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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
32906
|
Sous Vide leg of lamb WITH bone?
I'm a new owner of a Sous Vide circulator, and I'd really like to make a leg of lamb for Easter. Making leg of lamb the "old" way (in the oven) I always get a better result if the leg is with the bone attached. However, all the recipes I find for Sous Vide calls for meat without the bone (typically 55 C for up to 48 hours). Is there anything I need to do different to make it on the bone?
(My circulator is the drop-on kind and can handle 40 liters, so I can fit the leg. Also, I have vacuum bags by the roll, so as long as I can find a leg which is quite thin, that shouldn't be a problem either. I plan to sear the meat after Sous Vide with a propane burner)
UPDATE
Just wanted to say how it turned out: 55 C for 48 hours made the meat tender... VERY tender. Almost liquid ;) I'll go for 24-30 hours next time :)
I suggest wrapping the bone in some good quality cling film to lessen the likelihood of it puncturing the bag. The only other thing to consider is that it's increasing the size of your product so therefore will increase the amount of time to achieve your desired doneness.
According to Kenji Alt's experiements (admittedly with beef), the major effect of the bone is insulation, which matters in a high-heat cooking environment, but not in sous-vide. See: Do Bones Add Favor To Meat
For sous-vide cooking, the bone adds little value, other than appearance.
It may also make it harder to put the product in your bag and seal it without a puncture.
Still, there should be no harm in leaving it on if you choose to. In his ultimate steak method, Kenji Alt does leave the bone on for the sous-vide process.
Good links. In comments to the first post he does say (when questioned about if bones give flavor when using Sous Vide): "Yes to the even cooking effects. But you still might want to leave the bone for the main reason: that stuff around and clinging to it tastes great!" - which I would agree with...
That is true--but that effect doesn't come from the sous-vide process. It will come, if at all, from the post sous-vide torching.
True, but it's hard to get the effect during torching on something which has been cut off ;)
Sure, no worries. Leave the bone in if it won't puncture your bag.
(I might also add that (at least here in Norway) if guests are invited for Easter leg of lamb, they expect it to be served on the bone, on a bed of potatoes and veggies... ;))
I certainly have no argument against that tradition; it would be the same here with prime rib or rack of lamb.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.461963
| 2013-03-22T01:43:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32906",
"authors": [
"Brendan",
"Buckboard Catering",
"Christian Rygg",
"Hypatia Lockhart",
"James Justine Lopez",
"Katie McKee",
"N.M",
"Priscilla",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76080",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76081",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98249"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25280
|
To freeze or not to freeze?
I made a lasagna today (Thursday) that will be served on Sunday evening. What will yield a fresher-tasting result: refrigerating or freezing? I know that lasagna keeps in the fridge for about 3-5 days, and this is about 72 hours, but will it taste better/fresher if I freeze immediately after baking?
Thursday - Sunday is three days so 72 hours. Or did you mean to serve it on Saturday?
@Mien, even more than 72h as it's not evening yet...
@Mien - sorry, I can't do math :) I'll update.
@BaffledCook - it is evening over here :) And it's still in the oven...
OK, I didn't have a clue :-)
It is a rather long timescale, but you already made the thing.
I would put it in the freezer for 24 hours, the leave it in the fridge to thaw. That should be right on target for Sunday, without having to worry about infringing any guidelines.
Rather than freezing it after baking, I would assemble the lasagna and freeze it today and then bake it on Sunday. It is rather difficult to reheat a whole baked lasagna from frozen without getting soggy noodles.
I have frozen lasagna often with no soggy effect... Although I usually do undercook it slightly when planning to freeze
I do this same sort of thing when making eggplant parmesan.
You get the soggy effect if you make the pasta yourself. If you buy sheets in a packet, that stuff doesn't get soggier.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.462213
| 2012-07-26T14:04:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25280",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Dick Byrne",
"IxchelsSong",
"Konrad Viltersten",
"Mien",
"Pooja Karki",
"clueless",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57819",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57820",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57822",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"klypos",
"ladyrarebeef",
"zzzzBov"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17568
|
Can I leave out raw already-formed cookies for close to an hour while I wait for the oven to be available?
I'm making a cookie dough and forgot that I already had something in the oven. I prepared a baking sheet of cookies to go into the oven - but there is something already in there that requires another 45 minutes to an hour of baking (I can't fit both in at the same time). Can I leave my cookie sheets with raw cookies out on the counter until the oven is ready? Will this alter the taste of the cookies? (Will they get hard and yucky?) What about the cookie dough that is still in the mixer (and hasn't been formed into cookies yet)? Is there anything I should do to preserve it - i.e. cover the dough/cookies, put it in the fridge, etc?
You're going to have more issues with cookie-spreading than anything else, because your fat is going to get all warm. If you have a lot of fat in your cookies, you're definitely going to want to put the dough back in the fridge. If the dough is a hard dough, and you don't expect your cookies to significantly change shape during cooking, I wouldn't worry about it.
There is no concern for spoilage for an hour or less on the counter.
Melting would be my concern as well. Even if they didn't spread it might adversely affect the resultant texture if they got too warm.
Just pop the bowl of dough in your fridge between scooping out/cutting batches. The texture is so much better.
Yup, melting for sure. I'm practically a Nazi about putting my cookie dough back in the fridge between batches - sometimes even the freezer :)
Are you talking about spoiling? Raw eggs and milk in the cookie dough going bad? I believe that what ever bacteria might grow is most certainly obliterated in the baking process. The dough was probably not dangerous from the start - handled properly, cold ingredients, etc. - so cooties have to be pretty mighty to get a foothold in one hour AND withstand 15-25 minutes in an oven. Come to think of it, I cannot recall ever hearing of salmonella poisoning being connected with baked goods. (Outside of eating raw dough).
Whether they slump from getting warm is another issue. See suggestions above.
It will depend on what's in the cookie dough
Butter, flour, and sugar is not going anywhere fast, it's the other stuff you have to worry about
I know people who regularly leave incomplete or complete dough for more than a day on the kitchen bench with no problems
Some cookies like ANZAC's go a little thin and crisp if left out for to long, but some people like them that way
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.462375
| 2011-09-08T09:20:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17568",
"authors": [
"Alexio.cz",
"JS Lane",
"Kasperi",
"Level River St",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37800",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37811",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42911",
"justkt",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34086
|
Is it safe to eat sauteed onions left at room temperature?
I made a big pot of sauteed onions and garlic (~9 onions and a head and a half of garlic), and forgot to put it away overnight. It was probably off the fire for around 8-10 hours... Is it safe to keep?
(Edit: Does it help that the onions and garlic will all be reheated, as they are going to be frozen in small portions and used to start off soups?)
See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/tags/food-safety/info
After being cooked, the onions are much more subject to spoilage than they were whole.
After 2 hours (4 hours at the outside) cumulative at room temperature (well, between 40-140 F/4-60 C), they should be considered tainted and discarded, per standard official advise for perishable foods.
See also:
https://cooking.stackexchange.com/tags/food-safety/info
I thought we only had 60 °C for room temperature down here...seriously, though, I would eat it after 24 hours, and have—no problem.
@Cerberus That may be true, if you are lucky, and in good health. But I cannot give a recombination like that.
The rule - When in doubt throw it out!
We tend to be a bit more precise around here.
The big thing with onions is not to smother them like with oil where they can't get oxygen, it is deadly. See Botulism.
My question is can you can them like in soups?
-1. There is no botulism danger in cooked onions left on the counter, no matter how much oil is on them. Other microorganisms will make them impossibly icky long before botulism bacteria have had a chance to thrive. The botulism risk exists when storing raw plant parts in oil for months.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.462634
| 2013-05-13T03:47:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34086",
"authors": [
"Cerberus",
"Christina Hood",
"Gabriel Guerra",
"Gloweye",
"Jorge Eguiguren",
"Kimberly Garrison",
"Richard ten Brink",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Taiwo",
"WINDSOR JEWELS SPAM",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31533",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5376",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79278",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79281",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/79288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95224",
"rumtscho",
"user22377",
"user79281"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24063
|
Will paprika taste good in my soup?
I've been making a soup that has an onion + garlic + carrot + celery + flour base, and then chunks of sweet potato and potato as well as barley added. I've been spicing it with salt, pepper, garlic powder, and basil. Now I want to substitute paprika for the basil. Would that ruin the soup?
The question in its original form would have been closed as a poll question - we do not accept question whose answer is a list of equally good ideas, see the [faq]. I know the edit changed the meaning, but else I would have had to close it completely.
Paprika brings out the best in savory flavors. I'd go with something a little hotter to compliment the sweetness of the sweet potato - but not too hot, or you'll loose the regular spuds.
hmmm. how about hot paprika?
There is quite a bit of variation in paprika flavor/warmth. If you happen to get a dull batch of the stuff, a little pinch or two of Arbol chili powder fixes it up pretty well.
Go for a barbeque or curry: both of those will go well with the veggies you're using. Actually, your best bet is to experiment and try lots of different spice combinations. Soups are very versatile.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.462827
| 2012-05-29T16:06:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24063",
"authors": [
"Angie",
"Dalia Sabau",
"Jacqueline Ford",
"Pamela Koehn",
"Pete Vaughton",
"Shashi dave",
"Sue Wylie",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"ahsw",
"clueless",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54652",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76123",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
27987
|
Ice cream technique - what should I mix into what?
I have a homemade non-dairy ice cream recipe that involves a snow of egg whites and sugars, whip, and the egg yolks. At this point, the recipe says "mix together slowly with yolks". In which order should I mix the 3 components? I assume that I should be folding the egg whites into the whip... What is the "correct" way to do this? (That will ensure that the yolks don't sink to the bottom in the freezer :) )
When you say whip what do you mean? Cool whip?
@GdB- Miracle whip.
What does it say right before that step? "mix together slowly with yolks" implies that it just said what you should be mixing with the yolks.
Most ice cream recipes call for only egg yolks. In my experience including the whites results in very strange freezing. I've ended up with solid blocks of frozen flavored milk by including whites. That said, it looks like some recipes on the internet do use the whole egg.
@gdb - richwhip that has been whipped :)
@jefromi - it was a recipe that was copied down in a rush. It's not so correct. I was just wondering what would be the best technique
I usually beat two whole eggs with an electric mixer and then slowly mix the sugar into the eggs before adding the cream, milk, and flavoring. I've never had a problem with the egg whites that way. In your case I'd do the same but treat the beaten egg whites and Rich Whip as the "additional dairy" to be added after the egg yolks and sugar are slowly mixed together.
I've never actually tried whipping egg whites for an ice cream recipe -- my guess is that any air it contributed would be immediately removed once the ice cream machine started turning. It's the ice cream machine's job to incorporate air into the mix anyway. But it might be worth a try.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.463084
| 2012-10-24T14:32:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27987",
"authors": [
"AKW",
"Cascabel",
"GdD",
"Juggerbot",
"Mr. Squig",
"Sobachatina",
"clueless",
"gogoLama",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13923",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65557",
"inigo333",
"simone"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11960
|
Why does baking bread in a closed pot make a good crust?
I just tried a recipe for bread that suggests baking it in the oven a casserole pot with a lid (Dutch oven?)
Suddenly I have a loaf with a wonderful crust which I have never managed to do with an oven or bread machine.
I'm guessing it's something to do with moisture levels - any idea why having more humidity should produce a crust? You would think that humidity would make the bread soggier.
Professional bread makers use ovens that add steam. It is often recommended that you spray your bread with water before cooking or that you add a small tray of water to the oven to get similar results. I know this doesn't answer your question for why; I just wanted to point out that it is common to increase humidity to get better bread.
A way of adding steam is to drop a some ice cubes in the oven when the bread goes in. Just put them in a tray below the bread.
Maybe the crust of your bread maybe never got hot enough. The sugars in the crust caramelize at approximately 325F.
The steam should only be used for the first part of baking. Recipes vary in opinion on how long it's best to have this steam, but the range I've seen is usually 10-30 minutes. The moist baking environment allows the outer layer of dough to remain stretchy so that you maximize "oven spring" in the first part of baking. Steaming the dough also causes the starches on this outer layer to gelatinize, which is what leads to the crispy and nicely browned crust. If you continue to steam through the whole baking process, this layer will not have a chance to dry out, which is what's required for it to brown and crisp up.
This article has lots of information on how to achieve a good crust.
Yes the recipe was to leave the lid on for the first 25mins then remove it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.463277
| 2011-02-09T03:34:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11960",
"authors": [
"Andra",
"Emond",
"Martin Beckett",
"citadelgrad",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4483",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4764",
"jessica juden",
"michael",
"user24631",
"user24632"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12129
|
What's the best way to stick sprinkles to cookies without icing?
I am making sugar cookies that I want to decorate with sprinkles, but I don't really want to mess about with making royal icing, which is what the recipe calls for. In the past, I've used clear corn syrup as a flavourless sprinkle "glue" and it's what I'd use now, except that I haven't seen it in the grocery store here in the Netherlands.
Are there any other easy to make options for "sprinkle glue"? I've seen references on the web to using some sort of glaze, but in my experience, this wouldn't set up hard enough to hold sprinkles to a cookie. Maybe it needs special proportions for this application?
If corn syrup works, it seems to me that simple syrup (i.e. a saturated solution of sugar and water) ought to work, too.
I guess that's not too different from a glaze really. I ended up making a thick paste with icing sugar and milk and it seems to have worked. In retrospect, water or lemon juice might have been better from the perspective of not needing refrigeration.
@Allison, once the sugar+milk glaze dries, it shouldn't need refrigeration either (or at least no more so than the cookies themselves).
I would have thought the uncooked milk would still require refrigeration, whereas the ingredients in the cookies have been baked? But I guess this is another question altogether. :)
European bakery manuals often recommend using apricot jam as a sticky glaze for such purposes.
@rackandboneman: European bakers use apricot jam for all sorts of purposes, some less, uh, felicitous than others. They seem to forget that apricot jam has a flavor of its own, and will freely use it to "seal" a cake before frosting it. If it's, say, a lemon cake, that's fine, but on a chocolate hazelnut cake? Yeah, not so much. In this case, where the asker wanted to adhere sprinkles to sugar cookies, using apricot jam would result in apricot-flavored cookies - not necessarily a bad thing, but possibly not what the asker desired.
We're probably used to the apricot taste so much that we consider it part of the inherent taste of sweet baked goods, much like vanillin sugar...
Growing up, we'd whip up an egg white as a glue, but with today's concerns of salmonella, it might not be the best choice unless you have a local source of eggs, or use pasteurized eggs.
If you can get it in your area, you can use meringue powder, which is pasteurized. (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-meringue-powder.htm)
@Martha : good point -- I know I can get it near me in cake shops that sell decorating supplies and some hobby stores (that sell candy and cake supplies)
Our favorite way is to make a glaze with powdered sugar, lemon juice and warm water. Start with about 4 cups of powdered sugar, and about 1/3 cup of lemon juice (this helps it from being so painfully "straight-sugar" sweet. Then, add hot water very slowly, blending thoroughly with a wire whisk. You want it to end up about the consistency of... um... glaze. (Thick enough to stick to cookie when brushed on, but not overly gloppy.) Use a pastry brush to coat top of cookie and then sprinkle to your hearts content. If you also decide to use a little decorator icing for accent, let the glaze dry enough to at least have a hard "crust" on it or the icing won't stick.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.463470
| 2011-02-14T14:16:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12129",
"authors": [
"Albarina Castillo",
"Allison",
"Babra Ejaz",
"Braai-Master",
"Debra j Milton",
"Joe",
"Martha F.",
"Marti",
"Terry Chern",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20948
|
What are common techniques for adding eggs to soup?
I have seen different techniques for adding eggs to soups. They seem to be a polarizing topic - I have known people to find the sight of "raggy" soup disgusting, and I have family members who won't eat a clear soup.
These are the methods I know of, but if you can add to the list, I'd be happy to hear about it.
yogurt: Mix egg with yogurt, don't overmix/froth. Pour it in one big glob into the prepared soup the moment you remove it from the heat, stir. Should result in very fine grains distributed perfectly throughout the soup, making it opaque. Sometimes results in big rags floating on top instead.
pure egg: Pour slowly a mixed, slightly frothed egg into the soup while stirring vigorously. Should result in big, spongy rags floating in the clear broth.
egg and cheese: Mix the egg with finely ground hard cheese (parmesan works best). Slowly drizzle into the broth. Not sure what the perfect result is supposed to look like.
egg and flour: This is more of a thickener. Slowly pour it after the soup is removed from the heat. Should result in an even, slightly thickened broth with no visible rags and no fat spots swimming on the soup.
emulsified egg. Emulsify egg with oil (or use mayonnaise or hollandaise) and add it to the soup after it has been cooled to serving temperature. Should result in evenly thickened soup without visible rags.
All these are used in a usual "meat, broth and veggies" soup, not a pureed soup or something fancy, although I suspect there are egg methods for those too.
What are the advantages and disadvantages of each method? How do they influence texture, richness, rag size, taste? Are there special conditions under which I should prefer one method above the others? Is there a consensus among cooking professionals for which method is to be used with which kind of soup?
Edit
The answers are interesting, but I would like to see more information than a simple list: What type of soup should the method be used with, and why? How does it change taste?
I decided to kick off the new soup contest week early with this question, hope that we'll see more participation - the prize is worth it.
The terms "rag size" or "egg rags" are such a turn off when talking about egg and soup. I usually call it "egg ribbons" or "egg blossoms". That sounds way more appetizing ;)
@jay never heard of egg ribbons or blossoms before, does it differ depending on the desired shape? I guess I translated stracciatella too literally. Also, I think only the pure egg (Chinese) version looks like blossoms.
If somebody wonders why I closed my own question: I asked it early in my days on the site, when I did not know all rules well. Now I recognize it as a typical big-list question, with all the usual results of what happens to such questions. The answers are difficult to comb through, repeat themselves, and don't actually solve a specific problem, just make a random collection of trivia. It's not the worst case I have seen, but certainly not allowable under current site rules.
@rumtscho perhaps the spaghetti can be untangled by introducing a "one new suggestion per answer" as has worked on bikes.SE. And linking back to this question so content can be salvaged.
In Poland some soups (notably żurek or a sorrel soup) are served with a hard boiled (separately) egg added.
In Spain I've mainly seen these following ways of adding eggs to soup:
beaten egg: egg must be added at the end of the cooking process. Just pour a beaten egg in the soup/broth/stock, stir, remove from heat and then, cover it for a few minutes.
whole egg: same process as the beaten egg but, of course without beating the egg ;) it's good to crack the egg into a bowl prior to the addition to the soup, in order to avoid broken egg yolks.
boiled eggs: as well as Poland (as Jacek's reply), we also add boiled eggs to soup. In the Spanish case, boiled eggs are finely chopped.
egg yolks (as Adam's reply): used to thicken and give more richness to soups. Beat the yolks and turn off the heat, adding the egg yolk and mix it well with the soup.
poached eggs: sometimes even fried, but poached are more common though (nowadays a lot of people make Arzark's eggs, poaching eggs inside a film tape with flavourings to taste and sinking it in boiling water for some minutes). Just put in the surface right before serving it. You crash it when you start eating your soup! Delicious!
I hope this helps! :)
In many Asian areas you will find mostly transparent soups and broths including a thin rolled omelette (Tamagoyaki in Japan)
Usually they are sea food based soups, with a variety of solid ingredients added just before serving, including slices of the rolled egg omelette
Sometimes it is a whole slice, sometimes slices from a slice off the roll
I've added egg yolks to soup as an enrichment/thickening technique. This is done just before serving, after the soup is off the heat (or even after it has been transferred to a soup tureen). Put egg yolks in a bowl and break up with a whisk. Add a couple ladles of soup, while whisking. Pour the contents of the bowl back into the pot of soup, and stir to combine.
This should result in no lumps, strings, "rags", etc., just glossy, thickened soup with a velvety feel in your mouth.
I use egg yolks to thicken and to add more "food" to the soup. I beat a number of egg yolks in a cup. Take the soup off the heat. I add a bit of the soup to the egg yolks while whisking. Then I add the whole thing to the soup. If the soup is too cold it will not thicken. If too hot, the yolks will separate.
I've added just the yolks, unbroken, to the final boiling process, then cook through. The flavor it adds is just a back note...but once you've tried it, you'll never want chicken soup any other way.
It's similar to the Polish version, just without the egg-whites.
My grandmother makes a soup called Chicken Pastina soup that uses an alternative egg method. Here are the ingredients.
-Chicken Broth
-Chicken
-Noodles/Pastina
-Two Eggs
Using the Pastina, Chicken, and broth, make a normal chicken soup (as you usually might with regular chicken soup) and scramble the eggs in a seperate pan.
Add the scrambled egg into the hot soup, and if this is executed correctly, the egg should start to break down in the soup into small pieces and it gives it an extra layer of flavor and also provides extra protein.
I haven't seen this method with soup and scrambling eggs, but it certainly tastes good and provides richness to the soup.
This egg method can be used in any soup. See this link for what it should look like if done correctly, in the Pastina soup
The "stringy, small bits" are the eggs. Again, can be used in any recipe with any pasta.
Update: Adding a raw egg into the HOT soup will cook the egg in the soup (this is another method I researched.
Greeks separate egg yolks and froth egg whites and then temper in some hot broth to the egg yolks. Then they mix warm yolks with white froth. Then add to soup which will thicken it and also give a good flavour, usually done with lemon. It's called avgolemono
Egg white can be used to clarify rather than thicken a clear soup. Also used in booze for same reason and referred to then as "fining".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.463796
| 2012-01-31T19:22:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20948",
"authors": [
"Dan Poston",
"Jay",
"Vorac",
"ZeroZ30o",
"asp",
"babelmonk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132241",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85381",
"rumtscho",
"user344269",
"user46119"
],
"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
}
|
19316
|
Should a Pound Cake be stored in the fridge or the freezer?
After cooking a pound cake, should I place it in the freezer or in the refrigerator?
This is going to depend on how long you want to keep it for. If you're serving it soon (say, same day, maybe next), then don't refrigerate it at all, though some people seem to think it gives better flavor to refrigerate overnight.
If you've used e.g., buttercream frosting, you'll need to refrigerate or freeze it, unless you're serving immediately after frosting. Some fillings may also require refrigeration.
If you're storing short term, up to maybe a week, refrigerate it.
If you're going to be storing it long-term (more than a few days, up to three months), you'll need to tightly wrap it once its cooled, and freeze it. After more than 3–4 months, flavor will be lost, but it'll still be safe to eat, as long as its stayed at 0°F/-17°C or below.
Frankly, I've never refrigerated a pound cake at all. Why would you?
@FuzzyChef while the cake layers themselves are much better off unrefrigerated, the filling or frosting might need refrigerating (e.g. whipped cream)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.464339
| 2011-12-02T06:10:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19316",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Gnubie",
"Nate Anderson",
"Philip Atz",
"Ric Santos",
"Sebastian Wramba",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42033",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"rumtscho",
"user2899444"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
19304
|
How do I maintain a portable induction cooker?
Most portable induction cooker have a cooling system (a fan below it). Do you open up the induction cooker to clean the fan? As for the rest of the parts, do you just use a cloth to wipe clean? or do you apply some cleaning agent to wash the outer surface?
The upper surface is glass, so I clean it like a normal Ceran stove: A special ceran cleaner when a cloth isn't enough, a sharp blade for specks, a gentle abrasive (like Cif) for stubborn spots which won't get away. The sides of mine are alu, but I don't bother getting out a different cleaning agent for that, just continue wiping with whatever I used on the glass.
I have never opened mine to clean the fan, and suspect that it will void the warranty. But if needed, I would handle it like a PC fan: open the case, use compressed air to blow it clean. Trying to wipe the fan could decenter it. It won't make the blades perfectly smooth, as the humid kitchen air tends to turn dust to clingy grime, but it should remove the bulk if the fan is too full to work efficiently.
Thanks rumtscho, I almost open mime to clean the fan but I think it would be better as you had advise - use compressed air.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.464466
| 2011-12-02T02:01:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19304",
"authors": [
"Anderson Karu",
"Dmitry Yaremenko",
"Ivan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8129",
"jcomeau_ictx"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25843
|
Cake Balls with Callebaut chocolate
I have an order for 850 cake balls. In the past I have used chocolate candy melt from the Bulk store. However I was offered a great deal on Callebaut chocolate wafers so I bought them. Please tell me that this chocolate will work on Cake Balls. Specifically dipping and hardening.
Can you please expand on what you need the chocolate to do with your cake balls?
Notwithstanding my comment (never heard of "Callabraut", I hope it's just a misspelling and not some knock-off brand), if what you've bought is actually Callebaut wafers, then it's couverture and therefore already tempered, and works perfectly well as a shell. I've used Callebaut/Cacao Barry, Valrhona, Felchlin, and others, and they all form solid and much tastier coatings than the compound/coating/"candy" chocolate, provided that they are handled correctly (not overheated, seed wafers added, etc.)
Couverture contains about 35% cocoa butter whereas compound chocolate uses vegetable oil; that's why compound chocolate is cheaper and also slightly more heat-resistant in untempered form. Tempered couverture (which is almost all couverture) will actually come out firmer and shinier than compound chocolate.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.464595
| 2012-08-24T23:30:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25843",
"authors": [
"CCB",
"IS4",
"IronSean",
"KatieK",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59287",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59319",
"jmarkyston"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3281
|
strawberry and fig vincotto
I have one strawberry and one fig vincotto (bottle). What can I do with it ? Am having trouble finding recipes to use it in, other than fruit/icecream/salad related. I prefer a recipe with only a few ingredients, so the vincotto remains primary.
I have a wonderful recipe that originally uses Red Vermouth as it's main flavour. I daresay it would go very well with a fig vincotto. If you do make it, let me know how it works out in a comment.
My grandmother originally made this with veal escalopes. My mother makes it with chicken breast pieces. Since I'm basically a buddhist monk food-wise, I make it with tofu. Probably wouldn't work for really red meat though.
Anyway, cut the meat/tofu into bite size chunks, and shake them in a bag with flour seasoned with salt and pepper and some ground mace (nutmeg is just as good here).
Put some olive oil and a whole diced white onion in a skillet and start the fire on low. Stir and cook slowly to let the onion get all dark and sweet. Then add some minced garlic, the vincotto and a teaspoon or two of tomato paste.
Now throw in the floured meat/tofu bits and sautee until done.
The whole things takes half an hour, most of which is the onions, which need the time.
Sounds like something to try.
Well, any recipe that uses a (sweet / balsamic) vinegar as a sauce base could also use fig vincotto instead. Plenty of meat dishes, for instance.
Okay. So instead of using vinegar and sweeteners, I could use vincotto. So, in my case I'd probably use it on something wild (deer, rabbit).
I'd have a go at such a dish, yessir.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.464733
| 2010-07-26T11:15:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3281",
"authors": [
"CodeKid1001",
"Sai Kalyan Kumar Akshinthala",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"The WanderingGourmet",
"Tobias Op Den Brouw",
"davebowker",
"dinesh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/103193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5941",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5954",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8457",
"julien rollin",
"matthias",
"pritaeas",
"ykombinator"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
38088
|
Jalapeno condiment for pho
There is a little pho place right around the corner that I just love. They have condiments on the tables including what appear to be just fresh sliced jalapenos in vinegar. They don't seem to be cooked nor do they seem to have been given any time to "pickle". The proprietor's English goes south every time I try to ask about their recipes, so I've been on my own for this one. I've tried distilled vinegar and rice vinegar. I've tried adding sugar, salt and a combination of both. I've tried diluting the vinegar with water. I've tried adding the jalapenos to hot vinegar. So far, they have never been "right". Even though my peppers are perfectly fresh, the ones at the restaurant seem somehow crisper and less aggressively hot, even though the seeds and ribs are intact. I suspect that there is a "secret ingredient" that I'm missing, but I can't for the life of me figure out what it could be. Can anyone help?
Edit: 8/2015 Answer (from over 1 year ago) follows.
Are you sure they're really jalapeño peppers and not, say, Fresno or wax peppers? I can't help thinking that maybe their peppers just aren't as hot, and they're crisper because they haven't been pickled as long.
Pretty sure. The slices are thick enough that you can visualize the whole. Mezzetta makes delicious pickled jalapenos that they call "tamed", but in that case it's just a hybrid. I've considered that possibility, but I can't imagine where they'd get such a specialized ingredient in Anchorage.
Have you tried salting then brining? Sometimes an overnight salt rub before brining makes veggies stay a lot more crisp in the brine (and might change the flavor a bit too).
@Jolenealaska : maybe they're growing their own? In some areas, that's the only way you can get specialty ingredients. If they've got a double greenhouse, they might be able to have a long growing season even in Alaska. (I assume ... I've only been there in the summer)
@sourd'oh That's an interesting thought, I'll give it a shot.
They aren't necessarily getting it locally, especially if it's pickled. Could be from a distributor.
I'm pretty sure that it ISN'T pickled, at least not in the sense that we know pickling. I would guess that that the pepper is sliced within an hour or two of it arriving at my table.
Through experimentation, I got the answer. The answer is rice vinegar, a little sugar, a little salt (not so much salt and sugar as to make the vinegar seem like "seasoned rice vinegar" as for sushi, just a pinch of each) and time. After two days in the fridge the sliced fresh jalapenos mellow a bit, but they seem even a little crunchier than when they were first sliced. To me they are superior in every way to any jarred jalapenos I've ever had. After four days, they seem more like "pickled" jalapenos and start to lose some of the crunch that makes them so nice. I suspect that they might use a different vinegar, but the slightly seasoned rice vinegar works just fine.
If they are less hot than jalepeno peppers and more crispy then they probably aren't jalapeno peppers, or at least not standard ones. There are hundreds of pepper varieties and many look very similar but have different heat properties, and different textures. Or they could be jalepenos but grown in cooler conditions or different soil from your typical southwestern-sourced pepper.
They probably aren't pickled, but marinaded instead. You won't get much softening of the flesh that way.
As for where they could get such a specialized ingredient a google search turns up 3 asian supermarkets in Anchorage, I'd hit them and see what peppers you can find. Pick up some sweet soy sauce or kecap manis while you're at it, it's a very useful ingredient.
That's a good point about the growing temperature -- some folks have found that stressing the plants get them hotter (not watering them, introducing insects, etc.) Local jalapeños might be milder than imported.
They know me at the local Asian groceries. I'm not finding an answer there, but locally grown might be a clue.
It says right on their website that they use a jalapeño hybrid. They cross the jalapeño with green pepper. That's what makes the flavor "tame" & pepper crunchy. I came across your post looking for their pickled jalapeño recipe!!! No secret ingredient here, just hybrid veggies.
I assume you're talking about the Mezzetta 'tamed' jalapeños. If so, yes, that'll do it. (and if you mix the two plants the other way, you can get slightly spicy bell peppers).
@Joe I'm a huge fan of Mezzetta tamed jalapenos. Similar, but different. The condiment is a bit more vinegary.
There is no "label" at the pho place (nor anybody there with whom I could effectively communicate) but I do know the difference. This isn't it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.464927
| 2013-11-02T14:25:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/38088",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Carey ",
"Emma Miller",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"K Fitts",
"Katie Wirebaugh",
"Mikeyd ",
"Nancy Mleczko",
"S B",
"Salami-tsunami",
"SourDoh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/143967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144058",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89710",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94125"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121563
|
How can I turn the leftovers of my Sunday chicken roast into potted meat?
I remember when I was a young boy my grandmother used to make potted meat and I absolutely loved it. It must be about thirty-five years ago now since the last time I tasted it, and the product can no longer be purchased in supermarkets, but it is something I would like to taste again. I want to make some potted meat using the leftovers from my roast chicken, but I have no idea how to make potted meat. As the product has mostly been discontinued, I cannot find any substantial instructions on google, and the instructions on the wikipedia article that I will link to below, I find rather vague.
Wikipedia
Potted meat is a form of traditional food preservation in which hot cooked meat is placed in a pot, tightly packed to exclude air, and then covered with hot fat.[
Question
How can I turn the leftovers of my Sunday chicken roast into potted meat?
Hi, I would like to point out that we don't take recipe requests. I think the question as asked is fine, but don't expect somebody to give you an answer so detailed that you can just sit down and follow it (because that would be a recipe). That's also why I removed the "instructions" tag you created, I don't see any use for it unless one is asking for recipe instructions, which we want to actively inhibit.
I guess the question here is really ‘are you just trying to recreate the flavor and texture’ or ‘are you trying to do this for food preservation’?
Because unfortunately, those basic instructions you gave wouldn’t be considered to be shelf stable.
I’ve done similar things in the past, and kept it in the fridge for up to a week, but I have a higher risk tolerance than most (bit overly young or old, not immune compromised, and wasn’t already unwell at the time)
Basically, you need to cook the meat, heat the fat or gelatinized liquid, and work while everything is hot (not just warm—it needs to be hot), then cap and get it into the fridge. You can also use a hot water bath after it’s in the container to pasteurize the whole thing before you chill it down for storage.
You want to really pack everything in, and maybe run a sterilized knife or other implement in there to knock loose any air bubbles.
The proper way to do this (ti make it shelf stable) would be a pressure canner, but that might overcook your meat past the texture that you want.
If you’re not sure about the whole process, it might be better to look up recipes for ‘confit’, which is a process of cooking in fat. You then just let the whole thing cool and solidify, which I suspect would have similar texture.
I’d also recommend looking in ethnic grocery stores. I can get canned meats, but they’re usually cooked in their own juices (during the canning process, I suspect), not just fat, so it may not be exactly what you’re looking for.
“Confit” is the key takeaway. Confit is basically the more popular/general term for potted meat, and one could probably just pretend that some roasted meat was raw and apply any instructions for making confit.
I think it doesn’t need to be all fat for potted meat. But you need to cap it at the top with a good layer of solidified fat. I’ll pack pint sized container of pulled pork this way… with the juices that it gave off, but keep it warm long enough for the fat to come to the top before chilling it down. And I fill them so there’s very little air in with it (possibly none at all; I tilt it and squeeze the fat up to the top before chilling and possible freezing)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.465426
| 2022-09-04T09:40:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121563",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
9804
|
Is beef 'aged' in vacuum packed bags?
I got some beef this weekend with the following label. This label is obviously not aimed at the consumer, but as I was after a single piece, the guy behind the counter gave it to me in its original packaging. When I got home I noticed the details of the label which opens a whole raft of questions:
I'm guessing USE AFTER instruction is to ensure the meat is sufficiently mature before being sold, is that correct?
If that's true, is the whole aging process done in these vacuum-pack bags?
If so, could I have kept it for a further 19 days before opening (I bought it on the 5th) for a more mature beef? Who needs "Jamie Oliver Matured for 21 days" if we can just do it ourselves?
PURCHASED: 5th, USE BY (on sale label): 6th
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.465707
| 2010-12-05T18:02:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9804",
"authors": [
"Ladi",
"Lois",
"Nick",
"Ron",
"Serge K.",
"Yvonne Willersrud",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20052",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20114"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28216
|
Are there any recipe ingredients that scale in a non-uniform manner?
A question I asked on the stats Q/A has a comment that reads,
[...] to make 8 times the amount of food a recipe describes you don't just
octuple all the ingredients mentioned (eg. salt)".
Some recipes, of course, don't scale well if you try to cook them in larger batches, but that's not what I understand the comment as saying. I understand it to say that, when scaling recipes you may need to use different multipliers for different ingredients.
I feel fairly certain that this is not the case for most recipes. I wonder though, if there any recipes where the ingredients do not scale uniformly.
I guess you are not considering ingredients stuff that won't go in the final dish, such as water for boiling pasta, or oil used for frying garlic or laurel that will later be added to paella.
@J.A.I.L. For simplicity's sake, I'll say no, I'm not talking about water for boiling or oil for frying. Having said that, I'm not sure that it's wrong to scale uniformly even in these cases although it may not be necessary given that both water and oil can be re-used between batches of frying and boiling.
Define non-uniformly, if you mean linearly by weight I guess most scale 'uniformly', except things that is applied to the surface e.g. marinades, breading and so on.
I don't know why anyone would say that salt in a recipe doesn't scale. I've never seen any evidence to support such a claim and we've already had one question about it. Sometimes the preparation method doesn't scale, but if you were just (for example) throwing everything into a pot and not adding or removing anything midway through, then the ingredients are all going to scale with some minor adjustments to time and temperature and a little extra stirring.
I have seen some recipes that state that they do not scale, especially when using volume, but wondered why.
@Stefan Yes, scaling linearly by weight (or volume) is what I mean by uniform and is what I should have written.
@Stefan: Recipes involving heat generally don't scale to huge quantities because of the non-linear relationship between interior and exterior temperature. Most recipes depend on a certain surface area to mass/volume ratio, which is why you can cook a chicken cutlet perfectly in a frying pan but a beef roast or pork shoulder will get burnt to a crisp on the outside while the inside is still raw. The ingredients do scale - they must scale - you just need to understand the recipe in order to know what they scale with (weight, volume, surface area, etc.)
Things applied in a non-linear manner do not scale linearly, i.e. when the 'Surface to volume ratio' matters, the recipe will not scale linearly.
See http://kitchenscience.sci-toys.com/scaling for a discussion mostly on how the timings are affected.
One example is breading: You will not need to double the breading linearly on a single 200g piece of beef/chicken compared to a single 400g piece, since the surface area will not change with the same factor as the weight, i.e. the surface area will not double when the weight doubles.
On the other hand, if you use twice as many pieces of chicken, you will need twice as much breading.
There's typically some overage planned into recipes for coatings ... so doubling the recipe means you have 2x the amount of anticipated waste at the end.
Although it is not usually horrible for a recipe, it is not recommended to double the yeast for bread. King Arthur Flour have a helpful explanation near the bottom of this page.
Update: Briefly, the explanation is that doubling the amount of yeast is less manageable. While you are forming a loaf out of part of the dough, the remainder will continue to rise, possibly overflowing the bowl, filling the kitchen and what-not. Reducing the amount of yeast will allow you to work loaves one at a time without simultaneously being consumed by a dough monster.
Bread recipes are usually given in Baker's percentage form. And the reason for using baker's percentage is precisely helping calculations for scaling. The only time you don't scale yeast is for industrial sizes vs home sizes (50kg dough from a 1kg home recipe)
Although for most breads, I'd think you were crazy (who in their right mind would make so much they couldn't shape it in time?) ... I made a triple batch of monkey bread last week, and it'd have been much more manageable if I had reduced the yeast -- I had let it proof in two containers; I punched them both down after the first rise, but by the time I got the first batch in the oven, the second container had more than doubled again.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.465830
| 2012-11-04T10:31:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28216",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"BenW301",
"Carmen Seda",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Eleni Rogers",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Joe",
"Jonathan Zimmermann",
"Judy in PA",
"Lorraine Dale",
"OLDMAN DUKE",
"Stefan",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64914",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64916",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jpbbls",
"papa bob",
"tommy gallinagh"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11766
|
Does milk tenderize meat?
In another question I suggested that milk might be used as a tenderizer. That generated an amount of scepticism, so I think it is worth breaking the question out.
The idea came from "The New Best Recipe" which has a small section entitled "SCIENCE: Why Does Milk Make Meat Tender?". I'll repeat a little of what it says:
"...if you skip the browning and cook the meat in milk (or any other liquid) at the outset, you limit the temperature of the meat to around 212 degrees. [...] As a result, meat cooked in milk does not dry out..."
If I follow the argument correctly --and I'm really not sure that I do-- this means that milk has no advantage over water as a tenderizer!
Can anyone unravel this confusion? Does milk tenderize meat?
I'm not sure how well milk breaks down meat proteins. It certainly can effect flavor. Processed milk tends to not have too many enzymes. Buttermilk on the other hand does and is also acidic. Buttermilk will break down and soften proteins in meat.
The quote refers to cooking in milk (or another liquid), not using milk as a (pre-cooking) marinade to tenderize the meat. In this context, it only matters that the meat is being cooked in water (milk, of course, is mostly water).
When water reaches its boiling point, some of it evaporates, which cools the remaining liquid, so everything stays right below the boiling point (212°F at sea level). A bare piece of meat, when parts of it exceed the boiling point of water, will begin to dry out as water evaporates. If you cook that same piece of meat in liquid, the surrounding liquid will evaporate, so the meat never really dries out (as long as there is sufficient liquid), and stays below the boiling point.
However, there's a difference between simply not drying out and actually being tender. There's more to tenderness than simple moisture content. Most meat, if it exceeds 200°F all the way through, will NOT be very tender, even if it hasn't lost a significant amount of moisture from evaporation. Some cuts of meat, however, will become very tender if held at that temperature for several hours, when various connective tissues eventually break down. It's necessary to keep that meat in liquid while it's being cooked so that it doesn't dry out (lose moisture) while it's being gently tenderized by the heat. This is referred to as braising or stewing, and it's usually done with stock and/or wine for additional flavor.
As I understand, stewing does dry meat out. The connective tissues of the meat are broken down making the meat tender, but the stewing liquid is required to make the meat palatable.
The chefs at Allrecipes.com put it more succinctly than I can:
"Dairy-based marinades, such buttermilk or yogurt, are probably the only marinades that truly tenderize. Only mildly acidic, they don't toughen meat the way strongly acidic marinades do. It seems that the calcium in dairy products activates enzymes in meat that break down proteins; this process is similar to the way that aging tenderizes meat."
If you don't believe it, just check it out on the next tough piece of venison that crosses your counter.
In my experience marinade made from sieved tomatos with a dash of lemon juice or beer based marinades are equally good at tenderizing meat.
In my experience, yes, it does.
I live in Mexico, we have good quality meat in the north, but not so much in the centre and south. So I put a piece of lesser quality beef tenderloin in raw milk, just enough to cover it (not pasteurized). I keep it for 3 days in the fridge at 34-36 F (1-2 Celsius).
After that time, I use tap water to rinse all the milk. and afterwards I butcher and clean the meat. The meat looses some color on the outside , but inside keeps the nice cherry red. I marinate it for around 2 hours before cooking.
When cooked to medium, the meat is very tender. I highly recommend the process.
Braising is the act of cooking something in liquid (moist and dry heat), much like a slow cooker does. That tenderizes meat, true (see here). While braising is a technical form of tenderizing, I would imagine most people think of the pounding/acidic marinade type of tenderizing.
So while you're not wrong (actually, you're 100% correct definition wise), it's more the idea of tenderizing that is in issue here, I think. People would almost always say braising in your case, not tenderizing, to be more specific, and refer to tenderizing as a separate step from the actually "cooking" (application of heat to food) process.
I've been tenderizing with milk for years. It made a huge difference in chicken and pork chops. My family hated pork til I started using this method.
I am skeptical of fresh milk tenderising meat, Yoghurt, Buttermilk will help break down proteins due to their bacterial cultures this has been documented. Try yoghurt overnight, much quicker than waiting 3 days for milk to go bad.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.466242
| 2011-02-02T20:50:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11766",
"authors": [
"Adam S",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Melvin Bell",
"Michael",
"Sean Kim",
"Sue Kirby",
"Susan Castelli",
"Umbranus",
"Walter Mayfield",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113853",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/115475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119387",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50852"
],
"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
}
|
121472
|
Is it possible to substitute banana for the egg when making French toast?
I want to make a few slices of banana bread for breakfast, but don't want to have to purchase the flour and make the bread from scratch, so would rather use existing bread already made, however I can find no recipe on the internet which gives instructions for this method. So, I was just wondering if I can start out with existing bread, and then use a French toast method to infuse the banana flavor. I want to use banana instead of egg in the batter.
Will this be successful? What can I expect the result to look and taste like, will it be close to banana bread? If not, will it at least be reasonably edible?
For anyone that is unsure about the process I am referring to, to make eggy bread/French toast, then I shall leave a link to the instructions I am following below.
BBC goodfood
Banana bread is bread made from bananas. You could likely make a banana spread (jam, jelly, etc.) of some sort to coat regular bread and then fry it but that would still not be banana bread, merely regular bread with bananas spread on it.
Banana bread is a quick bread (more muffin / dense cake like in texture), not a traditional yeast bread.
I can't understand why this question has been closed. It is not a matter of opinion whether it is possible to infuse banana in to preprepared bread or not.
@JohnStrachan I think that there were two problems. First, you asked "is there a recipe", and we don't swap recipes here. Second, I think people were confused, maybe because you were using terms differently from how most our (US-skewed) users understand them. In US English, "banana bread" is a set term for a cake/quickbread made with bananas in the dough, and what you call "eggy bread" is more widely known as "French toast". I will edit out the recipe formulation and try to make it closer to what people here expect, then reopen, let's see if the community will accept it that way.
@rumtscho The same definitions hold in British English as well.
I would say what you mean is Banana Toast as per this recipe:
https://www.food.com/recipe/banana-toast-459282
I did actually mean banana bread. However I will make do with banana toast and will use the recipe you provided.
Banana bread is actually a kind of cake (quick bread) made from bananas. It is not the same as regular bread, and there is no way to turn regular bread into banana bread, any more than you can turn it into chocolate cake. If you wish to make French toast with bananas, you would still need to use them in addition to the regular eggs/milk/etc, since bananas are too viscous to be absorbed by bread and won't cook in a pan the same way that eggs do. Regardless, the result will not be banana bread, but rather banana-flavored French toast.
"there is no way to turn regular bread into banana bread, any more than you can turn it into chocolate cake" Depending on your definition of "chocolate cake", this arguably isn't true. Bread pudding is a thing that exists, and you could certainly add chocolate to it. Similarly, you could definitely use bread as an ingredient in an ice cream cake.
@nick012000 if bread pudding with chocolate is chocolate cake, then bread pudding with bananas is banana bread, I guess ¯\(ツ)/¯ But I don't think most people would consider a chocolate bread pudding to be chocolate cake.
Making a new loaf of banana bread using old bread as a starch source will be difficult due to changes in the starch structure from the first bake.
Starch in raw flour is in a crystalline form made up of very tightly packed strands of amylose. When it's hydrated and heated during dough making and baking, the crystals loosen and unwind. After baking and during cooling, the starch partially recrystallizes to set the crumb structure. With enough moisture and heat the amylose fully unravels and floats around in the water. This adds viscosity, and is not easily reversible - it's also how roux and other starches thicken.
Adding to this, the gluten formed from the first bake is set in its structure, and may be unable to re-form a mesh to trap gasses when shredded and ground.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.466675
| 2022-08-27T12:34:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121472",
"authors": [
"Esther",
"Joe",
"John Strachan",
"Steve Chambers",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/63870",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80388",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91698",
"nick012000",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116151
|
Left over whipped cream
I was just wondering if I can use leftover whipped cream to make creme brûlée? I made a big bowl of whipped cream and don’t really want to toss out the rest of it.
Welcome! Are you thinking about using it as is, in its whipped state, or what was your plan so far?
Is it whippED cream or whippING cream?
Hi Gabs, as Stephie and csk said it: you will have to tell us whether you have whipped cream or whipping cream that isn't whipped, before we can reopen and answer. Your question uses both terms.
Since it does seem more likely that the cream was already whipped, we decided to change the text instead. Please do edit it back if it was the other way round.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.467009
| 2021-06-20T20:07:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116151",
"authors": [
"Stephie",
"csk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85773",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116260
|
Clams frozen before purging
I got excited to find out my friends family vacation home is on a river where a ton of delicious clams live. TI caught a bunch of live clams, then hastily put the whole lot in a bag of water and threw that in the freezer while making dinner with my friends.
I didn't realize that freezing them would kill them and make it impossible to purge them.
Is the whole lot spoiled now? Is there still some way to eat them?
If you cant eat them, bury them in the garden like I did with the fish I forgot in the back of the van. The plants above those fish are very happy.
There’s no way to make a dead clam purge sand etc.
You can always try to cook a few and see how gritty they really are, then decide. You may be lucky and find that they have a good mouthfeel, or you may find out that your entire catch inedible and needs to be discarded.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.467352
| 2021-06-30T08:06:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116260",
"authors": [
"Willk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53826"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
116726
|
How can I make corn tortillas as thin as store bought?
From watching videos and going to local Mexican restaurant, it seems the tortillas are much thinner than how I am able to get them when I try to make them at home.
Should I be pressing harder all the way down? It feels like there's a limit to how much I can press before it starts sticking to the paper too much, is it possibly a problem with the dough consistency?
I use Masa Harina and follow Rick Bayless' video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRwMu9ERCKk
Always? Not if you shop at a place that sells Panamanian style tortillas
Not that I know the answer, but are you flattening them by hand, using a rolling pin, or using a tortilla press? I suspect the answer is that people who make tortillas every day know exactly how much water to add to get the dough to the right consistence to press them thin, and the technique to press them thin without tearing them, while people who only make them infrequently don't.
I'm using a tortilla press. thanks guys, i'll practice more
The recipe is here for anyone who doesn't want to follow the video: https://www.rickbayless.com/recipe/corn-tortillas/
There are a variety of reasons your tortillas might be thicker than you'd like. My first tip to you is to line your tortilla press with a thick plastic sheet on each side instead of paper; I use a circle cut from a freezer bag. This makes it easier to peel thinner tortillas loose.
Beyond that, some troubleshooting:
Flour consistency: grainier doughs, such as those made from hand-ground hominy, can't be pressed as thin as ones made from very fine ground masa harina. I've made tortillas from our local Oaxacan market's masa para tamales, and those are pretty chubby because of the coarse grain.
Dough consistency: if your dough is too sticky you won't be able to press it thin without it sticking hopelessly. If it's too dry it'll be too stiff to press thin, or will crack. It takes some practice to get exactly the right consistency.
That aside: enjoy your thick tortillas! Those are actually a legit tortilla style, and they help keep your taco from soaking through and coming apart.
This might be more of a hardware issue, than a recipe issue. The most common tortilla presses found here is the US, are small, round, and have a mechanism that simply doesn't allow for the thickness you desire. They typically look like this:
Something like the press pictured below will get you a thinner tortilla. It's larger surface and different hinge layout allows for pressure to be exerted on the masa differently. The result is a thinner tortilla.
Thanks a lot! I do have something just like the small one
I have a small round one as well, i find that by pressing a second time with 2 stacked on each other gets them a little thinner but it’s more work.
Make sure and use lard, I cut the baking powder in half of what many recipes call for and let the dough rest overnight in the refrigerator. Those would be my thoughts.
Baking powder? I've never heard of putting baking powder in tortillas before. Is this a regional thing?
Adding baking powder is recent as I just started seeing that in corn tortilla recipes around 8 years ago. Totally don't need it. Often you can taste it in there and it's awful.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.467491
| 2021-08-07T12:08:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116726",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Sarah",
"The Photon",
"Vall3y",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95686"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
21423
|
How to plan the portion size for a vegetarian bourguignonne dish?
I like the taste of beef bourguignonne and would like to create a vegetarian version of it. For that, I plan to use oven-dried, tempura-fried aubergine slices instead of meat (egg-containing tempura, fried to a golden crust), and mushroom stock for the sauce.
The problem is that I am not sure how filling this substitution will be, and how many calories it contains - the aubergines probably close to nothing, but the fried tempura is rich.
How should I go about calculating the portions, so they are roughly equivalent to a portion of standard beef bourguignonne?
Converting meat recipes into vege recipes are usually a bit dull, good luck!
perhaps judge by amounts of fat in original/tempura versions?
For bourguignonne, most of the calories are going to be in the noodles anyway. The beef amounts for bourguignonne are smallish, and the flavorings (mushroom, possibly carrot, broth, wine) are pretty much non-existent nutritionally.
I would just go by mouth-feel. Cut the aubergine in amounts that approximate the texture and flavor of the original dish, and don't much care about the differences.
What are you going to replace the lashings or pork fat with?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.467776
| 2012-02-16T23:37:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21423",
"authors": [
"Mimi",
"Pat Sommer",
"TFD",
"Teri",
"Viv",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47436",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11276
|
What are good instructional cooking TV shows?
In the spirit of Aaronut's comment on my answer to TV Programs like Good Eats, what are good shows for people to really learn about cooking (the science behind cooking; the history and cultural significance between dishes), rather than just watching a chef prepare their favorite recipes?
(web videos and animations count, too)
This is community wiki, so please edit the main answer instead of posting a new one. Please also make sure to include a description of the show and, if possible, a link.
Would it be worth making a different question for various geographical areas? Many of the British shows I could name won't be shown in America, and vice versa. Although, some will.
@slim : I'd go for one big list ... I'll go make a note of where to find the ones I listed.
Good Eats (Food Network): Explains some of the science behind why techniques work, and occassional information about the history of the ingredients or dishes.
America's Test Kitchen (PBS) and Cook's Country (PBS): Explain the techniques that they've used to improve dishes, and have occassional segments explain the science behind cooking processes.
Mexico - One Plate at a Time (PBS): Describes the differences in the regional differences of mexican cooking, and often compares historical versions of dishes to the modern versions.
Deep Fried, Live! (web animation): Flash animation cooking show that allows you to click at various points to get more information about ingredients & techniques.
In Search of Perfection (BBC 2): Heston Blumenthal brings his molecular gastronomy techniques to some of Britains favourite dishes such as roast chicken, fish and chips, spaghetti Bolognese etc. The show was followed up by a second series, "Further Adventures In Search of Perfection". At the time of writing, episodes from both series can be found on YouTube.
There is a reasonably long-running programme produced by the Open University (in the UK) called "Ever Wondered About Food?"
The programmes usually take the form of a cooking show, with a particular theme in each programme, so far, so normal. But they concentrate more on the scientific reasons behind the cooking methods and processes. It is very clear and at times very interesting, very well worth a watch.
Apparently it is available on DVD (the most recent series is Series V [also available from the OU direct).
Primal Grill with Steven Raichlen. You can find some great outdoor cooking ideas on his show.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.468017
| 2011-01-20T16:03:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11276",
"authors": [
"Adam Baylis",
"Blaine",
"Joe",
"NullPoiиteя",
"Pot watcher",
"Roni Jupiter",
"bob",
"chitselb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23130",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23146",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"isabella",
"slim"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
13102
|
How many different varieties of 'pancake' are there?
I'm not talking about ingredient differences like adding blueberries or chocolate chips, or even buttermilk or cooked pumpkin to the batter ...
How many fundamentally different regional types of 'pancake' are there? Either stuff called a 'pancake' or 'pan cake' in English, or where the literal translation to English is 'pan cake', even if it's qualified in some way (eg, a 'potato pancake')
(I'm not interested solely in wheat batter based pancakes ... I'm actually interested in finding items that are the furthest away from American pancakes, but that some group would still call a 'pancake')
update : oddly enough, this is indirectly a followup to my question on overpressurizing whipped cream. It was for a contest at my place of work called "Your Science as Food", and well, I won, so I'm trying to come up with a follow-up for next year. I've done the heliophysics theme for the last two years, by "my science" is actually information science, so I was thinking about having an exhibit with lots of 'pancake' items, and having a little survey of 'is it a pancake?' similar to this But Is It a Sandwich? survey, and want to find things that people will have to think about for a while if it's a 'pancake' or not.
Not to be picky, but if you want this question to be answerable, you need a better defination of pancake. Do you mean any bready thing thats cooked in a pan like corn pone? Or do you mean any quick bread that shares the same traits of pancakes but might be cooked in a muffin tin? or even foods that fill the same role as the pancake in one form or another like tortitas?
@sarge_smith : I didn't want to give too much, as I don't want to taint the responses, but stuff like dutch pannenkoeken (more crepe like) or german pfannkuchen (more popover like), where the similarity is in name only. I'm not looking for similarity to american pancakes (eg. dutch poffertjes, southern US hoecakes/northeast US jonnycakes) or necessarily cooking technique (south american tortillas)
And this is a case where telling why you are interested might be useful. If you're writing a book on 1000 and 1 ways to make bread in a fry pan that would help with the answer. Since some of the earliest (ancestral) cooked dishes were flat breads cooked on heated rocks, you have a lot of choices. Just check the flour types in an Indian grocery...they can all be used for making different types of flat breads. And you're going to need to make a decision on leavening. Do you only include non-yeast pancakes?
@joe gotcha, knew it wasn't going to be the version of that question I could answer. :)
@Doug : I was hoping not to have to do that, but okay, I'll go explain further.
Your question seems to have more to do with linguistics than food. The reason that the Dutch and German words are similar to English is because English has Germanic roots. The other issue is that translation is hugely subjective so a dish that one person might translate into English as some sort of "pancake", another would translate differently, or use an anglicized version of the original word.
And the results of my question : http://vso1.nascom.nasa.gov/pancakes/
I'm not going to accept this as an answer, but as Community has decided to give it a nudge.
I wrote up my little 'experiment' after I did it.
Although culinarily, a pancake would be something from a batter that is self-leveling, there seem to be a few other categories that many people may not consider 'pancakes' based on their upbringing :
Items made from shredded vegetables, with starch or an egg as a binder : latkes (Jewish; aka 'potato pancakes'), okonomiyaki (Japan), jeon (Korea), kartoffelpuffer (Germany)
Dough that is rolled out very thin and then cooked on a griddle or in a pan: roti (India), some varieties of bing (China, eg. 'scallion pancakes' (cong you bing) and 'mandarin pancakes' (bao bing)). Note that this would also include South American tortillas and many flatbreads. (although not classic preparations of naan (India) which is made in a tandoor)
Batter or gruel that is spread out, rather than self-leveling: crêpes (France), dosa (India), matafan (France), some styles of jonnycakes (USA), some styles of hoecakes (USA)
For the self-leveling batter-based pancakes, we can still divide them up into a few categories, as not everyone considered all of them pancakes:
large, thin, and unleavened: pancakes (England), pannekoeken (Netherlands), pannkakor (Sweden), pannekaken (Norway), pfannkuchen (Germany)
Leavened, cooked in a depression (not a flat griddle or pan), may be rotated during cooking: poffertjes (Netherlands), æbleskiver (Denmark), takoyaki (Japan)
Unleavened (other than whipped air & steam) cooked in a vessel in the oven: Dutch babies (USA), pannukakku (Finland), Yorkshire pudding (England). May include other popovers.
Leavened, cooked on a pan or griddle: drop scone (UK), pancakes (USA; aka flapjacks, griddlecakes), pancakes (Scotland; aka 'Scotch pancake'), pikelet (Australia), some styles of jonnycakes (USA), some styles of hoecakes (USA)
I'm not sure how to classify the following:
injera (Ethiopia); might be self-leveling, but is poured in a spiral (so either pancake variety 4 or non-pancake variety 3). Also not flipped, which is abnormal for griddle-cooked pancakes.
kanom krok (Thailand); cooked in a depression like pancake variety 3, but assembled like a sandwich rather than being individually flipped.
kaiserschmarrn (Austria); either mixed during cooking or cut up after making a pancake of variety 4.
When I have more time I should probably go back and classify the other items people mentioned -- druze pitta, blini (wheat & fagopyrum), blintz, malawach, ployes, flädle, palatschinkeni, oladi, katmi, and maybe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pancakes
I don't know what sources you used, but I have never encountered an oven-baked Pfannkuchen in Germany. The word tends to be used for a slightly thicker crêpe mostly (synonymous to Austrian German Palatschinken), and also covers a few other types as a generic term. So while it is conceivable that the variety you mean will be called Pfannkuchen, it won't be the first one that comes to mind for a German when they hear the word.
@rumtscho : The style that I'm referring to is often called a 'German pancake', 'Dutch pancake' or 'Dutch baby' in the US, ('Dutch' is in the US is typically 'Deutsche' (German) not from the Netherlands (eg, 'Pennsylvania Dutch')). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_baby_pancake . There was a German who attended my talk on polysemy, and agreed on my pancake classification ... so maybe there's a region of Germany that makes that style?
Even if the dish is made somewhere in Germany, I would be highly surprised if you tell a German person "Pfannkuchen" and the person thinks of this one and not of the thick crepe (if from Western Germany) or of the donut (if from Eastern Germany). I know that the word Dutch is used to refer to things thought to be German, but in reality some of them (like the Dutch oven) are not really popular in Germany. I am discussing this on German.SE chat now, will update if more information surfaces.
@rumtscho : okay ... I moved it, and put "Dutch babies" where it had been. But this was part of the point of my doing this -- just because people are using the same word doesn't mean they're talking about the same thing. And I think 'Dutch Oven' is one of the few things that might actually be from the Netherlands (braadpan) and not Germany, as there was Dutch influence in early US history (both the Pilgrims in New England who fled to the Netherlands before coming to the US, and the colony of New Amsterdam (today New York))
Yup, I understand the "same word, different things" situation. I started the whole comment thread because I wanted to find out how popular Dutch babies are in Germany, especially under the name "Pfannkuchen" - it seems they are largely unknown (although I couldn't sample people from all regions) and a German would be much pressed to find a word for them, but might agree to also call them "Pfannkuchen" in a pinch.
Malay culture has several pancakes ("Lempeng" in Malaysian) common to both Malaysia and Indonesia. There are several different kinds of lempeng ranging from what is actually crepe to things that are exactly the same as American style pancakes to grated coconut pancake etc.
... For Malay versions of French crepe or American pancake (both also called "lempeng" in Malay) the main difference is not the pancake themselves - because the recipe can be 100% the same. The main difference is what we eat the pancake with. In Malay culture pancakes are generally a savory dish so we eat them with different kinds of curry.
... You can try googling "lempeng" since it's a very common food here but almost all the results will be in Malay. You should especially try googling coconut lempeng ("lempeng kelapa"). It's great with curries but is also good with sweet toppings like sweetened condensed milk and honey: https://app.ckbk.com/recipe/rend41511c06s001r012/lempeng-kelapa
I can think of several "bread"-like dishes that are made in a pan. Since they're all from cultures where I don't speak the language, I can't say for the translation of the name.
Ethiopian Injera - This is a bread made from wheat flour and teff flour with water, left out for three days to rise (think sourdough without a starter) and then cooked in a pan. It's quite sour, but has exactly the consistency of a fluffy pancake. This is the main staple of Ethiopian diet, served with a number of different "sauces".
Druze Pitta - This is a little different from a regular Pitta, as it doesn't have a pocket, and isn't baked so much as done on the top of a convex pan. The idea is similar to a flour tortilla, but the flavour is different.
Yemeni / Israeli Malawach - This is a pastry similar to filo or puff pastry, but with more margarine. It is then fried in a pan and served hot with crushed tomatoes and a hard-boiled egg on the side.
French Toast (pain perdu) - I'm not sure if this qualifies, but it is a slice of bread (already baked) drenched in egg and then fried in a pan.
I can't think of anything else right now, but I'm sure there are plenty more.
Plus crepes, blintzes, blinis, and more I'm probably forgetting.
I can add some unusual ones to the list: Flädle (in soup), palatschinken (unleavened), wheat blini, fagopyrum blini, oladi, katmi (batter is made with yoghurt instead of milk) and I think that some Germans consider Kaiserschmarrn to be a pancake too, although it is torn to pieces in the pan. And I've had a meringue-leavened pancake with grated apples in the batter, which didn't have a specific name, the cook called it "apple pancake".
there's
Ployes (French-Canadian buckwheat pancakes)
and two not-so-sweet pancakes but oh so good:
Scallion pancakes (葱油饼 Chinese/Korean)
Latkes (potato pancakes)
It might take a linguist to really have a good answer there! I don't really have any good answers but I see where you're going... the term 'pancake' is so vague it could quite easily apply to many things that have not much in common.
I haven't looked through this but it might be worth a look: Pancakes (Wikipedia).
Assuming they'll mostly be the type of pancake you're not after, but there might be some interesting exceptions.
A German oddity in language:
In the city of Berlin, "Berliner" are called "Pfannkuchen".
In the rest of Germany, a "Pfannkuchen" is actually a pancake.
So, in a way, the German "Berliner" may be quiet far from a Pancake while still being called one. The Berliner itself is closer to a doughnut, really:
Berliner
There is of course also Afrikaaner pannekoek. It is a very thin pancake, usually served with cinnamon sugar. It along with kerrie en reis is the traditional food eaten at kerkbasaar. The once-a-year church bazaar held to raise funds for various Afrikaans churches. I'm not entirely certain if this pancake is the same as the Dutch pannekoeken. Any Dutch person can find a link to a pannekoek recipe here. I would be interested to know how strong a resemblance the Afrikaans version has to the Dutch version.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Dutch pannekoek recipe that uses oil or baking powder. Cinnamon sugar also isn’t typical. They’d use butter and powdered sugar, or stroop for sweet pannekoeken. They’ll also cook just about anything into them. (Fruit, meat, cheese, etc)
There is a pancake which seems to be missing here still: the Breton galette, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galette. It differs from other buckweat pancakes by being cooked on much higher temperature - I was taught that if the dough doesn't throw bubbles before congealing, the pan is not hot enough.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.468314
| 2011-03-14T03:44:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13102",
"authors": [
"Allison",
"Aryeh Leib Taurog",
"Barbara",
"Doug Johnson-Cookloose",
"Epanoui",
"Jesse Farmer",
"Joe",
"barry-johnson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26249",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27156",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29276",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"just-learning",
"justkt",
"kangear",
"rumtscho",
"sarge_smith",
"slebetman"
],
"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
}
|
32466
|
How to ship bread or bread dough?
I've been thinking about starting a boutique mail order dinner roll business.
Dough
While I'd really like to ship dough and allow customers to bake (per roll) at their leisure, I'm beginning to think that is a far-fetched goal. Dry ice? It just seems risky. However, I have purchased live lobster by mail order before without trouble. Maybe it would work? They would probably have to be some expensive rolls to make that a profitable endeavor.
Baked
That has lead me to think about ways to safely ship cooked rolls. I have lots of experience packing and shipping boxes, but not boxes of food. Would any special precautions need to be taken to protect rolls during transit apart from careful (food grade) wrapping?
Some Googling has lead me to the idea of par-baking, but I feel like that would negatively effect the quality of the food.
Does anyone have experience in this area, or can you point me towards any relevant resources on this topic?
I hadn't considered par-baking before for rolls, but that seems to be how some of the big kids on the block solve this riddle.
Welcome to the site! If you have information you want to add to a question, the best thing to do is just to edit it in. If you think you have a complete answer to your question, you can also answer it yourself.
Okay. Thanks for the tip @Jefromi. I'll add it in to the original question.
The Bakery in most grocery stores receives frozen par_baked bread. You'd either have to suspend the dough or time the trajectory. The ice-pack and styro-cooler route can actually work. Here's hope for cheap teleporting soon ;)
I have ordered fully baked bread from a bakery in France before and bread was shipped in plain boxes without any special packing or preservatives.
Dough can be frozen and then shipped. Beef House in Indiana has done this but I don't know what exactly goes into their leavening.
Thanks for the reference @AllanChow. I think I'll purchase some of these and see if there's any magic going on.
I think you will get the 'best result' out of 'par baking' your rolls. I have done this myself, though not for shipping. It is simply easier to make a large batch and then store them for use as needed. IMHO rolls are best served hot and fresh, and while re-heating fully baked rolls can recapture some of the glory that is fresh baked bread, allowing your customers to finish bake a partially baked product will give them the convenience of truly fresh rolls on demand. The technique (and recipe, for my part) I picked up from Alton Brown, in the episode of Good Eats: Roll Call. Alton's recipe for Parker House Rolls includes a par baking option:
For Brown and Serve option:
Assemble rolls as above, but bake as follows.
Preheat the oven to 275 degrees F.
Bake until the outside of the rolls just begin to set but have not
browned and the internal temperature is 185 degrees, about 30 minutes.
Remove and cool on the pan for 10 minutes. After 10 minutes, remove
the rolls from the pan and place on a cooling rack until they are room
temperature, 30 to 40 minutes. Place the rolls in bags and freeze for
up to 3 months.
To Finish:
Preheat the oven to 400 degrees F. Thaw the rolls for 60 to 90
minutes.
Spray a sheet pan with nonstick spray. Place the rolls on the prepared
sheet pan and bake until the rolls reach an internal temperature of
200 degrees F. Rotate the pan halfway through baking, 10 to 12
minutes. Remove the pan to a cooling rack and cool for 2 to 3 minutes
before serving.
The key 'take-aways' that you will want to apply are:
Bake to internal temp of 185°F
Cool to Room Temp
Freeze for up to 3 months
Oh snap. I'm pretty sure I have the Good Eats cookbook that includes those episodes. Silly me. Thanks for that. I totally agree re:"hot and fresh glory".
Good morning fellow dough friends,
Par baking is great but one would need a lot of extra freezer space. I think the best bet here is to find out where the dough will be going and judge from that if you will need dry ice. I don't think crunched up par baked rolls would be ideal for the average Jane. Just my opinion CountryAnne
What you need is shelf-stable bread. There’s a Japanese baker who figured out that it’s possible to can bread if you wrap it in the right type of paper (and I think it bakes as part of the canning process)
Unfortunately, the process is patented, so you might not be allowed to use it commercially in your area: https://www.panakimoto.com/en/pancan/index.html
(And I have no idea what the extra cost is… this is used as emergency rations in Japan… the company even has a program where they take back the older, unopened cans and send them to disaster areas)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.469236
| 2013-03-06T17:19:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32466",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"MandoMando",
"Preston",
"Rob",
"Thomas Fauskanger",
"countryanne",
"grumpasaurus",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13953",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75344"
],
"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
}
|
32647
|
How can I tweak this (US) Southern themed cocktail?
It periodically falls to me to produce thematically-sound cocktails for wife's Book Club meetings. Tomorrow, we are serving the Southern Discomfort (for 'Gone Girl'):
2 oz blood orange juice
1 oz Bourbon (Maker's, this time)
0.5 oz Aperol
0.5 tsp agave syrup (too lazy to make simple)
dash of Scrappy's Aromatic Bitters
It's almost there... still, just a little 'meh' - what suggestions to round this off?
This is essentially a what goes with X question, where X is the recipe so far. http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1645/should-we-close-questions-structured-like-what-compliments-does-not-work-with?cb=1
@SAJ14SAJ True, but it also hints at regional tradition. So maybe it's in the grey area? At least it's specific in scope.
Can we improve it?
I think it is more chat discussion than a question, @PrestonFitzgerald
@PrestonFitzgerald reducing the scope only reduces the list of equally-fitting ingredients from hundreds to a dozen or two. It is still a list of "what goes with X".
How about some thinly-sliced peaches? Seems relevant to the Southern theme and complementary to both the heavier bourbon flavor and the other fruity notes.
You could sub out the agave for peach syrup if you want to live on the edge.
Rhubarb is also a Southern classic that could be an interesting addition. But I don't know how you'd implement that.
Scrappy's or someone else makes a rhubarb bitters that's to die for.
No way. That sounds delicious. Wasn't aware of that product. Thanks for the tip. I found some here from Fee Brothers http://www.feebrothers.com/products/bitters/rhubarb_bitters.php
Awesome idea. I can pick up the bitters to try this tonight. Thanks.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.469633
| 2013-03-13T17:23:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32647",
"authors": [
"AdamO",
"Helen",
"Lucy Sherry",
"Preston",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sam",
"Steve Townsend",
"Susan",
"Vikas",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75410",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75413",
"lynn stafford",
"rumtscho",
"safiyyah ogundipe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
51741
|
What are "rye sours"?
Not the drink.
I'm interested in making this bread: King Arthur Flour Caraway Rye. The recipe recommends the addition of vital wheat gluten or King Arthur's rye bread improver. This is how the King Arthur product is described on the web site: "A blend of rye flavors and sours, diastatic malt, vital wheat gluten (for a good, strong rise) and potato flour (to help combat the "dry crumblies")". I'm disinclined to buy the King Arthur product mostly because their shipping fees to Alaska are ridiculous, and also because I've been meaning to try this: Honeyville Dough Conditioner. But am I missing something without "rye flavors and sours"? The recipe suggests possibly replacing some or all of the water in the recipe with pickle juice, a concept I find rather intriguing, and it gives a range for caraway, which is one the flavors in the King Arthur rye bread improver.
The King Arthur website lists the ingredients for that item:
http://www.kingarthurflour.com/shop-img/labels/1416587131567.pdf
It looks like the "sour" flavor comes from several acids (acetic, lactic, and citric). I assume the recipe calls for "sour" flavor instead of being a sourdough recipe like a traditional rye bread would be. Pickle juice may be a good substitute, since it's mainly vinegar [i.e. acetic acid]. The "bread improver" also includes wheat gluten, which may be helpful if you're using a non-bread flour (bread flour contains more gluten than whole wheat or AP flours).
Specifically, the ingredient list you provide breaks down "rye sour" as: rye flour, yellow corn flour, naturally fermented lactic acid, sodium silicoaluminate (processing aid), corn starch, acetic acid, citric acid, mono-calcium phosphate, salt and yeast. That does sound like a sourdough starter "cheat".
Hi. You may find this interesting. Also, as you mentioned a starter "cheat", there is a recipe here that uses yogurt in place of the starter.
@Cindy I think I'll make that (the cyber-kitchen one, the other link doesn't seem to work). I am looking forward to doing a corned beef brisket with my new sous-vide circulator. I want great rye bread for reubens.
@Jolenealaska: if you want to make a great rye bread why not do a classic rye sourdough? They're not that hard once you get your starter going. Then you don't need to buy anything.
@HenryJackson Actually, now that I know that rye bread is traditionally sourdough, I plan to do exactly that! :) The link in Cindy's comment looks good.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.469822
| 2014-12-19T01:44:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51741",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Diidi Hamm",
"Hank",
"Jolenealaska",
"Jude",
"Mama Khan",
"PuptownDaycareBoardingandTrain",
"Stephen Edwards",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
39988
|
Are these vestigial seeds in a "seedless" orange?
Two recent organic navel oranges had a lot of these 2-x-head-of-a-pin-sized seed-like things. Each orange had maybe 25 of them clinging to the very center membrane in the orange. I allowed them to dry overnight and they do seem to feel like seeds, but obviously very small for orange seeds. They were also at the very center of the orange, not just off-center where orange seeds would be expected to be. What are they?
It seems pretty obvious that they are seedy things. But are they typical? Why have I never seen them before? Is it some kind of mutation trying to make our seedless oranges seeded again? What?
Strangely, these were the most flavorless oranges that I have ever encountered. Even the zest lacked any kind of orange flavor.
A US dime is 17.91 mm in diameter.
I'm from the garden/landscape section of the site, but post your question there anyway, regardless of my answer - you may get a better/different one!
Navel oranges, technically, are parthenocopic, which means they produce fruit without fertilisation, and that's why they are seedless. However, if the blossom is pollinated by a suitable donor, then seeds may form. These are usually, as you've discovered, vestigial seeds and may not even be fertile. The cause of the pollination (if the fruit is grown in the States, usually) is beekeepers bringing bees to orchards where other varieties of orange may be growing, or other varieties growing too close to parthenocopic varieties, usually out of ignorance by the grower when planting. Quite often, the navel fruits with seeds are of a smaller size, though not always.
I may take it to the gardening site if I find myself bored, but your answer is awesome because it answers the underlying question of why, and why today all of a sudden.
Yes, those are vestigial seeds.
Breeding a fruit with absolutely no seeds is quite difficult if not impossible, as the whole point of fruits is to have seeds, and get those seeds distributed by animals or insects. There is almost always some remnant or reduced version of the seed.
Just as a point of interest, so-called seedless fruits usually are sterile, and so the plants must be propagated by another method. All the members of the cultivar are therefore genetic clones.
Certainly vestigial seeds would be something I'd expect to see in any seedless fruit, but why so dramatically all of a sudden? There were a boatload of these. Oranges (often "seedless") have always been a go-to snack. I don't think I have ever seen so many Baby Seedies.
I cannot answer that; you would have to ask an expert on citrus biology and the commercial cultivars. You might take it to gardening, but I am not sure you would get a great answer there either.
Hmm, funny that I registered for the gardening site just today. Ok, I'll ask them.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.470057
| 2013-12-05T04:42:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39988",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183"
],
"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
}
|
116848
|
Riddle: Deciphering (likely) wrong Nutritional Info
I bought some "Keto-Ice Cream" a few days ago, and I have been since questioning the trustworthiness of its Nutritional Facts. I would like some help to decipher them, as there is either something I am missing, or they are simply wrong.
First, these are the ingredients as written in the packaging (in the same order).
Cocoa Ice Cream: Water, Erythritol, Polydextrose, Low-fat Cocoa Powder (7%), Sunflower Oil, Mono- and Diglycerides of Fatty Acids, Locust Bean Gum, Guar Gum, Carrageenan, Sunflower Lecithin.
And this is the corresponding Nutritional Table (both for 100g of product).
Name
Value
Energy
34Kcal
Fat
6g
- of which Saturated
1.3g
Protein
10g
Carbohydrates
15g
- of which sugars
<0.5g
- of which polyols
13.5g
Fiber
11g
Looking at these, I think that at least one of the following statements is correct:
The ingredients are wrong (either in their order, or in the actual items)
The Energy (KCal) is wrong
The macronutrients values are wrong
MY QUESTIONS:
How is the reported "Energy" value possible with the given macronutrients?
Looking at the ingredients, how are the reported macronutrients values possible?
For instance, the nutritional facts reports 6g of fat, and since 1g of fat = 9Kcal, then this macronutrient alone should provide 54KCal, which is already above the reported value (34 KCal). I even question the validity of 6g of fats in the finished product by going over the ingredients: the only ingredients in that list that contain fat are the cocoa powder (which only amounts to 7% of the finished product, and low-fat cocoa powder has less than 20% fat) and the sunflower oil (which, being mentioned AFTER the cocoa powder, must be less than 7% of the whole product despite being 100% fat). Hence, unless the Sunflower Oil represents, say, 6% of the product, then I do not understand how it is possible for the finished product to have 6g of fat.
The same can be said for the Protein value: 10g of protein=40KCal>34KCal. And how are 10g of protein possible from those ingredients?
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS assuming that either the nutritional table or the ingredient list are wrong:
what should be a (possible) Nutritional Table if the ingredients are correct?
what should be the (possible) ingredients list if the Nutritional Table is correct?
Is it possible the 7% meant the low-fat cocoa powder is 7% fat and not 7% of the product? Then theoretically the sunflower oil could be almost 20% of the total since it's fifth in the list.
Could it be that the product being marketed as Keto, they only count net carbs for calories, omitting both protein and fat?
@Enivid that would not make much sense: the carbs are mostly polyols which, being from Erythritol, have 0 KCal. The net calories would be 6 if we only account for carbs (and 28 if we also consider the Fiber, and assume that all Fiber is soluble...)
@Kat I doubt it. Low fat Cocoa has more than 10% fat. They 7% MUST refer to the amount of Cocoa in the whole product, because such product is sold as a "Cocoa Ice Cream" meaning that the producer must specify the percentage of Cocoa in the ingredient list for transparency obligations.
Your interpretation of the label is right, and so is your conclusion: the information of the label is internally inconsistent. The given calorie count is incompatible with the given nutrient composition.
From here, no other conclusions can be made, and your further subquestions are unanswerable. Any part of the information given could be wrong, and there is no way to say which one.
That's both a relief but also very disheartening. I'm really torn as to what to believe and I'm very interested in getting to the bottom of this!
@P.Shark sounds like you should report it to both the manufacturer and the authority which regulates this labeling in your jurisdiction.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.470416
| 2021-08-14T10:27:36 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/116848",
"authors": [
"Enivid",
"Kat",
"P. Shark",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51763",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95140"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
936
|
In reference to baking bread, what is a "mother culture"?
I saw this question entitled "How can I bake bread using a mother culture?", but I have no idea what a "mother culture" is. Can someone explain what the term "mother culture" means?
A mother culture is sometimes known as a starter dough and is a fermenting dough that is used to 'start' the fermentation process in the bread you are going to make by adding a bit of the starter dough to the dough you are making. Mainly sourdough I think, but I believe you can use different mothers for different breads.
The starter dough is 'fed' flour and water to keep it alive and going, and then used everyday to make the days bread. The mother can then be kept going for many years and gives the bread made using it a distinctive flavour.
At least that's my understanding, I'm hoping to get a more detailed picture from this and the answer to my question...
Some information here and also on wikipedia
The important part of that starter dough is (a) it contains a yeast culture mix that is known to give long results (since the same yeasts gave good results yesterday) and (b) it is kept alive and active, and thus will start growing and fermenting faster than, say, dried yeast.
There is a good blog post on the Al Dente blog that talks about getting started with a sourdough starter. They use a starter from King Arthur Flour that is supposed to be 250 years old. :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.470744
| 2010-07-14T10:52:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/936",
"authors": [
"Peteris",
"Richard",
"Rowell Jons",
"Thanos Papathanasiou",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1746",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23390",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75480",
"lprsd"
],
"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
}
|
203
|
How to clean mushrooms?
Some people say cleaning with water removes the taste from mushrooms.
But if I don't use water the mushrooms will carry a lot of dust.
Do you have any techniques for cleaning mushroom so I don't eat crap but don't spoil the mushroom?
I've found that not only can I not tell whether or not a mushroom has been cleaned before cooking, neither can my customers. If you make sure to shake/wipe the noticeably large dirt chunks off before cooking you'll be fine.
@Fambida That seems reasonable for cultivated mushrooms, and perhaps a few wild ones, but it is hard to imagine it working for many wild mushrooms, e.g. maitake, which has lots of crevices that usually have some soil and/or bugs.
@Fambida Exactly, that's why I don't wash my hands after using the bathroom. The customers will never notice, why bother?
It's important to note that wash or no wash, mushrooms themselves already have a high water content so their ability to absorb more water is limited. Estimates I've found put the range between 75-90% water, depending on the type of mushroom. Cooks Illustrated, for example, puts it at 80%.
Sources such as Cooks Illustrated, Alton Brown, Harold McGee, Robert Wolke, and Kenji Lopez Alt have tested washing mushrooms by weighing them pre- and post-wash, and all found that mushrooms absorb a minimal amount of water that does not significantly affect cooking time. Both McGee and Wolke soaked the mushroom for five minutes - so much longer and with more direct contact than than a normal simple rinsing. Lopez Alt's testing, for example, found that the mushrooms absorbed only about 2% of their total weight which translated to an extra 15 to 30 seconds of cooking time. After testing, these sources all encourage washing mushrooms.
Several of the sources also observed that most of the additional weight is on the surface of the mushroom, which can either be patted dry with a towel or paper towel, or removed with a salad spinner, as other previous answers here have noted.
Cooks Illustrated suggests only washing whole mushrooms, as when cut they can become more absorbent. They also suggest that if you are serving the mushrooms raw, use a tooth brush to brush them clean rather than rinsing because rising can cause discoloration.
Washing should be only done just before cooking. Washing and then storing mushrooms can shorten their shelf life and they can become slimy on the surface.
Wolke notes that if your mushrooms are steaming rather than browning, it's more likely that your pan is too crowded rather than a function of having washed them.
Cooks Illustrated describes their process here, McGee in The Curious Cook, Wolke in What Einstein Told His Cook, Lopez Alt in The Food Lab (and also Serious Eats) and the best I could find for Alton Brown were transcripts from the Good Eats Fan Page. Both the the Cooks Illustrated and Serious Eats links also have more general tips on mushroom storage and prep.
I find that brushes and even paper towels are too rough on mushrooms. I use cold running water and gentle rubbing by hand.
You're using too stiff of a brush then ... I keep three around -- a really stiff one for cleaning pots, a medium one for scrubbing root vegetables, and a soft one for mushrooms and de-silking corn. And remember -- for mushrooms, you're just lightly brushing them off, not trying to scrub them like to would to clean a potato.
Still prefer my hands :)
I dont like putting mushrooms into water as the absorb too much of it and change thier cooking properties
@NBenatar - Alton Brown proved that to be a myth.
@ChrisCudmore really? In what episode (or can you give a link)?
see Soegaard's answer below.
@ChrisCudmore please Alton only assessed the effect of soaking on mass, not on other cooking properties (eg, taste) - also, he only evaluated the effects on the white button mushroom.
For larger white and crimini mushrooms I typically just brush them off lightly with a dry paper towel. Wet towels tend to smear the dust across the mushroom. I dislike mushroom brushes as they just clutter up the drawers and paper towels are always available if needed.
Button-size mushrooms tend to be more likely to be dusty and are difficult to hold onto so the above method isn't very effective. For these, place them in a bowl of cool water and quickly swish them around. Then lift them out and onto some absorbent paper towels or terry towels and pat them dry. Don't drain the mushrooms in a colander as you'll just be pouring the dust back on them. Don't wash anymore than you intend to use as excessive moisture is the primary enemy of mushrooms and can make them begin to deteriorate. Excessive handling and washing can damage the surface cells which will cause discoloration.
Shiitake and Oyster mushrooms typically don't need to be cleaned in either way as they are rarely dirty.
A small brush (such as artist's brush) can be beneficial for cleaning morels since they are truly "wild" and can have bugs and dirt inside their nooks and crannies.
I didn't know that some mushrooms didn't need to be cleaned.
Cultivated mushrooms (white, crimini, shiitake, oyster, enoki) are grown in a medium that is typically sterilized before being inocculated with the mushroom spores. Shiitake and oyster and enoki rarely have any dust on them. Mushroom dust is probably MUCH cleaner than things we've eaten and had no idea of in the first place. White (also sometimes called "Parisian" because they were formerly grown extensively outside Paris), Crimini and Portobello (which are simply overgrown crimini mushrooms) are the ones typically needing washing if they do at all.
Alton Brown examined this question in the episode called Myth Busters.
Good Eats: Myth Smashers See scenes 10 and 11.
The conclusion is that you should wash the mushrooms in water.
They do not soak water from a quick rinsing.
SCENE 10
Home Office
Know what this is? This is an instrument of torture. It's called a mushroom brush. Now when you're first starting out in the restaurant
business, you spend a lot of time with one of these. And it's not a
very good time. Now why would you want to brush a mushroom? Well,
because they grow in dirt. Well, actually it's not dirt. It's compost.
But it's pasteurized compost, so it's safe. But it still doesn't taste
very good. It's got to come off. So why not just wash it off? Good
question. Allow me to read from a respected culinary tome on the
subject. Ah, mushroom ... there.
"Mushrooms are extremely porous. And because of that, they will absorb
any water or other moisture they are placed in. Because of this, they
should never be washed, only cleaned with a fine bristle brush."
Which leads us back to the instrument of torture. So is this fact or
is it fiction? Well, I for one believe there's a very, very easy way
to find out.
Read Scene 11 on the fan page.
That's not strictly true. He says they absorb water, but not a lot of water. About .2 oz of water for 4 oz of mushrooms. And they don't absorb more water the longer they're soaked/washed.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW9npAc2Sgw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6p7UcCAw39c
It is important to note that a) this experiment was done with one type of mushroom - the white button mushroom and b) only the effect on weight was measured, not the effect on taste. The OP specifically asked about the effect on taste (-1)
I use a soft brush (shaped like a mushroom!) and running water. Mushrooms don't absorb very much water, despite what you might think, so it's not a problem to wash them. If you're going to fry them, and are worried about splattering, they'll air dry fairly quickly after washing.
And yes, mushrooms are grown on rotting wood and composted manure. Not going to hurt you, but it's a little distasteful not to wash them!
I use an 1.5" paint brush to clean mushrooms with. I actually have two, one with the bristles as bought, and another with the bristles cut about half the length. This provides a bit more "scrubbing" if needed.
I also use an 1.5" paint brush when gathering 'shrooms, a quick brush after cutting (no ripping from the ground please), This get's the worst off right away and makes cleaning once at home alot easier.
I'm not a very sophisticated cook so I only ever use white button or Crimini mushrooms. I wash them quickly in a large bowl of water then pour them into a strainer to get rid of the water and finish by "drying" them in a salad spinner. The spinner works amazingly well to remove any water left behind.
You have to clean them, since they're covered in dirt. I rub them gently with a wet paper towel so that the skin isn't peeled off too much.
I think this is because if you wash the mushrooms then immediately fry them you incidentally add more water and (partially) steam them.
Wash the mushrooms, pad dry and put them in a cool place on kitchen paper for a couple of hours before cooking. By this time most of the excess water will probably have evaporated.
I use a small knife to remove the small soil/dirt props. Works great. Sometimes I have some water running to clean the knife with, but a board works OK too. This way I don't need to use water or special brushes.
I dont like to clean mushrooms, however my favorite way to clean mushrooms if needed is to dunk them. Get a basket that can close on top. A quart sized berry container is perfect for this.
Put the shrooms into the container. Snap it shut and dunk it in cold water 2, 3 or 4 times. No bruising or damaging of the mushroom cap is needed.
I like to just wet my hands with water and wipe off the dirt. That way the solvent properties of water help to clean it up more than a dry brush or towel would, and I'm not drenching it in water. I always buy them organic considering how close they are to dirt.
Peel them!Small knife from underside grab the turned under outer skin between thumb and knife tip and peel the outer skin.
Peel mushrooms? Why?
A great tip that I learned from a famous French chef is to wash the mushroom skin with lemon juice. He also recommended to cook it on low fire with a little water on a pane until all the initial "green liquid/subtance" comes out (you should throw that liquid away).
We did it for the preparation of a "blanquette de veau". The result was very nice.
I've never heard of "green liquid/substance", what kind of mushrooms are these?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.470954
| 2010-07-09T20:37:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/203",
"authors": [
"Andrea",
"Arve Systad",
"Brian R. Bondy",
"Carey Gregory",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Darin Sehnert",
"David LeBauer",
"Fambida",
"Gina Vargas",
"Joe",
"Mien",
"NBenatar",
"Tatiana Gerasimova",
"Turch",
"danielle davey",
"hello16",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/127871",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128023",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18512",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/382",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/397",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/426",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57751",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57760",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61873",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"jasedit",
"paul",
"paulomuggler",
"rumtscho",
"sgorozco",
"thorncp"
],
"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
}
|
13257
|
Why does soda bread call for buttermilk?
I've been looking for a soda bread recipe to try and I notice that most of them contain buttermilk. Buttermilk is not a standard part of my pantry. Part of the appeal of soda bread is that it's quick to throw together, so having to go shopping for a specific ingredient interferes with the spontaneous aspect.
I know there are lots of substitutions for buttermilk (using a bit of lemon juice in regular milk is the one I usually use), but I'm wondering what it is about buttermilk specifically that seems to be a standard part of soda bread. Is it just traditional? Or will it add a particularly noticeable flavour/texture?
Edited to add: I know that its functional purpose is to provide an acid to react with the soda for rising; so is it just that it used to be the most convenient acid?
Buttermilk has a delicious flavor that is not at all approximated by lemon juice.
It's true that lemon or vinegar with milk will clabber it a little and provide the acid that the recipe needs but the flavor will be distinctly lacking.
Get some buttermilk. It's inexpensive and has a longer shelf life than normal milk. It is also exceptionally easy to make. If you make it a standard part of your pantry you will find yourself enjoying life more (or at least pancakes.)
You can also get dried cultured buttermilk that lasts forever in the fridge and gets 99% of the way to the flavor. I highly recommend it if you think you won't use your buttermilk before it goes bad.
What are some typical users of buttermilk? I don't know if I'd use it all even with a long shelf life
@nixy - pancakes, quick breads, cakes, an addition to mashed potatoes, and more. If you can bake it, you can bake it with buttermilk, pretty much.
@nixy: Especially with southern US cooking (biscuits, pancakes, cornbread), a good attitude is that anything that calls for milk probably ought to have buttermilk. There's even buttermilk pie! On the other side of the world, it's also used a decent amount in various Indian foods.
@justkt- thanks for the reminder about the powdered form. I remember you told me about that a while back but I forgot to pick some up. I'll fix that now.
I probably should just keep a small carton on hand since I sometimes like to use it as an oil replacement in muffins.
From what I understand soda bread needs an acid to activate the bicarbonate of soda (otherwise the bread won't rise as easily). It is possible to make soda bread without buttermilk but the flavour will be slightly different and the recipe may just not work as well.
You're absolutely right about adding some lemon juice to milk though as a replacement, that's what I do too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.471803
| 2011-03-18T06:34:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/13257",
"authors": [
"Allison",
"Cascabel",
"Devin Snyder",
"Jared G",
"Nici",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27491",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5162",
"justkt",
"nixy ",
"user27511"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32695
|
What kind of onions for dal?
I'm making dal for the first time and have all of the ingredients below, but I can't decide whether to use white, yellow (vidalia), or red onions. I have all three in stock.
Here are the other ingredients:
1/4 cup ghee
1 1/2 cups diced onions
2 tablespoons minced garlic
2 jalapeno peppers, cored, seeded and minced
1 tablespoon cumin seeds
2 cups orange lentils
2 tablespoons ginger powder
2 tablespoons Garam Masala powder
1 tablespoon salt
1 teaspoon ground black pepper
1 tablespoon sugar
1 bay leaf
3/4 cup diced tomatoes
1/2 tablespoon rice vinegar
8 cups chicken stock
My mum and I've always used red onions all our lives and everyone or a huge population in North India uses red onions. I have friends here in Australia from South India who I've seen using red onions as well when making dal. Having said that, I've also tried brown onions a few times and it doesn't make too much of a difference. And good luck with your first time making it :)
I would seriously doubt "everyone in India" makes dal the same way...
Thanks, Divi. I was hoping for some insight into what is traditionally used and I think you've answered that.
@nico: I didn't say that everyone makes dal the same way, I said everyone uses red onions or a very large percentage of the population
@DanDye: happy that it worked out
@Divi: India is such a big country with such a variety of cultures that I would be amazed if noone used yellow onions to make dal, especially as the type of onion is something that would vary by availability.
@nico: I totally agree and have made an update to my answer
It really doesn't matter, I have tried with all of them, and each one tastes differently. Even in India at different places people use different kind of onions, it is mostly driven by availability. The best way to check what you may like is by using different kinds of onions for the first 3 times you make it :). I personally like yellow ones, you can start with that one for the first time.
@nico I grew up in India and can vouch for the fact that red onions are used for everything that requires onions. The other kind are spring onions/scallions. We don't get yellow, white, cipollini, etc. etc. And, the basic method for making dal is the same for all types of split lentils.
There are so many recipes for making a dal and the type of onions do not matter. You can use any kind of onions and in fact you can prepare dal without onions too.
Hello! we are not a recipe swapping site, so I removed the recipe link.
The Sri Lankan way favours the use of shallots (just a couple of small ones, finely minced).
Red will be my choice ! red onions has a bit of sweet taste which will go with the recipe.
If it was spicy chicken curry (without dry fruits or nuts or cream), I would go for white.
I would use either the white or the yellow; red onions have a milder flavour that might not stand up to the rest of the ingredients. But it's personal preference really.
You should go for Red Onions. White onions are not used that much in India. Red Onions are used throughout India in every type of dish. I would suggest you can also add some Capsicum.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.472072
| 2013-03-15T06:27:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32695",
"authors": [
"Annette",
"Dan Dye",
"Dawn Henry",
"Divi",
"Foraje Puturi",
"James harry Delunas",
"John P. Hatchell",
"Khoa Le",
"Mayra",
"Shahjahan",
"Stephen Edgecombe",
"Tom",
"Will",
"cashewnut ",
"fresherino",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78762",
"john paull",
"nico",
"rumtscho",
"worriedBoy"
],
"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
}
|
32712
|
How long to cook seafood in paella?
This recipe for seafood paella says to add mussels, prawns, squid and monkfish to the paella pan 5 minutes before finishing, stir and then cover with a lid.
I made this twice and I have never been able to cook the seafood in 5 minutes. The mussels will still be closed, and prawns doesn't look red throughout. On the second try, I let it cook a bit longer and overcooked the seafood, which shrunk into a very small size.
How can I tell if the seafood is done? How long do I generally have to cook seafood for in a covered paella dish?
Gordon Ramsay knows British and French cuisine, but not Spanish. If a paella recipe calls for stirring, look for another one.
When I make a paella I never cover it, I find it keeps in too much moisture. My uncovered method is to put the fish in and cook for 10 minutes. If my mussels are small I will usually wait 2-3 minutes before putting them in, bu for "standard" mussels 10 minutes seems to work well. I use a low-medium heat on a large burner.
You're right, 10+ minutes work well. I am still covering it though.
I put the mussels in before the rice.
Harder fish like conger eel cutlets / cat fish for example that will hold together at the same time.
Also the really quite small whole prawns because the add a great fish flavour to the dish.
Check out this recipe my dad taught me
Other fish that are more flakey put in near the end 5-10mins. if you're fish isn't cooking in 5 minutes it's too big! cut it into smaller pieces.
Things like large prawns, and squid literaly spring on top in the last 5 mins otherwise they're tough and rubbery.
Prawns and squid cooks in 5 minutes? I don't know, the last time I tried my prawns didn't cook in 5 minutes. (awesome picture by the way!)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.472379
| 2013-03-15T19:11:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32712",
"authors": [
"Jacob Gulley",
"Legendre",
"Peter Bright",
"Peter Taylor",
"Rahul Saxena",
"TahoeFrannie",
"Taylor Jenkins",
"Theresa",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75597",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75598",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75599",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75664"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30622
|
What determines the 'saltiness' of salt?
I've bought two brands of salt that are completely different in terms of 'salt' concentration(not sure if this is the correct terminology). I realized this because I needed three or four times more teaspoons of one brand in order to match the saltiness of the other when making the same recipe. Chemically speaking, what is accounted for the difference? Which one is better for cooking? If I recall correctly from the chemistry classes, salts have crystal structures embedded with water molecules; could the concentration of water molecules be the determinant factor?
you should list the brand's of the two salts your using.
Weight the teas spoons of each salt,that should help you realize the difference. As SAJ14SAJ says below salt is salt.
Salt is salt except when adulterated - I suspect one brand uses a lot of anti-caking agents like sodium aluminosilicate or similar. Which brands, varieties and what does the label say are the ingredients?
Sprinkled, not dissolved, salt becomes saltier tasting as you decrease grain size.
Yep - dust fine salt is delicious on fried foods, but intense and easily overused.
Summary for the Quick Reader
Only the shape and size of the grains really makes a difference. Otherwise, salt is salt.
What makes a difference between salts?
There are only two real differentiators between different types of salt (assuming the product is essentially just salt, and not a seasoning blend):
The mineral or other impurities resulting from the method the salt is collected, or additives (such as iodine) during processing. For example sea salts will have some small proportion of other minerals, and a tiny amount of biological detritus like dead plankton in them.
The size, shape, and density of the crystals or flakes.
Note that almost any salt you buy will be quite dry—there will be negligible water content.
Reasonable blind tests show that despite chic chef use of fancy salts, almost no one can tell the difference between salts with different impurities based just on their flavor. When in other foods, any difference from this practically vanishes.
The second aspect, the nature of the salt crystals or flakes, is very salient.
Large crystals dissolve more slowly, and provide crunch between the teeth, and texture you can feel with your lips and tongue.
Certain types of salt, such as fleur de sel and some brands of kosher salt have large, less dense crystals or flakes with a lot of air in them. These two factors together mean that per unit of volume, there is simply less weight of salt than there would be for the same unit of volume of a salt like US style table salt with very small, uniform crystals. That is, a teaspoon or mL of fleur de sel will simply weight less than a teaspoon or mL of table salt.
This means that when added to a dish by volume, it is simply less salty, because you have added less actual salt—the rest of the volume in the measuring spoon was air.
Common types of culinary salt
The overall size of the crystals lends different salts to different uses. I will use US terms since they are the only ones I know. From smallest to largest grain size (more or less), some common salt products are:
Popcorn salt Very finely ground, so it easily sticks to popcorn and other snacks. Not a lot of feel, but even coverage. Dissolves very rapidly in the mouth, so rapid kick of saltiness.
Pickling salt Quite similar to popcorn salt. Useful because it dissolves rapidly in the pickle juice.
Table salt The familiar standard we are all used to. A good compromise for most purposes. Dissolves quiet well.
Kosher salt Relatively large, slow dissolving crystals or flakes, engineered to stick to the outside of meat. Often used in cooking, where it performs quite similarly to rock salt. Note that different brands have significantly different densities, but it is usually on the order of about half as dense as table salt.
Sea salt, rock salt, fleur de sel. Various natural salts which usually have larger, less dense crystals or flakes. Allows more perceptible texture, and a longer slower saltiness as they dissolve in the mouth. Take longer to dissolve in foods, due to the larger crystal size.
Pretzel salt Really big (comparatively), sometimes opaque chunks (they are opaque due to air inclusions). Lots of texture to chew. Crunchy bursts of saltiness. Not generally used to season foods other than as a surface topping, since it doesn't dissolve quickly at all.
Rock salt For salt grinders. Just for table aesthetics. Salt is salt, and it is the size of the grains after grinding that matters.
What salt performs best?
I cannot say that any particular salt is better to cook with. Many cooks use a small variety of salts depending on what they are doing. If you were to pick only one salt to have in the kitchen, I would recommend table salt which is not perfect for every use, but pretty good at most.
For a reasonably stocked but not extravagant pantry, I would choose:
Table salt for baking.
Kosher salt for topping breads and stuff where a little texture is desired, and because it is easier to pick up with one's fingers--also so many recipes specify it these days that having it on hand so as to not have to figure a conversion is nice.
Either of the above will serve well for general savory cooking, although you would use less table salt (by volume) than kosher salt, as indicated above.
Note that by putting kosher or table salt in a spice grinder, you can grind it down to popcorn or pickling salt size, so buying this is rarely necessary unless you want a lot, as for a day of pickling.
The exotic salts
There are some exotic salts out there, which might have extraordinarily high mineral levels or other properties (such as pink salts from Hawaii), but the above covers most usual types of salts that are available.
Just NaCl
Chemically, all normal culinary salt is the same thing, discounting trace impurities: sodium chloride. There are curing salts and salt substitutes which consist of or contain other chemicals, like sodium nitrate or potassium chloride. I don't discuss these in this answer. Note that so-called "pink salt" (in at least some of its meanings) is a curing salt blended from sodium chloride and sodium nitrate.
Some minimally processed salts (such as sea salt) will have a tiny percentage of other chemical salts in them.
See Also
Update March 2013: Serious Eat's has published an interesting article talking about the differences between regular and kosher salt: Ask the Food Lab: Do I need to use Kosher Salt
I wouldn't describe salt for grinders as just for aesthetics; it's a very convenient way to get something likely finer than table salt.
Table salt is pretty fine. It would have to be a high quality grinder to do finer--certainly not the cheap disposable grinders (of either salt or pepper) that are endemic in restaurants these days. :-) Would you but "primarily for aesthetics"? :-)
Standard stainless steel plunger grinders (similar to this http://dx.com/p/l2-stainless-steel-pepper-mill-silver-180686) require large grain salt to get a good grinding action started. Kosher salt is too "soft". Output is a mix of table salt size grains down to a fine dust
pickling salt never has iodine in it (which can adversely affect the pickles), while popcorn salt might. This means that you can typically use pickling salt for popcorn salt, but not always visa-versa.
Could also mention "iodised salt" (i.e. NaI) in the "other salts".
Fleur de sel often has a fairly high moisture content, and almost always has fairly high levels of other salts (i.e. not purely NaCl) that gives it a different flavor from a purer salt.
Popcorn salt is easily made with a flour mill. I expect a whirling blade coffee grinder might work as well. It's much cheaper making your own than buying pre-ground.
I found this article on chow hound dot com that seems to answer the original question. It seems that the shape of the crystal has a lot to do with how salty a salt is.
https://www.chowhound.com/food-news/47641/thats-so-salty-its-not-salty-enough/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.472678
| 2013-02-02T02:11:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30622",
"authors": [
"Brendan",
"Carolyn",
"Cascabel",
"Geraldine Montoya",
"Hazel Salveson",
"Joe",
"MT_Head",
"Makayla Kelly",
"Michele Turner",
"Peter Taylor",
"Programmer",
"RI Swamp Yankee",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Stefan",
"TFD",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71604",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75582",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75613",
"rackandboneman",
"sssscs",
"yossi"
],
"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
}
|
103140
|
Does bubbly froth mean my vinegar batch needs trashed?
I have been making apple cider vinegar at home for a while now. My current batch has white powdery, bubbly froth forming on the top of the bottle and some powder at the bottom. What should I do?
I have sifted all my bottles through thick cloth and re-bottled. I don't see any scummy mother forming. Should I wait longer or should I throw it away? I don't want to do that.
Please help me find a solution. It's been in the process for 8 weeks now.
Hi Fazila, welcome to Seasoned Advice! I have touched up your formatting and re-wrote the title of your question in hopes that it will get some more attention. Making ACV sounds like a cool project.
The foam on top could mean that it is still fermenting... (converting sugar to alcohol. The alcohol eventually turns to acid. the white powder could be "cream of tarter". It is actually just crystallized acid. As for the stuff on the bottom, that is just the spent yeast.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.473306
| 2019-10-29T04:36:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/103140",
"authors": [
"Preston",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37887
|
The name or chemical compound responsible for a specific quality of some spices (numbness)
I'm putting together the results of a kitchen experiment and I'd like to be able to identify a phenomenon that I've noticed when using certain spices. I've felt it in some of what are often called "warm" spices, cinnamon, clove and nutmeg come to mind, but that's by no means a complete list. For lack of a better way to describe it, it's a subtle numbness. I feel it primarily on the hard palate, and the sensation (or lack thereof) lasts perhaps twice as long as the perception of the actual flavor of the spice. It's so subtle that it won't surprise me if nobody knows what I'm talking about, but I'm hopeful.
The answer to this question is eugenol, because it's in the spices you've named, but it's not the only compound that can cause numbness. For example, sichuan pepper has hydroxy-alpha sanshool.
It could be eugenol that causes the numbing sensation you experience. Eugenol is common to cinnamon, clove, nutmeg, basil and bay leaf and is used in anesthetics & analgesics, among other things.
I think you're dead on! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenol It's funny that the first 3 sources of eugenol listed in the wiki are clove, nutmeg and cinnamon! I knew I wasn't nuts!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.473421
| 2013-10-25T04:07:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37887",
"authors": [
"Buddhadasa",
"Carol Lynn",
"Cascabel",
"Jolenealaska",
"Onur Bolaca",
"Timur Shtatland",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89170"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
100531
|
Why are egg yolks beaten in a bowl above a pot of hot water?
Why would you beat egg yolks in a bowl above a pot full of hot water? I've seen this technique used in recipes on YouTube. Sometimes they add sugar. Does the heat help increase the volume or is it something else?
Egg yolks are often cooked in a bowl above simmering water (also known as a double boiler), so that the egg yolks can cook/thicken without solidifying and scrambling. This is a common technique used when making custard, for example.
This technique is called 'au bain Marie'
the resulting preparation is called sabayon in French or zabaione in Italian
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.473812
| 2019-08-02T01:02:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/100531",
"authors": [
"Agos",
"ElectronicToothpick",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1766",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71299"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
87041
|
How can I get dry rub to stick to cooked chicken?
How can I get dry rub to stick to baked or deep fried chicken wings after I've cooked them?
Dry rub is typically first. Why do you need to apply it after cooking?
Hi Dre. Welcome to Seasoned Advice! I rearranged your question a little to make it more clear what you are asking. I love using dry rub as a condiment on chicken like this.
Maybe Dre, or even @PrestonFitzgerald could define "dry rub" in this situation. My observation is similar to Paparazzi. I would call something a "seasoning" after the product was cooked. So...what is in your "dry rub"? Further, Preston, if you do this, why not post an answer?
Heya @moscafj I agree that’s a standard way to define it. However I do occasionally use spice mixtures indented to be rubs as a condiment. That’s how I interpreted the question, at least.
If you miss your time window when the wings are hot enough to have seasoning stick, I know of two other options:
Spray the wings with a spray oil like olive or coconut oil and tumble them with or in the seasoning
Rub the wings with mustard, which is like a glue and then tumble them with or in the seasoning. Herb-crusted meats or fish is often done this way
When deep frying it is important to season food immediately upon removal from the oil. Oil briefly sits on the surface of the food before being absorbed in or dripping off. If dry seasoning is added before this happens, it will adhere to the oil and stick to the surface better. This is especially obvious with something like French fries. Salt sprinkled on cold fries bounces right off but it readily sticks to wet fries just out of the fryer.
If your deep fried wings include a coating (batter or breadcrumbs of some sort) you can incorporate a dry rub into that mixture to positive effect.
When baking, I prefer to season before hand. While spices are likely to burn or wash off in a deep fryer, you can create rubbed surfaces on wings that will stick quite well in the oven (or on the grill/BBQ/smoker). Keep in mind that some spices are more resilient to being exposed to high temperatures than others and spice mixtures will change character—sometimes dramatically—in the oven. It will take experience and practice to determine what tastes good charred versus raw. I rarely use herbs on the surface of food in the oven for this reason. Burnt plant matter is not good eats.
If you really want to season after baking, I would suggest maybe tossing in a seasoning immediately after baking if the surface is still oily. This is similar reasoning to the deep frying technique. Or you could make a sauce out of your spice mixture somehow. Add it to a hot sauce you like, mix it with butter, or make a vinaigrette with it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.473917
| 2018-01-13T00:11:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/87041",
"authors": [
"Preston",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"moscafj",
"paparazzo"
],
"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
}
|
82523
|
"Akiko's special jam"—or, making a bright yellow preserve
Note to future readers: this question was rightly closed as off-topic (too open-ended), but based on the advice below I ended up making a version of this grapefruit marmalade with cardamom, turmeric and ginger with the following modifications:
Added a couple of fingers of sliced fresh turmeric. If you choose to do this, learn from the mistakes I made in my first trial: wear disposable gloves and slice it on a glass board with a thick layer of disposable buffer (e.g. multiple sheets of clingfilm). I peeled mine, but I recommend just washing the skin as you will stain and clog up your peeler.
Ground my own cardamom. Not essential, but if you love cardamom I find that gives a superior flavour. Bust open the pods by crushing them with something solid and flat, fish out the black seeds and run them through a coffee grinder. (Haven't blind tested this, so it could well be a placebo effect.)
Made a double quantity and strained it through muslin or cheesecloth. You'll need a big pan, or make two separate batches if you want to play it safe. You lose a lot of the volume, but it's essential for a transparent result.
The result is a clear, shockingly vibrant yellow-orange liquid that might have a lot of sugar, but is dominated by a pleasant acidity, heat and pungency.
Thanks to everyone who suggested turmeric, which was essential for the perfect colour. If I'd had more time, I might have prototyped one of the more savoury recipes, and would love to hear from anyone who does. I'd particularly like to locate a recipe for the "JAP mustard" mentioned in the comments; the best I found was this one for "mustard custard".
In a couple of months, I will be attending a housewarming hosted a friend who is a big fan of Key/Visual Arts anime. In honour of this, I plan to recreate an infamous—albeit fictional—recipe: Akiko's special jam.
It would be silly (and rather cruel!) to try and reproduce the recipe from the show; this is left intentionally ambiguous and is known to be quite unenjoyable. Instead, I plan to make something which reproduces some of the key characteristics while remaining palatable.
Main goals
These are my objectives in order of importance:
It must be suitable for vegetarians.
It must be bright, vibrant yellow. (Gold/orange are acceptable but not preferred.)
There should be no obvious chunks, seeds or discolourations.
The consistency should be thick but largely smooth.
Rather than appearing to be a thick puree, it should have the syrupy translucency of a traditional jam or jelly.
It should be a novel but enjoyable accompaniment for a sandwich.
Preferably, it should not be overly sweet—though I am willing to compromise on this for aesthetics.
Where I need help
The main questions I'm debating and would like some help with are:
What ingredients can I use for the desired colour and taste?
What type of preserve works best with those ingredients?
What techniques, tips or tricks could help me obtain the desired consistency and appearance?
I am a novice to jam-making and have only tried my hand at it a couple of times, so any ideas, direction or commentary will be very much appreciated.
What I've considered already
I will be trialling and refining recipes well in advance but would like to narrow down the candidates before I start experimenting. Here are some of my initial thoughts:
Yellow pumpkin/squash: I've seen recipes which get pretty close to the desired colour, though less jelly-like than I would prefer—and it would certainly taste interesting.
Yellow tomato jam/chutney: just the flesh without seeds may work well and should taste interesting; however, I'm unsure how well it would hold its colour and I'm unsure how hard it would be to get the right consistency.
Mango chutney: this would be quite sweet, unfortunately, but I've seen several recipes online that look very similar in appearance and texture to what I'm trying to achieve. Another drawback is that it may not work well on sandwiches.
Kaya: this would absolutely be sweeter than I want, but it is also delicious, unusual to Western tastes and can be made to look pretty bright. I'm concerned that it may be more opaque than what I'm going for, however.
Lemon curd: this would do in a pinch, but is still very sweet and a bit pedestrian.
Jam vs jelly vs curd vs chutney vs…: I'm keeping my options open about what sort of preserve to make, and am not sure which would work best.
I'm not sure this is really within our scope... I don't think there's one "correct" answer. I'm not certain it's that different than a recipe request.
Also... jam, by definition, is sweet. The sugar is what makes it safe to eat after long periods. That being said, I have an utterly non-sweet recommendation ... I don't know if there's a similar recipe around but my dad had a recipe for what he always called J.A.P. (Jewish American Princess) mustard. It's actually a sort of mustard custard... it has sugar, eggs, butter and vinegar and is made with powdered mustard. Amazing on sandwiches.
Is home making it, or having it, the key point? If storebought is OK, british style lemon marmalade (not the curd!) meets the "bright yellow and transparent" requirement dead on.
I'm adding this as a comment since it's only a suggestion about the colour. Saffron threads can be soaked in hot liquid it gives a beautiful yellow with very little taste.
@Catija Thanks—I was in two minds as to whether this was off-topic. I checked the guidelines before posting and decided I was asking about ingredient selection/use and food preparation methods, but I was also aware it's a very broad question with no one clear "best" answer (though I definitely appreciate the answers contributed). You're less biased than me—if you don't mind saying so, do you think I'm being overly optimistic thinking this is on-topic?
@rackandboneman Thanks—I'm aiming for something home-made; I considered a marmalade, and it's definitely an option, though I wasn't aware of how strong the colour might be.
Listen to whoever recommended adding turmeric, maybe even fresh turmeric - it makes everything flouresce - be aware the color is slightly PH dependent. Also, annato if you want to go more reddish.
Okay, so I think the obvious answer is dandelion jelly. Yes, that is a thing that exists. You could probably safely add some other edible, yellow flowers (like chrysanthemums, maybe? or even some oolong tea?) and almost certainly cut back on the sugar, but that's a little more risky and will require some experimentation. I have added gelatin to my jellies before in order to cut back on the sugar without losing structure, but that will change the texture a bit.
I also googled "bright yellow juice" and found a detoxing "super yellow juice" that looks interesting without being gross. There's a picture near the top that is quite a bright yellow. That said, I don't know how the color would hold up to cooking.
This is their recipe (since you have to scroll really far to find it):
2 yellow bell peppers (stem and seeds removed)
1 rutabega (peeled)
2 organic golden delicious apples (cored and seeds removed)
1 Pear (optional -- it's sweeter with it, a little more tart without it...)
2 Lemons (peeled)
2 inches of fresh ginger (skin removed)
As far as jelly-making goes, if you start with a juice, you'll need to strain it thoroughly in order to get a clear-ish jelly. That will require cheesecloth and coffee filters and lots of time. For the cooking part, you need pectin and sugar to form bonds to get the proper structure. This means that you will need to add some sugar to your juice, and that once you have your juice/sugar mixture, you'll need to cook it until it reaches about 220F. That's when the pectin and sugar should bond up properly. Worst case scenario, you get some thick, gloppy syrup instead of what you think of as "jelly."
Lemons and apples are both good sources of pectin, so if you include those, you should have no worries about pectin itself. The rest is chemistry involving water, sugar, and acidity, which I am not an expert on, but the fruit itself should provide the necessary acidity, and cooking to 220F should give you the correct amount of water. As for the sugar-- what I know is that I have cut the sugar in jelly recipes in half and had no issues with structure. This has mostly been the case with cranberry sauce, which is super high in pectin, but I usually leave out at least a quarter of the sugar in jelly recipes with no issue-- sometimes I do get a gloppy mess. The gloppy mess still tastes good, though, so I don't worry about it.
But as I mentioned above, you can introduce structure with things like gelatin, agar agar, or other less familiar thickeners that don't require sugar to set up properly. I wouldn't rely entirely on non-pectin thickeners, for sure, since they tend to have an unpleasant taste in large amounts, but in reasonably small amounts it can help, and any taste will be covered up by the existing sugars in the fruits you use.
Your requirements are so specific that I would say: don't search for some existing product which has it all, just engineer your own.
The simplest would be to take some base which is transparent and does not have a strong color in itself and whose sweetness can be varied. For example, make your own elderflower syrup with whatever proportion of elderflower and sugar you like for the taste. Use food coloring for the color, and pectin to get the desired jellylike consistency.
Don't can the jam, as the arbitrary amount of sugar won't allow it to be shelf stable. Just keep it in the refrigerator and it should be fine until it grows moldy (how long it takes will depend on the sugar concentration). Freezing is also an option and "pauses the clock" on expiration.
Sounds to me like a pineapple jelly would do the trick for you. It stays vibrant yellow, and a jelly instead of a jam would be clear with no floating pieces or chunks.
Pineapple is a fairly unusual jelly/jam flavor, but quite good. It makes an interesting but delicious pb&j, and could probably be substituted pretty much anywhere you would use jelly or jam.
Unfortunately it is likely to be quite sweet, but you could likely adjust the ratio of juice to sugar to find one that suits you (the two below have wildly different ratios, so I think you could definitely play around with it-- its just a question of the minimum amount of sugar necessary for the jelly to set properly).
Example recipes:
http://www.kraftrecipes.com/recipes/certo-pineapple-jelly-51940.aspx
https://www.justapinch.com/recipes/sauce-spread/jam/pineapple-jelly.html
Apple jelly with either food coloring or turmeric in it. Not sure if you can just mix stuff into a jar of already made jelly, and keep its nice original texture, but you can make the jelly from apple juice (many recipes available on internet, e.g.: http://www.cooks.com/recipe/x16tm5jm/apple-jelly-from-apple-juice.html)
Turmeric has such a strong color, that I think if you used an amount small enough so that the resulting taste was "interesting", ... but still nice, it would still give you your "vibrant yellow".
Of course before doing a lot of work, I would experiment with store-bought apple jelly first.
I've seen a yellow garlic-lemon sauce... it was very good, and I put it on many sandwiches, though the color was not quite what you want. I don't have a recipe (it was commercially made) but perhaps you can develop something of the sort, tweaked for the appearance you want.
The garlic lemon sauce I mentioned was opaque and pale, possibly mayonnaise based. A butter or oil based sauce would probably give a better color - for example, the commercial garlic butter sauce (used as a dip) can be much more yellow, and sometimes a bit less opaque.
The texture is still pretty soft, though it might be able to be thickened with a corn starch slurry. I have had a corn-starch thickened soup so thick it was almost gloppy (and really amazing, texture and flavor worked very well), close to syrupy but not quite at a jelly-like consistency. It was also a really beautiful vibrant gold color - it was a broth based soup, and might have had some coloring - or turmeric - to help give that lovely deep color.
So, between the two, you might have something pretty close. A butter-based sauce, which will thicken and firm up when cool, might be mixed with a gloppy corn-starch based sauce. And the results might well reach syrupy or even jelly-like consistency. The flavor pairing of garlic and lemon is already well-received as a sauce, and may be well complemented by the savory flavors in a golden broth - there are vegetarian golden broth packets available, such as G. Washington's brand, or you can make your own vegetable broth and even deepen the color with turmeric. Butter will, I think, give a better flavor, but oil will tend towards translucent... you could try a mix, depending on how it all tastes.
Butter and lemon (especially zest) will give paler yellows, the broth will give golden yellows, and if you add a bit of turmeric (very bright yellow) I think you should get a pretty vibrant yellow color out of it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.474221
| 2017-06-20T23:29:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/82523",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Jordan Gray",
"Jude",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54271",
"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
}
|
108614
|
Bread is not rising
The problem
After ten years of baking bread, I have a new problem with my bread rising—it seems to fall when baking in the oven.
I've used the recipe below with good results, yielding nice 1–1/2 lb loaves with good flavor and texture. I've varied little from this process, but my last two bakings have left me puzzled.
The first and second restings have met expectations—a good rise and development of yeast smell. The rested loaves did not quite meet expectations but at least doubled in size. After baking, however, the loaves shrank somewhat and came out barely bigger than what I placed in the pans.
I could really use some help here. My family loves my bread, and I do too—until now.
Things I've tried/considered
My method has not changed, but my brand of bread flour has due to stock availability during the COVID-19 lockdown:
Previously I exclusively used King Arthur Bread Flour.
For my last two bakes, the only available flour was Ceresota Unbleached All Purpose Flour.
My yeast is an instant yeast I buy by the pound from Gordon's Food Services and is apparently the same as sold in King Arthur's catalog. All other ingredients are off-the-shelf brands and have not changed.
Thinking the yeast may be old, I replaced it with 4 packets of ordinary instant-rise yeast this last time. The same thing happened: all appeared well, smelled well, felt well during kneading, but the loaves failed to rise and even shrank somewhat in the baking.
I tested the oven and found nothing wrong or out-of-order. The only major change was the flour, and I find it difficult to accept that minor difference in the flours would produce such a change. All ingredients are weighed.
Bread recipe
Ingredients
100g granulated sugar
70g brown sugar
85g molasses
30g butter
150g rolled oats
1 cup near-boiling water
3 cups room-temperature water
210g whole wheat (Bob's Red Mill or King Arthur)
24g yeast (4 packets)
1150g bread flour (see note above on substitution)
90g wheat germ
10g salt
Method
Mix sugar, brown sugar, molasses, butter and oatmeal with the near-boiling water (to partially cook the oatmeal) in a stand mixer for 5 minutes.
Cool the mix with 2 cups room-temperature water, bringing the mix to skin temperature.
Add whole wheat and yeast.
Incorporate the bread flour, wheat germ, 1 cup room-temperature water and salt, mixing until the dough begins
to pull away and form a ball. (I use the wheat germ for higher gluten,
believing that this reduces the crumbling of the finished bread.)
Remove the dough and let it rest, covered, about 20 minutes.
Hand knead the dough for about another five minutes, cover it and let it rest about 45 minutes in a protected spot—usually the oven,
warmed depending upon the season and kitchen conditions. (I pre-warm
the oven by setting the temperature at 190F and turning it on for 1
minute.) The four pottery loaf pans I use sit in the oven with the
rising dough.
When the resting dough has doubled or more, remove it from the oven, knead it for not more than 3 minutes and return it to the oven
for another 45-minute rest.
After the dough has doubled in size, remove it from the oven and portion it into four equally sized loaves, place them in the pans and
return them to the oven for another rest until they double, about
30-40 minutes, covered with a towel.
If satisfied with the rise, remove the towel and set the oven for 365℉ or 375℉ and let the oven achieve temperature. The whole baking
process from cold to completion is usually 33–37 minutes. The bread
will rise further until the loaves are three times the size when I
first introduced them into the pans.
When the loaves are done and have achieved an internal temperature of 195℉, remove them from the oven, place them on a cooling rack ( I
usually leave them on their sides) and cover them snugly for cooling.
Did you notice any change in the texture of the dough? Could you post the protein content of your old and new flours?
Is this toasted wheat germ or raw wheat germ? Raw wheat germ contains a protein
called glutathione which can greatly weaken gluten, depending on the amount used. You might consider toasting it (to denature the protein), or eliminating it temporarily to see if that makes a difference.
Your question is very hard to read. Please consider putting more effort into it, editing it to reduce the number of words, as well as to include paragraph breaks in appropriate places.
So you're saying that you switched to King Arthur flour, or that's what you previously had used? Because there was an article last week that mentioned a bakery that had an antecdote about a bakery having problems when they tried to switch away from King Arthur : “We tried switching once to save money,” says Ozarow. “But our head baker started complaining right away that he wasn’t getting a consistent rise, and the color was off. []"
@Joe I edited the question a little to clarify this—Timothy did clarify towards the end that he was forced to switch from using King Arthur flour to Ceresota due to current stock levels.
Timothy, am I right that you used King Arthur Unbleached Bread Flour previously, but your last two bakes are using Ceresota Unbleached All Purpose Flour? Checking so I can link these products explicitly.
Also, if you don't mind giving quantities for the other ingredients (sugar, brown sugar, molasses, butter, bread flour, wheat germ and salt), this could be a nice recipe to try during lockdown! Also, I'm a little confused by something; you say you measure all ingredients in metric on a scale, but refer to US cup measures throughout the recipe. Did you weigh them the first time you baked the recipe, or are you converting cups to grams when you bake?
Building on Jordan's comment: measuring flour by volume is notoriously imprecise. Flours may differ in density. It could be you are now using too much flour. I strongly suggest you weigh it instead.
For the last six months I've weighed my ingredients for better control. This is the recipe I use:
100g granulated sugar
70g brown sugar
85g molasses
30g butter
90g wheat germ
24g yeast
10g salt
850g-950g water (incl. 1 cup boiling water)
150g rolled oats
210g whole wheat (Bob's Red Mill or King Arthur
1150g bread flour (King Arthur, when I can get it)
The protein content of the two flours is different. It looks like 12.7% vs. 11.4-11.7% based on what I read online, that isn't a big difference but might be enough to explain your results. In my experience King Arthur flour does make better bread with the same recipe.
@TimothyCole Thanks for the quantities! I've updated your question to a more typical, step-by-step recipe—I'm betting this (normally!) makes some fantastic loaves. Feel free to update if anything got lost in translation!
Using a high-gluten flour ( bread flour) is the key to fluffy, high-rising bread. There is a high-quality 'vital wheat gluten' by Hodgson Mills that you can add to regular flour to substitute for the lack of bread flour, but, truthfully, high-gluten flour is the most ideal way to go.
The answer is indeed that you have unbleached flour now - I faced exactly the same problem moving from the USA (bleached) to NZ (unbleached, by law), where the same recipe I had used in my breadmaker in the USA failed in NZ.
Edited to add: as pointed out in a comment from @JordanGray, King Arthur flour is never bleached - so my answer above is obviously incorrect. However, there is one option - which may be a little hard to find out whether this is the case or not: Perhaps the King Arthur flour is aged, while the Ceresota is not.
Bleaching of the flour speeds up the, normally naturally occurring, aging process by oxidizing the grains and thereby improving gluten (by means unknown to me). Unbleached flour can be aged too, to improve the gluten, but this takes time and hence $$$ for the company.
The solution is to use a bread improver - for the home baker this consists of vitamins (C usually), soy lecithins for bulk, and sometimes some enzymes such as amylases. I believe you can get away with just vitamin C/Ascorbic acid, but have not tested this.
Also edited to add: We also struck a similar problem with lock-down, when we were only able to get flour from our local Indian supply shop - and brought some Pillsbury Chakki Atta (Translates to Mill Flour), while unbleached and having a suitably high protein content, it was impossible to make anything other than an, admittedly tasty, brick. It turns out that this flour doesn't develop gluten properly, so while it is really excellent for flatbreads (highly recommend getting some for this purpose), it is useless for leavened breads. I was unable to overcome this problem other than mixing about 1:3; Atta:regular bread flour.
This is a really great suggestion, but when checking the King Arthur product catalogue I could only find unbleached bread flour, and their website proudly states that they produce only unbleached flours—implying he was using unbleached flour already. (I was actually checking to see if there was a significant difference in protein/ash content.) However, I'm not personally familiar with their range, so perhaps I'm missing something! :)
@JordanGray - interesting. I can't recall which flour I was using in the USA, but I think it was a 50lb sack from Costco usually. Perhaps King Arthur ages their flour, whereas Ceresota doesn't.
For me, ratio of 2:1::atta:high grade white flour - works too!
Sounds like the substitute flour is struggling to develop the same amount of gluten as your original flour. You could try the following, but you may have to admit defeat as your original bread recipe, being a dark wholemeal - which due to all the ingredients will resist strong gluten development - will never rise quite as much as an equivalent white loaf.
Reduce the fat content. Fat shortens the gluten strands and also "waterproofs" the flour from absorbing water.
Increase the water content. More water = more airy crumb, but this is a bell curve. Too much water will have a detrimental effect.
Reduce the sugar content or increase the salt content. Both these ingredients affect gluten production.
Reduce the amount of whole-wheat flour as the bran can damage the gluten strands.
Change your kneading technique. Either extend the kneading time, or consider adapting a "No knead" recipe.
Any of these points will have an effect on the rise, wether they are sufficient enough to coax the substitute flour into performing as you would like is another matter. You may well succeed after much trial and error, but inevatibly the bread will be different from your original recipe with the original flour.
Reference: https://www.finecooking.com/article/taking-control-of-gluten
When I was using Ceresota/Hecker's brand unbleached flour, I was making fantastic loaves of bread with sourdough. Now I have this organic, unbleached flour, and I feel like it just doesn't do anything. It rises a little bit, but not really. My starter seems fine. The new batch is over a week and a half old and I keep it refreshed. Right now I'm doing a control loaf, with the King Arthur organic unbleached bread flour and dry yeast to see if there is any difference.
Honestly, I think the unbleached Ceresota was better flour. I also noticed that, when you follow the same recipe, it feels like there's much less flour there, even when you use the same amount of cups. Perhaps, there are far fewer grams in the King Arthur's?
Welcome to SA! Please note that the question you're answering is over a year old. Also, your response doesn't seem to really answer the question -- you have something in there about weight/volume, but it's not clear.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.475320
| 2020-05-25T14:51:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/108614",
"authors": [
"FuzzyChef",
"Joe",
"Jordan Gray",
"Mark Wildon",
"NSGod",
"Peter Duniho",
"Timothy Cole",
"Uncle Long Hair",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15508",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84732",
"raga",
"suse"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33918
|
Resource for combining flavors
I'm wondering if there is some online resource that compiles different flavors and their combinations.
I'm imagining some site that I could search one tag or several, say "orange" and "cake", and then give me results for different things that have orange as a main flavor (some creamsicle cake) or as a secondary flavor component like in a carrot cake.
I know this is a bit confusing, but if there's anyway I can make this better, please don't hesitate to ask.
Thanks!
Originally posted as an answer but I realized you are asking only about online resources: "My favorite offline resource is the flavor bible:
It is organized by ingredients alphabetically. Under each ingredient is a table of compatible and contrasting flavors.
Very helpful when I want to do something creative with a particular ingredient I have on hand and I need ideas."
Have you tried googling "Flavor Combinations"?
See the answers to this question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2770/flavour-combinations-structural-analysis There are several online tools that you can use.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.476216
| 2013-05-02T19:35:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33918",
"authors": [
"Cos Callis",
"Ernest Bagehorn",
"Frank Cruzerall",
"Jan Bergman",
"Khaynes",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78803",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78806",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78841",
"user78803"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33679
|
Is corn a fruit, vegetable, or a nut?
I've been debating with my friends whether or not corn kernels are considered to be fruits or vegetables or nuts. To my knowledge, a fruit is a sweet "bubble" (in that it's a membrane with a fleshy interior) of a plant's seed (they remind me of pomegranate seeds). A vegetable is part of a plant that is eaten but not part of the seed. I was under the impression that nuts were only from a specific "branch" of plant evolution that is predominantly trees. This information would lead me to believe it is isn't any of them. Looking into it myself, I learned the word aril, but I'm not sure if corn's kernels are like that, either. It doesn't sound like it fits the criteria of that, or any of them.
Taking up from there, I'm a bit confused on what corn should be called. Do we have a name for corn like we do everything?
Thanks!
It sounds like you're asking in a biological sense, not a culinary sense. There's a http://biology.stackexchange.com/ that might be better suited for that. In a culinary sense, strict definitions like "an over-ripened ovum" aren't very useful - we care about how something's used in cooking.
right, I'll change my wording. I was wondering if there was a culinary sense
Yes, there is a culinary sense. But unlike biology, it does not Havre consistent definitions, but relies on convention. In cooking, a tomato is a vegetable, a pear is a fruit, a coconut is a nut. Biologically, they are all fruits.
Also, biologically, all fruits are vegetables...though I doubt anyone here is mistaking them for animals or minerals. The debate I'm usually more used to is "is corn a vegetable, or a grain?" in the culinary or food-group sense.
Corn (Maize) is clearly a cereal grain, and not any of the other things you mention. Even the farmers and agricultural agencies consider it a grain - it's one of the "official grains of Canada" and regulated by the Canadian grain commission.
I'm not sure when or why it started being called a vegetable, but as far as the culinary definition goes, it has far too much sugar and starch to fall properly into that category. The typical culinary definition of a vegetable is savory, not sweet.
Botanically, the kernels can be considered a type of fruit called a caryopsis (AKA a grain), although it's not normally eaten as fruit (for one thing, it's normally cooked).
It may accompany vegetables reasonably well, just like rice or many other grains. But it is a grain.
Sorry, Aaronut, it is a fruit botanically (a multiple fruit), and it is from a flowering plant--all grasses are flowering plants. those tassels are the modified female part of the flower.
@SAJ14SAJ: You're right, I decided to look that up and correct the answer.
What are the odds all of us would be on to catch this question at once :-)
In terms of culinary use, corn is either a grain or a vegetable. When we use it as cornmeal, polenta, or even popcorn, we're essentially thinking of it as a grain - and it really is a cereal grain. But when we eat sweet corn off the cob, or incorporated into a dish, we're thinking of it more as a vegetable. (It's still really a grain, but I think it's fair to say it's used as a vegetable sometimes.)
The kernel, the part we eat, is a seed.
Botanically, it is a grain. Its a giant grass. In most cuisines, it treated mostly as a starch.
The entire corn cob is a multiple fruit.
Corn kernels are seeds and the kernels is an ear.
All the fruits of graminae are ears: this means "seed heads" made up of many fruits (usually insignificant) growing together, precisely in an ear.
When the fruits are ripe ears of generating seeds.
In wheat, rice, rye grass, they are ears.
Oats are infructescenses
In corn are cobs:
All the fruits of true grasses are ears: this means "seed heads" made up of many fruits (usually insignificant) growing together, precisely in an ear. When the fruits are ripe ears of generating seeds.
There are many types of true grasse, some edible and some not. The visible ears are groups of seeds.
Same question you can ask for tomatoes or peppers = they are fruits, but used as vegetables.
Corn is a wildly diverse crop, human breeding has adapted it for many, many purposes:
Cereal crop to be processed: You harvest the dried kernals of certain varieties of corn from the cob, and store them until they're ready to be processed and consumed, usually by soaking them in lye, then grinding them into a paste (masa) that is either used in recipes as is, or dried into cornmeal.
Cereal crop to be stored and cooked: certain varieties of corn's kernels are exposed to heat, and their nutritious, starch laden meat is expanded into something that can be combined with water and other ingredients into a tasty gruel, or snacked on straight from the heat source (hot sand in pre-columbian cultures, animal or vegetable fats in colonial cultures, hot air in modern homes. Yup. Popcorn was an essential staple in some pre-columbian cultures.)
Fresh vegetable/fruit: Sweetcorn is a perishable crop, who's caryopsis (kernels) have a sweet, moist texture very similar to fresh fruits and "vegetables" that are fruiting bodies of plants. While technically a whole grain, sweetcorn contains many vitamins and nutrients and flavor profiles associated with fresh produce.
A maize grain is considered a fruit because it shares some features with other fruits, for example: it has two scars, etc.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.476374
| 2013-04-23T01:33:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33679",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Cascabel",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Theodore Murdock",
"Throsby",
"graham nevison",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16893",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9057",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
42542
|
Slow cooker lid gasket smell
I bought a Hamilton Beach slow cooker a while ago. I never had success with it since all the stuff that I made didn't smell good. I finally figured out that it was the rubber gasket on the lid that smelled bad. I don't know if the smell was concentrated food aroma or burnt rubber. I soaked the lid in vinegar overnight and then rinsed it. The smell was gone. I then made some pinto beans in the slow cooker and the gasket again stinks, this time similar to a very very strong pinto bean smell. I am thinking of either giving up on slow cooking or buying a crock pot brand. My questions:
Is the extremely strong smell from the rubber gasket a common occurrence in slow cookers in general?
If not, I guess I should just go and buy a different brand/model and shouldn't have this problem.
If they are, are there any gasketless slow cookers or lids that would solve this problem?
Does overcooking tend to bring out different, or offensive smells from otherwise normal food and sauces?
Results: For those coming here with the same problem, I simply removed the gasket and everything was fine. Since the lid has a small hole to release pressure, there was no need for a gasket to make a seal in the first place.
I have had the same problem with a counter-top electric pressure cooker. I am going to try the vinegar-and-dish soap solution.
Well first off, most slow cookers don't have a gasket. So its not a problem for them. Rubber can often times take on strong smell.
I would consider buying one without a gasket - I don't think its a majorly useful feature personally. Or, consider buying the more versatile enameled Dutch oven (there are some very affordable, excellent ones) .
Yes, most don't have a rubber gasket. And it would solve that problem.
Yes overcooking will lead to bad/different smells, even in good food otherwise. It will often lead to bad tastes and textures as well.
+1 for very helpful answers! I can't use Dutch ovens for "slow cooking" to have food ready when I am back from work, can I?
@highBandWidth - It depends on if you trust your oven to be on all day or a small electrical appliance to be on all day. Either way there's a risk of leaving something plugged in like that. Generally small appliances carry a much higher risk than an oven at 230 degrees.
I can't recommend it, as I've never used it, but the reviews are good. The safest to leave all day would be something like this insulated bag.
vinegar(white) about 3" deep in basin add teaspoon mild dish soap swish into bubbles place lid in rubber in solution let it soak for 2 hours.... No more smell. If that doesn't work I don't know.
The whole purpose of the gasket and hinges
is to make the crockpot portable to prevent spills. Wash the lid in the dishwasher. The lids of crockpots are all DW safe. No more problem.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.476817
| 2014-03-05T20:32:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42542",
"authors": [
"Brian K1LI",
"Franklin Konan",
"Mary Kay Lee",
"Matt",
"Somerando",
"Spammer",
"highBandWidth",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/135658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99383",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99384",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99385",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99386",
"rfusca"
],
"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
}
|
33455
|
What are the effects of thawing food at low temperatures?
Context: I am a member of staff at a supermarket where customers within supermarkets frequently "dump" refrigerated/fresh items into freezers. As far as I am aware, the options I have to me for dealing with these dumped items are as follows:
Thawing the (partially/entirely) frozen item within the back-area chillers and selling as normal
Thawing the (partially/entirely) frozen item within the back-area chillers and reducing the price of the item, as we currently do with lesser-quality food items (eg poor cuts of meat, superficially damaged packaging or multi-pack items that are missing an item or two)
Discarding the item as not-fit-for-human-consumption
Background reading indicates that for most products - assuming that the food does not defrost within the "danger zone" (above 40f) - the main concern with thawing these items relates to food quality rather than food safety as the freeze-thaw cycle will damage the food's internal cell-structure.
This leads me to believe that option #2 is the best balance for avoiding excessive wastage and ensuring customer safety but these thoughts are based on extremely limited reading material and passing the smell-test of what "makes sense".
Please confirm the "best practices" / safety guidelines relating to this scenario and provide information on the caveats / what to look out for.
Many thanks
I tried to add the tags "supermarket" and "best-practices" but these don't seem to be available.
Do I understand correctly that customers are dumping items in your grocery and you don't know how those items have been handled?
To clarify the terms I am familiar with, I understand grocery to be ambient items - cereals, tinned items, drinks etc. I primarily handle refrigerated items (meat / poultry / fish / cheese / butters / fats / juices / ready meals / cooked sliced meats etc). Any items dumped in grocery areas are typically discarded.
The refrigerated items are being dumped into the freezers and, depending upon how long it has been there before being spotted, are reaching abnormally low temperatures. The time between being picked up from the refrigerators and being put into the freezers is a "normal" partial-shop time, where customers decide (en route to the checkouts) that they no longer want the item.
Not being in the grocery industry, I cannot advise you on what best practices are in your industry.
However, assuming you thaw the items in your chiller at safe temperatures (40°F or below) as you indicated, you do not have a safety issue.
Depending on the product, there will be damage from ice crystals forming during the freezing, which will make meats more watery and degrade their texture, change the texture of vegetables, and so on. This is more true than commercially frozen equivilent products, because slower freezing produces larger crystals which cause more physical damage. Commercially frozen foods are often frozen in blast chillers to minimize freezing time and ice crystal size growth because of this problem.
I cannot give you specific information on what to look for in terms of quality degradation, because it would depend on the specific item. Think about what would happen if you froze it at home in your own freezer, and thawed it for use later. The same type of quality change will occur. Vegetables will tend to get limp; meats will tend to exude more juice. Of course, the consumer deserves to know that this has occurred.
Therefore, I think your best options are 2 (disclosing that the item was frozen). You may choose to discard the item as not of a high enough quality, but it is still safe and fit for human consumption.
It may not be practical for you to store, but you could also let the item freeze completely, and sell it at a discount frozen, allowing the customer to thaw it at their convenience.
I applaud your ethical approach in actually asking.
Try to avoid option-3 (unless you suspect the item is a hazard).
As an alternative, keep the food in the freezer (per SAJ14SAJ's suggestion) and contact your local Second Harvest http://www.2harvest.org/ or equivalent organization.
Best bet from experience, leave the item frozen and sell reduced. Thawing and refreezing changes food taste and consistency with most items. As far as health and safety goes if it stays out of the danger zone the entire time it should be fine.
In the grocery industry however you have no idea what has happened to the item that was obviously moved by the customer. Did a kid handle it for an hour or so while parents shopped letting it sit in danger zone before being dumped in the most convenient cold area? This is a strong argument for tossing it and taking the loss.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.477090
| 2013-04-13T23:36:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33455",
"authors": [
"Carey Gregory",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17821",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"kwah"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
39393
|
How to make hot chocolate drink thicker?
How do you make a cup of hot chocolate drink so that it's sweet and thick and maintains the chocolate taste?
I haven't been able to make anything acceptable by melting chocolate, adding sugar, milk or water. At best it tasted like crude cocoa drink. My cooking skills are very low, so please describe every step thoroughly.
I have no idea why 3 other people would have closed this as off-topic. I personally find it a very good question and would have upvoted if it wasn't a duplicate.
@rumtscho they must have seen it as recipe request. made some edits to OP's question to make more clear.
Basically I was asking for a recipe, since a list of ingredients clearly isn't enough for me to produce a good drink from. But thanks for nothing.
Cornflour can be added to make it thicker -Follow on bharatkumarr.blogspot.in
I believe what you're looking for is Italian Hot Chocolate which is thick and smooth.
You can thicken normal hot chocolate with arrowroot or cornstarch and you're there. If you search for Italian hot chocolate you can find recipes such as this one which is made with:
real chocolate (bitter sweet)
Whole Milk (sometimes cream)
Cornstarch
Sugar
If you can't find good bittersweet chocolate (don't use the bakers stuff), you can buy any good dark chocolate and forgo most of the sugar to keep the balance. Keep the heat super low and take your time melting the chocolate.
It is super easy to make, and if you start with quality chocolate (Lindt and better) it will be a crowd pleaser and then some.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.477566
| 2013-11-12T16:00:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39393",
"authors": [
"Amy",
"Andrew H",
"Bharatkmr",
"Ivan Trofymenko",
"LeeAnn Hively-Insalaco",
"MandoMando",
"Misty Wright",
"Tina Gavin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19989",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91433",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91434",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91439",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91440",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91442",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91443",
"milo",
"rumtscho",
"user1306322"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8908
|
What is the safest, most effective way to cleave through thick bone?
While I was preparing bones for chicken stock today, I was rudely alerted to the fact that my cleaving technique was inadequate for bone-cutting when I nearly chopped off my left thumb. Fortunately my reflexes were quick enough such that I got away with only a cracked thumbnail and what felt like two simultaneous heart attacks.
I know that it's a supremely bad idea to have a hand anywhere near the cutting area when "hacking" with a cleaver. However, my work area is small, and the chicken does not really have a flat surface to rest on, and attempting to just hack one-handed would (and did) result in flying chicken shrapnel.
Is there a technique I can use for cutting through bone that is safe and precise?
(Related: How to cut a cooked chicken, including the bones, with a cleaver? That question, however, deals with cutting an entire chicken, which, unlike my scenario, doesn't require chopping through some of the thickest parts of the bone; most of it can even be done with a kitchen scissors.)
(Note - I did manage to solve this one myself after doing some digging, and will post my own answer, but I welcome other suggestions/techniques as well.)
GladToHearYouWontBeTypingLikeThisInTheFuture.:)
@hobodave: If only you knew just how close I came! It was a stupid move, but people do stupid things when they get desperate (and flying chicken bone projectiles counts as desperate in my book).
The most reliable technique I found was the following:
Hold the cleaver in your left hand (assuming you are right-handed);
Press the cleaver from the top with your right hand to make a slight indentation into the bone, in order to maintain a stable hold for the next step;
Use a wooden mallet to pound the flat (top) end of the cleaver, again with your right hand.
This is completely safe and doesn't require precise aim. Usually even the thickest bones can be cleaved through completely with 2 or 3 hard whacks from the mallet.
You can usually cut through the breast and back with a pair of shears.
Then you can lay the chicken on the board and it will stay put.
I've had very limited success with this approach but some people do swear by it. It's certainly worth keeping in mind as a potential option.
If you cut next to the spine it’ll be way easier for the shears.
I place the chicken on its back. Then place the cleaver against one side of the breast bone and hit the back of the cleaver with my palm, directing the cut to the center of the backbone. This breaks through the breast completely. Then I align the cleaver to the center of the backbone and hit the back of the cleaver with my left hand again. This splits the bird. I then rock the cleaver to cut any skin that didn't cut.
My cleaver is curved and very sharp but not too thin a leading edge, the trailing edge is rather thick. One could use a mallet if they prefer.
From that point I can quarter or piece the bird with a slicing movement through the joints with the same cleaver.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.477748
| 2010-11-06T18:34:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8908",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Stephie",
"Zach Lome",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"valerie"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17033
|
What is the best way to clean bulk blueberries?
This question has been asked before but only with respect to washing a small container.
We have a friend who runs fruit stands in the summer and we typically get 10 pounds of blueberries at a time from him. Before freezing or eating, they need to be washed, and I always struggle to find an efficient way to get rid of the squished berries, the stems, the leaves, etc.
I'll post what I do as an answer, but I wonder if there is a better way, or some equipment that would make it easier.
What I do is use a big plastic bowl. The bowl is about 18" in diameter at the top and holds about 2 gallons of water.
I fill the bowl about 1/2 to 2/3 full of blueberries and then fill it to the brim with water and leave the water running into it. As the bowl is filling and when it's full I gently agitate the berries with my hands.
Most of the chaff naturally floats to the top and spills over the edge of the bowl. As I agitate the berries, I also try to direct any leaves to the edge and pull any berries back from the edge. I lose a few good berries, but not too many and since I'm dealing with a lot of them I don't worry about it too much.
As I'm agitating the berries, I can feel a lot of the squishy ones and pull them out to look at them and discard if they're too far gone.
When most of the chaff is gone, I dump the berries into a colander and let them drain. I've tried spinning them in a salad spinner, but for the amount of berries I'm trying to process, I've found that in order to remove any appreciable amount of water I can only put a small amount at a time in the spinner so it takes forever to spin them all.
So I let them drain, and then since I'm usually freezing these berries, I put some paper towels down on a tray and spread out a layer of berries. When they're spread out I can pick out most of the squished or shriveled ones that I missed earlier, then I pull the paper towels out and freeze them.
I haven't ever looked for one, but I've always wondered if there's such a thing as a colander or sieve or screen with really big holes - i.e. just slightly smaller than a blueberry - that I could just dump the berries into and rinse off all the debris.
One big limitation to this technique is that it bogs down if you're dealing with less than fresh berries. Picking out all the squished or moldy ones if they've been sitting around too long is problematic.
When I was a kid, we picked tons of blueberries. We had a frame made out of 1" x 4" boards, 2'+ wide and about 4' to 5' long. At the far end, the frame was angled towards the middle (narrow side) with a space for the berries to drop into a bucket placed below (maybe 4" to 6"). On the bottom of the frame we had metal window screen stapled down (no cloth screen back then, not sure if cloth would work). Place a bucket at the one end (narrow tapered end), dump berries at the opposite end, raise the frame on the far end (away from the bucket) enough so that when you gently shake the frame, the berries start rolling towards the bucket. The screen will help hold the smaller leaves in place. Some you will have to raise the frame higher for, some you will have to remove leaves directly attached to the berries. Once the berries are in the bucket, dump the leaves left on the screen and start with the next batch. Always worked well and was very fast. Best with fresh picked berries, unwashed.
Living in Maine we have a lot of blueberries.The answer above using the frame is excellent and the best way.I have found that putting them in a bowl of water did not work very well.We picked two big bowls yesterday and I do not have a frame so I find the best way is to use a couple of kitchen towels put them on the table pouring about a cup of berries on the cloth,rolling the berries down the cloth with a flat hand and in to the bowl.Sometimes I needed to go on to the next towel.Shake the towel off in between cups.Hard work but worth it.Going picking again this morning.
Round things will readily roll down an inclined plane, such as a tilted cutting board, while squished berries will stick to the surface. A dishpan makes for a nice container to catch the good berries.
You have to keep the berry stream a bit thin, and swipe off the damaged berries every pound or so, but you can get through a lot of berries very quickly this way.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.478044
| 2011-08-22T07:36:54 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17033",
"authors": [
"Cameron",
"Hannah R",
"Regina Hunter",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142274",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142277",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36538",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83893",
"rebie james",
"zx8754"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33844
|
What's the most efficient way to juice halved lemons and limes?
Between squeezers, reamers, and juicers, what's the fastest way to juice small citruses?
Limes are cheap in my area, so I'm willing to sacrifice juice per fruit if I can get the same volume faster from more of them.
I care about volume because I'm using juice in drinks.
Similar (maybe even same answers): http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4854/are-there-benefits-to-using-a-lemon-squeezer/4857#4857
Short of using an electric juicer, the squeeze press type of juicer is very popular for doing large quantities of citrus quickly and efficiently. They are both fast, and squeeze almost all of the available juice, getting the best of both worlds.
These come in sizes that are best for limes, lemons, oranges, or even grapefruits.
Some manufacturers tend to make the hinge pins of these devices out of weak metal. When it breaks, go to the hardware store and get a stainless nut and bolt that'll fit the hole. Then the device'll last for years.
I never quite know how to use one of these. To begin with, what direction do you put the lemon half - do you match the curve of the device, or do you go against it? The location of the holes argues for the latter, but if I do it that way, I always get a folded-in-on-itself mess, not a fully juiced lemon.
Counterintuitively, most experts say that the fruit goes flat side to the holes, rounded side to the crushing anvil, and it gets inverted as it gets squeezed.
For making large amounts of margarita, I've found it hard to beat a press like this one:
It extracts almost all the juice in one easy movement.
I don't see the benefit in a rotary juicer.
This image is missing.
Can anyone reproduce @Thalecress's problem? It works for me.
Works for me too.
Since the question as it is written asks for speed, one of the devices mentioned above will definitely fit that bill. Especially if you are processing a large amount of citrus. Me personally, I'm not a huge fan of uni-taskers in the kitchen. Thus, I generally opt to:
Roll the fruit in all directions while still whole. Apply a decent amount of pressure.
Halve the fruit
Squeeze the fruit into your container, you can use a mesh strainer to catch seeds and large amounts of pulp
You can use this method in conjunction with a sturdy fork pressing into the fruit against the palm of your hand to extract as much juice as possible.
Mesh strainer -- http://www.amazon.com/Norpro-KRONA-Stainless-Steel-Strainer/dp/B00004RDE1
I find that I actually get more juice quickly using a spoon rather than a fork, as it better matches the shape of the fruit. (when I don't want to pull out the wooden reamer ... plastic reamers suck, as they slip rather than breaking up the membranes). You can also use the spoon to squeeze out the pulp that catches in the strainer. Another good tool for citrus are kitchen tongs -- use them as a second class lever (ie, like a nutcracker) to crush the citrus half.
The tong-squeeze is a nice thought. Haven't thought of that oen before. Thanks for the tip!
Tim Ferris in 4-Hour Chef quotes Chef Jeffrey Zurofsky:
"make sure you roll them out by hand first. You'll get twice as much juice."
This should work regardless of the device used to aid with the juicing. I'm personally not a fan of the crushing devices as they tend to break the seeds which release bitterness. The rotating citrus juicers (electric or otherwise) such as this one work for me:
I'm not sure I've ever noticed the bitterness from the seeds using my squeeze-style juicer on lemons and limes. I believe you that the seeds are bitter, but I think it's a fairly minor concern.
For a large quantity of juice, buy a simple electric juicer. I doesn't have to be a large fancy machine. I use one to juice the many grapefruit from my tree. This link might help:
http://canvasli.com/citrus-juicers/best-citrus-juicer-reviews/
For a smaller amount, say for a recipe, I use a wooden citrus reamer. Do a Google image search and you'll see what I am talking about. I've used mine over a strainer and it is quick and simple.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.478443
| 2013-04-30T03:14:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33844",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"D.Holguin",
"Joe",
"Kelly L",
"Marti",
"Martin Schumann",
"NW Tech",
"Ruth",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sandy Hutzler",
"Steven Hoir",
"Tanvi Sharma",
"Thalecress",
"Vicky",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"actiaslunabakes",
"geekTechnique",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18115",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78629",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78630",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78633",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78664",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78693",
"rumtscho",
"slim",
"thomp"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33818
|
Can you use marinade twice if it was first used on precooked meat?
I made precooked frozen meatballs in the crockpot with jelly and honey BBQ sauce. It was really yummy and was wondering if the sauce that's leftover would be ok to marinate some ribs in?
The general rule is that if the food has not been exposed to potentially dangerous temperatures (40 - 140 F, 4 - 60 C) for more than 4 hours cumulative over its lifetime them it is safe to use. This would apply to your sauce, so if it was hot the entire time it was being used, it should be okay.
If your marinade meets that constraint, then you might consider reusing it. However, it will have been diluted and infused by the meatball flavors, so the result may be strange or it may be fantastic, depending on how those flavors interact.
Given that ribs are not inexpensive items, I would start with a new "marinade" sauce, so that you have consistent and predictable results.
See also: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/tags/food-safety/info
... of course, if you want to try it, no reason you have to try it on the full slab of ribs. Could try it on just a few, then its fairly cheap.
The general guideline for perishable foods is that you want them to be in the danger zone (40-140°F, 4-60°C) for no more than 2 hours (1 hour on a hot day). why even refer to a “danger zone” if it depends on the temperature in that danger zone?
As various comments have said, it somewhat depends on what you're going to do. Generally speaking, unless the marinade is to be immediately cooked with some other food, I'd say to boil the marinade first before reusing. That's a standard step recommended for marinades from raw meat or poultry.
Now, you might say, "But the meat wasn't raw; it was precooked." The problem is that even cooked meats can provide a growth medium for bacteria. Errors in cooling procedures or contamination after initial cooking could create problems. (For example, see this question on why precooked commercial foods often contain warnings to reheat to a minimum temperature before eating.)
Thus, my tendency would be to err on the side of caution and boil the marinade before reuse.
Note that this advice assumes you have employed the standard practice of marinating in the refrigerator. Marinating at room temperature -- even with precooked meat -- creates the possibility of significantly greater bacterial growth over time if any contamination has occurred. At some point you may begin to grow stuff that could even have persistent toxins that can't be destroyed by boiling. (Note that this might not happen for many hours or even days at room temperature, but it's hard to predict if contamination occurs. And while various elements of a marinade -- like acid or salt -- could inhibit bacterial growth somewhat, liquid around meat is a pretty good growth environment.)
Thus, to be absolutely safe, I'd personally boil the marinade before reuse. And if it sat at room temperature for any significant amount of time, I'd probably not reuse it. Yes, you might be safe without these precautions, but it's tough to estimate the possible risks.
EDIT: Thinking about this more, I'd say this is one the more "overcautious" food safety answers I've written here. In a whole lot of scenarios, it's probably going to be perfectly okay to reuse the marinade even without the precautions. But if you really want to minimize risk, this kind of question falls into what I think of as the "too many variables" scenario. How was the meat initially cooked? How was it cooled? How was it stored? Were the any opportunities for contamination after cooking? How was the meat stored during marinating? What are the contents of the marinade and how much might they inhibit (or promote) bacterial growth? Without firm answers to all of these things, I'd default to standard practice for marinade reuse with meat, as outlined above.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.478844
| 2013-04-28T23:31:09 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33818",
"authors": [
"Alter Lagos",
"Hetal",
"JerryP",
"Juliet",
"KetchusisRooster",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68724",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78564",
"vay",
"viuser",
"zachfrey"
],
"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
}
|
35486
|
Out of Date Vine Leaves - are they safe to eat?
I bought vacuum packed vine leaves quite some time ago. Stupidly didn't get round to using them so they are still in the fridge. They are well passed their sell by date of March 2011. Should I just bin them or do you think they are still fine to use? I think they look okay...
Thanks very much for your help!
Kate
Probably won't kill you, but veggie matter, like leaves in water, gets soggier over time. They may now lack the integrity to form proper Dolmatas.
Thank you so much for your help and for answering so quickly. That makes very good sense. Cheers.
They may be safe but they are certainly not guaranteed to be safe. see How long can I store a food in the pantry, refrigerator, or freezer.
Besides safety they have likely lost all consistency and won't taste well. You're propensity to prevent food waste is admirable, in this case however, it's best to bin them or better yet, compost them in a flowerpot (if they're not in acid or something).
Thanks for making me chuckle! D'you know, it was the novelty of seeing them in our local Deli that got me excited... then of course, I never rose to the challenge. I think you're right about ditching them at this stage. Thank you very much. :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.479171
| 2013-07-22T10:17:30 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35486",
"authors": [
"DPS",
"Kate",
"Lexi",
"Terri N Marq",
"Vector Zita",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19307",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82956",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82957",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82958",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82965",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82966",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/82972",
"theMaxx",
"쑝멋지리"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17242
|
Homemade Kahlua - something missing
Basic recipe for homemade Kahlua on the Intertubes is lots of sugar, some coffee, high alcohol content something or other, and vanilla. Some minor variations on this theme is all I've found.
But real Kahlua is heavier than Irish Cream. The layered shot, "Duck Fart," is made of, from bottom to top, Kahlua, Irish Cream, and Whiskey. When I try to make this with homemade Kahlua though the cream sinks.
The amount of sugar in this stuff is huge, it's basically syrup. I doubt it needs more. I use brown sugar. What could be missing from the recipe that makes it heavier than cream?
You mean heavier than cream, right?
By "some coffee" you do mean coffee beans, right? Relative weight would likely be affected using beans as opposed to the liquid (i.e. grain alcohol leeches the coffee oils, as opposed to mixture with the beverage)
There is a shot called... 'duck fart'? I am almost positive that ducks can't fart since they don't have rectal sphincter muscles. Also that is a gross name for a drink.
@Katey - yes there is and it happens to be a really good one. Nobody knows why it's called that. The most reasonable theory I've heard is that it's named after the sound YOUR sphincter makes a day after drinking a bunch of them. QUACK QUACK
Adding more sugar to a small amount did fix the issue. I think that boiling down the coffee/sugar mix would go a long way toward increasing the SG without making it sickeningly sweet. Next time I make a batch it's what I'll do.
You're right. As a rule, the proof of the liquid will give you a measure of its density; the higher proof the liquid, the lower its density.
You could reduce your kahlua down a bit to reduce it's alcohol (and water) content and make it more syrupy without requiring more sugar.
Grats on fixing it; did you start with a simple syrup the first time, or just dissolve the sugar directly?
I would imagine the problem could be with the bartending and not the recipe; there is an art to sliding a lighter liquid under a heavier one, or even to layering the lighter one on top.
Also, there are different variants to the so-called duck fart that may result in why it appears your drinks are coming out wrong. Perhaps the recipe for kahlua is not "wrong" exactly, but that the recipe for the cocktail is not what you think it is?
It's not much different from a B-52, which I've made more times than I can count; Irish cream definitely layers on top of good kahlua and does not sink.
I don't mean that Irish Cream was denser; rather the two could be mixing from poor pouring is all.
Of course; I was mainly referring to the last sentence here. I don't think the recipe is the problem, it looks right to me.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.479335
| 2011-08-28T23:58:13 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17242",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ben",
"Cornelius Vanderbilt",
"DJD",
"Edward Strange",
"Fabien Victor Rayé",
"Katey HW",
"Moksha",
"PeggySue2u2",
"Rod",
"eternalNoob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37026",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7082",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7240",
"mfg"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
38135
|
What's the best way to strain stock?
I have a big pot full of chicken necks and backs on the stove which I need to separate into (a) stock and (b) everything else.
I'm wondering the best way to go about doing this. I've previously laid cheesecloth into a fine-mesh strainer and poured it through that, but the cheesecloth always seems to kind of clog up, making straining 4 litres of stock a very lengthy process. I also tried a coffee filter laid inside a strainer and got more-or-less the same results.
Alternatively, I ditched the cheesecloth and just used the fine-mesh strainer by itself, but, unsurprisingly, this method leaves some bits I'd rather not have.
I'm wondering: is there a better way? Or should I stick with the cheesecloth and work on being more patient?
Possibly of interest: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36426/whats-an-effective-method-to-strain-liquids?rq=1
Unless you are making an aspic where perfect clarity is required, it may not matter very much. I strain my stock through a medium strainer because I don't have the patience to continuously unclog a finer one. I am sure the difference has never been noticed in a gravy or sauce or soup or whatever.
A two round strain may work for you. First time just the fine wire mesh, to clear the big bones and skins. Second time with a cheesecloth too, to get all the little stuff. That should reduce your clogging problem.
Fine mesh sieve is the usual way, but the way you describe it, yours is not fine enough.
Look in professional stores for a "chinois", this is the kind of sieve you need. But yes, it will take a long time.
In classic restaurants, the stock will be cleared before going through the chinois. This is done by floating a rack of eggwhite which bounds the stray proteins. It is at least as slow as the cheesecloth, but more nerve wracking, because you have to do it manually, and it is rather finicky and can easily go wrong.
I remember reading about a modern trick of clearing which used gelatine and freezing the stock without a mesh or a rack, but don't know any more what it was. Maybe somebody else has read it and can supply the details.
Edit I returned home and looked the freezing method up; it is listed in the book "Cooking for geeks". It contains the sentence
As the water in the stock freezes, it will push the impurities into the gelatin
The book also has pictures. They show that you don't end up with fine protein sediment clogging your sieve and finest slit in the stock. The first picture shows the drip-freeze filtered stock compared to the same stock filtered at 100 microns, the difference is large. The second picture shows that after the procedure, what stays in the sieve are cohesive pieces of gelatine with the particles trapped inside, not a film of the scum. So it seems that there is a reason for freezing first.
You can also skip the need of clearing if you never bring your stock to a boil, but keep it at a bare simmer. This is quite easy with modern programmable cookers, if they have a dedicated soup or stock mode, but will require a lot of baby sitting on a stovetop.
For home use, I just don't bother clearing my stock, I just use a tea sieve to remove the worst of the protein. When simmered without allowing it to boil, this produces reasonably good stock without all the fuss.
Yeah, ice filtration is the clarification method where you freeze the stock: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2005/apr/09/foodanddrink.shopping3 Only problem there is that the more gelatin in your stock, the less yield you get and you lose the body that the gelatin gives. Some people add powdered gelatin back in to compensate.
@Stefano Is that the link you intended? It only talks about letting thawing stock filter through a coffee filter, which seems to be only deferring the filtering.
My mistake, I misread the last paragraph there, didn't catch the 'without mesh' bit. Afaik, you have to suspend the frozen stock in some sort of strainer for this to work (at least that's the way I've always done it).
@Stefano I found it, and they do use a mesh after all, it must be the same idea. It is just that I have never done it, so I had forgotten the details when I wrote the answer.
Perhaps you could consider straining it twice? Use your strainer the first time to get out the larger particles and then do a second time with the cheesecloth so that it doesn't get clogged as easily. I imagine this wouldn't be any faster, but you'd have to fight with the clogged cheesecloth less.
I run mine through a colander first, then through a sieve.
Then I lay a single layer of cheese cloth over the top and press down wirh a spoon so its submerged a little all the way around. Put it in the fridge overnight.
Next morning remove cheese cloth, which takes most of the coagulated and chilled fat with it.
Run through clean folded cheese cloth in the sieve to remove remaining material, sans clogs.
I like to use a lint free surgical towel. It works much better than cheesecloth and is not as slow as a coffee filter.
The best way to strain stock is actually to siphon it off, that way you don't agitate the liquid as you pour the whole lot out. It's a simple process:
Find a vessel to hold the strained stock and place the stockpot above it at a higher level. (I normally put a wide bowl in the sink and then the pot on the counter top; I've also used a stack of cookbooks before.)
Put a fine mesh sieve in the bowl
Place a long, thin tube into the the stock and make sure it's touching the bottom of the stockpot.
Place the other end of the tube in your mouth a suck out some of the stock and as soon as it's flowing direct it into the sieve sitting in the bowl.
This can be left unattended (providing your bowl is big enough) until all the stock is siphoned out.
I can't claim credit for this idea, I read it in Modernist Cuisine but unfortunately I don't have my copy handy so I can't give a page reference.
The concept's been around for a long time. It's called 'decanting' (although it can just mean transferring between containers when you're dealing with wine). To avoid contaminating the stock with saliva, you can slowly submerge the tube so it fills with liquid, then put a thumb over the end and move it to the lower container. The goal is to make sure there's enough liquid so it goes up over the edge of the pot and back down below the level of the liquid in the pot, without air bubbles.
If you want a clear stock, cheesecloth (and a healthy dose of patience) is the way to go. I would speculate that you might get better performance by first getting the big bits out by using a colander, and then go on to the fine-mesh sieve, finishing off with another pass through the sieve lined with cheesecloth. At that point, you can also use a little pressure on the cheesecloth to get the liquid out quicker.
I freeze my broth then let it defrost through cheesecloth.
This sounds promising, but I can't quite imagine how it makes a difference. How do the solid bits not clog up the cheesecloth as it all melts?
As the ice melts, a gelatin net is left behind that holds the proteins and other large contaminates. This is effective, but has the downside that you're also leaving the gelatin behind.
A dish drying towel, folded double, held with elastic bands onto a juice pitcher works for a much clearer broth. Should you choose, you can dig out any bits from the residue (which I do for my dog's snack). Its quick. When the dripping slows a lot, gently slide a spoon over the surface of the towel, it pushes the "stuff" away enough to improve the flow.
I cannot find them but when I worked in a kitchen we used the same strainer we used for the deep fat fryer. It was like a big coffee strainer but more of a mesh type fiber. You could probably find them at a restaurant supply. And it strained better hot.
I have been having the same problem using double layered fine metal strainers. I picked up some cheese cloth the other day at the grocery store and tonight I filtered my stock through that, I filtered it through the find metal strainers double layered like always then twice through a double layered cheese cloth. I was amazed to find my stock was almost clear!... Almost. There seems to be some ultra fine sediment floating in the middle and swelling around the bottom it's a lot less than usual but even the stock that remains around it way more transparent than ever before! I never thought I cared about the transparency because I always use it for things where the looks don't matter as much it's absolutely beautiful!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.479665
| 2013-11-04T09:00:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/38135",
"authors": [
"Aaron N. Tubbs",
"Andreas Lødemel",
"Ayesha Russell",
"Diane Livingston",
"Felix Emanuel",
"Jody",
"Joe",
"Mairi Graham",
"Nate",
"Nipendrachandra Roy",
"Priyanka Murthy",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Stefano",
"Texas Gal",
"Vince Bowdren",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Wing Lee",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138592",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138626",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75701",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89835",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89845",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89870",
"rumtscho",
"willille"
],
"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
}
|
27961
|
Why does tea become bitter if brewed too hot or too long?
To try to narrow the scope and help deduce an answer to this question, I'm wondering:
Why does tea become bitter if brewed too hot or too long?
There is a question on the front page which seems like a dupe to me, http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27957/what-processes-occur-in-tea-that-make-it-taste-bad-after-some-time. Can you please explain how it is supposed to be different?
@rumtscho This question is about tea going bad during brewing, the question you linked to is about tea going bad after it is made.
Tea contains a lot of flavinoid compounds notably tannins. Tannins are astringent and have a very strong bitter flavor.
The tannins are released much more slowly compared to the other flavor compounds. So when brewed for too long or too hot, much more tannins are released into the brew along and hence the resulting tea is much more bitter.
how can you brew tea too hot? Water for tea has too at boiling point in order for the tea too taste OK. Nothing worse than tea made with hot, but not boiling water.
@Ken: I believe that different kinds of tea require water at different temperatures. Black tea can be made with much hotter water than green, oolong etc. Some teas taste better when made with not quite boiling water.
This depends on the type of tea. Yerba Mate and other green teas tend to get stronger in flavour but Rooibos or Earl Grey will start getting bitter after 5-10 minutes.
FYI, mate doesn't contain any tea (Camellia sinensis)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.480804
| 2012-10-23T17:01:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/27961",
"authors": [
"Dave",
"Debra Bellings-Kee",
"Dharini Chandrasekaran",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Ken",
"Myrnadupee",
"Robert Knight",
"Sista Soul",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14024",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64273",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64280",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64804",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9262",
"jjavierv",
"rumtscho",
"user1306322"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
102989
|
Uncooked peppers and garlic in olive oil fizzled when opened
I put uncooked hot peppers in olive oil with garlic, onions, and seasoning. When I opened the jars, they fizzled. Is this safe to eat?
Hi David, welcome to Seasoned Advice! I made a couple of minor edits to help with formatting. Did you store this in the refrigerator or at room temperature? I have a feeling somebody will be able to find an instance where this question has been answered before but I couldn’t find it easily when I checked.
It would also be helpful to know what seasonings you included. Were you following a recipe? I would assume it is NOT safe, but that information would help us know for sure.
For us to be able to help you properly, we need: what ingredients were used (which seasonings?), in what ratios, what method you followed (room temperature? Fridge?) and, if possible, a picture
Related: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9451/botulism-garlic-cold-pressed-olive-oil-and-mason-jars?rq=1
It has happened me a couple of times. I ate it, no problems, neither with my health or the taste of it. Re botulism, look up the statistics. Where I live (10 million people) there has been a handful of cases since the 60s and none of them could be traced back to garlic or chilli in oil. Enjoy your oil.
That's not how you make garlic infused oil.
@kitukwfyer I can't imagine any situation in which fizzing from a jar of infused oil could be declared safe. Also, at this distance, we can't "know for sure."
THere's not enough information to make a decision on here, the most important factor is the time frame, and that's not mentioned. I would have no concerns about oil with peppers left in it overnight, but after a week I would be concerned. Also, were the peppers and other seasonings dried or fresh? Dried, probably less of a concern. Fresh, definitely should be concerned.
Without further ado, that’s an indication of biological activity. Both garlic and hot peppers are used for making fermented hot sauce, but using specific recipes known to (or designed to) stop pathogen growth.
I believe your intention was to infuse the olive oil with hot pepper and garlic aroma, it looks like it didn’t go well as some biological activity took place. I don’t think at this point you can be really sure what was growing inside the jars.
Taking the presence of raw garlic into consideration, and the oxygen-free environment created by the garlic being submerged in the oil, I’d be scared of a potential botulism pathogen growth as the olive oil itself won’t be enough to inhibit the growth of such pathogens. And raw garlic can host such bacteria.
And as a general rule:
When in doubt, you should discard it.
Or, for a version with more of a ring to it: as we say in pharmacy "when in doubt, throw it out".
I would go a step beyond @zetaprime: Oil is the perfect, preferred environment for botulism. Garlic and onions are low acid roots and have a high probability of exposure. Peppers and spices are also normally low acid and considered potentially exposed. USDA recommendations are refrigerate at low temperature, lower than most home units, and use within 4 days to slow potential growth or freeze, never can and leave at room temperature.
People often point to commercially canned garlic in oil and herb infused oils. Those items have typically been pasteurized, and always acidified to make them safe even at room temperatures. They are not the same as what you can make at home.
Finally, any hissing, bubbling, or other signs of off gassing such as a bent lid is a sure sign of potentially deadly bacterial action. You have a presumably sealed environment and yet gasses are being produced. They have to come from somewhere. It could be a chemical reaction, fermentation, or bacterial, but none of those sources is intended or likely to be desired and could be far worse than just a poor product. The absence of such activity is not a sign of safety, but the presence should always be considered a sure sign that it is not safe. This was considered true long before the USDA started publishing stricter guide to home preservation: when our grandparents would regularly reuse mayonnaise jars and lids, and trim half spoiled fruit. If they saw signs of gas, they assumed it was bad and tossed it.
@RonJohn Fair enough. Even wend not actually a bulb like scallions, they are not really roots that we use.
@Sneftel I just reread what I wrote before I drank my morning coffee. Somehow I was thinking "garlic and peppers". :(
@Sneftel Wish I could blame my typing on coffee. It is really just that I am a bad at it, and make more errors when I try to correct them. ;)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.480993
| 2019-10-21T01:24:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/102989",
"authors": [
"Carcigenicate",
"Cindy",
"David Richerby",
"Juliana Karasawa Souza",
"Pieter B",
"Preston",
"RonJohn",
"barbecue",
"d-b",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51551",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/56913",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62247",
"kitukwfyer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46932
|
What are the effects of salting a thin steak that's grilled on a pan?
What are the effects of salting a thin (1/4" to 1/2") beef steak right before being seared on a pan, compared to not salting at all?
(there are no other spices used, salt or nothing).
Does the exact method of preparation matter to the differences (e.g. searing almost-frozen steak vs. thawed out)?
Obviously, I'm interested in effects other than imparting salty flavor.
Related answer to the question Is it okay to salt beef before or while cooking it?
TL;DR: Salting the steak right before searing does not noticeable affect the tenderness.
Concerning the (semi-) frozen or thawed steak: Is it bad to cook frozen meat without waiting it to be unfrozen?
Since your mentioned steak is quite thin I don't think the semi-frozen steak goes "bad".
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.481368
| 2014-09-07T10:34:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46932",
"authors": [
"Denise Guelig",
"Josh Stonestreet",
"Judi Riepenhoff",
"PJ Flanagan",
"Wyonia Williams",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113222",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114704"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
74690
|
How can I make my (American style) pancakes light and spongy?
I will be participating at a charity event at the end of this month and I am still not sure about my recipe. I am using a mini pancake griddle to cook the pancakes. My pancakes are ok, but I think they can be better.
They weren't very soft--a bit chewy and maybe bread-like. I've had pancakes before that were light and really spongy and that's what I'd like to accomplish.
My current recipe
3 cups of flour
3 cups of milk
2 tb of oil
4 teaspoons of baking powder
3 cups of milk vanilla extract
3 eggs
a pinch of salt
2 table spoons of sugar
Process
I mixed all the wet ingredients together then I mixed the dry ingredients together. I added the wet to the dry and mixed them with an electric mixer for a short time so i don't overmix the batter.
As recipe requests are not appropriate to this site, I'll just suggest you try buttermilk for a lighter, fluffier result..
I usually use melted butter in place of the oil. But yeah, recipe requests are off topic here because there are better places to find them. Edit: actually I think this one can be saved with a little re-wording. You have a recipe. You're just looking for a way to make your cakes more spongy and light.
My yeast pancakes usually come out light and fluffy.
related: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64788/what-do-the-base-ingredients-in-pancakes-do/64796#64796
Ditto on the butter, and ditto on the buttermilk; my usual recipe uses less baking powder and adds baking soda along with the buttermilk.
I think using an electric mixer with pancakes might be a mistake too - I use a fork or a whisk and mix it just barely, maybe 10-15 seconds tops, even if there are lumps. I suspect overmixing might be why they were chewy.
Yep, unless the batter is REAL thin (might be the case though with 6 cups of milk to 3 cups of flour!), an electric mixer tends to mean instant overmixing. Maybe the batter is TOO thin (depends on flour) and cannot hold bubbles from the leavener?
Google soda water pancakes or seltzer water pancakes. It's an old diner trick. There are some scratch recipes, you can also use it in the pre-made mixes.
Yeast and let it rise. Don't use a mixer. http://www.breadworld.com/recipes/Beginners-Buttermilk-Pancakes
Another trick is to separate the eggs, whip the whites to stiff peaks, and fold it back into the batter just before cooking. I concur with the recommendation to not use a hand mixer, unless you're using a low protein flour like cake flour (which leads to another tip: use a low protein flour).
I can't say for sure what is wrong, but here's a few possibilities:
Your mix is too runny: if you have a batter that's too thin then it will spread out too far on the pan, if it's too thin you will get a rubbery pancake. It doesn't take much liquid to get too thin, a couple of tablespoons of milk make make the difference between just right and too thick. If you overrun you can always add just a bit of flour
Your mix is too thick: if your batter is too thick then it will be to stodgy to rise well. You'll get a taller pancake but it won't open up
Over-mixing: flour has protein in it called gluten, and developed gluten is what makes bread stretchy. Gluten is developed by working it in the presence of moisture, causing gluten strands to uncoil and interlock. Gluten development is good for bread but bad for pancakes risen by baking soda or powder. If you over-mix your pancake batter you will develop the gluten in it, so it's best to do it by hand for as short a time as possible. Don't worry about eliminating all lumps
pan too hot: if you have the wrong pan temperature it's easy to overcook your pancakes. If it's too hot it will overcook the outside before the inside is done
pan too cool: If it is too cool then you won't get as much lift, or you lose lift because the batter doesn't set quickly enough to hold in the air, and then you have a close texture. You will also need to cook it longer to get it done, getting a rubber mat instead of a light and fluffy pancake
Not enough baking powder: Your recipe calls for 4 tsp of baking powder for 3 cups of flour. The non-buttermilk recipe I use would call for 5 tsp. Probably not enough to make the difference between rubbery and fluffy but you never know.
Like others in the comments I also recommend buttermilk for your pancakes as it gives better color, flavor and texture. You can make good pancakes without it for sure, but if I have it available I will always use it.
Theres too much baking powder! Use 1-2 tsp. The more you use, oddly, the less rise you get. Hope that helps!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.481500
| 2016-10-11T23:26:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/74690",
"authors": [
"Chris Macksey",
"Dave",
"Giorgio",
"Paulb",
"Preston",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"paparazzo",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
11156
|
Possible for chicken to reach 165F and be raw
Is it possible for a piece of chicken to reach an internal temperature of 165F and still be raw?
Update:
Just to be clear, this is not something I experienced. I was just wondering if it was in fact possible. I'm looking for a scientific explanation of why this can or cannot happen.
I imagine that will depend how long it spends at the temperature.
@Orbling: I seriously doubt it's possible to heat a piece of meat to 165F then cool it back down before the chemical reactions of cooking take place.
@Jefromi: Well I am unsure, I doubt it is instant, so there must be an element of duration at play. Someone more versed in the intricacies of food science will no doubt know.
165F is not a magic number where cooking starts, it's a number chosen that should indicate that the chicken has spent sufficient time at sufficient temperature to have killed a reasonable amount of harmful microbes.
Chicken is pretty cooked around 140, and by 160 it is the firm consistency that you'd expect. If your thermometer registered 165, and the chicken looked raw, your thermometer was either broken, or incorrectly positioned...Though I remember one memorable time when I had a girl over for cornish hens, and she cut into hers and skin and juice made a raw-looking bit which completely put her off, though after I stabbed it with a fork and wine poured out, she calmed down and ate it (and it was yummy).
Just to be clear, this is not something I experienced. I was just wondering if it was in fact possible. I'm looking for a scientific explanation of why this can or cannot happen.
I don't know about 165F, but at 165C it's done for sure :)
No, 165 is cooked, but a couple of things could be going wrong. Your thermometer might be out of calibration, or you might not have gotten it exactly to the center of the meat. To test the calibration, check it against boiling water which should be exactly 212 assuming you are at or near sea level.
Also, if a probe thermometer touches bone, it can throw off the reading even more.
It depends on how you define "raw".
165F is merely a threshold temperature for killing-off harmful bacteria in a short amount of time (such as with baking or grilling). It has nothing to do with actual "rawness", it is a food-safety temperature.
Some restaurants cook meat (even poultry) using the "sous vide" method at a dramatically lower temperature than conventional cooking methods. Basically, the idea is you cook the meat in a vacuum drawn plastic bag in a water bath at ~130's F, for a significant amount of time (sometimes hours). This makes the meat extraordinarily tender, juicy and uniformly "cooked" even though no point in the meat ever reaches 165F.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.481870
| 2011-01-18T00:17:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11156",
"authors": [
"BaffledCook",
"Bob",
"Bradford",
"Cascabel",
"Ginny",
"Montdidier",
"Orbling",
"Satanicpuppy",
"Ven'Tatsu",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22867",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22869",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37112",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3950",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"sevandyk",
"tsturzl",
"user37110"
],
"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
}
|
10443
|
When to heat oil in dutch oven?
I have an enameled cast iron dutch oven. I thought the pamphlet that came with it said not to heat the cast iron dry -- I could be imagining things, though.
Part One
So, am I supposed to put the oil in the dutch oven and then put it on the (cold) stove and then turn on the stove to low heat and then to medium? If I do this, will the oil evaporate -- I thought I experienced that once?
Or am I supposed to preheat the dutch oven (starting on low and then going to medium) and then throw in the oil and heat it?
I'm asking this question because I don't want to ruin my le creuset french oven.
Part Two
And how do you know when the oil is hot enough? This recipe says until it is almost smoking, but how do you know when it is about to smoke? And don't all oils have different smoke points. This recipe calls for vegetable oil, which I assume can be canola.
Some guidelines on how to tell when oil is ready can be found in this question. Many recipes say when the oil shimmers - it becomes a slightly different color when ready.
read this one:http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2690/do-you-heat-the-pan-first-then-add-oil-or-put-the-oil-in-and-heat-up-with-the-p
Canola oil has a slightly lower smoke point and a bitter taste when it hits that point, so I'd go with a more generic - like a soybean based oil. If you are okay with spending a bit more, peanut oil is always great for hot oil applications.
Part one:
Yes, put oil in first then put on a low/med heat. Generally cast iron should be heated gently, depending on your stove it should probably take about 5 minutes to get to a good temperature. The oil shouldnt evaporate - I've never experienced this. As to the type of oil - I use various depending on circumstance vegetable or olive usually.
Part two:
I generally shake the pan gently - when the oil becomes more less viscous (more runny) then it is at a good temperature to start cooking. You can also put something like a small piece of onion or bread into the oil - if it starts bubbling and generally cooking then its good to go. Some people use a couple of drops of water to see when it spits but I dont like doing this partly due to the safety factor and also due to the fact itll splatter over the stove top.
It depends a little on what you are cooking - if you are looking to brown some meat for example you'd probably want it a little hotter than if you were just going to make vegetable soup.
Plus one, and adding the stronger statement that the oil will NOT evaporate in the normal sense of things. Cooking oils evaporate very very slowly, and you are much more likely to burn the oil than evaporate it in a pan in normal use. If you leave a spot of oil on the counter, over the course of a day or two it will eventually dry, leaving a sticky residue of non-evaporating compounds. But for cooking you needn't worry about evaporation.
+1 on the for the viscosity tests. Moving the pan is my preference for stir fry. For french fries or chimichangas (more/deeper oil), the sample bit of onion works really well.
Wait, are we talking about drying then adding oil after use, for additional curing and to prevent rust, or are we talking about heating oil to cook? whoops, nvm - "recipe" should have given that away for me.
For sauteing, I think you should heat the pan dry over moderate heat, and then add the oil. Add whatever you are cooking as soon as the oil is hot, and then turn down the heat. That will avoid filling your kitchen with smoke, and preserve the quality of the oil until you are actually cooking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.482135
| 2010-12-23T04:23:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10443",
"authors": [
"Knight Samar",
"Maidie Phillips",
"PoloHoleSet",
"bikeboy389",
"boxed-dinners",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"justkt",
"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
}
|
19575
|
How long should I mature my mincemeat before making Mince Pies?
Having decided on the spur of the moment to make Mince Pies with home-made mincemeat (a mixture of chopped fruit, distilled spirits, spices, and fat), I'm wondering if I really should leave the fruit to mature for some time before I make them?
It's been soaking for a couple of hours, and all the recipe said was that it could be frozen, and if I did I should defrost it and leave to mature for 1-2 weeks. Does this hold for fresh mincemeat too?
On the basis that I'm not dead yet, and the pies were quite tasty, I'd say that I clearly can make them without maturing the mincemeat (the initial question), but is there an optimum length of time I should leave it for?
To clarify, this is about mincemeat as in "a mixture of chopped dried fruit, distilled spirits and spices, and fat, traditionally beef suet" rather than ground or minced meat.
Mincemeat originally had meat in it along with suet and a small amount of fruits and spices.
As the cost of the fruits and spices dropped the quantities started to shift until now, you never see any meat at all besides the suet in traditional mincemeat.
Victorian times they would make the mincemeat in the late fall and set it aside in the root cellar for about 8 weeks but evidently could be held for upwards to 6 months. The cool cellar and the high percent of spirits didn't cause much harm to them back then. The longer the better as the fruit and suet would absorb more flavours.
Here's a link to a Google book that has a recipe from 1786:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zZIEAAAAYAAJ&dq=mincemeat&pg=PA423#v=onepage&q=mincemeat&f=false
It doesn't sound that great but then the really old dishes never were.
I would think the spirits would assist in the preservation rather than causing harm. More harm would come to the spirits themselves through evaporation.
I'm reasonably sure the long holding time is there for two reasons - one is that mincemeat was originally a preserved dish, with the alcohol and spices and fats used to preserve the meat (when it was included) and fruit in the dish. So recipes may mention how long the pies can be reasonably held, for preservation or for the convenience of cooking early or making a large batch once instead of several smaller. The other reason, perhaps more recent, is that the flavors change over time, as the alcohol seeps in and the flavors meld and marry in the mincemeat (think pickles or alcohol preserves, it takes time for the flavors to change). The time the recipe mentions for maturing might be the time over which the flavors are still improving as they are stored, or the compromise time between when it reaches a state the recipe-makers find most pleasing, and when the recipe-users find convenient (that is,it might not improve if matured longer, it might get worse, it might keep improving but most people get impatient).
In neither case should eating the mincemeat early be unsafe. Maturing it significantly longer than the recipe allows for might be less safe, since the preservative qualities will depend on proportions of alcohol and spices, storage conditions, and other things the recipe depends on to make that calculation in the first place. And eating it early might give a less than ideal flavor, if the flavors haven't melded or mellowed or changed over time to reach the state the recipe makers intended.
So if you like the mincemeat as it is, and if you're impatient, there is no harm in eating it early; while if you thought the flavors were less than you hoped, perhaps harsh or dissonant, or you just have the extra time and patience, you may find the extra couple weeks of waiting worthwhile.
A mixture intended for UK-style holiday-season Mince Pies should never be "matured" or let sit at room temperature. It would go rancid.
Thanks for your answer, I've updated my question to include a link to Wikipedia's definition of mincemeat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincemeat It's a mixture of dried fruits, alcohol, spices, sugar and fat - traditionally beef suet but butter or vegetable suet can be used. Originally the recipes did call for ground meat, but that hasn't been the case (beyond the suet) for many, many years now.
Notice that the wikipedia article says that in some countries "mincemeat" means minced meat. I'd suggest never using the word "meat" in a discussion of safe food prep for fruit. Otherwise, folks from countries that mean meat when they say meat might get confused (or sick) based on what they read here.
Sadly the article doesn't give any alternative name for this product, and I've only ever seen it called Mincemeat. I know that it causes confusion even here in the UK :S
How about calling it "minced dried fruit"? Or "fruit cake mix"? Or "Christmas cake mix"? ... for the international audience. More festive and less ambiguous that way.
I go by the name on the jar.
If you do so, you're endangering the health of readers that don't have the same jars that you do in your country.
That's the name that it goes by, though, and trying to invent new names for things makes searching difficult. I'd suggest a simple compromise, write it as: mincemeat (a mixture of chopped fruit, distilled spirits, spices, and fat) or similar the first time you use it in a post. Same could go for other words with unintuitive meanings (can't garlic bread out of sweetbreads, for example). This discussion really belongs on meta.
No compromise or meta-debate necessary. Zhaph can use whatever terms he thinks will get his question across. The pies sure sound tasty.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.482463
| 2011-12-11T16:57:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/19575",
"authors": [
"Aika",
"Beth Kramer Mazer",
"Carly",
"Gepser Hoil",
"JAB",
"Marion",
"Rose",
"Stewart_R",
"ZachB",
"Zhaph - Ben Duguid",
"derobert",
"hobs",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3967",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42616",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42669",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42694",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8220",
"mgiuffrida",
"sirdank"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
16279
|
How come my dishwasher leaves grime on dishes?
There is this wierd coating on almost all of my dishes after having washed them in the dish water. I am using an automatic detergent (powder), highest how water setting.
More details:
Only some dishes get this coating. It seems like they are more dirty coming out than going in. The coating is like... white/clear. I can use a sponge, soap and warm water to remove it. Overall it feels like none of my dishes are being cleaned at all and I am just washing everything by hand now. This seems to have gotten worse and worse.
Have you tried to load it less? Mine only makes the plates clean if I load every second slot. When I load every slot, they remain dirty. Also, use powdered detergent, not all-in-one tabs.
Tell us what type of coating. Is it a dry whitish streaks or spots? Is it clear but has a texture?
@rumtscho: I'd say that means your dishwasher is broken, or your detergent doesn't work. Loading every slot should work. And it does for me (and I don't have an expensive dishwasher or anything, and I load it full of quite dirty dishes).
This is (most likely) a hard water issue. There are trace levels of minerals (calcium) in the water and when it dries the minerals are left behind. This leaves a white film that is not dangerous but is unsightly.
There are commercial products that will help with this. 'Jet Dry' is the most common of these and I have found that it works quite well. There are competitive brands out there which report to do the same.
You may also need to "clean your dishwasher" (sounds odd, I know). Again I point you towards a commercially available product, CLR. Basically you put some CLR in your empty dishwasher and run it. The exact instructions are on the bottle.
(This is not a paid endorsement of either Jet Dry or CLR)
I live just barely in Baltimore, would hard water be much of an issue there?
@Zombies: Your local water utility can probably tell you how hard your water is (assuming you're on public water, of course). They probably already do in the annual water quality report they send.
As Baltimore is a port city, Rikon may be on to something. I too used a local Culligan distributor and was very happy with service provided. Their equipment may offer you the relief, but you can buy a LOT of Jet Dry for the price of a Water Softener. So you may want to try the Jet Dry first...
As Cos Callis mentions, it's likely a water chemistry problem that a good water treatment company should be able to diagnose for you for free. Hard water is from hard elements like calcium.
What we had was this odd white film and sliminess around faucets; it never hardened into calcium, what happened to us was this:
We live close to the ocean;
There are too many people living in our area for the aquifer to keep up;
The excessive draw on the freshwater aquifer causes salt water from the ocean to leach into the aquifer;
The local water authority adds chemicals to help the aquifer;
Those chemicals cause the white slime described above;
Culligan adjusted the resin bed in our water softener to counteract the chemicals that our county water authority added.
Either way, this is a free test that someone like Culligan will do for you.
By the way, one way to tell if this is your problem is that Jet Dry did little to nothing to help us...
There are a few solutions:
1) You could try loading fewer dishes (if it's food-related residue)
or
2) Add a liquid rinse aid to the wash cycle (your dishwasher should have a separate compartment for it).
I had a friend who had something like this happening, and it turned out it was because of a change in the formula of the powdered detergent she was using (I think it was a reduction in phosphates). What happened was that she suddenly got a white residue on everything in the dishwasher after buying a new box of the same stuff she'd been using for years. The manufacturer had changed the formula to comply with regulations, and hadn't got things quite right.
If it's the same thing, you might try switching to a gel detergent--apparently they don't have the same issues.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.483026
| 2011-07-19T17:55:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16279",
"authors": [
"Alina",
"Brondahl",
"Captain Ford",
"Cos Callis",
"DaveO",
"Dewayne",
"Tremmors",
"Zombies",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34662",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4086",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6563",
"rumtscho",
"user34691"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
18391
|
How do I stop my brownies from rising?
I have been trying out brownie recipes baked in a muffin tin. I am using the muffin tin so that I can get all edges. (And I have been decorating the tops!)
My brownies tend to rise, in my opinion, too much. This rising is also not quite uniform for all the brownies. Some are flatter than others. The result tastes fine, but is not dense like other brownies.
Other than maybe air that I beat in, there are no rising agents. How do I stop the brownies rising to get denser brownies?
Edit, recipe ingredients:
Butter
Cooking chocolate
Sugar
Eggs
Regular flour
Vanilla essence
Cocoa powder
Salt
Edit, some of the process: melt butter and choc together, let cool, mix in the eggs, then the sugar, then everything else.
Can you list your recipe?
If you think it's the air, let your brownie mixture sit in the fridge for an hour or two to let the bubbles collapse or rise out.
Are you sure you haven't mixed up self-raising flour and plain flower? Or else try changing you brand of flour see if that makes a difference.
Have you tried baking them at a lower temperature (for longer)?
You're not creaming the butter and sugar together for some reason are you?
If you're using an electric mixer with a wire whisk attachment, maybe switch to a bread attachment?
Can you give the full recipe / process ? I assume that you're whipping egg whites, as I see no other leavening in there. Egg white foams will puff a lot, but we need to know ratios/proportions to see if it's something that should be cut back.
Maybe you are baking them for too long at too low a temperature. Rising takes time, and once the batter is set, there is no more oven spring possible. Try a higher temp/shorter time combination.
Why would you actually want all edges?
@Marti: This isn't an uncommon preference. In fact there are so many people that like edges better than the middle that they make special pans for it: http://www.cutleryandmore.com/bakers-edge/nonstick-all-edges-brownie-pan-p115854. The brownies along the edges cook more quickly than the middle and generally have a more chewy texture than the middle. The outer edge is often caramelized, which is awesome.
@James: see my answer to this question. :)
It almost sounds like you're making popovers. Those don't have any leavening agent either, but they have extraordinary rise.
Well, if air is the only raising agent, simply add less of it by not beating the mixture as much. Failing that, beat as normal, then give the mixing bowl a couple of (careful) bangs on the counter top to knock the air out it again.
A bit of experimentation will be necessary to get the right results, I think: perhaps pour some of the mixture into the tin as is, then knock the air out of the remaining mixture and compare the results.
a good sharp tap in the oven in the very first few minutes helps too
For cakes, I always learned to slam the pan against the counter a few times to help remove any large bubbles that might've formed as you poured in the batter. The smaller bubbles are in there well enough that they don't tend to come out, so it still rises fine.
I am starting to think I should just give it a good knock.
Only one way to find out - fortunas iuvat audentes!
After reading his updates - +1, I think overmixing and thus too much air.
Well, nobody seems to have touched on the reason I see as most likely - overcooking them. Cakey brownies are cooked too long, regardless of the size of pan. The difference between a good fudgy brownie and a horrible caky brownie is typically ~5 minutes too much cooking time.
With a muffin tin, you probably need to reduce time from what works in a normal baking pan.
Definitely. I always make my brownies in mini-muffin tins (lined) and I generally have to nearly halve the baking time... if not less. They bake a tiny bit slower than cake in a mini-muffin tin, so about 12-14 minutes. Regular sized cupcakes would be 16-18 probably... but I never make that size... also, looks like it was mentioned in the question's comments, but only briefly.
This could have something to do with the muffin tin itself: aren't the slanted sides meant to promote a nice domed top? (It seems to make sense: cake pans, used for baking items that should be reasonably flat, have straight sides, while pie pans, used for baking items that are often piled high with fillings, have slanted sides.)
If you want brownies that are all edge pieces (though why on earth you'd want to do that to poor innocent brownies, I cannot fathom), you might have better luck using one of those brownie pans with a separator-grid in them:
Edit: just thought of another possibility: how much batter are you putting in the muffin cups? Try using less, no more than half full (if that). Naturally, watch the baking time like a hawk, because the only thing worse than an all-edges brownie* is an overbaked one.
* :·þ
I'm confused how the edged pan relates to the question at all?
@rfusca: the OP said "I am using the muffin tin so that I can get all edges."
Ah, gosh, I reread that over and over and didn't catch that, good deal!
Edges are the best part! Contrast of textures! You are potentially right about the filling too much.
I can only give second-hand advice (for I bake, but usually bread, not cakes and such), but my s.o. drops the pan of brownies roughly half-way through the baking process from maybe 15 cm (~6 in) onto the countertop a few times. Obviously, this does not work with something that is prone to shattering. But the effect is that many of the air bubbles are forced up and burst, much like vibrating concrete does to prevent voids.
This will probably work better than just dropping before baking. I’ve seen some cookie recipes that call for this step to deflate them. (Some do it once, other do it multiple times during baking)
It's the egg, add one less than called for and mix your batter by hand. I also think that the person who commented about the angle of the sides is on to something there. You can buy pans that are specifically for all edges.
What about halfway through the baking process, take a spoon and lightly press the center so it collapses.
I think you need a larger shallow pan. Thinner brownie= less air trapped. The deeper the pan traps more air and it will bake more like a cake or a muffin.
This fundamentally clashes with various laws of nature. The air is either in the batter or not, regardless of how wide or narrow the pan is. The amount of bubbles that actually burst at the top may be neglected.
@Stephie: I guess real life clashes with your laws of nature. In an 8x8 pan with 1 inch of batter, the ratio between surface area and volume is 1:1. The same amount of batter in a 9x12 pan comes to not quite .6", giving a surface area-to-volume ratio of 1.667:1. The more surface area, the easier it is for air to escape, so the larger pan will, indeed, leave you with brownies with less trapped air.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.483425
| 2011-10-16T07:01:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/18391",
"authors": [
"Brandon Clippinger",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Digi",
"Doug ",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Ivan",
"James",
"Joe",
"Jordan",
"L. Mackenzie",
"Mark Ransom",
"Marti",
"Megasaur",
"Nathan",
"Rincewind42",
"Stephie",
"Tesserex",
"future backer",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2926",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39781",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39915",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6615",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7587",
"jyt",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho",
"scar3crow",
"user39898"
],
"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
}
|
55926
|
How to decide how much to dilute extremely hot chillis
I have come into the possession of a couple of naga varieties. We don't know which ones exactly, but google search seems to confirm that I do have some very hot varieties on my hands and they may average close to 1 million Scovilles.
I was thinking of making some hot sauce, how do I calculate the right ratio of chilli to filler so that I don't end up with something that will kill me?
As reference, the hottest chilli I regularly use are bird's eyes.
Update:
As a point of reference for others:
I started off with 4 of my nagas (and 1 tiny home grown halepeno) to 7 deseeded tomatoes. I just cut the top and bottom off, then run my knife around the seeds, taking out the 'cross-hairs' structure as well.
I had other ingredients, but tomatoes were the bulk of the sauce. This yielded about 700ml of sauce. At this dilution I could feel the heat, but it was quite mild.
I then cooked it down until most of the liquid was gone. A reduction of about 50% in volume. This left me with a moderate level chilli sauce. It's got heat but I can still taste everything.
I was thinking of closing as a duplicate of http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15445/is-there-a-safe-way-to-cook-ghost-chili, but now I read the body of your text, I think your question is more special than the more general older one, so I'm editing the title instead.
Given that you don't know what you have, I'd favor making up "more of less 100% chili sauce" or as close to that as your methods come, taking care, and not tasting it.
Then take one tiny amount of that (a drop, a 1/4 teaspoon, a mL) and dilute it in whatever seems likely in your estimation (I suppose based on "possibly 1 million Scovilles" and some reference sauce you like) to be "more than plenty" of filler (1000X? 2000X?), mix throughly, and taste. If not hot enough, add more, mix again, taste. If still too hot, dilute more, taste. Keep careful track and you'll have the correct ratio for sauce you can stand.
As you know you're going to dilute it anyway, is there a reason to start with 100% peppers? I might understand if you have so much that you don't want to sacrifice storage space, but you could make an amount reasonable for a storage jar that you have (use glass), and if you have an overwhelming amount, freeze some.
@Joe I don't know how much Megasaur has, and I don't know how hot Megasaur likes it. If Megasaur is reasonably sure that 10 or 100 times dilution will still be at or above desired heat, sure, start there. That is also somewhat what I intended with "or as close to that as your methods come." General reasoning is that it's easier to dilute than to un-dilute.
@Ecnerwal I have 2 of these peppers. I will be deseeding (and keeping the seeds for growing later). I have it under good authority that they are indeed very hot.
We prepare and cook a lot of African dishes-using bird chiles.
When in doubt as to the exact heat to infuse, we use the following method:
Pierce one chili and add it into the stew or other dish
Stir it around a few times and wait 10 minutes
Remove it and taste the result.
We will either need to leave it in longer, add more chiles, or pierce more tiny holes in the chiles. Also, with many types of chiles, we first remove the seeds.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.484043
| 2015-03-22T03:47:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55926",
"authors": [
"Al Raha Print",
"BDC Cosmetic Dentist Williamsb",
"Bree Hendrix",
"Ecnerwal",
"Joe",
"Keith Schillo",
"Makenzie Zoller",
"Megasaur",
"Paula Lopez",
"Simon Nguenha",
"hopefull_teddy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32962
|
What differences are there between reconstituted dried mushrooms and fresh?
I'm new to the idea of cooking with dried (reconstituted) mushrooms and am wondering how they would differ from fresh when cooked.
Specifically, is the texture noticeably different? What types of (cooked mushroom) dishes and cooking techniques are appropriate for dried vs. fresh?
Related questions: 1, 2
What is "reconstituted" when you say reconstituted mushrooms? Would steaming smoked salmon be considered "reconstituting" the salmon?
@BlessedGeek I thought it was common knowledge that hydrating mushrooms by soaking them in warm or cold water per the instructions. This question is about dehydrated mushrooms, not smoked salmon.
I don't think it directly answers your question, but this article by Mark Bittman in the NYT may be of interest: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/25/magazine/mushroom-magic.html
I have had dried shiitakes my whole life and no one in my community has ever considered rehydrating them as reconstituting the mushrooms. When you say "reconstituting", it brings the image of molding mushroom powder paste back into mushroom shapes. Which is why I asked, for the sake of language, would you consider rehydrating smoked salmon "reconstituting" the salmon.
@BlessedGeek "Reconstitute" is a completely normal term for rehydrating dried food to bring it back to something like its original form. If you google "reconstituting dried mushrooms" you'll see this.
Dehydrated mushrooms usually have a really intense flavor, and are a bit tougher than fresh mushrooms. Reconstituted they can be use in risotto, filled pasta, duxelles for an enhanced mushroom flavor.
Although in theory any mushroom could be dried, most often it is only the more "expensive" or rare species (such as porcini/ceps or morels) which are dried since this allows them to stored for an indefinite time and much more easily transported.
Saying that, shitake mushrooms are often found dried and are neither rare nor particularly expensive (indeed, unlike many fungus species they can be successfully cultivated).
Dried mushrooms are also much quicker since they are usually already prepared (washed, sliced, etc) and just have to be rehydrated in water for use. (Also the water the mushrooms have rehydrated in makes a great instant mushroom 'stock')
The flavor of dried mushrooms is more concentrated too and so less is needed for a recipe and I also agree with @BenjamínAbarzúaFernández that dried mushrooms tend to be tougher than fresh mushrooms.
Dried mushrooms are actually used as a different ingredient altogether, in fact the River Cafe Cookbook Green writes:
[Porcini mushrooms] are used throughout the year, not as a substitute for the fresh mushroom, but as a separate valid ingredient in recipes
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.484358
| 2013-03-24T14:43:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32962",
"authors": [
"Brutasfatboy ",
"Cascabel",
"Cynthia",
"Ella",
"Jeff Axelrod",
"Mandy Schoep",
"Rob",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Vikram S. Mathur",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2690",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76248",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76288",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76293",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76311",
"neveroddoreven"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115886
|
Measure First or Cut First?
How do I interpret the second item in the ingredients list in this recipe?
1 cup Grape Tomatoes, Halved
Do I measure out 1 cup of grape tomatoes and then cut each one in half? Or should I start cutting them in half and put all the half pieces into my measuring cup until it's full?
I can certainly fit more grape tomatoes into my measuring cup if they are all chopped in half than if they are whole.
I realize of course that most of the time the difference is probably too small to matter. But what if it did matter?
It really doesn't matter.
First off, I think that it is worth discussing whether or not it really does matter. From the looks of the recipe, it appears that you are putting together some kind of noodle salad—cooked and cooled noodles, some veggies and fish, and a dressing. There is no real chemistry going on here, hence the recipe is going to be very forgiving in terms of quantities of ingredients used. "One red onion" is a very inexact measure (and a red onion 40 years ago is probably half the size of a red onion today), and a cup of grape tomatoes (measured either before or after chopping) could vary quite a bit, depending on the size of the tomatoes you get your hands on. Personally, I would likely use significantly more salmon, as well—in my very rural community, I'll be lucky to find smoked salmon at all, let alone a 4 oz package; I'll use whatever I can buy.
Basically, the rough, inexact nature of the recipe is a reflection of the fact that these measurements don't really matter. Use as much or as little as suits your taste.
But what if it does?
As moscafj points out, if it really mattered, then the recipe would likely have been written more clearly. Instead of using volumetric measure, the recipe would have given a weight or mass (e.g. I would guess that a cup of halved grape tomatoes is probably somewhere around 6–8 oz), or perhaps a (slightly less precise, but still useful) count (such as "12 grape tomatoes, halved").
That being said, the construction of the ingredient list should tell you what's going on (assuming that the recipe's author thought about this at all). The ingredient is given as
1 cup grape tomatoes, halved.
This is a distinct instruction from
1 cup halved grape tomatoes.
In the first case, I would measure out a cup of grape tomatoes, then halve them. In the second case, I would halve grape tomatoes until I had filled a one cup measure.
Note that both of these constructions are relatively common. Standard, even. In most professionally edited recipes,
[measurement] [ingredient], [modification]
means "measure the ingredient, then do something to it"; whereas
[measurement] [modification] [ingredient]
means "do something to the ingredient, then measure the modified ingredient".
Indeed, I have a brownie recipe which uses both: it calls for "1/2 c chopped walnuts" and "1 c semisweet chocolate chips, melted". In the first case, chop the nuts, then measure them. In the second case, measure the chocolate chips, then melt them (and the actual procedure reinforces this interpretation).
What should you actually do with this recipe?
With this recipe, my game plan would be as follows:
grab a measuring cup, a knife, a cutting board, and some tomatoes
measure the tomatoes into the cup; eat a few and refill the cup
dump the cup out onto the cutting board and start halving the tomatoes
eat a few tomatoes; grab a few more out of the bag to replace those that I have eaten
prepare the other ingredients, eating a few halved tomatoes as I go
halve more tomatoes as replacements
notice that my original container of tomatoes is almost empty; halve the remains, eat a few, and throw the rest into the recipe for good measure
I like your procedure, but honestly I would probably skip the measuring cup and grab a handful, then look at the composed (such as it is) salad and decide if it looks a little light on tomatoes, add a few more.
@Damila Indeed, that is much more akin to what I would do. Chop tomatoes, eating a good number as I go, until the salad looked right. However, I thought that the narrative was funnier if measuring was happening, as well. :D
It is! Seven careful steps to eat a whole pint of tomatoes and throw a few into the salad :)
Thanks for your response! I think you're correct. The other answer was good also, but yours went into more detail and suggested nibbling the tomatoes during prep, which I can't resist!
It probably doesn't matter. I bet the difference isn't more than a few grape tomatoes. The way I read it, if the author wanted you to cut first, it would state "1 cup halved grape tomatoes," indicating that you should measure the halved tomatoes.
When it is important, a good recipe would specify in the procedures section. If accuracy of this sort is necessary, a good recipe would be even more useful if it listed ingredient weights, rather than volumes.
I wholeheartedly agree that if it mattered it would've been specified much more clearly, but it may be helpful to move your answer to "What if it did matter?" to the top of the answer.
Sorry, this is incorrect. The recipe is already following an unambiguous convention, giving a cook who knows it all the information needed. I would argue that a recipe which explains it in the directions instead is not a good recipe, quite the opposite, it is an unnecessary wordy recipe which puts information where it shouldn't be. I know that not all cooks know the convention, but that's a case for the convention getting more widespread, not for replacing it with lengthy explanations in the directions.
Thank you for your response! I think you're correct. But the other answer is also correct. And--they suggested eating a few of the tomatoes during prep, which is something I cannot resist anyway.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.484620
| 2021-05-30T19:32:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115886",
"authors": [
"Aldus Bumblebore",
"BThompson",
"Damila",
"Xander Henderson",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/76675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87238",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94147",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
117127
|
Popped lid in pressure canning
One of the lids on a quart jar of green beans "popped" after sitting on the kitchen counter for two days. It was one of a batch of a dozen jars canned in that session. The others are fine after a week. The jars were processed in a pressure canner at 14# for 25 minutes. The jar was placed in the fridge. Should the contents be discarded? Also, ideas on what could have caused this? I'm thinking a defective lid?
Yes, the contents should be discarded. Putting it in the refrigerator after the seal fails is too late.
Time and temperature kill pathogens, so it's not so much the pressure as the through-and-through temperature of the food that matters... Something insulating in the beans could harbor bacteria. I've seen a fly grow an interesting little blob of an ecosystem.
A defective lid or something on the rim causing physical air infiltration are more likely to fail by the time it reaches ambient temperature. A delayed failure isn't impossible, but there should be evidence of a defect on the seal.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.485185
| 2021-09-08T03:53:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/117127",
"authors": [],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
12218
|
How do we escape the cycle of bad college eating?
Mouseover text: And yet I never stop thinking, 'sure, these ingredients cost more than a restaurant meal, but think how many meals I'll get out of them! Especially since each one will have leftovers!'
Randall Munroe really hit the nail on the head with this comic and especially the mouseover text. There's this sort of cycle that I seem to follow when I try cooking, and I need to get my way out of it. It goes like this:
Decide I should cook something.
Thumb through my recipe books, find one or two recipes I like.
Write down the ingredients for the recipes in a list.
Go to the grocery store, stumble around for a while and eventually find exactly those ingredients.
Go back home; at some point in time soon after, cook each recipe.
Whew, that was a lot of work! Spend the next week or two eating junk again, until I decide I should cook something. (repeat)
Very similar to the comic; sometimes I too let the leftovers go bad (usually not). And every time I rack up a huge bill at the supermarket and think to myself it's justified because of the leftovers or the amount of food. Not to mention, that's a lot of work for just a couple of meals, and a long list of ingredients.
I love cooking fresh meals but that's just so much overhead and so time consuming! So I always resort back to Easy Mac, Ramen, frozen dinners and frozen pizza. Yuck.
How can I escape this cycle and cut down on the overhead? How can I focus on more than 2 recipes at a time without buying giant lists of ingredients and spending tons of money? Is it really worth the trouble or should I just chock it up to being a college student and wonder about the years ahead of me where I'll have much more time to spend cooking one meal at a time?
related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1580/what-recipes-should-every-high-school-graduate-know-how-to-cook ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2799/resources-for-a-beginner-learning-to-cook ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/9921/need-suggestions-for-absolute-beginners-cookbook ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6084/kitchen-essentials-for-a-poor-college-student-who-wants-to-cook-like-an-iron-chef ; http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/2080/advice-for-soon-to-be-college-student
Also mostly related : http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/11075/how-do-i-cook-for-just-one-person-any-good-cookbooks/11079#11079 ; (note, the titles for these will show up on the sidebar under 'Linked')
If we wanted to go for the snarky comment on how to break the cycle -- I'd add a 'yes' branch off of the 'does it taste good?'.
You could use my proven strategy: Live across the street from the grocery store and buy everything 5 minutes before you use it ;)
I'm in the same situation as you are, I'm a college student on a budget. What you need to do is convince yourself that it's better to cook your own food. I accomplish this by tracking how much I spend on food at the grocery store each week, and comparing it to buying fast food. I've been doing this since Summer of 2010 and trust me, cooking yourself is a lot cheaper. Per day, I spend about the same that I would on one meal (pizza, whatever), only that includes breakfast, dinner, snacks, etc. If you track it yourself, you will quickly find it's more expensive to eat out, although it is convenient.
I also make a list of meals I would like for the week (I shop a week at a time), and use this list when purchasing and stick to it. You'll find that when you follow recipes, you can make a lot of substitutions for what you have on hand instead of having to buy another ingredient.
To avoid losing ingredients, just stick them in the freezer! Meat, vegetables, whatever you're buying, most of it can be frozen. And frozen stuff lasts for weeks (minimum). Leftovers can be frozen too. When whole chickens are on sale for example, I buy them up (2-3 at a time) and freeze them until needed.
The worst thing I find is (as you've probably seen) the time commitment. It takes time, but you if you cook more you get better at it.
I also find that the less "processed" food is, the cheaper it is. For example, buy whole chicken or split chicken breasts instead of boneless/skinless/etc. and cut it up yourself. Look for the "reduced price" meats when their sell-by date is close to expiring, and freeze them. They are fine. Buy potatoes, canned vegetables, and avoid meals that come in a box! They seem cheap but they are more expensive than what you can do yourself.
... and finally, the real motivation (for me at least) is that I got sick of the options available around campus. If you make your own food, you're not limited by a menu and eventually it will taste better!
I'm a huge fan of freezing. Diced peppers, strips of onions, grated ginger - just about anything can be frozen on a cookie sheet and then dumped into a bag for easy portioning. You can then grab a handful and throw them into your hot skillet and they will defrost almost immediately as you sautee them. Plus if you make any meal, you can freeze the leftovers, as mentioned. For example, when I make stir fry, I make 3-4x the size that I need, and freeze myself a few portions for lunches or lazy dinners.
@stephennmcdonald - mom's variation was freeze in muffin cups - easier to grab a consistent portion and less likely to clump
I like Kryptic's suggestions, and would add: learn to make some very simple dishes that take say 5 ingredients, make good use of inexpensive grains and beans, and learn how to make simple stir-fries and other dishes that can easily be made for just 1 person. Example menus:
White rice cooked with salsa, reheat a can of black or pinto beans, shredded cheese, good corn tortillas
Pan-fried tofu or tempeh with broccoli, brown rice, gomashio.
Scrambled eggs, homefries, whole wheat toast.
Any kind of Indian dal over rice makes a hearty one-bowl meal
Simple pastas - you can easily boil a single serving and combine with a butter and parm, or jarred spaghetti sauce, or a simple pan condiment of a sauteed vegetable in olive oil, garlic, and chili flakes
This stuff is all good college eating, easy to make in small amounts for one or two meals, and a good way to build your confidence in the kitchen in preparation for the day when you have a larger audience!
Agreed on the 5 ingredient meals -- don't do the overly complex meals when you're starting out (or ever, if I had my way) ... if you have to spend 2 hrs cooking & cleaning up afterwards, it's not time effective.
stonesoup is great for five ingredient recipes and Jules has some that focus on inexpensive and healthy eating.
Try bumping home fries over to fresh grated hash-browns (I soak and brush the dirt off the potatoes to keep the nutrition in the skins) through a standard cheese grater. A frying pan with good oils like Canola or Olive cooks them up faster than most potato recipes. Amazing flavor fresh, but also a versatile, healthier carb to bulk up other sauces and meals.
Fundamentally, I see this as a problem with procrastination, not planning or personal finance. It's really not that hard to thumb through a recipe book and find a few recipes with common ingredients, or simply choose recipes where you know you can use all or almost all of the fresh ingredients at once.
None of that is going to help you if you are waiting until the last minute (or until you feel sufficiently lousy about your habits) to decide to cook. Unless you have a gigantic kitchen that's always fully stocked, cooking requires planning.
I see several answers telling you how to plan. But the actual act of planning is easy. What's harder, for many people, is actually mustering up the energy to plan as well as follow through with those plans. You need to solve your metacognition problem, and along the way you may have to solve a few more tangible problems.
Know Yourself
First, figure out what kind of procrastination you're actually engaging in. It may be more than one:
Optimistic procrastination (AKA "relaxed" or just "lazy") assumes that the task will be trivially easy to complete in the future and can thus be put off for something more fun/interesting.
In cooking, this means thinking to oneself, "OK, I'll cook a proper meal again on Thursday" while failing to account for any of the necessary preparation: Choosing a dish, making sure the ingredients are in stock, cleaning the pots and pans still sitting in the sink, defrosting the meat, or actually allocating the necessary time to cook around or between other commitments. Thursday comes around and forget this, I'm hungry now, maybe I'll cook on some other night.
A lot of cooking procrastinators I've known have tended to end up running around in the kitchen at midnight because they dramatically underestimated the time it would take.
Pessimistic procrastination (or "tense-afraid") is task aversion due to a pervasive focus on the negatives. How much time it's going to waste, how much it ends up costing them, how they might screw up and end up with something barely edible, and of course let's not forget all of the cleanup work after the fact.
Usually, people who think like this drastically overestimate the effort required, although it becomes kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy because of all the effort they already wasted avoiding it.
This tends to have the worst effects in people who aren't actually very good cooks. When they actually end up with mediocre meals and moldy leftovers, it just reinforces their perception that it's all a waste of time.
Decisional procrastination is one that I personally have struggled with on and off, and refers to putting off the decisions around the task rather than the task itself. In other words, you have a crystal clear idea of what's involved in preparing a meal, and know exactly what to expect in terms of results, but just can't make up your mind regarding what to make or where to start.
Should I make steak and mashed potatoes, or chicken wings and carrot sticks? The wings take over 2 hours but most of it is just waiting. I can get the steak and potatoes done in half an hour but I have to stand over them the whole time, and the mashing is a pain and the cleanup is worse. What am I in the mood for? I don't know, too many variables, too many decisions, I'll just focus on something else for a few minutes until I have a clearer head/stomach (which never happens).
The next steps will depend largely on which of the above quirks you have. You need to know what your problem is before you can solve it.
Change Yourself
Each form of procrastination is a separate problem, but there is always a solution:
Optimistic Procrastinators
Keep a detailed log of your cooking activities from when you do manage to cook. This will prevent your unreliable memory from whitewashing history by having hard evidence of how long certain tasks actually took. This kind of information will also come in very handy if you ever need to do fine-grained planning (i.e. cooking for many guests).
Force yourself to mentally go through the specific tasks associated with preparing an entire meal, and imagine yourself actually doing them. Perpetual optimists tend to think too abstractly about a problem; their agenda always says Phase 1: Collect Underpants. Phase 2: ??? Phase 3: Profit. So actually visualize the steps of pulling all the ingredients out of the refrigerator and cabinets, peeling and chopping the carrots, splitting and seasoning the chicken wings, melting the butter, etc. For a lot of people, this is actually a highly motivational exercise, but even if it isn't for you, it will still help you to stay realistic about what actually needs to be done.
Pessimistic Procrastinators
You'll want to do the exact opposite of what the optimists do. Don't think about all the chores involved; instead, relax by focusing on all the big-picture positives, especially short-term ones:
Delicious food that will make you never want to eat Easy Mac ever again;
The wonderful aroma of that meat (or whatever else) roasting in the oven;
A pile of tasty leftovers that will keep you going for at least 2 or 3 more days;
The sweet satisfaction you get from finishing something important;
The additional satisfaction you get from emptying your fridge (into some place other than the trash).
I've noticed that in cooking as well as almost every other area, longer-term objectives (such as nutrition, cost savings, etc.) really are very poor motivators, because procrastination is, ipso facto, the inability to defer gratification in order to achieve longer-term objectives. So don't bother thinking about those; think about how cooking a proper meal is going to make you happier today.
Some pessimists also find it helpful to do the visualization exercise above, because it lowers their stress level in the same way that actually beginning the task does; it's "breaking the ice", so to speak. This is personal; if you are a pessimist type, you'll have to figure out for yourself if this makes it easier or harder to get started.
Note that pretty much all of the above only applies if you're able to prepare good meals. If you're a lousy cook, then you have every reason to be pessimistic, and no amount of psychological gymnastics can help you. If you can't motivate yourself to learn independently then consider taking a class, or schedule some sessions with a friend to teach you.
Decisional Procrastinators
This one's actually considerably harder to deal with, but there are methods:
Write your options on a piece of paper and then flip a coin or roll a die. Decisional procrastinators often tend to be afraid of the consequences of making a decision, so pushing that responsibility onto a random force is an easy coping method.
Allocate a specific period of time per day (or week, whatever) to plan a menu that will last until the next time. Make the decision-making process an actual task. As Kate says, you don't necessarily have to rigidly follow the plan you come up with, but having a plan already written down is a form of anchoring. It's more difficult to succumb to decision paralysis because you've effectively created a bias toward a particular choice, which your mind has to work harder to break.
Fool Yourself
Once you've addressed the psychological issues, you can deal with some more practical ones. Getting things done isn't about practicing the latest time-management fad, any more so than losing weight is about following the latest diet fad. It's about tricking yourself out of your own bad habits with careful planning. Think of this as a sort of tactical battle between two different versions of yourself:
Present you is thinking about the future, and the future is a world of possibilities where you can accomplish anything if you just put your mind to it. This instance of you is totally motivated to cook more, eat healthier, save money, whatever. You're going to do it if it's the last thing you do.
Future you is late, tired, stressed out, burned out, and just wants to park his butt on the couch or in front of a computer game. Unless he really loves to cook (which, by the way, many of us do - but anyone who asks this question probably doesn't consider it a hobby), then cooking is going to be the last thing on his mind. He has a powerful impulse to do nothing. He is the one that's going to be doing the procrastinating described above.
So here is your dilemma: Unless you are currently standing in a well-stocked kitchen, it's not present you that's going to be doing the cooking, it's future you. Somehow, present you has to trick that person into doing the right thing.
The way to do this is to create a situation where future you will have to go through extra effort to deviate from the plan, or face immediate negative consequences if that deviation occurs.
There are a few obvious things you can do for cooking:
Don't keep "convenience foods" around the house. It's easy to put off cooking when you know you've got the Ramen or Easy Mac sitting in the pantry. Future You will be in the kitchen a lot faster if he knows he's going to starve otherwise. (He can still order pizza, but eventually he will get sick of pizza.)
Use an internet blocker. This goes for cooking and pretty much any other household chore as well. Probably 9 times out of 10 when people slack off or get distracted today, they're surfing/chatting/playing multiplayer games. Especially if you live in a college dorm - there's really not much else to do. There are apps like Freedom that will force you to reboot if you want to go online. Remember, Future You has no discipline whatsoever, so Present You has to enforce the rules somehow.
If you tend to get distracted by TV, then reduce your cable services. Just get basic cable, and get rid of the Tivo. I can honestly say that the single biggest universal boost to my productivity was when I made the decision about 10 years ago to stop watching TV, and stuck to it. The addiction goes away after a while; now I've got a 46" that gets turned on maybe once every 2-3 months (no, that doesn't mean you can have it).
Other, more subtle methods that work for a lot of people are:
Commit to cooking for someone else. Family, friends, dates, roommates - it really doesn't matter. If you promise somebody a home-cooked meal, and you show up with Lean Cuisine, you're going to look like a total ass, and personal dignity is probably one of the few things that Future You isn't willing to trade for convenience.
If you're an incorrigible last-minute cook and cannot force yourself to plan more than a few hours in advance, then keep a menu of all the things you know how to make and reasonably enjoy. When Future You looks at the long list of potential great meals, the pack of Ramen is going to look seriously pathetic next to it.
Start preparing something - anything - in advance, but not to the point where it can actually be eaten. Future You will see this as a sunk cost and be forced to rationally weigh the effort that's already been expended against the potential time saved by abandoning the entire project (meal). Try chopping up an onion and putting the pieces in a loose plastic baggie; I guarantee that you'll be back in the kitchen very quickly to deal with the smell - and since throwing them in a garbage won't actually make it go away, the only practical choice is to cook them.
Eventually you will get good at this came of cat and mouse. Everybody is born a procrastinator, but nobody has to stay that way.
This is a great thorough answer that hit very close to home. I was, for the longest time, an optimistic procrastinator. I now make a weekly menu on Sunday, make sure I have all the ingredients on hand, and hit the store Sunday if I don't. That alone made a huge difference, but the turning point for me was starting my mise en place the night before. Just taking out the ingredients and spices I need and placing them on the counter makes it much easier to start cooking as soon as I get home. I find it's easier to do this kind of thing before bed than right away after a long day's work.
Also, this answer reminded me of a blog post that I recently read about procrastination and thought was interesting and touches a lot on the idea of "future you": http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/10/27/procrastination/
@stephen: I read his posts on occasion too, so it's entirely possible that some of this was unconsciously borrowed from that essay. Then again, it's hardly a new or groundbreaking concept; when I had to break my habit of sleeping in, I strew 5 alarm clocks across the house set to go off at 3-minute intervals, in order to make the constant snoozing an even more painful ordeal than getting up. Same idea, just arranging for physical or psychological obstacles to be laid out for the future when you can't trust yourself.
you're too much, I'm actually right in the middle of the sleeping-in habit-breaking, and I have my cell and 3 other alarm clocks strategically placed around my bedroom. I hope I didn't accidentally imply that I thought you stole your idea from that site, I was posting it more as "continued reading". Your answer was much more thorough and useful anyway :)
No offense taken, @stephen, I was simply remarking on my own about some of the similarities after having re-read that procrastination page, and there's definitely some inspiration if not even a little co-opting. Good luck on your sleep; if your current strategy fails, try placing one or more outside the bedroom.
What you really need is to learn to cook with things that don't go bad. Get a supply of spices, some pastas, canned goods (tomato sauce!), rice, etc... This kind of stuff can stay in the cupboard (not the fridge) for years before going bad.
Get some long lasting condiments. Soy sauce, mayo, catsup, stuff like that.
Get some small amounts of semi-long lasting goods like cheese and such (you can carve off the outside if it molds). Get some eggs and butter.
Potatoes last a good bit too if you treat them right. You can fry them, bake them, mash them, boil them....
Learn to throw stuff together out of that. For example, boiled mac noodles+shredded cheddar == much better mac&cheese than any box crap and it's not even any harder.
Grab a pound of ground beef, fry it and chunkify it...throw in some tomato sauce, garlic, onion powder, pepper, oregano, basil...whatever...you've got spaghetti sauce. Throw in canned corn and mac noodles and you've got goulash. Next day, put some water in the pan (just throw the whole pan in the fridge overnight) and cook it again...little secret: I sometimes even like it better the next day. Nuke works too.
Mix olive oil with some spices and throw it on some noodles...some cheese of some sort if you want...pesto!
Pick up some cream at the store, cook with butter and thicken with cheese - alfredo.
Mix flour, egg, milk (or water), sugar, and baking powder in bowl...poor into frying pan = pancake. Add more egg and put in waffle iron.
Flour + butter + water rolled out and fried = tortilla. Scramble some eggs, with some chopped and fried potato...add peppers and crap that you may have bought at some point...breakfast burrito.
1c flour + .25c oil + .25c water mixed up = quiche crust. Eggs, milk, + whatever = inside.
Flour + water + yeast rolled out and baked = pita Without yeast = flatbread.
flour + eggs + oil + water rolled out and cut = noodles.
Black bananna + sugar, flour, egg, milk, various other bits, baking powder = bananna bread.
Powdered sugar + butter + milk = frosting base...add cocoa to make chocolate. Put on graham cracker and dip in milk.
Chopped chicken breast + garlic, salt, pepper, + whatever vegies/onions you might have + oil + wok = stir fry. Chicken = cheap. Put in freezer. Pork chop work nice too.
Lots of really great stuff you can make without quickly perishing foods. The only thing that's really trouble is fresh fruits and veggies. Just buy one thing and eat it for a week before getting the next. Throw the rest together. Pick up your meats fresh and/or couple frozen bits.
So that's it. Stick with non-perishables. Rice, sugars, flour, spices, canned foods. Learn how to throw it together in novel ways. Don't target some recipe, buy a bunch of stuff and watch it rot. Get the necessities and mix them up. You seriously don't need to go overboard to beat out fast food. I can, by my own taste, compete with the pros with just the crap listed so far
Every so often pick up a fast perishable or two and just keep using it until its gone.
Learn how to make pizza from scratch...
ground beef + tomato sauce + oregano + basil + canned corn + mac noodles = a possibly-good meal that has absolutely NOTHING in common with goulash. Just sayin'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_goulash
I'm a university student like you, but I manage to cook nearly every night (and most nights I don't cook I reheat something I made previously). If you want to get in the habit of cooking you need to plan ahead. Not just one meal ahead, but plan the whole week. I cook basically the same meals on the same day each week, so I make sure I have the ingredients I need for the next few nights whenever I go to the shops. It's a good idea to make things that can be refrigerated or frozen so that you can cook twice, three or four times as much as you need and then eat the rest over the next few weeks.
Cook for others. I never manage to cook for myself, it is no fun. But cooking for my wife, friends or family is very fulfilling.
So if you have a roomate, cook for both. If not, invite people over, or visit friends and cook for them (or make them cook!)
These days, with the advent of smart phones, you might be better off with a methodology more like:
Go to the store.
Find what's on sale that you'd be willing to eat. (ie, not bacon, if you're muslim or kosher)
Look up a recipe that uses the ingredients
Make sure it doesn't require tools or skills that you don't have, or take longer than you want to spend
Buy the stuff & take it home
Cook
The problem with finding the recipe first, then going to the store is that you won't know what's on sale ... so you end up spending more than you really should've, and feel guilty when it doesn't come out perfectly, or annoyed that you could've just gone with the frozen pizza instead.
In some cases, you either can't find a critical ingredient, or what you do find is produce that's on the verge of rotting in the bins because most chain grocery stores in the US don't have the autonomy to mark stuff down before it's gone off ... so you're either stuck with going through with the recipe with less than ideal ingredients (always a bad mistake), improvising, or giving up and going for the microwave burrito.
See the different questions that I linked to in the comments -- there have been lots of suggestions for people just starting out; it'd be pointless to repeat it all here.
... and if you don't have a smart phone ... see some of the suggestions for starter books (it's in one of the ones I liked to). Stuff like 'How to Cook Without a Book' can get you better prepared to improvise based on what you can find rather than tied to recipes.
This is pretty much the methodology I've come to use... Once upon a time, I'd buy what was on sale and then pick recipes once I got home, but that often left me wishing for that one key ingredient I didn't think to grab (though I did tend to become a good deal more creative with what I did have). At this point, the smartphone has very nearly replaced all other forms of recipes for me, not to mention my shopping lists.
If you are cooking for one and have space in your apartment or whatever other arrangement you are using, begin to view your freezer as your best friend. With it, you can do the following:
Buy a whole chicken, poach it (boil it until cooked through in salted water, chicken brother, or another interesting liquid), shred the meat, and freeze shredded frozen chicken for use in tacos, quesadillas, chicken pot pie, chicken noodle soup, chicken salad, as part of a pasta cream sauce, etc. As a bonus, save the bones and simmer them on the stove for about 5 hours on the weekend when you're doing homework for stock and freeze the stock. You can do similar things with a pork shoulder or big cut of inexpensive beef stew meat and use the meat for stews, pulled pork sandwiches, etc.
Cook the full amount of a four serving meal from a cookbook, eat it two nights in a row, and save the other two servings for a week when you are busy.
Buy bargain packs of chicken breasts and ground beef as well as all those managers specials on meat, portion them out, wrap in foil, and freeze. Pull out as many servings as you need for a given meal to thaw in the fridge a day before and you have meat on hand that will last a long time. Also buy bags of frozen veggies when they go on sale.
You can even go whole hog and get into freezer cooking.
Also know what items you want to have on hand for your particular tastes in your pantry. Do you routinely make chilis? Keep the beans on hand. Do you love sauces with tomatoes? Make sure you have canned diced tomatoes, tomato sauce (the canned kind, not the prepared pasta sauce, although you can have that too), tomato paste, etc. on hand. Rice is an extremely college-student friendly food, make sure to keep it available and learn a fool proof way of cooking it.
For your fridge you'll need some condiments and any fresh items you want on hand (salad ingredients, fruit for snacking, etc.)
Using shelf stable pantry items and your freezer you should be able to cut down the things that might spoil. Using make-ahead plans you should be able to cook when you are so inspired and reap the reward of that cooking for anywhere from days months.
plan your meals, including planning your leftover use, and you'll be a lot happier. I have a printed sheet - it's just seven boxes each the width of the page - and I write down what each night's dinner will be. I also record disruptions like if someone will be out - it's pointless to plan a pot roast that takes 4 hours on the night you will be out until 6:30.
I like to shop once a week, so the first 3 or so meals after "shop day" (which is a different day each week) feature fresh meat I bought when I shopped. Often I fill those days in when I am at the store because it depends what's on sale. (This week for $6 I got two pork tenderloins, each of which will feed 3.) The rest of the week is "pantry meals" meaning things I can make from the cupboard or freezer (I always have ground beef in the freezer, and often chicken parts.)
I also write "order pizza" or "bring home Chinese food" on certain days if I know that's the kind of day it's going to be. And of course, I don't feel obliged to follow the plan if things change as the week goes on. But it sure does help to know that someone has already decided what dinner will be tonight, and arranged for the ingredients to be in the fridge. Even when that someone is just yesterday-me, I feel as helped and looked after as if it was the butler who did it for me.
i will second everything everyone's said, and also add this: you can't cram for cooking like you'd cram for an exam, and then be done. you won't get it on your first go, or maybe even your tenth. it's a learning process, and it can be one that you can continue to enjoy your whole life. don't be intimidated. start slow, with pastas and easy (like Michael mentioned above) 5-ingredient dishes, and work your way up. being able to say, "i made this!" is SO satisfying, especially when you surprise yourself (or your family, friends, and loved ones) with how good it tastes. and yes, it certainly IS cheaper and healthier in the long run -- and aren't you worth it?
This problem can mostly be solved by simply being organized about how you do things.
By no means am I an expert on this, and I do occasionally fall back into the trap (especially when I'm just cooking for myself)
We have a simple workflow that does us well though, so here it is.
Once a week (usually a Sunday) we sit down with our tried and tested cook book (it's a simple cook book with a lot of recipes in it, most of which call for relatively few ingredients)
We then pick four (we've found this just about hits the mark for a weeks, and allows for 'off-days' when we can't be bothered to cook) recipes from this cookbook and order all the required ingredients online (we also take stock of what we already have, paying attention to anything that needs used soon to avoid waste)
The ingredients will usually arrive on a Monday evening at about 5pm. From this we take note of the expiry dates of key ingredients to the dishes and we can base a rough cooking priority from this.
Most meals we choose tend to take around 30 minutes to cook including prep-time, though from time to time we are more adventurous. We have some favorite recipes which we order ingredients for more regularly too. (One favorite; toad in the hole, takes over an hour to make, but only about ten minutes prep-time - the rest of the time is spent waiting for it to cook in the oven)
The 30 minute mark is kind of key, as this is roughly how long it takes to pre-heat an oven, take a frozen pizza out of the freezer, wait for it to cook and commence eating. So this is my bench mark.
We do of course buy the occasional frozen meal or things that can be cooked with zero prep-time (frozen pizza!) for when we are super tired/lazy.
We still have some waste doing all this, but like I said, I'm no expert - it does still work out a lot cheaper however.
Some other top tips/notes:
Every utensil we own is dishwasher safe, once we are done cooking/eating, we load up the dish washer and put it on, this way everything is clean and ready to be used the following day (nothing is worse than having to do the dishes BEFORE you start cooking, and this has always been my downfall in the past. Being as strict as possible with the washing-up REALLY helps.)
Freeze any excess you make, if you buy portion-sized microwave safe containers, you'll eventually accumulate a freezer full of tasty food that can be nuked for a couple of minutes and on your plate faster than you can imagine.
Make sure you have a good stock of canned chopped tomatoes. Seriously. If all else fails, you can put pasta on, boil the tomatoes with onions/spices/anything else you have that's about to go off then combine the two into a really quick and easy meal (replace the pasta with minced beef and you have some vague form of chilli/bolognese sauce)
The other main advantage to this is, we are rarely in the shops/super-markets, so we are rarely tempted to buy food we don't need. Ocassionally we'll need to pick up some eggs, or milk or bread, but if you go in with such a limited and specific shopping list (rather than "something for dinner") you'll save a fortune.
The cook book we use 90% of the time isn't a celebrity chef endorsed one - we have several of those, but they tend to be a lot more complicated and require more (and fussier) ingredients. (Of course, sometimes the extra effort is worth it!)
After a while of doing this, you'll find your cooking skills improve and the amount of time required to cook goes down, especially when you have a favorite dish or two that you cook regularly.
So basically I guess the solution is to be organized and also keep your kitchen clean.
a perfect flow diagram. I think I was on the same situation. But these are some few tips with which I got over it.
Do all that you have jotted in the flow diagram, but you dont have to this everyday. When you explore recipes, be sure to explore something which works as simple and fast as possible too. Now sure when you have whole lot of leisure time you can do the time taking process. But when you dont you can do some quick recipes. I personally feel taking time is equal to taking time to take care of yourself.
On a side note what I do is get some drumsticks from Costco, marinate all them using Lemon zest, rosemary, some thyme, lemon juice, salt, pepper and some veggies. I refrigerate them and wholaaaa...As soon as I come home pre-heat the oven, pop them into and cook them at 350 temperature for 30 mins. You dont believe chicken is so tender juicy and they make best lunch, dinner or even a date.
Hope you try it and let me know and take care!!!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.485356
| 2011-02-16T02:29:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12218",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brendan Long",
"Brōtsyorfuzthrāx",
"Edward Strange",
"Eric",
"FeedbackLoop",
"Hybrid",
"Jesse Chan",
"Joe",
"Kasey",
"Lson",
"Mark Anderson",
"Marti",
"Megha",
"Melissa",
"SDSC",
"Shog9",
"SpecKK",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25173",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25220",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25225",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25232",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3750",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"justkt",
"penny laplaunt",
"stephennmcdonald",
"user3672"
],
"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
}
|
16530
|
Thawed shrimp floating vs. sinking
I bought two 2-pound bags of frozen 41-50 count/pound shrimp. When I thawed them in cold water, one bag's shrimp all sank and the other bag's shrimp all floated.
Bag 1 Bag 2
buoyancy sink float
color more white slightly brownish
rinsing clear frothy
marking 66H/15TT/976 668/21TT/0H354
I assume one of them is not nearly so fresh as the other, or possibly has been frozen and thawed multiple times. I did some searching but couldn't find any real help.
Assuming that one is not so fresh, I would like to return it to the store. But which one? I'm guessing the floating and darker color indicate a more advanced state of decomposition, but your input is appreciated. I'd like to have ammunition at the store in case they question me.
The ones that floated are witches.
According to this study, frozen seafood has a density ranging from 972 to 1017 kg/m3. Thawed, raw seafood at 20°C has a density ranging from 1042 to 1093 kg/m3. Since the density of water at room temperature is about 998 kg/m3, it is certainly possible—and most likely normal—for one batch of frozen seafood to float while another sinks. Thawed seafood that has been brought to room temperature, on the other hand, should almost always sink since its minimum density (1042 kg/m3) is higher than water's. Therefore, I would only worry if the shrimp continue to float after they have been thawed. If they are shell-on, there is a chance that there could be air stuck between the shell and the body, though, which would of course be perfectly fine yet affect the density/floating.
Edit: What are the ingredients listed on the bags? Very often nowadays salt and salt-based preservatives are added to frozen shrimp in order to retard water loss. It could be the case that one bag has preservatives while the other does not. This could of course affect buoyancy by changing the density of the shrimp. (In general, one should try and only buy individually quick-frozen shrimp where "shrimp" is the only ingredient.)
I believe the only ingredient was shrimp (I returned the floaters to the store). Even after fully thawing to cold tap water temperature, the shrimp still floated and still were more frothy than the others with more rinsing. Maybe the froth does suggest an additive.
You're jumping to conclusions here. While it's entirely possible that you got a bad batch of shrimp, there are plenty of variables that could explain differences in color, boyancy, and froth. Species, location, food source, processing method, and wild vs. farmed are all factors that could be involved. Indeed, many shimp varieties have names that relate to their coloration: there are black tiger shrimp, white shrimp, pink shrimp, brown shrimp...
The best way to tell if your shrimp are in good shape is to smell them. It'll be harder to detect any off odor if you thaw the shrimp under running water, so thaw them overnight in the fridge if you have time. A whiff of ammonia indicates a shrimp that has seen better days, but use your head: any scent that makes you think "Whew! That smells like really old shrimp!" is reason for concern.
Most of the variables you mentioned seem dubious because the shrimp were the same manufacturer, same packaging.
@ErikE: Even so, the catch is bound to change from day to day and certainly from week to week. I don't mean to say that you shouldn't return food if you think that it's bad, but only that some differences between bags doesn't necessarily mean that one is bad. I think your nose would know if your shrimp were so far gone that they'd changed color. Anyway, you'd be smart to call the manufacturer and ask. The last thing they'll want is for you to eat bad shrimp with their name on it, and they should be able to tell you what differences are okay or not.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.488455
| 2011-07-31T07:19:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16530",
"authors": [
"2i3r",
"Adam Diament",
"Ashwini Nathani",
"Breakfast Burritos",
"Caleb",
"Drisheen Colcannon",
"ErikE",
"Steeniroo",
"Teresa",
"That One Actor",
"ccw4",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/120644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35301",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35311",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35338",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35354",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4386",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5505",
"user35301"
],
"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
}
|
24973
|
How much oats to put in crumble topping?
My interpretation of the other question about the ideal flour/sugar/butter ratio for crumble, is that the flour:sugar ratio should be somewhere between 1:0.7 and 1:1
Now, if you add oats to the crumble, how much should you use? Currently I just add oats by eye, about 2-3 heaping tablespoons to a cup of flour. Quickly measuring this out, I'm getting about a 1:0.25 flour:oats ratio. Is that a reasonable amount, or is there a better ratio?
I'm still a little dubious about these questions. There's just such a huge variety of crumble toppings. I personally like lots of oats, so I often start with that, and just add enough flour to get it to clump well. I've never measured, but I bet I sometimes use substantially more oats than flour. So I'd say "better" is completely subjective, depending on your goals.
agreed with Jefromi. My Mum always made crumble topping with only flour, butter and sugar and no oats at all, so your ratio could be 1:0 if you wanted. We have another crumble recipe that is only oats, nuts, sugar and butter, which is 0:1. The more important issue than the amount and form of the grains is whether you have enough butter and sugar to make it hold together the way you want.
I don't just add oats, I sub oats for part flour so that I have never gone off track in results. Grinding half of the oats makes the topping more delicate, less chewy.
To directly answer your question: if you like the results with your ratio, it's reasonable. If you like something else better, there's a better ratio. And making the topping by eye is definitely the right way to go; I've essentially never used a recipe.
Most recipes will have at most as much oats as flour (i.e. half and half) but any ratio is fine. It's entirely personal preference. You can make a topping with all oats and no flour, or all flour and no oats, as long as you add enough butter to make it hold together properly, and enough sugar to make it as sweet as you want it. It's a little harder to get oats alone to stick, so you can use a tiny bit of flour if you have trouble.
As an aside: you might find that you also use more flour if you add nuts, since your preference might be for a certain combination of cookie texture with things mixed in.
Bittman lists 0.5C flour to 0.5C oats to 0.33C butter to 0.67C sugar and about 1.5 quarts fruit. (C = cups).
Clearly you can vary these quantities and ratios.
Yes. My recipe (Good Housekeeping) only has flour, but I sub oats for half the flour.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.488842
| 2012-07-10T16:15:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24973",
"authors": [
"Alekos Reps",
"Cascabel",
"Ginden",
"Guy",
"OWADVL",
"Ohad Schneider",
"Pat Sommer",
"Srishti Sinha",
"Vicky",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10709",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57037",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64663",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6638",
"standgale"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7385
|
Can I reuse cedar grilling planks?
Since wooden cutting boards are safe for use with meat, I was wondering if I can reuse the cedar grilling planks.
Yossarian's answer to this question about how to prepare a plank says you can use one again depending on what you're cooking.
So, what determines whether you can reuse the planks?
How should I clean them after use?
After too many uses, will they lose the ability to impart flavor to what's being grilled?
The ones I bought were fairly expensive, so I'd like to get as much use out of them as possible.
I will generally reuse a plank on two conditions:
The bottom isn't completely charred. Sometimes, the bottom ends up complete black. I find that this won't start to smoke a second time. It's also a mess to store anywhere.
The top isn't a mess of food. This is largely dependent on what you cook. Fish skin sometimes gets cooked on, glaze bubbles and chars, oil lights on fire and the top surface chars. Something like shrimp, tomato, or sausage will be fairly clean though, and nothing will cook on to the top.
In order to reuse the plank, I clean it with soap and water, the same way I'd clean a wooden chopping board. I've never managed to use a plank more than twice and I usually just toss them after a single use.
Keep in mind that a dried cedar plank is a dried cedar plank. Cost is generally more based on the store that you buy it in than the product you're buying. A hardware super store (like Home Depot) will generally have these quite cheap.
Be careful you don't get treated wood at Home Depot!
Cedar isn't treated, SPF is. SPF is spruce, pine, fir, and these woods are generally considered susceptible to rot when used on or in the ground, that's what you buy treated lumber for. It is distinctively green and smells pretty bad. Cedar is never treated this way, and should be dry as parchment and smell nice.
You can absolutely reuse wood planks if they are prepared and cared for properly. Unlike what yossarian says I would never use soap to clean them unless I absolutely had to. The soap will absorb into the wood which can alter its aroma when burned. Also I would be very careful when reusing to always use the same types of meat/fish. For instance if you are cooking salmon on the cedar plank I would always try to use a fish for that plank from then on. Typically I can get 3-4 uses out of my plank if I'm careful to soak it for a decent amount of time.
A good resource I've found for this: http://backyardprovisions.com/blogs/our-grill/11362737-soaking-your-planks-with-creativity
Hope this helps!
I routinely reuse cedar planks 1 or 2 times. I use an indirect charcoal grilling method that tends to char the bottom less. I simply scrub with a brush under running hot water promptly after removing the cooked food. Let dry and resoak when needed again. Never had any problems. The likelihood of any bacteria surviving the grilling is quite remote.
This is essentially my strategy; I get a hot grill with a cool side.
YES, definitely! I agree that thicker planks last longer. I got some longer/thicker ones from Harris Teeter when I lived in North Carolina and they lasted years. Here in Idaho all my planks are maybe 1/4" thick and they curve when you grill with them, but I still reuse them as long as I can. They still impart flavor pretty well... we like to soak ours for 2 hours, also with a weight on top. 15min just seems like the water doesn't really get in there and the plank is more likely to burn. For cleaning I run it under hot water and let it soak until all the gunk is soft. Then I take the BACK (dull) side of a butter knife and scrape the gunk off, rinse and rescrape until it looks visually clean. If the gunk starts looking less like fish and more like wood, you're done. Once they dry they will still smell like fish but that hasn't stopped us from reusing them over and over until they're really charred on the bottom. And none of us has gotten sick or anything either.
let's keep this simple, never put your planks over the coals or directly under your grill's burners, light one side on high and always put off to the side away from the flames. you can also add tint foil wrap around the bottom of the plank. It's that easy. Or just use in your oven. With the big planks, you can't use a microwave, plus a microwave will not kill everything! Just scrub under hot running water and put it in your dishwasher....YES.....it safe. Soak for 2-8 hours, I do over night! you can soak them in wine if you want... You should get years of use from one board "I do" but I only use the high end 1" thick ones.
Daniel removed the link to the manufacturer you recommended - it does not make the answer better and can easily seen as spam. (And then we'd have to delete the entire answer!)
I believe I can reuse a plank for salmon cooking several times. Wash with hot water, not soapy. Then microwave if it will fit in. The microwaving will kill bacteria. Then bag and store frozen until thawing for next use, so it doesn't grow anything in the meantime. Microwave again before next use. If unable to microwave and freeze, discard and buy a new one.
Whether you can reuse the planks depends on how thick they are and how scorched it is after each use. I use 1 inch thick cedar planks and get four uses, sometime more out of each one. I'm basically roasting ( sometime with a deflector & sometimes without) rather than grilling in my Big Green Egg. I use very hot water, a scrub brush to clean. Sometimes I will use olive oil for "soap", and kosher salt for and abrasive.
I bought two planks from homedepot.I used them in my green egg, after soaking overnight. 20 mins at 400 degrees, using a ceramic deflector plate, not direct heat over coals. The planks' bottoms turned a light honey tone but no charring whatsoever. Washed off in the sink with hot water and kosher salt and microvaved.
This sounds like it is a good cleaning method. How long can the planks be reused (safely, and so they continue imparting flavor)?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.489100
| 2010-09-16T19:30:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7385",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"Escoce",
"Jason Carlin",
"JasonTrue",
"John",
"Richard Egan",
"Stephie",
"Vanessa Williams",
"ceejayoz",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/137421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15144",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162437",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/95380",
"kusiub",
"swirl photoshoot",
"user15144"
],
"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
}
|
5127
|
How far in advance of serving can you fry fried eggs?
A recent question asks how to fry eggs on a large scale. That prompts me to ask, can fried eggs be fried in advance and either cooled for later reheating, or alternatively kept warm for a prolonged period? If the latter case is an option, what is the ideal temperature to keep them at?
On consideration reheating doesn't make much sense. The reheating would probably take as long as the initial cooking.
Surprisingly, an egg is the most difficult thing to cook. McDonalds serves a lot of eggs in their breakfast menus and they haven't found a way yet to mass prefry / prcook these suckers. So I doubt this could be done.
I tried half cooking scrambled eggs before and then finishing them off later, and the result was crap at best.
I doubt you can do that with non-scrambled eggs, as the yolks and whites will change physical properties when heated / cooled / reheated
Fried eggs will keep for a few minutes at best, from my perspective.
If they are kept hot enough for any length of time to keep them palatable, then they will cook further.
If they cool off, they would need to be reheated, with attendant further cooking also done.
I have kept fried eggs cooked in my warning tray of the oven for a couple of minutes while something else finished, kids came downstairs, but no more.
You can keep poached eggs for quite a while as long as you stop the cooking after they get to the desired temp. Basically, you poach the eggs then slip them into a bowl of ice water. They can then be fridged for up to 48 hours. To serve, just rewarm in the poaching liquid.
For all other egg applications, your results are going to be so much better by cooking fresh and cooking eggs takes so little time that you would do much better to just cook to order.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.489609
| 2010-08-13T18:16:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5127",
"authors": [
"Chris Steinbach",
"Hugh",
"Jorn",
"Nathan C. Tresch",
"Nishant Sharma",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9984",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9987",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9991",
"sheena_d"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93632
|
What’s the minimum sugar to egg white ratio in Swiss buttercream?
A Swiss meringue buttercream is a buttercream based on a sugar and egg white mix that is first heated and then whipped. The average recipes I could find use roughly one part egg white to two parts of sugar1, some a bit more, some less2.
I would like to reduce the sugar, but of course the sugar is not used just as sweetener, but is critical for the stability and texture of the meringue. So:
What’s the minimum amount of sugar or lowest sugar-to-egg ratio needed for a Swiss meringue buttercream?
Two side notes:
As egg sizes definitions differ and we’re talking ratios, please either use weight or state the egg size and the locale in your answer.
This question is not about the butter to meringue ratio. I realize that the amount of butter will influence the stability of the buttercream.
I doubt you can separate the effect of the butter (i.e. I suspect the answer would be a function of butter content, considering the limiting cases). I wouldn't mind being proved wrong though, and I think the question is interesting (+1).
Sugar is used to dissolve the egg whites and the protein film on the surface of the air bubbles (source).
Looking at meringue ratio recommendations, here is what I found.
By varying the amount of sugar in the final mix, you control how hard or soft the final meringue will be. As a general rule, add a total of 1/4 cup of granulated or superfine sugar for each egg white. Do not make meringues that have less than 2 tablespoons of sugar per egg white. If you use any less, the foam will not set and the meringue will shrink.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.489799
| 2018-11-05T20:24:05 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93632",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91324
|
Size of holes for salt/pepper/seasoning shakers?
Is there any reference for the sizes of holes for salt shakers? For cooking I should think that the holes would be larger than for table shakers.
This question is not, "Would you recommend using a shaker?"
Not an answer, but for cooking I don’t use a shaker at all.
For cooking I have a salt caddy with a flip lid filled with kosher salt (just like Alton Brown on Good Eats). I find dealing out salt "by the pinch" is ever so better than relying on clogable salt shakers.
Yes, why would you ever use a shaker for salt when cooking?
We have a wide-mouthed ceramic jar to dip salt out of with fingers or a spoon, and we keep a spoon with table- and tea spoon measurements inside for easy measuring. It drives me nuts if I end up using the table saltshaker instead of the jar (if, say, it's closer to hand) because its harder to figure out how much was added.
I don't think there is any set standard for the size of the holes. Most of the salt and pepper shakers I've seen sold to be used at the stove or grill don't necessarily have larger holes, but they have a lot more holes. They also hold more salt or pepper than table sets. This is an example similar to most I've seen:
If you look at the vast amount of salt and pepper shakers available, you will see that they come with very few holes, lots of holes, different size holes, etc. I think the key in what to use is to find what you feel comfortable with.
Also, consider what type(s) of salt and pepper you are using. Most shakers are sold for use with table salt and ground black pepper. But if you are using a more coarsely ground salt or pepper you would obviously need larger holes.
I, like most of the others who commented, don't use shakers while I'm cooking. The only time I would use shakers is perhaps when seasoning food before or after it is cooked. The real downside is that if you try to shake salt or pepper over hot foods while cooking, steam can cause the salt or pepper to clog the holes.
The only situation I can think of, where a shaker for seasoning might help you during cooking, is where a.) you need a quick,even, distribution, and b.) you can see how much you seasoning you have applied. At the moment, the only example of that which comes to mind is seasoning raw meat before browning, grilling, or roasting.
If you have to do that repeatedly and quickly, there may be an advantage in using a shaker, and the size of the holes would be geared to distributing the right amount for that job in one or two passes.
I wouldn't want to shake seasoning into a pot (which is going to be stirred anyway) or even on to browning meat or vegetables in the pan, because it would be hard to estimate how much I was applying.
In general, seasoning by hand is as quick and convenient as I would ever need - and if I need an even distribution, then doing it from enough height to let the air disperse the particles on the way down is quite good enough. And applying my other rule - keeping equipment to an absolute minimum to do every job you might want to as quickly as you need to, preferring skills to equipment wherever possible - I wouldn't use a seasoning shaker at all. (I don't even like them at the table!)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.489972
| 2018-07-29T21:26:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91324",
"authors": [
"James McLeod",
"Megha",
"Stephie",
"Steve Chambers",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4976",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66651"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
35026
|
What is the magic in packaged pudding mixes?
I have tried making pudding from recipes that have cornstarch and one with flour. Neither has the same smoothness of the cooked packaged mixes. What is the magic in the packaged mix? I am looking for a more smooth pudding recipe.
the no-cook "instant" pudding, or the cooked style?
You know I just assumed it was instant, since cooked pudding mixes seem to have vanished....
@SAJ14SAJ, to-cook mixes are available in my local supermarket (not a specialty supermarket) (St. Louis, Mo., USA).
The Industrial Product
By way of example, this is the list of ingredients from Jello Vanilla Instant Pudding and Pie Filling mix (a very common brand in the US):
Sugar
Modified Cornstarch
contains less than 2% of Natural and Artificial Flavor
Salt
Disodium Phosphate
Tetrasodium Pyrophosphate (for Thickening)
Mono- and Diglycerides (prevent Foaming)
Artificial Color
Yellow 5
Yellow 6
BHA (Preservative)
The ingredients that are not well known, or are that are relevant to the texture are:
Modified cornstarch. The label does not specifically say how the cornstarch has been treated or modified, but it is likely that it is pre-gelatinized which is what allows it to be "instant pudding", thickening with the addition of cold liquid.
Disodium Phosphate. Anti-caking agent. This allows the mix to flow freely after storage.
Mono- and Diglycerides. Emulsifiers.
Tetrasodium Pyrophosphate. Per Wikipedia:
Sodium pyrophosphate is used as a buffering agent, an emulsifier, a
dispersing agent, and a thickening agent
Note that this both emulsifies which helps create smoothness and uniformity, and thickness.
What you do not see in the mix is any true dairy or egg products. The pudding is entirely a creation of these thickening agents, and the flavor only from the natural or artificial flavors (which might or might not include vanilla extract, but more likely are vanillin and other flavors).
Home Production
Puddings (at least in US usage of the word) are a variant on custards, where the thickening power of eggs in a basic custard is supplemented with a starch.
It is not really possible to achieve a consistency identical to that provided by the industrial ingredients, so if you are using that as your standard, you will fail.
Still, an extremely smooth product with a delicate mouth feel (which in my personal opinion is actually superior) is possible by creating a pudding based on:
Rich dairy, about 10-18% or more milkfat (half and half, or richer)
Egg yolks (but not the whites), for thickening. The natural lecithin in the yolks contributes smoothness, and the proteins contribute thickness. Omitting the egg whites removes the somewhat rubbery mouthfeel that the albumens in the white contribute to thickened dishes.
Cornstarch for supplemental thickening and to help bind the pudding.
The ratio is very very approximately: 1 quart (1 liter) dairy to 6 eggs yolks to 4 tablespoons cornstarch.
These puddings can be created stove top or baked in the oven, and can be flavored in a variety of ways. In either case, you must use good technique to avoid curdling the eggs.
Beat the yolks to light golden color.
Mix the cornstarch, sugar (and other dry ingredients) with a small amount of dairy, just enough to create a smooth slurry. Then add the remainder of the dairy and egg yolks, and mix.
Bring to a slow bubble (about 180 F, 82 C) on top of the stove.
Strain and chill.
18% would normally be single cream (UK light cream). Half and half is normally 10%.
Wiki says 10-18%. I know i have converted my pudding recipes to be based on 1 qt half and half (but I haven't checked the specific level of my local product), which makes it much easier to just but a single container of dairy, so at that level there is sufficient fat for the texture.
I was afraid of that, lots of milk fat. I realized later that I had used the word smooth when creamy may have been better. If that been what I did then I would have had no need to post the question. Now I am forced make more pudding :-) -- w/o egg whites and more fat.
Awesome, detailed answer. Very educational. Thank you, SAJ14SAJ.
the thickner can be changed, I personally have trouble working with both flour and cornstarch--found this out when making gravey. Instead we use Guar Gum & Xanthan Gum. My cooking classes suggested using tapioca, pectin, gelatin, or arrowroot. quick search on wiki givea a long list.
Tradidionally arrow root is suppose to produce a shiney, smoother result but is hard to find a nd expensive. (The gums I use, we bought 8 oz packages and have been using them for over 5 years...not even 1/2 empty..and I have seen the same pacaages in the local grocrey stores near me lately)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.490370
| 2013-06-30T17:07:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35026",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Barbara Johnson",
"CW Holeman II",
"Kate Gregory",
"Kunvar Thaman",
"Matthew Kemmit",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Shalryn",
"TaylorMonacelli",
"Tyson Peri",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4935",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81739",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81741",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81749",
"jonathan butts",
"msh210"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
30444
|
Navigating the different types of cookware - new kitchen advice
I am looking to buy new cookware and I am confused by all the choices I have. I am trying to balance healthyness vs. ease of use vs. taste of prepared food vs. total cost of ownership (in that order).
My setup is 3-burner gass range, gas grill and convection oven. The cooking I do is most often stir-frying, sautéing, steaming, stewing, pan-roasting and making sauces (my wife does baking, but she is mostly happy with her gear).
So far, for the last 10 years I have been using Teflon non-stick pots and skillets and I've been fairly happy with them. My last set lasted for 6 years, but by now most of them have developed small spots of "anti-seasoning" (caramelized burnt stuff bound with the teflon), that cause everything to stick and give off-taste to food.
Initially, I was considering to buy high-grade Teflon cookware (Scanpan, Fissler or Swiss Diamond), but we got concerns about the Teflon becoming unstable at high temperature and contaminating the food (that is becoming important with a toddler in the house). As a side note, I am not sure how can I measure the temperature of a gas burner and the temperature of the pan, but I also believe it is all a matter of degree anyway (i.e. it is not safe at 259C and then suddenly becoming dangerous at 260C) - any informed opinions on that matter are welcome.
Next I was looking at aluminum pans with ceramic non-stick coating, but I can not find reliable sources of pros and cons - it still looks like a novelty and possibly immature technology. In particular I am concerned about its non-stickiness, cracking when heating without food in it (or deglazing), and risk of denting while cleaning. That, and the concern that if the ceramic coating is anything like the La Creuset enamel, I wouldn't exactly call it "non-stick".
Next I was recommended stainless-steel, which is more expensive than the other options and comes in way too many flavors - with and without core, aluminum vs. copper core, differences in thickness, etc. I am not sure what difference do these make and why are the prices varying so much (I've seen them ranging from 12,000 to 60,000 JPY).
Finally, to round it off, it would be nice if somebody is comparing all these options to include cast iron and earthenware. Any links to useful articles (not shopping reviews) would be appreciated.
Since you have some time, I recommend you find 3 or 4 places near you that sell sets of pots and pans. $700 sets go on sale for $250 roughly once a year. Different stores choose different times to do this. I bought my own stainless set this way, and a decade or more later bought a wedding present under similar circumstances. I don't know whether the high price is silly and no-one pays it, or the sales are loss leaders, but they happen consistently
I've done some research into the dangers of teflon, and it seems that teflon does indeed release some mildly toxic gasses at high temperatures - however, some foods (including butter) also release similarly toxic gases at that temperature. In short: 260C is a significantly higher temperature than you would ever intentionally cook anything, and should be avoided regardless of cookware. (Except perhaps in a wok, when you'd be using high-smoke-point oil and good ventilation).
What makes a good pan?
The main properties of a metal pan that are of interest to a cook are:
Evenness of heat distribution. Every burner produces more heat in some spots than others. The better the pan conduct heat, the more this heat is evened out before it is conducted into the food being cooked, which is important to prevent local hotspots in the pan, and resultant burning or uneven cooking of the food. The metals that provide the best heat conduction, in descending order, are silver, copper, aluminum, and finally steel or iron.
Heat retention This can be an advantage or a disadvantage. High heat retention is great for searing, as the pan will not immediately cool when food is placed into as much as a less retentive pan. Highly responsive pans, which change temperature quickly in response to changes in burner level or when taken off the heat are also desirable in other applications as it gives the cook more control.
Ease of maintenance and cleaning You want a pan that is easy to clean and does not require special treatment.
Durability Will the pan stand up to heavy use over many years?
Chemical activity Does the interior surface of the pan interact with food chemically, changing its flavor? Active metals include aluminum and iron, especially in the presence of acid. aluminum can be rendered inactive through anodization (as is used in the famous Calphalon line).
How much does it weigh? Many folks find very heavy cookware exceptionally inconvenient. However, weight is also related to heat retention, and more mass of metal simply provides more material to retain heat.
Non-stick Is it easy or difficult for food to stick?
Aesthetics Is it pretty? Or even attractive enough to put out onto a serving table? This is a personal opinion, so I will not address it further.
Is it ferrous? If you use an induction cook top, only ferrous (iron or steel) pans will interact with the magnetic field to generate heat. The "magnet test"--does a kitchen magnet stick to the pan--will tell you if a pan is ferrous.
Metals commonly used in pots and pans
The various metals used in pots and pans have different advantages and disadvantages under these criteria:
Stainless Steel. Very durable, moderately low conductivity of heat, very maintainable (can go in the dishwasher, for example, if you choose.)
Carbon steel Much rarer than stainless, except perhaps in large stock pots or woks. Inexpensive, moderately low conductivity of heat, more chemically active than stainless.
Iron. Chemically active (especially with acids), low conductivity of heat, very high heat retention (due to cast iron pans having a lot of mass of metal), heavy.
Copper. Best conductivity of heat of typical metals used in pans, very chemically active with foods, requires maintenance as it will tarnish.
Aluminum. Second best conductivity of heat of typical metals used in pans, chemically active in some circumstances unless anodized.
Construction Methods
Due to the different properties of these metals, in order to take advantage of their strengths, and mitigate their weaknesses, pans are made from one or a combination of metals. The most common are:
Cast iron. Inexpensive, heavy, exceptional heat retention, requires seasoning and careful maintenance. When properly seasoned, food will not stick easily, even eggs. Can rust.
Enamelled cast iron. Expensive, heavy, exceptional heat retention, easier maintenance. Must be handled with some care as crazing of the enamel can occur, which will reduce the non-stick properties of the lining, and is not attractive. Not chemically active with food due to lining.
Carbon steel. Inexpensive, poor heat distribution (an advantage in woks which desire a hot spot at the centre), requires seasoning and careful maintenance. Can rust.
Aluminum. Excellent conductivity, chemically active with acid foods. Not usually seen in the retail environment, but may be found in restaurant supply stores, especially for large stock pots or pasta boiling pots.
Anodized Aluminum. Moderately heavy, excellent heat conductivity and retention, unique aesthetic, pricey.
Plain stainless steel, not layered. Poor conductivity, excellent maintainability, moderate price.
Copper (lined). Very best conductivity, cannot go in dishwasher, very expensive, unique color (some people find copper pans very attractive). If lined with tin, as is traditional, rather than steel or some other material, must be treated with care and the lining will eventually wear and have to be redone.
Layered or "sandwich" stainless steel with an aluminum or copper disk or core. Advantages from the steel are excellent maintainability, and from the core, very good conductivity. An excellent compromise, but can be moderately expensive.
On layered pans
There are two ways the layered pans from the last bullet item are produced:
Disk at the bottom. A disk at the bottom of the pan, which only gives good conductivity on the area the disk covers, which may not be the entire bottom.
Entire pan is layered, up the sides. Gives better conductivity across the entire bottom of the pan, and up the sides.
This is a quality differentiator in the market. A poor pan will have a disk that doesn't cover the entire bottom, so the cooking will not be even at the edges.
A quality pan will have a disk that covers to the edge, or even entire pan construction, although for cooktop use, the most important issue is covering the entire bottom of the pan.
Finally, very large pots (stock pots, or for boiling pasta water), the layering makes very little difference, as conductivity is not the key issue--the convection of the water or stock evens out the heat. For stock pots, price is the major issue.
On Non-stick coatings (Teflon or PTFE)
Teflon (a trademark name) or PTFE (the generic name) lined pans are often available for any of the construction materials and methods outlined above. They range in levels of quality, from light cheap pans that are nearly disposable to high quality pans.
They offer the following advantages and disadvantages, in addition to the properties inherent in the base pan construction:
Non-stick. Amazing non-stick properties. PTFE is one of the lowest friction materials known to mankind at this time.
Care Must be handled with care, such as not abusing them with hard metal utensils which would scratch or damage the non-stick coating.
Cannot be overheated At temperatures above about 500°F (260°C), as the PTFE break down and some of the components are volatile (will vaporize) and are toxic. PTFE coated pans are not broiler-safe for this reason. (Note that PTFE itself is non-toxic, as it reacts chemically with almost nothing, the same reason it is extremely non-stick.)
Cleaning They are very, very easy to clean since nothing will stick to the PTFE.
Durability The PTFE coating will eventually break down, and so the pan will lose its non-stick properties.
Fond development The browned bits at the bottom of the pan, which in in classic French cooking are called the fond, do not develop in a PTFE coated pan, since there is nothing for the fond to stick to. This may be an advantage or disadvantage.
Lids and Handles
The material the lid (if there is one), and handles is made from or covered with is also important.
It is highly desirable that the pot or pan be able to be used on the cooktop, in the oven, and even under the broiler (grill, I believe the British would say).
Non-metal materials that are not oven/broiler safe are a disadvantage. Plastic is especially problematic. Note that some hard phenolic type plastic materials can go into a moderate (up to about 450°F (230°C)) oven; read the manuals, but I recommend true metal handles.
Earthenware
Earthenware cookware, such as a tagine, is a speciality item that is good for cooking braises, rice and couscous type dishes, and other slow cooking dishes. It is not a good general purpose item, as it cannot be used for high temperature frying, sautéing, and so on. They are generally used in the oven, although some small number of them are safe on top of the cook top.
Conclusion
Different pan constructions are ideal for different applications.
A typical cook will want an assortment for different applications, although layered stainless steel from a quality manufacturer is often a good compromise across many applications.
Eggs and delicate foods A PTFE coated pan, or a well seasoned cast iron pan.
Searing. Cast iron (enamelled or not), or heavy stainless.
Sautéing Layered stainless, possibly coated with PTFE depending on your desires, or cast iron.
Stir frying. If using a wok, carbon steel is traditional, and is often the best, but this is a unique application.
Braising. Layered stainless or cast iron (see searing for this, as well, as that is often the first step in braising).
Roasting. Stainless, but price and weight tend to be the big factors.
Stock pot or pasta boiler. Big. Inexpensive.
Butter melter Cute. Okay, I own two of these, but I never use them. :-)
That's a heck of an answer. I would add two things: a mention of forged iron pans (like this DeBuyer Mineral Element B). I have two now, and they have become my go-to pans for pretty much everything. Eggs don't stick, meat sears beautifully. And second, I love my little butter melter :) I don't have a microwave, so it comes in handy for melting butter (who knew?!), and heating up small amounts of sauces, leftovers, whatnot.
I didn't list forged iron because it is niche enough that I have never seen it--didn't even know such products existed, outside the world of hammered woks, which are usually carbon steel. Depending on their thickness, they should perform quite similarly to cast iron, I would imagine--but I don't know enough to write about them authoritatively.
the thing about metal handles is that they get hot - so if you don't need to put a pan under the grill or in the oven, a handle with some insulation is a much better choice.
@gbjbaanb Of course they do, but the flexibility to transfer pans from stovetop (hob) to oven and back is well worth it. Tea towels, pot holders, or oven mitts are essential kitchen equipment and mitigate this entirely.
Eggs and Crepes
Get a cheapish lightweight Teflon pan just for eggs and crepes. To cook these foods you never need to go over 200°C so no health concerns. Make sure everyone in the household KNOWS not to use them for anything else, or to put oil of fat in them. That way they will last a few years of good service. In general Teflon pans never last long no matter what you do (I suspect Teflon just breakdowns with age)
Everything Else
For everything else go with what you like or takes your fancy, there is no correct answer
Cast iron pans are generally only as good as their seasoning, and this is the part you make, so you can go cheap with these too. Heavy pans are fine here, as you generally don't flip chicken :-)
A good carbon steel wok is always a good investment. Make sure it has a smooth fully round interior
Some plain stainless steel pans will fill in the gaps for pan roasting etc.; just make sure the lids have some way of letting steam out
Unless you are a very experienced cook, anything expensive will generally be a waste of time
Thanks, I got your point, though for reasons I didn't mention the seasoned cast iron is not an option in my case (my wife has hygiene prejudice against seasoning with oil). Also, while I am sure that a good cook can do a lot with little, empirically I have found there to be a difference between cheap and somewhat expensive cookware, both in ease of use and longevity.
My current $30 Teflon pan (30 cm x 1 cm high rim) is about three years old and still going strong. No scratches or signs of oiling up (dark marks). It only got accidentally overheated once so far. My cheap 20+ years old cast iron pans work perfectly on the gas stove top, and in the electric oven. I very rarely have to season them. The is no hygiene problem with seasoning oil, as the oil is converted into a "plastic", and is not an oil any more, and cannot go rancid. There are other SA posts on this topic
I wouldn't get an aluminium pan of any kind if you paid me. Stainless steel strikes the best balance for me. Take a look at Ikea's 365 range - not expensive, but good quality, heavy bottomed pans (sautee and sauce). I've had the same set for 10 years and they are still going strong.
No need to convince me of the safety of seasoning. It is a matter of perception and yuck factor, not knowledge (in fact I am considering whether it is on topic to post a separate "Strategies for dealing with hygiene anxiety" question)
@ddimitrov probably not in SA though sorry. Same as "birds crap on your veges, and worm wiggle through them, but you can't see that so it's all OK" :-)
@ElendilTheTall - the anodized aluminium is a different beast entirely to normal aluminium. I found it better non-stick than my non-stick pans, especially for scrambled eggs.
Like many things, this can only be answered based on the goals you're trying to achieve.
It sounds like you're basically trying to find a durable non-stick pan or two, and you're willing to shell out more cash if it seems more durable than average or has other desirable qualities.
I really only find nonstick cookware essential for eggs, especially omelets, and pancakes, and beneficial for things like gyoza. But I'm partial to the style of nonstick pan made by All-Clad, as nearly every other nonstick I've used has become a flaky scratchy mess after a few years of use. Except for one All-Clad nonstick that got trapped on a burner all-day, every one of their pans has been durable, reasonably lightweight, and nonstick for most (but not all) applications.
I've used enameled pans (ceramic glazed iron) and I'm fairly sure that the technology has been around for 40 years, but the type I am thinking of is only moderately non-stick in behavior; also, the ones that I used from a roughly 40 year old set eventually started to have the ceramic surface blister and pop off at inappropriate moments, generally even when gently heated, even with some oil present in the pan. The only "nonstick enamel pans" that I've seen are enameled outside, nonstick coating on the inside; I wouldn't imagine that it's a major materials innovation; it's more about having that enameled look on the outside of the pan.
The cheapest, longest-lasting nonstick surface is a well-seasoned traditional cast iron pan. For $20 or so you can get something that can take a fair amount of abuse. The downside is weight; it's not exactly easy to use wrist action to pull off an omelet in one of those things unless it's a tiny skillet and you have some solid forearms strength. But they'll do a great job on hash browns, sunny side up eggs, pancakes, gyoza, meunière-style (flour-dredged) dishes, and all sorts of stuff that loves to stick to stainless steel, and you can deglaze nicely. The other upside to cast-iron is that you can use them under a broiler without voiding your warranty/damaging your pan, which is not typically true for the super fancy nonstick pans that have warranties.
Thanks, by ceramic non-stick I meant the new Bialetti Aeternum series and the WMF Ceradur. Although not explicitly mentioned, they sound quite similar to the (disappointing) ones described in this article: http://www.cooksillustrated.com/equipment/overview.asp?docid=20400
@ddimitrov yep, for eggs use Teflon, for everything else a well seasoned pan will work fine. In my experience the "ceramic" stuff isn't as good as Teflon
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.490799
| 2013-01-27T03:38:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30444",
"authors": [
"Avi muadDib Mistriel",
"Bobby John",
"David",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jay Mayer",
"Jeff Tibjash",
"JoeFish",
"Josh",
"Kate Gregory",
"Leeanne",
"Mark Eisen",
"Olivier Georg",
"Peter Breede",
"Rob the roller",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"TFD",
"ddimitrov",
"gbjbaanb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71116",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71133",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8522",
"twinklingsuraj"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
68764
|
Sealed whey protein container past its use by date - is it still usable?
I've had an accident that made me stop training for quite some time and I ended up with a sealed - never used nor opened - whey protein pot that expired Oct/2015.
Considering it's a powder and the package was closed and sealed, I opened and it still seems fine, with the same texture and smell as expected. I tried it and the flavour is very good as well.
What issues I could have using it? Would the proteins be "gone"? Could I have health problems?
So... really you don't know if it's spoiled or not... I think you need a title change.
When you say "sealed" do you mean "factory sealed" or do you mean that you'd used some of it but that you closed the tub tightly?
thanks for the fix, Catija! :) It is factory sealed, was never opened until today.
I've never tried whey powder, so this is not specific to your product, but some companies have that information available on their website, or by calling or e-mailing customer service. In the United States, I've done it with canned soup, yogurt, rice, and various other foods, and found it a helpful way to learn exactly what that date means.
You didn't say where your product was packaged, but according to the USDA, "Use by" dates refer to best quality, and are not safety dates. This is especially true when foods are handled well...in your case, factory sealed. Additionally, I can't see how the proteins would go anywhere. Given the reportedly good flavor (not an indication of safety, but simply of good taste), I would use it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.492164
| 2016-05-03T16:22:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/68764",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"igorsantos07"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
23221
|
Why are parsnips sold pre-clipped?
In Swedish and, I'm led to believe, British supermarkets, parsnips are often sold pre-clipped. Topped and tailed.
If I have a choice, I prefer to buy my veg with a few leaves on so I can see how fresh it is. So I have rather cynically assumed that this is done to hide the age of the product. Whether or not this is the case, I wonder why the same trimming service is not extended to carrots.
Anyone able to shed some light?
Update: Quite often just the tip of the parsnip is trimmed. This appears to be a global phenomenon; here are some parsnips from an Australian market.
The two answers I've so far received are good, but don't explain why the tip might also be trimmed.
In the US I've often seen topless carrots.
People are lazy and will happily spend a bit extra to avoid the trouble of peeling and chopping. Simple.
@ElendilTheTall: Jumping to conclusions a bit.
Valid conclusions, yes :P
The answer to why parsnips are topped is answered satisfactorily by both Steven and Jefromi.
So why are parsnips also trimmed at the tail? This is obvious to anyone who is familiar with the unadulterated specimen.
Behold the untrimmed parsnip!
The full root is of quite variable length and sometimes long enough to be unwieldy in packaging. If you're not happy about your parsnips being tailed, you can do as I once saw Jamie Oliver do and carve pointed tips back onto your parsnips for presentation purposes.
To summarise: There appears to be no chicanery here. The tops are trimmed to increase shelf life. While sellers, most likely, do this for their own benefit, you might just as well top parsnips yourself if you are not going to use them directly. This goes for both parsnips and carrots.
Parsnips are tailed, I hold, simply to make them a more manageable product. For carrots this is unnecessary; the carrot varieties I have seen either appear to lack this long thin tail entirely, or have a very thin hairlike tail.
Also quite possibly -- they're using some sort of mechanized washing, and if the tips were left on, they'd get broken off in a less controlled manner.
In the US, carrots are normally sold topless too.
I do understand the desire to see those fresh green leaves on it, but in fact, they're not helping. Since they're still alive, they draw nutrients and water out of the root, decreasing what's left for you. This means they may actually be worse than ones that had the tops left on them, especially if they've been stored for a while. They'll have less flavor and won't be as crisp. If you do buy them with the tops still on, it's a good idea to at least trim them before storing.
The leaves steal moisture from the root, resulting in a limp vegetable. Removing the leaves increases storage life.
My guess is that supermarkets perform this service for their benefit rather than yours. If they left the tops on, they would have to sell their entire stock daily, and have their suppliers pick fresh ones to replace what was sold. This results in a more delicate, less reliable supply chain.
Either way, when you purchase carrots or parsnips with the tops on, remove the tops right away if you are not going to cook them that day.
A lesser known problem is that contact with the leaves can cause skin burns, if one is exposed to sunlight after contact. I think the medical term is phytophotodermatitis. It is more common with the wild version of parsnip, but the garden variety parsnip causes the same affliction.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.492341
| 2012-04-20T09:56:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/23221",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Cuthbert",
"Dknee",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Evan",
"Joe",
"Jon",
"Neil Singer",
"Rebecca Amoako",
"Yamikuronue",
"Yushin Washio",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52548",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53072",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68825",
"phoebe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14535
|
Are there substantial benefits to grinding your own flour?
I've read that most of the nutrients of wheat are stripped for the sake of shelf life. Is this marketing propaganda or is there truth behind it? It was my impression that white flour (even fortified) is nowhere close to the original thing but whole grain flour is still pretty good.
The grinders are pretty pricy and after that even buying large amounts of grain (if you can find it) doesn't ever appear to pay off. Am I mistaken?
Are there any real benefits to doing it yourself (whether nutritional or not)?
Does it taste as good? (Sorry, I know this question is opinion-oriented, but I'm curious)
You're very correct the grinders are pretty pricey. I believe we paid about $300 for ours.
There are a few good reasons for me to have a grinder. Whether they are good reasons for you is your call.
1- I can grind whatever I want. Right now I am using hard white wheat. Unbleached, hard, white wheat flour is more expensive than your run-of-the-mill flour and comes in annoyingly small bags. I also grind beans, quinoa, oats, etc.
2- I can control the fineness of the grind. This is a minor thing but it is nice for me to be able to experiment with the texture of the product. In practice I usually leave it on the same setting but it is finer than the flour I can purchase.
3- Wheat flour is very perishable. I go through a fair bit of flour. As much as 200 oz in a heavy week. In order to have enough wheat flour on hand for a couple weeks it would have to live in the freezer. I don't want to waste that much freezer space. Whole wheat berries last almost indefinitely.
4- I like the flavor better. It tastes fresher and more nutty. This may be imagined- I haven't done any double blind tests. I should do that.
5- Cost- I had to do some of the maths as I don't usually pay a lot of attention to this.
King Arthur white wheat flour costs approximately $1.00 a lbs.
I buy 25lbs bags of bulk white wheat for $12-$15 or $0.50-$0.60 a pound.
If I use around 10 lbs of flour a week (usually a little less, it varies) I am saving about $5 a week. If you don't have access to wheat that cheap or don't make that much bread then of course the savings will be less.
As for nutrition- I read all the time that the nutrients in whole wheat flour degrade very quickly. I'm not a chemist but those results seem plausible to me based on how quickly the flour itself degrades in quality.
Good thoughts. Though on #5 (cost), I think the cost you're listing for King Arthur is for a 5-lb bag, not per lb. (I'm seeing bags of that size going between $2-3.49, depending on the store). So your savings numbers are a bit specious. You're saving about $0.10-0.25 per pound in materials, energy and other costs excluded, as are "waste" calculations, which are the inevitable bits of wheat that don't make it into your flour bag (probably negligible).
@Sean- I forgot the exact price and went with what I found on Amazon. Thanks for the correction. From King Arthur's web site a 5# bags is about $5.00. Are grocery stores really that much less? http://www.kingarthurflour.com/shop/items/king-arthur-white-whole-wheat-flour-5-lb
Yes, grocery stores sell it for less. Cheapest around here is probably Walmart, which I think sells it for under $3 for 5lb. Will have to check next time I'm there. In general, do not expect a supplier's online store to undercut their resellers!
Because of #3, you often see people recommending grinding your own if you're planning on keeping food stores in case of the zombie appocalype (or whatever other disaster). You can find places that'll see whole wheat berries vaccuum packed in a bag inside of a 5 gallon pail. Some people claim 30 years storage life for hard red wheat, but if you're going to get into that, you're better off rotating through your stores than just putting up a pail for 25 years, and then pitching it.
"Wholemeal" or "whole wheat" flour is mostly 100% whole wheat in most countries. They used to remove the "brush" though, but I suspect modern grinders take care of these now
As I understand it, when you grind your flour it may not be as good as commercially ground flour if your grinder causes the wheat to heat up. This will effect it's nutrition and shelf life
The source of the wheat is going to be the biggest taste changer. I have had flour from a local Dutch windmill using stone grinders etc, it had a great texture, but did not taste significantly different
A friend of mine has been experimenting with different kinds of rye bread for quite some time. He's come to grinding the rye flour himself. I've been tasting the bread for most of the time.
The grinders are indeed expensive. Manual ones are cheaper, but it's really a lot of work to grind even a smallish amount of grain (I've tried). Off-the-shelf flour is so cheap that the grinder probably never pays off in that sense.
Where I live, whole-grain rye flour isn't readily available in stores. Thus what you get by grinding yourself is certainly different, and in my opinion tastes better. The shelf life of whole-grain flour is relatively short, but that's no problem if you only grind what you use. I believe the scientific consensus is that whole-grain flour is more healthy than the standard stripped version (but I'm no expert).
It tastes better. If you bake a lot, I'd say that's enough reason to start grinding.
However, having said that, I don't believe there's much difference in taste nor nutrients between off-the-shelf whole-grain flour and self-ground flour. I certainly wouldn't start grinding wheat myself, but I don't like wheat very much. At least here you can get whole-grain wheat flour easily from stores.
Good point, the question was more about the difference in buying [whatever] instead of grinding [whatever]. I guess that makes my question all the more open-ended.
I would like to comment on this as well, as I grind my own flour because of cost savings.
We bought our Kitchenaid Flour grinder for quite cheap, and with a wedding gift card, it only cost us $20.
I grind my own wheat, because it is very cheap. A farmer gets about $6-7/32L 32L = bushel) of wheat kernels. This amounts to 2-3 times about of flour, so about 90L of flour. Flour weighs about 0.5g/mL, so about 45kg of flour. For 45kg of flour, I'd say $7 isn't such a bad price. As I work with farmers, I've never had to pay for wheat kernels, as a ziploc bag is pennies to them.
Ground whole wheat kernels taste very strongly like bran. I would not recommend using 100% whole kernels as you feel like you are eating a bran muffin. I always mix my whole kernel flour with white flour and a dash of whole wheat flour.
I would also just like to point out that there are many types of wheat. Here in western canada, we primarily grow Hard-Red spring Wheat. This signifies a high protein, and is better for bread. Any of the "Soft" Red/White Wheat, are low protein, and are better suited for pastries. We need a higher protein, to have a higher gluten content, as gluten is responsible for the bread being able to rise well. I would also like to point out that, the protein content often is variable amongst every field yet, so if you're asking a farmer for a bucket of wheat grain, I would recommend having at least 12% protein so your bread will rise.
If you would like to know more about wheat, I would recommend asking a farmer!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.492776
| 2011-05-06T02:23:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14535",
"authors": [
"Gary",
"Joe",
"Sean Hart",
"Sobachatina",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6004",
"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
}
|
16628
|
How to recover vegetables that get "refrigerator crisper chill"?
Sometimes my fridge is set to be too cold and if there is not much in it, I find the vegies in the back of the crisper start to freeze. This week it happened to mushrooms, bok choy, and radishes.
I tried to "recover" them a bit by letting them sit in warm water for 5-10 minutes before chopping up for a stirfry or pasta sauce (i.e. not heaps of cooking time). (Although not the mushrooms - I have some idea you're not supposed to wash mushrooms because they go slimy, although soaking might be different.)
The mushrooms were OK even though frozen...but the radishes were horrible. They still had heaps of ice crystals inside, and even some I cooked, I thought the ice would melt and they would be OK, but somehow they were unnaturally crunchy and it was quite unpleasant to eat them.
So is there anything else I should try in this case, or is prevention the only answer?
(And yes I turned up the temperature on the fridge ;))
There are fridges that work with forced air movement to prevent it, these are rare as domestic units yet but have been available from restaurant suppliers for ages ... unfortunately, less energy efficient.
I'm sorry to say this, but I think prevention is the best answer. Once you're vegetables freeze things happen at the cellular level that changes the nature of the vegetables. For example, ice crystals pierce cell walls which destroys some of the structure, which is responsible for the crispness and crunch of the vegetable. I don't think there is really a way to "fix" this, once it happens.
That said, cooking does something similar to vegetables. Cooking destroys cell walls, which is why cooked carrots are so much softer than raw carrots. I would think that vegetables that stand up to cooking would survive freezing the best (such as your mushrooms). On the other hand, somthing like lettuce is a lost cause, once frozen.
I think you might be right. Sadly. :(
I agree, you cannot recover frozen veges... The trick seems to be to do something with them that doesn't depend on the crispness anymore... Carrots can become carrot cake, zucchini make great pasta sauce, bananas (why you'd have bananas in the fridge I would not know, but I once ended up with a whole hand of them in the fridge) becomes great banana bread. Lettuce once became an acceptable lettuce and peas soup.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.493567
| 2011-08-04T07:50:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/16628",
"authors": [
"Adrian Hum",
"Jack",
"Rafael ",
"Rob",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35471",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35488",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37369",
"pfctdayelise",
"rackandboneman"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14873
|
converting dried measurements to soaked measurements
I have a recipe which calls for 250g of tinned black beans.. i thought i would be smart and use some DRIED black beans i have already!
but.. obviously the dried beans will weigh less than the tinned black beans..
How can i calculate how many grams of the dried beans i would need to make 250g of cooked black beans?
I was going to soak them overnight and then boil them until theyre soft!
This answer covers the general rule of thumb for conversion http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/12861/how-do-i-convert-a-weight-of-dried-chick-peas-to-volume-of-cooked
250g of canned black beans is about a cup of soaked/cooked beans, which is the same as a drained 15oz/425g tin.
The volume of beans increases from 2-3x. It is probably closer to 3x for black beans but I'm not certain.
So I would cook up about 80g-90g of dry beans, I think that will get you a bit more than you need without a huge waste. 70g would probably nail it but if I'm wrong you would be short. And I'd take notes on what the weight change is for future reference :-).
Thank you i will use this! the recipe doesnt have to be exact so im sure having a few extra beans wont matter!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.493788
| 2011-05-17T20:27:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14873",
"authors": [
"Earthling",
"Gere",
"Mr. L",
"RichardAtCT",
"TFD",
"alice",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31357",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31435",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6108"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14838
|
What type of yoghurt should I use for making curry?
I've seen a lot of recipes specifying "yoghurt" when making an indian-style curry, but very rarely do they specify what type.
The problem is compounded for me in that I live in a country where I don't speak the native language, and their concept of what may or may not be yoghurt is possibly different from mine.
Is turkish yoghurt okay? Or should I look for something else? Or does it not even matter?
For reference, I'm intending to make a chicken korma or something along those lines.
Edit: I live in Sweden.
You should perhaps add which country you are in? Unless you prefer not to for privacy reasons. You might get a more precise answer, or even a particular brand recommendation though.
Watch out for yoghurt brands with Guar, Locust, or Xanthan gums. Depending on amounts, these thickened products may not respond to cooking as you expect them to. I prefer to cook with yogurts having nothing but milk and bacterial culture on the ingredient list. That keeps down on the surprises.
Use one that actually tastes like yoghurt! The range of flavours sold as natural yoghurt (i.e. without anything other than milk and culture) is quite broad. Some don't taste of anything to speak of.
I think for Indian recipes you should in general look for an unstrained, set yoghurt. There are other factors that determine the final taste and texture of the yoghurt (the bacteria, the type of milk, length of fermentation, …) but you may not have much choice w.r.t. other factors than these two:
Production process: Set yoghurt is yoghurt that's made the traditional way, it's fermented in the pot that it's sold in. Stirred yoghurt on the other hand is fermented before being packaged; it's a more industrialized production process which is cheaper, but results in a more sour, thinner yoghurt. Stirred yoghurt has a smooth, pourable consistency; whereas set yoghurt is firmer. I got a bit confused when I was using stirred yoghurt the first time I tried making raita and the recipe told me to whisk the yoghurt till it was smooth. The pretty sour taste of the yoghurt also didn't go well with the spices, and the juice from the cucumbers made the already-thin yoghurt too watery. You could try fixing both problems by straining the yoghurt a bit and adding sugar, but it's better and easier to just buy set yoghurt. The yoghurt's packaging might say explicitly what type of yoghurt it is, but if it doesn't or you don't understand the language: avoid yoghurt that comes in “milk carton”-like containers, that most definitely means it's stirred yoghurt. A plastic pot doesn't mean it's set yoghurt though, but it's a better bet.
Thickness: Strained yoghurt (like “Greek-style yoghurt” in Europe and the USA) is yoghurt from which the whey has been removed. It's pretty thick and sometimes also referred to as “yoghurt cheese.” In India it's used for example in the dessert Shrikhand, but if a recipe doesn't specify that you should strain the yoghurt, you should assume it's unstrained or briefly strained. Wikipedia says: “In south Asia, regular unstrained yoghurt (dahi), made from cow or water buffalo milk, is often sold in disposable clay pots. Kept for a couple of hours in its clay pot, some of the water evaporates through the clay's pores. But true strained yoghurt (chakka) is made by draining dahi in a cloth.” Should you really only find strained yoghurt, you can probably just thin it back with water or milk.
I should maybe add I don't have first-hand experience with what yoghurt from India tastes like, but I've observed that the ethnic shops in my area and one Indian take-away where I could peer into the kitchen all sell/use the exact same brand of yoghurt, which is an unstrained, set yoghurt with a mild (not too sour) taste.
re: telling the difference. You can pick the container up, tip it slightly on its side and see if the weight moves about. If not - it's pot-set.
Nice answer, but I use lots of yogurt and would say that it misses the parameter which is most defining for how the dish will turn out: fat content. It ranges from 0.1 to 10% and produces very different results. I have no idea what fat content is needed in Indian dishes, maybe somebody else can add this information.
Over a decade after this answer was posted - & it may still depend on where you live - I would always avoid set yoghurts. In the UK, my local Turkish store sells almost entirely imported set yoghurts & far from being 'naturally set in the pot' they're full of thickeners & gelling agents. [They are the absolute antithesis of what you would think of as Greek yoghurt.] That just means that aside from having to break them down physically, once you've done that you discover they're thin & nasty. You can get good, natural, slightly too thick to pour yoghurt in any supermarket these days.
Indian yogurt -- a brand called Desi Dahi (available in the US) is good -- will work well for what you are trying to do. Turkish or Greek yogurt may be ok as long as they are not non-fat or low fat versions. Whisk the yogurt well before adding. Also, be careful of overheating the dish after adding yogurt, because yogurt will curdle.
re: curdling the yogurt. I've seen several recipes for rogan josh - they all tell you to add the yogurt to the meat and tomatoes, and simmer until the meat is done. So why wouldn't that curdle?
You're right about recipes that require yogurt addition and simmering. However, each time I have added yogurt and heated the mixture, the yogurt has curdled. The dish tastes fine but looks unappetizing. I generally blend the mixture after simmering to make the dish appear more appetizing.
Some yoghurts will curdle more than others. I think it has to do with the amount of milk-solids in the milk used to make it. I find that if I mix the yoghurt in well as it heats up, then it doesn't curdle - just like when you are making gravy - you have to stir constantly to stop it from turning lumpy.
@Mike, @Taryn- We just talked about this in this question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/14811/2001 The difference is the fat content of the yogurt. Fat keeps yogurt proteins from tangling up. If you use lowfat yogurt then you should add a little starch to guard against curdling.
You can always make your own. I like the recipe from Show Me The Curry. The key here is to use Whole Milk as opposed to Skim or 2%.
The dahi/yogurt I use in my Delhi restaurant is made from full fat water buffalo milk.
It is probably more than 10% butterfat and has a consistency somewhere between heavy whipping cream and toothpaste (I'm not kidding, you have to squeeze this stuff out of the packet!)
If I have to use some crappy American yogurt I'd pick full fat Greek style. Although US yogurt is so full of other nonsense I hate using it.
But if you insist on using a 'low fat' yogurt in an Indian dish mixing a little starch in the low fat product will keep it from splitting & help it to 'thicken' like it is supposed to.
Some 'starches' I've used for example-
1 tsp gram flour (besan) per cup of yogurt- beat it in before adding, has a nutty flavor, 'expands' & thickens, gives a yellow hue
1 tsp corn starch per cup of yogurt- beat it in before adding, remove dish from heat before adding, stir well before returning to heat or may 'clot, does not interfere with flavor or color so it's great if you want a 'white sauce like for Safed Maaz
2 tsp white flour per cup of yogurt- beat it in before adding, can dull flavor a tiny bit or taste 'pasty if not well cooked, tends to 'lighten' the color of the dish
As far as Rogan Josh goes-
Rogan Josh is a Kashmiri dish, my husband is Kashmiri. I can tell you Kashmiri's would NEVER put tomatoes in Rogan Josh, In modern Indian 'Rogan Josh' just means any curry with mutton & a red sauce. The red hue of authentic Rogan Josh comes from Kashmiri mirch (Kashmiri red chills) and Ratan Jot (flowers of the cockscomb flower).
But if you insist on making one of those less authentic 'Rogan Josh' recipes with tomatoes, add some starch to the yogurt before adding & it won't split.
The answer is in the fat content. Low fat will curdle when cooking.
I personally think that you should aim for what you are comfortable with. The yoghurt from your region is fine either way. As long as you nail the curry seasoning you are incorporating the important part of the dish. There is a reason why fusion food is the most popular style. You cant find every ingredient every where. Capture the heart of the dish, add your own flair and try something new in every dish. After years of eating indian from true indian restaurants and at home with ingredients from the local indian grocer. Ive found many weird combinations that are in no way traditional but my family love them. My absolute favorite is my chicken tika masala, any hand fed starch and veggie with a strawberry greek yogurt red curry spice dipping sauce that sounds funny but is thr perfect blend of sweet savory and spicey. Tldr.... forget traditional experement have fun and make whatever you want, just call it a fusion and no one cares that its not tradional.
I find Greek yogurt is just fine. Even low fat yougurt is ok, but only if you don't overheat it. When you add the yogurt, make sure the pan is off the heat and cooled down. Add the yogurt then heat gently and don't let it boil.
I love the turkish yogurts at our ethnic store.
C-Layla brand for example. They even do an Iranian wild garlic yogurt which rewards the brave by being delicioous. Greek yog is also delicious. I suppose if you have any left you would want one that you could finish while cooking!
My best advice though was taught me; add the yogurt (whatever brand) to the cooking pan by 1 tablespoon at a time, stirring it all the time clockwise until it disappears. Then add the next tablespoon and repeat etc. This stops any curdling or excessively milky meals.
Yogurt in marinades is great for tenderising meat. Be impressed by recipes that call for it. In my experience those recipes add a few spices too, possibly blended tomato and fresh coriander, and have excellent results
While using a yoghurt flavored with wild garlic might even benefit an indian curry, it certainly would not be a generally recommendable ingredient if following a traditional recipe is the intent.
The cookery books state..natural yogurt
Can you elaborate on this? Natural as in no flavors? Natural as in no thickeners?
Hi Steve. Welcome to Seasoned Advice. We LOVE references to cooking books on Seasoned Advice. However, we'd be really interested in specific attributions rather than broad statements.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.493979
| 2011-05-16T16:01:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14838",
"authors": [
"Avinash Bhat",
"Chris H",
"Emile",
"Francisco Aloi",
"Jack",
"Jo Ann",
"John R.B. Palmer",
"Jude O'Donnell",
"Keshav",
"Melanie Hoyle",
"Mike Baranczak",
"Pat",
"Preston",
"Rinzwind",
"Sobachatina",
"SourDoh",
"Taryn East",
"Tetsujin",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Yeo Janet",
"cmcf",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133884",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158073",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31263",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31284",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31290",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4012",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5602",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91385",
"james",
"rackandboneman",
"rumtscho",
"user1942586",
"user31284"
],
"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
}
|
92617
|
How long does it take to pasteurize something at 60C?
Take for example a custard. I recall reading somewhere, probably on the internet, that heating it to 70C will kill all the bacteria in it for sure. I also recall reading that holding it for 5 minutes at 60C will do the same thing.
I’m having trouble finding a proper reference for this. Is what I said actually true? It must have been studied in food science, so is there a proper source for this?
there are also this and this questions about egg pasteurization...
According to J.D. Schuman, info that I found in Douglas Baldwin's guide for sous-vide:
Place egg in a 135°F (57°C) water bath for at least 1 hour and 15 minutes (Schuman et al., 1997).
J. D. Schuman, B. W. Sheldon, J. M. Vandepopuliere, and H. R. Ball, Jr. Immersion heat treatments for inactivation of Salmonella enteritidis with intact eggs. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 83:438–444, 1997.
This is for whole eggs in the shell, so for your custard the time should vary according to the volume (as it will take longer for the temperature to reach the center).
Here is a time table for Salmonella reduction from The Modernist Cuisine (by Nathan Myrvold):
I would expect the time to be quite different at the same temperature. In a 57C water bath the middle of the egg will take a significant fraction of that time to get anywhere near warm enough to pasteurise, but in custard you have convection and stirring to distribute the heat. The difficulty is knowing how much less time. In the other hand if that's cool enough that nothing cooks, you might not care
I agree with Chris -- the issue is how deep the heat has to penetrate. You have to get the middle up to 60°F, and then wait a certain amount of time, and thicker items will take longer to get up to temp. Take a look at the beef section of the Baldwin guide. It's also possible that it takes longer to heat up some things vs. others (although some of that variation is from different bugs that you're trying to kill)
@ChrisH true, I fixed the information about the egg time. I assume in the table I included the times are for holding ingredients at that temperature, not total cooking time.
According to Juneja et al., 2001, which Baldwin cites for his D-values, the numbers are different for Salmonella in broth and in meat, which I think is interesting. It's possible that the numbers for liquid eggs, whole eggs, and roasted meat might be noticeably different. IIUC, their numbers for chicken broth give a time of ~18s at 65C (D=3min at 58C, z=6.5C), but the Modernist Cuisine table gives 1m28s instead.
Bear in mind, it is the product temperature and Not the oven temperature.
It will take a while for the product temperature to rise up.
Once it reaches 60C, you still have to hold it for another 12 min on top of it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.494809
| 2018-10-03T07:48:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/92617",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Kirill",
"Luciano",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6239",
"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
}
|
35834
|
Rinse meat after marinating in yogurt?
I have a few recipes that require marinating meat in yogurt (usually poultry), but none of them are particularly clear on what to do with the meat after marinating, but before cooking. For example, I have a chicken tikka masala recipe that essentially states:
Remove chicken from marinade
Put on skewers and grill; begin cooking sauce
Remove chicken from skewers and add to sauce
In this example, every time the chicken goes from the grill to the pan of hot sauce, the excess yogurt on the chicken immedietely curdles, giving the sauce an almost gritty look to it. Given this dillema, I have a few questions regarding the yogurt marinade:
As a general rule, are you supposed to rinse the yogurt marinade off of the meat prior to cooking it?
If not, what is the best way to prevent the excess marinade from curdling in the pan?
Is there any particular type of yogurt that is better for marinades?
Don't Rinse
You should not need to do more than shake the excess marinade from your chicken, or if you want to be very thorough, pat it down with towels lightly.
If you rinsed, you would be washing away from of the flavor developed by your marinade, and the seasoning at the surface of the chicken.
Cook on
The goal is to not put the chicken on the grill with so much left over marinade that it fails to cook through and dry. By the time you are done grilling, the chicken should be essentially dry at the surface with nothing left to curdle.
The other goal of the grilling (or putting in the tandoor, I imagine, if you have one) is to develop the nice browned and delicious flavors, and that won't happen if there is still liquid yogurt on the surface.
Type of yogurt
The particular type of yogurt you use should not be a factor, since it should be fully cooked in the grilling phase.
However, in general, very high fat dairly products (like cream, or a yogurt made from full cream).
There are several ways to use the yogurt marinade. First would be to submerge your meat into the plain yogurt with "no seasoning". Let plain yogurt tenderize the meat then remove,wash yogurt off with Luke warm water,pat dry,then season meat thoroughly with sea salt,pepper garlic powder and olive oil let sit for an hour or so then cook. The second choice would be to season the yogurt, marinade your meat ,leave the yogurt on and cook. I tend to only leave the yogurt on if im preparing an ethnic dish such as satay but for instance if I'm making BBQ chicken breast id rather not have any yogurt on the meat. Washing the yogurt off of your meat does not effect the tenderized product at all. Any yogurt will work fine..
Normally when you grill the chicken to a cooked state, nothing wet (such as yoghurt) survives the experience.
In this case, it seems that the chicken is going to finish cooking in the sauce and you may be removing it from the grill before it's fully cooked (to prevent overdone meat in the stew).
What you may wish to do is to make sure the marinade coating isn't thick and run the grill at slightly higher temperature to make sure the marinade evaporates and the chicken picks up some colour from the grilling (this will mean a thin layer of the chicken will be done as well).
That way when it finishes in the pot you'll end up with a cooked and tender chicken with look and taste hints of the grilled chicken.
To add to the helpful answers above, I will comment about my experience as a rookie-cook:
I recently tried a recipe that asked to marinate the chicken in yogurt over night.
After taking it out of the container with the yogurt, I removed the excess just by shaking the chicken slightly (didn't rinse it, just like @SAJ14SAJ sugggested). Then, I added the oil and spices to the chicken - some yogurt still remained which made it slightly harder for the oil to adhere.
I baked the season chicken and it worked just fine!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.495181
| 2013-08-06T14:23:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35834",
"authors": [
"Anthony ONeal",
"Brandon",
"Emma Lambert",
"Joey Stradusky",
"Joshua Tan",
"Richard Keyes",
"Stan T",
"anvita Joag",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154466",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154467",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83973",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83977",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84007",
"jyoti gattani",
"krahs"
],
"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
}
|
41763
|
Difference between types of Thai black soy sauces (Healthy Boy brand)
I've noticed that a lot of Thai dishes call for thick black soy sauce, but they rarely specify the type. Occasionally, a recipe will specify a certain brand, and sometimes they'll note if you should use the "sweet" (pad see ew, pad kee mao, etc.) or "regular" (pad ka prao, etc.).
When looking, I'll usually stick with Healthy Boy, since that seems to be the standard (and the most widely available in the US). When I get to the local Asian market, though, I'm confronted with about 5 or 6 types of Healthy Boy soy sauce, each of which says "Black Soy Sauce."
Within those, I've been able to narrow it down to three major types so far:
Black Soy Sauce - Thick, salty, sweet, strong flavor
Sweet Black Soy Sauce - Thick, somewhat salty, very sweet, strong flavor. Not always labeled "sweet"
Light/Thin Black Soy - Thinner consistency (similar to regular soy sauce). I have never tried this.
While it's easy to tell the light from the others (just flip over the bottle), telling the difference between the sweet and regular is not always as easy. Thankfully, Healthy Boy color-codes the bottles. So far, I have seen:
Light Orange (regular?)
Dark Orange ("stir fry seasoning with soy sauce?")
Brown/brown-orange
Green (says Black Soy Sauce B, I think. High sugar content, mostly additive)
Red (sometimes says "sweet")
White (sometimes says "sweet")
Yellow - thin/light
Yellow - thick
Each of those typically have varying sugar/salt contents, and have anywhere from 3 to 10 ingredients. Some are also labeled "Natural Ferment" (sub-questions: What does this mean? Does it matter?)
Just going by the bottle color, is there an easy way to tell the difference between all of these? Also, are certain colors more suited to certain dishes?
(I've also seen a couple Bronze and White that are mushroom and oytser flavored respectively, but this isn't about those ones.)
Assuming you cook... please share with us why you need all of these varieties? You happened to have seen alot of Thai soy sauce. Most of your questions do have answers e.g. fermented soy sauce. If I wanted to test them, I would cook with each of them and try to get a "feel" of the chemical I am working with. When ranking a population of anything, it is important to find out the logic behind ranking makes sense e.g. the colour codes you mentioned... check on the contents, measures. :-)
I definitely don't need all of these varieties, they're just the ones that I've seen. Ideally, I'd like to have one regular and one sweet. The Asian market by me usually carries multiple types, but it's inconsistent. For example, one month, they might have the red, light orange, and yellow, while the next they might only have the brown and green. In those cases, I'd need to know which colors I can substitute for the other colors. I'd try all of them, but they're mostly only sold in 20+ oz bottles, and I definitely don't need a gallon or two of soy sauce lying around.
Since regular Thai soy sauce is light in color (to reportedly match the color of fish sauce when it's first marketed there), all types of dark soy sauce are thick. (In Thai, thin soy sauce is called white soy sauce ซีอิ้วขาว and thick soy sauce is called black soy sauce ซีอิ้วดำ.)
According to the company's product page, there are six dark soy sauce products by Dek Somboon or Healthy Boy, the most popular brand in Thailand. There are two types: salty and sweet, in different colors depending on quality and price:
Salty: (from the most expensive and best quality) Brown, Yellow, Orange
Sweet: Green
The red and white labels are also sweet but not common in everyday cooking; they are light and mostly used for some specific sauces.
I don't even buy the sweet one because it's rarely used (except as dipping sauce). I would not stir-fry with the sweet sauce either. Pad see-ew and pad kee mao should use the salty kind or even light soy sauce. And you can always add sugar if you want.
Thanks, that clears up a lot. Regarding the red label, though, I wanted to point out that this recipe for Pad See Ew shows the use of this version specifically. Is this just that particular preference for that dish, or is that an example of what you were referring to when you said that they are "not common in everyday cooking; they are light and mostly used for some specific sauces"?
Personally I would use the salty kind. Though I might put little sugar, I think Pad See-ew should not be that sweet. Actually the dark soy sauce is mainly just for color. The sweet soy sauce could be the preference of the author of that recipe. There is really no consensus on how to cook it. You can try adjusting it the way you like. However, to minimize your kitchen stock, I recommend you to keep just one light and one dark soy sauce.
For more references, on the bottles of yellow, green, and red soy sauces, there are some recommendations: 1) Yellow for stir-fry, fry, dip 2) Green for braise, boil, simmer (with a picture of five-spice stew) 3) Red for steam, grill, dip (with a picture of Thai-style Hainanese chicken rice)
I'm Miranti, the owner of the recipe for Pad See Ew in question (http://highheelgourmet.com/2013/04/18/pad-see-ew/) ...Hello everyone.
The sweet dark soy sauce isn't the "particular" preference for the dish. I used it because I don't want to use sugar. You can use dark soy sauce and add sugar too, as Puri mention in his comment. This dish shouldn't start off sweet. This dish or any Thai dish shouldn't start off sweet. Sweetness is just to "round up" the flavor but not the lead. We're not making dessert here.
When I cook stir fry noodles or stir fry anything that I need dark soy sauce to add color to the dish, I would pick sweet dark soy sauce instead of using dark soy sauce with sugar. The magic ingredient in the sweet dark soy sauce is the "molasses". The most sweet dark soy sauce would, in general, have higher molasses content than dark soy sauce.
The taste and flavor of molasses can add more dimension to the sweetness, not just bland one dimension like sugar. It helps if you cook with the household wok that might have non-stick coating or didn't have deep seasoning flavor in the wok like the restaurant's woks that has been through cooking over hight heat several thousands times and packed those "wok well season smell" on the surface. When you cook the noodle in those woks, the noodles would pick up the yummy smell and that completed the dish for me. (The flavor of an experience street chef's dish...even the replica is better than none). In order to mimic that smell, I used sweet dark soy sauce with high molasses content and omitted the sugar just because I can't have the restaurant wok! I also doing the same thing with my "Drunken Noodles" (http://highheelgourmet.com/2013/07/27/drunken-noodles/) too.
Another note about the brand, I use healthy boy brand, dragon fly brand, golden label (least favorite due to high MSG content), and a few others ALTERNATELY. I'm suspicious that there might be some kind of additive that quite foreign to our bodies or at least my body and I don't want to give it a chance to let them collect in my system. So, I keep switching the brand as soon as I finish one bottle (sound paranoid but I rather be paranoid now than later). I can adjust the taste because I taste test everything but I can't adjust anything when there is lump or tumor appear in my body.
My favorite brand is dragon fly but that also don't make me buy it more often than the other brands.
Sorry I should have seen this earlier but I was busy and just saw the link.
Thanks for explanation about the healthy boy brand. I would keep the link in case I need to refer to the different type of the soy sauce!
We agree that Pad See-Ew should not be overly sweet and that's why I suggest to add sugar later instead of relying on the sugar in any sauce. I also agree that molasses tastes good but there are many types of sugar that are not "one-dimension." I think that adding sugar later can control the flavor balance better.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.495540
| 2014-02-04T15:12:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41763",
"authors": [
"Aubrey Evans spam",
"Bihrang",
"Cecilia Blackstone",
"David",
"Edward Johnigan",
"Jennifer Matarese",
"Monique",
"Spammer",
"Steve can help",
"bonCodigo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102945",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104838",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14207",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18731",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97405",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98245",
"puri",
"valverij"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
59457
|
Blending pineapples and coconuts whole, safety and experience?
A coconut and a pineapple are blended in their entirety, shell, leaves and all. Resulting in a smoothie like drink.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XbKCA1KUeqQ
Is this safe? As for example, it contains the woody part of the coconut.
How does the experience, such as taste and texture, differ from the usual, more selective approach?
It's fiber, which isn't all that uncommon to add to food and drinks. (metamucil, sawdust (technically, 'powdered cellulose'), etc). As it's ground up into a liquid, it probably goes down easier than the shell from fried peanuts.
Note that the video tells you not to try this at home.
Clearly, the Blendtec, "will it blend" videos, are a marketing tool designed to illustrate the power of the product, as opposed to illustrating recipes for delicious smoothies. Is it safe to drink? There is nothing here: http://www.coconutresearchcenter.org/ that I have been able to find, which deems the "woody part" inedible or unsafe. So, strictly speaking, that concoction is probably safe to drink (but I am no expert on coconut shells or pineapple leaves). The more important question is, why would you want to? I imagine the shell of the coconut and the outside of the pineapple would add bitterness and grassy flavors that would be off putting, plus, who wants to drink something that looks like that? I further imagine the texture would be somewhat uncomfortable to swallow. It just doesn't look appetizing. One of your tags is "efficiency." There are reasons that we peel our fruits and veggies, even though it may be less convenient. Safety may be one reason (maybe concern over pesticides?), but more often it is flavor and color that we are after.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.496157
| 2015-07-29T19:14:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/59457",
"authors": [
"Dwight Mensinger",
"Emad Rizkallah",
"Joe",
"Juli Fiske",
"Karin Wellen",
"Mary O'Connor",
"Peter Taylor",
"Ron Tune",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/142054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/146271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"stephen jones"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
57311
|
Wasabi (peas) brussel sprouts?
I was wondering how successfully the formula of wasabi peas can be applied to other green vegetables?
I'm familiar with them as a snack in some pubs in England, the peas become hard and crunchy, and 'spicy' in the same way as horseradish is, partly because wasabi is usually made with horseradish.
Just something to share with you: Harvest Snaps Snapea Crisps Wasabi Ranch. Fabulous IMO. Great on salads instead of croutons.
Your title specifically mentions brussels sprouts, but your question doesn't. You may want to clarify so you get better answers. Sprouts in particular could be a challenge because of their size, but there may be other green veg that people have successfully converted into spicy-bar-snack form.
I think that brussel sprouts would be particularly interesting, I don't know how the change in texture is achieved.
I once attempted to make Brussel Sprout Chips (in much the same way you can make Kale chips)... That worked... now if you can make a wasabi sauce/dressing or sprinkle freshly grated Wasabi so it bakes onto the sprout leaves you may have something...
Preheat the oven to moderate oven 180°C/350°F.
Remove the leaves of the brussels sprouts. This is tedious work, but it can be done. You want as many leaves as possible, and you may need to keep cutting away the stem as you get deeper into the sprout.
Place the leaves on a baking sheet and drizzle generously with olive oil, tossing to coat. Sprinkle with the sea salt/wasabi/whatever dry flavours.
Bake, turning every 5 to 7 minutes, until browned and crunchy, almost burnt, but not burnt.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.496348
| 2015-05-08T19:18:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57311",
"authors": [
"Ali Sharifi",
"Chris Brown",
"Ed Clark",
"Greg Nelson",
"Jolenealaska",
"Silvio Fresl",
"Vicky Curle",
"alan2here",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136331",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136334",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"logophobe"
],
"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
}
|
115190
|
With few items, it easier/safer to use the fridge for everything, are there trade offs?
I don't keep much food in the house, and generally use the fridge as a general purpose store for all kinds of food, as a way to slow down chemical reactions and lifeform growth alike, as well as spending less time considering the type of storage for a particular item.
However I've recently experienced some potential pitfalls, some honey has solidified into what could be a crystalline sugar solution, and a recent, official peanutButter/marmite mix developed a thin, non-fury, jelly like, yellow layer on some of its surface, apparently these are due to keeping the foods in an environment that is too cold.
Is it true that there are trade-offs either way regarding heat?
I’m confused. What do you hope to accomplish by refrigerating honey?
Less consideration of where to put the limited selection of things I keep in the kitchen. It doesn't seem to use more energy, and I can view everything in a single glance.
The answers show various different trade offs, very interesting and helpful.
Many food items, particularly those containing oils, but many others too, will change characteristics when cold. The good news is that keeping honey and most other things at fridge temperature does not generally affect flavour, but it may affect texture permanently. Oils and other substances that can go rancid will generally keep better in the fridge than at room temperature as the lower temperature will help slow the chemical reactions that make oils rancid.
You have observed a characteristic change with your honey, where it has gone crystalline because you have lowered the temperature to a point where the sugar solution is now saturated and crystals form. The crystals should re-dissolve when heated gently to above room temperature. Honey is one substance that will usually store more or less indefinitely at room temperature without spoilage.
Peanut butter is another one that you might see, where the oil may separate and solidify at fridge temperature. The suspension of ground peanuts in oil may also become lumpy and/or difficult to manipulate because of the solidification of the oils. In some cases (particularly things with a high oil content, like Nutella) the solidification will result in permanent texture change as some of the components will separate from the oils, clump together, and can not be easily returned to a homogeneous mixture by your regular stirring methods.
In some cases it may be difficult to tell a state change from a contamination. For instance, oils generally go from clear to translucent, and may form globs/lumps that might be mistaken for bacterial colonies. Separation of liquids from gel-like substances may be a result of storage at too low a temperature or as a result of bacterial or fungal contamination. However, if you have any doubts about the safety of a particular food it is always best to throw it out
In practice I've rarely been able to restore crystallised honey for long. My kitchen gets cold enough for crystallisation so even runny honey goes solid in winter, and while a bowl of hot water sorts it out for a while, it always goes solid again within a few days after that (even once the weather warms up, and even if I reheat the water so it's hot for ages)
@ChrisH - I have noticed that too. I just wasn't sure if it was because my kitchen is also cold or if it was something routinely seen.
mine can get pretty warm in summer, and I don't get through honey fast, so I can buy a new jar because I'm running low and still have it unopened 6 months later - "runny" on the label, not runny inside. Even then it won't reliquify for long
Thanks, very helpful. I'd mark most of these answers as correct if I could, therefore I'll base the choice mostly on number of votes.
Besides the issues already mentioned, you should also beware of storing some dry goods in the fridge, especially if you live in a high-humidity area.
Basically, every time you open the container outside of the fridge, you will exchange it for more humid air. In the fridge, the moisture will condense.
If you're storing something in amounts similar to the amount that you'd use at once, this usually isn't a problem. It's more of an issue with items that are used just a little bit at a time, especially if they might clump up or have reactions to moisture (such as baking powder)
There are also a number of fruits and vegetables that may do strange things when in the fridge. (tomatoes lose flavor, potatoes get sweet, etc. See Which fruits and vegetables should be kept in a fridge, and which outside? ). Also, it traps ethylene gas, so you may have issues if you have both ethylene producing and ethylene sensitive foods in your fridge.
With potatoes this might be preferable, but tomato's while not dangerous also not ideal.
@alan2here : Other than the issue with tomatoes, it's possible that the issues that I mentioned are more long-term; if you're storing potatoes for less than a week, the sweetness issue may not be noticeable. (although bananas peels do change color rather quickly in the fridge, which I didn't specifically mention)
A lot of spreadable products won't be if chilled, as the fats harden. Peanut butter is one (though how much it stiffens depends on the presence of other fats than the oil from the peanuts). Nutella stored in the fridge becomes hard enough to bend cutlery when you try to get it out.
Olive oil goes cloudy and thickens but doesn't come to any harm, though it's hard to pour small quantities at that point. Taking it out a couple of hours before use solves that.
Many baked things will lose their texture pretty quickly chilled, though this can be mitigated with tight wrapping and may be preferable to the effect of storing in a very warm place if you don't have anywhere in between.
Biting into a soft caramel-filled chocolate that has been chilled will be a surprise. The filling goes rock hard (it shatters nicely so can be smashed into nibble-sized pieces, which only become sticky when warmed)
Seems like it'd easily lul you into a false sense of security, waiting until you'd broken up the caramel into chunks to eat some, before the rest melt at room temperature and make a mess.
@alan2here quite possibly if you've runny caramel. I was partly thinking of when I've been hiking/cycling in cold weather and had to shatter my snacks to make them edible. I think the time I had to slam a Mars bar against a rock was below freezing, but I've had less extreme examples
Unless your mouldy food was simply leftovers left too long, then you have a more serious issue of cross-contamination. Toast crumbs in the butter, marmite or honey will do that & so will many things far less visible. If you have either cause you will first need to fully clean the fridge, then start over with better working practices.
As you've noticed, some foods like honey will last 'forever' at room temperature & don't need refrigeration. Some honey will eventually crystallise no matter how you keep it, if you keep it long enough.
Thanks. I thought that it was separation rather than mould, maybe a crumb or other contaminant got into it. I'll throw it out just in case. I've just read online that cold temperatures accelerate crystallisation of honey.
tbh, cross-contamination is hard to spot most of the time [because it's not usually as obvious as toast crumbs]; but if you consistently use the same knife for butter then something else or keep re-dipping into the jar, that's your most obvious source. Never re-dip, never dip into two different things with the same implement. Most people can't be bothered, but an extra knife in the washing up is worth not having to throw out half-used jars when they go furry ;)
@Tetsujin or keep fewer jars on the go and eat them up quicker. Even wiping the butter and crumbs onto the bread with the knife before dipping it in the jam helps. Actually I use a teaspoon for jam, which is wet, but not for peanut butter, Nutella or Marmite, as the odd crumb seems to be OK in those
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.496555
| 2021-04-09T22:00:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115190",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Joe",
"Sneftel",
"Tetsujin",
"alan2here",
"bob1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69823"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
115728
|
How Rough Should the finish on a Pizza Peel Be?
I have read over and over that you want a rough finish on a wooden pizza peel for best results. But other people seem to state that it is simply the moisture absorptive nature of wood that causes wooden peels to work better.
I purchased a cheap wooden peel with a slick shellac like coating and would like to fix it, but I am not sure how rough (i.e. what grit sand paper) is optimal for the surface of a peel. Has anyone ever done any tests or have any experience with different roughness's to find the optimal finish to put on a peel?
Quotes:
A wooden peel tends to have less problems with sticking as the wood is rougher, absorbs water and doesn’t get condensation. - https://www.crustkingdom.com/how-to-use-a-pizza-peel/
"Raw," unfinished wood peels have a rough, porous texture ... they actually tend to be more nonstick than coated peels. - https://www.businessinsider.com/best-pizza-peel#wood-versus-metal-pizza-peels-7
Here is a post written by a profession who apparently uses peels so rough that their employees get splinters - https://thinktank.pmq.com/t/wooden-pizza-peels-to-sand-or-not/15723/2
Where have you heard that a rough finish is good?
And why would you consider exposing something with a varnish (can’t be shellac, that melts at 75° C) to the very high heat of an oven set for pizza?
@GdD Exactly my thoughts. Especially considering that many use semolina to minimize friction.
Mechanically, there's good comparison with a pizza peel & a Formula 1 racetrack surface (bear with me;) Too smooth & it's very grippy [good for cars, not good for pizza] Too rough & it digs into the tyre [pizza dough surface] & again becomes very grippy (not good for tyre life or pizza). Somewhere in between is the perfect 'slip'.
You'll want to check what that coating is to make sure it's food safe. If you can't I'd sand it off.
@GdD Added quotes and examples of what I am hearing about peels. Reading over all this again, it seems people are split on if it is just the moisture absorbing nature of wood that makes it better, or its small bumps and groves. It sounds like most people know wood thows a better pizza, and are just making up reasons that sounds plausible, but someone must of tested this stuff.
Note that the last might refer to the handle or grip bit in my experience that is where splinters are mich more likely. Especially if in a commercial setting the handles are longer than in peels for home ovens. Just a hunch.
@Stephie Yes, very little information their unfortunately. I get teh impression that they sanded the handle smooth to stop teh splinter problem, but I suspect that the handle and the launching surface were the same roughness (specially, very very rough) and the launching surface remained that rough.
Oh, and wording may make a huge difference here - raw wood is always slightly rough, because the fibers of the wood are exposed and never super flat, but not in the way that the term rough implies at a cursory reading of the question. I for example was mislead.
Re. The surface assumption: while wooden home peels are often made from one piece, handle and “shovel” in one, I have worked with enough where they were separate parts, joined together. In lager ovens, the handles can get damaged easily by the backward/forward motion and catching at some edge - and you end up with very nasty splinters. I wrote a somewhat longish answer about bread peels a while ago, including a discussion of handles here.
A rough surface (rather, a less than perfectly smooth) surface basically means that the pizza dough skims the surface of the ridges, reducing surface contact. This is basically similar to there semolina thing, though semolina also works like tiny ball bearings. I would agree that it shouldn't be "rough" but rather "not perfectly smooth" ....
Based on personal experience:
The critical issue is that the peel be textured enough to "hold on" to flour or semolina, allowing the pizza to slide off of it. This means the ideal texture is the same as a new cutting board, oiled wood sanded to 120 grit or so. It's not rough as such, but rather just not smooth like plastic. I once got a bamboo pizza peel that was high-polished, and I found that 15 minutes with some steel wool was enough to make it usable.
The other issue you're going to have it that shellac is probably going to melt or catch fire in the pizza oven. So, while a light sanding with 100grit paper or even steel wool would probably do it for "roughing up" the pizza peel, you might find you have to strip off all the shellac to actually use it.
I'm not sure I agree completely, I've used a metal peel for years and I've never had a problem with it holding onto semolina, and I've made a lot of pizza.
Huh, my experience is completely different. That's why I have a wooden peel for launching, and a metal peel for turning/picking up. Most of the other folks in the Ooni Pizza Oven community have the same setup, unless they use one of the perforated metal peels for launching.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.497159
| 2021-05-19T17:54:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/115728",
"authors": [
"AMtwo",
"FuzzyChef",
"GdD",
"Jonathon",
"Stephie",
"Tetsujin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45339",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6440",
"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
}
|
15775
|
What can I do with batter that has lumpy sugar in it?
I was making a scratch cake, and my sugar (to my chagrin) was inferior. When I beat it into the batter, it turned into many tiny lumps. Has anyone ever figured out how to solve this problem? I beat it for a long time on high speed, but there were still lumps.
If there's no way to fix this type of problem, could I get some hints on how to prevent it, e.g. how to smash all the sugar lumps before I put it in the batter?
Edit: For clarification, this batter is very thin, and the recipe requires beating it on the highest speed for three minutes straight. So that's not a big issue with this.
Also, I did mix the dry ingredients (including sugar) together before anything else. I used the mixer to try and break up the lumps (when the mixer only had the dry ingredients in it), and when it had stirred for 5 minutes or so, I thought it would be better to proceed with the recipe and add the wet ingredients, hoping that they would dissolve the sugar. They didn't. After beating it for the required three minutes, I just put it in the oven. I didn't actually beat the batter any longer than the recipe said to; the only thing I did that the recipe didn't tell me to was to stir the dry ingredients for 5 minutes.
The cake seems okay. Maybe when the lumps are small enough, the heat of the oven takes care of them?
Yeah, your cake will be fine. The sugar will dissolve with the cooking heat. I would say pass the sugar by itself through a sieve.
Don't most cake recipes require mixing dry ingredients first? Well, what's been done has been done.
The standard professional chef way of getting lumps out of anything is to pass it through a fine strainer. In your case a standard metal pasta strainer should work. Put the strainer over a bowl, pour the batter in and use the back of a large spoon or ladle to gentle press the batter through. The lumps of sugar will be left over and you can just crush them then.
Whipping the batter might work the gluten proteins in the flour which will make for a tough chewy texture. Some cakes actually take this into account and others it is bad, so be careful.
See my edits
In cake methods (and 'most' other places) sugar is treated as a wet ingredient.
http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/564/why-is-sugar-a-wet-ingredient
OR
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080917200931AAjvgGl
That said, your advise is very sound.
As you noticed, depending on the size of the lumps, it may not be a problem. Consider how lumpy you can get away with American pancake batter and have them come out fine).
As most cakes don't react well to a significant amount of beating (which could develop gluten and cause tunneling in the cake), if the lumps are huge (more than ~5mm / ~1/4" across), I'd personally try to break them up:
Force the batter through a coarse sieve, a ricer, or a colander with appropriately sized holes
If any lumps remain (that weren't pushed through), use the back of a spoon to force them through the strainer.
If you have a significant number of lumps, you can also move them to another bowl, and squish it all into a paste. Then mix that in with some of the batter until it's loosened up, then mix that back into the rest of the batter.
The only dry ingredient that's a real problem if doesn't disperse well is the leavening -- not only will you then get a poor rise, but the pocket of baking soda or baking powder tastes disgusting if you find it.
I agree. Always mix the butter sugars together first in order to avoid lumps. Also, if that didn't work, does your mixer have a whisk attachment? Mine does and that works well after all the ingredients have been added together to get out any final lumps.
In the days before mixers, it was standard to cream the sugar and the fat together as a first step, then add the beaten eggs and milk, and the flour, a little at a time. Doing it that way, the sugar was always invisible by the time the flour went in.
Nothing to stop you adding the ingredients stepwise ...
Well don't use granulated sugar it doesn't dessolve quickly instead use caster sugar cause it's super fine sugar and that means it dessolve quickly on your batter mixture.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.497660
| 2011-06-26T10:10:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15775",
"authors": [
"AK Prashant",
"Adam S",
"BeeOnRope",
"Cos Callis",
"Daniel",
"Joe Enos",
"PoorCollegeKid",
"Scott Dudley",
"Xmedic",
"hilda weber",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/134948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33517",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33519",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33700",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4039",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6575",
"user615501"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
39373
|
Dry edges on sponge cake, nest 2 sheet pans for insulation?
I'm tweaking a thin sponge cake with nut flour that I want to roll with a filling. My third attempt at the cake was delicious, but it didn't bake evenly. The edges were dry and there was a slightly sunken, dry section in the middle. The sections that weren't dry were great! I'm using a half sheet pan that's quite thin and may be a bit warped. I have another one just like it. Could it possibly help to nest the two pans to create an insulated baking environment?
What kind of oven do you have, gas or electric?
It's an electric oven, new.
Do you just mean the 1/2 inch or so at the edge of the pan? If so, that is normal in a jelly roll; trim it off.
@SAJ14SAJ Nope, a bit more than that, maybe an inch. Plus there was the dry patch in the middle. The cake was so tasty that I wouldn't mind trimming even the full inch, but the dry patch was problematic. Tonight I'm going to try upping the ingredients 50%, that would still make it plenty thin to roll, but it would still leave me with the uneven baking problem. I've baked enough in this oven, and tested it enough, that I don't think the oven itself is the problem. Still, I'm going to move the cake more as I rotate it this time. I'd really like to know if nesting the pans could help.
@Jolenealaska, sounds like you need to make a trifle. :)
@Marti That's funny, my failed attempts at the cake for a roll are in the freezer for exactly that! I was actually thinking a riff on tiramisu, but, ya know, same basic concept. :)
Nesting pans will slow heating from the bottom, much like it would in a cookie, but it won't solve the unevenness problem. I would do that only if you are getting overbrowning on the bottom.
There are a couple of things that can lead to uneven heating in an electric oven. Here a couple of things that can help.
Let the oven 'thoroughly' preheat. Are you putting the cake in before or just as the oven preheats? Let the oven sit for a good 5 minutes after it has reached the desired baking temp.
Keep the oven door closed until the expected baking time has been reached. Each time the door is open a significant amount of heat escapes, causing the elements to come back on for a longer period, this will cause the heat to circulate in an uneven pattern.
place either a pizza stone or another baking sheet on a rack above the cake (with enough room for the cake to rise). If the broiler element is coming on the direct heat might be causing the dry center (note: if you had a gas oven then I would put the stone a rack below the cake.)
finally, lower the temperature 25°F and extend the baking time.
I have to go to the hardware store tomorrow. It's been on my list to get some bricks for even baking (as you describe in your third point). I'll try 4 or 5 bricks on my second cheap sheet pan on the rack above my cake.
If the hardware store has UNTREATED tiles (granite or marble) that might make a better choice.
You might also consider light coloured bakeware. Dark pans radiate the heat onto the edges of the bake, causing more browning. Professional grade pans are almost always made from something like thick gauge aluminium to help prevent this.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.498062
| 2013-11-11T23:14:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39373",
"authors": [
"Cos Callis",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jolenealaska",
"Liz Josie",
"Mariano Greco",
"Marti",
"PhiEarl",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer",
"Suzanne",
"Valerie Charboneau",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91392",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91406"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37906
|
How can I get a syrupy "mouth-feel" in sugar-free syrup?
I viscerally hate low calorie sugar replacements - all of them, including Splenda (sucralose), except in one application. In my iced coffee I like sugar-free hazelnut syrup. The brand that I've been using is sweetened with Splenda (and sneakily, acesulfame potassium). It would be great except that it's very expensive. I spend $70/month just for that syrup. I have 50 grams of sucralose (that's enough to sweeten my coffee for years) which is the sweetener in Splenda. I also have hazelnut extract. I've made a "syrup" with water, sucralose and hazelnut extract and it turned out OK, but the coffee drink really lacks something without the syrupy quality of the commercial stuff.
The ingredients on the label for the commercial syrup: Purified water, natural and artificial flavors, citric acid, acesulfame potassium, sodium benzoate and potassium sorbate (to preserve freshness), xanthan gum, sucralose (SPLENDA Brand), caramel color.
I know that acesulfame potassium is a sweetener, Splenda generally contains maltodextrin and sucralose, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. There doesn't seem to be any maltodextrin in the product. Unless I'm missing something, that means that the commercial product gets its viscosity from an infinitesimal amount of xanthan gum. Could that be right?
Of course I can get xanthan gum. Say I'm making 2 cups of syrup at a time, I add 1/8 tsp sucralose and two teaspoons of extract to 2 cups of boiling water (off heat). Now what?
I don't have a good suggestion for what to use, but at least I can give you some info on xanthan.
Yes, syrup can take viscosity from an infinitesmal amount of xanthan gum. If you add 0.5% to 1% of the fluid's weight in xanthan, you get a pudding consistency. For a syrup-like viscosity, you need much less.
But xanthan is not a sugar, and does not make a syrupy consistency. It makes stuff gooey, not sticky. This may be enough for you, if all you need is some thickness, but the texture won't be the same as normal sugar syrup. I haven't tried commercial sugar-free syrup, so I can't make a comparison there.
Xanthan has also the unfortunate tendency to reduce aroma, although it may not be a problem in the little amounts needed for syrup-like thickness.
It's weird. The consistency of the commercial stuff is just like the full sugar version but I don't see anything else on the list of ingredients that could possibly account for it. So if I try the xathan, should I just blend it in with a blender?
@Jolenealaska I just tried it, using 0.25% xanthan. The consistency did not convince me. If you want to try it: a blender is a good idea. Mix all the liquids first, then start the blender and slowly let the xanthan snow onto it while the blender is running. It generally clumps if you use other methods. (The old "add just a little water" doesn't work at all).
Thanks for that! I'm going to acquire a small amount of xanthan and try 0.25% with a blender. I'll revisit this thread with results. Very cool of you to give it a shot.
Make it with xylitol as you would with sugar: 1 cup xylitol, 1/2 cup of water. I use tapioca starch to thicken it; the amount of tapioca depends on the quality.
Even though it varies, can you give a range, so someone might have a starting point to work from?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.498375
| 2013-10-26T13:46:41 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37906",
"authors": [
"Angela Garrett",
"Danny Nagasawa",
"Domo",
"G Money",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kash",
"Mr Raymond Prentice",
"Pallavi Tirkey",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148753",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/148860",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89224",
"psyk0",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
37669
|
Does cooking raw meat/poulty extend its shelf life?
I pulled a chicken out of the freezer a couple of days ago with the intention of making stock/soup. It's defrosted now and ready to go, but I don't have the mirepoix ingredients and I'm too lazy to go to the store for just that. Since it's just now defrosted, I've got a few days, right? What if I'm still too lazy to go to the store three days from now, so I roast the chicken close to its maximum expected "still fresh" time and then refrigerate the cooked chicken? Would that effectively "restart the clock"? Lets say I hold on to the cooked chicken for three days before finally getting around to making the stock. Would it be right to expect that stock to have the same shelf life as it would have had if I had made the stock with the freshly defrosted chicken?
For the sake of this question, assume that the chicken was frozen immediately upon purchase, defrosted in the refrigerator, roasted to an internal temperature of at least 165F, rested, then promptly refrigerated.
I could ask the same of a beef stew. Can I cook the meat to give me more time before I put together the stew?
In both of these cases I'd expect a certain quality loss, so I am more concerned about safety than optimum flavor or texture.
Shelf life for flavor...or for safety? Two different issues. Many variables. How was it handled before freezing? How was it defrosted? How is it being stored after defrosting. Those will all be factors impacting the safety issue.
Lets say to minimize the safety concerns you roast upon safe defrosting. Now you have a safe product (from a bacteria standpoint), as long as you handle the chicken appropriately after cooking. Keep it out of the danger zone...even freeze it...it will be safe...but flavor probably begins to degrade over time (picks of fridge flavors...freezer burn if frozen).
Now you take that chicken and make stock. You pull from fridge (or defrost appropriately) and cook to boiling while making stock. That kills any bacteria that MIGHT be present (doubtful if you cooked well and handled appropriately after cooking)...so from a safety standpoint you are probably fine. However, you probably have a stock that is not as flavorful as it could be because of the lengthy holding time.
In the end, I would say (nothing to back this up but my own experience) the final stock has the same shelf life as any stock, but it probably tastes different from one made with the freshest ingredients.
Thanks for pointing out something I should clarify in the question. As far as flavor quality vs safety, I welcome answers to both. +1
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.498651
| 2013-10-17T01:02:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/37669",
"authors": [
"Jolenealaska",
"carol burnham",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128819",
"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
}
|
125826
|
How can I keep large packs of ham fresh longer?
On the back of the packs of sliced ham I buy it usually says “once opened eat within x days”. I often find that I have ham left over that needs to be eaten, that I’d prefer to save for another day.
How can I reseal my large packs of ham in to smaller packs of ham?
I wonder whether a vacuum sealer is okay for meats? (I don’t have one yet)
I’d also like to buy bigger packs of bacon and reseal them into smaller packs - maybe other meats too, sliced or not.
This does beg the question of whether that x days is about quality or safety. I'm inclined to think the former, but with a safety-related cutoff not far behind there's not much difference.
@ChrisH Safety. Perhaps quality too, but they degrade together. I've had an unpleasant experience without even reaching the date. Wet meat gets toxic fast. Dry beef cuts can store for a month, but ham has so much water in it that it spoils in hours, a fridge delays it to a day or two.
The only sensible way is put them into the freezer:
Shortly after purchase, package it into lots that are suitable for eating within a couple of days of thawing. Place packets into a freezer and thaw as needed.
I find that this tends to cause a bit of leakage of water out of the ham, though this is strongly dependent on the quality of the ham and processing method used to make the ham.
+1 - the water leaking out is because the manufacturer pumps the meat with water (among other things, read this little appetiser: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2521119/Chemical-sludge-Meat-glue-Pig-skin-If-water-ALL-pumped-chicken.html)
This is also what I do as my daughter eats a little ham and I don't eat meat. It is best used within a few weeks though, with "few" greater for less added water.
@j4nd3r53n While I'm sure this is right, I don't think I'd accept the Daily Mail as an authority on… well, anything, really. Is there a better-supported link?
@gidds My comment was really meant with a bit of a twinkle in the eye; I just googled it and picked the worst source. The single 'merit' of the Daily Mail is that they are so sensationalist; I'll see if I can get a more more reliable link.
@gidds How about this one: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0924224419302006
Freezing is the way to go, but vacuum sealing into packages each of which you can use within a few days might be an efficient use of freezer space. It's not an efficient use of plastic, so I freeze ham in boxes, with reusable non-stick cooking liner in between the slices (I cut some to size for this). That means you can take out as little as you want.
+1 for the tip to separate with wax paper or parchment. Sometimes I get sliced Havarti from the deli like this & throw it in the freezer. Since I only use it in grilled cheese sandwiches, I'm not worried about texture & the paper means I can peel off just enough for the current meal.
My personal experience is any surface that gets in contact with air must be consumed within that time period. The rest of the piece stays fresh.
So what i do is slice the piece with its wrapping on, no peeling. Then place it in a plastic bag and make it stick to the surface i just cut, removing all air bubbles, and direct to the fridge. And remember to eat the next slice before those 2 or 3 days as noted in the packaging.
But it's already sliced (and therefore not wrapped the way you're used to)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.498883
| 2023-11-17T00:06:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125826",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"G. Ann - SonarSource Team",
"Therac",
"gidds",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55865",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68224",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97920",
"j4nd3r53n"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129637
|
Brushing pastries with jam
I've made these apricot pastries using puff pastry, pastry cream and tinned apricot halves, using this recipe:
I know they would be better served fresh from the oven, but that's not an option in this case, I need to serve them tomorrow. Am I better off brushing with apricot jam now, or waiting until just before I serve them to do this?
I know what I'm going to try baking this weekend.... That looks delicious !
The “brush with jam” is called nappage in kitchen lingo and serves to create a protective layer on your baked items (plus makes it shine and can glue on nuts or other decorations).
Traditionally, it’s applied hot on pastry straight from the oven, so you would complete the step now, even if you plan to store the pastries for a while. Let them set and dry well, and be a bit careful in case you need to stack them, adding parchment in between can be a good idea.
Thank you! That's what I ended up doing so hopefully they'll taste good today :)
And given the rate at which they disappeared, it's safe to say they did still taste good :)
Note that it's better to do this when the pastries are hot because the jam will "melt" somewhat from the heat of the pastry and form a more uniform layer than if it was applied to a cold pastry.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.499209
| 2024-11-24T14:03:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129637",
"authors": [
"Criggie",
"Michael Seifert",
"Vicky",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42017"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
128073
|
Does homemade garlic salt carry a risk of botulism?
Last december I made my own garlic salt, and since then I have learned that storing homemade garlic stuff has risks of botulism. However, most info I can find is about garlic oil, and I am now unsure if this applies to my garlic salt as well.
Here is how I made it:
I ground some sea salt and garlic together in a food processor, then spread it out on an oven tray and dried it over ~4 hours in the oven at low temp, I think around 65°C. I wedged a wooden spoon into the oven door so the humidity could escape. This process did not completely dry the garlics, it was still quite sticky and with a green-brownish hue.
I then stored it at room temperature in a big preserving jar, which is about head-sized and was filled not even half full. I have read that botulism needs absence of oxygen, does this apply here or not?
By now, the greenish hue has completely turned into brown, indicating the garlic has fully dried. It's also no longer sticky.
I would be interested if you would keep it or throw it out? It would be such a shame, but if it's too risky I'll do it.
PS: I have made this garlic salt before (2 years ago) and have used the last bit of it this week (Hence why I wanted to open the new batch). I remember when making the previous batch, I kept it in the oven for longer until it was more brown/dry than this time.
Yes, there is a risk. It's up to you to decide whether it's an acceptable risk or not. It would not be considered adequate for a USDA-governed food product. Note that I am not a biologist or a professional food safety expert, I just do a lot of reading, and make condiments with garlic myself.
Your danger here is not the botulism bacteria or the toxin, which will be destroyed by your cooking process, but rather the spores. The spores can survive a wide range of harsh conditions and revitalize when conditions are right. Data on low-temperature, long-time spore elimination is not clearly available to the layman, but if the garlic wasn't completely dehydrated it's unlikely that your process is sufficient.
All of that aside, though, your garlic salt is going to be "safer" than simply adding fresh garlic to cooked food and then storing it -- something I'm sure both of us do all the time. So as a relative risk, I wouldn't personally worry about it, even if the USDA would not approve.
I think the bacterium cannot grow in pure salt. See https://wellscan.ca/controlling-botulism/: "A concentration of about 10% salt will effectively prevent germination of Botulism spores in your canned food". Do you have different information?
It's not going to germinate in the salt. Where it is going to germinate is if you add the garlic salt to moist food, in small concentrations, and then store that food. However, like I said in the answer, we're talking teeny tiny risks here.
And you have the same risks from putting fresh garlic in something, as the spores are essentially guaranteed to be present.
Yes, as a stated in the answer. If anything, the risks are less.
" It would not be considered adequate for a USDA-governed food product." that should then apply to fresh garlic as well?
Yes, very much so. Garlic is a primary vector for botulism. Note that it needs to be garlic+storage, because botulism takes time to grow.
I've downvoted; that the garlic salt could be used to make something that then eventually posed a botulism risk is not the same thing as the garlic salt posing a botulism risk in and of itself. As such, your first two paragraphs feel like much too dire a warning for the actual danger of the situation.
"Your danger here is [...] the spores." Wrong. Some botulism spores do not pose a health risk to people with a normal immune system. They are everywhere and you eat them all the time; that's why it's so easy for foods to get into contact with them, grow the spores, and produce the toxin.
A high concentration of salt inhibits germination and growth of Clostridium botulinum, as it does with almost all bacteria. If the garlic is fine-ground and embedded in salt there is no risk. Osmosis will desiccate the garlic and the salt will migrate into the small garlic pieces in sufficient quantity.
Absence of oxygen applies to botulism in all cases.
If the garlic salt was in air, botulism won't grow. The problem with garlic in oil (unrefrigerated) is that the oil effectively blocks air from the (presumed, generally accurately) botulism spores on the surface of the garlic. Those are always present, as they are widely distributed in soils. The trick is not to give them an anaerobic environment in a favorable temperature range.
Botulism spores are everywhere, and there is no way to avoid them on and in your food. The spores also survive cooking temperatures, so you can't get rid of them by cooking. They are, however, safe for adults to eat (but not for infants). The problem is when the spores are put in an environment that is suitable to vegetation, which requires both moisture and lack of oxygen (not air, oxygen). Once in that environment, they will vegetate (converting to active bacteria where they then replicate). These bacteria produce toxins which cannot be destroyed by normal cooking temporatures, so once the bacteria have grown, the food must be thrown away. If you have desiccated your garlic and it is exposed to the air, it is perfectly safe (even undesiccated but exposed to air they are safe from botulism, though other bacteria may grow). The main concern with confit and other treatments is that the spores are put into an environment where they can vegetate. The same thing happens when people bake potatoes in foil and then leave them out in room temperature. The botulism spores are not killed during baking and now they are in an anaerobic environment.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.499367
| 2024-04-12T13:23:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/128073",
"authors": [
"Blargant",
"Ecnerwal",
"FuzzyChef",
"Nick T",
"Peter - Reinstate Monica",
"cbeleites",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34242",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/64007",
"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
}
|
21516
|
Is it ok to leave a slow cooker unattended?
Is it safe to leave a slow cooker (Crock-Pot) on unattended (for example, while you're at work and no one is home)? Or is that a fire hazard?
That's exactly what they are designed for!
In general their electrical construction, and possible failure modes fully support being left on unattended
They should pose no more fire risk than any other electrical kitchen device being left on at the wall e.g. an automatic toaster or kettle
Some slow cookers have automatic fuses that blow if the pot runs dry, but most seem to keep going with no ill effect. There is no reason for a slow cooker to run dry unless you leave the lid off for over a day!
As long as the cooker is in good electrical shape and nothing is touching the outside of the unit, it shouldn't be a problem. We usually try recipes out on a weekend first so we know how long they'll take and that the food won't burn, but we often leave it running while we're at work for things we cook regularly.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.500164
| 2012-02-20T02:59:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21516",
"authors": [
"Howard",
"Nich Del",
"Rado Buransky",
"ann",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47738",
"justin"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20965
|
How do I ensure my deep dish crust gets cooked
I've made a couple of deep dish pizzas over the last several months and I occasionally get either a soggy or a not cooked crust. I've been pushing the dough into a cast iron skillet and then putting it into a 400-450 degree oven for say around 25 minutes. By then the crust around the edges is threatening on burning but the crust on the bottom might still be doughy.
I've thought of a couple things and I'd love to hear some feedback on what you may have tried and found successful:
"sear" the pizza on the stove for a little bit (Wondering if just a minute or two would suffice
Bake the pizza with the pan on my baking stone
I'm nervous that the cast iron might suck enough heat out of the stone to risk cracking it.
As always your feedback is appreciated.
This is an interesting question. For a normal pizza I would say to preheat the pan- obviously that doesn't work here. I fear the answer may turn out to be "bake it in a 800F pizza oven".
@Sobachatina: Extreme heat is only for thin-crust. Not deep dish.
Also I think the extra heat would have the opposite result. I think the main problem I'm trying to overcome is the incredible heat capacitance of the cast iron on the bottom of this fully stuffed pan.
FWIW, Chicago restaurants bake their deep dish pizza for 30 to 40 minutes. Maybe you should give it a little longer?
That was my initial thought was to lower the temp and increase the time, but from the condition of the dough I don't think it would be effective. I think it's a combination of the inertia in the castiron combined with possibly too much liquid in the ingredients as suggest by @derobert
The cast-iron inertia can probably be defeated (and even used to your advantage) by partially preheating the pan.
Yeah was talking to a friend today and she suggested letting it warm a bit on the stove while proofing to keep the pan from being merely room temperature. I'll probably try placing the pan directly on the pizza stone this weekend and I'll come back with my results!
@Brian - if you do the buttery layered crust, then letting it warm on the stove will have the opposite intended effect for the butter. It should remain cold until the oven and then release in a bit of steam to help the dough rise.
@rfusca Ah yeah good point. Maybe I should just change one thing at a time too, technique then recipe. I'll probably stick with my normal dough for the superbowl, and then use the more pastry like dough in the near future!
Deep dish modifications successful.
I ended up cooking in my 10" cast iron skillet at 475 for 20 minutes directly on my preheated pizza stone.
On top of this I followed @derobert's advice and sweat the ever loving crap out of my diced tomatoes. Was able to extract a full cup of liquid out of them AFTER draining for an hour.
The crust came out golden brown from edge to edge and all along the bottom and the exposed upper rim. There was no pool of liquid pouring through during cutting either. Was great last night and was great today for lunch.
Glad to hear that. Ever get around to trying to buttery crust?
Not yet, that will likely happen with the next deep dish pizza, probably in a month or so. The scientist in me said change one thing at a time.
For a deep-dish pizza, around 425°F is right, and so is 20–30 minutes. That's starting with cold dough (need to keep the butter layers chilled, at least for a Chicago-style pizza).
Cooking in an aluminum 3" deep cake pan is fine. I suppose cast iron should work too (though it'll heat slower, so might take longer). As has been pointed out in comments, the cast iron much greater heat capacity may be part of the problem; I'd guess preheating it would help. (You can just put the cast iron skillet in the oven as the oven heats, though depending on how long you let the oven heat, you may want it in for only part of the time—no idea what the optimal temperature for it is). Make sure to have plenty of oil under the dough, and also cook on a lower oven rack.
I'd guess that you're using too-watery toppings. The tomato sauce should be pretty thick, much thicker than you'd ever use on a thin-crust pizza. Vegetables may need sweating to get some moisture out. If nothing else works, partially cook the crust (say, ten minutes or so) and then add the sauce and toppings.
I can vouch by Cook's Illustrated's Chicago-Style Deep Dish Pizza recipe. Normally they have a paywall, but currently that recipe isn't behind it, so grab it quick.
I wonder if that recipe is in a new best recipe. I'll have to take a peak at my book. The sweating is probably something I need to do. I've been using diced tomatoes tossed with some salt, garlic, herbs, and shaved parmesean
Butter layers eh? I know this isn't really the place, but I have yet to see a pastry style dough recipe. Mine just uses a very generous percentage of oil in the dough. I'd LOVE to see something that was more of a pastry style folded dough!
@Brian: Turns out that recipe isn't currently behind their paywall. Grab a copy and enjoy the butter layers.
Oh yum, I'll give it a try. I'm currently using pizzeria uno's recipe but the thought of a more buttery flaky crust is very appealing.
I absolutely love this recipe. The folks on the Pizza Making forum (great reference) say that the butter layers replicate what's done using dough sheeters (which make dough layers using flour) at places like Giordanos.
It seems likely one of the problems is that the cast iron is acting like a heat sink, drawing heat away from the crust instead of letting it bake. Having less moisture, as other answers mentioned, seems like it should help a bit since the heat spent to evaporate the moisture is not spent cooking - but I had a few other thoughts to offer.
You could try pre-baking the crust a bit. Just, stick it in the oven for a bit in the step between pressing the dough into the pan, and adding the toppings afterwards. It will let the crust bake on its own a little bit, and heat up the pan a little bit, so it can bake more even after the toppings are added - so you don't necessarily have to bake it until all the way done, especially if the edges might overcook that way, just enough to get the pan warmed up and the crust par-cooked (like pre-baking a pie crust).
You could try just pre-heating the pan a bit. Stick the cast iron in the oven before pressing the dough into it. You don't need it sizzling hot - that might make it hard to add the dough without scorching your fingers... but if it's heated enough to still be warm when put back into the oven, the pan can heat back up in the oven within a reasonable amount of time, it will let the crust bake, without the cast iron drawing heat away from it.
You could certainly set the pan (with or without dough) on the stove for a few minutes, to specifically heat up the bottom of the crust. This would help prevent the scenario, if you were pre-baking the crust in the oven, where the edges might overcook - since the heat is only applied to the bottom. You could use the stove to pre-heat the pan (without dough), to par-cook the bottom of the crust (with dough), or even set the whole pizza (with toppings) on top of the stove to start cooking from the bottom up, to contrast to the oven's tendency to cook top down (especially if the cast iron is cooling the bottom) - or to pre-warm the pizza to avoid thermal shock to your pizza stone, if you're putting the whole pan on top of it.
Depending on kitchen space and layout, it might even be convenient to leave the pan on the stove-top while you are layering the pizza (perhaps turned on low the whole time, or turned on at some specific point to preheat the bottom), so that pan and the ingredients are slowly warming up the whole time, and in the oven will quickly raise to temperature to start cooking .
Alternatively, you could proceed as you normally do, and just loosely tent the pizza with foil, to let it cook longer in the oven without overcooking or scorching the top of the pizza. You would want to make sure it's loose enough for moisture to escape, or it might steam your pizza toppings or leave the whole pizza too wet. This would probably be the smallest change to make in your recipe.
I've made it personal policy to never put fresh veggies on a pizza that are not Pre cooked. That would have to go double for thick and deep dish crusts.
If a liquid is evaporating it will hold the temperature at the evaporation point (of water in this case). This is why toast seems to get brown all at once; it takes time for the surface to heat and then evaporate away the moisture that prevents it from getting hot enough to brown. This is true of all baking where dough is involved; it is basically a drying process. So anything you can do to reduce the overall moisture content will improve the bake. This is the number one issue with pizza with veggies on it.
Would you like to explain the why behind your reasoning, and perhaps how this inhibits the ability of a crust to cook, or ensures that it does?
I don't know why anyone would vote it down either. +1
While I disagree with your premise, I think your answer would not be not useful if you included that explanation in it. Also, if you edit that response in then I can remove my downvote, and that would be rad. Baking is more complicated than generalizing as a straight "drying process"; braising and roasting are examples of this, as is roasting raw nuts. In my experience of cooking pizzas, both in a restaurant and at home, I have found pre-cooked vegetables (esp. broccoli and greens) to be flat, limp, and tasteless due to being overcooked.
Edited. Braising and roasting are not baking in this context :-) I added clarification of the baking = drying as applicable to dough only.
Baking dough isn't really primarily a drying process. The starch gelatinization is quite important (you could dry the dough at 140°F, but it'd not be bread). So is the browning.
Have a look at Modernist Cuisine. They did a bit of work on this.
Some more suggestions on top of deroberts' good post:
Make sure your oven temperature is correct with a standalone thermometer at the position you bake. I've found many ovens much hotter than their dial/display indicates.
dough mix too wet?
I've made a lot of deep-dish pizzas with 9" cake pans.
Make sure the sauce goes on top of the pizza and it has been reduced. We use "Sally's Baking Addiction" recipe for the sauce which is fairly basic but is nice.
If it starts getting too dark tent it with foil.
When building the pizza do cheese then additional toppings and then sauce.
Low moisture skim mozz! The sauce needs to be as moisture free as possible (without being solid.) You can also precook the dough without anything in it for 8-10 minutes before putting in the toppings, that will help if you have too moist sauce.
The Cooks Illustrated recipe is entirely wrong and you don't need butter layers (or any butter, for that matter, except to grease the pan). Use corn oil (3 tablespoons to every cup of AP flour); no cornmeal (there has never been cornmeal in Chicago deep dish pizza); and a very short mixing (1 minute) and kneading time (2 minutes)--no need to laminate the dough (which pizzerias do not). Proof the yeast first. It's best to par-bake the dough to set it. use a sauce made from a premium brand of ground or crushed tomatoes (6-in-1, Pagliacci, etc.) or hand-crush canned Roma tomatoes and drain thoroughly--do not cook sauce.
I am generally suspect of statements so sweeping -"There has never been" and "pizzerias don't". When such statements include lines like "Cook's Illustrated is entirely wrong", I really want to see some backing up of the statement. I'm not seeing that here. -1
Giordano's, one of the grandaddies of them all, laminates their dough. I'm pretty sure they qualify as a pizzeria.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.500349
| 2012-02-01T00:23:43 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20965",
"authors": [
"Brian",
"Carey Gregory",
"Constance Marbury",
"FuzzyChef",
"I luv food chemistry",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kevin",
"Sobachatina",
"angela pettit",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46159",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73537",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"justkt",
"jvcBrasil",
"mfg",
"renegade",
"rfusca",
"yinyangboxer"
],
"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
}
|
21002
|
How do I control the temperature of water for an extended period of time?
When making the "perfect" mash, Heston Blumenthal recommends cooking waxy spuds in hot water for half an hour at the temperature of 72 degrees Celsius, exactly. At 75 degrees stuff starts breaking down.
I would like to try this out but am unsure how I can keep the temperature constant.
What kitchen tools and process can I follow to measure the temperature throughout the process? Are there any tricks?
You essentially need a sous vide machine - it's not really possible with 'normal' kitchen equipment.
Thermal Immersion Circulators?
http://freshmealssolutions.com/store/products/-SousVideMagic-1500D-HD-Temperature-Controller-.html + rice cooker?
You can try to set up my at-home on-the-cheap monkey-at-the-controls sous-vide machine. I take a nearly full 22 quart stock pot with an analog instant read thermometer to monitor the temperature and watch the temperature and adjust the dial accordingly.
With this only needing 30 minutes you probably just want to get the water to exactly 72 degrees C and then immerse the potatoes without adding any heat. The amount of energy in 20 quarts of water is phenomenal and you won't lose a lot of heat to the air.
Alternatively you could get 72 degree water and a beer cooler and try that way for the extra insulation.
I don't expect most homes have a 22 quart stock pot just lying around. That's rather big 0.0.
The bigger the better. I got mine for $20 at Walmart. I use it 2-3 times a week between sous vide and stock making. Probably the most used item in my kitchen!
Could probably go smaller, but why! ::Insert manly grunt here::
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.501317
| 2012-02-01T22:18:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21002",
"authors": [
"Brian",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Jay",
"Sam Saffron",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6757",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28401
|
How to reduce bitterness in silken tofu 'cream' soup?
I made a 'cream' soup using silken tofu, vegetarian soup stock, (pre-packaged) fried onions, and a bit of white balsamic vinegar. It was pretty good but had a bitterness at the back of the palate. What can I do to remedy that?
Possible duplicate of this question.
Chopped cilantro - i.e., if you like cilantro as much as I do. Shiitake mushrooms, sliced carrots and fresh sweet onions rather than packaged fried onions. Perhaps, it was the packaged onions that have gone stale.
The bitterness was likely due to one of two things: the vegetarian soup stock or the packaged fried onions. The stock would be a like candidate if you used a concentrate or boullion, rather than stock-in-a-box, which tends to be too sweet, if anything. Otherwise, look to the fried onions; if the ones you used are burnt or rancid, they would add an unpleasant bitterness to anything you added them to. Try tasting the ingredients individually until you locate the bitter flavor, and then swap in a better quality ingredient.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.501499
| 2012-11-14T01:08:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28401",
"authors": [
"Andrew",
"Beverly Kibby",
"Bret Hummel",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Cynthia",
"Jason Bradley",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10968",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65503",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65541",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65577",
"lesley "
],
"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.