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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
21285
|
How to steam clams?
A friend of mine (professional seafood cook) told me to steam mussels fast and furious until they burst open.
Yesterday, I mixed mussels and clams. The mussels opened up perfectly, but the clams were stuck to the shells and, instead of getting them out whole, they were minced.
Should the clams be opened with a knife before steaming, or should they steam longer than the mussels?
Clams take about twice to three times as long to cook than mussels. The shells are just so much thicker it takes that long for the heat to get inside. Kinda like trying to cook a 2 inch steak on a grill beside a 1/2 inch steak and expecting them both to be done at the same time.
If you want to have both for a meal then do them in seperate pots and mix after or... pre-cook the clams (not recommended) and add them to the mussels when cooking them, so they'll re-heat (and get rubbery too probably but I know many a restaurant that does this...they have no love for the clam).
Seperate pots is the best way. Enjoy.
I'll give that a try next time.
Works like a charm. Mussels at 130ºC steam for 3', clams at the same temp. 5'.
Glad to hear it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.501646
| 2012-02-12T18:30:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21285",
"authors": [
"AMT",
"BaffledCook",
"Chef Flambe",
"Sivadharshan Selvaraj",
"caroline",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68213",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8766"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
91455
|
Is water necessary when cooking meat in a pressure cooker
I recently bought packaged pork ribs, 3.5 lbs, preseasoned with whiskey black pepper. I was planning on cooking it in an instant pot, but I'm still a bit of a novice. Should I just throw the ribs in and cook it, or should I throw some liquid in the bottom?
related https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67200/when-cooking-pulled-pork-in-a-slow-cooker-should-the-meat-be-submerged-in-liqui?rq=1
After some research, I threw a trivet rack in the bottom with a cup of water and 1/4 cup of apple cider vinegar; they came out fantastic.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.501791
| 2018-08-05T22:10:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/91455",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40063
|
How can I achieve flavorful, gelatinous pork broth economically?
It's that time of year, bean soup and split-pea soup are winter favorites of mine. I don't really care if the soups contain actual meat chunks, but I find the flavor absolutely essential to the soups. I also love what the gelatin does for the mouth feel. I've always been very happy to get such a broth as a by-product of cooking pork, but I've never set out to make pork broth. If I could afford all the bacon I could ever want it would be problem solved. Alas, I cannot. What products should I be looking for, and what techniques might be helpful with those perhaps less familiar products? I have all the time in the world, but not much money.
Edit: Specifically, I'd like especially to know about cuts that you might recommend. Of course I'm familiar with loin, ham and belly, but less so with neck, feet and jowls - that kind of thing. My local grocery occasionally has smoked neck. When I've seen it I wasn't thinking pork stock/broth at the time so I didn't really look at it or the price. But now that I want broth, I wonder about the lesser known (to an American) cuts. There are a few local butchers that might bag up "stuff" for me, if I knew enough to know what to ask for. Smoked products might be preferred (I like the smoky taste in bean soup and that's specifically why I would make such a broth) but I could always add at least some smoked product to the actual soup.
For what it's worth, "broth" or "stock" has always been a rather meaningless distinction to me. Is it liquid that adds the flavor of the meat to whatever I'm making? That's what I'm looking for.
The surprising thing is that the cheaper the cut of meat, the better for stock-making. Don't use lean tender bone-free cuts such as bacon; instead buy bony off-cuts such as trotters, or the femur which is left over after the butcher has boned out a leg joint.
I'd recommend split trotters. (feet cut in half vertically), but you might need to either find a real butcher that works with whole carcasses (ie, not just getting primals and slicing those up) or an international market. (and the international markets don't always have the greatest prices on these vs. butchers, as they're wanted by peope to try to recreate specific dishes, vs. just considered 'trash' cuts.) And you can always add some smoked paprika in there to get some smoke.
Good home-made stock is easy and cheap to make. All you need is an old stock pot (no lid needed, you want the water to evaporate), and a bunch of pork bones and connective tissue. The bones will add the pork flavor, while the connective tissue will break down into gelatin.
The best way to get the pot is a thrift store (charity shop to UK types), and the best way to get the bones is to make friends with a butcher - they often have loads of bones and connective tissue that go into the garbage and are happy to sell it dirt cheap.
To make the stock all you need to do is add the bones and connective tissue to the pot with enough water to cover them completely, and cook it down for hours and hours. Many chefs would recommend adding stock vegetables like onions and carrots at the beginning, and straining them out after an hour. After a few hours you'll have all the good stuff out of the bones and connective stuff, so strain them out and then simmer the stock until you have the consistency and flavor concentration you want. You can cook it down until it's a syrup if you want, although that takes a long time. You can then freeze it for months.
If the amount of gelatin you want isn't there you can simply add unflavored gelatin, it's very inexpensive and easy to use.
EDIT: As for smoke, I wouldn't add it in to your broth. You won't always want the smoky flavor and if you do it's easy enough to add some smoked pork or liquid smoke later if you do. Leaving it out gives you more flexibility later.
I recently began using a pressure cooker for my stocks. I've found that in 45-90 minutes I can achieve the kind of flavor and mouth feel that you are describing. The pressure cooker is not just faster, I find it creates more flavorful stocks with a much better mouth feel. To achieve smoke flavor, you could smoke the pork bones and/or other stock ingredients...you can even smoke the water that you are going to use for the stock, use a smoked ham hock, or use a very small amount of liquid smoke.
A pressure cooker is one of the few kitchen implements I've never owned. I've never even used one but I've heard how great they are for stock. Unfortunately smoking my own ingredients isn't an option either - small apartment, wicked cold outside :)
Indoor smoker, these are reputed to work well: http://www.target.com/p/camerons-mini-stovetop-smoker/-/A-544097#prodSlot=dlp_medium_1_5&term=smokers
I have never been particularly happy with the results when using liquid smoke, so I'd go with one of the other methods, personally.
What you are looking for is cuts or parts that are high in connective tissue and other collagen sources, like cartilage.
If you are looking at meat cuts, something like the shoulder has a lot of the tendons, ligaments and connective tissues. That's why that cut would be horrible with faster cooking methods, like grilling on a hot grill, but does great with lower temperature slow-cooking methods, that break down the collagen from the meat tissues. Another advantage is that these "tougher" cuts are cheaper than the ones with more "uninterrupted" muscle meat.
I think pork knuckles/ham hocks are specifically made for this purpose. That's the equivalent in human anatomy to the ankle - the joint that connects the foot/hoof to the leg.
The best way to make a good stock is using bones. Ideally, that's all you want to use to make your stock. The gelatinous stock comes from collagen and the best way to get any of that is to use bones. The best way I've found to do it is to make stock with all the bones left over after you've eaten ribs. Recently, I made 2 full racks of baby back ribs, and the meat was tender enough to just pull out the bones after cooking. I took the bones in a pot, filled it with water up to just a few inches above the bones, and simmered for 8 hours. Of course, I was making a basic stock so I had a mirepoix and stuff, but that's the base of how to get the gelatinous stocks. You can season it how you like. Afterwards, strain it and you'll have a beautiful stock. Remember, a simmer is not a boil. You want to see the water moving inside, but if you see bubbles coming up, turn down the heat a few degrees until you get there. Keep adding water until the stock has simmered for the full 8 hours. For chicken, 3-4 hours is good and for beef, 10-12 hours is good. It's all different but to sum it all up, use the bones.
I make the best gel/broth ever. After eating a spiral ham I take all the fat and left over meat bits and the bones and throw it in a big pot filled with water. I slow boil this for about three days constantly putting more water in (turning it off at night). when the bones are porous and softish I stop. let it cool, strain every thing out, separate the bones from the fat and meat. Then puree the meat, fat and broth together until it looks like very wet pate. Cook it down again. strain the solids out (save the meat solids and make hash OMG TO DIE FOR) refrigerate the liquid. When the fat is solid on the top peel it off and you will have the nicest, jiggliest ham jelly ever. I render the fat down a few more times by heating and cooling it and stripping the fat off the top. it gets cleaner and whiter every time as more meat "contaminants" are separated. what you eventually end up with is pure beautiful lard which makes the most heavenly biscuits and pie crusts. NOTE: I do this with all boned meats. Beef yields tallow which is great for cooking, Turkey and chicken dont give up a good fat but out of a Thanksgiving Turkey I can get enough broth to enhance my cooking for at least 6 months. I store 4 cups in a Freezer Ziplock quart bag, frozen flat. I also have osteoporosis so drinking this homemade broth is very good for me. GOOD EATING
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.501896
| 2013-12-08T04:25:21 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40063",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"PoloHoleSet",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Vince Bowdren",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14817",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
39436
|
How deeply will the flavors in a brine penetrate chicken?
I'm not asking about salt or "juiciness". I think there is enough evidence here and elsewhere to answer that question with "pretty deep, or all the way to the bone". My question concerns spices and other flavorings in the brine. I want to know not only how far the flavors can go, but also what qualities in specific flavorings help those flavorings penetrate more deeply, and why?
There is yet another question within my answer. I hope that someone can shed more light on the subject. I'll happily accept an answer that clarifies things, even if it debunks my hypothesis as to "why".
That's going to really depend on the flavoring and the chemical composition of the flavoring components. Since the brining alters the flavor through osmosis, components that can't be transported/exchanged in similar fashion would probably just permeate the surface of any material, I'd think.
I am answering this question, but I am not going to accept this answer, at least not without further research and/or experimentation and editing this answer to reflect that. I am hoping that somebody with a greater knowledge of chemistry and the nature of brining can add to or even credibly contradict the science of what I am saying here. My conclusions are based on the evidence from one experiment. My theory as to "why" barely actually reaches the level of "hypothesis".
THE EXPERIMENT
Making the Brine
For this experiment, I wanted a very strongly flavored brine with a lot of different flavors. I filled a stock pot with water, brought it to a boil and added whole spices in a concentration four times as high as I used in a recent pho (star anise, cinnamon stick, cloves, fennel, broken open cardamon pods). I let that simmer for a few hours and set it on the porch overnight to cool.
The next morning I strained the flavored water and made a 5% salt brine (10 cups flavored water to 4 ounces kosher salt or 3 liters water to 150 grams salt) and included 4 ounces of brown sugar. I brought that to a simmer and proceeded to add just about everything flavorful I had that wouldn't clash. Finely chopped preserved lemon, a full third cup of Ras el Hanout, lots of harissa, lots of grated ginger, an entire head of crushed garlic, about a half cup of dried minced onion (I knew I'd find a use for that) and enough cayenne and red pepper flakes to make the brine about three times as hot as a good hot and sour soup. After adding all that the brine actually measured 12.5 cups so I added another ounce of salt. I'm sure that brought the brine up a little over 5%, but fine for this experiment. I simmered the whole mess for an hour, then set it outside again to cool overnight.
Another poster had shown me pictures of a cross-section of meat that had been brined in a brine that had been colored. That photo was intended to show that the brine barely penetrated the meat. Indeed the color was only visible in the outer few millimeters of meat. That inspired me to do the same, I added two bottles of food coloring to the brine. (A funny aside - I bought food coloring for this experiment. My intention was to use a perfectly appetizing red/orange. I didn't realize that boxes of food coloring came in other than standard colors. I got home with "neon", giving me the options of purple, pink, blue and green. That's why my chicken you'll see in later pictures is fuchsia.)
Brining and Cooking and the Chicken
I used a completely defrosted, 6lb, Foster Farms Chicken. I submerged the chicken in the brine and also lifted the skin as much as I could to get the brine under the skin. I got as much brine as I could under the skin, but I took care to not pierce the meat.
I left the chicken submerged in the brine for 36 hours, refrigerated, flipping and pouring brine under the skin every few hours. Upon removing the chicken from the brine, I rinsed it thoroughly including under the skin, patted it dry with paper towels, and left it uncovered in the fridge for 12 hours to air-dry. I put it on my "set-it-and-forget-it" rotisserie, basting for the last 15 minutes in Mr Yoshida's. Would you believe it? It was one of the best chickens I've ever made! But that's beside the point.
RESULTS
I carved the chicken in layers. I washed the knife after every slice to be sure that I wouldn't carry flavors with the knife. Once the bird was carved, I asked a friend to join me in the tasting. We started tasting at the very inner layer and moved out. At each layer, I asked him what he was tasting but I didn't tell him what I was tasting until we were done. While it was in no way over salted, salt was evident to both of us all the way to the bone. Neither one of us were sure about sugar, it kind of seemed a little sweetened, but if it was it was just too subtle to say for sure. The outer-most layer below the skin was the furthest "in" either of us could sense heat or any other specific flavors other than the salt and possibly sugar already mentioned - with one flavor exception which I'll cover in just a moment. The skin and outermost layer were deliciously flavored, the rest of the chicken was also very good, very juicy.
As you can see in the above picture, the food coloring didn't penetrate at all. I don't think it even would have penetrated the skin if I hadn't separated the skin from the meat to get the brine in-between. That surprised me a bit, especially since I had seen the results of a colored brine on pork, and the color at least penetrated a few millimeters.
Beyond the salt and possibly sugar, there was one very subtle flavor and effect that I noticed in every slice, all the way to the bone. I couldn't put a name to it, so I asked this question a while ago: The name or chemical compound responsible for a specific quality of some spices (numbness) Very quickly, AllisonR gave me the answer I needed. It was eugenol that I was sensing all the way through the chicken. My friend/guinea pig said that he sensed it too, but only after I specifically asked him. Further research into eugenol confirmed something else that I was thinking. Beyond the effect of a subtle numbness, eugenol has its own mild aroma and flavor. That leads me to a theory...
MY THEORY (and a question within an answer)
How the salt in brine penetrates meat has been covered here ad nauseam, so I'm not even going to touch upon that. What I will address is the flavors beyond salt that can be added to brine, as many chefs advocate.
If brine can carry flavors with it into the interior of the meat, why didn't the food coloring penetrate? One of my colors was made of Red 40, AKA Allura Red AC. The molecular formula of Red 40 is C18H14N2Na2O8S2. Blue 1 was another of my colors, molecular formula C37H34N2Na2O9S3. The other colors in my box were Red 3 and Yellow 5. They are similarly huge molecules.
As I said earlier, my brine was very spicy hot. There was some heat evident in the skin of my chicken and the outer layer of meat. Interior of that, there was no heat in the chicken. The molecular formula of capsaicin is C18H27NO3. Now that molecule isn't as huge as the food coloring molecules, but it is still a pretty big molecule.
Of all of the flavorful "stuff" I put into my brine at very concentrated levels, there was only one flavor/effect beyond the salt and (possibly) sugar that I could perceive deep into the meat. That flavor/effect has been identified as coming from eugenol. The molecular formula of eugenol is C10H12O2.
Relative to the food coloring and capsaicin, eugenol is a small molecule, and eugenol was perceptible in my chicken all the way to the bone.
The molar masses of the relevant molecules are: Sodium chloride: 58.44 g mol−1, Sucrose: 342.30 g/mol, Red 40: 496.42 g mol−1, Capsaicin: 305.41 g mol−1, Eugenol: 164.20 g/mol
So my question within an answer is this: Can the size of the molecules explain why most flavors don't seem to penetrate and food coloring definitely does NOT penetrate chicken, but eugenol does?
CONCLUSION
I will continue almost always to brine poultry (and pork for that matter). There is no question to me that brining improves the texture and flavor of the meat. The fact that I could absolutely sense the eugenol in my brine all the way to bone of the chicken concretely supports the idea that brine does, in fact, deeply penetrate poultry. There are advocates here for dry-brining and I'll certainly give that a shot.
Considering the huge variety and the strength of the concentration of flavors in my brine, it is significant to me that none of the flavors (besides the eugenol) seemed to penetrate the chicken. I am now convinced that adding flavor to the brine is a waste. In the future, I will save my spices, fruits and garlic for rubbing the chicken, basting the chicken and adding to sauces. They do nothing for the brine. The one exception seems to be eugenol, and that is a nice (if very mild) flavor, so spices high in eugenol might be worthwhile in brine.
I will continue the search. If my theory that small molecules can travel with the brine is correct, maybe there are other small molecules that can be responsible for nice flavors in chicken. But the straight 5% salt solution seems to be what matters. If I find another flavor that actually flavors the chicken, I will update this post.
This explains so much! I brined a turkey for thanksgiving a couple of years ago using jerk seasonings. Everyone commented how the flavor went all the way through the meat. I used allspice berries in the brine, which also contain a lot of eugenol.
@sourd'oh And it's a nice flavor. I'd like to believe that other flavors can be carried by brine, but with everything that went into this brine, I just can't see any evidence of it.
Just a comment: You think that maybe the sugar penetrated through with the brine. Why wouldn't the capsaicin then, if its molecular weight is less than the sugar's?
@mimintzer I don't know. I don't even know whether the sugar did penetrate. If it did, it either debunks the theory or perhaps the sugar's ability to penetrate has something to do with how it (like salt) denatures protein. I intend to eventually experiment further, possibly using glucose and diabetic testing equipment.
This is an amazing job. Thank you for the data! It's very much appreciated. I also believe strongly in brining, but I've never really understood it, or had a clear idea what I was doing. This goes a long way to helping that.
WOW - this is an amazing post! I've had my theories about brining and usually opt for dry brining for flavor. My method of getting flavor throughout is injecting, but that an entirely different topic (grin). Thanks for sharing your experiment with us. I find it very informative.
@Jolenealaska my comment isn't about chicken but about eggs but still related otherwise to this question. I have been toying with Chinese tea eggs and iron eggs. Even after 2 hours of simmering, the tea spices barely penetrate. They color the outer edge of the egg white, but no further. The taste of the treatment was only subtle at best. However after these eggs continued to sit in that tea for the next 4 days in the fridge, the treatment slowly made its way to the center of the egg, until on day 4 it seems to have flooded in the rest of the way including yoke and was super tasty.
The egg also got tougher each day, but honestly in a good way.
Good experiment but I think there is some other factors at play on top of the osmotic forces. And electrical charge is as important as molecular weight.
Animal tissue is composed of cells made mainly of lipid bilayer and the cells are suspended in a matrix of connective tissue. Osmotic forces act across a cell membrane where water flows down a concentration to equalise the difference in osmolality. In a simple model you would expect a brined solution to draw water out of the cells into the connective tissue. However the outer layers of skin is made from waterproof keratin so you would expect poor penetration and very little osmotic gradient over such a layer.
Many aromatic/flavour compounds are esters and lipid soluble molecules which may cross the cell boundary just through simple diffusion rather than osmosis, where as colourings tend to be water soluble and will not cross cellular boundaries so easily.
As an example formaldehyde which is used to preserve tissue(including human) is lipid soluble and i was always told that it penetrates tissue at rate of approximately 1mm per hour (although the diffusion equation suggests exponential time over distance).
Both Eugenol and capsaicin are lipid soluble but it's not a fair test as you need to add the same number of moles of the molecule to your brine to compare penetration and even then the number of moles needed to cause a distinct taste reaction on your taste buds may be different between each molecule e.g consider fructose vs sucrose.
using vacuum will help in opening the flesh and this will allow the brine to travel deeper
This answer was flagged automatically by the system, primarily for its brevity. I dismissed that flag. Had this been flagged for not actually answering the question, I would feel the need to consider that flag more carefully. Considering the open-ended nature of the question, you bring up an excellent concept. Citations (research) or experimentation could make this a really stellar answer. cont...
cont... As it is, it's kind of hanging by a thread. I encourage you to see the tour and help center for more about writing good content. At any rate, welcome to Seasoned Advice.
As Jolene says, it's a good concept — could you please explain a little more about how you employ the vacuum, Gilini?
Pressurizing the brine to 100 atmospheres or so might also work well.
Pulling a vacuum will suck all the air and some liquid out of pores in the meat. Some of the pores will close up. those that don't will have room for brine. Upon repressurization, your brine will move in at least some of the previously collapsed pores. Best way to do it is to cycle multiple times. However, too many cycles might turn your meat to mush.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.502691
| 2013-11-14T12:21:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/39436",
"authors": [
"Austin Ballard",
"Colin K",
"Darrell Hill",
"ElmerCat",
"Escoce",
"Exasperation",
"Fire Damage Restoration Ltd",
"Gringo Dave",
"Harry Jaffa",
"Jacki and family Gorman Jacki",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kathy",
"Lisa M",
"MBEllis",
"Mamus Kitchen by Weng",
"Noreen",
"Onassis Kenan",
"PoloHoleSet",
"SourDoh",
"Spammer",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123507",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140852",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41245",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4289",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91542",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91544",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91545",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91546",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91547",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91550",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91581",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91639",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91654",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91802",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/92006",
"krazy2cook",
"krishna",
"soulkitchen",
"user91543",
"user91654"
],
"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
}
|
40470
|
Does glutinous rice flour function differently from regular rice flour as a coating?
I am going to try making wasabi peas despite a dearth of recipes online. I've read the list of ingredients of several brands, most (including my favorite) contain glutinous rice flour. Others contain rice flour, still others only tapioca and/or corn starch.
My favorite wasabi peas have a very crunchy coating that really looks like it should contain egg whites, but doesn't. Wasabi Peas I've never achieved a coating like that on anything using any starch I'm familiar with, so I'm wondering if glutinous rice flour is key?
I haven't tried either but I found this, which seems helpful:
"there is a big difference between the two..where i come from.(malaysia).we use rice flour to make banana fritters (deep fried in rice flour batter thus giving it a crispy crunchy batter) while glutinous rice flour will give a sticky texture..u cant deep fry the batter but its normally used to make sweet desserts where u boil the cakes in boiling water..when they are cooked they will float and voila... "
I found this recipe online that uses egg whites for the coating. The recipe says wasabi peanuts but picture is of wasabi peas.
Glutinous rice flour won't give crunch, it is rather chewy, is used for desserts like mochi. I would try tapioca flour or corn starch but definitely not glutinous.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.503852
| 2013-12-22T03:09:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40470",
"authors": [
"Adil Mohammed",
"Dezvyn",
"GogromaT",
"KenC",
"Learn OpenGL ES",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94118",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94119",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94122",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94408"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24988
|
Does butter reduce perceived sweetness?
In another question I ask about the ideal flour, sugar, butter ratio to use in crumble. It appears that the amount of sugar people add in their recipes depends more closely on how much butter is added than how much flour is.
I theorised that butter reduces perceived sweetness, and I remember reading that fat acts as a taste inhibitor. I googled a bit to check this, but some say it can enhance taste.
So, does butter reduce perceived sweetness or enhance it? Surely it can't do both.
I can think of several other theories to explain the dependency. 1) "rich" vs "lean" tastes (recipes of American origin tend to use double the amount of sugar and butter as compared to European ones), 2) Texture - crisp/caramelized crumble with lots of sugar and butter vs soaking-up crumble, 3) Texture/taste - maybe the combination of lots of flour+fat make the crumble taste like roux if there isn't enough sugar to "soak up" the flour or counter the taste. And so on.
I thought I had an answer, but on re-checking, the evidence was inconclusive. Still, the wiki article on the gustatory system might be a good place for you to start.
You've got to understand what the purpose of the ingredients is. In a crumble or streusel topping (my go-to in the category is an apple crisp), the (gluten/wheat) flour, butter, and sugar are actually all binders/structural components. Taste/flavor is part of it, but as in your experiments in the other answer, you really can't vary one element wildly (separate from the others) without significantly changing the results.
With that in mind, the butter in a crumble/streusel topping will affect the tenderness of the crumb (similar to cake/pastry). Tenderness will also be affected by whether you used cold, melted, or softened butter (or a non-butter shortening, like margarine or lard/Crisco). The tenderness goes to mouth-feel, which will affect how/when your tongue picks up on the diff flavors.
Similarly, the temp/state of the butter/shortening affects how & how much the sugar will dissolve/interact with it. Depending on what type of sugar you're using (granulated/white, dark/light brown, raw/demerara, liquid sweeteners like honey, corn syrup, molasses, or agave), cold/melted/soft butter will just have a different holding capacity for sugar, which cooks can take advantage of to "super-sweeten" or "under-sweeten" given fundamentally the same amount of sugar.
And of course in a crumble, your perception of the sweetness of the finished topping will be impacted by the filling, since there's (delicious!) flavor interaction during cooking.
So it comes down to ingredient preparation & choice and cooking techniques - not just raw proportions. Cooking is a sort of applied chemistry - sometimes how you put things together is as/more important than what you put together.
What a great answer. Is there somewhere I can read more about the super/under-sweetening?
Hmm, anything dealing with the chemistry of cooking/baking would be a good place. So probably the "Good Eats" shows on sugar ("Citizen Cane", s02e05), molasses ("Pantry Raid X: Dark Side of the Cane", s12e14), honey ("Pantry Raid IV: Comb Alone", s04e08), and candy-making ("Tricks for Treats", s07e10 and "All Hallows Eats" s14e10). Also, you can check into various cookbooks' chapters on sugar-substitution, especially in baking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.504005
| 2012-07-11T12:41:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24988",
"authors": [
"Chris Steinbach",
"Eric Hu",
"MandisaW",
"Mathematics",
"Veedrac",
"chase",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57074",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57075",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58764",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6818",
"rumtscho",
"user371366"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
5860
|
Does cast iron have a coating from the manufacturer?
I have an old Wagner Ware cast iron skillet (marked as model 1056T; measures about 7 inches inside bottom). This was given to me by my grandmother.
Where the handle meets the pan, you can see a marked difference in material. It looks like the pan used to have some sort of coating that has now come off.
I have another one (bought at a thrift shop) that has no markings except "No. 10 12 7/16" on the bottom. It also looks like it had a black coating and a more silver color is showing through on the round ridge on the bottom outside and on the rim edge of the pan.
I keep these seasoned, but neither behaves as well as the Lodge pan I bought new a few years ago.
So I'm wondering if they originally would have had some sort of coating. I thought not, but they just look so odd.
It depends. Traditionally cast-iron did not come pre-seasoned.
Lodge, as you know, specializes in pre-seasoned and enameled cast-iron pans. Lodge pans work great, but there isn't anything exceedingly special about their seasoning; it's simply vegetable oil (soy) baked onto the pan. You should be able to achieve a similar seasoning quality at home using the methods described here:
What's the best way to season a cast iron skillet?
Wagner skillets do not come pre-seasoned from the manufacturer. However, they did typically come with some coating in place to prevent rusting. This coating, while safe, is not intended to be a "seasoning". It wears off over time, and it's role is subsequently filled by proper seasoning.
Update
Based on your photos, that looks to be the coating I described above.
Some Wagner pans were coated with nickel and later with chrome.
In the early days, the Wagners installed nickel baths in their foundry to make cash registers and calculators they had patented. Before many of these were produced, they sold these patents to the Osgood Cash Register Company, a front for that National Cash Register Company (NCR).
In 1892, they still had the nickel baths, so they put them to use by This can be found on pg 7 of David Smith & Chuck Wafford's "The Book of Wagner & Griswald" (cast Iron collectors know this as `the Red book'). There are color pictures of a brass Wagner Calculator on pg 114.
I'm sure the pans looked pretty when new, but the coating wears off (especially where the pans are handled). There was a later line of Chrome plated pans called Silverlite.
This is a really interesting answer, can you add a source to make it even better?
Done! Thanks for the suggestion. I was going to do it early, but my books were in the other room.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.504337
| 2010-08-24T02:24:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5860",
"authors": [
"Allison C",
"James Weigandt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/62114",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81610"
],
"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
}
|
35630
|
Removing oil bubbles from bolognese sauce
I am making bolognese for dinner tonight. In the past I have had trouble with oil in the sauce giving it a not very nice oily texture. I tried to limit the amount of oil I used, but I still have oil bubbles on the surface of the sauce.
Is there an easy way to remove the excess oil from the sauce?
For the future how do I prevent the excess?
my recipe is:
teaspoon garlic paste
250gm lean beef mince
teaspoon of peanut oil
handful chopped onion
tin crushed tomato's
one tub of tomato paste
mixed herbs, salt and pepper to taste
brown onions, garlic and mince
add crushed tomato's; fill can with water add to sauce
add salt, pepper and herbs
simmer for a few hours stirring occasionally
add tomato paste
stir and simmer for at least 30 mins
serve with preferred pasta
I eventually tried to soak up as much as possible with some paper towel. But I hope there is a better solution.
You might want to provide your recipe and method. When you say oil bubbles, do you mean little slicks of oil on top? A photo wouldn't hurt if you have one.
There is only one significant source of fat in the recipe that you have shared: the ground (or minced) meat. The single teaspoon of oil is a fairly trivial amount.
You might wish to drain the ground meat after browning and prior to continuing with the recipe to minimize the amount of fat that ends up in the final sauce.
You were right. I remade the sauce today doing two things. I bought lean mince(ground beef) from my butcher rather than the supermarket, and I drained the mince before adding it to the sauce. Worked a lot better. Thank you.
i uses a couple of slices of bread, just lay it on top of the mince and then leave for a few minutes and then scoop the bread our it absorbs a fair amount of oil. I normally do this twice. I then put the oiled side up on a tray and bake it in the oven till its like toast my kids love that bit (I cut it in too strips and they scoop there mince up with it) :)
I usually make a big batch of bolognese using 3kgs of meat. Ratio: 1kg pork/2kgs beef mince together with all the other required ingredients. After about 3 hours simmering, a big lake of oil forms on the top. I simply scoop it up with a wide flattish ladle and discard. Have been making this dish nigh on sixty years and no one has died from it nor complained.
You can use whatever grade of mince and if you don’t drain your mince it doesn’t matter. All you need to do is add a tablespoon of butter and stir it through in the final stages of cooking, works a treat!
Why would adding an oily element help reduce the oil contents of the dish overall? It does not make sense to me.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.504595
| 2013-07-28T07:26:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/35630",
"authors": [
"CMorrison",
"Dritero Jakupi",
"M.K",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sun",
"Tamara Pleasant",
"combatdud3",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139329",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83412",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83479",
"lelau",
"user83414"
],
"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
}
|
69267
|
Cookies are soft in the middle, even though the edges are browned
So I followed the recipe posted here to get some pretty standard chocolate chip cookies:
http://www.bettycrocker.com/recipes/ultimate-chocolate-chip-cookies/77c14e03-d8b0-4844-846d-f19304f61c57
But when I pulled it out of the oven, the edges were browned but the centers doughy and soft, almost undercooked even.
My first thought that my oven was too hot, but I'm not entirely sure, and I'm not sure what I should be looking at. My choice in baking pan might be suspect, or maybe its because this is a convection oven (it's got a fan that keeps blowing the air around). Any thoughts?
If the edges burn and the center is undone, it means the heat didn't have enough time to reach the relatively cool center before the edge was too hot. The temperature gradient depends on the amount of heat from your oven and the size of your cookie - and to some degree on the thermal properties of your cookie sheet.
You have mentioned the two "usual suspects" in your question:
Oven temperature and convection.
Ovens thermostats are notorious for being quite a bit "off". A good oven thermometer placed on the middle rack can give you a precise measurement and even helps you to recognize whether it's a "fluctuating" issue or whether your oven is generally running high or low.
Convection can change the way the oven heat is distributed to your cookies. Most recipes I'm familiar with suggest lowering the temperature by 25C / 50F if using the convection feature. This is not necessarily always the ideal solution, some types of cakes simply turn out better without the convection feature. (But that's a gigantic can of worms that I won't be opening here: Many bakers have their own view on this.)
If those two don't help, look into the type of cookie sheet and the temperature of your dough when it's put in the oven - chilled dough will behave differently from room temperature dough, for example.
Could you elaborate on the differences between chilled and room temperature dough (in my case, the dough just happened to be chilled in the fridge prior to cooking. I did so to make it easier to shape)?
Would lowering the temperature of the oven (for use with a convection oven) still apply if the dough was chilled, and/or would you recommend that I bring the dough up to room temperature prior to cooking in my case?
@cornjuliox, chilling influences the way the dough spreads - the fat is harder and takes longer to soften. You probably had a comparatively "thick" center while the edge started to spread. I'm not a cookie pro (more a cake and bread person), but I would probably lower the temp. I'd appreciate the input of other users on that point.
Am I right in thinking that lowering the temperature would allow the cookie to bake more evenly?
@cornjuliox - that's what I'm thinking too.
@cornjuliox Sounds like you have two indicators for lowering temperature - cold dough and convection oven. Granted, I don't change oven temp for cold dough but I don't also have a convection oven... I also like my cookies soft in the center.
Besides these cookies potentially being undercooked, I've found that some cookies just come out this way, and need to cool completely before being eaten. Cooling allows for the center to solidify a bit more, giving them a gooey texture, with a crisp crust around the edges.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.504855
| 2016-05-26T10:07:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/69267",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Enrico Tuvera Jr",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
36769
|
Vegetable Oil vs. Canola oil in DIY Spreadable butter
I've been scouring the net for DIY spreadable butter recipes but nearly all of them use Canola oil, but all I've got available here is Vegetable Oil and Coconut Oil. What's worse is that none of them really seem to say anything about substituting either oil for spreadable butter.
Is there anything wrong with using either in a spreadable butter recipe?
UPDATE: So I probably should've mentioned that I was in the Philippines. That apparently makes a difference, as even the vegetable oil is actually coconut oil :-/. Palm oil and coconut oil seem to be all we have here.
I attempted it with the palm oil I had and while the softness was what i wanted the final product had a funny smell and a weird taste. I'm getting ready to try again.
Are you planning to hydrogenate them?
It doesn't explicitly ask about spreadable butter, but... http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/31982/substituting-vegetable-oil-for-canola-oil
@Matthew What do you mean by "hydrogenate"?
@cornjuliox a lot of spreadable butter substitutes rely on hydrogenated oil, essetially the same process as carbonating it, but using hydrogen.
In terms of spreadability, the real issue is the level of saturation.
Coconut oil is quite saturated (especially for a vegetable based lipid), and so it is far more solid at room temperature than most oils. (Cocoa butter would be another exception; it is quite hard at room temperature).
Generic vegetable oil, at least under US labeling laws, may contain any number of vegetable oils including corn, soy, rapeseed (canola) and so on—or even a mixture of any or all of these. They are all quite similar in the saturation and viscosity at room temperature, and so any of them should perform similarly in your butter application.
So go ahead and use the vegetable oil.
What are your thoughts on palm oil for this butter application?
Palm oil evidently is fairly saturated, and so harder at room temperature. I have no personal experience with it to say if you would be likely to approve of the outcome of using it to soften butter.
I would use vegetable oil personally, as quite often what's labelled vegetable oil is made from canola. Sunflower oil would also work, and probably groundnut/peanut oil. Any neutral tasting oil would do really.
Your vegetable oil might also be soybean. (Often in stores in the US, I've seen soybean labeled as vegetable, and canola labeled as canola.)
I actually do this with olive oil. Two sticks of room-temp butter + half a cup (or so) of olive oil, blend until combined, done. Easy!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.505277
| 2013-09-13T15:26:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36769",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Enrico Tuvera Jr",
"Matthew",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19416",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3436
|
Sources for authentic recipes
Are there any sources for authentic versions of traditional dishes? For instance I believe that the version of Guacamole that I prepare is not traditional because of the use of coriander and lime so is there any where I can look up a tradiational version of the recipe so I can compare my version with the traditional version.
I know that even traditional recipes will vary somewhat with regional and family variations but I would have thought that there are enough elements of commonality that I could tell how my version differs.
?? I always make it with coriander and lime too. Actually a good trick is to also splash in just a little bit of grapefruit juice - sounds weird but it goes well with avocado.
I don't know the answer to your main question, but I'm pretty sure coriander (or cilantro in America) and lime are traditional ingredients in guac.
That comes from quite an old programme with Rick Stein. He was in Mexico interviewing a Mexican cook and she was very clear about what should and should not be in Guacamole, but I'm sure it always tastes better with Coriander and Lime so I was interested to find out what the authentic recipe is.
Well, I just got back from two weeks in Mexico, outside of typical Gringo vacation spots, and all the Guac had lime juice in it. Most of it had Cilantro/Coriander. Maybe someone should tell the Mexicans they're doing it wrong. ;o)
Heh, I know what you mean. Just try finding an authentic Italian marinara recipe. "Tomatoes aren't native to Italy!" I scream, but they all just laugh at me, and I go back to my corner to enjoy my Authentic German Potato Salad alone.
The only thing that's not traditional is calling cilantro "coriander" when you're making a dish with origins in Mexico.
Authentic is a very slippery question. Recipes change over time, and even the most down-home recipes are prepared differently from village to village and even house to house. As far as I know, cilantro and lime are very typical ingredients in guacamole - they are certainly included in both the Diana Kennedy and Rick Bayless standard versions, and those authors are known for their meticulous research in Mexico.
Authentic is a myth and a moving target. Bless your food with delicious instead.
Cooking is using what's around and tastes good. All cuisines evolve.
If you want to approximate traditional dishes, consult a nutritional anthropology text or a culinary historian (they exist, really). More practically, ask a Mexican. (Or a Swede. Or a Brit... Per the cuisine). Preferably one who lived there. Better one who cooked there. Ideally one whose grandma cooked there.
Also, a "customary" recipe sounds like one you'd find in a tourist-shop that sells regional cookbooks. They might not be up to the standards of modern regional cuisines, but the whole "modern" part probably means it's not "authentic" anyway.
I don't think you'll find a single source that provides authentic recipes for a wide variety of different ethnic foods. I think you'll need to find a good source for each type of food, unfortunately. The only book I have that I'd consider authentic is The Breath of a Wok, which covers a wide range of Chinese food. Maybe each ethnicity could use a question for "What's an authentic and comprehensive book for [type of food]?"
I use a line of cookbooks available in the US called Best Recipe which tends to be very good. They have an International Version which goes through many different types of food. It's a great book, but it's not particularly authentic. So if you're looking for breadth and good recipes, it's a good one. But I'm not sure it would suffice to cook for a native nor meet the standard set forth in the question.
The "Best Recipe" line is made by the folks from America's Test Kitchen, which is the same people who publish Cook's Illustrated. Their approach is to maximize the appeal to the generic American palate, rather than authenticity, although they do make it clear when and why they depart from the traditional. I greatly appreciate America's Test Kitchen recipes (and their TV shows) because the generic palate they optimize for is similar to mine, but not because they're authentic.
@nohat: I agree and have edited accordingly. That's what I was getting at, but on re-reading, it wasn't clear.
Since your example is guacamole, can I very highly recommend (ta-da) Authentic Mexican, by Rick Bayless? This cookbook has quite a bit of background on all the dishes, their history, how they are traditionally prepared and eaten in Mexico, and how the (presumably American) non-Mexican cook can prepare them in non-Mexican kitchens. Though not Mexican himself, Rick Bayless is widely considered to be one the world's foremost experts in Mexican cuisine, and one can comfortably rely on his pronouncements of what is and is not authentic. (His recipe for basic guacamole includes both lime and cilantro.)
Drawing on this example, if interested in authenticity in foreign cuisines and you can't go to the country in question to experience the food in person and see how people there actually eat, the key is to find a book like Authentic Mexican—one that comes from someone with deep experience in the cuisine that has substantial amount of prose (not just recipes) describing how dishes are prepared and enjoyed in the country. If you read the book and learn how a cuisine arises from the native (and introduced) crops that thrive there, and how economics and other historical conditions have affected the culture that produced the cuisine, you can come to a deeper understanding of the cuisine and know why a particular dish is authentic or not. Alternatively, you could watch episodes of a cooking program hosted by an expert in a cuisine (like Julia Child for French cuisine or Rick Bayless for Mexican) and you'll learn from their asides and commentary what makes different dishes authentic. I'm a big fan of Rick Bayless's show Mexico One Plate at a Time because in each episode he goes to Mexico and shows how a particular dish or ingredient is prepared and enjoyed in Mexico, then he goes back to Chicago and shows you how to prepare some version of it in his home kitchen.
But generally speaking, in my opinion, what contributes most to authenticity is not necessarily the choice of ingredients, but more the manner of preparation and the milieu of service—your guacamole might be just like one made in Mexico City or Guadalajara, but if you're eating it by dipping fried corn tortilla chips into it, that's not really authentic at all. In Mexico, traditionally, guacamole would be eaten rolled into a corn tortilla or dolloped onto some other dish, like a taco. Chips-and-dip are more of an American tradition, not a Mexican one.
A good place to start is to research what ingredients are seasonally and regionally available at the same time/place as the main ingredient(s), what flavor profiles are common to the overall zeitgeist of the regions cuisine, and finally consider the cost of various ingredients and how that compares to the perceived socio-economic class traditionally ate the dish.
I think there's a few aspects here --
"authentic" as in, they really cook this dish in that region.
"traditional" as in, they've cooked this dish in that region for quite some time.
Of course, traditions develop over time, and cooking techniques and ingredient availablity changes over time, so a "traditional" dish might only be a century or two old.
If you're concerned about recent corruptions due to more recent changes in globalization (eg, overnight shipping of produce, external influences), I'd go with old cookbooks. Of course, I also volunteer at a library managing the sale of donated books, so I have an easy and cheap source (just got 3 more yesterday). But check at yard/garage sales, car boot sales, flea markets, estate sales, library book sales, used book stores, etc.
For US regional cooking, I like church and community cookbooks; for foreign cooking, I think I have the majority of the Time Life "Foods of the World" series that was published in the late 1960s.
...
And if you want to get really picky about "authenticity", you also have to consider that many of the great recipes in a region came from peasant dishes. Is it being authentic to the dish to get ingredients flown in from the other side of the world to make it, or would it be better to find a reasonbly priced fresh local alternative?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.505507
| 2010-07-27T14:49:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3436",
"authors": [
"Amy Sellars",
"BobMcGee",
"Cooper",
"Ian Turner",
"Kirill",
"Loren",
"Pointy",
"Rick Harris",
"Shog9",
"freethinker",
"hippietrail",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54846",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6230",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6235",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6239",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6361",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/86",
"jules",
"nohat",
"xzhu",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
98
|
Digital recipes storage?
What works well for storing recipes digitally? Software and web solutions are both welcome.
For me, the ideal solution would accept recipes from different sources (copy/paste, or email) in any format, and would automatically generate ingredient lists. It would be available from multiple devices (phone, iPad, computer) and would automatically prepare shopping lists.
I can appreciate that this is a problem a lot of home cooks have, and I'm sorry if there aren't a lot of good answers; however, it is a product recommendation request and specifically a shopping question. Even without the obvious poll phrasing, the topic is still firmly in the "don't ask" list.
My wife and I love http://www.plantoeat.com/
The recipe import is well done and intuitive.
The meal planner is easy to use and provides a great view of the week ahead.
The grocery list maker is awesome. The Pantry Inventory of the stuff you already have on hand is brilliant!
The site looks and works great on an iPhone when shopping. We said "so long" to Grocery Gadget after using it :)
I'm checking out the P2E trial now - it really does seem to be exactly what I want.
By the way - there's a mobile version of the site - not an iPhone app, as the website initially made me think. Still, very slick.
I'm using Evernote for all my digital recipes, though it doesn't give you any ingredient list. The list is no issue for me though since I prefer going through my cupboard and check up on what I have, what I need and what I'll soon be needing. I find the ingredient lists to make you focus on one meal at the time instead of having a mixed basic setup.
+1 - I have a tablet in my kitchen running OneNote - it's like a paper recipe card box, only with searching and unlimited space for each recipe, and easier updates / fixes.
The ones I've found for Mac (and that look reasonable) are:
MacGourmet
SousChef
Yum
There are definitely others, but those are the ones that I've fiddled with. I think SousChef is my favorite.
As far as digital storage goes, I can only echo support for SousChef - some great recipes in there to start with and easy to add your own. To be honest, though, pretty much all of the stuff I use frequently is either in an old fashioned cookbook or pinned to my freezer with fridge magnets.
Just Right Menus is a fledgling one that's very intuitive. I especially like that there are formatting options available for ingredient lists. I prefer to put the ingredient name in bold (like the following) so it's easier to glance at when cooking, but most sites won't let you.
2 cloves garlic
Interesting. I'm mainly interested in a place to store my recipes - not so interested in a repository of recipes that I may or may not have ever used.
Most sites allow you to create your own "recipe box". So, even if it's a larger repository of others' recipes, you can add your own & flag others' recipes as "yours". It sounds like epicurious.com would have just what you're looking for.
I'm a big fan of the fledgling online onetsp.com. It's a pretty simple user interface and I can make great shopping lists. As a bonus, wherever I have access to the internet I have access to my recipes.
i use plain old .txt files, sorted into folders and synced between my computer, ipad & iphone with Dropbox. on my ipad, i mainly access them with Goodreader, which accesses my dropbox folder and syncs wirelessly. so far, it's been pretty great.
I am using Shopglider, http://shopglider.com/
It is web-based, pretty simple: you keep shopping lists (just list of stuff to buy) and recipes (ingredients) there, can share account between multiple people. Entering ingredients is usually very simple - paste to text field, and site understands that "2 tbsp sugar" is two tablespoons of sugar - creating ingredient list automatically.
Then you decide what to buy next time by selecting items from lists and recipes, and create trip to shops - you can then print it, email it or sync to Windows Phone (last time I checked they don't have iPhone or Android app).
Do you have a typo in "2 tsp sugar" is 2 table spoons of sugar? I would understand it as 2 teaspoons, and tbsp as tablespoons.
@Peter - I've edited the answer to suggest changing tsp to tbsp.
I've used YummySoup on the Mac which was reasonable. It's HTML import feature is certainly very good. I haven't yet found anything that seems to can be shared between multiple machines/platforms easily unfortunately.
I, too, use Evernote. I use 3 folders, Food, Bake, and recipes I make often I move to Food-Favs.
I try to find the print version of the recipe page that I am saving, or select the important part to save.
I'm using Stoveside, http://www.stoveside.com
It doesn't do shopping lists, it's more of a recipe box for all recipes across the internet.
It runs by a bookmarklet in your browser bar, then on any website you click the button to save the recipe. Very handy, for saving great recipes as you often randomly come upon them.
I use GoodReader on the iPhone/iPad. It stores pdf, text and word documents in any file tree you want to set up. I organized my recipes first on my computer and then just copied the entire folder over in its organized form using GoodReader's file transfer system. There's also a very easy system for transferring between devices, so if you see a recipe online and save it to your iPad, for instance, it's very easy to just send that to the appropriate folder on your iPhone's GoodReader app.
You don't get the menu building or shopping tools, as with many of these other suggestions, but you also don't have to put all your recipes on a website where you then might have to think about sharing/copyright/privacy issues.
I tried different web based applications and I was never satisfied with either the formatting of the ingredients (some are too loose - and you will not achieve good computability and some are too strict and will demotivate you pretty quickly);
For a while I sticked to using paper but sharing the recipes on my blog or with friends resulted in duplicated work.
Using a general tool, like Evernote, left me unsatisfied because there isn't a specific structure that facilitates your task and there is no interaction with other users.
So, since I am a seasoned developer and I also really love cooking (/my blog italianMondays.com) I decided to create a the web app I wanted: without unnecessary cluttering, graphically pleasing, free and fast, open (as in the data always belongs to the user) and easy to use also on mobile (not really there - yet).
I added the simple functionalities that I wanted and now I am engaging the users to drive the development of the new features and it's working well. Some asked for localization (and it's now available in en/it/pt), others wanted a sharing functionality for social networks, other wanted the generation of shopping lists, import of recipes from blogs/websites, conversion between metric and imperial units, export for publishing and printing... It's becoming a full time gig! :)
It can be seen at beta.cook-q.com and suggestions / requests are welcome!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.506209
| 2010-07-09T19:41:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/98",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Abdelrahman Gobarah",
"Alan Bowman",
"Ben McCormack",
"Charlie",
"Dave Williamson",
"Eclipse",
"Gabriel Hurley",
"Herb Caudill",
"Home sick",
"Inger",
"Jason",
"JustRightMenus",
"Mark",
"Nanako",
"Peter Taylor",
"Rob Moir",
"Sascha",
"Scott",
"Ser Pounce",
"glasnt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10692",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/109809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/190",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/217",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24381",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25805",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/364",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44456",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80982",
"mohlsen",
"romyover",
"user24341"
],
"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
}
|
3159
|
How do the batter and technique differ between crepes and pancakes?
What are the different ingredients in crepe mix versus pancake mix?
I'd like to try my hand at making crepes from scratch...
How is making crepes different from making pancakes?
Crepes do not contain baking powder or baking soda for leavening. They also typically use melted butter vs. oil in pancakes and have a higher liquid to flour ratio. Basic crepes contain only eggs, milk, water, a pinch of salt and flour.
You can however make them more sweet or savory by adding chopped herbs or a bit of sugar (not too much or you'll have too much browning), cocoa powder, spices such as cinnamon, nutmeg, ginger, etc.
For additional help & recipe for Black Forest Cherry Crepes: Tips for Successful Crepes
Crepe batter also often includes instructions to let the batter rest (to result in even flatter crepes), unlike pancake batter which should be used immediately.
Just wanted to vote up Allison - resting crepe batter is REALLY important.
I think it's the thickness that differ the two. I have a very great crepe recipe here, which has been favorite. Pair it with Grand Marnier, an orange flavored liqueur, and you're good to go.
Agreed. British pancakes are crepe-like in that they're unleavened, but they batter is spread through gravity, while crepes are spread mechanically, so are thinner.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.507140
| 2010-07-25T03:35:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3159",
"authors": [
"Allison",
"D.Wise",
"Darius",
"Jan",
"Joe",
"Matthew",
"Trevor Hammond",
"Twelve47",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161335",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/161336",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4504",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5727",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5732",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5738",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8339",
"kinofrost",
"marlisa prather",
"wkw"
],
"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
}
|
66763
|
How is one supposed to properly eat multi-level hamburgers?
Well my question is exactly what is says in the title.
I come from a culture that has hamburger-style meal. Unlike hamburger, our plyeskavitsa (or pljeskavica using another type of transliteration) tends to grow in diameter when the portion size increases. That is to say, when I order a small plyeskavitsa, the patty will have (for example) diameter A and thickness B. When I order large plyeskavitsa, it will have diameter 3 A and thickness maybe 1.5 B. This way, the eating procedure is same for all sizes: You start biting at one end, you bite off a piece through the bun and the patty and basically repeat the procedure until it's consumed. If you buy a bigger portion, you'll just need to repeat the procedure more times.
On the other hand, with American burgers, when the portion size increases, the diameter will stay the same, but the thickness significantly increases as well as the number of patties (for example let's think of say BigMac or BigKingXXL). When I try to apply procedure for plyeskavitsa or say regular hamburgers, what happens is that when I bite down, the middle layers get pushed out of the sandwich, making a total mess of everything.
So my question is: How am I supposed to eat thick hamburgers without having the middle part spill out?
Big American burgers are just crazy. Eat them with chopsticks if you have to. People might even think you're being suave.
If the sandwich is constructed properly, the toppings shouldn't slide against each other (too much). Of course, some restaurants construct such large burgers that you have to be able unhinge your mouth to actually eat them. Some places will put the burger into a paper bag, or wrap it in such a way that you can take a few bites and the paper keeps the sandwich fixing from being able to eject.
From watching 'Diners, Drive-ins and Dives' on Food Network, I've noticed that Guy will sometimes crush the burger before eating it -- he puts his hand in the middle of it, and presses down. Although, he has the advantage that he's typically standing, not sitting down at a table. You also want to make sure that when you eat you hold it from the back ... press down a little bit at that rear edge to keep the thing together.
@Joe - you might have discovered the one area that guy fieri is an appropriate expert to cite...
The trick to eating a large hamburger the size of a McDonald's Big Mac (or even a Double Big Mac with four patties) is to grip the burger firmly while crushing it down a bit. It may take a big of practice to get right, but it's something most eaters of hamburgers seem to do instinctively. So much so I can't really describe the technique in a lot of detail, but the basic idea is you're both making the burger somewhat smaller and holding it together firmly. You want to grab it in both hands with your thumbs underneath. Your fingers should be spread out over the top, compressing it down, while your thumbs pin everything in place.
If you watch pretty much anyone eat a hamburger, even normal sized ones, this is how they'll eat it. There's really nothing special in how you need to hold it, the trick is applying the right amount of pressure. Bigger burgers will need a more firm grip, while normal sized burgers can be held fairly loosely (though you'll still see people crushing them anyways). There's a limit to how big of a burger you can eat this way though. It should work with pretty much any burger normally sold by the big fast food chains like McDonald's or Burger King. There are however restaurants that sell enormous burgers that can't really be eaten in any sort of normal way unless you have really big hands.
I should also point out that you sometimes do have the option of going wider rather than taller with hamburgers. For example the Big Mac has two 1.6 oz (45.4 g) patties, while the Quarter Pounder with a single 4.25 oz (120.5 g) patty is both bigger and easier to eat.
A McDonald's Big Mac is considered a large hamburger? Or are they larger elsewhere? We don't have a hamburger culture where I live, nor are we big on serving humongous portions of food in restaurants, but I think the general consensus over here is that a Big Mac is a pathetic little burger (and I'm leaving taste well out of it, of course ;) )
@WillemvanRumpt The original poster used the Big Mac (and the Burger King's Big King XXL, but I'm not familiar with it) as an example so that's the definition of large hamburger I'm using here. In North America a Big Mac is taller than fast food burgers usually are, all though I think it's overall weight/volume is close to normal. It's really that height that's the problem here.
I'm confused by the Big Mac example as well. Even with multiple patties and the extra bread, it's only about the size of a normal hamburger at a sit-down restaurant or diner.
A somewhat strange but effective technique is to fix the contents by piercing one or two toothpicks through the entire burger, before taking the first bites on the opposite side. When you approach the middle you can take them out, at this point the filling should tend to slip in your mouth rather than the other way.
I have witnessed and used the following techniques when it comes to eating large hamburgers:
Cutting it like a pie (i.e. in slices) using a serrated knife, so you get manageable sized sub-burgers that you can eat from the center out. I favor this method whenever available. Depending on burger diameter and height, 2 to 8 slices will work best--experiment!
Holding the burger (or sub-burger, if slicing) upside down, which puts the thicker bun (which hasn't been drenched in grease by gravity) on the bottom, allowing the burger to hold its condiments far better. This is my go-to method when knives aren't available.
Using a waxed paper wrapper as a pocket to hold everything in place, only unwrapping as little as possible to take a bite. Think exoskeleton, but for your burger. Best used when getting the hamburger from a fast food place (i.e. it's already wrapped), and it's already a half mess.
While not quite what you describe, we have "doofers" at some places here, which is bacially "a little cardboard cut out that folds together to make a hamburger holder! It prevents your burger’s toppings from sliding out and holds the burger together": https://justgiver.wordpress.com/2010/06/14/what-is-a-doofer/
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.507343
| 2016-02-23T19:05:19 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/66763",
"authors": [
"A Toll",
"Bridie Curneen",
"Crystal Kemp",
"Eleanor Nazar-Smith",
"Era",
"Jennifer Nimon",
"Joe",
"Larry Dowell",
"Mary Bernard",
"Petah",
"Ross Ridge",
"Tara",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Willem van Rumpt",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160019",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160029",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160147",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26450",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43474",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/725",
"jonathan dawson"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
45519
|
Options for non-stick frying pans - not using teflon
Just for everyday things - frying eggs, making pancakes, steaks, bacon.
Also, what is temperature reached by such frying. Teflon decomposes at 250c - does normal home use ever get near such temperatures ?
I removed "best" from your title, with that word the question becomes overly subjective. Without that word, your question may be allowed to stand.
http://www.iflscience.com/physics/guy-crazy-enough-stick-his-hand-liquid-nitrogen This is how hot the steel plate has to be for non-stick stainless steel (and iron?)
@BaffledCook thats a link to a man putting his hand in liquid nitrogen ?
Yes, @NimChimpsky, he also demonstrates water on a hot plate.
Using the heat needed to cook with leidenfrost effect is a great way to destroy your cookware. It's also extraordinarily inefficient since you need more power to create that level of heat for the food to just cook slower than ordinary. Besides eventually the food will warm up enough that the heat difference and reduced water at the surface is no longer enough to keep the food floating on the layer of steam and it'll stick harder than anything you've ever seen before.
Cast iron or carbon steel. Both require seasoning with oil and neither are non-stick immediately, but rather after seasoning and some use, the pans become more non-stick over time. But once they're properly seasoned, they're as non-stick or nearly as non-stick as teflon and the like. They do, however, require the use of fats in cooking. And they can last 30 or 50 years. Or longer.
I second this one right here. With the addition of stainless for stock pots and sauce pans. However they don't last 30-50 years, they last 100s of years. The stuff people look for in antique stores is already 50+ years old and still as baby smooth as the day it was cast if it wasn't left outside to rot. The only way to destroy them under "normal circumstances" is by dropping them once too often.
The options for non-stick cookware that contain neither PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) nor PTFE (Polytetrafluoroethylene), the substances better known as Teflon, are limited. Most are ceramic, the general consensus on those (Consumer Reports, America's Test Kitchen, Amazon reviews, and rumtsho all seem to agree) is that the non-stick surface is great for a while but wears out quickly.
There are quite a few hard-anodized aluminum pans that make a non-stick claim, but in actuality they are not nearly as slippery as Teflon. The most well-known brand is Calphalon. That brand touts "stick resistance" not "non-stick".
Gunter Wilhelm claims non-stick stainless steel, but the pan failed America's Test Kitchen testing miserably, not even being non-stick brand new. (sorry, ATK's link is paywalled)
Having never used ceramic cookware, I can't make a specific recommendation, but I can say that Good Housekeeping recommends the Sandflow brand. The Amazon reviews are somewhat less encouraging.
As rumtscho pointed out, cast iron can be pretty close to non-stick, but there is a learning curve.
As far as your second question, that one I can easily answer.
That is celsius by the way. Of course the pan is cast iron, I wouldn't get any other pan I own that hot. That's how I sear steaks (after I take the batteries out of my smoke detector).
For day to day use, you can easily keep Teflon to well below recommended temperatures. Preheat with care over low heat (or not at all), and don't go beyond medium heat except to boil water. BTW Allowing water to boil away is the easiest and most common way to overheat pans.
You might find this several page article from HowStuffWorks of interest.
Why, o why, do people install smoke detectors in kitchens?
@BaffledCook " Allowing water to boil away is the easiest and most common way to overheat pans" ...and set off smoke detectors! :)
@BaffledCook Nobody with a lick of sense does install them in kitchens, but mine is in the hallway between the kitchen and the living room and it can still be set off with cooking smoke.
Regarding the picture - to be fair, outside of preheating for searing, there is rarely a reason to go above 450F or so in stovetop cooking, and so the 250C mentioned in the question is plenty for 95% of what I do on my stove. (And frankly, I'm mostly replying because I'm curious since it seems a little extreme. I experimented with hotter temperatures for searing steaks, but even going as hot as 700-750F (370-400C) seemed to produce excessive charring on the steak, along with beginning to burn off some elements of the seasoning. I couldn't imagine going to 500C.)
Rather than discourage fire safety in the kitchen, fitting a steam sensor or heat sensor is an effective way to avoid burning food from setting off the alarm - but still having an alarm if the overall kitchen catches fire.
The one alternative is ceramic pans. They are pretty awesome as long as they don't stick, much better than Teflon. However, they fail earlier, after maybe 6 months of regular, but not heavy, use. After that, they can still be used for cooking, but aren't really non-stick. They can stand much higher temperatures than Teflon (the manufacturers give them a 400 Celsius rating), but the speed of decay doesn't seem to be connected to the temperature. I don't have hard data on that, but they don't have teflon's sudden failing after a single overheating, they just stop working gradually, without sudden reductions after higher temperature applications. Until they fail, they are more comfortable than teflon, because they can be used with any utensils without fear of scratching.
The other thing you can consider are cast iron pans. You can throw any temperature at them, and if you season them properly and learn how to cook at the proper temperature, they are very good in the non-sticking department. The downside is that they have a learning curve. They require proper care, and food will stick if they aren't heated to the correct temperature. I've seen people throw an egg into a teflon pan, then turn the plate on and go away for the next five minutes - this won't work here. But once you learn to cook your eggs properly, you'll also have tastier eggs. They also eat up more energy, because the pan itself eats up lots of it. Related to that is that, on a resistive hob, you might have to wait a long-ish time for them to heat up, if you have chosen a large one.
Summary: If you want something which is carefree and durable, there are no alternatives to teflon. If you are willing to learn to cook in cast iron, you will first face a learning curve and later produce much better results with a slightly more effort. If you are willing to change your pans frequently, you can use ceramic.
I hadn't used my plate iron pan in a while (maybe six months) and it's doing great. Non-stick eggs.
On ceramic pans: I started seasoning mine with sesame oil a while ago as an experiment and now it's completely black like cast iron, and non-stick like new! So I don't have to throw that one away for now.
You generally don't want to be cooking eggs or pancakes at 250°C, so Teflon is fine for this purpose
Both eggs and pancake mix consist mostly of water, so you would have a hard time raising the temperature past 100°C until the water has been mostly evaporated. Unless you uses a large fat or oil film, which you don't need in a Teflon pan
Bacon and steaks can go in a cast iron, stainless pan, or any plain metal pan
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.508011
| 2014-07-13T06:55:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/45519",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"BaffledCook",
"Carey Gregory",
"Elliot",
"Escoce",
"Jolenealaska",
"Luciano",
"NimChimpsky",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33134",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78645"
],
"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
}
|
15250
|
substituting white all purpose flour with whole wheat flour
I thought it was one to one (more like, assumed) but I did it with a pound cake and let's just say the product could break a plexiglass window. Is there some ratio to substituting white all purpose flour with whole wheat? are they simply not interchangeable?
to be more specific, my goal today is biscotti so not something that aims to be light and fluffy like a cake. Maybe that is what matters here?
Whole wheat flour is denser, has more protein and tends to dry out products. To compensate, sift more, do not overmix, and up your wet ingredients slightly. From eHow. TLC confirms that whole wheat flour is higher in protein because it is milled from hard wheat which is naturally higher in protein, and then ground whole wheat flour is 25% higher in protein than all-purpose flour.
Some sites (including TLC) recommend only subsituting out up to half of white flour with whole wheat, except if you're using white whole wheat flour (see below).
My secret weapon is white whole wheat flour, which is lighter than standard whole wheat flour and tastes more like white flour but has the same health benefits as the whole wheat flour we're used to. Because so many people are looking for whole wheat recipes, you may want to try a recipe that is specifically designed for whole wheat flour--both for taste and texture. Try King Arthur Flour for recipes (they make my favorite white whole wheat flour, and they have a recipe for whole wheat biscotti!).
-1 ehow is not a reliable source of information. Check the facts from science books on wheat, or information published by mills
Whole wheat flour is often quite a bit denser. A recent article in the New York Times recommended substituting flour mixtures by weight, not volume.
@Peter Shor, that's probably a better solution. I don't have a kitchen scale, but I've seen 7/8 wheat=1 white, and that probably compensates similarly. Scales are always the most accurate, but volume persists in American cooking...
Weak white flour was mostly invented to make cakes and other soft delicacies, you cannot generally expect wholemeal (whole wheat) flour to work as an exact equivalent in such a thing
Personally the difference is not really important , and is just what you are used too
The protein (gluten) level in wholemeal (whole wheat) depends on wheat source and shelf life. Most of the protein is in the endosperm (the white stuff)
From the same wheat source wholemeal flour will have a lower protein level than white flour due to it being bulked out by the bran (low protein) and germ (no protein), and a lower effect of protein by the effects of the the bran and germ
For kneaded products (bread, pizza dough etc) you can generally replace it 1:1 without any other changes to the recipe, other than a little more kneading. Any difference is generally in what you perceive the finished product should be like - white colour and no fluffy bits (bran)
Wholemeal (whole wheat) has a much shorter shelf life than white flour, This is where most people have unsatisfactory results with it, and it earns it's "hard to use" badge
The simple answer is no, white all-purpose flour is not replaceable with whole wheat flour. You can substitute with it, but the characteristics of the finished product will be entirely different. Your plexiglass smasher sounds about right for using whole wheat flour in a pound cake; it's exactly what I would expect.
Use whole wheat flour when you really want that rich wheat flavor and are okay with the heaviness that comes with it. Depending on the particular whole wheat flour and the recipe you're using, it is possible to make bread with only that, but as Christine noted, it is commonly used to replace only up to half of the white AP or white bread flour in a bread recipe. Even this smaller substitution lends a nice, nuttier flavor to bread.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.508620
| 2011-06-05T16:36:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15250",
"authors": [
"Peter Shor ",
"TFD",
"TechieGurl",
"christinealittlebit",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6341",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6383"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22536
|
Reheating boiled eggs for scotch eggs
I recently boiled a duck egg for 7 mins and then immediately placed into iced water, where I let it sit for 10 mins.
I then proceeded to place the cold egg into a water bath set at a temperature of 145°F (63°C) for 2 hours.
I then removed the egg from the bath and made a scotch egg
The egg was still runny after frying (which was fantastic). Will reheating the egg in the water bath be safe as it is above 140°F (60°C)?
Look at the combination of time and temperature, when you decide whether it is safe or not. Baldwin recommends a 135°F / 57°C water bath for at least 1 hour and 15 minutes to pasteurize a chicken egg. Therefore 63 degrees in two hours should be safe even though the egg is a little larger.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.508903
| 2012-03-24T08:26:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22536",
"authors": [
"Martin",
"Ricky Cheng",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50722",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54487",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54498",
"mallory barlowe",
"rapturesque"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
25583
|
How long does it take for milk to spoil unrefrigerated?
A half gallon of milk (in the paper carton, not plastic) got left in the car for 1.5 hours in about 80 degree (~27 °C) weather (evening so no direct sunlight). Is it still probably safe to eat if one has a strong stomach or pretty risky? Any particular signs to watch for to indicate it is no longer safe? Carton bulging? Off smell? Etc? How quickly will milk spoil (unopened) in warm summer weather like that?
Guess I forgot to mention: regular old pasteurized milk
I don't think anything will be wrong with that milk.
If it's fresh milk, which I doubt, you should consume it in less than three days.
If it's pasteurized milk, which is much more likely, it'll be unaffected.
Signs of spoilage are a sour smell and sour taste. You should make a habit of always smelling your milk (food) before drinking (eating) it. If it doesn't smell like you'd expect, taste it. If it doesn't taste like you'd expect, ditch it.
Milk is cultivated with lactobacillus, a bacteria that's beneficial for us. So, even though milk may taste sour, it doesn't mean that it's undrinkable. In Holland, there's sour-milk (karnemelk), that some people consume (I don't like it, myself).
Under the right circumstances, milk will turn into yogurt, thanks to the lactobacillus...
At any rate, if in doubt, throw it out.
I agree with your advice. In my experience even if there might be a slight something-more-than-nothing smell on milk which has passed the expiry date (with some significant time), there might be absolutely no taste difference.
Can I use a baby bottle to save the milk for 6 - 8 hours to be used during travel/night?
Whatever kind of milk it is, it should be OK for a couple of days, and it will still be usable for most purposes when it has developed a slight sour smell.
When I was young we didn't have a fridge, milk would last a day and a half to two days in hot weather, longer if the bottle was wrapped in wet newspaper. The first sign that it is going off - you notice floating white specks when you put a splash of milk in your tea or coffee. Then you notice a slight off sour smell. The milk is still useful, but close to the point of curdling.
It never gets dangerous, just doesn't do what you expect after it has curdled.
@Divi, please don't ever post the "follow your nose" advice again. Refer to our food-safety wiki. You can't smell most forms of spoilage; if it smells bad then it probably is, but that doesn't work in reverse.
+1: Good answer, there are so many ways to see when its gone bad and at least with milk whenever in doubt, follow your nose :)
@Aaronut: Agreed and I fixed my comment.
@klypos, what about 2-3 months left in fridge?
I like milk in any state.
1.5 hours for in paper carton would do no harm for pasteurized milk.
It takes 2 or 3 days for milk to go sour. First it becomes of sour taste, being still liquid. It's safe to drink it, but it's not tasty. Wait until it become curdled, and either drink it, or warm in a pot (but not boil), filter out thrusting, an you'll get nice farmer cheese. It is good alone, or mixed with sour cream.
i left 1 qt non fat and 1 gal full fat milk in my car from fri. afternoon to sat. p.m. I live in Los Angeles and it was probably abt 75 degrees during sat. The milk was far down in the back of my van (probably not in direct sunlite). I quickly tasted it when I retrieved it from the car 7:00 p.m Other than being warm, it was not sour. The next day (cold of course) it tastes just fine. (I did not taste the full fat yet b/c I don't drinkk that in general.) My feeling is that I've only limited the "shelf life" of the milk in my own fridge. mf
depending on the pasteurization process used, milk can spoil (= be full of nasty bacteria) without going sour.
Milk, being left out that first time takes quite a long time to go sour. But put it back in the refrigerator after being left out for a long time and take it out again, and it will go sour very quickly.
In other words, it can be left out 'once'...but not twice.
Based on observing my neighbor's kids fixing themselves cereal (and not bothering to put the milk back), I have different evidence. As with other issues of bugs multiplying, it's not an issue of how long for each time ... it's cumulative amount of time that they've had to multiply, and you must've hit that threshold on your second time (although, it's not a simple threshold ... just consider it a metaphor).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.509026
| 2012-08-10T05:08:20 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25583",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Carrie",
"Divi",
"Geoffrey Taylor",
"JazzFish",
"Jessica Brown",
"Joe",
"John",
"Kelly",
"Leon N",
"Lies de Nijs",
"Martijn",
"Pacerier",
"Tamara",
"Tom",
"ajp",
"chiwoowa9",
"hlovdal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/11200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/27095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58605",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58610",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58714",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59022",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6992",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70824",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98340",
"mellielair",
"mikecat119",
"randyvelour",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
51998
|
How to honey roast peanuts?
http://m.wikihow.com/Make-Honey-Roasted-Peanuts
Here it is mentioned that peanuts should not be raw. Why?
When I will put them in the oven, they will get roasted. Why does that link want me to not use raw peanuts?
Wikihow is generally a bad source of information. The picture looks like raw peanuts that have been blanched to remove skins. Maybe that's what they are referring too?
I looked at 10 different, random recipes. 3 said raw, 3 said roasted and 4 didn't specify.
For sure, @TFD is correct that you should be wary of Wikihow - in the link you shared, the proportions of ingredients listed at the top don't appear to match the actual amounts of ingredients shown in the pictures.
"Honey Roasted Peanuts" is a catch-all phrase that is used to describe just about any type roasted peanuts in a candy coating. The catch-all extends to recipes that don't even call for much honey (typically a touch of honey and a bunch of sugar) and to recipes that don't even call for much roasting.
To get roasted peanuts in a candy coating using an oven, you either have to roast-then-coat or you have to coat-then-roast. The primary difference is oven time. If you use cooked peanuts, you only need to cook the coated nuts long enough for the candy coating to bake onto the peanut - you're just honey-glazing the peanuts - they won't be in the oven nearly as long as they would be if you were roasting raw nuts. It's a fairly quick process that's easy enough to gauge by sight. Technically, you'd be roasting the honey coating onto the nuts - not roasting the raw nuts in honey.
Note - Planters nuts are labeled as "Dry Roasted Honey Roasted Peanuts" - the peanuts are dry-roasted first then coated then roasted again. Also, for what it's worth, the ingredients list shows they contain more sugar than honey by weight: http://www.planters.com/varieties/nutrition-information.aspx?Site=1&Product=2900007345 .
If you use raw peanuts, you would need to keep them in the oven long enough for the peanuts to roast as well. Given the oven time your link recommends, raw peanuts would not cook - so that would be one fundamental reason why your link specifies that you not use raw peanuts. Potential flaws of Wikihow aside, your link proposes a way to roast honey onto nuts, not a way to roast nuts using honey.
You can certainly honey-roast raw peanuts using more time in the oven - but the timing could present problems with the coat-then-roast method. The candied coating is going to brown as your mixture cooks in the oven making it difficult to visually gauge when your formerly raw peanuts have cooked sufficiently (or if they are cooking evenly). Also, you should be aware that once nuts are cooked and hot, it is very easy for them to go from done to burnt in very little time - it is probably pretty easy to burn your mix if you overshoot the roasting. It would definitely be easier to determine when a honey glaze has roasted onto cooked nuts than it would be to know when raw nuts were finished cooking in a glaze.
But if raw peanuts are easier to come by or if you want to have literally roasted honeyed peanuts, it's definitely possible but I would recommend looking to a more reputable source for guidance (especially for cooking time). And once you start roasting your mix, stir/rearrange the nuts thoroughly and frequently to insure even cooking and to keep burning at bay.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.509426
| 2014-12-27T03:20:46 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51998",
"authors": [
"Bernadette Baca",
"Corbett River Valley",
"Jolenealaska",
"Riley Oswald",
"TFD",
"Terry Roberts",
"Tom Scull",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123346",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123349",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1702
|
Peking Duck Sauce
I have just visited China (Beijing).
There I had Peking Duck which was wonderful. They served it with a sauce - sort of sweet, brown and thick. I was wondering if anyone has a name for this sauce as the people I was with did not know the name.
I really loved this sauce and want to use it with other things - any help on its name would be great!
Traditionally, the sauce combines several ingredients, one of which, as Bart mentioned, is Hoisin sauce. The other ingredients are:
Sesame Oil
Hoisin sauce
Dark sugar or honey
Water
Dark soy sauce.
Cornstarch
You can usually buy this at your local Chinese supermarket, but it's easier and more tasty to make your own.
This is the sauce I use as an adaptation from years of research:
1 T. minced fresh ginger
1 T. minced fresh garlic
2 T. hoisin sauce* soy,chili,garlic,vinegar BBQ like sauce*
2 T. soy sauce
1 T. sesame oil
1 scallion minced
1/2 ts. vinegar
1/2 tsp. sugar
Mix well, paint on pancake with scallion brush and add cucumber strip.
What do the asterisks refer to?
@Cindy It appears to be the breakdown of what hoisin sauce is
The sauce, easily available in Europe, but not in US or Canada, is Peking Duck Sauce. The one generally cited is Lee Kum Kee Peking Duck Sauce. Do not confuse with Saucy Susan Peking Duck Sauce or other generic Duck Sauces, that are orange or yellow, which are a kind of pineapple sweet and sour sauce. A closer match is Hoisin Sauce, similar but not quite the same if one is very particular; three varieties are available in US (all at Amazon.com); the ones that I have found are Lee Kum Kee/Panda, Koon Chun (very good), and Wok Mei. I have found a source at Amazon.co.uk, but with shipping to the US, it costs about 23 USD. I have to rely on the web, as there are no Chinese groceries within a hundred or more miles of my residence; traveling to which would cost more than the shipping from England. I hope this helps.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.509718
| 2010-07-18T09:32:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1702",
"authors": [
"Andy Groff",
"Anne F",
"Cassandra Niemisto",
"Cindy",
"Daffne Ortiz",
"Dan",
"Jichao",
"Josh K",
"Nicholas Pipitone",
"Tianyuan He",
"clarkf",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117726",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3097",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72948",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/83705"
],
"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
}
|
6032
|
Can I safely roast a chicken for 4 to 5 hours on a low heat?
Hard pressed office worker and cook here. If I go home at lunchtime and put in a medium sized chicken to roast in the oven can I ensure it's ready to eat when the family get in in the evening?
I've found a recipe instructing me to roast at 120C (250F) for 5 hours, uncovered. The recipe mentions ensuring it reaches 85C (185F) internally.
Does that sound reasonable? Any other tips to ensure I don't risk a charred/undercooked bird?
Do you have access to a crock-pot/slow cooker? Personally, I'd be more comfortable using one instead of the oven.
@awitthrow @vecta @john what is a crockpot?
A Crock Pot is a trademarked name for a slow cooker, essentially a ceramic or porcelain cooking pot inside of a metal heating element. They are generally recognized as safe to leave on during the day when you're not there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_cooker
They're great for making meals when the last thing you want to do when you get home is cook. Throw everything in when you wake up, when you come home dinner is ready.
Why risk it? The dangers of dying from underdone poultry are very much real. Why risk your life like that.
I would suggest not roasting a chicken at such a low heat for so long. Here is a response to a similar question on another cooking forum:
A few days ago I printed out a recipe
from peacefulnightdove "BEST
Slow-Roasted Chicken". It sounded
wonderful but was to be roasted at 250 F (126 C)
degrees for 5 hours. That sounded like
a low temperature to me, so I emailed
the County Nutritionist and Health
Agent where I lived. Here is her
reply: Good for you JoAnn to be
suspicious! That is definitely outside
the USDA guidelines, and yes bacteria
may well be growing for quite a while
in there. Poultry especially should
not be done at less than 325 degrees.
You could use the same spices and
onions, increase the temp to 325 and
decrease the time. Figure about 20 min
per pound for the time. The safest way
is to use a meat thermometer, final
temp in the thigh should be 180
degrees.
http://community.tasteofhome.com/forums/t/173823.aspx
I would also suggest using a crockpot.
+1 for crockpot. It will not give you as good of a flavor but it's a safe way for office workers to get some variety and slow cooked meat when we wouldn't otherwise have the time.
The USDA guidelines aren't really based on actual science and are overkill. According to this article (which does a thorough review of various pathogens and their growth rates), poultry would have to spend roughly 15 hours in the range of 50F to 130F before you'd encounter a serious risk of toxin development, and even that could only happen under unusual conditions. I personally wouldn't go 15 hours, but the minimum 325F roasting temperature is nonsense.
Just as @Athanasius says. Besides, as to "bacteria may well be growing for quite a while in there" [we are talking hours above boiling point here!]: umm, Mr. County Nutritionist and Health Agent, tell us one such bacteria that a) shares a continent (or planet?) with chicken, b) lives outside of sci-fi alien thrillers.
This should not be the accepted answer. Some rando's answer on "a cooking forum" is clearly wrong. To be safe, anything needs only be cooked above the temperature bacteria can survive. Most bacteria can't survive above 140 degrees F. Pretty much no bacteria can survive above 160 degrees F. You might notice that even in the rando's quote, its mentioned that the internal temperature "should be 180 degrees". So If you set your oven to 180 degrees F and wait until the inside of the chicken gets to equilibrium with that, then you're good. https://www.insider.com/what-temperature-kills-germs
@B-T, its not just about getting to the final temperature (180F as you suggest), its also about how long it takes to get to that temp, and how long the different parts of the chicken roast spend in unsafe temperatures during that time. So, your comment saying set your oven to 180F and wait till inside gets to that, is WRONG. you clearly dont understand temperatures and how things heat gradually from outside to in, and how bacteria grows in the meantime. Be responsible to others and read up on the science before suggesting something might be good.
Warning: Although I've cooked the following low-temperature chicken two or three times without a problem, I'm no longer convinced that it is safe (see this question). Nevertheless, it is advocated by a well-known and respected chef, so I won't delete this answer unless I'm able to establish to my own satisfaction that it is, in fact, unsafe.
According to this article, also backed up with data from the USDA, you can cook chicken as low as 140F (60C) as long as the internal temperature of the bird reaches and maintains that temperature for at least 35 minutes.
You may have to do a little calculation and experimentation to find a chicken weight and temperature that hits the five hour mark, but it seems that you can do it safely as long as you have,
an oven that can maintain a
temperature (I would invest in an
oven thermometer to be sure, most
oven dials are way out);
a good
digital probe. Probe the meat in
several places to make sure of the
temperature;
I would also leave the meat to rest a while so that cooking continues with the residual heat. I don't know how long you would need to feel safe, but I would probably wait 30 mins.
A tip taken from a Heston Blumenthal recipe is to brine the bird before hand. That way you will also kill a lot of bacteria from the skin.
Update:
Brining won't kill bacteria. The Blumenthal recipe involves dunking the chicken (see In Search of Perfection p.56) twice for thirty seconds in boiling water. I imagined, erroneously as it turns out, that this was a regular part of the brining process.
+1 Beat me too it. It feels a little wrong taking a chicken out of the oven without needing oven gloves..!
there's also a brief mention on Heston's wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heston_Blumenthal#Cooking_methods
I also like to blanch the chicken before long and slow cooking. Heston inspired me to always keep a few frozen cups of water in the freezer so I can give the chicken an ice bath after. In my experience, a convection (fan) oven transfers the low heat much faster then a regular oven. I usually don't brine it.
I would clarify that "cook a chicken as low as 140F" refers to a water-bath method where the chicken will reach that temp relatively quickly. When roasting, the heat transfer rate will be a lot lower. I don't think you were implying this, but for those who might misread this answer, 140F is too low of a temperature to roast at. As long as the chicken gets up to that temperature for a while, you're okay--but you want to get there in a reasonable amount of time so you don't grow bad persistent toxins. I personally wouldn't go under about 200F as an oven temp.
@Athanasius I did mean roast. And so did Blumenthal for that matter (see In Search of Perfection p56). In the two years since I wrote this answer, I've become less inclined to take these things on faith which has resulted in this question (which asks about sous-vide, but the aim is the same). I'm not satisfied with any answer yet, particularly with regards to the incubation of microbial toxins. Perhaps I should update this answer with a warning.
@Chris Sorry, I didn't actually look up the Blumenthal. I'll write an answer to your other posted question, where detailed info will be more appropriate. But here I would just say that it wouldn't worry me at all to roast at a temperature that would get all of the food up to 140F within, say, 12 hours or so. You'd probably be safe even within a longer period. But roasting at an oven temperature of 140F could potentially take days for a large bird to reach equilibrium, particularly if there is little air motion. I think that's pushing the limit.
@Athanasius Cool, I was thinking of putting the other question up for bounty. I'll do that now.
Some of you folks are just worry warts. Cook's Country / Cook's Illustrated has a very similar recipe called "French Chicken In A Pot" (but one that is much easier to do than Gary's). Cooking at 225-250 F (~ 110-120C) for 4-5 hours makes this the most awesome chicken my family has ever had. The first time I did it, I did probe breast and thigh to be sure the internal temp made it. Subsequently, I've just trusted it. But in any event, if you get internal temps of 165 (75 or so C), then the bacteria have to be dead (as someone else already mentioned above).
But you do not need to do the boil/dunk using the Cook's Country recipe. You go directly from brine, to pan browning, then to the oven in a dutch oven (with very tight-fitting lid) over the veggies. (I'll run over the process below briefly in its entirety.) Another difference from Gary's is that Cook's Country has you pan brown first, which avoids the problem of trying to brown a very "loose" already-cooked bird that's trying to fall apart on you.
Anyway, here's what I do, more or less following the Cook's Country recipe, but not in all regards because I learned it years ago and now just go from memory:
Brine whole chicken ~ 12 hours. For my family of 6, I do one whole bird plus 4 thighs.
Pat dry chicken
Brown chicken all sides in hot Dutch oven on the stovetop, remove chicken to holding plate
1 cup coarse chopped onion, 1-2 stalks coarse chopped celery, a bay leaf, sprig of rosemary, and 6-10 whole garlic cloves. Saute these all in the Dutch oven in the chicken fat rendered from browning, maybe 7-10 minutes while stirring. You want to drive a lot of the moisture out of the onions and celery.
Leave the veggies in the pan bottom and put the bird on top. Roast in tightly covered Dutch oven at 225-250F (110-120C), 4-6 hours depending on bird weight (I usually find a 6.5 lb / 3 kilo bird goes about 5 hours). My lid covers well but is very light so I put a couple of 1 kilo steel barbell weights on the lid to be sure it seats well.
Remove bird and set aside to rest for 15 minutes.
Discard bay leaf and rosemary, then salvage all other veggies with a slotted spoon. Puree these with a stick blender or what not. Take all the pan juices and de-grease, then mix the remainder with the pan juices and make the most amazing chicken gravy you've ever had in your life. Don't forget to put any bird juices from the resting plate into the gravy, too.
Anyway, have fun!
I think the better choice would be a crock pot. It's much safer to leave one running all day, than to leave your stove on all day.
I've cooked this several times.
My blog
The internal temperature of poultry has to be 60C (140C) for at least 12 minutes in order to kill the pathogens present in the bird. The initial twice-dunking in boiling water, a thorough drying out plus using a probe to ensure a consistent temperature will ensure all the bugs have been killed off.
Finally the bird is fried in a red-hot pan all over to caramelise and a final purge.
I fed this to my 8-month pregnant wife and mother and baby are both still very happy one year on. It's a superb technique although as someone mentioned it's unnerving being able to take a chicken out bare-handed and hardly coloured!
If you have any doubts or fears, don't do it. But you'll be missing out.
I would agree and go with a crockpot (or slowcooker). This wikipedia article explains what it is but basically it is a covered electronic pot that allows you to turn it on high or low to cook anything for a longer amount of time. Some of them when the timers go switch automatically to a keep warm setting so if you timer runs out at 5pm and you don't get home until 5:30pm then it won't go bad.
I have one recipe for a whole chicken that I absolutely love. Basically you rinse the chicken the fill it with 1 tablespoon of dice butter and one sliced apple. I use two sliced apples and any extra that doesn't fit in the chicken I put around it. Then you sprinkle the chicken with some seasoning salt. I use Mrs. Dash. I also add about 1/2 cup of water so I know that I will have enough liquid once it is done since I love making gravy (on mashed potatoes) with this recipe. Then you cook it on high for, I believe, 5 hours about. Anyway it is so good and moist and basically falls off the bone.
Good luck. :D
At the weekend we had exactly the same problem when we went out for the morning. We used the automatic oven function for the first time. If your oven has one it's great.
We put the chicken in the oven from the fridge, set the finish time to 14:30, and the cooking time to 2.5 hrs then left the fresh chicken in the oven. It had 2 hrs to come to room temperature (which is safe and I'd recommend). The oven came on at 12 and when we got in at 1330 there was still plenty of time to do the vegetables.
120º Celsius (248F) hotter than boiling water. USDA recommends 74ºC (165F) for chicken, so your chicken will be overcooked at 85ºC (185F). If you want to use an oven, try a thermometer to check the internal temperature of the chicken. Take carryover temperature into account (take it out of the oven at 70ºC).
Caramelization will take place at around 160ºC so your chicken will not brown. You might want to crank up your oven to 180ºC for browning.
Your best bet is to prepare the chicken in advance, refrigerate, and brown / heat it when you're going to eat it.
Dark meat is not overcooked at 85c/185f. Breast meat, yes. But from a quality -- not safety -- perspective, below 180f is often not very pleasant for a thigh or leg.
Chris' link to Kenji Lopez-Alt's article (see Pasteurization Time section) is spot on: both temperature and time matter for food safety.
However, the method you described seems to be questionable for getting well-cooked legs and thighs. At that temperature, legs and thighs will usually be chewy and bloody, although I imagine the length of time might compensate for that a bit by breaking down the collagen in the muscle. But that brings us to the other drawback: roasting at low temperatures will take forever, not to mention you will get a rather mushy skin instead of a crispy one.
I've developed a recipe (My Quest for the Perfect Roast Chicken) to address the problem of perfectly cooking the breast and thigh to different temperatures, all while getting a crispy skin and not waiting for Godot. I roast for 30 minutes at 440°F (227°C) breast-side down, then flip breast-side up and roast at 380°F until the breast reaches 149°F, about 45 minutes for a 4-pound chicken. See the recipe for many more details.
Okay, I edited this to show a bit better how to include self-promotion: this question asked about a specific time/temperature plan, so I included yours from your recipe in contrast, and let the link provide a reference for further details. Note that this is not just a matter of reducing the link size. Again, we're happy to have the links, and that's by no means forbidden, but we do need you as the author to do the work of including them reasonably (especially if you're already editing all your posts).
It is the uncovered part I am worried about. It will make the bird dry.
It depends on the size of the bird usually how long you need to cook it. Here is a place you can determine how long to cook a bird on high heat. I have not been able to find one for slow roasting. http://www.helpwithcooking.com/cooking-poultry/roast-chicken.html
If you are worried about undercooking and don't have a meat thermometer you can poke the breast or thigh and if the juices run clear you should be safe.
Before I go to bed, I season meat, put it in a baking bag and in the oven on 100C. When I get up, after 8 hours or so, it is delicious! And I do this with ANY kind of meat. In southern Europe there is a special way to prepare lamb, weal and pork which includes very long baking on low temperatures. The meat prepared this way is so tender that it almost "melts" on your tongue. What I do is very close to this way of preparing meat. If you want it crisp, after baking take it out of the baking bag, put it in a baking pan and leave it in the oven for an extra 30 - 40 minutes. At this point, you can also add some chopped vegetables like potatoes or carrots.
I think the most conventional way for you to cook is to cook the chicken sous vide.
What is sous vide? It's a modern cooking technique where you place your food (in this instance your chicken and herbs) in a vacuum sealed bag, and place it in a pot of water which is kept at a precise temperature using a device such as the Anova.
Cooking in this manner not only let's you cook it for a long period of time, but also guarantees that your food will not be undercooked or overcooked. It will always come out perfect.
Google "sous vide recipes" for more...
Bon Appetit!
I often bake chicken for 5-6 hours in the oven. I use legs that I've skinned and salted. I let the salt soak into the legs for 30 minutes and then I lightly brown the chicken in oil and transfer it into a casserole dish. I pour 200 degree broth (or sauce) that I've warmed in a saucepan over the chicken pieces and cover the casserole dish and put it into the oven to bake/braise for 5-6 hours at 225f degrees. The meat falls off the bone and can be used for tacos, or soup, or sandwiches, or whatever. No one's ever gotten sick from this method :)
Welcome! I'm glad you've found a roasting method that you enjoy. As a note, we recommend that users always check internal temperature of meats to ensure that it's fully cooked because that's the only way to be certain. While it may be true that one has ever gotten sick, that doesn't mean it's definitely safe. It could just as easily mean that you've been lucky.
It is absolutely 100% safe to cook a chicken at any temperature above 160 degrees F as long as you wait long enough for the internal temperature of the chicken to get to 160 degrees for at least a few minutes. At a lower temperature, this will obviously take longer, but it will happen eventually.
Given that the recipe is asserting that the internal temperature of the chicken should get to 185 degrees F, that's well above a safe internal temperature.
Very wrong. See Athanasius's comment on the popular answer about 'heat transfer rate'. It's not just the end temp of the chicken. It's how quickly it can get through the danger zone. For others, read the other answers and the science, they explain it well.
I see that Athanasius seems to be talking about the buildup of toxins in bacterial waste products. I can't say I'm well versed in how quickly that process happens, especially at temperatures above normal room temperature, but I would be quite surprised if enough could build up in a matter of hours to be dangerous. There are enough recipes online talking about cooking chicken to 150-170 degrees (eg this one) that I'm pretty skeptical I'm wrong about this.
As long as the temp of the chicken is 165 bacteria are dead,The end.
I slow cook chicken all the time for 8 hours and have never had an issue. Use a meat thermometer and check.
This seems like a health related answer, without any authoritative backing, and very contrary to what many would consider accepted safety guidelines. There are many bacteria that can survive to 165F, and many more that can produce toxins over 8 hours that will not be removed by heat. Without qualifying with cooking temp and other efforts to exclude contamination this is an unsafe answer.
There are not many bacteria that can survive 165 degree temperature. Where are your sources? There is a lot of confusing information online that tells people how hot to cook their food, but doesn't provide scientific information about bacteria. For example, Salmonella can't survive above 150 degrees. Other's can't survive beyond 140 F. Very few can survive above 165.
It should be safe to bake a chicken at 450 for 45 min to a hour Then bake at 200 degrees for 4 hours for a 4 pound chicken reaching 170 degrees when done.It should kill all the bacteria in 45 min to a hours time and also brown the skin.
This is what I have done for years and will be 87 in November
I nearly died from food poisoning due to an undercooked chicken but fortunately got to hospital in time. After 24 hours of vomiting and other nasty fluid emissions, the nurse woke me and cheerily remarked: "Good morning. We thought we lost you last night."
Here's my recipe. Roast the chicken at 250 degrees centigrade and then roast it again. If it doesn't fall away from the bone give it to the cat.
Not sure if this is meant to be a serious answer or not but that sounds like a good way to end up with charcoal chicken the cat wouldn't eat either.
Brine that bird! If you put the bird in some heavily salted water for an half hour or more, you can kill the bacteria and make it easier to cook because it stays juicy longer at higher temps. Plus the skin will be crisp unlike cooking it in a crockpot.
@clutch - while with beef the important thing is to kill bacteria on the outside, with chicken and pork there are scary bacteria on the inside too. Brining unfortunately doesn't address those properly.
For an intact muscle of pork there won't be any bacteria on the interior. There might be the worm Trichinosis but this parasite has been virtually eliminated in commercial pork in the United States (~20 cases reported a year).
Sous vide!!! Best solution ever for the busy person. Never undercooked and never undercooked, assuming proper temperatures are used for at least the minimum of time specified. Nice thing is you can cook longer and not ruin dinner.
Isn't that exactly what Harvey already answered?
Welcome. Please only add a new answer if you have a new answer. While you may be correct very helpful (especially if yours has less detail than the other one),
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.510132
| 2010-08-26T12:43:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6032",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"B T",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Chek Zaini Hassan",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Dinah",
"Dog Ears",
"Judy Sutter",
"Kira Roark",
"Neil Meyer",
"PeterJ",
"Sean Hart",
"Sneftel",
"Stefano",
"Sz.",
"Tea Drinker",
"aloedrink",
"awithrow",
"brennvo",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1236",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13980",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1513",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18910",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2104",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/373",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44571",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55083",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57924",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57925",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69421",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"justkt",
"orip",
"redfox05",
"stephennmcdonald",
"talon8"
],
"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
}
|
77203
|
What is the name of this Turkish chocolate?
They are from Turkey but have no idea what they are traditionally called. Although the box is generic, the contents are from a Turkish confectionery.
The brown and white ones are almonds covered in chocolate and the green and white ones are pistachios covered in white chocolate. While the dark, milk and white chocolate balls have bits of coffee bean in them.
What mean by "name" - brand name, confectionary type, etc.? Also, why do you think they are from Turkey, because of the box? This is a Turkish delight box, so they are not the original content.
Fair points, I've made some changes
Why is it "Turkish" chocolate? They have chocolate covered nuts and coffee beans all over the world. What makes them different from the standard ones?
@Catija they have acid-curdled cheese all over the world, but in India it is called "paneer". I wouldn't be surprised if these turn out to be a thing in Turkey, with a distinct name.
@Catija, they taste really good compared to the supermarkets.
@Sourdough tasting good compared to a supermarket product doesn't make it a different product necessarily. We have specialty chocolatiers all over the world whose products taste better than brands purchased in stores. Also, rumtscho was not claiming this is cheese... there's no reason to get sassy at her.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.511738
| 2017-01-06T18:41:33 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77203",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"Sourdough",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50829",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
129072
|
Using a toaster oven to slow cook meat
I used to make beef brisket using my regular oven and it came out pretty juicy and soft. I usually go 250F for 4-5 hours. The thing I don't like is the high electric bill esp with the rate in my area. Would a toaster oven be able to replicate the oven in this case and make a soft brisket if I use the same time and temp setting? The one I'm thinking to get.
Toaster ovens typically have much larger temperature swings than regular ovens. Don't know if that makes a difference...
An "air fryer" is basically a small fan oven, so perhaps that would be a better option for you than using a full-size oven. Air fryers typically cook smaller portions of food to the same, or better, result than a full-size oven in less time and at a lower temperature. So, both a time and money saver :)
If your goal is to save on electricity I would expect this to fail. First, both a regular oven and a toaster oven will transform almost all the electricity you feed into them into heat. The key question is where the heat goes.
You want the heat to go into your food. To get your brisket cooked requires a fixed amount of heat in the food regardless of the type of oven. But of course not all the heat goes into the food.
Part of it will heat the air inside the oven/ toaster oven. For that the toaster oven is better because it is much smaller. However, air is a gas, hence weighs almost nothing compared to the food and only takes a trivial amount of energy to heat. The important heat loss is from heating the oven/ toaster oven itself and from there leaking heat into your kitchen. As a toaster oven is much smaller it is much less efficient than a big oven and will leak a much higher proportion of the total energy into your kitchen.
In summary, for a dish like a beef brisket I would expect it is in general possible to cook it in a toaster oven but it will take much longer than in a regular oven and because of that consume considerably more energy in total until it is done.
A toaster oven will save you energy for small dishes that only require a little bit of heating. Dishing that are big and take a lot of energy/ time to properly cook will require less energy to cook in a big oven.
Im just looking at it from a watt perspective a toaster uses around 1200w while my oven should use around 3000w. So are you saying the oven uses less watt after it gets to temp? but I think it would still uses more watts but how much?
@Lightsout Per time the big oven needs more energy than the toaster oven but the toaster oven will take much longer to cook a big piece of meat. With random numbers, 4 hours at 3000 Watt is less total energy than 20 hours at 1200 Watt.
An oven is an oven. As long as it holds the desired temperature, has enough space, and doesn't have an auto shut off that will not allow it to cook for the desired time, it will work like your large oven.
Are "air fryers" a thing in the USA yet, as opposed to toaster ovens?
They are a thing...I would say not the right tool in this case. One would not need the forced air in a low and slow situation. The line of "toaster ovens" has also expanded to include what are now called counter top ovens. But again, an oven is an oven.
I used to have a nuwave oven kind of like airfryer but dotn think it worked as well for meats
Question is how well will this little box hold the temperature compared to a full-size oven. After all, the OP's goal is to reduce energy usage.
@DanMašek just one example in the link below. I would say it is likely that a toaster oven is less costly to run than an full size:https://www.siliconvalleypower.com/residents/save-energy/appliance-energy-use-chart
It's possible, although my intuition would go the other way. (But I'm not gonna go measure it, which is the only way to really find out) The numbers on that page seem way to generalized to make a meaningful comparison for "250 F for 4-5 hours". That doesn't seem like "average operation conditions" for a toaster oven, whatever those are anyway. And for normal oven, I'd expect a fairly wide range of energy usage, given on how it's configured.
@DanMašek we cant be specific without identifying the actual products, but electric ovens in general use almost twice the amount of energy per hour than toaster ovens. Again, a gross generalization, as there are, of course, all sorts of electric ovens, and all types and sizes of toaster over/counter top oven. I don't think the OP's theory is wrong here.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.511900
| 2024-08-23T04:43:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/129072",
"authors": [
"Andrew Morton",
"Dan Mašek",
"Lightsout",
"Pete Becker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80679",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81322",
"moscafj",
"quarague"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
104912
|
Retain chilli powder taste till end of cooking
When I add chilli powder to an Indian curry, and let it lid-closed for next 5-7 minutes, by the time it's cooked, it loses it's taste and the curry becomes bland. What should I do to retain the spice and colour (as even a pinch of Turmeric and 2 spoonful red chilli powder makes the curry yellowish? Why does it become bland??
What do you mean loses its taste? Are you saying you taste it right after you add it, and then a few minutes later and there's a difference between the two strengths of flavor? Or are you saying you don't taste it straight after but you think it should be spicier?
2 probable causes
you did not put enough chili powder.
the chili powder is stale.
Some chili powder are not "spicy hot", taste some before adding it to your curry.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.512281
| 2020-01-23T10:18:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/104912",
"authors": [
"GdD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19707"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
105148
|
What is this seafood that I bought in a Chinese market?
Can someone tell what is the food here?
That's abalone (鮑魚 bàoyú), a popular and expensive delicacy in Chinese cuisine.
And there are many different ways of preparing it, including steamed or pan fried. It’s also used in Japanese cuisine (including sushi), as well as in regional French cuisine (it’s called ormeaux in French), though it’s heavily regulated in France.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.512485
| 2020-02-05T05:05:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/105148",
"authors": [
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42377",
"jcaron"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
93402
|
Does a mayonnaise have longer shelf life with egg white only as opposed to yolk?
I am working on a mayonnaise recipe, that could have at least 2 -3 weeks shelf life (refrigerated).
I have access to pasteurized egg yolk, and white.
I believe there will be a longer shelf life using egg white only, but how to evaluate it accurately?
Thanks in Advance
Hi, I made your question title better match the specific question in the body text. A general question on the shelf life of mayonnaise would have to be closed as a duplicate.
If you're not using egg yolk, what is the emulsifier?
Egg white can work as emulsifier too
There is no difference in the shelf life of mayonnaise made with egg whites, or egg yolks, or whole eggs. Since you are using pasteurized eggs, this counts as a standard cooked dish, and the shelf life is 3-5 days in the fridge. It would be 1-2 days for raw eggs.
You cannot evaluate the safe shelf life of a food by yourself. In principle, one could commission a microbiological study to prove that a given recipe is somehow longer lasting than one would expect from its general category. That is likely to cost more than hiring a cook to make you a daily batch of mayonnaise for the next few years.
For more information on food safety, I would suggest that you also look at the extensive information we have compiled on the topic: https://cooking.stackexchange.com/tags/food-safety/info
Thank you for the answer.
After checking with my supplier egg yolk have 5 days shelf life, and egg white 10 days.
What could be used as an emulsifier to replace the egg?
The shelf life of each ingredient doesn't matter. The new dish has its own shelf life, which can easily be shorter than the shelf life of the ingredients.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.512608
| 2018-10-30T10:03:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/93402",
"authors": [
"Erica",
"Jobic",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70240",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
121198
|
Why are my salt cured egg yolks still wet?
I've been trying to cure egg yolks in salt. They've been in it for 2 weeks now, but they are still too wet. At this stage they look more like a very thick paste than something I could actually grate on top of pasta. They are clearly not losing enough moisture. It's the first time I attempt this, and, hence, I used 1kg of this salt for only 5 yolks.
The salt is already hardening, and I still have 2 yolks in there. I don't think leaving it for longer will change the outcome. I had to throw 2 away after 1 week because I uncovered them and found them to be too wet. Then, I had to throw away another one on the following week because it was also still too wet.
What am I doing wrong?
Can you indicate what recipe did you follow or steps until now ?
You’re worrying too much about whether they look wet. And you probably shouldn’t have thrown away the other ones.
Egg yolks are never going to completely dry out in salt. They will reach an osmotic balance with the saturated salt solution and that’s it. If you want to dry them further you’ll need to do it in a dehydrator or low oven.
Incidentally, even after that they’ll look “wet”, because they contain oil.
Right, but shouldn't I get a consistency that is hard enough to grate just with salt? Something similar to candied fruit? The consistency I got just sticks to the grater.
No, not in my experience. Further drying is needed after salting. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a recipe that calls for them to be grated straight out of the salt.
Well I've just learned about salt cured egg yolks. Not gonna pretend I know anything about them, but looking at google images they do tend to illustrate something that's hard enough to grate or even slice thinly. Maybe they are somehow cooked beforehand? I don't know
@DuarteFarrajotaRamos no need for you to guess. There’s plenty of recipes out there.
Everything I have read has the eggs going into cheesecloth and drying an additional few days to a week before being able to grate. Simply place the eggs in the cheesecloth using some string or kitchen twine to separate the eggs and keep the cloth closed, hang and let dry!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.512819
| 2022-07-31T07:01:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/121198",
"authors": [
"Duarte Farrajota Ramos",
"Gabriel C",
"Loris",
"Sneftel",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/100279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/59106"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76470
|
What should I use for old recipes that call for 'buttermilk'?
Old-school buttermilk is the milk left after churning butter and is not today's 'cultured buttermilk'.
A recent answer to the question about what to use for 'sweet milk' mentions :
Buttermilk was what was left after the soured milk had been churned and the butter removed. There were always small particles of butter left in it
For years I had assumed that skim milk was the best substitute (as it's milk with the fat removed), but this suggests that it's both soured and has a little bit of fat left (but not even close to homogenized).
Is there something roughly equivalent available today, or something that I can make to approximate old-school buttermilk without churning my own butter**?
** It also hints that today's 'sweet cream' butter is not the same as butter in the old days. I don't know if 'cultured butter' might be closer, or a blend of cultured & sweet cream butters.
Clarification: I am not looking for a replacement for modern 'cultured buttermilk'. I'm quite aware of the substitution for today's buttermilk when baking of using milk plus an acidic liquid, or of thinning yogurt. It's possible that this is also a good substitute for historical buttermilk; if so, please acknowledge in your answer that you're aware that they're different. If you've spent time on a dairy farm, please let us know if the dairy was using fresh or soured milk for their butter (because everything that I've found said that it was made with soured milk historically).
From The Settlement Cookbook (1945), in the discussion of dairy products (pp. 45-56):
Cream is the fat that rises to the top of the milk if left standing. For Whipping Cream, see page 498.
Skim Milk is the milk left over after cream has been skimmed off.
Buttermilk is the liquid left over after cream is churned into butter.
...
Cultured Sour Cream and Buttermilk may be obtained from most milk dealers.
In this case, it doesn't specifically mention that soured milk is used, but I've seen other references from the late 1800s to early 1900s that said that butter was made from soured milk. (and one of them would occasionally say 'new milk' instead of 'milk', suggesting that their use of 'milk' was sour milk or buttermilk. I suspect that before refrigeration, it's quite possible that milk left to separate into cream would sour by the time it was finished. They do mention in that same section:
Sour Milk is valuable in cooking and may be obtained by keeping milk (preferably raw milk) undisturbed in a shallow covered pan at a temperature of 90° to 100°F. until it becomes thick and clabbered. If it sours too slowly it becomes bitter.
Reconstituted Buttermilk Powder.. maybe? King Arthur Flour Co. and Bob's Red Mill both make it. The drying process might give it the flavor notes you seek, and you can vary the viscosity by adding or reducing water. Just a thought.. not having tasted vintage buttermilk, it's a hard Q for me to answer.
Skim milk wouldn't have the acid content that buttermilk does... This doesn't necessarily answer your question but most sites recommend a soured milk mixture if you don't have buttermilk... so a cup of milk with a tablespoon of either lemon juice or vinegar.
@Catija this is a rather bad substitute which does not come close to modern buttermilk at all in taste, the only use I have discovered for it is that it helps activate the baking soda - but if this is really what you are trying to do, you can simply use baking powder and milk instead of milk+acid+baking soda. It seems that Joe's goal here is to get the authentic taste and not just something that kinda works, so milk+vinegar is no better than milk without the vinegar.
@rumtscho Which is why I said it wasn't an answer. When baking, the difference is pretty minor but if you want to drink it out of a glass, you probably need to find a local dairy that makes it the old fashioned way.
This topic is frustrating. It doesn't have enough butter? Add butter. It's not sour enough? Sour it. What is the question?
@rumtscho : but I'm not asking about 'modern buttermilk'. I'm looking specifically for old-fashioned buttermilk. It's possible that this substitution is closer to the original 'buttermilk' than the 'cultured buttermilk' that we get today.
It would appear that you're not interested in achieving a specific dish, but instead wish to arbitrarily emulate the past. There is no substance that is indistinguishable from buttermilk, except buttermilk. Do you actually have a dish in mind?
@MickLH : But I don't know how sour it's supposed to be. Or how fatty. So I can't just adjust 'to taste', because it's something that's not commonly available these days. It'd be the same if you were trying to use a foreign recipe and it called for ingredients not found in your area.
Normal milk with added acid resembles neither modern nor old buttermilk. I have not tried adding acid to skim milk, but my hunch is that it will also not help any.
Forgive my bluntness, but without a specific dish to work around, this question is only suitable for a food engineering company trying to develop a buttermilk substitute, or a Stack Exchange user who thinks "buttermilk substitute" might earn him a popular question badge ;)
@MickLH I disagree. As per my answer, Joe was on the right track with skim milk. In years past, buttermilk was exactly as he describes it - the milk left after churning butter.
@MickLH This is a general question for a reason: it's about approximating the old-style buttermilk, regardless of the recipe it's to be used in; knowing the recipe won't tell you the characteristics of the buttermilk it calls for. If you want to claim that the only acceptable thing is actual old-style buttermilk, and that it's not worth trying to approximate it with modern ingredients, please write an answer. If you need clarification on the question, by all means ask for it, but preferably without implying the OP is badge-fishing.
@Cindy the only problem with that is that many recipes rely on the acidity of the buttermilk... with fresh skim milk, there is no acidity. According to the wiki article, butter was churned from fermented or cultured cream, so it had more lactic acid. This made the butter easier to churn and gave the buttermilk a slightly tart flavor.
@Catija I'm not arguing with what you are saying. I'm just saying that, back then, in the areas my parents were from, that's what buttermilk was.
@MickLH : I couldn't care less about badges. And why would I even bother with 'Popular Question' when I have 'Famous Question' (and 'Great Question'). I don't want to have to ask this question for every @#!^ing recipe I might try. If you want specific recipes : The Settlement Cookbook (1945) Buttermilk Cake; "Stay for Tea" (??, after 1945) Easy Boston Brown Bread, Good Things to Eat (1911, reprinted 2004) Scotch Scones. ... but I'd also like to know how to handle things if I come across a buttermilk gravy.
Butter can be made from either fresh or soured cream. Thus, having some knowledge of which was the intended starting point would impact the intended acidity of the leftover buttermilk. Do you know what was the intended? Do you want answers which span the possible range?
It doesn't help you at all, but here in Denmark real, old-fashioned buttermilk is easily available even in discount supermarkets. It actually does taste better than "fake" buttermilk and it only costs a little bit more.
@Joe If you have a requirement for old-fashioned, slightly sour buttermilk then just make some - take thick cream and leave at room temperature for a whilst (up to 24 hours) until it develops a slightly sour smell. then mix in an electric mixer (at a medium speed with a beater attachment rather than a whisk). After a few minutes it will separate into butter and buttermilk. (watch for splashing). Pour off the buttermilk and use. the butter, if you want it, needs to be thoroughly rinsed in fresh water, else the buttermilk left within it will quickly sour and spoil the butter.
Given the variabilities in "buttermilk" from place to place and time to time, you should get sufficiently equivalent results by substituting modern cultured buttermilk. That's the job it was designed to do.
Recipes from the early 19th century and before are notoriously vague. They were generally written more as reminders of something you already knew through experience, rather than detailed instructions for creating it from scratch. Quantities and temperatures were much harder to control, and so recipes basically assumed you'd recognize a dough with enough liquid or a sufficiently-roasted quail. (One of my favorite instructions from an 18th century cookbook: "Cook until it is enough".)
Given those wide margins, you should find that simply using cultured buttermilk will make the recipe work. It's true that it will lack the tiny bits of butter present in "true" buttermilk, but there isn't enough to have a radical effect on the result. The really important parts (dairy protein, water, acidity) are present, in about the same quantities they would be in true buttermilk.
You'd certainly notice the difference if you were to just drink it straight. If that's what you want, you're just going to have to find somebody who makes it, or do it yourself. I've found it's often available at the kinds of farmers markets that insist on local producers. Personally, I find it nasty, but YMMV.
So if you're trying to revive an old recipe, just start with commercial buttermilk. You're going to have to tweak it from there anyway. If it needs richness, add butter, but probably only a teaspoon per cup.
You could also try a mixture of milk and yoghurt (presumably a rather sharp natural yoghurt) or milk and sour cream as may be used as a substitute for cultured buttermilk. This would allow you to play with the proportions
"'Til it looks right" is alive and well today, I assure you. ;) Just not so much in written recipes.
If you are not looking for 100% accuracy then off-the-shelf buttermilk is likely to be your best bet. Making buttermilk is pretty easy. Just leave some heavy whipping cream out for 24 - 30 hours. Then fill a glass jar about half-way full with it, shake for about 10 minutes. The solids are butter, and the liquids are the buttermilk.
@DavidBaucum that's not even the easy way. Put in stand mixer for 10 minutes. No arm fatigue.
In the end, it seems that what the usage is, determines the product being called for.
I found an interesting Slate article about buttermilk. Apparently, over the years, the word "buttermilk" has referred to three different products:
So, prior to the 20th century, buttermilk could refer to at least three different categories of beverage: regular old milk that had gone sour; the sour byproduct of churning sour milk or cream into butter; and the “sweet” byproduct of churning fresh milk or cream into butter.
The reason for the discrepancy is that butter is made in two ways - with fresh, sweet cream and with leftover, slightly soured milk due to lack of refrigeration.
The confusion surrounding this drink dates back to the 18th century or before. Until the age of refrigeration, milk soured quickly in the kitchen, and most butter ended up being made from the slightly spoiled stuff. As a result, some historical sources use the word buttermilk in the Laura Ingalls Wilder sense, to describe the byproduct of butter-making; others use it to describe butter-making's standard ingredient at the time—milk that had gone sour from sitting around too long. To make matters more confusing, the butter-byproduct kind of buttermilk could be either “sour,” if you started out with the off milk that was itself sometimes called buttermilk, or “sweet,” if you started out with fresh cream (like Laura’s mom did).
It further posits that any baking recipe after the late 1800s is calling for sour buttermilk, so it's necessary to have something with acid content so that it can react with baking soda. Today's cultured buttermilk should work fine for that.
By the late 1800s, buttermilk had taken on a more specific meaning and usage in the kitchen. Cookbooks started calling for the sour version of buttermilk in recipes for bread made with baking soda. Church & Co., the company that would later create the ubiquitous Arm & Hammer label, first started processing and packaging sodium bicarbonate as baking soda in 1846. The new product was more reliable and faster to use than yeast, but it wouldn’t work unless mixed with an acid. In the 1860s, Church & Co. began distributing instructions for making baking-soda cornbread, biscuits, muffins, pancakes, and waffles—and it recommended the use of sour milk as an activator. “The farmer’s wife has always an acid free to her hands in the shape of sour milk or buttermilk, which can be used both as an acid to neutralize the Soda or Saleratus [an old-fashioned word for baking soda], also as a means of wetting the dough,” stated a 1900 edition of the booklet. (“Sour milk” and “buttermilk” may be meant as synonyms here.)
If the recipe doesn't call for baking soda, and it seems that a sweet flavor would be more likely, you'll probably want something more like fresh buttermilk - it's most similar to low fat or skim milk. While, yes, you can certainly make this at home by leaving cream in your stand mixer for 15 minutes or so, if that's not an option, you're most likely to find it at local dairies or at a farmer's market, though be sure that they're selling actual sweet buttermilk and not their own cultured product.
Butter-byproduct buttermilk, meanwhile, remains mostly the province of small farmers and DIYers. Large butter manufacturers now dry their butter byproducts and sell them to processed-food manufacturers as means of adding body and texture. (If you’ve ever eaten ice cream or a candy bar with “buttermilk solids” on its ingredients list, you’ve consumed the byproduct of butter.) In other words, the “good, fresh buttermilk” I’d read about as a child isn’t exactly easy to get your hands on.
And, as a test, the author used her homemade buttermilk in a recipe for biscuits:
Further, my homemade buttermilk didn’t reveal any special attributes when I tried to bake with it: A batch of buttermilk biscuits made using the DIY stuff (sans baking soda, since there wasn’t any acidity in the liquid) were indistinguishable from any biscuit made with regular milk: dry, crumbly, ho-hum.
+1 for the research! I knew there were differences but based on first hand experience, I still think Joe is probably not off course,
Leaving cream in your mixer for 15 minutes makes what? Buttermilk or skim milk? I've never heard of that.
@Rob it makes butter and buttermilk. http://www.epicurious.com/recipes/food/views/homemade-butter-and-buttermilk-242047
So you mean mixing for 15 minutes?
@Rob Why would you just put it in the bowl without mixing?
I don't know. You said it. Thus my question.
You can also churn butter at home by putting heavy cream into a jar and shaking it vigorously for 10–15 minutes.
@MichaelSeifert, You cannot make butter (or buttermilk) from homogenized cream or milk, so the jar trick no longer works.
My mother and father were both raised on farms in the early 1900's. They did not use soured milk to make butter. They used fresh milk that was neither homogenized or pasteurized.
I have had fresh churned butter and the remaining buttermilk on family farms when I was a bit younger. There was no sour taste. In fact the buttermilk was quite sweet.
The cultured buttermilk sold today is absolutely nothing like it. So, I would have to say that skim milk would be the closest in flavor to the buttermilk that came from our family members' farms.
That said, I know that people in different regions may have done things differently. So, I am not saying that this was the only way things were done, just that this is the way it was done where my parents were from.
Soured milk comes together as butter more easily, so most butter producers did it that way. There's nothing preventing you from doing it with sweet milk, though. It just takes more effort, and I think a lot of people liked the tangy taste. You can still get cultured butters that taste like that.
The one thing that would be odd is that sweet buttermilk wouldn't provide acid for leavening. Most buttermilk recipes (even older ones) assume sour buttermilk.
@JoshuaEngel Point taken. :) These were not big dairy farms, etc. This was a time when people raised their own animals for food and dairy and grew their own vegetables. And as I said in my answer, I don't expect that this was the only way things were done. That's just my experience and, I'm sure, the same for some others.
Over here (Germany) you'll still read on the label of your butter whether it is "sweet cream butter" (Süßrahmbutter) or "mildly soured" (mild gesäuert, the most common variety) or the sour cream version (Sauerrahmbutter). @JoshuaEngel: baking powder is a much newer invention (close to 1850 by Horsford/Liebig) than buttermilk - but anyways I'm pretty sure that also sweet buttermilk will turn sour when left standing long enough/warm enough (provided lactic acid bacteria are available).
@cbeleites Very interesting. Here (US), at least in mainstream channels, we only get sweet cream butter.
Baking powder (= baking soda + acid) dates to the mid 19th century, but other chemical leaveners were in use well before that. Hartshorn, aka ammonium carbonate, is still traditional in Scandinavian cooking. It's a base that can be activated with vinegar or sour milk to produce CO2. (I haven't used it, but I'm told it smells really foul while cooking, though it leaves no aftertaste.)
@JoshuaEngel: salt of hartshorn (German: Hirschhornsalz = salt of deer antlers) is used here as well but AFAIK pretty much exclusively for traditional christmas cookies like ginger bread and speculaas. I recall a few times when I was a kid that we were making ginger bread with salt of hartshorn, but recalling this does not give associations of bad/ammonia smell - my memory is dominated by the smell of the spices. However, also for the usual baking powder in e.g. cake my family uses only a fraction of the recommended quantities in order to avoid the "baking powder taste"...
Over here, baking soda has never reached the popularity I noticed in North America. It is regularly used for certain types of cake and cookies but usually not as the sole leavening agent: those recipies also use eggs and often also rum or wine. Also, yeast dough is frequently used for cakes and even more so for savoury baking. The idea of using baking soda for bread sounds really weird to us...
To substitute for buttermilk, mix one cup of regular milk with 1 tablespoon of white vinegar or lemon juice. Stir; let the mixture stand for approximately five minutes. Modify proportions appropriately for more or less "buttermilk substitute."
I have used this replacement and it works perfectly.
Yes, but this doesn't taste like buttermilk if you want to drink it out of a glass. It's chemically similar enough to work in a recipe but that doesn't make it a general substitute.
Well, considering the OP asked specifically for a recipe substitute, not for a beverage, I thought this would fill the bill.
Apple cider vinegar also works.
That’s also what Smitten Kitchen recommends, and that’s usually a good sign. That said, I’ve in the past used commercial buttermilk. At least where I’m from, it’s very similar to “traditional” buttermilk.
OP is specifically not asking for a replacement for modern buttermilk, but for the differences between modern buttermilk and 19th century buttermilk, which may not be the same thing at all.
OP is asking, as cleverly noted in the title of the thread (which I quote): "What should I use for old recipes that call for 'buttermilk'?" I'm not sure how one can misinterpret that.
Buttermilk is usually up to 50% lactose, hence the sweet stickiness.
Any manufactured/packet equivalent is not really equivalent, so don't bother.
Try making butter from fresh unpasteurised grass-fed milk, it'll be genuine.
I worked for 9 years in a large dairy factory. Got sick of the smell of milk!
The question specifically says that they don't want to make it themselves. I'm also not sure about the lactose content claims. With traditional buttermilk, the cream would have been left to ferment, which would have converted much of the lactose into lactic acid.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.513147
| 2016-12-14T18:03:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76470",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"Cindy",
"David Baucum",
"David W",
"Joe",
"Joe M",
"Joshua Engel",
"Konrad Rudolph",
"Makyen",
"Michael Seifert",
"MickLH",
"Paulb",
"Rob",
"Steve Ives",
"bishop",
"cbeleites",
"hildred",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12734",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21986",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36418",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39809",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/46090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48143",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51614",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52833",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52866",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52931",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"jpmc26",
"marlar",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
3446
|
Using a vacuum sealer to marinate?
With the vacuum sealers that have hit the market, they're have been a lot of toys added onto the products. One such device is used for marinating meat. It just looks like a tupperware bin with a nozzle on the lid, and you use a hose to vacuum all the air out. The claim is that this will pull the fibers of the meat apart allowing you to marinade in half the time.
My question is, does this really work or is it just marketing hype? If it does work, is this a better way of marinating?
I have a vacuum sealer that has a marinade setting that sucks the air out of a container and then lets it back in several times over 10 minutes. I think it's the pressure changes, rather than time spent in vacuum, than cause the marinade to penetrate the meat. I don't have the marinading container that goes with the sealer, so I can't try it out myself. The effect wouldn't be the same using a bag.
This works by increasing the porousness of the meat inside the bag. When a vacuum is created, there is a natural tendency for matter to occupy that space. It does this by increasing the amount of space between particles, otherwise known as density. This increases the size of the microscopic holes in the meat, and thus effectively increases the surface area in which the marinade can contact the meat. More surface area means by marinade sticks to your food.
If you'd like to see the effects of vacuum pressure on foods greatly exagerrated, put a marshmallow in a vacuum seal bag and see what happens. :-)
I like this explanation even better. It would be like suddenly opening a second door to a crowded club, and letting the people flow in.
@Mark Meat doesn't have "pores", this is a wild speculation by Leibnitz which has been well refuted in the following centuries. Also, do you have any evidence how much space gets opened, and how large the effect is on taste? (I'm voting neither up nor down, because your explanation is possibly true, I just would like to see evidence before I believe it).
Link now invalid as the associated YouTube account closed. Same effect demonstrated towards the end of this video https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NXIfs0spN_I
I tried to read a lot about the vacuum marination and was a bit surprised that there are so many different theories out there. One thing that really surprised me is that people talk about marinating in vacuum BAGS. If you use bags the main effect is to get the air out. After sealing the bag there is no pressure difference inside and outside the bag, the content of the bag has absolutely no idea if it is in a zip lock bag or vacuum sealed one. So unless the effect is dependent on a process during pumping down, this cannot work. Given that you normally struggle to "really" pump down marinaded goods in bags I am almost certain that this wont work.
So to get a vacuum, we need a box which stops the surrounding air to press on the goods. So will that work. This article suggests that is it not working even in boxes
http://genuineideas.com/ArticlesIndex/pressuremarinade.html
I will start playing with it, but sadly so far this is the most compelling set arguments I found:
The meat does not grow as a marshmallow and also does not start leaking out juices during pump down or when you squeeze it. So why would it suck marinade in during pump down or pump up...
This doesn't really qualify as an answer, but it raises an interesting point about bags. And I suspect it's true that a rigid container would work a lot better than a bag.
I tried to answer the question "My question is, does this really work or is it just marketing hype?" . My approach is "if you are using bags then most likely not". Actually, the more I think about it the more sure I am that it is physically impossible to vacuum marinate in bags. I am happy to rephrase or elaborate longer if you think it adds value.
Okay, that's fair. I guess I was misled by all the other answers about how/why it works and I forgot the wording of the original question.
I have a small bucket of beef jerky in a Best Value Vac's system sitting at 25.5 Hg on the dial for several minutes. I allow air slowly back into the chamber and watch the marinade level slowly lower 1/4 to 3/8 inches as the chamber gets back to normal air pressure. I can surmise from this observation that the meat expands under the vacuum and contracts back when air pressure is returned. I have read that this is when the marinade infuses the meat. I also did this proceedure about three times after stiring up the meat and reapplying a strong vacuum. I didn't have time to dehydrate the jerky as it was about 11pm so I placed the 10#s of jerky inside of two one gallon zip lock bags overnight (air removed and zipped) in the frige. I expect my jerky to be awesome after dehydrating it for about 4 hours in my Excaliber digital dehydrator. Basically a combination of vacuum and timing in the frig over night. POINT IS: I saw expansion and contraction. I am also going to measure the liquid left when I take the strips and put them on the dehydrator trays. I started with about 2 cups of marinade but expect about maybe 1/4th remains after about 10# of meat is coated and absorbs the marinade.
It works. It's just physics. Vacuuming out air creates lower pressure inside the container. Lower pressure acts like suction, and the liquid 'rushes' into the meat much faster than during normal osmosis (marinating).
It's the difference between letting guests linger on your porch and come in as they please, or grabbing each one by the arm and yanking them inside as they arrive.
I don't think there is any physical principle that forces marinade into a meat under a vacuum by itself. Putting it under pressure, not vacuum, could have this effect. The vacuum removes air and some liquid from the meat. THEN, when you release the vacuum, the marinade liquid can flow by surface tension into the meat. Repeat the cycle several times and you have a well marinated item. It is the cycle of vacuum/pressure that infuses the food.
Vacuum is quite commonly used in the industry to expel air. When you apply vacuum what you are actually doing is reducing the atmospheric pressure on liquid and soft porous material. A liquid will actually boil; meat will expand. It is like sending them in outer space. This expansion will create empty spaces down to molecular level. When vacuum is slowly released those empty spaces will suck mostly the liquid marinate because air is practically no longer present.
I have seen a website of somebody who tried to infuse various fruits in high vacuum, as well as some meat.
I could not find the link, but I remember the conclusion was that this method works well for food which originally had air in it and hardly works at all for food which did not have any air inside. So it was great with apples, where it also changed the texture, and not very good with bananas. They also tried it with meat and not surprisingly, there was no difference between standard marination and vacuum-marination.
But since I am just a random person on the internet, do not trust me and perform an experiment instead if you decide to buy the device. Take two identical pieces of meat and marinate them both ways. Then cook them both at the same time while keeping them in identical condition and ask someone who does not know which piece of meat was marinated which way to try both pieces. Can they taste the difference? If so, which is better? Ask them to give you a sample of each without you knowing which is which and do the same. Then either keep or sell the device, depending on the results ;-)
I'd love a factual scientific explanation on this.
I know from experience that vacuum marinating does work and works faster than without vacuum. You can marinate meat like steak in minutes as apposed to hours and hours otherwise.
But why does this work? I haven't read an convincing explanation. I know it does work....from experience...but why?
I'm thinking as such:
1) you are lowering the pressure outside of the meat. Of course
2) So...the internal pressure in any cavity inside any pores or spaces inside the meat will be greater that the outside...at least for a time until equalized.
4) So what ??? How does that help marinate the meat any faster?
Maybe since the marinade starts out below the meat at the bottom of the container...it is drawn up into the meat thru any pores or cavities via pressure differential.
This would require a pressure differential between the bottom of the container, where the fluid marinade is, and the atmosphere above the meat. So in effect you are drawing the liquid marinade from the bottom of the vacuum container through the meat to equalized the pressure differential. I can believe that...but is that what's actually happening?? I don't know for sure.
Opening or widening of any cavities is possible too. Put a marsh mellow in a food saver container and draw a vacuum and you can watch it expand. But this would only work with closed cell cavities. Pressure inside the cavities remains at one atmosphere but the outside becomes less that one atmosphere.
So why would that help draw a liquid into a piece of meat? I don't think it would. I also don't see a piece of steak expanding when I put it in a food saver container and draw a vacuum.
I think my first explanation makes the most sense.
When you draw a vacuum in the container it first develops above the meat.
Below is a pool of liquid marinade...an incompressible fluid.
The meat acts like a gasket or seal between the area below it, filled with fluid marinade, and the low pressure area above.
This imbalance isn't natural...and lower pressure region seaks to balance with the higher pressure region below....so the marinate fluid is drawn up and thru any pores or cavities in the meat, trying to fill the vacuum above...because nature abhors a vacuum.
Meat may or may not have pores. I don't thing it does....but it certainly does have gaps and spaces in it's mass.
So to be succinct and scientific...I suspect...you are just sucking the marinade thru the meat with a vacuum marinade system like a food saver container.
I will totally consider other theories.
Oooh! Please excuse some rather poor spelling errors above. LOL
My theory is as follows
3 areas of air
area 1 outside the bag
area 2 inside the bag
arera 3 inside the pores of the meat
When the air is sucked out of area 2, it only has access to area 3 air, which isn't enough to fill area 2. Still area 2 isn't as tight as initially vaccumed.
Area 3 now compensates for the lack of air by filling with whatever is available. 2nd best option is the liquid.
In my opinion, vacuum marination only works on compressible items such as cucumbers. Meat such as beef steak and chicken breast are vitually incompressible and vacuum marination has absolutely no effect and is a complete waste of time. There is an excellent scientific justification for this view here.
https://genuineideas.com/ArticlesIndex/pressuremarinade.html
When you apply a vacuum to the container the effect is present throughout the container. The meat in the container slowly equalizes its internal pressure to that of the container which draws out any air and juices from the meat, allowing the marinade to seep in better. I would expect that releasing the vacuum slowly in stages would increase the effect as the meat will be slower to respond which will allow the marinade to be absorbed. Performing the cycle a few times over a few hours will also increase the effect. Another way would be to inject the meat with marinade first and then apply the vacuum to try to draw the marinade through the meat. Either way it is the difference in pressure between the container and the meat which drives the marinade.
Think the 'sucking' theory is plausible. I imagine any gaps in the meat will act like straws drawing in any moisture around them to replace the air being sucked out. Any air spaces in the meat that are open to the surrounding vacuum will also become part of the vacuum as the air is removed. Only completely closed off air pockets would retain atmospheric pressure.
Perhaps osmosis is sped up as the liquid isn't competing with any air for contacting surface area. But I wouldn't have thought that would have sped the process up that much.
Perhaps as a vacuum is created, moisture inside the meat is drawn to the surface, contacting the marinate outside and creating a free flow of liquid, again speeding up the transfer of flavours as the solutions combine.
Or it could just be magic. The thing is I guess, stuff sometimes JUST WORKS. Sometimes even science doesn't have all the answers.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.515065
| 2010-07-27T16:12:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/3446",
"authors": [
"Christopher Tundidor",
"Coolkau",
"Corinne Trexler",
"Glen Williamson",
"Greybeard",
"Laura",
"MCRodgers2",
"Ocaasi",
"Peter Bailey",
"Rob P.",
"Sergey Mikhanov",
"Zach",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26572",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39834",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6250",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6252",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6257",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6258",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6269",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6291",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67481",
"minder",
"mrog",
"powtac",
"rumtscho",
"yydl"
],
"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
}
|
42064
|
Fix my waffle recipe
The other day, I made waffles for the first time in a long, long time. I had no recipe to use, so I found one online, and used it almost verbatim. When fresh, the waffles were very nice, however, the day after they were cardboard-like and lacking in flavour.
I made a double batch. The original recipe calls for:
2 eggs
1 dl sugar
2 dl skim soured milk
1½ dl low fat milk
1 dl water
350 g plain flour
1 ts baking powder
½ ts baking soda
1 ts vanilla sugar
½ ts cardamom
125 g butter
The original recipe told me to mix all the wet ingredients except the butter, then mix the dry ingredients separately before mixing them together to form a smooth batter. It then called for leavening for 15 minutes, before melting and mixing in the butter and cooking.
As I said, I made two changes. One was that I left it to leaven for three hours, in the fridge. The other is that I kept a little of the melted butter - approximately 20 grams - outside of the batter to grease the waffle iron.
In scaling the recipe, I simply doubled all proportions.
Any ideas?
What is exactly the problem? If you mean that the waffles were not tasty after staying a day, this is normal for waffles. If you have had a recipe which produces waffles which are, after a day, still acceptable to your standards, what was the texture of these waffles on the next day?
It may be normal for you, however, the waffles my mother usually makes are highly delicious the day after. The problem is that she does not have an actual recipe, instead cooks by the "a little bit of this, a little bit of that"-method. These were, as I said, lacking in flavour, and had much the same taste and texture of cardboard.
The standard waffle texture is: creamy on the inside, crisp on the outside. This is irreversibly lost in maybe 30 minutes after baking. Different recipes will cool into different textures. Without describing what texture you want to achieve, there is no way to help you. "Not like cardboard" covers a lot of territory, and we don't know what part of it you like and what part you don't. And as there is no standard texture for "old waffles" (because they are not commonly eaten), we can't tell you a recipe which achieves a standard texture.
The texture is not the problem, the flavour is. I am fine with the waffle being chewy after it has gone cold, but it should have some residual flavour.
There is not much in the recipe above to provide flavor, other than the cardamom. 1 tsp of vanilla powder is not going to have a very aggressive flavor.
May I also suggest replacing the water with club soda? The carbon dioxide imparts no flavor but forces additional fluffy-ness to the recipe. I've done this successfully with both waffles and pancakes.
Interesting suggestion, I may very well try that at some point. Thanks!
I think you have chosen a recipe which is rather high in flour and low in fat. Flour doesn't have much taste on its own. Fat enhances all tastes. These waffles might taste good while they are still crispy-browned-hot, but after the cooling, the effect is lost.
I normally make this waffle recipe. You will notice that it has the same amount of butter - 125 g - to 270 g flour, not 350. And it uses normal buttermilk, not low-fat milk watered down. The greasing of the waffle iron is done with additional fat too, not with fat taken out of the recipe.
More fat will not only improve the flavor, it will also make the waffles softer after cooling, which is more pleasant to eat than the tougher style. Reducing the flour while keeping the same proportion of eggs and liquid will also help. You can generally try the other recipe, adding cardamom and vanilla sugar to make it suit your taste better. You will probably also want to increase the sugar to make it better aligned with European tastes.
Another thing you might want to experiment with are Liege waffles. They are made with yeast dough, and so somewhat bread-like.
I discussed it with my mother, and she suggested pretty much the same thing; replace low-fat ingredients with non-reduced fat ingredients, and reducing the flour. Sounds like this might be the ticket.
I'll test it the next time I make waffles, and will report results as soon as I do. If it works, I'll give you the accept credit.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.516203
| 2014-02-16T18:20:42 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/42064",
"authors": [
"Jean Ried",
"Justin Tyler",
"Luthando Shandu",
"Rcmm",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20069",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98262",
"razumny",
"rumtscho",
"user1154908"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24267
|
Does chopping vegetables remove vitamins?
I hear some chefs saying on TV: "Don't cut your vegetables in the salad too small, because the smaller you cut them the more vitamins are lost."
Is that true?
and if it was really true, what is a way to make vegetables keep their vitamins while being cut into small pieces, becasue I like salads to be eaten when each vegetable slice is around a bite in size.
Now I have a mental image of someone trying to eat everything without chewing it first, so that none of the vitamins are lost.
I didn't mean that. Don't you notice when you chop any kind of vegetables, that it secretes a kind of liquid? Does this liquid contain the vitamins? While chewing vegetables, all their contents will be in your mouth, not no the wooden board. This is the meaning of "when we chop vegetables smaller we will loose vitamins".
Personally I wouldn't chop them too small because then they become too fine to eat without a spoon.
This phenomenon affects fruits much worse than vegetables actually. The FDA published a report that cut or peeled fruits will lose half their vitamin C content in 1-2 weeks. Over 10-25% of this loss will occur in fruits in only 5 days.
For vegetables there exists a similar, albeit less pronounced effect. When cut the flesh inside of the vegetable is exposed to oxygen and the protection provided by the peel or covering is lost.
That being said, the process of these vegetables losing nutrients is not an immediate one. Realistically the loss that occurs between you cutting the vegetables and placing them in a salad is probably distinctly minimal. I wouldn't worry too much about the nutrient loss as long as you aren't cutting the vegetables and then storing them for a long period of time.
See: http://nutrition.about.com/od/askyournutritionist/f/cutveg.htm
Fresh cut vegetables lose none of their nutritional content. If you are cutting a salad before dinner you have nothing to be concerned about. The only time cutting matters is when produce is prepared many days in advance. If that is the case, vitamins are not the only thing lost, so are flavor and texture.
A definite and absolute statement like this calls for a source to back it up.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.516602
| 2012-06-07T07:46:52 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24267",
"authors": [
"Allen Ackerman",
"Benjamin Nolan",
"BobMcGee",
"Draken",
"Kogitsune",
"Lonboder",
"Team Toronto",
"Texas Grill",
"Zeina",
"baka",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55186",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55200",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55326",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55363",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9401",
"mary orzel",
"user55216",
"user55363"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
24568
|
Does vanilla really bring out the flavour of other foods?
I can't count the times I have heard that vanilla brings out the flavour of other foods. For example it "makes chocolate taste more chocolatey," etc... I have also heard that it's the only spice that does this (enhance the flavour of other spices/foods).
Is this true? If so, by what mechanism does it do this?
Here are some places online that mention this alleged property of vanilla without explaining how it works:
"Vanilla is used for its sweetness and its ability to enhance other flavors." (eHow)
"Vanilla delivers characteristic and complex flavor notes to hundreds of types of food. With fruit- and dairy-based products, it enhances flavor by cutting acid notes, bringing out creamy notes and rounding out flavor systems." (preparedfoods.com)
"Add vanilla to give new 'life' to flavorless seasonal fruits or other foods that need a flavor boost. Did you know that chocolate by itself tastes 'flat' which is why it usually contains vanilla?" (vanilla.com)
...Chocolate simply wouldn’t taste like chocolate without vanilla. “Chocolate tends to be somewhat dull on its own. Vanilla transforms it,” says Patricia Rain, author of a new book, Vanilla: A Cultural History of the World’s Favorite Flavor & Fragrance. “Vanilla
really enhances the flavor notes of chocolate,” agrees John Scharffenberger, CEO of Scharffen Berger Chocolate Maker in Berkeley, CA, where they prize vanilla so highly that they grind whole vanilla beans with cocoa nibs to make their chocolates.
(vegetariantimes.com)
"Vanilla is one of those ingredients, like salt and fat, that complements and brings out the flavor of other ingredients." (Wiki Answers)
I have never heard that about vanilla. Can you cite a reference? I would say that it can add depth to a dish, and can compliment flavors, but I'm skeptical if it can bring out flavors like I'm thinking salt does.
I wonder if I can add vanilla to a salty or spicy dish. I am going try this out on a mild coconut-heavy curry.
Yes, vanilla can be used as a savoury spice. In fact I remember reading, in On Food and Cooking perhaps, that it is only recently that it began to be thought of as an exclusively sweet spice.
Cardamom can be used to similar effect in a variety of foods that intersects vanillas range. Oddly enough mildish chili powder/paprika also serves as an enhancer to several spice combinations. Vanilla is far from unique in this property. Heck, Fish sauce.
I'm not sure if there is a scientific explanation for this. I also think it's more that vanilla enhances the overall flavor profile of the dish rather than actually bringing out other flavors. Salt, on the other hand, does enhance flavors.
I don't understand your answer, what is the difference between "enhances the overall flavor profile of the dish" and "actually bringing out other flavors"?
By "enhancing the overall flavor profile of the dish" I mean that it just adds more flavor and depth of flavor. By "actually bringing out the flavors" I mean that salt helps you taste other flavors.
Vanilla does not "bring out the flavor of foods", it does pair well with most fruit, other sweets, creams, and some bitter things like coffee and chocolate. Vanilla, like any other flavoring, simply adds another layer of flavor, building depth and complexity. Beware of that imitation stuff - it can easily be overdone.
Vanilla is a flavor enhancer or modifier like all spices.
I can understand why it would be singled out as "the only one that does that" because it is so commonly used in many parts of the world. Salt held this lofty position in the past at the head of the table. Black pepper was also assigned many incredible properties when it was first brought to Europe. Vanilla gives a richer, fuller, more savory flavor to a dish, but there are other spices that can do that in a different way.
I like vanilla and use it in dishes most would not think, like Chili. But I have found nothing brings out the flavor of a decadent chocolate cake like the addition of a dark yeasty beer. I would not use vanilla in a citrus salad. And to chocolate I would say that it's the sugar and fat that makes it more "chocolatey".
Well it is like sugar it has not been proven but is easy to taste the difference that it does enhance the taste of other ingredients
Not only doesn't sugar enhance the taste of other ingredients, it masks/dampens it.
Hmm according to the chief chef at Noma Copenhagen that ain't true
Can you provide a reference?
Unfortunaly he said in a TV-Show on DR (Danish Raido) - But I do not recall the title
I'm guessing that he was actually talking about salt, which may have been misheard/misremembered as sugar.
Pretty certain it was sugar - Anyways if I am wrong, I am wrong
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.516871
| 2012-06-19T17:23:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/24568",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Lars Kakavandi-Nielsen",
"MStodd",
"Swoogan",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10637",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10673",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1377",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"nalply",
"rumtscho",
"scientifics",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
28407
|
In what ways does the size of the baking pan matter while baking cakes?
Rose Levy's reviews warn about using the right sized pans, and say that failing to do so will result in failure.
I have glass ware and silicon cups for baking cakes. I prefer to bake the cake material in cups so that it takes less time, etc.
So, what kind of precautions should be taken if the intention is to bake cakes in cups?
Do you mean that you want to bake the batter in cupcake forms instead of cake pans?
@KristinaLopez yes, exactly.
See http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15833/how-do-i-change-cake-recipes-for-cupcakes/15843 for information about adjusting a cake recipe for cupcakes. Be prepared to be flexible, as the author's directions may only work for the designed-size cake.
The right size is important, because baking times are designed for a specific batter thickness. If a recipe is meant for a 26 cm pan and you pour the whole batter in a 18 cm pan, it will be much thicker and the middle won't get done before the top burns. That is why high cakes are made by stacking layers, not by baking one high cake.
You can pour a batch of batter into multiple small cups and have it turn out all right as long as the height stays more or less the same as it would have been in the large pan. My advice is to calculate the area of the pan given in the recipe and the area of your silicone cups, so you can know how many cups to use. You don't have to be completely precise, for the average cake it is not too terrible if you have +-0.5 cm difference in batter height. If the difference is larger, you can still get good results, but you should adjust the baking time.
The resulting cupcakes will still have the thickness of the normal cake, or somewhat more if you use less cups and bake accordingly longer. I would advise against trying to bake high-rise muffins from normal cake recipes. Even a sponge cake recipe might need some adjustment of the amount of baking powder before working as a high muffin. Other types of cake, especially the more exotic ones (genoise, flourless cakes) are unlikely to bake well if you fill them into deep cups.
Actually, if it's not more than 10" across and 3" high, I bake one cake and split it multiple times. Of course, you have to have deeper than normal cake pans for it and adjust the baking temperature down slightly. (if you bake lots of thin cakes, they'll dome in the middle, and you loose a lot when leveling them) If it's wider than 10", you may want cake strips or a heating core
All the boxed cake mixes I have used include instructions for baking cupcakes but in case you are just working off of a recipe, there are many good cupcake resources online now since cupcakes are a big fad here in the US.
Oven time and avoiding overbaking is my #1 tip. I check for doneness starting at approx. 10-12 minutes, using a toothpick in the center of a cupcake. If the toothpick comes out clean or with crumbs only, they are done.
Here is a link to a site with excellent tips for everything from pan choice and preparation to fun suggestions for fillings:
http://www.wilton.com/cupcakes/making-cupcakes/
Best of luck with your cupcakes!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.517296
| 2012-11-14T07:51:25 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28407",
"authors": [
"Acyclic Tau",
"Aquarius_Girl",
"Camoen",
"Joe",
"KatieK",
"Kim L.",
"Kristina Lopez",
"Unseasoned Cook",
"adrbart",
"emk2203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12565",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6168",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65539",
"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
}
|
28787
|
Can I sous-vide meat (at a temperature between 40ºF and 140ºF) for more than four hours?
According to the USDA cooking chicken at 145ºF (63ºC) for 13 minutes (i.e. maintaining an internal temperature of 145ºF for that long) will bring about a "7 log10 relative reduction of salmonella".
A recent question made me wonder whether this can be considered safe for sous-vide applications where it takes 4+ hours to reach 140ºF since the FDA recommendation (which only applies to commercial kitchens) is that once food enters the 41-135ºF zone (5-57ºC), it should be "cooked and served" within 4 hours. The USDA rules for home cooks are much stricter recommending that food should not remain in the 40-140ºF (4-60ºC) zone for more than two hours.
I always imagined that food left in this, so called, danger-zone for too long has given bacteria time to multiply and produce enough toxins in the food for it to become dangerous.
Another idea occurred to me, that after four hours the bacteria count has risen enough that a significant number of bacteria will be present even after a 7 log10 reduction.
Frankly my first guess still seems most likely to me, but really I just don't know. If my second idea is correct, then it would presumably still be safe to eat meat left in the danger zone for 4+ hours, as long as it holds an internal temperature of 140ºF+ for some time longer than the USDA time-temperature tables otherwise suggest.
Can anyone say which, if any, of my guesses is correct? I think this is equivalent to asking whether there exists a type of bacteria that can produce a dangerous amount of toxins in food within four hours at temperatures between 40ºF and 140ºF.
Update: In earlier revisions of this question, I attributed the 4 hour rule to the USDA which caused an amount of confusion. As the text now states, the 4 hour rule is set by the FDA in their Retail Model Food Code and pertains only to cooking in commercial establishments. While I did find that the USDA guidance for school food authorities also has a 4 hour recommendation, this is no doubt because school kitchens can be placed on an equal footing with commercial kitchens.
There has also been some discussion regarding whether the USDA's 2 hour rule encompasses cooking time, or pertains only to time spent in the danger-zone during storage or preparation prior to cooking. For anyone interested in the details, please read the comments on this question and those on @Athanasius' answer.
The USDA paper you link to shows INTERNAL TEMP and HOLD TIME AT TEMP not cooking temp and cooking time. From the paper: "The stated temperature is the minimum that must be achieved and maintained in all parts of each piece of meat for a least the stated time." Maybe I'm being pedantic in your case, but it's a critically important difference for anyone who might not realize.
Yep, I'll update to clarify.
I won't put this as an answer because I am not willing to do a bunch of research to get supporting links, but NO. By holding the temperature specifically in the hazardous zone, you are intentionally creating a breeding ground for pathogens. This is what incubators are for in labs! Cooking is not sterilization, even if the food was previously cooked to a higher temperature, and home conditions are not clean rooms.
The recommendation is 2 hours, not 4 hours. What I don't understand is why you assume that it will take 4 hours for food to reach 140° F, given that sous-vide is all about efficiency and precise temperature control. Sous-vide equipment will hold the temperature at 140° F for long enough to kill as many bacteria as the USDA recommendation of 10 seconds at 165° F. I'd be very surprised if it takes more than 1 hour to reach the programmed temperature.
Oddly they recommend 4 hours for school children and 2 hours otherwise. I assume it takes 4+ hours to reach 140ºF if, for example, you sous-vide a whole pig in a hot-tub.
4h heating is needed for 55 mm slab, 75-80 mm cylinder and 90-95 mm sphere from 5ºC, see Baldwins tables http://www.douglasbaldwin.com/sous-vide.html#Table_2.2 , so possible but you need something very big to cook, like prime rib. They consider children to be higher risk, therefore recommend more safety, remember 4h is not no salmonella, it is just a 7D reduction, 2h is less reduction but still very safe.
@Stefan the 4 hours refers to the maximum time food should be allowed to be in the 'danger-zone' of 40-140ºF (or 41ºF-135ºF depending on which USDA document you read). So the kids are being placed more at risk here. Note that one document is from 2005 and the other from 2011 which may account for the difference.
I got the less reduction wrong, I mean less multiplication. So less risk. Not sure how to edit my comment?
Perhaps I'm not reading this right, but it seems that the "2 hour rule" has nothing to do with cooking. It is the maximum recommended time for food to be left out at room temperature before cooking (e.g., the time food sits in your cart at the grocery store and in your car before going back in the refrigerator) or after cooking (before refrigerating leftovers). I believe this "2-hour rule" may also be referenced in the school children document regarding transport times (p. 10). Is there a document that clearly references 2 hours in regard to cooking time?
Just as one example, the USDA recommends 325F as an appropriate turkey roasting temperature, and notes that a large stuffed turkey will take about 5.25 hours to reach 165F throughout. There's no way that whole turkey gets from 40F to 140F in 2 hours. The "2-hour rule" cannot be referring to cooking times to get to 140F.
@Athanasius Now that you've made it plain, I have to agree that there are some odd consequences if the recommendations are really meant to encompass cooking time. I've edited the question to refer to your comments.
This article may be a good starting place for some advice. They consider a lot of the common microbes, not just Salmonella. Assuming you get somewhere close to the 140F range for an extended period of time, you'll kill off most things. Other things might only survive in spore form, so you might be okay eating the food while it's hot.
But care should be taken if you wanted to cool the food and heat at a later time, since a lot of spores means that they could become active again and multiply significantly if left in the so-called "danger zone" for very long. Also, note that during the initial cooking, lots of bacteria will be competing, and the really bad stuff may not have a chance to grow much. But after most are killed at higher temperatures, any cooling phase of the food will allow remaining spores to reactivate in an environment where they don't have to compete as much and thus often grow faster. In many cases, it can sometimes be more dangerous to let cooked food sit at room temperature than to take a long initial time to cook.
Anyhow, the spores are not your concern for a long initial cooking time if you're planning to eat the food right away. In that case, you need to worry about things that will generate persistent toxins. The linked article mentions a couple: C. perfringens and S. aureus.
As the article points out, Clostridium perfringens will be killed in slow cooking by the time you reach 140F. However, they don't seem to explicitly mention the enterotoxin produced by C. perfringens. That toxin can be inactivated by further heating up to 165F, but that may not be desirable for all foods. (That may be the reason why they don't mention the toxin -- they are assuming the turkey and stuffing will be at a minimum of 165F by the end of the roast.) In any case, the article implies that you'd need to cook for roughly 10 hours to produce enough to be dangerous for "normal" C. perfringens. (For the special quick-growing type mentioned in their source, it would grow twice as fast.)
Staphylococcus aureus, on the other hand, clearly would take a long time to grow. They estimate even in ideal conditions, it would take about 15 hours to produce enough toxin to worry about. Also, in raw food, they state that S. aureus typically does not grow much, since it doesn't do well competing against other spoilage microbes (e.g., Salmonella) that grow better but won't produce the same levels of persistent toxins.
For some reason, Bacillus cereus doesn't get a mention in this article (it's more common on grains but small amounts are usually found in meats too), and I think it's a potential concern with some foods. My guess is that again B. cereus usually doesn't compete well against things like Salmonella and Campylobacter. Looking up typical growth rates, it may not be an issue unless you had a high concentration to begin with.
As with other microbes (e.g., C. perfringens, C. botulinum) the more typical cause of food poisoning with B. cereus is the spores that survive after cooking. When food is held for a long time in the "danger zone" (e.g., in buffets below 140F, at room temperature before refrigeration), these bacteria have a chance to revive from their spore form and produce persistent toxins. The particular problem with B. cereus is that normal heating below boiling will not destroy that toxin, making even normal reheated foods a potential danger.
I only mention the spore issue because a higher population of these bacteria (grown during longer cooking) will produce more spores, which can potentially make cooling food down and reheating more dangerous. These bacteria typically don't grow fast when in the presence of things like Salmonella, but in the more sterile growth medium post-cooking, they can really get going. If you slow-cook for a long time, be really sure to handle leftovers properly.
But getting back to the main issue: what if you just plan to eat the food right after slow-cooking? In that case, I think the original article I linked above implies that you're almost certainly safe even if you take up to 10 hours or so with the food between 50F and 130F. Since most of the bacteria that produce persistent toxins don't grow well when competing against things like Salmonella, you're probably safe for even longer. As they point out at the end of the article, food kept even as high as 55-60F will generally "spoil safe," partly due to competition among spoiling agents. However, as you get into the range around 100F in cooking, you hit ideal growth temperatures for some of the more nasty stuff.
Personally, after I researched this stuff a while back, I'm willing to extend the limit to about 10 hours between 50F and 130F for my own cooking, as long as the food is ultimately held above 130F for a significant amount of time. So, slow-roasting a chicken or turkey at 250F should be fine, and even 200F may be okay. With such a slow heating process, though, I'd generally want the final temperature of the food to get to about 165F at a minimum -- to further reduce bacteria count and destroy some toxins. If I intended a lower final temperature (e.g., 140F), I would tend to use a cooking method that gets the food up above 130F more quickly. (Sous vide should do the trick in most cases.)
But I'd really start to get concerned when you go much beyond 10 hours in the "danger zone." Chances are that you might even be okay taking 12-24 hours to get up to temperature in many foods, but it could be very risky for some foods/ingredients. And then, the food must hit a higher temperature standard (at least 165F), which will destroy some potential toxins. Go much more than a day in your cooking in the "danger zone," and you could even be growing significant amounts of botulism toxin, so your safe temp would have to go even higher to destroy that toxin. Also, by that point, you may be growing all sorts of nasty stuff.
Whatever you do, don't follow the advice of self-proclaimed experts like the authors of Modernist Cuisine, who want to throw out all of the USDA regulations and rebuild a theory of food safety from scratch, apparently based on the authors' reading of only a couple papers on Salmonella death curves. Salmonella death curves may be a good guideline for normal cooking methods and sous vide, but with extended slow cooking that allows a long time below 130F, you can grow all sorts of stuff that leaves behind persistent toxins.
In sum, I think the 4 hour "danger zone" thing is a rough guideline with a built-in safety margin (for people who leave the meat in the car for 45 minutes, etc.). With proper food handling otherwise, in most cases, you should be able to push it to 8 or 10 hours with little chance of harm. But the longer you go, the more potential hazards. Do it at your own risk.
(Please note that although I have a lot of scientific training, I'm not a microbiologist, so there may be things I'm overlooking here.)
I can't imagine anyone is going to better this answer, and if they do, well that's worth rewarding another bounty. I looked through the Modernist Cuisine reviews on amazon immediately after reading this and came across your review which is also well worth reading.
What about Aaronuts food-safety tag wiki, I'm confused why is this post OK? Do not get this wrong, I think this post is correct, I'm just asking why it is OK to post it, or is this a meta question?
If it would be appropriate, I'm more than happy to add further disclaimers. I already said "Do it at your own risk." I personally would not recommend these practices in a restaurant setting, although the paper I cited at the beginning is actually written by a major food scientist proposing recommendations for professional food service, including the possibility of a 8-10 hour roast turkey.
@Stefan See the comments Athanasius posted under the question. The 2 (or 4) hour recommendation has nonsensical consequences if understood as being applicable to cooking time. I think this ought to answer Aaronut's concerns.
@Chris - Again, I could be reading these things wrong, but I do think the USDA somewhere has a 4-hour recommendation for most foods to get to 140F (unlike the 2-hour rule that has been referenced, which is clearly referring to storage temperatures, not cooking). On the other hand, you have things like the USDA's smoking recommendations, where you can use cooking temperatures between 225 and 300F, and "Cooking time depends on many factors... It can take anywhere from 4 to 8 hours to smoke meat or poultry."
Athanasius, I'm not questioning your answer, I agree with your answer!!! I'm questioning why it is OK to post when mine that (not as eloquently) tried to say the same thing was not "Even if you had a mountain of evidence - and you have nothing of the sort - it wouldn't be an appropriate topic to discuss here". @Chris, I do not think USDA 4h rule is a cooking time rule, but it ask to not keep food in the range while cooking. My question is, this answer goes against USDA rules (as far as I understand), why is it OK? After what I was told I have stopped to give 'good' advice against USDA.
@Stefan - I understood. Sorry if my response after your previous comment was unclear. I was just saying (to whoever might be reading) that I'm happy to add further disclaimers if it's appropriate on this forum. I'm relatively new and just figuring things out, and the only reason I wrote my answer was after a discussion Chris and I had in comments on another question. I too would be interested in clear guidance on how to approach such topics in an appropriate manner. If relevant scientific studies are available, there should be a way to discuss them and incorporate their evidence here.
@Athanasius good, that is what I want also.
Athanasius and @Stefan I've contacted the USDA directly to get some clarification on their recommendations. Meanwhile, questions of policy can be posted on the meta site.
@Chris, I found the 4-hour regulation. Section 3-501.19 "Time as a Public Health Control" in the 2009 Food Code. It says once food enters 41-135F, it should be "cooked and served" within 4 hours. If the food is ready-to-eat and remains below 70F, it should be served within 6 hours. I don't know how to reconcile this with USDA recommendations that say it's okay to cook a turkey for over 5 hours or smoke meat/poultry for 4-8 hours, other than noting the 4-hour rule is for professional service.
The USDA's reply: Our recommendations are for cooking in the home. Commercial establishments have different guidelines, following the FDA's Retail Model Food Code. In places our guidelines are more conservative, such as the 2 hour rule which applies to time spent in the Danger Zone. Food should not stay in this zone for more than 2 hours. For this reason we recommend an oven temperature no lower than 325F. This way food speeds through the danger zone to a safe temperature. For smoking we allow a lower oven temperature (225-300); the steam created in the smoker is effective in killing bacteria.
I noted in my question to the USDA both the turkey and smoking cooking times that went counter to the 2 hour rule. They only addressed smoking explicitly, although I'm not sure what to make of their answer. For turkey cooking times, I infer from their answer that with the recommended oven temperature, there will be no portion of the turkey that spends more than 2 hours in the danger zone, even though the entire turkey spends 5+ hours in the oven. I can picture how that might work. I'm not convinced that it would. As you guessed, the FDA rules pertain only to professional services.
Thanks, @Chris, for checking into that. Smoking makes steam that will help with surface bacteria, but so would roasting enough meat in a relatively well-sealed oven (as is true for many modern electric ovens). As Aaronut noted in comments to Stefan's answer here, surface bacteria aren't the only worries. Nevertheless, I can see a certain logic in that. But the turkey thing just isn't right. I tried a couple rough thermodynamic models for a turkey that reaches 165F in 5.25 hours at 325F, and I think it might get to 140F in 4 hours in the coldest part. 2 hours? No way.
The 4h rule is a simplified rule that people can follow, but it does not mean that everything over 4h is dangerous! No matter what, there is much more surface bacteria than bacteria inside, the growth rate is not constant between 41-135F, it peaks at about 104F, the 4h rules is made for worst case initial bacterial infection, 104F for 4h and still have enough reduction for the food to be safe, this means that since your turkey slowly increases in temperature it will never experience as much bacterial growth as worst case and is therefore safe. Also you will start with less infection.
Yes. You can safely sous vide meat for more than four hours. However, it's pretty dependent on the temperature, size, and type of meat that you're cooking if it will work or if you'd even want to.
When cooking sous vide, you're either pasteurizing or not pasteurizing your meat. If you pasteurize the meat, then the 4 hour limit wouldn't really matter. It's pasteurized and you're ok. Douglas Baldwin covers the times for pasteurization online. You can definitely pasteurize food within your 140F / 60C range (i.e. 70mm of chicken will take 7hrs to pasteurize at 134.5F / 57C). For poultry, you need a minimum temp of 57C for pasteurization. For red meat, you need a minimum temp of 131F / 55C.
If you are not pasteurizing your food, then it's important to stay below the 4 hour time frame you've discussed. You should also be careful storing your food prior to cooking, sourcing it properly, and not serving it to immune compromised people.
Douglas Baldwin talks about this pretty extensively in the food safety portion of his primer. Here's an excerpt:
You were probably taught that there’s a “danger zone” between 40°F and
140°F (4.4°C and 60°C). These temperatures aren’t quite right: it’s
well known that food pathogens can only multiply between 29.7°F
(-1.3°C) and 126.1°F (52.3°C), while spoilage bacteria begin
multiplying at 23°F (-5°C) (Snyder, 2006; Juneja et al., 1999; FDA,
2011). Moreover, contrary to popular belief, food pathogens and toxins
cannot be seen, smelt, or tasted.
So why were you taught that food pathogens stop multiplying at 40°F
(4.4°C) and grow all the way up to 140°F (60°C)? Because it takes days
for food pathogens to grow to a dangerous level at 40°F (4.4°C) (FDA,
2011) and it takes many hours for food to be made safe at just above
126.1°F (52.3°C) – compared with only about 12 minutes (for meat) and 35 minutes (for poultry) to be made safe when the coldest part is
140°F (60°C) (FSIS, 2005; FDA, 2009, 3-401.11.B.2). Indeed, the food
pathogens that can multiply down to 29.7°F (-1.3°C) – Yersinia
enterocolitica and Listeria monocytogenes – can only multiply about
once per day at 40°F (4.4°C) and so you can hold food below 40°F
(4.4°C) for five to seven days (FDA, 2011). At 126.1°F (52.3°C), when
the common food pathogen Clostridium perfringens stops multiplying, it
takes a very long time to reduce the food pathogens we’re worried
about – namely the Salmonella species, Listeria monocytogenes, and the
pathogenic strains of Escherichia coli – to a safe level; in a 130°F
(54.4°C) water bath (the lowest temperature I recommend for cooking
sous vide) it’ll take you about 2½ hours to reduce E. coli to a safe
level in a 1 inch (25 mm) thick hamburger patty and holding a
hamburger patty at 130°F (54.4°C) for 2½ hours is inconceivable with
traditional cooking methods – which is why the “danger zone” conceived
for traditional cooking methods doesn’t start at 130°F (54.4°C). [Note
that Johnson et al. (1983) reported that Bacillus cereus could
multiply at 131°F/55°C, but no one else has demonstrated growth at
this temperature and so Clostridium perfringens is used instead.]
Thanks for a great answer. I'm still concerned that enough toxins could be produced during cooking that it wouldn't help that the food is eventually free of dangerous microbes. Bacillus cereus, for example, produces heat tolerant enterotoxins during growth.
First of all, for most food the issue is only for the outside of the food, the inside does not have e.g. salmonella (exception is e.g. minced meats) So if you have a piece of meat that really requires 4 hours to reach 60ºC in the inside, the outside will still reach 60ºC after a few minutes, the rest of the steak (the inside) does not have any salmonella that can reproduce, so there is no problem. (remember the USDA is trying to make rules that is fool proof, not correct)
Also you cannot see the danger zone as one constant range such that at 4ºC salmonella starts to reproduce and at 60ºC they stop. Salmonella reproduces at its maximum speed somewhere at 40ºC, at 50ºC the reproduction rate have been reduced to something similar to 5ºC, which is the same as a bad fridge, meat can be stored for many days in a fridge. At 51-52ºC salmonella dies faster than it reproduces. (I can get references to this from Modernist Cuisine, but it is at home, I'm writing this from memory, I might be off on a few degrees, but the principle is correct).
Update
The toxin you talk about is only dangerous when you heat and then cool the food below 60ºC, if you eat directly they are not an issue since the bacteria is already killed as I described above, see the section below from Baldwin or read the wikipedia page section.
If you’re not going to eat all your food immediately, then you need to know that some bacteria are able to make spores. Spores themselves will not make you sick, but they can become active bacteria that could. Cooking to kill active bacteria like Listeria, Salmonella, and E. coli will leave these spores unharmed. If you keep your food hot, then the spores will not become active bacteria. But when you cool your food, the spores can become active bacteria: if you cool your food too slowly or store it for too long, then these active bacteria can multiply and make you sick. To keep these spores from becoming active bacteria, you must quickly cool your food – still sealed in its pouch – in ice water that is at least half ice until it’s cold all the way through.
So to answer what I think is your question, it is safe to cook as low as 55ºC for very big pieces of meat in an oven.
Beef is actually one of the few meats where the "surface bacteria only" rule applies; chicken and pork both need to be cooked all the way through for proper food safety. It's also not true that bacterial toxins are only left after heating and then cooling; they're left at any temperature at which bacteria are allowed to grow for a sufficient period of time. "Warm" temperature is the ideal condition, and that can either be during the cool-down or the warm-up, depending on how long either one takes.
@Aaronut That you need to cook pork all through is not true any more), see http://www.cdc.gov/parasites/trichinellosis/epi.html , from 2008 to 2010 about 20 cases of trichinellosis where reported in the US per year, most due to consumption of wild meat. Also I do not think curing kills Trichinella? In Europe e.g. Param Ham is eaten daily without people getting sick of it, not sure if it is legal in the US yet? I tried to say that the toxins(spores) are not dangerous when eaten directly, and only after they have been cooled they will produce new dangerous bacteria which is dangerous.
@Aaronut, ran out of space. For chicken, it is still true that Salmonella does not 'live' inside chicken meat, it does live inside the intestines, the beak and the claws, but not inside the e.g. breast meat. Same as for cows, I'm sure you have E. coli or something else not so nice, inside a cows intestine.
Trichinella has become increasingly rare but what is your point? That's not the only bacteria living on/in meat. You've got campylobacter, listeria, C.perfringens, S.aureus, B.cereus, the list goes on and on; chicken and pork really do need to be cooked through, they cannot be eaten rare, at least not if you bought them from a supermarket as opposed to slaughtering them personally. No amount of rhetoric will change that. Additionally, while spores are not necessarily dangerous, toxins are extremely dangerous (in fact, they are the danger).
What I was trying to say is that >4h cooking is OK since the surface area will not be in the 'danger' zone that long. Modernist Cuisine states that they cannot see any reason to need to cook pork any way different than beef. This is against most current advice, but this is what they say, I tend to trust that book, it feels like they back up their claims more than most other sources. I understand that you do not want to go against decades of belief, that is OK.
This isn't belief, it's regulation. The regulations may be unfounded or obsolete but I'd need to see more than one unsubstantiated claim - even if it is a claim in Modernist Cuisine - to refute that.
The question was not if this was regulation, it was if it was safe. It is regulation and belief, and MC claims that it is safe. For some more examples, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mett, BTW is Carpaccio OK according to regulation US? Also see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1351/why-isnt-it-safe-to-eat-raw-chicken for previous question on this side topic
Please read our food-safety tag wiki, I'm not going to debate this any further. This is a public site, and we have certain expectations of member conduct here, one of them being not to make public statements that contradict established health regulations. Even if you had a mountain of evidence - and you have nothing of the sort - it wouldn't be an appropriate topic to discuss here. You're welcome to disregard health rules in your own home if you don't mind the risk, but don't serve that to others and don't advise them to do the same.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.517638
| 2012-12-01T10:56:03 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28787",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Anne Taenamyr",
"Athanasius",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Colin",
"Cupcakes Sprinkles",
"FoxElemental",
"Glenn An Kim Mousette",
"K Nein",
"Nic8895",
"PAM",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sharon Busbee",
"Shubham Chaudhary",
"St1id3r",
"Stefan",
"alan",
"amantonas",
"barry steiger",
"gustavovelascoh",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66687",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66769",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66770",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66839",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66842",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/66848",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69441",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69645",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69740",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69951",
"mghicks",
"xornob"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40120
|
Microwave Butternut Squash
The other day, I was going to roast a butternut squash in the oven to then cube and use in a stew. I noticed on the squash, there was a sticker suggesting to cook it in the microwave, with the following directions:
Cut in half and remove seeds. Place cut side down in dish and add 1/2" of water. Cook on high 8 min or till tender. Let set 5 min.
I saw that, and I was very hungry, so thought "Why not try it -- 8+5=13 minutes sure beats waiting for the oven to preheat + 50 mins of baking time", so I gave it a shot.
I was cooking that sucker for darn near just as long -- it never seemed to get soft. I think I finally got it tender after putting it back in the microwave for 8 mins at a time like 5 times, and even then it was really spotty in its doneness - a few spots were very cooked and mushy, others still rock hard.
Any ideas of what I could have done wrong? Anyone had success in cooking a butternet squash in the microwave?
I suspect the problem was the 1/2 inch of water, which would have absorbed a goodly amount of the microwave energy, preventing it from heating the flesh of the squash.
For very slightly more detailed instructions, which are not too far off from what you have tried, you might try this recipe from the Food Network, which recommends 5-7 minutes for 1/2 of a squash, but no water.
Agreed, too much water. I used to nuke them on a plate. Takes too long, and the top of the squish is likely to be underdone. A covered casserole dish or bowl with a plate on it, no water, gave me more uniform results. Not as good as oven-baked, but still pretty tasty.
I love butternut squash!! When I am making a small amount, I cook it in the microwave. When I am making a large amount, I put it in the oven. For the microwave, I peel the butternut neck, slice it into rounds, then dice it in 1/2" squares. I peel the apples and dice them. I toss both in a microwave container along with crasins and apple juice, cider, or water. I microwave it--maybe 5 minutes. Take it out and poke the squash and see if it needs more time. I am addicted to this combo. I serve it hot as a vegetable, cold in a fast salad, and I even add it to my morning oatmeal.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.519792
| 2013-12-10T02:13:04 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40120",
"authors": [
"A Farley",
"Dani Miranda",
"Derek Andrews",
"Geoffrey",
"Nisba",
"Tom Wirt",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"Wodin Tiw",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125904",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93169",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93170",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93171",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93175",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93187",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93189"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54618
|
Substituting parchment for foil in slow cooker
A slow cooker gooey brownie recipe calls for using aluminum foil as a liner.
Can I substitute parchment paper for the foil?
Since the OP seems to be long gone, I'm going to edit in this recipe, since it's the first Google hit if you search for "slow cooker gooey brownie recipe", and it does call for lining the slow cooker with foil. The recipe also calls for the foil to be generously buttered.
My experience would suggest that unless the aluminum foil is used to form some kind of shape such as a seal around the food, parchment paper would be superior. Aluminum foil is better for forming shapes. Parchment paper is better for non-stick qualities. Parchment paper has a temperature limit of around 400 degrees F, whereas aluminum foil will tolerate much higher temperatures (technically it will melt around 1200 degrees F). Most slow cookers wouldn't be too hot for either one, but they vary, so you may want to check yours to be sure.
I would imagine the parchment will work just fine. They make slow-cooker liners--plastic, I think, too.
http://www.amazon.com/Reynolds-Metals-00504-Cooker-Liners/dp/B00HVG7SYW/ref=sr_1_1?s=home-garden&ie=UTF8&qid=1426345695&sr=1-1&keywords=slow+cooker+liners - They're pretty highly rated too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.520269
| 2015-02-11T18:38:38 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54618",
"authors": [
"Adam Cole",
"Chris Lawrence",
"Hal Steele",
"Jolenealaska",
"Judith Winters",
"Julie Herman",
"Larry Schmidt",
"Moira Kirkwood",
"Rich Brown",
"THE 7TH DAY",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128594",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128596",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128603",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128607",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/128609",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132337",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132338",
"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
}
|
55603
|
Forgot to put brown and white sugar in cookie dough
I made cookie dough. I already put white chocolate chips and so on. I forgot to put in brown and white sugar... How can I fix this?
Put the sugar in now, before you bake it?
Is it a cookie-recipe based on butter creamed with sugar? If yes, please answer this and wait a bit for my answer. If not, you should be fine adding the sugar now :).
possible duplicate of Forgot to add sugar to cookies
this is butter and peanut butter cream together then add sugar
I suspect the cookies are baked now, but still:
If you increase the amount of dough, will you be in trouble?
You could just add the sugar now, but that will most likely mess up the texture (still, they are chocolate chip cookies, they are always good ^^)
Get the sugar you missed the first time.
Calculate your recipe down to the smallest amount you can make (this will most likely be whatever amount you reach when using only one egg).
Start this second batch as usual, but try to incorporate at least part of the "first batch"-sugar to the creamed butter... cream this REALLY well.
Finish remaining dough, as normal, adding any sugar you could not cream with the flour.
Fold both batches together.
This way, you should get at least some of the texture that the creaming creates :).
You can add the sugar now, what the issue is and will be is that the chocolate will get pulverized some. That's why chips or fruit is added last or folded in.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.520524
| 2015-03-11T08:32:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55603",
"authors": [
"Carly Campbell",
"Catherine Williams",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Emely Schuck",
"Erica",
"Johnliamsprigg Sprigg",
"Laxmi Singh",
"Layna",
"Michelle Simmons",
"NadyaZa",
"Trevor Edwards",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132142",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132167",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132202",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
6836
|
How do I butter popcorn without making it soggy?
I've tried buttering my popcorn in the past, and it always turns out inconsistent. A few pieces will be soaked with butter, and others have no butter on them at all.
Perhaps there is a way to get the butter flavoring without drizzling butter on after popping the kernels?
Another option is to make your popcorn in a pot using butter as the oil for the bottom. I find that if you toast the unpopped popcorn kernels in the butter, it gives a bit of a butter flavor to the entire pot -- less than if you were to put butter on the top, but plenty for me.
Use a lower heat than with oil, otherwise you will burn the butter!
I'll bet you could make your own powdered butter using melted butter and tapioca maltodextrin (Ab-Zorbit or N-Zorbit). Just mix the butter with the powder until it is absorbed and a very light 'solid' consistency, then rub through a fine sieve over the popcorn whilst you toss it.
I think this would work really well as the stabiliser is quite sweet anyway, which might be good and you could flavour the butter before powdering it.
You could also make peanut butter or nutella popcorn this way.
This also has the advantage that the pop corn would not be getting wet, and the butter would return to butter in your mouth.
1) Melt 1-2 tablespoons of butter (more if you're a butter-head).
2) Fill a clean paper lunch bag half-way with your popped popcorn.
3) Drizzle your melted butter along the sides of the half-filled bag, fold over the top, and shake vigorously for at least 30 seconds.
4) Repeat as necessary until all your popcorn is well-buttered (and unsoggy).
Ok, here is the solution...
Use real butter and render it before you put in the popcorn kernels.
Rendering:
Allow butter to boil in a pan on the stovetop and a white foam to build up on the top of the melted butter
Remove from heat and scrape the foam off with a spoon
Put the butter back on the heat, but be careful not to burn it. (You might want to keep the heat on medium and remove the pan once in a while and then put it back.)
Remove the rest of the foam (try to get rid of almost all of it)
Now you have removed the liquids from your butter; it is now rendered.
Buttering the popcorn:
Place the kernels in the pan with the butter and cover it. I like to be patient and use
low heat; the popcorn will get to the desired temperature, even in low heat.
When the popcorn starts popping you need to let the steam out, so open
the lid on the side that is away from your face while keeping the side closest
to you closed to protect you from the popping corn.
A little complicated? May sound like it, but it isn't really... I guarantee you will have your perfect popcorn :) in about 5 minutes.
I have never heard the term rendering for this process before, I have always used clarification instead. But still, the answer is good (and you can also directly buy clarified butter, or ghee if you go to an Asian foodstore)
The basic solution is to reduce the amount of popcorn you are buttering at any one time, rather than trying to do an entire batch at once. This can be done by putting some into an oversize bowl, so you can stir it up while drizzling. Then transfer to the serving bowl(s).
I use spray butter (or margarine I suppose) for this purpose. I toss the popcorn as I pump the butter on. The butter is dispersed properly and doesn't make individual kernels soggy.
I use a very large bowl, so I can just toss the whole thing rather than stirring and getting something else dirty ... and a sprayer (olive oil) : spray the top, flip the contents in the bowl, spray some more, add some popcorn salt, flip, repeat until done.
My method is to melt the butter then pour it into a large empty bowl and roll the bowl around to spread over the surface. Then dump the hot popped popcorn in, and use a spoon to stir it and mix it up well.
Each popcorn will pick up just a bit of butter on each one, and none will be soggy. Works well for me.
I make my butter for my popcorn in the same pan. Make the popcorn in the usual manner, then turn the heat off on the pan. I then toss in the amount of butter I desire to apply. The leftover heat melts the butter pretty fast (actually it slightly browns but that is desired by me). The butter is hot enough to be thin so it gets applied in smaller amounts at a time. I then drizzle it over an overly large bowl with the popcorn in it while I toss the popcorn. It took just a little practice, but it results in a pretty good coating without over saturation for me.
Some keys:
Fully melted butter (pretty hot)
Overly large bowl
just a small amount of butter at a time (per drizzle, hot so it comes out in smaller amounts over the pan rim)
Use a light weight bowl such as plastic so you can toss with one hand while dripping the butter (not too close) with the other hand.
toss it several times for each bit of butter dropped on the popcorn - this tends to distribute the butter over several pieces as they contact each other.
Melt the butter carefully in a microwave using a pyrex measuring cup with a spout that can allow for more controlled drizzling. Overheating/frying can cause for more oily separation.
Using an extra-large spherical bowl without handles, spin the bowl with one hand while drizzling 1/2-1/3 the butter as thinly as possible with the other. Toss. Add salt/pepper/etc before drizzling and tossing again until all butter is incorporated.
The number of repetitions can be very effectively reduced to a single application by using an upright air popping machine as the bowl may be spun and butter drizzled while the popcorn is being ejected from the machine!
Put half the popcorn in a metal bowl. Hold a small pot of melted butter over the bowl. Spin the bowl as you slowly drip the butter. Start the drip from the outside and work your way into the center of the bowl. The trick is to spin the bowl of popcorn to disperse the butter, not the other way around. If you swirl the pot of butter as you pour, you will most likely cause a wave of butter to fly out and soak a clump of popcorn. The only movement the pot of butter should have is the slow lateral slide from the outside of the bowl to the center. Sprinkle with a pinch of salt and add the other half of the popcorn. Repeat the bowl spin technique described above and put a final sprinkle of salt on top. The end. Easy with no special tools or ingredients.
Use a pot to cook your popcorn in... I use a whirlypop pot with the little crank thingy. Heat up a combination of organic virgin coconut oil (trader joes carries it in jars) and clarified butter. Toss in kernals and pop as usual. Then salt it to taste afterwards. It will smell and taste EXACTLY like (or better than) movie theater popcorn without being soggy/chewy.
It's time-consuming, but I use a melon baller to swirl and drizzle the butter one (tiny) scoop at a time. The key is the tiny hole at the bottom.
The fine droplets that fall tend not to over-saturate any individual kernels.
I also toss the popcorn between shots of butter, just to make sure it's well-distributed.
The first thing that comes to mind is powdered butter. I'm not sure what it will taste like though.
I preheat 1-2 tsp. of vegetable oil in my pan over high heat until one kernel pops. Then I add 1/2 cup of popcorn and 1 Tbsp. of butter to the pan and pop until the pops are 2-3 seconds apart.. Very simple and I get nice butter flavor all through the batch without being greasy.
Another alternatively that I haven't tried, but I think would work is to put some clarified butter in an atomizer and mist your popcorn while tossing.
A lot of these answers seem quite complicated, or not to apply to air-popped popcorn. One of them seems similar to my method, but not quite.
Have on hand:
two big popcorn bowls (in addition to what you're serving it in,
because these'll get all buttery)
a large clean paper bag (I'm cool
with the ones they give me at the grocery store, if they were
unfolded just for me)
ketchup/mustard squirter (they sell them at the
dollar store two in a pack)
Make the popcorn:
melt the desired amount of butter in a saucepan (no rendering etc necessary)
pour that into a liquid measuring cup so you can pour it into the squirter without spilling hot butter all over the place. The squirter will be hot; hot oil is hot; handle it appropriately.
pop one batch (1/3 cup kernels), squirt butter all over, second batch
in the same bowl, butter again ... depending on the size of your
bowl, you might get a third batch in there, salt/season as desired
put the two bowls together (open ends facing each other obviously), shake it up vigorously, pour it into the paper bag, shake it up vigorously again to get off the excess
eat out of the bag, or pour into a clean bowl
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.520742
| 2010-09-06T18:51:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/6836",
"authors": [
"Ben Sheller",
"E white",
"Joe",
"John Bargman",
"Joshua Aslan Smith",
"Loretta",
"Nikana Reklawyks",
"Sobachatina",
"TFD",
"bobtheowl2",
"dangerous.beans",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13928",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14027",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14085",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31233",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37243",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45759",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"mgrant",
"nico"
],
"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
}
|
25999
|
What's the difference between pink tea and other types of tea?
I once went to an event where they offered pink tea. At that time I was around 8 years old and used to hate tea.
However, I loved that pink tea but unfortunately didn't have a chance to drink it after that event. Can someone tell me any differences between pink tea and other types of tea - e.g., nutrition, taste-wise (as I have met people who love tea but hate pink tea), etc.?
Also, what is the method of preparation for pink tea? I want to make for my work mates at office :)
It's hard to know exactly what you're referring to without any context of the event, location, or what you remember it tasting like, so I'll give you my best educated guesses.
If your pink tea sweet and fruity or floral, it was an herbal tea - tisane, and not true tea. ("Tea" actually refers to the plant whose leaves are used the beverage. Anything that is not made from the tea tree is usually called a tisane.) Some varieties of tisanes that produce a pink liquid include hibiscus, rose petals, rose hips, strawberry.
If the above is not the case, I suspect you're referring to Kashmiri pink tea, sometimes called noon chai.
Disclaimer: I can't find any authoritative sources about Kashmiri online; my knowledge of the subject is anecdotal from my own travels in India as well as stories from people I know who have lived or traveled in South Asia. My understanding is that, like masala chai throughout South Asia, pink tea has some general guidelines but everyone customizes it according to taste or local custom.
The basic distinguishing factors of Kashmiri pink tea compared to a "regular" black, green, oolong, or white tea are twofold: color and taste. As you mentioned, this tea is pink in color, which other beverages made from the tea tree are not. The pink color comes from the addition of baking soda. As for taste, pink tea tends to elicit mixed opinions about taste because it is salty; most people around the world typically drink tea unadulterated, or sweetened, but rarely with the addition of salt.
Pink tea shares many ingredients with masala chai, often including some or all of the following:
Ginger
Cardamom
Cinnamon
Peppercorns
Milk or cream
Sugar (or other sweetener)
Unlike masala chai, which is normally prepared with black tea, Kashmiri pink tea uses green or oolong tea leaves.
Ingredients included in Kashmiri chai that are not included in most other chai recipes:
baking soda (just a pinch)
ground pistachios and/or almonds
salt
white poppy seeds
The final major difference is in the method of preparation. Masala chai can be made in a matter of minutes by boiling the water, then adding tea, milk, spices and boiling it all together for a few minutes before straining and serving. Kashmiri chai, on the other hand, takes 1-2 hours to prepare (I believe the long boiling time is required for the baking soda to accomplish its task of turning the tea pink). I don't know the exact process and couldn't find any sources that seemed reliable.
Pink tea is an alternative name we use for kashmiri chai in Pakistan. There are many different ways to prepare it but I'll state the most common one that I have grown up learning:
First fill a slightly big pot or sauce pan with cold water. Add 2 tablespoons full of green or oolong leaves along with 1 or 2 crushed cardamom pods, pinch of fennel seeds, a cinnamon stick and 1 star anise.
Bring the tea to boil and then cover it on medium heat. Let it cook until half of the water has evaporated.
Remove from heat. Add a glass of cold water and start beating the tea until it becomes pink and foamy.
Put it back on the heat, bring to a boil and strain it.
Add some milk, salt or sugar according to your taste and likeness. Sprinkle some crushed almonds and pistachios with a bit of cream on each cup before serving the tea hot.
This tea is a favorite in winter times and is often consumed for breakfast with bakarkhani. You can also find it being served in common roadside tea stalls in Punjab, khyber pakhtoon khuwan and other provinces of Pakistan.
Winter weddings usually end with this amazing hot beverage being served after the dinner.
green tea is the slightly yellow slightly greenish mixture or concoction that is good for health. pink kashmiri tea is very common in the northern subcontinent and especially in punjab and khyber pukhtunkhwa provinces of pakistan. it is very very delicious and tastes salty and slightly proteinceous. you can consume it with bakarkhanis or phiyonian and even naan bread.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.521496
| 2012-09-05T15:16:17 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/25999",
"authors": [],
"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
}
|
30795
|
What's the proper procedure of making ghee?
I'm often making ghee for my cooking. However, I've never seen how it's done, I've only read how to do it, I'm having some doubts about its preparation.
Should heat butter slowly or fast? I saw both directions in recipes and I don't know which one is better. Or does either of them have some advantages?
When I know ghee is ready? When cooking it, it goes roughly through these phases:
Foam is forming (and I'm collecting it and putting away).
Foam gradually stops forming, but white pieces are floating in the liquid, I cannot see the bottom of the pot.
The liquid becomes clear, solid whitish pieces are lying on the bottom. Small bubbles are still forming.
As the pieces on the bottom turn dark, small bubbles eventually stop forming.
I believe the proper time is somewhere just after 3., but I'm not sure about that. I don't want it to get burned, but at the time I want it to be really pure. Some sources claim that ghee is ready when the surface becomes completely still. But this doesn't happen until all the pieces on the bottom turn dark, and I feel at this time it's like a bit burned.
If I want to keep ghee for a long time (I've read that the older the better), what is important to be aware of in order it doesn't go bad?
I couldn't add tag ghee to the post, if someone has enough points, feel free to do it.
You can start it on high, until it is completely melted, and foaming, to save time. Then reduce to a slow simmer to evaporate the water.
You want all of the water to be evaporated—this is critical to the shelf life of your ghee.
This is indicated by the solids beginning to brown and the cessation of bubbles as you noted; the milk solids cannot brown until all of the water is evaporated. This is because as long as water is present, it will prevent the temperature from rising to the threshold required to brown the milk solids. Once the water is evaporated, the temperature in the pot will rise past 212 F / 100 C, and the browning can begin starting around 250 F / 120 C (IIRC).
Side note: Although I have not seen a traditional recipe recommend it, I imagine it would be very effective to use a candy or deep fry thermometer to monitor when the temperature passes 212 F / 100 C by a reasonable margin.
You will be leaving the browned milk solids behind, so they will not be in your final ghee.
This typical recipe describes this part of the process as follows:
Let the butter simmer for up to one hour. Keep an eye on it and keep
the flame on your stove as low as possible. The ghee is done when you
see browned butterfat caramelized on the bottom of the pan and the top
portion of the ghee is clear.
To completely remove the water, you want to continue to heat, until no bubbles remain. As sarge_smith kindly points out, once the agitation from major boiling completes, and the solids settle, local conditions directly in contact with the bottom of the pan may allow some browning, while a small amount of water remains in the ghee.
Store your ghee in a sealed container not exposed to oxygen, preferably opaque or in a cabinet to prevent ultraviolet light from reaching it, both of which contribute to rancidity. Refrigerating smaller quantities doesn't hurt, but when sealed for long term storage, ghee should be shelf stable for at least a year, assuming you evaporated all of the water. Even if you are worried that some water remains, you should still easily get a month of shelf life, longer in the refrigerator.
See also:
Should ghee be kept out of light?
Thanks. Concerning 2., I observed that milk solids are getting brown, but still small bubbles are appearing from the bottom. This is what confuses me. Should I wait until those small bubbles completely cease, even though the milk solids are completely dark brown at that time?
Afraid you have pushed my knowledge to the limit. Perhaps someone more expert will jump in. The link here has a great picture of what it looks like done. http://www.aayisrecipes.com/2007/05/14/how-to-make-ghee/
if you are still getting bubbles, it means that you haven't quite gotten all the water out. Those bubbles are formed by the water turning to steam. Fats don't bubble if there aren't any water present.
@sarge_smith I wanted to say that, but wasn't sure enough--how would the temperature of the fat rise high enough to brown the milk solids while there is still unevaporated water in the mixture?
@SAJ14SAJ because they are in contact with the bottom of the pan, thus are getting just enough conduction heat to start to brown. While the mixture is frothing, there is enough movement to prevent that, but once it settles, that is no longer the case. Really, you are only talking about a short period of time, unless your burner is just barely heating the fat past boiling. If you are seeing a few intermittent bubbles, you should just kick the heat back to high until they disappear.
@sarge_smith Thank you, I hadn't considered local effects. I have edited this information into the main answer for reference, with credit to you.
Looks like a great answer. I'd add that you can strain out the milk solids whenever YOU think they have cooked enough, bubbling or not, i.e., take a bit of the ghee on a spoon, cool and taste. It is all about butter flavor. Tasty? strain. Then, you can reheat the strained ghee to make 100% sure that there is no leftover moisture in the fat (not that there should be). If you can heat it to 100°C (212°F) with no bubbling, you are good. Me, I'd pour the hot ghee into smallish jelly jars to the rim, close the lids, turn upside down for 5 min to sterilize the inner lid, and store in a dark place.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.521876
| 2013-02-09T16:41:35 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/30795",
"authors": [
"Cassiterite",
"Emily",
"Lisa Biesinger",
"Pauli",
"Petr",
"Radhika Sheshashayee",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"StackGuru",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/446",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72053",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72056",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72057",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72141",
"sarge_smith",
"spammer"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
1566
|
How to know if Dover Sole is fresh?
How do you know when Dover Sole is fresh?
According to this other question, about all fish, you have a few ways to know:
the gills should be bright red
the skin/scales should be bright and shiny like metal
this fish shouldn't really smell of anything except 'watery'
the flesh should rebound quickly when pressed
the eyes should be bright and clear
really fresh fish is also quite slimey to touch if it's straight out of the water. I remember being quite surprised at this from my first fishing trip a few years back.
And all of these ways don't work, because the fish bores under sand and lives there. Is there any way to tell with Dover Sole?
smell always works, although "briny" is the term I'd use
Was that fresh water fish? For some reason I thought salt water fish typically were not slimey.
For Dover Sole and most flat fish in general they should ideally be past the rigor mortis stage (eg not rigid or stiff ). I've known some chefs keep Dover Sole up to a week in the fridge before cooking.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.522374
| 2010-07-17T23:02:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1566",
"authors": [
"Precipitous",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2828",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2829",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2830",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/671",
"kdgregory",
"nobody",
"quoo",
"tonylo"
],
"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
}
|
48865
|
Sourdough starter developing alcohol
I have been dealing with my sourdough starter since about 1-2 months ago, when I started it from scratch with just water and flour .
In the last 2 refreshments I have added some honey, just 1 teaspoon each time to deliver some easy-to-digest sugar to my sourdough, I don't think it's too much based on the quantities of water and flour . The real difference is that in the past I have used a bowl covered with a wet piece of cloth, but since the last 2 refreshments I have been using a big cylindrical container made of glass with a plastic tap, and it's almost airtight, it's really different from just having a cloth on top of a container .
My sourdough starter was developing a really good smell, it was a "flat" odor of flour mixed to water in the first days, but it developed into something more fruity in the next days/weeks . Now in the new sealed container, stored at room temperature, away from direct sunlight, in the back of my cabinet, it started developing a punchy alcoholic smell .
I suppose that it was something I should expect from bacteria that goes into anaerobic mode, but my questions are about the cooking aspect of this :
what this means for my yeast/sourdough culture, it means it's good an healthy and I should keep storing it this way ?
how to prepare/handle my sourdough when I'll make pizza or bread out of it ? I should just take a piece of it and add it to my ingredients as always ?
Your second question (how to prepare/use sourdough) seems unrelated to your first question, and should be split off.
It's called "hooch", and it is normal
Aerobic fermentation produces acids. Anaerobic fermentation produces ethanol. knock a few holes in your airtight cover, and stir the stuff every few days to keep the oxygen level up. It doesn't require a lot, but it sounds that you've gotten down to none.
The alcohol was not a problem in my case.
I want to clarify that my sourdough was not producing any liquid in any visible quantity, the alcoholic smell started to fade as soon as I leaved the container opened for a about a day .
I have also used the very same sourdough, without refreshing it in the meantime, for my latest baked goods and it's active and kicking .
If you've truly gone anaerobic and the smell is off, you are growing things other than the intended cultures...
As a rule, I simply feed mine flour and water. No sugar. The cultures can get along fine with the flour. (I did read in a reputable baking book about adding leftover water from boiling potatoes, for the starches, but I haven't had a chance to try.)
If the smell is off, I would dump and start over in a more breathable container. Your entire goal is to grow the sourdough cultures and let them flourish in their happy environment. And as you've smelled, there is a distinctive scent of happy sourdough. Now if the smell has changed, you lost your scented sourdough and are now growing something else.
I've kept sourdough for over a decade, and it's from a culture that is 84 years old. But if it smells funny (or gets brightly colored mold), he's going down the sink faster than dishwater. It's just the nature of the beast.
Give the poor bugs some air. They're supposed to be making carboxylic acids, not alcohols.
Where have you been keeping your sourdough, and in what period were you feeding it ? 94 years of sourdough sounds amazing :)
Fridge. Loose lidded, opaque, non-metal container. Feed every two weeks, optimally.
Alcohol is a natural product of yeast fermentation. That it is being produced is nothing, in and of itself, to be worried about. However, keep in mind that natural "products" of any biological process tend to be the waste products, and isn't that great for the producing organism to have it accumulate. Usually we notice it more when we've neglected our cultures and a good amount has accumulated.
Just pour it off before using or feeding, and if it seems like the quality of the starter culture is degrading, start a fresh one from scratch and inoculate it with your existing one.
Most likely, the yeast in your starter are getting tired and/or hungry. A starter will start developing a strong alcohol smell and start "leaking" a dark fluid once the yeast start running out of food. This happens to me if I neglect my starter for over 2 weeks or so.
I would recommend keeping your starter in the refrigerator, not at room temperature. You only need to leave it at room temperature for about 6-8 hours after feeding (or until it starts rising and appears bubbly). Keeping it cold will slow down the yeast metabolism and keep it fresher longer.
I only feed my starter an equal mix of flour and water, and make sure to at least double the size of the starter (8 oz starter needs at least 4 oz flour and 4 oz water at feeding time). Flour provides all the nutrition your yeast need, and you want a yeast culture that is well adapted to eating flour instead of other sugars. This mostly comes from my homebrewing experience; a generation of yeast raised on pure sugar start losing the ability to properly ferment beer.
From my wine making days, I know that baker’s yeast will stop fermenting and producing alcohol at a lower percentage of alcohol than brewer's yeast. Someone said that 8% alcohol actually kills bakers yeast, but I don’t have confirmation of that. This applies to a yeast culture that is happily fermenting a sugary solution. 10% sugar solution is converted to approx 5% alcohol. If I was keeping yeast alive to multiply, I would rack off some of the liquid well before that. Then add fresh water, before adding any more sugar. Haven’t tried flour.
This is from an old memory - hope it’s still valid.
When you first start a fresh brand new starter mix, you have a fight of bacteria and yeast where the intent is that the yeast wins out and the alcohol that is produced by the yeast kills off the bacteria. The yeasts alcohol is what keeps the starter from going bad.
The first few batches of bread I made from fresh starter was very sour but the strong sourness went away over time.
After the first week after hopefully seeing the alcohol gas bubble being produced showing you have yeast growing you put your mix in the fridge to slow the yeast down from eating all the starches up really fast.
I've never had starter go bad yet but I smell it every week and know what it should spell like. It kind of a fruity smell after a week. When you mix in more flour, it will smell more like flower again.
I use to just feed my starter with just flour but got into blending up grapes which has my starter thriving. The alcohol gets so strong some times when I open the container, it burns my nose, but that is after sitting in the fridge for a week after a grape feed. With flower, you get a fruity kind of smell. The dark liquid on top means it needs feeding again. I feed my starter once a week and make bread every other week. I feed one cup of flour each week and make two loaves the second week. I make wheat, sunflower seed, poppy seed, cheese, spice and garlic bread.
My starter has passed 3 years old now. I've been making bread continually for 6 years now. I started with one loaf a week but got to two loaves every other week. I make my own hamburger buns too.
I would tend to agree with the starved yeast producing more alcohol waste. I had a similar issue recently with both of my starters (I have an Irish wholemeal and a blended wholemeal/AP). Per my microbiologist friend's advice, I stirred the liquid (hooch) back in and did a discard and feed. I treated them like new batches for a few days, discard/feed daily and kept out with a loose cloth covering. It only took about 2 days for the whole meal to come back to a breadlike scent and back in the fridge he went. It took another day for the blended flour starter but it came around too.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.522523
| 2014-10-12T09:53:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/48865",
"authors": [
"Bob",
"Donald Knuth",
"Grey Dog",
"June Taylor",
"Kay Staffenhagen",
"Lars Vistisen",
"Our",
"Pat Kramme",
"R.H.W. Arguile",
"Randy Jeffery",
"Wad Cheber",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116584",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116585",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116588",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116667",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116752",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/116836",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2047",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25282",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/61923"
],
"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
}
|
46593
|
Safe Chicken Liver?
Are chicken livers safe to eat cooked slightly pink? Is "chopped liver" safe when using schmaltz as an ingredient?
That depends. What does the texture of the inside pink portion look like? Does it still look like it's raw liver? Or does it look and have the texture of the rest of the cooked liver, but slightly pink? If the latter, it is probably safe to eat.
The pink colour in meat is given by myoglobin. When myoglobin is heated it loses its structure and changes colour, which is how many people tell doneness.
However, you're talking about the liver, which contains a lot more myoglobin than normal cuts of meat, and even after cooking may have residual myoglobin that hasn't been denatured.
Here's a thread with more discussion on the topic of cooking chicken livers for pate (which seems to be what you're doing)
http://forums.egullet.org/topic/142171-under-cooked-chicken-liver-pate-and-food-poisoning
As for your second question, I don't see why using schmaltz would make your chopped liver unsafe. Are you worried about the salmonella? Schmaltz is fat that has been already rendered, so any germs it contains would likely already have been killed off, and as long as it was stored properly there should be no problems with food safety.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.523231
| 2014-08-23T01:02:00 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46593",
"authors": [
"Autumn Lindsey",
"Cheryl McKenna Neuman",
"Stephen Redmon",
"cathy murrell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112313",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112315",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112322",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/114138",
"user112313"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75435
|
Appliance to wash or scrub fruit and vegetables? Washer or scrubber
I need to wash or scrub 20 lb of oranges a day. Some have a layer of white stuff on them and I never tried juicing those without scrubbing. Does anyone know of a household sized automated machine for this? The best I have found Cuisine cleaner at AMZ seems intended for more delicate things. Will the ozone help in any way? Would ultrasonic? I hope I will not have to DIY something out of a paint buffer or back and forth towel mover machine.
I would just use my washing machine with a couple of dedicated towels to give them a bit of a scrub during agitation. Pull out the oranges a soon as they are not swimming, let the towels finish the spin cycle. Could that work?
Is the "white stuff" on the outside of the peels? What is your juicing method?
That link is more or a sanitizer. I don't recall specifics but my dad sold supplies to fruit warehouses when I was a kid and they used a gentle agitated bath. I think a washing machine would be too brutal but a washing machine works great for golf balls.
You could add add stiffer brush to this technique https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY6I71-bajo . Or, you could be inspired by how Mandarin Oranges are processed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCD7Em5dYRM.
@Jolenealaska grime. 15$ white blackendecker spinning motion.
@Paulb That first link looks like it might be perfect. I will tell you tomorrow. Paparazzi I hope its like this or this . The washing machine plan does not work because of a bunch of my circumstances.
Now THAT's what the "orange cleaner" products in the cleaning products aisle are for ;)
@Paulb https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8H4w9j4_bI there i made it
@ran8 : you're allowed to answer (and accept) your own question. Besides what you did, you might want to mention what you like or don't like about it (eg, improvements you might try in a later version, tweaks you had to make to get it working for what you needed, etc.).
Hanabishi wash machines are good for this. Buy the one with the round cloth opening. Buy one round baking rack with feet,legs to place in bottom. These are not agitation machines but the ones with the water movers in the bottom. So need rack to fit over them or damage to fruit. Add fruit, add water, add soap?, set to soft wash. Set timer. Turn on. Once cycle is done drain. If soap used next refill machine with water. set timer, turn on for rinse. Drain remove fruit. You can also wash your cloths in them. Look under Japan appliances not American. Hanabishi seem to hold up well. Very simple wiring, most switches can be replaced with toggle switches if they break. Safety with a stout cord & such. Machines not made for the American market so will need to order to there.
PaulB suggested video Crazy Russian's drill and brush potato washer. I tried it. My version. I bought a 12 Qt bucket and toilet brush. I sawed off the brush handle and drilled in the sawed end using a small bit. That eventually came out but the next one I used wide flatish bit did not. This method works but has problems.
Now I put the fruit in the bucket and scrub with 1.20$ shower scrub gloved hands.
The water always sploshed out and I do not know where to buy a cover with a hole for the bucket. Depending on time and pressure soft spots in oranges would be dug out. However, at the same time, citrien oil in the rind would be removed as well and that is a very good thing. The process so far takes some concentration. It also does not work on more than 3 pounds at a time. Without refinement this process is not significantly better for me than bucket-and-scrub-gloves. It needs a bigger bucket, bucket cover, and a scrub-like surface on the inside of the bucket.
I'm not sure how sticky this coating is ...
Can you construct a huge wire tub (basket) and then hose them down with the garden hose outside?
My husband suggested created opposite rotating brushes where they enter at a slope and roll out after being brushed and washed at the same time. It depends upon how much work space you have.
First suggestion is not really an option. Second suggestion could work but I would need more details as I am not really a handyman.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.523402
| 2016-11-12T21:42:39 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75435",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Paulb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"paparazzo",
"rackandboneman",
"ran8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
64616
|
Can you use sweet potatoes in a no-bake pie?
Can sweet potatoes be substituted for pumpkin in a no bake pumpkin pie recipe? It seems there are a lot of no bake pumpkin pie recipes but no bake sweet potato pie recipes are not as common.
Yes, I think you could successfully substitute sweet potatoes, with perhaps a few considerations.
Peel your sweet potatoes and steam until tender, then mash and whip by hand, or with a food processor or blender.
Sweet potatoes will be somewhat sweeter than plain pumpkin, so adjust any sweeteners in your recipe accordingly. Canned pumpkin may also have a higher water content, so be aware of that as you assemble the ingredients.
Note that canned pumpkin pie filling is different than plain canned pumpkin, in that it has sweeteners and spices added. Depending upon which kind of pumpkin your recipe is calling for, rely on your own sense of taste to fine-tune the sugar and spice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.523744
| 2015-12-20T21:25:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/64616",
"authors": [
"Jenny Littlehales",
"Julianne Peakes",
"Karen Thompson",
"Tanner Heaton",
"To Fo",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154196",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154197",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154198",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/154201"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
125155
|
Making caramel sauce with yogurt instead of milk
One style of caramel recipe dissolves sugar in cream or milk and heats that until it browns. Is there any reason this wouldn't work with yoghurt? Is there a known such recipe? It's impossible to search the web for it, there are too many yoghurts with caramel.
I like this question and I'm interested to see what the answer is – but you might want to change the title to 'making caramel with yoghurt', since 'caramelizing' has a more specific meaning.
Ryazhenka is yogurt made from caramelized milk... sort of the opposite of what you're looking for.
@dbmag I said 'caramelizing' because I thought its happening in solution might matter, but seeing that rumtscho says not, I'm cool with the title.
That sounds delicious - could you please remember to come back and update this question with your results later ?
I can't see a reason why it wouldn't work. Caveat, I haven't made it with yogurt myself, but it sounds definitively worth trying out, and I'd estimate the risk of unpleasant surprises as quite low.
When you make a caramel sauce, the liquid is used simply for thinning to the correct consistency. The most common liquids are cream and milk, because the fat makes it very tasty, but you could use other liquids, and especially any dairy will give you a rather similar result.
Chemically, acid does make for a softer caramel, but you're probably looking to stop it at a "thick liquid" stage anyway, and even if not, yogurt is not all that acidic, it should be around 4.5.
The "mix everything first" method shouldn't be a problem either. It does need good temperature control for a longish period of time, and you may have to watch it more closely than cream, because the acid is likely to speed up the caramelization somewhat. But especially if you use sufficient fat - maybe try sour cream instead of yogurt - it shouldn't get out of hand.
Yogurt gets a more pronounced sourness when it's heated. A caramel sauce is very sweet, so it shouldn't be an unpleasant "punch", but I'd expect it to not taste as neutral as when made with cream - which is a good reason to make it in the first place, as it would give you a nice variation.
The issue I foresee with heating yogurt up to high temperatures is curdling. The results may not be totally objectionable, but I would expect a certain amount of graininess in the final texture.
We all know that enough acidity will cause dairy to curdle and separate - heat will exacerbate this effect, even if the dairy you started with was perfectly stable. This is also why many caramel recipes opt for cream in the first place. It's not only for flavor or richness, but it's less likely to curdle due to the slight acidity coupled with high heat.
For the sake of experimenting, I would recommend creme fraiche since the higher fat content does allow you to cook with it with fewer separation issues. That said, I'm not sure what will happen once you get beyond boiling!
And if you do meet success, I'd love an update! Good luck! :)
Some sodium citrate could probably also help retard curdling.
@Sneftel interesting, Na citrate should make it more acidic, which, I would have thought, make it less stable. Adding a salt might also precipitate the proteins out a bit more, increasing the graininess, at least from a biochemical perspective.
@bob1 Sodium citrate is a pH buffer, actually. But it’s also well known for its ability to resist curdling.
@Sneftel Of course! I should have remembered that; I just made up a solution a couple of weeks ago.
Asker here -- I went ahead and made some yogurt caramel, and it turned out wonderful! The tartness happened to come out confident yet blended with my amounts, and I like it much better than I would a lemony note.
Taking a hint from the hivemind I used starch to prevent curdling, so what I have is really a pudding. But then I found out about the lack of shelf life due to starch, and that it reduces scent. Next time I'll try just blending it smooth once curdled as I presume further cooking shouldn't hold any hazards.
Here's what I did, for completeness. I make no special claims for the setup. Forgive the funny numbers, they come from a physical teaspoon. Also no guarantee what the spices would do if I hadn't in fact used up some unquantifiable-ginger-tinge butter left from another caramel experiment (which was a hit ;).
Yogurt caramel pudding
Based on:
https://www.chefkoch.de/rezepte/1911861311606701/Karamell-soft.html
Yields: ca. 500 to 550 ml
Shelf life: 1-3 weeks in fridge
450 ml yogurt 3.5%, firm, nearing Best Before
20 g cornstarch
160 g powdered sugar
2.8 ml honey
65 g butter
1.4 ml salt
0.7 ml cumin powder
5.5 ml coriander seed powder
3.5 ml rose water
whisk yogurt smooth with starch
melt butter; whisk in yogurt, sugar, honey, salt
low simmer, stir and scrape bottom regularly; beware of spattering due to starch
browning only sets in once enough water has escaped, this may take a while
test taste from cold plate
when desired darkness reached, boil water and adjust consistency (test on cold plate)
mix spices, rose water, some water into a paste
rinse and heat up jars with hot water; whisk in spice, pour and let cool
Wonderful! I love it when someone gives it a go and comes back to tell us how it went. I'm assuming that it's a teaspoon each of honey and coriander, 1/2 tsp of cumin and rosewater?
@bob1, my actual teaspoon holds about 2.76 ml, different from the imperial-system measure called tsp.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.523876
| 2023-09-04T10:55:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/125155",
"authors": [
"Criggie",
"Sneftel",
"ariola",
"bob1",
"dbmag9",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36356",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"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
}
|
95906
|
Is it necessary to add vegetables to slow cooker pot roast?
I like slow cooked roast for tenderness but hate the taste of 'pot roast' vegetables. Is it really necessary to cook vegetables with the roast?
This is an interesting question. As a UK native living in the US. I always wondered this, I never even thought of the idea of roasting the meat and vegetables together as generally one wants the meat tender and vegetables crisp. Admittedly I have not used a slow cooker, placing everything in the oven in baking dishes. So this question is very interesting to me +1
If you're doing it as a pot roast, the vegetables are mainly there to deliver flavour (unlike in a stew, where they're a major part of the dish). Sometimes they're eaten, sometimes discarded (which seems like a waste to me, so I would choose vegetables I'd want to eat). They take on a role similar to stock or a flavoured rub or oil when roasting in an oven.
On that basis you can generally omit them. One thing to watch out for though is that the vegetables can be used to lift the joint slightly, so it doesn't sit in a pool of fat*. In that case you'd want to replace them with something inert, or use them but discard them.
If you then find that the meat wants a little more flavour, you can always add a little of a suitable herb and some black peppercorns, to be discarded.
* Note that the term "pot roast" is used broadly, sometimes adding significant amounts of liquid and sometimes not. I don't know if this is a regional thing, but my answer is meant to cover both types.
It's also easier to throw everything in one pot and not have to cook separately. If you don't know the exact meal time, a slow cooker can be automatically keeping the whole meal immediately ready for serving when the unknown time arrives.
@Keeta - That's precisely how I use the slow cooker. Meat and veg get chopped up into the same bowl, then just left to cook all day. On your return you've got a one-pot meal with meat and two veg
@Richard After second thought, I decided it may be better to make it an answer all to itself, rather than updating this one.
To directly answer the question as it was originally posted before edit:
why does everyone add vegetables to slow cooker pot roast
To save time
Longer answer:
It is not necessary to cook vegetables with meat. The vegetables do add flavor (a flavor that many appreciate) but I don't feel that is the main reason. Many people add potatoes to the pot roast while cooking. Potatoes don't add any appreciable flavor.
Instead, in my case I do it to save time. Sometimes I will plan my lunch meal on Sunday and put things in the pot to cook. By having everything in one pot, when I return from morning services I can just pull everything out of the pot and put it on the table. Based on services ending just about noon and the travel time home, this removes the need to wait for food to be prepared for the lunch meal.
It's also easier to do. Rather than put only the meat in one pot and then create more dirty dishes by cooking the vegetables separately, I can put them all in one pot and make cleanup time shorter.
So, to answer what I feel is a very opinion based question, "to save time".
You also don't have to add everything at the same time -- unless you're in the 'set it up and leave it alone 'til it's done' situation (eg, while at work), you can add some of the vegetables after the meat has cooked for a few hours so they still retain their texture. (frozen peas to just warm through add good texture)
I agree about those vegetables. Julia Child has a great solution.
Julia Child only adds aromatics like onions, celery, carrots, and garlic (never potatoes) to a roast in her pot roast recipes (see Beef Burgundy). Once the roast is finished, she strains-out the aromatics because they are now tasteless and mushy. She then sautes pearl onions in butter and adds those in just before serving. If you want potatoes, she cooks those separately or adds them to the pot roast about 2 hours before the roast is finished cooking.
Google "julia child beef bourguignon" for her recipe and many variations. BTW, her recipe is delicious, it is worth any extra time or expense to try at least once in your life.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.524290
| 2019-01-24T06:09:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/95906",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Keeta - reinstate Monica",
"Richard",
"Vality",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45049",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45625",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51432",
"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
}
|
67681
|
Choosing a Flavorless Oil with Specific Qualities
I'm looking for a cooking oil that's flavorless.
Many people like coconut oil, but I think it has too strong of a smell. Olive oil, while noticeably less pungent, is still noticeable. I'm also trying to avoid most nut-derived oils, to avoid possible unwanted allergic reactions.
I'm leaning towards something that's low in trans fat and relatively high in polyunsaturated fat. Something that'll stay liquid (even when kept in the fridge) would be nice.
Sunflower oil maybe?
Why would you keep it in the fridge?
You could try Rice Bran oil. It is virtually flavourless and I've used it for anything from salad dressings to frying. It has 37% polyunsaturated fats. The smoking point is 232 Celsius.
Hello Nette, and thank you for writing an answer. Note that health is off topic on the site. If the OP specifies a specific measurable condition for nutrients (like in this case "high in PUFA"), it is OK to give a number for it. But we don't give any possible health advice beyond that, like discussing what effects it has been shown to have, etc. I had to remove that part of your answer so it will stay on topic. But no worries, the rest is good as it is.
Can get rid of the health advice but let's keep the nutritional information in here still.
It is also high in omega 6 & 9 fatty acids. It has extremely low levels of omega 3.
Safflower oil is probably your best bet! Very light, unsaturated fat, almost no flavor. It also stands up well to high temps.
Sunflower oil is really the only one that meets your requirements.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.524649
| 2016-03-23T06:27:37 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67681",
"authors": [
"Afzal N",
"Charles Richardson",
"Charlotte Roberson",
"Chris H",
"David Solomon",
"Deborah T",
"Donna Ladd",
"Joe Page-harries",
"Joseph Rearick",
"Kathy Mandel",
"Natasha Cheguis",
"Patrick Hofman",
"Paul Brister",
"Robert Bulley",
"Shelia Tuttle",
"Tina Parrott",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162494",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162495",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162497",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162498",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162499",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162501",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162505",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162518",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162837",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/31372",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91004",
"james wooten",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
43788
|
If you need to keep ground coffee for a long time, will keeping it in the freezer help?
Ok, so yes - the best way to keep your coffee fresh is to just buy fresh coffee regularly, and not use it two weeks after the roasting date.
However, some people don't drink a lot of a coffee (or don't drink coffee at all!), but want to keep some 'nice coffee' in the house for when guests arrive.
In this situation, will keeping ground coffee in the freezer help retain freshness/flavour?
Ground coffee keep fine in an air tight jar in the pantry for a few months. Try a blind test and see if you can spot the difference. Freezing coffee makes a lot of dust from the grinds
Since your question concerns ground coffee, read the answer and comments here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/36751/what-is-the-best-way-to-store-ground-coffee?rq=1
Yes, buying fresh coffee is better and grinding right before using is optimal. I think we mostly agree on that. That said, it IS possible to freeze coffee without completely destroying it. There are a number of variables that you want to account for. Here is a short summary:
It should sealed very tightly, a mason jar would work well for example. Even better is to freeze the unopened bag (with the valve taped shut), but that defeats your goal I think of consuming slowly.
If at all possible, put into the freezer once, remove once. NO refreezing. Taking the whole batch in and out of the freezer every time you use it could cause condensation which will damage your beans.
Freeze the coffee whole. Grind right before use.
Take the coffee out of the bag, let it come to room temperature before grinding it.
Once it comes out of the freezer, it's back to being optimally consumed in a couple weeks.
There is a limit to how long you can freeze it. I wouldn't leave it more than a few months? Here's a good, but long read on the subject, including some taste test results. If you're really seriously interested, I'd give that a good read.
If you're not a big coffee drinker, and your guests aren't picky either, you might not care about all those variables. I'd do some testing to see what works for you (don't test with the expensive stuff of course...). If you and your guests can't taste the difference, the extra precautions are kind of for naught. I have certain family members who claim to prefer the crappy, flavourless stuff for example. :-P sigh
Last note. Never store coffee in the fridge. Why not? Quoted from here:
"The Starbucks web site says: "Think of coffee as fresh produce. The enemies of coffee are oxygen, light, heat, and moisture. To keep coffee fresh, store it in an opaque, airtight container at room temperature. Storing coffee in the refrigerator or freezer for daily use can damage the coffee as warm, moist air condenses to the beans whenever the container is opened."
Why shouldn't I keep the beans in the fridge? It's in airtight jars. I keep another, smaller jar in the cupboard and refill it with beans so when I grind I have them in room temperature.
@zamber : Condensation. Each time you open the container, you let in new, moist air, and then putting it back into the fridge it adds extra moisture into the coffee.
I would add that roasted coffee has the tendency to absorb water (or moist). So if you're roasting at home, do it just before freezing, otherwise freeze just after unpacking if the packing was good. If not, you might want to find a way to partially roast again.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.524849
| 2014-04-30T04:08:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/43788",
"authors": [
"Christian",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Shawn Azdam",
"Spammer",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102715",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102716",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102717",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102718",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102735",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"potato-enthusiast",
"spakendralo man",
"zamber"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
76384
|
When I go to slice my meatloaf it falls apart on the plate
Why does my meatloaf fall apart when I cut it for serving. I used 2 eggs and 1 cup of breadcrumbs in the loaf. I just don't get it.
It's hard to say without seeing your recipe, but it's probably either too wet a mix or possibly not enough egg (which acts as a binder).
We need a recipe. My first impulse was to suggest that perhaps you didn't let it rest long enough.
I used two eggs and 1 cup bread crumbs. Don't get it
Mjs, we really need a full recipe or ratio of ingredients and how you prepare it. If users ask, it's not to pester you, but to help you get a qualified answer that fits your specific problem. More on this if you take the [tour] and browse our [help]. For now, I have to vote to close this as "too broad" (= too many possible reasons, what could go wrong). Once you have [edit] your post, I'll retract the close vote or vote to re-open the question. Welcome to Seasoned Advice! I know the learning curve can be steep, but it's worth it. We are here to help, ping us, if you need us.
@Mjs : 2 eggs and 1c. bread crumbs for how much meat? And I'm with jolenealaska, and suspect it's cutting into it almost immediately after taking it out of the oven.
And anyone else concerned with how eager people are to close questions these days? In the past, we'd change it to something like 'What are the reasons that (x) could happen?' or 'What should I do or avoid if I'm having problems with (x)'. Then we got into that whole 'there should be only one possible correct answer' which is a load of crap. There are lots of different solutions for most problems.
@Joe I share your concern. I would rather save questions if possible. On the other hand, we like to see questions closed by the community instead of bringing down the mod hammer. Since the OP has come back at least once to give us more information, they might again. If significant time passes without more information, it can be reevaluated.
Especially if we're going to generalize, let's take this to meta: How should we approach vague questions?. (For here, I'll just note that the standard close reason, if something truly does not have enough information to answer, is "unclear what you're asking", not "too broad".)
Cook at a slightly lower temperature (until meat thermometer in center = 160 degrees). Let it sit before you cut it.
Cut with sharpest knife you can.
Less breadcrumbs (or no breadcrumbs) -- you can try using oatmeal instead.
Only one egg, and add some other liquid ingredients like tomato paste or sauce or Worscheshire sauce or even a little bit of Cream of Mushroom soup (not my fave but it works).
Add a small amount of water if desired.
Choose ground beef that is not the leanest kind, it holds together better. You can also mix different types (80/20 and 90/10) or mix another ground meat like pork in there too for slightly different texture.
Recipe I'd try:
1 to 1 1/2 pounds ground beef
1/2 cup bread crumbs [or oatmeal]* (optional)
1 can of condensed tomato soup (other kinds work too)
1 egg
1 small onion finely chopped (about 1/4 cup)
1 tablespoon Worcestershire sauce
ground black pepper
1/4 tsp salt
1/4 cup water
Mix the beef, 1/2 the can of soup, bread crumbs, egg, onion, Worcestershire sauce, salt and black pepper in a large bowl. Place the beef mixture into a loaf pan and shape firmly into desired loaf shape. Pour the rest of the soup over the top of the meatloaf. Bake at 350°F for 1 hour or until center reaches 160 degrees. Let stand for 10 minutes before slicing.
Is the burger to lean? I add some porkfat ground to mine. Or it crumbles.This is water buffalo burger that I use.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.525247
| 2016-12-12T13:45:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/76384",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mjs",
"Stephie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52757",
"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
}
|
77045
|
Is it possible to destroy the seasoning on cast-iron by getting the pan too hot?
Yesterday I thoroughly cleaned my cast iron pan, reseasoned it four times for 30 minutes at 450 with liquid canola oil. The seasoning looked really good, and I had a great sheen across the entire bottom and sides of the pan.
I cooked bacon this morning, then cleaned by scouring with a sponge. I dried with a paper towel, buffed some more canola oil on with a new paper towel, and turned my stove on high. After 15 minutes, the iron was up to 700F-800F. I turned it off, let it cool down and it looks like the seasoning has been stripped from where the pan was hottest, pictured below.
Is there a temperature at which the seasoning is destroyed? If so, what is it? If that's not what caused my problem, what did?
See: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20249/how-much-could-i-safely-heat-a-content-less-cast-iron-pan/45999#45999
Thanks. Wish I had used an IR thermometer to see how hot it got. This is an electric stove FWIW.
With respect: are you certain this is a cast iron pan? In the photo - upper right corner - it looks to be a little thinner than the cast iron pans I have seen. Also (hard to tell for sure from photo though) the shape of the sides seems "curvier" than the ones I am used to.
I certainly think it is. I ordered it on Amazon about 3 years ago. It's Lodge, and came in Lodge packaging. It seasons just like cast iron, the seasoning was destroyed by high heat as expected, it's heavy, etc. All signs point to it being cast iron (beyond the fact that I bought cast iron on Amazon). Oh, and it gets rusty very easily if it's not seasoned well... So it's definitely iron!
Sure it's possible to destroy the seasoning with heat. It's possible too destroy the whole pan with heat, if you take it beyond the melting point of iron.
FYI, in the future, when you're setting the coating of your pan on the stove top, you just need to take it beyond the smoking point which happens in only a few minutes. 15 min is too long. Also, as an aside, you can try cooking bacon in the oven instead of a pan. Gets the bacon out of the oil.
As Jolene linked to in comments, one can certainly burn off cast iron seasoning at a high enough temperature. The exact temperature where it will begin to disintegrate depends on exactly what the seasoning layer is like (composition of oils etc. used to treat it, thickness and number of layers, how thoroughly the oils may have been polymerized, etc.).
Depending on the exact seasoning layer composition and thickness, you'll see a number of different possible scenarios -- the layer could effectively "evaporate off" mostly through smoke, it could flake and degrade, and/or it could turn into a layer of powdery ash (sort of like what one sees after a self-cleaning oven cycle).
There's a lot of kitchen "lore" surrounding cast iron seasoning, even on websites that claim to be based on "science." Everybody has their favorite seasoning methods and materials. So, I'm really not certain of all the chemical details here. But my personal experience is that a "young" seasoning that is rarely or never heated very hot is more likely to "smoke off." A very old seasoning that is quite thick will often leave ash residue (and will require a higher temperature to strip down to bare iron).
No matter how good your seasoning is, though, it will be destroyed by heat long before you get close to damaging the actual iron structure of the pan. There's an old traditional method of stripping seasoning off a cast iron pan that involves throwing the pan into a hot campfire. So this is a very old practice.
In short : Yes.
More fully, it depends on the oil used. It depends not just on the smoke point of the oil or its fat content, but:
The oil used by artists and woodturners is linseed oil. The food-grade
equivalent is called flaxseed oil. This oil is ideal for seasoning
cast iron for the same reason it’s an ideal base for oil paint and
wood finishes. It’s a “drying oil”, which means it can transform into
a hard, tough film. This doesn’t happen through “drying” in the sense
of losing moisture through evaporation. The term is actually a
misnomer. The transformation is through a chemical process called
“polymerization”.
The full explanation is at:
http://sherylcanter.com/wordpress/2010/01/a-science-based-technique-for-seasoning-cast-iron/
This was tested in the labs at cooks illustrated (https://www.cooksillustrated.com/how_tos/5820-the-ultimate-way-to-season-cast-iron), so I put it in the category of highly reliable.
An aside: I have also gotten good results with grapeseed oil, when I didn't have flaxseed oil.
Oils other than flaxseed oil will polymerize as well. Once it is polymerized, why would it matter what oil is used for when the polymerization is destroyed?
While this is reasonably good information, I'm not sure how it answers the primary question. The question isn't asking for reliable methods for seasoning cast iron pans, but rather whether overheating can cause destruction of seasoning.
@Caleb Because "polymerized oil" isn't a single substance; it just means that the oil molecules have joined together into something like a plastic. It's possible that polymerized flaxseed oil burns off at a higher temperature than polymerized olive oil, for example. (No idea if it does or not; but it's possible.)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.525559
| 2017-01-02T21:56:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/77045",
"authors": [
"Athanasius",
"Caleb",
"David Richerby",
"Jolenealaska",
"Lorel C.",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/39562",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52528",
"user70848"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
79264
|
Do magnets dull knives?
A friend of mine bought some new, very sharp knives. He has a magnetic strip that he uses to store knives, but he does not put these new knives there because he says magnets dull knives.
Is that true? I've never heard of this. If so, why do magnets dull knives?
The magnets themselves don't dull them; they're not nearly strong enough to deform a blade.
But it is possible to damage your knives on those racks. It's very easy to drag the blade along the rack a bit as you pull it off, and easy for the magnet to snap it against the rack as you put it on.
Both are avoidable, though. When removing the knife, you twist it so that the sharp side leaves the magnet first. When putting it on the rack, you let the blunt side touch first, so when it snaps the rest of the way on, it's only the flat side against the rack, never the blade.
It also helps to get a version that's not just bare metal; there are plenty with the magnet underneath wood. It might not be ideal if you let the blade drag along it a lot, just as you probably don't want to drag it along your cutting board, but it's a lot better than metal. Also, since the knife isn't directly against the magnet, the force doesn't increase as sharply as you get to the rack, so there's less snap.
So, if you're worried that you (or guests in your kitchen) may not always be too careful, a bare metal magnetic knife rack is definitely not a good idea. But unless you're really protective of your knives, the wooden kind is probably fine.
Folks have also pointed out that in principle, long-term use of a magnetic rack could magnetize the blade, causing it to pick up tiny bits of metal, especially during sharpening, which would then wear and dull the blade. As far as I know, this is not a big deal: I've seen knives stored long-term on magnetic blocks without noticeable magnetization. You could always keep an eye out and demagnetize the blade if necessary.
Mine is home made: I embedded rare earth magnets on the side of the cabinet, and then covered the area with friction tape. Besides preventing it (a big Chinese knife) from sliding down, it cushins the pointy part. And the side is wood, anyway.
There is some belief that the magnets also slowly magnetize the knives which and cause them to slowly reform at a low level and dull. I am not a big believer, but if true this would tend to effect cheaper and thinner, and especially unhardened blades more. If true.
@dlb The belief is not in reforming at a low level. The belief is that if they magnetize and you sharpen them, the metal removed sticks to the sharp edge. The first use of the blade then causes those metal shards to be raked against the edge, dulling it.
@Keeta That is one of the theories. Also though, any long term exposure to magnets and especially scraping across and banging into magnets will tend to align iron and tend to magnetize it. That theory is that aligned iron is softer than randomized, so will tend to dull. I have never seen a knife magnetized in this manner, but will not say it is impossible, and have not seen scientific evidence that it is either possible or that it softens the metal. If makes sense in theory, but if it can actually happen is another issue. Jefromi's explanation seems more likely as cause of edge damage.
@dlb remanent magnetization is not a theory, it happens always. The strength of the effect is dependent on the material and the magnetic field it was exposed to. If or how that affects mechanical properties is another question, for which I did not find an answer. A magnetized tool is harder to sharpen (on a stone) because the small particles clinging to the edge are preventing you to get a nice polish (it is very hard to get rid of all those particles). And they gather all on the edge because the magnetic field has its highest strength there.
"The belief is that if they magnetize and you sharpen them, the metal removed sticks to the sharp edge."
I'd be worried more worried about the removed metal particles ending up in the food.
There is some research going on on how to measure mechanical properties of steel using its magnetic properties. That might mean that if you change the magnetic properties of the steel (like hanging it on magnets), you could change the hardness of it - but I haven't found any article on it to support that.
A problem which might occur later on is during sharpening (on a stone, not while using a sharpening steel):
The knife will probably get magnetic over time. When you try to sharpen it, the small particles will stick to the blade, making it harder to sharpen it. So it might seem to be dull because you can't get it as sharp as before.
To get around that problem you can try to knock it several times against a wooden board (back of the blade). This will demagnetize the blade and sharpening should be easy again.
"knock it several times against a wooden board" - how is this supposed to demagnetize the blade?
@Kromster shock will definitely reduce permanent magnetic properties in steel.
@Kromster there are several ways to reduce the remanent magnetization. Usually you'd use a changing magnetic field generated by a special device to do so. Or you can heat it up beyond the Curie-point. Or you can use mechanical shock. Considering that probably no one has a tool to degauss lying around and heating it to the Curie point will reduce the hardness the only practical approach left is mechanical shock. It's not as effective as the other options, but it helps.
This depends on what kind of sharpening you're doing. A sharpening steel (aka honing steel) doesn't actually remove material from the blade; rather, it straightens out the edge. So it shouldn't care if the blade is magnetized or not.
@DavidRicherby Although the primary function of a sharpening steel isn't to remove steel from the edge, it will remove steel in cases where a depression is large enough. I have a saw sharpening business and I have special hones for very old saw blades where removal of metal is not desired. I know it still removed metal from the pile of metal dust under my saw sharpening rig even if I use a steel hone. Your hone is never made of exactly the same hardness as the item being sharpened. One will always remove something from the other.
@Keeta Thanks -- that's a great clarification. I guess I shuold have said something like "A sharpening steel (aka honing steel) doesn't actually remove significant amounts of material from the blade."
@DavidRicherby I never consider using a sharpening steel as sharpening my tools. And I'd never use one on my kitchen knives. But my feel for sharpening stems from the perspective of woodworking, so I should have been more clear in my answer - updated it to reflect that.
@Arsenal Fair enough. The average home cook probably doesn't consider any other method of sharpening, so that's an important clarification.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.525983
| 2017-03-20T03:20:45 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/79264",
"authors": [
"Arsenal",
"David Richerby",
"JDługosz",
"Joel Coehoorn",
"Keeta - reinstate Monica",
"Kromster",
"Martijn",
"dlb",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/24117",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3350",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37540",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48330",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51432",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/55419",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6557"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
657
|
Why does frozen food seem to have lost its original taste and texture after reheating?
I usually freeze my leftovers.
Then, when I reheat them, the flavors are diminished - less salt, less chili, less everything.
Any ideas why?
You are not cooking Chile verde? The stuff takes freezing like a champ. Freezing breaks membranes, so if you value crunch or similar properties, it is not the way to go. Cheese structure, and emulsions are also degraded.
There are a variety of factors at work here:
Freezing foods "improperly" (i.e. not flash-frozen, not vacuum-sealed) causes ice crystals to form within the food, damaging the molecular structures. This is what causes many frozen leftovers to become "mushy" or change in texture.
Again due to the formation of ice and the movement of water when the food is reheated, tiny particles such as spices can be lost in steam and/or runoff water.
Extreme temperatures (both hot and cold) can denature enzymes in the food, changing their flavor, texture, etc.
As food sits, flavors in the food may blend together in different ways, causing the food to have less distinct flavors.
If your freezer isn't especially clean and your food not well-sealed, your food may be absorbing other odors which are again "masking" the original flavor of your food.
Hope that gives you some ideas.
+1 for reason 3. People tend to overlook the complex chemistry of food, and the effects temperature have.
I asked this to a Swedish food guru and got the explication that freezing and reheating often softens the food. The effect is that each food piece has less time in the mouth before swallowing and therefore has less time to be tasted.
Not fully convinced but it might be worth experimenting with.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.526514
| 2010-07-11T20:05:08 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/657",
"authors": [
"Andrew Song",
"Bogdan",
"Draaksward",
"George Marian",
"Karlheinz Reinhardt",
"Mark Seemann",
"Martin Brown",
"Michael Hufnagel",
"Mike Sherov",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1221",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1223",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1500",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68215",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68216",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68218",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/68219",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99",
"jude"
],
"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
}
|
17251
|
What causes chicken fat on the surface of soup, and does it add flavor to the dish?
I was making a Japanese ramen soup recipe which involved cooking raw diced chicken thigh in the soup for a few minutes. Soon after adding the chicken to the soup, globules of fat started appearing on the surface.
As a very beginner cook I am wondering what happens in the process of boiling chicken thigh (which had a lot of fatty deposits), and if this fat content adds much taste to the dish?
Removing skin and visible fat from chicken before making broth cuts down the work to get fat back out. Skin doesn't have much flavor and is best removed unless it's crispy.
Although the fat may add some flavor to the soup it also changes the mouthfeel. Instead of having a nice clear broth soup which is light and refreshing the fat in the soup with coat your mouth leaving a greasy feeling and taste. I cant be completely sure but if you were using the chicken thigh to just add flavor and not leave the meat in the soup you could use a chicken stock that your either make or buy from the store. As was stated above you could remove the fat from the soup. I would like to add another method to what Foodrules stated.
-Take a metal ladle and fill it with ice. Dip the ladle into your soup being care not to go deep enough to actually get any liquid in the ladle. They key here is that the cold ladle will solidify the fat and have it stick to it. You just remove the ladle wipe it clean with a paper towel and repeat until the fat layer is gone from your soup. Its very effective and easy.
+1 for a new way to skim that I've not seen before.
as for new ways to remove fat from soup (or a slow cooked roast) - I tried this one last night and it was highly successful: pour the entire bowlful of soup/baking juices over a bowl of ice, set over a strainer. The fat will solidify instantly, and remain stuck to the ice cubes. Lift out the strainer, and the newly-lean stock is left in the bowl beneath.
That is genius! Will try this next time I need to skim.
The fat does add flavor, at least by the method of conveying the flavors to the taste buds, enhancing our perception of the flavors; it coats the tongue, pleasantly, and conveys the flavors to the taste buds. For conveying flavor, fat is good.
Not all ramen are not supposed to have a clear broth.
The fat separates because boiling water is hot enough to render it from the meat, liquefying it and allowing the fat to float on top of the denser water.
In a professional setting, we skim the fat off the surface of stocks using a ladle, or by chilling it until the fat coagulates on top. Having tasted the fat, I would say it doesn't really add much in flavor, and it imparts a very unpleasant greasy texture. Stocks taste "cleaner" after the fat is skimmed.
If there's a solid layer of fat on top of your broth, it makes sense to remove it, but I wouldn't worry about a few spots of grease.
To address the original question, the solid fat in the meat is melted by the hot water and since fat is less dense than water it floats to the top. Should you remove it? When I make chicken broth I do skim the fat, but I like to leave enough that there are some droplets on the surface. This gives a richer mouthfeel and flavor without making the soup greasy or heavy. The exception is if I am making broth to freeze. In that case I leave all the fat, or even add some if the broth is lean. The solid layer of fat on top protects the broth from freezer burn. When I take the broth out of the freezer I use a butter knife to pop the fat cap off before defrosting. I do save chicken fat from soup and use it instead of butter or olive oil when I cook onions.
To answer Walter's question, fat helps preserve heat in a bowl of soup by creating a barrier to evaporation. The soup in the bowl is cooling off in two ways: by radiating heat and by evaporative cooling at the surface. If you prevent the evaporative cooling by placing a barrier on the surface of the liquid (such as a layer of plastic wrap (not recommended) or a layer of fat or oil, the liquid will cool much more slowly. For the same reason a latte, with a layer of foam on top that prevents evaporative cooling, will stay hot in a glass much longer than a cafe leche made with coffee and milk but no foam.
I have no proof, but I like the chicken fat and chicken fat usually enhances the flavour of soup better, so I would keep a bit of the fat there. Another way to reduce the fat is to use Chicken bones. I am not sure if they sell chicken bones in your area, but chicken bones still releases good chicken taste and it has a lot less fat.
A few ways below to take the fat out:
One of the most effective way is what I call the cold method. It's not the best, but it's one that virtually requires no tool. Let the soup cold or even put in the fridge, then you will see a layer of fat on the soup. You simply take that layer of fat out
The other method is to use coffee filter and something a coffee filter. You can easily get the fat out
The less effective, but the easiest way is to use a spoon to try getting all the fat when the soup is boiling. You will notice the fat are usually on the top of the boiling bubble
When I said coffee filter, I mean coffee filter like this one http://i52.tinypic.com/2yzcvvt.jpg
One more comment
One of the reason japanese ramen soup usually has a bit of fat in it, it is to do with their cold weather. You will notice that their chicken and pork base soups always have a bit of fat in it. The fat in the soup help to preserve heat in the soup, so it is quite ideal in cold weather and the ramen will always arrive hot in front of their customers.
Not all the soups are fat. The soy base soup has not fat in it so as the miso base ramen
how does the fat "help preserve the heat in the soup"? Fat even has a lower specific heat than water.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.526980
| 2011-08-29T06:36:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17251",
"authors": [
"Ben",
"BobMcGee",
"Cakelady",
"Fabricio Lemos",
"Foodrules ",
"Frankie",
"KimbaF",
"Lewis Cawthorne",
"Stefano",
"Walter A. Aprile",
"annie",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2391",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2939",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2951",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37031",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37032",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7240",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81907",
"pavi",
"vwiggins"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46501
|
How to protect honey jar from ants?
Is there any technique to prevent ants from getting into a honey jar? The outside of the jar is covered with dead ants every day.
Currently, I am wiping the surface of jar with a wet cloth before opening the lid, but I still see dead ants inside the lid, too. (They are not in the honey itself, though.)
Have you tried calling an exterminator?
The comments were a good laugh, but I had to clean up because they became distracting.
Here are a few options:
Make a salt barrier around the jar.
Keep jar in a bowl full of water.
Use air-tight container (doesn't need to be a jar).
Any of the above should keep ants away from your honey.
In my grandmothers old house, she used to have a cupboard on legs where all the attracting foods went into. It was placed a few centimetres away fem the wall and all four legs were placed in little metals bowls with water in them. Never saw an ant in there.
Water jar defense is easily defeated by winged ant foragers (they are built once a year by many/most ant colonies)
The above suggestions are great. You might try a "Cream of Tartar" barrier. Also a "Zip Lock" bag, or a sealable plastic container large enough to stand the jar in.
I haven't heard of the 'cream of tartar' barrier ... when I have ants, I leave out a small bowl of sugar, then once the ants have found it, add borax to it. (note that you don't want to kill off all ants ... just the ones in the house ... the ones outside keep termites away)
@MischaArefiev I've neither seen nor heard of any ants that make "winged foragers" on a yearly basis in my part of the world. There are the breeding males and females that emerge once a year for carpenter ants, but a honey pot isolated by water hardly makes a suitable nest (which is what the females are looking for -- the males just seek to breed and die), and the female would likely not be inclined to linger with lack of a suitable nesting material.
@megasaur - yah that 4 leg stwnd is also good enough but that wont protect from.snts as ants can climb those legs and can reac to the jar.. But if there is cleanliness in that area like no licking jar not a single drop of honey lying on outer part of the jar etc. So we need to take care all those things. And one more thing earlier people used to hang sweets and honey on the ceiling so that they wont come in contact of any of the insects.
Make a diatomaceous earth barrier (you can even eat it) http://wolfcreekranch1.tripod.com/defaq.html. * Keep it in the fridge.
@Corine May be ... You can try border of Salt around the jar though..
It is possible that the outside of your jar has honey residue on it. Try rinsing off the outside of your jar with warm water. I would also give the cabinet the honey is in a good cleaning as well, as I'm sure there is honey residue in there now as well.
I would also try to track the source of these ants and stop them from entering your house at all.
Even if we rinse off outside of the jar, I am sure ants will still get attracted. and also we should be lucky to have only one or two source from where ants are coming :)
I have had this problem, and fixed it in two different ways:
Put the jar into a large ziploc bag. Make sure the bag is tightly sealed. This works well for larger, heavy glass honey jars. Plastic honey jars are too light when they are nearly empty, and the bag tends to tip over in the cabinet and be clumsy to handle.
At one point we had two plastic honey jars open. It was more convenient to put them into a plastic storage container that had an airtight seal.
I've had this problem and the "clean the jar and the cabinet" (and all of the paths they take, as much as you can to the entry points) advice is what worked for me (as @TheGremlyn states in their answer).
I've also relocated my honey near my spices after observing that area was always devoid of ants. I'm not sure if the spices actually repelled the ants but that area of my cabinet is quite aromatic with custom curry blends, pickling spices, anjwain (strong thyme like), fennel, cloves, pepper/chili, cumin, and many others. There's also spice "dust" on the shelves from the constant shuffling/opening/closing/use.
How often does your ant problem re-occur? After cleaning up, temporarily re-locate the jar for awhile until the ants have stopped sending their scouts in to check. Then put it back in its normal place.
Are there any other items near the honey that may be attracting the ants? If so, temporarily relocate those items too.
You have to put the honey jar in foil so that the ants can't smell it. Make sure that the whole thing is covered in the foil.
Draw a continuous line of chalk around the surface the jar is standing on. It must be an unbroken line.
Bonus: this tip is also effective against ghost Pooh bears.
It is a joy to use honey dippers--slows me down to reduce stress too :)--and there are so many interesting and creative honey servers with openings for them! After researching sealed options and generally unfavorable comments for many hours, I've decided to give up and use a 4qt pop-top type container [like oxo]. I can see the jar, store the honey dipper in the jar as designed and seal it all from pesky intruders. I hope it works well...I'm looking forward to finding new servers and never considering pests again!
I'm not sure how this answers the question at all. The OP makes no mention of honey dippers in the question.
@Catija it does get there in a roundabout fashion: store the jar inside a larger (ant-proof) container.
I don't want to hoist my honey out of some hard to access covering or container as I use it frequently. Changing the spot I keep it in seems to work. Re the water idea which also works - put the honey in a container first and then in a tray of water (to counteract a dripping jar).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.527533
| 2014-08-19T07:10:31 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46501",
"authors": [
"Ab00win88",
"Amber Bethany",
"Catija",
"Chloe",
"David Hurwitz",
"Doktor J",
"Erica",
"Good Boy",
"Jefrey Gordon",
"Jimbo Garner",
"Joe",
"John Palmer",
"Joseph Franklin",
"Maria gill",
"Mason Wheeler",
"Megasaur",
"Mischa Arefiev",
"Mr_Green",
"Optionparty",
"Petya Spasova",
"Preston",
"Richard Mann",
"Rohan Chin",
"Sean Dececco",
"Sophia Iliopoulou",
"The Hungry Dictator",
"Valerie Byrne",
"catherine rowe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112062",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112084",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112099",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112110",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112161",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/112185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12608",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140812",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140814",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/140816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/144465",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/158969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26191",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26622",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8486",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9679",
"jane latter",
"rodesa baingan",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
17045
|
How can I prevent pear juice from soaking into pastry dough?
I'm baking a cheesecake with pieces of pears, using rich shortcrust pastry. The problem is that, during the baking, the pear juice is soaking the pastry. How could I avoid that?
Whenever you're worried about something crisp being made soggy by something moist, the answer is usually fat. Brush the crust with butter or oil before you add the pears, and the oil will slow the absorption of water.
Alternately, dry out your pears. Cook them a bit. Roll them in sugar to dry them out some.
I'm surprised the pear juice is making it through the cheesecake batter. Usually that stuff keeps the liquids locked up tight. Maybe try a drier cheesecake, or one with a bit more egg?
Try baking the crust blind and then adding the fillings. This should ensure a crisp crust.
Coating fruit pieces in cornstarch, tapioca starch etc. can bind juices into a jelly around them instead of letting them seep into fillings; experimentation is needed to check whether it works well with your intended texture.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.528226
| 2011-08-22T17:36:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/17045",
"authors": [
"Delosari",
"Joan Birner",
"SingleShot",
"Will Martin",
"deepy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36561",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36586",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36624",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36689",
"jamesmillerio"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46242
|
Why is supermarket bread soft?
Nearly all "good" bread (from a traditional bakery, made at home by a competent baker) comes with a thick, hard crust. However in every supermarket there are shelves and shelves full of soft (white, brown and everything in between) bread. I want to know how they make such soft crusted bread, and why do they do it?
Is it much cheaper to produce soft bread on a large scale? I've noticed this kind of bread does not go stale, instead it eventually starts going mouldy (my homemade bread goes stale and loses all moisture before mould gets a chance to set in), is this related to the softness, or is this a separate phenomenon due to added preservatives? When did the public start demanding this kind of bread, and why did they move away from the more traditional crusty bread?
You don't say what country you are in, and I think bread varies quite a bit from country to country according to local taste and varieties of flour available cheaply. In the UK most bread is soft and retains moisture like you describe, and is made in the Chorleywood bread process
This is a good question and I've read all the answers. Given that supermarket bread has the same soft quality regardless of whether the Chorleywood process is used or not, that process is a red herring. I'm not sure I believe that fast rising in itself is part of the answer. I used to let my home-made bread rise fast (I let it prove at lower temperatures now), and it didn't go soft. Steam baking may possibly be a factor, but then again how does this affect the inside of a loaf? Plastic bags? Possibly they are a factor. But I suspect the main reason is to do with substances added.
I don't know much of the science behind the super-soft bread on supermarket shelves, but I can give some insight into the history that led to it becoming so ubiquitous in the US.
The idea that whiter breads are classier than darker breads goes all the way back to the 5th century BC.
The belief that white bread was superior to dark bread, a common theme in many cultures over the ages, was already taking hold in Greece by the 5th century BC. Darker, denser breads made from barley or rye were the breads of the poor. White breads were believed to be pure, more refined, more cultured. They cost more too, since growing wheat was more labor-intensive than other grains. And on top of that, removing the bran and the germ to make wheat flour white instead of brown increased the work and the cost still further. Interestingly, up until the 17th century there were even separate baker's guilds for bakers of white breads and brown breads. This prejudice against darker breads generally continued all the way until the 1960's, when growing health consciousness finally seemed to turn the tide.
From Zingerman's.com
The desire for soft came a bit later (same source):
I've often wondered why bread baking in this country-descended as it is from the great European traditions-turned so . . . let's say. . . soft. The decline of good bread baking may have had its roots in the 18th century. The introduction of pan baking made bread softer and puffier. In the 19th century a distaste for "sourness" (ironically the same "sourness" that makes San Francisco sourdough and other sourdoughs so great) led to the introduction of baking soda to bread, which made it puffier still. In the 1870's industrial milling techniques were introduced. Flour became whiter and whiter, and "deader"-bakers began adding sugar to get yeasts to react as they had in the past, and bread got puffier still. Bread continued to get sweeter and puffier, until finally in the 1920's, we reached the pinnacle of puffiness-Wonder Bread.
It's with the birth of Wonder Bread things really take a turn for the insiped. Did you know you can squeeze an entire loaf into a ball the size of a tennis ball? I once know a guy who never missed an opportunity to show off that little stupid-human-trick...but I digress...
Alexander Taggart, the founder of Wonder Bread, was a marketing genius. In the 1890s he sold the first company that he had built to The United States Baking Company and he accepted stock in The United States Baking Company as a part of the purchase price. The United States Baking Company subsequently became a part of the National Biscuit Company. You might know that company by another name, Nabisco. So at this point he owned a chunk of Nabisco, but he sold that to start another baking company, the Taggart Baking Company, out of Indianapolis, Indiana.
At first he zeroed in on the large number of German immigrants in the area, and prior to WWI he advertised heavily in German language newspapers using a Puritan logo:
From Cluster Mag
This was a good time to own a baking company in the USA. Between the start of the century and the end of WWI, the market was burgeoning.
between 1899 and 1919 the value of bread and bakery products produced in Indiana grew 620%. Americans were rapidly growing richer, and they could afford to replace labor-intensive homemade goods with manufactured alternatives. -Cluster Mag
But events of the era were causing a shift in the attitudes of American consumers. The war and its aftermath caused a tremendous amount of discrimination against German immigrants, and in Indiana, Germans were plentiful enough that there was a significant backlash to those attitudes. To make matters worse, Protestants in Indiana were banding together against Catholics, and the KKK was getting hugely powerful in state politics (an interesting bit of history in its own right Wiki-Indiana Klan). Our marketing genius knew just how to capitalize on the social unrest.
In 1921 the Taggart Company had a new wrapping technique that could keep bread fresh for several days, and set about to rebrand the product.The new Taggart bread wouldn’t carry religious or ethnic connotations that could hinder it’s sales, or even falsely identify itself with the work of Puritan mothers – it was going to be better. It was going to be from the mechanized world of the future, a utopian world with factories suspended from the clouds by the thread of their smoke; bridges with the leap of gymnasts… and the gliding flight of aeroplanes whose propellers sound like the flapping of a flag and the applause of enthusiastic crowds – a vision outlined in Filippo Marinetti’s Futurist Manifesto, published in 1909.
The new Wonder Bread didn’t suggest hearth and home. On the contrary, the unnaturally vibrant colors of the logo and visual purity of this new, virgin white, 1.5 pound loaf perfectly evoked the otherworldliness of the enormous manufacturing system that was seen as America’s future. -Cluster Mag
It was the right place and right time for the birth of a product so lacking in character that its very name has become synonymous with lackluster conformity. Wonder Bread's timing was more fortuitous (for them) than even they knew at the time.
When was the last time you heard that something new was "the greatest thing since sliced bread"? At that time, the greatest thing since sliced bread was, well, sliced bread. On November 26,
1928 a patent was filed by Otto Rohwedder of Iowa for a commercial loaf-at-a-time bread slicer.
picture from Mental Floss
The new invention was first used by Chillicothe Baking Company, in Chillicothe, Missouri, for their Kleen Maid sliced bread. But it was Wonder Bread (now owned by Continental Baking) that took it nationwide in 1930. Consumers were intrigued by pre-sliced bread, but were concerned that it would quickly go stale. HA! Wonder Bread, the amazing never-staling bread. How perfect is that?? Incidentally, for a time during WWII commercial bread slicing was banned (only whole loaves could be found on store shelves) due to the steel shortage. The ban caused such outrage that it was lifted only two months later.
During the 1940s it was becoming clear that by being so nutritionally bankrupt, Wonder Bread and its clones were actually causing great harm to the health of the American public. Wonder bread became "enriched" as a part of a government sponsored program to combat certain diseases. It worked, incidents of Beriberi and Pellagra were quickly significantly reduced. Never slow to take advantage of a good marketing angle, Wonder Bread was now advertised as a health food. "Wonder Bread builds strong bodies 8 ways. Look for the red, yellow and blue balloons printed on the wrapper!"
Vintage Wonder Bread Commercial
Once again, the marketing worked.
during the late '50s and early '60s, Americans ate a lot of it. Across race, class, and generational divides, Americans consumed an average of a pound and a half of white bread per person, every week. Indeed, until the late '60s, Americans got from 25 to 30 percent of their daily calories from the stuff, more than from any other single item in their diet (and far more than any single item contributes to the American diet today—even high-fructose corn syrup).
From The Believer
Thankfully, the trend is reversing. Wonder Bread, the big daddy of them all, has been in financial difficulty for 20 years.
In 1995, Continental Baking was bought by Interstate Bakeries Corporation, now known as Hostess Brands. In 2004, Interstate Bakeries declared bankruptcy, putting the future of Wonder Bread in some doubt. In February 2009 Interstate Bakeries emerged from bankruptcy marking a "new beginning" for the baking company. In 2012, Hostess Brands declared Chapter 11.
From wherefoodcomesfrom.com
Whole grain breads are just now starting to outsell white bread (by dollar amount), and have nearly closed the gap by unit.
In August 2010, for the first time, annual whole wheat bread sales outpaced white bread sales – at $2.6 billion vs $2.5 billion. Of course part of that was because whole grain breads often cost a bit more than white bread. Even looking at volume, however, whole grain was closing the gap. From August 2009 to August 2010, Americans bought 1.5 billion packages of white bread, and 1.3 billion packages of wheat.
From The Whole Grains Council
Whole grain, multi-grain, Artisan and old-style European breads are back in fashion; cookie-cutter, pillow-soft, white breads slowly losing their grip. Halleluiah!
Epilog
The tastes of the American public are fickle, but those Taggarts are wily. They always come always come out smelling like a rose.
From Cluster Mag
Its the Chorleywood bread process, with fast warm rising in a warm room, and steam baking.
I remember, over 60 years ago, my mother complaining about how soft the bread from the supermarket was ever since they installed steam ovens to replace the old coal-fired dry heat ones.
The Chorleywood process is widely used in the UK (and a couple other countries) but is not widely used in the US. A couple of features of this process are that it takes less time and uses a lower protein wheat. Countries where this process is not used have soft supermarket bread also.
As a home baker of "artisan" bread, I'm constantly looking for ways to improve crust and crumb. Which has lead me to research quite a few things. In addition, my son was a supermarket bread baker, so I gave him a call.
Here's his feedback...(he does not think very highly of the product)
The dough comes frozen to the store. It is thawed and then the bread is proofed for an hour @ 110 degrees F and 80% humidity.
The bread bakes for 25 min, and the first 10 minutes is with steam. The steam makes the crust rubbery (his word - he also said "it just bends under a bread knife when it first comes out").
It's cheap bread. < end of his comments >
My experience is that storing even the crunchiest crusted bread in a plastic bag will soften it. I don't have a steam oven so I bake in a Dutch oven and remove the lid after 20 min. I don't think steam is bad, I think it's good. I suspect that short fermentation and fast rise/cook times contributes to the "supermarket quality."
Whys and how's? Here are a couple links to sites I use for research:
Journal of agricultural and food chemistry - http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf303750y?prevSearch=peterson%2Bbread&searchHistoryKey=
Sciencedirect - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0260877411003918
And a good article at NPR on why white bread still rules...
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2013/01/11/169150598/in-the-battle-between-health-and-taste-why-white-bread-still-wins
When you talk about bread in (plastic)bags:
The bread often will be wrapped by the manufacturer before it's cold(they do it to save time and storage-capacity, so it's cheaper).
When it happens(when the bread is really fresh you may notice water-drops inside the packaging) there will be a high humidity inside. The humidity will soften the crust and force the creation of mould.
In a traditional bakery the bread usually will not be wrapped(and when they do it they use paper-bags where the humidity may escape)
Most industrial bakeries cool their bread before it is cut and wrapped.
It's industrial production meaning they use a tonne of dough conditioners, relaxants and other chemicals to obtain the longer, softer shelf life. The ingredient additions alongside product and packaging testing create this soft, shelf-stable product.
The answer is simple, but it has NOTHING to do with adding steam. Steam actually will cause the crust to harden once the bread is exposed to air, so the mass market bakeries try to bake with minimum steam.
Making super-soft loaves, like Wonderbread, simply requires the use of additional ingredients. First, more oil than you would use at home is added. Second, more sugar than home loaves. Third, more gluten beyond what is normally in all-purpose flour or even bread flour. Fourth, ascorbic acid (vitamin C powder) to strengthen the gluten bonds. Fifth, dough conditioners, like lecithin, to make the oil and water mix and stay intermixed with one another. Sixth, preservatives, are added to prevent bacteria, mold and starch crystal growth.
Bread become "stale" because starch molecules are chemically attracted to one another and move together, naturally, to reform crystals, over time. The more starch crystalizes, the harder and more unpleasant tasting your bread will become. The types of preservatives that are added to inhibit this natural chemical process tend to be more efficient and long lasting than the ones that inhibit mold and bacteria. Thus, mass market bakery bread becomes moldy before it becomes stale, which is the opposite of home-baked bread.
Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please [edit] to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
You might say how those additional ingredients actually soften the bread. Like, isn't strong gluten tough?
The soft crappy American bread is due to the processed flour used in the USA. To make a good 'European' loaf one needs to obtain flour as used in Europe. The chemicals used to grow and preserve US wheat, some of which are banned in Europe and other countries is the reason for the soft tasteless bread consumed by Americans.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.528412
| 2014-08-09T14:39:06 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46242",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Community",
"Davey",
"EasyBox Genova",
"Emily",
"Erekle Mamaladze",
"Joanne",
"Pôle Prépa English - Brotteaux",
"Rich.T.",
"Spammer",
"ariola",
"bdsl",
"hrithikbansal",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/-1",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101668",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/105422",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110359",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110360",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110375",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110395",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110404",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110406",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110407",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110409",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110411",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110414",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110460",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110532",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33062",
"msharp",
"onenationfoundation",
"pppp",
"tell",
"user110406",
"victor south"
],
"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
}
|
57565
|
Can I use amaranth flour or another grain flour as a substitute for white flour in tortillas?
I am trying to make a healthier tortilla, which I have always made with all-purpose white flour. Is there another grain flour I can use that will produce a tastier and healthier tortilla, and still give me a tender tortilla?
Have you done any recipe searches for alternative flour tortillas? You will be unlikely to be able to simply replace the flour in a recipe you are already using but I'm sure there are thousands of recipes for non-wheat tortillas out there... And remember that traditional tortillas are made with corn.
see http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/21769/how-much-alternative-flour-can-i-substitute-for-white-wheat-flour. You certainly can't make a substitution, but an addition might be possible.
You might try to add some amaranth flour or any other kind of flour, but it's difficult -impossible I think- you can make a bread or a tortilla out of 100% amaranth flour. Wheat flour (that you call "all purpose white flour") contains gluten, that is functionally used to make dough stick together. If you use amaranth, rice or other kinds of flour you'll find that it's difficult to make the dough.
If you want to make a healthier tortilla use whole wheat flour, and add whatever you want inside: amaranth, sesame seeds, linseed, nuts, peanuts, almonds, etc.
Corn has no gluten and is the traditional grain used for tortillas.
Yes you're right.
@Catija Just any ground corn isn't suitable for tortillas, however. I believe you need to use masa de maíz, which is made from hominy, which is nixtamalized field corn. Regular corn meal will likely fall apart or create something too thick to be a tortilla. Other grains besides corn can be nixtamalized. So, I imagine this may make it possible to make tortillas with lots of stuff.
I've been to a restaurant which proposes pizzas made of 100% of amaranth. So it is definitely possible to make some kind of dough, although I'm not sure how much complicate and lengthy it can get.
"Proposes"? Are you saying that this is their plan for the future or that they actually do this already? Also, I'm pretty sure that there's more in the dough than only amaranth... it needs to have yeast at the very least.
I am happy to know this is possible but I do need to know more. Do I add white flour to the amaranth? If so, what ratio to white? Does anyone have a recipe? Thank you for your response.
I am glad to know it is possible, but I need more information. Do I need to add white flour? If so, what ratio? Does anyone have a recipe?
@Catija I suspect (US- or UK-) English is not user42482's first language. It may be best to read "proposes" as "offers".
You would probably have to nixtamalize most gluten-free grains and pseudocereals (including amaranth) in order to use them successfully in tortillas if you don't want to add gluten. These doughs from nixtamalized grains are known as masa. Corn is usually used for this, however, but other things are possible. You can buy masa harina, which is dried and powdered masa de maíz (which is masa from corn) at the grocery store and make corn tortillas with it. If you use regular corn meal, it will probably fall apart and be grainy (or else thick like fry bread).
'… nixtamalized amaranth flour can be used to replace maize for tortilla production.' This is an excerpt from Pseudocereals and Less Common Cereals: Grain Properties and Utilization …, edited by Peter S. Belton and John R.N. Taylor (p. 236). So, yes, what you suggest is possible, although it might take some learning and time. Companies should really sell masa from all kinds of grains and pseudocereals, although advertising it to people who don't know what it is might be the hard part. They could call it tortilla flour, I guess (but I imagine there are many more uses).
You would probably need to nixtamalize the amaranth before grinding it into flour, however. That's how it's done with corn. So, I wouldn't buy amaranth flour for this purpose.
Nixtamalization may make the food more nutritious in certain ways. It does for corn, anyway. I'm not sure about amaranth.
Other gluten-containing grains (e.g. barley, rye, kamut, spelt) might be workable for tortillas, but likely not as ideal as wheat flour, without some kind of process like nixtamalization.
Apparently, you can make tortillas with oat flour, with a very simple recipe.
FYI: Oats don't contain gluten. However, they are often contaminated with it (hence gluten-free oats being sold particularly) and they contain a similar protein called avenin. Even with gluten-free oats, avenin can cause issues for people who need a gluten-free diet if they haven't been on the diet for a certain amount of time.
You can even make a flour from wheat that has been nixtamalized: Masa de harina de Trigo. I imagine it's even easier to make tortillas with it than with regular flour (however fine or white it is).
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.529681
| 2015-05-17T14:44:47 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/57565",
"authors": [
"Adam Clarke",
"Attilio",
"Brōtsyorfuzthrāx",
"Catija",
"Chris H",
"D. K.",
"Jan Wojowski",
"Jim Panaccione",
"Karen Sutherland",
"Mindy Nagel",
"Romans 0606",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136969",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136970",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/136982",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138971",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/138974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/156366",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25188",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35595",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"maurice murphy",
"rumtscho",
"user35595"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
58546
|
Sliced white American cheese
I left a 5 pound block of sliced white American cheese in my car all day it was hot out like 75/80 it was very soft I put it in the frig is it still good to eat
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.530065
| 2015-06-26T01:51:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/58546",
"authors": [
"Bruce Deihl",
"Edward Butts",
"Joan Purser",
"Ron Esquerra",
"Talaya Woods",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139566",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139567",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139568",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139570",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/139602"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75772
|
HELP with brining a Turkey and still have regular tasting gravy?
So last year I made a phenomenal brine with kosher salt, pure maple syrup and a few seasonings. I loved the turkey, it was awesome. However the pan drippings that became my gravy turned out very sweet and tasted like maple syrup. I really want to brine. I need help with a brine that will make it flavorful yet give me normal tasting gravy when done.
Did you properly rinse and dry the turkey before cooking it ?
In my opinion it can't be done without cheating. A fully brined turkey will always make overly salty drippings, and a maple brined turkey will produce overly sweet/salty drippings. Some cooks have successfully made gravy with brined turkey drippings (see Can you make pan gravy if the turkey was brined?), but I suspect that those turkeys were under brined.
A solution is to buy inexpensive turkey parts. Necks, wings, backs and giblets (if you like them) are all good for this. Don't brine them, just roast them in a another pan at the same time you roast the brined turkey. Use those drippings for your gravy. You can cook those parts way past the temperature that you cook the brined turkey to give you more drippings and yummy brown bits for gravy. The meat can then be shredded to add to your dressing or gravy if you like.
Little by little you can add some of the drippings from the brined turkey to the drippings from the miscellaneous parts, tasting after each addition. Carefully adding some of the brined drippings to the plain drippings could result in a spectacular gravy.
Using unsalted offal bits may temper the saltiness but I agree it will probably always have a strong taste of salt.
If you can get a chicken with the Giblets then you may want to roast it with the Giblets present, this may also improve the meaty flavour of your gravy.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.530239
| 2016-11-23T07:51:49 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75772",
"authors": [
"Max",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20118"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
67566
|
Is my Frozen solid Lamb ok to roast I am asking for food safety reasons
I am asking for both food safety and taste reasons, and yes I do have a frost freezer.
Semi-boneless Leg of Lamb, double freezer wrapped date 12/26/14.
7.33lbs
Is it alright to roast?
Please don't ask a question a second time. You can edit your old question by using the "edit" button on any post.
Are you suggesting you're going to cook it from "frozen solid," or just asking if it's okay to cook having been frozen solid for a couple of years? If the latter, it should be perfectly safe, though if it's been freezer burned it may not be great.
In general, roasting it from frozen to properly cooked in the middle won't cause any food safety issues. It's former frozen-ness and the speed of defrosting won't mean that it grows more bacteria.
The problem is, at oven temperatures, by the time the centre of a large roast is thawed (never mind cooked) the outside will be overdone by anyone's standards. It's one thing to braise meat for a long time, it's another thing to over roast it for a long time. If you go by the done-ness of the outside, you'll take it out while the inside is still undercooked, even raw or still frozen. And that will potentially be a food safety issue.
That's why you should defrost large pieces of meat before you roast them.
If your concern is whether meat that has been frozen for two years is still safe to eat, The consensus is that meat stays safe to eat indefinitely while frozen. It may been freezer burned (especially in a frost free freezer) or not taste as nice as it would have after a few months. I wouldn't use it for a critical meal, family celebration or the like, but thaw it and look at it. If it looks dried out and white on the surface, perhaps cut that part off. Then cook it and try it. If it's awful, throw it out and order a pizza. I wouldn't throw it out in advance just because of the length of time. Being double wrapped may well have protected it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.530405
| 2016-03-19T16:44:58 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/67566",
"authors": [
"Catija",
"David Wittlin",
"Edith Agi",
"Garry Hill",
"Josh Kinder",
"Melanie Henderson",
"Wywozgrpluss",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162226",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162227",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162228",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162229",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162271",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/162344",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"miken32"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55053
|
Worried about dangers of rotten food (including smell)
Today I found out I had rotten food (bread and meat) inside a closed (I think) container inside a bag. The bag had been smelly but I couldn't find the source until today. I immediately threw it away, but it had a nasty look: putrid smell, black-green-colored (hard to tell). I had felt the smell for quite a few days, maybe two weeks (though I suspect it had been hidden on the bag for longer). Today, when throwing it away, I obviously smelled it once again.
I did wash my hands thoroughly, but I'm still worried this might be dangerous. I'm not feeling any symptoms, but should I be worried about the potential consequences? I was close to the source, and smelled it, many times. Presumably either fungi or anaerobic (even aerobic?) bacteria were involved, and these can give some nasty infections, I think.
Welcome to Seasoned Advice. As far as I know, your question is fine, so I edited out your concerns about that.
To be clear, you didn't eat anything - you're worried about exposure from smell and proximity?
Yes, I did not eat anything. I'm worried about smell and proximity, and the fact I think it looks like "black toxic mold" (Stachybotrys chartarum) which is reportedly very toxic. Thanks!
Far be it for me to give medical advice as I am NOT a doctor, but the likelihood that the mold you encountered was toxic is pretty small and I would not be worried. That said, if you were to start developing any kind of symptom, your best place to ask about it would be your doctor and not on the internet ;)
The presence of black mold doesn't guarantee that it is of the kind that everyone fears to find in their homes, and even if it was it doesn't mean that there are mycotoxins present and that you should be worried. Toxic mold can actually come in a variety of colours, and isn't limited to one genus/species.
I have also thrown out plenty of 'science experiments' from my fridge that required me opening containers to clean them out with very questionable looking growths of mold, and have experienced no actual illness, despite how my stomach might turn based on the smell.
As for bacterial concerns, unless you got some of what was in the bag into an open wound or mucous membrane, you have nothing to worry about there.
For reference, I studied microbiology in college and worked in biotech for a while before moving to 'greener' pastures. I've also done research specifically into black mold as we had a concern in my previous house.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.530600
| 2015-02-23T17:31:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55053",
"authors": [
"Eulogio",
"Jolenealaska",
"Mik Mc",
"Samuel Moore",
"Tyler Cummans",
"helloworld",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130792",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130795",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130801",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33748",
"kenny ferguson",
"rfusca"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22148
|
What effect does orange juice have when used in dough?
I was following a recipe to make some Middle Eastern inspired Olive bread, and the recipe called for a cup of orange juice in the dough.
I was intrigued by this as I had not seen it before.
What effect would the orange juice have when use in the dough? Are there any specific reasons to use orange juice in dough?
Here is the rest of the recipe for the dough:
4 cups flour
1 cup oil
1 cup orange juice
1 egg
2 tsp. baking powder
There are several reasons for adding orange juice:
The first is for flavor.
The second is to act as an acid.
Although in this particular case,the acid is already in the baking powder. All baking powder needs to act as a leavening agent is some kind of liquid. Unless you meant baking soda, in which case an acid is necessary for leavening.
The third is to inhibit mold growth.
The real reason vitamin C is added is as a dough enhancer, not for gluten development. Since this is a quick bread (no yeast), gluten development is not a main concern.
The fourth reason for the orange juice is to make a tender crumb.
Because of the fructose found naturally in it. Sugars are added to baked goods as a tenderizing agent.
This recipe sounds yummy!
+1, albeit I wouldn't say flavor is in first place, but second after orange juice being acid.
In her book, Bakewise, Shirley Corriher writes that vitamin C strengthens gluten. Many "dough enhancers" feature vitamin C as a large component.
Of course orange juice also tastes good which is probably why it was included in your recipe.
A little lemon- or orange juice in the dough affects the gluten well and gives a better rising. try this site
Any idea of why that is? I guess it lowers the pH, but then any acid would do, right?
The recipe that included the orange juice is using significantly less than the OP's 1 cup.
I added the rest of the recipe for the dough to the question. It turns out it was an entire cup.
Can you say why? Not quite worth a +1, sorry...
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.530831
| 2012-03-10T06:00:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22148",
"authors": [
"Chrono Belmont Aran",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Jay",
"Max",
"Purag",
"Sebiddychef",
"Wilbert",
"allquixotic",
"aquarhead",
"bhu Boue vidya",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49543",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49552",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51721",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58554",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6531",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65658",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6840",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8920",
"nico",
"ninja"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
22317
|
How does one invent a cookie recipe?
My cookbook has dozens of cookie recipes and I can find hundreds more online.
But...
If I want to invent my own cookie recipes how can I go about doing it, without wasting tons of ingredients on trial and error?
How must I balance the ratios of the basic ingredients, such as flour, eggs, water, sugar, baking powder, and baking soda?
Has anyone created any formulas or rules for creating cookie recipes?
The first question is really more history rather than anything practical cookingwise. And the second question isn't worded in a very answerable way. If you edit it to ask perhaps about what is essential in very cookie recipe(the base ratios so you can add your own spin on the cookie with additional flavours and toppings), I will remove the -1.
I like the question much more :) Changed -1 to +1.
Hmm, my answer was worded to answer the previous version of the question. I won't change it now, even if it feels slightly off. It still contains the information you ask for now, mostly in point 2.
Terminology note. Legally, in commercial industry, a 'recipe' isn't protected, but a 'formula' is eligible to be considered a trade secret.
A question that gets reference to Ratio (a book I want to get), The Flavor Bible (my go to reference for ideas) and Alton Brown (one of my culinary heroes). It doesn't get much better.
Yes, the original recipes involved an enormous amount of trial and error. People baked, swapped recipes, and the good ones were desirable and became widespread, while the bad ones died out. The advanced knowledge of food chemistry wasn't even available at the time - Hannah Glasse published her cookbook more then 100 years before Mendeleev published the periodic table.
Luckily, you don't have to go through the same process if you want to invent a good recipe now. There are only a few basic ingredients in baking - eggs, sugar, flour, water - and you can be sure that all possible ways to combine them, as well as most secondary additions and substitutions, have been thoroughly explored. People have distilled the knowledge of this exploration in books, and you can use this basic knowledge to build new recipes which will function with a high probability.
Before you develop a baking recipe, there are four things you have to know.
Technique. If you want to create a cookie recipe, you will have to use creaming. If you want to make a new kind of eclair, you have to know how to prepare a basic pate a choux. There are cookbooks teaching these techniques, some of them are explained in questions here on SA.
Base ratio. For most baked goods, there are ratios which give you the best results. For example, for a crepe you want 1 part flour, two parts egg and two parts liquid. As long as you keep that, you can let your imagination run free by using different liquids, or adding spices, or even plopping pieces of fruit in the pan and pouring the batter over them. You can learn about this from Ruhlman's book Ratio, or use a known-good recipe for a plain variant of the good you are trying to make as your starting point.
Flavor combinations. You can add any ingredients you want, but there is no guarantee they will work well together. Choosing the right ones is a combination of talent (being able to imagine what a combination will taste like before you have had it) and experience. You should try to be more analytical about the flavors of things you eat - which tastes can you distinguish? Which aromas? What makes them go well together? Is it their similarity, or the contrast? - and when you have done that long enough, you will be able to predict the goodness of a combination. A book to help you along is The Flavor Bible, which describes good combinations. You can also take popular combinations and transfer them across types of food. For example, if you like apple-cinnamon pie, you can try to make cinnamon cookies glued in pairs with apple butter.
Ingredients' structure and their role in the baked good. This knowledge is maybe the least usual among home cooks. When you create new recipes, you will always dilute the base formula, or use substitutions. If you don't have this knowledge, it will be hit-or-miss whether your new recipe will work or not. It is a bit like rebuilding a house's interior without knowing which walls are load-bearing and which aren't. If you know what each ingredient does in a recipe, you will know when a substitution is possible and when it isn't. For example, many people will tell you that applesauce is a substitute for eggs. And you can indeed bake a cake with applesauce instead of eggs, but don't try to whip a mayonnaise with it. This is because eggs have a different role in cake and mayonnaise. Learning about these roles requires a lot of effort, and a curiosity
about these things. Most people will find it easier to just try
whatever they feel like, and live with the occasional failed
new-recipe attempt. If you would rather learn about them, I can
recommend two sources. One is Cooking for geeks by Jeff Potter, which is short
and doesn't go into the depth of things, but offers lots of useful
information and is easy to read, or the really exhaustive book
called On Food and Cooking by Harold McGee, which runs to about 800
pages and goes into detail most people don't want to know about, but
is a must-read if you are fascinated by food science.
And, of course you can always just run into the kitchen and experiment. Don't forget to document along the way so you can reproduce your results! Basically, you can always have luck and hit a good new recipe, the knowledge I listed above (combined with some baking experience) helps you increase your first-try success rate from about 2-3% as a full amateur to somewhere about 80% or more. It is your decision how to divide your time between reading and baking, any combination can function, depending on your learning style.
Using Ratio and The Flavor Bible together works beautifully.
Two other great reference for learning fundamentals upon which you can build are The New Best Cookbook and Cooking for Geeks
@CosCallis I meant to write Cooking for Geeks (the book), not Cooking for engineers (the site) - slip of the keyboard. While the site is nice too, it doesn't offer the info I was referring to. I'll change the answer. I haven't seen the other book, so I don't know where it comes handy for making new recipes.
@rumtscho, The New Best Recipe Book (my own typo above, the link is to the right place) contains not only great recipes but extensive topic specific narratives explaining experiments, findings and information from the good folks at Cooks Illustrated.
What a terrific answer.
Alton Brown dicusses how to change cookie recipes in the Good Eats episode "Three Chips For Sister Marsha" (S3E6P1)
The transcript can be found here:
http://www.goodeatsfanpage.com/Season3/Cookie/CookieTranscript.htm
From scene 14, we learn that
If you:
add soda
replace 1 egg with milk
high ratio white:brown sugar
use butter
You get: Thin & Crisp cookies
If you use:
cake flour
baking powder (instead of soda)
You get: Soft cookies
If you use:
melted butter
bread flour
You get: Chewy cookies
The long version of Scene 14:
Now take your favorite chocolate chip cookie recipes, add a little extra soda, replace some or all of eggs with milk, up the ratio of
white to brown sugar and use butter rather than shortening and thin,
crisp cookies will result.
If your tastes run to the soft and cakey, use cake flour, baking powder rather than soda, and shortening instead of butter. Chilling
the batter and scooping on the small side will add to the puff factor,
too.
Now finally, chewiness calls for melting the butter, holding back on the egg whites and using more, if not all, brown sugar.
These things need lots of experience, and trial and error of the recipes.
A recipe might not taste good the first time around, but with time you can improve the recipe.
As for inventing your own recipes, try mixing things that match with each other (for example: instead of putting water, try adding pineapple juice with some pineapples on the top to get a pineapple cookie). Take into consideration the amounts of water and flour (to get a perfect dough) used in the recipe.
You do need the experience and the talent of cooking so that you can consciously group the ingredients.You can also learn something from the recipe you can find and have a try over and over.
Another thing is that you need someone to check out the effects of your cooking and give you some suggestion.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.531048
| 2012-03-16T10:53:26 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22317",
"authors": [
"Chris",
"Cos Callis",
"Dan Searle",
"Jay",
"Mary K",
"Michael McManus",
"Rob Oesch",
"atgb",
"danorton",
"hayavuk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102246",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1374",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50076",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50077",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50078",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50106",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50113",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/50129",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6279",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67254",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67621",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67635",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8305",
"jefah",
"oligofren",
"rfusca",
"rumtscho",
"samthebrand",
"sisu",
"user26162",
"user67621",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15368
|
What are "hog lumps"?
Some recent questions about pork rinds inspired me to inquire about this. My wife and I are quite fond of the English film Shaun of the Dead. The characters in the film refer to a certain bar pub snacks as "hog lumps" at one point and "pig snacks" at another. You don't actually get to see them, but I just assumed they were referring to what we in the United States call pork rinds. However, in the comments on this question Sam Holden said they call them "pork scratchings" in the UK. I did a little searching and many hits just say something to the effect of "what they call pork rinds in Shaun of the Dead".
So, are these specific to the film, or actually common slang? Actual brand names? Are they even actually referring to pork rinds? Can someone from across the pond clarify these terms?
It's probably worth mentioning -- when you buy 'pork rinds', there can be some significant variation. Some are puffy and have an airy texture more like a cheese puff. Others don't puff up and are much more dense, and usually cut into smaller bits. I would assume that "lumps" are this second type. (I don't know if this is the difference between "crackles" and "scratchings")
They are almost certainly pork rinds, what we call pork scratchings in the UK. They are a staple in old fashioned (usually crappy) pubs like the Winchester, usually hanging behind the bar on cardboard displays, alongside KP peanuts and Scampi Fries.
In less enlightened days, where only one kind of woman would ever be found in a pub (at least on the customer's side of the bar) the cardboard would have a photo of a topless woman on it which would slowly be revealed as the bags were sold - if that's not an incentive to eat crispy cholesterol I don't know what is >.<
The reference to scratchings as 'pork lumps' is purely for the film; it's not a widely used name.
Eat My Brains has listed under trivia for the movie:
Specially designed packets of 'Hog Lumps' were designed for the film by Edgar's brother, Oscar.
I don't think they're real, although there have been some claims online that there is a real product out there that markets itself as 'Hog Lumps' :
They're real. Mr Porky's Hog Lumps and they're awful. Blech.
Yeah, I saw those. Hardly solid references. This "Mr. Porky" seems elusive. Where is his website, or that of his parent company? Where is the photographic evidence of packages of "Mr. Porky's Hog Lumps"?
@raven: Mr. Porky was owned by Red Mill Snack Foods when the movie came out, but was bought in 2008 by Tayto. I can find no evidence that they currently market something as 'hog lumps', but they might have previously.
My confusion deepens. They sell two products called "pork crackles" and "pork scratchings", but the ingredients are identical (pork rind being the first). The links to the other two products, "prime cut scratchings" and "pork crunch" are broken, but I wouldn't be surprised if the ingredient list was identical on those two as well.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.531705
| 2011-06-10T22:30:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15368",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/358",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"raven"
],
"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
}
|
5482
|
How can I make my Chocolate Mousse fluffier?
I regularly make Chocolate Mousse with an egg yolk, sugar and dark chocolate base folded into whipped egg white or whipped cream (or both). It's tastes pretty good and has a nice mouth-feel. Now I want it to look good. What I have looks something like this:
Instead I want it to hold a form and have a delicate velvety texture like in the image below.
The recipe associated with this picture uses a lot of butter. I've seen other recipes include gelatin.
What are my best bets?
I notice that the picture hides and gelling that may be going on at the surface (seen in your image) of the example by covering it with chocolate.
Chocolate Mousse! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAsYwW7pt7o
The dessert pictured above definitely, definitely has gelatin in it. That will change the mouth feel on the mousse slightly, but it might be what you are going for and will provide some of the stability that you are looking for. To have it hold a form like this you will need a recipe that requires gelatin; I would recommend gelatin sheets if you can find them at a local baking/cooking supply store or order them online.
The fluffiness will also be determined by several things. How were the whites whipped (too much, too little) or how was the cream whipped (again too much, too little)? There are recipes that call for both. How you incorporate all of the ingredients into one another really matters and in what order, this is called tempering. You want to fold until the mixtures are just combined; no more.
Temperature is of key importance for all of the ingredients - some you want very cold while others (ie chocolate) you want to be room temperature but not too cool or it will seize up the mixture and the mousse will taste grainy.
Also chocolate mousse texture can definitely be affected by the percentage and quality of chocolate you are using. If is is of a higher percentage it can create a denser mousse and deflate the whites and cream more easily.
I made a chocolate mousse recently using soft-peaked whipped cream folded into a melted chocolate/butter/sugar mixture at room temperature. I found the following helped keep the mousse light:
1) Before whipping the cream (I used a hand mixer), I put the metal bowl and mixer blades in the freezer for an hour.
2) I folded in the whipped cream 1/3 at a time. The first third tends to lose a lot of air as the chocolate mixture is pretty heavy. But this provides a lighter, stabler mixture to work with when you incorporate the 2nd and 3rd thirds of the whipped cream. I found that the end result was less dense than if I had folded the whipped cream in one fell swoop.
i have only made mousse a few times, but it didnt start setting correctly until i was using a) whipping cream (ie whipped from scratch, not from a tub) and b) using a stand mixer. otherwise it tasted good but didnt have a consistent fluffiness. if youre doing this by hand, or using a pre-whipped cream i doubt you will be successful based on my experience.
I usually whip by hand but this last time I used a mixer. I don't notice much difference between them.
Some people will swear by hand mixers as they allow you to be more aggressive & effective with smaller quantities. Are you making a large amount with the stand mixer at a high velocity for a slightly long time? as i recall it took a while to get the amount of sugar (which helps in stiffening) distributed correctly because we were whipping too fast too long.
A mousse from The New Best Recipe helped produce the dense velvety mousse I was looking for. I used two large eggs, 3 ounces of bitter chocolate, 1 ounce of unsalted butter, 3/4 cup of cream and 1 tblsp sugar.
The key difference from my usual recipe is the use of butter, although some other changes may have helped stiffen the mousse. Usually I heat up a yolk, sugar and milk mixture to 80C before mixing in the chocolate. In this recipe I melted the chocolate first and beat in the uncooked yolks one at a time. Instead the sugar was beaten into the stiff egg whites which where warmed slightly before beating. The cream, on the other hand, was chilled and beaten in a metal bowl set in iced water.
Following the recipe I beat a portion of the egg white into the chocolate/yolk mixture before folding in the rest. I took Robert's advice and folded in the cream in a portion at a time. I did this with both the egg whites and the cream.
Presentationally my mousse was not close to the picture posted in my question, but from the shape the mousse kept while I scooped out spoonfuls, I can say that the texture was comparable. On a whim I used three times as much cream as the recipe required. A richer mousse would certainly have been better so I hope that the specified 1/4 cup of cream can be used without radically altering the texture.
I think you're right to want to use a little gelatin. In this way, you can maintain your recipe and it's taste, etc... but add the extra firmness.
To make it fluffier, remember to keep your mixing bowl as cold as you can.
Yes, you're right: The second picture definitely has got gelatin on it.
To be truly honest, I don't see the point of adding butter, gelatin or even cream to your mousse, as it definitely doesn't need it.
Yes, you definitely need a stand-mixer. Even when the white has become very stiff, keep mixing them until it gets very hard (you must be able to cut it with a knife).
I'm sorry but the pictures on the linked page look more like a chocolate pudding than a light and airy mousse. This really doesn't answer the question effectively.
@Aaronut the classic French recipes for Chocolate mousse usually only have eggs and chocolate. The fat content of proper European chocolate is sufficient to form a mousse. Maybe in North America you do it differently, but there is nothing wrong with this recipe. Mousse is sort of airy and "crisp" in the mouth, but it is not dull in colour. Because of the large amount of egg white it is possible with a gentle short bake to get it to hold shape, similar to a gooey pavlova centre
@TFD: I'm not sure I understand the relevance of your comment or the differences between European vs. North American chocolate or cuisine in general. At no point did I say that there was anything wrong with the recipe; I said that it doesn't answer the question, which was specifically asking how not to get the texture that this recipe achieves. The OP wants a mousse that has more overrun; personal preference for the so-called classic style shouldn't be a reason to upvote a non-answer.
@Aaronut Sorry, not spelled out, Mousse made this way does stand up very well, even more so when partially dried (light baking)
I am proffesional Chef but at home I often use "handy" recipes and if they are more healthy it is a plus. For chocolate mousse I have one such, I don't remember from where I adopted it, but it is easy and less fatty - although you need a Food processor! Put 2 cups of chocolate chips into the food processor, boil 1 large cup coffee and while hot pour in the working Food processor, add 2 tbsp of canola oil (guess, you can skip and this?), stop the processor, cool and add whipped cream (low fat the best, at least you save something!), the more whipped cream, the fluffier, but the fattier!!!!
Thanks for posting. Does this recipe result in a mousse with a texture like that I asked about?
I think butter and pectin will help you.
How will it help? This answer might be on the right track but it's begging for an explanation.
I have found that using a packet of instant chocolate pudding and mixing it with heavy whipping cream instead of milk...and instead of making the pudding and folding in whipped topping. You need a little more whipping cream than the milk that the directions call for or it is really thick. Its a very simple and very quick substitute!
It's definitely fast and easy, but does it give the texture the OP is interested in?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.531992
| 2010-08-18T20:01:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/5482",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Art Shayderov",
"Chris Steinbach",
"El Guapo",
"Erica",
"Jayne",
"Joel Spolsky",
"Luke",
"Mattie Robinson",
"Raspayu",
"TFD",
"Taylor R",
"ThePopMachine",
"dmckee --- ex-moderator kitten",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10782",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10783",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10784",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/133981",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1670",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17272",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41534",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41809",
"mfg",
"sirrocco"
],
"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
}
|
90984
|
How do I preserve papalo?
I have a lot of papalo in my garden, and want to preserve it. What method should I choose to do this? I want to use it throughout the winter, and maybe some next year. The internet suggests that drying is not a great option, so I am looking for other preservation methods.
related : https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/18157/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/139/67 ; https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/44795/67
and that's why it's a comment, not an answer. "related" is not just for you, it's for other people who come along, as there might be answers in here that are useful to people with similar questions. And not all of the things that I linked to are about drying. But I'd also recommend that you be careful with being rude, as we're all just volunteering our time here, and I'd rather spend time helping people that aren't going to be ungrateful
I upvoted both the question and answer as I view them both as contributions to the site. However, I find @Joe's comment relevant as he stated - related. I find the responses to his comment rude and feel the need to say that we have a 'Be Nice' policy. Please adhere to it.
I'm going to clean up these comments in a while, but first I want to emphasize the unacceptability of the underlying rudeness. Snark is not acceptable on Stack Exchange. Period. Also, flagging innocuous comments as rude/abusive is highly frowned upon.
A pointer for flagging comments: Comments should not solve the problem, by definition. Therefore, flagging a comment because it doesn't contain answers is nonsensical.
It seems that you've already done some research on the subject, as you mention that it doesn't dry well. Searching for 'papalo' using an internet search engine found http://www.appalachianfeet.com/2010/05/07/how-to-grow-and-use-papalo-wrecipes/ :
It doesn’t dry well, but it can be frozen if it is pureed with water or oil and put into ice cube trays.
This method is mentioned in one of the answers to a related question.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.532720
| 2018-07-12T21:27:40 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/90984",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"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/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49206
|
How to store no yeast dough
I need to store a no yeast dough (water, flour, butter, salt) for verenyky for about 40 hours.
What would be the best place: fridge or freezer?
I saw in comments what your dough is for, so I took the liberty of adding that information to your question. Since I was there anyway, I removed your "greetings" and "thank you" just because we don't do that here. Welcome to Seasoned Advice!
You know you could freeze the whole, filled, uncooked dumplings too, right? Cook however many you want, whenever you want them. Food doesn't get much faster/easier than that!
Yes, of course, but I need a help of my friends, who will come over in 40 hours and my job was to make a dough in advance ;) Thank you.
I suppose we are talking about pâte brisée / salty pie crust or similar dough?
As 40 hours is scant 2 days and you are not using any ingredients that will spoil quickly, a fridge should suffice. Advantage: use right away w.o. thawing. Also avoids condensation from thawing, but propper wrapping should take care of that problem anyway.
My calculation: If you freeze the dough it'll need a couple of hours in the fridge to thaw, so assuming 2-4 h until frozen, 6-8 h to thaw (depending on shape): What difference makes 30 h at -18°C instead of 4°C?
I'm speaking from 30+ years of experience (we make a LOT of cookies here in SW Germany around Christmas). Neither my Mom nor I ever had mold problems after two days in the fridge.
One drawback though: If you prepare the dough and don't get around to baking it, the feezer would have been the better choice.
EDIT after clarification:
I guess we're talking something akin to pasta dough here? IMHO the same principles apply. I'd be a bit wary if you use eggs. Use fresh eggs or pasteurized, if you can get them.
Dough grows moldy in the fridge after several days. While it might keep 40 hours, it's more secure in the freezer.
Depending on what you want to make with it, it might be better to work it from cold or from warm. If it is better from cold (e.g. pie crust, pierogi should behave similarly), freezer is perfect. If it is better from warm, you'll have to plan for sufficient time to unfreeze and let it warm up. In this case, the fridge might be better despite some mold risk.
If it's a pie crust, on the UK cooking show 'The Best', one of the guys mentioned that you can take the frozen doughball and put it through the coarse side of a box grater ... then just pack the shavings into the pie plate, clean up the top edge, and you're ready to bake ... no thawing required.
@Joe I tend to roll my crust when it's made, then put it in the form and put the whole form with the dough in the freezer. If I only have a short time to baking, it's just chilled. If it's a long time, it gets completely frozen. Works great. Not for covered pies, of course, but I doubt that you can use the grater trick to make something cohesive enough to hold up as a top crust.
I haven't tried it, but I'd think if you sprinkled it in a circle, then pressed it w/ a rolling pin, you could probably pull off a top crust, too.
It's a dough for varenyky, btw. I have done it few times before, but have never had to store it for more than 6-8 hours. Thank you for your replies!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.532921
| 2014-10-23T21:35:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49206",
"authors": [
"Joe",
"Jolenealaska",
"Maria Shakur",
"Marian",
"Martina Woodworth",
"Oleksandr Kravchuk",
"Sean",
"Terry Kelly",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117475",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117476",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117477",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117482",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/117742",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"rumtscho",
"tiffany davis",
"מלני קינן"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
49563
|
Uzbek cuisine - Cookbook in English?
Is there a book on Uzbek cooking in English? I found one in Russian, but English would be preferable.
Hello Martin and welcome to Seasoned Advice! Here is a link to an online cookbook . A book, The Art of UZBEK cooking by Lynn Visson is available on Amazon. If you perform a Google search there are many available sources.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.533528
| 2014-11-06T13:03:15 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/49563",
"authors": [
"Alison Bishop",
"Callifornia Davis",
"Janice Prest",
"Matthew Hardwick",
"Stali Victor",
"Tammi Wolff",
"Ulhas Kudva",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118402",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118520",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/118521",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/119839"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
51555
|
Preheating Onida convection microwave oven
I am using Onida's microwave oven. There is no option to preheat on that. Please give me some advice how should I bake things without preheating the oven.
It's a 20 litre grill microwave oven.
You're using a microwave oven? That's very different than a traditional (gas or electric) oven. Microwave ovens are not suited for traditional baking. Can you clarify?
I assume you are using one of Onida's "convection" microwave oven.
Here is a link that describe how to pre-heat your oven.
http://foodomania.com/setting-oven-temperature/
In summary: Select the "bake" option. Hit Enter/start once, then choose the temperature. Hit it once again, which will let you select the time. For preheating, leave it at 0:00. Hit start/enter again. When your oven beeps, it has reached the temperature. Hit Stop and bake.
Hi Max. This is a good find. But we don't want to have link-only answers, as links on the Internet tend to go dead. Please include a summary of the solution (beside the link) when you have found it elsewhere.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.533623
| 2014-12-12T19:27:14 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/51555",
"authors": [
"Barbara Clark",
"Brien Gummerson",
"Halilurrahman - OfficerQASalem",
"Hannah Mikhail",
"Michiana Duct Cleaning",
"Nick Gordon",
"Parveen Khan",
"Sharon Spray",
"Tammy Henderson",
"davidhilsons",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122009",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122013",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122064",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/122066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"logophobe",
"rumtscho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53872
|
Why do choc chip cookies change with different temperature butter?
My name is Chris and my daughters name is Maggie (9yr)
She’s doing s science fair project and we have a question we need help with.
Her science project is baking choc chip cookies 3 different ways to see how they change.
1. with melted butter
2. with room temp butter
3. with cold butter
We are having the hardest time trying to figure out why they are changing because of the different butters.
Do you have any idea why?
If you have time to field this questions she would really be very grateful.
Thank you so much for your time,
Maggie and Chris
It's hard to tell because it depends on what you're doing with the butter and dough - like, are you melting/creaming and then chilling the room temp/cold butter? how cold/warm is the dough before you pop it in the oven? May I suggest regardless that you work backwards from what makes a good cookie dough? Something like http://sweets.seriouseats.com/2013/12/the-food-lab-the-best-chocolate-chip-cookies.html
It all comes down to "creaming".
When you mix granulated sugar with solid (cold or cool) butter (creaming), the volume increases thanks to little-itty-bitty bubbles in the fat. That creates a kind of leavening. The bubbles get bigger as the item bakes.
Melted butter doesn't do that at all, and very softened butter does it very little.
So, different temperatures of butter in the batter make for different cookies, even if everything else is the same.
For an added factor in your daughter's experiment, try butter flavored shortening. It has a higher melting temperature and added emulsifiers. Shortening makes for more, but smaller, bubbles.
Here's a pretty good blog on the subject of The Creaming Method. The article covers temperature at length.
See also: What is the purpose of creaming butter with sugar in cookie recipes?
Also if you don't chill the dough, the the will be at different temperatures going into the oven so they'll spread differently, right?
@Jefromi Sure, but I don't see that as a part of the question. "1. with melted butter 2. with room temp butter 3. with cold butter" That's a creaming method issue, a separate issue from the temperature of the dough. A common struggle for bakers of cookies is reusing the cookie sheet for repeated batches (so it's hot), that can cause cookies to be different too. But again, a different issue from the temperature of the butter.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.533767
| 2015-01-22T04:11:27 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53872",
"authors": [
"Affordable Liquidations LTD",
"Andrew Mashchits",
"Cascabel",
"Chuck Johnstone",
"Colonoscopy Specialists of New",
"Jasvinder Rai",
"Jolenealaska",
"LAURA ROBERTS",
"Stephen Mansill",
"dawn fanning",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126656",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126657",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126660",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126661",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126676",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126677",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126681",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4763",
"janeylicious"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
75932
|
How to prepare an easy and fast snack rich in protein?
I'm going to the gym, usually, everyday. I'm looking for a simple and easy snack, something that I can carry with me to work, to the office, and would help me to recover from my workout. :)
I know some recipes rich in carbohydrates but none rich in proteins :(
(Besides whey protein, of course)
Any tips or recommendation ?
Thanks in advance!
This question has attracted a couple of close votes, probably because of your use of the word "health". We don't address health issues here. I am going to edit your question to eliminate that issue (as well as I can). Please don't be offended. It's fine to ask for high-protein, low carbohydrate recommendations as such. What we will not allow is you asking for "healthy" alternatives. We are cooks, not doctors.
Oh, I see. Thank you for the tip @Jolenealaska :)
You are ever so welcome. I hope you get a good answer.
@Jolenealaska, for the record, I voted "too broad".
@Stephie Well done. That may still be an issue.
As it stands, this question is likely to be closed without moderator input. If it is, please don't be discouraged from contributing here. I am sure you could be a great contributor to the site.
I definitely agree with the other voters here: this question solicits a wide array of possible answers, as evidenced by the list in the accepted answer plus the couple other answers. If you want to brainstorm, [chat] might be better.
A hard boiled egg is high in protein and comes in a handy natural container.
How about low-fat cottage cheese? It would be easy to put in your bag; it is fairly high in protein, and low in carbohydrates. You can throw it into a smoothy too.
That's a great idea @Jole! And here in Germany is also very cheap too! :)
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.534016
| 2016-11-28T10:26:07 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/75932",
"authors": [
"Cascabel",
"Jolenealaska",
"Stephie",
"Valter Silva",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9293"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
7445
|
pita bread crust too hard
I've baked my first pita bread in home, the pockets was almost well formed but the crust is hard, crunchy.
I've applied some variations because of time/number/ingredients restrictions, in particular:
I've used two part of white flour (farina 00) and one part of whole-wheat flour
I've made the pitas a bit thin, say 1/7-1/8 inch.
I've raised the dough for about 1 hour and 45 minutes.
Which are the factors that make the crust so crispy?
EDIT:
About the cooking method I cooked at about 500 F for 4 minutes, turn 2 minutes, the dough was puffed after about 2-3 minutes.
Cook only until it is fully puffed. If that isn't enough, try folding them right after taking them out, and put them in a paper bag. They'll steam themselves briefly and keep the crust soft.
We cook our pitas on the stovetop on a very hot cast iron skillet. You can monitor each pita carefully that way. Put the pita in the pan and flip it when it puffs. You can encourage the small puff bubbles to join by gently pushing down on them with a spatula. Once the pan is hot, each pita only takes about 2 minutes.
Try lowering your oven temperature by 25 degrees at a time, and/or shortening how long you cook it until just lightly browned.
I have found that cooking them extremely hot is best to get them to puff properly, even if they only take two minutes to cook.
I get a successful puff at 450 degrees F. They burn at 500.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.534178
| 2010-09-19T18:57:11 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7445",
"authors": [
"Ben",
"Daniel Kaplan",
"Felissa",
"JeffJak",
"Kristalyn Mowers",
"Peter DeWeese",
"ahmed hassan",
"bogen",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15295",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15297",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15298",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15306",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2535",
"justkt",
"vmariano"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
29730
|
Can salt make sour fruit seem sweeter?
I got a little debate started via the comments on this answer. The poster suggests the use of salt to make a sour kiwifruit-sauce taste sweeter in the same way you would use salt to make something taste less bitter.
I was interested to see if this would really work, so I did a simple experiment. I'll repeat the details from the comment,
Salt will only make fruit taste sweeter if it is already sweet. Here's
an experiment I tried with two glasses of dilute lime juice. I added
enough sugar so that the mixture was just a little too sour. I added a
very small amount of salt to one glass, stirred until disolved and
tasted. The glass containing salt was noticeably more sour. [...]
And the poster's reply to this,
Kiwifruit typically has more sugar content than grapefruit, which is
typically 'made sweeter' with a touch of salt. It is certainly much
sweeter than lime juice; kiwifruit averages over 8 grams of sugar
where the same amount of lime juice (as in your example) averages just
over 1.5 grams.
My assumption has been that salt acts as a flavour enhancer and so will accentuate whatever taste is predominant (unless the taste is bitter). My little experiment bears me out, but one experiment is hardly conclusive as any number of things can go wrong. In any case, I'm willing to believe that things are more complex than I have assumed.
Does salt help sour fruit taste sweeter?
http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/grapefruit-brulee-recipe/reviews/index.html
@belisarius Tried the recipe with one 300g grapefruit, 12.7g sugar (roughly 1 tbsp), and 800mg salt on one grapefruit half (about a quarter of what is specified in the recipe for 4 grapefruit halves). My wife acted as a blind taste-tester. We both preferred the grapefruit half without salt and also found it much sweeter. This supports neither the theory that salt can help sour fruit taste sweeter, nor my theory that it will make a predominantly sweet fruit taste sweeter (since the half with sugar and no salt was plenty sweet). Will repeat tomorrow at breakfast :)
Thanks for sharing your experiment! (I never tested it as I like the sourness of grapefruit)
@belisarius There was definitely a contrast between the sweeter upper layer and the relatively sour interior so you don't lose the sour notes entirely.
It seems at the least plausible, on two fronts.
If I'm reading http://ajpgi.physiology.org/content/291/6/G1005.full correctly, saltiness and sourness can cancel each other out to some extent.
Salt can increase perceived sweetness: T1r3 taste cells have sodium-glucose co-transporters which may provide the explanation.
Goodness, that wasn't light reading. The first paper, states '[...] salt is often added to acidic foods and beverages to improve their palatability. We generally perceive a decrease in the saltiness of food when mixed with acid.'. You might want to infer that sourness is cancelled to reveal an underlying sweetness. But this is not a necessary inference and the results of my tests indicate that this is not the case.
Regarding the second paper, I don't know whether the sweet tasting amino acids studied in cited paper are sufficient in fruit to make any noticeable difference. It seems that dates have the highest concentration of alanine, glycine, and serine (about 0.3% in weight) but I've never had a sour date, so I'm not sure that testing with them would help. For the fruits that I have tested, sweetness is repressed by salt and so even though there are trace amounts of these amino acids, there appears to be a net-negative affect on sweetness.
@ChrisSteinbach, the first is focussed more on the effect of sourness in inhibiting saltiness, but it does refer in passing to saltiness inhibiting sourness a couple of times (e.g. "Sour taste aversion is sufficiently potent so that the ingestion of acids is only tolerable when sourness is masked with sweet- or salty-tasting substances").
With respect to the second paper, I wonder whether PNAS is serving you a different paper - the one I see doesn't mention amino acids at all, but suggests that "the enhancement of sweet taste by sodium salts (37–39) and the sweet taste of low concentrations of Na+ (40, 41) may be mediated by sodium-dependent glucose uptake into T1r3 taste cells via SGLT1".
I followed the citations that attest to "the enhancement of sweet taste by sodium salts (37-39)". Citations nr. 37 and 38 were for cats and dogs respectively, so I skipped them. Citation 38, "Enhancing effects of NaCl and Na phosphate on human gustatory responses to amino acids" is the paper I referred to in my comment.
It does help the taste and make it more complex. I don't agree that salt makes fruit taste more sweeter. However, it is known that salt water reduces acidity so the sour fruit juices doesn't leave a weird feeling in your mouth.
My experience with this is learning from my parents how to eat pineapples by dipping them into salt water.
How does salt reduce acidity?
Salt water changes the pH of an acidic solution to be more neutral.
That is saying the same thing as reducing acidity. The question is how? I could not find any citations when googling, and the disassociation of the salt into ions will be close to neutral in total ph.
My mom would always rub a freshly cut pineapple with copious amounts of salt and then rinse off the excess. I also sometimes sprinkle a little salt onto green apple slices. Can't say if it's sweeter, but definitely less acidic. Don't know why ...
@O_O I'd like to try the pineapple dipped in salt-water as an experiment. About what salt to water ratio would you use?
@Megasaur I tried what you describe with pineapple and taste-wise, both the sour and sweet notes are subdued. I'm not sure if I liked this straight off. Maybe I could grow to like it. Regarding pH, I did another test with a piece of pineapple that was simply rinsed without first rubbing with salt. The pH was, unsurprisingly, the same (or at least not different enough to register with an alkacid test) for both the pieces of pineapple: pH 3.5.
Hmm interesting. I don't have a particular ratio for you since I just eyeball what is "enough" without being overly salty. Here is another article about this specifying how it neutralizes the acidity in the pineapple but I'm at a loss as for your measurement results. http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/11/04/2732686.htm
@O_O Thanks for sharing the link. I'm also at a loss. I'd love to get to the bottom of this although I'm frankly not sure how to proceed.
Chris, I'm not dipping the pineapple in salt water. I'll use maybe 1 tea spoon of salt. And rub it into my freshly peeled pineapple. Maybe for 1 minute. Some of it starts to dissolve. Then a quick rinse under the tap.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.534361
| 2013-01-04T20:50:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/29730",
"authors": [
"A. Edwards",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Dr. belisarius",
"Kam G",
"Megasaur",
"O_O",
"Peter Taylor",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Tushar",
"candrian",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2882",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4303",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4590",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5643",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69192",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69193",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69212",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69245",
"mimieux"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
32358
|
Does wax on citrus fruit make the zest unsafe to eat or compromise its flavor?
A number of (chiefly British) recipes specify unwaxed lemons for zesting. Unwaxed citrus fruit are not widely available here in Sweden, so I have to make do by attempting to remove the wax before zesting. Recently I have had doubts regarding the extent to which I actually succeed in doing so, and now I wonder whether it is even worth the trouble.
Citrus fruit have a natural wax coating that is washed off along with orchard grime at the packing house. A new protective coating is applied before packing, and it is this that I am concerned about.
I have two concerns. First there is a food safety issue. Reading the FDA and EU food additive regulations, I see that some substances are permitted for citrus and fruit such as apples and pears where the peel is normally eaten. Other substances are only to be used on citrus or other fruit where the peel is not normally ingested. On the face of it this seems to suggest that the consumption of citrus peel has not been taken into account. I understand that this may not be the case, but since neither regulatory body clarify the issue (at least not in the linked documents), I feel my concern is warranted.
My second concern is regarding whether the taste of the peel is compromised by the coating. This is a tricky question for me to answer since I have no access to untreated citrus. There is the additional difficulty that there are so many substances permitted, and the supermarkets here give no indication of what is used. Presumably some types of coating taste better and others worse. I include this part of question with the faint hope that there may be someone reading who is not subject to the same limitations.
Is it worth bothering even trying to wash the wax of citrus?
Lemons in Germany are always labeled as "untreated" or "treated with X". I guess you could look up the various X-es, but I just assume that all of the treated ones are unfit for peel consumption. If lemons in Sweden are not labeled that way, buy certified organic lemons for the peel - they cannot be treated with chemicals. This should take care of the food safety issue. Of course, "normal" (bee) wax is not considered a dangerous treatment, so it may be present on organic lemons (maybe even untreated - I don't know all label requirements) and still present a taste issue.
Also see this related question on the Skeptics Q/A site.
@rumtscho Thanks for your comment. It simplifies my question enormously if I restrict it to organic products. There are only two types of wax allowed on organic citrus here in Sweden: bee wax and carnauba wax. I double checked to see whether the supermarkets note treatments. Five out of five supermarket chains do not. Some had the boxes used for packing lying around which did have labels sometimes marked "treated with Imazalil", "covered with natural waxes", or simply "wax coated".
I've edited your title to try to encourage more on-topic answers; especially with longer questions, a lot of people mostly just read the title.
I've always just used warm (not hot) water, dish soap, and a soft brush to de-wax before zesting, and I've always been happy with the results. However, this question made me curious; in addition to beeswax, apparently carnauba (familiar from the carwash) and shellac are allowed - and warm water + dish soap would probably not adequately remove either of those. So if the packer didn't indicate what was used, then - assuming you have choices! - I think I would buy one or two fruit from each box , take them home to experiment, and then come back for more of whichever one cleaned up best.
Also, interesting takeaway from this paper: "Shellac coatings adversely affected fruit flavor." I suspect I could have told you that beforehand, if I'd been asked...
That sounds like it could be beginnings of a decent Answer for this one @MT_Head
I recently did some experimenting on this exact topic. I can't contribute anything to the safety part of your question, but I have some notes regarding flavor.
The experiment: I blind tasted lemon zest in a group of associates and friends with varying degrees of palate development. Most people were able to differentiate between fresh zest with wax and fresh zest without. Nobody could tell the difference once we'd incorporated the zest into a dish, probably since the wax reflows and becomes very diluted. The experiment didn't eliminate every possible variable or control for every factor, but I thought I'd pass this along in case it's useful to you.
In my personal experience - when I compare waxed and unwaxed citrus fruit side by side - the taste of fresh zest is slightly bittered by the presence of wax. Mouthfeel is appreciably gummier and I find it harder to perceive the zest's moisture as well.
If enough of us perform this experiment we could cobble together our own unofficial data :) I'd be more than happy to crunch the stats.
Great answer and nice idea re. the collective experiment. I've been considering purchasing the different organic waxes online and taste-testing them alone. I'll post the results here somewhere if I get around to it.
Excellent! Looking forward to it. I'll post the specifics for the tasting I did also.
Just curious, how did you get citrus without wax? Were there two different versions in a single store, or did you compare citrus between two different stores/sources?
Not the wax is the problem here, but rather the fungicide treatment that accompanies the waxing. In Europe it mostly is done with thiadibendazole. Thiadibendazole is not very soluble in water. When you peel the lemon and eat it, you will only incoroporate a very tiny amount. However it is very soluble in oil, and it is solved in the wax coating and much more importantly in the aromatic oils in the lemon peel. Washing the latter away would make using the lemon peel pointless.
Now for the amounts, when talking about toxicity the dose always is the most important aspect. Within the European Union it is permitted to have 0.01 mg/kg in fruit juices. I.e. it is considered save to consume that amount. On the other hand it is permitted to have 5 mg/kg on lemon peels.[1] This is a 500 times larger concentration. Even if you would wash of 90% of the thiadibendazole from your lemon peel, you would have 50 times higher concentrations than permitted for consumption. This is perfectly OK when you eat the lemon.
Wash it with warm soapy water and you do not have to worry at all when peeling or cutting it. Even putting such lemons into a soft drink is certainly not problematic (after washing!).* However peeling or zesting the lemons to eat the peel is an entirely different matter.
The only way to go is to use untreated (not unwaxed!)** or organic lemons.
(*) This is different in cocktails, when it has a high alcohol content it will solve the thiadibendazole very readily.
(**) There is no reason whatsoever to worry about the wax, if it bothers you mix the lemon zests with a little bit of alcohol. This is also recommended to extract the aroma. Gin is lovely for that purpose.
[1] http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:058:0001:0398:en:PDF
Is the wax safe?
Coatings used on fruits and vegetables must meet FDA food additive
regulations for safety. [ US Food & Drug Administration: http://www.fda.gov/food/resourcesforyou/consumers/ucm114299 ]
In the States, at least, it appears that fruit wax is regulated. Now, that doesn't mean it's healthy (cigarettes and gasoline are also regulated), but it should be a decent voucher of safety.
Of course, history shows that the government doesn't always know best... but I don't personally expect a large scale beeswax-related cancer epidemic to start sweeping across the Fruit Salad enthusiast scene.
Can wax be removed?
Waxes generally cannot be removed by regular washing. If consumers
prefer not to consume waxes--even though the waxes are safe--they can
buy un-waxed commodities or can peel the fruit or vegetable, thereby
removing any coating. [ Rainier Fruit Company: http://www.rainierfruit.com/products/wax.html ]
Fruit companies seem to say nay.
Is it worth bothering to try to remove the wax?
In the end, we are talking about spending energy worrying about a drop of wax. I wager that one Taco Bell taco is worse for you than all of the fruit wax (man-made or otherwise) you will consume in a year.
Nutrition is often a matter of degrees. You have to pick your battles.
As far as flavor goes... the fruit guys seem to say no. But of course they would say that.
I haven't found any conclusive source that claims otherwise.
First the Big Mac Index for economics, now the Taco Bell Index for food safely? :-)
"... large scale beeswax-related cancer epidemic sweeping across the fruit salad enthusiast scene" :) (Phew, that's a relief, BTW, Sir Preston! :) )
Strictly speaking this is not my own answer but partial answers supplied by the US FDA and DG SANCO (the EU Directorate General for Health & Consumers). Here is what they both have to say:
DG SANCO's Reply
In relation to the waxes used as food additives: Beeswax, white and yellow (E 901), Candelilla wax (E 902), Carnauba wax (E 903), Microcrystalline wax (E 905), these have been recently (re)-evaluated by EFSA in (2007 to 2013 ) for their use as glazing agent on the surface of several fruits including citrus fruits, apples and pears.
EFSA considers that these as food additives are safe for the consumer.
FDA's Reply
Chris Steinbach, the regulations take into consideration the normal consumption for additives. EPA sets the tolerances for fungicides and pesticides and FDA enforces them. Since it is possible that these components might be consumed they must be generally safe or proven safe if consumed in moderation.
I find neither of these replies entirely satisfactory. The FDA's reply is perhaps the best. It's reassuring to know that treated citrus peel is "safe if consumed in moderation". On the other hand, what is moderate consumption? I eat lemon curd about three times a week. Would that be considered excessive consumption?
DG SANCO chose to ignore part of my question to them asking about the safety of fungicides. Their carefully worded reply only touches a few very specific food additives used as wax and leaves untouched the wider question of whether citrus peel that has been subject to other treatments is safe to eat.
When I get time I'll ask for clarifications, but don't hold your breath waiting for an update; it took a full 20 months for DG SANCO to supply me with the paragraph quoted above.
Fantastic that you actually went ahead asking them, and that they indeed replied (if only just :) ), and that you came back with the answers, thank you! (That removes the final major roadblock from making some lemon(+peel-)flavored quark with raisins, vanilla sugar, ginger and some egg yolk for a dinner dessert, with the random lemons I have around. Also, since the quark expires today, I'm especially grateful to find your question complete with this answer here already, so I don't have to wait for 20 months myself, too. :) )
Babybel cheese and some other foods are covered with paraffin wax which is not mentioned in DG SANCO's response. I would be very interested to hear of any studies on the health risk associated with the covering of food with this substance (derived from crude oil).
Some of the additives listed are definitely also used on prepared, ready to eat foods, eg beeswax on some brands of gummi bears.
The Food and Drug Administration has approved several waxes for such use, made from shellacs, paraffins, palm oil derivatives and synthetic resins. Those ingredients are also in waxes for your car and kitchen floor, but as far as anyone knows, the waxes used on produce are safe.
The caveat is necessary because the FDA has never adequately tested them for safety. Before 1958, food additives were not tested, but were permitted if there was no evidence of hazard. Such products have been categorized under the FDA heading: Generally Recognized As Safe.
There are 21 fruits and vegetables that may be waxed: apples, avocados, bell peppers, cantaloupes, cucumbers, eggplants, grapefruits, lemons, limes, melons, oranges, parsnips, passion fruits, peaches, pineapples, pumpkins, rutabagas, squashes, sweet potatoes, tomatoes and turnips.
The waxes sometimes contain fungicides. Both the waxes and the fungicides are used to prevent spoilage, the former to retard moisture loss and prevent shriveling, the latter to prevent mold. Any fungicide allowed on the produce as it is grown may also be applied after harvesting, whether under the wax, in combination with it or alone.
Seven fungicides are approved for use on food crops after harvesting. Of those only one, benomyl, has undergone a complete review by the EPA. The agency says it has insufficent evidence of human risk in the others:
thiabendazole, ortho-phenylphenol, sodium ortho-phenyl phenate, imazalil, dicloran and sodium borate.
The EPA has classified benomyl a possible human carcinogen. In test animals, the chemical has caused birth defects, low sperm counts and mutations. The EPA says the risks are so small that they are outweighed by the benefits.
Benomyl is registered for post-harvest use on apples, apricots, bananas, cherries, citrus fruits, mushrooms, nectarines, peaches, pears, pineapples and plums, either with wax or alone.
Apart from anything else, it is really hard to grate waxed lemons. I think the processors wax fruit to enhance its appearance and to increase sales, which makes sense, as sales are their raison d'etre. I have read great chefs who resent the wax and seek out unwaxed fruit.
Charmayne
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.534927
| 2013-03-02T20:45:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/32358",
"authors": [
"52d6c6af",
"Cascabel",
"Chris Steinbach",
"JS.",
"Joel Hansen",
"Lauren",
"LongGin",
"MT_Head",
"Mike Pasemko",
"Noah C",
"Preston",
"Ronika Jooste",
"Spammer McSpamface",
"Sz.",
"TERENCE BUNCE",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113265",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123895",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/149593",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17063",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/36511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60960",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75333",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75457",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75564",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93789",
"lillie fleming",
"rackandboneman",
"rostamiani",
"rumtscho",
"sel_space"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
40440
|
Why did my caramel come out grainy?
I made caramel on my induction cooktop. The temperature was correct, but the caramel texture is grainy, like all of the sugar didn't dissolve properly. Do I need a different thermometer? I used a Wilton clip-on stainless steel mercury thermometer. Or does the cooking time need to be adjusted?
The recipe I am using is: 1cup butter,2 1/4cup brown sugar, dash salt,1cup light corn syrup,1can sweetened condensed milk,1teaspoon vanilla. Melt butter in heavy 3 qt. saucepan. Add brown sugar and salt. Stir until thoroughly combined. Stir in corn syrup and mix well. Gradually add milk stirring constantly. Cook and stir over med. heat until candy reaches 245F remove from heat and stir in vanilla. Pour into 9x9 pan. Let set 24 hours. Cut into squares, wrap in wax paper.
I am close to sea-level.
I just tested 2 thermometers. They both reached boiling point at 205F. Since I am using an induction cooktop, which cooks faster, could it be that the cooking time isn't long enough to break down the sugar? I think I have good technique,I've made them perfectly creamy for years,using an electric cooktop.
The cooktop can't possibly make water boil at 205F, water boiling at a lower temperature than 212F can only happen under less than normal pressure (a vacuum environment). Is your water at a "full boil"? The first bubbles indicate a "simmer", "boiling" is lots of bubbles, bursting and making more bubbles rapidly. What happens to the temperature readings if you continue to boil plain water until it gets as hot as possible without a lid? Are you at high altitude?
A boiling point of 205F would be normal in Denver, Colorado. So your altitude could really play a role here.
I'm in Iowa.Yes it was a full rolling boil.I just did it again,same result. The longer it boils the highest the temp. Gets is 210F. The cooktop is keeping it at a consistent temp. Water is splashing out of the pan. Thermometer off a few degrees? Still wondering what the role of the induction cooktop plays in this. Water will boil in 90 seconds.
I am going to edit your original question to include that information and ponder it for a while. 210F is close enough. The critical stage is most likely "Cook and stir over med. heat until candy reaches 245F". Is this stage happening faster than you're used to?
Have you switched brands of sugar recently?
I noticed that you're stirring constantly. Generally with candy you want to stir as little as possible, since it causes sugar crystals to form in the syrup. In addition to making the candy grainier, they reduce the overall lifespan- even after the candy has cooled the (larger) crystals will continue to grow, causing the candy to slowly revert back into flavoured sugar.
Once the sugar is fully dissolved, you want to disturb it as little as possible. You will still have to do some stirring, otherwise the milk solids will burn. It'll help a bit to mix in the corn syrup at the same time as the sugar. Corn syrup is an invert sugar, meaning it gets in the way of crystallization and slows it down. If your caramel is still coming out grainy, try adding half a teaspoon of lemon juice. Your candy will be slightly gummier, but the acid in the lemon will inhibit crystallization and reduce the graininess.
I think you're right, that the stirring is central to the issue. Since the only thing she has changed is the cooktop, and the only thing the cooktop could really affect is the amount of time it takes to get from one point in the recipe to another, what's really being affected is the amount of stirring relative to time. So, she either needs to adjust the cooktop so that amount if time it takes to get from one step to the next is what she is used to, or she needs to adjust the frequency of stirring to better fit the new time schedule:) Good answer (+1), welcome to Seasoned Advice!
Your thermometer should be fine, the graininess probably has more to do with technique than temperature. There's quite a bit of controversy as to when and how to stir and what to do about sugar crystals that form along the sides of the pan.
Just to be sure about your thermometer, test it with boiling water. If you're at or near sea-level the thermometer should read 100C or 212F. If your thermometer is fine, then we need to take a harder look at technique.
Edit: Looking at your recipe and considering your change in cooktop, I can only see a possible problem if the candy reaches 245F more quickly than you are used to. Try lowering the temp a bit at that stage so that it takes longer for the candy to reach 245F. It may take some getting used to, but induction should perfect for candy making.
It pretty much goes without saying, so I am assuming no considerable change in your ingredients.
Given how easily sugar dissolves in water, especially hot water, the rate of heating is extremely unlikely to be the culprit.
@SAJ14SAJ The time required at that stage as it relates to stirring (her recipe calls for stirring during that stage) could very well be the problem. Since she says that the cooktop is the only thing that has changed, I think time is the issue (as it relates to stirring). Melting the sugar is only a tiny part of good candy-making. If making good caramel were only a matter of melting sugar, a whole lot of professional candy makers would be without a job.
I solved the problem of grainy caramel made with condensed milk by: taking the grainy caramel off the cooktop and decanting the entire batch into my high power blender (2200w) for 3 minutes on the highest setting. Not only did the graininess disappear completely but the heat generated by my amazing blender continued to cook my caramel. Now the caramel filling for my banoffee pie is PERFECT and ready for the bananas and whipped cream! I've never before made caramel with condensed milk. Next time I'm just going to use my blender from the beginning.
I own a bakery and made Caramel weekly. I finally purchased an induction burner for the back of the bakery so as to not have to carry boiling sugar down a long corridor. First my staff and then myself experienced repeated failures, i.e. graininess every time we used the induction burner. We finally went back to the gas range and everything went perfectly well. Not once was it possible to reproduce the smooth dark, rich caramel we used at the bakery when using the induction burner. I wish I knew why, I used the same pot, the same technique, same temperature, and ingredients. A mystery till this day but also a very dependable result- unusable grainy mess. I hope you find your answer. If you had previous success making caramel, and changed nothing other than the induction burner it may well be something with the way an induction burning heats the sugar crystals not anything you did incorrectly. I can only speak to my own experience but I will never attempt caramel with an induction burner again. I hope this helps.
An induction burner does not cause caramel to fail by itself. I have myself made caramel on induction, gas and resistive heaters with equal results, in my current kitchen I only have induction and haven't had issues with caramel. A possible explanation for your observation is that maybe the burner was heating your caramel either too quickly or unevenly, causing part of your sugar to burn before another part was melted. This should have been possible to overcome by changing the heat setting, the chosen pot (material and size) and/or the amount of sugar used at one go.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.536036
| 2013-12-20T16:18:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40440",
"authors": [
"Albert L J Hall",
"Brett",
"Clocker",
"Cosvi dos Santos",
"DateMate",
"Hami Shahrouzi",
"Jeremy Windland",
"Jolenealaska",
"Marshall Wendt",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sherri",
"SourDoh",
"chucksticks",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102942",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/150367",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16863",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94034",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94035",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94051",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94054",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94055",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/94100",
"lerner",
"lime",
"rumtscho",
"user1874594"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
14323
|
How do you ensure a tortilla keeps all its contents when making a burrito?
What's the best technique to tuck or close the tortilla when preparing a burrito so that it doesn't come undone when it's time to eat?
Are you using pre-made tortillas? If so, make sure to warm them before. It'll make it more pliable, and less likely to tear.
For a demo, walk into a Chipotle restaurant and watch.
Don't they typically steam them which also makes them a little bit sticky and helps as well? Is there an easy way to do this without the tortilla-steamer-gizmo you see behind counters?
@Zippy I've seen some restaurants use a microwave to quickly soften/steam the tortillas. If you are making a "wet" style burrito, another option is to pre-soak the tortillas in the sauce (this will of course make folding a bit messier).
related video: http://youtu.be/VHh805XYzoE?t=59s
@SamtheBrand: I appreciate all the cleanup edits, but you might want to look at http://meta.cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/1720/should-i-edit-posts-for-writing-style (and of course, you're welcome to write another answer if you disagree)
@Jefromi - Yeah, I have probably gone a bit overboard here. Just trying to clean the copy up before I pass it on for syndication (maybe you've noticed my periodic edit splurges). I'll try to minimize unnecessary editing in the future. Thanks for keeping me in line.
Here is an example of efficient making of burritos in the San Francisco Mission District: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=beBZHVmfz1g
Tucking definitely helps, but you also have to arrange your ingredients in such a way that wet ingredients like salsa, lettuce, meats, etc are in the center. You also want to use absorbent ingredients like rice to have an additional barrier. If you roll the burrito in such a way that the rice sits on the bottom, all the wetness will get absorbed into the rice BEFORE it tears into the tortilla.
Folding a burrito is serious business. Get it wrong and you'll end up dumping most of the contents all over the place and look like a burrito noob. Get it right and your hands and plate will be perfectly clean, and you'll no longer be hungry. Beware: publicly flaunting these skills might lead to people wanting you to fold their burritos for them.
General Tips
First off: make sure your tortilla is ready to be folded. A cold or dried out tortilla is likely to crack or split. Use a warm and moist tortilla.
Second: don't overfill the tortilla. If you have small tortillas don't try to make a giant burrito and expect that to work.
How to fold
Now that we have the basics out of the way let's get to folding. See the flash animation at Chow.com (which I've converted into an image here):
Place the contents in the approximately center of your partially folded tortilla. Leave plenty of room on the ends otherwise you'll most surely have food spilling out once it's folded up. Hold the filled tortilla so the weight of the filling pulls it tight. If your burrito busts through now, it will certainly burst later. If not, proceed to step 2.
Fold one end towards the center.
Fold the other end over.
Roll the bottom (the end nearest you) up towards the top. This isn't the intuitive way, but it's the right way. Make sure not to let the food squeeze out. I hold it with my fingers at the crease where the bottom edge that's been folded up meets the food.
Keep rolling it up.
Om nom nom.
@Ezra Thanks, I updated my source with that link.
The most important and easy thing to do with any tortilla before folding it is to warm the tortilla to make it supple and not to crack. (The same is true for enchiladas and tacos.)
The best warming is over a range/stove burner (open flame or electric). Just keep rotating the tortilla until it is no longer stiff. Then stuff it right away while it's still warm. (You can also use a microwave to warm the tortilla, but it will come out drier - with a bigger risk of "post-consumption gut bloat".)
And be sure to use good flour tortillas, especially for burros/burritos. If it's a low fat or corn/maize tortilla, you're not going to have good luck no matter what. It will crack and won't fold at all well.
Here's how we always did it (this was a weekly meal growing up, and for reference, we made tortilla shells with approximately a 12 inch diameter):
Arrange the ingredients in a line
down the middle, leaving about 1 inch
on either end about at least 3 inches on
either side
Fold the ends over, so the crease is right where the ingredients stop
Fold one side, then the other side with both creases right where the ingredients stop
With that, I've never had much issue with anything coming undone, just a little leaking if there is too much salsa or other liquid ingredients.
one of the most proper ways of doing it is to fold the bottom 1/3 of the way up, then fold the sides in, and end off with folding the top down to close it. It then looks somewhat like an envelope. I like filling mine with lots of food, so I usually don't gold the top down. I just do the first two steps. My plate usually looks like it hasn't been used because nothing falls out.
I fold both sides if it has to travel more than a few feet before being eaten, but if I'm at home and going to eat it immediately I just fold one side so I get a better filling/tortilla ratio. Funny - when I was a little kid I didn't like beans, so I preferred the ratio to got the other way!
A traditional burrito's tortilla is NOT folded. It is just rolled
If your filling comes out it is to finely chopped, to wet, or too much
If it wants to unroll, just hang onto to it! A fresh, soft, and warmed tortilla will quite happily stay rolled. Maybe you tortillas and to dry?
Many cultures use flat breads to serve saucy foods in, they do this because they didn't have sufficient utensils, or water to clean utensils in. They use flat breads as then the utensil/plate is eaten too, and no food is wasted, as they generally don't have to waste
Why the -1. Burrito's are not folded. Filling should stay in if made correctly. Folded tortillas are called something else? When you visit traditional Mexico villages you do not see folded tortillas, this is chain store modification
So if there's no folds then it has two open ends? Won't biting one end push food out the other end?
@SimonEast not at all? Many traditional cultures use flat beads for eating saucy food without utensils, they are hygienic, and tidy. They don't have food to waste
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.536675
| 2011-04-25T17:01:22 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14323",
"authors": [
"Bekky Love",
"Blodwyn Pig",
"Cascabel",
"ESultanik",
"Jeremy",
"Joe",
"Jon",
"MT_Head",
"Ryan Elkins",
"Sharon L. Wilson",
"Simon East",
"Sun",
"TFD",
"Zippy",
"gritts",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15028",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/285",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/34332",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5408",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5600",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/65737",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6579",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78791",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78793",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78798",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/78800",
"nohat",
"samthebrand",
"siamsot"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
641
|
What's the best way to season a cast iron skillet?
I just purchased a new cast iron skillet. What's the best way to season it?
And if I need to re-season an old pan, is the process any different?
Also see this related question: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/261/how-do-you-clean-a-cast-iron-skillet
First, there is no difference between seasoning and re-seasoning, unless you need to do some extra work to remove rust (see instructions below). In fact, for new cast iron, scouring is also usually a good idea since you need to get off whatever wax or protective oil the manufacturer or seller may have put onto the cookware. (They don't use cooking oil for that sort of thing, believe me.)
If you need to remove rust: use a mixture of salt and oil and scrub that hard into the rust, then rinse thoroughly in hot water. Use steel wool if necessary.
Next, scour the pan completely under hot water. Do this for several minutes or until the water runs clean. I've heard varying things about whether soap or an SOS pad is OK at this step. My personal opinion is that it's OK, but you must wash the soap completely off before continuing with the seasoning so that your seasoning doesn't taste like soap!
Coat the cookware with grease or oil. (I do this with the whole pan, not just the cooking surface, to reduce the possibility of external rust.) Crisco, vegetable oil, and lard all work well. Don't pick something with a low smoking point, or too strong a flavor. Make sure it's a light coating... you shouldn't have pools of oil anywhere on your cookware.
Bake your skillet in a 250 - 350 °F (121 - 178 °C) oven for an hour. If you used liquid oil, you may want to put the cookware in upside down so excess oil drips off. But it's good to put a cookie sheet or something underneath the cookware to catch the drips if you do!
Let the cookware cool, and wipe off any excess oil.
For best results, do this two or three times, though a skillet can be satisfactory after a single treatment.
To keep the seasoning happy:
Don't let the cast iron sit too long without using it (you may notice a rancid smell or flavor if the seasoning turns bad; I'm not sure at what point this happens, but it's happened to me before).
Don't cook anything acidic (e.g. tomatoes) during the first or second use of your pan.
Don't use dishwashing liquid or soap on the pan (hot water and scrubbing only).
After cleaning the pan after each use, wipe it lightly with another bit of oil, using simple vegetable oil.
Another trick sometimes used to season Chinese woks: rub Chinese chives over the surface of the cookware when the oil is being heated (this works best on a stovetop, not in the oven). The juice of the chive has sulfur compounds that help remove remaining flavor from the previous coating of the cookware. Be aware that this technique really kicks up a lot of steam and smoke. I've never tried it on cast iron skillets, but I'd be curious if anyone out there has.
"Don't use dishwaser liquid" I usually do this with a very light amount between use and then after its dried take a small amount of vegetable oil and apply. Is this wrong ? By the way +1 for a great answer.
I have a cast iron pot I'd like to use for chili; do these same instructions apply, or should I open a separate question? I've heard that cooking beans on cast iron can be a problem, but the tradition of cooking chili in cast iron makes that seem unlikely.
After cleaning my cast iron, I usually put it on the stove at medium heat for a few minutes to make sure its dry, as an extra precaution against rust.
I would add, for the benefit of the first answerer, that doing it in your girlfriends' apartment right under the smoke detector is probably not the best idea.
But happily, I can report that she is still with me. :-D
By the way, if you have a gas grill, that's a better choice than your indoor oven so you don't get the smoke fumes in the house.
You absolutely can use soap or dishwashing liquid. This used to apply when soaps were lye based but as this is no longer the case they are fine to use
See this excellent article about the chemistry of seasoning. You want flaxseed oil (which incidentally has a low smoke point) but a high iodine value, allowing it to polymerize readily.
I read so many blogs about oil "impregnating the cast iron," but this doesn't make any sense chemically. What happens is that the oil polymerizes, and you want an oil that does that really well.
Wow, that article is awesome. I've looked many times, over the years, for something exactly like that, and ended up following the advice that she says is common but wrong. My pan looks just like her ugly before shot. Thanks!
For those who don't want to take the time to click-through and read, the other interesting tidbit I noticed there was that acidic foods such as tomatoes, lemons, or vinegar will cause any seasoning, including this one, to flake off.
Just as an aside this is also the method that americas test kitchen recommends. They saw this blog post and tested it.
There is notable controversy surrounding this article. For instance, see https://www.reddit.com/r/castiron/comments/5owtnm/why_i_dont_recommend_flax_seed_oil/
Echoing @cambunctious, Serious Eats says "For the record, we've found that the often-suggested flaxseed oil produces a fast layer of seasoning, but it has a tendency to flake off with use. We don't recommend it." https://www.seriouseats.com/2016/09/how-to-season-cast-iron-pans-skillets-cookware.html
Heartily disagree with flaxseed. It's just way too soft, smoke point too low. You want the complete opposite - high smoke point, low iodine - like lard. You want it to be difficult to polymerise. The end result is considerably tougher.
@unlisted Do you have a source for that? Isn't the final polymer always nearly pure carbon? And isn't it a lot easier to get to that state if the oil is more reactive?
I'm not a chemist, but that one source which sits so high on google search is so widely panned [pardon the pun] that it cannot be taken seriously. It's a piece of one-woman research with arm-wavy 'science' that now just gets repeated as 'received wisdom'. Check some of the links above. I did find some research pointing to the opposite of what she says… trying to track it down...
The only empirical evidence I have myself is I used to use whatever veg-based oil I had in the cupboard for 20 years on a plain iron wok without any real issues though it was never really smooth & did flake a bit - my girlfriend made me throw it out because she didn't like how rough it looked.. These days I used lard on the one cast-iron pan I have [my wok now is non-stick] with no issues - which, of course, is too small a sample size to be considered proof. Who knows really ;))
Welcome. I still can't find the iodine research I was waving at, but see https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/117104/42066 and https://cooking.stackexchange.com/a/94650/42066 It does appear that none of this has ever been truly 'chemically researched' it's all just one cook's limited test… so I guess the jury may be out for quite some time. Based on current performance on my, admittedly quite young [2yr] skillet, I'll stick with lard. I run it under the hot tap & give it a scrub with a plastic brush, then a quick heat with a tiny lard wipe-round & back on the rack. Good so far.
It's a shame the pre-seasoned cast iron pan companies don't share how they do it - that would be fairly solid proof ;)) So someone, somewhere, does know how this is done… they're just not telling the rest of us. But note those pans are never 'glossy' like flax oil seaoning, they're almost matt black like lard.
@unlisted It appears that one cast iron pan manufacturer uses flaxseed oil: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGR-pyLHz1s
@NeilG - I didn't watch the video [life's too short] but reading the info & looking at his web page, he's more an upcycler than manufacturer. He also credits the very same blog as everybody else for the flaxseed idea, which leaves us with little more than circular reasoning [or should that be seasoning? ;)
@unlisted The video includes of an interview with a cast iron manufacturer (Victoria). They explain a bit about the seasoning process, and their methodology. They say that they use flaxseed oil. So, it appears that you may be mistaken about your claim about wanting a "low smoke point". Which from a chemistry point of view makes sense since high smoke point oils are going to take longer to polymerize since they're less reactive.
@NeilG - I never claimed low smoke point - in fact exactly the opposite.
@unlisted Yes, sorry, I had it backwards in that sentence. The point is that this cast iron manufacturer uses an oil with a low smoke point since low smoke point oils polymerize more quickly since they're more reactive.
This cropped up on a thread recently. tbh, a lot of the names are US trade names I've never heard of - http://www.castironcollector.com/seasoning.php
I am a (former) polymer chemist and flax oil has worked fine for me with no flaking, but it's more finicky than other oils. I believe the problem is the heat treatment. If you go too hot, too fast (>350°F for first few coats) with flax, it will indeed risk flaking. The protocol I use is start at 325°F for 1-2hr, with each coat I go up 25°, until 500°F. I use whatever oil for cooking.
@DeusXMachina Interesting. I'm interested in why going too hot causes flaking? Thanks for sharing your expertise.
@NeilG Hard to explain in 600char, but tldr there are several phases of chemical reaction in seasoning. As you go from hot to hotter, more and more reactive sites crosslink. When the polymer is fully crosslinked, its reactivity massively drops. Flax heated too fast rapidly creates a very rigid and brittle matrix which does not yield, so it chips easily. Heating slower gives time for chemical reconfiguration which results in more complete bonding, building larger molecular weight polymers, as well as more plasticity, mitigating thermal and mechanical shock.
According to Yahoo!7:
To season a pan, preheat your oven to 300°F (150°C). Preheat the pan on the stove top. When warm, coat the inside surfaces of the pan with vegetable oil or lard. Continue to heat just until you see ripples appear on the surface of the oil. At this point, pour off any excess oil, give it a quick wipe with a folded paper towel held in a pair of kitchen tongs, and then put the pan into the oven for 45 to 60 minutes. Remove the pan from the oven and allow it to cool to room temperature.
Solid advice. I'm a great lover of my cast iron skillet (http://www.herbivoracious.com/2009/11/my-skillet.html) and this is generally how I season it as well. Also, after every use and wash I heat it back up on the stove to make sure it is scrupulously dry, then give it a wipe with a little vegetable oil and a paper towel and let it cool down naturally. I find this maintains the seasoning perfectly.
good answer, except I find that it requires a couple repeats to really take hold and be durable against utensils
Personally I just re-season it by cleaning it well, covering the cooking surface in a frying oil and heating it until it just starts to smoke. This has always worked extremely well for me, and has the advantage of being quick if you need to actually use the thing right away!
The more important part may be how not to unseason the pan. You can never, ever, clean it with soap. Or scrape it with brillo. Just warm/hot water and cloth.
Seasoning is literally "greasing" the pan. And soap is the enemy of grease. Good when washing your hands. Bad when cleaning cast-iron.
This creates a bit of a catch-22 since a poorly seasoned pan will require heavy cleaning. But once you do it right, it will last for months as long as you don't undo the seasoning with soap or scraping.
It's actually fairly hard to remove cast iron seasoning with modern dish detergents (as opposed to, say, lye). A light wash won't do it (though you should definitely heat it until completely dry & wipe with oil afterwards, and possibly you'd want to heat 'til smoking after wiping on a very light coat of oil).
This is utterly untrue. If your seasoning washes off with soap and water, it wasn't seasoning, it was just grease. Properly polymerized oil does not dissolve in soapy water.
(Also, a proper seasoning won't just last for "months".)
yeah, I have a non-stick pan that became sticky due to polymerized oil and gosh it's tough to remove that layer
From the excellent Mike Saxon over at Chef's Tales:
On receiving a new, straight from the supplier, cast iron frying pan or sautéing pan, we used to first place it on a solid top stove, empty with absolutely nothing inside and get it so hot that it would be smoking.
We would then place enough course sea salt in the smoking hot pan to cover its entire cooking surface until it was about 2cm thick. We would leave the hot pot on the stove with the salt and slowly burn and cook the pot with the salt inside. The salt will very slowly “cook” by smoking, burning and turning the salt very slowly to a dark brown colour.
We would then discard the salt in a bin, get a piece of cloth (a towel cloth like an old bath towel or face cloth) dip it in oil and wipe or rub the pot until the hot metal would absorb the oil making the pan shiny.
When the pan is smoking hot, we would them wipe the pan clean with another piece of kitchen towel and then proceed with the whole process all over again from the beginning.
After doing this 2 or 3 times the metal will have absorbed the oil making the metal very shiny, “seasoned” and have a homemade non stick effect. When you have done this you need to try out the pan by making an omelet, if the eggs stick, you have to start all over again until the pan cooks an omelet without the eggs sticking.
The act of “seasoning” the pan may take a few days, a week on more than a week, but it is definitely a loving care process.
Heat your oven to around 350F. Coat the pan with some sort of fat (vegetable oil works well), bake for at least an hour, and wipe. You're done!
Re-seasoning is similar to seasoning, as you say. To reduce the need for re-seasoning, make sure you're only cleaning with hot water (and possibly salt).
This doesn't directly answer your question about a full re-seasoning, but is related to seasoning.
When cooking with cast iron, I find it easiest to clean the pan immediately, while it's still very hot, with very hot water (our tap gets hot enough to scald if you're not careful).
Then, I thoroughly dry it with a towel, then a paper towel (to get what the towel may have missed).
Then I immediately oil it (I use grapeseed because of its cost compared to its smoke point, but have used bacon grease, olive oil, or whatever else is around) and put it back on the hot burner.
Using this method, I haven't had to re-season my cast iron pans yet.
As long as you don't use soap or scouring pads on a (seasoned) cast-iron skillet, you should practically never need to re-season it. Just dry it thoroughly and rub on a little vegetable oil after you clean it and before you put it away.
Chris's answer is the right one for initial seasoning: Just "bake" the skillet coated in oil. Most cast iron cookware comes with directions regarding temperature and time, and there are minor differences between brands, but 350° F for 1 hour is a good rule of thumb.
Dish Soap is fine (pH 9-ish), just don't use dishwashing detergent. As long as the pH is below 10 you won't even bother the coating if it's polymerized correctly. You need pH >10.5 to start damaging it. Plus washing should be a short exposure. Leaving it wet is worse.
One tip to use on a cast-iron that is severely encrusted or has burnt sugar residue is to burn it off. I have done this twice with great success. In one case we made a large hot charcoal fire in an outdoor BBQ grill and buried the pan in the coals. The other was done similarly in a fireplace hearth making sure that the inside and the outside were both in contact with hot coals as much as possible. After letting the fire burn out, and LETTING THE PAN COOL!!, it was necessary to remove a small amount of residue with sandpaper and/or wire brush. The pan is now in brand new condition except that it will look very rusty and will continue to rust unless you treat it immediately. First scour it with a stainless steel pad and some kind of oil (I actually prefer mineral oil for this step) to remove the rust. Wipe it thoroughly with old cloth towels and then proceed to season by one of the methods detailed above. I prefer to do this several times before cooking with the pan. I have always used a solid vegetable shortening for seasoning with good results.
I hope that was a food grade mineral oil.
You shouldn't use mineral oil. It has no chemically reactive sites, thus it'll make it harder for the coating to bond to the metal. You should use your seasoning oil directly on the fresh bare metal.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.537337
| 2010-07-11T15:49:10 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/641",
"authors": [
"Benjamin Scherer",
"Carey Gregory",
"Chris",
"Ciprian Tomoiagă",
"Claudio",
"DeusXMachina",
"DustinDavis",
"Efe",
"Goll Ngon",
"Goodbye Stack Exchange",
"JYelton",
"Jacob",
"James",
"Joel P.",
"Mason",
"Michael Natkin",
"Michael Pilat",
"Michelle",
"Neil G",
"Owen S.",
"RobAStrom",
"Robin Day",
"Rokujolady",
"Sean",
"Sneftel",
"Stephanie Brooks Hawkins",
"Tetsujin",
"Tu Pham",
"cambunctious",
"citadelgrad",
"derobert",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10868",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1195",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1205",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14886",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17767",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/189",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2158",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23733",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23813",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26102",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26237",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/30974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/42066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43807",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/45042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/57140",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/58067",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6211",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/72008",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/85180",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/87974",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/91",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9683",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/98288",
"i.amniels",
"jejorda2",
"keithjgrant",
"kojiro",
"ljden",
"orrd",
"sprucegoose",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15061
|
How do I separate egg white?
What are ways of getting only the egg white from an egg? Can it be done after the yolk is broken?
The traditional method is as Rumtscho describes.
I got tired of this method for several reasons:
Egg shells are dirty.
Shells get in the egg (especially with home collected eggs which have MUCH thicker shells than store purchased eggs)
Egg shells are sharp and it's hard to keep yolks whole.
That method just takes too long if you need more than 2 eggs.
Now I just crack the egg into my hand (which has been thoroughly washed -- cleaner than an eggshell). I hold my fingers a little apart and let the white slip through, leaving the yolk in my hand.
Quick and simple.
Regardless of the method that you use you should use three bowls: one for the collected whites, one for the white you are working on, and one for the yolks.
Remember: only dump the current white into the collected whites after verifying that the yolk is whole. That way you don't spoil all your whites with one broken yolk.
yep - i used to use the shell-to-shell method, but now i do like my grandmother, and just use my hands. it works so much better.
Yes, I do this too.
So you just squeeze the egg in one hand (thereby breaking the shell) and let the white drip out? Or you crack it open as you would if separating it the way rumtscho and ElendilTheTall described (on the edge of a bowl, say), and then drop it into your hand? Or what?
@msh210- It's faster, of course, if you can crack it with one hand. If you can't do that then crack the egg as you would normally but hold it vertically when you open the shell so the egg stays in half the shell. Then tip it into your hand.
This is the method I've seen used by pastry cook, sous chef, and kitchen manager where I work. It's fast and effective, if slightly messier. You should have gloves or REALLY clean hands though.
@msh210 Note that you do NOT crack the egg by squeezing it so hard the shell shatters. This will result in bits of shell EVERYWHERE.
@Yamikuronue I'd think you're right, but I think Sobachatina does just that.
@msh210- I tap it on the counter to introduce a weak spot then use my thumb and middle finger to press on the sides of the weak spot and my index and ring fingers to pull the two halves of the shell apart from each other. Basically the same pressure I would apply with two thumbs I apply with the fingers of one. Maybe there is a better way- I settled on this method through trial and error.
The natural oil in our hands wouldn't get in the way of beating egg whites? Isn't it the same as allowing a bit of yolk to mix with them?
@ThiagoChaves No. First, this is done with very clean hands. Secondly a tiny, tiny amount of oil doesn't matter: Serious Eats. Oil is a big deal, but I'm guessing that we all know how to clean our hands.
It can't be done after the yolk is broken/pierced. But, of course, separating white from yolk requires that you break the egg shell to separate them.
Break egg roughly in halves along its "equator".
Hold both halves broken side up, like cups. One of them contains egg white and the yolk, and the other only egg white.
Empty the egg whites from the half-shell without yolk into a receptacle (e.g. bowl)
Slide the yolk from the other half-shell into the empty shell, taking with it as small an amount of egg white as possible. Pay attention to the yolk; you must not pierce it at the jagged shell edges.
Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there is no longer separable egg white remaining.
Generally, it is OK to have a tiny amount of whites with the yolks, so you don't have to separate perfectly.
It can happen that yolk gets pierced. If you need the egg whites (e.g. for meringue), don't use the ones into which yolk has bled, even if it is a tiny amount. Dump both yolk and contaminated whites into the yolk bowl (or trash).
If your yolk is pierced and you need the yolks (e.g. for hollandaise) and there is still lots of egg whites with the yolk, you have to continue separating. But if you suspect that you might need the whites pure, just put the contaminated whites from this egg in a separate receptacle (e.g. a teacup) and add them to something which uses whole eggs.
This YouTube video by updowngroupfood illustrates the method nicely, only they crack the egg into two different-sized "halves." For me, it works better when the halves are of equal size.
That's what I said ;)
@ElendilTheTall When I started typing, you hadn't said it yet. I must have missed the "new answer posted". But yes, it is practically the same.
I'll forgive you :) Yours is better laid out anyhoo.
Thank you rumtscho for the detailed steps and the video.
I prefer to crack the egg into my hand with the fingers loosely open. The whites slide through, leaving a lovely golden orb in the palm of my hand.
If by the egg being broken you mean the shell, then yes, of course! If you mean the yolk, it's very tricky. And if you mean after you've dumped the whole egg into a bowl, possibly, but you have to very careful not to break the yolk.
There are probably various ways of separating an egg, but I do it by carefully tapping it on the side of a bowl. Then, I break the egg in half while holding it vertically so that the yolk remains in one half of the shell, letting the white in the non-yolk half fall into the bowl. Then I gently tip the yolk into the empty half, while leaving the white behind (and letting any dribbly bits fall into the bowl as I transfer the yolk). Repeat until most of the white is in the bowl.
Remember, if you are separating the egg to get the yolks, a little bit of egg white is fine. If you are separating the egg to get whites, you can't get any yolk in there.
You can buy egg separators, which are like measuring spoons with a small hole in the bottom. You crack the egg into the spoon and the white runs out through the hole. But why shell out (no pun intended. Ok, maybe a little...) for that when you can do it in 5 seconds without it?
:) I actually only realised I'd said shell out afterwards :)
Update to this answer: if you crack your egg carefully into a bowl, then take a small empty plastic water bottle, squeeze it a little, place it gently on the yolk and let the bottle relax, the negative pressure will suck the yolk into the bottle. You can then squeeze it out over another bowl. Works a treat.
@Elendil- the bottle idea is really interesting but doesn't the suction rupture the yolk?
Nope. The only thing you have to be careful of is releasing the pressure when the bottle is still vertical - once the yolk is past the neck, you just need to make sure you tilt the bottle horizontal. I've been using this method for months and haven't had a broken yolk yet.
Cool. I'll have to try it out.
All you need is a small empty plastic water bottle. Break an egg on a plate, then squeeze the bottle lightly and bring it to touch the egg yolk. Let go, and watch the yolk slide into the bottle! Check out a video of this method in action.
Here's a video of it - takes only seconds per yolk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4E_9iAU3RI
The simplest way would be to put a small hole in the narrow edge of the egg (using small narrow object like tine of fork) and tilt the egg slowly. The white will come out of the small hole and yolk will remain in the shell.
Once the yolk is broken, it starts mixing with the white, so its almost impossible to separate them.
My eggs are too fresh for this approach. The whites are thick enough that they will not flow through any hole smaller than a nickel.
You need to punch 2 holes, small one at the bottom, bigger one at the top. It works just like the egg separator tools :)
You'd need to wait a really long time for the white to dribble out through a single small hole. As in, the egg would be quite stinky before you succeeded. Plus there's the danger of poking a hole in the yolk when you pierce the shell. A small hole plus suction is a good way to empty out an eggshell after it has been dyed, but that's about it.
This method sounds great, but does it actually work?
The method rumtscho describes works well with practice. But if you're lazy like me, consider picking up an egg separator tool - it catches the yolk and lets the whites fall through.
Crack the egg into a saucer, put an egg cup over the yoke, tilt the saucer and the white falls off. Whaddya mean you don't have an egg cup, you have eggs!
This sounds like it'll tend to keep a decent amount of white with the yolk, unless the sizes match up really well.
I think the idea is you let it flow out under the egg cup, using the cup to hold the egg back :-)
Place a slotted spoon over a cup or jar. Break the egg into the spoon and let the whites slip through the spoon's slots. The yolk will remain in the spoon.
This works, but I still prefer to do the same thing with my hand. Tupperware used to sell a funny little spoon like device just for this purpose...
I make egg white omelettes nearly every day. I have tried a number of ways to separate the eggs. Being sensitive to how easily the yolk can be pierced led me to this process. Here's the simplest way I've found yet:
Break eggs on a flat surface with only as much force as necessary to
open the egg quickly.
Open into a wide mouth bowl.
Bring yolks up with your fingers.
Let the whites pull away from the yolks, adding intermittent pressure
between the fingers if necessary.
This process allows you to identify if a yolk broke prematurely - you
can then scoop it quickly and try to save as much of the white as you
can.
A pair of suction-separators have recently hit the market that promise to make it easy to separate yolk from white.
The Pluck ($12.99):
And the Yolkr (£18.00):
Separating eggs will never be the same.
Note that if you don't want to spend $10-20 for this, Felissa's suggestion of a water bottle is basically the same thing, just not as stylish.
Crack open the egg and gently dump the entire egg into a bowl - you don't want the yolk to break . Make certain your hands are freshly washed, and then just scoop your fingers around each yolk, and lift out. Hopefully you don't have long, jagged fingernails that would pierce the yolk and contaminate the whites. I use this method when I have to separate 2 or more eggs.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.538870
| 2011-05-26T10:12:02 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15061",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Cascabel",
"Doug",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Idonknow",
"Jolenealaska",
"Kai",
"Kate Gregory",
"Marti",
"Michael Natkin",
"Raechel Grubb",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Sobachatina",
"Sufendy",
"Thiago Chaves",
"Yamikuronue",
"codaddict",
"franko",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1393",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/141141",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2885",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/304",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4638",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5983",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6286",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6355",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70712",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/70725",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75334",
"mrivnak",
"msh210",
"rumtscho",
"samthebrand"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
33242
|
How to get a synthetic cork back in a wine bottle?
The past couple times I've bought wine stopped with a synthetic cork, I've had a very difficult time reinserting the cork after opening the bottle. It seems the cork expands after leaving the bottle, and it's made of such a rigid material that sometimes I can't squeeze it back in. (And no, inserting the back end doesn't work, as it sometimes does with real cork.)
Is there a trick to getting an expanded synthetic cork back in a wine bottle?
I suggest pouring the wine into smaller bottles with a screw cap instead.
There is no trick, it just won't work. Synthetic corks are popular as replacements to cork not only because they are cheaper, but more effective at preserving wine as they don't dry out, and they expand more in the neck keeping a tighter seal. This makes it more difficult, if not impossible, to get them back in.
The simple and easy solution is to buy re-usable bottle stoppers. There are many different types, I prefer the ones which have a lever or button you push down to expand the stopper as they are best at preventing spills and leaks. There are vacuum sealers as well, however IMHO they're gimmicks and don't improve the storage of wine.
+1 for reusable corks, they are cheap and make this problem a non-starter.
One method that has worked for me if you desperately need to use that cork again is to shave the end with a knife to create a taper so that it will slide into the opening of the bottle and then with the pressure of your hand you can squeeze it down in.
I always keep a set of reusable rubber corks around though for this very problem. They're cheap, come in sets of 2-4 and will fit pretty much any bottle.
Why not just use a old "Real Cork" cork... You should still have one around the house... I save my corks from whiskey bottles, as the have a nice top, and almost always fit into the neck of any wine bottle.
I can sometimes get them back in by flipping them over and using the corkscrew end.
But if you can, you're better off using one of those rubber stoppers with a vacuum pump (e.g. "vacu-vin"). It will remove a lot of the air, preventing the wine from oxidizing as much.
I just tried it and got it back in. Put the cork in at a 30-45 degree angle and keep applying pressure. This works best if you can sit down with your feet under you butt and keep the bottle tight between your thighs. Apply pressure and take a butter knife and keep working the edges in. Once in just put your weight on the cork and ta da!
Welcome to SA. I've removed the text in your answer that doesn't actually relate to answering the question. While it's perfectly fine to not like the answers here, there's no need to comment on their "pessimism". We try to keep things congenial here as much as possible.
When I have tried and am alone with no muscle, I have tried every trick internet search gives.... not even warm/hot water worked for me with plastic corks in large champagne bottles... what worked at end of day even after going to buy a whole other bottle and its cork also not giving way.... butter knife!
Just keep prying under cork with a butter knife (it may bend- don't use one that may be missed if you bend it!). Just continue to pry each side you can get it up into the cork and sure enough pried way to which I could then pull off the cork!
Saw a bit of diameter off the cork with a bread knife and happily plug it back in (it may not seal it completely but it'll do overnight)
Bread knife is likely to actually create fragments that could end up in the wine - a razor sharp non-serrated knife is better here.
I shaved the plastic rind off with a scissors, squeezed it in as far as I could with my hands, then put the hard plastic bottom of a bottle of ibuprofen on top of the cork and pressed down. I imagine any kind of grippable, flat and hard thing would work. The ibuprofen bottle made it much easier to apply force once the cork was in a workable position.
Flip it over and insert the dry end back in the bottle. I do it all the time!
-1: The question explicitly says that this isn't working. Sure, it works with some corks, but some synthetic materials really do make it difficult to impossible.
Why not expand the wine bottle head using heat then fit the cork back in maybe that should work
Sounds like a perfect way to shatter the bottle...
Even with some pretty serious heating, like all the way up to 100C in boiling water, you're going to get only a very tiny amount of expansion - like 10-20 microns. That's nowhere near enough to help you get a cork back in, even assuming you don't manage to break the bottle, and haven't ruined your wine with the heat.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.540034
| 2013-04-05T04:46:23 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/33242",
"authors": [
"Adrian Miles",
"Ashes",
"Brendan",
"Carolyn Blackwell",
"Cascabel",
"Catija",
"Flipz3001",
"Isobel Mullin",
"Jean S",
"Karen Huczel",
"M. V. K.",
"NKY Homesteading",
"Nancy Bennett",
"Pizzabob",
"Rafa Guillermo",
"Stefan",
"Turbo",
"adam redmon",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/13972",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/151070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155251",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/155264",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160997",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/160998",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/37674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77014",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77015",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77016",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77017",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77018",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77030",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77038",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77040",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77066",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77079",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/77110",
"lovetheteayoulike",
"luuk",
"rackandboneman",
"user67341"
],
"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
}
|
22763
|
Is there such thing as "almond tofu," and if so, is it a misnomer?
I just read a restaurant review in the New York Times that mentions "almond tofu."
Made from almonds, it has the luxurious texture of a custard rather than the rubbery bounce of bean-curd tofu.
Wikipedia refers "Almond tofu" to the "Almond jelly" listing and notes that it can also be called "Almond pudding."
Still, however, I have coworkers who maintain "there is no such thing as almond tofu. Tofu has to be made out of soy!"
Are they correct?
Update:
Pete Wells, restaurant critic for the New York Times, responds via Twitter:
It's analogous to traditional Japanese goma tofu, made from sesame.
"Tofu, also called bean curd, is a food made by coagulating soy milk and then pressing the resulting curds into soft white blocks." --Wikipedia
This reads to me as "People disagree about whether word definitions are exacting. Do they disagree about whether word definitions are exacting?" You've answered it yourself, if indeed it is a question.
It's semantic nitpicking.
Tofu is defined as soy milk, curdled and pressed. Some people who don't care about oriental culinary tradition think of tofu as any non-dairy milk that is curdled and pressed into a curd.
Technically your almond tofu would be almond milk curd or some such.
In reality your coworker is being pedantic and I would accept the term "almond tofu" as a perfectly understandable, non oriental, colloquialism.
"Milk" being a term for the lacteal fluid of a female mammal, one might also question whether this word is appropriate for a seed extract. I suspect it was a marketing term introduced to make the whitish juice left over from soybean processing sound like something healthy and edible.
@J.Winchester http://www.soyinfocenter.com/HSS/soymilk1.php You might say that it was a marketing term but if so it was an old one. The term starting being used in English around 1900. There is a precedent for calling milky extracts 'milk'. Coconut milk comes to mind.
Annin-doufu (the Japanese word for almond tofu) is a gelatin, not a curd, & generally contains little to no actual almond, but I agree that complaining about whether it's tofu or not is semantic nitpicking. (Though disagreeing about whether it's curd might be nitpicky too; there's no particular reason why that couldn't have some "poetic license" either. But worth noting that "almond tofu" is a literal translation from the Chinese and Japanese word.
I am Chinese from Hong Kong and there is a dessert called "almond tofu" IN CHINESE. The "almond" part refers to the almond extract, one of the ingredients. The "tofu" part refers to the texture of the final product, similar to silken tofu. It is really a jelly made from milk and jellying agent. The jellying agent can be unflavored gelatin or agar agar. I use unflavored gelatin because it is more widely available.
Each envelope (.25 oz) unflavored gelatin gels up to 2 cups of liquid, but a lower ratio is safer. I have more success using a envelope for every 1.5 cups of liquid. The liquid can be all milk, half water and half milk, or almond milk. Each will give a white color to the final product. Bloom the unflavored gelatin in 1/2 cup of water to soak up the water. Boil half the liquid, remove from fire, stir in the wet unflavored gelatin until dissolved, stir in desired amount of sugar until dissolved, stir in remaining half of the cold liquid (subtracting 1/2 cup used). Stir in 1 or 2 tsp of almond extract until fragrant (omit this step if using almond milk). Refrigerate until firm. At the same time refrigerate a large can of fruit cocktail. When the almond jelly is firm cut into cubes or diamonds. Stir in fruit cocktail with all the syrup. Cover and chill until serving time. It makes a nice summer dessert. Happy experimenting!
Tofu is a specific word; it's a Chinese word that literally means "bean curd". (Pretty much every source that gives a definition of "tofu" agrees - I would say every source, but it's the Internet so I'm sure ther's misinformation out there.) Therefore, you cannot have tofu made of almonds. You can have an almond product that has the consistency and texture of tofu, but it is not "tofu" in the strict sense of the term.
That's all there is to it. It's a matter of being a linguistic purist. (For the same reasons one would be angry at the term "chai tea," since "chai" IS the Hindi word for "tea.")
If you're going to be a linguistic purist, you should make sure you spell it that way (unless you meant that you're not just a purist, you're the purest of them all).
I would assume they're talking about an almond-flavoured dessert tofu. Scroll part-way down this page to see one company's version.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.540633
| 2012-04-03T20:50:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/22763",
"authors": [
"Chef Fulu",
"GyrlSmylee Sonflower",
"J. Win.",
"JasonTrue",
"LMSingh",
"Lauren",
"Levi Haskell",
"Matthew Read",
"Robotnicka",
"Sobachatina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2909",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4428",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51314",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51321",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51323",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/51324",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7514",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9764",
"octern"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
55000
|
Breadcrumbs or flour when greasing and dusting a cake form?
I unthinkingly followed a recipe for a type of chocolate cake where it said to dust the cake form with breadcrumbs after greasing. Unsurprisingly the toasted breadcrumbs were clearly visible on the outside of the cake after baking.
This wasn't a big deal and the crumbs were easy enough to brush off anyway, but it got me thinking: when is it better to dust with breadcrumbs and when is it better to use flour?
For my chocolate cake, if I'd stopped to think, I would have used a flour/cocoa mixture. If I were making a delicate sponge most likely I would go for flour there too.
What about breadcrumbs though? Perhaps the batter is less likely to stick to the form if dusted with breadcrumbs? Or would you use breadcrumbs to add a little crunch to the cake's outer surfaces (can't say I noticed any crunch myself).
I've never heard of using breadcrumbs to line a cake form...
@Catija I didn't think of it, but it might be more common here in Sweden.
Hmmm, I wonder if it's similar to using coarse ground cornmeal under bread to help it not stick? Pushing the batter away from the walls of the pan reduce the amount of sticking because there are bigger gaps between the pan and the batter. I'd guess the breadcrumbs are also less likely to absorb into the liquid of the batter than just flour would... I wonder if you could make cake breadcrumbs somehow so they'd be sweet instead of savory.
@Catija I found at least one recipe from an American cookbook (The New Best Recipe) the specified breadcrumbs: "Old-Fashioned Crumb Coffeecake". The name of the recipe itself suggests it might be for textural reasons.
Can you link to the recipe? Most crumb coffeecakes just have crumbled topping to make it crunchy on top.
@Catija Yes I wondered too if it might work to use cake or cookie crumbs. I'm not sure but maybe the sugars in these would stick to the pan as they heat up? The recipe I have is in a book, but here is one online that looks the same: http://recipejourney.com/?p=387
That's actually from my favorite baking book... ATK is usually so good at explaining their method but they just completely gloss over why they chose to use breadcrumbs! They also don't say anything about dusting them off... and the recipe isn't even on their own website.
I just read an article on preventing Bundt cakes from sticking. The advice was to spray or oil the pan just before putting the batter in and then dusting with nut flour, which they found worked better than plain flour.
i only have one recipe that calls for breadcrumbs, which is my hungarian torte (uses almond meal) and I use fine purchased breadcrumbs. I've never really noticed them but the cake does come out nicely. There's no issue from a flavour perspective as they're often used in sweet foods (like strudel) to absorb the moisture in the fillings.
I would use flour unless the recipe called for breadcrumbs, but you only need a very light coating...shake around then tip out and tap well.
Using breadcrumbs is not that unusual in the US, I found out especially in the Southern States. First issue to address is the breadcrumbs that we see on the chocolate cake. This is most likely due to the fact that the breadcrumbs were not processed fine enough. An example would be dried bread processed finely in a food processor or fine breadcrumbs purchased. Once the pan was greased, the breadcrumbs would be added, then twirled around all over the bottom and sides of the pan and the excess thrown out (I do this over my kitchen sink so there is no mess, no fuss). The breadcrumbs instead of flour are for bundt cakes, tubes, and fluted pans and especially for the intricate bundt/fluted cake pans that look like castles and special designs. You paint the inside of these pans with butter, put the breadcrumbs in, twirl around and when it bakes the appropriate time, you and invert the pan and it drop out like butter. This is wonderful for intricate pans especially since you don't have to patch it together. Now, was your chocolate cake a flourless one? If so, breadcrumbs were used to keep it flourless. Just a thought. Last idea, in the Southern US they make a Coffee Crumb Cake and use breadcrumbs instead of flour on the bundt cake pan. I found out that they do like crispy bottoms because it sort of goes with the crispy sweet crumb filling they have through out the cake (inside and out), which can also be made in a rectangle pan. I also found a reciepe for carrot cake using breadcrumbs instead flour for the pan lining. Delicious. Google Substitute breadcrumbs for flour for pan lining and Birthday Cake Recipes and Memories by Kathryn Kleinman and you will find a wealth of info on this subject. Good Luck and Enjoy
The photo is a close-up; the breadcrumbs were pretty fine. Even where the individual crumbs are too small to be discerned they still produce a light colored smudge. The color contrast is what I find problematic.
Why would breadcrumbs be preferred over flour for bundt cakes?
The cake was not flour-less in my case. It was a Kladdkaka.
First, the problematic color of the individual crumbs on the cake could be the type of breadcrumbs they were and the fact that you just did not like it. I do not blame you, that is a personal preference and in my opinion the breadcrumbs were still not fine enough because they should have been like sand, again my opinion. s
Next question is that when you use breadcrumbs for bundt cakes, due to the nooks, fine breadcrumbs get in and for whatever technical reason there is, maybe there's more texture than the flour, the cake just "drops" out of the bundt cake and supposedly out of all other intricate molds. If you look up why use breadcrumbs instead of flour for cake pans on google there are many answers but I feel that due to the texture of the bread it is still courser than flour so t your cake slips out easier. Lastly, flourless cake means just that, you don't want flour, so you substitute with something else.
Regarding flour-less cakes surely using flour only for dusting wouldn't be a problem. That is unless the reason for not using flour is a gluten allergy in which case substituting breadcrumbs wouldn't help. The bundt cake suggestion is interesting though. I'll need to do a side-by-side test though before I'm convinced they make a positive difference.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.541058
| 2015-02-21T20:12:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/55000",
"authors": [
"Bobby Lindo",
"Catija",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Diane Bertrand",
"Gemma Shorrock",
"Jennah Klein",
"Jim Lavin",
"Paul Mc Carron",
"bees2020",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130640",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130642",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130646",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130949",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130988",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33128",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/33210",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/54752",
"user33210"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
54987
|
How can bitterness from dried mushrooms be avoided?
A couple of times I've made the mistake of adding the liquid used to soak dried mushrooms back to my broth resulting in a horribly bitter taste.
The top answers here and here make no mention of bitterness. Instead they say the liquid should be reserved and used to add mushroom flavor. This can't be the whole story.
Could it be that different mushrooms require different preparation methods?
Recently I have been using a mixture of porcini and funnel chanterelle. Previously, I only used porcini, so perhaps chanterelles are the problem?
One online source (which I'll link to if I find again) suggested cold water should be used to avoid bitterness. Another online source (again, I've lost the link) says that warm water should be used and boiling water will cause bitterness.
I don't remember now but it's possible that I used boiling water so these claims sound plausible to me.
Does anyone know for sure whether bitterness depends on the type of mushroom or the method of soaking?
Possibly not relevant to dried mushrooms, but my grandmother's recipes for handling local (fresh) chanterelles all involve a step that is meant to eliminate bitterness, and is achieved by "extracting" liquid by slicing them, slightly salting them, waiting a few hours, pressing some liquid out with hands and discarding all that liquid. The liquid has very mushroomy flavor, but (also?) all the undesired parts of the mushroomy flavor. For dried mushrooms I would attempt soaking in room temperature slightly salted water and discarding it afterwards, but I haven't actually tried that.
@Peteris That's interesting although I never noticed any bitter taste in fresh chanterelles.
My advice: ditch the soaking liquid.
Here's what I just tried. I divided my dried mushrooms up into 10 bowls: 5 with dried chanterelles and 5 with dried porcini. I added equal amounts of water to each at the following temperatures 10°C (directly from the tap), 40°C, 60°C, 80°C and 100°C (or as close as I could get).
After soaking for 15 minutes I sampled the soaking liquid from each bowl.
All samples tasted astringent and bitter. Naturally the taste was less pronounced for the colder liquids, but not so much as I had expected. The liquid that the porcini soaked in tasted somewhat better than that of the chanterelles. None of the soaking liquid tasted good enough that I would add it to a stock; I was almost gagging when the experiment was complete.
I wrung as much liquid as I could out of the rehydrated mushrooms and used them to make a vegetable stock. With the flavor of the soaking liquid fresh in my mind I could still detect a note of bitterness. This was easily dealt with using a little salt.
The bitterness from the soaking liquid, I know from past experience, cannot be completely removed with salt.
Update: Looking at messages from an online forum here that deals with the same problem, I thought I'd look at some suggestions made there.
Mushroom dust is the cause of bitterness.
There was an amount of dust in the dried mushrooms I purchased. However, I rinsed the mushrooms before starting the experiment described above, so dust doesn't account for the bitterness.
Bitterness is due to bruised fruit that has oxidized before it dried.
I'm not 100% sure about this, but wouldn't bruising change the color of the mushroom? I didn't notice any discoloration. Anyhow this is a quality issue and I've more to say about quality later.
Water is the problem; use a water filter.
The water in Stockholm is neither chlorinated nor laden with minerals (I have had the same kettle for years and there's not a hint of mineral deposit inside). This is not the problem.
Mushroom quality is the issue. Use mushrooms that have been dried and stored properly.
Quality seemed like it could be an issue to me. My impression is that supermarket dried mushrooms in Stockholm don't have a high turnover and could have been on the shelves a good while. The mushrooms I used in the tests above had quite a lot of dust in their packages and that surely isn't a good sign.
Today I looked around for something of visibly better quality and found cloud ear and shiitake mushrooms in the local Asian store. These mushrooms look pretty good and their packages contained almost no dust. The dried shiitake were vacuum-sealed in a package together with an oxygen scavenger.
I soaked these mushrooms at 10°C and 80°C for 15 minutes. Cloud ear mushrooms don't have a strong smell and the soaking liquid didn't taste of much after soaking. The little taste I could detect was slightly astringent and not particularly pleasant. Incidentally, cloud ears don't rehydrate well in cold water and were still quite solid after soaking.
Dried shiitake, in contrast, have a strong musty smell and the soaking liquid was relatively strong tasting. I did taste some pleasant mushroomy flavors and for a time I had to weigh whether I liked the taste or not. Unfortunately these flavors were mixed with some definitely off tastes, among them the familiar bitterness. In the end I couldn't stomach more than three tablespoons of the liquid.
I had a notion that mushrooms soaked in cooler water might retain their mushroom flavor whilst leaching their bitter taste. To this end I drained the mushrooms that were soaked cold and added boiling water to them. After a further 15 minutes I taste tested again. Comparing this second soaking liquid to that of the shittake initially soaked at 80°C, the flavor was much more dilute. I'm sad to say that mushroom flavor is lost even when soaking cold.
My advice for now remains the same: discard the soaking liquid. If that strikes you as wasteful I would at least urge you to taste a tablespoonful of the stuff before you decide to add it to your broth.
One thought, looking at this post a couple of years later, is that the tasting should have been done with salt added to the stock. I assert at one point that salt does not do enough to counter the bitterness, but no attempt has been made to prove that here.
My two cents worth from personal experience with dried mushrooms...
There isn't a one-way-fits-all-mushrooms way to rehydrate dried mushrooms. Some need to be hydrated then tossed into a pan of boiling water for a few minutes before draining the water and adding the mushrooms to the dish being cooked, like Hericium erinaceus. Others like Shitake can be cooked once rehydrated.
Also, never use the rehydrating water for cooking. There's no assurance of the hygiene/cleanliness of the places where the mushrooms were processed.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.541600
| 2015-02-21T14:15:12 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/54987",
"authors": [
"Angeline Prado",
"Chris Steinbach",
"Devon Keith",
"Hamish Cameron",
"Heather Naugle",
"Nikki Robinson",
"Peteris",
"Rubeezin",
"Serena Ortega",
"X Lin",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130612",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130613",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130628",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130644",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130719",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130720",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/130749",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1549",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/23390"
],
"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
}
|
40254
|
When a recipe calls for 'individually wrapped caramels', are these soft caramels (e.g. Jersey caramels) or hard candies (like werthers cream candies?)
I am in Australia but the recipes are from the US. I can't seem to find out what kind they would be.
In US recipes "individually wrapped caramels" will always mean the soft variety. If the writer of the recipe wants you to use hard, the recipe will say "hard". Recipes that ask for "individually wrapped caramels" are looking for this:
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.542156
| 2013-12-15T03:11:16 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/40254",
"authors": [
"Avatrin",
"C0c0b33f",
"Dan Alderman",
"Spammer",
"Terry McDanel",
"Theresa van niekerk",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110843",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93556",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93557",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93559",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93560",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/93562"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46921
|
What cooking techniques depend on controlled temperature between 100 and 120 degrees celsius?
Many preparation techniques rely on controlled temperature. Sous Vide, Chocolate making, etc.
I am trying to identify specific techniques that have their range in 100 to 120 degrees. For example, Fudge needs 115 degrees.
Context: new Thermomix (version 5) advertises the maximum temperature increase from 100 to 120 degrees. I am trying to figure out what difference that can make.
Good grief, that thing looks like something out of Star Wars!
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here. Techniques like sous vide aim for a specific target temperature because the goal is to never exceed that temperature and excessively denature proteins. In baking or candymaking, specific temperature is important, but more because it's the best stand-in for things like water content or browning. Their raising the maximum temperature to 120C just means that they put in a more powerful heating element.
I am asking for what specific techniques rely on this specific 20 degrees range. Something that was not possible before, when limited at 100 degrees but is possible now at up to 120.
There are a couple of places where the ability to get to 120˚C might be useful.
You've already touched on one, which is cooking sugar. With a range up to 120˚C you get up to the firm ball stage, allowing you to make syrups, fudge, caramel, fondant, butter creams, marshmallows, meringues, and toffees.
You can get some caramelization (mostly of fructose) at that temperature.
I don't know how practical it would be with the machine in question, but you can get Maillard reactions at temperatures that low if you use prolonged cooking time and/or optimize the environment by adding alkaline.
This machine does not seem to have a pressurization feature, but that would be another place where the higher temperature would be useful. At a pressure of 1 bar/~15 psi above the existing atmospheric pressure, water in a pressure cooker can reach a temperature of up to 121 °C (250 °F), depending on altitude. Pressure cooking can be used to quickly simulate the effects of long braising or simmering.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.542254
| 2014-09-06T17:11:28 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46921",
"authors": [
"Alexandre Rafalovitch",
"Ingrid Green",
"Jamie Boots",
"Jolenealaska",
"Rob Netherway",
"Saima Qureshi",
"Tia",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113184",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/113260",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25059",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25270",
"logophobe"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
46131
|
Can I season cast iron *without* using an oven?
I recently got a Lodge cast iron pan. I've never worked with cast iron before, and I've read that it needs seasoning before use. However, the Lodge one says it's already seasoned and ready for use. Does that mean I can skip the seasoning part?
Which brings me to my main question. Most seasoning methods require the use of an oven, which unfortunately is not an option right now for me. So how can I season this without using an oven?
Lodge claims their pans are pre-seasoned. It's a great company, but don't believe that pre-seasoned malarcky. Yes, they do treat the surface with oil, but not nearly enough. No worries though, you really only need a good seasoning layer on the bottom, cooking surface.
Scour the cooking surface of the pan thoroughly, then add a film of oil to the bottom of the pan and heat it on a burner. Move it around frequently to minimize hot spots. Let it get to smoking, allow to cool enough to touch, wipe it out, and then a add a bit more oil and smear it with a paper towel. Repeat 3 or 4 more times. Ignore the walls and handle of the pan for now, just thoroughly re-season the whole thing when you have access to an oven.
Opinions vary as to the best oil to use. My personal favorite is lard, flax seed is often highly recommended.
Read this question and answers for more info: What's the best way to season a cast iron skillet?
Congrats on your new pan. Cast iron is lovely, I have a set of skillets that belonged to my grandmother, my mother and now me. Cast iron takes some "getting to know" but once you know your pan you'll love it. BTW, except for the first time scouring, ideally your pan should never see soap or detergent. There is a lot of good info here about cast iron, just use the search engine to learn more.
EDIT: One more thing. All new cast iron pans are treated in some way before they are sold to prevent rust. In the case of Lodge, that treatment is a light seasoning with food grade oil. There is nothing that needs to be removed before first use. In fact the seasoning step I recommend here in not technically necessary, it just gets you to that black, old, almost-as-slick-as-teflon surface faster than repeated use alone. I only recommend scouring the cooking surface before you season the first time to give the factory surface a tiny bit of "roughening up", giving your first seasoning layer a bit of something to grip on to. So don't scour the whole pan, just the cooking surface. By the time you have access to an oven, the factory surface on the rest of the pan will already have developed some patina just from use, so you don't need to scour to season the rest of the pan, just oil the whole pan.
Some cast iron pans from other companies are not preseasoned, they're coated with wax or some other thing you don't want in your food See: Do all new cast iron pans and skillets have a protective coating on them, which must be removed? Those pans have to be scoured all over before first use. Ideally, then they would be seasoned in an oven before first use. If you had a pan like that, but no access to an oven, my advice to you would be the same accept that you would need to scour the whole pan, season the cooking surface and lightly oil the whole pan every time you heat it for the first several times, periodically thereafter.
Thanks! Do I also coat underneath the pan? Or just inside it?
Sure, you probably should, but very lightly. You can also very, very lightly coat the whole pan for the first heating, by the time you've heated the pan on the burner 3 or 4 times, the very light coating of the whole pan will probably be of some small benefit.
First, let me echo Jolenealaska's comment that cast iron is lovely. I know my answer will probably upset some but please bear in mind that it is based on many, many years of experience, not on anything I have seen or read.
I have two sets of cast iron skillets / pots that belonged to my mother. One set is 80+ years old and the other is 50+ years old. I grew up watching her cook, using these pans every day. I learned to cook using them.
A truly seasoned cast iron pan has nothing to do with oil. While oil will prevent rust, if the pans are dried thoroughly and kept dry when not in use, they will not rust. True "seasoning" comes from use over time. The pans I have are as smooth as you could possibly imagine. This comes with regular use and thorough cleaning. I have actually heard celebrities on tv say that "seasoning (with oil) only works on old pans". There's a reason for this!
If you look at and feel the surface of any new cast iron pan, you will notice that it has a rough texture, pre-seasoned or not. In the true sense of a seasoned pan, a claim that a pan is pre-seasoned is really not relevant.
I always recommend that anyone looking to buy cast iron look for used rather than new. Any wear on the pan will get you to the point you want to be at quicker. Also it's much cheaper and it doesn't really matter if the pan has a grease build up or rust. That can be cleaned off.
I use my cast iron daily. With a well seasoned pan you can cook or bake most anything. I use mine for searing meat, braising meat, roasting, frying chicken, soups, stews, baking (cakes, cobblers, cornbread), sautéing, and anything else you can think of.
After use, I wash with dish detergent, scouring with steel wool or cleanser if needed. E.g. after searing meat. (I know scouring sounds harsh, but that too will help to smooth a rough surface or keep a smooth surface pristine.) I always rinse thoroughly with hot water and thoroughly dry before storing.
One other thing I wanted to point out about using oil on cast iron. If the pan is not used very regularly and allowed to sit (even for a week) the oil can become gummy or gunky and can also become rancid. In the case of either, the pan will need to have all of the oil removed.
I agree completely that nothing seasons a cast iron pan as well as use. The repeated cooking on of oil just gets a new pan to that stage faster. But steel wool and detergent?? Don't get anywhere near my heirloom pans with that stuff! As far as rancidity, I've never had a problem with it, but I always thoroughly wipe down the pan with a paper towel before putting it away.
@Jolenealaska I know that everyone will not agree with my answer, especially long time fans of using oil and i respect that. However, it needs to be said that build up of oil is just that -- a build up of oil. Also, re scouring, that doesn't happen often but is an option if needed. It will not hurt the pan. Remember - cast iron is probably the most resilient and durable cookware there is.
I disagree with some of your points (and you disagree with some of mine). That's OK. Your response is well thought out and based on experience. I have no doubt that your pans are in as good of shape and are as non-stick as mine.
@Jolenealaska Thank you for your most kind response. It's very nice that we can agree to disagree. My goal was to share a different way and give others an alternative. Either way you do it I think the key is time and patience.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.542471
| 2014-08-06T01:20:53 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/46131",
"authors": [
"Cindy",
"Dan",
"Jolenealaska",
"Laura Bammerlin Dempsey",
"Mel Biggs",
"Patsy Ellis",
"QuantumBean",
"Remmy Ambaliya",
"Rich Valentine",
"Shane Howell",
"Spammer",
"Tom",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110088",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110089",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110090",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110091",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110092",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110093",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110095",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110098",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110121",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/110214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/25649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26180",
"jae PRINCESS P",
"kevin",
"lakers4sho"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
53729
|
Can I leave uncooked rice sitting in water for an hour or longer before cooking?
I'm prepping for a dinner party. And I put uncooked long grain brown rice + oil + water in a pot, as usual. But I'm not cooking it right this minute. The rice is sitting in the pot with the water. Can I leave it as is for an hour or two before cooking? Or will that sog the grains and affect the result?
Dry rice put in water will become wet. Do you mean uncooked rice?
That's fine. A lot of people actually do that on purpose, it's referred to as "soaking". It will shave a bit off the cooking time and won't negatively affect the rice at all. Give it a stir before you start cooking. You can drain and rinse it too if you want, that will give you very separate, distinct grains. Use about 1/4 less water for cooking if you do it that way, because the rice will have soaked up some water.
@samthebrand, my pleasure :)
I did it by accident for ~8 hours once. I cooked it normally and it seemed the same as usual.
@LorenPechtel I'm sure that would be fine in the vast, vast majority of cases, but I'm not sure it would be without risk. See Aaronut's comment here: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41142/safe-to-wash-rice-the-night-before-and-leave-overnight-before-cooking. The issue is Bacillus Cerus The OP asked about 1-2 hours, which is totally fine. Beyond that,I believe there might be a unlikely, but serious, risk.
@Jolenealaska No danger--it was in the fridge. There was other perishable stuff in there, I stupidly added the water also.
@LorenPechtel Ah good. Yes, no problem in the fridge. :)
If you soak brown rice at room temperature it changes the nutritional profile in a good way. http://www.theironyou.com/2013/09/how-to-make-super-nutritious-germinated_26.html?m=1
@JasperBlues Hmmm...That looks good on paper, but I'm not convinced that overnight soaking at room temp is safe.
@Jolenealaska Yeah, overnight could be a bit long. Try at own risk! On the other hand we eat fermented rice here in the Philippines (it is both stinky and tasty), and bake sour-dough bread with Manila tap water :)
@JasperBlues Far be it from me to suggest that we shouldn't take risks. When it comes to food, I take risks all the time, but I'm careful not to serve them. And I want to make choices in a very educated manner. On that note, this is a question that should be looked at further, because I really don't know.
@Jolenealaska But you still cook the rice after soaking. Shouldn't cooking the rice after soaking kill anything? As far as I can see, the more dangerous emetic form of the bacteria-produced enterotoxin is produced after the rice has been cooked.
@Moriarty Again, I and say "probably??" There is a question here that I ducked and offered a different solution: http://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/41142/safe-to-wash-rice-the-night-before-and-leave-overnight-before-cooking?lq=1 Someone who really knows their stuff could do a very good thing by answering the 'food safety' aspect of that question. I know it is done, and it is done a lot. So is saving cooked rice at room temperature from meal to meal; and we know that isn't safe.
Technically, the question has to be answered with a "yes, the result is affected" though, even if it is positively affected.
Going to add more information to this answer as I was looking for more than 1h! It seems that if you want to even wait more, for example leave them overnight if you want to cook them in the morning, white rice might develop some undesirable qualities, but brown rice might actually improve!
Absolutely. The brown rice, & the old rice "aged" as it is also called, cook better after they have been soaked for some time ranging between 30-60 minutes. The parboiled rice is a little different, as it MUST BE soaked for AT LEAST 1 HOUR before it can be cooked. And it can take a soaking of up to several hours without ruining the results. Parboiled rice is the rice of choice for several rice dishes, especially ones in which the rice needs to be light, fluffy, each grain remaining whole and separate. And it is ideally suited to those of us who are cooking challenged (you understand what I am saying). But they will not have the same fragrance that a Basmati, a Jasmine, or even regular raw rice will have.
As Jolenealaska said, lots of cooks do it on purpose. I learned the Chinese method of cooking foolproof rice by soaking it for an hour or longer in an inch of water. Then pour off the soaking water and cover the rice again with 1 inch of water. Uncovered, bring the rice to a boil and cook until only large bubbles appear. At that point, turn the fire down to the lowest setting, cover and cook until the rice is done. There is no reason to stir. You can use this method to cook any amount of rice in any size pot. You don't even have to measure it.
Leaving uncooked Rice while sitting on water,Yes they are really True! that's fine! Because I have been experiencing this moment it was in rice cooker were I'm using. Its accidentally i forgot to on it.The rice was soaked with in Five hours, but its super okay, you need to do is add at least half cup of water then stir it then cooked.Honestly there's something different taste when you compare between unsoaked rice and soaked rice.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.543186
| 2015-01-18T00:47:34 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/53729",
"authors": [
"Ayanna Lipsey",
"Bad Credit Car Dealers NJ",
"D'Ana W.",
"Daphne D'SOUZA",
"David Sampson",
"DwaynePage912",
"Huangism",
"Jasper Blues",
"Jolenealaska",
"Loren Pechtel",
"M.K",
"MARIA SANTANA",
"Moriarty",
"Penny Brown",
"Shirley Johnson",
"Syracuse Cleaning Co",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126316",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126317",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126318",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126319",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126320",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126396",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126443",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126444",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126647",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126651",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20183",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21856",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/26247",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29841",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32861",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/35312",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73886",
"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
}
|
28951
|
How can I grind coffee without a coffee grinder?
I usually buy prepackaged ground coffee for my drip coffee maker, but recently I accidentally bought a bag of whole bean coffee and threw away the receipt.
Can I salvage this bag of coffee without purchasing a coffee grinder?
I have seen the suggestion of using a blender or perhaps a food processor, but I don't own those either.
Are there other ways to grind these coffee beans that will provide acceptable quality?
You could coat the beans in chocolate and eat them as a sweet treat.
What about a pepper mill?
In my opinion, the best option is to have someone grind them for you. Ask your friends--someone may have a grinder you can borrow, or would be happy to grind them for you in exchange for some cookies or part of the bag of coffee.
If you have a local coffee shop, talk to the barista (over the latte' you just bought) and ask if he/she will grind your beans for you. I've heard even the mighty Starbucks will grind your beans for you if you ask nicely enough.
If you want to do it yourself, you need to find a way to get the beans down to grinds. Some ideas:
Mortar and pestle. Be careful not to make Turkish coffee powder instead of the more chunky grinds you want.
Rolling pin. Put the beans in a heavy Ziploc bag or similar, and have a go at them. Roll, whack, smash.
Have a nice, heavy frying pan? Ziploc bag again, hammer away.
And speaking of hammers...
No, not that Hammer. This hammer.
+1 for having a friend do it or borrowing a grinder. If you really don't want to spend $20 on a cheap coffee grinder (which can also be used for spices!), none of these other methods are worth the effort.
I've rolled back the edit. The hammer is a serious suggestion, and the answer is squarely on-topic. The MC part of the hammer is a little stab at humor, but I don't feel like it takes away from the question.
The mortar and pestle works well, but does take a lot of effort. (I've used one on a long car camping trip where weight was not an issue but electricity was not always available.)
Thanks for making the pictures smaller. I went ahead and also added alternate text for them, which helps out users with screen readers.
In a pinch I've used the mortar & pestle and ziploc & hammer (wooden kitchen mallet) methods with fairly good success. Just make sure you don't completely seal the bag, otherwise you might have a whole lot of beans blow out the bottom of the bag.
An old meat grinder works well, too, but from the question I'm assuming there aren't any appliances with the word "grinder" in them in the house.
If you go with hammers, make sure your swings are very short, like a few inches and not the "I'm building a house" hammer-swing... It's been a few years and I'm STILL finding pieces of that black walnut.
I would say the short answer to your question is NO, nothing you do at home without a food processor or blender will give you satisfactory results. Working with a hammer/morter & pestle/rolling pin/pan etc, is going to be a lot of work for very inconsistent results. My best suggestion would be to take them with you to work and ask around if anyone wants to purchase them from you or like mentioned above grind them for you.
a coffee/spice grinder can be found for $10.. at most decent wages that's worth it in a day or at most a week of the primitive manual method
Many of the big grocery stores (Safeway? Albertsons? I don't know which ones you have near you) have grinders for grinding beans you buy there. If the brand of beans you bought isn't from the store you grind it at, they shouldn't think you stole it...
OTOH, you dodgy sysadmin types always look like you're up to something, so security will probably stop you on your way in.
Methods mentioned above are all great quick fixes for your problem however, as said before you'll get a poor grind and a poor cup of coffee.
My suggestion is to go to your local coffee house...tell them your sad story and if you ask really nice they might grind it for you if you buy a couple latte while you wait. Don't go in on a busy Saturday afternoon. They'll laugh at you. However, a place like Starbuck's that grinds beans they sell for customers will probably do it for you.
Just a suggestion, REI in the US and MEC in Canada sell some great hand held camping coffee bean grinders for around $20. If you're going camping you load them up with beans and grind enough for your French press camping mug. Makes for a nice way to wake up in the morning.
You'll have trouble making a high quality cup of coffee without a burr grinder.
To quote CoffeeGeek:
I've often said that I can make a better shot of espresso with a $200 espresso machine and a $400 grinder than I can with a $2,000 espresso machine and no grinder (or a blade grinder)... and it's absolutely true.
No matter how good your coffee machine is, it's worthless without proper grinding. The taste of coffee relies on how the beans filter your water... faster or slower flow will drastically alter the taste. You might as well just eat it.
As mentioned, only reasonable alternative is to get someone to grind it for you.
I predict that most answers you'll get will be along the lines of, "Pre-grounded is bad, buying whole beans and grinding just before use is good, and you should buy a good conical burr grinder."
I agree with that sentiment, and probably the most inexpensive quality burr grinder would be one of the Hario Coffee Grinders. I use the MSCS-2TB hand grinder which works really well for me.
That wasn't his question. He wants to know what he can do to make use of the whole beans he accidentally bought and from the sounds of it he doesn't want to go out and buy something special to do it since his go to is those evil pesky pregound beans
Evan seems to have poor precognitive abilities but he's correct about grind-to-serve. While not answering the question about what can be done right now without buying a new gizmo, he has however, given the OP knowledge about inexpensive methods of grinding beans. I can only hope that the OP didn't realize that they could be had for so cheap hence their lack of ownsership. Maybe we should take up a collection and buy the OP a grinder for xmas?! ;-) The poor soul is drinking pre-ground and needs our help desperately...
It's not cheap. Amazon charges $34 for it on sale. For a grinder that can make good espresso grinds, that's a fantastic price, but it says right in the question that the OP is making drip coffee. Amazon also sells a cheap electric blade grinder for $10 which would be fine for that purpose. This answer is just noise.
I made the same mistake about a month ago and woke up desperate for caffeine and did the first thing that came to my head which was put the beans into a glass bowl and then used the bottom of my coffee mug as a grinder pressing and spinning repeatedly. It took some work but was well worth it.
I've used the 'impromptu mortar and pestle' a few times in the past ... never tried it for coffee beans, though, as I'm not a coffee drinker. All you really need is some heavy dished bowl or cup, and something that you can get inside there to apply force with. Before I got a mortar and pestle, my standard was a bowl + a tall shot glass.
You could try simply chopping the beans on a cutting board, and brewing the coffee in-cup (like you would brew tea). Be careful not to ingest the beans (which will sit at the bottom of the cup).
Coffee grinders are a really good investment if you love coffee. You can get a good price at http://www.dailycuppacoffee.com/coffee-grinders . But I see your dilemma. 1.) I'm not sure Starbucks would grind it if it's not Starbucks brand coffee beans but I'm pretty sure your local grocery store or coffee shop has a coffee bean grinder in the coffee section. 2.) If not, it's a good excuse to talk to a couple of neighbors :D and make some new friends... 3.) Also if you really don't want to bother grinding it, you could give it away as a gift or use it as decoration.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.543711
| 2012-12-05T23:32:51 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/28951",
"authors": [
"A senile old man",
"Brendan",
"Cascabel",
"Chef Flambe",
"Gerrie",
"Joe",
"JoeFish",
"Joel Gideon",
"Loral D Woodham III",
"Muz",
"Pulsehead",
"Red Spatula",
"Starazer",
"Ward - Trying Codidact",
"Zach",
"aloisdg",
"eisb",
"grayjedi",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14601",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18897",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/266",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3627",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5449",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6127",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67041",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67042",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67043",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67044",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67045",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67046",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67048",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67234",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67267",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67302",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67368",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67479",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69209",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/7107",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/73353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8135",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81420",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8522",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/8766",
"intuited",
"jscs",
"khaled ma",
"matthewninja",
"pah8J",
"par",
"paul",
"samthebrand",
"user3207230",
"user67043",
"zanlok"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
20161
|
How can I prepare freshwater fish without completely cooking it? Can I eat freshwater fish raw?
Besides a complete cooking like frying, baking, BBQ or smoking is there any other way to prepare freshwater fish that would render it safe to eat in a sushi type application?
I'm curious about the answer to this question..everything I've ever heard is that freshwater fish should never be eaten raw because of all of the microbes/parasites. And in the US, at least, there are a lot of places where you're not supposed to eat fish that you catch because the water has so many pollutants. If it were me, I'd stay away from raw freshwater fish, but maybe someone has evidence that it's safe to do so.
Other than catching it deep in the ocean, probably not.
The closer to land the fish is caught, the more likely it is to be carrying parasites. You can flash freeze fish to kill the parasites, but it is virtually impossible to achieve temperatures that low with noncommercial equipment.
It's not actually necessary to flash freeze, that just lowers the required freezing time. You could probably reach the required -20° C with just dry ice, although, frankly, it would be a lot easier to just order sashimi fish from a distributor.
Your blanket statement on small species and freshwater fish is not globally correct
@TFD Thanks for the feedback, but I don't believe I was making a "blanket statement." It's more a matter of likelihood, hence the use of the language "more likely." Freshwater and near-shore saltwater fish tend to live in environments that have more parasites living in them than do deep water saltwater fish.
Sorry, blanket is probably a too strong a word
The FDA recommends freezing at -4F (-20 C) for 7 days, but they note that this does not kill all types of pathogens (http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodScienceResearch/SafePracticesforFoodProcesses/ucm094578.htm).
Freshwater fish are absolutely more prone to parasites. However, freezing to kill those parasites is not at all difficult to accomplish.
In many** parts of the world, fresh water fish, and small species coastal fish are perfectly fine to eat raw without further processing
Check with your local government food standards department on the water and fish quality where you live
** By land area, not by population. In most heavily populated areas you cannot eat fresh fish, or coastal fish raw
Depends a bit on what you are used to eating also. A lot of locals drink the water - but if I tried that I would most likely get sick., Oh, and there are also variations in the fish. Some types are safer than others (both saltwater and fresh).
@Ruz OP didn't mention travelling, so assuming they are a local! Variations, yes, that's why I posted the "check with local govt. food standards" etc?
I wouldn't recommend trying, really. It's safest to just cook the fish.
Curing with lots of salt (as in gravlax) or acid (as in ceviche) would take care of most bacteria. Freezing at a very low temperature (0°F) for 24 hours can kill most parasites, but home freezers cannot get cold enough. If the fish was previously (and industrially) frozen, you might be able to use it in a ceviche preparation. Just don't send me the hospital bill.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.544381
| 2012-01-04T20:13:55 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/20161",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Anthony Geoghegan",
"Blaise",
"Bruce Alderson",
"Laura",
"Pierre B",
"PoloHoleSet",
"Ruz",
"Sean Hart",
"TFD",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/201",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2832",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44101",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44103",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44120",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44164",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/44244",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/49684",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6808",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/944",
"mostlyfabulous",
"sherri"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
34354
|
Make espresso in office kitchen- just have a kettle and microwave?
I'd like to make espressos for lattes in my offices. However we don't have a stove or coffee maker -- just a kettle and a microwave, and that's about it.
Is it possible to make a decent espresso with just these appliances?
Around here, you can sometimes find instant espresso. Dunno what the purists think of it, but it makes excellent "microwave lattes": fill your mug with milk instead of water, heat, add instant espresso, add your choice of sweetening, stir and enjoy. No foam, but I usually find that an annoyance, anyway.
You can get quite close, actually:
Aeropress will give you a decent coffee extraction. Warm up the milk in the microwave, and use a frother like this one made by Bialetti to achieve a really thick and smooth latte foam.
Your other option (as SAJ14SAJ suggests) is an electric Moka maker. I've seen this Bialetti Electric Moka make a decent espresso and last a long time (if instructions are followed). Many Italian households don't own an espresso machine and simply go with a moka maker. Bialetti is very often the moka of choice.
Great espresso requires these things:
Proper Coffee
Proper Grind
Water heated to the proper temperature (boiling is too hot)
A method to push water at a specific pressure, through the grinds.
You can solve #1 and #2 by buying your coffee already ground. I would suggest you start with Illy espresso or find a local reputable roaster. I would stay with Illy until you feel comfortable with the other variables.
You can solve #3 with your current equipment, but you may want a thermometer. You can boil the water, then let it sit for a few minutes and you should be ok.
Regarding #4, that is where you are missing the proper equipment. This is where I would suggest an AeroPress or MyPressi. They have been recommended strongly a number of times.
Aeropress: http://aerobie.com/products/aeropress.htm
MyPressi: http://mypressi.com
My suggestion is a "starter" suggestion. You are going to find it difficult to make great espresso when you have so many variables to manage yourself. With the above setup, I believe you can make good espresso and that may be good enough. We have an Rancilio espresso maker at our office and about 10% of the people use it properly. The rest of the people do not make a great espresso, but they make "good enough" and they are happy with it.
EDIT:
If you want espresso, as officially defined, the Aeropress above won't get you there. This will get you close to it, with the resources you have, plus a minor purchase. If you like it, then it doesn't matter what it is called.
Proper temperature is not enough. The very definition of espresso is that steam is forced through the coffee, not water. You need pressure and temperature which cannot be created without special equipment.
@SAJ14SAJ I am sorry, but I need to disagree. If you push steam through coffee, it will taste burnt. Even wikipedia defines espresso as "Espresso is a concentrated beverage brewed by forcing a small amount of nearly boiling water under pressure through finely ground coffee beans." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espresso
I'll vote you up for the Aeropress. However, I would vote against buying pre-ground coffee. My combo at work is an aeropress and a hand grinder. Affordable combo and makes really good coffee? Is it true expresso? I don't care as long as it's good.
Sorry this post is quite wrong on #4. Read the technical description of any popular espresso machine and you will find it's all about the steam release at pressure though the ground beans. Most carbohydrates and proteins do not "burn" at less than 200 °C for a few seconds, and you are going to need a very high pressure to get past that. Espresso is a distinctive coffee brewing method using to steam at greater than 100 °C so as to remove oils from the bean that hot water brewing wont remove, but not remove other substances that slow hot water brewing does
I love my Aeropress and use it daily, but it's not espresso. If you want a compact espresso maker try the Mypressi (http://mypressi.com/) which uses compressed gas cylinders like those used for whipped cream dispensers and bb guns to create the pressure needed for full extraction. The upside is that it's small enough to take with you, so you can have great coffee at work and at home without having to buy two machines.
@TFD I have no problem conceding I am wrong, but everything I have read says that 205 degrees is the optimal extraction temperature. http://www.home-barista.com/espresso-guide-better-extractions.html What I am I missing?
@Didgeridrew My suggestion for the Aeropress is not so the OP makes coffee that falls into the espresso definition, but that they can get close to it with little cost. Again, I have not used this device, but understand it to be a good device that works similar to an espresso extraction. It may not fall under the espresso definition, but if 205 degrees is the correct extraction temperature (am I wrong on this), then what is wrong with this device if you get your water to 205 degrees and press it with the proper force through the coffee?
@sleeves 205 C or F?
@TFD 205 degrees F. So much of what I have read over the past decade talks about the disadvantage of the low-cost steam machines versus the higher cost pump machines (http://www.kitchenkapers.com/desofnonandp.html). That along with my experience with a LaPavoni machine are the cause of my statement about running steam through the coffee making it taste burnt. If I am wrong, please help me better understand how I am misinterpreting what I have heard for so long, or provide some links I can read. I have yet to see any reference that talked about extracting at higher than 205 degrees F.
@talon8 I fully agree. My only recommendation for the pre-ground Illy was because it eliminated some variables as you hone in the other parts of the process. My regular daily coffee is a whole bean espresso blend from a local roaster who takes pride in freshness, ground with a Rocky.
@sleeves most espresso machines extract at about 9 atmosphere's of pressure, that's roughly 132 lbs/in^2. The Aeropress plunger has a surface area of about 16 in^2. You simply can't physically generate the 2100 lbs of force that you would need with the Aeropress to equal the extraction pressure of an espresso machine. I do own an Aeropress, and recommend it to people all the time, but it produces concentrated coffee, not espresso.
@Didgeridrew Thanks for the explanation. I'm going to make a minor edit to the answer.
Some misconceptions in the comments. Espresso machines do not push steam through the grounds. They push nearly-boiling water through the grounds at high pressure. Steam is usually, but not always, used to generate the pressure. I agree that an aeropress won't generate the same pressure, but it may be an adequate compromise.
+1 for MyPressi. I have both Aeropress and MyPressi. The Aeropress is my go-to device for making coffee at work, but the MyPressi makes a superb espresso. My local barista keeps one at home so he doesn't have to come into the shop if he wants espresso. My only complaint is the requirement that I constantly feed it cartridges. Someone should invent an adapter that lets you hook it up to a larger storage tank. Still, you can't argue with an espresso machine that you can fit in your pants.
True espresso requires special equipment to generate steam and use its pressure to force water through coffee grounds. If you are asking, can you produce espresso strictly with the equipment you already enumerated, the answer is no.
Still, short of buying a full espresso maker for your office, there may be an option:
Since you have a kettle at your office, you must have a heat source of some type, unless you meant an electric kettle. Even if you only have an electric kettle, now, you could always buy a small electric hot plate.
This will let you operate a moka pot, which produces coffee more similar to espresso than standard coffee pots as it generates some steam pressure internally (although not as much as an espresso machine):
Evidently, electric moka pots are also available (such as this one), which might be suitable for your office and would not require a separate heat source, although I cannot speak to their quality or reliability.
Of course, depending on what you mean by latte, you may also require steamed milk, which I am not sure how you would generate without an espresso machine.
It's not the steam that is forced through the coffee, it's water (~95C). Most espresso machines aren't steam driven, they're pump driven (though, steam powered ones do still exist). The steam is usually use to supply the steam wand for frothing and in the more expensive machines, in a double boiler to heat the water.
@SAJ14SAJ You have to wonder if anyone has actually used a real espresso machine, and ever cleaned it etc?
the moka pot is what literally millions of people use at home in Italy. It is quite OK: it is not really expresso (there will be no crema) but the taste... I don't know, we Italians like it, other people may find it a bit strong and bitter. The canonical brand of moka pot is Bialetti. Look for the little guy with the moustache logo. The canonical materials is, oddly enough, aluminum, not steel. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d7/L%27Omino_Bialetti_2008-12-30_.svg/200px-L%27Omino_Bialetti_2008-12-30_.svg.png
The point of espresso is that it needs pressure. This is why the different kinds of espresso machines exist - their core functionality is creating this pressure.
If you are willing to extend the equipment in your office kitchen, you can create not-quite-espresso fairly cheaply. A portable hob and a Bialetti-style mokka pot together should cost around 50 Euro ($70), maybe more depending on pot size and quality -- a reasonable cost if multiple colleagues chip in.
An alternative is to explore coffee options beside lattes. Lattes may be popular at coffee shops which have the proper equipment, but different drinks may be a better solution for your office. You should be able to make cappuccino with drip coffee, and with a portable single-plate stove you can make Turkish coffee and all its derivatives. I have actually boiled coffee in milk instead of water, sticking to the Turkish method in every other detail, and found the result surprisingly good. If you are looking at such hobs, be aware that while induction is convenient (heats up much faster than alternatives), the units on the market often come with a safety feature that prevents you from heating anything with a diameter less than 12 cm, which will rule out moka pots and ibriqs.
Assuming, like most of the answers so far, that you want something that is tasty and espresso-like with a minimal investment (e.g., doesn't need to be strictly espresso/latte, or only with what you have), you might consider a "Vietnamese style coffee filter". It's a little metal thing that sits on top of your cup; you put the coffee in, compress it into a puck, and add water. It produces something a bit like if you used a Moka, with the bonus that you don't need a stove (e.g., if you meant that you have an electric kettle) and they are usually cheaper (~ $5).
Or you could use a French press - not espresso at all, but also cheap and easy.
Sort of between @talon8 and @sleeves on the grounds. I wouldn't buy 'factory-ground' coffee, but if you buy decent beans reasonably often and grind them at the store (or at home), that works out pretty well - and might be preferable to bringing a grinder to work.
@Mien, I've always seen it spelled Moka - including elsewhere on this page. While I appreciate an active community, I don't think your edits added much ...
Seems like you are correct. I changed it back.
While we're at it, what do you think "e.g." abbreviates? I know this isn't SE-ELU, but if you're going to edit ...
It stands for "exempli gratia", but I'm not sure why you ask. Did I do something wrong?
Well, dip. I thought "ergo" (hence one word), but Wikipedia, at least, agrees with you. So, apparently I ask for - my edification. I rest my mouth (/fingers).
Piamo - a German company - is making a microwaveable espresso machine. It doesn't appear the device is yet for sale.
I'm an italian coffee addicted, the best way to prapare an Espresso at office/home (often better than the one prepared in many italian bar...) is using this device: http://www.bialetti.it/it/catalogue/scheda.asp?id_cat=399
I've been using it (in some different evolution release...) more than ten years with great results. Use a good coffee brand (Illy is perfect...) for great success.
Gio
P.s. Do not use it in a microwave it's made of metal!
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.544725
| 2013-05-27T11:40:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34354",
"authors": [
"Andrew Koster",
"Anu Kumar",
"BBQChickenWings",
"Deni Begaj",
"Didgeridrew",
"Edward Falk",
"Joe",
"John",
"Jpe",
"Kimberly Giuntini ",
"Linda",
"MandoMando",
"Marti",
"Mien",
"Mr. Deathless",
"NinjaRoot",
"Roberto Ferraz",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"TEK",
"TFD",
"Tryyn S",
"Walter A. Aprile",
"Zodiase",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/12789",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18458",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/18620",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19912",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/231",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3203",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3649",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4558",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4580",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80000",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80002",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80003",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80004",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80005",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80006",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80007",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80010",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80182",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80185",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80490",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80492",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80496",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81187",
"hunter2",
"napolux",
"neiani leiya",
"sleeves",
"slim",
"talon8"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
81450
|
Is there some sort of gun (or a way) to decorate cookies with chocolate chips or nuts?
I've started producing 1000 cookies a day, and I was wondering if anyone knew of a way to decorate cookies faster with chocolate chips or nuts than doing it by hand.
Some sort of gun or something that would push/throw nuts and chocolate chips?
Note: the photo shows peanut butter cookies topped with peanuts
thanks
The difficulty is that such a device would have to be set up quite precisely for the decoration being used. The chances of getting 0 or 2 when you want 1 would be quite high. A jam would take longer to clear than putting dozens of chocolate chips on cookies.
If you're placing one at a time, as it looks in the photo, it might be a little quicker to pick up a small handful, use your thumb to control them and drop one-by-one on cookies, and go back to press them all in later.
It very much depends on the scale you desire.
Industrial Scale
From my quick youtube research, it seems like most commercial cooking making machines use an extrusion approach and are focused on dough deposition. Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-R9nYHNTAE.
A machine like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP6WuXUKK_M, is the most promising that I have found. There is probably some clever mechanism that could, instead of punching out the middle of the cookies, deposit a chocolate chip or nut.
Personal Scale
This is harder, because of the inherent variability in environment and types of use. I doubt something already exists/haven't been able to find it. However, I have a couple of preliminary ideas. You need several parts:
hopper to hold chips/nuts
mechanism to deposit/press chip or nut into the dough
barrel or something similar to connect the two parts.
Airsoft or paintball guns have hoppers that deal with similar style objects and are designed for handheld use. You could start by researching loading mechanisms for these guns.
The hardest part is designing the mechanism that will actually press the chip into the cookie, because of the delicate nature of the operation.
If you wish to discuss this further, feel free to contact me using the information on my profile.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.545769
| 2017-05-06T07:48:44 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/81450",
"authors": [
"Chris H",
"Megha",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/20413",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/47365"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
15542
|
How to fake salmon roe using jello
A couple of days ago I made a first attempt at dessert sushi. Everything went reasonably well except for the salmon roe which I'd planned to make from orange jello. I made my own mould from plasticine covered in plastic wrap and imprinted all over using a small plastic sphere. This didn't work out; the wrap burst in several places; the jello clung to the wrap too well and the few jello 'eggs' that came out in one piece were only half spheres.
Granted that some of these problems are surmountable, the last problem of producing a perfect sphere is, for me, a conundrum. Does any one have any better ideas?
What you are looking for is spherification. You need to use a different hydrocoloid than gelatin. There are a couple of techniques you can use.
If you want solid spheres, you can mix your liquid with agar agar, which is readily available in the asain section of the grocery store, bring it to a simmer, and then use an eye dropper to drop the liquid in to a very cold olive oil bath (put it in the freezer). The dropping action will give you spheres.
You can also use a mixture of sodium alginate and calcium chloride, but those are harder to find and will need to be ordered online. The advantage is that you can make a sphere with a liquid center that "pops" just like real caviar. You mix the alginate in to your liquid and then mix the calcium in to a bath. You use the same eye dropper technique to get spheres. When the alginate and calcium touch, they instantly form a gel. This holds the sphere together. Leaving it for a couple seconds makes it thick enough to hold up.
All the info you need is available in this free recipe guide from Khymos.
I've actually done exactly this dessert before. You can see some of my lessons and issues in another question here. I did it a second time and opted to use a gelled peach (using agar agar) in the center for more of a maki presentation. Enjoy.
It's a shame to only be able to only give this post +1, as the pictures alone are worth more than that.
I've tried making fake caviar with Jello and a syringe myself, but as far as I know, this is a fairly recent technique that became popular when molecular gastronomy piqued the interest of many, and no one has figured out how to do it with just Jello.
You truly need to use a syringe to get the right shape and size, and special compounds and powders--alginate, for example--are necessary in getting each tiny ball to hold its shape when dropped into various baths. The main ingredient, actually, doesn't use Jello at all! This video (silent, but informative) explains what you need and how to do it: Making fake caviar-video.
Good luck!
You can try this: Heat slightly quince jelly with some water, in order to make it melt. Use a pipette to let drops fall in a glass of cold oil. Use sunflower seed oil, which is not thickening when cold, put it in the fridge before you make your "eggs". That's more natural than other propositions I read here, and really delicious!
I don't think there's anything unnatural about the other propositions. They're just more on the science-y side. You've essentially suggested the same thing as my agar agar solution, you're just using the natural pectin in quince rather than adding your own gelling agent.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.545992
| 2011-06-16T20:41:57 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/15542",
"authors": [
"BobMcGee",
"Helena",
"JoeyChor",
"M.J. FISCHER",
"Shannon ",
"Taladris",
"Ubunfu",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1259",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32936",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32937",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32940",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32944",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32946",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32947",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/32994",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/6345",
"julienfr112",
"user32938",
"yossarian"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
4993
|
How should I organize my fruits for storage?
As I learnt from this post, there are some fruits that should not be kept together with the others (e.g. watermelon and apple). Which fruits should be kept separately in order to prevent rotting?
Anything that outgasses ethylene should be kept away from other items (both fruits and vegetables), in a well-ventelated area, if possible.
Apples and bananas are the two most common culprits, but the list is much longer. Subzero has a list of etylene producers and ethylene sensitive items, which I'm reproducing below in case of link rot:
Ethylene producing foods
apples
apricots
avocados
ripening bananas
cantaloupe
cherimoyas
figs
honeydew
kiwifruit
mamey sapote
mangoes
mangosteen
nectarines
papayas
passion fruit
peaches
pears
persimmons
plantains
plums
prunes
quince
tomatoes
Ethylene sensitive foods
unripe bananas
green beans
Belgian endive
broccoli
Brussels sprouts
cabbage
carrots
cauliflower
chard
cucumbers
eggplant
leafy greens
lettuce
okra
parsley
peas
peppers
spinach
squash
sweet potatoes
watercress
watermelon
I keep a list on my fridge from the June 2009 issue of Cooking Light magazine. (p. 45) Here's the details:
Keep these in the fridge:
Artichokes
Asparagus
Beans
Beets
Berries
Broccoli
Cabbage
Carrots
Cauliflower
Celery (which will last longer if you keep it wrapped in aluminum foil)
Cherries
Corn
Cucumbers
Figs
Grapes
Green onions (scallions)
Leafy greens
Leeks
Peas
Radishes
Summer squashes (including zucchini)
On the countertop, away from direct sunlight in a container that allows air circulation, like a vented bowl.
Apples (move to fridge after 7 days)
Apricots
Avocados (refrigerate after ripening)
Bananas
Citrus Fruits
Eggplant
Kiwi (refrigerate after ripening)
Mangoes
Nectarines (refrigerate after ripening)
Papayas
Peaches (refrigerate after ripening)
Pears ((refrigerate after ripening)
Peppers
Pineapple
Plums (refrigerate after ripening)
Pomegranates
Pumpkins
Tomatoes
Watermelon
Winter squashes
And, of course, keep onions, garlic, and potatoes in a dark, well-ventilated area.
apples are typically the ones who cause problems. They cause bananas skins to ripen while the inside fruit does not actually get ripe. The best method for keeping fruit ripe without rotting is to let them ripen at room temperature, and then refrigerate them when they are at peak.
If you buy fruit in bulk, check for signs of mold/rot regularly. This way you only have to throw away the bad one, instead of having it spread to the whole batch.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.546533
| 2010-08-12T13:36:24 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/4993",
"authors": [
"Cathy Sullivan",
"JGraves",
"Johnny Bigoode",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9653",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9688",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9694",
"temporary_user_name",
"wendy"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
10548
|
Stainless Steel Pan -- gray bottom. Why?
Just started using a stainless steel pan. First thing I cooked in it was bacon followed by some fried rice. Stuff stuck to it, but a quick soak and it all came off. However, once I cleaned and dried it there is a kind of gray discoloration on the bottom of the pan. It essentially disappears if it gets wet, but when I dry it, it comes back. First -- is this normal? If not, is there a way to fix it?
First, this is what it looks like dry:
Second, this is what it looks like wet:
It's an All-Clad 4 quart stainless steel saute pan.
That is not at all normal for stainless steel. Please add a picture. Also, please clarify whether "bottom" is the interior or exterior of the pan.
On the other hand, this is normal for certain aluminum pans, as they can react with the dish soap you normally use to clean them. Are you positive that it's stainless steel? How heavy is it?
This is actually quite normal for stainless steel in areas where the water is hard (heavy on minerals).
Thanks for the pics Dante. I wouldn't call that "gray". :P
This happens to mine, and they are most definitely stainless, not aluminum. Our stainless sink gets the same way. I assume it's from all the minerals in our water. I have found that mixing up some Oxyclean and water and a couple of minutes' soak and a scrub with a plastic scrubber will get rid of it (both from the pan and from the sink). It comes right back, though.
I haven't found that it has any negative impact on the usability of the pans, and doesn't shorten the life significantly if the 14+ year old chef's pan I use almost daily is any indication.
I did a little more research, and it's definitely mineral haze. Recommended treatments are Barkeeper's Friend (mild oxalic acid) soak/scrub, or boiling some vinegar, either one followed by a thorough rinse. In theory, if the haze is left alone it could develop into buildup, which would begin to degrade performance, but in practice it's not an urgent worry.
So if it bugs you, clean it off with mild acid or oxygen bleach. But expect it to come right back. If you only removed it once a year, you'd be a couple of years ahead of my cleaning schedule, and I haven't seen any harm from it.
bikeboy definitely has it right, but just to be a little more specific:
What you're seeing is scale, also referred to as fouling and several other terms. In all probability, it is specifically limescale that you're seeing, and it's very common in hot water taps, kettles, and on air-dried cookware.
If you have hard water (or even if you don't) it will tend to contain small amounts of dissolved calcium bicarbonate, which is completely harmless by the way, but when you boil the water it breaks down into calcium carbonate, which is still harmless but has low solubility in water and precipitates out into solid salts at lower temperatures.
This can also get mixed up with other salts you use in cooking to create more scale.
As you've noticed, soap and detergent do not remove the scale. Nor would you expect them to; those things are intended for the extraction of oils and grease (and sometimes killing bacteria), and the above salts are even less soluble in oil than they are in water.
Acids such as vinegar or Barkeeper's Friend work because the acidity helps to dissolve those salts.
Bottom line, the mineral build-up is normal and harmless (to both you and your cookware).
If you want to prevent the build-up in the future:
Try not to use more heat than necessary in your cooking (high heats speed up the mineral breakdown). Simmer, don't boil.
Always thoroughly dry your stainless steel cookware instead of letting it air-dry. You'll wipe off the salts instead of letting them bond to the metal.
Rinse with a dilute vinegar solution after washing.
If you need to clean the build-up, use Barkeeper's Friend (which is what All Clad recommends using) or a boil some concentrated vinegar as bikeboy says. Don't just use any old stainless steel cleaner, as not all of them are safe for cookware.
I get that haze in my stainless steel pans after cooking certain things, especially beans. When I notice it after washing (by hand or in dishwasher), I just spray some regular white vinegar into the pan, lightly covering the affected area, let it sit for a minute or two, and wipe it out with a paper towel. It looks brand new. On rare occasion, maybe after cooking a rice dish, I need to use a non-scratch scrubbie with the vinegar.
Sprinkle with coarse salt - add any kind of inexpensive vinegar, just enough to wet the salt to a wet paste, scrub with a paper towel for 30 seconds or so, using the salt as a mild "abrasive", while the vinegar dissolves the cloudiness. Rinse with water and dry. Voilá.
This is simpler and cheaper than using any kind of kitchen cleanser, and no toxic residue.
Because it's likely minerals in the water, it may not be an issue and doesn't need to be cleaned.
If you want it to look nicer you can rub a little bit of oil in the pan after drying
Just clean stainless with stainless (3M stainless scrubbing pad)
White cloudy areas on bottom of new stainless steel skiillet…
The question was not how to get it off, but what is it.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.546745
| 2010-12-28T05:24:56 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/10548",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Brian MacSweeney",
"Dryle Tatum",
"Jabberbyter",
"Luca",
"Stephie",
"Veranda Specialists Ltd",
"bikeboy389",
"frankythetanky",
"hobodave",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/126403",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21631",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21632",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21636",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21655",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21674",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/21682",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3348",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/60",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/71954",
"ilaisaane",
"mayhewsw"
],
"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
}
|
34639
|
Where can I find the apron/towel worn by the America's Test Kitchen staff?
On America's Test Kitchen, I've seen them wearing a towel around their waist that is somehow attached to an apron. Is there a name for this? Or are they just somehow tucking the towel into a standard apron pocket?
This would be a great kitchen convenience--where can I buy an apron like this? (Preferably only covering below the waist as shown on Becky below.)
The traditional butcher's apron tie is to wrap the strings of the apron around behind one's back, then back to the front to tie. This provides a convenient place to put a tea towel or rag.
From the photos, this appears to be what the folks in the picture have done (Becky and Chris, IIRC). When I worked in a deli on Long Island, this is how we tied our aprons.
And to answer the further question in the parentheses, you can simply fold your apron in half (folding the top behind the bottom) so it only covers below the waist, though why you'd want to do that I have no clue. Expensive pants, cheap top?
That is exactly what we did at the deli, the manager thought people looked silly with the full bib up.
I don't think the towel is affixed to the apron, it's just folded and hung through the apron's string. Notice that both of them tie their aprons in the front, not in back, leaving the extra wrapped bit where they are hanging the towels.
Most restaurant supplie stores have a variety of apron's available or you could just find them online by searching "waist apron"
It looks like it might Becky might be tucking the towel into something like this apron.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.547179
| 2013-06-11T19:13:48 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/34639",
"authors": [
"Carol",
"Earth Pharaoh Oaeoxz",
"Edgar",
"ElendilTheTall",
"Evene",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"Susan Hillyard",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4194",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80773",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80775",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80776",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80777",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80778",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/80779",
"somya sharma"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8213
|
What is the name of the sauce which is made of Yoghurt and fresh Cucumbers?
I had this "Kebab Bombay" in Holland a few years ago, to which belonged a very thick, creamy, slightly yoghurty, very fresh sauce/salat containing fresh cucumbers. Supposedly it was an Indian dish, but that may just have been "inspired by".
(sauce visible on the left, best picture I could find)
What is this kind of sauce called?
Sounds like a Cucumber Raita to me. It's quite a common accompaniment to spicy food as the yoghurt element really helps ease the burn.
Very simple to make and often contains fresh mint along with the cucumber to give it a really cool, fresh taste.
Example recipe here: Good Food Channel
You could add a garlic clove if you want.
That sounds like the Greek Tzatziki sauce to me.
But the package in the picture says "Bombay". Are Tzatziki's ingredients really the same? It would be great to find if those 2 sauces are the same despite being from different countries/cultures.
Yogurt and cucumber is a common pairing and eaten across the middle east, eastern Europe, and southern asia (at least the parts where yogurt is common). The Greeks derived their Tzatziki sauce from the Turkish Cacık. The ones I have seen vary a bit in the spices and ratios. The question is certainly about this particular Indian variant and not yogurt-cucumber sauces in general.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.547467
| 2010-10-17T08:47:29 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8213",
"authors": [
"Cathy Bannerman",
"Gary Sachs",
"J.A.I.L.",
"Luris",
"Sobachatina",
"WhoaItsAFactorial",
"Zeina",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14096",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16883",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/16938",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2001",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69887",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/69888",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/75563",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/9401",
"user16938"
],
"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
}
|
14126
|
How can I extract palm sugar from a container?
I have a plastic tub with a screwtop lid, full of palm sugar. It's a 500g tub, about 10cm high and about 10cm diameter. Usually I buy the individual cubes of palm sugar and this time I thought I'd cut down on packaging and buy the bigger size, but now I have a problem.
My problem is getting the palm sugar OUT of the tub.
It's like cement, and I have tried using spoons (they bend), knives (ditto) and a corkscrew (just bores a hole rather than breaking it up) to get some of the sugar out. Tonight I also tried sitting the tub in a bath of freshly boiled water (approx 90 degrees celcius), and sprinkling some over the surface of the sugar to try to soften it a little. No success.
This question describes how to deal with a rockhard piece of sugar like mine, but without packaging.
Does anyone know how to get it out of the tub in the first place so that I can go ahead and grate it?
What power tools do you have at your disposal?
You could use the corkscrew in its classic role. Bore a hole, and then use the corkscrew to pull the sugar out in one piece.
You should probably lay the tub on its side for this, as the sugar weight is probably too much to stay on the corkscrew.
The other option, though rather extreme, is to cut away the plastic tub with wire cutters or shears. That way, you're peeling the tub away, and will be left with the same lump, but no tub.
It sounds like gouging and digging are your main options. Referring to my own kitchen, my corkscrew wouldn't work, but the round honing edge I have would, my kitchen shears, a small chefs knife could, cutting downward, line up cubes to pry/yank out with something else rigid.
After that, I think @Carmi isn't too extreme with suggesting to cut the tub away; just break it up once done and put in a different container.
To remove palm sugar from the grips of its plastic container, remove the lid and place the container in a sturdy plastic bag (I use my food saver bags). Strike the sides and bottom of the container with a mallet. This will shake the cake loose. The bag serves to catch all of the sugar bits. You can also use it to store the cake.
I find scraping the sugar with a dinner knife works. Rotating it at a angle in a circular motion. So you end up with shavings.
If you read the question attentively, you'll notice that the OP has tried and rejected using a knife, and that the issue is not with grating the sugar, but with getting it out of the container so it can then be grated.
Try microwaving it briefly. That works with hardened brown sugar anyway. the goal is to warm it, not cook it or melt it though! Once it's softened consider re-portioning it into smaller containers/ or creating spoonfuls of the size you normally use and letting those cool, then storing those.
place the jar in warm or hot water for a few seconds. The sugar will loosen up from the sides of the container. At that point it should b fairly simple to remove. Worked very well for me.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.547643
| 2011-04-18T20:39:50 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/14126",
"authors": [
"Bill",
"Chris Cudmore",
"Dan Getz",
"Elizabeth Viloria",
"Eric",
"Galina",
"Manish Surana",
"Marti",
"Nina",
"SpaceBeers",
"Thejesh GN",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/152296",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/2569",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29671",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29675",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/29744",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/40728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41573",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41574",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41587",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/48268",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/52135",
"user41587"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"
],
"sort": "votes",
"include_comments": true
}
|
8618
|
Stopping water from bubbling over when cooking rice
Every time I cook brown rice (in a traditional pot, or in my new rice cooker), large bubbles form and spill over the sides. How can I prevent this?
I found this question, but wasn't able to draw useful advice from the answers.
As a side note, I don't think I used too much water - the rice was cooked exactly how I like it in the rice cooker, and there was no water left over. Also, the brown rice was purchased in bulk from a health food store, and was not soaked or rinsed ahead of time.
I've never had my rice boil over when using my rice cooker -- are you sure you're using the right amounts of rice and water? (2:1 for water:rice usually)
Start rinsing your brown rice. I rinse 3X. The dust that forms when rice is milled, or rubbed in bags during shipping, stabilizes the bubbles from boiling. Get rid of the dust, and the foam goes away in a timely, and less messy fashion.
For those that do wash their rice, there are other techniques to try, too. See https://cooking.stackexchange.com/q/9857/67
You've stated that you're not washing the rice. That's the reason this is happening.
Water boils over because of starch. Many types of rice (brown rice included) can be very starchy, and this could conceivably cause the water to boil over depending on the amount of rice/water and the size of the pan (or rice cooker).
Washing the rice also helps to prevent the grains from sticking together, so you would want to do this anyway (unless you are actually trying to make sticky rice).
It's very simple to wash the rice; just keep adding and straining out cold water until the water runs clear. You'll probably be surprised at how much starch actually washes off. If you do this, your water should stop boiling over - regardless of temperature.
What is the nutritional impact of doing this, though? I hadn't been washing the rice so as to keep all its nutrients intact.
@Dov: Not much? It's just loose starch. The bulk of the starch is still inside the grain and besides, starch is not known as one of the most nutritious things to eat. I really would not worry about the nutritional impact; presumably if you're eating rice, most of your nutrition is already coming from whatever the rice is served with.
@Dov the other impact of not washing your rice before cooking it is that often, rice is dirty. Dried-on-the-side-of-the-highway dirty.
@DDaviesBrackett: Ah, never thought of that...
Rice retailed in the developed world is not "dried-on-the-side-of-the-highway dirty". It would be illegal to sell it in such a state.
@slim: Even in the developed word, B.cereus is not uncommon. Wash your rice and cook it properly!
@Aaronut B. Cereus infection is more to do with leaving cooked rice at room temperature for hours.
@slim: It's only associated with that because cooking rice doesn't usually kill it, and adds moisture that allows it to breed. Room temperature isn't necessary, and it's been documented to happen with properly-stored (refrigerated) cooked rice that simply hasn't been reheated sufficiently. Cooking doesn't introduce the bacteria, it has to be there beforehand. Rice and other grains aren't as safe as you appear to believe. They're not as dangerous as raw meat, but they're not sterile either.
@Dov, my understanding is that white rice (which I haven't made personally in 10 years or so) in the US tends to be fortified with a vitamin powder, and that rinsing before cooking washes all that away. I believe that unpolished / brown rice is not fortified and can be rinsed without losing anything.
B. Cereus will not be removed by rinsing with water
Use a bigger pan, less water and turn the heat down a little.
Use one rice to two water, boil until the bubbles are on the top of the rice, put on a lid, turn off the heat and leave for ten minutes.
After ten minutes, fluff it with a fork and you'll have perfect rice.
I reckon this problem can be down to various things, but I thought the solution that worked for me might be worth sharing.
I was using a cheap rice cooker, was washing the rice first, using the correct rice/water ratio, and wasn't over-filling or under-filling the cooker, but still it made a mess of the counter.
What I observed was the mess wasn't coming from the vent hole, but that the steam was lifting the lid, and starchy water would coat the rim of the cooker, when the lid dropped, it spattered the water - a tiny spray, but happening constantly, causing the mess.
I figured the rice-cooker lid wasn't heavy enough, so I tried a cook with a large heavy mug inverted over the handle, to weigh it down. Immediately I got a good strong jet of (clean) steam out of the vent, which I wasn't getting before. The lid no longer rattled, and there was no mess at all, not a drop.
I've since done the same a few times, and haven't had a mess.
Of course, it depends on exactly how your cooker is making a mess, but this worked for me, so it might be worth a try; especially if you are aware that your lid is rattling all through the cook.
This could be caused by your water quality. My experience is that water direct from a water softener causes the biggest amount of foaming. Using hard water, bottled water, or water from a reverse-osmosis filtered water solved my problems. If you like to wash your rice before cooking, you should also wash only it only in these types of water. Don't let the rice touch the water from the softener.
It is the same reason that it is hard to remove the soap residue from your hands when washing them in softened water.
If using a rice maker, you can also spritz with some cooking spray once it is foaming.
I usually rinse well, and with white rice rinsing is often enough. However, I was cooking barley in my rice cooker and it kept foaming over. After reading this thread I sprayed the top with a bit of canola oil and it stopped right away. Yay!
the reason why it's boiling over is because it's getting too hot.
either tilt the lid of the pot a little bit so that some of the steam can escape (reducing the pressure, and thereby reducing the temperature) or (as another suggested) turning the heat down a little bit.
Won't that cause the rice to cook at a different rate, though? I thought it's the pressure that really cooks it. Also, with the rice cooker, which I'm fond of using, I can't turn the heat down.
No, it's heat that's cooking it - and contact with water that's hydrating it. Unless you use a pressure cooker, it won't get hotter than 100°C. Bubbling is just a waste of heat.
I cook a lot of rice and whether I'm doing brown rice or white rice, the formula is basically the same. I don't have a rice cooker, so I have to do everything on the stove. For whatever amount of rice, I put just enough water in so my pointer finger is touching the top of the rice and the water is at my first knuckle. I boil the water on high and then as soon as it starts to boil, I turn the stove down to low. I have an electric stove where the element is a solid, so it retains heat frustratingly well. My solution for that is to move the pot partially off the element, so it's not getting as much of an intense heat when it should be on low.
The pot I use also has a hole for steam to escape, so you can simulate that with a skewer or chopstick propping it open. White rice is generally done in about 10-15 minutes, brown rice a fair bit longer.
Essentially the main key is to lower the temperature of the stove sooner/quicker.
How to keep a rice cooker from boiling over
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsRmzEy8Kdk
or
keep a wet paper towel over the vent
or
place a wooden stick or string of rope across the container
I usually cook my rice in a microwave safe bowl which I place inside a wider glass bowl. That way when the water inevitably overflows it is caught in the glass bowl, and doesn't make a mess.
I really like the convenience of the rice cooker, though, and would rather avoid the mess in the first place than making it easier to clean up.
Rice has been a staple in my family as long as I can remember so I've had a lot of experience cooking it on the stove and with various cookers. Basically (if you know your water:rice ratio is correct) the only way to keep rice from boiling over is to either reduce the heat or tip the lid open crack.
Recently my daughter bought a Tatung Mini rice cooker and was frustrated because it boiled over every time no matter what she did, so I "borrowed" it for some experimenting and discovered that this cooker is just extremely HOT! With no way to reduce the heat, I cracked open the lid which cured the boiling over problem. After boiling, the rice is supposed to stand on the warm setting for about 15 minutes to finish, but this cooker is so hot the warm setting burns it on the bottom. My solution is to unplug it as soon as it switches to warm, then let it stand while the rice finishes. Doing this we get beautiful rice every time.
That used to happen to me, also, using my Aroma 14 cup rice cooker, brown rice setting, and the recommended double the water for each 1/4 cup serving of rice. I agree, there was nothing wrong with the rice - it tasted great and still does. What I did was started lining the bottom and the sides of the pan with cooking spray before beginning. No need to overdo it - a few short sprays will do. I unexpectedly solved that problem, in addition to making the pan easier to clean, which is the problem that I was trying to solved.
Is it not possible to turn the gas down a notch when it starts overflowing?
As another option, you can use a pot with higher sides.
Often it's hard to patiently watch it and catch it right when it starts boiling - you could either use a timer to remind yourself, or turn the heat partway down when it's partway to boiling.
I actually add boiling water from the kettle. So no watching and waiting.
Try dipping the edge of the pan with butter.
The common version of this is just adding a bit of butter or oil to the liquid.
I just watched a YouTube video where it said to brush or spray a line of oil above the water level and it won't boil over. I have a Black and Decker Rice cooker, and there are more complaints about this cooker foaming up through the vent hole and then spraying starchy junk all over the counter and floor...so I'm sure not all rice cookers are created equal. I've also tried just drizzling in a little olive oil when the rice starts to do this in my cooker and it helps...not always but quite a bit.
And it can be helpful to slightly reduce the water, slightly reduce the cooking temp after it reaches a boil, and increase the size of your pot if you are using the stovetop method.
For a pot put a wooden spoon across the top of it Itll stop it from boiling over well anything from boiling over actually its very simple and easy try it you'll be amazed
+1; see also "Using a wooden spoon to prevent pots from boiling over?" here, which in turn refers to "How can a wooden spoon be used to prevent water from over boiling?" over on physics.
-1; The OP is clearly using the absorption method of cooking rice which relies on keeping the rice cooker's (or pot's) lid on. Leaving the lid off to place a spoon across the top would only lead to other problems like undercooked or burnt rice...
Well , after few trials I came to the conclusion that u cant do away with the bubbles. But there is a work around. Use a perforated plate on top of the vessel. cook in two stages, i.e. first 5 mins at full power and next 15 mins with half power. I could feed this data at once in my microwave and thats it. Rice cooked fine un attended. Ofcourse using a deep vessel and washing rice nicely also help.
Add a little vinegar to keep rice from foaming over.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.547969
| 2010-10-28T12:35:18 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8618",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Armadllo",
"Bob",
"Brandon Avant",
"Brian Ó Maoláin",
"Brockagh",
"Carmi",
"Cascabel",
"Daenyth",
"Dan Davies Brackett",
"Didgeridrew",
"Dov",
"Funky Monkey",
"Icemanind",
"Jeff",
"Jeffrey Blake",
"Jim Arnold",
"Jim Dodunski",
"Joe",
"Laura Ivette",
"Lorna Malik",
"Margy Hammersley",
"Matt",
"Ric",
"Solifugispyd3r",
"Wayfaring Stranger",
"anthonyeleven",
"cindy",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/101400",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/102070",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/104528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/10685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/123415",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/125879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/132417",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/159204",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1672",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17685",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17686",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17689",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17691",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17703",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17704",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17728",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/19151",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3036",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3124",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/3131",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/4214",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/5455",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/611",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81772",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/81788",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/84898",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89489",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/97176",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/99493",
"kyaw win soe",
"robert harris",
"robingrindrod",
"slim"
],
"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
}
|
7552
|
Can I Brown Beef For Slow Cooking the Night Before
Many slow cooker recipes suggest that beef be browned before being added to the slow cooker, which is definitely better for the flavor of the dish. I've always believed that this browning must occur just before adding to the slow cooker for food safety reasons, and this article from the USDA backs me up.
Yesterday in an online chat, one of the writers for the food section of a national newspaper said it is safe to brown beef the night before.
I know that the USDA is often extra cautious and provides the strictest possible guidelines to ensure food safety. Are they being overcautious on pre-browning, or should I skip what the food writer said and trust my original gut and the USDA?
EDIT: My slow cooker recipes are usually for larger cuts of beef, not ground, and so browning will not cook them through.
I assume that the section of the USDA article you're referring to is this:
Partial Cooking
Never brown or partially cook beef to refrigerate and finish cooking later because any bacteria present wouldn't have been destroyed. It is safe to partially pre-cook or microwave beef immediately before transferring it to the hot grill to finish cooking.
Before I go on, I should point out that the USDA obviously has much greater expertise than I do when it comes to food safety. Nevertheless, I find this recommendation to be extremely bizarre bordering on silly.
For full cuts of beef (not ground beef), bacteria should only be present on the surface. That is why most people - or at least most people I know - choose to eat their steaks rare, or at most medium rare. The "interior" is not fully cooked, nor is it supposed to be.
Searing the beef will kill any surface bacteria almost immediately. That is why rare steak is (relatively) safe to eat. As far as I am concerned, once the beef has been browned, it is already cooked sufficiently. The only reason to add it to a slow cooker later would be to tenderize it or even out the cooking.
If the USDA expresses concern over refrigerating beef that has basically been cooked sufficiently, it must be because they believe that browning/searing kills enough of the bacteria to make it safe for direct consumption, but not all of the bacteria - such that they could multiply again and contaminate the food over a long period of time.
But refrigerating immediately after browning should prevent that. No part of the beef will be in the "danger zone" for longer than 45 minutes or so, and even if you did miss some of the bacteria during the browning and they manage to multiply overnight, you're still tossing them into a slow cooker and that's going to kill any remaining bacteria.
Perhaps I'm missing something obvious, but from what I can tell, any health risks associated with browning a large cut of beef and subsequently refrigerating it for a relatively small period of time would have to be infinitesimally small. It's not something that I would concern myself with.
Edit:
I did just think of one other possible reason for the USDA warning. The key phrase is "partially cook." If the browning is being done as a means for shortening the subsequent cooking time (i.e. slow cooking for 6 hours instead of 12), then you might have a problem. Because if you don't manage to kill all the bacteria, then the total required subsequent cooking time is going to creep back up as they multiply; that means your 6 hours in the slow cooker that might have been enough if you had seared the beef immediately before, are no longer enough to guarantee safe consumption.
So I am adding a caveat to my original answer: It is probably safe to refrigerate the browned beef, but you should calculate your cooking time as though you had never browned it. If you are concerned about safety (and I maintain the risks are minuscule), then treat the browned/refrigerated beef as uncooked meat. If you do that, I cannot see any reason why this wouldn't be safe.
the minimum temp the USDA thinks it is safe to comsume beef at is 145 degrees F (which they label "medium rare"). I'm not sure browning gets to their minimum. Thanks for your thoughtful answer!
Very well put @Aaronut
I wonder how dated their recommendation is; older refrigerators would ice over badly if you put warm/hot food in them, so most cooks of these times would treat "refrigerate immediately" as "leave for over half an hour till it cools to room temperature, then refrigerate."
"For full cuts of beef (not ground beef), bacteria should only be present on the surface" unless it's been mechanically tenderized.
"even if you did miss some of the bacteria during the browning and they manage to multiply overnight, you're still tossing them into a slow cooker and that's going to kill any remaining bacteria." -- dead bacteria aren't the problem, the toxins they created are.
My answer is speculative only, and not authoritative.
I would suspect that if you brown the meat directly from the fridge, and immediately put it back in the fridge, you wouldn't end up heating the center of the cut up much. (Hopefully, the core of the meat wouldn't even rise above 40 degrees.)
Keep in mind the 4 hour limit on meat -- Meat has a total lifetime of 4 hours between 40 and 140 degrees, so you want to avoid heating the uncooked portion as much as possible, and to brown it as fast as possible, to avoid heat transfer to the inside. -EDIT- You don't want to be heating up the inside out of the safety range if at all possible.
Putting it in the freezer for an hour to cool it down might also help after browning. You might consider storing it overnight in a cold braising liquid, which would help to bring the temperature down quickly.
You don't need to heat up the center for a slab of beef, though; unless you're dealing with ground beef, any harmful bacteria will only be on the surface.
@aaronut. That's what I was getting at. I guess it wasn't clear.
Apologies for misunderstanding, then, I just wasn't sure why the heat of the interior would be important; if you're referring to the "danger zone" (for bacteria) then the temperature only has to rise a few degrees above refrigeration temperature to get there. For chicken or other meat where the interior is often contaminated, this could be quite dangerous, but for beef it shouldn't be.
I think the USDA's recommendations refer more to partially cooking meat that you will then add grill marks / sear later. The interior of the meat would not have enough time to come up to a safe temperature in that case. You're doing the opposite, though: putting an outer sear on the meat before cooking it thoroughly. It's probably safe to refrigerate in between those steps, as long as you refrigerate quickly (beware of the "danger zone"), possibly by adding a short cool down in the freezer. Braising will still cook the meat thoroughly later, so you should be fine. Since you will start the slow cooker with refrigerated meat instead of recently seared meat, you should add a bit more cooking time.
Anecdotal evidence: I routinely prepare a beef dish such as chilli, including searing, and leave it in a slow cooker, not switched on, overnight - then switch it on in the morning so that the dish is ready to eat when I get home in the evening.
The only time I wouldn't do this is in very warm weather, when I would make room for the pot in the fridge.
My rationale is this:
The 8 hours+ of slow cooking will definitely kill any bacteria present.
Thus all we care about is toxins created by bacteria in the 10 hours or so between preparation and cooking
I've always been fine :)
I admit, I eat stuff that's well outside of the USDA's guidelines, but I make it a habit to only do it myself, not for food I'm preparing for others. (with the assumption that my immune system might be innoculated, but others might not)
This suggestion is definitely well outside the guidelines.
I'd classify this as risky; if you get an absolutely perfect sear and the slow cooker itself has been thoroughly cleaned then the meat might not spoil while sitting in there, but 10 hours is a long time for any meat (cooked or not) to be at room temperature. And why? It's not hard to throw it in the fridge...
Just because this process hasn't led to adverse results for you yet doesn't make it "safe" by any standards.
In all likelihood, you would be OK if you browned the meat the night before, so long as you did a quick sear and transferred it to the refrigerator immediately afterwards. That said, why take the chance, when you're only spending a couple of minutes browning the meat?
Based on the principles of microbiology... anything could happen. Some points to consider...
Most disease-causing bacteria will be killed heat treatment at a given temperature for some amount of time. The slow cooking, if at proper temperature for designated time should kill whatever bacteria reach that temperature/time. It's mostly irrelevant what you do as long as it reaches temperature and cooks for given amount of time. Consider frozen meat and faulty thermometers in borderline judgement calls.
However...
Disease-causing bacteria can be internal to the cut of meat if an animal (or plant) was colonized systemically before slaughter (or harvest). Most all microbial contamination is on surface, but I would not assume absence of bacteria, other microbes, or other parasites elsewhere in a cut of meat.
Heat-destroyed bacteria can leave behind toxins which cause sickness and sometimes organ damage. (example: E. coli)
Heat treatments and other shocks can kill off most all bacteria, but leave some species remaining to colonize the contaminated material (media). Some species of bacteria form spores which resist heat inactivation, except under specific extreme temperatures and pressures. (example: Bacillus species)
Cold conditions (refrigeration) do not prevent growth of all disease-causing species of bacteria. For example, Camplyobacter species can continue to multiply in refrigeration where growth of other disease causing bacteria is suppressed.
Based on the above risk assessment and my working experience as cook and microbiologist I would worry that the practice of partially cooking food and then refrigerating it can favor or enrich the meat for certain kinds of disease-causing bacteria to colonize. I would not brown meat and then store it for any period of time before continuing to cook. If I had to do so, then I would make sure that the second cooking conditions (time and temperature, possibly pH) would be guaranteed to inactivate whatever parasites and toxins may be present in the meat.
Also--don't forget vegetables and herbs as source of foodborne illness.
There is lots of nice information here, but I am not sure I see where you have actually answered the question asked....
I agree with Aaronut in that the logic just doesn't add up.
If the ALL meat gets to the safe temperature that temperature should kill all bad things that could grow.
The only thing I could fathom is if the browning itself produces something that is no longer destroyed by the safe temperature if it is allowed to then cool again.
At the oscars the food is seared the night before, stored in a fridge on racks, and then cooked in the oven the next day
Citation needed?
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.548981
| 2010-09-23T12:03:32 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/7552",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Ananda Prasad Bandaru",
"BaffledCook",
"Bruce Goldstein",
"CaptainProton",
"Chris Cudmore",
"JAB",
"Joe",
"Lyn Spath",
"MappingTomorrow",
"R4D4",
"SAJ14SAJ",
"SF.",
"Stephie",
"Todd Baumgartner",
"arp",
"cupcakehelp",
"dleinker",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1148",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/14401",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15509",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15510",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15511",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15515",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15516",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15528",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15529",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15535",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/15666",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17347",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17353",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/22502",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/28879",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/43623",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/53708",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/641",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/67",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/89879",
"joe",
"johnny",
"justkt",
"skleene"
],
"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
}
|
8335
|
Unexplained Butterflied Roast Chicken Success
Yesterday I started working on a six pound butterflied roast chicken a little too close to an evening meeting. I butterflied the chicken and patted it as dry as possible inside and out with paper towels. I then mixed up some olive oil, lemon juice, salt, cracked pepper, chili powder, onion powder, and cumin and liberally applied it all over the skin. I'm not sure I really managed to completely flatten the chicken, as I'm fairly weak and it was a large bird, so the butterfly technique wasn't perfect. I put it under a pre-heated broiler and started out following this recipe, with the chicken cooking for about 6 minutes skin-side up, then 6 minutes meat-side up, then I put the oven on 375 degrees F (190.5 degrees C) with the chicken skin side up. Ever time I flipped it I poured some of the collected juices over the bird. Because the bird was so big, it wasn't done after about an hour of cooking when I needed to leave, so I put the broiler on low for about 3 minutes before leaving, and then I shut the oven off to keep from charring my chicken and burning the place down. At this point the thigh was around 140 degrees F at the thickest part. I was gone for about an hour.
When I returned, my spouse didn't want to eat the chicken until we'd verified that it had come to temperature, so we turned the oven back on to 400 degrees F (204.4 degrees C) for a few more minutes. The bird went way beyond minimum temperature - the thickest part of the thigh was well over 175. I expected it to taste disgustingly dry.
Instead what we had was the most moist, tender roasted chicken I've ever had. The skin was crispy, the meat fell off the bone (literally when we moved it off the rack).
What was it about this accidental cooking method that worked so well? Did the time in the hot-but-not-on oven do anything? Was it just the initial recipe and the size of the bird? The basting? I'd love to reproduce the flavor and texture of my chicken, but do I need all the accidental steps?
I tried doing something similar but starting at a lower temperature and then cranking it up. It didn't work quite as well. Clearly the juices need to be rendered before the chicken cooks at a lower temperature.
Tried again with a burst of heat from the broiler and then 375 degrees F, no long time afterwards. Came out almost as good as the original. Even though I've read that it doesn't make a major difference, I basted the bird in its own juice every 10 minutes. We also let it rest for at least 10 minutes afterwards. Next time I may try long and slow at 250 degrees F for a while and see how that goes.
I suspect you may have created a poor-man's slow-cooking environment in there. You had meat, and liquid, and a median temperature of around 200° F, and you probably also got the bird close to "done" during the first broil, before you even left the house. This is obviously easier to do when the meat is covered (was it in a covered roasting pan?) due to the steam, but the oven does provide some insulation to begin with.
Technically when slow-cooking you should theoretically be able to speed up the process by quickly bringing the meat up to just below doneness/moisture-loss temperature (130° F) and then switching to a moisture-preserving slow-cook method like braising. I think that's what you accidentally did, but it's hard to say for because nobody was there for an hour and it sounds like you didn't check the temperature before the second round in the oven.
My guess is that the second roast at 400° F was probably unnecessary, and that the bird was already done, having been cooked in a very slow roast.
I'm pretty sure it wasn't the basting that helped. It seems to be regarded as a myth these days that basting keeps the meat moist, because the baste really doesn't penetrate the skin (and it's not the skin you're worried about). Basting is done to add flavour, not preserve moisture.
The recipe itself also doesn't strike me as anything special in terms of keeping the bird moist, aside from having a relatively short cooking time (as with any grilling/broiling) and letting the meat rest afterward, neither of which really apply in your case. It was probably the slow heat that did it.
it was around 140 degrees F in the thickest part of the thigh before I turned the broiler on low for the last little heat blast before I left (updated question to state that). I'm with you on the second roast being unnecessary, but my spouse is a bit of a food safety nut.
@justkt: That helps a little - but it's very possible that it was well above 140° F to begin with and came down in temperature before you tested it. Unfortunately we're all guessing as to what happened during the hour of missing time.
I guess I can sort of (but not completely) check by re-doing it when I am present the whole time and testing the temperature along the way - just have to get a thermometer that would let me check without opening the door and put that in place when I turn the oven off to see.
It sounds like you accomplished something like braising in your oven. Low moist heat for an hour will definitely make meat fall off the bone for something as delicate as a chicken. The skin was crisped up by the broiler, of course.
You could probably accomplish something similar by crisping up the skin in a pan or under a broiler, then putting the chicken and some liquid in a crock pot (slow cooker) for an hour. Brining the chicken first helps prevent it from drying out. If you didn't brine yours, it's possible that there was enough salt in your rub to do the job.
I'm not sure a butterflied 6 lb. chicken would fit in my slow cooker! Those birds are huge.
|
Stack Exchange
|
2025-03-21T13:24:56.550002
| 2010-10-20T12:55:59 |
{
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/",
"site": "cooking.stackexchange.com",
"url": "https://cooking.stackexchange.com/questions/8335",
"authors": [
"Aaronut",
"Joe",
"Mariela Acero",
"Muhammad Shahzad",
"Nancy Thompson",
"bweatherell",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17138",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17139",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17152",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17153",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/17154",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/1816",
"https://cooking.stackexchange.com/users/41",
"justkt"
],
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/"
],
"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.