make my ice cubes fresh with filtered water and chopped fresh sage.
Are you using enough salt? Salt has a massive effect on meat proteins, and when you grind meat and get salt involved it makes the meat cohere much more than it would without. This then leads to a sausage which stays together rather than crumbling apart when it's cooked.
From my (admittedly limited experience) you either have to go for the hamburger route (handle the ground meat as little as possible so it stays fairly distinct) or the sausage route (use salt and mix it thoroughly to get it to stick to itself). In between has never worked well for me at all.
Omit the canola oil. Oil prevents the meat fibers from binding.
Seems there's not enough solid fat. Separate the fat from the lean beef and measure separately. You need a minimum of 15% fat (20% is best), if the roast doesn't come with enough, you can add beef suet (back fat), or pork fat to the get the desired ratio. I found that, in general, store-bought chuck roast only comes with about 5% solid fat.
Add a small amount of water to the seasoning mix when mixing - just enough to make a thick slurry. This adds moisture and helps distribute the seasoning.
Bread crumbs are probably not helping, try a small batch without them to see if they make a difference. I personally don't like breadcrumbs because they impart a dough-like flavor and can dry out the sausage.
Consider using textured soy protein (TSP). If you want to use only beef in your sausage, then TSP helps retain moisture, stops shrinkage, improve texture, improves binding and tenderness. Do #'s 1-4 first, then experiment with TSP to see if it improves your sausage. You will need to add enough water just to get this to a paste before mixing.
I recommend Len Poli's Sonoma Mountain website for DIY sausage making. He has a ton of great info there.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.346055
| 2012-06-06T12:54:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24245",
"authors": [
"Emil Zahariev",
"Justin Alexander",
"Margo",
"bennett gray",
"bowlOfPetunias",
"djmadscribbler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9799",
"mfg"
],
"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
}
|
59484
|
How many cups is 8 whole peaches equivalent to?
I have some fresh peaches that have been peeled and sliced and mixed with some sugar and a little lemon (approx 1/2 a bushel).
All the recipes I can find only call for "8 peaches" or similar values. But my peaches are already cut up.
Does anyone have a suggestion as to how many cups of peaches is equivalent to 8 peaches?
If there hasn't been too much sugar added to 'em -- make peach butter, and then can the extras. If you have people to help you eat it, make cobbler. If you want some extra variety, search for a recipe called 'Peach Enchiladas' (and then use Mt. Dew when making it).
If I gave you any number I'd be almost certainly wrong - peaches come in many different sizes. (And personally I'm led to believe that any recipe that gives only a number like "8 peaches" is either crap because is's imprecise or tolerates a lot of difference.)
So I suggest you
either find a recipe with a weight
My first guess is jams that often use equal or specific-ratio parts (by weight) of ingredients.
or one that gives volumetric meassurement for the cut fruit
"add two cups of sliced peaches"
or choose something that can be imprecise because you add ingredients to taste.
Compote, for example. Less sugar for ripe fruit, more for tart ones...
And if all fails and you have only sliced your fruit, try to "build" a whole peach (sort of, you don't have to find the original pieces, this isn't CSI) and weigh that. The rest is simple math. If you want to be very precise you could weigh 1c sugar as well and subtract from the total amount, but for 1/2 bushel of fruit I'd probably ignore it.
Cobbler. OMG cobbler... or pie.... or even just "pie filling". So good.
@Catija Yup. All out of the third category, methinks ^_^
As they say in the US state of Maine "You can't get there from here."
You need to know the peach size before you cleaned an syrup'd them.
I checked USDA Table 8, it has nutrition, volume and weight information, and found:
Does anyone have a suggestion as to how many cups of peaches is equivalent to 8 peaches?
Based on the chart above, here is my guesstimate:
the recipe is written for medium peaches (150 grams each) [medium is an assumption]
8 peaches times 150 grams = 1200 grams of peach needed
1200 grams of peaches / 154 grams for a measuring cup gives, just under 8 cups of peaches = 8 medium peaches
As you can see, there's allot of wiggle room in there. Consider keeping notes while cooking with goal of writing your own future recipe in grams.
I've found that 2 medium size peaches is a cup, give or take, and this works in a recipe I like that calls for 8 peaches.
I've removed the rant-ish parts here, to leave behind the actual answer to the question. It's best to focus on answering the question, and if you must disagree with something else, to just explain why, and avoid inflammatory language.
-1, because in every locale I have ever lived, "medium size peach" was a very different thing from the "medium size" in the next locale. "Very different" as in, the largest "average peach" I've seen must have a volume of about 6-8 times as much as the smallest.
8 peaches equal five and a half to 6 cups of sliced peaches
...depending on size, rotten parts discarded, ...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.346447
| 2015-07-31T01:11:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59484",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Dentist Seattle",
"Elizabeth Palik",
"Jackie Yu",
"Joe",
"Karen Schmid",
"Kay Nowell",
"Malgorzata Ptasznik",
"Matt Oakley",
"Michelle Barker",
"Robert",
"Sarah Mullett",
"Stephie",
"Stijn van der Ham",
"crystal ferry",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"nomsa tshabalala",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59984
|
Why would different types of pots/pans (made from different metal) give a different taste to food?
There's many types of pots and pans: from copper to stainless steel. I own several different types at home. I have been using them, and I've noticed a slightly different tastes each one give on the same food. I want to understand the reason why different pot and pan would give a different taste to food. Understanding this also might help me use the correct pot/pan for specific recipes.
I don't know if this is a topic that people are even going to agree with me on.
Is it because each pot/pan has different heat distribution? Or does the pot/pan impart something to the food depending on which metal it is?
Some metal react differently with some food, mostly with acidic ingredients like tomatoes.
Stainless steel and ceramic are non-reactive and should not impart different flavor to the food.
Aluminium, "regular" steel, iron(cast-iron), copper are known to be reactive and will react to ingredients and will change some of the flavors.
I mostly used stainless steel pans and pots (and stainless-steel lined aluminium pans) and don't have issues with "flavoring".
(from http://www.thekitchn.com/food-science-explaining-reacti-73723 )
Just to add to that, also tools wear down over time. So if you have a pan that is lined with aluminum or teflon, after sometime the finished surface will begin to wear down and thus change the end resulting taste of the food (because it's now being cooked on a different material).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.346740
| 2015-08-17T12:27:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59984",
"authors": [
"Amy Wolf",
"Andy Fuller",
"Chef Pharaoh",
"Donald Williams",
"Graham Lacey",
"Pauline Burke",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27590",
"jenita lissy"
],
"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.