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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
106014
|
Does liquid temperature matter when making bread in a bread maker?
Let me start by saying this is my first attempt at using a bread maker. I just wanted to know if the temperature of the liquid used in the bread recipe matters? Cold vs room temp or warm?
I agree with the top two answers below, but it's particularly worth noting that if the temperature is too hot, the yeast will die. I used to follow one recipe, using a precision thermometer to get the water temp to exactly the recommended value, but got terrible results — until I realized that my flour was also hot (because I grind it myself), so I needed slightly cooler water. Just ten degrees cooler, and the recipe works great.
With a bread maker, it's important to follow the recipe closely, at least until you've got a reliable result , when you can start experimenting.
Mine, for example, expects "tepid" water for most programs, which the book defines as 20-25°C. The super rapid program requires 46-51°C. Cooler and there won't be time for the yeast to get going, much hotter and the yeast will be killed before it starts to work. This also means the super-rapid program can't be used with a delayed start, as the water would cool.
As a very general rule, slower programs will be more forgiving on temperature if you don't have a suitable thermometer and don't trust your estimation.
You can get a very good idea of the temperature of the water if you mix boiling with room temperature, in known proportions, taking a weighted average. For example that super rapid program could use 2 parts room temperature to one part boiling, mixed before it reaches the yeast. If room temp is 20°C and you mix it with actually boiling water, the resulting temperature will be (2×20+1×100)/3 = 140/3 = 47°C. Ths is at the bottom of the acceptable range for my super rapid program, so I use a little over 1/3 boiling (handily it wants 260ml, so 90ml boiling made up with cold is good).
Can you provide a reference for your mixing approach? In general, that tactic requires a temperature scale based at absolute zero (K), which Celsius isn't.
@chrylis-onstrike- you don't need a reference, just try it for yourself. It works because 1 degree C == 1K. So, you're just adding a constant and (for the example above), (2(20+k)+(100+k)/3 == 47+k. So the constant can just be left off.
It doesn't assume a zero-based scale, but it does assume that the heat capacity does not depend on the temperature (amount of energy needed for 1C or 1K). This isn't quite true for water in this range, but probably close enough for the purpose. (Search "isobaric heat capacity water" and you'll get graphs)
@chrylis-onstrike-, seumasmac and Mark are right. My take is that the loss of accuracy due to changing heat capacity is smaller than the error in measuring the volumes of water (should we take into account thermal expansion?) and in the temperature of the water (neither 20 nor 100 C is going to be perfectly true). Given that the manual gives a 5C range for both normal and super-rapid programs, this approximate method will be close enough
... to be super accurate you would also take into account the temperature of the bread-maker pan. Is it kept in a cold cupboard until just before use?
Temperature matters a lot, even with a breadmaker. Breadmaking is all about gluten development and feeding the yeast so they produce alcohol and carbon dioxide.
The water temperature will have a direct impact on how quickly the fungi propagate. In traditional breadmaking, ambient room temperature and oven temperature are also important.
Knowing what kind of bread you are making would be helpful in providing more specific advice. It's a wonderful thing to do and there are some great, really easy recipes that make delicious bread. Hopefully you'll next venture out to more traditional breadmaking which can be very easy with no-knead recipes and french oven recipes (such as Ken Forkish's).
How significant are room and oven temperature to this question about using a bread maker?
The question is specifically about using a bread maker, a machine into which you dump the bread ingredients, select a cycle setting, and walk away, letting it do all the work, not about bread making in general.
Temperature still matters with a breadmaker. I was trying to answer more generally but could have probably been more clear to this specific case.
Beside the effect on yeast growth speed mentioned in other answers, the temperature of the water also has a direct effect on gluten formation. Using the same ratio of water to flour, you will get much stiffer gluten with colder water. Of course, you cannot make use of this effect in a bread maker, since you cannot influence the other variables (especially the rising time) to compensate for a changed water temperature. So do as Chris H suggested and use the water temperature that is prescribed in your user manual - both too hot and too cold will give you unexpected (and probably undesirable) results.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.423986
| 2020-03-25T01:17:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/106014",
"authors": [
"Allison C",
"Chris H",
"Mark",
"Mike",
"Spagirl",
"chrylis -cautiouslyoptimistic-",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81730",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81884",
"myklbykl",
"seumasmac"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104573
|
What is this device?
What is this device called? The length is exactly 12 inches.
It would be great to provide some kind of reference for the size (a ruler for instance)
I recommend registering your account - then you can [edit] your posts as needed. See here and here for more information.
I don’t know if it has an official name, but it’s a spaghetti tool. The holes are for measuring portions and the tines are for stirring in the boiling water and for serving after it’s strained.
It's a "plastic pasta server/measurer" on alibaba
https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/PLASTIC-PASTA-SERVER-PLASTIC-PASTA-MEASURER_60418792997.html
I can also confirm this answer. My mom had one of these when I was a kid in the 80's-90's.
This tool is certainly labelled as a pasta server/measurer on Alibaba. It doesn't look useful for such, though. It looks more like an herb stripping tool.
Here's a link on amazon to a similar product.
Other than identifying the tool as "like an herb stripping tool", this answer just plain wrong. It looks similar to the herb-stripping tool, because form follows function, and the mechanical aspects are similar. But the tool being asked about is definitely a pasta tool, and is definitely not an herb-stripper. It is larger than an herb-stripper, the holes are typically marked specifically for pasta serving sizes, and the spoon shape provides a means for picking up not just spaghetti, linguini, etc. that the tines work with but also smaller pasta shapes.
@PeterDuniho I'd add as well that the other central claim of this answer is also definitely wrong - the tool does look useful for pasta serving/measuring.
My guess is this item is way too big for herb stripping, but it's admittedly hard to tell from the picture.
@PeterDuniho you put a handful of spaghetti through the holes, to get 1/2/4 servings or perhaps 100/200/300g or some such. Very quick and convenient. The prongs let you fish spaghetti out of the water easily. I would say it's not a general-purpose pasta tool, but one limited to long pasta for the fishing, and to long hard pasta for measuring, and even then best at spaghetti (with round cross-section giving a predictable area) and worse at long hard flat noodles (where packing could give more or less solid a cross section than spaghetti).
@Swiss: you don't need to explain to me how to use the tool. I have one that I've owned for 30+ years. And I have found it useful for dealing with all types of pasta. YMMV.
@PeterDuniho apologies, meant to direct comment to Aww_Geez. That said, not sure how you'd measure macaroni or fish out lasagna with this! :-D
@Swiss: you got me there on the lasagna. I let my wife make that dish. But, I never said it was used for measuring all types of pasta, just that I find it handy as an alternative to e.g. a slotted spoon (i.e. "dealing with") for the smaller pastas.
It's not really useful for anything. It's a gimmick, and if you order your salad spinner now, it comes free +$29.95 in shipping. We'll even throw in a second one that you can give to your friends, who will find it as equally useless.
@Mazura salad spinners are very handy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.424412
| 2020-01-06T03:17:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104573",
"authors": [
"Alex M",
"Kat",
"Mazura",
"Peter Duniho",
"Stephie",
"Swiss Frank",
"Tim",
"WoJ",
"computercarguy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27294",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58050",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/74120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76917",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78544",
"stanri"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
62140
|
How long and how can I hold meringue before macaronage?
I have high hopes (I always do) for my next batch of macarons. I've decided to do lemon and lime. I want to do half lemon, half lime.
My stand mixer isn't perfect, I fear that it won't perfectly whip a small batch of egg whites (so I don't want to halve the recipe), yet I want two distinct colors of cookie. I'm doing the same with the filling, but that's easy.
So, my thought is to whip up all of the meringue with yellow and then do the macaronage with half of the meringue. As those are baking, I'll add green to the meringue left in the mixer, briefly whip that, and then do the macaronage on that half. Between the two sessions of macaronage and piping, I suspect I'll want a break.
Can I do that? Is two hours too long? Should I cover it in the meantime? Any other hints or caveats?
BTW, I don't intend to flavor the cookie part at all (or very subtly with lemon oil); the lemon and lime flavor will be pronounced in the filling.
I suspect you'll be fine. I often do simple unfilled baked meringue cookies and at least some of the recipes suggest letting them stand for several hours before baking. I've tried it both ways and notice little difference - but assuming your macaron cookie part includes a substantial amount of sugar, my evidence says it should be very stable for the course of a couple of hours.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.424703
| 2015-09-29T02:47:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/62140",
"authors": [
"Christine Furey",
"Christine Mchale",
"Elle Couto",
"Kevin Davidson",
"Scott Lambert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147577",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147578",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147599",
"james shilney"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
66224
|
What cheeses work well for pizza that will be refrigerated and reheated?
I make pizza pretty frequently, and I always have leftovers. I have a few go-to crust recipes that reheat well after being refrigerated, but I'm never happy with the cheese upon reheating. Usually I use freshly grated, part-skim, grocery store mozzarella and the leftover pizza never gets good and melty again. What other cheeses might give me better results when I reheat the pizza after a day or two in the fridge? I'm open to outside-the-box choices; I can tweak the other ingredients to complement the cheese. What I am looking for is a texture in the reheated pizza that is as pleasant (although, not necessarily the same) as it was fresh from the oven.
It isn't a perfect match for the flavor and texture of regular pizza cheese, but soy cheese (Daiya mozzarella shreds, specifically) reheats beautifully and is even good cold. We switched cheeses because of a dairy intolerance, but found the storage properties to be a great side benefit.
It does end up being a noticeable change to a pizza's flavor profile, but may be less of an impact if there are lots of other toppings on your pizza. If you find the flavor and texture of the Daiya cheese acceptable when the pizza is fresh, it will still taste the same when reheated.
I'll give it a shot, but I'm suspicious of vegan cheese. The reviews are encouraging, and local grocery stores carry it.
It is definitely outside-the-box, but you asked for that ;) One of the best "upgrades" that we (accidentally) discovered is adding pepperoni on top, which emits a bit of grease and gives a more familiar look and taste to the cheese.
What types of pizza crusts have you used with this cheese? For a pan pizza I would use a lot more cheese than I would for a thin Neapolitan style. I could go either way – load up on cheese or use it more sparingly?
Generally Neapolitan (often just buying dough from the store when we're in a hurry), we've been looking for a good deep-dish recipe but haven't had a chance to try one yet. A relatively sparse layer of cheese tends to work better, because it does take it a while to melt and we haven't had any success with really thick, gooey layer (the crust burns before the cheese fully melts!)
While there are many cheeses to choose from, I find that provolone both heats and reheats well. Also, the flavor profile works nicely with most Italian dishes, pizza included. I've used smoked, unsmoked, mild, and sharp. Whether smoked or not, the mild tends to be a little "meltier", and more suited to the flavor I'm looking for.
I've found that lower fat cheeses tend not to reheat particularly well. Full-fat mozzarella would be better than part skim. Also, keeping the cheese in bigger chunks gives better results than shredding, so slicing may be a better way to go. I use full-fat soft mozzarella which I pull apart or slice rather than shredding, and it has a much better texture when cooled and reheated than hard mozzarella, which tends to get a waxy look and texture.
I've been thinking that the reason for this is water loss, and that the reason for the texture of shredded cheeses and lower fat cheeses after cooking is that they get dried. It may be worth trying semi-skimmed cheese in strips or thin slices and see whether that fixes your problem rather than changing cheeses. Maybe next time do half shredded, half sliced and see what you think.
"Waxy" describes it pretty well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.424872
| 2016-02-05T05:13:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66224",
"authors": [
"Adelina Vidal",
"Erica",
"Haley Kestler",
"Jolenealaska",
"Karen Delello",
"Karen Hamer",
"Kylie",
"Michael Grimshaw",
"Phyllis KAVANAGH",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158524",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63948
|
Is sugar necessary for the texture of homemade sherbet?
I buy pure sucralose and acesulfame potassium which I mix half-and-half and use in my iced coffee. A scant 1/8 teaspoon of the sweetener sweetens an entire pot of coffee and the flavor is perfect, almost indistinguishable from sugar. I would like to try to make (almost) sugar-free orange sherbet with that mixture instead of sugar. I have the type of ice cream maker with an insert that goes into the freezer at least 24 hours before churning the ice cream, then you add the mix to be frozen and it continually stirs the mix for about a half an hour, after which you can pack the ice cream (or sherbet in this case) to freeze somewhat harder before service. If it turns out, it will probably spend 6 hours or so in the freezer before it is consumed.
I have a guest coming for dinner just soon enough that I really don't have the time for a test run, so I'd like to know any caveats now instead of later.
My plan is to mix 1 quart of fat-free half-and-half with orange juice concentrate, dark chocolate shavings, my sweetener, and vanilla to taste. Of course there is some sugar in the form of corn syrup in the fat-free half-and-half, and there is natural sugar in the juice concentrate, but the overall sugar concentration in the mixture will be drastically reduced from what I have churned in the past.
I understand that sugar will somewhat inhibit solid freezing if I were to freeze the mixture in say ice cream trays, but what if it is churned?
That sounds to me like it'd come out completely rock hard once fully frozen. Immediately after churning while it's still just barely frozen it'll probably be okay, but I'm not sure if it'd make it through six hours in the freezer.
You have no fat to soften it (the thickeners in fat-free half-and-half doesn't really do much), and essentially no sugar (just the bit from the orange juice), so there's nothing to stop it from just freezing.
Homemade ice cream/sherbert/sorbet tends to come out harder than storebought things to begin with, thanks to the lack of softening additives and often people being a bit more conservative with fat and sugar. For example, frozen yogurt with full-fat yogurt and a decent amount of sugar can still end up solid and unscoopable once frozen, and the same can happen with more lightly sweetened sorbet unless you add alcohol. Taking the fat and sugar all the way out without compensating doesn't sound feasible.
Let's have a look outside the strict US sherbet category, meaning "frozen fruity dairy" and check the predecessor from the Arabic world šarba, meaning "cold drink", which became sorbet in French.
While this would typically be a sweetened fruit juice with or without alcohol served as desert, it may also be served unsweetened and often alcohol based as palate-cleanser during a multi-course meal.
These non-sugary sorbets are churned and while they may be less "smooth" than their cream-based counterparts, let alone custard-based ice cream, they need not be as grainy as a granita.
So for your case:
Both sugar syrup and alcohol make sorbet or sherbet somewhat softer. Regular (US) sherbet will tend to be "harder" than ice cream with higher fat content. Without sugar or alcohol, just churn your sherbet / sorbet and either serve semi-soft straight from the machine or put it in the freezer for a limited time only to firm up a bit. Do not make it "in advance" or you might pull out a solid block of ice out of your freezer after a few days.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.425168
| 2015-11-29T11:39:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63948",
"authors": [
"Amino Menthol",
"Duane Fennern",
"Gail Starczewski",
"Kenny",
"Lynette Znidarsic",
"Padam",
"Robin Frazier",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152352",
"marissa lim"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113017
|
Best method of cooking an Almond PearTart decoration/top layer
I followed this recipe yesterday because I made an pear tart for today. I still have some time to do the top layer but the recipe did not explain anything after that (or I missed it): Pears, milk, flour, almond, sugar, eggs and salt AND 2 PEARS FOR THE TOP LAYER (If you want the quantity in grams, I can also put it). The texture of it before baking was very similar to a cheese cake (and so does now after baking). It doesn't have any kind of crust underneath it.
This is how the top layer and cake should look like (The source is the recipe, a screenshot, I'm sorry I cannot do more).
Only two things come to mind, by seeing in the ingredients 2 pears for decorating:
Decorating regularly adding on top honey or sugar/cinnamon and burn it a little bit
Doing an pear compote (might be too sweet for the smooth sweet taste of this almond/peartart?)
The top layer of my cake looks brownish, so that might be the brownish color of the recipe picture... But I'm really not sure.
EDIT:
RECIPE::
500g peeled and cored pears
250g whole or semi milk
200g all purpose flour
100g ground almonds
180g sugar
3 large eggs
2 big pears for decorating
a pinch of salt
Mix all the ingredients in a blender until the batter is homogenic and pour it in a 23cm springform mould. Bake for 50-55 minutes at 180 degrees Celsius with top and bottom heat. If it is a bit raw (check with a toothpick as usual) you can leave it outside, so the residual heat will finish it
Why do you call it an apple tart? It seems to be a pear tart based on the ingredients.
Sorry, I regularly confuse those two words, since always... My bad, edited! @Johanna
Without having seen the original recipe: Are you sure that the pears weren’t supposed to go on top of the cheesecake layer before baking? You could also link to the recipe for more details?
Yes, that is my worry. The recipe did not say anything. So my question is more related on what woudl the best option be for the top layer (the cake is already baked!) @Stephie
Can you include the recipe please?
Edited and added! Sorry! I also posted an answer with the recipe of the syrup I made afterwards! @Kat
Okay, maybe I did not explain properly what my problem was in the question, in which case I apologise. An already baked pear-almond cake recipe did not specify what to do with the top layer, so I baked it regularly without adding regular pear on top of the batter before baking it.
As a result, I thought of making an improvised pear syrup
2 pears
150g sugar
1/2 ts of vanilla extract (depending on your liking)
75ml water
Cinnamon
Boil the water with sugar and vanilla extract. Add the pears once everything has integrated. For the pears, I peeled, cored and cut them in thin slices and added them to the pot. Finally, add that to a tray/mold, add cinnamon to your liking on top, and bake for half an hour at 175 degrees Celsius.
Let it cool. What I did: brush the liquid of the syrup into the cake , add the pears in your decorating liking, and brush again a bit on top.
Final result:
Final advice after seeing it:
I think the best would have been to add the raw pears on top of the batter once it's on the tray/mold before baking it. I did not do it, so in order to fix it:
Adding less water might make the syrup more dense, which would be nice in this case
The green mould, as you can see, is quite small. I think the bigger and more spread the pears are, the better the final result will be for them
If you have flavourless gelatine, definetly it'd have been a good idea to add it on top of the pears. I didn't have so, bad luck.
BURNING with a kitchen torch on top of the syrup (or adding a bit more sugar and then burning) would give it a very nice texture and flavour in my opinon.
Personally, I would prepare it by slicing the pears and placing them decoratively on top of the batter in some pattern. Then I would add an egg wash to help it brown nicely during the bake. A pear compote would, in my opinion, not add enough texture to the finished product. If you use whole pear slices, you will get a bit of a contrast between the smooth custard of the tart and the (hopefully) slightly firm pear slices on top.
That would work, but as I mentioned, the cake is already baked, because the recipe did not say anything else! Just "two pears for decorating", but nothing related to when to place them or how. At the moment I did a pear syrup, currently in the oven. I will thinly cut the top layer (so both layers will stick)!
I added another answer! I'd like you to see what you think! I guess there is no definite answer to the question but yours was definetly nice as well and would have solved it if I hadn't baked the cake before! I'll mark it as an answer if you like it more then the one I posted, as both would solve the problem!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.425478
| 2020-12-06T09:54:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113017",
"authors": [
"Kat",
"M.K",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73886",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116193
|
Can German potato salad be served cold?
I usually make the mayonnaise type potato salad which is served cold. I wanted to try German but I want to serve it cold. Recipes I found serve it warm.
No problem is obvious to me, what am I missing?
Actually, what do you expect from „German“ potato salad?
There are many potato salad traditions in Germany, including mayonnaise based salads that are usually found in northern Germany.
As you mention warm potato salads you are propably refering to vinaigrette or broth based salads found usually in the south (Schwäbischer Kartoffelsalat or Swabian potato salad)
It is important that you peel and marinate the potatos while they are hot as the cold potatos won‘t absorb the marinade and will lead to a salad with some dressing but not the desired „infused and emulgated“ potato salad you are looking for.
If all you have is cold potatos, do a mayonnaise based salad, or try a yoghurt based one.
Either way the southern type potato salads can be (and are) eaten either warm or cold. It‘s only in the making where the temperatures matter
In the US, “German” potato salad is usually understood as the non-mayonnaise type, similar to Swabian, but often with bacon. That said, your post is spot on about the importance of working with hot potatoes, which is the core difference apart from the ingredients. Serving temperature largely depends on the time between finishing the salad and serving it. Side note: From a food safety perspective, the broth-and-vinaigrette type is better suited for picnics and buffets in the summer than the mayonnaise kind.
FWIW, all vinagrette-based potato salads should be mixed while warm.
You are not missing anything...it's cultural/traditional. If you want to serve it or eat it cold, there is no reason not to.
Kartoffelsalat (with or often without mayonnaise) is often served as a side dish.
Therefore it depends on what you are serving it with and whether you want it to have a similar temperature as the main dish.
Now I am confused: How does the temperature of the other items matter?
@Stephie With a Schnitzel or Rinderrollade, where everything is warm, you would not want a cold Potato salad. With a Wiener sausage and bread, where the Potato salad is with mayonnaise and pickles, the salad is served cold (this is often more of a 'fast food' than a real meal).
That’s probably more about what you are used to than anything else. Here, a hot Viennese Schnitzel and a cold (or room temperature) Swabian potato salad is perfectly normal as a dish.
@Stephie Not knowing where 'here' is, I can't say. In Germany it is mostly served warm (room temperature).
Here=Swabia. That’s basically home turf for potato salad.
And a lot of US recipes mean “warm” as in well above room temperature - chop, mix, serve immediately. I would classify room temperature rather as “cold” than “warm”. I sense that we agree on “should be served at room temperature”, just use different words ;-)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.425870
| 2021-06-24T01:00:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116193",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Mark Johnson",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91174"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75338
|
Storing sourdough starters with wine in a wine fridge?
Specifically:
Can the yeast & carbon dioxide from the sourdough starter harm the wine bottles I'm aging in the refrigerator, and
Roughly how often would I have to feed the starter if stored only at 52 degrees F?
Thanks in advance for your input!
My starter is going on 6+ years old now. I keep it in the fridge in a covered container. Of course, it would be slightly warmer in a wine fridge, but I would also recommend a covered container in that situation too. There will be a little activity, but not enough for gas to escape. In this scenario, I remove a portion of the starter, add new flour and water, and return to the fridge approximately weekly. I have gone much longer between feedings with no harm...as long as I give it plenty of time to build up before use (at least a day on the counter...sometimes two if I've forgotten about it in the back of the fridge). In any case, it will not impact your wine.
Thank you, moscafj! I have a number of natural wines from Burgundy that I plan to cellar for another 5-10 years, so I'm skittish when it comes to altering their environment. :)
@Liane763 I would be happy to "keep an eye" on your Burgundy wines if you are concerned. ;-) Would you like my shipping address?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.426136
| 2016-11-07T23:33:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75338",
"authors": [
"Liane763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51801",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76434
|
Substitute maple syrup with regular syrup for baking?
I'm trying to create a 'sticky apple pecan cake', the recipe calls for Maple Syrup. Sadly that's really hard to get here.
I do have a full bottle of 'regular' syrup in my cabinet, could I use that instead? It's thicker than maple syrup but the sweetness is about the same to me.
This is the recipe:
INGREDIENTS
1½ cups of cooking oil
2 cups sugar
4 Eggs
3 cups of flour
1 tsp baking soda
½ tsp cinnamon
1 tsp salt
2 tsps vanilla
3½ cups Granny Smith apples (approximately 3-4 apples), peeled and chopped
1 cup of chopped pecans
Caramel Glaze
¾ cups butter (1½ sticks)
1 cup light brown sugar
¼ cup milk
1 tsp vanilla
There is no maple or regular syrup in this recipe.
Jane, welcome! I just formatted your post for you, but I can't find maple syrup in your ingredient list. Could you please [edit] your post and fix this?
Are you following Chris Scheuer's recipe for Sticky Apple Pecan Cake? What do you mean by 'regular' syrup? It is corn syrup (light or dark) or pancake syrup?
You can definitely use regular (if you mean regular is in Betty Crocker and the like) as a replacement for Maple Syrup in this recipe. The flavor won't be quite as nice because you'll be missing the maple flavor, but it will definitely have the sweetness you want.
I don't agree. Betty Crocker is fructose and maple syrup is sucrose. I am not sure they will heat in the same way.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.426373
| 2016-12-13T18:09:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76434",
"authors": [
"Douglas Held",
"Giorgio",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39489",
"mattm"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
31940
|
What to eat for people with hay fever or sinus infection
Can anyone recommend me some things I can eat when I constantly have sinus infection and can't seem to find anything that would help me minimize the effects.
I am not looking for medication as I already got some by doctor but looking for things like, I heard graphes, or chicken...
Health questions are off-topic, according to the FAQ. I recommend complaining to your doctor, and possibly visiting another doctor for a second opinion.
I have heard that honey sourced from the area to which you are having a reaction can up your resistance, but I can't prove it.
Try eating things containing Vitamin C (orange juice, graprefruit, grapes, etc...), and drink hot beverages (tea, green tea, anise, cammomile, etc...), soups also are good (chicken soup is great).
And you have to try to eat healthy foods, for your body to gain strength to resist the bacteria.
Sorry for not adding any references, this is due to my own experience.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.426517
| 2013-02-15T12:04:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/31940",
"authors": [
"Adele- Nexus of Potlucks",
"Adrian Manea",
"ConorMac",
"Mischa Arefiev",
"Vlacha",
"dave111",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73423",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73429",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9210",
"lamira",
"phil"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102422
|
Why does "hot chocolate powder" lose taste?
Yesterday, I made hot chocolate with "Schokotraum Typ Trinkschokolade" from Krüger. I was very surprised, that it didn't taste sweet at all (which is bad; it didn't have a lot of taste overall).
The ingredients are:
DE: Zucker, Süßmolkenpulver (32,3%), Kakaopulver (25,5%), Magermilchpulver (6%), Speisesalz.
EN: Sugar, sweet whey powder (32.3%), cocoa powder (25.5%), skimmed milk powder (6%), salt
I opened it last year and it should be good until November 2020. I don't quite remember, but I think it was sweet last year
Why didn't it taste sweet?
Welcome! Just double-checking: did you eat anything before or together with the drink? Brushed your teeth or suffer from a cold or congested nose? In other words, can we exclude a perception issue?
The best before date is often only valid until the pack is opened.
I'd check the pack itself for confirmation, but many goods will say "Best before [2 years]" but then underneath something along the lines of "Once opened keep in [circumstances] & consume within [much shorter time]"
I first looked up shelf life of cocoa powder - essentially it will last several years if kept cool & dry, but will lose flavour long before eventually going off. Long-term it can go rancid & become unsafe, but long before that it will simply lose all its chocolate flavour.
I couldn't find any absolute authoritative citation for this; it was an opinion formed from many sources, quoting similar but not identical information.
Sweet whey powder, on the other hand, has a shelf life of only 6 - 12 months, according to Dairy for Global Nutrition*. Similar anecdotal sources to those for cocoa powder above say this will also lose flavour & eventually smell & taste like milk gone off. [This search is hindered by the number of results for protein whey powder, which rather bury those for sweet whey.]
*Dry dairy products are known for having a neutral, mild dairy flavor.
Storage at high temperatures and high relative humidity may increase
the potential development of off-flavors. In many cases, significant
changes in product flow and solubility will occur before any changes
in flavor and aroma become evident. Flavor changes develop more
quickly in agglomerated or "instant" ingredients.
Emphasis mine
In conclusion, I imagine that what you tasted was not so much 'less sugar' as less 'chocolate' & potentially slightly past its best sweet whey.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.426657
| 2019-09-21T11:09:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102422",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55728
|
Excess flour in banneton after proofing
I finally got around to buying bannetons for my bread baking and just used one for the first time. Worked great! However, I used rice flour to coat the interior and, after releasing the dough, there is quite a bit in the grooves throughout the bowl and it doesn't fall out by shaking or tapping. So do I leave it there to build up for future proofing or should I get a brush and get it all out?
I have several bannetons (also called brotforms). Two are wicker and 2 are cane (you can also find them made from wood pulp). I simply use a small, stiff pastry brush to clean away any flour left behind. Sometimes I find it helpful to leave it out overnight so the flour dries and it is easier to brush away. I have even given the canes a quick rinse but I do make sure to thoroughly dry before storing. In addition to rice flour, I have used AP and bread flour with success.
With the wicker ones, sometimes I use food grade linen that I flour and line the banneton with to proof the bread. I have also used plastic wrap that has a light spray of olive oil. These two methods eliminate the need to flour the banneton. It just depends on my mood and the surface finish I want on the baked loaf.
In theory, you should always clean your bannetons very meticulously. The main steps (as I was taught from a bunch of very experienced old ladies) would be:
Knock them upside-down on your workbench two or three times to let loose material fall out.
Take a stiff-bristled brush and scrub along the ridges to loosen stuck flour. Work carefully but firmly to get everything out.
Knock the loosened flour out again like in the first step.
Cleaning the baskets well is very important because flour residue that stays there during storage invites little guests of the creepy-crawly kind. You may even think about tucking the baskets in the (slightly cooled!) oven after baking to heat them through once in a while.
I'd caution against using water: If you remember that you can make a "glue" out of flour/starch and water, you might end up with a concrete-like layer of "flour-glue" down in the ridges. And this attracts bugs again. Besides, some materials tend to warp and depending on how the canes are fixed together, there might be even nails or pins that start to rust.
But honestly, if you are baking at least once a week, a solid "smack on the bottom" should be enough for day-to-day upkeep, but always store them in a dry space (again: humidity+flour=glue...).
I gently tap, so it doesn't get all over the cupboard, and just leave it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.426849
| 2015-03-15T21:18:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55728",
"authors": [
"Claire Millard",
"Kelly Westmore",
"Leonard",
"Mario Fernandez",
"Ralf Güttler",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133442",
"iTurner Photography",
"regina hao"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71545
|
How powerful is my cooktop?
I should have asked this years ago. When a recipe calls for "medium heat", I'll burn the dish. I've had this problem on an electric range and a gas top; probably more so on the gas top.
I've tried reducing the heat but something can't be quite right cause the recipe may say to cook for five minutes and it then takes me 10 or longer.
So we can point to the pan or pot I'm using but I've had this issue with non-stick, stainless and copper. It's been on the mark on some occasions but I always feel like "medium-low" on my gas top is "medium" for everyone else.
I do not believe it's cause my gas range is anything too powerful but I don't know. It's not a high end range but middle-of-the-road.
I guess one thing I could check is the number of BTUs generated but I'm out of town and won't be back till Sunday night, in case someone asks, so I'm looking for ideas on what my problem is, if it's a problem at all.
It could be that you're not allowing long enough for the pan to preheat. If you overdo the setting the temperature can shoot past where it should be very easily, if you set it as it should be but don't wait long enough, it will take much longer to cook stuff.
@ElendilTheTall Nope. Typically I wait for about five minutes when heating a pan. I add oil, if needed, after three or four minutes.
You mention stainless and copper... one thing you need to keep in mind is that pans that are copper or have copper cores transfer heat much better, so they can be very tricky to learn how to use properly... particularly all copper pans. When I worked at a kitchen store we'd have people return their expensive copper sets after a day or two because they burned everything they cooked in them. Solid stainless is much more forgiving with heat.
@Catija I think I need to revisit how much of a difference copper is to stainless. If others are struggling with it as much as your customers were, I need to test again and take notes. We moved recently and I haven't taken my stainless out of their boxes yet.
Every stove is different, as you've discovered, and each cookbook author even has a different idea of what "medium" should be since these are by no means standardized measures. You'll just need to adjust, using visual cues (like your oil shimmering) to know when the pan is hot enough, and paying more attention to the recipe's intended result than the sample cooking time.
An illustration, testing on 7 different stoves:
http://www.cooksillustrated.com/how_tos/6623-heat-settings-vary-on-stovetop-burners
In the test kitchen we tested burners on seven different gas stoves
set to high heat to see how long it would take a 10-inch disposable
pie plate filled with 16 ounces of room-temperature water to come to a
boil. For each test we started the timer when the gas was lit. The
results? Wild variation. The shortest amount of time it took for the
water to boil was 2 minutes and 43 seconds. The longest was 3 minutes
and 50 seconds. It seems safe to assume that different stoves would
vary on other settings as well.
The vagaries of heat output from stove to stove are the reason we
include a time range in our recipes and give visual cues for
determining when food has reached the desired stage. It’s much easier
to see the changes in your ingredients as they cook than to guess the
exact heat output of your burner.
So, what I'd suggest is that you do some real-world calibration. For instance, a recipe starts with a simple sautee of some diced onions over medium heat. The onions should be softened and just beginning to brown, about 7 minutes. If your stove gets the onions to that stage in 4 minutes on medium, then you know your "medium" is quite a bit hotter than what the publisher is expecting and you can adjust either time or temperature accordingly on the rest of their recipes.
I've always been told you have to learn your stove, oven and equipment. With gaps in my time to do any cooking, I forget stuff. I'm starting to wonder if I think the differences between pans, such as copper and stainless, is much wider than I thought. I have to decide between burning or under-cooking dinner tonight.
Oh, the pan is a big part of the equation, no doubt. The metal used, clad construction vs disk bottom, thickness of the metal; it just takes experimentation!
Beginning cooks often ask for the "temperature" they have to use to cook their food. What matters in reality is not the temperature, but the speed of heat transfer. And that is dependent on a lot of variables: type of food, amount of food, how much is it piled, pan size, pan material, and of course how much energy your stove is pumping out, which is correlated (but not 1:1) to how much energy your stove is consuming from the power socket or gas pipe. Aside from a narrow choice of pans, the only thing you can control during cooking is the amount of energy your stove consumes.
So, you could look up the BTU, but it won't tell you much. You can try turning the knob to the middle, but that rarely produces a medium heat, because all the other variables would have to be right. In the end, there is no "medium heat" stove setting. What people mean when they say "medium heat" is the setting in which the food happens to cook in a certain way, between searing and stewing in its own leaking juices which don't manage to evaporate in time. If you are talking liquid instead of dry pieces, it is the heat which can sustain a strong simmer or slow boil. It takes a bit of experience to recognize when it is happening.
The "food gets done in 10 instead of 5 minutes" is irrelevant. First, the time can vary with variables you have no control with. Second, recipes give bad timings for a plethora of reasons. Some have a wrong feeling of how long it takes and jot it down, others may have timed it for a smaller portion, third can have literally been told by the marketing department to round down aggressively, fourth may do it because a myth has been established and they believe it more than their own experience (see the infamous Slate complaint on caramelized onions). Whatever the reason, the times given in a recipe don't matter much. You recognize that your food is cooking at the correct speed if its state is changing the way it should (which requires some experience) and that it is ready by noticing that it has reached its desired state (which requires either experience or a thermometer).
So, the conclusion: your cooktop has the proper power for home cooking - basically all cooktops sold to home cooks do. You simply need to turn the knob until the food is cooking the way it should, regardless of any considerations about how much it should be turned or how long your food should be taking.
This gives me an indication as to what my problem is. I love to cook but I'm a programmer and I love to program. When I get on a roll with cooking, I can be a wizard but I love to program, too. Programming trumps cooking so I leave it for periods of time and forget things. Probably too many variables, too. I still can't figure out how some of these pancake recipes are supposed to be on medium for 2 minutes on a side, though. Mine are gooey on the inside and burnt if held that long. So I cook mine on low for five minutes.
That's not a bad place to start. First, a good programmer knows how to pay focused attention; do it when you cook. Second, you can treat recipe times like user claims and your own observations like actual data coming from a production system. When a user says "The job adverts have a field for an expiry date", in reality the field can contain a calendar date, or "two weeks from the (as yet unknown) publishing date", or "as soon as possible". When a recipe author tells you "2 minutes", in reality the time can be anywhere between 20 sec and 20 min. Go with reality.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.427105
| 2016-07-20T12:00:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71545",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Chris Bergin",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Rob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42830",
"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
}
|
93604
|
Is it too dangerous to smoke a stuffed turkey?
Sorry if this is a redundant question, but I'm finding conflicting advice about this: If I want to smoke an ~18 lb turkey, is there a great risk of it spending too much time in the temperature "danger zone" if I stuff it with traditional stuffing?
Welcome to the site @Scott, are you taking about hot smoking or cold smoking? If hot, what temperature would you be smoking at and for how long?
Maybe cold smoking just the turkey, and then finishing it in the oven with stuffing might work? Might want to see if there's anything out there on the Interwebs about that.
Thank you! Sorry for the question being vague. I was referring to hot smoking, well above the temperatures where bacteria get comfy. Exact temperature is TBD, but I'd assumed it would need to be over 250 degrees for me to have a fighting chance. (Still learning!)
I've had delicious hot smoked/grilled turkey, which was brined first (not stuffed). However, stuffing always becomes a problem with turkey. Whether you smoke, or cook in the oven, you are going to over cook the white meat by the time the center of your stuffing is at a safe temperature. You can certainly make it safe by using the appropriate temperature, time, and measuring with a thermometer. ...and, brining can help retain moisture. Having to wait for the center of the stuffing to reach a safe temperature means that the question will be, how overcooked can you stand your turkey meat?
Agreed. You'd be better off having the stuffing under the turkey to catch any drippings, but then you'd get smoked stuffing. (which might not be bad, if you didn't over smoke it). And you can throw the pan of stuffing into the oven if it hasn't reached the necessary temperature.
I did a brined fresh turkey in my rotisserie oven, stuffed. The white meat drying out was not an issue, but that bird was exceptionally juicy (unbelievable amount of pan juices, especially for a stuffed bird). I don't think I'd be as confident smoking it with the stuffing already in it, though.
Thank you! All of your comments have given me some stuff to think about and a couple new ideas to try.
For an 18 pound turkey, I would suggest that you are tempting fate. You would be smoking a large bird, at presumably a low temperature (under 300*F). And you are going to be stuffing its cavity with a large thermal mass that does not conduct heat very well. It seems unlikely you would reach inactivation temperature in a reasonably safe amount of time.
Yeah, that's what I'm afraid of. I think I'm going to go the unstuffed route. Thanks!
Good call. I think it's a little too much on the risky side, and I tend to go right up to that line. On a tangential note, consider spatchcocking the bird if you are going to smoke it. Cooks faster and more evenly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.428038
| 2018-11-05T03:45:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93604",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Joe",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Scott",
"Sean Hart",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67363"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
94420
|
Can I use red wine instead of white wine for chicken scallops?
There's dry white wine used in chicken scallops , is it possible to substitute it with red wine ?
Thanks for the clarification - could you please [edit] your post with the recipe or at least a short summary of what goes into the dish?
Somewhat related: What is a substitute for red or white wine in a recipe?
I would avoid using red wine in a recipe that calls for white. Whites and Reds taste different, so you should expect a switch from white to red to be reflected in the finished dish. And, it will also change the color/presentation.
I was taught that white wine can be substituted with water and vinegar mixed in equal amounts, along with a small amount of sugar in recipes. I think they taste better with the vinegar/sugar combo than with actual white wine. Here's why: When you add alcohol to a recipe that is cooked, the heat evaporates the alcohol. In the case of white wine, the remaining flavor is tangy and tart. When you use vinegar/sugar in your recipe as a substitute for the wine, your recipe tastes like there is wine in it. Now, we know that white wine isn't made from vinegar and sugar - so there isn't any alcohol in finished dish. It just has a flavor similar to the white wine. Whether you are out of white wine, or prefer to cook without alcohol, (and IMHO) the best substitution is vinegar and sugar.
Watered down vinegar and sugar is just one substitute and neither the closest nor the the tastiest, imho. (Your source seems to agree, suggesting it for marinades, not as general solution.) And even a dry white wine should bring more flavor facets than just “tangy and tart”.
@Stephie I made no claims that tangy and tart are the only nuances that wine brings to a dish. As I stated, I was taught to use vinegar and sugar as a substitute for white wine and what I've relied on for decades (although never as a marinade).
The overwhelming majority of people cannot really tell the difference between red and white wine in a blind taste test. This has been proven repeatedly in various tests - google it for examples. Even wine connoisseurs are fooled sometimes. Red wine will change the colour of the result but not the flavour (any more than the subtle differences in the taste of wines of the same colour).
This excellent point is demonstrated in John Cleese's "Wine for the Confused".
Usually Not
It will depend on the recipe you are using, but often the flavor of red wine will clash with the fish (scallops, in this case). Most red wines have a higher iron content than most whites.
Here is an article citing the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry which goes into more detail about this phenomenon.
If the OP meant chicken escalopes, then that's a completely different thing and no seafoods are involved. In which case, sure, why not use red? It'll be a cross between the usual chicken escalope dish and coq au vin, but I see no reason why that'd be a bad thing.
I’m not sure exactly what dish you are planning to make but both chicken and scallops (like the big seared U-10s can go very well with certain red wines so I don’t see what the problem would be.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.428307
| 2018-12-01T20:12:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/94420",
"authors": [
"Mad Martian",
"Stephie",
"elbrant",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70026",
"user3190797"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113458
|
How to avoid onion sweetening when sautéing?
As you know if you sauté onions they'll start to get sweeter the more they stay in the frying pan.
So is there a trick to avoids this sweetening, maybe keep more of the onion taste?
If you want more of a raw flavour, don't cook so long.
What do you mean by “the onion taste”? Both the sulphuric bite of fresh onions and the sweetness of gently sweated onions are part of the onion?
In the US, onions have gotten milder and sweeter over the past 20 years. If you want something that'll make you cry when you cut into it, go to an ethnic store.
From The Times of India:
Add a hint of tanginess:
Adding lime juice can to your dish can balance out the sweetness. In case, you don't want too much of tanginess in the dish you can also add vinegar white wine vinegar, red wine vinegar, balsamic vinegar.
Thank you so you're taking about after Cook and on the dish directly?
@FabioSpaghetti No, during the cook, though after the cook might work too.
When you cut into Allium like onions or garlic a chemical reaction occurs which gives you that fresh onion smell/flavor. As time goes by that reaction will continue, unless it's stopped by heat or acid. Basically if you wait, start with 15-20 minutes, after chopping your onions you can maximize the pungency. Which I think could help in masking the sweeter taste.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.428589
| 2020-12-29T17:41:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113458",
"authors": [
"Anastasia Zendaya",
"FabioSpaghetti",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89857"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53775
|
Convert fresh basil leaves to a dry measurement
I have a recipe that calls for 12 fresh basil leaves. How do I convert that to a dry measurement?
See also http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11771/how-much-dried-herb-to-use-when-substituting-for-fresh-herbs. I wouldn't close as a duplicate, because the original question asks for a volume conversion and here the recipe specifies the number of leaves. By the way, I find it a bit strange that you want to substitute in this case, most recipes where the fresh leaves are counted are very dependent on the basil, such as insalata caprese, and won't work with a substitution.
This is a more tricky conversion than most. As another answer already said, the "standard" conversion for most herbs is 3 parts fresh = 1 part dried. (There is more general advice on that question in the link rumtscho gave in comments here.)
Basil is a particular problem because its flavor is generally very different in dried vs. fresh forms. Dried basil can also vary greatly in its potency and flavor notes: I often find it has enhanced "sweetness" compared to fresh basil, but lacks some of the other distinctive flavors of the fresh form. The only time I'd generally consider substituting dried basil in a recipe for fresh is if the basil is cooking in the dish for a long time (for example, simmering an hour or more).
In any case, sometimes you just can't get the fresh stuff. But converting a number of leaves into a measurement of dry basil gets even trickier: what size is a "standard" basil leaf? Is your particular dried basil fresh-bought and potent, or has it been sitting around for a while?
I poked around in internet searches, and people seem to recommend anywhere from 4 to 8 fresh basil leaves = 1 teaspoon of dried basil. So, if I had to do this, I'd go somewhere in the middle and probably try 2 teaspoons of dried basil for 12 leaves. If you are using this in a dish that will cook for a while you'll have time to adjust, so I'd start a little on the lower side and add more basil to taste if necessary.
On the other hand, if you're using this in a dish where you're depending on a specific "fresh herb" flavor of fresh basil, there's just no substituting the dry form. In that case, I might recommend trying another fresh herb you do have (perhaps something more neutral like parsley) mixed with a little dried basil to give a bit of the right flavors. It still won't be the same as fresh basil, but at least you'll get a bit of the fresh herbiness which is often part of the experience too.
I've always been told that you need more fresh to dry when it comes to recipes. I would say that the conversion is 3:1.
Also, this may confirm that.
That doesn't help unless you have whole leaf dried basil. (as the question is for converting '12 leaves' not a standard volumetric measurement)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.428742
| 2015-01-19T16:46:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53775",
"authors": [
"Atsa",
"Audrey",
"Brandi Wier",
"Joe",
"Kolton Brand",
"Michael Sauter",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126427",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"janet wells",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
65349
|
Marinating venison?
I have tried again and again to find a good solution to marinating venison as it never turns out right because of the natural jucies. So what is the correct process of doing this or what should i use?
Some more detail would be helpful here - I can't think of anything special about venison in particular that would make it difficult to marinate. What specifically have you tried and how has it failed to meet your expectations?
Could it be the cooking process and not the marinade? Venison is very lean and tricky to cook. What is it that you don't like in the final outcome?
@jasonwhipple Definitely could be the process; what i dont like is no matter what I use it always turns out really gamie.
In part you have to re-train your mind when eating any wild animal. It will never taste like grain fed cattle. They are wild animals and eat wild things. Other things that could affect the taste is the processing of the deer. If not bled out very well before butchering it could have a stronger taste to it. Also, the age of the deer can be a factor. Older deer tend to have a stronger taste.
Some things you could try are soaking it in a brine base marinade for several days in the refrigerator to let the blood escape. You can add fruit juices to this brine as well. Once you do this the silver "skin" on the muscles will become more obvious and easier to remove. Removing that skin could help a lot and make the meat more tender.
Another option is to soak it for at least 1 day in milk and seasonings. Buttermilk, low fat yogurts (even fruit flavored), or ranch dressing is also used by some people.
Lastly, always cook as slow as possible. Roasts should be done at about 275 and steaks should cook as slowly as you can. Cooking to quickly may not give the meat enough time to "bleed out" but then again, it's a balancing act because if to much of the juice comes out you're stuck with a piece of meat that is very dry.
Experimentation is the only way to perfect it for your tastes. Hope this gives you a few new idea's to try out.
As one who has harvested a fair number of deer over the years, I have determined that in order to lessen the "gaminess" taste of venison, marinating it no longer than overnight in a solution of wine (any cheap version will work) and a small amount of fruit juice like lime, lemon or even oranges, works. Just don't add too much and thin out the wine with some water unless you like meat with a heavy wine taste (I don't, personally).
The key is to not let the meat marinate too long otherwise the flesh becomes quite soft and/or mushy, taking away from the cut steak or roast consistency.
I've found that 6-8 hours is what I prefer but, again, YMMV depending on your preference.
The acidity of the wine and fruit juices work to break down the tougher fibers of the meat, but as mentioned, going too long will be counterproductive.
Also, having some of the taste of the actual venison remaining is why I enjoy the meat. After all you aren't desiring the same taste and texture of beef, are you, since that is the whole purpose of cooking venison?
Lastly, I don't have a specific recipe that I use. It all depends on what my taste buds are looking forward to and knowing how various spices and marinades interact with the meat and that comes from decades of experimentation and personal preferences.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.429088
| 2016-01-13T02:51:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/65349",
"authors": [
"Debbie Pothin",
"DnrDevil",
"Edward Varcoe",
"Faye",
"Linda Fletcher",
"Margaret O'Neill",
"NKY Homesteading",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156310",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39994",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63755
|
Frozen eggs in the shell: thaw and cook or trash them?
I wanted to scramble some eggs and when I cracked them they were frozen solid. Could I have cooked them? I just threw them out.
Can you thaw frozen eggs and cook them???
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/10280/67
Possible duplicate of What can I do with frozen eggs?
Yes you can thaw frozen eggs and cook them, the only thing is that the consistency will change and the yolk tends to get lumpy. I wouldn't recommend trying to bake with them but they'll make fine scrambled eggs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.429402
| 2015-11-23T05:27:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63755",
"authors": [
"Harriet Holland",
"Joe",
"Kajal Anilbhai Chauhan",
"Luciano",
"Med Spa Hempstead",
"Nayan Moni Roy",
"Thomas",
"William Hutchinson",
"couplestherapy12",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151774",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"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
}
|
64457
|
Why is putting an egg in the microwave not recommended?
I would like to know why it is not recommended to put an egg in the microwave.
Where does this "legend" comes from ?
A whole egg? That would make a mess. Microwaved scrambled eggs are OK in a pinch.
The "legend" comes from everyone who has had to clean the microwave afterwards. It is actually fine to PUT an egg in a microwave, just don't turn it on.
With all due respect, have you actually tried? Why do you think it's a "legend"? What did the "legend" say about what would happen?
"Legend"? It's a very documented and easily repeatable procedure. Microwave Eggs cooked in their shells will explode!
For what it's worth, we make "fried eggs" for egg sandwiches in the microwave by cracking an egg and pouring it onto a small plate with non-stick cooking spray. Then cover with a paper towel and microwave. It does pop and splatter, but the paper towel catches that, and you have a cooked egg very quickly.
I once removed an egg, placed it on a plate and whilst I was getting the salt it made a loud pop and sprayed red hot liquid over my counter.
I'd always heard that while they don't explode, making scrambled or "fried" eggs in the microwave creates odor issues (i.e. sulfur compounds that normally cook off slowly, instead build up in the air in the microwave, causing an unappetizing smell) - is there any truth to this?
THIS IS WHY
https://youtu.be/qcAuVsX3dTg?t=39s
OK.
OK.
OK.
OK.
OK.
Scrambled eggs like to explode in microwave too. Not nearly as violently as whole eggs, but they solidify on the outermost layer first, then steam gathers inside, and boom. A good bit of egg all over the microwave. The way around it is to stop and stir frequently but that's a bother. Source: personal experience.
This probably refers to whole eggs mostly...
A microwave can boil water very rapidly, and a tight but fragile container like a whole egg will violently rupture if such rapid boiling happens inside it, because the overpressure inside it is already significant when the shell finally breaks.
Here is a video showing an experiment with ca. 180 eggs in a microwave oven, which after a minute or two rupture simultaneously and with enough force to blow the oven open, with debris being propelled several meters.
I took a boiled egg out too soon once, and split it in half, discovered my mistake and put the halves into the microwave for a few seconds, a pop, not a big bang, but quite messy
Thanks. My life wouldn't have been complete without seeing that video this morning.
As someone who tried this out at a young age, I thoroughly DO recommend it! The microwave makes a huge bang and jumps 2 inches off the bench. Good times! (However, you need to do some heavy duty cleaning before mum gets home.)
However, by breaking another rule, you can boil an egg in a microwave.
Steps:
2/3 fill a coffee cup with boiling water.
Wrap an egg in aluminium
foil.
Place wrapped egg in cup. Ensure the water covers all the aluminium foil.
Microwave for 4 - 5 minutes.
There may be some overflow from boiled water in the microwave if your coffee cup isn't big enough. A paper towel under the cup will take care of that.
The foil prevents the microwaves exploding the egg, however the water surrounding the foil prevents the arcing that normally happens with metal in the microwave.
A great snack for office workers.
2 wrongs to make a right, brilliant!
My microwave manual says not to use aluminum foil, so I've done this using plastic wrap, with good results. I do use half power, as others have mentioned. I've also only done it a very few times, so perhaps I just got lucky!
Really? Plastic wrap should be the same as no wrap, ie, the egg should explode - though the explosion may be contained within the wrapping. I did mention that you have to break another (microwave) rule.
I'd bet the egg doesn't explode because the liquid water outside keeps it cooler.
Even if you don't use any foil, the water will still absorb most of the microwaves, and the small fraction that reaches the egg directly probably isn't enough to heat it so rapidly that it would explode. Still, there may be some risk of explosion, especially if you use a small cup and a high-power microwave oven, so the foil method might be slightly safer.
I would probably put the warning about the water covering the foil in boldface, since it seems pretty critical to the recipe.
@ToddWilcox good suggestion. done.
A simple undamaged raw egg in a microwave at full power will explode. Unless you have a deep desire to thoroughly scrub your microwave I can not recommend that approach.
The problem is that the egg will be heated to more than 100C, that means the water will start to vaporize and steam has the nasty habit of needing way more room than liquid, and you get a pressurized egg or an "egg-bomb". An egg's shell is a quite robust construction, especially where pressure from the outer side is concerned. Nevertheless, at one point the shell will burst and the egg "explodes".
So how to prevent this?
Method:
Avoid steam. If you heat the egg very, very gently, i.e. in short bursts witl low energy, you might keep the interior pressure low enough.
Frankly, if I have a pot and a stove, I'd go that route any time, especially as I can limit the inner temperature better. As boiling water doesn't exceed 100C, the egg will always stay below that, meaning no steam is created.
Method:
Avoid the build-up of pressure. If you crack the shell and transfer the egg to a bowl, you can easily boil it or make microwave scrambeled eggs etc.
I have had scrambled eggs explode, too. But if you add water, that prevents buildup of high heat - poaching in a microwave works.
In addition to the excellent answers you already got, there are a few more issues:
Microwaving cooks inside out. As a result, the yolk will cook first (or at least at the same time as the white).
Some late-night-TV gadgets promise to let you cook omlettes in the microwave. In reality, the eggs will still explode, even after scrambling, but the mess is contained in the gadget. The other issue is that you end up with bits of egg superglued to the plastic.
There is a way to cook eggs in a microwave that has worked safely for me: poaching. Fill a bowl with water, and crack a couple eggs into the water. Cook for three to five minutes. Remove with a slotted spoon. The eggs will not be as nice as stove-poached eggs, because the yolk will be hard-boiled, but other than that, the eggs always turn out nice.
The real problem with the egg occurs after it is already hard-boiled.
When you buy a package of hard-boiled eggs from the refrigerated section in some grocery stores, those come with a warning "do not microwave". That is a mstake you only make once...
When you heat a hard-boild egg in the microwave, it will turn out nice and hot - and then explode in your face and burn your lip when you bite into it.
Cutting the egg in half does not help - the yolk will explode and jump right out of the half egg and evenly distribute in the microwave.
I don't know exactly why all this happens. My best guess is that there are two separate processes at work. First, the yolk gets heated faster than the white. It tries to expand, but instead builds up pressure. Secondly, even in a hard-boiled egg, there probably is enough residual water to create quite a bit of steam. Worse: the boiled egg white, as well as the egg yolk are fairly gas tight, so the steam is trapped in lots of pockets in the yolk.
Microwaves do not cook inside out. ( http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/10/microwaves-dont-cook-from-the-inside-out/ ) What could be happening is, that the yolk, with it's higher fat content, reaches higher temperatures faster.
I remember reading that the white of an egg cooks (goes firm) at a lower temperature than the yolk. If I remember rightly, if you can "boil" an egg at a constant temperature of around 70-75 degrees C, the white will cook through and the yolk remains soft, no matter how long you continue to cook for. So if you use alcohol instead of water to boil your eggs in, you don't have to worry about timing. But you do have to worry about setting your kitchen on fire or the house exploding if the alcohol vapours catch light, Might be a tad harder to clean up than egg in microwave.
@AdamV, I think your temperatures are slightly high. When sous viding eggs, people generally go for 65 to 67 ºC.
@AdamV I think the technique you describe is called Sous Vide, and works with water just as well as with alcohol - the trick is to keep it at the exact constant temperature. That's basically what Sous Vide machines do. You can also use it to cook steaks to perfection, for instance. Set the temperature to the one for rare or well done or whatever you need, cook the steak as long as you want. When ready to serve, throw it in a hot pan to sear a very thin layer of the outside crust for the nice brown crisp.
Delia Smith recommends using a pin to prick a small hole in the wide end of the egg, where the air bubble is. That way the steam escapes from the shell avoiding a pressure build up. This has always worked for me when water boiling an egg and the shell never cracks.
This might work in the microwave too. It would be an interesting experiment to match the hole size to the rate of steam production, to the power output of the oven. Is that over sciencing the egg making process?
I don't think this will work in a microwave. The explosion happens when the egg is hard boiled, not when it is still soft. In fact, I had a hard-boiled egg completely without shell explode, so simply puncturing the shell is not going to do much.
The air bubble doesn't contribute to explosion. It is the water (88% of egg white) which does the job.
I tried to hard boil an egg in my microwave.... I pricked two holes on the egg and had it in a microwave safe bowl of water. After two minutes it exploded and my microwave door flew open. Right away the microwave shut off and I can not get it to turn on, so yeah, not worth experimenting with this.... I now have to buy a new microwave.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.429564
| 2015-12-16T10:28:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64457",
"authors": [
"AdamV",
"Asma Mulani",
"CW Ieong",
"CaptainCodeman",
"Charlotte ken",
"Christina Tawil",
"Ilmari Karonen",
"JOHN EVANS",
"JPhi1618",
"Jolenealaska",
"Jon Kopcho",
"Joseph Tobbe",
"Kevin Keane",
"MonkeyZeus",
"Mr Lister",
"Nora Mc Cabe",
"Nora Zorich",
"PatFromCanada",
"Patricia Lilac",
"Peter Taylor",
"Prasan Gaonkar",
"Random832",
"SF.",
"Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL",
"Terry",
"TheSexyMenhir",
"Todd Wilcox",
"Tom Henshey",
"Yvonne Raats",
"gloomy.penguin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10174",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153713",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153862",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35815",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7495",
"john3103",
"kek",
"mcalex",
"user23614",
"user58697"
],
"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
}
|
77286
|
Pastry flour for bread
I was looking through my Julia Child cookbook and noticed she said that the French use low protein flour for their plain French bread with a value of about eight percent. That is the value of protein in pastry flour but the only pastry I could find was Arrowhead Mills brand. On a whim, I thought I would whip up a loaf to see what would happen, though her recipe calls for all-purpose flour.
I found the dough to be very wet and a light brown color. I added some flour so it would be more manageable. There are three rising times including the final one. The first two bubbled up well, three times the initial size, but the last really didn't happen and I wound up with a flat loaf.
My question, then, is what happened? Does pastry flour require less water due to the lower protein? I used a quick rise yeast, too, but didn't decrease the amount. Did the yeast eat up all the protein and ran out by the final rise?
I also question whether I might have the wrong kind of pastry flour. The bag says "whole wheat pastry flour" but I read elsewhere that someone used "white pastry flour". I haven't found a difference yet.
My goal, as I said, was to make a loaf with eight percent protein flour.
EDIT: Looking around, I found what I suspected. Pastry flour absorbs less water, almost 50% less, than all-purpose. So reducing the amount of water might fix the problem. I intend to make another batch using all purpose and another with less water and pastry flour to see what happens.
While you probably can make bread with 8% flour, European flour tends to be in the 9-10% range, so comparable to AP flour in the USA. Also, the raw amount of protein is not the only thing which influences gluten strength, so you might have to experiment and change brands if one of them doesn't work. Or add wheat starch to AP flour.
@rumtscho As I said, Julia Child states that the French use 8% flour in their French bread.
I live in Europe and have shopped in French supermarkets every now and then. The difference between the American (and UK) bread tradition and the European one is that in North America, there is so-called "hard wheat" which is made into bread flour, while Europe does not use it (there is durum, but it is not the same thing). The European flour is made from soft wheat like the one Americans use for AP flour. The flour is not classified by the bread-AP-pastry-cake system, but by a wholeness-based system. I have never seen 8% flour in any European country, although it might (cont.)
(cont.) exist - but at least in the countries I have shopped groceries in, it is not present in a standard supermarket. I have most frequently seen 9 to 10% flour (although I have not systematically written the numbers down for France specifically), but see https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farine_de_bl%C3%A9 - it claims that T55 (the most widespread flour type in France) has 10 to 12%. If anything is seen as more "bread" flour than the others, these are the higher types, which have more protein, not less. So either there was a major shift in agriculture since JC wrote, or she was misinformed.
As rumstcho said in comments, European flours operate on a completely different system than the American "protein = gluten = strength of flour" system. Not to go too far into this, but American flours vary a lot depending on type of wheat. "Harder" wheats produce higher gluten/protein flours. If you buy American "pastry/cake" vs. "all-purpose" vs. "bread flour" vs. "high-gluten", a lot of the difference will often be due to the precise type of wheat used. In some cases (especially all-purpose), the flour can actually be a blend of multiple wheat types.
But dough strength is not only impacted by total protein content or type of wheat. European flours often vary significantly in "extraction" rate, which is how much of the bran and germ are removed from the pure white starch. This also happens in American flours, particularly for cake and pastry flours where pure starch is more desirable. This also changes the "ash content" of the flour, which is basically correlated to extraction and more-or-less denotes the amount of stuff leftover after the pure starch is burned away (which consists of various minerals, etc.). Differences in milling procedure and size of milling particles can also significantly affect the way flour behaves by damaging the protein/gluten or by leaving larger particles of bran that can interfere with gluten networks (as in whole grain breads).
My point is that it's perfectly possible to have a "10% protein flour" that behaves close to a pastry flour or an all-purpose flour or even a bread flour in terms of various characteristics (gluten network formation and durability, elasticity, hydration tolerance, etc.). For some applications, some European bakers will still use relatively low-protein flour by American standards for various types of breads, but because of differences noted above, sufficient rise is still possible. But other characteristics may change (for example, a more tender crumb with different elasticity).
A final note is that stronger flours have become more common both in the U.S. and in Europe over the past century or two. If you go back to the 1700s or 1800s, historical evidence suggests bread was often baked with much "weaker" flours in terms of gluten content than today. Even a few decades ago in the U.S., "bread flour" was often a specialty item and "high-gluten" flour was unheard of for the average consumer. My grandmother and mother baked bread for many decades ONLY ever using what would today be considered a somewhat "soft" all-purpose flour. European standards have also changed significantly over the past century, so it's difficult to know exactly what Julia Child's flour was like beyond just the protein number.
And unless you have a close match to that original flour not only in protein content but the other characteristics I mentioned, you may have difficulty producing the original bread. If you want to see some other folks struggling to replicate Julia's bread using modern French flours (which are probably still not a match to Julia's original flour), I'd suggest a look at this thread.
Regardless, if you want to make bread recipes work with lower protein flours than they're expecting, do be prepared to decrease hydration significantly, and perhaps increase interventions during fermentation to maximize gluten strength (e.g., stretch-and-folds, using a pre-shaping and bench rest, good shaping technique in general). My guess is that may the reason behind the "three rises" in the recipe you mention; if you're seeing failures, I'd recommend decreasing total fermentation time before bake and instead increase frequency of interventions to strengthen gluten.
I tried the recipe again yesterday using AP flour. While it performed better, the flavor wasn't as good as the recipe I use from Hamelman. At a glance it looked almost the same as Child's. I had mentioned the hydration problem in my question. With AP flour it was still too wet so I added more flour which may account for the taste difference. So I have some pastry flour left and I'm going to try again but with much less water. I'm curious to see what happens but your comment about the variations among flours is something I hadn't thought of. (I had read the link some time in the past, too.)
If a recipe, especially an occidental one from the 20th century, just specifies flour, always assume white flour - wholegrain was probably considered hippie food back then, and would certainly have been explicitly mentioned.
White vs wholemeal types are not the same in aspects like hydration behaviour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.430432
| 2017-01-09T03:26:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77286",
"authors": [
"Rob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"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
}
|
75749
|
Can I refrigerate homemade puff pastry made ahead of time?
Puff pastry is similar to croissant dough. When I made homemade croissants for the first time, a few weeks ago, they were OK but I could have done better. I have a recipe to use with puff pastry but I won't have a chance to redo the puff, if I make it from scratch and mess it up, or thaw store bought.
So if I make the dough ahead of time, can I refrigerate it for use the next morning? Ideally two days ahead but one day before morning use would be fine.
EDIT: Jacques Pepin, in his book "New Complete Techniques" says the following.
Puff paste tends to darken and become quite elastic when stored in the
refrigerator. However, well wrapped, it freezes beautifully.
The dough can be frozen whole or rolled, cut into shapes, and frozen.
To use, defrost the large pieces to roll. The frozen shaped pieces
should be placed in the oven frozen for best results.
Classic puff pastry absolutely needs a final resting and cooling time in the fridge before you use it for your croissants, palmiers, danishes....
Most recipes give a minimum rest of 30-60 minutes after the last "fold", but overnight in the fridge is absolutely fine. I'm not sure whether storing it for two days might have negative side effects, but up to one day is no problem at all.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.430968
| 2016-11-22T16:41:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75749",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102998
|
Using parsley and thyme in a brine
I have a recipe for a brine that says to include a bunch of parsley when adding the ingredients to the boil. My question is, do I add the parsley whole, with the stems, or should I still separate the leaves?
It also includes thyme so the same question for that, too.
In a brine, I would simply toss in the whole thing, stem and leaves, for parsley. In fact, parsley stems are quite flavorful. Thyme benefits from a bit of bruising to release the aroma and flavor. So, I would roughly strip the leaves, not worrying too much if some stem was included.
I thought I had read parsley stems were bitter.
Have you tried them?
No. Because I was told they were bitter.
Try them...I use them regularly, especially in brines, pestos and salsas.
I'd use the soft stems for many herbs, like coriander and cilantro for the same reason - flavor.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.431104
| 2019-10-21T21:13:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102998",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Rob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"moscafj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76101
|
Does frying in canola instead of shortening change the fry time?
I had a bunch of canola oil and didn't want to go out and buy some shortening for a new recipe I found for beignets. The recipe called for heating 3-inches of shortening up to 370F to fry them in so I did the same with canola.
The fry time was to be 3 minutes but the first few I tried were too doughy. The next few I did for 4 minutes and, again, too doughy. Even at 5 minutes the inside was too wet. They are to be served hot so letting them sit for long isn't really an option.
I kept a thermometer in the pot and maintained that 370F temp pretty well. Other than the doughy to wet inside, they puffed up nicely and had good flavor.
So is there something I'm not aware of?
Are you sure you made them the same size as recommended in the recipe? That'd be my first guess for what went wrong.
@Catija It called for dropping a "teaspoon size" dollop into the oil. It's possible mine were slightly bigger cause the pastry was rather gooey. I know recipes call for rolling the dough out but this is not one of them.
OK, corollary, teaspoon as in measuring spoon or the flatware you stir tea with? They generally aren't the same.
@Catija That's a good question to which I don't have an answer but a teaspoon measurement would make an awfully small beignet.
The type of fat you use makes no difference in cooking time, as long as you use a fat with a smoke point above that you want to cook at. There's a related question on the site about fats for deep frying which talks about the properties of different fats. Canola is absolutely fine to use instead of crisco or some other shortening.
It sounds to me like you had the fat just where you needed to be, I think what went wrong is your dough. From what you describe it sounds like you may have had it too moist. Moisture is important in the dough as it's the conversion of water to steam that gives you the puff, but too much moisture means you will saturate it. Try a thicker dough.
I think I am going to convince myself that I made the beignets too big. I also found out that my recipe was actually for a "quick" beignet. There was no yeast or a rise time so my expectations were different.
It is well known that non-pristine deep frying fat has more browning power... so maybe a less heat-stable fat (canola vs shortening) will reach the required state of "non-pristineness" quicker?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.431216
| 2016-12-03T16:45:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76101",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Rob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67030
|
Ingredient substitute for sriracha hot sauce
Asian Glazed Chicken Drumsticks
I would like to try making this recipe. But I don't like anything super spicy. What could I use instead of the sriracha hot sauce and get a similar flavor with out the extra heat?
Ingredients
8 medium chicken drumsticks
1 cup water
1 tablespoon Sriracha hot sauce
1/3 cup balsamic vinegar
1/3 cup reduced-sodium soy sauce
2 teaspoons honey
3 cloves garlic, crushed
1 teaspoon fresh, grated ginger
When you say 'super spicy', that suggests that you're still accepting of spicy. What level are you okay with?
Mildly spicey, for instances I don't mind most mild breakfast sausage.
1 TBSP is not going to add a huge amount of heat... I add more than that to my Asian foods at dinner and that's for a single portion...
the ingredient is only (mostly) for flavoring, just reduce the quantity; the recipe will still work and be less spicy.
If not wanting to be spicy at all, you could use a regular red bell pepper paste (blend/puree some red bell pepper with a little bit of olive oil (or no oil)), or maybe use a tablespoon of tomato paste.
Sriracha is primarily red chili pepper, it is used for heat. You could replace it with a something like this Ortega Mild Taco Sauce.
If it were me, I would reduce the amount of sriracha using only a 1/2 teaspoon or so. You would get a little heat without it being overwhelming.
I'm going to assume that you wouldn't want to buy a bottle of sriracha if it's something that you find too spicy ... and it's impossible to find something that's truly 'similar' in taste without it being hot.
So instead, I'd consider basing the sauce off of "Sweet Chili Sauce" that you can often find in the Asian section of American grocery stores. (sold by a few different companies -- Mae Ploy and Lee Kum Kee are typically available near me)
Although it also has garlic in it, it's not quite as strong as Sriracha. In other recipes you might want to add a little to compensate, but the recipe already has three cloves in it, so you likely won't miss it.
You'll also need to reduce your sweeteners (it's sweet chili sauce, after all). I'd try making it without the honey, as the chili sauce is likely going to add the sweetness of about 1 to 2 tsp of honey. (if needed, you can always add a bit after tasting).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.431547
| 2016-03-02T16:39:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67030",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Clerence Jeremiah",
"Daphne Powell",
"David Banks",
"Hunter2223",
"Jasmin",
"Joe",
"Mini",
"Selling Second Hand Motorcycle",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160754",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160755",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43874",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"legofan"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67031
|
Dry white wine substitute for slow cooker garlic chicken recipe
What would be a good substitute for the wine? I do not know what to do with wine I have never cooked with it and I wouldn't use enough of it to make it worth buying some.
Slow Cooker Garlic Chicken
Ingredients
1/2 cup fat-free, low-sodium chicken broth (certified gluten-free if necessary)
3 tablespoons dry white wine
2 tablespoons cognac
1 (3 1/3-pound) whole chicken, skinned and cut into 8 pieces
1 1/2 teaspoons extra-virgin olive oil
1 1/2 teaspoons butter
1/4 teaspoon salt
1/8 teaspoon freshly ground black pepper
40 garlic cloves, peeled (about 4 whole heads)
2 teaspoons fresh thyme leaves
4 teaspoons chopped fresh parsley (optional)
Hunter, welcome. With questions like this, it is a wise idea to do a quick search - chances are good that we already have an answer. Try this one.
Oops okay I looked and I couldn't find a good answer. Thanks
And quick formatting hint: two blanks at the end of the like force a line break.
If the linked question does not solve the substitution question for your specific recipe, we'll probably come up with more ideas. In this case: I'd just leave it out or use a dash more broth.
You can freeze leftover wine if you leave a little room for expansion in the container (and keep it upright especially for strong reds, it can get slightly slushy and escape). You can (in many countries) buy mini bottles of wine; in France they sell <200ml cartons (<1 cup) cheaply. On the front they seem marketed for picnics, but in the back there's a recipe. We bring them back by the dozen.
Instead of buying wine in a tall, dark glass wine bottle, you can also buy a small bottle of cooking wine that will keep for a very long time. I use this (http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/6176SHdIgfL.SL1000.jpg) brand, and have one red and one white in my cupboard. I usually have a good wine bottle of each in the fridge for this purpose too. This is assuming you aren't opposed to alcohol in general.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.431765
| 2016-03-02T16:52:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67031",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Hunter2223",
"Jason P Sallinger",
"Josie Llado",
"Kelvin Cheung",
"Louise Dyer",
"Michael Bradley",
"Nadia",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160761",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160762",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43874"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67029
|
Replicating Good Seasons brand Italian salad dressing dry mix
I use the dry mix in a ranch chicken recipe. I would like to make my own version from scratch. How would I go about trying to duplicate there recipe so to speak? I've looked at the list of ingredients on the package but I don't know what actually makes the flavor, and what is preservatives.
Ingredients: sugar, salt, sodium, citrate, garlic, onions, spice, red bell peppers, carrots, xanthan gum, maltodextrin, parsley, guar gum, natural flavor, soy sauce (wheat, soybeans, salt), citric acid,
There are lots of recipes for "homemade dry ranch dressing mix" like this one. I recommend you start there. We can certainly help you mimic a powder you like but that would require that you post the brand and ingredients specifically so that we can help with that. If you're just looking for any old recipe, we don't do recipe requests, but you should have no trouble finding one. My Google search turned up dozens.
Wait... are you looking for Ranch dressing or Italian? Your title says "Italian" but your recipe is "ranch chicken".... here's a recipe for Italian, if that's what you need instead,
I was meaning the Italian version. Sorry for not making that clear.
The ingredient list you provided says "dried" at the end - something's missing, I'm guessing?
@Jefromi - Nope. Looking at the image in the history, "dried" has an asterisk and indicates some ingredients are dried. I'll just remove it.
Classically a Italian blend would be:
teaspoon dried thyme
teaspoon dried basil
tablespoon dried parsley
tablespoon garlic salt
tablespoon onion powder
tablespoon white sugar
tablespoons dried oregano
teaspoon ground black pepper
teaspoon celery salt
teaspoon salt
The just add water/oil/vinegar to make into dressing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.431957
| 2016-03-02T16:27:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67029",
"authors": [
"Angus Ramsay",
"April",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Denise Leonard",
"Emma Hotchkiss",
"Hunter2223",
"Ian Fulton",
"Janet Riley",
"Jim Kay",
"Johann Neethling",
"Julie Smith",
"Kyle Hawley",
"Stephie",
"Steve Leach",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160758",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43874",
"lavanya k"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
124117
|
Master Chef metal pot - I cannot find any details about if it is oven safe
I acquired a metal Master Chef pot many years ago and it cooks perfectly. However, I am worried about using it in the oven and do not even know what material it is made of so Is there an easy way to tell if a pan/pot is oven-safe? is not too helpful to me. I was wondering if anyone had ever seen this V150D Master Chef pot and lid before or are better at Google then me, most of my searches turn up sites selling new pots and pans. I would love either a manufacturer's guidance or assured advice please if possible.
This is what it looks like:
What temperature would you like to use it at in the oven? I'd have no worries at all using it in a cool oven as a sort of slow cooker. I'd risk an all-stainless pan, not non stick (as this appears to be), in a much hotter oven for browning; the risk is pretty small.
@ChrisH no more than 180C, probably in the 120-160C range. Thanks for the advice, I'm going to put it in the oven at 120C with just water, see how it goes, then bump it in stages up.
@JamesT Worth noting that the water will stop the metal (at least what it's in contact with) from getting as hot as the rest of the oven, so depending what you plan to cook in it this experiment might not be representative. There are pans which are fine with water on a stovetop but would melt if the water wasn't there.
First, some background. The "MasterChef" cookware you have is branded after the TV Show of the same name from 2010 to present. During the run of the show, producers the Gander Group has had a series of contractors manufacture branded cookware, with no consistency or continuity. This cookware is unrelated to the All-Clad Master Chef Line.
Since the pan you have is not the same materials, design, or likely factory as the cookware currently promoted by the show, we can find out nothing about it online. Fortunately, we don't have to.
From the photos, I can see that the pan is all-metal, and is either stainless steel or a combination of stainless and some other metal, most likely aluminum (3-ply cookware). Handles are spot-welded on. You should be able to tell if it's possibly 3-ply by checking the thickness and weight; does it seem likely that there's 3 layers of metal there?
Either way, it will be fine in the oven as long as you don't heat or cool it too fast (e.g., don't put the hot pan down on a cold slab of granite or in a water bath). Even if it's not 3-ply, you won't want rapid temperature changes lest those spot-welds come apart (I know this from bitter personal experience). I'd also avoid putting it in extreme heat situations, like under a hot broiler, just because you don't know that much about the pan.
I just logged in to answer this myself, I needed to season my cast iron frying pan so put the pot in the oven with it at 140C and it went perfectly. Thank you for the extra details, nice to know the background of it especially as it's a nice pot!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.432152
| 2023-05-07T11:34:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/124117",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"piJT"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58794
|
Baking with unhulled sesame seeds versus hulled
I'm baking a sesame seed bread recipe from the Tartine Bread book and it calls for toasting the hulled seeds. Penzey only had hulled so, not having written it down, I figured that was what I was supposed to get.
Rather than worrying too much about it, should I just put the seeds into the dough raw, rather than toasting, or should I still toast them? What is any significant taste difference will there be? Why did he use unhulled instead?
You should dry roast the seeds before putting them in bread dough. It will have a really strong flavour. He used the unhulled seeds for the mild flavour. You can either use hulled or unhealed. I believe that you have washed the sesame seeds, dried them, dry roasted them and then ........ WHOOP in the dough. That will of course taste great....
In fact, that's what I did. I roasted them the same way as in the book directions but for less time; 15 minutes versus 30 but I only made half the recipe and was worried about burning them. The flavor was strong but perfect for the loaf as it was delicious and now one of my favorite breads.
Yes @Rob because the time left would be cooked within the dough so no worries.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.432394
| 2015-07-05T00:21:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58794",
"authors": [
"Dave Millard",
"Fruma Ioukhvets",
"Jack Sawada",
"Joe Hand",
"Psi Lambda Delta",
"Rob",
"Sharon",
"Shirly Pardee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36517"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29687
|
Using cast iron pans only
Some people use cast iron pans for certain foods or dishes but not much else. I have a beautiful set of copper pans and, like cast iron, they're heavy and cook beautifully but I hate cleaning them. I have a complete set of cast iron cookware and have been tempted to start cooking with them alone.
I've cooked eggs without issue on one well seasoned pan so I believe I can do everything in cast iron. Does anyone here cook with cast iron alone? What issues am I not thinking of? Or is this just a bad (or good) idea in the first place?
EDIT: I have a gas stovetop.
you would boil potatoes, pasta, or rice in a cast iron pot? I don't think I would...
First, I'll say that I used to be a big fan of cast iron. I never used it for every kitchen task, but I have a lot of cast iron pans and pots, and at my peak a few years back, I was probably using it for 80-90% of my cooking. However, I now use it only rarely for specialized tasks, which I'll explain.
Cast iron and copper have completely different thermal properties, which will impact their usefulness for various tasks.
Copper is one of the fastest conductors of heat (the fastest that is practical for making pans out of), so it has very fast response time. Cast iron is one of the slowest conductors of heat among the materials for pots and pans, so it will take a long time to change temperature.
Also, cast iron's response is slow enough that it's easy to generate hot spots or hot areas in the pan. I know there's a lot of kitchen lore out there about how cast iron "heats evenly," but after years of using it and being frustrated by pancakes that were brown on only one corner on my cast iron griddle or grilled cheese sandwiches that would brown in only one area on my skillet, I decided to do some serious testing.
Before I get to the details of that, let me just give a list of places where I think cast iron would be a bad idea:
Cooking custards, milk dishes, and other things that could burn easily and quickly
Sensitive sauces, particularly egg-based sauces which depend on fine temperature control
Other thick sauces (e.g., tomato), gravies, etc. particularly if they need to be cooked down (low simmering might be okay with a large burner)
Acidic dishes that need to be cooked or simmered for a long time -- it's okay to cook them for a short time in a well-seasoned pan, but simmering tomato-based chili for a whole day in your dutch oven will often end up adding a metallic flavor
Temperature-sensitive dishes where you want to avoid browning (e.g., French omelets)
Any dish that you want evenly browned or for which even doneness across a large surface area is important, unless you have a burner that heats evenly under that entire area of the pan's surface
Boiling water or applications where you might evaporate water out of a cast iron pan (e.g., steaming an oven) will eventually strip off the seasoning on cast iron if you do it too much
In sum, cast iron fails to heat evenly, and it can't change temperature quickly. So, if you need to be able to stop the temperature rise in your Hollandaise sauce at a moment's notice, keep the copper pan.
Anyhow, I know cast iron fans (of which I used to be a big one) sometimes don't believe me when I say things like this. Well, that's why I ran some tests.
With an infrared thermometer one weekend a few years back, I tested the surface temperatures of various pans placed over various levels of heat. If you look up the conductivity numbers for cast iron compared to other kitchen metals, that should tell you enough. But I needed to test it myself to see how bad it was. Basically, with a 10-inch cast iron skillet, I would usually see a temperature difference of at least 100 degrees Fahrenheit between the center and the outer edge of the bottom of the pan -- and that was even after preheating slowly until the skillet came to equilibrium. (At some burner levels, that differential was even as great as 200F.)
In contrast, an aluminum skillet had a differential of around 50F or a little more between the center and edge of the bottom of the pan. Copper was only about 25-30F.
A minimum differential of 100 degrees is a huge difference in cooking. Again and again, I saw dishes that were unevenly cooked because of cast iron, and not just on my own stove. Unless it's something you're planning on stirring constantly, it's just not worth it.
To be clear, I was testing this on a gas range with reasonably sized (not professional giant) burners. Even very large ring burners will create a ring-shaped hot "spot" in large pan on higher heat. If you have an electric stove whose burner size is roughly the size of your cast iron pan, the numbers will get a lot better, though still not as good as copper. Induction should also work better than gas. Even so, imperfections in the manufacturing process for cast iron (which are generally cheaply made) will result in magnified actual "hot spots" in the pan. So, even with a reasonably even heat source under the whole bottom of the pan, you'll still have more hot or cold spots than in most other materials. On an electric stove with a large burner, I've still seen temperatures vary by over 50 degrees F over a cast iron pan's surface, particular on high heat. With copper, temperature is incredibly even.
Now, if you put liquid in the pan or something, that will help, but it still won't stop the problem. Since I did my initial tests a few years ago, I moved and now have a high-end electric stove (not my choice -- at some point I will probably replace it). With the electric stove, I've started to use cast iron again somewhat. But just a few weeks ago, I tried cooking a chicken and rice dish in a large enameled cast iron Le Creuset dutch oven. I used the largest electric burner on my stove, but it still wouldn't reach the edges of the oval-shaped dutch oven. After nearly an hour of slow simmering, the rice in the center was mushy, but the rice barely beyond the burner wasn't even cooked. The chicken pieces in the pan stopped the liquid circulation a little, but the main problem was the cast iron. Eventually, I had to put it into the oven to finish it (which I probably should have done in the first place -- I was just following directions for a new recipe).
All of that said, cast iron does have some good uses:
I like to do high-temperature searing in a cheap pan, and cast iron does hold quite a bit of heat while hot and takes a little while to release it, so it browns well
Even at lower temperatures, the color and surface characteristics contribute to browning better than a lot of other materials, so (for example) if I want to cook a grilled sandwich in a skillet, I'll often use cast iron (as long as it's not larger than the burner)
Its slow response to heat changes make it good for slow braises, stews, etc. baked in the oven. It's better than, say, a ceramic dish in this regard when you need to brown or sear something first on the stovetop.
Again, because of slow heat response and browning (here mostly due to the color), cast iron dutch ovens and pots are often ideal for baking bread inside when preheated.
In sum, I agree with other responses that say: use the right tool for the task. If I only owned copper and cast iron cookware, I'd probably use the copper 90% of the time and the cast iron about 10% of the time for the kind of things I just mentioned. Depending on the kind of cooking you do and the kind of stove you own, cast iron might be a good choice more often.
By the way -- I assume you're talking about cast iron manufactured in the past couple decades, probably by Lodge. If you do want to start using cast iron for a lot more cooking, I'd highly recommend trying to find vintage cast iron pans, which often are thinner and have a machined inner surface. Thinner cast iron is not only lighter and thus easier to maneuver, but it also responds a lot faster to heat changes. You'll still have hot spots, but if you forced me to do 100% of my cooking in cast iron, I'd make a lot of use out of the skillets I inherited from my great-grandmother, which are lighter, thinner, and have a slicker surface than any plain cast iron I've seen manufactured recently.
One last thing -- I'm not sure why you find copper pans harder to clean. Neither cast iron nor copper pans can go in the dishwasher, and I find taking care of cast iron by hand to be slightly more cumbersome than other pans. (It's not a big deal, but they do need upkeep to maintain a slick surface.) I suppose if you have tinned copper, it can be annoying to be careful with the soft interior surface. But if you have stainless-lined copper, cleaning should be pretty easy. And if you're worried about the exterior of copper pans... don't be. Unless you have actual corrosion, the darkening doesn't really make a huge difference in performance.
I was hoping to get an answer from a cook who was well seasoned with cast iron. The biggest point you reminded me of is the ability to regulate the heat and that point alone is enough for me to forget my idea. Thanks.
"a cook who was well seasoned with cast iron" And vice versa.
An exhaustingly great answer! I'd been considering buying a large amount of cast iron but maybe I'll grab some more copper-bottom stuff instead,
For pans I cook only with cast iron. I still have stainless steel pots for cooking sauces, pasta, etc.
I wouldn't say I enjoy cleaning the cast iron pans but they're definitely very nonstick as I keep the seasoning fresh. That would be key if you already hate cleaning copper pots, as cast iron is a pain to clean if the seasoning is worn.
Also keep them well seasoned so that you can continue to cook high acid foods without interactions from the iron. I have no problem cooking tomatoes, wine sauces, etc in my cast iron.
@Rob - were there any other issues you had in mind specifically? These were the big two things for me but I'm not sure if you had anything else you wanted addressed.
As I said, I've never had anyone come out and say they cook only with cast iron, as you have. Many complain of the weight of the pan but my copper pans are heavy, too. Unless others say they use cast iron, there's always that lingering doubt about what you're doing.
They're definitely heavy, but you can get different sizes. I have 8", 10" and 14". The 14" is a beast. 8" very light.
I have two but don't remember the sizes. We just inherited my mother-in-law's unused pans in various sizes which I haven't measured yet.
Brand might matter too for weight, mine are all Lodge, which I really like. Sturdy, high walls, etc.
I think like many things you have to select the tool best suited to the job at hand. I cook some things in non-stick (for sure convenience and ease of cleaning), I cook some things in enameled cast iron (Le Creuset) I cook some things in seasoned cast iron pans (DeBuyer) and I cook some things in stainless steel pans.
Pick the right tool for what you want to do.
I've started using cast iron products a few years ago. Since then, we have collected a kind of army of cast iron. We almost use exclusively cast iron, 'cause food just tastes a whole lot better. Same may find seasoning a bit tricky. At first that was the case for us too, but in the end its rather simple to season your cast iron pan, pots and other products. I know that the older pans are always good investments. But if you do not find an older one, you could consider buying an new pan like this Swedish Skeppshult. They make still cast iron pans worth every penny (http://www.maypoint.fi/cookware-cast-iron-frying-pans-c-132_92.html).
To make this more relevant to the question: If you cook "almost" exclusively on cast iron, what are the things you cook on other materials and why?
I avoid boiling acidic liquids in cast iron since I'm trying to cut back on iron.
I've also seen claims that frying with cast iron can oxidize fats more quickly than other cooking surfaces, leading to rancidity. While I couldn't find a primary source for that claim, it's chemically plausible that iron ions would lead to increased oxidation.
It could also be the seasoning -- as it's basically cooked-on denatured fats. That might act as a catalyst. (would have to test w/ a well seasoned cast aluminum pan)
One thing that hasn't been mentioned is sautéing or other situations where you need to lift the pan.
The weight of a large cast-iron pan makes it much more difficult to get a good flip until you've seriously built up your arm. And even then, it's not something that you'll do a casually as with other, lighter pans.
It also makes it more difficult when plating if you're not just scooping things out of the pan -- you have to hold the pan differently when pouring stuff out if you don't want to tire yourself out. (you hold the handle from underneath and then let it hang from the handle, rather than trying to tip it towards one side)
You can also mitigate some of the issues with uneven cooking by using a round griddle rather than a pan; I assume it's due to not having the issues with heat absorbtion / disipation up the sides. (and it's lighter, so it's easier to lift to let gravity work to get an even omelette or pannekoek.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.432559
| 2013-01-03T14:18:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29687",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Kaci",
"Kate Gregory",
"LAYLA",
"LampPost",
"Prum Viratha",
"Rob",
"Sobachatina",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Walt Reid",
"YOURMOM",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91785",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91786",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91789",
"lemontwist",
"mmortal03",
"nekojsi",
"spammer",
"sudowned",
"user48953094",
"user69078"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117810
|
Is nonstick cooking bad for the environment?
I have a nonstick (i.e., PTFE-based) skillet which I need to replace. I make egg and cheese omelets every morning with no extra oil/butter, so nonstick seems to "serve up and clean up" the easiest of all materials.
But, it seems wasteful to buy a new pan every year.
Is there an alternative environmentally-friendly pan which could give me, for example, 10 years still without the need for oil/butter?
Ceramic coatings and anodized aluminum come to mind, but they are a little bit stickier and seem to have about the same lifetime anyway.
I suppose a "master chef" could cook just cheese in an iron skillet without oil - Should I be practicing this if I really want to save the environment? Even if I perfect this art, the clean up is probably a little worse with the iron skillet, but I suppose this might be the best solution.
Welcome to SA! While we appreciate your interest in alternate cookware, environmentalism is off-topic for this SE. Also, questions about alternative nonstick have been asked (and answered) multiple times before, particularly this one: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45519/options-for-non-stick-frying-pans-not-using-teflon/45522#45522
Also ... if you're replacing your teflon pans every year, you're clearly abusing them. Teflon pans should last 3-5 years.
@FuzzyChef According to the link I referenced in my question, daily use only allows 1 or 2 years. Anyway, my question is basically looking for a longer-lasting pan - I now assume that there isn't one based on your comments. So, you're saying that I should just keep buying nonstick pans every 1 or 2 years...but I wish this question could be left open to see if anyone has a better idea.
Sorry, but not liking the answers in a duplicate target is no reason for a question to stay open. If somebody knows a different answer, they can post it under the other question.
A couple of notes: (i) The master chef would use oil/butter if cooking an omelette, but could do so in a stainless pan. Maybe not much but commercial cooking is very willing to use oil. You may need just a smear of oil (don't use cooking spray for this as it tends to polymerise on the pan and make a mess). (ii) My non-stick frying pan is mainly used for omelettes, and that does seem to age it faster than other things (but I often fry some veg first, reserve, and put in the omelette with cheese before folding in half for the last minute or so, meaning extra use of a not very full pan)
And for non-stick in general, I tend to only use mine if it would be really beneficial, going for stainless or enamelled cast iron if I can. That makes the non stick last much longer (my non stick saucepans are as good as new after about 6 years)
Perhaps this would be a suitable question for https://sustainability.stackexchange.com/?
@bobuhito Well, I'm not ATK, but FWIW I buy Vollrath SteelCoat teflon pans, and cook on them around 5X week, and they last us for 3-5 years before they need replacement. I'm going to add that to the other question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.433594
| 2021-11-10T05:10:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117810",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Dave",
"FuzzyChef",
"bobuhito",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94447",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5400
|
How to know when to stop churning ice cream?
I've got a simple Cuisinart home churn, the kind that uses a frozen bowl rather than a compressor. On a couple of occasions, I'm pretty sure I've overchurned the mix, because it seems to leave a buttery coating on the palate and lips. On the other hand, I don't want to underchurn it for fear that I'll get ice crystals in the freezer. The user's manual for my churn is no help. Anyone know a solid way to determine when I've churned enough but not too much? Or could it be some other problem contributing to my making butter instead of ice cream?
If the ice cream mix is setting up but tending to leave a buttery coating in your mouth the best thing would be to try cutting back on the cream and replacing it with whole milk or half & half.
If it's a recipe that you've used in another machine with great success but it doesn't seem to in this one, it's probably a case of how long the frozen bowl is staying cold. I have used the freezer bowl ice cream attachment for KitchenAid machines and have been frustrated more times than not as it doesn't freeze up as it should.
Too much sugar can also be a culprit in the mix not freezing quick enough. Sugar doesn't freeze so a really sweet mix is going to be softer. You might try decreasing sugar content slightly....not too much or you will end up with an icier result (If adding fruit to ice cream, combine the chopped fruit with some sugar and cook just a little to allow the sugar to dissolve and the moisture to evaporate. The sugar soaking into the fruit will keep the fruit softer in the ice cream instead of forming icy chunks of fruit. Or, just mix in fruit preserves.)
Make sure that the mix is VERY cold, ideally chilled for several hours or overnight before it goes into the the freezer. If time isn't on your side, then quick-chill it in a metal bowl or container in an ice bath and stir frequently to help chill it throughout.
The primary indicator for most ice cream freezers is that the dasher starts to sound labored in its attempt to stir the mix. Or if cranking by hand, you start to sound labored in your attempt to crank it!
Another factor that can affect freezing of ice cream (although probably not the case in your instance since you don't have control of the speed) is the speed of the machine. In the case of the KitchenAid insulated bowl for freezing ice cream, they warn not to go faster than "stir" or the mix won't have a chance to freeze to the side of the bowl before the dasher scrapes it.
I would try one of their recipes with it to see if it freezes up firm enough without turning to butter and then compare differences between your current recipe and theirs, adjusting sugar, milk to heavy cream ratio, etc.
I know I'm late to the party here, but I just thought I would provide a note on my past experience. When I first used my kitchenaid ice cream attachment, I also noticed that the buttery residue was forming after 10 minutes of churning (on the slowest setting). I had used quite a lot of thickened cream in this recipe. Cutting down the cream, and using whole milk in its place helped a lot!
During the churning process, I now set my timer for 10 minute intervals and periodically check on it. If it looks like soft serve mix, I know it's done.
I would add a bit to what Darin said as I actually have that cuisinart ice cream maker.
When I freeze the bowl overnight in the chest freezer I have had no problems with any mix regardless of fat or sugar content; it gets very cold.
The quality is better when the mix has been chilled but room temp mix still works well enough when I'm out of time (and ice).
As for churning time, I follow the manufacturer's instructions which if I recall is 30-35 min and it has always turned out correctly. It is still soft at that point and needs to be hardened in the freezer but that is the way it is supposed to work.
The instructions for my Big Chill ice cream maker say to churn 2-3 times, making complete turns with the churn, just after adding the mixture to the frozen cylinder, and then to repeat this every 4-5 minutes for 20-30 minutes. They warn that constant churning may prevent the mixture from freezing properlly.
I think OP also has an estimation of time, like you do. I think he means to ask how you can know the ice cream itself is done (by watching or feeling the ice cream).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.433859
| 2010-08-17T22:51:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5400",
"authors": [
"Christian Witts",
"Cindy Chintya Agita",
"Kevin Willock",
"Koen.",
"Mien",
"Shans",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57772",
"sasha"
],
"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
}
|
99947
|
What would be the best order for folding whipped egg whites and yolks into cookie dough?
What would be the best order to mix them in without deflating the batter/dough(along with flour, baking powder and soda)? Should I add the dry ingredients to the creamed butter and sugar and then add the whipped yolks and whites mixture at the end, or add the mixture to the creamed butter and sugar and then add the dry ingredients last? Thanks!
I don't think this would result in anything even remotely like sugar cookies. The dough for sugar cookies is far too stiff to fold in anything. If it's runny enough to fold in egg whites, I don't think you'd end up with sugar cookies.
When you say whipped are you whipping the egg whites separately until you get soft or hard peaks? Or are you whipping whole eggs? What is the result you are trying to achieve?
I'm whipping the egg whites until hard peaks, and then folding them into creamed egg yolks. By doing this, it will give the cookies as much leavening as possible (or at least it should).
Also I do realise that folding them into the batter will make it more thinner and not so cookie dough-like, but if the dry ingredients were added last then I could control the thickness?
You can't fold creamed butter into whisked eggs. It will not work. The eggs will collapse entirely before you have fully incorporated the creamed butter. Your final result will probably be more like a chocolate chip cookie texture wise than a sugar cookie.
What if I do it the other way around? Folding the eggs into the creamed butter?
Creamed butter is too hard to fold into eggs regardless of which way you do it. There is a reason cake recipes that rely on folding things into whisked eggs use melted butter and not creamed butter.
Ah, I see. So would it be better to just stick to using unbeaten eggs in any recipe involving creamed butter and sugar?
You can certainly beat the eggs with the butter and sugar, but beating them separately is kind of pointless.
It all depends on what you want the whipped egg whites to accomplish. Generally you use the wipped-egg-white-method in order to incorporate more air into the batter, which is mostly used for cakes. In this case you definitely want to add them at the end, so the air stays in the batter.
For cookies, this is probably not necessary, because you can't incorporate much air, as the batter is much thicker than a cake batter. However, depending on the exact recipe, you could want to beat butter and sugar until airy and fluffy. I generally first cream the room temp butter, then add the sugar, beat both fluffy, add the whole egg and beat further, then add the flour, baking soda, and other ingredients, and fold in. If your cookies are made from a even thicker dough, on the other hand, you can just dump all your ingredients in and just mix or knead them together to form the dough. In this case you'd probably want the butter cold, though. In both cases: don't overdo the dough. And don't overthink it.
The leavening generally comes from the baking soda. The freshness of the egg can also have an effect on the leavening, I suppose, but I'm not sure how much of a difference it makes. This effect is more prominent in cakes that contain a lot more egg than cookies do.
(Side note: For cakes, my general method is to first beat the butter and sugar until fluffy, add the egg yolks and beat further. Then add (sifted) flour and other ingredients. Finally, I add the whipped egg whites in at least two, mostly three batches. So first add about a third of the egg whites, incorporate them (you don't have to be too careful here, it is only to lighten the batter), then add the second half and fold in, then add the third half and carefully fold in. Bake immediately. )
This methods give me the best results.
Additional notes:
if you want to use whipped egg whites, always remember, that egg whites don't like fat. This is the reason why you separate the eggs before beating, because egg yolks contain quite a nice amount of fat, which prevents the whites from whipping up.
You can stabilize egg whites using sugar. However, be careful not to add to much of it add once, or the egg whites will collapse. I also noticed that the whites collapsed more easily when using powdered sugar. My explanation is, that the sugar crystals are much smaller in powdered sugar and they can destroy the egg white bubbles.
Whipping egg whites with a pinch of salt and at room temp will make the whipping a lot easier and faster.
Additional, additional notes:
If airy cookies are your thing, you should definitely check out macrons. Although the french ones are the most popular, there are several other types, that have a meringue as a base, gently mixed with ground nuts or other things. They generally don't contain much fat, except for the fat contained in the nuts or whatever. For a personal favorite of mine, search for "german hazelnut macarons" on google. :)
@crackerjacked Thanks for accepting. However, commonly, you should wait at least a day before you accept an answer, to encourage more answers and discussion :)
Good point, but it was a really good answer. It's made me understand everything a whole lot better, so thanks for that!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.434490
| 2019-07-03T16:20:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99947",
"authors": [
"CrackerJacked",
"GdD",
"Gretel_f",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76103",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
113243
|
Why does gelling sugar lose its gelling property after some time?
Gelling sugar (also called jam sugar or jelly sugar) is used for making fruit jams. It is a mixture of sugar and pectin. Properly stored sugar has a near infinite shelf life but gelling sugar only has a shelf life of a few month. Aferwards it still works like usual sugar but does not work as a gelling agent anymore.
Why does that happen?
Depending on the answer, this might be more suitable for chemistry SE. Please migrate if appropriate.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.434928
| 2020-12-20T07:29:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113243",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"quarague"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8177
|
Is copper cookware really better than stainless steel?
This is somewhat related to the question about copper vs. cast iron, but this is about copper vs. pure stainless steel.
I had an old stainless steel stockpot that warped (it was very, very cheap stainless steel, paper thin) and have to replace it ASAP. I have a family member with a few connections that gets a deep discount on one of the more expensive brands. I asked her to look into getting me a copper stockpot (lined with stainless steel, of course, so the reactivity problem more or less goes away), and got this response as an explanation to why it is apparently unavailable here:
[...] there is apparently no advantage cooking-wise to using copper, and people just buy it for the look.
[...] None of our big accounts, including [XYZ] etc even had any interest in stocking it, which is why we never brought it in.
Note that these stores do carry the same brand of stainless steel products, just not copper.
Now, I am taking this with a grain pile of salt because (a) this family member never cooks and (b) the advice came from a marketing manager who obviously wants to push the products that are available locally. Nevertheless, I think it's worth asking people with knowledge/experience:
Is there actual evidence confirming any of the advantages of copper cookware (durability, conductivity, heat spread, etc.)? Has it actually been proven anywhere that copper is (or is not) superior to stainless steel?
Or are articles like these just parroting a bunch of myths?
I'm looking for strong evidence here, so please answer only if you are prepared to back it up.
Clarification (with apologies to Ward): I am looking for evidence of the practical benefits. It's obviously indisputable and easy to look up the fact that copper is a better conductor than steel, and lighter; the question is, does this matter with respect to responsiveness, hot spots, and so on?
By pure stainless, did you mean clad (Al or Cu) bottom stainless?
@papin: By "clad" do you mean the core? It's an aluminum core.
Clad in the sense of metals fused together
@papin: I don't think I've ever seen a product with copper, aluminum, and stainless steel... it's usually just stainless steel with a core of either copper or aluminum, and sometimes a copper bottom. Any chance you could give me an example of one of these?
@Aaronut - I'm still unclear from these comments. Are you really trying to compare "pure" stainless steel (no other metal in the bottom) to copper? Or are you comparing stainless pans with some other metal (aluminum or copper or whatever in their base) to copper? If the question is the former, there's no comparison: pure stainless is a TERRIBLE pan compared to copper. If you're allowing anything to be sandwiched into the SS base, then you could essentially wrap up a copper pan in SS, which would perform roughly the same as a SS-lined copper pan, but it would essentially BE a copper pan.
Another difference is copper won't work on induction cooktops, but some stainless (magnetic stainless) will. Dunno how much it matters.
Modern stainless steel pans with clad bottoms can be as good as copper pans. McGee developed a simple technique to test the heat distribution where he fits a piece of paper to the bottom of the pan, placing the pan over a burner and carefully watching how the paper browns. Thick aluminum, clad bottom stainless, and copper all worked equally well.
There are differences that relate to the techniques used in cooking. A thin copper pan is great for melting butter or chocolate straight on the burner. Modern air-gap wall stainless steel pans hold the heat better and work better for simmering or boiling. Copper is harder to upkeep.
Pans will develop hot spots, even copper which is the better conductor. Until we get graphite added to the cladding or some other exotic material to distribute the heat, thickness will matter the most for even heat distribution.
I have read several consumer tests and reviews of pans and they fail to note that thermal conductivity and thickness can both be used in practice to balance the temperature distribution and heat flux in a pan.
Interestingly, that first article describes the copper and aluminum as "even" and the stainless steel as "pretty well", without getting any more specific than that. I'm left wondering if the difference is significant enough to justify copper.
Also, I'd always heard that copper is easier to maintain, particularly if it's lined with stainless steel so that it doesn't react with the food. Is that just another myth? Can you tell me why it's harder?
The "harder" means that the outside copper gets tarnished or stained and many of us feel compelled to polish them. In grad school we used a copper cezve and every week or so my wife would be polishing the outside. I still polish our stainless steel pans, but it's way easier.
That makes sense. The pan that warped was a copper bottom, and it was highly tarnished. But I never felt compelled to polish it because it was a cheapo pan.
Just so you know, I've been unsuccessful so far at actually finding a s.s. pan that has a clad bottom as defined according to your original comment on the question (having copper and aluminum layers). If you know of any examples and can include them in your answer then I will happily accept it.
@Aaronut - the most popular example of a SS pan with copper AND aluminum layers is the All-Clad "Copper Core" line. They're pretty pans and well-balanced (I own one), but I cannot endorse them. All-Clad won't tell us how thick the copper is, but from various comments online, it can't be more than 0.3-0.5mm thick, which is probably not enough to make any significant difference in cooking. You're mostly paying for a SS pan with mostly aluminum, but paying a lot extra for (not a lot of) copper. You'd be better off buying a SS pan with an aluminum disk for a fraction of the cost.
Summary: All materials are different, and copper is no exception. It has some unique thermal properties that may be desirable for some applications. But other combinations of materials (particularly aluminum) within a modern stainless pan can have other unique advantages that come close to -- and in some ways exceed -- copper's properties.
(For a detailed comparison of the thermal properties, see points (4), (5), and (6) below.)
First, a clarification: Despite the mention of "pure stainless steel" in the first sentence of the question, the question is apparently NOT about comparing "pure" stainless pans (based on subsequent comments), but rather whatever modern pans are basically stainless on the cooking surface and possibly the stove surface as well. (Pure stainless is a terrible conductor of heat and is rarely used these days on its own in cookware.)
This makes a significant difference because design factors of individual pans play a much greater role in comparisons than the outer surface of the pans alone. Do the stainless pans contain an aluminum disk or "core" (or one with copper or silver or something else)? What is the thickness of each of these materials in the pan, and how are they deployed? Shape, size, and other factors will play smaller roles.
All of these differences in design make it quite difficult to evaluate "practical" evidence, since it's hard to define what "pure stainless steel" pan would be "equivalent" to a particular copper pan. One of exactly the same dimensions? One of the same diameter and design but with a different thickness to make it the same weight? One of the same diameter but with a thickness required to attain a similar heat conductivity profile on the cooking surface? For this reason, I would say even my own measurements that were quoted in another response should be treated as "anecdotal" evidence. They only prove that differences existed on my particular pans. I mainly did them to prove that cast iron wasn't as "even" a cooking surface as is commonly asserted. I don't claim that they should be taken as absolute evidence for whether any copper pan is "better" in heat conduction than some other material.
All the other "experiments" that are quoted in other responses (such as McGee's tests already mentioned or these, for another example) can be criticized similarly. It's not enough to say "the pans are roughly equal in size and shape." Details in thickness and design can make a huge difference. Unless we establish clear criteria for what constitutes "equivalent" pans for the comparison, the measurements will really only just compare performance from one pan to another, not from copper pans (or other materials) in general to other things.
What I do take my measurements to be evidence for is that -- at least in common scenarios -- the conductivity numbers which are quoted for various materials do seem to roughly line up with practical evidence. Cast iron is not, for example, magically "very even" despite its terrible conductivity numbers. Copper and aluminum, on the other hand, appear to be more even. And copper appears to have a slight thermal advantage in my anecdotal test, which again accords with theoretical predictions.
With the knowledge that those conductivity numbers do seem to mean something, the question then becomes: Can we design a pan involving a clad stainless steel design (perhaps with no copper?) that has similar characteristics to a traditional copper pan? (And are such pans available?)
And the answer is: sort of.
Part of the problem is determining what "better" means in this question. I'll consider a number of desirable factors in turn: (1) durability, (2) design, (3) maintenance and cleaning, (4) evenness in heating, (5) responsiveness, (6) ability to absorb and radiate heat, and (7) cost. While the question focuses on thermal abilities, the others are explicitly or implicitly invoked in by the question.
In the following discussion, I will assume the most common type of modern stainless steel pans enhanced by an aluminum disk or "core." A few high-end manufacturers have produced lines with thick layers of copper (and sometimes silver, an even better conductor) in the interior, but these effectively behave like copper pans, because they are actually mostly made out of copper. (Note that this "Copper Core" line is often cited as an example, but the manufacturer has not released details about the thickness of the copper in this pan, so it may in fact be a mostly aluminum core.)
(1) Durability -- Modern stainless steel pans, even relatively cheap ones, are generally durable. While it is possible for stainless pans with layers of different materials (e.g., aluminum) to warp or separate, it's pretty rare except in really cheap pans. Copper pans often have a reputation for being more durable, but that's probably because the few manufacturers left tend to be high-end quality producers. The most common failure point in pans is the riveting or welding between handle and pot, but this is a design and manufacture issue, not one depending on pan material.
Thin copper does have anecdotal evidence of warping on occasion, just as thin pure aluminum pans do. In most cases, minor warping can be corrected in copper with simple tools. Stainless pans warp very rarely. But when they do, they can be nearly impossible to fix, particularly if the warping has also led to separation in the layers of aluminum or other materials. High-quality thick pans of either sort should be very durable, however.
(2) Design -- Obviously both types of pans are available in a variety of designs, but the materials place certain constraints. The main one is the density of copper, which is roughly 3.3 times that of aluminum. Thus, copper pans of equivalent thickness to aluminum or stainless/aluminum pans will generally be much heavier. Professional line copper pans (usually 2.5 to 3mm thick) have roughly similar weight to cast iron pans of similar dimensions. For some people, the inconvenience of handling heavy pans may not be worth the added thermal properties.
The weight of copper also means that traditional copper pans favor designs with cast iron handles and heavy rivets which are able to take the weight. Lighter stainless/aluminum hybrids can use other handles designed so they won't heat up excessively, while the cast iron handles on copper will get very hot during long cooking (requiring a pot holder, towel, or perhaps a silicone pot handle cover). Some thinner copper lines (1-2mm thick) have other materials for handles, but almost all will heat up significantly during cooking.
In general, copper pan designs tend to follow very traditional models, so people who want more variety in design or ergonomics may have to look to stainless pans.
(3) Maintenance and Cleaning -- Copper has a reputation for being high-maintenance. It is true that if you want to keep you pans gleaming bright with a mirror finish, you'll have to polish them on a regular basis (probably at least every few times you use the pans). However, the dark "patina" that gradually oxidizes the copper exterior is not harmful to the pan's performance (and in fact will help it, sometimes significantly, see (6) below).
If you think you need bright and shiny pans to hang on your wall and show off to visitors, either don't actually cook in your pans or be prepared to polish them all the time. Many serious cooks come to realize that the darkened exteriors are just normal; others polish only a couple times per year or only when a significant undesirable stain occurs.
Traditional copper pans were generally lined with tin, which will gradually wear down over time and require retinning. Also, tin melts at low temperatures, making the pans unusable for high-temperature searing. Heating a dry pan could even result in bubbling or melting of the tin coating, though this usually requires particular neglect. Eventually, the tin will need to be redone, and there are only a limited number of shops capable of doing this today, so it may require shipping the pans away for weeks or months. (It can also be expensive.) For most home cooks, this probably would only need to be done once per decade or so with high-use pans, but it is a significant maintenance issue to consider.
For the past few decades, however, the more common choice for home cooks has been to line copper with a very thin layer of stainless steel (usually only 0.2mm thick or so). This doesn't really change the performance of the pan, and the steel lining is permanent and can be heated to higher temperatures. (Some high-end copper pans also are available with silver linings. These are obviously generally quite pricey, but silver has both a higher conductivity than copper and a much higher melting point than tin, making the pans marginally better than stainless-lined copper.)
Stainless steel pans, on the other hand, are generally low maintenance and can often be put in the dishwasher, though high-end pans with many layers of various materials in the base often suggest handwashing when feasible. Food might have a greater tendency to stick in pans with worse thermal properties, making cheaper stainless pans potentially a little harder to clean after cooking. But neither good stainless/aluminum nor good copper should have this problem.
(4) Evenness in Heating -- Here is where we get to the most commonly cited advantages of copper. It is true that copper's conductivity is roughly 70% higher than aluminum, which most people take as evidence that copper has a significant culinary advantage.
But conductivity is not always the most helpful measure, since it is an abstract measurement of heat conduction in one dimension. That makes it somewhat useful as an estimate for whether a material will carry any significant heat radially outward beyond the burner (e.g., when a large pan is on a small burner, or up the sides of a pan), but it does not take into account how much heat the pan can hold onto in a particular volume of the pan. The latter (volumetric heat capacity) is also important to consider if you want a really even pan without hot spots. Copper still has an advantage over aluminum by volume (about 40% more heat capacity), but aluminum has an advantage by weight (since aluminum is much less dense, it has about 2.3 times the heat capacity by weight). This last fact means that is possible to get a lighter aluminum pan that will hold heat better compared to copper, even if it is somewhat thicker.
But don't take my word for it. The authors of the recent book Modernist Cuisine designed a detailed model and performed experiments to test evenness of different materials. They found that you can achieve the same evenness of a pro line of 2.5mm copper pans by using a 7mm aluminum pan. In fact, since evenness really is only dependent on thickness, you could make a really slow material be just as even as long as it's thick enough: a 2.75-inch thick slab of stainless steel would also be as "even" as 2.5mm of copper. Unfortunately, a pan made of steel that thick (22 times the thickness of copper pans) would likely weigh hundreds of pounds, and it would have other issues (see next item). But it would be just as "even" as 1/8"-thick copper.
If your only goal is evenness and no hot spots, you just need to make you pan thicker, whatever material it is made out of. In fact, you could achieve the same goal by putting a metal slab (or a heat diffuser disk) made of copper or aluminum on your burner, and putting your pan on top of that. Whatever material you are using, the heat will be more "even" overall, and this may be a useful trick when you need to put a very wide pan on a very small burner. The Modernist Cuisine folks actually concluded that your heat source was much more important than your pan design in terms of getting evenness for this reason.
(5) Responsiveness -- In a slow-cooking stock pot or a large soup pot filled with chili, evenness is probably top priority. (Hence, to answer the specific question about a stock pot, I'd recommend buying a pot with a thick bottom and perhaps getting a heat diffuser, if evenness is the main concern.)
But evenness is not everything. Some have misinterpreted the data from the Modernist Cuisine findings cited above to conclude that there's no reason to spend extra money for copper or other expensive pans (see here, for example). Their solution is just to buy a "thick pan" no matter what the material, and if you pans are still bad, put a thick aluminum plate over your burner.
But this is a flawed conclusion, since a thick aluminum plate on your stove effectively turns a high-end performance gas stove into a cheap electric in terms of how fast it can change heat, for example.
People don't pay for expensive cookware only because it heats evenly. You could do that with any material. The problem is balancing evenness with responsiveness. If you turn up the heat on a cast iron pan too much, for example, it will continue to heat your food long after you turn off the burner. If you're not careful, you can easily burn food this way. For even more sensitive dishes (those involving eggs, or milk, or thick sauces that could stick and burn, or when cooking sugar or chocolate, etc.), you want the pan to stop heating immediately when you hit a narrow temperature range. This is very difficult to calibrate with a pan with a high heat capacity, like an excessively thick cheap pan. A thick metal plate on your stovetop will do the same.
For responsiveness, it's not just about conductivity or heat capacity. It's the relationship between these two concepts -- heat conduction and heat retention -- which will determine whether those hot spots will ever even out in a given pan. For that, diffusivity is the most appropriate metric, since it combines both of these: it effectively measures the rate at which temperature evens out throughout the pan, whether hotspots or coldspots or a "new wave" of heat when the burner it turned up. Here, copper has only a 20-25% lead over aluminum.
Because copper's diffusivity isn't that much higher, we can design a pan that will shift temperature almost as fast with aluminum. Actually, we can easily design a pan that will change temperature very quickly: just make it ridiculously thin. To take this to an extreme, imagine cooking on a piece of aluminum foil. The foil will adjust temperature almost immediately, but it has no heat capacity, making it difficult to convey an even heat. Hot spots will be anywhere the heat source is uneven.
On the other hand, if we make the 7mm thick aluminum pan above (presumably covered in stainless), which could have the evenness of 2.5mm copper, the 7mm aluminum/stainless pan would have almost double the heat capacity of the 2.5 copper pan.
This translates into significantly less responsiveness, because when you turn the burner off underneath the 7mm pan, it has twice as much heat to dissipate from the pan. If your egg-based sauce is already starting to set too quickly, you might have a problem with the aluminum.
This is why most professional copper pans have a maximum thickness of 2.5 to 3mm. Unless you're making a stockpot or something else where you actually don't want the pan to change temperature quickly, a thicker copper would be counterproductive. It would make the cookware not only heavier, but less responsive. Through trial and error over the centuries, copper manufacturers seem to have discovered the "sweet spot" for copper thickness is about 2mm to 3mm for most cooking. Thinner, and the pan doesn't have enough to even out the hot spots; thicker, and it doesn't respond. (The 1.5mm lines you often see in high-end cooking shops are too thin: top restaurants use them to serve food in for their appearance, not for serious cooking. If you are willing to go with the lower heat capacity and evenness of 1.5mm copper, you might as well go with a thicker, cheaper, and lighter aluminum pan, which might be as even, and almost as responsive.)
Similarly, manufacturers of pans made of aluminum clad in stainless have realized that 7mm is just too thick for all-purpose cookware, so you rarely see aluminum that thick except in large pots (usually pure aluminum commercial heavy pots, not necessarily with stainless).
Instead, most quality aluminum/stainless lines use a disk or core that is 3 to 5mm thick, which makes the pans closer to the responsiveness of thick copper, but not quite as even.
So, you can't actually get an exact match to the thermal properties of copper with an aluminum/stainless pan. But you can get close. There's nothing magical about the "copper sweet spot" that says it is always the best. If you want a pan with a slightly faster response than copper with better retention (and much lighter in weight), but not quite as even, you can get that in a good aluminum/stainless pan.
(6) Ability to Absorb and Radiate Heat -- This one is often neglected in comparisons, but it actually can have significant effects. All of the properties discussed so far have to do with how fast heat moves inside the pan. But cooking also requires heat to be transferred into the pan, and then out from the pan into the food. In traditional gas cooking, most of this heat is transferred via conduction (materials in direct contact) and convection (air currents around the pan). However, there is a third method of heat propagation through radiation, which is particularly relevant to electric stoves (and especially many of the glass-top ones).
Darker pans absorb heat better and give it off faster. It's the reason why dark baking pans brown cakes faster, and why cast iron browns food faster than some other materials. The property that measures this is known as emissivity.
This is why you actually are harming your copper pans by shining them too much. A shiny pan reflects heat just as it reflects visible light. Stainless steel pans have a natural shiny finish that won't really go away (though it may get dull over time). If your heating elements use a lot of radiant heat, stainless pans will always reflect a lot of that heat and not work as efficiently.
Copper, on the other hand, will gradually darken in color with use, thereby increasing the rate at which the pan absorbs heat (as well as how fast it dissipates it when removed from heat). Again, it's mostly relevant to cooking situations that involve a lot of radiant heat, but the effects can be noticeable and significant.
(Want "practical" evidence again? See this thread where a guy acquired a brand-new copper pan with a mirror finish and found that he couldn't even boil water quickly on his glass-top electric stove. He thought it was defective. After a week of use, the copper dulled and darkened, and it actually responded as it should.)
(7) Cost -- This is the last -- and most obvious -- factor. Copper costs a lot. Is it worth it? Only if you want the particular characteristics mentioned above: a specific combination of evenness and fast responsiveness. This is mostly useful for some particularly sensitive dishes that require a pan that is both even and can "stop on a dime" in heating when necessary. Even many of those things can be prepared in a double-boiler or something instead, as long as they don't require heating above boiling.
If you want mainly evenness for some applications (like a stockpot?), just go with a thicker pan. If you want more responsiveness, go with a thinner pan. (Years ago, some cast iron was significantly thinner than today, because it was meant for all-purpose cooking. Even cast iron can seem relatively responsive if it's thin enough -- but it will have major hotspots.)
Copper arguably has a superior balance, but in many cases, an aluminum/stainless combo will do just fine. In fact, as I pointed out, in some cases it might be better if you want somewhat higher responsiveness in a lighter pan. (This is why I don't recommend a 1.5mm line of copper unless you're just buying it for the looks: it's not as durable, and it can basically be imitated in performance with a cheap aluminum pan. If you want to buy copper, the average balance for most pans is around 2.5mm.)
One final factor to consider in cost is efficiency. A pan that can conduct heat faster will convey more heat through it rather than reflecting the heat around it. (And, as I noted above, the dark finish of well-worn copper is even better at this.) With most cookware, a lot of the heat from the stove is reflected around the pan and warms the kitchen, rather than the food. Copper will transfer more energy directly to the food. Over time, this can save a small amount of money in energy savings. Compared to a well-designed aluminum pot, perhaps not a lot, but compared to less efficient cookware, it may save you a few dollars per month in energy if you cook regularly. Over a few decades, a few dollars per month can accumulate to hundreds or thousands of dollars.
Is this an argument to buy copper? Not necessarily. But it makes it seem more affordable. In fact, it's really an argument for any more efficient and durable cookware, even it is costs a little more. Similarly, a better aluminum/stainless pan might cost more, but if it has a better balance of aluminum thickness, is more durable (so it can last many years), and is reasonably energy efficient, it might also pay for itself over time in energy savings.
I will add my (admittedly somewhat subjective) experience with using both copper and stainless. I have a couple of copper pans (all stainless lined) that I got as gifts and also some high-end stainless ones, and they're comparable in thickness (both bottoms and sidewalls), though the copper is heavier due to cast bronze handles.
If I try to cook rice in the copper saucepan the same way I do it in the stainless one, I have to use a lot more water, or I have to turn the heat down a lot more. The copper pan seems to get hotter farther up the sides of the pot, which boils away the water faster, given the same flame setting on the stove.
I've also found that my copper skillet heats over the whole bottom of the pan faster. If I want to reduce a sauce, I use that one because I'd get boiling over the entire bottom of the pan, rather than around the edge and in a few hot spots. The stainless (and even cast-iron) pans will eventually heat fairly evenly over the entire surface, but the copper pan seems to do so much more quickly, so reduction happens faster.
On the downside, the handles on my copper pots get hot faster than my stainless ones (which I attribute to the better conduction up the side of the pot, and possibly the copper content of the bronze handles). Cast-iron handles get hot about the same as the copper ones.
I have not noticed much difference in heat retention when off the heat, though.
I would not bother buying a copper stock pot, since I can't see any particular advantage it would grant. The things you cook in one would not benefit from the (admittedly small) differences I've noticed in my other copper. The copper saucepan is nice and works like high-end cookware should, but sometimes I overheat things in it. I like the skillet a lot for when I want the whole surface uniformly hot, and it excels for reducing liquids. Knowing what I know now, I might be tempted to purchase another copper skillet if mine were stolen, but I probably wouldn't replace the saucepan with copper again.
That's good (if subjective) information and roughly the same conclusions I actually came to. I ended up buying an ordinary stainless steel (aluminum core) All-Clad stock pot and it's turned out great; I see no need or use for copper there. For saucepans, casseroles etc., it seems to be good enough to have copper core; where the actual copper ends up being most useful is quick/high-heat applications which normally involve a skillet.
Copper is a good conductor of heat: its thermal conductivity is an order of magnitude higher than stainless steel's. I think anyone who's paid attention while using different types of cookware has seen the evidence for themselves of how this is beneficial: you get more even heat distribution and you don't get hot spots like you do w/ stainless, especially the thin stuff that has no laminated copper or aluminum layers.
I do understand the theoretical science behind it - what I'm really trying to say is, is there any evidence that any of these properties are significant enough to matter in a kitchen context, i.e. has somebody actually tested copper vs. stainless steel in any fashion.
I am continually replacing my commercial 18/10 stainless with clad bottoms for all copper lined pots and pans; a piece here and there; Ebay, flee markets...etc. I'm a chemist and a "shade tree" chef with one of those analytic minds that called bullshit real quick on "hype", especially pretentious "well marketed" luxury items i.e. I invest in performance because of the benefits.
There's a saying "stainless is painless" . It can take a beating when you occasionally have to restore it with Easy Off oven type cleaners to get the baked on crap off of it. And since you should polish copper vs using oven cleaner, I give this benefit to stainless. So, if I'm cooking, I try to keep the surfaces clean so food doesn't get cooked on. This may not of course be as easily done in a commercial kitchen however I still see most fine food chefs choose lined copper anyway.
So, the benefit I've found is that Copper simply heats faster, more evenly and radiates from all sides. If you make anything like a stove top lasagna or melt velveta, chocolate, or make anything that might tend to burn on the bottom if you don't keep stirring it, copper simply brings food up to temp quicker but when it done, you can simply turn off the heat and it cools very quick so the metal doesn't "hold" the heat so you don't overcook food or burn on the "hotter spots". Basically, the better the heat distribution, they less the hots spots, subsequent uneven cooking/burning food.
Thanks for the answer, but it seems to just be repeating what's already been asserted in the OP and links, i.e. that supposedly it heats faster and has fewer hot spots. The question is asking for practical, objective evidence one way or the other - not theoretical, not anecdotal, both of which are trivially easy to find in abundance.
Okay I will be VERY specific even though I covered this already explaining the overview that is relative to the question of practical, objective evidence.
I cook a stove top lasagna. It cannot be "stirred" for it is layered with noodles, then marinara, then veggies, cheese...etc. I bring it to 180 degrees F. and maintain that temp with a lid on it. This will not work in stainless steel or cast iron or aluminum cookware.
Is that specific enough for you?
Check out this kitchen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nGFFWuJchU&feature=related
I have to say that all this verbiage is a special kind of funny to me? Personally, I'm a bit of what one might call a "copper snob" regarding cookware. I prefer the term "connesieur" lol. I'mean 51 yrs old, highly educated, tad geeky, experiment driven when it comes to forming an opinion.
I ALSO do A LOT of cooking nowadays.
For pleasure, relaxation ... hobby
At age of 45, & lacking much genuine culinary expertise, I'd avoided copper cookware having PTSD from having to clean mom's throughout childhood. Tho, truth be told, the woman was a PHENOMENAL cook
Fast fwd: woe to me for my transgressions and NOT TAKING mom's copper cookware. Really? For all my "intelligence" supposedly known for, there is yet another shining example of my lack for common sense :(
$6,000 later and the proud owner now of ~53 pieces of 3-4mm, high end, heavy, hammered Delhellerin, Mauviel, Bourgeat, Jones Brothers, Froud, Jo's Heinrichs sterling lined, copper cookware ..... all I can say is there is simply NO turning back!
Along with several gorgeous Le Creuset, Griswold and Staub cast iron pieces , I almost NEVER find.myself sans-serif the PERFECT cooking [&/or serving] piece.
There is an old adage in that "you get what you pay for" that GENERALLY holds true. Nothing is absolute, of course. However, there is most definitely a REASON such cookware isn't inexpensive folks? Cooking experiences are the true teststory that will provide answers looking for in this forum. Like everything, perception & opinion are as varied as human beings, right? Suffice it to say, personally, I'd never go back to cooking on much else than my good copper or cast iron. Some recipes call for enameled, some not. And in the rare dish wherein neither of those lines fit the bill? I DO still have a few ALL Clad & Ruffoni Stainless pieces to fill possible voids.
However, prior to age 48, I was too busy working, raising a family to have afforded the luxury of either fine cooking OR exquisite cookware. All things have a season. Therefore my personal opinion? Everybody should TRY to get and use at least ONE multipurpose high quality copper and enameled cast iron piece. Maybe just ONE. You will likely come to appreciate WHY these pieces are highly sought? And if you don't? Sell them and pick up an entire set of something else sufficient for your needs?
Practicality always .....
Blessings to all ....
I am not sure if this still matters, but I owned a copper pan, quickly burnt butter in the pan. I worked on it for two days to get the burn out. Some pan!!
So I would say probably not for your lasagna. Sorry I just don't trust them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.435037
| 2010-10-15T22:39:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8177",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Athanasius",
"Autofast Limited",
"Eric Johnson",
"Jason C",
"Neffer_23",
"Sune Trudslev",
"docno",
"fatpugsley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16787",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16797",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9269",
"papin",
"trikelef",
"urlass",
"user16811",
"zstewart"
],
"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
}
|
8316
|
Are some flavour pairings known to work better than others (and if so, why)?
It is commonly known that there are five "primary" flavours:
Sweet
Sour
Bitter
Salty
Savory (AKA Umami)
That leaves 10 possible pairs of two, 10 possible sets of three, and 5 possible sets of four.
My question is, are some combinations known to produce more favourable tastes than others? And if so, why? Are there objective reasons or does it vary by culture?
Also, are there other, "secondary" flavours (piquance, fattiness, pungency, etc.) that pair particularly well with any of the primary flavours?
I ask because I do seem to see certain combinations far more often than others. Sweet and sour are often found together, and bitter and savory foods are often accompanied by saltiness and pungent foods such as garlic and onion. As of late I'm also starting to see the "sweet and hot" combination more (chocolate and chili). Yet it's rather rare to see, for example, sour combined with savory or bitter flavours, unless other flavours are added to the mix (as in Five Spice).
Knowing the most common/appropriate pairings would, I think, make one better-equipped to tweak seasonings, make substitutions, and improvise when necessary. So, how does one determine whether a given pairing is destined for the gullet or the garbage?
N.B. This is somewhat related to Flavour combinations - structural analysis, but that question is more about how to pair foods, which is typically done by choosing ingredients that share basic/primary flavours, whereas this is specifically about how to pair the flavours themselves in an abstract sense.
"When in doubt, throw bacon on/in it." - Wikipedia entry on Umami. That's my new moto for life.
What does 'N.B.' stand for?
@Justin: Nota Bene.
@daniel: Pretty much all taste is the reaction of chemical compounds on the tongue and in the mouth. I made the distinction between flavours that are actually directly related to tastebuds (primary) and things that we merely perceive as "flavour" (secondary), or what Wikipedia calls "sensations" that have to do with the somatosensory system. Still, the characteristic "taste" of the sulfur in allium was the subject of two separate questions today, so clearly these things have a place in any discussion of flavour pairings.
@daniel: I suppose I assumed (perhaps mistakenly) that it was already codified to an extent. Not that I expect there to be cast-iron laws about what goes with what else - I'm sure you can pair anything with anything if you adjust the amounts carefully enough - but I'm equally sure that some flavours just naturally complement each other in any amount - like sweet & sour... or salt and vinegar (sour).
Ermmm, there are 10 possible sets of three and five possible sets of four. (These numbers are known as binomial coefficients; in particular, 5 choose 3 is 10 and 5 choose 4 is 5.)
@Erik: Quite right. And this from an engineer no less. What can I say, end of a long day...
No one really knows why certain flavors go well together. There are many theories having to do with sharing components, balancing, or tradition. Flavor is really a combination of taste (what your tongue senses) and aroma (what your olfactory epithelium way inside your nose sense). Recipes with two or more tastes in combination are common, but tastes need to be well balanced. Too bitter or too salty and the dish may be inedible. The aroma part is a bit harder.
Aroma comes from the many small molecules – the volatiles – found in food. With over 1000 odor receptors helping our brain distinguish between the safe and the dangerous, the good from the plain, coming up with a good theory for aroma combination has been hard. François Benzi from Firmenich, suggested at one of the Erice molecular gastronomy conferences (probably prompted by Heston Blumenthal) that if two food items share many detectable volatiles, then they should pair well together. This theory is the basis of the combinations you find at the FoodPairing web site. The theory is not the full story.
Humans are reluctant omnivores. Trying new food items once meant being prepared to endure unpleasant consequences, a lesson now imprinted in our brains. It takes us about two weeks of having the same thing to start liking it. The risk avoidance and the slow adoption lead to cuisines adopting a limited set of ingredients, often items that grow nearby. Over time, well tested imports finds their way into the mix, but over all they have been so stable that Elisabeth Rozin (married to Paul Rozin) introduced The Flavor Principle, an enumeration of the ingredients that give a cuisine its characteristic flavor.
Creating new flavor combinations requires balancing the traditional with a hint of novelty. In trying to learn to cook I have found that I can end up with a well appreciated dish if I concentrate on getting the taste right and use fresh ingredients (they are full of volatiles). To go beyond that requires talent and if it happens in a dish I enjoy my good luck.
Interesting that you refer to "reluctant omnivores" - I'm always very excited to try a new food. But perhaps that's what leads people into cooking in the first place; I've noticed that many people who don't cook like to eat the same bland foods over and over again.
That's a good point. At a university we could figure out the difference in new food aversion between those in food courses and others. We should check with P. Rozin.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.437727
| 2010-10-19T21:45:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8316",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Beejamin",
"Dr. Chandrajiit Singh",
"Erik P.",
"JESSICA ",
"forums",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/923",
"jjnguy",
"papin",
"primadonna"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6892
|
Making ice cream at home without a machine
Possible Duplicate:
How to make ice cream made without a machine?
I need an method for making ice cream at home, without access to an ice cream machine.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.438207
| 2010-09-07T08:54:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6892",
"authors": [
"Io Medina Aceremo",
"Margaret",
"Norm",
"Raymond",
"RollRoll",
"Ullallulloo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14321",
"sp00m",
"vhong",
"yuritsuki"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30443
|
Mystery "organ" on the underside of chicken thighs?
There is a small, round, black "organ" under chicken thighs, and some people like to eat it. Identifying this seems to be quite the lingering Internet mystery.
They are there on prepared fried chicken--specifically Popeye's, but I'm sure it's there on any prepared bone-in chicken thigh. I've read various claims that it's the "oyster", liver, kidney, or a blood vessel. By "under" the thigh, I mean that it's found on the bony side opposite the meat.
See these pages: 1, 2, 3. There are tons more if you search.
Photos follow: Chicken thigh with gizzard thing exposed, then removed, then cross section.
When I cut up whole chickens myself, the thighs have only one bone, the leg bone (femur). Digging through the links you gave, I eventually found this, which has the ring of truth to me, especially the note on bad cutting: "IF your chicken is so badly cut that the thighs include part of the pelvis, then those lumpy things in the hollow underside are the kidneys. I am always careful to detach the thigh-bone from its socket on the pelvis, and to treat the back (including said pelvis) as a separate piece, to be cooked and then eaten by whoever gets it first. INCLUDING those kidneys!"
This thing looks indeed like a kidney from what details I can see (google "kidney cross section" to see diagrams, be aware that anatomic diagrams mostly show cuts on an axis perpendicular to the one used here). You can also try to chew them - red meat has muscle fibers, even though they are less pronounced in chicken. If it feels sponge-like, it is a kidney (or other innards), not a muscle.
it's definitely a kidney, you can see the vein down the middle in the cross-section picture and the color of it after being cooked is a pretty big giveaway as well. That's really strange though, i've never seen that before in any commercially made fried chicken, even that cut of meat seems to be strange for commercial fried chicken. Where do you live?
FYI, Popeyes is a fast food chain in the US serving New Orleans style fried chicken, fairly common in the south and southeast, at least. One of their marketing claims is that their chicken is never frozen. They may have their own processing infrastructure, I don't know. Their thighs are consistently cut with two bones in a T-shape, not just the femur as when done by hand. Still, their chicken is delicious, the only fast food that I actually like.
I've had popeye's plenty of times, I don't recall them ever being cut this way though, I wonder if it's a regional thing.
@Brendan I live in Maryland, and consistently see this two-bone thigh cut from Popeye's. Truthfully, I never noticed the organ, though, perhaps because of the breading or because of processing variation, or because I simply never looked. Given their "never frozen" rule, they may have regional or local sources or processors with different practices, but I don't know anything specific.
that's interesting. I"m in NoVA and have never noticed that at all. I will have to keep an eye out for that next time I eat popeye's which will probably be several years from now.
@SAJ14SAJ I swear I don't think this is regional, nor Popeye's specific. You need to dig with your fingers through the non-meaty side of the thigh to find this organ. It's not normally exposed.
@SAJ14SAJ I can confirm that I also found these organs picking around a whole organic chicken purchased from Trader Joe's.
That certainly looks like a kidney, yummy bonus!
As discussed in the comments under the question, I believe the organ in question is a kidney, from the pocket in the pelvis of a thigh butchered in a fairly unusual manner, with that part of the pelvis still attached.
See page 3.21 in the University of Kentucky's PDF of Chapter 3 of Chicken Anatomy and Physiology. It shows where the kidney's are in the chicken (moderately graphic), and the shape looks quite similar to the mystery item in the original question's photographs, allowing for shrinkage from cooking.
SAJ14SAJ, your link seems broken...
There are no organs on the underside of a chicken, the oyster is simply a bite-size piece of muscle which is tender and usually the tastiest piece of the whole bird. Two of links are about the oyster, which isn't gizzard-like at all. The first link is asking what the livery tasting stuff that sometimes comes attached to chicken thighs is, which is in fact liver left by poorly executed preparation by the packaging company.
I added photos for clarification. Partially-eaten Popeye's chicken for reference. I don't see how this could be poorly executed preparation; I'm pretty sure this "gizzard" is in all chicken thighs.
@JeffAxelrod It's definitely not in all chicken thighs; I don't think I remember ever seeing it. See SAJ14SAJ's comment on your question, perhaps? Maybe commercial suppliers, including wherever Popeye's chicken comes from, reliably cut them sloppily like this, and include the kidneys?
i've never seen commercial fried chicken cut that way, something seems very off to me about this whole situation. It's definitely a kidney though.
Those are the kidneys. I just finished butchering eight chickens yesterday. They look exactly like a little kidney bean (lol). I don't believe they will hurt you, after all people eat beef kidneys, kidney pie, etc. kidneys are usually removed along with everything else. They can be easily popped out with your finger.
The organ meat inside the bony part of a chicken thigh is the kidney. A good cook removes it before preparation; I have never seen it removed by a butcher.
As for the oysters, those are the two "backstrap" or "tenderloin" muscles in the small of the back. They're not organ meat -- just very tasty chicken.
Here in Sydney Australia it's always there, always. Fresh chook(whole or thighs), charcoal chicken(bbq), KFC(Kentucky fried chicken), whatever. It's definitely not the oyster. I thought they might be testicles, but they would only appear in roosters, not chickens. I also thought they might be a kind of bone marrow deposit/reservoir like what humans have in our hips(the putty like stuff they do bone grafts with when you badly break a bone). IMHO, whatever it is, it's the best bit of the bird there is, YUM!!!
Kidneys are generally found in any chicken thigh portion. I've eaten chicken from many places and never had difficulty finding the kidneys. If you're actually cutting the kidney section out of the thigh, then you aren't leaving the whole thigh.
http://www2.ca.uky.edu/poultryprofitability/Production_manual/Chapter3_Anatomy_and_Physiology/Chapter3_excretory.html
Check this from the Kentucky College of Agriculture. Looks like the mystery part is the kidneys. It also says that, "The kidneys are normally left in when a broiler carcass is processed."
From the looks of the photos what you're seeing is part of the "oyster". It can sometimes be darker in colour. It's the muscle found near the base of the back where the thigh meets the body.
The texture is slightly different than other parts of the bird. When cooking a whole bird you pop that bit of meat it's concave bone area and it resembles an oyster in shape.
I provided a link to a webpage that has some nice pics of a bird being cut up. You'll see about 3/4 down tha page they have the body split down the breast bone showing the inside along the back bone without legs attached. Notice no organs attached anywhere. I've NEVER seen any organs still attached inside the body of a comercially cleaned chicken and I've seen more than a truck load of birds in my 15+ years of cooking professionally.
Pics of cleaned chicken
Here's another good pic for you. It's the concave bone of the pelvis that holds the oyster. When they cut the bird up for fried chicken they cut the bird in two, down the spine then make three cuts per side and seperate the dumb stick. One half way up the pelvis, the next one splits the upper body into a wing section and a breat section. This way you'll end up with 4 fairly equal sized pieces that should cook at about the same time.
From the newest pictures in the question, I cannot agree on the conclusion that the part being asked about is the oyster, which is normal muscle tissue; the item shown in the detail clearly looks like a non-muscle organ of some type. Popeye's may not prepare their chickens in a standard commercial manner in accordance with your experience.
I am not sure what the organ inside the chicken pelvis is, BUT it reminds me of, what in beef, is called the "sweet bread". They have one thing in common, they both taste like the liver of that animal, but with a lighter, more delicate flavor. I have also eaten pork and beef kidneys -- what is called the "gizzard" is closer in both texture and flavor to a kidney.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.438327
| 2013-01-27T02:44:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30443",
"authors": [
"ADavidson",
"Ben",
"Brendan",
"BumbleBee",
"Cascabel",
"Hannah Kelley",
"Hugo",
"Ivan",
"Jack Whetstone",
"Jason Brown",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"John Cornish",
"Matthew",
"MsBlucher",
"RINGO SMITH",
"Rachael Smith",
"Rekamanon",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sarika Mali",
"Shaun Taylor",
"Stephie",
"Tree",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143878",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71255",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96067",
"j Durango",
"kelly",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10274
|
What's the best way to grate chocolate?
What's the best way to grate chocolate without getting it messy and melting all over one's fingers? I've been using a fine cheese grater, and while it does the trick, the chocolate melts in my hand as I hold it... How can I improve this process?
I would recommend staying away from a grater and either using a knife or a chocolate chipper (http://www.amazon.com/Lee-43198-Chocolate-Chipper/dp/B00005NUVX). The less friction and the more you keep your hands off it (because your hand will melt it as you have discovered) the better.
Perfect! I don't know why I didn't think to just chop it finely with a knife! Worked like a charm! Thanks!
If you do want to stick with the grater, I bet you could try holding the chocolate with a pot holder or oven mitt. Keeps heat out; ought to keep it in too. Put a plastic bag over it if it's something you don't want chocolate on, just in case.
Even without the warmth of a hand, I'd still be concerned about the friction with the grater melting the chocolate. Of course it all depends on how warm it is in your kitchen.
If you have the shelf space for one more gadget, a drum grater is an excellent solution. The friction isn't enough to melt the chocolate, and you are not touching it with your fingers. It is also more convenient for cheese and nuts than a standard grater. I find it much more convenient and quicker than knife chopping, and it produces uniform results.
Something like this really ought to be in every kitchen. It's the only way to grind nuts into a flour (rather than something peanut butter-like), and it grates cheese so quickly that you'll wonder why you even own a box grater.
I actually have one of these that my grandma gave me aeons ago that I had forgotton about... "grate" idea for eliminating hand-warmth-melting!
I was using a knife to "grate" chocolate, when my mom gave me...a cheese slicer (the one that looks a bit like a cake lifter)!
Tip the chocolate bar onto its side, and as you would slice cheese, you "slice" chocolate, and then you get either finely grated whisps or thick curls, depending on the pressure used. Also, the chocolate has no time to melt, as it goes so quickly AND you only touch the back and front with 2 fingers.
It works like a dream. I'm sure a potatoe peeler would have the same effect.
Freeze the chocolate then put it in a mini electric food chopper.
A potato peeler works wonders!!
Do you still have to hold the chocolate, and does it melt? Is it faster than using a cheese grater? Just wondering how this helps answer the original question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.439173
| 2010-12-18T22:20:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10274",
"authors": [
"Byron Sommardahl",
"Cascabel",
"Computerish",
"Leslie Parks",
"Marti",
"Satyafrog",
"Tara",
"Toby",
"TomC",
"corek2000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3779",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89209",
"lemontwist",
"nancy southall",
"tenni",
"user68415",
"wehnsdaefflae"
],
"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
}
|
386
|
What is the best way to store stock in the freezer?
What is the best way to store stock in the freezer?
I can think of ice cubes and plastic bags, but am looking for other ideas.
Also, what would be the optimal portion size?
We do ice cube trays (then transfer to freezer bags) or sometimes we'll use the pressure canner.
When I want to freeze portions of almost anything liquid (including stocks and sauces), I use a covered ice cube tray like OXO Good Grips. Just spoon it into the tray and throw it in the freezer. Easy! Keeps very well, and makes it very easy to portion out later.
The OXO product is my favourite, but it's not too hard to find generic substitutes at any superstore. Try to find one with a soft bottom so you don't struggle for 5 minutes trying to get the cubes out and then scraping the sides for all the bits you left behind.
The ice cube tray is a great way to store stock. You just break out what you need.
FYI: Your link has gone 404. I think the new link is either http://www.oxo.com/p-1041-ice-cube-tray.aspx or http://www.oxo.com/p-1203-no-spill-ice-cube-tray.aspx; they have two similar products, not sure which you're referring to.
@derobert: Yep, it was the regular ice cube tray. Didn't know they had a "no spill" tray. Not sure why they need one, my regular tray has never spilled.
I don't like ice cube trays as the only freezing method, simply because of portioning -- I typically make large batches of stock, and I only have so many ice cube trays. So I make a few different sizes, which are mostly just based on things I have, and so I have a variety of sizes when I need it:
Gallon zip-top bags : fill about half way, close all but a corner, remove all of the air you can, seal, lay on sheet pans so they don't freeze in strange shapes.
Small bread pans (I think they were sold as 'mini loaf' pans, they're about 1/4 to 1/3 the volume of a 'standard' loaf pan, maybe 2-3 cups each Freeze, release, store in zip-top bags with as much air removed as possible.
Ice cube trays (for when you only need a Tb for a sauce, or when you just need to cool down a bowl of soup quickly without diluting it).
I've also been known to use muffin tins for freezing things that I'll be using about 3/4c. at a time. (eg, pesto)
Oh -- and of course, for the plastic bags, you'll want to cool the stock down first. I don't tend to refrigerate it first, as I use enough bones that it'll go gelatinous on me if I do. I cool it down to near room temperature through use of a cold water bath (I put my stock pot in the sink, then fill the sink with cold water and ice, and stir every few minutes)
I've never checked the freezing time of stock from hot / cold (Mpemba effect), but I'd be reluctant to put large volumes of hot items in my freezer .. so maybe ice cube trays, but the rest I cool before freezing.
You can get all the air out of the bag by submerging it in a sink full of water. Leave the unclosed corner out, and zip it up as you pull it under the water. The pressure from the water will expel all the air. I use the technique for sous vide rather than a vacuum machine.
I usually put 500 ml portions in a quart zip-lock bag and put the bags in a bread pan to help retain their shape while I freeze them.
But I recently bought some "tovolo king" silicone ice cube trays for freezing portions of baby food (about 100 mL per cube) and found that they're also good for freezing small portions of stock or broth. Since they're silicone, it's easy to peel the mold off of the cube after freezing. (I freeze them and then bag the cubes.)
The 500 mL bags are nice when I need a few cups of broth and the 100 mL cubes are nice when I need smaller portions.
They also make a smaller tray of 1 oz cubes, which are useful when you need a small amount of stock to finish a sauce. (I also use them for leftover coconut milk.)
I store my stock in 250ml one-use rectangular dozes with a cap.
I find the 250ml ideal portion for my
usual needs.
One-use dozes are very cheap and I
don't have to care about cleaning
them. They are also much thinner and
that saves a lot of space in the
freezer.
Rectangular shape also saves space.
The stock doesn't really need to be
covered with a cap. As soon as it
freezes, it doesn't matter. But
having a cap allows me to pile them
up. Again, this saves space in the
freezer.
My friend - a professional chef - has another method. But it requires some equipment:
He puts the stock into a plastic bag. Then he uses a machine that sucks all the air from it and seals it. He freezes each flat bag individualy. Once they are frozen, he stacks them. This allows optimum use of freezer space.
When he needs to use the stock, he just cuts the bag open and break the frozen stock into pieces. It's easy, because the slices of frozen stock are very thin.
Plastic quart and pint containers....the kind frequently used for Chinese take-out in the US. Inexpensive. Reusable. Microwave safe. Dishwasher Safe. Can write on with Sharpie...Sharpie wipes off for new label.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.439469
| 2010-07-10T02:39:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/386",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BigRigz",
"Dinah",
"Jean01",
"Kev",
"PamH",
"Ronald Pottol",
"Sayed Ibrahim Hashimi",
"Spevacus",
"Taekahn",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2163",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87033",
"molf",
"nunu",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7400
|
How do I stop homemade Ravioli from going soggy? (storage issue)
Last week I made some Pumpkin Ravioli. The filling was a bit moist, but nothing excessive.
The problem is, that obviously, I don't want to be stuffing ravioli immediately before they go into the pot. I would prefer to do it earlier in the day.
I made mine about 4 hours before cooking, and when I went to cook them, the lower sheet of pasta had gone soggy, and was sticking to the waxed paper. This was due to fluid transfer from the stuffing to the pasta.
How should I store the ravioli for up to several hours without this happening?
Freeze it immediately, especially if you can do so in single layers.
Try reducing the moisture of the filling (adding a little bit of cornstarch, for example).
You could also freeze them without loss of quality, specially if it's just a few hours and the filling is a bit moist.
I make ravioli at home large quantities to be stored for later use some 5 kg at a time. Here is what I do so the ravioli doesn't stick, get soggy or turn into a ball when cooked:
Use ravioli lamps (trays with cavities) [editor- lamps? is that right?]
Roll the sheets of pasta not too thin or they will not seal (#4 on the Kitchen Aid pasta roller).
Gently lay the first sheet onto the tray, and use a cooking cloth to press it into each cavity.
fill each cavity
Lay the top sheet and then use a wooden roller to seal and cut off the edges.
For filling I use ricotta with every thing -- meat, spinach, mushrooms, etc. Make sure your filling doesn't have too much moisture. One mistake is to put filling in the fridge and when you pull it out a room temp it will "sweat". It's better to make it when you are ready to use it.
I use a pastry bag rather than a spoon: it's much faster.
Now here is my trick, (discovered after many failures -- I tried flour, semolina corn starch , oil , paper,plastic and everything else you can imagine.): After pressing the two sheets of pasta, making sure that each individual ravioli is sealed but not completely cut off, turn the tray over. You will end up with a rectangular sheet of ravioli. Let this dry and turn it over several times. I do this on a wooden board, 6 at the time. The air will dry them if you let sit to long the moisture from the filling will pass trough the dough and make it stick.
Then (about an hour later and flipped over some 6 to 8 times - 10 min in between) the sheet will be dry enough to lift it from the board without bending. At this time they go inside the freezer on a flat cookie tray (no paper, no oil, but dry.) Leave them for 30 minutes, until frozen. Then, you can separate each ravioli, breaking on the edges like you will do with a chocolate bar. Leave them in the freezer until ready to cook, storing them in a Zip-lock bag if you're not using them soon.
-1: Paragraph breaks would help immensely here. As would proper punctuation.
Edited answer. It actually would have been a good answer had it been more readable.
To avoid sogginess, be sure to drain the ricotta through a cheesecloth before mixing with ingredients.
Add breadcrumbs to the filling to absorb excess moisture.
make sure to place the fresh pasta on well floured surface, I actually use semolina as it absorbs the moisture better. good luck!
that's not really going to help if it's already getting soggy, but good tip in general
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.439926
| 2010-09-17T13:58:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7400",
"authors": [
"Andrew Mao",
"Chris Cudmore",
"CodingMonk",
"Dick",
"Jim DeLaHunt",
"Joel",
"Luciano",
"Mat Kelly",
"Priscilla Nagashima Boyd",
"Shawn",
"Yamikuronue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15178",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15179",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98683"
],
"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
}
|
14705
|
How do you grill a perfect burger?
I'm a pretty good griller (gas barbeque). I can turn out perfect steaks, fish, duck breasts, and even an entire leg of pork. The one thing that eludes me is the simple burger. Even with lean beef, I get constant flare-ups and greasy black smoke. What's the trick to grilling the perfect burger? (fresh meat, hand pressed, not a recipe question)
Edit: Definition of a perfect burger
Cooked through with just a suggestion of pink in the center.
Juicy on the inside - Your bun should soak up lots of beefy goodness after it's been bitten
I must say I agree with Daniel's answer. I'm from South Africa and here we're grill nuts. But we use charcoal or wood fires 90% of the time. While convenient, gas is frowned upon here since it just doesn't give the meat the same flavour and it takes away that satisfying part of building your own fire. We grill anything from red meat, to white meat, to fish, shellfish, vegetables even to halloumi cheese. One thing we do not, however, grill is burgers or hot dogs. I can't imagine why you would waste a grill fire on burgers.
My take/thoughts:
The over-smokiness may be an indication that it's time to do a thorough grill cleaning with soap and warm water, especially in the burner/heat-diffuser area (not the grate--see daniel's comment below for that). Additionally, it's good to do some simple cleaning and lubrication of the grate before and after each use. Before: Grill brush (brass if you've got porcelain) and vegetable oil (consider oil with a high smoke point). After: oil again to soften the what the food left behind.
Preheat the grill. It also helps to have thick, heat-retaining grating. Once you've achieved temperature, you can turn the flames down a bit. The residual heat in the grate should give you a good sear (grill lines) with less flare-up. I also try to preserve the pre-heated air by expediting the placement of food-stuffs.
Make sure you're keeping your grill cover down. This allows the top side to cook a bit at the same time as the flame-side. It may also suffocate some would-be flare-ups.
Try mixing some panade into your raw meat. For whatever reason, a little bread paste results in juicier cooked meat e.g., meatloaf. For a pound of pre-cook burgers, I use approximately:
The bread interior from one or two white hamburger buns
Equal parts buttermilk and steak sauce (or maybe worcestershire?)--enough of the combined liquid to make the bread into a paste.
Not directly meat-related but I also like to have toasted buns that don't absorb too much grease. The key there is to serve the buns shortly before pulling the burgers off so that people have time to dress 'em with assorted condiments/veggies.
Not to mention, panade turns it into a meat loaf, not a burger.
@daniel Edited to clarify that soap and water are for the grill body/hardware and not the grate. Citation for soap and water in appropriate places: http://bbq.about.com/cs/cookingtips/a/aa051201a.htm
@daniel Also edited to remove 'constrict'. Thanks.
@Aaronut The amount of panade can be reduced if one prefers their burgers less meatloaf-y but don't knock it until you try it ;) .
When grilling burgers, or any meat for that matter, flare-ups are the mortal enemy of good food. My first bit of advice would be to disabuse yourself of the notion that you will grill a perfect burger on a gas grill. Good? Yes. Perfect? No. The problem with cooking on a gas grill is that flare-ups are unavoidable. There is always a good oxygen supply that will cause the fuel you're adding via the fat from the meat to burn brilliantly.
I use a Weber kettle grill with a cast iron grate, and here's what I do.
Segregate the hot coals to one half of the grill.
Allow the grill to get nice and hot.
Put the burgers directly over the coals, and put the lid on the grill.
Wait 30 seconds, then give each burger a quarter turn. Spin the grate 180 degrees, so the burgers are now on the "cool" side.
Allow the burgers to cook for 2-5 minutes (depending on the level of doneness you or your audience wants).
Flip the burgers, putting each patty on the "hot" side, and close the lid.
Repeat steps 4 and 5. After this put your cheese on, if desired, and close the lid to let the cheese melt.
It takes some practice, but this does produce a nice burger. You have virtually no chance of flare-ups, you get good initial heat to allow some Maillard reaction to take place, and you allow the residual heat of the grate and grill to do the rest of the cooking, while the fat from the burgers drip away.
You could modify this process for a gas grill, probably, but it may involve a bit more doing.
I always salt and pepper and use a light coating of Avocado oil over the entire 1/2 lb. burger, (the avocado oil has a 550 f smoke point),then put it on a red hot Weber Gas grills, cast iron grates, and sear it for 2 minutes each side,enough direct heat, I then place a Broiler tray directly on the grills grates and place the burger on it, then lower the grills temp. To 375 F, season the burger, and allow to cook for app. 8 to 10 minutes that's all decided by my instant read thermometer. I usually end up with a medium rare burger,at about 145 F core temp. Between the as hot as you can get it searing,on direct heat and the softer cooking on indirect heat, it produces a perfect Burger everytime !
This is good. I'll give this a try next time. It combines the grilling and frying methods perfectly.
My grilling method:
Preheat grill to highest temperature.
Assemble burgers (adding bread/milk mixture as described above).
Make sure the entire assembly is close to room temperature before grilling.
Turn grill down (low).
Add burgers, leaving a few inches between patties.
Flip early, and flip often (as soon as burgers separate from the grill).
I rarely see flareups on any grill I work with. Mostly this has to do with flipping often (sacrilege, I know, but it works), and keeping the patty from releasing it's greasy goodness.
The smoke is unavoidable, sorry.
Flare-ups are also unavoidable. Small flare-ups can be ignored; if there's a big one, just move the meat away from that spot until it goes away. Or close the lid for a few seconds to cut off the oxygen supply. Some people like to use a squirt bottle of water to douse the flare-ups; this works, but I personally don't think it's necessary.
Do not use lean beef. You need fat for a tasty burger.
Good burgers are about good flavor no? I think the best flavor is the charbroiled one from CHARCOAL.
Cooking a burger in a pan is like deep frying pizza.......you ask yourself why?
As some culinary professionals and some grill experts probably already know......flip the burger as little as possible (yes this does require patience)
flip every 30 sec? honestly? lol. where'd all the juice that was holding flavor go? oh yeah you cooked it off :/
Eveyone likes THEIR burger.....it's just traditional to cook a Hamburger on a Charcoal grill. Otherwise you should just call it what it is.....
Searing ground beef. fail.
cook the flavor IN :P
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.440259
| 2011-05-11T18:38:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14705",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ajax Zhang",
"Anderson Santos",
"Big man",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Cody Brown",
"DeVil",
"Elizabeth Lardy",
"JodiMiddleton",
"Rich Andrews",
"RubberDuck",
"Sharanya Sunderamoorthy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/147409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30975",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6098",
"melissa trinidad",
"steamer25",
"tina",
"user30992"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
110127
|
My black glutinous rice is not chewy at all?
I need some advice, I bought some Black Thai glutinous rice, but it just isn't getting the right texture.
I have:
soaked it overnight
soaked it over 2 nights
boiled it
slow cooked it
steamed it
I have tried various times from 1 hour up till 6 hours for the above.
No matter what I do, the texture isn't right. It's crunchy on the outside, like it has a shell but it's soft on the inside. It's not chewy and soft at all unfortunately.
The bag says it's glutinous rice. Could it be it's labelled wrong?
Any tips and insights would be helpful!
Black rice is "hulled", meaning the fibrous outer husk is removed, but not (or only minimally) "polished", meaning the thin but tough bran layer is left on. (It's the bran that provides the color to black rice.) Different varietals of rice, and different processing methods, will lead to a thicker or thinner layer of bran.
It sounds like the rice you have has a relatively thick bran layer, meaning a tough outer layer will remain after cooking. There's nothing you can change about your cooking process to address this.
From the picture, I note a pretty wide variance in color, indicating low-quality processing (the husk was left on a few grains, and the bran partially rubbed off others). If you have a choice of brand, look for black rice with as uniform a color as possible.
Black rice is the only rice I measure rice and water. Rice rinsed once to remove contamination. One cup of rice, two water. Boil on low heat for 50 minutes. Stir from time to time. Leave for 5-10 minutes.
Soaking black rice overnight (or a day) should make the rice act as cooked (so chewy). If it's not I would supect there is something not right with rice itself. Althought it look good to me (but the one I use have a little more gloss but maybe that's just package effect)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.441089
| 2020-08-11T06:54:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/110127",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112625
|
Does the preparation of chicken liver mousse require force feeding of chickens?
The force feeding of ducks or geese required to prepare foie gras (French "fatty liver") is widely known and banned in some states. I was at a restaurant last night which offered "Chicken Liver Mousse." It was creamy, delicious, and quite reminiscent of foie gras. In fact, many chefs are turning to this as a foie gras alternative.
The only discussion I've found on this is from this Reddit post. Other sites' preparation instructions do not discuss initial chicken treatment to get such a liver texture.
I'm curious if chickens are force fed to marbleize their livers in much the same way that ducks are. Have we just transitioned from one bird to another?
Hi Growler, that's an interesting question, thanks for joining the site. I changed your title - this is something we do very rarely, but after years of moderating, I am pretty certain that the old title would have gotten a lot of attention of the worst kind, with people starting to argue about definitions and morals and airing opinions and prejudices in public, without even reading the question body. The concrete question in your body is objectively answerable, so I tried to reflect that in the title in a neutral way.
@rumtscho very good point! Great catch. Thanks for the edit.
Force-feeding is not actually required for foie gras (although it is the most common method). You'll also notice that most chickens are raised in horrific crowded conditions. If animal cruelty is your concern here, you need to be careful what you put in your plate in both cases.
As such, of course not. To achieve some particular taste, perhaps.
There's no need to force-feed the chickens.
Chicken Liver Mousse is just a posh word for a smooth paté, with sometimes a bit of extra aeration.
For every chicken, there's a chicken liver. The world eats a lot of chicken these days, so there's a lot of chicken liver to spare. All you need to add is butter for the extra fat content & resulting mouth-feel.
At its simplest, it's chicken liver, lightly sautéed in butter &/or oil, added onion or garlic, herbs & spices, alcohol, cream etc to taste, then whizzed in a blender until perfectly smooth. It's often not really a mousse, as it's not really fully aerated, but extra aeration makes it tend further towards an actual mousse, which the cooling butter will attempt to hold in place. You could go further perhaps using gelatine etc to hold the mousse as it cools.
The non-migrating chicken is different from the migrating goose; force-feeding will not result in a liver with a significant higher fat content. The chicken liver plays a role in producing fat but not in storing it in itself.
The adipose fat in chicken is mainly in the subcutaneous (under the skin), abdominal (stomach) and clavicular (shoulders) region[1] (study looked at ages 4 and 14 days only). See also another study[3] which is bit broader.
Alshamy et al. [2] found no adverse effects to the livers of chicken under a high energy diet. They compared two different chicken lines, a dual-use line (Lohmann Dual) and a broiler (Ross 308). The Lohmann Dual had 9% more lipids (fat) in the liver than the broiler.
Average fat content in chicken liver (the Korean study I found says "Ross breed" which are broilers but there are many Ross breeds) is about 2.9% for that line[5]. As this is a Korean study it might be interesting to know that the fat content as listed in the USDA is 4.8gr per 100gr (https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/171060/nutrients).
Geese on the other side need reserve for migration. That reserve is fat and it is mainly stored in the liver[4].
Fat content of Foi Gras (liver of force-fed geese) according to the USDA is about
44gr per 100gr (https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/171100/nutrients). The product listed in the USDA is canned smoked Foi Gras*. Another, french, source (https://www.lanutrition.fr/bien-dans-son-assiette/aliments/viandes/le-foie-gras-et-votre-sante) has the fat content of raw goose liver ("Foi Gras d'Oie" in French) at ~55gr per 100gr if force-fed.
There seems to be a small movement to use the naturally fattened liver by slaughtering them at the times when they prepare for migration. I can only give the source I found in Wikipedia that a Spanish company won a French price (https://web.archive.org/web/20071128130319/http://www.regiondigital.com/modulos/mod_periodico/pub/mostrar_noticia.php?id=47071) for their Foi Gras produced without force-feeding. An animal friendly (besides the slaughtering) Tournedo Rossini? Mmmh, I wish I could afford that!
If you are not familiar with the recipe for Tournedos Rossini: it is basically a thick slice of roasted Brioche topped by a nice tournedo topped by a thick slice of Foi Gras topped by a thick slice of black truffle (Perigord truffle, Tuber melanosporum) topped by a generous ladleful of Madeira sauce.
[1] Shiping Bai et al. "Broiler chicken adipose tissue dynamics during the first two weeks post-hatch", Comp. Biochem. Physiol. A Mol. Integr. Physiol. 2015 Nov;189:115-23, DOI: 10.1016/j.cbpa.2015.08.002 , abstract at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2626385
[2] Z. Alshamy et al. "Structure and age-dependent growth of the chicken liver together with liver fat quantification: A comparison between a dual-purpose and a broiler chicken line" in PLoS One 2019 Dec 27;14(12):e0226903.. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0226903
[3] A. M. Fouad et al., "Nutritional Factors Affecting Abdominal Fat Deposition in Poultry: A Review" in Asian-Australas. J. Anim. Sci. 2014 Jul; 27(7): 1057–1068. at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4093572/
[4] Guosong Wang et al., "Transcriptomic analysis between Normal and high-intake feeding geese provides insight into adipose deposition and susceptibility to fatty liver in migratory birds" in BMC Genomics volume 20, Article number: 372 (2019). at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12864-019-5765-3
[5] Pil Nam Seong et al., "Characterization of Chicken By-products by Mean of Proximate and Nutritional Compositions", Korean J. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 2015; 35(2): 179–188. at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4682518/
* Smoked? Really?
Mousse is a product made from the liver. It is usually mixed with spices, and aromatics, and whipped or mixed into a paste, then cooked. It is typically made from chicken, pork, duck, or goose. Gavage (the technical term for the feeding via a feeding tube) is sometimes used to fatten ducks or geese. The liver becomes enlarged and is very rich, but not really marbled, as you suggest. The liver from these birds is know as fois gras. While fois gras can be made into a mousse, it also has other applications. As for chickens, gavage is not used, and a mousse can be made from their liver.
This doesn't really answer the question, which is whether chickens are force-fed to produce chicken liver mousse. It alludes to it by mentioning that ducks and geese can be force-fed to produce foie gras while omitting chickens from the list, but it's better to explicitly state that.
@DoktorJ edited.
No.
We don't force feed chicken (*) the same way we do for Ducks or Geese.
Liver mousse is made from regular chicken liver.
(*) AFAIK, and I never heard of that.
Does "we" mean you work in the poultry industry?
NO
In that SAME source you quoted, the chicken liver is referenced as " free-range chicken liver"
I would think this rather clearly answers your question, no?
Only one chef explicitly mentions that the chicken livers he uses are free-range. Also another chef uses calves liver, described as free-range.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.441399
| 2020-11-13T14:18:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112625",
"authors": [
"Doktor J",
"Lawnmower Man",
"Mark Wildon",
"Robbie Goodwin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89149",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89558",
"moscafj",
"njzk2",
"rumtscho",
"user3871"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121455
|
When should I add coriander to macaroni and cheese
I am fairly new to food connoisseurship, so I have a couple of what may appear to some to be stupid questions.
Basically, I am making Macaroni Cheese and Garlic Bread for dinner, and I have some spare dried Coriander leaves. By what method and process is Coriander best added to Macaroni Cheese? Should the Coriander be added during cooking, or after cooking?
I assume you are talking about fresh green Coriander (Cilantro, if you will). But regardless this is one of those, try a little bit and see if you like it, things.
Hi, your question about flavor combinations is very subjective. We cannot tell you if you, personally, will like the mac and cheese with coriander or not. Had it only been that part, we would have had to close the question - as it is, we can leave in the part about the best timing. But please do clarify if you have green leaves, dried leaves, whole grains, or powdered grains of coriander, the answer will be different.
Assuming fresh coriander, it all depends on how you want the dish flavoured. If you really like coriander, I would finely chop it, add it after the dish is cooked, and give it a stir through. That way, the flavour and colour will dominate.
If you want a milder version, add it during the cooking process. The flavour will be less distinct, and the leaves will turn very dark green/black, which may not look appealing against the light cheese colored sauce.
Dried coriander is more subtle still from a flavour perspective, it will need to be added sometime during the cooking process to rehydrate otherwise it might have a coarse mouth feel.
This is kind of an subjective question. I have never seen a recipe which adds coriander to mac and cheese, but that doesn't mean you can't add it. I love coriander to a point where I would eat it poached like vegetables in a Japanese shabu-shabu, so I would definitely try.
If your coriander is fresh, you can do a coarse chop and add towards the end of cooking similar to how you would garnish a dish with parsley. This will prevent the coriander leaves from wilting too much and preserve the freshness and fragrance of the herb.
If your coriander leaves are dry, I would try adding it when you make your roux, or when you are heating the milk/cream/cheese sauce to allow cooking time for the coriander to infuse into the sauce.
If you are American and by coriander you actually mean the coriander seeds and not "cilantro", I recommend the same method as the dry coriander leaves.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.441940
| 2022-08-25T14:33:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121455",
"authors": [
"Steve Chambers",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66651",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
99745
|
How do I stop all the sauce from being absorbed and the pasta going soggy?
I have to make a pasta bake for 20 people take it to the meeting 6 hours before it will be reheated for dinner. How do I stop all the sauce from being absorbed and the pasta going soggy.
Thanks everyone for your suggestions. As a trial I have made a tomato based bake I cooled the pasta and sauce put it together and will heat it again in a few hours. If it is fine then I will make a bigger version next week.If not I will try again and my husband will be eating my trial pastas for the next week. Again thanks for the help.
Welcome to the site! What's the recipe, and what type of pasta will you be using?
thanks for the welcome. I have not yet worked out what recipe or type of pasta to use. any sugestions are welcome
I am not a good cook but must take my turn to provide the meal, so easy or basic suggestions would be best
Pasta bakes are a very good choice for you then as they are pretty forgiving and feed a lot of people. I'd suggest making a small scale one if you have time.
I will try small scale tomorrow. I dont need to do the big one till next weekend so I do have some time. I am just not sure with it having to sit for so long if I can make one that wont be dry or the pasta overcooked
The secrets to a good pasta bake are:
Pick the right pasta: unless you are making Lasagna, tube shaped pasta is the best choice because it holds sauce, and tends to be thicker. Thicker pasta is better than thin in a bake, because thin pasta will get soggy way too easily. Penne works fine, so does macaroni. I think rigatoni is best, because it has ridges on the outside which help hold sauce on.
Undercook the pasta: if you cook the pasta until it's done and then bake it with a sauce, it will keep right on cooking and get mushy. What you want do to is cook the pasta until it starts to soften, but isn't quite edible yet. A minute before you reach al dente would be how I describe it. This way it cooks perfectly as it bakes.
Right amount of liquid in the sauce: the ideal result is to have a bake that holds together well without being dry. The pasta will absorb water as it cooks, so you need enough liquid to allow it to rehydrate, but not so much the dish comes out runny. Once it's all mixed and in the baking dish, check to make sure there's some liquid on the bottom. You want enough loose liquid to cover the bottom. If there isn't enough add some of the pasta water or stock - slowly, don't overdo it - then bake it covered for the first 15-20 minutes. If there's too much liquid in the bottom, bake it uncovered so more evaporates.
As for what type of sauce to use and what to put on the top, it really depends on taste. Some people use a tomato sauce, others a white sauce (mac and cheese is a white sauce with cheese in it), some people use both, typically layered. You can do a meat sauce or vegetarian - chunky or smooth, there's too many possibilities to list and it's opinion based on what is best. You need to consider the audience and what their dietary needs/preferences are and choose a combination that satisfies as many as possible.
thanks for the advice. I will try a small one tomorrow, and see what it is like
I'd recommend the following for pasta bakes / casseroles:
Use a relatively thick pasta, not strands. Tubes like ziti, penne, rigatoni are good, as are spirals like rotini. When cooking, you should start checking it a minute or two before the package instructions say, and pull it when it's no longer crunchy but not necessarily fully cooked.
Cook the pasta, then dress it in a little bit of sauce so it doesn't stick too much, then let it cool down. You can then add more sauce to it when you prepare the casserole dish. Once the pasta's cool, it won't absorb as much liquid, so it's less likely to suck up all of the moisture.
Even if it does soak up the moisture, it's generally not a big deal for a casserole -- I've made some that are more 'slicable' than 'scoopable' and no one complained.
I personally stick with tomato sauce for this sort of thing (vs. a dairy based sauce) as I find it easier to reheat -- just put it in a moderate (300 to 350°F / 150 to 175°C) until it's warmed through ... or mostly warmed through (tomato sauce is more forgiving if it's not fully warmed through).
If you've topped it with a melting cheese (vs. a grating cheese), you can cook it covered until the cheese starts to melt, then uncover and place it under the broiler for a minute or two 'til the top browns.
If you're not sure if you're going to be able to warm things back up, I either go with pesto or a vinaigrette based pasta salad / pasta primavera, as you can serve them cold.
Twenty people is enough that I'd consider making at least two casseroles; one large casserole in your largest container means that it's going to take longer to heat up. (it's a function of how deep it is in the container)
And as long as you're making two, I'd ask people about dietary restrictions -- you might want to make one meat and/or dairy free.
I used to cook spaghetti for 80 football players.
I made the pasta in batches al-dente - meaning you don't boil the regular spaghetti noodles past 13 minute. If you use a roaster, you can dry reheat the pasta by putting water between the outside heat source and roasting pan. This will allow the pasta to reheat without moisture. Stir it every 10-12 minutes for about 1 hour before serving.
Make the sauce and store in a large crock pot or roster. DO NOT store sauce and pasta before serving. If it's an alfredo you can combine 10-20 minutes before serving. Lemon butter sauce the same. Red sauce - just let people put what they want on top.
I suspect that they're going to a casserole, but this answer would be very useful at https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/43353/67
I suggest
Cooking the pasta a little under al dente
Avoiding delicate pastas, like angel hair
Carrying the sauce separately and
Mixing the pasta and sauce together prior to re-heating.
The first is meant to cause the pasta to be perfectly done on re-heating. The second will reduce the probability of broken pasta in your final dish. The third and fourth to avoid soggy pasta at the end.
+1, but if the pasta is left dry/unsauced for a while it will all stick together. Do you recommend oil to keep it from sticking?
Yes, just a little though. Some schools of thought suggest avoiding oil for the reason that the sauce might find it hard to stick to the pasta. I go ahead and use a bit of oil nevertheless. Better some less sauce on my pasta than one huge chunk of stuck pasta. :)
When I make pasta for myself, I typically buy a four-serving package of frozen ravioli and a four-serving jar of bolognese sauce, and dump the entire package of ravioli into a pot of boiling water (no salt), wait for it to be cooked, then strain out all the water and put it back into the pot before emptying out the sauce jar and cooking it some more while stirring continuously to prevent sticking until I can hear the sauce bubbling.
I then turn the flame off, and serve up a quarter of it to eat that night, and ladle the rest into an airtight container that I stick in the fridge. Then, each night for the next three nights, I take out the container, serve up a portion into a microwave-safe bowl, and then microwave it for 60 seconds. If you want a creamier sauce, you can add in a table-spoon of Greek yoghurt after it's been heated up and served into a bowl, and then mix it in with the sauce.
Is it the best ravioli in the world? Probably not, but it's edible, easy, relatively cheap, and I like it. I'm not sure how well this process would scale up to a 20-serving meal, though.
I don't see how this answers the question @nick012000, the OP is asking about pasta bakes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.442190
| 2019-06-26T08:52:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/99745",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"Joe",
"Sid Khullar",
"canardgras",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76208",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76241",
"kerry"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
92125
|
Why did my vegan croissants come out flat?
I tried to make vegan croissants with the following recipe:
120g water
15g wet yeast (I used 7g dried yeast)
250g bread flour
30g sugar
5g salt
50g butter (I used vegan margarine (stork?))
The pic shows what I got (I’ll wait a moment while you laugh - hahaha)
Anyway- can anyone tell me why it happened - I think it’s because I did a straight swap from butter to margarine - and will be something about how the oils react (I’m literally just trying to work it out based on what I’ve read on google so far but I can’t seem to crack it).
Also because I used dry yeast instead of wet but I’ve seen you can make croissants without yeast so doubt it’s that alone... please help!?!
Would it be better to make my own butter for the croissant dough as I can’t seem to find a pre made one that has the same components (ratios) as butter... I’m based in London...
If I should make my own butter- which recipe would you suggest? I’ve tried three now and still no luck... I can’t seem to get the components to combine fully - which leads to solid butter chunks when I truly to use it for laminating the croissant dough...argh!
Welcome to SeasonedAdvice, Lisa! Question: have you before had, or made or seen, vegan croissants that were better than those? Asking because I'm wondering if better croissants with margerine are possible.
Second suggestion: those croissants look like they might have been overproofed. What was your rising and proofing cycle, including temperatures?
Margarine varies quite a bit in qualities, you want one which is hard when cold, Stork is a good choice and you should be able to get reasonable results with it. I would suspect that it's your method which has let you down, but there's not enough detail in your post.
@FuzzyChef margarine-based croissants are certainly possible. in this part of Europe many industrial producers of croissants use margarine both for technical reasons (margarine can be highly tuned to the task) and cost. Removing the egg, on the other hand, takes away 1) fats 2) proteins 3) one of the best emulsifiers nature has to offer
those honestly look like pretty great for vegan croissants
I dunno, @GeorgeM - I like the butter flavour in mine, but the texture is the critical thing, I think.
@FuzzyChef may be on to something when asking for the timing - 7g dry yeast would be 21g wet/cake yeast. That’s 40% more, your timing most likely would have been different.
What's the fatty acid chain length in Vegan margarine? If the fats are too short, you'll get flattened results.
If they're your first batch, you did great! Can you show us a cut cross-section? A croissant will have "intra-layer" (inside the dough layers) rise and "inter-layer" (between the layers) rise: The intra-layer rise comes from the yeast and moisture action in the dough itself, and the inter-layer comes from the steam generated as the moisture in the butter/margarine integrates with the dough. I would guess that you didn't get a lot of inter-layer rise, but that's just a guess.
I use the Tartine recipe for croissants (with regular butter), and from memory you work a small amount of flour - say 10% - into your butter before forming the butter sheet. I have seen plenty of recipes that don't do this, but I'm wondering if it would help to stabilise the margarine a bit during the bake.
One other tip, make sure everything stays cold during the laminating. I put my sheet into the freezer for 15 minutes between turns, and I know some methods call for a couple of hours in the fridge (which presumably helps with hydration as well as keeping things hard). If the layers are cold, they stay distinct, which means they separate cleanly during the bake.
Last thing, I think you could bake hotter and perhaps double-glaze (glaze half way through final proof, and then again right before you bake), to bring out the colour on the outside shell.
Good luck!
You don't have enough fat I think. I would use 2 to 3 times as much if I was making croissants with butter. I don't know how vegan margarine reacts but you may want to at least double the amount.
The fat plays a major role in the fluffy goodness (yes, technical term...) of the texture while the croissants bake, as it traps the water evaporating from your dough in each layer, creating pockets of air, on top of those made by the gas released by the yeast.
Which leads me to the second point : a croissant with no yeast is just a puff pastry shaped nicely. Croissant dough is defined by two things : it's layered, it's prooved. Dry yeast is fine, it will come back to life in your dough, feeding off the water and sugars.
Now, a lot of things come into play when making croissants, especially resting and proofing time. Don't rush things, rest your paton for half an hour between turns (4 simple turns should be enough) and after shaping, and proof until they grew by about 50%. Bake between 170 and 190 degrees Celsius.
As Beejamin said though, if that's your first try they look amazing. Good luck !
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.442823
| 2018-09-06T20:57:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92125",
"authors": [
"Agos",
"Beejamin",
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Sdarb",
"Stephie",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"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
}
|
107793
|
KitchenAid beater stuck on new machine
I’ve used my machine twice. I went to try to put a different attachment on it and the pin won’t move.
I saw there were close votes because this is about a mixer. Actually, equipment is on topic on the site, and we have taken this type of question before, so I wouldn't say it's closable as off topic. But it so happens that this exact question is a duplicate :)
KitchenAid recommends that you compress a warm, wet towel around the top of the attachment for 10 minutes. Reheat the towel and repeat for another couple of minutes. The warmth will cause the aluminum to expand, and with some wiggling, should allow you to release the attachment.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.443223
| 2020-04-22T10:54:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/107793",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
119669
|
Want to supply Hot Indian Tea to few companies, How can I keep it hot for hours withot losing taste
I Tried Milton 3ltr with press button on it but after few hours the taste gets change. I want a right product to keep it fresh as prepared for more then 6 hours. What's the right way to do that so that I will increase the supply area to reach maximum.
There's a reason it's termed "Fresh Brewed". Tea and coffee only stay fresh for so long. It can be kept hot, not fresh.
Make your own chai concentrate and mix it with boiling-hot water.
You cannot reasonably keep brewed tea hot for 6-8 hours without it degrading in quality. What you can do, though, is brew a chai concentrate which you can keep at room temperature. You then carry around sealed thermoses full of boiling hot water, or an electric quick-boil pot if you have access to electricity. If you need to rely on the thermoses, these need to be real vacuum-walled glass thermoses in order to keep the water above 90C for several hours. You should have several smaller ones rather than one giant one, because that way some can stay sealed and hot as long as possible.
Then, when you want to serve a customer, you mix 1/4 concentrate and 3/4 hot water, and milk. The result will be hot chai.
(the above is the advice of a friend who works in catering)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.443316
| 2022-01-29T04:07:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/119669",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93606
|
Can't get beans to cook to tender
I’m having a horrible time trying to get beans cooked to be tender and not bitter. Overnight soaking and rapid soak methods aren’t making any difference. If I add anything to the cooking process, it’s a piece of onion and/or a hot green chili. These beans soak for at least 10 hours and cook for over 4!
Ok, so maybe at my store, the beans are old. The packages are never past the pull date. How do you tell just by looking whether they’re “too old”?
Are you discarding the soaking water and cooking in fresh?
Wait, "bitter"? That's not a usual problem for old beans, just that they never get soft. Can you describe the bitter flavor?
Thank you. No, I don’t know how to describe the bitterness. Yes, I pour out the soaking water and rinse the beans before putting them up to cook in fresh water.
I don't think it's a duplicate because the OP is asking how to tell if the beans are old in the store, which isn't covered in the other question. I'll take a stab at answering this.
There are three primary reasons why dried beans do not soften despite extensive cooking time: 1) they are old; 2) hard water; or 3) the presence of an acid.
If you don't think your beans are old, then perhaps your water is the problem. Beans cooked in hard water will never soften properly. If this might be your case, try cooking them in distilled water instead. That should help. It doesn't sound like acidity is a problem, given what you described.
For cooking advice, I often look to Christopher Kimball of America's Test Kitchen. His group does extensive testing of all sorts of recipes and cooking techniques. Here is an excerpt from his blog on dried beans:
"Troubleshooting Hard Beans
Finally, if you’ve cooked your beans for hours and found they failed to soften, chances are they are either old and stale (and will never fully hydrate or soften), the water is too hard, or there’s a acidic element present. Food scientists universally agree that high acidity can interfere with the softening of the cellulose-based bean cells, causing them to remain hard no matter how long they cook. Alkalinity, on the other hand, has the opposite effect on legumes. Alkalines make the bean starches more soluble and thus cause the beans to cook faster. (Older bean recipes often included a pinch of baking soda for its alkalinity, but because baking soda has been shown to destroy valuable nutrients, few contemporary recipes suggest this shortcut.)"
Here is the link: https://christopherkimball.wordpress.com/2009/04/30/cooking-beans-101/
Good luck!
I cook beans in a glass pot. Will find out about the water here and try distilled water. Thx.
The best way to cook beans is in an Instant Pot or Pressure Cooker, which reduces the cooking time to just 10-15 mins. Incase it is not available in your area or you do not want to invest in one then always make sure that you have the beans soaked before cooking. And when you start cooking add some salt in the cooking water, which will speed up the process. Keeping the pot closed for the initial 30-40 mins is a good idea so that the heat doesn't escape out. Make sure you add enough water before you start.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.443456
| 2018-11-05T04:20:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93606",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"TLA",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70374",
"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
}
|
100989
|
Can I make chicken pot pie with mashed potatoes inside?
I want to make a homemade chicken pot pie but I would like to top it with mashed potatoes and then put a regular crust on top of that can that be done what would be the cooking temperature or time difference if any
Generally such a concoction (topped with mashed potatoes) is called a Shepherds Pie, but adding a crust... I have no idea what to call that ;-)
When cooking a pot pie everything is already cooked prior to putting it in the baking dish, except the crust.
So all you really need to do is make sure your crust is cooked to your desired done-ness. The mashed potatoes might keep the bottom of the crust a little wetter but really it should not require much more than you usually would bake it for, if any. It depends on how hot you bake your pot-pies.
I usually cook them at 425F so I get a nice brown on my crust and it is about 15 - 20 minutes, but that will depend on your crust recipe. I would follow the crust recipe baking instructions and add maybe 5 minutes.
You can then try the pot pie and adjust the backing duration according to your personal preference.
If the ingredients of the pie touch the bottom of the crust, you don't have a vent hole (to allow the steam to escape) and the heat isn't sufficient to bake through the pastry, you will end up with a very soggy, tough crust.
I would ensure all the ingredients have cooled down before assembling the pie, and ensure there is some gap between the mash and the pastry, ensuring there is a vent in the crust and bake accordingly to the package instructions (if shop bought), or as normal until golden and the pie filling is heated through.
A better result might be achieved using cooked, sliced, potatoes on top of the filling rather than mash though.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.443847
| 2019-08-27T16:50:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100989",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115390
|
What is this on sourdough starter?
I have a sourdough starter which I feed roughly once every 2-3 days (throw away 95% of it, refill with water and flour). Sometimes I forget and wait 5 days between feedings, and by that time it often has developed what looks to me like mold on the top. It looks super interesting and I'd really like to know what it is. A picture is below. It's grown like this a few times, and the starter keeps rising and producing good bread, so it's definitely still alive and well.
All I see is a coating of flour on top of partly dried starter in a nearly empty bowl.
@Rob No, the starter is about two inches deep, and that's certainly not flour
I see the mold, and the safety-conscious thing to do is to recommend you stop using it. It's unlikely anyone outside of a lab can identify what type it is, though, so I doubt you'll get any other answers here. You might consider any moldy cheeses or other mold-produced foods as potential sources for contamination, otherwise this isn't a mold-friendly site lol.
That is Kahm yeast. Not harmful but can leave a bad taste in bread made with it. Remove 20g from the bottom and continue from there. Possibly from contaminated flour.
Yes, that is definitely it!! Looks exactly like the pictures I find online of Kahm yeast.
I don't see anything that has grown there, except for the starter itself. The starter used to be more expanded, its skin dried up in the expanded state, then it fell back down and the skin tore in places and wrinkled up - this is what you are probably picturing as a growth. It also trapped some gas bubbles (the round warts). There also seems to be a layer of hooch formed under the skin. Where the skin is torn, a single untrapped bubble is also visible at roughly (45°, 0.2r).
If you had actually had a mold growing, I would have advised against baking with the starter, because it is unsafe, even if the bread rises.
If you zoom in, those lumps of "flour" have a definite fluff of white mold on them, which is slightly gray on the center. That grey and red discoloration is a bad sign as well..... Mine will oxidize to that grey color if I don't clean the container and it dries onto the side, but the fresh stuff never turned red in the middle...
The starter rises on day 1, falls on day 2-3, and this white layer only appears on day 5. It's definitely not some "skin" which existed during the "rising and falling" stage.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.444029
| 2021-04-24T01:22:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115390",
"authors": [
"John Pardon",
"Rob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58027",
"kitukwfyer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104649
|
Can I dump Jello into a pan and boil it to get it to set?
My jello isn't setting, probably because my 4 year old was angry about having to wait for the water to boil and I just gave in. Anyway, can I dump it all in a pan and boil the whole? Or is there a way to fix this problem?
Does this answer your question? My jello is not getting firm in the refrigerator
@AMtwo that question is asking about the proper procedure, not how to salvage improperly made jello.
Yes, you can boil the whole thing. You need to get the temperature high enough for the gelatine to activate. The reason jello reserves half the water is to cool it down faster and reduce set time, there's no issues adding all the water in the first place other than taking longer to cool down enough to set.
If you are in a hurry you can cool it down afterwards by putting it in an ice bath and stirring it for awhile.
You will sometimes get Jello colored stains in your boiling pot.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.444240
| 2020-01-10T01:30:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104649",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"Sneftel",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55431
|
Pot sticking to induction cooktop
I recently bought a Max Burton 6400 induction cooktop. I used it a few times with some pans I already own and had no problem. Today I wanted to heat some milk up quickly, and I used a cheap Ikea sauce pan. The milk heated up fine, but when I tried to remove the pot, it had become stuck to the surface. I turned the cooktop off, but it was still stuck. I finally was able to slide it to the edge and pull it off, throwing hot milk all over my kitchen.
Has anyone experienced this with an induction cooktop before? Is it considered a malfunction? And should I blame the pot or the cooktop?
Hmmmm, looks like a physics question... =D
Did you notice if the pot was sticking before you used it on the induction top?
It slid, but you couldn't lift it? Was the pot wet before it went down, because that's sounding like it could've been the issue when you get a really thin layer of liquid between two objects, and air pressure holds them together.
@Joe a good conjecture. I've been thinking about this from a magnetic standpoint, which would similarly be overcome by sliding. I like the idea of suction, though.
@Catija : oh, right ... induction uses magnets. Another good point. That one can be fixed by turning off the stove before trying to lift the pan. Let me go try to test it.
@Catija : okay, test results : it's difficult to tell w/ a cast iron pan, but it did seem heavier when I went to lift it. It wasn't so strong that I lifted my hotplate, even with it set to '10'. I tried something lighter (a steel baking tray), and it got hot so fast in the middle that it warped within seconds, so I couldn't do a good test. Most of my pans are annodized aluminum, stainess steel or cast iron, so I didn't have anything else to test with. I think that magnets are a factor, but I don't know if it's so much that it'd be difficult to lift the pan.
And I forgot just how quickly induction burners get things hot ... making me think that my 'little bit of water' theory might actually be less like a mastic and more like sealing a mason jar : if the water evaporates, then cools, with a pan that makes a good seal around the edge, it could seal itself to the flat cooktop ... but there's mention that the pan was still hot (as it had hot milk in it).
Induction stoves do not have magnets in them. They have copper coils which when AC current is applied creates an oscillating magnetic field. The net magnetic attraction in theory should be zero. My bet is on liquid under a very flat or concave pan.
Pretty sure the pot was not wet when I used it.
Has the issue recurred since you asked the question? I'm imagine with all of the comments you've been wary of moisture under the pan.
I haven't used this pot on the induction cooktop since I posted the comment. I'll probably try it again this weekend and report back.
I am guessing you had a bit of fluid either on the bottom of the pan or on the top of your stove. It could have been almost any fluid including water. Even though your pans can get really hot, water trapped under a pan doesn't seem to boil away very quickly, and the longer the pot sits on top of the fluid, the thinner it is pressed, thus turning into a suction problem because there is no effective fluid surface (thickness) for air to slurp in under the pot.
I cook mostly with cast iron, so the irregularity of the surface minimizes this effect a great deal.
Make sure your pot bottoms and stove surface are dry and clean. Obviously they'll still get greasy, especially during heavy cooking sessions, but try to keep the grease level to a minimum, and wipe down the stove between the burners as you go.
My SIMPLE SOLUTION to this that hopefully will work for others as well is first I placed and tried to insert a plastic measuring tape edge to get in between the stuck pan and the stove top of the induction cooker. When it was only able to get in between the two a little, I put tissues around the bottom of the pan to absorb the liquid underneath it. Threw the wet tissues and placed new dry tissues.
Then I used a flat metal spatula and inserted it in between the two and very gently tried to lift the pan off the stove top to avoid scratching or damaging both while the tissues are there to also act as a mini lever for the spatula.
To my surprise, the pan got unstuck easily. (I waited for the induction cooker and pan to cool first before I did all this. I actually slept over this issue due to the stress it has brought me and when I woke up this solution came to my mind.)
My induction pan stuck to the induction hob which naturally made me panic! I was making homemade soup and it had to simmer for awhile. To resolve this I realised the pan needed to cool down. I turned everything off and removed the soup from the pot by using a ladle. Once the pot had cooled down and with a little gentle pressure I slid the pot to the edge and then lifted it. No damage to the hob. Water was trapped beneath the pot and the hob.
I used to work in a foundry that used induction oven to melt aluminum,zinc, and brass. I would say it was liquid suction
I had this issue too, I too believe it was the suction.
Use this or something similar:
Tescoma Induktions-Adapterplatte, ø 21 cm https://www.amazon.de/dp/B00N1TFH5U/ref=cm_sw_r_wa_apa_glt_i_8N98N0TVX219CFPF5TNW?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1
I had the same issue when I was learning to use an induction hob in my holiday rental.
I returned to the stove after attending to something else and found my pot of white rice had boiled over and a flood-slick of liquid surrounding the base (perfect creamy sealing liquid). I went to move the saucepan but it was stuck very firm. I naturally wanted to clean up the messy fluid on the hob, so I went to remove the saucepan but it was firm.
So the lesson is... wipe first around the base of induction hob saucepans after any fluid spills to avoid the peculiar heavy suction effect.
I had to edit your answer to get to the point because it was extremely long. Better to keep it short and concise!
It is entirely possible that your pan melted a bit.
Many materials will just not warm up if you put them on an induction stove. But if you have aluminium which is thin enough, it can melt. There are people who melt alu foil on induction cooktops as a prank. I suspect that, if your pot was thin enough, or if it was layered with aluminium as the contact surface (and layered/sandwich bottoms are common in cookware), it could have heated too, and melted and fused with the cooktop.
Another way to fuse would in principle be bad enamel, if the pot itself heated enough to soften a thin layer of enamel. But this is very unlikely, since enamel has a much higher melting point than aluminium. I have used enameled pots, including cheap ones, without any problem.
This is not the only possibility, of course. As Escoce said, a burnt-on liquid can also make it stick somewhat. But if this is the case, you should be able to separate it without damaging the glass by simply pushing harder on the pot. If they are completely fused, a melted bottom is more likely.
If this is what happened, you should blame the pot, and only use pots with a "ready for induction" sign on the bottom. The only exception should be cookware for which you are sure that its bottom layer is either steel or iron. Check steel with a magnet for conductivity.
This is a well formatted answer with some obvious effort applied, but the scientific half of my brain is having some issues. Take a propane torch and try to melt solder onto a room temperature piece of glass. It will flake off with little effort. The fact that he had liquid in the pan makes melting the pan astronomically unlikely. Ever tried soldering a copper pipe with a tiny bit of water in it? Best regards.
Interesting point about the liquid. I haven't tried the soldering you describe. If it is comparable, than you are probably right. On the other hand, induction heating works differently than soldering - the heat is concentrated in a much smaller portion of the metal (skin effect). I know it is sufficient to melt a sheet of foil, I don't know if the water will be sufficient cooling to prevent the melting. I'd love to see more definitive info, but there is no way I'm sacrificing my cooktop for this experiment!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.444395
| 2015-03-05T23:02:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55431",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Ching Chong",
"Derpy",
"Jenny Tschiesche",
"Joe",
"Luciano",
"Robert Dalby",
"Sean Murphy",
"Zachary Castillo",
"graham best",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131705",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131706",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131765",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/131912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"ronald rusnak",
"rumtscho",
"urlass"
],
"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
}
|
97535
|
Baking baguettes
I try to bake baguette. But my oven just on bottom element on bake position. Is that reason why I ruined my baguettes? Please advise me the right way to baking bread.
Can you describe the results, and how the result different from what you were expecting? Also, did you sufficiently pre-heat the oven, did you have any form of thermal mass in there (bricks, cast iron pans, etc.) to store & radiate heat, and did you add any water for steam generation?
We also need more information on how they are ruined -- burned, underbaked, didn't rise, something else? :)
Since you mention your oven has only a bottom heating element and you have ruined baguettes when baking them, I'll take a guess that your problem is that the bottoms of the loaves are too dark, but also suggest some general baguette baking guidelines.
First, if the bottoms of your loaves are in fact too dark, bake them in a higher position in the oven, moving the baking rack if necessary.
A baking temperature of 400F/200C works well; heated fully before inserting the bread.
The oven should be steamy for the first 15 minutes or so of baking. If your oven does not have steam injectors, this can be accomplished by adding 1/2 cup or 150ml of water into the oven (I generally just splash it on the bottom after sliding in the bread) then opening the door for 30 seconds after about 15 minutes.
A baking stone (or improvised alternative such as bricks) that has been pre-heated and onto which the baking pan is placed, will help keep the heat more even, however I've found this to affect the results only very slightly.
Please provide more details about how the baguette has been ruined and we may be able to give you a better answer.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.445093
| 2019-04-18T00:23:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/97535",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
63543
|
What is the roasting time per pound for a spatchcock turkey breast?
I am using the spatchcock method of roasting a turkey breast. I have found cooking time per pound for a whole turkey. I thought roasting a turkey breast was less time per pound vs. a whole turkey. So bottom line, what is the roasting time per pound for a spatchcock turkey breast?
Spatchcocking, usually refers to cutting out the backbone of a bird and laying it flat. http://www.seriouseats.com/2012/11/how-to-spatchcock-cook-turkey-thanksgiving-fast-easy-way-spatchcocked.html Are you just cooking the breast? Also, I've never found cooking times to be useful in any way. It depends on too many factors. If you're just cooking the breast I'd get a thermometer and take it to 155-160.
@talon8 : I assumed she meant butterflying, which is roughly equivalent.
Don't cook meat by time per pound, cook it until it reaches a safe temperature and stop. Get a digital probe thermometer - they cost next to nothing and are ridiculously useful. Cook the breast until the centre reaches 75°C/170°F, et voila.
If she really meant butterflying, then your meat it would cook a lot quicker and I definitely wouldn't use time as a measurement.
The answers duck the question. No, you don't determine doneness by time, only by temperature, but when you're planning a meal, you don't want to have the potatoes done and still have to wait two hours for the turkey. So, you CAN estimate cooking times based on research/experience. I smoke my turkeys so I'm smoking at about 250F. I also spatchcock the birds to even cooking and speed cooking times. But I know I can figure ROUGHLY 15 minutes per pound for whole turkey or breast. If you cook a whole bird or a whole breast not spatchcocked estimate ROUGHLY 30 minutes per pound. If you're roasting at higher temps, cut your estimate to probably 12 minutes per pound spatchcocked, and 20-25 minutes per pound not spatchcocked.
Although yes, they didn't answer the question ... they did link to another question with a good answer (and link to better content than in their answer) : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/50045/67 and the link to https://www.seriouseats.com/2012/11/how-to-spatchcock-cook-turkey-thanksgiving-fast-easy-way-spatchcocked.html
Similar question (with good answer) here.
There is no general formula to relate cooking time for an intact bird to a spatchcocked or butterflied bird. Yes, it will cook faster than a whole turkey. But as some have already said in comments, cooking time "by the pound" is very inaccurate, since cooking time is based on the time it takes heat to penetrate, which will vary depending on shape, volume, location of bones, etc. Weight is not the most relevant measurement. Also, time and appearance of the meat is not enough to determine whether it has reached a hot enough temperature to be safe to eat.
Digital meat thermometers are now available (for only a few dollars in the U.S.) and can help you determine doneness within a matter of seconds. Then you'll be sure your turkey isn't underdone (and unsafe) or overdone (and dry). If you cut your turkey up before cooking, you can even test various parts with the thermometer and remove or foil ones that get done more quickly, so they won't overcook.
If you're willing to pay a little more (probably $15-20 in the U.S.), you can get a digital probe thermometer with a cord to the probe that can stay in the meat while cooking. Most of these even come with an alarm that can be set by temperature, so the moment your bird crosses the threshold of perfect doneness, you will know and can take it out and wrap in foil until dinner is ready. (Also, since the probe remains inside the meat during cooking, you can make adjustments to your oven temperature if it's cooking a little too fast or too slow to be sure the turkey gets done at the right time. This takes a little experience, but is well worth it.)
To me, it's not worth potentially ruining dinner and wasting a large (and often expensive) piece of meat by guessing when it will be done. Cheap thermometers fix that problem, particularly when you're dealing with a new and unfamiliar cooking method.
As for doneness, official USDA standards always say 165F throughout all parts of the bird for safety. Other sources will note that breast meat frequently dries out at that temperature, but I wouldn't recommend going lower than 165F unless you know what you're doing, have read the warnings, and know your method is safe.
I understand the question, since the flat turkey breast cooks quicker than a regular turkey breast. I think it would depend on the size and the degrees of your oven. I'd go to the Butterball site and check out cooking times they recommend and shorten that time, but always use a thermometer to check at the shorten time you decided on. I do this with a 7 lb. breast at 325 degrees for 2 hours and it's done.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.445264
| 2015-11-17T15:14:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/63543",
"authors": [
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jean Pashley",
"Joe",
"Michael Crossling",
"Patty Amapaugh",
"Steve Ashman",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28118
|
How do I eliminate Corn Meal "grittiness"?
I recently made some corn bread on my own from scratch for the first time. The flavour was perfect as was the general firmness/crumbliness of the bread. However, the corn meal in the recipe resulted in an extremely gritty eating experience. It was like eating uncooked steel cut oats. But it's not like you can make corn bread without corn meal...
Anyway, every other corn bread I have ever had, whether it is made from scratch or from a pre-packaged mix, has not had this gritty quality.
I used a relatively fresh purchased package of yellow stone ground corn meal. It was open for about 3 days since I used a tablespoon in another recipe, but I stored it in an airtight container in the freezer (which is apparently what one should do).
Did I purchase bad corn meal? Is there something I can do to modify the recipe and make it less gritty?
Here is the recipe I am using.
Just to clarify- the grittiness was from uncooked granules of corn? Steel cut oats are much larger than cornmeal. Did you mean they were as hard as the oats or actually the same size?
@Sobachatina Just as hard. Not the same size. Thanks though. Good clarification.
The grittiness is an essential element of good cornbread, IMO. I buy the coarsest grind of cornmeal I can find. Another essential element is no sweetness. Soft, sweet cornbread is awful stuff if you ask me.
@CareyGregory: ick. If I want a bread that's not sweet, I'll have a good sourdough. Cornbread should be moist, sweet, and the only crunch should come from the slightly-crispy edges.
@Marti - You'd go broke trying to sell cornbread like that in the southern US. We'll have to agree to disagree on what makes good cornbread. The only thing we agree on is the moistness.
If you don't want gritty bread, use finely milled polenta. Roughly milled polenta is like semolina, and results in a gritty batter. Finely milled polenta is like flour, and results in a smooth batter.
I don't know the proper names for the different milling grades in English. I don't mean cornflour, which is pure maize starch from the inside of the maize kernel. I mean whole maize kernels milled so the particles are the same size as wheat flour. It is yellow and tastes the same way as the rough one, only the texture is different.
The two types of polenta differ in their water absorption and soaking times, so you may want to use a recipe developed for the fine milled type, or tweak your own recipe.
To give you a better example, here is what you need:
You don't want to use the rough form, which looks like this:
+1. I'm not sure where the OP is from, but generally in the US, we call the stuff you make cornbread out of cornmeal (and there are variations in fineness). Polenta usually refers to coarser stuff for, well, making polenta (even though one can of course make fine polenta).
In the US, I have seen the very finely milled corn called "corn flour" and the stuff that's pure starch is usually labeled just "corn starch".
I use the coarse cornmeal because I like the flavor. I took my cue from the muffin recipe on the bag: It said to soak your cornmeal in the milk for 10 minutes. I did this for my buttermilk cornbread and it was delicious. I didn't add any extra milk.
This answer could be improved if you explicitly said whether the soaking reduced the grittiness: "it was delicious" doesn't tell us much, because some people like gritty cornbread.
@Marti It reduces the grittiness. It's a standard step in tons cornbread recipes.
@Marti : for those who like gritty cornbread, I have a jonnycakes recipe that calls for soaking 3/4 of the cornmeal overnight, then adding the rest of the cornmeal, and letting it have a 10 minute rest before cooking. If you play around with the timing and proportions, you can have exactly the grittiness you want.
You can soak the cornmeal in water overnight if you remember to reduce the water in your recipe to compensate for it. In your recipe, you can soak it in the milk and then you don't need to do any compensating.
I'd try letting the batter rest for a bit, like a 15 minutes.
This link talks about letting stuff rest for other reasons, but it talks about letting stuff absorb other stuff. It's very scientific.
http://www.thekitchn.com/food-science-why-some-batters-76098
It may be different from other things you've tried because of the coarseness of the meal that you've gotten. I don't know if there's any sort of regulation on the labeling for ground corn meal...
I was thinking something along these lines. The dough seemed so thick that I was worried any resting might dry it out, but I'll probably still give it a shot next time.
You can rest it covered in saran wrap (or even just a plate) and that should be ok.
I wouldn't rest the batter, because the leavening will spend itself in the meantime. If you suspect it is a matter of the corn meal not getting hydrated, soak it first in part of your liquid, and use the soaked corn meal in the batter.
The basic recipe is similar to a pancake batter which is often rested for a while so perhaps resting this batter would not be detrimental to the leavening.
The baking powder is most likely dual acting and will still give enough lift for cornbread after resting.
Just to add to rumtscho's response…
There are several different levels of coarseness of corn meal, from very fine (corn flour) to very coarse. If you want your corn bread to be less gritty, use a finer grind of corn meal.
(If you don't want to waste the corn meal you've already got, you can grind it finer in a coffee grinder.)
I use a coarse (polenta) grind cornmeal, and used to soak the cornmeal overnight like @Rob. Lately I've started pre-cooking the cornmeal instead. Mix the cornmeal 1-1 with boiling water, then microwave 3-4 minutes at 50%. Reduce any water/milk in the final recipe by 1/3.
First the gritty taste is the type of corn meal you purchased. Just purchase a fine milled corn meal. BUT you can make corn bread from Cream of Wheat. Yes corn bread can be made with other ingredients other than corn meal.
My grandmother could not eat corn meal because of an allergy so her doctor gave her the idea of cream of wheat use it just like corn meal in the recipe. It is lighter and taste pretty much the same.
Doctors also give this recipe to people suffering with any type of polyps in their colon as they are not suppose to have small seeds, nuts and also corn meal because it causes severe pain.
Of course being southern my grandmother only made corn bread in a cast iron skillet. She would add butter and touch of oil to grease the skillet put it in the oven or on top of the stove to get it screaming hot before pouring in the batter & baking it. That is how you achieve that really crunchy beautiful crust. The oven must be preheated well before making corn bread never put into a cold or warm oven because it will taste sort of raw tasting.
I actually hate corn bread. I was born and have lived my entire life in the south. I also hate ice tea sweet or not and will not eat fried chicken especially on the bone. I will eat boneless baked fried chicken in the oven. I also hate pecan pie, red velvet cake, coconut cream pie and southern cheap beer. I guess not everyone in the south is southern. lol But I can make corn bread like my grandmother for others in the family as well all other southern foods I don't eat!
I think I was suppose to be born some other place like France, Italy, England...Arizona, California, oh no a beautiful warm island that's it, an island. I love fresh raw fruits and vegetables. That's it an island.
Happy corn bread baking. P.S. the cream of wheat is lower in calories I think and it will never be gritty. You can use half corn meal and half cream of wheat for a lighter corn bread.
When I make my corn bread I mix one cup of the fine cornmeal/corn flour and one cup of the coarse rough form corn semolina. :)
and always use Butter milk.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.445714
| 2012-10-30T17:56:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28118",
"authors": [
"Bob",
"Carey Gregory",
"Cascabel",
"Joe",
"June ",
"Kelli Allen",
"Kenneth Larsson",
"Kristina Lopez",
"LKB",
"Marti",
"Micha Saa",
"Pat Chow-Fraser",
"Queen Boss",
"Shubham Deshmukh",
"Sobachatina",
"SourDoh",
"Susan",
"a25bedc5-3d09-41b8-82fb-ea6c353d75ae",
"cami konecky",
"gnomed",
"grumpasaurus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64665",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85899",
"kash",
"nick ",
"rumtscho",
"user64674"
],
"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
}
|
37212
|
Rodent droppings on cast-iron frying pan
I recently discovered I have mice or rats in my garage, where I had some stuff stored for space purposes, including a barely-used newly-seasoned frying pan. I found a bunch of rodent droppings in it (blegh), and I scrubbed it hard, twice, with soap and hot water, and washed it out.
I also re-seasoned it (stove-top method, not oven method, where the oil smokes and burns) since the seasoning was not that well done. I thought the soap/water/scrub would damage it, but I didn't see any visible deterioration of seasoning.
I have young children (two under 5 years old), and I'm not a food safety expert. Is this enough, or do I need to do something more to guarantee the sanity of my cast iron pan?
Edit: After doing some reading, I've found a few things to verify:
Bleach dissolved in water, soaked for ~5 minutes, will kill everything rodent-specific. But what will that do to my cast iron?
Droppings themselves are easily discarded, if not green (from poison)
Rodent urine (which will exist anywhere droppings exist) will soak into the seasoning, even if it's sterilized now.
Baking it in the oven for a couple of hours is probably a safe way to sterilize it. 350F seems okay. Is it high enough?
Based on all this information, I think the best approach would be to strip down and re-season the pan from scratch. That'll remove anything soaked into the existing seasoning, and it'll sterilize the surface.
I'd bleach it, personally. Why take chances?
Stainless steel cookware is not normally seasoned.
@SAJ14SAJ I meant cast iron, sorry.
@Aaronut maybe you should add this as an answer. There's some information frmo the CDC here: http://www.cdc.gov/rodents/cleaning/
The CDC link is good information, but it is not culinary or cooking information.
I've updated my question with more questions. I'm not sure how to proceed.
Washing the pan and then heating it to the point of smoking oil should kill every organism on it. I wouldn't hesitate to use the pan after that process.
There are many questions and answers already here for managing routine food safety, and for stripping and seasoning cast iron pans. You are venturing into more specific bio or medical or disease control territory with the questions that remain; these are not fundamentally culinary.
@CareyGregory even with the possibility of rodent urine? I find that a touch discomforting.
@Aaronut I've updated my question. What would bleach do to my cast iron pan and seasoning?
Ok, stainless steel != cast iron, that's a pretty significant change. Regardless, we're talking about a very dilute bleach solution (like 1 tbsp/gal), which is used for all kinds of food contact surfaces - I admit I've never tried it on cast iron but I'd be very surprised if it damages the pan.
Incidentally, urine is almost always sterile, it just smells. Feces are what you really need to be concerned about. I wonder what the local health department would have to say about something like that happening in a restaurant; maybe they'd tell you to get new pans.
@Aaronut I'm just a hobby chef, never mind actually running a restaurant. Thanks for your comments though. (I still think you should formalize them in an answer.)
That's not really what I meant. Obviously you're not dealing with questions of legality. I was just thinking that this is probably a situation that health inspectors encounter with some frequency - quite a few restaurants get closed either temporarily or permanently due to rodent infestations, and I was thinking that they probably have some policy over what to do with the cookware/tableware/etc. You might find an authoritative answer in your local health/foodservice code.
@ashes999 - The urine is just a mental ewww thing. The bacteria are dead, and whatever residual taste imparted by urine (that I doubt could be detected by anyone) will be destroyed by the re-seasoning. In all likelihood, you and everyone here has eaten from utensils that were exposed to rodent urine without your knowledge. At least in this case he knows it and can provide a thorough washing and a smoking hot sterilization.
Comments are not for answering questions. As much as I (honestly) really appreciate the discussion (since I now have my answer), this information should really be put into a cohesive answer. +1 @CareyGregory
@Aaronut "... tell you to get new pans"? Not likely. Apparently cocoa beans can have up to 10mg of rat poo in them and still be sold. Look at 'page' 3 o the link (preferably not before eating!)
If it's cast iron, and you're really paranoid about it, just stick it in the oven, run a clean cycle, then re-season. Cast iron can withstand stupidly large amounts of heat: in traditional Chinese cookery, woks are cleaned by building a big fire, and throwing them in...When the fire burns out, you dig out your wok, re-season, and you're back in business.
If it's stainless, just stick it in the dishwasher.
A full cycle seems like overkill to me. Anything toxic will burn when you reheat it on >110°C (that's botox). Seasoning / Maillard reaction
happens at over 150°C.
Had a cast-iron Dutch oven that went through the same thing: rodents decided to make it a home for a while. Re-seasoning, especially anywhere over 350 degrees F, should take care of the problem. My wife has asthma and gets bothered with excessive smoke, so I do it outdoors with a charcoal grill. My dutch ovens I just set directly onto the coals, then re-season as necessary once they're cool. It's worth the $2 in charcoal to not have to deal with the smell inside the house.
Hunta virus is rampant here. Several Native Americans die here every year. I have found alcohol scrub and fire, not oven,kill this virus. Then reseason over extrme heat.
If you can find some evidence to back up the claims that would be much appreciated. Also if you could state where 'here' is?
The hantavirus is sensitive to heat. https://www.msdsonline.com/resources/sds-resources/free-safety-data-sheet-index/hantavirus/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.446522
| 2013-09-29T15:02:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37212",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Abel Esidor",
"BaffledCook",
"Carey Gregory",
"Cee",
"Debbie",
"Eliana",
"Emmett McMullan",
"Ganesh Shakti Kozak",
"Mazet",
"Rafał Dowgird",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Violet Starr",
"ashes999",
"canardgras",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87448",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87462",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87464",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87589",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87721",
"mcalex",
"user103223",
"user87450"
],
"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
}
|
113504
|
Using decorative loaf pans
I bought a really nice loaf pan based on the picture on a magazine cover. It is a Bundt harvest loaf pan and the bottom is molded into the shape of fallen leaves, a pumpkin, whatever. But that is the bottom. But it becomes the top for serving purposes, right? But the top of the loaf is still going to rise into a traditional loaf which is mounded. So really, how useful is this pan when it seems like I am going to have to trim away a large portion (the best part too) so that the load is flat. Does anyone have any experience with this type of pan.
If you bake a slightly undersized loaf for the pan, you won't have to trim much off, just enough for it to sit flat - maybe even that wouldn't be needed.
But I'd regard that as a first step - do that once or twice to get the quantity, then bake with a baking sheet over the top, so that the loaf expands against a flat surface.
With a yeast bread I'd probably take off the baking sheet lid half way through, but with a quickbread you'd have to wait a little longer. If the dough isn't too liquid, you could also try loading the dough into the pan, putting the baking sheet on top, then flipping the whole thing over. Again you could remove the upper piece for the end of cooking.
I've also seen very similar pans used to cook other things than bread, that don't rise, such as meatloaf, but in general they work best for things that don't stick too much as they can't be lined and are awkward to grease properly..
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.447037
| 2020-12-31T22:02:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/113504",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41883
|
What is the puffy bread shown in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang?
My son is infatuated with the movie "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang," and there's a delicious looking bread shown in a breakfast scene. It looks like a giant popover about the size of Dick Van Dyke's head (see below.) What is it?
It's probably a Cottage Loaf. It used to be common in England when there were independent bakeries. It's not seen so much now.
The movie does take place in England, and it looks a lot like the image in the Wikipedia page. However, the Wikipedia page also links to the brioche page, which looks even more like the movie bread to me.
Brioche wouldn't have been common among the working classes of England in the era in which the film is set. To me the version in the film looks like a less crusty white loaf.
I agree it seems like it would have been an anachronism if it were really brioche. All I know is that I want to cut into it and eat it :)
Yes it is a cottage loaf which was a crusty bread with a fluffy interior.
It was very popular in bakery's in England & was indeed a tasty and impressive loaf, since the rise of the evil supermarkets such loaves are a rare sight.
Probably they are put off by the strange shape, preferring rectangle loaves's which are easier to cut & store.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.447190
| 2014-02-09T18:40:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41883",
"authors": [
"Andul rahim ",
"David Marshall",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Peabody55",
"Spammer",
"esalazar",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97743",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97992"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32649
|
Why would I want to use the creaming method in waffles?
All good chemical leavened waffle recipes I have had (the ones from New best recipe, Bittman, etc.) instruct me to melt solid fats before adding them to the waffle batter. I only once tried a recipe which uses the creaming method for adding butter to the waffle batter, and I didn't like it. The result was like badly baked cookies, with a crumbly texture instead of soft and elastic. I never found out if it was the method or the ratio which created this bad texture.
Now I bought a whole recipe book dedicated solely to waffles. It has many different recipes, savory and sweet (for the savory recipes, the butter is creamed without sugar, and the eggs are added to the creamed butter). All solid-fat recipes use the creaming method. I find this very strange.
Is it a good idea to cream the butter in waffle batter? How are creamed-batter-waffles different from melted-fat-waffles?
update An example recipe
100 g butter
75 g powdered sugar
1 sachet lemon essence
3 eggs
250 g flour
1 teaspoon baking powder
200 ml milk
Give the butter with the powdered sugar and the lemon essence into a bowl
and beat it into a foam. Add the eggs one by one, mixing vigorously.
Mix the baking powder into the flour, place it on the egg-butter foam, and
fold in together with the milk. If the batter is too thick, add some more milk.
This is the waffle part only, the actual recipe specifies chocolate glaze to dip the waffles in, and fruit salad as a side. Any language stiffness is probably due to the fact that I tried to do a very literal translation from German and should not be interpreted as incompetency on the recipe writer's side :)
Update 2
There was one obvious way to see if the recipe is any good. I made the waffles from the above recipe.
The result was not good. The waffles have a texture between cakey and gummy. Not directly crumbly, but not soft and elastic like normal waffles or pancakes. I also looked into the New Best Recipe and found a wildly different ratio. If normalized for flour amount, the NBR recipe has 1 less egg, half the amount of butter, no sugar at all, and 3.5 times the amount of liquid, as well as more leavening. Now I have to make this recipe without creaming and the NBR recipe with creaming to get a conclusive answer :( Unless somebody has already tried it and can answer it for me.
Can you post a representative recipe, along with its technique instructions? My initial reaction is: just because someone put the recipe in a book doesn't mean it is a well designed recipe. If there is any real reason at all, my guess is that this is actually to soften the butter (creaming it without sugar does nothing else much, it certainly doesn't introduce significant air), so that when you add the eggs you get an emulsion more easily.
@SAJ14SAJ actually, creaming does a lot for the leavening of cookies and cake batters. It creates micro air-pockets which are expanded by the baking powder; the baking powder itself can't create those. This is why you have to cream with butter (shortening has the micro pockets by the time you buy it), reference: Cookwise. But I never had any trouble with leavening melted-fat waffles, even when I didn't beat the egg whites to foam.
Yes it does, in the presence of sugar. Those air pockets are cut in by the sharp edges of the sugar crystals.
@SAJ14SAJ agreed. I overlooked that part in your comment. I still don't know if this is just a badly designed recipe aping working cake recipes, or if it has some advantage over melted-fat recipes. That's why I'm asking the question even though I admit that I was thinking on the lines of "badly designed" myself.
It is curious. Let me look at your updated post and see if I see anything :-)
Is that recipe translated? It is the oddest set of instructions I have ever seen for a quickbread. It reads like a cake recipe as cooked as a waffle. In this case, the powdered sugar would help with actual creaming, but I just don't see the point--why would delaying the onset of melting the butter in the waffle iron matter?
Update number 2 is making me think the "cake recipe" hypothesis is likely correct....
Is it possible that your waffle iron is causing some of these issues? Cook's Illustrated mentions in their waffle iron tests that some of the sub-par irons gave their waffles a gummy and raw texture. On the other hand, it seems unlikely that the waffle iron could be to blame for a crumbly, bad-cookie like texture -- but that could have just been from a bad recipe.
Butter in liquid state is more easy to mix and get an homogeneous batter.
Given enough effort, creamed butter does the same thing.
By effort, I mean making sure not to overlook tiny lumps of heterogeneous batter; otherwise the texture will be different. Also, if you are mixing the eggs with some lukewarm butter, it may be a health concern if you don't use the batter right away.
If you had a crumbly cookie-like texture, then my first thought is that the ratio was not correct or something was missing.
At first read I suspect the creaming method is being used to reduce the amount of gluten in the final product, ideally resulting in more tender finished product. The flour is to be 'folded' into the fat/sugar/egg emulsion allowing it to coat the flour before the water (milk) is added. This order of operations is almost exclusively done to reduce the gluten. Now, whether that is 'good thing; or not is between you and your taste buds.
Except that the order of operations and gluten formation minimization would be equally true with melted butter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.447584
| 2013-03-13T18:21:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32649",
"authors": [
"Barbara king",
"Ben Hall",
"Jane Barton",
"May",
"Miriam",
"Peggy ",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10896",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75424",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75452",
"jalbee",
"john",
"nerdguy",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
39593
|
Is cornstarch and AP flour really a good substiture for cake flour?
I was just putting away my cornstarch when I saw this on the label: To make cake flour: For 1 cup cake flour combine 3/4 cup plus 2 Tbsp. all-purpose flour with 2 Tbsp. Argo Corn Starch.
Of course I see this two days after paying a ridiculous amount of money for Softasilk.
I usually use AP flour for simple cakes, but I'm making some really fussy desserts for the holidays. Some of those recipes call for cake flour and I've always gone ahead and bought cake flour for that kind of thing. Would I really get as good a result with that substitution?
I will say that it is a good substitution, because technically, there is no difference - it is like asking if mixing salt and garlic powder is a good substitute for garlic salt. But as I have never actually baked with the "real" products, always with the substitutions (meaning it in both directions here - ap + starch as well as ap + gluten), I will not make this an answer, because sometimes the real world doesn't behave according to theory :)
@rumtscho There is no cornstarch or anything else but flour and "enrichments" listed in the ingredients of my cake flour (Softasilk).
I think it would be useful to split this question into two.
Cake flour is milled from soft summer wheat, finely ground, and bleached. It is not a blend of products.
I have never done this substitution. In practice, unless you are an extreme stickler, almost any cake you make at home will come out quite well with all all-purpose, especially if you are using one of the softer brands (that is, not King Arthur).
Of course starch isn't listed. A wheat berry contains gluten and starch and bran. The bran is removed for non-whole flours. The pastry flour is made from layers and/or wheat cultivars with high starch to gluten ratio. The "mixing" of gluten and starch occurs during wheat growth. It is still a mixture of gluten and starch.
Of course I know that cake flour is lower in protein and higher in starch. We just see the question differently because in US grocery stores Americans choose between AP flour, cake flour and bread flour. I've never added starch or gluten to AP flour for cakes or breads, I had never before even heard of such a thing. I just use the flour that's listed in the recipe. I think that's pretty typical of amateur bakers in the US. Either that, or we just use AP for everything.
possible duplicate of Substitute for Pastry Flour from Limited Traditional and Alternative Flours
@Mien It's not really a dupe, one of the answers of that question applies here, but the questions are very different. I looked for dupes before I asked this question and I saw the question to which you refer, but I didn't even read the answers because the question didn't seem to be at all similar to this question.
@Mien Actually the last line of the other question IS a dupe, I just now saw it. When I looked before, I stopped reading and dismissed it as a possible dupe because it initially seems to be about something else entirely.
@Jolenealaska yes indeed, although the other question is broader while yours is to the point. I'm not 100% sure it is a dupe, but that is why we have a community :)
It all revolves around gluten and gluten chains.
Cake flour is low protein, and bread flour is high protein, and everything else lies somewhere between. Individual brands have different levels of protein depending on their formulation. That protein, when combined with water, is what makes your stretchy gluten chains, and those are the difference between soft crumbly cake and a french baguette that could serve as a weapon in a pinch.
As with many chemical reactions in cooking, however, you can interfere with the "natural" reactions by means of some clever chemistry. Cornstarch works very simply...Corn just doesn't have any gluten, so you're just "watering down" the gluten content of your flour.
Acid retards gluten formation. Water is critical for gluten formation, unless you use a whole lot of it, in which case it weakens it (a wetter dough will make for a less gluteny final product). Mixing makes more gluten (helps the little proteins make friends with each other), so mix MORE for more gluten, and less for less.
But fat is your friend. Fat waterproofs your flour, and keeps gluten from forming.
Long story short, pick a method you're comfortable with, and stick to it. If you're used to using AP flour, you're going to have some headscratching moments when the cake flour doesn't behave the way you expect it to. On the other hand, cake flour will be more forgiving if you overmix.
So fat is not your friend when you're making bread? Do you need to knead an enriched dough more than a standard one? Or is the amount of fat small enough to not prevent gluten formation? Even in brioche?
@Mien: You'll notice a difference in proportions, in the recipes. Cake tends to have a much higher proportion of fat to flour than bread does. And all that kneading is for gluten formation: bread is mixed far more than cakes or quickbreads. If your bread tends to be crumbly and lacking in structural integrity, might want to look into a higher protein flour...On the other hand, if you can't chew it, might want to go the other way ;)
I generally use whatever flour (cake, AP or bread) the recipe calls for. I might use AP instead of one of the others if it's just a simple throw together thing. I make a fussy angel food cake that's kind of a special to me. Even the granulated sugar gets almost powdered in the food processor. Could AP plus cornstarch really replace cake flour in something like that, or is more of an emergency substitution kind of thing?
@Jolenealaska: Angel Food has so much protein in it (egg whites are pure protein), I'd think the type of flour would be redundant ;)...The King Arthur AP flour version (http://www.kingarthurflour.com/recipes/traditional-angel-food-cake-recipe) is virtually identical to the traditional cake flour version (and KA flour is very high in protein). I don't think I'd add cornstarch for AP Angel Food: all those eggs, and the cream of tartar should cover the difference in protein between normal AP and cake flour.
@Satanicpuppy You certainly have a point, although I'm not totally convinced. A brioche can have about butter to flour in a 1:2 proportion, while I have baked cakes which had almost no fat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.448073
| 2013-11-20T15:09:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39593",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"Louis Storming",
"MMR Cousins",
"MPG",
"Mien",
"Mustafa Emara",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Stas",
"William Martens",
"androidguy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91978",
"rumtscho",
"sleeping_coder"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23632
|
What is an elegant way to serve whole duck livers?
Duck livers fried in butter are my favorite "chef's snack". I sometimes opt for roast duck for dinner so I can have my 4:00 treat. I've recently found a source of same day slaughter duck livers in 1-2 pound quantities. This sounds like a great opportunity for a delicious appetizer. I'm thinking of a Chinese spoon presentation, but it needs something to make it special. Are there any classic presentations/pairings or other novel ideas?
Personally I love pairing duck liver with cherries. Take a look at this recipe, perhaps you can find some inspiration there: http://www.latimesmagazine.com/2011/10/balsamic.html Oh, and I think this question will probably be closed (recipe request).
I'm not sure what you're asking here. Are you asking for things to go with duck liver? Are you asking how to present a piece of liver nicely? What is the current problem you have?
For presentation: Philo dough cups precooked with either sprigs of dill or whittle blueberries on a Sterling Silver Plate or Platter. Sterling Silver makes anything look elegant.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.448682
| 2012-05-07T23:46:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23632",
"authors": [
"Bill Sambrone",
"Corrie",
"Edward",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"James Wierzba",
"Lindsay Morsillo",
"Lor",
"Meekohi",
"Mien",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53553",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53555",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53592",
"teresa locke",
"user53557"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7733
|
What is the most efficient way to prepare (very small) fresh oregano leaves?
While making my manicotti tonight, I received a painful reminder that the stuffing isn't actually the most tedious part of the process - it's pulling all the tiny leaves off the oregano stems. It seems as though the oregano I'm able to buy here is not fully grown; it's been like this for as long as I can remember.
Obviously the stems are stiff, and bitter, and generally no good to throw in the mix, at least not with any of the recipes I use. So I really need to get the leaves off the stems, and with this oregano, it's a painful process.
I've tried obvious routes, like "stripping" the leaves off the stems with my hands or a knife, but it doesn't really work. The stems are too hardy, and if I strip them hard enough to get the leaves off then I usually end up stripping the stem with it. And laying the stems flat on a cutting board and trying to chop the leaves off directly is almost impossible; the leaves are so tiny and irregularly distributed that it ends up taking longer than just pulling the things apart with my hands.
Am I missing something obvious? Is there a way to prepare these oregano leaves that's more fun than watching paint dry?
It might be the climate, and they need to a different variety in your area. But if you have a south-facing window that gets good light, with a windowsill that you can put a flower pot on, consider growing your own mexican or greek oregano -- it's really hearty stuff (even after you haven't watered it for a week, and it's been sitting in the 90F heat, it still comes back with some water).
If you're using it in something long-simmering, like soup or spaghetti sauce, you can tie a bundle together (with cooking twine or unflavored dental floss) stems and all and toss it into the pot. As it cooks, most of the oregano leaves will fall off into the food and even those that don't will impart a lot of flavor into the dish. At the end, just pull out the bundle like you would bay leaves. I've never had trouble with the stems leaching bitter flavor when using this method.
This is a good thought. In this specific case I needed to chop up the leaves for use in a filling, so I wouldn't have been able to do this, but it will come in handy for sauces and the like.
Are you sure you're talking about oregano? Oregano doesn't have tiny leaves, and it's quite simple to use the pinch and strip technique to take all the leaves off in one fell swoop. The hardy central stem is actually a benefit here because it's less likely to break when you do the pinch.
I found a video on youtube, jump to the one minute mark.
Wow, that does not look AT ALL like the oregano I buy here. I guess that must be part of the problem.
@Aaronut: That's bizarre. Not even among the differing varieties of oregano do I find what I'd consider "tiny" leaves: http://www.google.com/images?q=oregano When I think tiny leaves the first thing that comes to mind is thyme.
Yes, I looked at the Google images too, that's when it suddenly dawned on me that the problem must be the oregano itself. I've added a picture. The thing is, all of the oregano here seems to look like that; I guess Ontario-grown oregano sucks.
I found a similar image on Google after much searching: http://lunchbox027.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/oregano1.jpg. It's almost as if the oregano they're selling here is not fully grown.
... and even with thyme, the strip technique works pretty well.
@Aaronut The oregano I have in NC looks like yours, too. I have a plant, and the leaves never get bigger than what you're showing, so the problem isn't that it's not full grown (at least not if it's the same kind as mine). I've had this plant for years, and I've never seen big leaves. They're small and hard to get off the stem.
@Aaron, @JustRight - we have the same small oregano here outside Philly. The first time I bought it and it didn't grow large, I thought I had bought bum seedlings, but I tried another supplier and got the same. They're still delicious, just very small leaves, and I have the same problems you have. It's hard to tell scale from this pic, but the italian oregano I grow also has very, very small leaves: http://www.hear.org/starr/images/image/?q=080117-2171&o=plants I usually use the bundle method, or make a satchel out of cheesecloth if I'm combining other herbs depending on the application.
My home-grown oregano looks much like yours. I usually look for older (stiffer) stems, rinse well, then grasp near the top and strip down to the bottom using my fingers. It's always been quite easy. N.B. this stuff spreads rapidly so I don't mind wasting some if the stem breaks--just get another stem.
Glad to know I'm not the only one... @kajaco, do you dry them first, or is part of the rationale to do it while they're wet?
@Aaronut. I walk out the back door when I need them. Rinse. Strip. Chop (maybe). Use. Less than a minute. I don't dry them because they're just going to get wet as soon as I mix them in with whatever.
I agree with just sitting and picking the leaves off. It's no harder than shelling beans. Kind of therapeutic! Personally, I prefer the large fleshy Cuban oregano leaf. It's easy to work with and hard to kill when growing.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.448831
| 2010-10-01T02:09:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7733",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Joe",
"JustRightMenus",
"Michael Natkin",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"kajaco",
"stephennmcdonald"
],
"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
}
|
29555
|
What are the natural and artificial sugars?
I try to be careful to avoid hydrogenation and artificial sugars when I buy food products. Hydrogenation seems easy - if it mentions hydrogenation in the ingredients list, I avoid it. I feel more confused by sugars.
So, for example, sugar and honey I feel comfortable with. Corn syrup I feel comfortable with. High fructose corn syrup and aspartame I avoid.
The problem is that there are so many sugars that I have trouble keeping them straight. Sucrose, glucose, maltodextrine - those are chemical names, to be sure, but to my knowledge they are "natural" in the sense that they are naturally derived. I think.
Can someone post a list of the various sugars that we see in ingredient lists - or that we have the option to use as ingredients in the foods we make - with an explanation of whether they are natural or not? Or to what degree they are not natural?
Now, I understand that "natural" means different things to different people, so I expect some qualification will be needed for at least some ingredients. Also, to narrow the focus of the question and the resulting answers, let's keep this focused on the list and short description of the various sugars as opposed to the broader discussion concerning whether artificial sweeteners are bad for you or not.
Update
I guess this isn't a very popular question. Perhaps people who care about this as I do generally understand the ingredient lists better?
So today I ran into an example of what I'm describing above. I noticed polydextrose in an ingredient list. What I would have liked to do is come back to this question and look at an answer to this post that has that ingredient as artificial or natural with a brief description of it. However, this isn't in the incomplete list of artificial sweeteners posted in the answer by TFD (I don't mean for this to be offensive - at least you answered with something, which I appreciate). Not being a dietician, I looked it up and it looks pretty artificial to me.
Is there someone out there who is passionate about this stuff who could post such a list for the rest of us?
I think the problem with this question is the presumption that "artificial" sugars are worse than "natural" ones. While there is some new evidence that may link HFCS to worse health outcomes than ordinary table salt, I don't think the matter is settled. With the possible exception of honey, all sugars, when used as ingredients, are inherently "unnatural".
polydextrose is not a sweetner, it has similar "cooking" properties of sugar, but is not sweet
Most likely the reason you're not getting the kinds of answers you're looking for is that you've spelled this out as a health question rather than a cooking question. Experienced bakers are interested in sugar and its various analogues primarily for their flavour and texture qualities, not the "naturalness" of one or the other. And more savvy health-conscious consumers ditched the "natural" obsession years ago and started paying more attention to the glycemic index and glycemic load. Sugar is sugar once it's inside you, and all of the sweeteners are completely different from each other.
I've found it is difficult to examine this type of question without starting a discussion about the health of the different types of sugars. On this site, that is not a good idea.
@nohat: some people are even concerned with honey and some of the ways it gets produced. I agree with you that all sugars come to us processed in some ways - but surely we can acknowledge that there is a gradient. Where can I go to find to what degree and in what way they are processed? I'm hoping for such a thing in an answer to this question.
@Aaronut and staticsan: I appreciate where you both are coming from and I don't want this to become a health question. That's why I took pains to rule that out from the beginning by the way I worded the question. This is a question about a certain quality (means of production) within a gradient (natural to artificial) of a specific type of ingredient (sweeteners). I have to believe such questions are relevant to at least some people who bake. The pros/cons of natural/artificial sweeteners is not something I'm interested in answering here and should be left up to the readers.
@staticsan: please see my previous comment to Aaronut.
Means of production isn't a quality. There is no "scale" or "gradient" from natural to artificial - at least not that any cook or chef I know cares to speak of. It's just not very interesting how "processed" a sweetener is; what's interesting is its flavour and how it behaves during various cooking processes or sometimes in the finished product (e.g. sugar alcohols being humectants). If someone in the industry would like to step up and prove me wrong, great, but AFAIK the question of how "natural" a sugar is is pretty far down the list of practical baking questions, if it's on there at all.
@Aaronut: Thanks for sharing - I'm sure your opinion represents many people.
Sugar, as in common table sugar from sugar cane, is sucrose, which is a chemically weak linked combination of glucose and fructose. Your stomach acids will split sucrose very fast. So the difference in using natural cane sugar and factory split glucose may only be a matter of minutes once you eat the stuff
Same goes for almost all the sugars other than the "artificial sweeteners" which are generally not sugars at all, they just taste very sweet
Some artificial sweeteners are very natural in the general scheme of things when compared to processed sugar etc.
Nearly everything that comes in a packet with a barcode is not "natural". White table sugar is not natural. Buy some sugar cane stem, and crush and boil it, then you can see the difference
I would rather use the white table sugar though, as it is more likely to be clean and tested as being non-contaminated
Sugar Substitutes
There is a great list of sugar substitutes including artificial sweeteners on Wikipedia. Many of which would be better for you if sugar levels was of a concern in your diet (it is for some people). Many are useless in baking
The list of "artificial sweeteners" is thus:
Acesulfame Potassium (Celanese, Nutrinova, Sunett)
Advantame
Alitame
Aspartame (Equal, Neotame, NutraSweet)
Aspartame-Acesulfame Salt (Twinsweet)
Dulcin
Glucin
Neohesperidin Dihydrochalcone
P-4000
Saccharin (Sweet'N Low)
Sodium Cyclamate
Sucralose (Splenda)
And the sugar alcohol's, which are also a form of "artificial sweeteners"
Erythritol
Glycerol
Hydrogenated starch hydrolysates (HSH) (long sub list)
Isomalt
Lactitol
Maltitol
Mannitol
Sorbitol
Xylitol
Nice info-graphic from Washington Post
This post can be helpful in some contexts, but doesn't really answer the question. As mentioned, I'd really like a list of the sugars/sweeteners so I can recognize them as I see them in lists.
You missed the point a bit then. Edited anyway
One class of sugar substitutes you didn't mention are the sugar alcohols - sorbitol, maltitol, erythritol, etc. Although these aren't 1-for-1 substitutions, they're nevertheless used as sweeteners and very common to find in packaged foods (especially sorbitol) and quite useful in baking.
Not sure which answer to comment on, but one other sweetener that is kind of in both camps is Stevia. (It will be pretty obvious, though, as its inclusion is as much marketing as mere ingredient selection.)
I'd leave Glycerol AKA glycerine, out of your list of sugar alcohol "artificial sweeteners". The stuff is pervasive in both plant and animal biochemistry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycerol -Nothing artificial about it.
@WayfaringStranger: While glycerol can be easily obtained from plants, it also happens as a byproduct of production of biodiesel from fats - and due to volume of biodiesel production, the supply of glycerol of that origin is huge. I don't know if / how much of it makes into food industry but I wouldn't be surprised if about all of glycerol on market was a biodiesel production byproduct.
Natural or artificial is a matter of how something was produced, not what it is and even then the distinction is fuzzy at best. Nutrition on the other hand is a matter of what it is regardless of how it got to be that way. (Process obviously can impact the result, but it isn't necessarily so)
Highly refined apple juice is a syrup of 45% fructose and 55% glucose in water and can be produced purely mechanically from apples.
HFCS 45 is a syrup of 45% fructose and 55% glucose in water. It's produced by heating corn starch with a weak acid to split it into glucose, and then treating that with an Xylose isomerase, an enzyme produced by certain bacteria to convert the glucose into fructose.
Glucose and fructose could also be produced from petroleum although it's more economical to grow them. That could be combined with artificial water produced by burning more petroleum. The only real difference would be that it's less radioactive since it would have less Carbon-14.
Glucose-fructose syrup is glucose-fructose syrup regardless of how it was produced and has the same nutritional value (For good or ill). The only thing that would impact it is changing which stereoisomer of glucose you used, but L-glucose is not practical to produce in food quantities and no known terrestrial life produces it so you only encounter D-glucose/dextrose in practice.
So, if you see "glucose" or "fructose" as an ingredient it could be from fruit by a lot of filtering, or it could be from table sugar by a process similar to making caramel, or it could be from corn by a process roughly comparable to making beer or vinegar, or it could (in theory at least) be cooked up in a lab from petroleum. It's not going to make a difference in terms of nutrition though (Unless it is the expensively made in a lab L-glucose in which case it just tastes sweet and otherwise does nothing but you're not going to find it in any food in practice)
So there's no comprehensive way to make such a list. A product might list "Fruit Juice" as an ingredient, and it would just be a somewhat more expensive substance identical to high fructose corn syrup. What one person considers "natural" or "artificial" isn't the same as what another person thinks, and the criteria can even vary for a person depending on what they are looking at: The process for making HFCS isn't all the different from making alcoholic beverages or tenderizing meat with fruit enzymes, but we've been using Yeast and Papaya longer than we've been using Xylose isomerase so the latter is less familiar.
Of course none of that means there aren't problems with excessive consumption of simple sugars (Or anything else), but it has nothing to do with HFCS being "artificial". HFCS isn't poison and juice/honey isn't the elixir of perfect health.
Fooducate has compiled such a list of artificial sweeteners and sugar synonyms:
Aspartame – marketed as Nutrasweet (artificial, 0 calories)
Acesulfame potassium (acesulfame-K) / E950 -
marketed as Sunett / Sweet One (artificial, 0 calories)
Agave
Agave Nectar
Barley Malt Extract
Brown Rice Syrup
Brown sugar
Corn sugar
Corn sweetener
Corn syrup, or corn syrup solids
Crystalline Fructose
Dehydrated Cane Juice
Dextrin
Dextrose
Evaporated Cane Juice
Evaporated Cane Syrup
Fructose
Fruit juice concentrate
Glucose
High-fructose corn syrup
Honey
Invert sugar (golden syrup)
Lactose
Maltodextrin
Malt syrup
Maltose
Mannitol (2.6 calories)
Maple syrup
Molasses
Neotame (artificial, 0 calories)
Raw sugar
Rice Syrup
Saccharin (artificial, 0 calories)
Saccharose
Sucralose – marketed as Splenda (artificial, 0 calories)
Sucrose
Sugar
Sorbitol (2.6 calories)
Sorghum syrup
Syrup
Treacle
Turbinado Sugar
Xylose
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.449315
| 2012-12-29T17:17:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29555",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Carrie Yang",
"Daniel Smith",
"Jessiie Counter",
"Jihadul Kawum",
"Nikki ",
"Paula Hargreaves",
"SF.",
"Shelby Guercio",
"TFD",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"firebush",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134308",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134309",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70358",
"migscabral",
"nohat",
"staticsan",
"user70357"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29880
|
How should one prepare beef heart?
I've got one in my freezer. The whole heart. After a cool defrost...
How should I cook this heart o' cow?
Steaks are the only application that come to mind.
Don't overcook or it will get tough
If it's from an animal that is "young at heart" (veal/calf), it may be tender enough to cut into thin strips and pan-fry or grill quickly as "steaks." Don't overcook, or they will be really tough, and you'll be heartbroken.
But to get to the heart of the matter, if it's really an adult beef heart, it's too tough and chewy to cook quickly. Braising is my preferred method and the one closest to my heart. This is one of those things can cook all day and will eventually become incredibly tender -- tasting like a slightly unusual and hearty pot roast.
You can also stuff them and then either braise or roast them -- again, "low and slow" heat is the most heart-friendly. If you roast it, also be sure there is enough moisture in the stuffing (i.e., leave a "soft spot" in your heart), or else it can dry out during a long bake. (You can also "roast" it in a dutch oven or something.) When you open up your heart after cooking, a dry stuffing will just leave you with a heavy heart.
A final option is to use it as stew meat. It will take longer to cook than most stew meats, so you might want to simmer for a while first before adding vegetables. Then cook until the flavors come together and your heart's content.
Once, when I had leftovers after making a stuffed heart, I was just going eat it, but then I had a change of heart. I chopped up the tender meat and added it to chili. It probably was about 1/3 of the overall meat in the chili, along with some diced chuck chunks and some ground beef. It came out incredibly good: there was a deep earthy flavor that really worked well. I served it to a number of friends without explaining the dish, and they didn't notice anything unusual; I didn't have the heart to tell them. In fact, a number of people said it was some of the best chili they had tasted, which was really heartwarming to hear.
Take heart! There are lots of ways to cook it. Any slow-cooking method or recipe you might use for a tough cut of beef will probably work -- just follow your heart.
(I am actually serious about all of these methods -- but, okay, truly sorry about the puns. From the bottom of my....)
I like the cut of your jib.
you could also consider grinding it for use in other preparations to utilize it's nice mineral-y flavor.
What a nice, heartfelt answer.
One of my favourite dishes as a kid was stuffed lambs hearts but these were tender enough to be roasted and the fat in the stuffing helped to cook the heart.
Hearts are hard tightly packed muscle with very little fat to help cook them. Pig, calf and lamb hearts are tender enough to be cooked with a stuffing which includes some form of fat, but ox and cow beef hearts are simply too tough to cook that way and need to be treated as a tough cut of meat and braised until tender.
You can find in some sites a method you would like, such as Site 1 or Site 2.
But as a personal experience, we chop the heart it into cubes.
In a frying pan put some olive oil, slice an onion or two; then place the heart. After being a little brown, add some lemon juice. Let them boil for 10 min, then pour in hte serving dish. Upon serving you could add some Sumac spice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.450162
| 2013-01-08T11:54:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29880",
"authors": [
"Brendan",
"JWiley",
"Lord Farquaad",
"Mark Schultheiss",
"Sobachatina",
"Whaler-17",
"floerae",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9973",
"keith newton",
"noel"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29878
|
What is the benefit to using a paper filter in a moka pot?
I saw a picture of this method being used in a magazine from Hong Kong. A cafe gave a short description of brewing with a moka pot. They placed a small, circular, paper filter on top of the ground coffee before screwing on the top of the pot.
Why they would they have added this unconventional step to moka pot brewing? Does the finer filter aid in pseudo-crema production? Does it produce a cleaner brew?
Do you have a moka pot and coffee filters? Sounds like a fun experiment. Unfortunately I'm in a long distance with my boyfriend who just got a moka pot for Christmas or I'd try it myself!
Moka pots are essentially percolators meant for making espresso. As such, they are normally fitted with metal filters inside the pot that are capable of filtering some sediment, but not oils or Diterpenes (such as Cafestol). Diterpenes have been implicated in cholesterol increases associated with unfiltered coffee, but may also have cancer- and parkinson's-fighting properties.
The paper filter will also have a large effect on the flavor of the coffee produced. Paper filters are designed to remove oils from coffee, but the oils removed by the paper filter can be a substantial source of flavor for the coffee produced, as many of the flavor compounds in coffee are fat-soluble.
Coffee produced with a paper filter will have less sediment, fewer oils and, in the opinion of many metal-filtered enthusiasts (myself included), a more even, less robust flavor. That shouldn't be regarded as an inherent downside, however, as many people prefer the flavor of paper-filtered coffee, finding the mellower profile and lack of sediment/oilyness preferable. Crema is more pronounced in metal-filtered than in paper-filtered coffee.
I just tried putting a standard paper coffee filter between the top and bottom chambers, and it worked great. My process, based on experimentation and research is this:
Pour cold water into the bottom chamber, just below the safety valve.
Boil the water in the bottom chamber. No sense in boiling the water in a separate pot. Starting with hot water before adding the grind cup is supposedly a good thing, so I'm killing two birds with one stone here.
Just as the water begins the boil, remove the bottom chamber from the heat. Careful from here on, as the bottom chamber is hot. I usually grab it with a towel or oven mitt.
Drop the grind cup into the bottom chamber.
Place a rinsed paper coffee filter over the top of the grind cup.
Carefully screw on the top chamber.
Place back onto the heat.. it shouldn't take long for the coffee to make its way to the top.
I noticed with the paper filter in place that the coffee came out the top a bit slower than usual, but with a lot more crema.
There ends up being zero sediments in the top chamber, which is hard to achieve otherwise.
Flavor is delicious, but I'm no expert.
Interesting. An image would be really useful.
For people with high cholesterol, there may be some benefits to doing this (if you believe that Diterpenes increase LDL). The paper filter can remove most of the Diterpenes from the ground coffee. It should also decrease any fine coffee sediment you get in the resulting coffee
I pour the coffee after mokapot into a filtered coffee dripper. The oil and other material left behind the filter. The smell of the filtered coffee is fresh bit caramel and smell of the oil and other residu left behind the filter is bad
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.450483
| 2013-01-08T11:17:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29878",
"authors": [
"ExChef",
"Jay",
"Lissarae",
"Matt",
"N4v",
"Nichole",
"SmileBot",
"Spammer",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"bobah",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69583",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69667",
"lemontwist",
"rwsinflorida",
"shinde"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29854
|
long term wine storage
I'm planning storing some wine over a long period of time. I'm not sure about the exact duration, but I'm thinking of either 25 or 50 years.
What should be taken into consideration? Here's a list of what I can think of:
Material (stopper/bung/cork/screw cap/..)
Temperature
Humidity (might matter in combination with some stoppers)
Light
Orientation (lying down or vertical, something non-intuitive as upside down?)
Does anyone has experience with this or is it generally doomed to fail to store wine this long?
Update
Will this be managed storage [...]?
Yes, I'm willing to take actions regularly if necessary.
Also, what type of wines are you planning on storing (not all get better with time, and most can't take that much time).
An excellent point I actually was planning to include into the question but then somehow forgotten to: It is not decided yet (except for that it's going to be a red wine). if there's anything to consider with that, please let me know.
Unclear what you ask [...]
A bit of clarification: Since I want a good tasting wine after a long time of storage, I want optimal storage conditions. I came up with several factors that might be important to control, but there might be others. Any input on what the optimal conditions have to be helps, even if it is not included in my list of potential factors.
Will this be managed storage (so that you can rotate the bottles every few months), or more along the lines of put it in a hole for 25 years and hope it's still good when you dig it up later? Also, what type of wines are you planning on storing (not all get better with time, and most can't take that much time). I just know those are factors ... I'm no expert on this. I know my stepdad keeps whole cases (ie. still in the box) stashed in his storage room for years before they get added to the wine racks.
Unclear what you ask, you say "What should be taken into consideration?" so are you only asking what factors that should be considered, or do you also want answers to which stopper, temperature and so is best?
Interesting, just FYI, Stefan and Stefan are two different people :-) this might be a confusing thread :-) -Stefan Answering
@Joe & Stefan, updated [OP stefan writing ;-)]
Keep your wines between 45-65 oF (7-18 oC). Wine that is too hot will age faster and frozen wine can expand and push out corks or shatter bottles.
Keep the temperature relatively consistent: avoid large swings in temperature.
Keep the wine out of UV light (sunlight and some types of fluorescent light) which will age the wines faster.
Humidity levels shouldn't be so low that the corks dry out or so high that mold can form. Keep between 50-80% roughly.
If the wines are stoppered with cork, keep the bottles on their side to keep the corks moist. You don't want the corks to dry out and lose their seal. Bottles stoppered with screw caps or plastic cork don't need this treatment. However storing bottles on their side is pretty space efficient. (Also, it really sucks to remove a dry cork from a bottle of wine, which can be a problem if you buy cheap wine from places like Trader Joes where they are not always stored properly.)
Keep the wines away from vibration. (This is why storing wine on top of a fridge is a horrible idea, it's hot and shaky up there.) Excess vibrations can disturb sediment.
I've also read that you should keep wines away from strong odors because corks are porous. So maybe don't store garlic and vinegar with your wine collection.
Enclosure shouldn't matter a huge deal... if your wine stoppered with a cork is tainted, it was tainted before you aged it in your cellar for such a long time. Screw caps and synthetic corks prevent the taint from happening in the first place.
You don't need to rotate your bottles, which disturbs sediment.
Not all wines age well, especially many whites. (Although there are definitely whites that do age well.) I have suffered the problem of storing many of my own Sav Blancs for several years without tasting to make sure they were still good, then having to pour out several bottles when they were over aged. So if you have many bottles of a single wine, drink a bottle every now and again to see how it's holding up.
Finally, here's an interesting article I just read about aging champagne. Apparently it's not always a bad idea.
I give myself -1 for failing to follow my own advice, however. I need to get some sun blockers for my wine racks. :)
This is exactly what I'm looking for: detailed instructions with reasonable arguments supporting it. Thank you!
One more thing: wines in large bottles (magnums, double magnums, jeroboams) do long aging better than wines stored in regular-sized bottles.
@FuzzyChef Interesting point, what's the reason for that?
@Stefan. Supposedly the air to wine ration, but not sure if that is guesses, I have not seen any scientific explanation. Ageing is not by new air coming in through the cork. Even wine in screw cap does age. (Stefan the answerer)
Lemontwist have very good advice, a few more thing to the list:
See wikipedia for a list that is from Jancis Robinson about what types of wine have as , as you can see very few wine reach above 25 years of max aging potential, and only one example reach 50 years (vintage port).
If you are to age for 25 to 50 years, you need really good wine. You cannot buy any fifth growth Bordeaux from any year and expect it to be good after 50 years, it needs to be a good wine and from a good vintage.
For 25 years and above if you have cork as a closure it will starting to be a problem, you should recork, I find 2 links Penfolds recork clinic which allows recorks after 15 years and one other site that suggests between 15 and 40 years. So recorking is important, especially if you aim over 20-25 years.
There is a big argument about cork vs. screw cap and aging, you can find evidence on the web about both being the best thing and the worst thing, I think both are OK, time will tell but screw cap seams to be just as good or probably better in tests, but you really do not have a choose, you pick wine, not closure.
Stefan, the answerer :-)
Stefan: as far as I know, wines sealed with screw closures don't really age, due to the inability to exchange oxygen. Is there research which shows otherwise?
Yes, but this is a very 'religious' issue. There is lots of research in Australia, the conclusion from there is that screw cap ages more constantly, i.e. two bottles with screw cap age the same amount, but with cork they age more differently. Also they do age 'less', or differently, especially white wine seams to be much fresher in screw cap. Also you have much less, if any corked/spoiled bottles with screw cap. It also matters a lot which type of screw cap you have.
@FuzzyChef See this link for one source.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.450782
| 2013-01-08T01:17:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29854",
"authors": [
"Cœur",
"FuzzyChef",
"Gaylene",
"Joe",
"Maryann Jones",
"Michael Valllendorf",
"Qwertie",
"Sanyi",
"Stefan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69575",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69591",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"lemontwist",
"stefan",
"user69584"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30256
|
Meat and Poultry Changing Color in Marinade?
I am working on a marinade for my chicken breast and filet mignon for a fondue we are planning on having tonight. I took the meat out of the fridge and noticed they both seemed to change color. The chicken turned white and the meat turned brown. I over-marinated -- it called for 8 hours and I marinated close to 24. I didn't think it would harm them. Both meats were bought that day as well.
Some ingredients I think would affect this would be red onion, olive oil, red wine vinegar, lemon juice, and salt.
Is this okay? Am I worrying too much? I really don't want to get sick!
At least in the case of marinades containing acids (such as vinegar or lemon juice) or certain enzymes, especially from papayas, kiwis, or most commonly (at least in the US), fresh pineapple juice, a certain amount of denaturing of the proteins will occur at the surface of the marinated meat. This will turn it opaque rather than translucent--chicken will look kind of white. This is perfectly normal, and safe.
Depending on the color of the marinade, and the particular cut being marinated, some of the marinade may also penetrate into the meat, changing its color as well.
These are normal effects, and assuming you have otherwise respected good practices (keeping the meat refrigerated during the marination, not holding the food uncooked longer than would be safe without the marinate, and not cross-contaminating and so on), the product should be safe to eat.
In the case of your meat marinated triple the planned time, the outcome will depend on the nature of the particular marinade. If there was active enzymatic action, it could be very mush to the point of unpleasantness. On the other hand, if the marinade was mostly for flavor, rather than highly acidic, it might just have a more intense flavor from the marinade.
Edit:
I should add for clarity, when safe above means when properly cooked...
I went ahead and used the chicken and beef for the fondue. It was more tender than what I would've liked but it was still rather delicious. I will keep in mind that over-marinating can have adverse side effects. The reason I kept it longer was because I wanted a much more intense flavor. Again, thank you.
Acidic marinades will almost always denature the surface proteins of any meat marinated in them, and the technique is used on purpose in the preparation of Ceviche. While it doesn't really cure the meat, it also won't affect the taste or texture enough to warrant throwing the marinated meat out. In fact, in the case of aged/cured (and preferably pasteurized) beef, it could make for an interesting tartar-esque dish, though you'd need to change out the marinade diligently, or sous vide pasteurize the whole shebang.
Thank you for your response. The meal turned out okay and nobody got sick! I was curious about your last paragraph where you say **On the other hand**, if the marinade was mostly for flavor though. What other reasons would you marinate something?
The acidic nature of your marinade has denatured the surface proteins of the meat. This is the same reaction that happens to fish when you use a citrus juice marinade to make ceviche.
The surface of you meat may be a little tougher that intended, but as long as it was properly refrigerated, there should not be a health hazard any greater than with fresh meat in general.
Enjoy your fondue!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.451405
| 2013-01-21T00:50:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30256",
"authors": [
"Adam Beck",
"Dan Carter",
"Gene",
"Guava",
"Kurt Aquilina",
"OmniaFaciat",
"Randy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15342",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70800",
"user234461",
"user70632",
"user70737"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85844
|
Spaghetti sauce too sweet
Trying to make spaghetti sauce and this is too sweet:
2 each 28 oz can crushed tomatoes (low salt)
8 oz can tomato paste
1 red onion diced
1 tablespoon dried oregano
1 teaspoon dried basil
1 teaspoon black pepper
4 garlic cloves
1 lb 97% fat free beef
Brown the beef and simmer everything for 3-4 hours.
It just comes out too sweet.
Salt and sausage (fat) would make it less sweet but also less healthy.
I am thinking about poblano peppers and / or cilantro.
How to make this spaghetti sauce less sweet, without adding fat or salt?
Unless your diet requires lack of salt, 3.75 to 6 grams of salt daily seems to be common recommendation. Cutting below that is not healthy, your nerves needs electrolytes. Also, linked article shows that cutting salt may not matter that much. For sausage, if you will use one that has no preservatives in it, why would it make sauce less healthy? Fat? Cut too much fat and all you get is fat-soluble vitamins deficiency, definitely not something I'd call healthy. So what exactly are you trying to avoid?
@Mołot Right or wrong avoiding sodium and fat.
Could you please mention your dietary restrictions in the question? That would let everyone focus on giving answers that suit them, rather than discussing nutritional minutiae.
The restrictions are make it less sweet without adding salt or fat. I am not discussing nutritional minutiae.
Remove "healthy" statement that may be simply false, and I have no objections.
Hi Paparazzi, I know our policies on "healthy" are a bit confusing to understand at first. The division between what is OK and what isn't is: does the answerer has to interpret what is "healthy" or not? If you say, "I want the solution to not have any more salt, because I believe eating salt is unhealthy", that's OK. But asking somebody else to define which solution is healthy and which isn't will only lead to a fight between the low carb people, low sodium people, paleo people, etc. So I changed the wording of the final question to reflect your own understanding of healthy.
@rumtscho I am fine with the edit.
@Mołot, if you're feeding very young children, their salt limits are much lower - and that's not a medical condition. A toddler can put away quite a lot of pasta and sauce if they're hungry. That's just an example; there are plenty of reasons why someone could want to avoid unnecessary salt in a particular recipe.
I tried whole wheat noodles and that take away some of the sweet. I don't like the taste of whole wheat as much but I do like it is more healthy.
The tomato paste in your recipe is a large contributor to the sweetness. You could reduce the amount you are using or substitute with tomato sauce.
The addition of an acid would also help balance the sweetness. A splash of vinegar or wine for example.
Simple way to avoid sodium and still have salty taste is use salt substitute. Personally I've tried using potassium chloride as substitute. It is less salty and more bitter than regular salt, but this makes it work even better for de-sweetening food.
I heard a lot of good about using bitter salt as a salt substitute, too. Haven't tried it myself, but if you are taking magnesium supplements anyway, swapping them for bitter salt in your food may be a good idea.
For fat, there are fat substitutes all right. I used maltodextrin and pectin in the past, when I needed thickener. Sadly, first one is rather sweet. Pectin is not (in my opinion, at least) and change to mouthfeel may help to combat "too sweet" feeling. I find it highly personal, for one person it will feel less sweet, for another it may feel more. For most it's just thicker. Only way to know is to try, I'm afraid.
Nutrition is not in scope here. Where do you get remove fat totally from that question? There is fat in that recipe.
@Paparazzi "healthy" in cooking means nutrition. Remove it from your question if it is out of scope. If it's in the question, it can't be out of scope. For totally - right, I'll change wording.
Molot, it is out of scope. We allow it in the backstory of the question, so that people get a clear picture of where it is going, and shouldn't be afraid of mentioning taboo words or similar. But a question asking "what is healthy" is not allowed (as opposed one which says, "I think X is healthy, so how do I cook X") and also discussion in the answers or comments is not allowed. If somebody mentions their opinions in health in a question, please take it as a matter of personal belief, and accept it as a given, without challenging it.
I tend to use very little salt in cooking, and wouldn't add any directly to this recipe (and there would be none at all added to the tomatoes). There are a few things you could add that would contain a little salt (such as Worcester sauce, marmite, or even soy sauce - be sparing if you use any of these so they don't take over the flavour). What they have in common is umami. That link has a list of foods high in umami; one that stands out here is mushrooms.
There are other things you can do though. More onion would help, as would more herbs and black pepper. This recipe might benefit from some red wine, in place of any water you might add during simmering. A little celery or bell pepper can help a lot, even dried and powdered. Vegetable stock powder is a good source if you can get it without salt (I can). You can buy seasoning that's made mainly from powdered dried onion, garlic, celery and peppers with no added salt (though the one I have - "season-all" - might come in a little sweet for your use). Lemon juice can also help.
Personally I'd use several of the things I list, to avoid any single one dominating.
About a teaspoon of Balsamic vinegar would not only make the sauce less sweet, but will also add depth to the flavour of it, in my opinion.
Another option, from my own recipe, is to add a splash of red vermouth after the meat is done, so it simmers with everything.
I am surprised that you suggest balsamic - for me, it makes food sweeter. Other vinegars will work much better for this specific case, I think.
@rumtscho What vinegar would you suggest?
@Paparazzi not really a specific one. Almost all vinegars are not sweet, there are maybe a few with a tiny amount of sweetness, and balsamic is the one exception which is very sweet. So, look at what you have in the pantry, try a few drops in a small amount of sauce, and decide if you like it or if something in the flavor profile feels "off" to you, if so, switch to the next.
@rumtscho I only have two in my pantry. Apple vinegar tasted too much like apple.
Solution 1:
If you need to really remove sugar instead of masking it as with the suggestions proposing acidic additives like vinegar or lemon juice, you could add yeast to the sauce and simmer it for several hours on the lowest setting you have. The yeast will eat the sugar and as long as you properly vent it (no cover on the saucepan) you won’t get any alcohol buildup. When enough sugar is gone, bring the sauce to a quick boil and kill the yeast culture.
Solution 2:
Use more real tomatoes instead of tomato paste and simmer the sauce for several hours to reduce the water content of the tomatoes which will thicken the sauce. Of course you will still have all of the sugar from the tomatoes.
Solution 3:
I assume you are using the paste to thicken the sauce. Why not just use a neutral starch like tapioca instead of the tomato paste?
Your yeast would not survive being simmered, so it would not be able to convert the sugar to alcohol, CO2 or anything else.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.451742
| 2017-11-22T23:11:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85844",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Debbie M.",
"Mołot",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"paparazzo",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
71848
|
Is it safe to transport meat in a coolbox with ice?
If you buy say sausage rolls and pork pies on a Thursday and keep in the fridge overnight, then travel Friday for 5-6 hours with them in a cool box with ice blocks, then put them back in the fridge Friday overnight, then serve up for buffet on the Saturday, is this too many temperature changes over 2 days?
Baking meat in bread casings used to be a method of preservation (eg, cornish pasty, empenadas). I don't know if modern techniques are still the same and act as a sufficient preservative, or if there are other issues such as different bacteria or other problems today vs. back then.
When packing your cooler, put the ice above the products that need to be kept cold.
If you can find it, "dry ice" is better than conventional ice, as it doesn't melt into water. Dry ice also doesn't need to be placed above the item, as the cold doesn't just go down. The gas it releases fills the whole space, chilling the whole cooler.
A 5 inch by 5 inch square, 1 inch thick will typically last for 24 hours. Multiple squares will increase the time that it can keep the product in a "below 41°F" condition.
( For those who cant obtain dry ice. Use 2 garbage bags to use for your normal ice to help ensure your food does not get as wet as it would otherwise. (( food will get a bit if condensation with double bagging the ice reguardless )) ) Added. 4/25/2017. VIA joes' opinion
Use gloves when handling the dry ice as it causes instant freezer burn on bear skin. I recommend a polymer blend glove, leather and cloth sticks to the dry ice. Do not use latex or food service gloves to handle the dry ice as instant freezer burn penetrates the thin layer protection anyways
For your length of trip, normal ice should be plenty, but make sure it's on top of what you're transporting, and for either ice you need to use an appropriate container.
It is best to wrap the dry ice so it does not touch bare food that causes freezer burn aswell, i recommend wrapping the dry ice in bubble wrap but leaving 1 5 inch by 1 unch side open facing the middle of the container.
Dry is is the best when transporting food safely because it is waterless, lasts a long time in a sealed enviornment handling needs to be diciplined to remaind unscathed but besides the few extra steps (to protect your self its the way togo). Added. 4 25 2017
This answer seems like it could be really useful if it were more clear. If you have time, I'd like to try to understand exactly what you're trying to say. Meet me in chat?
@Jolenealaska : I think I understood what they're trying to convey, and cleaned it up some. "product" in this case is the food to be kept cold. I did change some of the "container" mentions to "cooler". I should also mention that if you're putting water ice above something, you want to make sure it's in a good bag, or the food is well-sealed, so you don't end up getting the food wet.
Joe. Good point bag your foods that should not get wet
As long as you have enough ice to keep them cold the whole time, that's the same as just putting them in your fridge for a couple days: they'll be chilled, stay chilled, then get served, whether warmed or just naturally brought toward room temperature.
So be sure you have enough ice, and as usual be sure not to let them sit out forever to serve, and you'll be fine.
@Sarah Sure, it'll be okay even without heating, but... are you really serving them at refrigerator temperature?
They would be bought cooked for a buffet
I understand they're already cooked. I was just assuming that you wouldn't want to eat cold rolls and cold pies, so you'd heat them up at least a little to serve for the buffet. Again it doesn't matter, if you've kept them chilled they'll be safe cold or warm or hot, I just said "heated and served" because you asked about the number of temperature changes and I figured there'd be one for serving.
No I appreciate your advice, I just didn't want to make anyone I'll, thankyou again
Sausage rolls and pork pies are common on cold buffets, put out striaght from the fridge normally (UK).
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.452303
| 2016-08-03T14:53:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/71848",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Sarah",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57430",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"user57430"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
85645
|
What approach can be taken to create a sugar free Butterfingers clone?
How could I make a sugar free version of butterfingers candy? I’m asking because I’m a diabetic. So any advice on this matter would be appreciated big time!
I think what you'd need is actually a sugar-free hard candy recipe - something like isomalt, or erythritol, with additional sweetner. The crunch in butterfingers candy is actually thin thin sheets of sugar crystals, folded around, separated by and layered with peanut butter. There are a number of sweets that use the same basic principle, using fats keep layers of sugar separate in fragile layers instead of staying in chunks or dispersing smoothly.
For a basic technique, you would need the hard candy recipe in a half-molten, taffy-like consistency, it needs to be soft enough to fold but sturdy enough to keep together. When you add the peanut butter, you would use a flat spatula to mix, so that the candy would stretch and tend to lay in flat layers as it's being folded.
You would need to fold a lot - the more layers, the thinner each layer is (think how thin the layers in a butterfingers is, thousands and thousands), and although it is pretty messy at first, more layers means more surface area for the peanut butter to cling to instead of sloshing around in puddles, until they're not separating much if at all. Once it's pretty well folded, the mix can be spread out into a pan and let cool. The more carefully you fold, the more consistent and even the layers will be - but if you just want some crunch, a fairly sloppy technique should still get the job done.
You can warm the ingredients if it cools too much while mixing, you just have to be careful not to overheat, lest it turn into a smooth mixture instead of staying in layers. Obviously the warmer the mix is the easier it will be to manipulate and fold, and the cooler the more likely to stay in layers instead of intermix - that's why the taffy stage is best.
Of course, this is a very basic explanation of just the technique - you would do better to find a sugar-free hard candy, and substitute it into a proper butterfingers clone recipe for things like amounts and ratios, not to mention supplementary ingredients.
There are recipes for various types of caramel using Xylitol, sometimes combined with a limited amount of real sugar (which would not make a sugar free but still a low sugar version). Since caramel seems to be a core ingredient in this confectionery, these recipes likely make a good starting point.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.452662
| 2017-11-14T17:43:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/85645",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12106
|
How can I adapt rice cooker steamed fish to cooking in a pot?
I have seen steamed fish dishes where the fish is cooked on top of the rice in a rice cooker. I'd like to try this, but I don't have a rice cooker and always cook my rice in a pot. Does anyone know how to adapt this style of cooking to work in a pot?
My usual method of cooking rice is as follows:
2 c basmati rice
2.5 c water
Bring to boil, then turn down to minimum and cover. Cook for 15 minutes, then remove from heat and let stand (leaving lid on) for 10 minutes.
So would this method be similar to how a rice cooker works? When would I add the fish?
To clarify: I'm looking to cook the fish directly on top of the rice while it's steaming, like you could do in a rice cooker. If possible I'd like to do this without any additional cooking equipment.
Are you sure that the recipe tells you to put the fish directly on top of the rice in the rice cooker? Most rice cookers have a steaming attachment that is used to steam fish, meats, etc. The only things put directly on top of rice are generally fast cooking vegetables or partially cooked things (eg. chinese sausage), and this can be done antyime after the water in the rice cooker has started boiling. But a rice cooker is insulated, so not sure that you could duplicate this in a pot
Easy! I steam fish about 1x per week with a bamboo steamer. You need to take advantage of the steam rising from the pot which can steam your fish in exactly the same way as the rice cooker - so you get a Bamboo Steamer like this one (available in tons of different places, including cooking-supply stores, Asian Foods stores, etc): http://www.amazon.com/Norpro-Deluxe-3-Piece-Bamboo-Steamer/dp/B00005EBH8
This steamer is basically open at the bottom (with bamboo slats) so you set this on top of the boiling pot, and it fills with steam, cooking the fish. It's recommendable that you wrap the fish in wax paper (I use baking paper in a pinch) and that will keep it from sticking to the bamboo.
Hope this helps! I recommend buying a bamboo steamer like this one - it's a common kitchen item that you can use for a ton of steaming - i.e. veggies, broccoli, fish, etc. No need to even be cooking rice - you just place this over a pot of boiling water, and it works great!
I was actually hoping for a method where I just place the fish on top of the rice directly. Would this not work?
I would only recommend you try a Sous Vide approach. Sous Vide involves sealing the fish (or other food) in a airtight vacuum-seal plastic pouch, and placing it in hot water where it cooks from the inside out! Because rice will be cooked in 10-12 minutes, you need to pick a fish that will be properly cooked in that time using the Sous Vide method - so check out this cooking time chart to select a fish that cooks in 10-12 minutes using this approach: http://www.sousvidecooking.org/sous-vide-cookery-and-recipes-time-and-accurate-temperature-while-cooking-fish-sous-vide/
Cook the rice in the normal way, then halfway through the cook add your fish directly on top of rice with whatever sauce or spices.
how do you know this method will have a similar result as using a rice cooker?
Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please [edit] to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
Idk why people think it can't be done in a pot, but can only be done in a rice cooker. I mean how did they cook rice before the electronic rice cooker was invented? I'm sure they didn't have 6 and 8 range burners, anyways I digress.
Depends on the size (mainly thickness) of the fish. Rice typically takes 20 minutes to cook/boil, then a 10-15 minute steam. Though the during the steam period the temperature is decreasing.
I suggest experimenting with:
A) Wrapping the fish (bamboo, lily, or banana leaf - parchment paper would work too) and placing above the boiling rice/water.
B) Alternatively use a trivet to keep the fish above water and allow the steam to cook the fish. If you have the three legged stainless steel rack style trivets then a plate or dish will be needed to hold your fish onto. Instead of the collapsible types that open like a flower.
Note: when you cook your rice normally, instead of removing from the heat you can keep it on a low heat for the 10 minutes, or switch heat off and leave on the stove or a hot surface. This should keep more heat in if you need to.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.452900
| 2011-02-13T20:31:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12106",
"authors": [
"Allison",
"Community",
"Daniel Chui",
"Esther",
"Ida",
"Jamison",
"JonHayward",
"Samuel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/-1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24955",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9960",
"shelly"
],
"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
}
|
12122
|
A simple way to make crushed ice?
For many of my favourite cold drinks I need crushed ice. That is, thousands of small pieces of ice, not 3 big ice cubes. Is there an easy way to make crushed ice without expensive equipment?
Does a blender count as expensive equipment? That's probably the easiest option if you have one available to use.
With sharon stone: http://bloodysox.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/sharon-ice-pick-stone.jpg?w=224&h=224
I have not tried this method myself, but it sounds reasonable.
It involves filling a clean milk carton or juice container with water, freezing it and then bashing it against a wall to crush the ice. I guess the container has to be quite sturdy to take the beating without breaking. Could be worth a try.
How often do you get to bash something against concrete while you're preparing food or drink? Awesome.
So true. This will rock regardless of whether it works or not. :) EDIT: The "rock" pun is unintentional.
Put ice cubes in a clean tea towel and bash them with a rolling pin works for me.
Seems to me like this good for the rolling pin, especially not the bearings.
@Zanlok -- not all rolling pins have bearings. But if you're worried, you can substitute with a hammer or meat tenderizer.
Ah, now a menacing meat tenderizer would be fun, indeed =).
even just bashing against the work surface works. @Zanlok I'd forgotten some rolling pins are more complex than others you're right that some could get damaged. Mine are heavy wooden or plastic tubes with or without fixed handles.
I have done this in high school - we needed a boatload of crushed ice for thermodynamics experiments. It works, but notice that the tea towel will never be the same. If you apply enough enthusiasm to the job, you can actually get holes.
bashing the pack of towel with ice on a cemented floor might also work.
Hammer and bag? That's how I've always done it.
I think that you can use that mixer/slicer combo for it.
Such device is often used to slice fruits, or even meat in tiny pieces, you just do short bursts of knives, like 2 seconds and then see if its tiny enough.
i picked up an old-style ice crusher at a thrift store, and it works like a charm.
Search for "Snow Cone Machine" at Amazon.com. The one I linked to is $20.00 (US), does that qualify as "expensive"? Granted, shipping to Cape Town may be a bit higher, but you should be able to find something closer to you than Cleveland, USA. However, at the current exchange rate something in The US might be cheaper for you...
Put the ice cubes in your hand or towel (whichever you prefer) and bash it with the back of a big or medium spoon.
You might share what sort of ice cubes you have. Cubes from automatic ice makers may break more easily than cubes from an ice tray.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.453401
| 2011-02-14T11:38:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12122",
"authors": [
"APS Dhillon",
"Allison",
"Annette Powell",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Henrik Söderlund",
"Ingmar Hupp",
"Maggie",
"Martha F.",
"Matt",
"Michelle",
"Rasperman",
"Troy Cowan",
"Walter A. Aprile",
"Zac",
"carol warmkessel",
"chrisjlee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24995",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84838",
"user24994",
"vwiggins",
"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/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41054
|
Sticky aluminum half sheet pans - Self cleaning oven - What would happen?
I recently cleaned my broiler pan with great success in my self-cleaning oven. Great. Now I'm looking at my aluminum half-sheet pans. They're sticky, they're discolored, I only have so much elbow grease to spare. I'm soaking the pans now to apply precious elbow grease in the morning, but I just don't want to. What if I ran the self-cleaning cycle again, this time with the cheap aluminum sheet pans? (They are of the "hotel" variety, not the disposable kind) I know they'd get clean, sort of, but would it ruin the pans?
This is pretty close to what I have (or what I used to have before I loaned them out): pans
I once cleaned a really badly baked-on alu pan with a scouring attachment on a dremel. Worked really good.
I'd be mighty cautious about putting aluminum pans in your oven's self-cleaning cycle. It's melting point is 660 degrees C, and although your oven isn't going to reach that it will probably get to the point where they will warp.
Hmmm, I kind of thought that was going to be it. That isn't the answer I was hoping for. Oh well, I'll upvote tomorrow after I decide it's not worth it to try, or after I ruin one pan in the name of science. I haven't decided yet which way I'll go.
If you do decide to try it keep an eye on the oven for any signs of the pan warping. If it starts to warp turn the oven off right away, it's within the realm of possibility that the sheets could melt and ruin your oven, it all depends on how hot your self-cleaning oven gets and the alloys used in the sheets.
I accidentally left a aluminum sheet pan in the oven during the cleaning cycle. It certainly cleaned it up nice and new looking, however, it altered the molecular strength of the aluminum. It made it softer and easy to bend. I decided to throw it away because I was not sure that it was safe anymore to cook food on it.
I have put aluminum baking sheets as well as a toaster oven pans in the oven set to self clean and haven't seen warping or discolorations. All the "gunk" stuck on a pan is made of polymerized oils left over from cooking sprays and food. The oven is burning off all the organic matter and all that is left is a grey dust that is made of minerals like calcium.
The oven door locks during self cleaning to help prevent excess oxygen from entering the oven and risking spontaneous ignition of the organic materials (as well as safety). As long as the door remains shut there shouldn't be any oxidant that can enter and discolor the pan.
I do worry about warping because of the thermal stress that the high temperatures can cause. These pans are designed to be heated and cooled hundreds if not thousands of times in their life-cycle, so running them through a self cleaning oven may shorten the time the pan has before it warps or fails.
Despite this theory, my rule of thumb is to only self clean pans that I would not miss if they became ruined in case I am wrong. Lastly, I would never self clean a pan that has any kind of protective or non-stick coating.
We did this last night with an aluminum sheet pan that was completely covered front and back with burned on black gunk. It came out perfect. Of course, it was this or throw away, but it certainly does not need to be thrown away.
We’ve put the grids from our cooktop and grill and some other stuff that was extremely messed up in a cleaning cycle and everything has come out fine. We’re a bit hesitant to put our stained stainless steel chicken fryer through a cycle, though.
I put my aluminum half sheet pans in my self cleaning oven and they come out shining. I'm considering putting the toaster oven tray to self clean but it's a much lighter aluminum so I'm not sure if that will warp.
I left an aluminum sheet pan in the oven during the cleaning process and it turned brown. Pretty ugly. Now I just leave it in the oven on the bottom rack to catch drips.
Aluminum has a much lower melting temperature than steel or iron. I'd be very worried about exposing it to the high temperatures of a self cleaning cycle.
As a kid, I melted a pie iron in a campfire. As the name implies, most pie irons were made of cast iron - but I had a model that was cast aluminum instead. I've been very wary of exposing aluminum to high temperatures ever since.
Plenty of the existing answers already mentioned the danger of the aluminum melting— what does this answer add?
@Sneftel they talked of warping or discoloring, not outright melting and ruining your oven.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.453730
| 2014-01-11T09:34:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41054",
"authors": [
"Ana Brock",
"GdD",
"Jolenealaska",
"Joshua JP Nesseth",
"Mark Ransom",
"Saiful Islam Raz",
"Sank",
"Sheryl Adams",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95608",
"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
}
|
6391
|
How can I make my risotto less firm?
I've prepared risotto from scratch a handful of times in the last few months. While I've been happy with the flavor, the texture left a little something to be desired.
In specific, it tasted like it was undercooked even though I ended up cooking the rice well past the time called for in the recipe. Any thoughts on what could be causing this?
What type of rice are you using? (Arborio, Carnaroli, ...)
How much are you stirring?
Are you keeping it at a simmer?
Time has nothing to do with cooking risotto -- you cook it 'til it stops absorbing liquid. I don't even cook by amount of liquid added, as it's more a cook-it-until-it's-done type recipe. When the rice stops aborbing liquid well, it's generally done, but an occassional check for texture never hurts.
Type of rice will affect things, as will elevation from sea level, temperature of the cooking vessel, and surface area of the cooking vessel.
See :
Why do I need more time and liquid than my risotto recipe calls for?
How should I prepare Risotto
Altitude could be a problem. Rice will take longer to cook at higher altitudes.
My suggestion is to continue cooking and adding broth until the rice is at the texture you desire. Taste often.
If you want to make the cook time shorter, you can par-boil the rice. Here is a link that explains how that is done.
http://chowhound.chow.com/topics/601758
The biggest mistake I see when people make risotto is they add way too much liquid. If you add too much liquid most of it evaporates than gets absorbed by the grain.
While risotto is a "cook it until it's done" recipe as @Joe stated, there are some "rules":
1/2 cup of stock per session and never stop stirring
At about the 20 minute mark, with Arborio, it should be close to done, I usually start tasting at about the 15-18 minute mark
The right heat, as with most cooking, is paramount to a good outcome, you want a slow and steady simmer on when liquid is the pan
It is time to add more liquid when there is none in the sautee pan
Without more details as type of rice, process, or whether you are strictly adhering to a recipe, it is a bit difficult to give you the best advice.
I would make TWO specific suggestions: FIRST, you MUST toast the rice. I begin with olive oil, where I brown my yellow onions and garlic. As soon as this is complete, I add my SHORT-GRAINED rice (Arborio, Carnarolli) and "toss" the rice well until it is lightly covered. Allow the rice to slightly toast before beginning to add your liquid. SECOND, you MUST warm all your liquid BEFORE you add it a ladle at a time. This prevents the kernels of rice from breaking open. If you use room-temperature or cold liquid, the risotto temporarily stops cooking when you add the liquid, until the mixture can heat back up. LASTLY, an authentic Italian risotto is almost soupy in texture. It is very creamy but not "lumpy" at all. Good luck! Bon Apetit!
Short answer is that you forget about the time in any recipe, more or less. When you get around a minute or so from the intended time you start tasting the risotto for doneness. It should have a bite without being hard. If you run out of cooking liquid and the risotto isn't done, just add more liquid. If you are using stock and you don't want any more flavor from the stock, use water. When you are happy with the mouthfeel, your risotto is done.
If you're not starting by cooking the rice in butter (and otherwise dry), that could be your problem. If you already are . . . try cooking it a bit longer before adding the liquid. This helps get the rice cooking earlier and helps it absorb enough liquid.
Also note that risotto is supposed to keep a bit of an "al dente" feel to it. If you cook it to mush, it's overdone.
Risotto Basics
Risotto is made by heating rice so it absorbs liquid, the absorption rate is key. Stopping cooking shortly before the rice is 'full' of liquid results in al dente risotto - stopping afterwards can result in a more liquid risotto.
Cheap arborio rice is often overdried and will not absorb moisture properly - resulting in a grainy texture regardless of how it's cooked. If you have grainy textures no matter what you do, try switching brands of rice.
The ideal method for introducing liquid to your risotto is to make it 'thirsty', aka on the verge of running out of stock at all points, which results in parts of the risotto frying for periods instead of stewing in the liquid, helping to inculcate flavour. You ladle in liquid as it's nearly gone, from another pot, which is keeping the stock hot (so it doesn't cool down your pan if you put it in cold).
Always fry the rice (in olive oil) before introducing the stock. A light 'browning' will vastly improve the flavour and texture of the rice.
Learn to identify (by taste or sight) the level of absorption of the rice, so you know when to add extra ingredients such as chicken, beef, mushrooms, peas, zucchini, or broccoli, etc. You can pre-cook them separately, but to a certain degree the rice's flavour will depend on what it is cooked with - and it removes flavour from the other ingredients, also.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.454462
| 2010-08-31T01:08:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6391",
"authors": [
"Blackhawk",
"Dominykas Mostauskis",
"Ian Mcneill",
"Jerry Eatmon",
"Michael Natkin",
"Robert Jett",
"Sunny Kumar Aditya",
"charlee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12768",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12771",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12849",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/153223",
"joweiser",
"nicknick119"
],
"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
}
|
67552
|
Can I use coconut oil instead of ghee in curry?
I've run out of ghee and it's hard to get where I am. Will coconut oil be a good substitute when frying off onions and spices?
Coconut oil has a low smoke point (177-204C depending on processing). Ghee has a smoke point of 252C. The effect of this is that it will be quite hard to stop the oil burning.
But that's not to say it would be impossible - softening onions and garlic in butter or olive oil is common, and they have lower smoke points still. But the texture from frying at a lower temperature will be quite different. It may also affect the flavour of your spices.
In addition, the coconut oil will change the character of your curry significantly. That may not be a bad thing.
(all figures from Wikipedia)
Coconut oil is used quite regularly in the southern part of India. It completely replaces ghee or sunflower oil in certain dishes. And as Chris pointed out, it definitely changes the overall flavor of your dish and it may not be a bad thing if it doesn't conflict with the rest of the flavor profile.
As for the original question of frying onions, you surely can but they don't end up very crispy but on caramelization you have a sweet, soft textured onion.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.454916
| 2016-03-19T02:00:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67552",
"authors": [
"Dianne Bass",
"K D",
"Melvin Ross",
"Phil Tomaskovic",
"William L Smith jr",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162206",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162291",
"shawn tiwari"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12013
|
What is the ideal fridge temperature
I notice that in both countries where I lived the fridges are kept at 6 or 7 °C (43-45 °F). When it would be colder, people find their drinks to cold, when served straight out of fridge (especially in winter). Also a lower temperature would cost more energy.
What would be the best temperature for food storage. Would that be even lower? For storing meals, how much time longer would food stay good when the fridge would be colder?
The USDA says refrigeration temperature should be 40°F (4.4°C) or below. If food is in there at a higher temperature (such as the 43-45°F the question mentions), for longer than 2 hours, and they're saying the food isn't safe.
Keep in mind that when too cold, after a while parts of things freeze, which can damage items, or severely diminish their pleasant taste. This especially goes for produce such as lettuce or even tomatoes. If you want to store leftovers longer, consider freezing them.
Edit: corrected to 40°F or below
Actually that link says "40 F or below", which is an important difference. In practice, I'd recommend aiming for around 36 so that you have some headroom, and to allow for variation in different parts of the fridge. That also leaves you a few degrees above freezing so you don't inadvertently ruin anything that way either.
Optimum temperature range for perishable food storage is 3 to 5 °C (37 to 41 °F).
I've noticed that there are differences in temperature inside the fridge. I think the top is a bit more colder than the bottom, I don't really know why. I keep my lettuce and tomatoes in the bottom, otherwise they'll be a bit frozen (like zanlok said).
So things that'll go bad fast (e.g. meat) go in the top.
Another thing (which I learned on House M.D.): don't put your milk in the door. The temperature there is more fluctuating so the milk becomes sour more rapidly than if you'd put it inside the fridge.
I own a temperature gun and tested my fridge the other day, there is a 19°F difference between the top of the top shelf and the bottom of the bottom drawer. Buying a temp gun was one of the best things I ever did, now I can position things in my fridge based on info like this. The good news is, the warmest part of the fridge is at the temperature I set it at (38°F) and the drawer is very very cold (19°F), which explains why some things freeze in it on me.
I should add because I realize I wasn't very clear - the top of my fridge is warmer, the bottom shelf is cooler, and the bottom drawer is the coldest.
In my limited experience with half a dozen configurations for refrigerator/freezer combo units, the area closer to the freezer is colder, and the area furthest is warmer. If you have a side-by-side combo, it may even be one side that's colder, and not much difference in top or bottom.
Ah, that explains why I think the top is colder. Normally, the heat would rise to the top.
Regardless of what target temperature you choose remember that most domestic fridges cannot maintain that temperature reliably over the day and cannot maintain it evenly throughout the fridge. This error is generally improved with a full fridge
The best way is to measure it is with and accurate and calibrated thermometer on the shelf's you wish to store critical stuff, not the temp setting dial built into the fridge
4°C is common as it preserves milk well, but vegetables can suffer this low
It would be great if fridges came with four or five compartments, each with their own temp setting :-)
It also depends on the food items you want to preserve. Meat and especially fish should be cooler and vegetables and fruits a little bit warmer. The 4ºC guideline mentioned is correct. Notice that most fridges are warmer at the top and colder below.
Fish should be close to 0ºC for two reasons. 1. The enzymes of the fish will keep working (even when frozen) and 2. The bacteria of fish will be less affected by lower temperatures. The reason being that fish are cold blooded animals that live in a cold environment.
So, there is no one ideal temp. but a range from 0ºC - 5ºC for food preservation.
On a side note, family of mine have their fridges at higher temperatures so beverages come out warmer than we are used to. So, there again, there is not one ideal temperature but whatever you (and your peers) are used to.
Different countries have different food safety standards. I'm accustomed to 4°C, which is the North American standard. However, in Europe I see that eggs are sold unrefrigerated and cheese is often kept unrefrigerated in people's homes, so I think there's a cultural component to the tolerated level of risk and the expected consumption time frame.
in fact, cheese matures better when not refrigerated and will taste better as a result. That doesn't mean room temperature though, but a cool but not cold place in the fridge (which larger European fridges often provide in a compartment where there's no cooling but is connected through air vents to the cooled area).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.455077
| 2011-02-10T08:50:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12013",
"authors": [
"Alex",
"Arno",
"Michael Natkin",
"Mien",
"Phick",
"Renae Lider",
"Szymon Toda",
"Tat Yee Yuen",
"dualed",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24756",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70606",
"jwenting",
"matt",
"ocean4dream",
"stephennmcdonald",
"user76732",
"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/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3238
|
What distinguishes pork sausage from ground pork?
Let me preface this by saying that I am basically a complete novice when it comes to cooking. So I apologize if this is a silly question.
I sometimes like to cook things using ground pork sausage, but much of the time it's nearly impossible to find in the local grocery stores. However, they always seem to have ground pork, which I've considered using as a substitute. I know it wouldn't cause my kitchen to explode or anything like that ;-) but I'm curious, what's the difference? What exactly am I putting in my food by using the sausage that I'd miss out on if I used regular ground pork?
Nothing wrong with being a novice. Everyone's gotta start somewhere.
Where are you that you have trouble finding this? Any grocery store in Atlanta would have multiple types of sausage, both in and out of casings. Are you looking in the right place in the store? Sausage is sometimes placed a bit weird with respect to meat overall.
I'm in the middle of Pennsylvania. And I completely forgot that they do carry some kind of ground sausage in a plastic wrapper, which I tried once, but it turned out to be highly unsatisfactory.
The recipe should indicate the type of sausage (there are dozens). Every large grocery store in the US will have breakfast and Italian sausage, sometimes in casings that can be removed.
Ground pork is simply that, pork. Pork sausage is ground pork that has been seasoned.
You can substitute, but you'll have to bring your own seasoning.
OK, thanks. Any info on what kinds of seasonings go into the sausage?
All kinds. That is a vast topic. In the USA pepper & sage are prominent. Italian sausage has fennel & red pepper prominent.
@David, there are a few "named varieties" of sausage in the UK, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:English_sausages ... it might give you some inspiration for seasoning combinations :-)
Another substitution that may not be apparent is Chorizo. It is a pretty standard spicy Mexican Sausage. You may have seen it before in the Grocery store and not realized that it is another form of sausage (very good in chili).
Mexican chorizo is a very heavily seasoned, very greasy sausage. I wouldn't generally recommend it as a substitution for "sausage" in a recipe. It may work, but you should be aware that it will significantly alter the flavor profile, and color of the dish you are making.
Typically though, pork sausage has a great deal of fat added compared to standard ground pork.
Pork is the word ascribed to the pig animal as a food product. We don't eat "pig" rather we eat "pork." Sausage is ground meat mixed with herbs and spices in some manner of form. Sausage can be made from any meat, it isn't limited to pork.
As you've found, loose ground sausage isn't always available.
If the meat department has fresh sausage, you can buy them, cut the casing and remove the sausage.
Our local, sweet pork sausage: pork, water, salt, pepper, coriander. By reading the label, I can tell what the difference is in this particular package.
Here in the UK you can buy sausage meat from butchers. It typically has added ingredients (rusk, fat etc.) which give it that 'sausageyness' when cooked. Regular ground (minced in the UK) pork is just the minced meat.
in your grocery check by the lunchmeat, etc and you will see the bob evans packages for sure. there will be several different brands of sausage in tubes, use these just like you would bulk from the meat counter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.455528
| 2010-07-26T01:48:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3238",
"authors": [
"BCLC",
"Brizio",
"Daniel Bingham",
"David Brown",
"David Z",
"Gigazelle",
"Jolenealaska",
"Jose Ortiz",
"Klikerko",
"Rob",
"Tania ",
"Veatch",
"Zei",
"barlop",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/438",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5172",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5864",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5872",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"jennie",
"markh",
"mfg",
"rivy",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1890
|
How to get sprinkles to stick to the side of a cake?
I need to prepare a cake, but in my previous attempts, I can't seem to get the chocolate sprinkles to stick to the sides of my cake. The cake will have a layer of icing as a base for the sprinkles, but I keep getting the cake squished or the sides lacking in topping. Ideally, I want the entire cake to be covered in sprinkles of the same density as the top of the cake.
Help :(
This is a little hard to do without making an epic mess.
First, lay out a big piece of parchment or wax paper to catch the sprinkles that you are about to throw everywhere.
Place your cake on it's platter over the parchment paper and tilt it so that you can apply sprinkles to the uppermost side. Don't tilt it so far that it slides off! Apply the sprinkles with your free hand, pressing them gently into the frosting (some suggest wearing a glove, I don't). Turn, and repeat. Periodically collect all your sprinkles from the parchment paper.
Mmm... periodical sprinkles...
Put them in your palm and blow, facing the cake.
I prefer not to spray saliva all over my cakes :P.
I've never tried doing it, but from my experience with getting flowers to stick with cakes, I'd say that part of the trick is the right consistency of icing, and working fast enough before the icing starts to set up.
I'd probably apply the icing in three stages -- a crumb coat, let it set up, then a medium thickness icing so the cake doesn't show through, let it set up, then a quick thin coat of icing for the glue for the sprinkles. This way, you've already got the cake coated in icing, and aren't wasting time trying to make sure you have proper coverage, and it's not soft and think, making it so the whole side is trying to drip down.
For the actual application of the sprinkles, I'd work over a sheet pan to catch the amount that's going to fall off, and then take a handful and just try to pack it onto the side until it doesn't seem to be taking anymore, regularly collecting up the fallen sprinkles to re-apply. Once I did the sides, I'd dump the rest of the sprinkles over the top, pack it on like the sides, and then shake (or brush?) off the loose ones that didn't stick.
update Just saw @hobodave's answer (why I didn't get the 'new answer' message, I have no clue) ... the parchment paper is a great idea for collecting the unstuck sprinkles to reapply ... I'd still set it in a sheet pan, to keep them from rolling off the side.
Using wax paper sprinkle it with sprinkles, frost only the edge of the 1st layer, gently pick up the layer (I wear gloves), hold it by the top and bottom and roll it over the sprinkles like a wheel, place it on your cake plate, and now you can frost the top of the 1st layer which will be the middle. Repeat for the 2nd layer, using clean wax paper set-up of sprinkles, now place the 2nd layer on top of the 1st, if using filling pump it in and frost the top that 2nd layer, and then sprinkle th he top of your cake. I've done this many times and have always been successful. Have fun with it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.455875
| 2010-07-19T01:21:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1890",
"authors": [
"Adam Shiemke",
"Alexander Pogrebnyak",
"Brian David Berman",
"Brian Flynn",
"Fitri",
"Fork",
"Ralph Kofski",
"Swarnendu Biswas",
"glasnt",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3425",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/624",
"javamonkey79"
],
"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
}
|
11361
|
Preventing white sugar from clumping in the canister
We store sugar in a ceramic canister, and we get some clumping. Restaurants in humid areas that will often add grains of a rice to a salt shaker to stop clumping. (The rice acts as a desiccant and absorbs moisture, keeping it away from the salt; I believe the salt also acts as a preservative for the rice.) Is there an equivalent common household item that will keep moisture away from the sugar, or is getting a better canister really the only way?
This appears to be pretty similar to this question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3935/how-to-store-brown-sugar-without-it-becoming-hard and to this one: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11648/how-can-i-store-muscovado-for-longer-once-opened/11649#11649
My mistake ... I just realised that you are probably referring to white sugar.
You can still add rice, just wrap it in some cheesecloth first, so it doesn't get mixed with your sugar.
The reason I'm uncomfortable with this is that, in a salt shaker with rice, I've heard the salt keeps microorganisms from growing in the rice. I suspect that sugar wouldn't inhibit growth.
@neil: It absolutely will. The mechanism is the same: no water, no growth. Sugar is wildly hygroscopic, and has long been used to preserve fruits and meats (e.g. fruit jelly, and sugar cured ham). Now sugar in a solution, not so much. If you open your canister of sugar and it's mostly liquid...I'd discard it.
Saltine cracker,eh?
Isn't that what grandma used? Just change it out occasionally.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice! Thanks for helping out with an answer. We're not a chat site, though, so it would be better if you cleaned up your answer to be less chatty and provided some sources to support your answer. Thanks!
Seems fine to me. It's clear what the answer means; I don't think we need to police style that carefully. I also don't think this kind of answer really needs external sources - note that most other answers don't have any, including the top one.
I use a specialty ceramic stone to keep my brown sugar from clumping.
I found this product page http://www.cooksquarters.com/19386341.htm that has a pretty thorough description of a "Sugar Saver" that can be soaked to keep sugar moist, or dried in an oven to keep spices dry. Depending on what your sugar needs, you can probably use something like this.
Would this also work with white sugar? The product seems to be specifically for brown sugar.
A sugar saver would be a Bad Idea (TM) in white sugar. The way these work is adding moisture, which is good for keeping brown sugar from getting rock-hard, but which is specifically what you want to avoid in white sugar.
The instructions on that particular product also indicate it can be dried out. @Marti, Wouldn't a dried stone accomplish the task of keeping the sugar dry?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.456271
| 2011-01-22T21:30:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11361",
"authors": [
"Allison",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Elaine Connell",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"Marti",
"Peach",
"Sarah Clark",
"Satanicpuppy",
"cassie heaps",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149343",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24919",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"rene",
"taryn",
"vnss"
],
"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
}
|
11984
|
Are there guidelines for choosing bread for a sandwich?
I'm trying to figure out if there's a sort of "etiquette" to it, like there is with wine.
Obviously, some sandwiches just "go" with a certain bread, like cream cheese and salmon on a bagel. I'm trying to understand the link between the filling and the "right" bread.
To some extent, this is a question to which the answers are necessarily quite subjective. However, as a general guideline, I would suggest that you look at the bread as just another ingredient in the dish -- not as somehow distinct from the filling choices. Like any other ingredient pairing, you can evaluate the characteristics and choose things to complement each other. So if you pick your bread first, evaluate if it's rich or mild, savoury or sweet, dense or light, crusty or soft, thin or thick, etc, and then choose fillings to complement those properties.
For your fillings, there's not only the flavour pairing of the filling and the bread to consider, but also the texture/properties of the filling. A dry filling might not be as pleasant on a dense bread because the texture would be too much the same. Similarly, a saucy filling needs an appropriate bread selection to contain it and make it easy to eat.
Many pairings that are considered standard will just taste "good" to us because of tradition and familiarity, but originally, someone probably put them together for a reason. That doesn't mean it's not worth trying something different, though. With the globalization of cuisine, we have many more filling/bread choices available and you might find a new favourite by pairing a bread from one culture with a filling from another, based on their complementary qualities.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.456531
| 2011-02-09T15:53:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11984",
"authors": [
"Dan S",
"Katherine",
"Seanny123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24678",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24681"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24578
|
What would be a good substitute for coconut milk in curry sauces?
Specifically, if I work from a started paste that require adding coconut milk, what would be a good substitute?
What type of curry is it? If you add more details about the recipe, it would help..
And why are you sustituting?
Half and half or heavy cream is a pretty good substitute. It has similar fat/water suspension, reduces and thickens similarly, and emulsifies similarly. You lose the coconut flavor, but it cooks similarly and you keep the texture.
You cannot substitute coconut cream, because it is too rich, which changes the texture of the sauce greatly, and doesn't do as good a job of getting flavors out of spices.
Incidentally, I highly suggest you pick up a box of instant coconut milk powder. It's not as good as the canned stuff (needs whisking), but because it's nonperishable you don't have to use the whole container at a time. This helps avoid the "oh crap, used the last can!" moments you get with canned coconut milk.
I don't think there can be a substitute! Cream is relatively flavourless and if the reason for the substitution is avoiding saturated fat, cream would be even worse (than coconut milk.)
@Doug: Generally the reason you substitute is hitting the moment where you're like "oh crap, forgot to get some at the store." It does come out somewhat bland if you use cream, but if it's all you have on hand, at least the sauce will get the right consistency, and you'll still get the flavors from the spices.
Coconut cream is mostly just a crapton of emulsifiers... I'll bet you could concoct a reasonable substitute with the right gums and other additives.
In North Indian cuisine, oftentimes, cashew or almond paste is used in place of coconuts for lack of availability of the latter.
You could soak up some cashew (depending on how thick you want the curry to be) in a bowl of warm water until they get a little softer. Use a food processor to grind it into a fine paste.
The other substitute could be tomato puree/pulp.
For mouth-feel minus the calories, I make a puree of sauteed onions.
It is an old restaurant trick. The onions can be browned or not as preferred but completely soft before blending a minute or more. Freezes well.
For flavor and a load of calories, a bit of cashew cream adds wonderful richness. Careful not to boil, though.
Onions break lots of emulsifications though, you have to be careful.
Try adding fresh milk or skimmed milk as substitute... It really works. I personally tried many other ingredients to replace the coconut milk while making Malaysian curry... Milk works the best for me.
Milk is a great substitute, or you could incorporate milk with one of the nut milks for a thicker fuller flavour.
I was making a Thai green curry dish and I too found myself without any coconut milk, and didn't have any of the products recommended in this thread (no heavy cream, almonds, cashew, etc.). I ended up using 2% milk + 1 Tsp of butter, as that was all I had, while it obviously lacked the coconut flavor, it was quite good though the overall dish was spicier than usual (I guess I should have added some honey or sugar to soften the heat).
I was making a vegetable curry and my coconut milk had gone bad, so I came to this sight for a substitute. I didn't have any of the items suggested in the other responses. Then the answer came to me: Silken Tofu. Blend in a food processor with veggie broth, red curry paste, some Masala seasoning, and salt. I poured it over a combo of cauliflower, butternut squash, and potatoes. Really good. I'm not a big fan of coconut flavor, so I didn't miss that element, but perhaps you could use coconut water in place of some of the broth.
pure coconut water is a common drink nowadays even in convenience stores. I'm going to try mixing that with some half and half, some shredded coconut for baking, and maybe a little sugar.I think I'll try to reduce it down a little on the stove. Let you know if it works.
Okay, acceptable substitute I guess, shred coconut adds texture, but a lot more work than opening a can. If it wasn't 30 mi. round trip to Fry's, probably go buy can.
Thank you for actually coming back and posting the results, many users don't follow up on such promises
I was half way through making Thai Chicken when I realized I was out of coconut milk. Instead of going to the store at 5am, I whipped some full fat plain sour cream together for a creamy sauce. I then used coconut oil to sauté my chicken and veggies to get that coconut flavour into the recipe. Worked amazingly!
I had no coconut milk, so instead I used 1% low fat milk and honey, and I have to say the result was a surprisingly great tasting curry.
Here's the rest of the ingredients I used:
1 can of garbanzo beans
Veggie oil and coconut oil
1 onion
1 garlic clove
Approx. 1 tsp of coriander
About 2 tsp of curry powder
A dash of garlic salt.
2 fresh green spicy peppers(choose your style of cut)
A dash of paprika
Enough milk to give me that curry consistency
About 2-3 tsp of tomato paste, yes, regular tomato paste
Honey (I didn't measure the amount of honey I used; I gradually added it as I saw fit. I might have used around 1/4 cup maybe, maybe). I really think that the honey was the finishing touch that blended everything so well.
Directions:
Heat up pan with oil and saute the onion and add the garlic. Add can of drained garbanzo beans until they're about fried (up to you.) Add 2 green spicy peppers and coriander. Add tomato paste and stir; add your amount of milk and stir. Add dash of paprika, curry powder, and lots of honey. I also add coconut spray oil somewhere in between here, and more coriander or anything else as you see fit. Enjoy!!!
First of all, "curry" is a very broad term. Not sure what you mean by "curry sauces" but some specificity here would help get a better answer. A lot of Thai-style curries do not even use coconut milk, they use broth or stock for a less viscous (soupy) consistency. I actually prefer my curries like this, especially for lunch, it makes for a much lighter meal (less saturated fat is always good) and less of a "curry hangover".
I just had the problem of needing coconut milk to mix in with my Thai Kitchen red paste curry. I tried a substitute and it was terrific, taste and texture. I was experimenting so...
Poured some Blue Diamond nonsweetened vanilla almond milk (all I had) into wok. Added paste. Added a little almond meal to try and thicken it. Added zucchini and mushrooms. Simmered. Remembered I actually had coconut meal so I sprinkled a little of that in. It thickened right a way--too much in fact. Added more almond milk. Got a nice creamy consistency. Added a little coconut oil to make sure I had coconut flavor. Added my handy bag of Trader Joe's brown rice. Added salt and pepper. Terrific!
I just made a peanut sauce. The base is coconut milk, which I didn't have, but I do have some pure coconut oil. So that and some 2% milk. It worked amazing. Just as good as coconut milk.
How much coconut oil to how much 2% milk?
I've tried greek yogurt with success. Not as fragrant, but texture is close.
1.Fresh milk can be used as substitute.Add almond and peanut paste to fresh milk and a spoon of coconut oil.This works very well.
2.Coconut milk powder available in the market is a choice or you can dry coconut in sunlight and store for a long time and grate it by adding water
3.If it is for the purpose of thickening you can use corn flour as a substitute
coconut essence in milk-----cannot tell the difference!
What is "coconut essence?"
I think coconut flavouring (like you have vanilla essence as well).
Glycerine*, Natural Coconut Flavour, Water.
There is also Imitation Coconut Extract...
http://www.amazon.com/Imitation-Coconut-Extract-2-oz/dp/B003AC5Q04
I can't find what is in it... and maybe I don't want to.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.456744
| 2012-06-20T00:16:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24578",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Adrian Hum",
"BobMcGee",
"Dharini Chandrasekaran",
"Doug",
"Escoce",
"Evandro",
"FOODIE DUDIE",
"FiorLou",
"Flotolk",
"FuzzyChef",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mien",
"Penelope Corcuera",
"Rumbles",
"Theresa Tan",
"Ukko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110371",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37369",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9262",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95912",
"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
}
|
86688
|
Is there an upper time limit when simmering stock?
I'm making veal stock that's later going to be reduced to a glace viande.
In the past, I was always close enough to observe the process and strain the stock when done. I also realize that an hour or two and even longer isn't an issue when making stock.
But today I will be away for most of the day and my stock pot will remain unattended on the lowest possible heat on the stove. I don't expect any problems from this procedure. But it prompted a question:
How long could a pot of bone stock be simmered?
Is there an upper threshold when unwanted substances are extracted from the bones? When the flavour profile does not get "better" but starts to deteriorate?
Clarification:
I am not talking about cooking a day or two, I know that this is typically no problem. And yes, if necessary I could add water to counter evaporation. For this question, you may assume "no time limit".
I am familiar with the concept of perpetual stew. But for a perpetual stew, parts of the stock are removed and new ingredients added. I'm asking explicitly about one unchanged stock: a pot of bones in water, optionally some spices and mirepoix.
I'm fairly certain that I've seen evidence that there is a maximum time, and that the gelatin you want actually starts breaking down at some point. I will try to dig that up, assuming I'm remembering correctly.
It might be helpful if you could describe the actual goal you have in mind. Are you trying to maximize flavor extraction from the bones? Are you trying to get as much gelatin as possible? Are you just trying an experiment? What's the reason for wanting to run a stock pot for a very long time without replenishing the flavoring ingredients?
You could implement a perpetual stock, where you keep it simmering indefinitely and renew it by adding fresh ingredients over time. The tradition of keeping a perpetual stew boiling for weeks or even months dates back centuries, and was a way to keep the ingredients from going bad in days before refrigeration.
https://alehorn.com/2016/01/07/is-medieval-perpetual-stew-for-you/
If you just want to simmer a single pot of stock indefinitely, you can do that safely by adding water on a regular basis in small quantities (small enough that the stock temperature does not drop below 140 degrees) but if you're not using some and replacing the ingredients, over time (several days) the stock will eventually acquire a sort of acrid taste (speaking from personal experience.)
I think the issue is that there's a limited amount of the aromatic compounds which produce the desired flavor, and over time, these tend to evaporate. Replenishing water doesn't replenish the flavor. The smell of stock simmering means those aromatic compounds are now in the air and no longer in the pot. Eventually, the amount of nice flavoring compounds leaving the broth to the air exceeds what you can extract from the remaining bones etc. Oxidation of the remnants leads to a less pleasant flavor. There is also the question of the pot itself adding metallic flavors if the stock is at all acidic.
The last sentence at least partly answers my question. Sorry if the initial question was somewhat unclear re. perpetual stock.
Added a bit more info. I couldn't find any citations to support my claims, but I'm sure they are out there. Will try to add more .
A book I used to have (called simply soup) said the best stock they ever made in their restaurant was when they left a pot simmering for two days unexpectedly.
Making stock in a slow cooker is typically done for a minimum of 12 hours on high, and I often leave it longer so the cooling down takes place at convenient time. For dark stocks (as I usually make) the flavour doesn't deteriorate. Lighter stocks may well darken.
The limit is really evaporation - however well the pot is covered, if the stock is simmering or even soaking at a lower (but still safe) temperature this will be significant. To some extent it doesn't matter, but want the ingredients to be mostly covered, and you certainly don't want it boiling dry.
I find when making a chicken stock w/ wings, a drumstick and spine/backbone/trim, there's really no point in going over 4 or 5 hours. Add mirepoix in the final hour, and it should have enough flavor. I find that simmering the bones and onion and various veggies for 6-8 hours seems to dull the flavors.
If you want to strengthen the flavors, you should just Reduce the stock.
But if you're going for some kind of Mythical Ancient Village style stock, you could keep it going for days and days and days, topping it off with water. I could see this working better if you actually replaced the boiled-off simmering ingredients with fresh ones to fortify the stock.
I've made all my own stocks for forty years and finally found I got the best results from making them in a pressure cooker in an hour or less after first roasting the bones and vegetables in the oven.
Thanks for your contribution. I absolutely know how to use a pressure cooker and my question is not about making stock per se, but about cooking much longer than necessary.
Sorry to have wasted your time, I refer to flavor, not cooking off all the aromatics which prolonged cooking does.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.457358
| 2017-12-25T17:00:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/86688",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"barbecue",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"jscs",
"user23186"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
112903
|
What is the rate of deterioration of lycopene in an open can of tomatoes?
Once I open canned tomatoes and transfer it to a glass jar, what is the rate of deterioration of their lycopene content?
yes, there are such sites - we don't take this kind of question because there are thousands of foods out there and the answer is the same for all of them.
Your edit makes this question different from the suggested duplicate, but unfortunately we do not answer questions about nutrient composition (or how it changes over time).
Hi musiclvr56, we actually do answer questions about nutrient composition, in the very narrow case if you can tell us an exact nutrient you are interested in (this is a rare exception which Erica may have forgotten before commenting). This means we cannot extend the question to multiple unnamed nutrients, or to a general statement like "after X days, it stops being healthy", since this is absolutely undefinable. I can edit and reopen - I know that it might be so narrowed down as for the answers to be useless for you, but it is all we can take on our site.
I did a quick literature search, and I can't find a study that measures lycopene degredation after a can or jar is opened. There's lots about loss or gain during processing, but nobody seems to care about the jar once it's opened.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.457763
| 2020-11-30T13:58:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/112903",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"FuzzyChef",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128113
|
What is this vegetable?
I don’t know this food. Can you help identify it?
Hi Dini, we only do "how do I use it" for things that are very rarely used as food. For anything else, it's better to use a recipe database than asking our users to make random suggestions. So I reduced your question to the part "what is it", which is within our scope.
And to all our other users: please don't add answers (or partial answers) in comments. Even if it feels like it's "too easy" to be a real answer - sometimes there are easy questions and that's OK.
Its good deep fried, or you can split it along the side and microwave it. It tends to be gooey undercooked
That looks like okra pods (also called ladyfingers) to me. Check the inside, to be sure.
Not to be confused with the type of ladyfingers used in desserts.
I agree that it's almost certainly okra. But check the inside for what, please?
Check the inside if it looks like okra (compare it to the picture in the linked wikipedia article). To rule out the small chance, that it might be something else but okra.
This is okra, you can use it to cook gumbo or make fried okra.
This doesn't seem to add anything useful to the already existing, accepted answer.
It's lady's fingers, or just ocra/okra. Here you find more about this plant. Don't boil it too long, because it loses all the nutrients.
I've never seen the spelling "ocra" - to me that's an acronym for "Optical Character Recognition Algorithm", but maybe that's just domain-specific.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.457920
| 2024-04-18T02:56:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128113",
"authors": [
"Amazon Dies In Darkness",
"Dan Mašek",
"Darrel Hoffman",
"Journeyman Geek",
"Silent-Bob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1790",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78581",
"mbomb007",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102561
|
Will adding whole wheat flour make cookies as chewy as using high gluten flour?
I don't have bread flour or gluten and I want to bake choco chip cookies with a chewy texture and hard crust outside as well as inside.
Can I use plain flour and add some whole wheat flour to it to get that chewy texture I am looking for?
Instead of adding gluten, you can develop the gluten that's already there more: more kneading/mixing/processing. I'm not sure that would give you the texture you want though.
Hi Aishwar Singh, we already have an old question on making chewy cookies in general, https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1. I changed your title to be specifically only about the effects of using whole wheat flour, else it would have been a duplicate, and our site closes duplicate questions.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.458091
| 2019-09-26T16:27:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102561",
"authors": [
"Galastel supports GoFundMonica",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65818",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117528
|
How can buttermilk marinade for raw chicken be used afterwards?
Other questions here ask about reusing chicken marinade. My question is not about reuse for a second batch but about options for using the leftover marinade immediately for another cooking purpose.
I've read comments elsewhere that this cannot be done due to food safety. However, these comments seem to reflect gut feelings and are not scientifically grounded. Sufficient heat kills bacteria in the leftover buttermilk just as it does in the chicken that is to be cooked. But if you think otherwise, please reference science in your answer.
I don't know about buttermilk marinade.
You can reuse marinade used for meat if you cook/boil it enough to kill bacterias.
https://www.thespruceeats.com/making-marinades-safe-331649
"The most effective way to kill the germs and make the marinade safe to eat is to boil it. This is an approved suggestion according to the USDA's food safety guidelines."
https://ask.usda.gov/s/article/Can-you-reuse-meat-marinade
"If some of the marinade is to be used as a sauce on the cooked food, reserve a portion of the marinade before putting raw meat or poultry in it. However, if the marinade used on raw meat or poultry is to be reused, make sure to let it come to a boil first to destroy any harmful bacteria."
If you need to wash your hands everytime you touch raw chicken I don't see how using a sauce that has touched raw chicken for hours again is a good idea. I don't know why the marinade is not just used in the cooking process as well.
@NeilMeyer you can't bring your hands to a boil ;)
I would suggest, for buttermilk specifically, to make it into a cheese sauce by reducing down the marinade a bit to kill the bacteria and then add some grated cheese.
Welcome! Answering „old“ questions is perfectly fine, no need to explain. That’s why we usually take out all non-answer parts, trying to keep the content concise and clear.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.458192
| 2021-10-16T14:58:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117528",
"authors": [
"Esther",
"Neil Meyer",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54783
|
Can I refreeze gravlax made from previously frozen salmon
Can I refreeze gravlax made from previously frozen salmon?
Yes, it's even recommended to use salmon that has been frozen for at least 24 hours to make gravadlax as a precaution against parasites, since the salmon isn't cooked. (Of course I'm assuming that you want some right away!)
Prepared gravadlax freezes very well. As Jenna says, wrap it individually in cling wrap, and freeze for up to a couple of months for best quality. Refrigerate it for a few hours to thaw before serving.
Yes it will freeze fine, just make sure you wrap each slice or piece individually.
I made the mistake of not wrapping each slice individually once. It was still delicious, but more like shredded gravlax than slices.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.458471
| 2015-02-15T19:48:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54783",
"authors": [
"Gerwyn Williams",
"Jan Hill",
"Laura Cruz Lopez",
"Megan Swart",
"Naomi Nay28 Pawsey",
"Paul Tassinari",
"Spammer",
"Stewart Connor",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129061",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/129062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31313",
"ninjaZkoolboy Holk",
"tab lpn",
"user141592"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40852
|
Can you freeze egg noodle pasta?
I recently made fresh egg noodle pasta. I made too much! Can I freeze it? I have tried freezing other kinds of pasta but am skeptical of freezing egg noodle pasta. What should I do?
But when you freeze it for too long it may get freeze burns and that's bad.
Yes, you can freeze it. Per Eat By Date, it should last 6-8 months when frozen.
The eggs don't really change the ability to freeze it. For example, you can also freeze raw cookie dough containing eggs.
You might want to divide whatever is leftover into individual portions prior to freezing so that you don't have to thaw the whole thing unless you want to.
I'd like to add one more point. Yes, you can freeze homemade egg pasta and it does very well. Furthermore, you can add the still frozen pasta to boiling water to cook it. It does so beautifully that way that there is no discernible difference between "just made" pasta and pasta that has been frozen. No need to defrost, just add the frozen pasta to the boiling water.
I suggest that you freeze uncooked noodles because cooked noodles are nasty when you try to thaw and cook again. You can also freeze balls of the dough and then take it out and thaw about an hour before using it to make "fresh" noodles as needed!
I cut them as thin as I can. I use a straight edge.
Cut them as narrow as you want. Then lay the pasta out on a large cutting board. Use big floor fan that turns back and forth. In about an hour, vacuum seal them.
I just dump them in boiling broth frozen, they fall right apart in about ten minutes.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.458597
| 2014-01-04T22:02:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40852",
"authors": [
"Al Maki",
"August Janse",
"Dean",
"Didgeridrew",
"Janine Snow",
"Matthew Pisani",
"Puneet Mulchandani",
"alexgbelov",
"eyewell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54199",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95132",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95156",
"paul peters",
"user3528438"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54940
|
How do I carve a 2D Betty Boop cake?
Help! This is my first 2D carved cake and I am very frustrated. Do I need to have the cake stacked and dirty iced or dry stacked to carve?
I know to freeze the cake but I hate to make all that buttercream icing and blue berry filling just to carve it away. It's a Betty Boop. What should I do?
Take a lesson from these quick videos (3 parts). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uR_FfD2XZno, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkhS8GoKKe4, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr1xfVeUGeo. After that, come back here with specific questions, and we'll be able to be of more help. This is the book she refers to in the videos: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0316702056?tag=cakedarla-20.
Hi Pam. Welcome to Seasoned Advice! I proposed an edit to tidy up your question a bit. Are you following a specific recipe/decorating procedure? It would be very helpful if you could edit your original post and include that information. It may help us have a better idea of what you're trying to accomplish.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.458778
| 2015-02-19T18:23:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54940",
"authors": [
"Andrew Almaraz",
"Barbara Goss",
"Dean Lalach",
"Jane Hanvy",
"Jolenealaska",
"Preston",
"christina torres",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130453",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44391
|
Why does my coconut sauce lack a strong coconut taste?
Why doesn't my coconut sauce have a strong coconut flavor similar to what is served in Thai restaurants? Do they use real coconut or coconut essence or coconut oil? I use a can of coconut.
By "a can of coconut", do you mean unsweetened coconut milk? Without getting into extracts or essences, unsweetened coconut milk is about as strongly flavored of coconut as anything you'll be able to find. Unsweetened coconut milk is the basis for the coconut flavor in every sauce recipe I could find in ten minutes of looking.
A recipe would be very helpful. Could you share with us the ingredients for your sauce?
It has been my experience that the flavour of coconut dissipates if you boil the dish at all, and is more or less altogether gone after about forty-five minutes to an hour. If you want a clear flavour, you should add the coconut milk as late as possible in the cooking.
Sorry, but yes, I did mean unsweetened cocount milk. I ocassionally make different kinds of sauces, so there is no particular recipe that I have in mind. I went to a Thai restaurant recently and had coconut-curried veggie stir fry, and the coconut was difinitely stronger tasting that what I have made. This is not the first time that I have noticed that my coconut flavor is weak as compared to eating out.
Canned coconut milk is the base of the majority of savory coconut sauces, Thai or otherwise. It tastes of coconut, but it isn't strongly flavored. If your coconut milk separates (some do, some don't; added emulsifiers inhibit this separation) the thicker layer that rises to the top is coconut cream. Basically coconut cream is coconut milk with less water and more fat. The cream is somewhat more intensely flavored of coconut than the milk, but alone it may be too thick for a lot of sauces.
Coconut milk is made by cooking the meat of the coconut (usually in water, sometimes in dairy milk) and then straining the coconut meat. It is not coconut water, coconut water is the juice that flows out of a just cracked coconut.
Do not confuse coconut milk or coconut cream with cream of coconut, which is usually sweetened. That ingredient is often called for in desserts, but not for savory cooking. Think Pina Coladas. This is a source of some confusion as different countries use different terminologies. Wiki certainly is not the best possible source, but if the language I am using here differs from your understanding of the terms, read this from wiki. Those are the definitions I am using in this answer.
The quality of canned coconut milk varies. It also is available in a "light" formulation, which tastes less strongly of coconut than non-light versions.
One traditional method seen especially in Thai cooking involves "cracking" the cream. Choose a non-light canned coconut milk without added emulsifiers (check the label). Refrigerating the can overnight can sometimes help separate the cream, figure about the top third of the settled contents of the can. Simmer that cream on the stove until the oil separates, it may take as long as ten minutes. The oil separation is the "cracking". Now you can fry the spices of the sauce (curry paste especially) in the oil (no need to remove the non-oil solids). Add the rest of the can of milk and simmer for a while to reduce the sauce to your desired thickness. Some meat can be cooked in the sauce, vegetables are usually par-cooked separately.
[EDIT: This video shows Cracking Coconut Cream at 2:20 ---
This video shows an alternative, for those that have difficultly getting their cream to separate at 4:10]
Beyond that, to get more coconut flavor you can add coconut powder (which is dried coconut milk) or coconut extract (here's a fun recipe from Alton Brown) but neither of those additions would be traditional.
I've never heard of cream of coconut, but I have used creamed coconut before, which is not sweetened. It is a solid block of coconut meat and very coconutty.http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creamed_coconut
@ElendilTheTall That is almost unheard of here. Side by side in a sauce, I bet it would be similar in intesity to coconut powder. The different names for coconut products get confusing, especially across international borders.
It's an imported product here for sure, found in Asian supermarkets and occasionally in regular supermarkets.
"Cream of coconut" is actually the same thing as Coconut Cream. They are both the same product which is full of emulsifiers and sugars and used in desserts and drinks. As @ElendilTheTall says, there is a different product called "creamed coconut" which is the dehydrated meat. But I wouldn't refer to the thick part of the milk as coconut cream, unless you want to confuse people; that's still definitely coconut milk.
@Aaronut Look here and here and here. Our different terminologies are an example of different word choices across borders, but I'm certain that Thai chefs generally refer to the more solid milk that rises to the top of the can as cream. That's why I tried to make it clear in the answer. The "creamed coconut" that Elindil mentions is not what is used in Thai curries.
@Aaronut http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19456/how-do-i-prevent-coconut-milk-from-separating-in-thai-curry/39683#39683 This answer too.
@Aaronut Last ones: Coconut milk information from a native of Thailand and expert in Thai cuisine. Also ATK calls it "coconut cream" too. Their description of "Cracking the Cream": "1. Skim solid layer of cream from can of coconut milk to yield roughly 3/4 cup. 2. Simmer cream in large saucepan over medium heat, stirring constantly, until cream is texture of yogurt and sizzles at edges, 7 to 12 minutes."
That's all well and good, I'm sure, but it's nowhere near a universal term. I even took a picture of a can of "coconut cream" in my coconut ganache Q&A, bought from a T&T - an Asian food store. You can see that it's definitely not the creamy part of coconut milk, it's an entirely separate product.
@Aaronut Funny I read those great answers yesterday. I know that the terms are not universal, that's why I made a point of explaining the terms I was using. I added further clarification in the text of the answer, but beyond that I don't know what more I can do.
Thanks for your suggestion of removing the cocount cream from the coconut milk. I just picked up a can today and will try it this week. I went to a Thai restaurant recently and had coconut-curried veggie stir fry, along side coconut white rice, and the coconut was difinitely stronger tasting that what I have made. This is not the first time that I have noticed that my coconut flavor is weak as compared to eating out. I've always wondered why my cocount flavor is not as strong.
Assuming they do it the traditional way (or the same way the Indians and Sri Lankans do) - they almost certainly squeeze it fresh.
Basically you want the dehusked "older" coconuts not the green ones, or grated (not dried) coconut. Add a tiny bit of water, blend it, and squeeze (by hand). This is the good stuff - and what you'd either add at the end (if you don't want it split), or heat up to split out the oil.
You can actually extract a second run with more water, for things that don't need the higher creaminess factor or when you don't need to seperate out the oil
We do occasionally use coconut cream - and as I understand it, its supposed to be the meat of green coconuts just blended . I'm unsure if these will separate into oil if we heat it.
The brand we tend to use (sparingly, since its pretty thick) -kara tends to list young coconut extract and stabilizer. If you can get it, it works well, but in smaller quantities than actual coconut milk.
I'd also (from entirely cultural bias!) suggest adding the coconut milk at the end, after taking it out of the heat, unless you need it to seperate. 'Heated' coconut milk has a very different flavour, especially if the fat separates.
Interestingly I've never heard of coconut cream being a product that floats to the top of coconut milk until today, and the extraction methods in Joelene's answers are significantly different from mine, and one way of doing things may work better in specific situations than others.
Omg I have the same problem. I don’t eat a lot of dairy so I use coconut cream for everything and by coconut cream I mean the thick white stuff you scoop off the top of a can of coconut milk. If you haven’t tried just using the thick fatty part maybe try that. What you do is refrigerate a can overnight in the coldest part of your fridge and then when you go to open the can you flip it upside down and drain the watery liquid off the top and at the bottom should be a thick white cream. If you can’t open the can from the bottom then just scoop the white part off the top trying not yo mix the 2. Thai kitchen is my favorite brand I buy the straight up coconut cream with the purple label bc it has more fat. For me that still doesn’t taste coconutty even eating it straight as coco whip. For me the only way to add a coconut taste is to use extra virgin coconut oil. That stuff tastes about as coconutty as it gets aside from using coconut extract which I just bought and am going to try for coconut ice cream bars. Good luck!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.458937
| 2014-05-25T02:54:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44391",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"CORNER SIGHTS",
"EICR Certificate London spam",
"ElendilTheTall",
"John W",
"Jolenealaska",
"MarkI",
"Pamela Ward",
"Preston",
"Sana",
"Spammer",
"Steve",
"donna",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104328",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104379",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104380",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104398",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"iklandewa",
"ppk007",
"razumny",
"spammer"
],
"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
}
|
44641
|
Is soy milk in America similar to the type in East Asia?
Finding soy milk in the States isn't very difficult - it's generally stocked in supermarkets and used as an alternative to dairy. However, I'm not sure if the flavour of typical American soy milk (even the "unsweetened" variety) is sufficiently similar in taste to the soy milk I've had in East Asia.
As an example - in Hong Kong, if I remember correctly, Vitasoy sells unsweetened soy milk with the ingredients listed as:
Water, soy beans
Comparatively, the Silk brand that sells non-dairy alternatives lists additional ingredients on their soy milk (even the "original" variety or the "unsweetened" one), such as additional vitamins and sea salt.
Is the soy milk commonly sold in supermarkets in the US (outside of places such as Asian supermarkets) similar in taste to the type found in East Asia? I've heard that there might be some differences, but I don't have enough "experience" with this to judge if those accounts are correct.
I would think any flavour differences would be minimal. What are you planning on using it for?
@ElendilTheTall: I am just interested in drinking soy milk.
Most of the popular soy milk in the US is sweetened, thickened and flavored. It's also may have ingredients added as stabilizers, preservatives, the usual.
East Asian style soy milk is simply the result of grinding mature soy beans (usually dry ones that have been soaked in water) and water and then straining the result.
The differences would be pretty stark in some regards: US soy milk is much thicker (like cow's milk), and generally sweetened, which the East Asian soy milk will not be.
One version of soy milk made like this in the US is "West Soy Soymilk, Organic, Unsweetened", the ingredients are purely "Water, Soybeans".
Other than buying this type of soy milk, your other option is to make it. To do this, follow this procedure (Adopted from "Modernist Cuisine"):
Soak dry soy beans in a 1:1 mass ratio with water for at least 14 hours. Drain.
Puree drained soybeans with in 3:1 mass ration (water to dry bean weight). Puree until mixture is fine particulate, almost "creamy and grainy" in texture.
Pour mixture into sauce pan and add boiling water in a 1.5:1 (boiling water to dry soy bean mass) and simmer about 20 minutes. Let cool.
Strain mixture through cheese cloth.
The resulting components will be soy milk (the strained liquid) and okara (soy bean pulp). The okara has several culinary uses, so you may want to save it, or you can toss it. The yield of this will be about 1 kg of soy milk for 250 g of dried soy beans, or about a half of a gallon per pound.
I don't mind drinking sweetened soy milk per se (packaged soy milk in East Asia often is sweetened anyway), but thanks for pointing out that US soy milk may well be thicker.
East Asian soy milk and American soy milk taste very different, and not just because of added ingredients like sugar and emulsifiers.
Soy beans contain an enzyme called lipoxidase, which breaks down unsaturated fatty acids into shorter chain lipids. For American markets, manufacturers presoak the beans in solvents such as calcium hydroxide in order to destroy this enzyme. After the enzyme is gone, the solvent is deactivated with an acid to form a neutral pH product. In East Asian markets, no one bothers with this added step, and just leave the lipoxidase in there.
Why the difference? Taste, mostly. Remember The shorter chain lipids mentioned before? They taste, well, bean-y. Soy milk manufacturers like Silk found through trial and error that Americans want their soybean milk to taste more like milk, and less like soybean, so this bean taste must be neutralized.
For East Asian people who grew up drinking soybean milk, soybean milk needs to taste like, well, soybean.
What I noticed, is that I'm invariably allergic to all soy milk based products produced in Western countries (I live in Europe), whatever the brand, but that I have no allergy to soy bean based Asian products (Soy sauce, tofu, fresh soy beans, soy milk of Asian origin).
I'm also allergic to vegetable milk made with almonds or rice. There must be a difference in production.
Whatever makes that difference is either on the ingredients list, or hidden as a "processing aid" (damn and blast commonly found laws that do not require such to be listed) - unless your allergen is a result of processing (unlikely!)...
Typically most (American) Unsweeteneded Soy Milk probably taste different because it contains very little soy beans and have other ingredients added where as (Asian) Unsweetened Soy Milk bought from the Asian supermarkets simply have soy beans and water. It's a thicker, beanier(that is not a word) flavor. I think it tastes more natural.
Yup, you can see that explained in some of the other answers
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.459641
| 2014-06-04T19:33:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44641",
"authors": [
"Anne-Marie Gassier",
"Arunabh Gupta official",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Gonfera Burton",
"Luciano",
"Maroon",
"Mary",
"SlotABA88",
"Spammer",
"foozao",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104985",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104996",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
41228
|
Roasting smaller, thinly skinned peppers - removing peel
I roast red bell peppers all the time. I use a number of methods, but most typically I slice them in half longitudinally, roast at 450F cut side down on a foil lined sheet tray treated with non-stick spray until they are thoroughly blackened and blistered. Straight out of the oven I put them in a sealed Tupperware type container (to steam) until they are cool enough to handle, then the blackened skins come right off. Easy, and I love the results.
I'd love to do the same kind of thing with smaller, sometimes hotter peppers (jalapeno, serrano, poblano and even habanero), but my attempts have always failed. The outermost skin doesn't blister away from the "meat" of the pepper the way it does for bell peppers, and by the time the skins are blackened, the meat of the pepper is mush.
The biggest problem seems to be that the bell pepper has a thick, meaty, juicy (ready to generate steam) wall, while the other peppers do not. I can get that roasted caramelization effect easily with any pepper, but I'd like to eliminate most of the peel while maintaining some of the structure of the pepper. Does anyone know of a way to pull this off? (so to speak)
I haven't tried this, so adding as a comment rather than an answer, but I suspect a blowtorch would work well. Put the peppers on a heat proof surface, torch one side til quite black, carefully turn (with tongs) and torch the other. Allow to cool, then rub off the skins. Using the torch should allow you to really decimate the skin without cooking the flesh so much that it is mushy, which makes removing the skin harder. You can always cook the flesh more afterwards.
@MichaelatHerbivoracious I'm going to try that. I also have the germ of an idea brewing in the back of my little-pea-brain that just might help make it work.
@MichaelatHerbivoracious The blowtorch was successful! I just skewered the pepper and held the skewer instead of the torch. It only takes seconds. I'll add more here soon. With pictures! :)
A lot of farmers markets here in the Southwest sell roasted peppers of all types. The guys roasting them at the market do so with direct application of flame (as from a blowtorch). I've tried it at home, and it seems to work pretty well. They key is to keep the flame moving (or to keep the peppers moving over the flame). The direct and very high heat of the flame combined with not letting it rest on any one spot for very long seems to effectively blister the skin without overcooking the chile.
After they've made it through the fire, the rest of your method should still work. Sometimes if they are particularly stubborn, I'll keep a small bowl of cool water to dip them in to help rinse the skins off. The water can then be strained and added to things as sort of a chile stock.
You and Michael brought up the blowtorch at about the same time. I'm going to try it.
@Jolenealaska Awesome! At the markets, they have kind of a big tumbler made out of chicken wire that they use to keep the chiles rolling over the flame. If you need to roast a lot, you could try that.
I do have experience using a torch and it works fine. I have even used the open flame on my stove.
It works! It works! (and I'm currently dealing with "flame mouth" after taste testing the results) I've accepted your answer, 'cause it works. I'm experimenting with something that might make it work even better, but either way I'm going to add an answer soon with neato pictures and stuff. :)
I've been slacking! Here are my (very overdue) experiment results.
The blowtorch worked like a charm for almost all of the smaller peppers. I skewered the peppers, charred the skins with the blowtorch, just holding the pepper by the skewer, then put them in a tupperware container to steam. After which, they peeled beautifully.
Before and after peeling.
These are all roasted and peeled. Can you believe how colorful they still are?
The one pepper variety that gave me trouble with this method was the habanero. The surface is so wrinkled and the walls of the pepper are so thin, that the steaming didn't make them easy to peel. So I plumped them with salt water before charring using a needle and syringe. That worked!
The pepper on the right was plumped before charring. Like the rest of the peppers, it maintained it's meatiness that way.
Thanks Guys!
Awesome expiriment. I typically just set peppers directly on my stove heating element and let them sizzle their way to roast-dom. This definitely seems faster and more complete.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.460020
| 2014-01-17T12:41:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41228",
"authors": [
"Big Island spammer",
"Chris",
"Douglas Mcdougall",
"Dragon",
"Graham Place",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kathleen Jabadan",
"Maureen Kokolus Rethwisch",
"Michael Natkin",
"Mike Gallagher",
"Preston",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/107121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/96064"
],
"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
}
|
17300
|
How should I prepare kola nuts for creating a soft drink?
I have recently gotten into making my own soft drinks, and I would like to attempt making a cola. I found an online spice retailer that sells Kola Nut and bought some, but I have no real idea how to prepare them for use. I also don't know how much I should use for a liter or two of soda, but I can figure that out via experimentation if I have to.
But what should I do with the kola nuts? Do they need to be ground before I boil them in a simple syrup, or should the pieces just be dropped in as-is? How much time does it take to extract the flavor from them?
Edit: I have made my own ginger ale using fresh ginger and my own berry soda using a bag of frozen berries, and I am a homebrewer and have a kegging system and a carbonator cap for soda bottles. I really just want to know if there are special considerations for how to treat kola nuts.
simple extraction, Grate or coarsely Grind Kola Nuts, Place in alcohol overnight strain and discard the nuts. and you should have a crude extract. it is likely to have a strong Musky flavour and should be used in trace amounts.
There are more complicated methods of extracting Ie caffeine Extraction.
Have fun.
Here is a video with instructions. The principle is pretty simple, make an extract from the nuts and mix with water & sugar to taste and carbonate either with CO2 (for a soda) or by fermenting yeast (for a beer or ale).
[Edit] If you treat the kola nuts the same as you would ginger root in order to create your extract you will get where you want to be. A little trial-and-error may be required do discern the preferred concentration.
Right, but what's the best way to make the kola nut extract? That video seems to assume you've already got the extract.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.460665
| 2011-08-30T00:37:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17300",
"authors": [
"JS.",
"Nobu Nobu",
"Tony Webber",
"Wendy Perez",
"baka",
"galford13x",
"ginger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37157",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85621"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17359
|
How much alcohol remains in strawberries soaked in alcohol?
I know that the alcohol content of food that is prepared with alcohol is a tricky study, as evidenced by the fact that food left out overnight stored overnight loses, by one study, 30% of its alcohol content. Several weeks ago I had some chocolate dipped strawberries that had been soaked in liquor before being dipped in chocolate. I thought I could taste alcohol, but my dining companion didn't taste it. So it wasn't a strong flavor. Is there any information out there on how much alcohol may have been transferred to the strawberries?
Interesting question. From experience, if they're soaked overnight in golden grain, they are very alcoholic. But I'd guess this is a function of time and % alcohol.
@yossarian - in this case they definitely weren't very alcoholic, so I'm guessing not overnight.
I don't think this has a single answer: The amount of alcohol would depend on the alcohol content of the soaking liquor or liqueur, soaking time, temperature of chocolate, and how thick the strawberry was.
I suspect uncut strawberries would take at least several days to fully absorb alcohol and reach equilibrium, but the surface should take up alcohol fairly quickly. If they are cut up, exposing the more porous interior, I imagine an overnight soak would be sufficient to reach maximum alcohol content. The enormous, bloated mutant strawberries you sometimes see at stores could take considerably longer than others to absorb their maximum alcohol.
Alcohol is much more volatile than water, so the immersion in warm, melted chocolate would remove some alcohol, but once the chocolate cools, it should trap any remaining content.
The flavor of alcohol is easily masked by other flavors at under 20% content; this could explain why your friend didn't taste it, but you did. It's quite possible the strawberries packed a sobriety-busting punch, but it was disguised by the chocolate and fruit tastes.
Thanks for the comprehensive answer. In this case they were definitely whole and soaked in tequila, and they were the typical large grocery store type rather than small, good fresh-off-the-farm berries. I'm curious, though, by your statement in bold - you are saying that the alcohol was under 20% of the entire berry + chocolate and so the flavor may have been masked?
@justkt: I think 15-20% alcohol content sounds right, but bear in mind this is an educated guess at best. I'm basing this on was going on % alcohol by volume in beverages, thinking of port, sherry, liqueurs, and mixed drinks where the alcohol content is 15-20%, but the alcohol flavor is weak or imperceptible. At 25%+, the alcohol flavor is quite clear.
That also depends on the palate of the person eating it and the quality of the alcoholic beverage.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.460947
| 2011-08-31T15:34:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17359",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Dee7",
"Dorie",
"Peter Cordes",
"baka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37299",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"irxess",
"justkt",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57561
|
Does "boiling milk" always mean pasteurization, especially in Mongolia?
The Lonely Planet guide for Mongolia uses "boiling milk" and pasteurization interchangeably:
TB is a bacterial infection usually transmitted from person by
coughing, but which may be transmitted through consumption of
unpasteurised milk.
Milk that has been boiled is safe to drink, and the souring of milk to
make yoghurt or cheese also kills the bacilli.
The Wikipedia article on pasteurization mentions various time periods and temperatures as qualifying as pasteurization.
But I don't know what the term "boiling milk" means. In particular, I don't know whether "boiling milk" always means pasteurization. Is there a time and duration that'd qualify as boiling milk, but wouldn't count as pasteurization?
Failing that, in Mongolia, does "boiling milk" always equate to a time and temperature that'd achieve pasteurization?
Can someone with 300 rep replace "asian-cuisine" with "mongolian-cuisine" please?
I am not even sure that this is somehow related to Mongolian language or Mongolian cuisine. Boiled milk is boiled milk everywhere. It's also unlikely that the Lonely Planet writer was a Mongolian, or that he used the English word "boil" in some strange Mongolian sense.
Most milk is pasteurised by bringing it to between 71 and 74C for 15 to 30 seconds. This is called High Temperature Short Time pasteurisation.
Boiling milk means just that: bringing the milk to its boiling point, which is 100C. That should naturally should make it as safe as the HTST pasteurised variety as it will spend plenty of time at well over the highest temperature reached in that process.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.461201
| 2015-05-17T10:10:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57561",
"authors": [
"Christian Boz",
"Golden Cuy",
"Jenny Plant",
"Marsha Lindsey",
"PUBLICATION of Rwanda Innovati",
"Tish Nesbitt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136959",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136961",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137445",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4836",
"rumtscho",
"the boss of boss es"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32667
|
How do I know when quiche is finished cooking?
Whenever I've cooked quiche, it's been in a round tin of around 10-12 cm diameter. I've used 5-6 eggs along with other ingredients like chicken and vegetables.
After it comes out of the oven, I find that the height is low (around 2cm) when I thought/expected it to be higher.
I find it hard to know when it's actually 'cooked' as the egg parts are runny when it's in the oven, only solidifying when I take it out.
How can I tell that the quiche is done?
I read this over several times and I don't actually see a question.
There is nothing that would make a quiche rise, 2 cm is pretty normal. The quiche should solidify in the oven... What exactly are you asking here? (FWIW, I bake mine for 35 minutes and I never had issues.)
Quiche can rise if you introduce air bubbles when you mix the eggs, as the bubbles grow. However it's not generally considered desirable.
FYI: most quiches should cook for 30-50 minutes. I arrived at this page a few hours ago because the recipe I was following said to cook it for 15 min. That gave me aromatic, eggy soup. :-)
Inferring that the question is, "How do I tell when the quiche is done?" The answer is to check the internal temperature, which should be between 165°F(74°C) and 185°F(85°C).
That's a bit of a problem with my oven, as I have a portable temperature gauge inside, which says it's several degrees lower than the knob is at. (marked in 10 degree increments by dots, with 120 and 200 marked)
not the oven temperature, but the internal temperature of the quiche itself. Use an 'instant read' thermometer like this to see what the temperature of the quiche is.
Stick a knife directly in the center from above and when it comes out clean ( no uncooked egg mixture, very small amount of oil or clear liquid ok) it's done. Also 165-185F internal temp also measured directly in the center.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.461373
| 2013-03-14T06:23:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32667",
"authors": [
"Asit Kumar Das",
"Cos Callis",
"Duarte Alfonso Martin",
"EMP",
"Holion 7296",
"Jay",
"Jeanne CASPER",
"Mien",
"Muskan Steiner",
"Samaurai98",
"amanda witt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24698",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75454",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75459",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75463",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75468",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75469",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"jvriesem",
"slim"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44224
|
How can I clean frozen (raw) chicken juice out of my freezer?
I am currently storing raw chicken sealed in plastic bags in my freezer.
I suspect that raw chicken juice may be on the outside of some of the bags, contaminating my freezer.
Is there a way to clean the area without having to thaw the entire freezer? What would you all recommend for cleaning a freezer after storing chicken in there?
Thanks!
I don't understand - did you actually put unpackaged, raw chicken in your freezer? If it was properly wrapped then what's the issue?
I put the individual pieces of chicken in plastic bags, then in the freezer. However some of the chicken juices or whatever may have gotten on the outside of the bags during that, so I just want to make sure my freezer is clean.
Never consider a refrigerator where the freezer and non-freezer compts. share the same door. 2. Buy a gallon of icecream. On finishing the icecream, use the cuboid plastic container to stack your fish/chicken. 3. Freeze a few juice bottles of water. Move your icecream boxes of chicken, frozen bottles and stuffs from freezer to non-freezer compartment. 4. Turn of power. Keep non-freezer door closed. 5. Clean freezer.
@BlessedGeek this has the makings of an answer, my friend.
It seems that your concern is just that the chicken will defrost before you can finish cleaning the freezer. It won't. Just put the chicken and anything else from the freezer that you want to save in the fridge. Wipe the inside of the empty freezer down with warm soapy water. You can also add bleach in the concentration of 1 TBS per gallon (16ml to 4 liters) to water to disinfect, at that concentration you don't need to rinse. The whole process should take less than 10 minutes. Wrap the chicken a bit better this time, and replace the contents of the freezer. Start to finish, it should only take 10 minutes or so. Even if you don't have room in the fridge, your freezer contents won't defrost on the counter if you hurry.
If you need to defrost, that's a different story. Your best bet then would be to borrow a friend's freezer or use a cooler. You can speed up the process of defrosting with rubbing alcohol. Since manual defrosting would require unplugging the unit, you'll want to move as quickly as you can to protect the contents of the refrigerator, if it's a single unit.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.461576
| 2014-05-18T19:13:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44224",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Andrea Rattler",
"Cynthia",
"E Reg ",
"Frontline Collections",
"Matt",
"Michael Hooper",
"Preston",
"Spammer",
"Vittorio",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103903",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103905",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103907",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103908",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"kekalainen"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
44420
|
What happens when you add warm water to yeast?
I understand that the yeast activates, but why does this happen? Is the water simply absorbed into the yeast?
The yeast rises by fermentation, which is a much more complicated process than passive absorption of water molecules.
Proposed an edit that I think makes this question a little more clear. I'm kind of surprised we don't have more basic information about yeast available on the site.
I presume you're talking about active dried yeast. In that case, the granules of packaged yeast have some nutritive content to them, so what you observe when you add warm water is a weak form of priming. Priming is the addition of both warm water and a food source, typically sugar or flour, to dried yeast with the goal of 'waking-up' the yeast from their dormant, packaged state. The warm water dissolves some of the food in the granules and warms the yeast up to a temperature which is favourable to fermentation.
Q10 (temperature coefficient): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q10_%28temperature_coefficient%29 Yeast at 20°C will grow about twice as fast as yeast at 10°C.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.461812
| 2014-05-26T13:52:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/44420",
"authors": [
"Adina Dana",
"Ama Symulko",
"Betsy",
"Delnys",
"Parker",
"Preston",
"SchwarzWithNoT",
"Tracy",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"rumtscho"
],
"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.