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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
9526
|
Boiling eggs on an electric or gas stove: why the boiling time difference?
Having fairly recently moved from a country where cooking on gas is the standard (the Netherlands) to a country where cooking electrically is the standard (Sweden), I've noticed that I need to boil my eggs a good minute, minute and a half longer than I used to.
I always put them in as the water is already boiling.
Until now my assumption has been: boiling point is boiling point–once the water hits 100°C the heat dispersion goes up rapidly, keeping the temperature close to that–but it appears my assumption was false.
Anyone care to explain?
Are the eggs the same size? Are you using the same size pot and same amount of water?
@Harlan: Triple yes.
Are the eggs starting at the same temperature they were? The stove isn't the only new appliance! And is it a full rolling boil, so you can guarantee the water gets well-mixed to a constant temperature?
Now that you mention it... my girlfriend–with whom I moved here–prefers to store the eggs in the fridge. In the Netherlands I usually stored them in a cupboard.
How I could miss such an elementary observation is beyond me. :-)
A full rolling boil indeed.
Silly, silly me.
As Jefromi suggested earlier, the largest contributor to the fact it takes that much longer is probably the fact that the eggs are at a different themselves at the moment I put them in.
I used to store eggs in a cupboard; now I store them in the refrigerator.
That is not to say the other factors mentioned by Martha and Sklivvz don't add to that–they most likely do–but this seems the most reasonable, if unanticipated, explanation.
Thank you all for your answers and suggestions!
Is there a difference in altitude between where you live now and where you used to live? The heat of a gas and an electric stove should be the same, but boiling temperature differs. The higher the altitude, the lower the boiling point, since it's a factor of air pressure. (More explanations from Wikipedia.)
Water only boils at 100C at sea level. This site can calculate it for you.
Good point! Although I can't measure the difference very accurately myself, it can't be more than 30 meters higher at my new location.
This was my first guess too. According to that link, Amsterdam's elevation (2m) gives you an extra degree C of temp compared to Stockholm.
It's probably due to the fact that gas stoves heat up the water continuously, whereas electric stoves turn on and off.
Since you put in the eggs after the water is boiling, they make the water go below the boiling point, but the gas stove starts instantaneously to heat up the water again, and the electric stove may or may not.
To test this hypothesis: put in the eggs with cold water and count 9 minutes after the water starts to boil. Of course, you also need a gas stove... ;-)
Sounds reasonable. I do believe, however, that this is much more the case with a glass top stove than with a coil stove (which is what I use now). As it easily takes fifteen minutes for the coils to cool down, I'm not sure the argument holds.
Sadly I don't have a gas stove to compare; I don't even know anyone here who owns one. I will keep it in the back of my head in case that changes, and hopefully post back with my findings.
When I make hard boiled eggs, I always use the oven. This way, you can preheat to the exact temperature and they always cook the same. What I usually do is place the eggs on the racks, and put something underneath in the unfortunate case one of them breaks. I know not every ovens are the same, but this should allow for a more controlled environment. Also, I have fit between 50 and 60 eggs in my oven at the same time, which is great for parties.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.384101
| 2010-11-27T22:16:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9526",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chrys",
"Harlan",
"Holly",
"Jachin",
"Jeff",
"Mr. Shiny and New 安宇",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19530",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45",
"oKtosiTe",
"user1664906",
"user19496"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57258
|
How can I cook a full chicken with skin on it when my oven is broken?
Our oven is broken and we can only use a frying pan. We have started to defrost a full chicken with the skin on it. We are a little new to cooking. How can I still prepare it?
You will not be able to cook the whole chicken with a frying pan alone. You will need to joint the chicken - ie split it up into its component joints. Failing that, do you have some other way of creating indirect heat, like a barbecue?
Outright recipe requests are off topic on the site, so I removed that part instead of closing. It is OK to ask for techniques you can apply (as in, expecting answers which say "use a pan" or "braise it") so the question as it is now is good. Once somebody has suggested a technique you like, you can search recipe databases for the detailed preparation instructions.
I cooked a whole chicken in a slow cooker the other day. Added no liquid just a little veg to the bottom. Came out perfectly.
As long as your chicken isn't too big, you can buy a large toaster oven. They are cheap and also more energy efficient.
You could steam the chicken by enclosing the bird and the pan with foil and placing some water in the pan. It will require a lot of patience and you'll have to check the water level and turn the bird often, but it can work.
I am going to assume you do not have access to a grill?
If you are intent on cooking the bird whole (as opposed to butchering it into pieces which you can fry in a pan), then your only option would be to braise the bird in a large pot, preferably a Dutch oven. There are myriad recipes online; search for "Chicken in a Pot" or "Braised Whole Chicken". As ElendilTheTall mentioned in the comments above, the only other option to keep the chicken whole would be to use a barbecue/grill.
@Lilienthal Thanks, I forgot to mention that! But frying a whole bird is the type of thing that isn't very safe to do indoors. And if you have the means to do it outdoors, then you likely also have a barbecue/grill that can act as an oven, too :-)
@Lilienthal Now that I'd like to see!
@SaturnsEye for the most entertaining results, do a video search for "deep fried turkey explosion", and understand why ESultanik's warning " frying a whole bird is the type of thing that isn't very safe to do indoors" is an understatement!
@Lilienthal That last "as long as you know what you're doing" is a HUGE caveat. Dealing with gallons of blazing-hot, flammable oil is hazardous no matter what; probably not something for the OP to mess about with given that they mention being new to cooking.
+1 for the Dutch Oven suggestion. First thing that came to mind. Deep frying poultry is really for the Mythbusters guys.
Do you have a big pot with lid or a pressure cooker?
If the chicken fits inside, just put some veggies in the bottom, the chicken, a cup of liquid, salt pepper and herbs and cook it covered during one hour at low fire (maybe 45 minutes if you are using a pressure cooker). Make sure the liquid doesn't evaporate completely or you will burn it; but if you are cooking it slowly, covered with the lid, that shouldn't happen. Once it is ready, you can put the veggies and the rest of the liquid in the blender to make a light sauce, but I would get rid of the fat on top.
If you have time, I would recommend that you cook it the day before, letting it rest in a cool place and then keep it in the fridge, with the sauce, until the next day. You can reheat it in the same pot. It will be more soft and juicy.
Recipes:
I sometimes cook it with some chopped onions, carrots and leak and the juice of a couple of oranges, then I put the skin of the squeezed oranges inside of the chicken, and I add a bit of water.
Another option would be to use white wine instead of oranges, and some rosemary and thyme. Maybe a bit of fennel too.
Enjoy!
This was a brilliant suggestion. Thank you.. repped + 1
If you don't have a large pot and can't follow ESultanik's recommendation, you're going to need to joint the chicken. Once that's done, you can either shallow fry it (where the oil only comes up a little more than half way up the pieces) or braise it.
If you're going to braise it, I'd actually recommend using a recipe that makes better use of the cooking liquid, such as Arroz con Pollo, where you brown the chicken first, then finish the chicken in the same liquid that you're cooking rice in.
You're also likely going to want to remove the skin -- braising and other wet cooking methods will result in flabby skin, which is typically not good. You can either get your hand under the skin at the neck & lower cavity to loosen it and then slice it off before jointing it (which might make it easier to see where to cut for jointing), or you can just grab and pull (if you can't grip it well, try using a paper towel).
It's not necessary to shallow-fry or braise once the chicken has been jointed. It'll pan-fry just fine with only enough oil to stop it sticking.
@DavidRicherby : I've had bad luck with cooking legs. Thighs and breast are fine, but I've never had legs come out well in a mostly dry pan.
You need to take the foot-end off the bone like this so the meat lies flat against the pan. What the video doesn't IIRC mention is that you should cut through the knobbly end bit of the bone, not the shaft, so it doesn't shatter. ("IIRC" because I'm at work so I have sound turned off.) Thanks for reminding me to make this completely non-obvious point! :-)
You can also spratchcock the chicken (remove the backbone) put in a heavy preferably cast iron, weight it down for a "Brick Chicken" plenty of recipes on the net. This also speeds up the cook time by about 1/2.
If you don't have a large enough pan, you can halve it and cook it in two separate pans. And we don't really have PMs ... just notification if someone comments on something you said.
A recipe I tried recently (which came out delicious) is murgh mussalam which is a stuffed chicken dish from India (apparently developed in the kitchen of one of the Mughal emperors). Some versions of the recipes call for cooking in the oven but others (like the one I used) have you cook it on the stove. It's probably best used if the chicken is smaller although it would work with a larger bird I suppose if your pot is large enough and you cook it a little longer.
Basically you prepare a stuffing with some minced meat, herbs and spices and stuff it into the cavity of the chicken (along with some hard-boiled although I left them out). The you prepare a curry sauce/gravy on the stove, add in the chicken and cook it covered for about half an hour or until cooked through, stirring every few minutes or so, and spooning over some of the sauce.
This was the recipe I used: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UliEDkccxts
You can roast a chicken in a large toaster oven. The chicken will turn out just as good as when you use a conventional oven. Some key points - put the breast down. In a toaster oven the top of the chicken is closer to the heating rods than a traditional oven, so the breast may dry out if you expose it. Here is a video of a chicken roasted in a toaster oven.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFReZBCg_QQ
Toaster ovens are very cheap. You should be able to find a decent one for around $30 - $70. They are also very energy efficient compared to a traditional oven. Over the long hall, it will pay for itself in reduced utility bills. Preheating a toaster oven takes only a few minutes. I often use the toaster oven to roast vegetables, bake cookies, make open face sandwiches, reheat pizza slices and roast chickens.
I've had some success playing with Jamie Oliver's poached chicken recipe. It's pretty much a one-pot dish, but clearly you can't do it in a frying pan. You will have very limited options for cooking a whole chicken in just a frying pan, especially if you mean a simple shallow-sided frying pan rather than a higher sided sauté pan.
Frying Pan
Sauté Pan
Depending on the size, you may be able to cook the whole chicken in a crockpot. I'd estimate it would take 3-4 hours on High.
Considering you want to keep the chicken whole, and you won't necessarily want to buy a slow cooker or a Dutch Oven, I recommend using a relatively deep frying pan with a lid.
Place the chicken in the frying pan, and fill the pan until about halfway up the chicken's sides with warm water, seasoned with spices and salt, with a few tablespoons of vinegar. The vinegar will break down some of the proteins of the chicken and will help it to be 'fall off the bone', the salt will help to loosen the connection between skin and meat, and the water will help heat to permeate deeper into the chicken. Leave to cook on medium-low heat with the lid on, with the mixture barely boiling. You will need to rotate the chicken, spoon liquid on top of it, and rotate it occasionally. It should take a little more than 1 hour.
If you want crispy skin, then I'm afraid I don't have a method, just a guess to try searing it in hot oil.
I would cook a chicken tabaka. It is a whole chicken flattened on the frying pan and fried in some oil. The dish is very simple and results is something quite similar to an oven-cooked chicken. All you have to do is to cut the chicken to separate the ribcage. The bird remains in one piece.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.384581
| 2015-05-07T10:37:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57258",
"authors": [
"Angela Watson",
"BMW 328is",
"Caroline Brand",
"David Richerby",
"Doug",
"ESultanik",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Ellie Harris",
"Giovanna",
"Ian Lewis",
"Joe",
"M Hildebrandt",
"Marcin Olecki",
"Margaret Wakeling",
"Mary Penland",
"Michelle Lavoie",
"Mr. Mascaro",
"Niall Kavanagh",
"Oliver Murray",
"Reshma TV",
"SaturnsEye",
"TheBlackBenzKid",
"Trevor Sirmond",
"Vanessa Shante",
"WetlabStudent",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11125",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"logophobe",
"michelle Watters",
"psubsee2003",
"rumtscho",
"ruth helpful",
"sivathanu pillai",
"user56reinstatemonica8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12884
|
Why are baking measurements such nice round numbers?
I've heard over and over that when it comes to baking, measurements cannot be ignored, and you need to be very precise. This question covers how precise a measurement of flour should be, for example. But if getting your baking just right requires being so painstaking in measuring ingredients, how is it possible that all of the amounts in recipes come out to such neat and easy numbers? I can't remember if I've ever seen a flour measurement go more specific than the nearest 1/4 cup. The smaller chemicals like baking powders are usually to the half tsp, that I've seen, but I can imagine they go down to 1/4 or 1/8. And eggs basically always come in ones, or one yolk, but there's not much you can do about that. Weight measurements are more specific of course, but have you ever seen a ratio like 4.2683 oz of flour per egg?
How accurate is this really? Does this mean if your flour measurement is off by 1/16th cup you'll be just fine? Or it just won't look the same as the one made by the person who invented the recipe? I have a hard time believing that with such complex chemistry involved, the optimal quantities are so close to large fractions of our units of measure. Is there actually a bit more fudge room with some ingredients than we're being told?
Also, if so, which ingredients are more forgiving? I'd guess that baking powders are among the least.
I'm guessing that the '4.2683 oz of flour per egg' thing might be true for large scale bakers (the professionals) who are making 100s of loaves per day ... but then they'd have to round when they tried to scale it for a home kitchen. I've also seen some recipes that call for '1 c. + 1 Tb' and the like, so it's possible to specify more precise measurements (but then for flour there's that whole issue of precision when using volumetric measures instead of weight)
Actually, when you are in production of 100's plus loaves per day, there is even more wiggle room. If you have a slack mix, you add five or six pounds of flour. Because of the sheer size of the mixes you are working with, it can seem very imprecise at times.
Your question got me thinking... On the other hand, why are the measurement units we cook with so arbitrary? e.g. Three tsp per tbsp, but 4 cups per quart...
Could it also be the case that the measurements grew out of the amounts we used, so they match up nicely? For example, if many recipes call for 1 cup of flour per egg (or whatever), the cup probably got to be the size it is because it fit nicely with an egg in many recipes.
"4.2683 oz of flour per egg" now would that be a Medium, Large, Extra Large, or Jumbo egg? And since even those have ranges of size within grade, which particular egg of that size am I choosing, and how long do I wait for the white to drain from the shell before I give up and call it done... yeah, it's just not actually that precise after all.
I've always been taught that baking is a science when it is compared to cooking. Cooking is very much 'to taste' and very individual. There are not as many things that can go wrong with a standard recipe in cooking, and you have a lot more room for creativity. You don't have to look at baking as that precise. However, unlike cooking, where you can add or subtract from a recipe with no real harm to physical structure, that does not hold in baking. For examlple, if you feel that there is too much salt in a recipe, cutting back can (and most likely will) have a cascading effect through the ingredient chain. You have to understand your ingredients and the effect they have on other ingredients. That is what makes baking a more precise science.
And in terms of flour, it is often the most 'ranged' ingredient. Depending on flour type, miller, altitude, water temp. etc., the amount of flour in a given recipe is always a guide. Again, you have to know your ingredients. You will never see 'one and an eight cup plus 2 TBSP hard flour' in a recipe, because it is so variable for many different reasons. Flour and water are the two most flexible ingredients, and are always variable.
Hopefully this helps, I am sure someone will come along with a more scientific explanation for all different ingredients, I am just offering an experience based answer to your question.
Also, you are right, do not mess around with baking soda and powder. If you do, you are asking for trouble.
I would suppose that the rule of thumb would be that the more exacting an ingredient is (tsp, quarter tsp), you don't want to change much.
+1. Saying the same thing in a different way: you can make a delicious sauce with 1 part wine and 2 parts stock, and a different delicious sauce with 2 parts wine and 1 part stock. Cooking is so inexact that in comparison baking is a science. But still the ratios between the amounts of ingredients are a lot less precise than in an industrial chemical process.
I know how a decent bread dough should feel. I look at the recipe as a guide, but what I rely on more is how things should feel and smell (and occasionally, taste). I'm not that experienced with baking, but it only takes a few goes to pick some of these things up. (Some take much longer though.) That's part of what knowing your ingredients means.
Another important difference between baking and cooking is that when cooking, it's possible to taste food as one is going along and make adjustments as needed. When baking, the mix of ingredients has to be right before food goes in the oven, because it can't be adjusted afterward.
You might not see " 'one and an eight cup plus 2 TBSP hard flour'" in a recipe ever because 2 TBSP is an eighth of a cup, and so this is really One and a quarter cups ;)
Realistically, there's a lot of flexibility in baking, in spite of the cargo cult mantra that you have to follow pastry recipes exactly. There are simple, weight-based ratios that can be used as a foundation for plenty of variation. The "round numbers" are, in fact, approximations, and this is often why you'll see that a typical baked good recipe in a consumer-oriented cookbook isn't designed to scale exactly past, say, doubling or so.
When you diverge dramatically from a base ratio, you may get an unexpected outcome. But, for example, pate a choux can be converted from the basic cream puff shell to a gougere by simply adding a modest amount of cheese to the dough. Within a moderate range, the exact amount of cheese won't matter that much. When I make muffins, I follow a basic ratio, and add additional items like fruits and nuts without even measuring; given enough experience, you can eyeball how much a recipe can take.
You can see more evidence of this as you look at most cake or pastry cookbooks. If you reduce the components to their essential character (fat, flour, egg, sweetener, liquid, leavening, flavoring) you'll probably find that there are only about 6-12 archetypal recipes in most such cookbooks. Some of them are even up-front about it and tell you to start with the "basic yellow cake recipe" then add x, y, and z.
That's not to say you won't get different results when you use less or more of an ingredient than the base recipe requires, but you'll probably get very adequate results as long as you're close to the base ratio.
Most chefs aren't particularly scientific, and you should realize that many of our archetypal baking recipes are the serendipitous result of relatively haphazard experimentation. Supposedly, the original souffle was a "mistake" caused by using too many eggs in a cake recipe. Additionally, even with weight based measurements, most ingredients have quite a lot of natural variation, depending on seasonality and, even for things like refined flour, climate and varietal differences can change your results. I've started with some recipes that worked pretty well when I was a student in Germany and had very different (though often acceptable) results in the US with similar ingredients.
Ruhlman's book called Ratio is a good place to look at these kind of archetypal recipes, and includes a fair amount of references on baked goods, though it's not the focus of the book.
Of course there is some wiggle room.
Depending on the type of recipe you are baking different ingredients are going to be more important. In bread, for example, the flour to water ratio is going to be the most important. Even slight changes in these can dramatically affect the product. In my experience, for my 6 loaf recipe, a "slight" change would be more than 1/4 of flour or just a couple Tbs of water.
Keep in mind that haphazard measuring of flour can result in differences far exceeding 1/4 cup. (depending on the size of the batch of course)
Some ingredients aren't so picky- the difference in egg sizes, for example, has never significantly impacted my results; yeast quantities affect rise times, flavor, etc. but it will work out; Salt is to taste.
I bought a digital scale and converted my old bread recipe to weight and now I don't have to measure anything (the old way) I just dump in the flour until the weight is right. It's nice.
All in all- if you are measuring so carefully that it isn't fun anymore then you're taking it too seriously. Measure carefully when it's important but let it be enjoyable.
Of course if you are making a yeast-raised dough, be careful when messing with salt. Asides from affecting flavour, it is your yeast control mechanism. Less salt = far quicker proof, more salt = slow rising, possibly dead dough.
@mrwienerdog- true but the relative salt content doesn't need to be that exact. For example- my recipe calls for 2 Tbs for 6 loaves. I could go 1 Tbs either way and the bread will be fine. You can't change the flour or water by 50%.
I'm not saying it won't be fine, but I can guarantee that if you increase salt by fifty percent in a yeast raised dough you are going to have one hell of a slow moving dough. That is simply what I was pointing out.
It's interesting to note that while liquid-to-flour ratio is like you say one of the most critical balances to keep in a given baking recipe, it can vary a lot based off of flour type and humidity; I've had recipes where even cups of flour were left out (or added) because the way I had sifted the ingredients and the humidity of my kitchen had made the doughs "come-to" at a very different point.
Basics:
Baking recipes are FORMULAS i.e.
total flour weight = 100%
all other ingredients are a % of the flour weight i.e. 80%, 120% etc.
this allows you to scale up/down "recipes"
then the intangibles of experience 'taste, feel, smell, etc.' allow minor adjustments.
The flour is scaled at 100% because of all the variables affecting the water content of your flour i.e. humidity, type of flour, grind and others.
See: wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_percentage
@Ecnerwal If you see something that doesn't answer a question, just flag it and optionally leave a polite note explaining the situation.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.385364
| 2011-03-07T13:51:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12884",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Ecnerwal",
"Erik P.",
"FJC",
"JeffG",
"Joe",
"Nathan",
"Sobachatina",
"Two Replies",
"acidnbass",
"dreamlax",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26650",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"justinpc",
"mrwienerdog",
"petikee",
"supercat",
"user1118321",
"user3177067"
],
"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
}
|
11672
|
How come heating milk in the microwave is safe?
I was reading this question and began to ask myself...
Since milk contains calcium, and calcium is a metal (just like potassium), how come putting a cup of milk in the microwave is safe and there are no visible arcs or sparks?
Calcium is in an ionic form when dissolved in the milk fat and behaves differently to a solid metal. In addition to this the ratio of metal to non metal is a factor - you can actually put foil in the microwave, for example a meat pie that commonly comes in a foil container - this is able to be heated because there is enough water molecules in the pie to absorb the energy from the microwave
If you read the comments on the question you link to, the conclusion seems to be that there's something going on besides simple mineral content.
When metal is exposed to microwave radiation, an electric potential difference can develop as the microwaves generate electric charge in parts of the metal. Flowing electricity can cause sparks as electrons migrate to places of lower potential. Solid metal is susceptible to this because its electrons are relatively loose, making it a good conductor of electricity.
Calcium (Ca) in milk is bonded with other atoms (mostly as calcium phosphate), so it doesn't behave as a solid metal would: first because its electrons are secured in bonds with other atoms, and second, because the Ca atoms are not aggregated together but intermixed with nonconducting ones.
This is the same reason why the iron in meat or green vegetables doesn't cause lightning bolts in the microwave. It's only elemental conductive metals which cause problems.
I'm by no means a chemist, but wouldn't the calcium ions and phosphate dissociate in solution? Obviously the important thing is that the calcium is ionized, not a piece of metal with a conduction band. I guess you're using "bonded" in the ionic sense, i.e. without meaning that the components are actually physically connected?
@jefromi: this is going way back, but I recall that electrons that are part of a complete shell are the most stable and least likely to float away on an electric current... so if the calcium is in solution as part of a salt, it is a Ca2+ ion, and its two missing electrons will have joined a salt partner that was missing two electrons; however I'm not sure if the calcium phosphate in milk is soluble, or part of some larger molecules.
@jonw: That's what I was driving at: the important thing is that the electron configurations are stable, not that the calcium is bonded with anything. (As for the dissociating... ionic compounds are generally soluble, since water is polar. I don't know anything about the chemistry of milk, was just going off of your statement that it was calcium phosphate.)
Probably more a size thing than the ionization state. The potential difference across an atom from the E field is pretty tiny! Sub-mm sized particles of conductive metal in a microwave don't get hot.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.386210
| 2011-01-31T04:30:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11672",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cheeku",
"J. Win.",
"Jason",
"Martin Beckett",
"Matthew Walton",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/539"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14924
|
Is my fancy cheese still safe to eat?
A few weeks ago, I went to Amsterdam and bought several pounds of cheese, including one massive (3 pound) round of Edam. It was wrapped in wax paper and was told that I could leave it out on cold, shady spot of the counter until it was broken up, at which point I needed to refridgate it. I left it in the paper for a couple of weeks and imagine my surprise when I went to get a slice and it had what looks like white mold growing on the top. It has spent only three weeks on the counter and appears to be in a yellow parafin wax (it's got printing on it, so I'm assuming it's wax).
Can I still eat it? If I wash off the mold, would that make it better? Should I have put it in the fridge?
If it is edible, how exactly should I store it after it's cut?
I was really looking forward to that cheese.
I believe that all of the answers here still apply: Is it safe to eat moldy cheese if you slice off the edges?
But doesn't answer my questions about future storage. Also, I believe that this is different because my cheese in question has a wax, which is not addressed in the other question.
Mold is mold, doesn't really matter how it was stored once it's clearly visible.
And the wax? That doesn't protect it in any way?
Slows down oxidation, but doesn't prevent mold (as you've proven).
How warm is your house? You might find your definition of cold and shady might be different from a Netherlanders, it's pretty cold there all the time! So that would effect shelf life
I'm not sure it's that cold in the Netherlands, normal room temp is 20°C (68°F).
I live in London, where the climate is actually very similar to the Netherlands. My hypothesis about why it grew mold so fast (though not a lot) is because the wax paper it was wrapped in keep in the moisture.
@HawkeyeJoeS Please update profile, it has Chicago? London ehh, the problem will be air-born pollution :-)
I believe that if you cut/scrape off the mold the rest will be fine.
With a huge chunk of wrapped and refrigerated parmigiano reggiano, for example, I have been scraping it off before grating it for over 18 months now with no ill effects.
For firm cheeses scraping isn't even necessary. A quick wipe with white vinegar will often take care of it.
Reggiano is a hard cheese. Edam is not. Mold doesn't grow roots in hard cheese, but that is a major risk for soft or semi-hard cheese. Not to mention, anecdotal evidence isn't good guidance for food safety.
@Aaronut I have done the same with cheddar, which has a similar hardness to Edam. Even after several months in the fridge, it continues to be edible once the outer parts are removed.
I've been eating dutch cheeses all my life and I've never hesitated to eat a piece after cutting off the mold.
@aaronut: http://whatscookingamerica.net/Q-A/Mold.htm (citation)
My father used to work in a grocery store and they used to do the vinegar thing. He also told use to turn our cheese if stored for long periods so the gases would not come to the top and form mold? Whatever,I do it when I think of it.
It looks to me that most molds you find on cheese are picked up from the cheese counter where you buy them! That's the only reason I can see for mold appearing inside the wrapping. Now, that suggests that the molds are traditional cheese types, so they are likely to be fairly harmless in most cases.
I cut off mold from hard cheese, the same as most people, but I would remind people that if the knife passes through the mold when making the cut, then it is probably carrying mold spores onto the uncontaminated cheese.
So the best way to remove the mold depends on cutting from a "clean" area to remove a moldy area, and if the knife passes through the mold the blade should be cleaned for each cut (I use paper towel - perhaps I should moisten it with vinegar, like Sobatchina).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.386590
| 2011-05-19T19:45:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14924",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alexisnicole3",
"BaffledCook",
"Barry Johnson Photography",
"Doug",
"Joel Shea",
"Mien",
"One Face",
"Polly Dick",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Sobachatina",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54864
|
Shelf life and preservation of Bánh chưng
It's Tết again and I'm about to buy this traditional Vietnamese delicacy. However, since I'm currently trying out a Joylent-only diet, I'll only be able to eat it after a couple of days.
So my questions are:
How long can I safely store Bánh chưng in the fridge?
Can I preserve it somehow? I've heard that some people boil or freeze it.
Edit: I was able to find some information on Wikipedia, which says the following:
After unwrapping, bánh chưng can stay good for several days while a wrapped one can be kept for two weeks.
Unfortunately, the source is not available online, so I cannot verify its reliability and context. This also contradicts some posts on online forums, where people said it can last even several months! Given the composition and moistness of Bánh chưng, I seriously doubt it.
Edit 2: My second piece of bánh chưng is now safely waiting in the freezer. I'll edit the question again when I eat it with details about its composition and taste after unfreezing it.
Edit 3: It was pretty much as expected - a bit of a freezer burn, but otherwise it was very close to its original form.
possible duplicate of How long can I store a food in the pantry, refrigerator, or freezer?
@JasonSchock Not a duplicate, while the first part of the question might be partially answered in the linked question, the second part is very specific to bánh chưng and cannot be answered by it at all.
How long can I safely store Bánh chưng in the fridge?
It depends on how good the bánh chưng was wrapped (before cooking) and if the bánh chưng is put into the fridge right after cooking and if the bánh chưng is already cut open.
i assume that you have a halfway eaten bánh chưng. I would treat this case like regular cooked rice. A post on cooking.SE says that cooked dishes last 3-4 days in the fridge. StillTasty says 4-6 days. I just asked my mother. She said it will be fine for one week in the fridge if cut. You may have a look at the comments on the question "How long can I store cooked rice in the refrigerator?"
Can I preserve it somehow? I've heard that some people boil or freeze it.
Boiling would kill some pathogens. But since the toxins produced by the previously existing pathogens won't be destroyed, the bánh chưng would be still unsafe.
Freezing: I'm a student and hoard such stuff in my freezer :D Regarding food safety freezing is not problem. If you store the bánh for too long and/or don't wrap the pieces tightly enough the bánh will have freezer burn. I ate frozen bánh chưng which has been for more than a half year in the freezer. It tasted fine after steaming.
After defrosting you should either recook the bánh or steam it. I think you already knew this ;)
After unwrapping, bánh chưng can stay good for several days while a
wrapped one can be kept for two weeks.
I think this statement sound quite plausible if the bánh chưng was wrapped very tightly and was wrapped in many layers statement and is stored in a fridge right after cooking. Bonus: The bánh was cooked in a pressure cooker. I guess, it's even sterile for some time o.o
some posts on
online forums, where people said it can last even several months!
I doubt it, too. Did they really said "fridge", not "freezer"? o.o
(Oh, or their bánh chưng drowned in lard. Lard lasts for a very long time x))
It depends on how it's made. Traditionally it is compressed under heavy weights after cooking and can last for quite a long time. These days they are often not pressed. Btw, that's why some banh chung you buy you'll find to be much denser than others.
I believe 3-4 days max. Be sure to do the smell and taste test also. Sometimes these kinds of foods are not time-able.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.386963
| 2015-02-18T14:16:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54864",
"authors": [
"Arnold Stewart",
"Chris Skinner",
"Dave Royle",
"Deeksha Ramma",
"Jason Schock",
"JohnEye",
"Minu Krishnan",
"Travis Hall",
"Vincent Rousseau",
"eleanor watkins",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130451",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130452",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9475"
],
"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
}
|
64563
|
Bread substitute for wheat allergic
What types of bread and bread substitutes are there for people who are allergic to wheat (and also soy), as a part of breakfast fare (sandwiches etc)?
Unfortunately most of store-bought bread here in Poland, be it rye bread or corn (maize) bread include quite a large amount of wheat among its ingredients. One that doesn't is Lithuanian black rye bread, but it is hard to get.
Perhaps there is something that can be made at home?
Are you trying to make sandwiches out of it, or something else?
I took a stab at a basic answer, though I'm hopeful some others will be able to chime in with more comprehensive things about specific varieties of bread. Do note that recipe requests are off-topic here so answers are going to be more about types of bread. Pretty much anything can be made at home if you're willing to put in the time to bake, though!
I've heard that some people with gluten intolerance (where it gives you digestive problems, but doesn't cause rashes/hives/trouble breathing like allergies) can eat sourdough. (long-fermented, not simply a bread that's had an acid added to make it sour).
@Jefromi: a name of recipe to search for would be enough...
@JakubNarębski Yup, of course - my answer doesn't contain names simply because gluten-free bread doesn't tend to have special names (beyond names like "gluten-free sandwich bread").
Could you clarify please: I read your question as wheat and soy allergy, not gluten intolerance. (Often mixed up, but fundamentally different.) Is this correct?
If you want to cast a wide net, searching for gluten-free bread might be your best here, even though is a wheat allergy rather than gluten intolerance, since removing the gluten necessarily means removing the wheat. Soy isn't too common an ingredient in breads so you should still be okay.
And yes, you can make plenty of kinds of gluten-free bread at home, just search for recipes. Since gluten-free food is a big thing these days, a lot of people have put a lot of effort into figuring out recipes for gluten-free bread, so you should be able to find a variety. The tricky thing will then be finding the necessary flours. Bread normally depends quite a bit on gluten for structure, so it takes some effort to make recipes work well without it, and following them exactly is pretty important unless you're prepared for some serious trial and error. So when a recipe asks for white rice flour, brown rice flour, potato starch, tapioca starch, and powder, you want to either find those things or find a different recipe to try.
I don't know a lot about names of traditional wheat-free breads that you might be able to buy as-is, unfortunately, but I'm guessing that a lot of them will have a pretty different texture from wheat bread, so you might not be as happy with them. Of course, if you like Lithuanian black rye bread, you could certainly look for recipes for it or other rye-only breads.
Please note that there are a few products that contain wheat while being gluten-free, specially treated wheat starch, for example. But in most cases, gluten-free will be also wheat-free. Also sometimes soy is contained in gluten-free flour substitutes!
Disclaimer:
The following answer is aimed at wheat intolerance or allergy, not gluten intolerance. Sometimes the two terms are incorrectly used interchangeably, especially with some "trends" in diet. The suggestions below are not gluten-free, but wheat-free!
Fluffy light sandwich breads rely on a gluten network to trap CO2 and steam and create a sponge-like structure. Unfortunately this typically means using wheat for the bread because wheat allows for the best gluten development while rye needs sourdough to inhibit the enzymes that would destroy the gluten network.
Gluten-free breads try to emulate this with various substitutions, which are often but not always wheat free. So read either the label or the recipe carefully - also to make sure that there are no soy-based substitutions. The Internet is full of gluten-free recipes and ready-made flour mixes and breads are available, if not in a standard supermarket, then perhaps in healthfood stores or online.
But there are breads that are traditionally wheat-free (albeit not gluten-free):
Rye bread can be baked either
as dark, dense wholegrain variety like pumpernickel or similar long-lasting breads
or from finely-ground rye, leavened with sourdough and sometimes additional yeast.
(Source)
They can be easily baked in a home kitchen, just need a bit more time because the sourdough needs more time to work than yeast-only breads. While many rye breads have some wheat mixed in, this is not always the case, so either ask your baker, read the ingredient list in the supermarket or choose a 100% rye recipe.
Traditional Scandinavian crispbread was made with wholewheat rye bread, some brands use part wheat, so again: read the label or choose the right recipe.
Corn tortillas, the Central and South American food staple might be difficult to buy in an European shop, but could be worth a try at home. They are also gluten-free.
Almost all 'gluten free' breads lose much of their elasticity when they're cold ... in some cases, they'll crumble if you try using them for cold sandwiches, or they'll be so dry that you need lots of mayo on them. (mustard and other 'wet' condiments can cause them to break down, making things worse).
If you're willing to do some cooking yourself, the easiest replacement is salvadoran corn tortillas. They're much thicker than your typical corn tortilla, and it's made with masa de harina, which is a very finely ground cornmeal (it's essentially corn flour, but beware that 'corn flour' in the UK is 'corn starch' and not what you want).
You can mix up the amount that's appropriate for what you need, let it sit to hydrate, form into a thick disk, and then cook it over a griddle.
Good point, just note that masa de harina is not exactly a supermarket staple in Central Europe - you'd probably have to order it online at a hefty price.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.387291
| 2015-12-18T21:12:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64563",
"authors": [
"Bespoke Exhibition Stand Ltd",
"Cascabel",
"Esther Lewis",
"Jakub Narębski",
"Joanie Tong",
"Joe",
"Judi Atkins",
"Judith Mathews",
"Kirk Bellred",
"Ronald Collins",
"Stephie",
"Terri Bora",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9792",
"ken duggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
97453
|
What is cumin good for?
I would like input from anyone that uses cumin in their food. I inherited a jar of the seasoning when my mom moved out of state. Better to give it away than throw it away. Unfortunately, I have no clue what to do with it. I've had this jar for a while. And I'd like to use it before it goes bad.
I was wondering what it's used for?
https://www.thekitchn.com/inside-the-spice-cabinet-cumin-67449
Seeds or ground? Cumin loses flavors fast after you grind it up. Fried cumin powder is essential to store bought refried beans. Gives you about 70% of home cooked flavor.
Cumin is the spice that, to me, makes taco meat taste like taco meat. Whenever I make ground beef tacos I use lots of it. It also tastes really good with sautéed potatoes.
Any number of different cuisines have cumin as a base spice.
Anything from Tex/Mex to Arabian to Indian. It's also used in plenty of Italian and Chinese dishes, just not quite as much.
wow, i've learned the secret to a childhood favorite. and now my mind is blown with new ideas. i appreciate your comments. thank you.
It's also incredibly good in Mujadara, a Middle Eastern dish of lentils and rice. I'm assuming it's whole cumin, though, that you'll grind yourself; if it's preground, it may well have already lost its flavor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.388022
| 2019-04-13T03:40:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97453",
"authors": [
"DJ Robinson",
"Johannes_B",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74060"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53399
|
Do successful french macarons really need precise weight measurements?
I have no problem with measuring ingredients by weight, in fact, I prefer using a scale; it is much easier. After looking at multiple recipe's for macarons, I have not found a single common ratio in all the recipes. If weight is so important, then clearly the recipes are trying to keep something constant, but I can't seem to figure it out. The sugar to almond ratio varies from 1.66 to 2.5(for the same quantity of egg white), which clearly allows a huge margin of error. Sugar content and almond content also vary a lot(+/- 50g) Assuming that all the recipe lead to a successful macaron, is all the precision really that important?
Note: All the recipes I choose use the french method of making meringue and have a very similar preparation method.
I can tell you that yes, every part of the process, including precise measurement, has really low error tolerance. Do something a bit wrong, and you end up with an edible cookie, which does not resemble a macaron in shape or texture.
My explanation for the different ratios you found is: the really important thing about the ratio is the final moisture content of the batter. Different recipes exist, because there are different ways to reach the same final batter moisture.
both sugar and almonds bind moisture from the egg whites. So it isn't enough to look only at the almond:eggwhite ratio. The recipes with more almonds probably use less sugar, if the process is similar.
the process itself matters a lot. Making an Italian, French or Swiss meringue will have an influence on the amount of liquid available for the almonds to absorb.
almond flour does not have a standard moisture content. If a chef has his almonds cracked daily and processed into flour, they will absorb much less water than if he buys a pack of almond flour at the supermarket.
aged eggwhites will behave slightly differently than unaged, some recipes will be written for aged eggwhites and other for fresh ones.
finally, not every recipe out there is a good one. It's very possible that a few recipes from your sample will never produce a good macaron.
You are, of course, welcome to try it without the precision. Especially after you have mastered them, you can play around and see if a different recipe gives you a slighlty different texture which you prefer. But if you already have a recipe which is supposed to work, I'd avoid changing anything about it.
Thanks for your reply! I have used the most popular recipe online, by how to cook that-easy macaroon recipe. After four iterations of macaroons with no feet, I finally decided to look at a different recipe, which led me to this question. Your comment about the almond flour makes me wonder if that is why I have failed all 4 times. I place my blanched almonds in the fridge and grind them in the blender along with some subtracted powdered sugar. I use this mixture on the same day. Is it possible that they are too wet for the macaroons, leading to feetless cookies?
Interestingly, on the how to cook recipe website, there is an image of an old cookbook containing a recipe for almond puffs or macaroons. The amount of sugar is left unspecified. Like you said, I suppose the process itself makes the difference.
I haven't tried another recipe yet because I can't figure out where I went wrong.(4 times!!! at least one macaron ought to have feet) Any thoughts on readymade almond flour versus home-made? I choose the latter because I don't have access to really fine almond flour.
@Jeff: I've never bothered to make a macaroon in my life (I don't like the things, so why would I?), but it seems to me that your first step ought to be to beg, borrow, or steal an actual nut grinder. If you're using a blender, what you're making is a substance that fails to be either a nut butter or a nut meal ("choosing between two chairs, it ends up on the floor", to translate the applicable Hungarian saying).
@Marti Looking at pictures online and a not-so-uniformly ground "almond powder" at the supermarket, I feel like my ground almond is very fine in comparison. The only thing that I can imagine that falls between the two spectrum is if you over-blend the almond and it collects together, forming tiny balls. But, I never take it that far. In any case, I will try to find another brand for the almond flour, coupled with a new recipe.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.388178
| 2015-01-08T14:09:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53399",
"authors": [
"CarolynB",
"Greg Wood",
"Jeff",
"Jeff Anderson",
"Jill Metter",
"Marti",
"Sara Rose",
"Tonia Twigger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125431",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26552",
"p brown"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46422
|
How to reduce the masala taste from chicken roast
We cooked chicken roast and we cooked it in three batches. this is for a party.
Good thing- OF the three batches two of them turned out to be pretty good.
Issue- The third one turned out to stand a bit front in masala. Is there a way to reduce the masala taste in this? We mixed all the three batches together (I know we shouldn't have however it was soo late in the night and bad decisions).
The pieces used are legs and thighs.
We are going to make another 3 more batches.
Does anyone have a suggestions?
Wanted to clarify that the spice level is ok. its the whole masala taste which is standing front.
Can you clarify what you mean by "masala taste"? As in, the spice flavor from garam masala or another spice blend? A detailed recipe or method that you're following might also be helpful.
Try tossing in a few TBSP of plain yoghurt, something that should fit the flavour profile. Or, tossing in lime or lemon juice might cut it a bit too (and add a fresh note). Add some chopped cilantro (if you enjoy it) will layer another flavour over what you're suggesting is too much masala goodness.
I have used Olive Oil too in the past with Greek Yogurt with half table spoon honey and lemon and lime to taste. Mix to form paste and apply. Brush light to remove masala coating if you want to or reduce it. Also cool the chicken in fridge so masala is less. Hope I understood your question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.388543
| 2014-08-15T14:25:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46422",
"authors": [
"Bruce Alderson",
"Ellen Bridges",
"Ghuffar Ahmed",
"Jojofaithlynn plays",
"Roberto Negron",
"SegFisch",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110851",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46594
|
What Makes Bread Gray?
I've been baking French-style bread loaves (not baguettes) for years. The ingredients are flour, salt, water, yeast, and about one tbsp cornstarch per cup of flour. For the last year or so, the inside of the loaves has sometimes been gray rather than white, but with little or no change in the taste. I have not changed ingredients nor preparation technique. Flour has been King Arthur bread flour for years. I am at a loss to explain the change.
I'm in Atlanta, about 1,000 feet above sea level. Earlier this summer, I made bread every day for two weeks at a beach house party, using equipment and ingredients brought from home. Every loaf turned out perfect, with no hint of gray. I have no idea why that might make a difference. (There's an electric oven at the beach, gas at home, but I made perfect, or at least white, bread with the gas oven for many years before this problem started.)
Also, if I cut into a loaf right after it comes from the oven, it's always white. The graying process seems to happen over a couple of hours. (I bake in the afternoon for an evening dinner.)
Edited October 5 to add: Additional data points: I've bought a three-loaf baguette pan with perforated bottom and I've been using it for about a month. No gray bread. I've introduced three new variables:
Three loaves of about 260 g unbaked weight instead of two at 390-400 g unbaked.
The pan is non-stick aluminum instead of black steel.
The pan that produced the gray loaves was not perforated.
Ingredients and preparation, except for forming three loaves, are exactly the same. I'm not sure whether I've learned anything or simply confused matters even further.
When all things are the same, I tend to look at water quality. I typically bake sourdough though. I've had my starter turn gray due to exposure to air and alcohol buildup, and I've noticed a gray hue in the finished product when I experimented with long cold bulk fermentation (24 hrs +), though neither of these reasons seem to fit your question, unless you're making sourdough.
Not sourdough; dough made and baked the same day. I'm using city water that probably has very little variation, but I'm not sure how I would test that.
Just a couple points: Aluminum is a far better conductor of heat than is steel. Our city water varies from pH 8.2 to 6.5, with solids from 200 to 300 ppm. The pH changes alone are enough to change the solubility of various pipe deposits.
What kind of salt are you using?
In the presence of iodine, starch can turn a surprisingly purplish-black color. This phenomenon has be leveraged for many decades in medical examiners' offices, to help determine the contents of a last meal in a cadaver (pardon the unappetizing digression).
Iodine is an essential nutrient, vital for the proper functioning of our thyroid (read more about Iodine Deficiency) that has relatively few ways of entering our bodies through our diet other than through shellfish, meats, eggs, and some dairy products.
One way to combat the problems of iodine deficiency is its addition to our salt, which we consume in predictable quantities and never goes bad. Table salt contains up to 25mg/kg of iodine and that number has been on the rise since its safety and helpfulness have been demonstrated repeatedly. Sea salt contains some iodine, as it is naturally occurring in the ocean, but in a much smaller quantity.
Maybe when you were at the beach, your salt supply changed to sea salt or an uniodized version and and when you returned and used the regular Iodized Morton's or Iodized sea salt.
Interesting notion, but can the discoloration be caused at such low concentrations?
In Europe, iodinized table salt is the norm, not the exception. And yet I haven't seen bread turn grey. So it is a very interesting idea, but the evidence is against it.
@rumtscho As I mentioned in the post, the concentration of Iodine in table salt has risen dramatically in the past century. Iodized salt in some places (Switzerland, in the wikipedia article) contains more than 7x more iodine today than in the 1950s. Maybe the OP makes really salty bread?
@speedfranklin I am talking about breads today, not breads in the 1950s :) I doubt that the OP can make really salty bread and not get other problems (besides a terrible taste, too high a salt concentration will also kill the yeast, and probably interact with gluten formation too). But I have also made salt-dough with iodized salt, that's like modeling mass, about equal amounts of salt and flour, and it doesn't turn grey.
@rumtscho Interesting, the salt-dough really does disprove the theory! Do you have any ideas about what it might be?
@speedfranklin: Son of a gun! I've been using one tsp of Morton (U.S.) iodized salt with three cups of flour. At the beach, I used whatever was in the pantry, which might not have been iodized. I'll have to perform an experiment. Unhappily, I can't do it soon.
Could it be that the flour manufacturer used, and later discontinued, a harsh bleaching process?
But only (elemental) iodine produces the purple color when combined with starch. Iodide or iodate, which are the forms commonly added to salt, do not.
Flour... Basically flour you purchase nowadays in stores is pretty low quality. Flour can sit on a shelf a long time before you get it because not a lot of people are baking nowadays. The older it is, the poorer it performs and in my experience the greyer it is. I typically throw out all my flour if I notice it is not producing a clean white light loaf. I have used many different brands over the years with all producing gray tinted loaves at times. I also notice a wide variety of crumb types and taste. Older flour is not tasty, nor does it make good bread. The best tasting bread I have tasted came from a farm where they ground their own grain. So... In a nutshell, flour you purchase in stores is very poor in quality due to many factors. Try to find a organic mill and purchase direct. Happy baking!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.388720
| 2014-08-23T01:07:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46594",
"authors": [
"Bob Brown",
"Dan Lewis",
"DreamDen",
"Lorraine Dudson",
"Marlene Eck",
"Matthias Brandl",
"Michael E.",
"Profile Spam Account",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"William P Mayfield",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76013",
"logophobe",
"rackandboneman",
"rasol arya",
"rumtscho",
"speedfranklin"
],
"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
}
|
12524
|
What determines if the handle of a pan gets hot while in use?
About three years ago, we replaced a one 10" skillet with another, both Macy's Tools of the Trade anodized aluminum teflon skillets. (The teflon coating didn't last on the old pan.)
The old pan had a metal handle bolted onto the body, and the new one has a silicone insert on the bottom of a metal handle, also bolted on. We're going to have to replace this new(er) pan because the handle gets too hot to touch after a few minutes of use, even though the pan itself works extremely well; the hot handle is a safety hazard.
We're considering the skillet that will replace it, and we'll get another, similar piece. However, it would be nice if it lasted for more than a few years. And, while any pot handle will eventually get too hot to touch, I'd like to be able to pick up the pan without an oven mitt.
What determines how hot a handle does or doesn't get while the pan is in use? I've been researching brands, and this isn't something that I've seen covered much in the reviews.
Edit: Pictures may be of help. Sorry for the mess, we just made dinner. (Tilapia with snow peas, garlic, and ginger with a side of mushrooms.)
Old pan (Well, it's another pan with the same handle, I tossed the old one):
The new pan, showing the infamous plastic insert:
Besides how hot the handle actually gets -- the texture of the grip can have a significant amount; a smooth handle will transfer more heat to your hand, while some textures can act tiny cooling fins so you've got less contact area for conduction and there's more surface area for cooling. (and all of these comments only matter for stovetop use ... it's always going to get hot in the oven, which is why some wooden handles unscrew)
I wonder if the old handle was steel, and the new is aluminum. Aluminum is a much better heat conductor than steel http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-metals-d_858.html and is best avoided in cookware handles. Bring a magnet to the store with you, if you can't tell by look and feel.
The usual heat transfer issues all apply.
What are those? Well, let me see
The handle will warm up until it's total heat losses equal the total heat coming in.
Heat comes in mostly by conduction from the body of the pot.
Some materials conduct heat better than others. Metals tend to have high thermal conductivity (with aluminum and especially copper begin particularly good at it). Plastics and wood tend to be poor thermal conductors.
Thick pieces of material can conduct heat faster than thin ones, but they also take proportionately more heat to increase the temperature, so this is a wash...unless you connect a solid handle to the body with thin spars (as in your upper photograph).
The handle loses heat to the air by conduction (very little), convection (much more), and radiation (very little until it gets to hot to hold). For all of these having lots of surface area improves the rate at which heat can be dumped into the surrounding environment.
Shape and orientation matters a lot to convective heat losses, but the dependence is too complicated to describe in a few words.
I find that bent sheet metal handles tend to stay cool, while solid handles get hot. If the half-n-half version you describe above has a pretty solid piece of metal that that part will behave very much like a all-metal handle (it may even be worse as the teflon will insulate the underside).
Short of taking detailed photos and constructing a model in a thermal simulation there is no rigorous way to know in advance. Still, if you've been cooking for long you probably have some intuition in this matter. Trust it.
The new pot has what looks to be a molded metal handle with the insert glued onto it. I've noticed some steam coming out from under the handle from time to time, so perhaps the gaps there are acting as a channel for heat? The old pan had a thin metal handle, perhaps 1/4" thick. Will update the question with pictures.
@Neil Your old handle stayed cool because it combined a lot of surface area with the thin connections to the body of the pot (and it helps that it was tilted upward). The new one has a hefty connection to the pot, and some portion of the surface area blocked by the plastic pad (and may be closer to horizontal).
Now that you mention it, the handles on our Allclad meat set (e.g., not for use with dairy) combine a large surface area with a skinny connection to the pans themselves, and I can grab them by the handle even after 45 minutes on a medium flame. Now I know what to look for, thanks!
The other consideration that I've see is ... how big a gas burner do you run it on? If the flames come up the side of the pan then they heat the handle from hot gas and not from conduction from the pan body.
Using a pan that's too small or a burner that is too big and turned up too high, the handles can get hot enough to burn you (or set wooden handles on fire...).
If you run an induction stove or solid-top stove then that mostly doesn't come into play... mind you, I've never had handles get too hit to touch on an induction stove.
The speed of heat transfer from pan to handle depends on the type of metal or alloy it's made of - good luck with researching that when looking at options. Simple solution, buy a Calphalon pan that is the size and shape you need. The non-stick feature lasts much longer than any run-of-the-mill non-stick pan you will use, they are heavy duty, and the handle will not get hot.
you will need a pan that is metal with a wooden handle it lasts years and years. I have one with a wooden handle and it is great i have been using it for 20 years now.
That's because wood is a poor conductor. The only pans that I was aware of that used wooden handles were Le Creuset (they socketed in ... might've been slightly threaded ... but we lost the handle at some point, so then had a pan without a handle 'til my mom got rid of it)
Bakelite covered handles stay cool too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.389326
| 2011-02-24T02:23:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12524",
"authors": [
"Amy",
"DaveO",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"Joe",
"Trev",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"abalos",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jshthornton",
"lib"
],
"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
}
|
7231
|
How to know how salty is my soup without tasting?
This is a sister to this question.
I need a method or a trick to measure (or guess) how saline is my food using normal tools or substances available on the super-market
Any help?
I'm not trying to argue with you, just curious - why don't you want to taste it? It is an interesting question, even if I can't imagine myself doing anything but sticking a spoon in.
Coz I want to be more accurate with minimum dependence on fuzzy feelings
Here's something useful to know. A good typical salt level for most savory foods is in the neighborhood of 1% by weight. So if you know how much your dish weighs in grams, then add 1% of that in salt and you should be very close to a good result. Adjust down if you are using any ingredients that are already salty, like capers. Adjust up if after the first few times you try this, it is a little light for you. You will also learn how much your salt weighs by volume so soon you can just use a measuring spoon or a pinch instead of weighing the salt.
The normal test for salinity (using a hydrometer, which you're not going to find in a supermarket) won't work, because you have a mixture that's more than just water and salt -- soup will have lots of other things in the water (sugars, gelatin) so you can't take a single measurement and determine salinity from it. You can get one from a pet store -- they're used for maintaining salt water fish tanks.
The other common test is to measure how well the sample conducts electricity ... I don't think this test would be affected by other compounds, but it's going to measure total salts, not necessarily the sodium level.
If you want just the sodium level, you're going to have to stick with chromography, which ... you're not going to find in a super market, and likely much more expensive than what you're looking for. (and as they use salt slides, I don't know know that might affect the tests)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.389821
| 2010-09-13T13:09:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7231",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Clare",
"Heeru",
"Sergey Kucher",
"hawk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14747",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1686",
"mmonem",
"seeker"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33507
|
How can you recognize cold milk that has gone bad or is about to?
The methods that I know to test cold milk is to either boil it and look for the break, taste it (yuk!), or hope it smells bad enough to know it's bad.
Is there an easy and scientific way to know whether milk is still good? and for how much longer it's likely to stay good?
The expiry date alone is not a good indicator since it assumes some conditions about the storage temperature and we've all seen good milk past expiry and bad milk before expiry.
I'm also curious about the particular moment beyond which we consider milk 'goes bad'. Can one tell how far away it is from the current seemingly healthy condition of milk?
I suspect there is no one particular moment when milk goes bad. Like most biological processes, it is a complex interaction of time and temperature controlling the growth of microfauna. Other than laboratory tests to detect a particular level of acidity, or a concentration of microfauna, I don't think you will get an objective measure.
@SAJ14SAJ you're right. Looks like it just keeps getting sour and clotty until it becomes unbearable.
@SAJ14SAJ There's no question that you're right. However, bacterial populations increase exponentially, so I wouldn't be surprised if there were a tipping point where it goes from "not much bacteria" to "way too much bacteria" in a couple of days.
I've found that different brands go bad in different ways. Some clot first, some go sour and smell. This presumably is due to the different ways to treat them, in particular with regards to micro-filtration and pasteurization. There might not be a definite answer to this question.
I can't even imagine a world in which milk goes bad. I drink the sweet sweet nectar by the gallon if there's nobody around to stop me.
Looks like FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) publishes a formal testing handbook here.
One of the easier methods:
2.4.5.3. The Alcohol Test
The test is quick and simple. It is besed on instability of the
proteins when the levels of acid and/or rennet are increased and acted
upon by the alcohol. Also increased levels of albumen (colostrum milk)
and salt concentrates (mastitis) results in a positive test.
Procedure:
The test is done by mixing equal amounts of milk and 68% of ethanol solution in a small bottle or test tube. (68 % Ethanol
solution is prepared from 68 mls 96%(absolute) alcohol and 23 mls
distilled water). If the tested milk is of good quality, there will be
no coagulation, clotting or precipitation, but it is necessary to look
for small lumps. The first clotting due to acid development can first
be seen at 0.21-0.23% Lactic acid. For routine testing 2 mls milk is
mixed with 2 mls 68% alcohol.
Simplified for home use:
This test is likely to be adaptable to household alcohol drinks such as vodka or similar beverages. For example the number of teaspoons of Vodka an ounce or two of milk can hold before it clots.
The other answer is actually pretty good, I think--the human nose is remarkably good at these things. It evolved for the purpose as it were :-)
I tried the alcohol test with isopropyl alcohol and it made a totally uniform mixture. I tried it with 47% alcohol vodka (ethanol) and it produced the exact same reaction (some coagulation) in new and old milk (freshly opened milk with a sell by date 1.5 months in the future and a carton that had a sell by date 10 days ago) I would put this as a comment to the alcohol test but i don't have enough reputation, i guess. Without more detail to the protocol, it would be difficult to say if the test worked
I used to drink White Russians (milk, Kahlua and vodka). Super fresh milk would never curdle, but older milk (even if it was still fresh and well before the "sell-by" date would often curdle.
@MikeManh the test indicates 68% ethanol. I'd imagine you can get false positives if you use higher than 68% ethanol. But this does not mean the test will work with lower % of ethanol.
you can't make 68% alcohol (136 proof) without starting with something stronger, or distilling/scrubbing it. you can start with 151 Everclear (75.5% ethanol), and dilute it 9:1 for 68%.
68 ml 96% alcohol + 28 ml water = 62% Ethanol solution, but you recommended 68% Ethanol solution. So I think you meant 22 ml of water (to create 100 ml of 69% Ethanol solution) or 23 ml of water (to make 101 ml of 68% Ethanol solution).
Use your nose. The smell of sour milk is overpoweringly wretched. My belief is that if you can stand to smell it, you can stand to drink it.
But often, the upper half of the bottle will stil be OK, while at the bottom you will find those dreaded stinking lumps...
shake, inspect, smell....
Smell is not very reliable unless the milk is totally off. I've updated the question. Looking for a more definite test here that doesn't rely on subjective things.
@MandoMando Sadly, I think the method is you wait until it is off, then use your time machine to go back three days :-)
@SAJ14SAJ yeah, I was worried we'd invent a time machine before a milk testing machine. looks like there are multiple tests, and some easy ones.
BEST WAY IS:
Pour a small amount of milk into a cup of hot water, the milk will rise/float to the top in small, thin clumps if it is bad.
The clumps are thicker as the milk spoils more.
DONE!
Working on a theory that milk in early stages of going bad will stick to side of glass longer than fresh milk and that residue will consist of almost micro curds if you look closely.
Doesn't sound like a good theory: bacteria can cause harmful spoilage without affecting the texture that visibly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.390049
| 2013-04-15T18:28:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33507",
"authors": [
"Angeline Tan",
"Cascabel",
"Cerberus",
"Cos Callis",
"Jolenealaska",
"MSalters",
"MandoMando",
"Mike Manh",
"Preston",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Shirley Massison",
"hobs",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9764",
"octern",
"rbp"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58560
|
What is the source of smoky flavor for barbecued foods?
What exactly gives charcoal barbecued food the smoky flavor? Does smoky flavor happen if you burn wood to make coals and then use the coals to cook?
Or does it only happen when you use store bought charcoal lumps/briquettes?
A lot of barbecue sauces or sauce recipes contain a product called "liquid smoke" but I'm not sure that's what you're asking about.
The smoky flavour of barbecued foods is best achieved through burning lump charcoal or hardwood. In the scenario you're describing, yes, burning hardwood and then cooking over the coals would give you a smoky flavour
Store bought briquettes actually probably give you less of a smoky flavour because instead of using wood, many briquettes use other materials/binders that don't give you the smoky flavour you want.
Yes, generally deciduous trees are hardwood. However, birch is not a widely used wood as it is sappy and doesn't burn very hot.
Harold McGee's "On Food and Cooking" has an interesting explanation on the chemistry of smoke (pg 448 on my edition). This is a summary of what it says:
The three main component of wood are:
Cellulose
Hemicellulose
Lignin
(Source: Wikimedia)
Cellulose and hemicellulose make up the "scaffold" of plant cells and ligning binds cells together.
These three compounds release specific compounds when they burn. Cellulose and hemicellulose release sweet/fruity compounds such as furans, lactones, acetaldehyde, acetic acid and diacetyl. These are similar to what you get during caramelization: indeed those hexagonal rings you see in the first two structures are common to many sugars.
Lignin, on the other hand, releases other smoky/spicy flavours, due to the presence of aromatic rings (those hexagons with a circle inside in its formula): guaiacol, vanillin, isoeugenol, phenol, syringol.
The specific amount of each compound that is released depends on the specific type of wood and the burning temperature; it obviously affects taste.
Maximum flavor production takes place at relatively low, smoldering temperatures, between 570 and 750°F/ 300-400 °C; at higher temperatures, the flavor molecules are themselves broken down into simpler harsh or flavorless molecules.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.390520
| 2015-06-26T16:17:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58560",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Daniel Chui",
"Edward Hsu",
"John Snedden",
"Karen Blyth",
"Mackenzi Minton",
"Sharon Granholm",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9960",
"sarah blanchette"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7217
|
What happens when you bake Winesap apples?
In researching the answer to a question of why the apples in a pie became mushy, I noticed that two of my cookbooks contradicted each other on the Winesap apple, on whether it remains firm upon baking. When the Winesap apple is baked, does it become mushy like a McIntosh or remain firm like a Granny Smith? I have never used or even eaten a Winesap, so I was hoping someone had experience with them.
have you tried doing something like baked apple slices (perhaps with a test alongside McIntosh and Granny Smith) to see?
After I looked for some pictures of Winesap apples, I discovered they are the same as Stayman apples. They'll be in season soon and I'll try the experiment you suggest. Thanks.
I went to the farmers' market last week and bought a variety of apples.
After cooking, here's the order from softest to firmest:
McIntosh, Cortland, Winesap, Yellow Delicious.
The McIntosh of course practically dissolve. If you want to make quick apple sauce, or if you like really squishy pie, they're the best.
I typically prefer Cortlands for pie, b/c they don't totally dissolve but neither do they keep their shape. I think I'm going to try Winesap, though; I think they'd work great for pie.
The Winesap apples I used got very soft, but they still held their shape. Think of it like a ripe banana or pear - it has shape, but you can squish it really easily. After 30 minutes in the oven (making apple crisp), they got soft enough that lightly pressing with a fork would squish them down. They did not stay as firm as the Yellow Delicious did and definitely not as firm as Granny Smith would.
I moved to Honolulu 40 years ago, and am so sad that winesap apples are no longer shipped here for Thanksgiving. They are the absolute best for apple pies--firm, tart, tingy--with a little sugar, depending on how tart the batch is (I use the Better Homes & Garden recipe) and a great, home made pie crust--yum! Granny Smiths, in my opinion, are flat and tasteless comparatively. Honeycrisps are what I use now in place of winesap--I found Fujis were too sweet.
This page claims they will hold their shape:
Winesap Apples (Stayman Winesap) are a
firm but juicy apple with a wine-like,
tart flavor. They're good for eating
fresh, for making cider, and for
baking. Since they hold their shape
well when baked, they're good for
making apple dumplings.
papin already has conflicting info and is looking for someone with experience. not a wikipedia answer
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.390742
| 2010-09-13T02:13:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7217",
"authors": [
"Adam Kimberley",
"Brooklyn",
"Federico Poloni",
"Richard Humphreys",
"SamAlterman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87761",
"justkt",
"papin",
"user219882"
],
"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
}
|
7568
|
Would baking a cake for 2 hours at 350 degrees F be safe to eat if it's still moist?
I'm trying to modify a recipe for a cake which calls for 3 cups of shredded butter nut squash. I thought I could replace this with roughly the same amount of pureed pumpkin (like what you would get in a jar).
However, the cake is still moist inside, after more than doubling the baking time it originally called for.
I don't mind that the consistency is too wet, I'm only concerned about cooking the eggs enough. Unfortunately, I don't have a thermometer to test the internal temperature. Is it safe to assume that at 350 degrees F, with the cake baking for more than 2 hours, that it reached the internal temperature of 138 degrees?
The cake is about 1.5 inches in height. I baked it for 1:10 minutes, then an extra 1 hour with tin foil on top (to prevent the top from burning). The top and bottom of the cake are not moist at all.
I would advise that you check your oven temperature with a good oven thermometer.
While not answering the question directly - a comment on the substitution. You probably had far too much pumpkin. Shredded anything will have quite a bit of air in it. So I suggest if you try again you use just two cups or even less of the pureed as a "more equivalent" substitute.
Yet another substitution note. The canned/jarred pumpkin is cooked and pureed, which is much more condensed than fresh shredded squash or pumpkin. I think a good starting point for a substitution is about 1 cup.
I can't see any possible way it didn't reach 138F inside after that length of time! I think you just had way too much liquid.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.390986
| 2010-09-23T23:05:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7568",
"authors": [
"Dav Clark",
"Dennis Williamson",
"Juju",
"Sumit Munot",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/835",
"sdg",
"t to the t",
"user15541"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23263
|
How to get falafel to hold together when pan-frying?
I like to pan-fry my falafel (as some of the answers to this question suggest), but have had the cakes fall apart or degenerate into mush when trying to turn them over. For ingredients I use chickpeas, olive oil, spices, and tahini. Is there a trick, either in ingredients or in preparation, to making them hold together better?
(I've seen a few recipes that include flour in the mixture; if that is the common answer then I'd like to know of any gluten-free alternatives. But since I don't know if it is really a factor I'll hold off on adding the gluten-free tag - don't want to unfairly get another entry in this week's contest!)
Are you using cooked or soaked chickpeas? Traditionally falafel is made from soaked, raw legumes (usually fava, chickpeas or a combination of both). The raw mixture is quite tacky and shouldn't come apart. You wouldn't traditionally put tahini in the mix as well, that gets added to the sandwich.
I used almond flour as an alternative and it worked pretty well. The perfect temperature is difficult at first but just keep trying....falafels are worth the efforts.
I've also heard(haven't actually tried) that egg works as a good binder, like a meatball mixture, and that seems to make sense.
Eggs are very good binder unfortunately it's a bad choice for a vegan falafel.
True. The op didn't write that it needed to be vegan though.
Crumble a piece of (gluten-free)bread.(You can also rub two pieces of rusk biscuit against each other to get some dry crumbles). Make a mixture of a little bit of olive oil and the crumbles. Before putting the falafel in the frying pan, dip them in this mixture.
Because the crumbles form a bit of a crust, it's easier to flip them over without them falling apart.
It may not be ideal for the structure of traditional falafel, because this could give the falafel a crusty bite. But you might give this a go, because it works quite well for me.
Good luck!
If you do not want to use flour you might consider these tips:
If they are turning into mush it is likely because your temperature is too high on your frying pan. Try turning it down to medium or medium low.
Also, one thing you might try when making your falafel mix is to use the coldest water possible in it. This will help the falafel to stick together when frying.
Most of the time it's as simple as over blending the mixture.
When the mixture is over-blended it becomes too sloppy and doesn't hold together during the frying. Pulse sparingly and even use a fork to mush any big garbanzo.
Also try to chop ingredients smaller so less blending is needed.
I resolved this by using flour, it acts as a binder and thickener. Adapting the joy of cooking recipe, I ended up with chickpeas, onion, spices, flour and baking soda.It worked well though I ended up with something akin to a fried chickpea dumpling... I liked it, but not super traditional.
I've read that if you want to make it without adding flour, you can't used canned chickpeas, but I've not tried dried chickpeas myself.
If you're going to use flour, you can find a good list of wheat free flours here.
I found that a key difference between those that dissolved and those that did not was surface texture and area. The falafel must be smooth. Any nooks and cracks are invaded by hot oil that causes steam to break that apart before it has time to crisp up
I just had this problem. I used panko bread crumbs to fix this and it worked super well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.391179
| 2012-04-22T18:47:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23263",
"authors": [
"Ann Chukwurah",
"April",
"Arianna Higgins",
"Imran Hassan",
"Manjit Kaur",
"NRaf",
"PMBjornerud",
"SZCZERZO KŁY",
"UmarZaii",
"Vickie",
"dmoz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154927",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47855",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52648",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71325",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81274"
],
"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
}
|
113582
|
UK Pork roast: why can't I make crisp crackling?
I have lived in Denmark for many years and made port roast many times with crisp crackling - never a problem. Then I moved to UK about 20 years ago, and now I just can't. I first tried buying in the supermarket, then I went to butchers, and I even ordered specific cuts, that are not usually sold in UK; every time the result was semi-dry meat and rubbery skin.
Recently, I tried a piece of pork from a Chinese supermarket: perfect crackling, just like that, and I have tried it several times. The question is, why? Is there something that is done to pork meat only in UK that could explain this?
Edit
To address the comment from Sneftel:
Cooking pork roast has always been very straight-forward - the method that always worked in Denmark (and now with the pork from the Chinese supermarket) is:
take a roasting tray with a griddle, fill the bottom with water.
put meat on top, skin side up.
roast in a conventional oven at 150 - 200 degrees (Celsius) for about an hour, until the skin bubbles up everywhere and is nice and crisp.
When I tried this with British pork from a supermarket, the end result is something about as crisp as my old wellies.
Whilst I do not know about the practices in Denmark that would make the achievement of crispy crackling there, I can comment upon the Chinese and UK angle, and, offer some tips for you to get good crackling with pork in the UK.
There are a couple of characteristic differences with Chinese practice. Their pigs are not as genetically refined for low fat meat as the UK and European ones. The Chinese place great importance to a thicker layer of fat under the skin of their animals and this is a factor that helps make good crackling.
Secondly, they have a much larger proportion of meat sold "loose" rather than plastic wrapped in some remote factory and then distributed through a refrigerate distribution chain. This means that the skin of the pigs is rather drier too than a normal plastic wrapped piece would be. Skin moisture content is a critical factor in achieving good crackling. The Chinese promote belly and shoulder over leg joints as they (rightly) consider them better for flavour and cooking.
To get good crackling using typical UK supermarket plastic-wrapped pork -
Try Shoulder rather than leg - It's usually got more fat underneath the skin.
A slab of belly pork is even better although pretty uncommon in UK supermarkets nowadays. Those with butchers onsite (E.g. Morrisons) will sometimes have whole bellies to cut you a piece that you like. If you have a Chinese supermarket in reach of you, they generally have very good butchery counters and you will generally be able to get much fattier (tastier) meat from them.
Look for a good layer of fat under the skin.
Unwrap the meat the day before roasting, scald the skin with lots of boiling water by pouring it over it (not immersing the whole joint), dry it and then score the skin with a very sharp knife about 2/3 the way through the underlying fat. Rub generously with salt (You will wipe off a lot of this before cooking) and put uncovered in the bottom of your fridge skin side up.
The fridge will suck moisture from the skin. 12 to 24 hours is good. Wipe off salt, use a little neutral oil on the skin, season with white pepper and a little sprinkle of mustard powder, rub into the cuts. Crank up the oven to max and start the roast off at this for 20 mins (Open windows if you have it hot enough it'll be smeeching).
Turn down to circa 170/180 deg C for remainder. Use lard for the roasting fat if their isn't lots of fat rendering from the meat. Baste the meat often. Also, remove non-fat liquid from the roasting tin as you go. Using a clear heatproof glass container enables you to see the fat liquid split and to recycle the fat off the top back into the roasting pan.
When meat is resting do not tightly cover or you will steam the crackling making it soft. If the crackling isn't crisp enough when removed to rest, slice off the crackling in one piece and put it under the grill for 10 minutes on high - watch it though as you don't want to burn the edges too much.
Hi - thank you for your answer; I'll probably accept after one or two days, which is the recommended period. I don't know about the white pepper and mustard powder, though; pork should taste good enough on its own. And as I wrote in my edit, I would always add water under the meat (which is suspended above) - this makes for a very good gravy.
'Smeeching' - I learned a new word ;))
Belly pork is very common at my local supermarket.
Your question is a bit vague and Handy Andy has probably answered it already, but generally Denmark is known for intensively raised pork, and there is plenty of that in the UK. I would expect Chinese supermarket pork not to be an expensive slow-grown breed either.
The Chinese (I assume you mean in the UK, not China) supermarket pork is likely to be cheap (fast-growing, intensively reared) pork from the same animals as in a UK supermarket. But they will select cuts popular with Asian consumers, which tend to be fattier. In Asia fat is often prized higher than meat.
So it seems like you probably have chosen the wrong cut. I find your cooking instructions a bit vague, as 150C I would consider far too cool to get a pork crackling, whereas 200C is better.
In general pork is cooked either low and slow or hot and fast. If you want crackling then ultimately it's the hot that will give you that. I have a gas BBQ grill (Weber Q), which I use for pork chops, and I cook them as hot as possible to try and get some crisp. Inside you can use a cast iron pan on max but a grill is better. If you have a charcoal kettle grill then you can stick a piece of pork in a roasting tin on the grill and get good results.
I have bought cheap supermarket pork and I find the cheapest stuff tastes a little revolting. It's bred for consumers who want cheap protein. If you try Waitrose their pork is higher quality than say Tesco, and it's often fairly priced though I wouldn't recommend doing your full shop there as so much stuff is ludicrously overpriced.
I would suggest you buy a coarse salt for rubbing the pork, as it's less salty (because less of it sticks). Rub liberally before cooking, and score the fat.
Here's a pork belly joint
https://www.waitrose.com/ecom/products/essential-british-pork-belly-joint/622172-88255-88256
leg
https://www.waitrose.com/ecom/products/waitrose-crackling-pork-boneless-leg-roast/050735-25241-25242
whereas something like this is not something I would buy:
https://groceries.asda.com/product/pork-joints/asda-butchers-selection-boneless-pork-shoulder-joint-typically-1-9-kg/6391529
Yes, I did mean a Chinese supermarket in UK, but I've found the same in Beijing as well. And France, Germany, ... - in fact, it seems that it is only in British supermarkets that you have trouble finding good quality pork; and while it is more expensive on the continent, what I buy in Chinese supermarkets seems only marginally more expensive than Tesco's.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.391605
| 2021-01-04T09:04:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113582",
"authors": [
"James K",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68224",
"j4nd3r53n"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37276
|
What's the skinny on fat asparagus?
I had always heard that pencil thin asparagus is the best, and that has always been what I look for. But now I've heard from a few (what I would consider reliable) sources that skinny isn't better when choosing asparagus. My local grocery tends to get really fat (stems easily an inch in diameter) asparagus that otherwise looks great (nice color, tight tips, no wrinkling). I've always avoided this asparagus even though I love roasted fresh asparagus, because I've expected it to be woody. Is that the case?
I've never peeled asparagus, I've just snapped off the ends at the "break" point. If the consensus is that this fat asparagus is worth trying, should I peel it before roasting?
I've never seen green asparagus that thick, do you mean white asparagus?
Nope, we never get white asparagus, but during the winter months we get some seriously thick green asparagus.
I've seen asparagus that thick only in restaurants, and it was delicious, definitely not woody. It surprised me how good it was, but I don't know where to buy it for myself.
@CareyGregory LOL, just come to Anchorage in December-February, that time of year that's all we get!
Martha's Vinyard Magazine suggests that the diamater of the stalks is not directly related to their age as one might suspect:
Some might assume thinner spears are younger and therefore more
tender. The diameter, however, has more to do with the age of the
plant itself and the particular asparagus variety.
They go on to cite Cook's Illustrated, saying:
[T]hin and
thick spears as equally sweet, nutty, and grassy, but ...
thicker spears have a slightly better, more tender texture. The reason
is that the fiber is somewhat more concentrated in thinner spears.
You can peel asparagus if you choose to. Personally, I peel the base of thicker stalks. Mark Bittman recommends peeling from just under the flowers to the base of the stalk on the thicker stalks.
Thinner stalks may be easier to saute or grill, and thicker ones more suited to steaming, poaching, and so on, but this is more related to the time it takes them to cook through.
See also:
Mark Bittman writing in the New York Times
Better Homes and Gardens
Martha's Vinyard Magazine
There's also just tons of variation in texture within sizes; you can get horribly tough thin asparagus, and very tender thick asparagus.
My experience matches Cook's Illustrated - thick stalks are much less woody. I typically marinade in balsamic vinegar, S&P and olive oil for a half hour before grilling, tough skins have never been an issue.
Well, after reading the answers and comments here, I was anxious to try the fat asparagus next time I saw it in the store. Wouldn't you know it? For the next several months all I found was the normal, skinny stuff. Then lo and behold, yesterday my store had the fat asparagus again. (BTW, a US quarter has a diameter of 24.26 mm, 0.955 in.)
I treated it my favorite way, which is to toss it with garlic butter, salt and pepper, then roast it at 400F. Usually that only takes 8-9 minutes, this asparagus took 15 minutes. In the name of science, I peeled the stalks of half of it and left the other half unpeeled.
It was delicious.
I found the peeling to be an unnecessary step. I might peel fat asparagus again, but only if the meal was particularly elegant.
Bottom line is that this was some of best asparagus I've ever had. Assuming everything else looks good (no wrinkling, tight tips, good color) I would not hesitate again to buy fat asparagus.
BTW, it's a good idea to make a little tin foil envelope to protect the tips of asparagus for roasting. I think I learned that trick from Alton Brown.
Wow, that is FAT asparagus! Can't get anything like that here! Thinner stuff tends to be a bit more stringy and tougher, great for BBQ, not so nise in a delicate bake
@TFD Once I finally tried it, I was quite impressed with the flavor.
Peeling is necessary for white but not for green asparagus.
@MichaelBorgwardt Good to know. I've been keeping my eyes open for white asparagus, but no luck so far.
I think it depends on the flavors you want to get from the asparagus:
If you're looking for roasted, char-y flavors, it's pencil-thin all the way. Thick ones wouldn't be cooked through in the time it takes for the surface to be nicely charred.
If you're looking for more vegetal flavors, thick ones work well, because you can boil or steam them without having them go limp.
It totally depends what you are doing with it.
My use cases for different thicknesses:
Thin - steam, boil or fry and serve whole as-is.
Medium - Chop into chunks, and stir fry
Thick - Soups, purees etc.
I'd probably like Cream of Asparagus soup. In that application, would you peel really, really fat asparagus?
It depends on the asparagus - if it was a bit woody or a bit old, I might.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.392149
| 2013-10-02T10:19:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37276",
"authors": [
"Alexa",
"Carey Gregory",
"Cascabel",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kevin.H",
"LazyReader",
"Michael Borgwardt",
"Mike",
"NBenatar",
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"Ruperto",
"SoleaBeauty Salon",
"TFD",
"Tromick",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87617",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87618",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87692",
"hugh",
"jmama",
"rumtscho",
"spektr"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
39934
|
Substituting Diced Canned Tomatoes for Fresh
The recipe calls for 1.25Lbs of fresh plum tomatoes. They are to be simmered with hydrated whole dried chiles and other seasonings for 20 minutes, then pureed and strained.
This time of year it's nearly impossible to find fresh tomatoes (plum or otherwise) that have any flavor at all and I can't see any reason not to use what I already have on hand - all the Hunts Diced Tomatoes I could possibly need before spring. As most diced tomatoes do, these contain calcium chloride to preserve the shape of the dice, but it won't matter since the sauce/marinade is to be simmered, pureed and strained anyway. What concerns me is the second ingredient after tomatoes - tomato juice.
EDIT: The core of the question is how much "extra" liquid is typically used to can tomatoes? It would seem that lightly (as in no "pushing" on the solids) strained tomatoes would have approximately the same liquid to solid ratio as fresh, is that right?
Most savory cooking simply isn't exact enough to worry about this in any level of detail. Tomatoes are extremely high in water to start with, even whole, about 94%.
Savory recipes can be adjusted easily by adding liquid or reducing in most cases, if it does matter.
Simply use the entire weight of the can content in substitution for the weight of fresh tomatoes, and adjust the recipe as needed based on the outcome.
This is educated speculation, but note that while tomato packers may pack the diced tomatoes in juice, that juice almost certainly comes from the core of the very same tomatoes whose flesh was diced. Otherwise it would be less economical to pack them that way, and they would pack them in water.
Agreed. Fresh tomatoes can have a lot of water - I wouldn't be surprised if they ended up just as wet as the canned, once you cook them a couple minutes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.392555
| 2013-12-03T06:31:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39934",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37361
|
Parchment paper and crumb crusts?
I have fallen in love with America's Test Kitchen's recipe for lemon cheesecake. Animal crackers in a crumb crust...who knew? It's really good. I just made it for the second time as a birthday gift for a friend. I didn't want to part with my springform pan, so I cut up her cheesecake and packed it in a plastic lined pizza box. When I was done, half the crust remained stuck to the base of the pan. What a shame as that is a really good crust. It was like each cut sliced through the base leaving a thin layer of crust behind and a thin layer attached to the cheesecake. It occurred to me that it would have been a whole lot better if I had used parchment cut to fit the base of the pan and then transferred the whole cheesecake at once. That splitting of the crust happened the first time I made I made the recipe too. I've never seen a crumb crust recipe that used parchment, but now it seems like a no-brainer - so much so that I wonder if I'm missing a key point. Is there a reason this generally isn't done? Do you know or can you think of any reason that it wouldn't work?
http://cakecentral.com/t/705480/how-do-i-give-away-a-cheesecake-without-my-springform-pan
Somebody on that thread recommended replacing the bottom of the springform pan with a cardboard cake round. Wow...I think I like the concept of lining the pan with parchment better.
I have baked crusts with parchment paper underneath several times - it works like a charm!
Thank you. I haven't made a cheesecake since posting the question, but I'll definitely do the parchment next time I do. It's great to hear from someone who has actually done it. Did you cut the parchment to size, line upwards in the pan, or attach the springform ring with the edges of the parchment sticking out of the pan?
I cut it to size.
Fabulous. That's what I'll do next time.
there! I just came across your post and wanted to share the secret to getting the crust off of your springform pan in one perfect piece, with all of it intact. Ready for it?!
...The base of the pan is upside down when it's packaged! I'm not sure why they do that, but I have bought many springform pans and they all come that way. I don't know why, but it really is rather ridiculous. Especially because, as you have learned, you end up leaving half of your crust behind. So, if you flip the base over, it's a bit raised and your entire crust will come off very easily, especially if you have a cake lifter. I never line the bottom crust with parchment paper because it's not necessary when the base is turned the correct way.
Good luck! :-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.392745
| 2013-10-06T12:54:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37361",
"authors": [
"Esteban",
"Guest",
"IrishEllie",
"Jolenealaska",
"Joyce Smith-hall",
"Moisture Flow",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"david",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87847",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87890",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90105"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23627
|
Why should you remove the core of garlic?
I have read it is better to remove the core of a clove of garlic. I actually see no reason for doing this. Does it have a different flavor, or is there some other good reason for it?
-edit-
In addition to the question as reaction to the answer 'because the green middle is bitter', I was wondering:
-Then should you only remove the core when it is green, and not if the garlic is still very young?
-Is there some easy way to remove this core?
Related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5031/should-one-always-use-the-whole-garlic-clove
The green shoot in the middle of a clove of garlic is said to have a somewhat bitter flavor.
Would that mean that you do not have to remove it if the garlic is very young and does not have a green core jet?
You don't have to remove it at all if you don't want to. And whether you choose to might depend on what you're going to do with the garlic. If you prefer the flavor and/or appearance with the core removed, take it out. If not, don't feel like you need to do it just because somebody on TV did -- it won't hurt you.
The major question isn't if this minimum part of a small garlic clove is or is'nt bitter (of course it is bitter, but normally we dont taste it apart). The major question is if its perceptible in your final product. So it may also depend on how you process the clove, if you cook or fry it, how much cloves you apply and wich kind of spices you combine with the garlic.
Lets remember nutmeg: just a bit more than nothing gives you excellent results, but two bits more than nothing turns your favorite plate in a terrible, inconsumable experience.
I remove the green from inside the garlic. Otherwise, and pardon me for saying, it comes back to haunt me the rest of the night.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.393007
| 2012-05-07T17:56:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23627",
"authors": [
"Babak",
"Caleb",
"Lotte Laat",
"Lucy",
"Mien",
"Subhan Mahmood",
"Tom Loredo",
"Varun Kumar",
"dusterherz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5505",
"user53593"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23750
|
Flour and water... at which temperature?
What is the difference between adding hot, lukewarm or cold water to flour?
EDIT:
I'm curious about the following dishes, they all call for flour and some water and I'm not sure how warm the water should be:
Pizza dough
Flour tortillas
Quiche crust
Please specify what you are trying to make. It matters a lot how you are adding it, and what you are trying to achieve. As stated, the question is not answerable without writing about a dozen of possible contexts separately. And please don't just say "dough", because there is also a difference between pastry dough, rustic bread dough, enriched bread dough, cookie dough, etc.
@rumtscho I edited my question by adding a couple of things I often make and end up using more water / flour than the recipe calls for.
Pizza Dough is usually a yeast bread so you want your water to be warm (100-110F) to activate the yeast without killing it.
Quiche crust, like pie crust, develops the best texture when the flour is mixed with the butter (or shortening) in a solid state, so you want to add other liquids at a cool temperature to prevent melting the butter to a liquid and creating a less flaky crust.
I am not really sure about tortillas, but with the first two examples you can see that temperature is important and differs from application to application.
would it be safe to assume that all yeasty doughs need warm water? in the case of a rouge, you don't have yeast, yet you keep adding the flour to your hot (and still cooking) roughe
Yes, the water needs to be in the right range, I try to stay 100-110F but the technical range is a bit more broad. Too hot will kill, too cold and the yeast doesn't get started. Some hybrid yeasts allow for a higher or colder range, but your typical "Active Dry Yeast" works best in this range. Here is a link to a more thorough breakdown: http://www.exploratorium.edu/cooking/bread/yeast_temp.html
Where I live, quiche dough often includes yeast as well. Does yours include yeast?
@Mien About that quicke douch, I use the french way: Pâte brisée (flour, water, salt, egg, butter).
I will answer for pizza and quiche, but I have never made tortillas, and have never researched what is important for them. And maybe we should split the whole thing into three separate questions, because the optimal temperature for each depends on different things.
pizza
Here, it is important to know what crust you are making. The two variables which will influence your choice of water temperature are how long you want to ferment the dough and how wet your dough is (with the gluten content of your flour modifying the results of wetness, so probably should count as a third variable).
Wetness is important because you want to be able to knead your dough. If you are working at normal hydrations (60 to 75%), any water temperature will produce a kneadable dough. If you are using very high or very low hydrations, you are concerned about your proteins not being able to form a good matrix, due to either not having enough water to absorb (low hydrations) or being mixed in a batter so wet that they can't hook into each other properly. Here, you can use the fact that gluten absorbs cold water much better than warm water. If you are working a hard dough, use warmer water, so the dough stays soft enough during the kneading. If you are working a very wet dough, use cold water. Shirley Corriher recommends throwing crushed ice into the food processor. This will give you stronger, better gluten.
Of course, it is not only the water temperature which determines whether a challenging dough will work well, it is also the protein content of the flour. The higher the protein content of your flour, the more water absorption you can expect. So, if you combine high-protein flour with cold water, you are likely to end up with a dough on the firmer side. If you are already making a low-hydration bread, it could be too firm for good gluten development. So, you may consider warmer water in this case. On the other hand, when you have a high-hydration bread, you are worried about the dough being too wet. You should use cold water then.
Beside consistency problems, water temperature will help you regulate fermentation. Yeast thrives at around 33-35°C (somewhere around 90-95°F I think). If you give it this temperature, you will have a very quick rise. Your bread will be ready in no time, but you will have a weak gluten and lots of quick-fermentation byproducts including thioles and ammonia. If you plan on a long rise, as usual for better breads, it is better to not induce quick fermentation through warm water. Use cold water or even try Corriher's ice advice if you are kneading in a mixer or food processor (I knead per hand, so I wouldn't use ice directly). Only warm the dough to room temperature for the final proofing. You can also use water anywhere on the continuum between these two extremes, or use a cold sponge combined with warm water. The temperature Cos Callis suggests is the lowest one if you want the leavening process to start right away, below about 20°C the yeast will work rather slow.
This advice is valid for any lean bread dough, including pizza crusts.
quiche
I assume that you are using pastry crust (as @Mien notes, some people pour the egg mixture over a yeast base). There are three basic types of pastry crusts: shortbread pastry, flaky pastry and raised pastry. For shortbread pastry, you are not mixing flour with water, you are mixing water with a smooth flour-fat paste. The temperature of the water makes no difference when mixing. You still want to have the pastry ice-cold when you put it into the oven, to prevent deformation, so it makes sense to use cold water. But if you make it with butter, it will be hard to shape when cold. If you prefer, you can use butter and water at room temperature, shape, then hold it in the fridge or freezer until it has hardened, then bake. Shortening is said to be more forgiving, I don't use it personally.
For flaky pastry, you are trying to create little pieces of butter or butter-flour paste encased in tender (but not gluten-toughened) flour-water sheets. If you make the flour-butter paste first and then add the rest of the flour and the water, you have more leeway with water temperature, because the well-buttered flour in the paste won't absorb the water even after the butter melts. The butter blobs won't fail to fatten its part of the flour , because they don't exist, you already have the paste. Also, you have enough of free flour in contact with the water to form the sheets before the butter has softened. Still, don't push it too far, up to room temperature is OK. If you use the traditional method of cutting coarse butter pieces into flour and almost mixing them, you should use ice cold water, and work quickly, preferably with cooled tools. This method involves pieces of pure butter which can melt and oil all of your flour before it has formed the sheets. Keep such dough cold at all times.
The third type is raised pastry. For this, you cook your water, throw the butter into the boiling water, and put the flour into the hot mixture. You get the separate buttery paste blobs and flour sheets because butter and water don't mix in the pot and some flour comes into contact with both. It also undergoes a starch gelatinization which doesn't happen with the cold methods. You should, of course, use boiling hot water for this type.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.393197
| 2012-05-14T16:57:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23750",
"authors": [
"Cos Callis",
"Frank Arteaga",
"Glenda Brennan",
"Jaqi",
"Mien",
"Nidhi Poojary",
"chahuistle",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53859",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"java-girl",
"raffaele",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23880
|
How much rice should I cook per person?
I would like to know how much rice I should cook per person.
Preferably in some "fast" measurements - like cups, spoons, etc.
It would also be nice to know how much water should I add to the rice-cooker.
Edit: I want to have the rice as a side dish, usually with some kind of stew.
Edit: The cup I've been using is 300ml filled about 3mm below top edge (which is what i consider "full").
What are you cooking? It depends on how much there is to eat beside the rice.
can you specify which kind of cups... there are many cups of different sizes..
Daniele B: Cup like this: http://www.backgroundsy.com/file/large/red-coffee-cup.jpg it worked for me with the amount described in the accepted answer
Regarding water, see the question How do I determine the amount of water I need to use with my eletric rice cooker
It's a bit late at this point (rumtscho asked this a few years ago too) but as long as you're editing... what part of the meal is the rice?
See updated answer.
The cup that you're using for measuring -- what size is it? I have mugs from 6 fl.oz (~175mL) to 16 fl.oz (~475mL). The US standard unit 'cup' is roughly 235mL, but there are other 'cup' measurements from 225ml to 250mL, and cases like measuring teapots in 5fl.oz (~150mL) 'cups'.
The cup I've been using is 300ml filled about 3mm below top edge (which is what i consider "full").
I usually use 1/4 cup per person for a smallish portion, and 1/3 cup per person if you're a bit hungrier. You'll probably want to check the instructions for your rice cooker to check exactly how much water you should add as different manufacturers vary. I believe the one I used in the past needed an equal quantity of water to rice.
Worked fine with ~1/3 cup rice and little more water.
In my house, it's about a half cup of uncooked per person.
The standard rice cup measure is one go (long o sound) ~180ml, which was at some point based on a Japanese government opinion about how much raw rice an average person would consume. 1 koku is 1000 x 1 go, so this implies that a typical person would have consumed almost one go per meal. But this would likely have been defined during a period in which most people were living agrarian lives, and perhaps might have had limited access to a wide variety of vegetables, meat and fish. They might have needed a lot of calories from carbohydrates like rice just to maintain weight in a physically demanding lifestyle.
In practice, I find I eat a lot more side dishes when I have rice, so I'm more than satisfied with about 1 Japanese bowl of rice, which on average only takes about 180ml cooked rice (~90ml raw rice) to fill up. Other Americans, who tend not to consider rice an important part of the meal, may find even less rice adequately filling.
But in most countries, the amount of rice served actually depends quite a lot on what food is being served. If you're served curry or something that's kind of a one plate meal, like donburimono, you're likely to be served a larger amount of cooked rice (potentially up to 360ml cooked/180ml raw). If several main dishes or one large dish and several side dishes are served, that small 180ml rice bowl would be more typical. As for me, I tend to serve mine a little light compared to the rest of my family, but when estimating rice for a dinner party I assume about 90ml per person, or a bit more if I'm worried about big eaters.
(Apologies for not using weight measurements for those who prefer them; my rice cooker is tuned for volume measurements).
Very much agree with volumetrics for rice - and I'm from a culture where most measurements are weight ones. No need for excuses IMHO, especially as OP asked for them.
I was watching something talking about Japanese history last night. and found there's also a unit for 'the amount of rice to feed a person for a year': https://jref.com/glossary/koku-%E7%9F%B3.35/ which is roughly 180L, or 1000 of those rice cups
@joe yep. I mentioned the koku in the post. The koku was also a key metric in the taxation system during the Tokugawa period
The USDA recommended serving of rice (PDF) is 1/2 cup cooked, which should be 1/4 cup raw, as rice about doubles in size.
The reality, though, is that the amount someone should eat and the amount someone does eat is not usually the same.
This can be seen in the wide variation of serving sizes listed on various sites. This one that talks about serving sizes specifically and recommends 1/2 cup uncooked per person or less:
When it comes to rice the norm seems to be about ½ cup (90g) per person, although some people prefer to use a bit less – about 1/3 cup (60g) per person. And remember we are talking about uncooked rice here, which means that when it’s cooked it’s usually about a cup per person, as rice doubles in size. For a main meal this is definitely enough!
While this FAQ from a US rice brand clarifies that the portion size listed on their packages is 1/4 cup uncooked:
The serving size refers to 1/4 dry (uncooked) product; this is the equivalent to 3/4 cup of cooked rice.
(Their rice is apparently really fluffy when cooked)
This is likely because they're following the USDA guidance for serving size in their package labeling.
So, if you're cooking for just a few people, I recommend erring on the high side (1/2 cup uncooked per person) but if you're cooking for a big crowd, you'll probably be ok with smaller portions (1/4-1/3 cup uncooked).
The general rule for white rice is to double the amount of rice to get the amount of water you should use but your rice maker should have instructions about this.
Wow, I'd starve if I was served just 1/2 cup of cooked rice! Yes, for me, 1/2 cup (or more) uncooked would be suitable - and I'm not someone who eats a lot. I guess I don't consider rice as a side dish but a major part of a main course.
I usually cook 1/2 cup (measuring cup 8oz) rice per person...in the rice cooker or on the stove you want to double the water....ie 1/2 cup rice to 1 cup water....1/3 cup rice to 2/3 water...2cup rice to 4cup water...etc...
That would be 4oz or 120ml.
How much water depends on the rice. The rice I use works best with a touch less than double. 1 cup of rice gets about 1 and 1/2 to 3/4 cup of water depending on whether I am slow cooking, fast cooking or resting as when making for fried rice.
Generally 60-80g or so if you are just having a sauce and rice. If you are having starters, sides, or vegetables then 50-60g, or if it's someone very hungry, 80-100g.
I am in Thailand and my rice cooker states 60g uncooked White Rice to 75 g water per person and it's always perfect and fluffy, double as required or multiply equally i.e.
90 g uncooked White Rice to 100 g water per person (if you're really hungry).
I don't know why someone marked you down (maybe they don't like grams, and prefer the less accurate "cups" when we have no idea what size the cups might be?). But you make a fair point about the second part of the question -- the rice to water ratio is often specified by the rice cooker manufacturer.
It could be because these ratios are not consistent.
The information here sometimes astounds me. The answer accepted as correct is 100% wrong and full of misinformation. If you cook the same amount of water as rice you will end up with burned, half cooked rice.
The recipe for rice is one part rice to two parts water, by volume. That means if you put in 1 cup of rice, add 2 cups of water. It can be 250ml of rice to 500ml of water.
As to how much rice per person, it depends on how much you need for a meal . The general rule is 1 cup of rice will yield 3 cups, or 3:1. So if you were to add it as a bed of rice for fish about 1/3 a cup per person would work. If you wanted it as a side to soup, about 1/2 a cup per person would work. And if you were anyone I know it is about 1 cup per person.
After many years of large portions of rice with our meals we've cut down to 50g (dry weight) of rice or pasta per person as the main carbohydrate of the meal. As a side (with another carb) I'd usually halve the portions.
This advice came from reading The Hairy Dieters, explained by the fact that they were used as easy ways to bulk out meals in history, when physical labour jobs were the norm and money was scarce. Their advice was to have less of the carbs and more of the protein, which is supposed to be the main part of the dish anyway.
As for water, we usually weigh 2:1 water to rice, so 100g of water to 50g of rice. Of course the type of rice you're using and the equipment you're using will have a bearing on the required amount of water.
As a rule of thumb, I generally use 1/2 C. of uncooked rice per person, more or less. Further, I almost always use 2x the rice volume for water. For example, 1 C. uncooked rice (which serves 2 people) uses 2 C. water. Brown rice requires more water. Depending on what you're serving with the rice or "how hungry" everyone is, the amount of rice is somewhat discretionary.
I just made 1 cup of Jasmine rice and it required 2.5 cups of water. I was cooking for myself and it made about 4 times more then I could eat in one sitting. I had some beef with broth on top. No veggies this time around.
Thanks for the info. I don't really understand the downvote you received, so I upvoted to make it zero :)
It should be 1/2 cup maybe for an average person.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.393929
| 2012-05-21T09:48:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23880",
"authors": [
"AmandaQueen Scott",
"Anthony Connell",
"BIANCA MASON",
"Cascabel",
"Daniele B",
"Debra Hann",
"Dianne Buckingham",
"Escoce",
"George",
"Harbour Edney",
"Jason P Sallinger",
"JasonTrue",
"Joe",
"Jude",
"Kaslai",
"Linda",
"Lisa Winters",
"Marie Gunt",
"Nosrac",
"Phillip Hiatt",
"Robbie Watts",
"Stephie",
"Tomáš Fejfar",
"Zenadix",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160991",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71387",
"mkleer",
"nhunsaker",
"rumtscho",
"travis hogan",
"unor",
"walter alvarado"
],
"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
}
|
24096
|
Can you use just egg yolks when recipe asks for eggs?
Having just made a batch of meringues,I am now left with lots of egg yolks, can I use them in recipes that ask for "eggs" i.e cakes and tray bakes. Is the white of the egg needed in the baking process ?
It really does depend on the recipe. Egg yolks have some protein but a lot of fat which adds flavor and makes baked goods more tender and moist. Whites are just protein which adds structure and has a drying effect.
If the particular recipe is depending on the eggs for the binding power of their protein you may not get enough by substituting just yolks. Remember that the volume of the yolks is less than whole eggs so you may see better success substituting two whole eggs with three yolks.
Some cakes will handle the reduced protein. White and yellow cakes will be ok. Pound cakes will also be fine and in fact some recipes call for only yolks. Expect your cake to be a little denser, softer, and tastier. Any kind of sponge or angel food cake won't work because they rely wholly on the protein from the whites.
Soft, rich breads will also benefit from the added fat. The breads will derive their structure from the gluten in their flour. Cinnamon rolls and rich doughnuts come to mind. A local doughnut shop is famous for the yellow color which comes from using fresh yolks.
Yolks can be used in many recipes that call for whole eggs. Look for recipes that will benefit from all the added fat. Anything custard-like, where the eggs are mixed with milk, will work very well- even better than with whole eggs in fact. Examples are custard, flan, puddings, french toast, etc. Given the season you might consider a custard-based ice cream.
cool thanks, thats has answered my question ,very useful and yummy photo !
being in NZ though Ice cream not the best idea at this time of year :)
I have just made coconut macaroons which needed 2 egg whites so I just decided to use the 2 egg yolks and 1 whole egg ....with a 4oz flour and 4oz margarine and 4oz sugar mix and they turned out a bit moister than what I would normally make...so the kids will have a lovely treat for tomorrow for tea...:-) the mix has made lovely cakes...:-)
Hi and welcome to the site. I'm not sure what you're exactly saying here. The recipe called for two egg whites, but you used instead 2 yolks and an egg? Or you added those to the two whites, so using in total three whole eggs?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.394946
| 2012-05-30T01:02:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24096",
"authors": [
"Anoop H.N",
"Jeanette Broadhead Hall",
"Kroltan",
"Mien",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54729",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97180",
"noon",
"princessmakeup",
"rafi ",
"scottishpink",
"user54742"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46960
|
How did Cardinal Mazarin give name to a Swedish cake?
Mazarin is a classic Swedish pastry, well known in neighbouring countries as well in lots of variations. It seems that - as one with a bit of historic background may guess - it is of French origin.
Mazarin tarts, cakes or pastries are said to have been named after the
French-Italian cardinal and diplomat Jules Mazarin (1602 - 1661),
successor of the powerful Cardinal Richelieu.
(Quote from here.)
My wife is running a Finnish bakery where she is baking variations of this cake; however, she couldn't find any more detailed explanation about the origins of this cake and how it is linked to cardinal Mazarin, not even from Swedish sources.
On another forum, I found this:
i just found another referance to MAZARIN in LAROUSSE GASTRONOMIQUE
guide , and they say that mazarin is a kind of a genoise cut that is
shaped like a cone , covered with PINK fondunt and then inserted back
to the genoise form with candied fruits and a little syrop and apricot
jam.
Which could fit into the picture, considering Mazarin was born and raised as Giulio Raimondo Mazzarino in Italy (although not in Genova).
Could anyone with a background in French / Italian culinary history shed light on why Cardinal Mazarin's name was given to this cake, as well as how and when it became a favourite in Sweden?
Just adding a data point; Mazarin were around in Sweden by 1908 according to a Bonnier magazine from 1908 (on Google books): "vi kardinal Mazarin, hugfäst dels genom de med mandelmassa fyllda, sockerglacerade bakelser, som ännu i dag kallas mazariner". Couldn't see all the text but it corroborates what you have said already.
Possibly related: The royal cookery book: (le livre de cuisine) from 1869 has a recipe for "Mazarin Cake with Rum". This is a yeast based sponge in two layers with rum syrup between layers. Topped with almond slivers. Also on Google books.
Just curious OP, did my answer fit your question? I suspect there may be more solid evidence scattered across various antiquated texts, the likes of which are neither easily identified or accessed outside of Swedish, Italian, or French archives- which I (and I suspect most if not all other users) do not have access to. There may be something of use in an online academic archive somewhere, though whether or not it will be in English (assuming that's your language of choice) is another question entirely. Make friends with a polyglot university student!
Well, it seems that Mazarin's predecessor (and at the time, mentor), Cardinal Richelieu, was instrumental in the creation of the Treaty of Bärwalde, which made Sweden and France steadfast allies (with the French basically funding nearly forty thousand Swedish soldiers). Once Mazarin replaced Richelieu there were already strong diplomatic ties between the two countries. Mazarin was also on amiable terms with Anne of Austria, the queen of France, and as they were both food lovers and promoters (Mazarin in particular worked to spread pasta throughout France) it would make sense that Mazarin, spreading some Italian pastry (perhaps crostata di mandorle?) to Sweden, would end up with the local variant named after him. In short, diplomatic ties brought a new pastry to Sweden, and the Swedes named their version of that pastry after the diplomat in question, Mazarin. I don't have any direct evidence of this happening, but it seems to make sense.
Sources:
http://www.cmariec.com/?p=9157
http://acuriouslittleblog.blogspot.com/2013/10/cardinal-mazarin.html
http://samples.sainsburysebooks.co.uk/9781134741274_sample_496911.pdf
My friend's mother is a Swedish baker and knew Mazarin was some sort of diplomat with ties to Sweden
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.395171
| 2014-09-08T09:17:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46960",
"authors": [
"Andreia Lopes",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Judy Still",
"Kim Charlton",
"Leila Boustani",
"Milena Geleynse",
"RICK",
"Ron Faulkner",
"SANDRA LITTON",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114105",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24724"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
80758
|
How to use and is there a good thermometer for very small small fish?
I'm trying to check whitebait temperature after cooked and it always seems to be a lower temperature than expected e.g. even after boiling the fish, removing the fish and adding the thermometer, the thermometer can show 40-50c.
I'm currently using this thermometer, however, although it goes in the fish(seemingl fully), perhaps as the fish is so small air is getting to it and so an accurate read isnt been given.
Is my current thermometer inappropriate and are there any specific thermometers which can be used specifically to check small fish such as whitebait. I imagine the needle has to be very small considering the fish size and most thermometers i find are not much different than the one I linked.
Is it possible that the fish reaches the safe temperature e.g. 62c however as soon as I remove the fish from the water it rapidly cools so by the time the thermometer goes in the fish tempertaure already decreases to say 40c? If yes how is it best to check fish temperature? I know you can look for texture and opaquness of of fish however I'm not good at judging with my eye so I'd rather use something more objective like a thermometer.
What happens if you stick just the tips of the probes into hot water? Do you get a reasonable temperature or does it seem to be "averaging" in the air? Sometimes cheaper thermometers aren't just sensitive right at the tip of the probes, so they'll work okay on bigger things where the whole probe is in the food, but not for small things.
The thermometer is likely to cool the fish signficantly when you put it in. Remember the thermometer is (presumably room temperature) metal. Any heat in the fish will be conducted in to the thermometer before it can measure the temperature accurately. I would suggested heating the thermometer in hot water before inserting it into the fish.
Whitebaits are thin. If you are putting them into hot water or hot oil, it should take under a minute for the whole fish to reach the temperature of the surrounding liquid, assuming they are no thicker than 5mm. Heat transfer at this scale is rapid. If you have frozen whitebaits of course, that would take much more time. My suggestion is to cook them once thawed.
It is not practical to probe the inside temperature of such small fish. Your thermometer, unless faulty, should be well capable of measuring the temperature of your cooking water. You would have to design an elaborate experiment to get at the core temperature of the cooked fish. Unless you are after the data rather than wanting the fish cooked, don't bother.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.395482
| 2017-04-09T11:48:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/80758",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"canardgras",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44516
|
Getting rid of chewy chicken
I am looking for exact instructions on how to cook chicken. I have bought fresh chicken numerous times and its mostly chewy. It can be in gravy, oven cooked, tandoori style etc etc I just want it cooked perfectly.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice. Recipe requests aren't allowed here, that's considered "off topic", so I deleted your references to recipes. "Instructions" are allowed, so you'll still get answers to the heart of your question.
No instructions are going to be that precise; there are too many variables at play. What temperature was the chicken before you started? Exactly how big are the pieces? How precisely can you measure and maintain the temperature of the oven or cooking medium?
What you need to be sure that your chicken is perfectly done is an instant read thermometer. At first, aim for 165F (74C), that's the minimum "safe" temperature. After that, you may choose to go a little higher, especially for dark meat. Some people prefer a few degrees lower, especially for breasts. Whether temperatures under 165F are safe is a bit controversial, you need to assess any risk on your own. Once you know the exact temperature that seems perfect for you, that's where to aim. The temperature will continue to rise after you remove the chicken from the heat. For small pieces that "carry-over" temperature rise will be pretty negligible; a whole chicken will rise a few degrees.
Whatever recipe you follow, take the temperature a few minutes before the time in the recipe. As you gain experience, you'll get better at zeroing in on doneness by appearance.
I find that if you have the time to brine your bird before cooking, that's good protection against juice loss and the associated chewiness.
Yes, brining can make a big difference. Here's more on that: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1442/what-are-the-basics-and-options-of-brining-meat-for-example-chicken
Ok, I guess I have been cooking at higher temperatures. Secondly how long should I cook it? Say its a 700 grams chicken with all main pieces separated. Also, does marinade in any way affect the softness? If so, how to best marinade it and for how long. (A video reference would be appreciated) Thanks
How long chicken needs to be cooked depends, that's kind of the point to my answer. Follow a recipe you trust, but start temping it before the time the recipe states elapses. Consider brining, also velveting: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20506/how-do-chinese-restaurants-tenderize-their-meat/20532#20532
Cooked chicken today! I realized the oven temperature set was too high (180C). Cooked the bird at around 90C and it was perfect.
To tenderise chicken or any meat, you can consider soaking it in the juice of a raw papaya or in pineapple juice. The former is preferable because it is more effective and has a more neutral taste.
Both these things act as tenderisers for animal protein.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.395737
| 2014-05-29T15:47:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44516",
"authors": [
"Bill Daniels",
"Eric2U",
"Fast Removals spam",
"Gail Satz",
"Jolenealaska",
"One Source",
"Prakash Wadhwani",
"Spammer",
"Tretinoin Cream UK",
"Ufficiobrevettimarchi spam",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"logophobe",
"mlc"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79121
|
Is there a guide to traditional culinary knives by cuisine?
I went to a nearby supermarket that caters to a Spanish South American and Brazilian/Portuguese clientele. In addition to their excellent onsite fishmonger and butcher, the cookware section had a broad array of culinary knives in patterns I had never seen before. I know about the various patterns of French and German knives, and about the wide array of Japanese knives and their various uses, and about the Chinese chef's cleaver, and about the Indian bonti (with and without coconut scrapers) and chakku and gandasa...
Is there a guide to traditional culinary cutlery patterns? I can recognize a number of Thai knives, but I don't have names for them. Google is failing me. Help?
Knife nerd in trouble!
world wide? Uhhh, that's going to be hard... for example, even people really knowledgeable about japanese knives each forget a few patterns when writing guides, probably because of regional focus....
Maybe ask the butcher/fishmonger at that market. I would think they could identify the pattern/use of the knifes they carry.
Something like this or something like this?
@BaffledCook - No, those are pretty standard patterns. I'm interested in South American, SE Asian and African kitchen cutlery that are different - or European knives that aren't found in the typical working kitchen in the USA. Thanks for the links, tho!
Would it be worth converting this to community wiki, and trying to create the resource that's being asked about? (or link to resources on knives of different cultures) Or maybe a new question, and link back to this one?
A good start is probably wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitchen_knife.
There you will see the main types of knives and their name. If you recognize one, I'd suggest you to google it.
I haven't found a comprehensive guide for all of them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.396019
| 2017-03-14T03:25:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79121",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Joe",
"Optionparty",
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57
|
How does a splash of vinegar help when poaching eggs?
What does splashing in a shot of white vinegar to the simmering water do when poaching an egg?
Is it for taste or is it supposed to react in some way with the albumen?
I just learned a great trick that I suspect works even better than vinegar for helping set the eggs nicely... Julia Child recommends boiling the egg (in shell) for 10 seconds before cracking it into your poaching liquid. It's just enough to help the outer layer start to set.
We do them in oil lined cling film, add a bag clip to seal the egg inside, and bob's your uncle! Means you can do 10 at a time if you want and they all come out perfect too!!
Egg whites need to be heated up to a certain temperature in order to coagulate ("set").
Lowering the pH (increasing the acidity) of the cooking liquid is one way to lower the temperature required for coagulation of the egg whites. So, in a way, this does prevent "feathering" of the eggs, but not because of any direct reaction; rather, the reason the eggs feather less is because they have less time to feather, because they don't need to get as hot.
Any acidic liquid will have a similar effect. White vinegar is probably the most effective, but you could also add lemon juice or wine to the poaching liquid. In fact, eggs poached in red wine sauce ("Oeufs en Meurette") is quite a popular preparation method.
For reference, the coagulation temperature is also proportional to the salinity (add salt to lower the coagulation temperature, add sugar to raise it), and inversely proportional to the number of eggs used (more eggs = lower coagulation temperature).
All of that makes sense .. except for the number of eggs. I just don't get that one. The only thing I can think is that it's only an indirect relationship -- more eggs lower the cooking temp, and lower temp cooking results in lower coagulation temperature (which I know is true for custards)
@Joe: It's not cooking temperature, it's actually the concentration of proteins (and thus, the number of eggs in the same amount of liquid). Have a look here - see the section on Concentration near the end. Something to keep in mind next time you're poaching - do as many at a time as you can!
Actually, I'm starting to question myself here... I know for a fact that this is true with any egg solution (diluting the egg raises coagulation temperature). But I am pretty sure that it also applies to poaching, because some of the egg does disperse into the water and cause a "concentration" effect. I might be wrong - if somebody can convince me, I'll delete that part of the answer as not relevant to poaching.
Any wisdom as to how to get the vinegar to not smell?
@Marcin: I've never had poached eggs smell vinegary using the relatively small amount of vinegar. But if you're worried, try one of the other acids, like lemon juice.
Vinegar and salt both help the proteins (albumin) to denature (unwind) more quickly and link up to form a network of proteins, thus setting the egg. The quicker the proteins denature the less feathering there will be around the edges and the nicer looking the egg.
It's supposed to help with cooking the albumen in such a way that it doesn't get all feathery at the edges.
I have no idea what the actual chemical reaction is, though.
I've also heard of people adding a pickle to the poaching liquid instead of vinegar directly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.396216
| 2010-07-09T19:28:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Allison",
"Arnold Paye",
"Bart Stevens",
"Blair Scott",
"Christian Payne",
"Dominic Aita",
"Joe",
"Marcin",
"Zepplock",
"ferdiesfoodlab",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4525",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"paprika"
],
"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
}
|
57695
|
Can I keep herbs fresh by spraying them with fertilizer?
I tend to use a lot of fresh herbs for cooking so over time with trial and error I have come up with this:
It is possible to keep herbs fresh (Parsley and Dill mostly) for around a week or more but putting them on an EMPTY jar (without water) and spraying water on them, then a plastic bag would loosely cover it. Since I use herbs bit by bit every day so I re-spray water on them every other day or so.
The herbs are almost entirely green and crispy, with virtually no difference from fresh.
If I mixed water with fertilizer and sprayed it on the plants would they keep alive indefinitely or long time?
EDIT: I know that once a vegetable is picked it will start metabolizing its own nutrients at certain rate before it goes bad.
Now if I place herbs' stem ends in a pot with soil (well-fertilized), will it stop it from metabolizing itself? Since it can get nutrients from soil?
questions about nutrition are off-topic, I've edited to delete that part of your question.
Fertilizer is basically some animal's excrement. Are you sure you want to spray it on leaves you're then going to eat? (Well, OK, so artificial fertilizers exist that aren't made from poop, but those have the added feature of being very close to the same thing as explosives. Again, are you sure this is what you want to be eating?)
Well, technically plants are meant to be fertilized from time to time if they are grown in pots, aren't they?
@Joshua plants are meant to grow in fertilized soil. The fertilizer does not get through the soil onto the leaves. The roots pick up some compounds from it and then use them for growth - transforming them into entirely different compounds.
This is a duplicate of a question by the same user from some time ago: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/56104/fresh-herb-storage?rq=1
Dousing your herbs with fertilizer is not going to preserve your herbs, and could make you sick as many fertilizers are toxic.
If you want really fresh herbs you can keep them in pots on a windowsill, otherwise your spraying water method is about as good as you are likely to get.
I did not mean to directly spray the fertilizer, but mixing it in water and then spraying it, so it will be diluted, mostly water.
If I keep them in water in a windowsill will they keep forever if I water it? I'm given to understand that herbs without roots will not really stay alive, that's why I had MUCH better results spraying water on them instead of just putting them on a jar with water in it.
Why would spraying the herb with a diluted fertilizer not work?
Since the roots aren't that strong, it would help the herb stay alive right? Am I missing a point here?
@Joshua Fertilizer isn't meant to be absorbed through the leaves, and it doesn't miraculously make plants "healthy" or grow or stay alive. It's for enriching soil, which the plant can then take from as needed (I'm simplifying). Mixing plant food in water and putting the roots/bottom of the stems in it (not spraying) would work much better.
Even then, plants require exposure to sunlight to photosynthesize and grow; fertilizer and soil provide other nutrients, but are not a complete solution. This is like providing an animal with plenty of air, water, and necessary vitamins, but depriving it of food. It might stay alive and look reasonably healthy for a while, but it won't last forever.
Well, does the plant have to be in direct sunlight? If yes I can provide that ;)
If I mixed some fertilizer with water and put the bottom of the stems in it would it stay healthy without consuming its own nutrients? Assuming I put it in a place where it can get sunlight?
My question is, WILl the plant stay alive without roots but just stems?
If you are going to to that why not just have a living potted plant? If you want fresh herbs on demand it's a much simpler solution than trying to keep cut herbs fresh for longer.
That's what I also thought: Can I put the stems inside a pot with soil on a windowsill and keep plants alive? In this case will the plant stop metabolizing itself and die soon?
You cannot stick cut-off plant pieces into a pot and expect them to grow (at least for most plants). It is easy to grow your own herbs, but you need to do it the right way. I'm sure there are many tutorials for beginners on the Internet, and you can ask on gardening.stackexchange.com for special concerns.
Well, I checked on one gardening website that you can grow herbs from the stem; I am providing it with light and soil, what would be the problem?
Not all herbs can be easily grown from the stem. For further questions about growing herbs I would suggest that you head to [gardening.SE]
@Joshua some herbs you can root from the stem by keeping them in a water vase or damp paper towel, but not all. Some may need rooting powder to root; but this is definitely a question for Gardening and Landscaping
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.396640
| 2015-05-22T14:35:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57695",
"authors": [
"Amelia DeLeonibus",
"Ching Chong",
"Chris Macksey",
"Diane Elmore",
"Ecnerwal",
"Ed Simpson",
"Gary Frantz",
"GdD",
"Joshua",
"Kevin Daily",
"Lomalangeni Dlamini",
"Marti",
"Matthew Read",
"Vitor Melo",
"Wayne Kostanich",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137292",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"logophobe",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24111
|
Should I pour off the liquified fat while cooking bacon?
At home, I'm likely to cook bacon stovetop in a cast iron skillet. In commercial kitchens I've worked in, bacon goes on sheet pans in the oven. In each case, I usually pour off excess fat once or twice during cooking. However, I just watched this video at Chow that instructs to never pour off the fat. Does the pool of hot fat help or hinder in achieving a uniformly crispy piece of bacon?
Do you want to add detail about your particular concern about pouring it off? Down the drain is bad, in a can is good, for use later is good, leacing to harden on the bottom of the pan not so good. I'm not sure how to answer as I don't know what end concerns you, is it just the quality of the final product?
If a recipe calls for you to drain the fat, drain the fat. If you are trying to lose weight, drain the fat. If you don't want an unattractive glossy skim on top, or for it to cool and harden, drain the fat.
Having too much fat in your pan will possibly interfere with the frying technique you are using, which will change the end product. That said, it sounds like you are just frying bacon. In this case, it is totally a matter of personal preference; some people like very greasy bacon, some want to pretend there was no fat ever and drain obsessively and dry on paper towels twice.
From my experience cooking bacon, long and slow, I prefer to have a moderate amount in the pan. Some bacon will render fat more quickly and in higher volume than others. This is problematic when you are trying to ensure a crisp product at the end as the bacon can end up partially deep fried. If you find the fat interfering with the actual frying, drain it.
I also drain the bacon to ensure there aren't pools of bacon, howeverI don't prefer to dry it; normally I do a haystack on paper towels. I have made chili where the primary fat was bacon fat from a few pounds of bacon; in this case you still want to drain it, into the pot you will be making the chili in. This helps ensure that you are rendering as much fat as possible and that the bacon can be used later.
As for getting rid of the fat, don't pour it down the drain. If you're going to store it, strain it, keep it air tight, and put it in the fridge. If you're going to use it for the next thing you are making, strain it (or don't) and put it aside, but don't let it interfere with the focus, the frying of the bacon.
Your third paragraph gets to the crux of my question. Scott Vermeire, in the video linked to in my question, seems to indicate (at 1:21) that slow-cooking in the puddle of fat is what leads to uniformly crispy bacon.
@Callithumpian I like the fat to be about 1/4 the height of the bacon itself; depending on his definition of a puddle, I would (dis)agree. The importance of the fat is to conduct heat, and I find about 1/4 height inhibits bacon from twisting into curly strips (too much contact directly to the pan seems to lead to this, floating in grease makes for limp bacon) and making it impossible to cook it evenly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.397045
| 2012-05-30T13:27:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24111",
"authors": [
"Callithumpian",
"Emili",
"M Hendra Herviawan",
"Sunny O'Neil",
"Thom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54777",
"jojo",
"mfg",
"thowback",
"user15964"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7850
|
Thai lava chili: how could I reproduce this?
I realize this is a bit off of a question, and I apologize if it's not all that great. But here goes.
There is a Thai place near where I live that makes this amazing dish entitled "lava chili". It's spicy, filled with garlic, and absolutely delicious. I have absolutely no idea how I would even begin to try to cook something like it. Here are some properties of this dish:
In some sense of the word, it's like an American chili. It's not runny like a curry, it's more viscous.
It has a lot of garlic and a bit of ginger, I suspect.
Definitely some red pepper flakes and a couple other types of spicy, well, spices.
It has some type of oil in it, I can see it.
It's a bit tangy, too, and a little sweet.
I'm looking for some help recreating or approximating this dish. I love Thai food and I love Thai cooking, but I only do it for fun and really am not sure where to start on this.
Edit:
It looks similar to this image.
The website I found that image from describes it as:
This historically highly rustic Thai dish is a very quick stir-fry with Thai chilli jam, normally accompanied with Thai vegetables and rice.
How would I go about trying to recreate that?
Have you asked the restaurant staff?
No, I'm not really comfortable doing that :-/
It is a little difficult to answer with the information given. I think what we really need to know is how you'd consider it to be different from ordinary chili (which also often has garlic, red/hot pepper, various spices, and oil/fat). The tangy/sweet classification helps a bit, but more detail would help to get the kind of answer you're looking for.
I think what I'm looking for the most is recipes that sound somewhat in the ballpark to something like this for me to try.
We are more than happy to help with recreating/imitating a specific recipe; however, general recipe requests are off-topic as noted in the FAQ. The issue is that there are potentially hundreds of recipes that meet the criteria and no objective way for us to select or vote on them. Have a look at this question for an example of what gets good answers; it identifies a similar, traditional recipe and describes in detail the differences in flavour, texture, and appearance. What we need is a frame of reference.
@aaronut, cunning ploy for an [Announcer] ;)
I should have realized recipe requests were not desired here :-) Makes perfect sense. I've been a StackOverflow member for years so I understand how the StackExchange sites work :-)
That being said, I don't think my request is all that different from the question you mentioned, Aaronut. I'm going to try and identify a similar recipe and add it to my question.
I've added an image and some more information, hopefully that helps :-)
Lol, @Sam, I didn't know what that badge was until 10 seconds ago. :P
@unforgiven: This is definitely more helpful. I'm thinking about this; the fact that it says Chili Jam (AKA chili paste) makes me wonder if they literally just use an off-the-shelf sauce. Does it have meat in it, like a chili con carne? Or would you describe it as more of a stir-fry like the image seems to suggest?
Interesting! I wasn't aware of off-the-shelf sauces like that. It doesn't have meat in the sauce, it's typically added after the fact (I generally enjoy it with fried tofu). I suspect it's more like a stir-fry.
I would suggest trying it with the off-the-shelf sauce @Aaronut suggested. If it still needs work, I'm sure we'd be better equipped to help.
I think that's what I'll try. @Aaronut, if you answer this question I'd be happy to mark it as the answer. Thanks, guys!
I generally associate the phrase "chili jam" (also known as chili paste) with store-bought sauces, like this one.
It wouldn't surprise me if they were using a very similar ready-made sauce - perhaps they get it from a distributor or perhaps they even make it themselves in large quantities and store it, but I doubt that they make it from scratch for every meal - few Asian restaurants do.
If the dish you were served doesn't contain ground beef or any of the things you'd traditionally associate with American chili (other than the thick consistency) then this might be as simple as whipping up a stir-fry using a store-bought chili paste. If it's too thick, add a little soy sauce. If you want more tanginess, add some lime juice. If you want more sweetness, add brown sugar. And if it still seems to be missing that certain je ne sais quoi, you might need Thai fish sauce, which you find in almost every Thai dish.
I hope that helps. If it doesn't get you where you want then feel free to report back and explain how it turned out differently from what you expected - one of us can surely take it from there.
Thank you, I think those are great ideas. Also, how could I forget fish sauce? I've cooked with it, and I'm almost certain this dish has it, so I'll make sure to remember that. Thanks!
That looks like a "fusion" dish - ie, isn't clearly thai or clearly chinese or clearly (you get it).
It looks and sounds like it's actually a thai inspired prawn curry, but perhaps with tamarind, some kind of thickener (ground rice? Wheat flour?), heaps of fat or oil of some description, and probably contains considerable fish sauce and palm sugar, but other than that, there really isn't anything that lets us say what's in it unless we were to actually taste it!
If the chili sauce itself has a szechuan/General Tso's flavor to it I wouldn't be surprised if this wasn't a hoisin & satay sauce base. It appears to have chili pepper flake oil going through it (based on the fringe oil), but i think that to get that consistency along with the sweetness and tanginess they would likely be using hoisin (and maybe a satay) sauce.
Along with the guidelines from @Aar , note that with hoisin the approach I find easiest to cook with is to think of it as a flavor base you are extending with additional fillers. Hoisin is not immediately a tasty ingredient to taste (and is used often as a marinade), but extended across a spectrum of flavors it makes a great binding flavor and can work like tomatoes in chili; that is to say, as a baseline.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.397325
| 2010-10-05T13:08:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7850",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Rob",
"Sam Holder",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"justkt",
"klobucar"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6281
|
shelf life of kim chee
Possible Duplicate:
Does kimchi go bad?
I have some 'antique' kim chee in the back of the fridge. How can one tell if it is gone bad? Given that kim chee is fermented, it is hard to tell if it is no longer safe to eat or acceptable to offer to guests, say. Does aging improve the flavor? up to what point?
oops. I had searched for 'kim chee', not 'kimchi'. thanks for spotting the dupe!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.397805
| 2010-08-29T05:11:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6281",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1854",
"shabbychef"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5922
|
What are the telltale signs of a bad watermelon?
Possible Duplicate:
How do I pick a watermelon at the supermarket?
I always pick out watermelons based on the tips that people provide (dried up ends, root area gives in slightly when pressed, heavy for their size, etc.) but often times, I still end up with an overly ripe or unripe watermelon.
So, instead of how to pick out a good watermelon, what "bad" signs should I avoid for 1) an unripe melon and/or 2) an overly ripe one? Many thanks!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.397867
| 2010-08-25T05:16:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5922",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66272
|
My red potatoes seem to have an unusually high amount of eyes. Should I cut them out?
I got a large bag of red potatoes from costco, but it has a lot of eyes and probably 100 dimples all over it. I peeled the first one and extracted the deep eyes and it looks good underneath (no green), but why isn't it smooth like I expected? Is it safe?
Not a duplicate, it has not sprouted.
Possible duplicate of Is it safe to eat potatoes that have sprouted?
Nope not duplicate. This is about whether this potato has many, and there are NO SPROUTS by the way. It has NOT sprouted, and also I ate it after cooking for 30 minutes and it was great but curious if I need to dig out for the next ones.
All right, since it's been a while, I'll go ahead and move the dup conversation to chat. - it's a bit longer than ideal for a question and it seems like no one really thinks it's a dup.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.397941
| 2016-02-07T03:33:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66272",
"authors": [
"Abby Murray",
"Amanda Forbes",
"Cascabel",
"Elaine Geldard",
"Rick Flickinger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27288",
"seasoned",
"tommy tummy",
"tsturzl"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47359
|
How to cool 8 liters of cooking oil quickly for transport and disposal
I am running a small market stall where I have a Winco EFS-16 Fryer which holds 8L of oil.
Since I have to be out of the park about 1 hour after we turn off the equipment, what is the fastest and safest way to transfer and dispose of the oil after we turn off the fryer?
The fryer does not have an easy way to drain oil, so I would have to spoon it out, or pickup the inner pan out of the fryer and pour the cooled oil into a metal container or funnel into a drum of some kind. It then has to be cool enough to carry in my car and disposed in a commissary.
You don't have to laddle it out, you can syphon it with a flexible tube.
Yes, I have experience with that but I would need a metal tube of sorts or something flexible resistant to oil and heat. Do you have a link to a material safety sheet on such a material? Also you have to get the oil flowing by moving the oil through the tube either by suction or by moving the oil through a coil..Its not that easy with oil that's still hot...
silicone should resist hot oil well, it can be baked up to 220 Celsius. Maybe you need a slightly reinforced tube. The suction is harder to solve, I didn't think of that. Maybe some kind of a simple hand operated pump, but with time, you'll have to deal with clogging.
Syphoning is easy w/ a flexible hose ... insert one end of the hose. Submerge the other end of the hose then tightly clamp it at the surface of the liquid. Lift the hose out, move it lower than the vessel, then open the clamp. When it's a cold liquid, you can just dip your hand in and put your thumb over the end ... but I wouldn't want to do that with hot oil.
a search for 'hot oil syphon' found : http://lilorbits.com/products/list-lil-orbits-mini-donut-accessories.php (see items A109 & A110). No mention of pricing, though.
What temperature will the oil be at during service?
375 F standard for frying fritters and french fries.
You are using potatoes already. Potatoes contain lots of water and hence are a good heat sink. Why not use the classic technique of adding waste potatoes and skins when you are done so as to cool the oil down (without adding more heat to the fryer), then remove the half-cooked potatoes? The potato bits have a greater surface area to dissipate heat via air cooling than a pool of oil. (This assumes that you can dispose of waste half-cooked potato bits as easily as oil, and doesn't address the disposal of the oil.)
I don't know that this is necessarily the best way to do things, but if it were me, I'd likely rig up something using a few disposable aluminum pans :
To assist in our cleanup, we'll start out by assuming that your fryer is set to one side of a full sheet pan, with the other side free as a catchment area for any spills while we're emptying it.
First, we make a cooling device using 1/2 deep pan filled with ice, and then another 1/2 deep pan on top of it. Squish one of the corners of the top pan to make a sort of a spout. Set this on the vacant side of the sheet pan. To reduce the possible mess from working too quickly, cover the side of fryer near the cooling container with some aluminium foil.
Next, ladle the oil from the fryer into the cooling tray. Swish around the oil 'til it's cool enough to handle, then lift the oil-filled tray out and pour into your final recepticle for disposal. How much oil you put in each time depends on how sturdy the foil pans are.
Once you get the majority of the oil out of the fryer, you should hopefully be able to move it safely. If it's still hot on the outside, you can try wiping it down (to remove any oil residue), and then wipe it with wet towels to cool it down.
If you think that would take too long, your next option would be to find a metal can that could fit inside a larger bucket and seals well. Take whatever your local equivalent is to a 5 gallon bucket, add some heat-stable insulation along the bottom (eg, mineral wool), center the metal can on the inside of the bucket, then insulate between the can & bucket. You'll want to modify the lid for the plastic bucket so that it has a hole in the top to snugly fit the funnel. Assemble the whole thing, then either ladle into it, or attempt to extract the container and pour it in directly. Remove the plastic lid, seal the can, then re-attach the plastic bucket lid (but without the funnel).
The problem with this method is that you haven't actually cooled down the oil, and with the insulation, it'll stay hot for quite some time. (slowly heating up the outer container). You'll likely want to transfer the oil back into something disposable once it's cooled down enough to handle.
I posted this http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/135760/cooling-8-l-of-frying-oil-using-ice but they shut down my question. However the idea of quenching it in ice was my original idea, I just wanted a solid formula to work out the fastest way to cool any volume of oil. I think it's go to do with the surface area in contact with the cooling so I would agree with you - a pan would be better than say a round canister (depending on the surface area of course), and the heat would dissipate fast via the ice and via the surrounding air vs a canister. Thanks for this.
An active cooling system would be even better - coil a tubing inside the oil container, pump ice-cold water through it. Similar to a PC water cooling, but you can use more volume of water, and you don't need to cool a certain chip, your whole tube area works to cool the stuff. But it's probably overkill for you. What might be a good idea though is to put the ice-filled pan on the oil, not below it - cold falls down, heat goes up.
@rumtscho : I thought about using a cooling line ... but I'd be afraid of cooling it down so far that it didn't flow well and backed up. As for the plan on top of the oil -- you risk putting too much weight on the oil, making a mess, and it means you can't easily stir it to cool it down. (and you're not trying to figure out where to put the greasy-bottomed tray while you ladle out your next batch to cool)
I think the reverse would work well. Coil a copper tube in a container full of ice water and pour the hot oil into a funnel at the top, as the oil flows through the coil it cools and dissipates heat to the water coming out at the other end luke warm probably.
@jcooper : if you're considering it, I'd give it a test-run off-site ... the diameter of the tube is going to be significant ... most tubes that are thin enough to coil easily are fairly narrow (1/8" to maybe 1/4"), which if you cool down the oil to far, it will not flow through in a reasonable amount of time. It's okay for condensing alcohol, but will have problems with more viscous fluids. If you want to try it, go to a hardware store, and look for the coils they sell for connecting fridges w/ ice-makers to the home plumbing.
I had the same dilemma, quick and simple fix....yes!!!
Buy a 20 litre steel drum of cooking oil, pour half of it into other suitable containers, your then left with 10 litres of cold oil.
Take your 8 litres of boiling oil, get a steel funnel (kitchen funnel) and decant your hot oil slowly from the fryer via the funnel into the cold 10 litres of oil.
This will give you 18 litres of fluid in a 20 litre steel container.
It also cools and regulates the hot oil temp with the cold oil and the outside of the steel container is warm but not HOT to touch allowing you to safely transport it!
Ps mind and use heat proof gloves when lifting your fryer pan, and use sensible protection on your clothes!!
Hope this helps!!
Aeh, good option temperature-wise, but while you got the physics right, wasting 10l of oil might not be what OP wants. Cooled used oil that is to be discarded anyway, might be an option
Yeah but the oil can still be re used! Simply place a filter in the funnel whilst pouring and you can re use again! :-)
And I should have been clearer! This method is for oil that is pre-discard stage! Ie only used once or twice and still good after 1 use for cooking with again! :-)
This system would still work, just stage your oils so that you grade your oil from fresh to discard. When you want to discard this batch of oil, mix it with cold discard oil. When you DO discard it. Keep half for the next time. Obviously use ONCE used cold oil to mix with ONCE used hot oil so you have a total container of ONCE used. That shouldn't be too difficult...especially since you can probably look at the oil to know what grade it is.
The fastest way I found was to lift the oil pan and quench it into a shallow metal pan of melted ice. That cooled it down extremely fast, I would have logged the cooling rate if I had time, but within 10 minutes it was cool enough to pour into it's original plastic container and safely carry back to the commissary.
A good call for ones w/ removable linings. (that isn't so large that you can get to it easily). If you're going to have to pry it up to get (gloved) fingers under it ... two mini pry bars might work. (mini because you then turn them on their side to prop it up while you work the other side, but it might be easier to find something to push under there after lifting. (eg. a small-ish bit of wood ))
And thanks for following up your question w/ what's proven to work.
We really should have a formula for cooling oil based on the specific heat of the oil, volume, temperature at start and exposed surface area. I just couldn't find one. I am sure it would be easy to then plug in the values into matlab/excel/ti calc to get time to cool.
A good idea -- and I found a copy of Fasina & Colley's 2008 paper "Viscosity and Specific Heat of Vegetable Oils as a Function of Temperature: 35°C to 180°C". Specific heat increases linearly as the temperature increases, about 17% over the range. (Canola is 2.208 at 35°C, 2.640 at 180°C). For the 35°C specific heats: Almond 2.354, Canola 2.208, Corn 1.673, Grapeseed 1.572, Hazelnut 1.726, Olive 1.746, Peanut 2.045, Safflour 2.076, Sesame 2.117, Soybean 1.675, Sunflower 2.244, Walnut 2.034
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.398090
| 2014-09-23T19:28:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47359",
"authors": [
"András Salamon",
"Escoce",
"Joe",
"Nathian",
"Orfa Garcia",
"Sallie Tonsley",
"Stephie",
"bambe israel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114300",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jc303",
"john3103",
"kathy gold",
"nishant somani",
"rumtscho",
"salvatore scandurra",
"spammer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100582
|
looking for an idea for "fondue alternative" dish, that can be served in a buffet
I'm looking for an idea for a dish with fondue taste (mainly the combination of cheese and wine \ beer), but which can be served in a buffet (without constant heating, and something that can be eaten standing up)
Thanks, Ophir, but since this is primarily opinion based, it is likely to be closed.
Additionally, recipe requests are off topic. Everyone has their own favorites.
"which can be served in a buffet" is rather ambiguous ... are you just looking for something which doesn't need to be dipped individually, or do you have issues with it cooling off after people take it, or is there some other issue?
It can't be kept warm like fondue, and dipping is less convenient.
Requests for recipe recommendations are off-topic and this question will be closed.. https://cooking.stackexchange.com/help/on-topic
Any variation of the swiss holy trinity (lardon, cheese and potatoes) is good, but for maximum wow factor, see if you can rent a raclette oven or two and have someone stand by it and slide the molten cheese on people's plates :
Downside is you need a raclette officer on duty (can be done by anyone, its not hard)
"It can't be kept warm like fondue" was the reason I only mentioned this in passing. I assume "buffet style" is self service too. Otherwise, it's a great suggestion!
Have a google for Raclette or Tartiflette (or anything from the Savoyard region of France).
Most mountainous dishes involve the involve the cheese "Reblochon" over some form of boiled potatoes. Although once considered the poor mans dish in the mountains, they are now vastly populor and there are many variations for the reciepe online.
My reciepe is:
Rub garlic over a raclette dish (or any oven proof dish if you don't have the specific one)
Finely slice potatoes and line the dish
For each layer, add fried lardons and fried onions and garlic
Add double cream to the dish
Cut a whole Reblochon cut in half around the waist, place with the skin facing outwards
Bake for around an hour at 180
You'll be able to fine a more accurate recipe online but it's a great dish for sharing and is useually serves with pickles and deli meat, but can just be a side dish.
If you wanted that beer or wine taste added, I'd suggest adding it to the onions and reducing a bit before adding to the dish.
For a veggy version, just leave out the bacon!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.398991
| 2019-08-05T10:27:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100582",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Gamora",
"Joe",
"Ophir Yoktan",
"Rob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75772",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29760
|
Brining chicken wings
I'm trying to figure out how to brine chicken wings (for hot wings) and have some questions about brine:
What is the minimum and maximum amount of salt to water ratio to make a brine?
Does brine have to be boiled? I've seen some brine recipes that call for the solution to be brought to a boil, then cool. Can't I just stir the solution until the salt and water are fully incorporated?
Some brine solutions add ingredients other than salt. When does such a solution become a marinade instead of a brine? And what's the difference?
If anyone has a copy of The New Best Recipe handy, it has a science section for brines which, if I remember, goes some way to answering this question. My copy is on the boat from Australia to Europe :(
What is the minimum and maximum amount of salt to water ratio to make a brine?
This is a very complicated question--in the chemical sense, salt dissolved in water is a brine, but they can vary in concentration (usually measured in percentage of salt by weight).
For the culinary purpose of seasoning and helping meat cuts stay moist, it varies considerably; the stronger the brine, the shorter the brining time, in general, although below a certain threshold you are going have little effect. Too much salt in the brine, and it will get to the point where you are are wet curing, and the product will start to take on hammy textures and flavors.
A good range for culinary brines is about 3-5%, depending on the length of time you intend to brine, and the size of the cuts being brined.
Does brine have to be boiled? I've seen some brine recipes that call for the solution to be brought to a boil, then cool. Can't I just stir the solution until the salt and water are fully incorporated?
No, you don't have to boil the brine; doing so is for ease in dissolving the salt (and possibly sugar).
For safety, you only want to brine in cold brine, so you would then need to cool a previously boiled brine. This is usually done by boiling half the water weight with the salt/sugar, and then adding the other half of the weight of water as ice after.
Some brine solutions add ingredients other than salt. When does such a solution become a marinade instead of a brine? And what's the difference?
Marinade is not defined scientifically, so there is no formal distinction. It is a matter of culinary purpose. My personal take is that brines are made of water, salt, and sugar, and possibly one or two flavorants; marinades often have an oil, dairy, or acid (such as orange juice or vinegar) base, although there is considerable variation.
Marinades are about adding flavor (usually), and possibly tenderizing (when acid, or an enzymatic actor such as pineapple juice is present). Marinades act at the surface of the food product.
If the primary purpose is to help the meat stay juicy, and to season it, the application is brining, so call it brine. Brines, with enough time, will affect deep into the meet, although there is some argument over what the exact scientific mechanism is.
The thing is, despite the myth, brining does not help flavor (as opposed to salt, for seasoning) enter the meat--adding extra ingredients to it beyond salt, sugar, and water is not generally helpful, as these flavors will not pass the cell walls (they are too large at the molecular scale), so they don't actually have much if any effect on the meat other than at the very surface.
Here is a link to an article from Virtual Weber Bullet with great information on brining, and a myriad links to even more resources.
Great answer, although I'll note that following the link you provided shows two brine recipes of about 15% salt (in weight that is, about 12% volume). Also I checked one of my Blumenthal books where he has a brine of 8-10% (depending on whether you take his odd advice to treat milliliters as grams) which you leave the bird in overnight.
That is what I get for just believing the sources. sigh If you have access to better science information than I found online, please feel free to edit. I have moved away from brining these last few years, to so called dry-brining. So much easier.
Ah, never tried that with poultry. Would have been good last year when we had a tiny fridge.
Just for clarification, the salt is 3-5% of the water, right? It's not, say, 3-5% of the protein weight or something else?
See @ChrisSteinbach comment above regarding the actual brine strength, but yes, regardless of what the desired strength is, it is the ratio of salt to water--not the size of the protein, as long as you have enough total brine. The time required is proportional to both the strength of the brine and the thickness of the protein, as it takes time for the brine to infuse through the thickness of the meat.
FYI: I tried a 3% solution for my wings. 3 hours was too salty. 2 hours seem just right.
I will add a bit to SAJ14SAJ's answer.
Boiling the brine is used to infuse the brine with more flavor from the spices, i.e. it is not needed for brining, but will extract more flavor from the spices, i.e. if you only use salt and sugar you do not need to boil, but if you add spices you will get more taste if you boil. Boiling also helps to solve the salt/sugar.
Secondly, yes you do flavor the meat, if you have a flavorful brine. The brine water and its taste gets deep into the meet.
I use this with liquid smoke on beef, it works very well (for people like me that does not have a smoker) and give a very needed smokey taste to the meat. For bird/chicken you can use e.g. rosemary or lemon (no boiling for lemon!), it will flavor the meat.
Good addition, but it will help dissolve anything but the salt. The saturation point of NaCl in water is temperature-independent, source: my 9th grade chem teacher.
@rumtscho, Interesting! I have been told that salt dissolves better at higher temperature, wikipedia shows your old text book is quite right. Anyway my point was not salt it was other stuff. Everyone else also say heat helps to solve, why are we so wrong? Or is 'ease of dissolving' and solubility two different things? Must test at home!
"Why are we so wrong" - humans normally learn by observing patterns. Most water-soluble crystalline substances we come in contact with on a daily basis dissolve better in warm water than in cold, so cooks automatically assume that salt does it too. It takes actual measuring to prove that in this case, common sense fails.
You can find a lot of useful information about brining here. https://www.stellaculinary.com/podcasts/video/the-science-behind-brining-resource-page
The reason people boil or heat a brine is to make the salt (or other ingredients) dissolve more quickly. I sometimes heat a small portion of the brine to dissolve the solids quickly and then add the remaining amount of water in form of ice to quickly cool it down.
My basic brine solution is 1-3% salt by weight of the protein your brining. You can add about anything you want to the solution, I like a mixture of peppercorns, brown sugar, and some aromatics. The brine is working to impart flavor and moisture into the innermost parts of the meat whereas a marinade primarily deals with the outermost layers and typically involves acids/tenderizers/etc to impart flavor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.399241
| 2013-01-05T16:43:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29760",
"authors": [
"Chris Steinbach",
"CookingNewbie",
"Corinne Apostle",
"Gayle South",
"Jamie Stump",
"Joe",
"Niel",
"PowerLuser",
"Psi",
"Rita Rowe",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Stefan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69317",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1053
|
What is the best knife/sharpener setup for an active cook?
There are several posts that get close to this but I am looking for a specific knife(ves)/sharpener(s) combo(s) that can be used routinely and that work(s) well. My opinion is in this answer.
It's not clear to me whether the product in your linked post is an actual sharpener or if they're just as confused as everyone else about the difference between sharpening and honing. My guess is the latter.
No, they are certainly not confused. These are great products and are exactly what they claim them to be. You may be confused between actually sharpening a low quality knife and a high quality knife. The below answers do this exact question justice...
If you're using cheap knives (which you suggest to the answer you linked to, and I admit, I have quite a few), feel free to sharpen them yourself ... I have both a stick-style diamond dust sharpener, and a set of whet stones.
But I don't sharpen my good kitchen knives myself, and I tend to go a few years between sharpenings (but I also have two chef knives and a santuko, which get the majority of the use, but it's spread across three of 'em, so they likely don't get as much wear if I only had one) ... but I agree with @hobodave -- I hone 'em, but I'm not going to sharpen them myself.
If you have top quality knives, I generally discourage the use of any do-it-yourself sharpeners. I take my knives yearly to a professional knife sharpener who puts that amazing 17 degree edge back on my Shun knives.
In between sharpening you should be using a quality honing steel every time you use your knife.
Additionally, your knives shouldn't need routine sharpening. Unless you intend routine to mean every 6-18 months. If you're sharpening knives more frequently than that, you're doing it wrong. From what I've seen the quality sharpeners on the market are just too expensive to justify their space in my kitchen. Maybe if I charged friends for sharpening services?
17 degrees is a very obtuse edge to have on a shun (unless you are talking the softer Wasabi series). And some japanese knife types just need to be very sharp to work, and would be sharpened daily in professional use, and probably monthly or after heavy use in a hobbyist kitchen.
The best sharpener is the old italian man in a van who comes by on Saturday morning ringing his bell.
If you have good knives, don't try to sharpen them yourself. You need a grinder with the exactly right stone on it, and you need to have destroyed a couple hundred practice blades before you get the technique right.
I get my knives sharpened every 18-24 months, and steel them about 15 strokes per side before use.
A "grinder" (as in, a powered device) is rarely needed, and indeed not recommendable for non-professionals - even many professionals use them wrongly and damage knives.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.399800
| 2010-07-15T21:34:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1053",
"authors": [
"Adam Goode",
"Alistair Knock",
"Fahad Sadah",
"GalacticCowboy",
"JesperE",
"Nick O",
"The How-To Geek",
"drAlberT",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1952",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4299",
"laurie",
"nicorellius",
"rackandboneman"
],
"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
}
|
1106
|
What's the white liquidy substance that can appear when cooking salmon?
When I cooked salmon filets on the grill last night, after the filets had been on the grill for a while, I noticed that the salmon secreted through the surface of the filet a white liquidy substance that looked sort of like mayonaise or ranch dressing. What is it and why does it come out during cooking?
That white stuff is albumen, the same protein that makes the white of chicken eggs. The albumen is part of the salmon's blood, which means that your fillet was fresh. A trick for dealing with it was developed by Bruno Goussault while collaborating with chef Michel Richard from Citronelle in DC: soak the salmon pieces in an ice cold brine. The article in the New York Times that told the story recommends soaking the salmon fillets for ten minutes in a 10% brine (by weight). To make the brine, dissolve three tablespoons of Kosher salt for every cup of ice cold water and make as many cups as you need.
That's it! I was trying to think of how to describe the consistency, and the "white of chicken eggs" is perfectly it! Thanks!
The 'white stuff' you see is fat being broken down during the cooking process.
one common reason why you see this is because you are over cooking the salmon.
If you're cooking your salmon to be well done, chances are you will see this. Gently wipe it off before serving for a better presentation. Although that might be tough with blackened salmon.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.400063
| 2010-07-16T16:08:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1106",
"authors": [
"Avery Wittkamp",
"Ben McCormack",
"Jay Bazuzi",
"John Roberts",
"Pk L",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2192",
"rohancragg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7181
|
How do you cook corn kernels on BBQ?
I recently had some BBQ corn where the corn was in individual kernels. I'm wondering how this would be done on a BBQ... would you grill the corn on the cob, then cut the kernels off? Or would you do it the other way around? If so, in what would you cook the kernels?
Must I use raw corn or can I use corn kernels from a can?
You would use raw corn. You can either grill it on the cob, or use a mesh grill roasting pan.
You would indeed want to leave the kernels on the corn and grill it according to the link you cited.
Roasted Corn in January Snow:
If you do not have access to a grill, like during winter time, my preferred method for roasting corn without the fire is to use a skillet and about 1 teaspoon maybe of olive/peanut oil and a teaspoon of paprika.
Basically, heat the oil until it is good and hot and coats the bottom of the skillet smoothly. Drop the paprika (or chili powder, ancho powder, etc) in the bottom of the pan, let it roast for about 30-60 seconds pushing it around with a spatula a bit, add the corn from a can (drained), and burn the corn a bit (tossing it with the spatula).
Yes, this is an excellent way to cook corn. But this is not really a direct answer to the original question.
@rsch right, i was providing an additional method of simulating the BBQ'd corn, basically because not everyone has grill access all year and because not everyone has fresh corn all year
When I use roasted corn kernels in recipes and have access to grilling weather, I find it ideal to pre-soak the heads of corn in water for about 20-40 minutes then grill, husk intact, for about 25-35. Once they are cooked, take off the husk, cut of the kernels with a knife going vertically from stem to tip.
You can also freeze corn prepared this way and it makes for a nice taste of summer when you add them to food in February.
...For extra points in the smoky department rub the kernels with paprika between soak and grill then replace the husk.
try grilling husk and silk off with tons of butter slathered on some time. Wonderful.
@justkt for eating off the cob i absolutely agree, but for cooking in BBQ i like the smokiness the husk adds
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.400238
| 2010-09-12T16:00:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7181",
"authors": [
"Bjørn Bråthen",
"Bruce",
"Gauraw Yadav",
"Rodney Schuler",
"eziegl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"justkt",
"keldic",
"mfg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6142
|
Chocolate mousse with cooked eggs?
Most recipes I have seen for mousse require you to use egg yolks and don't involve any cooking of the egg. It's my understanding that when an egg's yolk is still soft (or not cooked at all in this case), it hasn't been cooked long enough and can contain salmonella.
Is there any way I can still use eggs in my recipe but somehow ensure that I don't need to worry about salmonella?
I've tried looking for pasteurized eggs, but couldn't find them at any of my local supermarkets.
First of all, it is extremely rare for the yolk of an egg to become contaminated if the egg is reasonably fresh. Contamination only tends to occur when the egg is quite old and the yolk membrane weakens. (Source)
Now, that said, egg yolks begin to set at a temperature of 62° C (144° F), and salmonella can be killed at temperatures as low as 59° C (138° F), so it actually is possible to "cook" the yolk sufficiently to kill any bacteria without letting it set, but you have a very small window to work with, so you need to be careful. If the temperature is even 1° too low, you'll just be encouraging the spread of more bacteria, and if it's even 1° too high, you'll ruin your recipe because the yolk will set.
Nevertheless, if you have a reliable, uniform heat source, you could attempt to heat the egg to 60-61° C for about 1 minute.
Unfortunately, you won't be able to use the technique used in other recipes - such as Bavarian cream - of simply using the residual heat of the other wet ingredients to cook the yolk sufficiently for safety while not allowing sufficient time to set. Dark chocolate is the most heat-resistant but will easily burn at temperatures significantly above 50° C (125° F). Mixing the chocolate with cream may raise this temperature slightly, and I admit to not being certain of the exact amount, but I'm pretty sure it won't get you up to the required 59° C - and it really actually needs to be much higher than that because the temperature must stay that high for several seconds after adding the eggs.
So my advice to you is to either:
Pre-cook the yolks very carefully to a temperature just below 62° C (use a thermometer!); or
Use very fresh eggs from a reliable source; or
Don't eat mousse made with egg yolks, if you can't tolerate the (very low) risk.
+1 If one has one of those sous-vide machines this may be possible at home. One more excuse to get one :)
Salmonella can be killed as low as 130F. At 138F you'd want to hold it for at least 18 minutes not 1 minute. The only way you instantly kill salmonella is to reach 160F (the finishing temp of a lot of meats). The time-temperature graphs for chicken and meat from the FSIS (part of the USDA) state that at 130F you need to hold it at temperature for 131 minutes. Obviously these charts are only tested/verified for the meats specified, but adding time at 130F won't hurt: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/9ab2e062-7ac8-49b7-aea1-f070048a113a/RTE_Poultry_Tables.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
The egg yolks provide fat and act as emulsifier for the ingredients in the mousse, helping things blend well. There are fats and emulsifiers in chocolate, so you can get away without the yolks, just replace them by weight with cream and chocolate. The whites are a bit harder.
I have tried using the pasteurized egg whites that come in cartons. They don't whip as well, so I added a bit of unflavored gelatin to help build some volume and stability. The texture is a bit different; it ends up like the commercial chocolate mousse you will get at most restaurants.
If, for example, you follow David Lebovitz's recipe, you could use the 3 tablespoons of liquids any way you want. Some of it could be coffee or used to dissolve 1/4 pack of gelatin that you then add to the last stages of whipping the pasteurized whites.
On the in-shell pasteurized eggs. I have written to the company and looked in many local supermarkets, but have never been able to find them.
You could use powdered egg whites; these are in fact flash heat treated and therefore pasteurized.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.400465
| 2010-08-27T11:30:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6142",
"authors": [
"Adrian Hum",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37369",
"papin",
"rox0r"
],
"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
}
|
49294
|
Fire under electric stovetop element
I was cooking and I saw flames shoot up from under the oven element ... why might this be, and what can I do to prevent this? I wasn't too concerned because it wasn't the food that was on fire but rather just something under the element, and fortunately the stove is metal, so there shouldn't be a huge fire hazard ... correct?
It might be a grease-fire
Take a good look under the heating element - there might be some pooled drippings or other food-gunk. You might need to clean it or just replace the whole unit - as some of the electrical insulation might have burned-off.
Either way, I wouldn't use ANY of the burners on that stove again until you're SURE what caused it.
You should be worried anytime there's a fire you didn't intend to make.
Friendly safety reminder: You do have a working fire-extinguisher in your kitchen right? And your smoke-alarm has fresh batteries\is tested regularly?
I actually took out all the smoke detectors because I like my food well done ...
@Dissenter Please replace the smoke detectors and simply unplug them when you're cooking, and plug them back after you're done - OR do what I do and hang a moist towel over the smoke detector while cooking and remove it after you're done. It is highly unsafe to not have a smoke detector simply because you like your food well done (I do too mind you).
Are you talking about a gas hob? I don't know how common they are around you but if that's what it was then you have nothing to worry about unless the cooker is poorly maintained
It was an electric coil element stove
Some electric ovens have an exposed electric element on the top which can be used as a grill (electric broiler). If you haven't cleaned your oven lately then you can get grease flaring up when the element gets very hot. Although most of the time this just makes some smoke these can turn into full-blown kitchen fires so I wouldn't ignore it. I'd suggest cleaning your oven with an over cleaning product, and then running your oven's self-cleaning cycle if it has one.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.401128
| 2014-10-27T20:12:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49294",
"authors": [
"Angie Bryant",
"Charles Busby",
"Clint Connor",
"Clinton Scholl",
"Dianna Micklatcher",
"Dissenter",
"Erik Beauchamp",
"Jonathan Downer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27456",
"jsanc623"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75972
|
Cooked food / heat and serve meal, long term packaging
How does package food producers such as "Seeds of Change" or "Pacific Foods" package their food to keep for up to 15 months and store without refrigeration? What consumer, or DIY approach, most closely resembles their process?
It seems they use certain natural preservatives, detailed packaging materials, a food vacuum system, and perhaps a bit of drying. I'm trying to avoid canning if possible. The plastic/paper material weighs a lot less.
There's not really any difference between these packages, similar packing in US DoD rations (MREs) or the TastyBite brand from India, commercially canned food, and home canning in glass jars: hermetically sealed packages and high-temperature sterilization do the bulk of the work.
The commonest (in my experience - probably variable around the world) consumer DIY approach to this is the one that uses the step that you missed - high temperature (as mentioned by @John Feltz) - namely, pressure canning at 15 PSI (250°F) - in my experience, glass canning jars with metal lids, but flexible packages are evidently consumer-available more commonly that I've seen them around the world (perhaps even here, if I was looking for them.)
I've certainly eaten canned items stored at room temperature well older than 15 months and lived to tell the tale - indeed, I don't consider it anything to think about, other than verifying that the jar is, in fact, still sealed when time comes to use it. This may well not coincide with the most-paranoid recommendations on canned food shelf-life, but surely someone will be along to give the most-paranoid view shortly.
Thank you! I'm trying to avoid canning if possible. The plastic/paper material weights a lot less.
The container is irrelevant, if you can find a suitable "pouch" - the jars are the most common DIY approach in my experience (limited both by geography and not looking for an alternative) but the process of pressure canning is the same, with the same effects, largely without regard to the actual food containment part of the process.
"Retort pouches" appear to be a good search term - but few consumers/DIYs are going to foot the bill for a chamber sealer to work with those. Perhaps you're the one with deep pockets that will.
thank you! if i had the reputation, I'd vote these "up".
What they are using is canning. Canning does not depend on the container being glass; canning means that you
Have contents that are acidic enough to stop botulism spores from growing
Seal the food hermetically, so no new contamination can come in before the package is opened for consumption
Cook the food (in the container) at temperatures sufficient to kill everything inside except for botulism spores (they are very hardy, you can't get it hot enough to kill those)
If you have a plastic material which withstands the heat and pressure and seals hermetically, then you can can in it too. I am not aware of any consumer grade system which uses such material, but I have not searched for it specifically.
The only other way to preserve food for 15 months is freezing. There are no other options, unless you consider some which change the food itself (e.g. you can preserve meat by making pastrami out of it, or preserve cabbage by making sauerkraut).
This answer is distinctly inaccurate. Many things, including many low acid things, are canned/preserved precisely by heating sufficiently to kill botulism spores. That is the whole point of "pressure" canning at 250F, rather than boiling-water-bath canning at 212F. http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1307
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.401453
| 2016-11-29T00:56:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75972",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"John Feltz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51358",
"user289394"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54642
|
How to maintain a smooth seasoning on carbon steel skillets?
I have two carbon steel skillets from De Buyer. They are no stainless steel skillets so I have to season them. I did this with the flaxseed oil method (apply a thin coat of oil, then eat on the stove burner (not oven for me) until it smokes a lot. Wait and redo it 5-6 times.)
Just after seasoning my skillets are perfect (black and with a smooth surface). But when I start cooking a steak, the seasoning is deteriorating. Indeed, I use to add some olive oil before my meat. In the part of the pan where there is no meat, the olive oil polymerizes and create some ugly and sticky bubbles. I cannot remove these hard oil bubbles when cleaning with salt and hot water.
So, every time I cook something with requires high heat (like steak), the oil I added just before the food is polymerizing and ruins my smooth seasoning. On my older skillet, the surface is no smooth at all anymore.
How can I avoid this and maintain a smooth seasoning?
How can I remove the oil bubbles?
Here is the kind of skillet I have (I took the picture from Internet):
Here is one of mine skillet. It is the new one and I use it only a couple of times. The surface is still smooth but you can see on the top the formation of oil bubbles:
Here is my older skillet. As you can see the surface is not smooth at all:
It looks like your pan needs a hard cleaning and a re-seasoning. I run into this about once every 2-3 months (depending on how much I use it).
My tried and true method is to break some rules at this quarterly cleaning. I'll scrub with an abrasive scotch-brite, SOS Pads or similar scrubbing pad. During this time I often use about a quarter cub of baking soda, and towards the end I'll even use a little bit of dawn dish soap to make sure I've removed all of the particles, which amount to fine iron filings.
I've even resorted to very high grit sand paper to even out some areas in very serious issues on my handle. Now it's important to rinse and dry the pan COMPLETELY.
I then carefully rub crisco (less smokey than lard) all over EVERY surface of the now shiny and smooth pan.
Then, invert pan in oven over a baking sheet or foil to catch any mess, and bake the pan at 500F for roughly an hour or two, or until it is uniformly black.
If you have access to a clean, wood burning put, that's what my grandmother swore by, but I find the 500F oven more consistent.
I am not certain if this would work for your high carbon steel pan pictured in the first photo though. I would read up on that.
Thanks. I definitely think I need a hard cleaning. So the motto "clean gently and it will become more and more non-stick" is not so true.
Cleaning gently works up until the point where it's uneven. Cracks, crevices and layers are not a friend of non-stick. If the surface is even, softer the better. Often an oily paper towel is all I need when they are 'in season'. Eventually the pan is 'out of season' and needs to be reset. Also, a good sear is important, but there is such a thing as "Too hot". Patience is a key for me when it comes to searing. I've also had much more luck preheating my skillet in the oven to avoid 'hot spots' and such intense heating of the cast iron.
Your seasoning coat is too thick, a common error. Strip it down and start over with super thin coats of flaxseed oil, wipe the oil off with a paper towel leaving only the thinnest coat and then put in an oven at 500 for an hour. Cool and repeat 5-10 times. An oven is better than a stovetop to heat fully and evenly and up the sides. Follow the seasoning recipe in cooks illustrated exactly and don't improvise if you want the best results.
I wonder if the bigger problem here isn't the seasoning: it's that you are searing steak (at high temperatures) with olive oil, which has a really low smoke point. It's going to burn and polymerise very quickly. It's also going to be very unhealthy when burnt!
Instead, try something with a high smoke point - groundnut or grapeseed oil, or even lard. They should both taste better when searing at high temperatures and avoid the little polymerised bubbles. And be healthier as well!
There has been some recent studies showing that taking olive oil to the smoke point may not be as unhealthy as taking other oils to the smoke point.
My solution to this problem is to cook like my great grandmother -- using metal utensils.
If you use a metal spatula, you'll end up scraping off or at least wearing down any high points ... but be careful or you'll end up gouging the corners of the pan (which might be what happened in your second picture)
Been using these pans for many years.
Here are some tips:
Stop trying to force a seasoning on your pan!
Take the pans you have and spray them with Easy Off oven cleaner in the yellow can. Put in garbage bag and let sit for a few days outside. Rinse off and repeat until seasoning is removed. Pan will not look shiny/new. The steel will likely be discolored in places. Wash with soap to get all of the oven cleaner off.
Now use the pan with an appropriate oil for the temperature and food being cooked. Olive oil is probably not best for steak. Bacon or beef fat, avocado oil, or peanut oil work better for me depending on temp. The best way to get a properly seasoned pan is to use it normally.
When done cooking, deglaze pan with water if necessary and wipe out pan. A plastic pot scraper works well here for stubborn bits. You can also scrub pan with green Scotchbrite pad.
One or more of my carbon steel pans gets used almost daily. I do the Easy Off seasoning strip every few years or so to remove any buildup and the pans keep getting better and better. I have a 10 year old recently stripped pan that is very discolored but has no seasoning buildup that is slick as snot. The patina on the steel is also quite attractive. I will probably strip it again in 4-5 years.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.401782
| 2015-02-12T15:26:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54642",
"authors": [
"Alexandru Dobre-Laza",
"BrownRedHawk",
"Joe",
"Mary Falatko",
"Paul W. Smith",
"Riina M",
"Sarah Mcmahon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128659",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"matthew sweitzer",
"ppr"
],
"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
}
|
57248
|
Oil temperature for flavor extraction?
A little context:
I make craft chili oils for friends and family. I use a two-step infusion process. First, I infuse the oil for flavor with spices. Second, I add dried chili flakes into the flavored oil. I have used canola and grapeseed oil.
Questions:
Is there an ideal temperature to best extract flavors/fragrances from spices (for example from cumin seeds or star anise) into the oil?
Do the flavor compounds deteriorate with prolonged cook times even if oil temp is kept below the smoke point? For example, how does the oil change when kept at 250 degrees Fahrenheit for 1 hour vs. 2 hours?
I make chili oil (sans other spices) and I have not found any advantage to cook times longer than 10 minutes, but with other spices, I have no idea. Good question!
@BobMcGee - I have seen your answer to a ginger extraction question (on July 25th, 2011) and I appreciated your knowledge and approach.
Depends on the oil, when we infuse like to think of it as steeping not boiling or heating to the point of just below the smoke point as the spices will cook and not infuse, some will also become bitter. I also suggest you put your chilis in all at once or toward the end of the infusion process if you are layering the flavor or want a less intense flavor. Also are your oils for dressings or for cooking? If they are for dressings they will keep their integrity when your process is finished, heating or cooking the oil will alter the taste you may be aiming for. Two different animals. Lastly I personally prefer grape seed or light olive oil for infusing.
Cheers!
EDG
Thank you for your answer. The oil is for dressing (like chinese dumplings). I will keep the idea of "steeping" in mind for my next batches. I have done a batch at a lower temperature with fragrant results so I think I will continue messing around with it.
I was looking for some specific times and temperatures related to the extraction process (if anyone can help).
If you are going to suggest lower temperatures, the responsible thing is to discuss botulism. The oil is only safe if it has been kept at 250 F for at least 3 minutes after all the ingredients have been added. If not, it has to be refrigerated and consumed within 3-5 days, like any other cooked food. It is the heating which makes it shelf stable.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.402271
| 2015-05-06T20:40:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57248",
"authors": [
"Brooke Shanklin",
"Davide Gulmini",
"Jolenealaska",
"Larry Goldman",
"Luke",
"Paul Gussenhoven",
"Thierry Yangambi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35364",
"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
}
|
59972
|
Vanilla Pudding: Could someone explain this recipe to me?
Recipe in question
Ingredients
1/3 cup granulated sugar
2 tablespoons cornstarch
1/4 teaspoon fine salt
2 1/4 cups whole milk
3 large egg yolks, lightly beaten
3 tablespoons unsalted butter, cut into small pieces
2 teaspoons vanilla extract
Preparation (relevant parts)
Place a mesh strainer over a 4-cup measuring cup or bowl with a spout and set aside.
(... cook the pudding ...)
Remove from the heat and stir in the butter and vanilla extract until the butter is melted and completely incorporated. Pour the pudding through the prepared strainer. (...)
I was hoping someone could explain the methods to me, since in my eyes they are bizarre.
Firstly, why would one use sugar and salt together? Does the salt have some special needed properties?
Secondly, why cook the pudding until it is thick and then add the butter and vanilla extract? Wouldn't that make it harder for them to mix and why not add them before?
Lastly, why pour the pudding through a strainer at all?
A cornstarch-based vanilla pudding can often look lumpy right after cooking; adding the butter smooths it right out. Dunno why this happens, hence comment, not answer. (Note that the lumpiness isn't chunks of undissolved anything or bits of seized-up egg; it's just the mixture not being creamy enough to smooth itself out after the whisk has, effectively, sliced it into pieces.)
I don't know why this pudding is especially "easy" -- it's similar to other pudding I've made. Perhaps I've always taken the easy road...
Salt is a flavor enhancer that makes nearly everything taste better (e.g., enhance sweetness, reduce perception of bitterness. There are many more links on that topic; that was the first reasonable one I saw.) I don't think salt is magical in any other way in this recipe.
Adding ingredients after cooking: For vanilla, it loses some of its volatile taste/aroma when cooked. Common to add vanilla and ilk near the end of stuff like this (and sugarwork, other cooked confections, etc.).
Sieve: For smoothness. To get out the lumps. Sometimes done for certain things like crème pât, and sauces or gravies. In this case, to ensure that no starch (etc.) lumps remain. Another question/answer suggests to use a blender (e.g., immersion blender) as a possibility also.
Sometimes the "easy" is just for emphasis - it's actually normal, but people have a mistaken impression that it's hard, so a recipe that says "easy" is more inviting.
Forgot about 2b- I'm not as sure about butter, but in general (for stuff other than pudding) it's not uncommon to add butter at the end of cooking or just before serving. This may be for may be for creaminess and mouthfeel, or so it doesn't split.
A side benefit of adding the butter at the end: it'll cool the pudding off a bit, making it a little less likely for you to overcook it.
Uh-h-h-h-h... can I make vanilla or chocolate pudding without vanilla extract?
@mathgenius - You can certainly make pudding without vanilla extract, but it will (clearly) taste less like vanilla. You could use whole beans (scored; scrape out and use seeds and pulp) or other flavourings. Vanilla was in the original recipe you linked; why do you wish to omit it? Would you like to ask a new question? :)
Nice answer. Just a note on #3. Egg custards are usually strained to get out the lumps from the egg proteins that sneak in on the yolks.
Well I wouldn't like to make a whole new question about such a tiny issue. I am asking because I don't think vanilla extract is readily sold in my country, so I thought I'd make a chocolate pudding, instead of a vanilla one, but most recipes call for vanilla extract for a chocolate pudding, so I am just checking. :)
@mathgenius, in many places, you can buy "vanilla sugar" in little packets, instead of vanilla extract. Or if you can find and splurge on real vanilla beans, you can stick them in an airtight jar of powdered sugar, and have your own vanilla sugar in a week or so.
The link in point 1 is broken and links to a scam site. Could my edit be approved?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.402566
| 2015-08-16T22:19:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59972",
"authors": [
"Bruno Raic",
"Cascabel",
"Dawn Heel",
"Emma Slater",
"Fet Tens",
"Helen Bowers",
"JPmiaou",
"Joy Trestrail",
"Marti",
"Mary Ann Revard",
"Rob Platt",
"Sobachatina",
"Toby Mak",
"hoc_age",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39087",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81428",
"mathgenius"
],
"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
}
|
15638
|
Lunch meat is slimy on outside?
Sometimes when I buy lunch meat cuts, from the supermarket, they quickly get slimy on the outside. Regardless of the date which is indicated by the sticker.
I perform taste, smell, and visual checks for discoloration, but the cuts of meat seem to pass all those criteria.
Is this a sign that it's about to expire? Also, why does it get slimy?
FYI: This happens on Dietz BBQ chicken, and this other chicken cut I get from Costco.
I've wondered this as well. Many lunch meats seem to accumulate an unappealing white slime on them. It doesn't seem like decay. Perhaps fat melted out of them at room temperatures and re-solidified on the surface in the fridge?
@Sobachatina something is amiss if your luncheon meats are coming to room temperature (or anywhere close).
Wahoo 10,000 views! Too bad just 7 upvotes :(
I think it comes from the slicing machine. Try to get some early in the morning. I've found that storing it in the paper wrapper outside of the plastic bag staves off the slime. I prefer a dryer lunch meat vs. a slimy one.
I've had Capicollo that was 4 months old, no slime, no mold, just fine. But then I got Capicollo from the same place and after only 1 month, and it had slime. But when I checked elsewhere in the package, there was also mold. So the slime and mold appeared to go hand-in-hand, probably growing because the meat in the second case wasn't handled properly. After that experience I'm never eating slimy deli meat, because it definitely shows something is wrong
The rate of slime of a piece of food has to do with amount of surface area it has. At each point a food's surface is an entry point for bacteria. Since there is always bacteria on any cutting utensil or machine every cut piece of meat has been seeded with a bacteria culture. Although it might not kill you or make you visibly sick, the slime is coming from microbes which will stress your immune system that might be fighting other things instead. Unless it's Nato beans or oysters slime on food is no good. If the cold cuts are sliming quickly it might be because the grocer is not cleaning the machine properly or somebody's refrigeration is not cold enough, 5 to 10 degree f too warm.
I'm a little skeptical: if the lunchmeat has been handled properly, there shouldn't be enough bacteria to produce slime before the sell-by date.
@Cascabel it's easy for employees to think they're following instructions properly but they're making mistakes and not knowing it. There shouldn't be slime; it was probably handled improperly
@NicholasPipitone Yeah, but it's not easy for them to do that all the time, and this is something that happens a lot, not just in exceptional cases.
@Cascabel Perhaps on the contrary, if it's wrong once, it can be wrong each time. If whoever's on shift at the time you shop, is doing something wrong, it's possible all the meats are going to have shorter shelf-life, every time. Totally speculation, but possible. I've noted in my other comment that I got a Capicollo that got slimy and moldy much earlier than it should have, indicating that somewhere along the line it was certainly handled improperly. Maybe it's me. Similarly, maybe it's the OP and they don't realize they're keeping their meat too warm for too long every time they go shopping.
Could be. But there's also a really simple explanation that doesn't involve anyone messing up.
">the slime is coming from microbes"
It's probably injected food starches https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/why-does-deli-meat-get-slimy-shiny
Where did you get your slime = microbes information from?
I think it may often just be fat/protein slime. Unfortunately, that's going to be hard to distinguish safe fat/protein slime from bad bacterial slime, so this is probably yet another time where you'll have to use your best judgment.
If it's well before the sell-by date and has been handled properly, it shouldn't have dangerous spoilage. There should definitely not be enough bacteria to form noticeable slime at that point. The fact that this happens routinely (I've seen it to) adds additional confirmation that it's not just isolated badly-handled meat.
On the other hand, lunchmeat has often gone through some pretty substantial mechanical processing. It's also often compressed. That's going to break up the structure of the meat, and make it easier for fat and protein to get out once it's sliced. A thin layer of fat and protein on the surface will definitely feel like slime.
I don't have a source to confirm this is specifically what happens with lunchmeat, unfortunately. However, I've noticed slime more on smooth-surfaced lunchmeat that seems more processed, and less on meat with a more natural texture, so it seems quite plausible.
These are slime forming bacteria and there could be many ways in which the meat is being contaminated, starting from your raw materials, to handling, cooking or cleaning.
There are several types of bacteria such as Leuconostoc. As these bacteria reproduce they give off a gas witch causes the packages to puff up, it will not hurt you but it does look bad. This usually happens at the 30 to 60 day mark
I strongly believe the sliminess of otherwise healthful sliced luncheon meats results from water added during processing. The food processor/manufacturer endeavors to inject as much water in the product as possible ... because selling water to their customers adds to their bottom line, and quite nicely.
Here's some info, to consider when looking for sources of this type of slime:
Fat: 1 gram = 9 calories
Protein: 1 gram = 4 calories
Carbohydrates: 1 gram = 4 calories
Armed with the data above, you can start to interpret the label on the product. Here's a link to the label for the Dietz and Watson chicken:
Here's the ingredients from the linked page (as I write this, 10 June 2016):
Chicken Breast, Water, Honey, Contains Less Than 1.5% Salt, Isolated
Soy Protein, Sugar, Nonfat Dry Milk, Sodium Phosphate, Potassium
Chloride. Coated With Sugar, Tomato Powder, Paprika, Dextrose, Salt,
Onion and Garlic Powder, Vinegar Solids, Maltodextrin, Spice
Extractives, Grill Flavor (From Vegetable Oil), Modified Corn Starch,
Corn Syrup Solids, Browned In Canola Oil.
Note that chicken breast (which in its natural and cooked state contains a significant proportion of water) makes up at least 50% of the product. Added water is the next ingredient, and most certainly comprises 45% or more of the product.
Getting back to the label, lets do some calculating. From the label, each 56-gram portion has approximately 3/4 gram of salt ... salt water is 'injected' (likely vacuum aspirated) into the chicken during processing.
This leaves 55.25 grams for the serving. (Italicized entries are running subtotals of the weight.)
From the label, each 55.25-gram serving has roughly 2.0 grams of fat, or 8 calories (2 grams * 9 cal/gram). Running calorie subtotal: 18.
This leaves 53.25 grams of the serving, which is comprised of carbohydrates, protein, and water.
From the label, each 53.25-gram serving has roughly 2.0 grams of carbohydrates (sugar), or 8 calories (2 grams * 4 cal/gram). Running calorie subtotal: 26.
This leaves 51.25 grams of the serving, which is comprised of protein and water.
From the label, each serving contains 12.0 grams of protein. Calories from carbohydrates equals 48 (12 * 4). , subtotal 76). Running calorie subtotal: 74. (This is close to the value on the label; authorized trickery ensures that the numbers from the components rarely exactly equals the number announced for the food product).
This leaves 39.25 grams of the serving, which is almost totally water ... a portion of which is integral to the meat (otherwise its texture would be jerky, or worse).
The label relates that at least 28 grams of the product is chicken; this 28 grams includes the water that is naturally integral to the meat.
Guessing here, but each serving of this sliced chicken breast is no less than 1/3 added water, which begins to 'shed' once the packaging is opened. (Some of the processors call this a broth, a marinade, or similar marketing term. It's added salt water. Period.) The 'manufacturers' of such foodstuffs introduce as much extra water into the product as they can ... because their profit is greater, the more water they sell the customer.
===========================================
You can get rid of the excess water fairly easy be placing the lunch meat between layers of paper towels, and microwaving for a short time.
Or buy better quality meat, than the prepackaged crap at the chain grocery stores. Hillshire Farms are the worst offenders with respect to slimy sliced luncheon meats. The Dietz and Watson freshly sliced meats (from the service deli/butcher counter) have less injected water than their sliced/packaged products.
This is an impressive calculation. But it misses the point. First, water does not make things slimy. It makes them wet, and people generally distinguish between those in descriptions. Second, the OP clearly said that it happens "sometimes". The meat you describe always has the same water content. If it was the water, it would be always slimy. But the OP is describing a deviation from the usual surface texture.
Do you honestly believe that out of a chicken breast, nearly half of the breast is added water? I don't believe that's physically possible to do and maintain a solid piece of meat. Where are you getting this data?
If you look at the standard USDA nutrition facts for chicken breast and do the same calculations (assuming everything besides fat/protein/carbs is water), you'd conclude it was 65% water. In your calculations, you ended up with overall 71% water. That doesn't support your "most certainly comprises at 45% or more of the product" claim; it looks more like 6%.
@rumtscho. I have noticed this same slimy feel with many brands of commercially packaged lunch meats. If you want to experience the sensation, do try one of the Hillshire Farms' sliced ham lunch meat products. These sliced lunch meats used to have much less water, and tasted better. A short session in the microwave, with plenty of paper towels to soak up the water, will help in a pinch.
To Catilja and Jefromi. This is not chicken breast, rather processed chicken breast. The data/calculation is from the (linked) USDA- and FDA-compliant label for the Dietz & Watson product mentioned by the OP. There is no comparison between 'real' sliced chicken breast, and processed lunch meat ... in no small part because of the copious amounts of water that is added during processing.
Do compare real chicken breast slices to processed lunch meat. The latter is slimy in comparison. The phenomenon reported by the OP is observable, replicable .... and avoidable ... by choosing better.
I'm aware that it's processed, and that processed meat can be slimy. I'm not disputing that. I'm disputing, very specifically, your claim that "Added water...most certainly comprises at 45% or more of the product." Your calculation does provide an upper bound of 71% on the amount of water in this processed chicken, and repeating the same calculation on unprocessed chicken gives an upper bound of 65%. Given that this starts out with chicken, and isn't adding significant amounts of anything besides water, there's no way that it has 45% added water.
If your lunch meat has white slime on it, throw it out! The white slime is Listeria, a bacteria that can be deadly, especially dangerous to pregnant women.
I was able to find that listeria is indeed sometimes found on luncheon meats and is a risk particularly to pregnant women, infants, the elderly and the immune compromised. FDA on Listeria. I was not able to find any mention of listeria casing slime, white or otherwise. Could you provide a source?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.403026
| 2011-06-20T18:15:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15638",
"authors": [
"Bridget Haig",
"Cascabel",
"Cathy",
"Catija",
"Chewbarkla",
"Chloe",
"Dave Mitcheltree Jr.",
"Jolenealaska",
"Larry",
"Luobster",
"Marcia Gerber",
"Marie",
"Nicholas Pipitone",
"Nitin Suri",
"Queen Cunningham",
"Shane Loughrey",
"Sobachatina",
"Umanda",
"chrisjlee",
"derobert",
"dotnetCarpenter",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33150",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33162",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62275",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63894",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95485",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"rumtscho",
"stockdoc san francisco",
"user62275"
],
"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
}
|
11739
|
Time vs. Temperature - What changes what?
Really basic question that's bugging me...
Speaking mathematically, 200 degrees of heat for 10 minutes should be the same as 400 degrees of heat for 5 minutes , but that's not the case, right?
So what's the difference if I cook something for 5 minutes at 450 vs. 350, as opposed to something at 350 for 3 minutes or 7 minutes?
Which "dial" (time / temperature) changes the outcome in what way? Why is this?
This is an insanely general question and I don't think the simple answer you are looking for exists. It depends completely on the heating method (I'm assuming conventional oven, but you didn't specify), the size of the oven or vessel, but most importantly the type of food. How thick is it? How dense? How much surface area? Does it have a lot of water? Can steam escape? Does it have a crust? Are you using a braise, bain-marie, or anything else to control the internal temperature? Higher temperatures may activate entirely new chemical processes; Mathematics are a bit player in this story.
"Mathematics are a bit player in this story." and physics and chemistry! It isn't a basic question, because the input sum of energy over time can't easily be translated into a cooking effect.
Well, it's an interesting question, I'll give you that. Just a book or two might be needed to answer it fully.
The basic answer has to do with penetration, as represented in a couple answers below. Which is why we're all saying it's too general, because penetration of the heat depends on the composition of the food being cooked a) as related to density and specific heat and b) as related to any chemical process specific to that food (i.e., that's temperature sensitive), surface area to mass ratio, flash point, just to name some things right off, certainly other considerations exist.
The complexity of the 'answer' to this question is why cooking amazing food is hard (without a recipe and/or lots of experience).
If that was the case you could make water boil by leaving it in the freezer for longer! So 3mins at 373K in a kettle should equal 5mins at 270K in a freezer
If there's a mathematical link, it would be based on the difference between the desired (cooked) temperature and the applied (cooking) temperature. Then we need to take into account various chemical changes at various temperatures. I could Sous-vide a steak at 141 degrees and produce something edible, but it wouldn't have any Maillard crust. I could also pull out the ox-acetelyne torch and make a steak that is charcoal on the outside and still raw on the inside.
One fundamental error in this question: 400 degrees is not twice as hot as 200 degrees. Temperature is a measure of the kinetic energy of the particles involved. The only scale on which you can do the kind of ratio you are imagining is Kelvins - you have to measure from absolute zero.
400 F = 477.59 K
200 F = 366.48 K
so the kinetic energy of the air in the oven is only about 477/366 = 1.3 times as high at 400 F as it is at 200. For simple cases, like how long it takes to evaporate a pan of water, 1.3x is probably pretty close to right, but as is pointed out above, there are a whole host of other variables that come into play with real food.
So ...
Bake time variations for a recipe that calls for 400 degrees for 30 minutes converted to a 450 cooking time and a 350 cooking time:
400 Farenheit = 477.594 Kelvin
477.594 x 30 minutes = 14327.82 HeatPoints
450 F = 505.372 K
14327.82 HP / 505.372 K = 28.35 or 28 minutes 21 seconds
And even once you're past this, double the heat flux for half the time is clearly not the same thing.
Sure, go ahead and diss the Rankine scale just like that. ;)
If we really apply this vein of logic, why things cook, then it's the difference in kinetic energy that matters. This obviates the idea of evaluating things in Kelvin. If something that would remain uncooked at 70°F cooks in X amount of time at 200°F, the energy imparted was due to the 130°F difference. And, there's a Y time for it to cook at 400°F from the 330°F difference. So, there is actually a 2.5x increase in the difference. Furthermore, this really should be thought of in terms of kinetic energy, which is a function of a square. Full calculations are beyond the scope of a comment.
@zanlok and the main reason for cooking something is to make chemical changes. A protein that denatures at 120C is not going to change at 37C however long you cook it for.
@mgb, yes. You can reach a target internal temperature in an oven at that temperature by leaving it in there indefinitely. That's obviously going to take a long time, and possibly not yield edible or pleasant results.
Many "things" happen in cooking a particular dish. These physical and chemical (even biological) processes require a certain optimal range of temperature (and humidity) and take a certain amount of time to be completed.
For example, when you bake bread, the yeast in the dough remains alive until the temperature rises high enough to kill it. It continues to produce gas as the heat begins to set the dough. The dough should set just as the bubbles are at their largest size for fluffy bread. If gas production peaks before the temperature is high enough, the bubbles can collapse; if the temperature rises too fast, the dough will set too early.
If I have a tough piece of meat, I might cook it for 12 hours at a low temperature and high moisture to tenderize it (and maybe in a braising liquid to add flavor). Then I can cook it for two minutes at a very high temperature to brown the surface without raising the overall temperature, so the inside stays rare. In general when dry-cooking meat you often want the inside to reach a certain temperature, without having the outside dry out too much. So it's a balance between two extremes. If you want an internal temperature of 150 to kill bacteria or parasites, you could imagine cooking for 12 hours until the whole piece reaches that temp, but then you lose a lot of moisture. You could turn it up to 500 and hope the inside heats up faster, but by the time the inside is ready, the meat on the outside gets way too hot and maybe even starts to blacken. Somewhere in between you get the interior done properly, with the exterior just a little browned and crispy.
If you are cooking seeds like rice or beans, it takes a certain amount of time for the seeds to absorb water and become soft enough to eat, and this happens faster if the temperature is high. While cooking in water you have a maximum temperature limit, at the boiling point.
So, cooking instructions are calibrated by trial and error (and educated intuition) to allow the different chemical and physical processes to happen in the conditions that produce best flavor and texture.
It is true that there is a negative correlation between cooking time and temperature: the higher the temperature, the shorter the cooking time. But it is highly non-linear. Even if you were to account for the fact that temperature is measured on a ratio, not interval scale where the real zero is at 0 Kelvin, it will still not help you at all.
Internal temperature
Consider first the easier part of the process: the relationship between the food's internal temperature and the doneness of the food. Cooking food with heat is waiting for certain thermodynamic changes to happen, for example in the case of meat, you wait for the proteins to denature. This means that you start with the rather curly protein molecule, and after it having suffered enough brownian movement, it unravels a little bit, losing some of the weaker bonds between atoms.
The probability of a molecule being denatured after a constant amount of time, say 1 second, should be roughly following a Gaussian distribution, depending on the temperature of the food (higher temperature -> the molecule shakes and moves more, and bumps more into other molecules, which makes the weak ternary and quarternary bonds snap):
Per the central limit theorem, out of the millions of molecules in your food, the above distribution also tells you what percentage of them will be converted to the cooked state after a second. This explains why, if you heat sugar syrup, you get caramel at a given temperature almost instantly - you have reached the temperature where over 99% of your molecules will convert to the caramelized state after a second - but if you leave sugar for a very long time at lower temperatures, it will also caramelize. This is because after enough seconds of one molecule in ten thousand getting caramelized per second, you get the whole sugar lump caramelized. On the other hand, your room temperature is so low, that maybe only one molecule in a billion will convert in sugar stored at room temp, and you will have to wait for centuries for all of it to caramelize. This is because you are at an almost flat point to the far left of the curve.
So, time and internal food temperature are connected in a very non-linear fashion. You could theoretically make some predictions, if you knew the mu and sigma parameters of the Gaussian curve; however, they will change with the food item and the process you want to happen. The denaturing of proteins illustrated above is one such process, caramelization is another, but governed by the same general relationship. Most of them are. (An exception would be the melting of cristalline substances like cocoa butter, which have a sharply defined melting point).
The actual calculation might go like this: at 56 Celsius, it takes 1 second for a steak to be cooked (techncially, for at least 99% of the myosin on it to get denatured). At 55 Celsius, it might take half minute, at 54 Celsius, 3 minutes, at 50 Celsius, 15 minutes, and so on. I am using random numbers here, you can find the true numbers for meat if you look around for sous vide curves, I doubt that there are easily accessible sources for other processes such as caramelization or starch gelation. The point is that there is a dependency, but you can't predict it intuitively, because it deviates a lot from a linear one, and most people can only intuitively predict linear connections.
Heat transfer
But it becomes even more complicated. You can't heat each molecule individually. Let's forget microwaves for a while, they don't help you much, and they don't have temperature settings anyway. What you have is a source of heat, like a stove, oven, or open fire, and you want to transfer heat to the food. The heat is transferred via convection, conduction and radiation to the surface of the food, and spreads into the inside mostly by conduction for solid foods and a combination of convection and conduction for fluids. So, when you have heated the food surface to 100 celsius, the interior is much colder.
And how long does it take to heat the inside of the food? Well, this depends mainly on the geometry of your food and its chemical composition. Which explains why recipes which tell you to cook food for a given time per weight (e.g. "roast the meat for 10 minutes per 250 g) are so bad. Depending on what shape your meat is, it will take much longer or shorter than that. Other factors, e.g. dealing with high-quality aged meat with tight cell walls and low water content as opposed to PSE meat with its higher water content will also change the time needed.
The actual formula for calculating the time needed for roasting meat at a given temperature is described by these differential equations:
I don't know what most of these variables mean, and I am happy that I don't have to. And of course, other cooking processes such as caramelization or Maillard (the process which creates crusts) will have a different system of equations, equally complicated.
Unwanted changes
There are sometimes processes in cooking which you don't want to happen. One example is food getting burned. Another typical example is meat. It is composed of, roughly speaking, two types of protein, actin and myosin. They denature at different temperatures - each of them has its own curve, and actin's is shifted to the right. When myosin denatures, the meat is medium, soft and juicy. When the actin denatures too, the meat is well done, or tough and dry. What most people try to achieve is to denature the myosin but without changing the actin.
There are other unwanted changes too, like burning your food, or getting your oil hot to the point of decomposing. So you generally want to get your food heated, but frequently there is a limit you don't want to reach.
In practice
In practical terms, you just have to live with the knowledge that making the temperature lower will make your food take longer until it is cooked. If you make it hotter, it will take shorter, but you risk reaching some unwanted temperature. You also leave less time for flavors to develop, which is important in some cases (e.g. stews) but not in others (e.g. pancakes).
Any try to gain some more precision than the above is not practical. The actual relationships are way too complicated. It is theoretically possible to fit a polynomial approximation whose values are much easier to calculate (I think Douglas Baldwin had done it once for a specific cut of meat), but as you don't know the specific parameters to use for each food, it is not a practical proposition even if you keep a calculator in your kitchen.
The bottom line: don't cook by time.
It is not possible to reliably calculate when food will be done at a given temperature. If a recipe author gives you an approximation, it will be quite imprecise, because it will depend on the shape of your food, the material and thickness of your pan, the temperature deviations of your oven, etc. So you can't even say something like "I know that it takes 30 min at 300 Fahrenheit, I want to know how long it takes at 350 Fahrenheit". It only takes 30 min under very special conditions, which you maybe unknowingly replicate every time you roast, by using the same oven, the same pan, and meat from the same butcher.
The good news is that you don't need the above to cook well. Your meat gets done in the oven even if you can't calculate the above. You just have to judge when to take it out, and while time is rather useless for that decision, there are many other, much better, signs for it. A thermometer is the easiest method, and experience will teach you to recognize the perfect doneness also without it, by smell and visible clues like color, texture, amount of vapor, etc.
I'm a bit confused by the second chart. It suggests that actin denatures before myosin, but the text says the opposite. Am I reading the chart wrong?
Upvote for the conclusion, and the amount of time and effort it obviously took to research & write such a thorough answer. Outside of the conclusion, though, I found the rest of it is somewhat difficult to wade. I think the answer might be more accessible and useful to the average person if the order were flipped. Give the conclusion first, since it's most appropriate for 90% of readers; then, give the detailed answer for those who wish to continue reading.
Your first “Gaussian” chart doesn’t make sense. I think the independent variable should be time cooked (at a fixed temperature), not temperature.
Michael at Herbivoracious pointed out that doubling the temperature does not double the heat. That's part of the problem, but you can correct for it, and you still won't get properly cooked food.
kiamlaluno pointed out that you will burn the outside before cooking the inside, which I think is more to your point. The reason behind it is that the heat takes some time to get to the inside of the food. If you were to have some sort of theoretical oven that could heat all of your food at precisely the same rate, then cooking at a higher temperature for a shorter period of time would get you the results you're looking for. Unfortunately, such a device doesn't exist. The heat transfer is described by Newton's Law of Cooling (dQ/dt = -h·AΔT)
A rotisserie I randomly saw on QVC claims to cook 2x faster because they have you put a heating element through the inside of a chicken.
Assuming you still had the original heating element outside the chicken that's almost right - the 'wall thickness' of chicken insulation is halved.
I recently bought a house with a strange device in the kitchen. Whatever high-moisture foods I put inside will heat up very quickly and evenly. I don't use it often, but it works very well to reheat leftovers. Metals don't seem to like it very much, though.
Passing to a higher temperature (and cooking for less time) has the general effect of burning the outside of the meat, and getting the inside not perfectly cooked.
Cooking for a longer time has then the effect of better mixing the flavors, and keep some type of meats tender.
In specific cases, it's probably possible to use a higher temperature, but simply cooking less is not the only thing that needs to be done; there is something else that needs to be corrected, or something that needs to be done and it was not necessary if you would have cooked at lower temperature.
This us the question:
Speaking mathematically, 200 degrees of heat for 10 minutes should be the same as 400
degrees of heat for 5, but that's not the case, right?
To show that the two are different, all that is needed is a single counter example.
Consider the boiling of an egg.
If you boil the egg in 105 Fahrenheit (40 Celsius) over an extended period of time,
neither the egg yolk nor the egg white will set.
If you cook it at, say 160 Fahrenheit (70 Celsius) you will eventually get a hard boiled egg.
The egg white and egg yolk consists of proteins. When proteins are heated to a certain temperature, the proteins will denature. In the case of the egg the chemical reaction (denaturization) will simply not be activated at lower temperatures.
You should probably add that this is because according to physics nothing can get hotter than the source from which it is gaining heat; once the temperature of the egg matches the temperature of the water, heat ceases to flow between the two. I've probably said that badly.
@Yamikuronue, in general, that's true. However, if you've got some sort of phase transition going on (say, proteins denaturing), you can get heat flow without a temperature change.
more simply put if you bake something at 400 degrees it is gonna cook faster on the outside so it will be getting over cooked outside and under cooked inside if you cook at a lower temperature it will cook more evenly and if you bring the item your cooking (if it were meat or something cold) to room temperature before cooking it, it will cook more evenly and faster too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.404194
| 2011-02-02T01:26:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11739",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Alex",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Dan Carvajal",
"DaveInAZ",
"ESultanik",
"Heidi",
"Ian Dunn",
"Kara Marfia",
"Magnus Nordlander",
"Mark",
"Martin Beckett",
"Nelda",
"Orbling",
"Pietro",
"Roman Bodnarchuk",
"SEED Scans",
"Scott",
"Sean Perry",
"Tamily Bryan",
"Vik78",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24145",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53484",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73901",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/90915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96423",
"sk3pt1kal",
"terry rusinow",
"tonylo",
"verbose",
"zanlok"
],
"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
}
|
119921
|
Should canned peas' water be discarded?
The argument is that when cooking peas from a can the liquid should be thrown away for the same reasons* beans' first couple of waters are discarded. Is that true?
The can says(translated):
Net weight: 400g
Drained weight: 280g
Contains: peas, water, salt.
Sterilized. Ready for direct consumption.
* - some people(including me but I have zero evidence) believe that not discarding soaking of the first boiling water of beans causes farting and stomach ache. Whether this is true is irrelevant here: I am asking about peas.
It does not matter what you do with the water. The flatulence has to do with the high amount of dietary fibre in legumes. If your digestive system is not used to that dietary fibre it will lead to spectacular gas.
I have been on a mainly vegan diet for close to three years now. I have eaten lots of lentils, beans and peas. The flatulence plateaus as your body gets used to it but it has not really gone away.
I personally use the juices as you would vegetable stock. A lot of the nutrients of canned vegetables goes into the liquid.
There is never really enough to use it instead of stock but there is no reason not to use it with stock.
Even if my view is just based on my frugal, middle class upbringing where I was taught not to waste any food.
You should consider the fact that the more effect sudden fibre consumption has on your digestion, the more you need to continue eating that food
Regular bouts of flatulence is a sign of good health. Regardless of what minor embarrassment it may cause.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.405646
| 2022-02-20T09:08:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119921",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
126034
|
Fry and steam - which first?
Consider potato OR pork cubes of 1-2cm size. I find both delicious when they have steamed inside but a brown crisp outside. I achieve that by frying(in 5mm oil) them but use a lid for a part of the cycle. How can I use the lid so the result, in the case of meat, is well done inside and a Maillard crust?
And secondly - when the lid is applied the food starts steaming. However depending on the heat setting it can also continue frying or only steam. Which is better?
My experience: If I start off with steaming, the mashy potatoes fall apart later during frying. No idea about meat - sound sane but haven't tried it.
If I start off with frying the crisp prevents any spices from sticking.
No lid - lid - no lid seems to work best for potatoes.
Is this deep frying or sauteing?
Note that “healthiest” is certainly off topic here and “tastiest” is very much bordering on subjective.
It seems unlikely that the same technique will be right for both potatoes and pork, no?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.405803
| 2023-12-09T12:28:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/126034",
"authors": [
"AakashM",
"Roddy of the Frozen Peas",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119421
|
How to hold a santoku?
I am trying to grasp the very basics of using a (westernized) santoku knife. First things first: how to hold it.
This is the balance point:
This is my interpretation of "pinch grip"(grossly exaggerated). I imagine the remaining fingers are there purely to allow the handle to bounce off them when chopping soft foodstuffs like vegetables, mushrooms or herbs:
I know I should be placing my ring finger onto the balance point. As that feels too awkward here's a picture halfway applying that advice - middle finger on balance point, wrist as relaxed and natural as possible(looks like a death grip but ring and pinky are very much relaxed):
What bothers me is that the blade is sideways oriented - instead of in line with the hand like in a "death grip". I imagine this is going to put huge strain on my wrist/forearm when chopping(instead of sideways slicing). What am I doing wrong?
EDIT: @ all the commenters:
You guys are probably experienced chefs. "Do whatever feels best" works for someone who knows what they are doing but not for a kid like me! Please post an answer what works for you and I will try to replicate the technique.
EDIT: I'm starting to get the grip of it; after about a bucket of vegetables. A "death grip" feels so perfect about slaughtering steaks and carrots while a "ring finger at the balance point" feels awesome at murdering herbs and mushrooms. Gimme a week or two and I'll come back with final conclusions.
Honestly, I think you're over-thinking it. Just grip it and rip it.
Knives have different geometry just as people have different physical geometry (size, shape, proportional lengths, etc), so the "ring finger on the balance point" is absurd. Your grip should give confidence that you have complete control of the blade. As for the sideways angle thing, that is a matter of strength and flexibility, so with persistent work this will feel less of a strain and less awkward.
Agreed with the above, this isn't golf.
You can start with the best intentions of following some strict 'military drumming' stylised grip, but I usually end up with my first finger along the top of the blade, which brings my entire hand forward. I find it faster & more accurate. Do whatever works for you.
A santoku is basically a modified chef's knife, so you could just hold it like you do a chef's knife.
Don't try to replicate a technique. Cut a bucket of vegetables with it, and you'll find your answer.
@phipsgabler I've cut vegetables all my life with a different style of blade so I'm scared my experience will influence my technique with this blade style. I'm sure "practice makes perfect" ... but it takes years.
Sorry, can't help, I never found a comfortable grip on the santoku I used to have, which is why I gave it away.
The biggest difference will probably be not due to your grip, but due to the motion. A santoku, with its flatter edge compared to a chef's knife, will not lend itself that well to a "rocking" chopping motion. Rather, you push the blade forward and down repeatedly. You can still rock the knife, but not as easily as a classic chef's knife.
That being said, I would definitely go for the more relaxed grip with your fingers on the blade near the handle. You shouldn't strain yourself just to hold the knife at the balance point.
Thanks! I've been thinking about pushing vs pulling slices (vs chopping)(thinking by cutting a lot). I even discovered that for some foods 4 forward-backward slices are needed. Gimme a week or two to think this over.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.405966
| 2022-01-06T11:29:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119421",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Mr Shane",
"Tetsujin",
"Vorac",
"eps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53695",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96932",
"phipsgabler",
"xuq01"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119664
|
When soaking beans, should I throw away the floating ones?
Soaking beans before cooking is a widespread practice. Another widespread practice is, before cooking rice, to spread it on a flat surface and remove stones or rotting grains.
After soaking beans, some separated skins float. Even some beans float. Should those be discarded? Are the floating beans infiltrated by some insects?
EDIT:
So the last comment and the only answer contradict each other. Which one is it?
In other news, the beans in question were dirt cheap and turned out completely tasteless. However, when I've soaked beans in the past I've always gotten some separated skins (but no floating beans) - just not so many. So I don't know if these were tasteless because of being old or some other reason.
Does this answer your question? Is soaking beans 24 hours unrefrigerated safe?
The suggested duplicate certainly answers your first question.
@moscafj thanks! My question was a bad fit for SE anyway by being two separate questions. Focused it.
If you're getting separating and floating skins, those beans are probably too old and may not turn out well.
In response to your "EDIT". WIth due respect to @FuzzyChef, I am just sharing my experience. I most often ignore floating skins, but sometimes just pick them out. As I mention below, floating beans are ignored. I would also add that freshness matters. The difference between fresh, quality, dried beans and cheap, old dried beans is significant.
Hey, Vorac: if you have another question about bean quality, you should ask a new question -- not edit your existing one.
I often purchase beans from Rancho Gordo. I am not shilling for them, but happen to really enjoy their beans. They are bean experts. It's just about all they do. I bring them up because their advice is to simply cook floating beans. That is what I do. After cooking, I've never noticed them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.406404
| 2022-01-28T10:11:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119664",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Vorac",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25006
|
I left stock out to cool overnight. Is it safe to use?
I made a Peking duck stock, strained it while hot, then left it to cool overnight. My apartment is 24 degrees C. In the morning, I divided it into smaller portions and refrigerated it.
I'd never made stock before so I wasn't quite aware of all the issues. I want to freeze the stock but want the fat to solidify at the top first so I can store it separately so I've left it in the fridge for the moment. Then I read all these posts and am worried I may have ruined everything.
Can I still use it? Is it only safe to be used if boiling now (e.g. to make risotto)? What about the duck fat?
The correct way of cooling stock is to put the stock-pot in an ice-bath or in the sink with running water. If you put it in the sink, you don't even have to open the tap too much. Just a little stream of water is enough to cool the stock to room temperature in about half an hour or so. Then you can put it in the fridge.
A stock that's been left on the sink for more than 4 hours at 24ºC is a health hazard. You should take the stock at your own risk.
Harold McGee wrote an article on this very topic and the short answer seems to be that while you're not 100% safe with your stock, you could risk using it after a 10 minute boil:
I’ll admit to violating the guidelines in my own stock-making, though by a few hours, not days. When I cook a roast for dinner, I use leftover scraps and bones to start the stock, simmer it while I clean up, and take the pot off the heat right before I go to bed. At that point it’s too much trouble to cool the hot stock so it won’t warm up its neighbors in the refrigerator. Instead, I cover the pot, leave it at room temperature and reheat it in the morning, about eight hours later, before straining, cooling and refrigerating it. And my stock hasn’t made me or my family ill, either.
...
What about my lazy method of letting stock cool overnight, then reboiling and refrigerating it first thing in the morning? Dr. Snyder gave it a pass because it would spend only a few hours below 135 degrees, not enough time for the bacterial spores to germinate, start growing and reach hazardous numbers.
...
Any active bacteria are killed by holding the stock for a minute at 150 degrees or above, and botulism toxin is inactivated by 10 minutes at the boil.
The whole article is very interesting and worth reading in full.
I do want to trust this, and I've done things like this myself, but... Is there definitely nothing else bad that can happen overnight that won't be destroyed by 10 minutes boiling? And hm, how long does it actually take for it to go below 135 degrees? I'm a little suspicious of the "a few hours" claim.
-1 as recommending "fixing" tainted stock is dangerous to those with compromised immune systems. While anecdotally the author of the NYT article may have been fine, this does not mean that the stock was safe.
I have a little trouble seeing how stock that has been boiled, covered, and left to cool overnight can spoil or develop any bacteria growth. The inside of the pot (both water and air) is nearly sterile once it has boiled, and the lid prevents any outside air from getting in. This is very similar to the process used for canning foods where the jars are boiled, filled, sealed, and let cool. I frankly think people are far too paranoid about this kind of spoilage.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.406592
| 2012-07-12T06:48:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25006",
"authors": [
"Bruce Alderson",
"Cascabel",
"Constantine",
"John P",
"Lynn McLellan",
"Manpreet",
"Nick",
"Sewo Jay",
"SixDegrees",
"Uncle Long Hair",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57137",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84142",
"seth10"
],
"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
}
|
36892
|
Can anybody help make homemade pasta foolproof?
I can't even count the number of times that I have followed recipes for pasta using a food processor, only to discover that no matter the care I took with the measurements, my dough was just a bit too dry (add water). Now it's too wet, (add flour). Aargghh, I could have traveled to Italy by now! I'd like to use my food processor, but this is starting to make me nuts.
Can anyone help?
I have found that one egg per one hundred grams of flour works very well. However, the process is important. Here is what I do:
Combine the ingredients as you would, either by hand in a bowl, or in a food processor
Knead the dough thoroughly until it comes together - NOTE: At this point, it is usually a bit on the dry side
Wrap tightly in clingfilm, and put in the fridge for ~30 minutes
Remove from the fridge, and knead again, then fold and run through a pasta machine, folding and running through repeatedly, until the dough starts to become silky
Process the dough on consecutively narrower settings on the pasta machine
I always dust the dough with flour before running it through the machine, and then again as needed, depending on whether it starts sticking to itself, the machine, or the work surface.
As for the "foolproof" part of your question: foolproof is, in my opinion, a product of confidence. Build confidence by practicing, often and repeatedly. After a while, you will likely find that you stop measuring, adding ingredients by feel and instinct, rather than measure.
You're quick. How did you do that so fast? I had my answer on my clipboard, I only had to mess with the hyperlinks!
Thanks, Jolene. I work in the computer industry, and type at least three thousand words each day, more if I'm working on a big case, so typing quickly comes easily to me.
As for the process; I worked on it for ages myself, and know the recipe by touch now...
I find that dusting the dough with ordinary flour can have the negative side effect of the final pasta becoming soggy when cooked. The problem is that the final pasta will be coated with a thin layer of flour which mixes with the cooking water. The easiest way to get around this is to use semolina flour for the dusting - semolina flour has a different more grainy consistency, and can be more easily shaken off, and doesn't stay on the pasta during cooking. Only when I started using semolina did pasta start working!
Wow, the quality of your questions is eclipsed only by your humor and beauty.
I just might be able to help.
The key is using a high-quality digital scale. Sure, there are perfectly good chefs out there that dump flour onto a previously clean work surface, do fancy things with their fingers to achieve the same result, but who’s got time for that?
Here's my absolutely never fail method. I spent months playing around with homemade pasta before I eventually settled on this super-easy, foolproof method. It's a lot of fun and I don’t think that the messy method will ever achieve better results.
Step one. Tare your scale with a liquid measuring cup. I just use a measuring cup 'cause it's easy to pour. Crack in your eggs, figure about 1 egg per serving. 3-6 eggs is a nice easy to handle amount. Write down the weight of the eggs in grams (absolute precision is what makes this method work so well). After noting the weight of the eggs, add 1 tsp olive oil per egg.
Take your noted weight and multiply by 1.5. That is exactly how much flour to use. I like 00 flour the best (more on that in a bit), but all-purpose flour is fine. Put the food processor bowl, blade and all, on the scale, then tare and add to the bowl exactly 1.5 times the weight of the eggs. Salt is optional. Some chefs insist on it, others say to NEVER add salt. I do. After achieving the perfect amount of flour I add about a teaspoon (or 5 grams) of salt per 3 eggs. Now just process the flour while slowly adding the eggs. About 10 seconds is all it takes. You now have perfect rough pasta dough.
Knead. Use as little flour as possible to keep it from sticking. When you need a rest from kneading, your dough does too. Roll it in a ball and wrap it in plastic wrap. Let it sit on the counter for an hour (30 minutes may be adequate, though I always want the longer break) or up to 2 days in the fridge. If you refrigerate it, let it come to room temperature before the second kneading. After you and the dough have had a rest, knead it again, try to keep it up for 5 minutes. Now you are ready to shape the pasta.
Do you have a pasta rolling machine? I couldn't find one anywhere in the state of Alaska except in a little Italian shop in Wasilla (yes, home of Sarah Palin). Oh well, I was due for a drive anyway. Strangely, it was made in China. Anyway, the price was right and I have been very happy with it. Here it is: the Norpro 1049R Pasta Machine aka "the little red machine". This video does a very good job demonstrating how to use the machine (though the host needs to clamp it tighter -- that wobbling would drive me nuts). Also, the cutting mechanism on my pasta machine is useless; I just roll the sheet and use a knife to cut fettuccine, or I make ravioli or lasagna. No machine? No worries, you really don’t need one. Your pasta may be a bit on the thick side, but that only shouts ‘homemade’! Just roll it out using a rolling pin or a dowel.
The most impressive easy thing I've made lately is this: Mario Batali recipe, ravioli with an egg yolk hidden inside. It's unbelievably easy to make. One thing that I do a bit differently is pipe some of the ricotta filling on top of the yolk too, to completely encapsulate it.
About the flour: It may be hard to find 00 flour, but it does make better pasta. It's an Italian product, finely milled flour produced especially for pasta or pizza dough.
EDIT The pictures are blurry, but you get the idea. These are from today (9/27/15):
These are not Batali's recipe, I made it up as I cooked, but the only key is not breaking the yolk.
+1 for the first sentence alone, and the undoubted truth contained therein. But really, that's a very thorough answer. Thank you for sharing it with us all.
I have to try this 1.5 flour ratio! I always have trouble to adjust the pasta adding flour or water because eggs are not equals. Thanks for sharing this, I'm taking note of this tip right now on my cooking book!
@Johnny I'm doing it again right now! It's been a while, so I revisited the answer to remind myself. It still works :) One thing I do differently now is an extra yolk or two, but the weights are unchanged; it's still 1:1.5.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.406927
| 2013-09-18T07:39:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36892",
"authors": [
"Dawood ibn Kareem",
"Heather Mooneyham",
"James Fennell",
"Johnny",
"Jolenealaska",
"Leila Hannah",
"Matt Johnson-Pint",
"Natalie Bulman",
"Raj Nathani",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147481",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97616",
"razumny",
"user147496"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32154
|
How can I increase the amount of gravy I can make from one roast?
Making gravy per usual is a by-product of roasting or pan-frying something. At that point, you take whatever jus you have in the dish and that essentially determines how much real gravy you end up with after you've de-glazed, added stock/water, flour, etc.
Looking for a method that results in more gravy (jus?) without wasting more meat/food. I'm assuming certain cooking temperature/method/meat results in more jus and gravy. That's what we're after here.
most people don't just take whatever jus is in the dish. They add water or stock, deglaze the roasting dish with that, then add more water or stock till they have the volume they want, adding assorted fake "bouillon" flavours (stock cube, bovril powder, liquid bovril etc) to boost the flavour back up if it ended up too diluted.
@KateGregory that's the point, how much jus you have after you've de-glazed determines the real gravy volume. Cheating with fake bouillon and extra water/roux or buying the gravy powder is what we're trying to avoid.
I make delicious gravy all the time without fake bouillon cubes though I do add water and deglaze with it, and I wouldn't call that cheating. I think if you added stock that you made yourself it also wouldn't be cheating
@KateGregory Not doubting that you need to add water or stock. But if you're trying to make 10lbs of gravy, adding 9.5 lbs of water or stock doesn't work. More jus to start is needed. How to get that, is the question here. I updated the question, hopefully it clarifies.
If you want more gravy you need to add more liquids and natural flavours.
Better if you have bone but . . . no bone:
Before you roast your beef sear it, so it has good colour when it comes out, deglaze the pan/baking tray with water/red wine/white wine or Madeira one of me faves and put that to one side. (in the gravy stock pot)
Add onions, carrots and parsnips in with the beef, and touch of water, olive oil and salt. Don't go mad with the water you're not poaching the beef!! Just enough to stop the veg burning - 5mm in the bottom (top up if needed).
When the beef is ready (55C internal temp = medium rare more here) take it out of the tray, put the root veg to one side and and add the remains to your gravy stock pot.
Sear the bottom of the roast with a little oil (it'll be a bit soggy from sitting in the veg) then put it aside to rest (5-10 mins if you're in a hurry 15-30 for 3kg will come out lush!) deglaze again adding the resulting jus to your stock pot, which now had a wealth of flavour.
Use that stock pot to create a beast of a gravy! Make it in the usual manner, if you keep the onions in they'll make it thicker and tastier - a stick blender with give you a smoother texture if that's what you like!
I learnt that if I only add one-half inch of water during the roasting time I have loads enough gravy, and it is delicious too. I have always worried about the concern about steaming, but this method works great, provided you do not add more than the half inch at a time! Keep an eye on your roast and add water or broth when needed. I usually use both in the pan.
Anything that would increase the pan drippings would require the moisture to come from somewhere ... such as heating the meat too far, so that it becomes tough and dry (squeezing the moisture from the roast).
It won't help when cooking the roast this time, but if it's bone-in, you could take the bones to make stock for use in your next roast.
You could also add other ingredients to provide moisture; I generally roast meats on top of a bed of carrots and onions, and the onions release quite a bit of liquid.
So, use end-cuts and bones? that seems to be the route. I agree with use of the vegetables, that should be par for the course.
When I want to either increase the amount of actual gravy I already have or
increase the liquid that I will thicken I add what I think is one of the greatest fairly new products, and that would be Better than Bullion (BTB). It comes in any flavor you could possibly want, with a whole range of varieties, I suggest you go on their website. It will also give you recipes, tips, and even a conversion calculator. They have a product for anything you want to do with flavor, meat or veggie, even low sodium. For gravy use the calculator to determine how much liquid and BTB you need. Beyond this flavor enhancer you can add a cream soup, flavor appropriate or even a bit of sour cream. I hope you are as happy with BTB as I am, Happy Cooking!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.407737
| 2013-02-23T15:34:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32154",
"authors": [
"AaronH",
"Chris Nace",
"Ivo",
"Jaswitha Reddy",
"Karen Cox",
"Kate Gregory",
"MandoMando",
"Sean Bave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74011",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74194",
"user99731",
"xavierm02"
],
"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
}
|
47566
|
How does "BHT added to packaging material" actually work?
This is not a question about the merits of BHA or BHT (butylated hydroxyanisole or butylated hydroxytoluene). It is a question about how BHA/BHT work when "added to packaging material".
The BHA is often added directly to food, where it has an antioxidant effect keeping fats from turning rancid during storage. But often, especially on whole grain breakfast cereals, BHA is listed as "added to packaging material".
What mechanism allows the BHA/BHT in the packaging to protect the food? Does it adsorb free radicals for example? Or "added to packaging material" just a marketing trick, because the BHA/BHT actually must migrate to the food to work?
[Ref 1] Encyclopedia of Food and Color Additives, edited by George A. Burdock
So, yes. It protects the food by "migrating" into it.
@djmadscribbler Chemistry is far away from my "area of expertise". I've found a scientific paper that seems to answer the question but I'm not able to extrapolate some important missing info. For example: What was the BHT concentration found in the food after the test?. Are the "freeze-dried model food" used for testing a valid equivalent to cereals? Without understanding those pieces you can't figure out the potential consequences/dangers involved. And answering "yes, the BHT is transferred to the cereal" looks like a very poor answer to me :)
@belisarius it looks like you've found the answer and a solid reference. Move it the answer section and earn points.
@seasonedaddict Please don't start off-topic discussions in comments, and please be polite to other users on this site.
BHA, BHT and/or TBHQ aren't added to the packaging to keep the cereal from spoiling. It's actually added to keep the box from spoiling.
As you stated, BHA and BHT slows down the oxidization of fats and oils. It keeps them from going rancid. And while some of this preservative will migrate into the cereal, many cereals don't actually have any fats or oils. The grains that go into cereal, be it corn, wheat, or oats, contain a small amount of fat and protein in the germ, or the tiny little center of the kernel. During production, though, the grain is degerminated, precisely because the fats in the germ spoil so quickly. Whole grain cereal, though, still has its germ. This is great nutritionally, since most of the vitamins and protein are in the germ, but then, so is the fat. And fat goes bad. So some of the BHA and BHT in the plastic bag is meant to migrate into the food. This is a bit of a semantic dodge for marketing purposes- it's not in the food, but it will be soon.
A lot of non- whole grain cereal is completely fat free though, but will still be packed in a box with BHA, BHT, and/or TBHQ. So where is the fat coming from?
During the 90s, most companies transitioned from brand new white cardboard to recycled brown cardboard. And just as importantly, they transitioned from petroleum based inks to soy based ink. Now, soy based ink is great for the environment because it biodegrades in the trash, but therein lies the problem. The soybean oil in the ink biodegrades. It goes rancid. The colorful graphics printed on the box will eventually taste and smell a bit off. Not only that, but the recycled paper is going to already contain some rancid ink from the newspaper and boxes that it was made of.
Now, the plastic bags that cereal are packed in are very, very, close to being air- and liquid- tight, but they are not perfect. In the course of sitting on the shelf, they will absorb odors and tastes from the outside world. This includes the smells and tastes of rancid box ink. In order to guard against this, manufacturers add preservatives like BHA/BHT to the box ink. Because the food is also absorbing some of those preservatives in the box, legally, box preservatives are also listed as a food ingredient.
Our societal push to recycle paper and save trees has some odd implications for food packaging.
Ink now has to have preservatives if it is going to be close to food. The plastic bags inside the box also have to be thicker because the boxes that our food are stored in already contains some rotten ink. And finally, we now eat more preservatives in our cereal, because the cereal absorbs some of the box.
but is the ink still biodegradable if it has preservatives added to prevent its degradation?
The ink still breaks down- the preservatives will slow down the process a lot, but it won't stop it completely. Antioxidants, be it vitamin C or BHA/BHT work because they absorb oxygen faster than the material they placed in- but eventually all of the antioxidants will be consumed, and natural decomposition will continue.
This is, incidentally, why BHA/BHT and vitamin A are dangerous in very high concentrations- because they are both fat soluble, they are not excreted from the body very quickly, and the antioxidant action blocks some of the body's natural chemical rxn's. This is why eskimos don't eat much whale and seal liver- too much vitamin A. Conversely, you shouldn't eat too much cardboard box and plastic bag- too much BHA/BHT.
I should try to remember that next time I'm so hungry I take a bite out of a pizza slice and realize I also got the cardboard holder :P But seriously, very interesting information.
Do you have some references for this stuff? @TenwayNorsing
But BHT is highly volatile. If you add it to the cardboard, it will be gone in minutes. If you add it to the inside of the bag it will migrate uniformly in the bag.
The BHT is added to the bag, and may also be added to the backside of the cardboard in the form of a thin plastic film. I tried to find some publicly available sources, and this is the best I found- http://pkt.jinakarn.com/apfa.pdf and http://www.google.com/patents/US4880696
Thanks for this info. I've eaten whole wheat everything for 25+ years(prefer the taste). Today I saw the "package contains BHT" label for the first time ever, on a box of Triscuits. I'm an avid label reader, never saw it before. I stopped eating my guilty fave Cheez-its years ago after they added TBHQ. I often wonder, is food really sitting on the shelves this long, to warrant all the preservatives? Maybe they sit in the warehouse for some time after production. I'm guessing there's also a whole industry around peddling the newest food preservatives to food manufacturers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.408149
| 2014-09-30T21:51:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47566",
"authors": [
"Bryce",
"Cascabel",
"Dr. belisarius",
"John",
"John Clevenger",
"Mallory Klug",
"Norm Kleve",
"Pepe P",
"Robert Troost",
"Sandie Bower",
"Tenway Norsing",
"Torri Brockman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11060",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62848",
"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
}
|
23220
|
What takes over the functions of gluten in gluten-free bread mixes?
Gluten has many effects on bread doughs, as explained in this beautiful answer. I think the main effects for bread doughs are the first three mentioned there:
Provide elasticity, presumably because of the network of links it creates in the dough;
Trap and retain gas, again with the network of crosslinks;
Absorb moisture.
As the answer linked to above explains, hydrocolloids such as xanthan or guar gum can mimic the effect of 2. to a certain extent by forming a very thin gel. I was wondering which ingredients take over which specific function of gluten.
More specifically: is it possible to indicate specific ingredients that take over some of the other functions? Are there other classes of ingredients that take over the function of trapping gas bubbles - maybe other proteins? And are there other functions that hydrocolloids have in gluten-free bread mixes?
Excellent question, I hope someone knows the answer! I know that the (very tasty) gluten free pancake mix I use is just rice flour and modified rice starch, I assume the modification makes the polysaccharides longer or more "webby".
To summarize the points of Aaronut's answer and provide a framework for answering:
'Gluten is responsible for elasticity of dough, which is perceived as chewiness','The "rising" in baked goods is essentially just
stretching of the gluten network', 'Gluten is also exceptionally good
at both absorbing and retaining moisture'
Dough's rising is catalyzed by the yeast eating sugar and giving off gas, the gas becomes suspended in the gluten network which has body from absorbed moisture and is restrained and stregthened by the salt. The end.
In the absence of gluten, there is no network for the gas to lift. However, when you add xanthum or guar gum, their qualities as hydrocolloids allow them to swell with moisture and rise with the gas.
Modified rice starch imitates gelatin in some applications, gelatin also produces flex and supports a smoother texture (common complaints about gluten-free breads refer to their grainy texture).
If you remove the gums and hydrocolloids from the gluten free dough you'll get a sopping wet mess that does nothing; using flax and chia seed will pull it back into shape. Both seeds, when milled will gel andprovide the meringue-type (though not as effective or durable) effect.
Tapioca starch also gives body and accommodates a smoother texture, hence it's addition to the King Arthur's gluten free flour mix.
'When baking without gluten, you will have to be very precise about all of your measurements', as gluten is more forgiving due to its
slow-acting nature
Yep.
In gluten-free baking one must substitute precision for not precision. Over kneading can be fatal especially in recipes with flax and chia.
'Its coagulation action is actually very similar to that of egg whites... gluten is basically doing the same thing inside of whatever
you're baking'
Gluten allows you to replicates the function of eggs in some use cases.
Flax and chia eggs as well as Ener-G egg replacer are common vegan replacements to eggs, but as this question is simply about gluten-free baking the answer is to just use an egg; some recipes call for one, some don't. However, there is no likely use case where the functionality of an egg being replicated by gluten would preclude using an egg.
'Finally, it provides nutritive protein when eaten. Wheat gluten is about 75% protein':
Yep.
Get protein somewhere else. There are 2 grams of protein in a slice of white bread, have an ounce of black beans.
'In short: Gluten does a lot of things. Keep in mind when doing
gluten-free baking that a lot of the substitutes only replicate one or
two of the effects.':
The combination of multiple agents is generally necessary to provide the same functions. If you look at this methodology for high-rising gluten-free dough from King Arthur's, you'll see that the bread flour alone contains a super-fine flour, potato starch and tapioca starch. The recipe calls for xanthum gum and an egg in addition to the tapioca and potato starches. There you already have four ingredients doing the work of the gluten.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.408670
| 2012-04-20T03:24:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23220",
"authors": [
"AnnieR",
"Daikin Tekini",
"Jean",
"Leigh Durand",
"NMJD",
"Samuel Mabery",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7332",
"maxisme",
"user368429",
"user53184",
"w00t"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7817
|
Gluten-free alternatives to beurre manie/roux for thickening sauce?
I'd like to thicken the sauce for my Thanksgiving turkey a bit, without making it inedible for my gluten-intolerant guests. From other questions on this site, I understand that corn starch would be an option, but it might give a more starchy flavour. Same for potato starch. Arrowroot flour would probably work according to this question, but it's not always easy to obtain. Would rice flour work? Are there other alternatives?
I've not found corn starch to give a starchy flavor in savory applications if cooked sufficiently. In sweet applications (pie fillings for instance) it might.
related questions about thickeners : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105/is-there-an-alternative-to-cornstarch ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/733/alternative-to-arrowroot
Oh, have I got the answer for you. Xanthan gum. Here is an excellent article by two of my favorite bloggers on how to get started using it. Xanthan gum is easy to find at health food stores because gluten-free bakers use it extensively.
An interesting idea.. I've used it for breadmaking but I would imagine in a sauce that, without practice, it could easy be too, well, gummy?
It won't be gummy as long as you keep the percentage by weight below around 0.4%.
Agree on the corn starch, and some gluten free people have problems with corn anyway. Arrowroot flour would work, otherwise use tapioca. Rice flour can work, but the type is very important, and sometimes you need too much for it to be worth it.
If you're having problems finding arrowroot and/or tapicoa flour ... look for tapioca granules, then grind them up before using.
I used tapioca starch. A little bit goes a LONG way! It's like corn starch on steroids. :-P
And there's a difference in tapioca starch and flour. Get the starch.
I use a Beurre Manie made of brown rice flour and butter for gravies. I love it, and add some sprigs of Thyme
I used a product called Veloutine for gravies for my gluten-intolerant MIL. (She died about ten years ago.) You can't, because it was apparently a Canada-only thing and Knorr doesn't make it anymore anyway. But on my box it lists as ingredients:
potato starch
lactose
maltodextrin
rice flour
caramel
monoglyceride
It is cool stuff because you just sprinkle it into boiling stew/gravy/whatever with no making a roux, slurry or beurre manie. (An advantage to a ack of gluten.) If you can source potato starch, that would probably be your best bet. Failing that I would try rice flour.
PS: don't forget to adjust your stuffing recipe. When I roast a turkey some of the stuffing inevitably falls into the gravy. A gluten intolerant person can't just "not eat the stuffing" in that case, the gravy would be offlimits too. I dealt with that by putting Paxo in the main part but not as full as usual, and gluten free stuff where the neck was, knowing that if some fell of that fell in the gravy it was ok.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.409162
| 2010-10-04T14:56:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7817",
"authors": [
"Arkady Arkhangorodsky",
"Joe",
"Linda Surprise-Craft",
"Michael Natkin",
"ThinkingCook",
"Wine Spring",
"albergs",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/719",
"nunu"
],
"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
}
|
44044
|
Long chilling of brioche dough?
What benefit should I expect from longer chilling of brioche dough? My recipe calls for kneading, allowing the dough to rise until doubled, chilling (without deflating) for one hour, deflating, chilling another hour, deflating by business envelope folding twice, then chilling for at least 6 hours up to two days.
The recipe says longer chilling allows the dough to "ripen". I kind of understand that as it relates to a tangier dough like a ciabatta or certainly a sourdough, but brioche is so cake-like, I can't imagine how "ripening" will affect the flavor? Also, I plan to braid the loaf. Will longer chilling make that easier? Are there any cons to resting/chilling longer than the minimum 6(+2) hours that I should consider?
The effect of long retardation of brioche dough is going to be driven by the same basic processes as in any bread dough:
Slowed but longer yeast activity, producing more of the flavorful byproducts (lactic and acetic acids) which give bread the pleasant, yeasty flavor.
Gluten development through autolysation, as the glutinan and gliadin react in the presence of water, forming bonds that create the gluten network.
All of these processes will be modified by the extreme levels of enrichment, so there will be less gluten development and less yeast activity than in a leaner dough. I suspect (but do not have a reference to document) that that the enrichment will place a ceiling on the absolute amount of gluten development possible, as the gluten sheets will not able to grow as long and strong as they otherwise would, being physically interrupted by the lipids.
I'd love to find that perfect balance. I don't care to increase yeasty flavor beyond what I get with a 6(+2) hour chill, but if I'm going to try to braid it, I'm going to need all the gluten development I can get in a loaf with such a ridiculous amount of butter.
Actually, gluten can develop a lot, but once you have too much fat in there, it is no longer sheet-shaped. I have even tried getting great gluten first by kneading without the fat, and adding the fat later. The texture changed from something you could twist in a rope and twirl around the room to something more playdoh-like. Braiding was certainly possible in this state, but at the amount of fat I was using (I think 100% or even 120), there was no visible gluten structure.
You chill brioche dough because you don't want your butter to melt.
Brioche doughs, especially the richer ones, are tricky. You can get the butter inside it, but it requires a lot of handling, and the more you handle it, the hotter it gets due to friction, the temperature of your hands, and the temperature of the air in your kitchen. Warm brioche dough can be too soft to handle, and in the worst case will start weeping butter while it is still being shaped.
This is why it is recommended that you chill your dough thoroughly (and this does mean a few hours in the fridge or overnight) to give the butter the chance to solidify before the final shaping. Of course, the slow gluten development is also beneficial. Especially if you added the butter at the beginning, you probably couldn't develop that much gluten, so the later autolysis helps.
What I'm questioning is rests longer than the 6 (+2) hour minimum. The need to chill the butter is readily apparent, even the minimal handling the dough requires after the first 2 hour chill is tricky. By 6 (+2) hours, the butter is as cold as it's going to get.
There is always the fraction who wants the fermentation taste in all kinds of bread. Personally, I find this nonsensical - fermented flavor is one of a palette available in bread, and trying to achieve it everywhere narrows our taste experience. But it is a popular stance, and maybe your recipe was written by somebody from that camp.
That's kind of what I'm puzzling over. I have no desire for my brioche to taste like sourdough.
Your brioche is unlikely to taste like sourdough. I've retarded brioche dough for 24 hours with no noticeable development of lactic acid flavor. There simply isn't enough existing LAB for it to proliferate to the point of a sourdough bread.
@derivative right, it won't go all the way to tasting like sourdough. But to the extent to which the taste changes, it will change in the direction of sourdough-like. I can confirm that the effect after a day or two is very slight in brioche, as long as you don't overyeast. But "the effect is so small you may not notice it" is not a good argument for retarding in the first place.
My understanding is that the longer rest time allows the gluten to develop more fully, while the chill will slow down the speed at which the yeast acts, resulting in a more elastic dough.
Well, more elastic would be a positive for braiding, right?
Indeed, it should be. That said, my mother has never chill-rested her challa dough, and they are beautifully braided every single time.
Challa, while wonderful, is substantially different than brioche, since brioche is enriched with unreasonable amounts of butter that would make challa no longer parve.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.409443
| 2014-05-11T13:12:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44044",
"authors": [
"Brian",
"Cherylann Jenkinson",
"Jolenealaska",
"Keith",
"Linked Insulation",
"Rod Fox",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Zanvak",
"artemi primo",
"derivative",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"razumny",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42209
|
How to put the bacon IN the burger?
I want to make unique and hopefully really awesome bacon cheeseburgers tonight.
If I had been thinking I would have purchased cuts of meat to grind myself, possibly with the cooked bacon, but what I have is a pound of grocery store ground chuck. I also have a pound of good, but typical American bacon.
I want to make the bacon a part of the burger patty instead of laying strips on top. I'm considering a couple of ways to do it. Obviously one way is just to cook, drain, cool and crumble the bacon and mix it with the beef when I make patties. If I do that, how much bacon can I get into the patty and still keep the patty intact while frying? I'd appreciate any good tips or caveats.
The way I'd LIKE to do it (if it works as I envision), is to par-cook the bacon and press the cut to size and cooled strips onto both sides of the patties before frying. I've learned to handle and press the beef as little as possible to make good burgers, so what could I do to make the bacon "stick"? What I'd like to achieve is the bacon crisping and forming a kind of crust around the medium to medium rare burger.
I plan to cook the burgers in a cast-iron skillet, melting sharp cheddar on top.
EDIT: Joe's answer below got my mind whirring. I'm looking for the bacon cheeseburgers to be "unique and hopefully really awesome", and bacon lends itself to playfulness, so "off the wall" ideas are totally welcome.
Any advice?
I recently saw a commercial for something I would like to try (but haven't) Stufz Burger Press It looks like a 'neat idea' but I'm skeptical...
Heehee, those do look like fun. A bit gimmicky, but fun. :)
I am a luddite on this one. Part of the pleasure of a bacon burger is the textural contrast of the shatteringly crispy bacon topping and the patty. You will lose that if you put the bacon inside the patty.
@SAJ14SAJ Agreed. I think significant amounts of bacon flavor will be lost unless you use lot, not to mention the satisfying chew/crunch.
I think the options you describe are very manageable. We have two kinds of bacon burgers where I live (apart from the regular piece of bacon loosely on top of a patty):
the bacon is cooked, then crumbled/chopped finely and mixed in with the raw mince meat. You can choose how large you want your bacon chunks to be.
the bacon is raw, and wrapped around a patty. If you wrap it well (with lots of overlap), the bacon stays in place. Be careful, as bacon can shrink a whole lot.
If you want to be extra safe, you can use a toothpick to hold everything in place.
The closest I've come to doing this is making bacon mashed potatoes lol, but I have had burgers with pieces of bacon and cheese in the mix (though it was possibly soy bacon).
I would say that cooking it all the way and then crumbling into the patty mixture is your best bet. If you're worried about the patty holding together with mounds of delicious bacon inside, consider adding an egg to your beef mixture (my preferred method). Unfortunately, I can't guarantee that the bacon would stay crisp with this preparation.
If you line the patty with the par-cooked bacon, you'll miss out on the mallard reaction with the beef (i.e., the beef wont char as well where the bacon is).
Hence, the best way to guarantee the most flavor out of your burger and bacon is to cook them separately. Here's an idea I came up with that I'm dying to try:
Step 1) Using half-strips of bacon, create a patty by criss-crossing the bacon strips. Cook your bacon patty on a flat-top griddle until both sides are crispy and awesome.
Step 2) Take 2 mounds of your seasoned ground beef and smash them onto the flat top. You may wish to wait until the bacon is cooked so that you can cook the burgers in the bacon grease. I can't be held liable for a heart attack/stroke.
Step 3) Once your two burgers and bacon patty are cooked, assemble your sandwich! Bottom Bun -> Burger #1 -> Bacon Patty -> Pepperjack and other fixins -> Burger #2 -> Top Bun.
Step 4) Om nom nom
That's funny, cause it's very much like what I'm about to do. My dinner guest for last night postponed until tonight, so I've had another day to think about it. By George, I think I've got it. Hopefully I'm just a few hours from the most stupendous burgers ever! :)
@Jolenealaska Looking forward to pictures added to this post lol
One possibility is to simmer (boil?) the bacon in water. You can then cook it far enough that you don't have to worry about undercooked pork inside your burger, but you can stop it before it's totally crispy, drain it, chop it up, and then mix that in with your ground beef.
(I admit it, I've seen way to many episodes of 'Diners, Drive-Ins, and Dives' ... someone used this, then took a mass of par-boiled bacon, formed it into a patty, and cooked that up to place on top of the burger)
Interesting idea! Especially the patty mound on top. Hmmm... A crazy yet possibly brilliant idea is forming. Be sure to check back here, I may have really fun pictures in a day or so. :)
Use ground beef and shred raw bacon to include in the ground beef patties. Cook in the air fryer. Both will cook together.
I sometimes wrap ground beef patties with bacon and make bacon cheeseburgers using only the air fryer. Very easy, and both cook fully.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.409898
| 2014-02-21T00:25:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42209",
"authors": [
"AlexMA",
"Cos Callis",
"J L",
"John Stevenson",
"Jolenealaska",
"MichelleZ Destiny",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Tony Arra",
"Trunk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23177",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98539",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98606",
"sarahParker",
"spam",
"user2450223",
"user520149"
],
"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
}
|
41841
|
Is there any reason to use fake white chocolate chips instead of the good stuff?
I'm making funny cookies for a friend. They're no-bake refrigerator cookies made with (get this) Capt Crunch cereal, peanut butter, nuts and the aforementioned "chocolate". The recipe specifically states the brand of white chocolate chips (yucky fako). Is there any reason NOT to substitute good white chocolate like Ghirardelli? My one concern is that the chocolate is what holds the cookies together and perhaps the fake stuff cools harder after melting. The brand specified in the recipe contains sugar, nonfat milk, partially hydrogenated vegetable oil, palm kernel oil, cornstarch, artificial flavor, salt and lecithin. Not so much as a molecule of cocoa butter.
EDIT: As it turns out, I have a half bag of the yucky-fakos. I can't remember or imagine why, but there they are! I feel an experiment coming on. I'm going to divide the recipe into thirds. One-third will only contain the "Creamy Vanilla Premier White Chips (el fako)", one-third will be made entirely with Ghirardelli White Baking Chocolate [bar], the final third will be half and half. I'll make them tonight and report the results!
I'm guessing it probably does have to do with firmness when chilled. I'd counter though that there's no reason to use good chocolate in a recipe like that. :P
The source of the recipe may give an answer, sometimes brands publish recipes in order to plug their products. Please tell us how your experiment works for you, it would be great to have an answer.
@GdD The original recipe might very well have been intended as a plug for the fako white chocolate chips, my neighbor just copied it from a random blog. I'm sure it was passed around a lot before it wound up on that blog. I'm interested in the experiment too, I'll definitely report.
Here we are, three months after the experiment, I'm finally getting around to writing it up! The fact is, the results are not very exciting.
Straight from the fridge, the three cookies (made with all Ghirardelli white chocolate, all fake white chocolate chips and a half and half mixture) were indistinguishable. At room temperature the all Ghirardelli cookie had a very minor negative. It slightly melted in the hand as you held it to eat, a vaguely unpleasant feeling. The other cookies did not melt in the hand, but tasted the same.
So, for simple no bake applications like this, there is no reason to spend the extra money for "real" white chocolate, the fake stuff is just as good and may even be slightly better.
The issue, at least in the mind of the recipe's author, may be texture. True white chocolate (I cannot believe I just used that phrase) is of course made from genuine cocoa butter, which sets very hard compared to most other fats used in foods, including the ones you mention are in the recommended confection. It should actually hold the dish together better.
Using actual white chocolate may therefore create a candy with a much harder bite.
You will have to decide whether the trade off is justified in terms of benefit to flavor and aroma.
No worries, you can always use real white chocolate and just mix in some palm kernel oil to soften it back up!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.410416
| 2014-02-07T19:39:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41841",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"GdD",
"Intelligenti pauca",
"Jakub Lucký",
"Jolenealaska",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Very Amateur",
"William",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103352",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97648",
"user97627"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32831
|
If salt dehydrates the meat, then why would brining make it more juicy as a whole?
As the title says, why does brining work?
If salting, by osmosis, pulls the water out of the meat, then why is meat considered more juicy after it's cooked?
To further add to this. Here's an explanation from the Chefsteps site on brining
The Effects of Brining
Charged chloride ions from the dissolved salt in a brine will repel, destabilize, and unravel various proteins within the muscle fibers of meats and seafood. This is not altogether different than what cooking with heat also does to these proteins.
The combination of dissolved salt and heat combine to increase the juiciness of flesh by drawing water in during brining and squeezing less of it out during cooking.
Brined foods that are cooked have a telltale texture because the combination of salt and heat creates a firmer, more elastic gel than heating does alone. But avoid overdoing it, otherwise the flesh can become too firm and chewy, as well as too salty.
Equilibrium Brining
Actually, it's a popular misconception that brining works because of osmosis. If it was really osmosis at work, plain water would work better than salted water. Kenji over at The Food Lab went into this a few months ago: http://www.seriouseats.com/2012/11/the-food-lab-the-truth-about-brining-turkey-thanksgiving.html
Here's the relevant bit:
To understand what's really happening, you have to look at the structure of turkey muscles. Muscles are made up of long, bundled fibers, each one housed in a tough protein sheath. As the turkey heats, the proteins that make up this sheath will contract. Just like a squeezing a tube of toothpaste, this causes juices to be forced out of the bird. Heat them to much above 150°F or so, and you end up with dry, stringy meat.
Salt helps mitigate this shrinkage by dissolving some of the muscle proteins (mainly myosin). The muscle fibers loosen up, allowing them to absorb more moisture, and more importantly, they don't contract as much when they cook, making sure that more of that moisture stays in-place as the turkey cooks.
In the article he discusses the downsides (flavor dilution) and alternatives to brining (salting). I'd check it out, it's a good read.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.410745
| 2013-03-19T20:53:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32831",
"authors": [
"Jennifer",
"Judy",
"Mr Carl",
"Yeltommo",
"gio",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75921",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75990",
"marcovanbostin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25388
|
Why won't my potatoes crisp?
I live in a country where there is no chemical engineering done on the plants, so everything is completly organic. But i noticed the biggest difference in the potatoes here vs. in America is that the ones here will never crisp. They become rubbery and very wiggly. That's very difficult to deal with when you're from America and you love french fries and hashbrowns.
I fry them the same way as i usually do, i deep fry them in a pan. The potatoes are different, the ones i used to use were dark brown idaho potatoes, the ones here are light colered with a very thin peel.
What's the reason behind this? I've heard theories of the potatoes being too starchy; is this true? And if so, is there a way to get them to crisp?
How are you trying to crisp them? Deep-frying? I'm assuming that from the french fries/hashbrowns reference but you don't exactly say.
yes, but the method dosent really matter since its the same way as i did in america, the question has more to do with why is it resulting differently
Of course the method matters. Even the specific technique matters. Baking does not use the same mechanism as frying which in turn is slightly different from double-frying. In order for questions to get relevant answers, they need to present all of the available information, so please edit your question to explain how you're making them. The answer might also have to do with which kinds of potatoes you're selecting, so it wouldn't hurt to include that as well.
what type of potatoes are you getting? Beside the method, the starch:water ratio and the amylose:amylopectin ratio matters (mealy/hard potatoes).
related question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22307/how-can-one-determine-if-a-potato-is-suitable-for-french-fries
related questions : on hash browns / home fries ; french fries ; potato selection
It's almost certanly a variety/potato age thing.
There are thousands of varieties of potato and different countries grow different ones based on climate and local taste. You can group potatoes in to two sets:
Thicker skinned potatoes that spend longer in the ground as they grow slowly. Varieties sold this way tend to be be a colder weather crop.
The other sort are thin skinned, waxier varieties which include 'new' potatoes. Varieties suited to this grow faster and tend to grow better than the other sort in warmer weather.
There are 'waxy' firm varieties of the first group but most would be termed 'floury'. These are dryer potatoes and make great mash and chips and roasts and fluffy baked potatoes.
Waxy potatoes are better for holding together in dishes and salads. These just don't crisp up as well. I assume you're just getting these varieties.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.410990
| 2012-07-31T22:53:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25388",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Joe",
"Jonas Praem",
"Lori",
"Nesreen t Alkam",
"R. Daneel Olivaw",
"They call me Trinity",
"Weckar E.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58100",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"madhuri",
"rumtscho",
"talon8",
"yojo28",
"Давид Карамян"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108508
|
Can I mix all-purpose flour with high-gluten flour to make bread flour?
Basically of the opposite of this question.
I'm writing during the 2020 pandemic, and bread flour is sold out everywhere because everyone (including me) is entertaining themselves at home by making bread. I did manage to find "high-gluten flour", which according to Epicurious seems to be more or less the same as bread flour but with a higher protein content:
Unbleached all-purpose has the lowest amount of protein, usually around 10.5%. Bread flour contains about 12 to 12.7%. High-gluten and whole-wheat flours have about 14% protein.
My recipe calls for white bread flour. (I'm making sourdough at 80% hydration, in case it matters.) Can I get there by mixing this high-gluten flour with AP flour? What proportions should I use? Any pitfalls I should be aware of?
Just as a comment, I make a sourdough at 66% hydration with a Canadian flour billed at 14.9% protein. I like that better than the results I get at 12/13%. Perhaps it’s worth making your recipe with the high-gluten flour once and see what you think?
Yes, you can mix them at basically a 1:1 ratio to achieve a flour with roughly 12% protein content (mimicking bread flour).
Bread flour is milled from hard spring wheat, which has a higher protein content than the hard winter wheat used in all-purpose flour. Protein adds strength to dough and enables loaves of bread to rise high.
Mixing them together to achieve a roughly 12% protein content will ensure you don't end up with a bread that's way too dense/soft or rises far too much/little, basically.
There's no issues mixing flours, and in fact this can be a great way to create the mixture you need when it's sold out (such as during this pandemic).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.411268
| 2020-05-20T20:32:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108508",
"authors": [
"Spagirl",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34599
|
How does harvest time matter with tea?
At my regular tea webshop, you can always see what year and month the tea was harvested. Just recently they have brought in this spring's harvest of Darjeeling. But they also have tea from 2011 (in this case a black tea). How does harvest time matter with teas? When is a tea considered "old"? Do they lose flavour when storing for more than two years? Would a more recently harvested tea be considered a better buy or does it depend on taste and type of tea?
Harvest time can have a large effect on the quality of the tea. First off, whether it was the first harvest of the year or a later one will greatly change the character of the tea.
The dates can also be used similar to the vintage dates of wine. If you got a tea from a specific region and know the date of the harvest, if you find another tea from the same region and same date, it will have been grown under similar conditions.
Also, since black and oolong teas have been oxidized, the oxidation process will continue to some extent as the tea ages, further changing the flavor. The date can be used to predict freshness, and also to find a tea that suits your tastes better (for instance, I know that I like many black teas better after they have aged for a year or two).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.411519
| 2013-06-09T09:32:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34599",
"authors": [
"Ling",
"T Hayes",
"dghughes",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80728",
"jtb",
"wulph"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
26078
|
Fat content in homemade stock
First of all, I don't know the difference between stock, broth and bouillon in english (not my native language), but what I mean is when you cook for example a chicken carcass with vegetables for a couple of hours to use the liquid, discarding everything else. My question also applies for when you cook any other type of meat which haven't been pre-cook, meaning it will have quite a lot of fat remaining.
However, when you make your own stock, how much fat will there be in it? I'm mostly interested in the fat content after you've removed the "lid of fat" after refrigeration, but also immediately after sieving, if anyone has answer to both questions.
And naturally, I know it's hard to determine the fat content without doing an analysis, but I'm not calling for an exact answer on the gram, just if it's around 0–5 %, 5–10 %, or 10–20 % or whatever – just be as precise as you can.
When buying stock in the store, it usually says 0 g fat, but I guess they have some method of removing all of the fat, lowering the risk of it going rancid and increasing shelf-life. In my stock, I can see quite a lot of droplets of fat.
One way of attacking the question can be: Doesn't all the fat have to come up the surface ("the lid") since fat and water are unmixable? If fat is still in the broth, a) has it cooled down before all of it was allowed to rise (can be difficult in gelatin rich stocks)?, or b) can a stock hold fat in an emulsion?
See Stock vs Broth - What's the difference in usage?
Like most cooking words there is no global definition. Fat content varies by ingredients and recipe. Some fat is retained in suspension, and some will be chemically attracted to components of the stock and be difficult to remove
Some people stir in the fat, most people skim it off
Commercial stock may have been centrifuged to get the fat content down to zero. This is not that practical to do at home, but can be done
After you have completed cooking your stock and have filtered out all of the solids and let it rest in your refrigerator with a piece of cheesecloth laid across the top overnight (or for several hours...) the oils will rise to the top and solidify. After that you can (carefully) remove the cheesecloth and it will take all (or nearly all) of the oil/fat with it. You should be able to skim of the remaining solid easily enough.
After you have done this, raise the temperature of the broth back to boiling briefly and move it into mason jars (while hot) for storage. At this point, if you are looking for 'long term' storage, you need to do a pressure seal (pressure canned, as derobert mentions), if you don't expect it to last beyond 6-8 weeks then cold storage is probably good enough. If you are going to cold store it, let it cool on the counter to room temperature then move it to the fridge.
Curious how you're storing it—personally, I freeze mine (but find hot beverage cups easier for freezing). If you're going to can it, its supposed to be pressure-canned. http://nchfp.uga.edu/how/can_05/stock_broth.html
I store it in the fridge in a pint mason jar. the cooling sets a good vacuum seal and it never really lasts long enough to worry about doing a pressure canning. If I were making it in larger quantities that I wanted to make it last longer I would pressure can.
OK, I'd suggest emphasizing in your answer that it needs to be stored refrigerated (or immediately pressure canned)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.411668
| 2012-09-09T15:54:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26078",
"authors": [
"Cos Callis",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41291
|
What temperature of water will kill yeast?
In other words, what is the maximum temperature of water I can use in yeast bread dough? I don't proof the yeast, I use rapid dry yeast and I just add it to the other ingredients and knead it in.
There are multiple temperature points per yeast family might be of Interest:
The growth limit temperature, see this paper. It indicates as high as 45°C for some and 20°C for others.
'Injury' temperature (for bread and brew generally thought be around 120°F)
Death temperature.
Keep in mind for bread: Bread Yeast at higher temperatures produces off-flavours that may be undesirable to your goal. If you are trying to speed up your dough, you may want to add the yeast to water with some food and let develop for a while before mixing in the flour.
Although I intentionally didn't include this in my question, I am experimenting with how fast I can make a standard loaf. My goal right now isn't quality, but speed. Your info is helpful towards that.
@Jolenealaska the fastest yeast growth doesn't occur at the highest temperature, yeast has an inverted-U-shaped growing curve. Use 35 Celsius, soft dough and added sugar for highest speed.
@Jolenealaska http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/66377/what-is-the-xy-problem ?
@Jefromi It's not really the same thing, I wanted the answer to the question because I am experimenting with the issue. That's why I didn't include the "why" in the question, or ask how I can get the fastest possible rise. The question was written to help me set up parameters for experimentation.
Did you intentionally use both temperature units? It's a bit confusing...
Different strains of yeast have varying tolerance temperature, on both the high side and the low end. As a 'general rule' 110°F is a safe high temperature.
Yeast is happiest at around body temperature - 37°C. The higher you get, the more damaging it will be to the yeast. 30 or 40°C would be fine, but 50°C probably won't (though some yeast might survive). 60 or 70 would definitely kill the yeast.
But for bread dough there's no reason to use a high temperature. I'd mix the water from the hot and cold taps to get something that feels comfortably warm when you put your hand in it, and you should be fine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.411963
| 2014-01-20T14:37:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41291",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Charlemagne",
"Djanga",
"Hane",
"Jolenealaska",
"Jonathan Gallagher",
"Laura",
"Muhammad Kawu",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96225",
"rumtscho",
"user159649"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43262
|
How to achieve a good char on cooked and shredded chicken?
I happened to be at the grocery store just as they marked down that day's rotisserie chicken. I planned to use chicken breasts for tomorrow's Sesame Noodles with Shredded Chicken, but at that price it was hard to turn down rotisserie chicken. So now I've got it shredded, and as grocery store rotisserie chicken tends to be, the flavor is really nice. It's missing some char though.
The sauce I'm tossing with the final dish includes sesame seeds, peanut butter, garlic, ginger, soy sauce, rice vinegar, sriracha and brown sugar. I could make a little extra sauce (maybe heavy on the sugar for the caramelization?), and toss the chicken with a bit of that and put it under a hot broiler for a bit.
My thinking is to marinate the chicken in the sauce and briefly put it under a blazing hot broiler to char the marinade. I want to avoid overcooking the chicken and of course I want to avoid any nasty burnt flavors. Any advice or caveats?
EDIT: Just to follow up. I followed the advice of the posters here and did not further cook the chicken. I did add some fairly heavily charred multicolored bell peppers. That did the trick, it was a new recipe and it made a lovely meal.
One way to get some quick charring without drying out the meat would be to use a blowtorch.
To quickly caramelise and generate an effective Maillard reaction, you can:
refrigerate the meat in an air-tight container, keep it cool so it doesn't overheat during the charring process
Mix a touch of glucose syrup with an oil that has a high smoke point (like rice bran oil,) you need a viscosity where you can brush it on to the parts you want to char
Swiftly blowtorch the areas you brushed with the glucose syrup. I'm talking a few seconds at most.
You should be able to char the meat without cooking it at all by doing this.
EDIT: I realise now that this question was asked two days ago, and this answer is pretty useless now. However, I encourage you to give it a go if there is a next time :) Or just experiment with the technique when you have some free time and curiosity. If you don't have a blowtorch, the glucose syrup layer will also quickly create caramelisation and Maillard reaction in a hot pan, also in seconds.
That's a thought! I even have a blowtorch :)
If you try to char post-shredding you are very likely to dry it out. Try charring another ingredient instead, or just live with it un-charred.
I do have some nice multi-colored sweet bell peppers. I could char those pretty easily. What about putting the chicken in the freezer for 20 minutes or so before tossing with the sauce and broiling?
Freezers are really dry, if you do make sure it's in a sealed container. I don't think it do much for you anyway.
If you have skin on dark meat remaining, which is very much more tolerant of cooking with less risk of overcooking, you might try this (with the caveat that I have not done it):
Heat a grill pan or skillet (cast iron would work well for this) to smoking hot
Brush it with vegetable oil
Lay the pieces, skin side down, in the pan and cook just until charred.
The high heat should char the skin before the main part of the piece comes up to a very high temperature. The physics of direct conduction make this far more efficient transfer of heat energy than the radiant heat from almost any home broiler.
Still, I suspect you would be almost as well served simply by using the chicken as is. While some people consider it a terrible heresy, perhaps you can create some smokiness with just a touch of liquid smoke, or if you feel it is compatible with the asian flavors, some smoked paprika or chipotle.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.412186
| 2014-04-04T08:35:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43262",
"authors": [
"Arslan Aslam Chadhar",
"Chris W.",
"GdD",
"Guest",
"Jolenealaska",
"Spammer",
"Zach",
"Zaph Brox",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101261",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101283",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"notarobot"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43793
|
Can I rest my Ciabatta dough overnight?
I'm making Ciabatta for the first time Recipe (sorry, paywalled). My biga is fermenting as I type this, I'll mix the dough tomorrow. By then the biga will have had about a 16 hour ferment.
The dough will be difficult to handle. It's 80% hydration, and is described by America's Test Kitchen as being nearly pourable. The recipe calls for a mechanical mix and first knead, then two folding treatments* before baking. The folding is done with an oiled spatula, so I don't even need to touch the dough with my hands until it's time to shape the loaves. The shaping is shown in the video on the website (the paywalled link above) and it looks like it is going to be challenging.
My experience with wet, difficult doughs is that they are much easier to deal with if allowed to rest in the refrigerator overnight, before the dough gets any time to rise. Since ciabatta dough is so wet, it seems a natural to me that an overnight rest would be a good idea but neither the recipe that I'm using, nor the dozen or so others I looked at mention a rest.
Is there something about ciabatta that makes is not a candidate for resting overnight?
I'm hoping for a nice chewy texture and a lot of holes in the crumb, like this:
I'll check answers and comments here before I commit, but since the recipe I'm using makes two loaves, I'm considering an experiment of doing one loaf as instructed by the recipe and allowing the other to rest in the refrigerator for 24 hours just after the first knead.
*Transfer dough to large bowl and cover tightly with plastic wrap. Let dough rise at room temperature until doubled in volume, about 1 hour. Spray rubber spatula or bowl scraper with nonstick cooking spray; fold partially risen dough over itself by gently lifting and folding edge of dough toward middle. Turn bowl 90 degrees; fold again. Turn bowl and fold dough six more times (total of eight turns). Cover with plastic wrap and let rise for 30 minutes. Repeat folding, replace plastic wrap, and let rise until doubled in volume, about 30 minutes longer. - From the ATK recipe, a description of the folding treatment
I usually do this for Ciabatta and other wet doughs. Leavening in the refrigerator overnight before folding gives great results.
I did the experiment and the results were surprising. Based just on this one test, at this point I can't recommend a long refrigeration of ciabatta dough. I baked one loaf according to the recipe and I put the other loaf in the refrigerator just after the mix and mechanical knead (I used a bread machine up to that point). I let it rest for 24 hours. The loaf on the left of the following pictures was done according to ATK's instructions, the loaf on the right spent 24 hours in the refrigerator.
GdD is absolutely right, the refrigerated dough did not lend itself to the spatula method of folding, so I approximated it as well as I could using my hands. A bit of Pam (vegetable oil spray) was all I needed to keep the dough from sticking to my hands. For the second fold, the dough had loosened enough that I could use a spatula. When it came to shape the loaf, it handled very easily. I was able to use very little flour and I was encouraged by the bubbles already visible in the loaf.
But as you can see in the final loaf, those air bubbles were actually too aggressive. The good news is that the taste of the loaf is just fine. As a matter of fact, with closed eyes, the two loaves are indistinguishable. They're both very tasty with a chewy crumb, a crisp crust and a subtle sourdoughish tang.
The dough that had been refrigerated was easier to handle. While the 24 hour rest did cause the loaf to rise too aggressively, the first loaf could perhaps have benefited from a bit of that aggression.
So, next time I make this recipe (which will be soon because it's very tasty) I'll experiment with shorter refrigeration time. Perhaps 5 hours for the first loaf and 10 for the other.
Finally, I'd like to comment on the America's Test Kitchen website. I was decidedly outside of my comfort zone working with a dough so wet, and the wetness of the dough is a big part of what makes ciabatta, ciabatta. I was expecting the shaping of the first (non-refrigerated) dough to be a nightmare. Well, it really wasn't. By following along with the video, every fussy little step, the process was broken down and manageable. This is where ATK excels. If you could use a confidence boost in any aspect of home-style cooking, I recommend checking out their 14 day free trial, you can gain a lot of knowledge in 14 days. Just from this recipe and video alone, I am significantly more confident today in my artisan bread making ability than I was a week ago.
You could also try reducing the amount of yeast, that ought to slow down the initial rise.
May i ask what exactly was wrong with the fridge-retarded loaf? I would personally have been absolutely thrilled with the loaf on the right.
@ccsdg It wasn't wrong, it was just that the holes were so big that in places it didn't feel like there was any bread holding them together.
@Jolenealaska Gotcha. Each to their own. My perfect ciabatta/baguette will be almost all crust! (even so, refrigeration doesn't do for my breads what it seems to do for yours). Best of luck for your next ciabatta.
You may have had better results with the refrigerated dough if you dimpled it before going into the oven. Dimpled meaning..gently but firmly press you spread otu fingers in random places into the dough. This degasses it somewhat esp the larger holes. It will recover in the oven.
Resting it in the fridge overnight ought to be absolutely fine, I've found that in general I get better flavor from a slower rise. I'm not sure that refrigeration is going to help with this folding technique though, it's going to make the dough less sticky yes, but it will also make it less flexible.
With cold dough I'd oil a work surface and my hands and gently stretch it and fold it that way. I think the goal of the folding technique is to avoid handling it too much and knocking the air out of it, and this may work as well. I use this method for focaccia, which is also very sticky, although I only fold it to get flavored ingredients into it.
Let us know how it goes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.412519
| 2014-04-30T13:09:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43793",
"authors": [
"Cherry Land",
"Dan",
"Danny Greene",
"Eighty80 Ltd",
"Jolenealaska",
"Leslie O'Connor",
"Nic Dahlquist",
"Nora Batty",
"Richard Kershenbaum",
"ccsdg",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/108106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66664",
"pelleg",
"roetnig",
"user66664"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3928
|
How to test that a knife is sharp enough?
As per the question - how to I test that a knife is sharp enough?
And/or, how do you know when a knife needs sharpening?
Edit:
Yesterday I attempted (I feel quite successfully) to hone my knives for the first time ever (requiring me to purchase a honing steel), which immediately made a rather noticable difference (I shall be honing them regularly from now on).
Not sure whether additionally sharpening them as well would be a good idea?
The suggested tomato and paper tests make sense, and I shall try them in the near future and see..
I'd sharpen them once to get them back to a factory edge at least. You should hone them every time you use one.
Please note that honing a knife does not sharpen it. Rather, it realigns the edge, correcting for dulling causes such as a rolled edge.
I usually notice when cutting onions and tomatoes. With a very sharp knife cutting an onion doesn't cause much tears at all. As it dulls though it does more crushing than slicing which releases more gas into the air, which makes you cry more. Ripe tomatoes help because they are so tender. If it becomes difficult to slice a tomato without crushing it, your knife is too dull.
A well used, properly cared for knife should require sharpening every 6-18 months, depending on usage. Mine get sharpened yearly.
You may find it beneficial to read these related questions, and their answers:
How can I safely improve my cutting technique
How should I care for my knives?
Why not put knives in the dishwasher?
Wholeheartedly in agreement on the onion/tears part of this answer.
The most readily evident way of determining if a knife needs to be sharpened is when you notice that you're having to apply more force than normal.
When you start out with a sharp knife you will become accustomed to how it glides through food. Over time you're going to notice that you are having to apply more pressure than normal and that's when it's time to have it sharpened.
Factors that affect how frequently knives need to be sharpened include:
-The type of knife itself: Forged knives, if properly cared for will typically hold and edge longer than stamped knives.
-Care for the knife: Washing knives in dishwashers wears down the edge quicker. Storing loose in drawers without a blade guard will also cause them to dull quicker.
-The manner in which you use the knife: The "Whack" "Whack" noise that so many people associate with cutting is an audible clue that you're cutting incorrectly. The "Whacking" of the blade against the board is caused by pushing the blade downward rather than forward. Cutting straight down against the board dulls the blade through the blunt force pressure against the cutting surface and it also results in smashing and crushing the food instead of providing a clean cut.
-The surface that you're cutting on: The harder the surface the more damage it will do to your blade. Don't cut on surfaces composed of tempered glass, stone (natural or man-made products), solid surfaces such as Corian, metal, or hard plastic.
-The frequency of use: The more often a knife is used, the more frequent it will need to be sharpened.
Noticing that you have to apply more force than "normal" is, I think, harder than expected because "normal" will constantly change as the knife slowly dulls over time (obviously I'm excluding unexpected damage as factor). I'll compare it to the handbrake in my car - I never notice it getting weaker/slacker over time, but in a service it sometimes gets tightened - and suddenly the handbrake is noticeably stronger. But I wouldn't have identified it as weak before the service, and it's that identification I'm looking for (with knifes, obviously, not handbrakes).
I usually hold up a single sheet of newspaper and poke the point of the knife through. If you can make a downward cut without the paper tearing, the knife is sharp.
There's the old boy-scout test where you see if it will catch on your fingernail. It's not exactly sanitary for commercial kitchens, but if it tacks on your nail, you're golden!
...and if it slices your finger clean in half, you should have gone with the silk scarf test...
touche, touche.
Hold the edge up to a light source. If the light glints off the edge, it isn't sharp enough. Back to the grind stone...
If it grabs the hair on your arm and shaves it, then it is very sharp (almost too sharp for many uses). Like your ordinary utility work knife. I usually keep one blade this sharp in my pocket knife and the others sharp but not that sharp. A quick slip and you're off to the emergency room. I do find that I can only get it super sharp with honing steel rather than diamond steel.
I think if I attempted that, I would shave off some skin too, knowing how clumsy I am.
Hold the knife straight out with the sharp-edge upwards.
Drop a silk scarf on it.
The silk scarf should be cut neatly in half as it falls to the ground.
Somebody has watched too many samurai movies. ;-)
lol. I have seen a sharp knife cut halfway through a piece of moderate weight paper dropped onto the blade.
Joel Tarantino.
LOL! This was a great answer
where do you get those cheap silk scarves? (My wife made me ask, I think she wants some).
If you have a supply of cheap sponges, try if you can easily cut into them (not into the scrubbing side!), or even slice corners off.
Tomato sideways: take a (preferrably damaged, useless) tomato, cut enough off so it can stand on a surface without being easily toppled. Try to slice off slices without holding the tomato in place. Refrain from the tomato drop test - it doesn't work on all blade geometries regardless of how sharp they are, and can also damage the edge.
As mentioned above, leg or arm hair shave tests - DANGEROUS but valid for judging the EDGE, but will not show geometry problems (too thick behind the edge, unfavourable shoulders...)
Sharpening (without going to a finer stone) more than needed when already as sharp as the stone you are using can get it, by the way, will make most types of knives WORSE in performance because you are thickening the geometry.
If someone initially downvoted because the "geometry", "thickening" stuff sounds outlandish: It is not. Read up on the topic of knife thinning, it is considered an important maintenance procedure.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.413035
| 2010-08-01T16:04:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3928",
"authors": [
"AlexBay",
"BaffledCook",
"Becky Drop",
"DMA57361",
"Eric Suh",
"Jacob",
"Josh",
"Marie",
"Ocaasi",
"Ragshi",
"Shog9",
"Steven Rumbalski",
"Tim Gilbert",
"embolden",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1831",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7362",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"keri",
"klypos",
"lemontwist",
"notReallyDev",
"prv",
"rackandboneman",
"rsteele",
"stephennmcdonald",
"user52547",
"user7345"
],
"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
}
|
3122
|
Difference in technique for cooking with non-stick and standard pans?
Following up from my previous question, which I'd raised because I have concerns that my non-stick wok will need replacing very soon (again), and was having a think about "standard" pans.
I'm not currently interested in differences in care/cleaning/etc, I think those are quite well covered in other questions.
So, I'm wondering what's the difference in the required technique when using them to cook food?
The big thing that you you are going to see cooking in regular pans vs. non-stick is the addition of pan sauces to your table. It is almost impossible to get a pan sauce out of the non-sticks because they prevent the formation of fond in the pan. As for stick in a regular pan, it is not much of a concern for most items, but there are a few things that non-stick are invaluable for so I generally keep a cheap non-stick around for those. (Talking cepes and eggs, mostly) The biggest trick with regular pans is learning to stop messing with your food while it cooks. You want to let it form that crust which as a by-product will help prevent sticking. Also, you will find that you start at a higher tempature when cooking with regular pans.
So essentially - Move the food about less (I would have assumed more) and cook a bit hotter (to make the oil more effective?). And finally use non-stick/standard when it works best for the food (eggs/pan-sauces being your example respectively).
exactly, although the hotter pan is to help the mallaird reaction which is what browns meats, you are able to use a hotter pan because you don't have to worry about messing up the nonstick coating on your pans. And you are going to see bits of what your cooking stick, that's the fond, and you can just deglaze (pour about a cup of liquid into the hot pan and stir with a wooden spoon) and it will make a tasty sauce out of what's left
You can get the benefits of both non-stick and fond by prepping the stainless steel pan so it's more non-stick:
Use the "water test" to know when a stainless steel pan is hot enough to add oil. Besides being fascinating to watch, passing the water test ensures the pan becomes amazingly non-stick.
When the pan is hot enough, water will ball up like mercury and slide around the pan without evaporating. The temperature required is pretty high, but I've found the non-stick properties remain if I add the oil and let the pan cool to the cooking temperature I want.
Note: preheating the pan like this applies to non-stainless steel pans, but water only balls up like mercury on stainless steel.
Detailed explanation of how/why this works: On properly heating your pan
Well, standard pans 'stick' more. You can either try to prevent it, or gain advantage from it. The common advantage being caramelization / sticking / dissolving, for flavour, or getting a maillard reaction going.
Have a look here as well.
I'd assumed more sticking was likely; but I was wondering if to combat this you have to cook differently somehow? More oil? More/Less heat? etc.
@DMA: just the right heat. see Leftium's link and those great videos
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.413591
| 2010-07-24T19:10:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3122",
"authors": [
"BZink",
"DMA57361",
"James Barrie",
"Liza Daly",
"decasteljau",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7356",
"sarge_smith",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3941
|
Am I using my knives for the correct jobs?
I've got a limited collection of knives which I was moderately pleased to discover meet the "minimum requirements". But, recent activity on here has got me thinking - am I using them for the correct jobs?
I have:
Long (8 inch) flat-blade knife (Chef's?).
Short (4.5 inch) flat-blade knife.
Very short (3 inch) serrated knife (Paring?).
Long serrated bread knife.
We can, I think, ignore the last one as I'm hopefully managing to use that for its intended role.
I currently tend to use the serrated knife for veg with any sort of "skin" (e.g. peppers, tomatoes, onions, etc), the short flat-blade for anything else small enough, and the large knife for meats and anything too big for the smaller flat-blade.
From what I've been reading on here, I get the feeling I'm using them for the wrong jobs - am I?
And what's the best use for each of these knives?
Would someone please change 'use' to 'using' in the title. Thanks!
@Ocaasi & @hobo - ta for fixing that typo + correcting my stupidly short inch-fractional knife lengths...
Well your chef's knife should constitute about 90% of your usage I'd say. It should be used for slicing, dicing just about anything. Your paring knife is actually the 3-4" one you describe. Paring knives are typically used for delicate tasks like, coring apples, peeling, and some people use it for mincing garlic because it's so small.
I've never seen a 2" serrated knife before, so I'm not sure what I'd use that for if anything. If you're using it because it seems to do a better job on the vegetables, then that's a sign that your chef's knife is dull. I have seen tomatoes sliced with a 6" serrated utility knife due to their tenderness. However, you generally don't want to use a serrated knife on an onion, this will cause a lot of the gas to be released that makes you cry.
That pretty much confirmes my suspicions. And, as per another recent question of mine I strongly suspect my knives are probably a bit too blunt at the moment. And I've gone to the effort of measuring my knives - and the 2inch is actually 3in long. Apparently I'm bad at estimates...
Don't exclude the bread knife just to bread.
I'm sure there are others, but one I've heard of before is it is good for slicing pineapple.
Not sure what the short serrated is either, I've seen mention of a short serrated knife as a "fruit knife" so maybe it is that.
The purpose of using a 6" serrated knife on tomatoes isn't because of their tenderness; actually the opposite. It is because the skins are extremely tough, to the point where if you go through a flat of roma's them with a chef's knife, it will have been significantly dulled. (I used to go through several flats a day at a restaurant, and was amazed to see this).
In a sense it is because of the tenderness though, because the amount of force you have to use to break the tough skin with anything less than a razor-sharp chef's knife will cause some squashing of the interior flesh.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.413992
| 2010-08-01T18:29:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3941",
"authors": [
"DMA57361",
"Henrik N",
"JacquelineIO",
"Ocaasi",
"Stuart Woodward",
"Tom Anderson",
"Zer",
"fran",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1181",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7430",
"user7430"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14361
|
Is it safe/sensible to store utensils above the hob?
I have a rack of hooks that sit on the wall that my cooker backs on to, and on this I hang a crowded collection various utensils:
The space is fairly contained, as there are cupboards on either side and the fan/extractor unit directly above. While cooking some pasta earlier they were getting a heavy steaming, which got me thinking... is this storage location safe and/or sensible in terms of hygiene and degradation of the tools? Or any other considerations?
For those without access to the image, or want more info without guessing, the rack holds (in order):
Two metal handle/clip things for the oven's grill tray
Metal/Plastic potato masher
Metal/Plastic spatula
Plastic spatula
Plastic slotted spoon
Plastic spoon
Metal whisk
Wooden spatula
Metal tongs
Metal/Plastic tongs
Metal/Plastic Can opener
That's not a good place from a safety aspect - reaching over the hob will be hazardous during cooking.
The gizmos will get coated with undesirable gunge unless all are in everyday use - a film will be picked up from cooking vapours, which will then trap dust and microorganisms.
It is not a good idea ...
Reaching is less of a problem - I tend to "preselect" my tools before starting - and "undesirable gunge" was my real concern. But is it realistically worth being concerned about? I mean, I've had them (well, there were less to start with) hanging there for almost five years now and it hasn't killed me yet....
This really should be a comment, as it doesn't directly answer the question, but it's kinda long ...
I do the same thing, but I'll admit there are a couple of disadvantages:
When you stir-fry, you will aresolize oils which will end up depositing on the utensils (and pot racks above your stove).
Some things will splatter (eg, a long-simmering tomato sauce), which again means the need to wash the utensils.
As for the degredation issues -- if they can't even handle the temperature of steaming, you probably don't want them in the kitchen at all. I haven't notice any problems with my wooden or wood-handled utensils.
I don't have any better space, as my cabinets are so low that hanging utensils can't really fit anywhere else in the kitchen, and I find hanging so much more convenient than everything in a drawer or a container on the counter that I'm not willing to switch.
Are there safety issues? Maybe if there were a fire on the stove, but so long as it isn't the fire extinguisher being stored there, I don't think it's that big of an issue. (that's not to say that I know for sure there aren't any ... I just don't know of any)
It's very much a lack-of-space issue for me as well. And I was thinking of "safety" more in terms of food safety wrt contamination etc, but I the potential (or not) for them causing or exacerbating a fire (or injury, or anything else) is a valid point for discussion as well. As for degradation, one thought that jumps to mind is if metallic objects maybe being more prone to rust?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.414548
| 2011-04-26T16:45:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14361",
"authors": [
"DMA57361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1181"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33858
|
what makes red tomato sauce turn orange in colour?
I have noticed that tomato sauce (having started with deep red tomatoes) can turn orange.
The colour change isn't from mixing in an ingredient of different colour such as cream. It seems to occur in these observed circumstances:
Blended using a blender or an immersion blender (boat motor). The colour change is noticeable quickly (30 seconds or so)
Cooked tomato sauce for a long time (hours)
The sauce stays nice and red if taken off the heat quickly and not blended.
Some of the ideas are:
Oxidization: the immersion blender doesn't incorporate much air so this is unlikely.
pH change: this usually requires adding of other items such as vinegar.
Breakdown of seeds or something else in the tomatoes releasing something that causes the change in colour. Although I think I've seen seedless tomato sauce also go orange.
This question also seems to have been asked on the serious eats forum without a substantive answer.
Part of it might be the same phenomenon as what happens to egg yolks when you beat them very thoroughly: changing the physical structure of something can change its color, even though you're not really changing it in any chemical sense.
If it's the seeds, you might be able to test it; take some out, and crush (food mill) vs. blend with seeds vs. blend w/out seed (crush, strain seeds (if not already done) and blend)
Just to note: the word "oxidation" is misinterpreted here - air/oxygen isn't required for oxidation to occur.
Update:
It's been a few years but there now is a definite answer to this question.
@PegDat is correct. The Tomatoes Oxidize when they are exposed to air and turn orange.
This was proved using an experiment with vacuum blender blending tomatoes with air and with most of the air pumped out.
When you reduce the air in the blender chamber, the tomatoes remain bright red.
"there now is a definite answer to this question" -- Citation?
@JasonC (op) personally performed this experiment with a blender manufacturer live at CES 2017. You can google for other similar images.
I learned that using an electric blender adds oxygen to the sauce and changes the red to orange (like beating egg yolks lightens them from orange to a pale yellow). If you use a food mill, you don't beat in oxygen, and the tomato sauce stays red.
This often happens when the tomatoes used are not fully mature. Although apparently are completely red, the parties less red lighten the sauce.
Alternatively, depends on the quality of tomatoes. The Native Americans tomatoes were yellow (hence the Italian name "golden apple" = "pomo d'oro" = "pomodoro"). Through the selections have become red. But remaining mixed colors, which are "not red" but "reddish". Or yellow - orange.
In the United States, the orange tomatoes are sold seasonally in the markets of agricultural producers: it is "heirloom tomatoes" or "tomatoes tradition" (heirloom tomatoes), ie those that were cultivated before 1800 and which for centuries delighted the palates of our ancestors.
The study conducted by the chemist Betty J. Burry and biologist Betty K. Ishida has shown that orange tomatoes contain more lycopene (an important antioxidant molecule) of the common red tomatoes.
The difference is due to the chemical form of lycopene in red tomatoes that occurs in the trans form while in the orange tomatoes in tetra-cis form. Research conducted in California and in Ohio (USA) have shown that the form of the tetra-cis lycopene is more efficiently absorbed by the body compared to the trans form.
The research group has also assessed the oxidative damage: lycopene and other antioxidant molecules, in fact, may protect both the cells and the essential fatty acids from oxidation. Using a procedure known as "TBARS assay" the researchers noted that oxidative damage is decreased by consuming tomato sauce and tomato sauce red orange, but the damage reduction was greater in the diet that included the consumption of orange tomatoes. (*)
(*)pomodori arancioni
Data di pubblicazione: 05/07/2012
Autore: Emanuela Fontana
Copyright: www.freshplaza.it
Personally I can say that in the diets of very young children less red tomatoes (fresh, peeled and seeded) are preferred, because they are more digestible and light.
PS A very prolonged cooking of the sauce, on the contrary, gives a very dark and indigestible sauce (tomato paste) which is used more as a seasoning for cooking of regional recipes. Is never used on pasta, as the taste is altered and too strong.
EDIT
Yes it happens very often, and we all start with deep red tomatoes, san marzano and so on. But often the salsa comes oranges. Someone says in this forum that it comes from blending tomatoes after mixing with oil. But I never put so much oil to think that it could depend by oil. And it happens to me too. And the other persons disagree too.
Everyone does buy san marzano tomatoes (or similar), very mature and red. But when you cut them, inside they can be hard and a bit pale, not really red. And flavonoid and lycopene are into any tomato, just in different or more or less visible quantity. (flavonoyd becomes from latin: flavus = yellow or blond / leukos is from greek = white).
To me, since the original DNA is yellow, it could be that some genetic trait has remained, not limited to only one quality but in general the whole botanical species, and sometimes emerges.
The major dietary source of lycopene is represented by the tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) from which it takes its name, and its derivatives, in which represents 60% of the total content in carotenoids. The lycopene content is influenced by the level of maturation of the tomato, has been calculated that in fact red and ripe tomatoes are present 50 mg / kg of lycopene.
But of course, i can wrong.
flavonoidi /
lycopen
some history
"The date of his arrival in Europe in 1540 when the Spaniard Hernán Cortés returned to his homeland and brought the specimens, but its cultivation and propagation waited until the second half of the seventeenth century. Arrives in Italy in 1596 but only later, finding favorable climatic conditions in the south of the country, you have the color change of its color from the original and distinctive gold color, which gave its name to the plant, the current red, thanks to selections and subsequent grafts."
EDIT II @ MandoMando
Yes, I agree. What you say agrees with my experience. I must say that it is false that "many often" happens, it just happens sometimes. Normally remain red.
But I never use electrical equipment, only hand devices, like these:
The first is precisely for the tomato sauce. The second pass any cooked vegetables.
But if you want, you can tray the ancient recipe, that I use only when I have guests and I want to offer some pasta with a fresh made sauce.
You must blanch the tomatoes in boiling water until the skin breaks down (usually 20-30 seconds). Then remove the tomatoes from the water and peel them right away, still intact and hot. This is the method used by our grandmothers who were canned. After removing the skin, you can put the whole tomatoes into the jars and sterilize them. Or you can make a sauce with olive oil, salt and herbs (as I do) or with other ingredients such as carrots, celery or whatever.
I do not think that modern industries for storage of tomato sauce still use this method. But our grandmothers and women in the south had for days hotted hands, to catch tons of hot tomatoes from boiling water.
In any case, more I reflect about it, and more I am convinced that the selection process, during lasted centuries, to obtain the current red color, is perhaps lately put aside for other selective criteria, such as the shape and the small amount of seeds contained, that maybe are privileged because more attractive to customers.
Perhaps we have forgotten the original yellow color (except a few cultured people), which today tends to reappear.
The question says "having started with deep red tomatoes", so I'm not sure all the stuff about actual orange tomatoes applies. Seems like it's really just your first paragraph that addresses the question.
Voiladaprile oh they are San Marzano tomatoes. @Jefromi is right, they start out nice and deep red and if you take them off the heat quick, the sauce stays red. The long cooking is for a couple of hours as done in central Italy. Nice to know the info on lycopene though.
more nice info violadaprile. I've noticed that I can keep the sauce red if I don't blend it for long (5 seconds) and take it off the heat quickly. there must be something more to this.
Try that. I never use the electric device but always a hand one. Maybe it could do some difference. Though, tomatoes become orange (if they have to become) in the pan yet.
@violadaprile they're called 'food mill'. I have one (and it's made in Italy ;) I'll try it since a cookbook I have from Sicily also suggests the mill. We could be onto something now.
Is the suggestion here that the heating and blending are turning the lycopene from one form to another? You never actually said that (I'm just inferring), and this answer has accumulated enough side information that it's really hard to find an actual answer in.
Yes, Jefromi. My principal answer is that is a question of DNA, turned onto yellow, though I am not a geneticist. And we were talking about "how to avoid this problem better" :).
@violadaprile turns out they oxidize and go orange. added an answer.
I think it is mixing the basil with the other ingredients. My sauce stays red, half my family like it chunky, the other half prefer blended. The blended changes to orange color.
We don't use a blender. But what we do is cook the sauce all day with pork neck bones. Always thought this was the reason, but maybe I'm wrong.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.414869
| 2013-04-30T14:40:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33858",
"authors": [
"Alan Camsell",
"Beerly",
"Cascabel",
"Felix",
"Jason C",
"Joe",
"Katie",
"Lady Kay",
"MandoMando",
"Marti",
"Niall",
"Paula Miller",
"Shawn",
"Shelley Ruth",
"Ted Siozopoulos",
"TomD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78680",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78862",
"ujhuyz0110",
"violadaprile"
],
"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
}
|
39410
|
What happens with bread at >= 94˚C/201˚F? Or: Is temperature a reliable indicator of doneness?
So I baked a rye bread last night (in a bread pan). It was a new recipe for me and I had to adjust some things in it due to missing ingredients, so I could not fully rely on the time and temperature recommendations. I therefore baked it until the bread reached the recommended 97˚C/207˚F (which actually took about the same time the recipe said). However, after cooling, I thought it to be too doughy and I would have liked it to be baked for maybe 20 minutes more.
This makes me think that you can't follow temperature as an indicator of doneness. Maybe it works with breads that have a certain moisture content (my dough was probably a bit wetter than it should have been), but not regeardless of the composition of the dough.
Most temperature recommendations tend to range from 94˚C/201˚F–98˚C/208˚F.
My questions then, is:
Is there anything particular that happens at these temperatures?
Are they reliable indicators of doneness?
(Optional question expecting just a simple explanation: What does it mean, technically, that a bread is done/baked? Not taking into account the importance of also forming a good crust.)
While For baking, is there a common “done” temperature across different kinds of breads? is related, it does not ask the question of why a certain temperature is recommended.
What happens to bread when it is done
Yes, there is something particular what happens at a temperature in the mid-90s. Not all details of it are proven, but the major outline is, and the hypotheses about the details are solid enough to make it into textbooks.
Starch is contained in tiny granules, a few micrometers in diameter. When heated in the presence of water, there is a specific temperature at which these granules burst. The molecules of starch come in contact with water and the water molecules get lodged in the nooks and crannies of the much larger starch molecules. This process is called gelating.
You can observe it easily on the macro level. Just cook a bechamel or starch pudding on stovetop, stirring constantly. The liquid will stay rather thin until all will thicken at once, just before you see the first bubbles of boiling. This is when the starch gelates.
The same thing happens in bread too. This is why you want to heat the bread to this temperature. If you don't, you will have raw starch inside, which doesn't taste well.
The exact temperature at which this happens varies a bit with the type of starch. It is not the same for rice and wheat, for example, and I think that it is also a bit different between different wheat cultivars. But the range within this variation occurs is not so wide, all references I have seen move somewhere between 94 and 98 degrees Celsius. So the recipe author just picks a temperature he knows to work for the flour used in the bread, maybe also accounting for some additional heat transfer after taking out of the oven.
Can you use temperature as an indicator for doneness
The theory says yes. My personal experience also says yes. Why did you feel that your bread was too doughy? There are different reasons why this could have happened. You could have measured it wrong (with the probe being too close to the surface, where the temperature is higher). You could have cut it too early. (Bread is always doughy before the first starch retrogradation, which occurs maybe 1 hour after baking). It is also possible that the bread was actually done in the sense of gelled starch, but that the recipe produced a rather moist bread and that you have grown accustomed to dry breads if you normally bake your breads for a very long time, so your brain perceived the unaccustomed texture as "not right". Or it is possible that something went wrong with the leavening, making the bread too dense. Dense bread is always doughy, you cannot bake the moisture out of it.
technical criteria for bread doneness
There are two big chemical changes which happen to bread while baking. The proteins in bread (the gluten) have to harden. Before that, they are soft and pliable. At some temperature, they become rubber-like. The hardened gluten gives the bread structure.
The second change is the starch gelation I explained earlier. When this happens, the liquid part of the dough (dough consists of a liquid phase suspenede in the elastic gluten mesh) thickens. Gelated starch gives bread a fluffy, soft body.
As the starch gelates at much hicher temperatures than proteins denature, bread is taken out of the oven when the starch is done.
The third step is the starch retrogradation. In retrogradation, starch loses the water which it took during gelation. There are three big stages of it, after each the texture changes drastically. The first happens at about an hour after getting out of the oven. This is when the bread is considered done by textbooks. In practice, there are many people (including myself) who like the taste of the moist hot bread just out of the oven, and they consider it done at the previous step. The second happens after about 24 hours; after it, the bread is considered stale. The third step takes several days, and after it, bread is considered inedible, because it becomes hard as wood.
So technically, bread is considered done after it has been baked to gelation temperature and then left alone for 1 hour.
Dough is NOT a liquid, the molecules are not in general free to move around the liquid phase, and it doesn't really flow so much as deform (depending on the dough); it is a complex aggregated substance.. It would be more accurate to say "when the liquid phase within the dough" thickens...
@SAJ14SAJ thank you for pointing it out, that was too much of an oversimplification. I edited it.
Ah, a great answer, @rumtscho. I'm guessing then that my bread is in fact done, in the technical sense, but that I had too much water in the dough for my taste. Then I know not to bake it for a longer time next time, but to decrease the amount of water. And for my other breads which maybe I'd like to be a bit more moist, to add more water and follow temperature rather than time. Interesting!
@rumtscho: About the first stage of starch retrogradation, is it driven more by the temperature drop (when the bread is cooling, which can take ~1 hour), or by time? (I know bread becomes stale very quickly if you put in your fridge.)
@citizen good follow up question, but if I ever knew the answer, I don't remember it completely. It is not just time, but I don't know what part other factors play a role (air moisture and bread type are obvious candidates). Maybe you should post it as a separate question, and hopefully somebody will be able to answer it.
Part of the "doughy" feeling of this bread could have been due to the rye flour. Rye flour has a lot of gums called pentosans. These can absorb up to five times their weight in water, but can also take a long cooling period to seem "done" (releasing this water back to the other starches? I don't know.) It's pretty common to let breads with a lot of rye flour rest up to 24 hours before cutting.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.415734
| 2013-11-13T07:15:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39410",
"authors": [
"Abhishek Kadam",
"Jill B",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Samoht",
"SourDoh",
"Susan Lopez",
"Weldflow Metal Products",
"citizen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91470",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91472",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91481",
"rumtscho",
"user36421"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
39876
|
How does hydration of a sourdough affect baking features?
Looking at different recipes for sourdough starters, there's everything from a mix as dry as cookie dough to as wet as gruel. In this (danish) recipe from the acclaimed chef Claus Meyer of a pretty wet sourdough (1:1 water-flour-ratio by volume), it says that:
This type of sourdough is mostly used to give a nice and mild sour
taste, to give the bread character, and not as much for its leavening
features. Therefore, in most of our bread recipes we use a combination
of sourdough and a very small amount of yeast.
This got me thinking, does the hydration of a sourdough affect its baking features? If so, in what ways?
Note: This answer goes in a bit more detail than necessary to answer the question. If you truly only care about the hydration, please only read "Water/flour ratio" and "Flavor of the bread". I have added the other information as well since the effects are similar to that of a change in hydration.
I've frequently baked (about once to twice a week) with sourdough for 4 years now. I'm not a professional. The only thing I can take a bit of pride in is that a professional baker who tested a loaf of my sourdough bread told me that it's "fantastic, considering the little possibilities available to control the conditions the sourdough and loaf are exposed to at home". So while far from perfect, I'd consider my sourdough breads and knowledge pretty good.
Most of what I'm writing now was first read on the internet somewhere and confirmed through testing it with my own sourdough culture (I'm still using the same one I started out with).
Apart from the flour you use, there are several factors that affect the taste of the resulting bread:
Temperature
This has, in my experience, the biggest impact on the taste. The following rules apply:
Anything over 40°C is deadly to the microbes in your sourdough.
Lower temperature: More acetic acid, less lactic acid, yeasts develop more slowly.
Higher temperature: More lactic acid, less acetic acid, yeasts develop more quickly.
Lactic acid bacteria prefer temperatures at around 30-35°C
Yeasts like temperatures around 25°C best
Note: Your sourdough can be 1-2°C warmer than the environment due to microbial activity. That can be important to keep in mind.
Water/flour ratio
Most of the time, people use a ratio of 1:1 water/flour for the sourdough and that will give you good results, but you can play around with that ratio to change the taste to your liking:
Lower water content causes more acetic acid production and less developed yeasts
Higher water content will make it easier for the yeasts to grow and increase the lactic acid content
I've found that having more than 1.5 times the amount of water compared to the flour will hardly have any effect on the dough anymore and I'd recommend stirring the dough every couple of hours with that much water.
On single staged sourdough, using less than 0.75 times the water compared to the flour is also not a good idea and you will probably be required to add yeast in the bread dough.
Salt and oil
Adding these, especially salt, to the sourdough already will have a considerable impact on the sourdough taste. A sourdough made with salt in it will taste quite different from one without it. I'm not quite sure about why this is, but it may have something to do with the yeasts growing more slowly (more information below).
Both salt and oil will slow down the growth of the yeasts, but don't have much of an effect on the lactic acid bacteria.
Adding oil mainly affects the mechanical properties of the dough (it will be softer and more ductile). It also helps with the structure of the bread (the air bubbles in the bread will be smaller and more uniformly distributed), especially in the presence of an emulsifyer (lard is both fat and an emulsifyer, so it works well in this regard). For this reason, it doesn't make much sense to add it to the sourdough already.
Of course, if the fat isn't tasteless, it will also add to the taste of the bread (I love using natural olive oil in my wheat breads).
Flavor of the bread
Sourdough actually has some pretty complicated chemistry that I know little about. However, here are some effects that I do know:
Lactic acid will give your bread a mild, sour taste. This works very well for wheat breads.
Acetic acid gives you a stronger, more sour taste (very noticable while eating). This works great for rye breads
The amount of yeast in your sourdough also has a big impact on the smell and taste of the bread. Yeast is beneficial to the bread not only for it's leavening properties. Apart from CO2, it also produces ethanol, which will esterify the lactic acid to ethyl lactate over time, which in turn has a strong flavor.
Okay I think that's it. I hope this helps you.
Lactic acid bacteria reproduce more rapidly in a wet culture and acetic acid bacteria produce more rapidly in a dry culture, so the hydration will change the flavor of your bread by controlling which organisms it is most favorable to. Beyond that, wet starters usually rise faster and dry starters rise slower, so people often use dryer cultures if they know they won't be able to attend to it as often.
There are other attributes that are frequently attributed to the hydration of the starter (open crumb, etc), but they are actually from the hydration of the final dough. You can still achieve these by making sure that the total hydration of your dough is in the range you want for that feature.
Sourdough Tips (covers more than hydration)
King Arthur tips (more temperature related)
Thank you for your answer. I'd love it if you could add any reference though. Does this mean that lactic acid bacteria is better at producing carbon dioxide than acetic acid bacteria?
@citizen Wetter doughs of all types tend to rise faster. I'd assume some if it has to do with the enzymatic reactions in the flour: more water means that the flour's own enzymes can break more starch down into sugars. I'll add some links to my answer in a minute. I do this for a living, so I'm better at coming up with info than finding sources for it :)
If you're a professional baker, I will consider you a source too. :)
I don't have enough reputation to comment on Anpan's excellent answer so I have to make it into an answer.
I agree with everything Anpan said except the part about salt. It is commonly acknowledged that salt does three things to a dough. 1) It adds flavour (not just saltiness but also by affecting the sodium channel of the receptors in your tongue). 2) It strengthens the gluten network. 3) Salt also retard the action of the yeast.
But it appears that the retardation of the yeast may in fact not be true at the two percent (by weight) level, according to The Bread Bakers Guild of America:
Most scientists believe that at 2% of the flour weight or less, salt alone does
not significantly alter either the yeast’s gassing power or the bacteria’s acid
production. A study measuring the gas production in a fermenting dough has shown
that gas production is retarded by only about 9% in a dough containing 1.5% salt
(based on the flour weight).
https://www.cargill.com/salt-in-perspective/salt-in-bread-dough
Greg Blonder, a Professor of Design and Product Engineering at Boston University, carried out experiments to see how salt affect yeast, with some nice pictures to show the results:
https://genuineideas.com/ArticlesIndex/saltyeast.html
Summary of the experiments: 1) salt at 3% by weight does not kill yeast and does not change the effectiveness of co2 production by the yeast. 2) Salt does strength the gluten so the dough will rise less (which is probably why many believe that salt retards yeast). 3) Dissolving salt in water prior to mixing helps strength the gluten more than a later dry mix (again, probably why some people though that early mixing damaged/killed/retarded the yeast)
I assume the experiments were carried out using commercial dry yeast, so the result may or may not apply to wild yeast in sourdough starters.
A few things to consider here: If you add the salt into your sourdough already, the concentration may be much higher because there are mild sourdough breads where you only ferment about 30% of the flour. Second: yes, it does strengthen the gluten network, but you'd want that to happen to all of the dough equally. To that end, some people including myself give the dough half an hour to an hour time after mixing everything together (including the salt) before actually kneading it.
Thanks Anpan, that makes sense. So I guess it is best to only add the salt to the dough during the final mixing rather than the starter/pre-ferment stage, right?
That's what I'm getting the best results with, at least. Either way, you'll get fairly decent breads though. It's not like you will make it a terrible bread if you do it differently.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.416342
| 2013-11-29T15:59:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39876",
"authors": [
"Anpan",
"SourDoh",
"citizen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83985",
"tst"
],
"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
}
|
77956
|
Can I / should I keep spices & dried herbs in the fridge?
Common wisdom regarding spice storage (whether whole or ground) seems to tend towards cool, dark, dry places. However, I'm somewhat limited on kitchen cupboard space, and obviously the various spice rack options available don't do a great job on the "dark" front, and in my kitchen not on the "cool" front either.
Is it OK (both taste-wise and food safety-wise) for me to keep my spices in the fridge? I typically keep them either in the small glass jar I buy them in, or (when bought in a packet) in resealable tupperware-style containers, all in one of the crisper drawers (mainly because I don't typically fill both).
Whatever the answer, does it apply to dried herbs also?
To clarify: my kitchen doesn't get any natural light (sadly).
Most fresh herbs do quite well in the fridge, so long as they're prepared appropriately.
I would not put dried herbs and spices into the fridge, especially if they're in a hard-sided container. (unless maybe if you were in a really arid area)
There problem is that if you're in a warm, humid environment, you'll be trapping a little bit of moist air in there each time you use some ... which will condense in the fridge, which could result in rot for the herbs ... and I'm not sure what for the spices.
If you really wanted to pack them in the fridge, I would put them in a bag (vacuum bagged, if you can), and leave them there, with another container outside the fridge with enough for a month or two. In this way there's less moisture trapped in there, and you're not opening it frequently.
Generally it is best practice to store herbs in a cool, dry place. Fresh herbs can be stored in the fridge for a short time, however they will normally begin to wilt over the course of 3-4 days. Dry herbs, if kept in the fridge, may begin to lose some flavour after an extended period of time, and, if not sealed properly, may begin to take on flavours of other things kept in the fridge, and vice versa. Light is normally not a large factor in the storage of dried herbs, however some of the compounds which produce the flavours in spices can be broken down by strong light over extended periods of time. I would recommend you purchase a spice rack to store your dried spices and keep it out of direct sunlight for best results. The light produced by standard light bulbs is usually not strong enough to break down the compounds in spices unless left for an extended period of time. Sunlight is your main worry here, and again a short time in direct sunlight will not harm your herbs and spices. Fresh herbs I would recommend storing in the crisper drawer of your refrigerator and using within a few days.
You can get way more than 3-4 days out of herbs in the fridge : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/139/67 ;
I did not say they would be bad after 3-4 days, simply that that is when they will normally begin to wilt. Wilted herbs can still be used, they will simply have a different texture and slightly different flavour.
They might lose some of their flavor (which is a good thing for cilantro), but most herbs can last for a couple of weeks if wrapped in a paper towel then a loose plastic bag. Try it, you'll be surprised at how well it works.
I have not tried that method before, I do not use fresh herbs often due to lack of availability, but next time I have the chance I will try this.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.417168
| 2017-01-31T18:29:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77956",
"authors": [
"Cameron",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53976",
"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
}
|
112716
|
Why did my oatmeal and raisin cookies end up tasting soapy?
I've made oatmeal cookies twice, and both times they have ended up tasting "soapy" and a touch bitter - the first time really strongly, the second less so, but still badly enough that I have to throw them away.
The details of the first attempt are lost to time, but the second time I used this recipe. I think I followed it pretty accurately.
The only theories I have right now are:
The bicarbonate of soda has a naturally soapy flavour (does it?), and I didn't fully finish cooking the cookies (I like them quite chewy - they definitely had a tan on top but probably could have had at least another 2-3 minutes in the oven before burning I suspect). But I baked them for around 15 minutes, more than the recipe anyway.
The oats were a little old (the packet was probably about two months old), and maybe they'd gone bad? But they looked fine, and when I cooked some not that long ago for breakfast, they seemed fine.
Do either of these seem plausible, or is there another possible explanation?
I don't see anything acidic enough to react with the baking soda and neutralise it. That's often the culprit in a soapy flavour. Flour and egg are very slightly acidic but I don't think it's enough, especially if the eggs are old. Brown sugar is more acidic than white. I would assume golden caster is somewhere in between, but if you used ordinary caster (I would, I don't keep in golden caster nor is it in my closest supermarket) that would lose some acidity. Brown sugar is common in similar recipes.
Any residual alkalinity from the baking soda may be more noticeable if you omit the salt that isn't listed on the ingredients, only in the method.
Replacing the baking soda with baking powder would be an option here, but only because so little is used.
But looking at the comments, many people found them oily (though I have no way of checking whether they tasted them too soon). Perhaps look for a different recipe, though I tend to find the BBC recipes generally OK, and they've actually been tested in grams unlike some rather suspect conversions.
Huh, funny you say that. I said I followed the recipe, but I now realise I did use regular caster sugar (as you say, I didn’t have any golden caster, but didn’t realise it would affect the PH). So I wonder if that was it. Might just reduce the amount of baking soda or look for a recipe with a different balance.
Golden caster isn't really that much different than regular caster sugar, don't rely on it to add much acidity.
@GdD I couldn't find a value. I'd assume it's closer to white than brown, but if the acid is marginal anyway, it's not going to help
It'd much closer to white than brown. I prefer it to white because it give a little bit of complexity, but it's not a huge effect.
@GdD I've used it before but would tend to substitute 2/3 white and 1/3 demerara or light soft brown depending on what I was making, rather than buying some specially. For cookies like these, I'd want the brown sugar flavour
Soap is effectively a base (eg baking soda) reacted with a fat (eg oil). Also, heating baking soda can cause it to convert into sodium carbonate, which is a much stronger base.
I would suspect you're on the mark with suspecting the baking soda. The recipe calls for only a quarter of a teaspoon, so it would be very easy too add too much.
Thanks, that helps. I might try remaking with less baking soda.
I feel the soapy taste just by mixing the oats with boiling water, any idea what could cause it? (Maybe it might have start to go bad, but I'd thought it goes acid when it goes bad)
The chemistry of the soapy taste for oats has been described in several studies.
The oat grain consists of the groat (caryopsis) and the surrounding
hull (husk). Only the groat is required for milled products while the
indigestible hull must be separated and removed in a de-hulling
(shelling) stage. The groat has a lipid content which is 2-5 times
that of wheat. It also has an active lipase that is separated from the
lipid in the intact seed, which can lead to hydrolysis resulting in a
‘soapy’ taste in final products. This means that the lipase needs
inactivation by a process called stabilisation to avoid these
undesirable effects in processed products. This is usually achieved by
kilning or cooking.
So the soapy taste suggests a default of processing. But could it also be caused or be aggravated after the processing: during the transport, storage or sell if the hygrometry is not tightly controlled. If it's the case, (if the soapy taste indicates that the oats have (also) taken moisture), it should alert us to the possible development of aflatoxins produced by some common molds. "Aflatoxins are among the most carcinogenic substances known".
source:
The quote above comes from:
Keith Scudamore, Harry Baillie, Sue Patel, Simon G Edwards. The occurrence and fate of fusarium
mycotoxins during the commercial processing of oats in the UK. Food Additives and Contaminants,
2007, 24 (12), pp.1374-1385. ff10.1080/02652030701509972ff. ffhal-00577366
The process in detail:
Welch, R. W. (2012). The Oat Crop: Production and Utilization. Springer Science & Business Media.
Here are some possible sources of soapy flavor in your oatmeal cookies.
Issue: Dish detergent residue on your mixing bowl, utensils, or baking sheet.
If the detergent residue was only on the baking sheet, the soapy flavor would be just on the bottom of the cookies. You can test for that by taste-testing only the top of a cookie.
The simple way to test for soap residue on a dish is to lick it. If the dish has enough soap residue to impart flavor to cookie dough, you will definitely notice the taste by licking the dish.
Solution: If that turns out to be the problem, you have some trouble-shooting to do. The problem can be your dishwasher, or your brand of dish detergent, or that you use too much dish detergent, etc. Try adding a "rinse agent" or putting some vinegar in the "rinse agent" compartment of your dishwasher. If the dishes are hand-washed, perhaps you don't rinse enough. Try rinsing in hot water. Try adding a splash of vinegar to the rinse water (soap and detergent are slightly alkaline, and if your tap water is also alkaline the soap may not rinse off completely; adding vinegar will acidify the water and help rinse the remaining soap).
Issue: The baking soda (bicarbonate of soda) has absorbed odors from the cabinet.
Baking soda is very good at absorbing odors, in fact leaving an open container of baking soda in a smelly cabinet or fridge is a good way of deodorizing it. It's a good idea to buy new baking soda every so often, and also to make sure not to store it in a smelly place.
Solution: Buy some new baking soda. If you haven't had that container of baking soda for very long, it may have sat for along time at the store or in a warehouse. Try a different brand, or purchasing it from a different store.
Issue: One of the other ingredients is the source of the soap taste.
One by one, taste your other ingredients. If you don't find the culprit by a simple taste test, try baking or cooking an item with just that single ingredient, for example:
To test the flour, make a simple thin (runny) pancake batter with just flour and water or milk. Cook it in a frying pan using butter to grease the pan.
To test the oil, use it to grease the pan for the flour test. Or use it to sauté some mushrooms.
To test the oats, cook them as oatmeal. (You say you did this "some time ago," but it's worth trying it again.)
To test the cinnamon, sprinkle some on your oatmeal. (Be sure to taste-test the oatmeal alone before adding cinnamon.)
To test the sugar, use it to sweeten some tea (not a strong-flavored tea). If you're not sure from this test, use hot water instead of tea.
To test the raisins, just eat a few. Or soak a few raisins in hot water to plump them up, then eat them.
Solution: Once you find the "soapy" ingredient, buy a replacement item. If the soapy ingredient is old, it probably picked up the flavor by sitting around in your cupboard. Prevent the issue in the future by storing dry foods in air-tight containers. If the ingredient is not old, perhaps you got a bad batch, or perhaps it's a problem with that brand. Try a different brand.
If you find every brand of the problem ingredient has this flavor, the issue may be peculiar to you and your taste buds. Try substituting a similar ingredient. Instead of a generic "vegetable oil" blend try single-ingredient vegetable oils, eg canola oil, corn oil, olive oil (not extra-virgin) etc. Instead of golden caster sugar, try white sugar plus a splash of molasses. Instead of raisins, try golden raisins, dates, dried cranberries, etc.
Good comments. I doubt it’s the equipment; I’ve not noticed this with any other recipes. My partner tasted them and had the same comments, so not my taste buds. As some of the other posters said, seems like the baking soda is likely the root cause.
I am betting on the oil
I bet the oil you used is not used often and the bottle is old. Rancid oxidized oil gets those bitter soapy flavors. I pick the oil over the baking soda because there is hardly any baking soda in these cookies! But a fair bit of oil.
I am curious what the vegetable oil you used is and when you opened the container.
Get some new oil. Sunflower is very nice for oatmeal cookies. Then only use a tablespoon or two and for the rest use butter. Butter is even nicer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.417484
| 2020-11-18T20:31:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112716",
"authors": [
"Andrew Ferrier",
"Chris H",
"GdD",
"JinSnow",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31431"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112202
|
Is it safe to use lye-based oven cleaner on a stainless steel pan?
I'm currently in the middle of seasoning some new pans that I received from made in. I accidently messed up one of my pans by not wiping off the excess seasoning wax and now the pan has dots all over it.
In the past I have used the 24 hour soak in oven cleaner method for my wok. I'm curious since I'm using stainless would the oven cleaner (Easy Off, a brand whose active ingredient is lye) be safe to use to help remove the messed up patina? My pan is stainless clad and manufactured by made in.
Welcome to SA! What do you mean by "seasoning wax"? Wax is not normally used for seasoning pans. Also, stainless steel pans are not normally seasoned.
Firstly, there should be no need to season a stainless clad pan. Stainless pans are generally kept pristine, with any oil residue scrubbed off after use. Seasoning is done on cast iron and carbon steel (which is black and looks like thin cast iron). I'm not aware of any guidance that suggests seasoning stainless steel in the same way cast iron is.
Oven cleaner is essentially just lye, mixed into a form factor to make it a spray on foamy cleaner. Lye is a strong base (the opposite of a strong acid), and can be similarly caustic and harsh on surfaces. This article outlines the damage that can be caused by it on certain stainless steel surfaces. It also contains guidance directly from the manufacturer of the Easy-Off brand that it's designed to be safe for stainless steel inside the oven (such as the oven racks), and not for other stainless steel surfaces.
Serious Eats has a recommendation to use oven cleaner as a last resort after using other cleaners and scrubbing for the bottom & exterior of a stainless pan. I would not use oven cleaner on the interior cooking surface of a stainless steel pan.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.418258
| 2020-10-19T19:29:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112202",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112896
|
Recipe word for "not trimmed"
I'm trying to write up a recipe by weight and include both the "cleaned" weight and the "uncleaned" weight. I can't find a good word for "uncleaned" and I'm hoping someone here knows one. "Raw" means "not cooked". "not cored or skinned" is awkward.
For example:
60 g celery, trimmed (start with 1 stalk, uncleaned)
70 g onion, skinned (start with 1/4 onion, uncleaned)
50 g granny smith apple, skinned and cored (start with 1/2 apple, uncleaned)
Is there such a word?
Why would it be necessary? 60g celery assumes cleaned, prepared celery. More important in your recipe is how the celery is to be treated. For example, is it diced? 60g diced celery assumes cleaned, diced celery...ready to cook with.
I'm trying to make it easier for someone who doesn't cook very often to shop for the recipe.
I think it's clear enough just to say "start with xxx" Eg, "start with 1/4 onion" conveys that they should have 1/4 of an onion, or they can make 4 batches with 1 onion.
I've seen this most often with "(apx 1 stalk)" or "(apx ¼ large onion)" ... If I'm "starting" I'll always be starting with a whole onion?
@AMtwo: and "large onion" is important, as they come in so many sizes. Bagged onions in the grocery store are much smaller than those sold loose, even for the same variety. But it's even more useful to give a size reference (inches, cm, or comparison to some other object of a fixed size (eg, 'tennis ball sized', but that assumes you've seen a tennis ball))
Sorry but that's a really confusing recipe. How many grams are lost during the cleaning process? I need to know so that I can find an onion that weighs 4x70g + weight of trimmings so that I can end up with 70g from an uncleaned 1/4 onion.
You don't need the "uncleaned" word there at all.
All of the qualitative amounts are just approximates, so "(about 1/4 onion)" works fine.
Agreed - and if they do want to provide some kind of hint, length (about X cm) is much more useful when shopping than weight. It's not like they're going to pull a stalk off a bunch and weigh it in the store.
Yah, and honestly, given the price of celery, just buy two stalks and compost what you don't need.
who buys celery in stalks?
@FuzzyChef : you know you can eat the part that you don't use in the recipe, right? Sure, compost the trimmed bit near the root and maybe dried out tips, but don't waste the rest. If you have some aversion to just snacking on raw celery, you can keep a bag in your freezer (if you have a freezer) of scraps to throw in when you next make stock. You can also extend the length of celery in the fridge by trimming the root end, then placing it in a container of water and placing it in the fridge. (change the water every couple of days; you might need to trim for height)
moscafj: here on the US Left Coast, many groceries (but definitely not all) sell loose celery stalks for like $0.25 each. If you need to buy a whole bunch, then it really doesn't matter who much one stalk weighs, does it?
@moscafj A stalk of celery can mean several things. In America it refers to a rib of celery, officially it refers to a bunch of celery
Bob: you're botanically correct, but that hasn't been common cooking usage anywhere for decades. https://www.dadcooksdinner.com/a-stalk-of-celery-vs-a-rib-of-celery/
If you really want to do this, "untrimmed" is sufficient. For example:
60 g celery (approx 80 g untrimmed)
would tell someone how much to use and how much to buy. "As bought" wouldn't work - I bought ready-trimmed leeks the other day, because the untrimmed ones, while much cheaper, came in a huge pack.
Honestly though, just being clear that your recipe refers to the prepared weight is often enough - many of us would assume so but if you're writing for novices, "60 g washed and trimmed celery, finely chopped" would be helpful.
It's confusing.
What does the 60 grams of celery has to do with 1 stalk.
Don't mix and match units, weights (grams) , volumes (1 cup) , sizes (1 large apple) in describing your recipe.
Use one unit for all of your ingredients, even liquid (100 grams water is 100 grams)
Although yes, it's strange to mix units, most people can't judge weight to any accuracy when shopping. They are much more likely to be able to estimate counts or length. So, "X grams of diced onion. (appox Y cm onion or half a Z cm onion)" is useful. (more so than "a small onion" when I have no idea what you consider to be "small")
To generalize what Joe said: the most helpful units are the ones the cook can use. For some people, in some locales, that may well be grams for everything. But in many cases, approximations ("1 onion") or volumes ("1 quart of broth") or lengths ("1 inch of ginger") will be easier for people. Your advice will work for some people, but it's definitely not a universal best practice, especially in the context of giving a recipe to a specific person who doesn't cook often.
I personally appreciate (in particular, for baking) recipes that use both grams for precision and volume for when I did not yet have a kitchen scale or if I will make it while visiting a relative, etc.
@Joe When shopping, in my experience it is difficult to find something that does not come with a label telling its weight.
@FedericoPoloni : we're not shopping at the same places then. Yes, bagged onions have weights on them, but not loose onions. Yes, you have to weight them when you buy them, but it'd take forever to shop if you're running back and forth to the scales with every onion to check its weight. (especially these days, if you're not shopping at a quiet time, and you're waiting for someone to move away from the scale so you can maintain your social distancing)
For me it would seem awkward to have grams for liquids, especially since for almost all kitchen fluids, even oils, you can safely assume that 1g is about 1ml within 10% accuracy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.418475
| 2020-11-29T23:30:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112896",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"Cascabel",
"Federico Poloni",
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"LoftyGoals",
"MonkeyZeus",
"Pelle",
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89536",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89908",
"moscafj",
"skippy",
"user662852"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124956
|
Why are brand new out of the box cast iron skillets black?
Iron is a grey metal. I read that when you cook it turns black from a reaction to the food. But this has never been used.
I tagged utensils but technically this is not a utensil or is it.
Actually the "equipment" tag might be better (which I added and is awaiting approval). I don't know the answer as to why, but every single one of the cast iron skillets I have seen are indeed black
Unseasoned cast iron is gray, until it rusts. But it’s common for manufacturers to factory-season cast iron, which makes it black. The black color comes from carbonised oil.
@Sneftel...Well that is very interesting and I never would have guessed. Thank you. I accepted the answer for sure.
Note that manufacturers specifically season their cast iron black by adding carbon, because that's what people are used to from antique cast iron.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.419065
| 2023-08-12T19:29:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124956",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Sedumjoy",
"Steve Chambers",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84278"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116206
|
Cooking a Lean Cuisine frozen pizza in a toaster oven or regular oven instead of microwave
I know it says in the directions to use microwave only. But I am more curious than anything else. Is it a food safety issue perhaps? I generally put olive oil around the crust of any frozen pizza to keep from burning and make it crisp.
I can try it no problem but maybe someone already has and know what will happen before I destroy three bucks.
Most frozen pizzas are supposed to be baked in a regular oven. You bought one which was specifically engineered to be microwaveable. I am curious - if you wanted to use a normal oven, why didn't you buy a standard frozen pizza meant for it?
I do ...my go to is Amy's organic margarita. I slap olive oil on the crust and is arguably at least for me the best purchased pizza. It has no phosphate and all frozen pizza's do with this exception. But I recall using Nestles Lean Cuisine from back in the day and recall never having tried it baked with a little olive oil on it so I thought I would try. The directions specifically say "microwave only" and Nestle sticks to this because I called them and asked. I just wondered why and t thought someone might have tried it.
First google hit I found said you can cook it either/or microwave or conventional oven.
I doubt a toaster oven is going to be much different, though you might have to watch out for it burning round the edges before the middle is completely done.
...Sorry about that last time I had one it said microwave only on the package maybe it changed?? I guess Nestle played the old musical directions on me and switched them. Those rascals
tbh, with pre-made pizzas with 'scone' base, as opposed to 'real' bread dough, all you're doing is heating it til the dough is cooked & the cheese melts. There's rarely anything even in the topping that would be hugely unsafe if slightly under-done. There's not going to be anything like raw meat in the topping.
Maybe something quirky about Lean Cuisine pizza?
I doubt it… ;))
I will give it a try. I will destroy a pizza in the interest of food science and let you know if it works. I am treading where no pizza maker has gone before. It will be a few days though I have to get a fresh sample.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.419183
| 2021-06-24T16:32:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116206",
"authors": [
"Sedumjoy",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84278",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
108656
|
My buns/bread don't brown from top?
I have tried making buns and pizza muffins using all purpose flour (bleached/unbleached/bread flour are not available in my country)multiple times at 180-200C in the middle rack of my oven. They never brown from top. I have tried applying butter on top and even doing a milk wash.please suggest what to do?
Welcome to the site! What is a pizza muffin? It would help if we had the recipes, it's hard to say what's happening without knowing the ingredients and method.
plus there's the variable played by your own oven, that only you can know :) Are you sure your upper resistance is OK? Did you actually check the temperature with a thermometer or just turned the knob on 180-200?
I had just turned the knob ..I don't have oven thermometer
You can check recipe for pizza muffin on biggerbolderbaking.com
@KritiGupta : What they have labeled as "pizza cupcakes"? https://www.biggerbolderbaking.com/pizza-cupcakes/ (and honestly, muffin makes more sense than "cupcake" to me for what it is)
Egg wash is an answer.
Source: http://www.dutchovendave.com/breadbasics.html
[For a shiny crust, brush the top of the bread with an equal solution of whole egg, water and milk. If desired, sprinkle with poppy, caraway or sesame seed or rolled oats.
For a softer, deep golden brown crust, brush with softened butter or margarine.
For a crisp crust, brush or spray lightly with water.
For a soft, tender crust, brush with milk.
After glazing (brushing with one of these ingredients), slash the top of the loaf with a sharp serrated knife, cutting about 1/4 inch deep, once down the center of the loaf or across the loaf a few times.]
There are two ways in which bread gets browned:
Maillard reaction between amino acids and reducing sugars,
Caramelization of sugars.
Both are forms of non-enzymatic browning.
Maillard reaction. You can promote the Maillard reaction by using stronger flour (more proteins, so more amino acids). Disaccharides such as table sugar (sucrose) are not reducing, but are broken down into reducing sugars (glucose and fructose) by the action of yeast. So you need to make sure that your yeast is active and give it plenty of time to work.
A milk wash or, better still, an egg wash (only the white is needed) will add proteins directly to the surface of the bread.
Caramelization. Just add sugar. I find even a teaspoon of table sugar gives a noticeably browner crust in my bread. (But, thinking about it again, this could be because it gives the yeast something to turn into reducing sugars.)
Generally. A higher temperature or longer baking will also help.
Kindly bake with both rods on and egg/milk wash. If possible slightly increase the temperature.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.419411
| 2020-05-27T16:07:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108656",
"authors": [
"David P",
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Kriti Gupta",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84695"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113211
|
How can I reconstruct my Grandmother's recipe from just ingredients?
My grandmother would always create her famous Sticky Buns every year around christmas time. Since she has passed, I would like to carry on the tradition. However, all she left behind was a list of ingredients. She had the process tucked away in her head. The ingredients are:
Dough:
2 teaspoons dry yeast
1 1/4 cup warm water
3 tablespoons butter/margarine, softened
3 tablespoons sugar
2 tablespoons instant non-fat dry milk
1 teaspoon salt
3 - 3 1/4 cups bread flour (or all-purpose flour)
Filling:
1/3 cup butter or margarine, softened
1 tablespoon sugar
1 teaspoon cinnamon
Sauce:
1/2 cup brown sugar
1/4 cup butter or margerine
1/4 cup corn syrup
1/2 cup chopped pecans
I have a bit of baking experience, and have found some similar recipes online, but not the exact same ingredients.
My grandfather knows a bit of the process, but not completely. He said:
"I'm assuming you make it just like any other rolls (1). Because it has yeast in it, you have to let it rise. Flatten it out with a rolling pin and then put it on a cookie sheet, cover with a towel. Then let it rise for maybe 30 minutes, it should double in size. Roll it out with a rolling pin and spread the filling on it; roll it up into a pipe like tube; slice it into the thickness you want (2); place the rolls in 9-inch pans all together (no space between)(3). Spread sauce on top (4). Bake at 350 F for 20-25 min - good luck!"
Before I go and waste a ton of ingredients trying to figure it out, is there a way I can find out what best process might fit for this?
What process should I use for the dough?
What thickness would be preferable for the rolls to bake properly without being raw in the middle in that time?
Do I really need to leave the rolls stuck together while baking, or should I keep them apart and let them expand into each other?
It seems like the sauce shouldn't go on top before baking, that would make them soggy, no?
By the by, did you ever figure this out?
I think that actually you already have all the information you need. Let's go through the questions you mention:
You can use whichever process you prefer. Any of the usual methods for making yeast dough will give you the same result here.
This is the wrong question to ask. Deciding on the baking time first and choosing the thickness second is very difficult and serves no purpose. Just use the thickness you prefer and then bake until done, no matter how long it takes. Obviously, don't go with anything crazy the first time, use a thickness that is somewhere within the typical roll range, accounting for rising.
Yes, this kind of buns is generally arranged with sides touching before rising.
I think that it is intentional to use the sauce before baking, but you can try both ways and see which you like more. Both will produce edible rolls, and if you distrust your grandfather's memory, there is only one way to discover which one was your grandmother's preferred method - a side-by-side test.
So good luck, and go enjoy some nice rolls.
Thank you! As far as number 2 goes, what would be a good method to tell when it's done without tearing into it? Is there an internal temperature I should be looking for? Any signs like proper browning (which could be difficult when the sauce is put on top first)?
@thelittlepeace yes, 96C is an internal temperature for basically any wheat bread. Other signs are indeed difficult with the sauce - like the sound when you tap them. Browning is independent of what happens in the middle.
You can also do a toothpick test, but it will be a bit difficult to judge with the rich dough and the layer of syrup. With time, you'll just learn recognizing the time it takes in your oven with your preferred tin and preferred slicing thickness.
And for thickness, I would also consider the size of the pan - cut it so that it nicely fills the pan and let that be the guide for the thickness of the slices. So if your roll diameter means you will fit A x B rolls, cut (A x B) equal slices.
One possibility regarding 4. - you could pour the sauce first before placing the rolls in the pan. Bake, then loosen the edges, place a large sheet pan on top, and quickly flip the whole thing over, then scrape sauce out if necessary. That's what my mom does, but you wouldn't know unless you watched her do it. Baking the sauce turns it into a proper caramel.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.419657
| 2020-12-18T14:03:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113211",
"authors": [
"Sean Duggan",
"Stephie",
"TheLittlePeace",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65978",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85867",
"kitukwfyer",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
47720
|
Crispy pork belly, how can I cook the inside more?
I recently discovered that there is an Asian market in my neighborhood. I was thrilled to discover it. I ended up purchasing a bit of pork belly cooked on-site and highly recommended by the owner. She said (rightfully) that her pork belly was crisper than any pork belly I'd ever seen. The crusty outside is very, very nice. Unfortunately, the inside still has that unrendered, solid quality.
I've tried slicing it through the center and frying it (cut side down) over a low flame. That left the beautiful crust overcooked. I could slice away the crust, I suppose, but I'd rather not dissect it that much. Any other ideas?
Have you tried baking it?
This stuff? :D
@ChingChong Yep! Hers looks very much like this
@jsanc623 I have not tried baking it, just because the crust is already so well done. If I end up dissecting it (slicing off the crust), then baking (roasting) would probably be the way to go.
Yum, tasty pork but these are just concentrated calories :(
I have to admit that I slice off the crust, too - but for other reasons (trim the loads of fat). I still can't visualize how the inside of your piece looks like :o
@ChingChong The inner part just looks almost raw. You know, one nice thing about slicing off the crusts, is that I could marinate the inner layer with rich Asian flavors. Then slow cook that, and serve it all together. Maybe with pancakes and hoisin! :)
Asians like food more chewy, tough. ;) If you would like to have your pork more tender, you probably won't be able to avoid dissecting it. About the rawness: I never had an almost raw piece.
I'd suggest using this method for carnitas as seen on Serious Eats. Essentially you place the pork in a snug fitting dish, not-quite-cover it in oil, cover it with foil and bake it low and slow. The foil should protect the crust from burning, but it might make it a little soggy, in which case you could take the foil off towards the end of cooking to crisp it up again.
It might be sacrilege, but how about microwaving briefly? The crust won't burn anymore, but the heat will help render the fat. Worth a shot. But probably not the best flavor.
I'd probably experiment with pan frying some slices at different temperatures to see if you can get the meat and fat done before you over char the crust. Try slicing it vertically into 1/4" slices with the crust on the top 1/4" edge. That will minimize the crust and maximize the surface area of the inside.
You will want to slow roast the pork belly if you want the interior meat to render. Then either crank up the heat in the oven (to 450F or higher, for example), or put it under the broiler, to finish. That will give you a nice and tender inside, with a crispy outside.
If I end up cutting off the crusts (I'm specifically looking to use the belly cooked by the lady at the market), then I think you're right about how to best cook the inner layer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.420049
| 2014-10-06T20:10:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/47720",
"authors": [
"Catherine Robins",
"Ching Chong",
"Donna Gage",
"Jeffery Yong",
"Jolenealaska",
"PriBarros",
"Roger C",
"Tristan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"jsanc623",
"ramona P"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49216
|
Sweetened Condensed Milk in Carnitas - What Does it Do?
I plan to make carnitas soon with a lovely pork shoulder that wants out of my freezer. I've made carnitas many times before; what's not to love about Mexican pulled pork? I've never used sweetened condensed milk though, and I see that's a very common ingredient. What does the milk add? The recipes that use it only call for a small amount, a tablespoon or so.
I was hesitant to comment but figured every little bit of observation might help. I have only made Carnitas twice and never with sweetened condensed milk - I did not even realize it was a common ingredient. My think-y brain reminds me that cooked sweetened condensed milk is basically dulce de leche - something to love for sure, but it doesn't register in my "things that go good with pork" index. My taste-y brain reminds me that a tablespoon of SCM applied to the fixins for a whole shoulder is probably/practically undetectable so what's the point.
This is a bit of a guess - I've only made carnitas without it - but it probably help helps promote nice browning. The tiny bit of sweetness wouldn't hurt either.
Of course, you'll be fine without it too; I didn't know it was a common ingredient and never noticed something was missing. Still could be good though!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.420331
| 2014-10-24T04:57:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49216",
"authors": [
"David Allen",
"Hydrafacial Treatment Midtown",
"Klick Media Labs",
"Lisa Brassington",
"Peter Worthington",
"Rachel Sturdivant",
"Spammer",
"Stephen Eure",
"Wesley Morrall",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117506",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117526",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117527",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27244",
"janemacphee"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46772
|
How can I word "add bread crumbs until it feels right"?
I'm writing a recipe for publication on a site not written for expert chefs. It's a contest with a very nice cash prize. One of my recipes includes meatballs. My final ingredient is dry commercial bread crumbs. The point is just to add them if the mixture feels a bit loose to shape. You know, ground meat varies in moisture content, so if your meat is loose, you just add some crumbs...right?
So how do I word that in a recipe that's supposed to sound professional and polished?
Mods: If you feel this question is better suited to ELU, feel free to migrate it.
In Italian you say "q.b.", though it's almost always used talking about salt, not sure about other ingredients. Still, you may search for a translation of "q.b." and see if something intresting comes up.
@Lohoris qb is quanto basto, I think, which is literally 'as much as is enough'. For salt, specifically, in English you would say to taste, but that wouldn't be quite right for this, a question of texture...
Until a ball of one inch in diameter doesn't deform appreciably when dropped on a flat surface from 10 feet:)
I see two things to address, first identify a few physical properties of your ideal meatball mixture, and second have a verifiable way for the reader to compare their current mixture to what the meatballs are "really" supposed to be like at that stage.
Depending on how many words you want to use for this part of your recipe, outlining a very simple "test" for the reader to try may be helpful. Maybe a sidebar section on the page with some instructions would visually unobtrusive, allowing those users who've already made your recipe to focus on your other recipe steps when needed.
What comes to mind is using a tablespoon to scoop out a quantity of the meatball mixture, followed by inverting that spoon onto a surface(not slamming, inverting). The ideal meatball mixture probably behaves in a certain way(doesn't spread out more than "x" centimeters/won't leak moisture/etc...I suspect you can come up with the right variables to emphasize).
Another example would be to say, "...when the mixture is right, a golf ball sized portion should be easy to roll into a ball and not begin to sag within "x" timeframe(seconds?), or something like that. Pick out the physical properties of the mixture that make the consistency or shape right. Work backwards, try a few trial run "tests"by making a tiny batch that has too much or too little water/fat/breadcrumbs/etc. How does that incorrect-ratio-mixture behave with your tests?
Off the top of my head, the easiest descriptors to identify would be: moisture content(how easy is it to squeeze out liquid & how much should come out), consistency comparisons(how much sticks to your hand/feels like wet spaghetti/whatever),and height/spread under specific conditions.
Hope this was helpful.
Yup, to put briefly, you don't try to say "feels right" in a professional way, you instead explain how to tell if it feels right! Recipes are full of things like "until the texture is like X", "until it does X when you do Y to it", and so on.
I would love nothing more than to use photos and sidebars and stuff. If I publish a recipe, I'll do anything and everything to make sure that every step is completely explained http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45834/how-to-make-coconut-chili-sauce-based-on-photos/45840#45840 that's just my nature. The contest won't allow it though. I just have to write it as if it's in an old fashioned, staid book of recipes.
@Jolenealaska The sidebar comment in my answer was not meant to imply that your explaination capabilities were lacking, or that you wouldn't completely explain each step. I mentioned it without explicit understanding of your format parameters, which is my fault since I could have requested more information. Your answers and questions are always well-thought out, and I very much admire the analytic and completeness of your home experimentation. I would be happy to reword/edit this if you feel it improperly represents the excellence and forethought you consistently contribute to the community.
@LittleWhiteLithe Wow! Thank you for your kind words! It seems you may have read more into my comment than I meant. I simply meant to say that all of your advice is good, but the rules of the contest are such that I may not be able to use much of it.
@Jolenealaska Just an idea that maybe you can draw from. Perhaps you could (in your words) say to add half of the breadcrumbs and mix. Check the consistency by making a meatball to see if it holds together. If it needs more breadcrumbs add x-amount at a time, checking the consistency in between each addition, until reaching the desired consistency.
As you note, moisture content in ground meat is going to vary. I would also give some thought to the increments as you don't want anyone to overmix.
Best of luck in the contest!
Oh - what is ELU?
Thanks Cindy! ELU = http://english.stackexchange.com/questions
Thank you! I haven't been there yet. I'll have to check it out.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.420490
| 2014-08-31T11:58:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46772",
"authors": [
"AakashM",
"Cascabel",
"Chester",
"Cindy",
"Debbie Wagner",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Jolenealaska",
"Little White Lithe",
"Michael Fetchet",
"Peter Fellenz",
"Philasande Mvezwa",
"ROD PUFF",
"Robin Warner",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112799",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25745",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4938",
"o0'."
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46323
|
Out of Salt! But I've got a seasoning blend. How do I figure how much to use?
I'm making fried chicken. I'm sort of following a recipe that adds 1 TBS salt and other seasonings to buttermilk to brine the chicken, and then adds 1 tsp salt and other seasonings to the flour dredge.
OMG! I'm out of salt. But, thanks to a well meaning friend, I've got a big container of Tony Chacherere's Original Creole Seasoning. It has all of the spices that my recipe calls for, it also contains salt.
I'm sure the spices will be fine at whatever ratio I end up with (my purpose is just fried chicken), but I want to at least get close to the "right" level of salt (Brining and dredging? Being way off with my salt could be a very bad thing).
So how do I go about estimating how much of the seasoning blend to use? The rest of the ingredients aren't much of an issue, but I want to know that my salt level is going to be OK.
If the label on your product lists the amount of sodium per some amount of your blend, then this answer should be useful to you. In the US that information is required on all manufactured food items sold.
IF YOUR LABEL LISTS SODIUM
There are three things you need to know to calculate substitutions involving salt.
Edible salt is very close to 40% sodium by weight. This one is universal, it has nothing to do with your label or the type of salt. Salt, by its very definition, is sodium chloride, NaCl. It doesn't matter if it's kosher salt, sea salt, iodized or non-iodized. It is 40% sodium, 60% chlorine. (Fancy finishing salts like Fleur de Sel or Hawaiian Black Salt are barely exceptions, with mineral content other than NaCl as high as 15%)
1 tsp salt contains 2300 mg sodium (that’s the USDA figure which is also the figure used to calculate values on the “Nutrition Facts” label on products in the US.) Using the 40/60 ratio listed in point #1, that would say a tsp of salt weighs 5.75 grams. (close enough assuming table salt)
Your label will tell you how much sodium is in a specific amount (serving size) of the seasoning blend or other ingredient. In the US, that listing will be in milligrams, 1000 milligrams = 1 gram.
Armed with that information, you can calculate any salt substitution. Let's take your example:
You need two portions of salt, 1 TBS and 1 tsp. Since a tablespoon equals 3 teaspoons, we only have to do this once. We'll figure out how much of your seasoning you will need to have 1 tsp of salt.
By some odd coincidence, I happen to have exactly the product you're using. Let's look at the label:
You need 2300mg sodium (1 tsp salt) for your dredge. Your product contains 1400mg sodium per tsp. Remember cross multiplication? You're solving for X:
So, 2300 / 1400 = 1.6 (1.643)
You need just over 1 1/2 tsp of seasoning to have 1 tsp of salt for your dredge.
3 * 1.643 = 4.9 (4.929)
You need just shy of 5 tsp of seasoning to have 1 TBS of salt for your brine.
Knowing all that, it's sounds like you might want to dig up some chili powder or something. Your "Creole Seasoning" is almost all salt.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.420900
| 2014-08-12T10:54:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46323",
"authors": [
"Aniz",
"Larry Plant",
"M'Lisa Kelley",
"Margo",
"Veranda Experts Ltd",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162756"
],
"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
}
|
53524
|
What would this sauce be called?
I have a nice sized chuck roast in the sous-vide circulator, I can see that there are some great looking juices accumulating in the bag. I want to make a sauce out of those juices with butter, garlic, herbs and wine reduction. There is a name for that kind of sauce, but it's escaping me at the moment. So that I can Google for recipes, what would a sauce like that be called?
Using the meat juices from cooking is a jus :) adding wine along with the aromatics might change it to be a "red wine jus" or I've also seen a "port jus", or the jus could be used in a Madeira sauce, etc.
served in the natural juices that flow from the meat as it cooks.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/au%20jus
And remember that "au jus", linked, means literally "with juice", referring to something served in the sauce, so don't say "with au jus" or "with au jus sauce" as I have seen sometimes.
Never seen that, lol ouch :) Like ATM machine & PIN number!
The other answers here are probably technically more correct, but I did find the word that I was looking for. That word is Bordelaise.
Could also be called a reduction.
I've often heard these kinds of things called pan sauces. I think it originally refers to drippings (and maybe fond) from the cooking pan, but the idea is still meat stuff + other stuff + cooking/reducing, so it's not surprising people apply the name to sous vide juices as well.
Could be as simple as gravy.
gravy
ˈɡreɪvi/ noun
a sauce made by mixing the fat and juices exuded by meat during cooking with stock and other ingredients.
Gravy typically contains flour or some other sort of starch or thickening agent, which the question doesn't mention.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.421417
| 2015-01-12T00:14:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53524",
"authors": [
"Anita Fritzmeyer",
"Cascabel",
"Donna Curtis",
"GdD",
"Hilda Ngubane",
"Lori Bauer",
"Mike Stence",
"Ming",
"Mohsin Patel",
"Nate Eldredge",
"Nicholas Gracia",
"Santi Jariod",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125794",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125796",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27125"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71798
|
What makes spicy heat linger?
I'm a total chili-head; I snack on pickled hot peppers from Mezzetta (the pepper is Cascabella, which I have never seen fresh) almost daily. What I love most about them is that they don't seem all that hot until a few seconds after I swallow. If I eat a big pepper in one bite, the afterburn is almost but not quite painful. The urge is then to eat another pepper. After I'm done snacking, I eat a big spoonful of yoghurt. The lingering heat sensation lasts a good 20 minutes.
Some peppers have that "lingering" quality. In Seoul I ate a lot of spicy street food that had that.
I have never been able to achieve that in a sauce.
I particularly want to make a sneaky sauce for chicken wings and gumbo.
Try Arbol chili powder: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile_de_%C3%A1rbol Not the hottest pepper ever, but the capsaicin mix seems to be a tight binder. Gets your mouth gradually warmer, and keeps it there. Naturally, the quality of the crop varies from year to year. The powder is supposed to be reddish, not drought-brown.
I suspect that the 'slow attack' heat is from capsaicinoids other than capsaicin. Unfortunately, I don't know of anyone who's analyzed what the relative concentrations are across different breeds of pepper. And the only note that I've found about the different properties of them is a claim that homodihydrocapsaicin is "one of the most prolonged and difficult to rinse out"
it seems that there was a paper in 2013 Characterization of Different Capsicum Varieties by Evaluation of Their Capsaicinoids Content by High Performance Liquid Chromatography, Determination of Pungency and Effect of High Temperature ... but they only broke out 5 capsaicinoids for 7 hot varietals (all dried in their analysis), under two different growing conditions.
@Joe That's very helpful. I'll keep looking.
@Joe Slow-tight binders are difficult to characterize, and there are likely hundreds of different capsaicinoids. I can see a graduate student up at 3am, isolating various fractions from her carbon-14 labelled peppers, for later treatment of cultured taste receptors and chemical characterization; but I can't see her prof getting a grant to support the research.
@WayfaringStranger I can get (and have used) Arbol chiles. I haven't noticed any particular lingering nature in the chilis, but I don't think I've ever used the powder. I'll report back once I do.
@WayfaringStranger : I wonder if Dave's Gourmet (makers of Dave's Insanity Sauce) would be willing to give research grants. (Mcilhenny (Tobasco) doesn't seem like the sort of company to do it). Either that, or companies that make pepper spray. (although in the second one, they might not be interested in the taste issues)
@Jolenealaska Probably varies from year to year, source to source, and depending on fresh or dry. I've just had good luck getting that effect with the Arbol I buy. Joe: It'd be nice if someone would research this, it's a nice effect, and one people would probably pay for to get reliably.
This discussion on Reddit may be helpful. If one of the top posts there is to be believed, someone with a biochem background hasn't found a better study on topic yet, so it may not be out there. But there's a pretty good explanation of what's likely going on physiologically.
Excellent Q that I have as well. I love dishes that aren't blazing hot on consumption, but then gradually build up in intensity (and sweat) after you have swallowed. A couple Thai restaurant dishes do that to me. RE scholarly studies: I wonder if the varying waxiness of capsaicin is a vector, ie: more wax = delayed affect.
@Paulb Funny you should mention waxiness. Waxiness might very well play a part.
I´ve added habanero + dried chile peppers to a tomato sauce recipe (5% oil final weight, cooking time 40min.med/high heat). The heat you describe is the same I tasted. It´s different from raw pepper heat, scales up and down in a pleasant way (20 minutes after you can still feel you ate it).
As Tim Post mentioned: it is probably the effect of the emulsified capsaicin (the final steps of the recipe are blend + strain.
The sauce recipe is under ·cookinginrussia: tomato/pizza sauce· on youtube.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.421734
| 2016-07-31T18:08:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71798",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Paulb",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"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/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75977
|
Can bad potato salad be made into something good?
I was lazy the other day at the grocery store and bought potato salad from the deli instead of ingredients to make my own. That was a mistake. Now I have a big tub of bad potato salad.
It is apparent that the water used to boil the potatoes was under seasoned - severely underseasoned, perhaps not salted at all. The potatoes are slightly undercooked, and the dressing is bland.
I can't afford to be throwing away food, so I want to try to turn this potato salad into something I might actually eat. It doesn't need to continue to be potato salad; I'm open to ideas that might completely transform it into something else. Of course I would also be interested in ideas to turn bland, undercooked potato salad into good potato salad.
A quick online search brought me to a recipe that is probably pretty close to what this was supposed to be (had it been prepared correctly): http://paleoleap.com/dill-potato-salad/. I'm pretty sure that the potatoes in my salad are russet, not Yukon Gold.
Returning the potato salad to the grocery store isn't an option?
@JohnFeltz I would have to stand in line for an irritatingly long time, to return a tub of potato salad that I had opened. Not worth it. I would, however, like to try to use it to make something edible.
They usually don't add mustard, which is an essential component. A diced hard boiled egg would help. I've been known to use summer Savory, and/or darkened sesame oil. Abandon all hope if they added sugar.
Use it as compost for growing great tasting tomatoes?
@wumpusD'00m Oily things don't do well in the compost, they tend not to be broken down and result attracting vermin. Of course this depends on the amount being added, but generally dressed salads of this sort are better disposed of in the garbage.
@bob1 It depends on the size of your compost pile and the amount of fats in it (we have a tonne of horse manure plus kitchen waste distant from the house, e.g.). Overall, for most people without acreages and tractors, you are correct unless the amount of fats is very small.
Microwave it (or bake in the normal oven in a casserole dish), add salt to taste, perhaps some butter or cream, weird mashed potatoes? Will depend rather on what, exactly is in this "deli potato salad" (which varies IME from potatoes and dressing to potatoes, many crunchy veggies, sometimes eggs, etc., etc. and dressing.) I've had quite decent versions that fit the former description, and some of the latter were terrible...
If the potatoes are adequately undercooked and you want some serious self-penance for buying it, you could possibly scrape the dressing off them and reboil to finish cooking, with salt, while adjusting the dressing (or pitching it, but mustard might save it if you like mustard, and garlic is always an option at my house.)
... or try it with salty, peppery, ketchupy brownies?
LOL! You might be on to something! :-)
If heat would ruin the texture of crunchy vegetables, you could go a step further and puree the end result. Potato puree bolstered by some eggs and pickles doesn't sound half bad, actually.
It's laudable you don't want to throw away your food, and I've been in the same situation with store bought potato salad - it's usually awful. In so many cases I would be saying there's not much that can be done, but in this case you may be able to make it more tasty. I would keep it very simple to start and simply add salt. Just mix in some until it tastes salty enough for you and then add just a little bit more - the potatoes will soak up some of the salt over time.
A more complex solution would be to mix some flavors in with a bit of Miracle Whip (store brand imitations are just as good) and add it to the salad. Which flavors you add depends on what the salad is missing. A little mustard powder and lemon juice will give some bite, sugar for sweetness. My grandmother used Durkees Famous Sauce in her potato salad and now so do I.
cutting the potatoes finer will also help bridging the gap between underseasoned potatoes and reseasoned sauce. Oh, and ... salt is one thing to add, pepper and some umami source (Nooch, or even straight msg) will help too.
Sure, you could do all sorts of things, including washing off the dressing and reboiling the potatoes in salted water before adding fresh dressing, however that seems to be a bit over the top considering.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.422077
| 2016-11-29T03:40:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75977",
"authors": [
"Ecnerwal",
"GdD",
"John Feltz",
"Jolenealaska",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"logophobe",
"rackandboneman",
"wumpus D'00m"
],
"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
}
|
75922
|
Regarding Connecticut style steamed burgers - is the container necessary?
To my knowledge, Connecticut style steamed burgers are only found commercially in Connecticut, but thanks to the Internet, they have become a kind of thing elsewhere.
If you don't know what they are, here's a video that shows one of the burger joints making the burgers:
Ted's Burgers
Basically they stuff the ground beef into miniature loaf pans which then go into the steamer. They do the cheese the same way, separately.
America's Test Kitchen (sorry, paywalled) has published a recipe that just puts the burgers straight on the steamer:
I plan to use washed out tuna cans for the cheese because the pouring of the cheese is pretty cool. But is there any good reason to open two more cans of tuna for the burgers themselves? I kind of don't see the point, but I don't want to miss any of this bizarre experience.
If you have ramekins you could spare the tuna cans. Presumably for cheese a pyrex measuring cup would work nicely and be easy to pour from - or the tiniest saucepan we normally use only for melting butter which is nearly a tuna can with a handle, but it's stainless (and copper plated outside-bottom, being Revereware) Never heard of these burgers, but I don't spend a lot of time in CT, though I have been there. Presumably "burger on the steamer" would drip grease and steamed in a pan the grease would be retained.
In the picture above, is that person going to steam the hamburger buns? Because that seems terrible.
@Caleb Believe it or not, it's actually pretty good. The final result is reminiscent of a regional sandwich from my childhood in Iowa, the loose-meat burger, AKA the Maid-Rite. I played with it, and plan to write up an answer in the next day or two.
The cheese needs a container such as the tuna can so it doesn't just ooze everywhere, but the burger does not. You could steam the burger by just placing it in your steam tray. Since it's solid, it won't go anywhere!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.422434
| 2016-11-28T00:31:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75922",
"authors": [
"Caleb",
"Ecnerwal",
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52528"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
26106
|
Do I need to wipe/clean my knife after sharpening/honing?
I'm sharpening honing my cutting knives with a (honing) steel. I'm sure I read/saw somewhere that you should wipe your knives after sharpening honing to remove any shards of metal. Is this correct or necessary? Am I getting confused with something else? It doesn't seem plausible to me that this would create metal shards, but obviously it being a safety issue I wanted to check. Thanks.
possible duplicate of How should I care for my knives?
if you allow more time before marking the correct answer you may get more answers
Depending on the type of honing rod and the technique you use for honing, you will remove more or less metal from the blade. You can confirm whether your rod removes metal by wiping the blade on a white tea cloth after honing. If you see a grey residue on the cloth then metal has been removed and you can decide yourself whether you want that in your food.
Types of Honing Rod
Steel rods, of the type that are perfectly smooth will not remove noticeable amounts of steel from a blade. Polished honing rods are used for straightening a curled blade edge. Other types have shallow grooves cut down the length of the rod that bite into the blade and shave off metal particles.
Ceramic rods are slightly abrasive and will remove small amounts of metal.
Diamond coated rods are used for sharpening in place of a whetstone and will remove relatively large amounts of metal.
What technique you use for honing depends on what you are trying to achieve. If you only need to realign the edge of a well maintained knife, then two or three swipes on both sides of the blade, maintaining light pressure should be sufficient.
If you do this with a polished steel, then I would be surprised if you need to wipe the blade afterwards. If you use one of the other types of rod, then you are also removing metal from your knife and you may want to strop the knife and give it a quick wipe after.
Do you have any sources for this?
@AndrewFerrier although it doesn't coincide exactly with what I have said, this link is the source of some of this information. The rest is an amalgam of information from my own experience and multiple (largely forgotten) online sources.
@AndrewFerrier I tried to re-track some of my sources and came across this on YouTube which agrees with my advice to strop the knife after using a diamond coated rod. And this video, also from expert village also suggests using a strop after using a ceramic rod. There are quite a few knife sharpening videos from expert village that are worth a look.
Finally, this video confirms what I say regarding technique.
Yes, you should clean after sharpening, which is not the same as honing.
No, after honing, it's not necessary.
By sharpening, you take some metal off the edge of the knife to create an edge.
By honing, you realign the edge of the knife.
See this answer for more details.
Thank you. It turns out I was using the wrong terminology. I was talking about honing with a honing steel, not sharpening. So honing does not require cleaning afterward?
I never clean after honing, and I've never seen anybody else do it (butcher, fish-monger, cooks, etc.)
Honing does remove VERY small broken shards of metal. If the knife is clean and non-magnetic (it should) these will fall to the bench or floor during the honing process
@TFD, do you have any sources for that?
@Andrew0-Ferrier Physics, my kitchen bench, white cotton cloth or a magnet. The particles are VERY small, but since the hone is harder than the blade, this will always happen
For the sake of a few seconds running the knife under the tap, or wiping it with a damp cloth, why would you not do this? Regardless of whether you remove large pieces of metal or just tiny particles - is it worth the risk of getting any of this in the food you prepare? I always give my knives a rinse and then dry them with a clean cloth.
I use the back side of a leather belt, or a leather strop, to finish the edge of my knives after sharpening and/or honing. This removes any tiny particles of metal from the knife (or razor) as well as polishes it. I wash and dry the implement after this step before use. I learned this technique from a barber.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.422633
| 2012-09-11T13:20:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/26106",
"authors": [
"Andrew Ferrier",
"BaffledCook",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Organics Food",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99416"
],
"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
}
|
27376
|
Good thread for tying meat
I want to prepare kotlet de volaille. It'a a bit like Cordon Bleu, but using the natural pocket in chicken breast, and inside is just butter and fresh herbs.
I thought about tying the meat with a thread, like a roulade, but I've never done this before, so I don't know what kind of thread to use. Is there a special kind of thread of will my polyester sewing thread be enough?
It took me some time, but I found the name of the dish in English - Chicken Kiev.
For something more delicate than kitchen twine, any thread from a 100% natural fibre (cotton, hemp) should work. Synthetics (polyester, rayon, nylon) could melt or offgas into your food when subject to high temperature.
Also beware colored thread, especially if its not designed for food use—the dies may leach out (and could be toxic).
Don't use polyester, use kitchen twine instead.
Unflavored dental floss (the traditional kind, not the glide version) can be used and is finer than the kitchen twine.
Toothpicks can also be used to close the pocket and may actually be a little easier to remove than thread.
Best of luck with your dish!
Thank you, It wasn't as good as in a restaurant, but it was ok. I think I'll go with the toothpicks next time.
At least in Germany, dental floss generally is made from nylon, which could easily melt into the meat. Toothpicks should work though, and there are also specialized stainless steel skewers that are marketed as "roulade needles" here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.422981
| 2012-09-25T09:29:01 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27376",
"authors": [
"Bill Hamilton",
"Currently Ewing",
"Ian",
"Johnny Lee",
"Matt Parrilla",
"Matthias Brandl",
"NMG",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76013",
"jkadlubowska",
"swihart",
"user61864"
],
"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
}
|
29038
|
How to make my meringues less sticky?
I've come a long way making meringues, beginning with brown all-around gooey mounds years ago and reaching stiff, tall and white pretties almost every time nowadays, but there is one thing I cannot master.
My meringues are always sticky on the outside. Not very sticky like before baking, but they stick to fingers and to each other (if I let them sit for an hour in a bowl). When I used to buy meringues, they were always kind of rough on the outside and mine have something like a smooth skin.
My current receipe goes like this: beat the whites with a pinch of salt until stiff, add powdered sugar and a bit of potato flour, beat 5-10 minutes more, form meringues on a baking tray, bake at 70-100 deg C (160-210F) for at least 2 hours (more on a humid day), cool and immediately close in boxes to prevent soaking in humidity.
Maybe I should sprinkle them with more sugar just before baking? Grandma just gave me 12 whites (she has some funny superstitions about healthy and non-healthy foods), so I can experiment tomorrow, but I don't have any ideas.
Wait, sprinkle more sugar on them before baking? Why sprinkle any sugar on them?
Are you keeping them somewhere kinda humid? Meringues will always get sticky if they're not kept nice and dry.
I always let my meringues cool down in the open, then put them in a box once they have cooled down. That way, they may lose more moisture before boxing. The outside is always crisp and dry (the inside depends on how long you bake them). I was also told that you should never put them in the fridge. Lastly, I beat them to stiff peaks before adding the sugar—no idea whether that makes a difference, but I sure can't beat them well after adding the sugar. They becomes much less stiff after sugar at any rate.
@ElendilTheTall "more" compared to the sugar already in them. Bad wording on my side ;)
@Jefromi The thing is they just are sticky even fresh out of the oven. Not very sticky, but too sticky for me.
@Cerberus I didn't know about the fridge (though never put them there), but all the rest are things I already do. If you happen to add sugar prior to beating, you can always try beating them in a water bath - search for Swiss meringue or here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18599/factors-affecting-meringue-crispness?rq=1
@jkadlubowska Ah. You might want to edit your question - it only says they're sticky after an hour in a bowl, and that you're keeping them in boxes, not that they're sticky before you even put them in.
What ratios of egg white/sugar/potato flour are you using?
@ChrisSteinbach about 15g sugar/eggwhite and 1T flour per batch (bit larger for larger batch, bit smaller for smaller batch).
No cream of tartar? I always add a little cream of tartar and don't have problems with sticky meringues: http://www.cakespy.com/blog/2013/7/8/what-is-cream-of-tartar-and-what-does-it-do.html
If the meringues are coming out of the oven sticky, you might lower the temperature slightly and extend the drying time (to avoid browning)--they should feel quite dry and very light coming out of the oven.
Sugar is hydrophilic--if the air is humid, any condensation--even when you cannot see it--on the meringues will dissolve the sugar, and then they will start to feel sticky, and the downward spiral will begin.
According to all my searching, it is best to make them on a low humidity day. Of course, where I live in the summer, we pretty much don't get those.
If you are having trouble with them in storage, you might try to buy some desiccant packets, and put them in the container. Most desiccant is not food safe, so it should not touch the meringue. Amazon has lots of options.
A good way of drying meringues out is to leave them in the oven with it turned off and the door half open. The residual heat dries them out without cooking them.
Have you tried adding just a spoonful of corn starch? That's the advice I found in this video - http://www.becomeabetterbaker.com/Videos.aspx?VideoId=2edc522f-bde4-4bf3-98a5-03dba99af4fe
I add potato starch, because in Poland corn starch is difficult to find and if you do find it - it's 3x more expensive (it usually has the word "dukan" on the packaging, and I suppose this raises the price ;) ).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.423169
| 2012-12-08T19:26:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29038",
"authors": [
"Bin X. Zhang",
"Cascabel",
"Cerberus",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Cindy Bradley",
"ElendilTheTall",
"James Nau",
"Jimmy Bee",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"fedorqui",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68540",
"jkadlubowska",
"kenneth Maerz"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21174
|
Achieve the crispiness of fried potatoes using baking
Possible Duplicate:
How can I bake normally fried foods?
I usually cut my potatoes into sticks that are slightly bigger than your generic frozen fries. I've tried baking the sticks with low temperature (350) / long duration and with high heat (425) / short duration. I still can't achieve the crispy on the outside but moist, soft, and not dry on the inside. The results are either mushy or crispy but dry and unchewable.
I tried baking the sticks with a bit of oil, or a bit of oil mixed with butter to get some browning going, but that didn't achieve the same results.
Question: What are some of the cooking techniques involved to produce quality baked potato sticks to make them taste similar to fried potatoes (French fries)?
Do you have any reason to believe it's possible? For example, have you had baked fries with the desired consistency before?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.423538
| 2012-02-08T17:20:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21174",
"authors": [
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85580
|
Speculaas/Biscoff cookie low calorie aroma extract
I love the taste of speculaas cookies and would like to add the aroma to foods. But one tiny cookie has ~50 kcal (~ 480 kcal/100g).
I tried mixing spices as suggested on internet but no luck.
How could I separate the fat (palm oil) and sugars from the blended cookies? How can I deemulsify the lechtins? I suppose I could add yeast for the sugar but that would take weeks right?
EDIT: Maybe the taste is partially due to caramel?
The unique taste stems from the sugar’s caramelization during the baking process. And a hint of cinnamon and other spices add that special something. Biscoff Cookies are made with
The taste of a Speculaas is a lot more complex than just the spices.
So if you want to recreate it without crumbling up a cookie, you need:
The spices:
Probably the most obvious part, but finding the "right" mix can be a challenge. Spices vary greatly between brands and recipes, both in ratios and intensity. Where a simple recipe might use cinnamon, cloves and cardamom, others pull all stopps and also include pepper, ginger, nutmeg and possibly others. And of course "right" in this case is a matter of personal taste.
The sugar:
Yes, you want to save calories, but a major contributor to the flavour profile is the sugar. You need the molasses in the brown sugar, and the caramel, that is created during baking.
The butter:
Kind of obvious, but butter has its own characteristic flavour and yes, it is part of the speculaas taste. It may be easier to skip than other compounds, but when we are talking about mouthfeel and how the flavour develops when tasting a dish, it plays an important role. Many aromatic compounds are soluble in fat, not water.
The flour:
Part of the speculaas taste is what we percieve as "baked flavour" or "cookie" and apart from caramelization (which is covered to a greater extent by the sugar), we are also looking at the results of the Maillard reaction.
So if you start "building" the flavour or "removing" unwanted sugar or fat calories, you will probably end up with a meagre immitation of what you love.
Sometimes choosing the real thing and enjoying it in moderation can be more satisfying than feasting on a substitute, and in my personal opinion, this is one of these cases.
According to this recipe, you can reproduce Biscoff's flavor.
It depends on where you live, because ingredients may vary.
Like, brown sugar in Europe is made with caramel, you have to make sure that you're using the right kind of cinnamon. Also baking soda will improve the flavor and texture of your speculaas.
Regarding the calories, it will be hard to find low calorie substitute for this type of caramel's brown sugar.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.423629
| 2017-11-11T21:20:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85580",
"authors": [],
"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.